Avatar: Anti-Military and Pro-Ecoterrorism?

I’ve been reading several places where people are in an uproar over the movie Avatar—one of the highest-grossing films of all time, in spite of its release only one month ago. The issue is that several notable conservatives seem to think that this fictional film is promoting a message that ecoterrorism is justified, and giving an anti-military message as well.

I can see their point. But I don’t agree with it. I certainly can’t see that anything particularly terrorist was done in the film (though defense of themselves through the destruction of a camera seemed reasonable to me, given the circumstances in the film, even if there might be a later price to pay). The “military” forces in the film were clearly no longer in the military—they were wash-outs and misfits, hired by a corporation. To me, this isn’t anti-military, but rather a call to responsible activity by those who hire security personnel which are too aggressive.

Other lessons I think I saw:

• Money tends to be too much the focus of what people want, to the exclusion of moral thought—and this leads to confrontations over money.
• Our historical treatment of the native peoples of many lands (not just North America) tends to be more savage than the “savages” are. Some of this was necessary; most of it was not.
• When we see a connection to something, it is nearly impossible to un-see it.
• When people learn true principles, it is difficult also to fail to see the truth.
• Actions speak louder than words.

There is a long list of  others, but these seem to be the best of the lot. So, what about the anti-corporate message?

This is certainly a part which is present, but it’s less anti-corporate than it is pro-responsibility. A responsible corporation which is accountable to the public interest should see that there is more at stake than their bottom line. The people in the film were no more or less evil than the executives at AT&T who conspired to tap hundreds of millions of telephones without a warrant, or no more or less evil than those who seek to eliminate all competition in the marketplace, rather than to allow a true free market. They are no more or less evil than corporate executives who seek to corrupt Washington politicians by ensuring that their own interests are served above those of the population.

Money is really the focus of business, and people can’t seem to live without it. So, it’s true that money is important. But there are also other things to consider. For example, we should consider the reasons for obtaining money in the first place: we need to live, to support family and self, and to address our obligations to others. Without these reasons, of what purpose is money? Money is certainly important, but it’s far from the most important thing, and far too many people focus on it as their top priority.

The next time you’re with someone you love, consider the money it takes to spend time with them. Money itself is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. When we die, money is pointless to have in our possession. It is left to those who are still living.

And yet we tend to take the position that everyone is really too focused on currency, at the same time scrambling to make ends meet, worrying about the economy instead of finding ways to create new jobs for those around us, and in all ways finding excuses not to have to work.

Which brings me to another lesson learned by the film: fiscal responsibility. The line about unobtainium (nice name, by the way) being “twenty million a kilo” is one of those expository lines which shows just how invaluable life itself is.

There are more important things than money. But how many people can honestly say that they put those things first?

That’s the real lesson: putting what is truly important as one’s first priority is the fastest way to earn opposition. And that’s why the film is so highly rated by the population. It’s not so much that people identify with ecoterrorist activities, or that they are against corporations, or even that life itself is more important than money. It’s that people who actually have their priorities in line are often the first people to get assassinated.

We think of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and even people who aren’t dead yet, and how they each influence our thinking, but how the opposition despised them! The only way to be rid of them was to silence them forever. Today, we don’t kill them, we merely arrange a gossip column to scandalize them.

In a free republican democracy, the expressions of others show how our principles operate. They show what we truly value by action, and this can allow us to correct those values.

But the value we should respect most of all is that of the freedom to think. I don’t criticize these ultra-conservatives for believing as they do; nor the ultra-liberals for saying that perhaps the movie could have illustrated the point more plainly. To both, I merely point out the box office figures and say: “You’re wrong. The public perception is satisfied with this, the correct principle of conservationism.”

A conservative value in itself, responsibility depends on achieving and maintaining the moral high ground, not in merely maintaining power at all costs. This was the point of the American Revolution in the 1760’s and 1770’s, it was the point of the US Civil War in the 1860’s, and it was the point of the militia groups in the 1990’s. We simply cannot stand by and watch all of our future resources go to waste; neither can we strip all of the resources from an area and expect to survive. And survival is the key—not money, not politics, not even law itself. This is why democracy was invented: when the survival instincts of the population speak, it is with a voice so powerful that very little short of death itself can stop them.

But unless all life is ended, an idea can never be killed.

On Being a Badass

This is gonna be long. Apologies to those who are short on time.

Going through YouTube recently, I came across a video of a man who was being arrested. The officers refused to notify him of any particular charge, other than suggesting that he resisted arrest (which, actually, probably wouldn’t stand up in court, being that the original arrest was not an informed arrest either). The man being arrested tried to be reasonable at first, and then he played the “crazy religious nut” card (he may even have been serious, I don’t know enough about the situation to say). And the officers then tased him, immediately after which he got up and ran away—much to the officers’ surprise.

This seemed like a blatant violation of rights, because the officers wouldn’t tell him what reason they had for arresting him. But in fact, no actual rights were violated. It still seemed wrong to me. The use of the Taser didn’t seem well-justified. Tasers are potentially lethal weapons. They would have done better to shoot the man in the leg with a sidearm—the chances of lethality are about the same, actually. But the fact that it didn’t do much to the guy seems to imply that the unwritten “no harm, no foul” law of the universe. I’m sure that religious zealots will point out that his prayer to Eloheim for protection had something to do with it. I’ve seen such reactions without prayer. The prayer was incidental at best.

But then we have the “Don’t Taze Me, Bro” guy in Florida, and numerous other incidents where the use of a Taser was accomplished and not well-justified. A Taser is not a “control device”; it is not a “restraint device”; and it is not a “medical device:”: it is a “certified non-lethal weapon” which has a history of lethal results. I’ll write a blog entry on that alone. The point of this is to show that even police can sometimes have bad judgment, and are prone to stress and illogical thinking. Without getting into too much depth, this leads police to be on a kind of power trip, and one which does more harm than good to society. Enough depth. For now, let me get to my real point: firearms and how I’m something of a badass, apparently, because of the way that I don’t like guns.

I want to preface the following by saying that I do have a great deal of respect for police. Stress levels are high, and this can sometimes cloud judgment and clear thought. Being a cop is a tough job, and while you’re in the uniform people don’t tend to respond positively to you. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not generally personal. I understand why some cops do what they do; but power trips shouldn’t go unchecked—not even if the result is good. Cops on power trips don’t necessarily need to go to court, but if police departments aren’t willing to check their own officers where this is concerned, then the only recourse is civil action. Leaving things unchecked, or presenting a “unified front” where an officer may have been wrong can only be detrimental to the rule of law. If the rule of law doesn’t apply to police, then police are the most dangerous gang in existence. Some gangs already treat them this way.

Put another way: it’s tough to be a cop, and it’s tough to follow the law because of how complex laws are. But if police are above the laws they enforce, and cannot withstand the microscope of public scrutiny, then their utility cannot be justifiable. Simply whining about how hard the job is makes you a whiner; it doesn’t justify your actions any more than whining about being abused excuses a criminal from the crimes they commit. Nobody should be above the law, least of all those who enforce it. And I mean least of all.

Officers in lots of places seem to be on a power trip, and often seek to remove any kind of empowerment on the part of those they’re interacting with. In some cases, this disempowerment makes their jobs easier, particularly where dealing with someone who is clearly being irrational themselves. But where it doesn’t work, how about trying logic and reason? A little actual critical reasoning might go a long way to preventing repeat crimes, and it might actually serve to create a little respect for the badge, instead of engendering disdain for the power trips that many of the people who wear badges embody. The embodiment of a power trip is not where the enforcement of law should be. Humility and accountability should be the rule, not the exception.

We had a police officer come to our place a while back, and I’m sure I didn’t make a great impression, but it was because I was actually pretty pissed off at the way things were handled. One officer asked if she could come in, and I refused entry on the grounds that I don’t allow firearms of any kind in the house, citing numerous incidents where local officers had not used their firearms in ways I considered justifiable. I told them that either they had to leave their sidearm with another officer, or find someone who wasn’t carrying. They asked if they needed to get a warrant. I informed them that even with a warrant, I had the right to request that no firearms enter my home unless they had a compelling reason. They didn’t. Therefore, a warrant would not be a solution to this issue.

My lawyer was so proud when I told her. Seriously.

When the officer without a firearm came in (forty-five minutes later; I stayed by the door and kept it open the entire time to ensure that they didn’t think I was trying to actually hide anything), they saw my swords, and they saw a bow-and-quiver (no arrows) mounted on the wall near the door. The quiver, I bought through a catalog as decoration (it’s a Legolas-like quiver). The bow is a traditional kind: no pulleys, just a big hunk of wood with a white leather string on it, and it belonged to my great grandfather, who claimed a Native American (of the Chippewa tribe, I think he said) had taught him how to make it (it looks to me more like a European style, but… meh, it was his story about his friend, and I’m positive he believed it). It’s non-functional: the wood was uncared-for during a garage stay of over twenty years, and though I have been trying to work linseed oil into it, the wood just isn’t up to use (having split in four places from drying out). While admiring the bow (which he hadn’t had permission to touch), this officer asked me why I didn’t like guns. I didn’t have a good answer: I just don’t like them. But I’ve been thinking about it for months, now. More on that later. I answered him: “I just don’t. They annoy me.”

The officer’s next question really bugged me, though: “So, what do you have against the Second Amendment?” I have to say, I’m hard to offend, but that assumptive leap in logic really seemed out of the blue, and uncalled for. I believe that I have the choice to say what’s right for me. I do not believe that my own comfort should be forced on others.

Thus, I’m pro-Second Amendment. I think the right to keep and bear arms is an important check and balance against the tyranny of government which continues to threaten us (and which has never really abated in the history of governments, though somewhat mitigated in our own form—not ideal, but the closest to the mark). Firearms are intended to convey the threat of violent uprising to the government, so that the government’s aim is to satisfy the public’s best interests. At least, this was what was conveyed by those who wrote and signed the US Constitution—our Founding Fathers—in many a quotation thrown around today (especially Andrew Jackson’s “tree of liberty” quote). Even so, I won’t be a party to violence for as long as I have a choice in the matter that doesn’t make me choose my own survival as the only other option.

Even with President Obama’s apparent benevolence, there are other elements I just don’t—and probably never will—fully trust. That trust is gone: unearned, unless they find a way to earn it back (and I have to say, though I fully support Obama’s stated aims during his campaign, I’m still watching to see if the government as a whole is capable of earning my trust back).

I can’t place faith in a government that claims to serve the people, and then sells out consumer protections to the highest corporate bidder. This is the very definition of fascism: the merging of corporate and government interests. This nation wasn’t intended to be a fascist republic; it’s a republic, certainly: but operated under the principles of democracy. And those principles say that what hurts public interests is bad for the government—in spite of how well it lines a politician’s pockets. And merely redefining public interests to justify one’s actions is just low. As in: below the belt. Simply changing the definition might make something technically legal, but it doesn’t fool the public: not really. They still know it’s wrong. And so should those in power. They apparently don’t get that they need outside input, and neither does the public. If the public got that, more people would be needed to answer phones for the US Congress, in both the House and the Senate.

Many within the government really want to strip weapons from the public (including President Obama), on the basis that disarming the population makes that population safer. I couldn’t disagree more. More on that disagreement below. On to what I actually explained to the officer:

When one has a firearm, one tends to justify its use after the fact of using it. If you carry a firearm as a matter of habit or duty, I believe that you will ultimately use it. I’ve lived in the worst parts of the US (in the worst parts of many major cities noted for their high violent crime rates), and I’ve seen all kinds of things I didn’t want to see, and that I would rather not have to remember. I’ve had friends who were into crime. I had these people as friends, because I don’t want them as enemies, as they tend to have a difficult time with the concept of neutrality. If I’m not with them, then I’m against them. I’m not allowed indifference. These friends just can’t afford to work like that.

My home as a safe haven meant that I didn’t let them have guns in my home, either. They didn’t always respect our arrangement. But the whole time I was required to deal with living in a criminally-oriented situation, in a bad neighborhood, or whatever the case was, I never once put my hands on any kind of weapon in defense of my home. Why? Because I stay out of others’ business affairs. I’m a friend, not a business associate. What ill they do, that’s their business. And so long as their trouble doesn’t knock on my door, I have to accept that this arrangement works. Likewise, I keep to myself and try not to bother other people. They generally don’t think I have much of value (especially when they see exposed electronics and old TV-style CRT monitors, which implies that the stuff running is too old to be of any real worth). When I explained this to the cop, he retorted with a dismissal: “So, you think you’re a badass because you can defend your home without a gun?”

I still roll my eyes at that. Say what? When did I say “defend”? What part of what I said painted me as a badass? Yeah, that’s me: the badass who doesn’t want firearms in his home because he finds them morally offensive. The badass who preaches peace and harmony and goes to great lengths to try to promote the idea of them. The badass who tells an officer to uphold the law in a way that the particular officer finds uncomfortable. Is there a badass to be had in that? I mean, I’m not Kwai-Chang Kane: I don’t really know a significant amount about Kung Fu or whatever. The truth is, he was just itching for a reason to try to arrest me, and justify that warrant anyway. I didn’t give it to him, badly as he wanted it.

So, apparently, my badass self (being a fat, almost-middle-aged man with minor but chronic health problems) walked the officer around his home, showing him the insides of drawers and a laundry hamper next to the window, so that they wouldn’t have to get a warrant and actually rip my house apart because some brainless addict used my window as a dump zone during a chase. It pissed me off (their claiming a need to intrude into my home and check through closed drawers, etc., though I was clearly not involved), but they did actually find the drugs where the addict was seen tossing them (they were on the window ledge outside the window), and to their credit, the cops have left me alone after that. I just didn’t appreciate the attitude or the invasion of my privacy, that’s all. I said so. And they left. I haven’t had them back over. Water under the bridge? No. It still pisses me off.

I mean, really: I’m such a badass. Yep, yep, yep. People cower in fear at my demands for peace, right? Suuuure.

I was trying to cooperate and maintain the principles my children have seen demonstrated in numerous situations; instead, I got treated as though I was doing something wrong and trying to hide something. My crime: living in the path that some druggie chose during a who-knows-how-long foot chase through several neighborhoods, and having convictions which do not permit firearms under my roof. Could it have ever occurred to that officer that I’m actually not into drugs, and that I don’t make a habit out of police visits because of attitudes like his? And people wonder why cops aren’t well-liked. It’s power trips like that which make me not trust their firearms in the first place. The lady cop outside had enough respect to ask questions about my beliefs, instead of simply making assumptions. The assumptions were offensive. She told me she was complaining to the other officer’s superior on my behalf, because he was intentionally baiting me—and that, apparently, was something of a violation of internal policies of conduct. It was the first I’d heard of that particular department trying to check and balance. That woman has my gratitude. I’ve never had a more positive experience with a police officer. More like her, and my own faith in law enforcement would definitely be on the mend.

I hate being put on the defensive. With cops like these, who needs a criminal element? I feel more threatened by having those kinds of officers than I do living in a high-crime neighborhood.

I do have to say, though: thinking about why I don’t like guns did bring me to kind of a philosophical point about lots of things. That was productive. Plus, they didn’t technically violate my rights, even if they violated my sensibilities. These were generally-good cops, faced with too many unknowns to be comfortable. And they handled it with about as much grace as they could muster. The one lady cop was about as graceful as it gets. I wrote a letter of thanks and commendation to her department, explaining the situation. I’m pretty sure it went nowhere, but I have to say, she impressed the hell outta me. I found out later that she’s no longer a cop, and that she took a job as a private bodyguard for some executive’s family. If she’s reading this, ever, she’ll know whom she is. If she remembers who I am, she has my thanks, and that of my family. I just wish I had the money to rate hiring someone like her, because that’s the kind of positive influence I want my kids to see.

And she was hot, too, but that’s not the point. (NOTE: I’m checking over my shoulder at this point for my lady’s eyes. She nods, commends me on being honest, and continues about her own projects.)

The one unarmed cop was the worm in the apple. There was a second cop who entered, but he didn’t speak to me more than professional requirements dictated (and I’m actually glad for that, since I was in an increasingly-irrational mood). If they’d pressed me for another hour or two, I’m sure I might have verbally snapped at them, started telling the officer I had a problem with him, and told them to either get a warrant or another officer. As it was, the visit seemed like six hours. It was, in reality, 18 minutes. When you’re pissed off and not used to it, that’s an eternity of self-control.

Enough about my being a badass and pissed off about poorly-justified power and control. On to some reasons I don’t like guns (outlined as notes for—believe it or not—brevity):

• Firearms allow one to distance themselves from the destruction and possibly death that they are inflicting.
  • This lessens the impact of death, and makes it easier to dole out.
  • It creates the opportunity to convince yourself that what has been done is less than what it is. And this, to me, is the primary mistake that firearms are.
• They’re just too damn noisy.
  • Nothing says “I’m giving away my position to an enemy” like the rat-tat-tat of automatic fire.
    • If they already know where you are, that’s another thing altogether: do what is needed to survive. But survival is not the issue, here: my personal like or dislike of guns is the issue.
• A firearm’s only purpose is destruction. It can only fulfill its purpose with that end.
  • Destructive potential is not always dispensed in a predictable, orderly way.
  • Violence is the result of a person’s destructive potential, and this can only be amplified by a firearm.
  • Guns may not operate themselves, but the capacity for destruction is amplified by their inclusion in any activity or environment (yes, even underwater).
• Silencers are rarely silent in real life: the “zip” of bullets on TV as they come out of a silencer is not only unrealistic in itself, they never include the sound of the weapon’s mechanisms racking as the recoil from firing the shot occurs. It’s loud, people: someone in the next room will hear you.
  • Nobody shows realistic gun operation on TV or in movies (as a general rule, with one or two notable exceptions). This glorifies the use of firearms, makes them sexy and powerful. Generally, not to the right kinds of people.
  • The people who tend to want to own a gun are the same as those who want to go on a power trip. Not in every case, but the rule does hold in a generalized way. A lot of it has to do with the ways that guns’ relationships to injury and death are portrayed in popular media.
  • Silencers are only one example. Virtually any other kind can be demonstrated, as well.
  • Censorship with regard to blood and death is harmful, in that the horrors of injury and death are woefully misrepresented as being gloriously clean. There’s nothing glorious about it: it’s horrific. It should be represented as such, rather than being sanitized and therefore glorified.
• Irresponsible gun ownership causes tens of thousands of deaths per year.
  • There’s not a legal requirement to go to a gun safety course when one buys a firearm. As such, legal firearms can be more dangerous to those who own them than to those they are intended to protect against.
  • Responsible gun ownership is not taught on public television. One has to pay cash for it. The aim of budget-making lawmakers is therefore not in protecting the public, but in ensuring that the wealthy can be safe.
    • Imagine the kind of production which could be made if Congress dropped $50 million into a four-hour educational course which was free to the public.
• Illegal firearms bought and sold on the black market are unaffected by any kind of law. This is because criminals don’t obey laws, by definition. As such, laws to control gun ownership cannot prevent ownership by someone who is truly determined to do harm. Such laws only makes it more difficult to legally obtain firearms, and make illegal channels more attractive.
  • Restrictions on what kinds of weapons might be legally bought or sold limit only those who are willing to obey the law, and empower those who are willing to break the law.
    • Controls over the flow of guns to the black market are impossible to enforce, because even police fall victim to theft of their firearms. Guess where these stolen pistols and rifles wind up?
    • Theft is against the law. If criminals who steal guns are unwilling to follow that law, and the object they steal is used for ending life, what makes a legislator believe that stricter penalties are a deterrent? The answer is not more restrictions, but more intelligent solutions to the actual issues.
  • Notable tragedies have occurred, and continue to occur, because there’s no way to legally control the black market. Education, and not propaganda, is the only real solution for something like this.
  • The gun industry has no accountability (and don’t need it) for the use of their product; only in whether or not their product is of good quality. However, there is little oversight on the control of their distribution channels, which are vulnerable. This lack of taking responsibility makes me loathe the very existence of firearms.
  • The fact that guns are created at all causes the black market issue; not whether the person owning it is legal or not. Legality has little bearing on ownership. Because guns are created, they are automatically dangerous.
• I hate guns because of Chuck Norris. Okay, and every other martial artist who isn’t typically portrayed using a weapon.
  • You don’t have to reload a sword or a fist.
  • It’s harder to take someone’s hands away than it is any weapon. Weapons which are taken away can be used against the person who brought them in.
  • Damaging a hand takes it out of commission; damaging a weapon only makes it more dangerous to those in close proximity to it.
  • With the correct training, a hand is also far more lethal and far less random than a firearm, but the “safety” on that kind of a weapon is far more effective, and far more obvious when it’s disengaged.
    • My one and only Chuck Norris joke (one I’m sure even he might appreciate):
      • Chuck Norris is the safety mechanism for his fists.
• I’d hazard a guess and say that less than 1% of all firearm use in the world is for the production of food. It should be closer to 99%.
  • Were it closer to 99%, I would say that my ownership of a gun for that purpose would outweigh my distaste for them. As things stand now, I won’t even go deer hunting during the bow hunt for fear of being shot by some idiot with a rifle (yes, it has actually happened, though not to me).

These are not all of the reasons, but it’s a good beginning. I firmly believe that if gun ownership was actually required by law, fewer criminals would want them.

Some final notes: the only way to make firearms less of a problem is to increase access to them for law-abiding citizens. This seems backwards, but it has worked in practice in the past. Also, creating “weapon-free zones” ensures that those who abide by this rule are disarmed if someone who doesn’t abide by the rule happens to want to take power over them. Ensuring that people don’t get hurt means increasing access to things like concealed weapons permits. When criminals can’t tell who is or isn’t carrying, they are less likely to want to take a risk to their own lives. I will never carry a firearm. Ever—regardless of legality, I don’t like them. But I think more people should consider carrying one. Such considerations make for the beginnings to well-informed decisions.

Psychology, and not restrictive legality, is where the solution can be found.

Ain’t that just badass?

The MAFIAA’s Biggest Mistake

Okay, so sue me. I've changed my mind about the articles I'm publishing. The MAFIAA is an organization whose operations would normally be counted as criminal.

No, I'm not talking about the Italians, the Russians, or the Mexicans; nor is this a misspelling. I'm talking about the Music And Film Industry Associations of America (MAFIAA), which includes the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and a host of others based here in the United States, with hundreds of foreign counterparts between them which are funded by our patronage. The idea of stealing music that has been purchased isn't a new one, but it certainly is the foundation for the tens of thousands of lawsuits that the RIAA has specifically been found to be doing.

But the biggest mistake has been not listening to their consumers. Hundreds of millions of people (up to 15% of all internet users, which equates to about 10% of the world's population, if my figures are right) use file-sharing technologies such as BitTorrent, Gnutella, and a host of other lesser-known ones. Some actually use it legally, though the MAFIAA wants us to believe that any unauthorized use is (or should be) illegal. They've spent 55 years trying to prove that, well against the tide of consumer desire.

And they've made their consumers into their biggest enemies. Without understanding why, their prosecution of Jammie Thomas has led to their being boycotted. And now there are studies completed in Canada that show that there's a positive impact on music sales, rather than a negative impact.

So why are they still pushing to make it a criminal offense?

It's never really been about money. I realized this for the first time this past summer when ASCAP went after online radio and won, and then used that win to go after radio stations. Though they use financial means and excuses, the real issue here is control of a population that cannot be controlled. When the MAFIAA first got really organized back in the 1970's, they wanted us to believe that recording public broadcasts was illegal. The Supreme Court disagreed. And now the claims are the same, but the argument is different. Reading through the legal materials I have access to, the claims they make aren't much better. But what I do see is a government rapidly losing the high ground because they refuse to back up ordinary citizens' rights. Citizens like Ms. Thomas, a single mother who didn't even know she was being sued for months and months.

The main error here is that citizens' rights have historically trumped those of any big business, with the exception of the past 3 decades. The anti-consumerism prevalent in the courts today is the product of a huge campaign of both outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. It's based on faulty data that nobody can seem to produce. And in fact, they've been rather tight-lipped about methodologies used, and speculation by many of the so-called pirates seems to be that they hide it because they have something to hide.

And yet they persist. If it's not about money, what's it really about?

Control.

Plainly and simply, they want to hold all the keys to all the locks on all the doors and gates. They want to be able to be the ones who determine what is or is not fair use, and they want to make sure that only those who have money are allowed to make that determination. This effectively creates a minority. It makes the average consumer unable to listen to music unless they pay for it. In their world, there would be no more radio, no internet that they didn't control, and we'd all be at their mercy as far as which web sites we visited. Subliminal messages wouldn't be illegal, though cussing up a storm would be unless it was paid for on an audio track.

The MAFIAA organizations want to make us their slaves. And I, for one, am against that.

But so are millions of others, including artists. Artists like Radiohead (independently), and Lamont (sponsored by The Pirate Bay) are starting to be increasingly aware of the level of control associated with these organizations, and they seem to be out to prove that they have what it takes to make it without the big labels. Radiohead's cancellation of their contract with EMI records, for example, is a sign that things could change. The refined studio sound is something that consumers have been moving away from for years, and this is the main sign that big-name labels should have taken for a death knell. But they can't attack individual artists for producing their own music.

The internet has changed society. Some changes have been for better, and some for worse, but the bottom line is that change was inevitable. The entire generation of Internet users who have grown up online are now entering adulthood, and they're beginning to realize just how easy it is to spot exploitative practices. Most that I've spoken to seem to be anti-corporate, which is a warning sign in my mind that big corporations are about to become a thing of the past if they don't start acting like adults instead of crying to Congress that their consumers are taking their toys away.

The failure of these companies to treat their people the way they themselves would want to be treated is a sure sign that they are caught up in issues of money instead of in good business practices. As anyone in the franchise business knows, you should leave the majority of the profits to the owner of the franchise, and take a smaller slice of a large number of pies. Instead, they've taken most of the pie before it's even given, and when they don't make money, they charge artists for the extended money they've given. Then, when they manage to sell something to consumers, they are selling for roughly three to five times what it cost to produce the package (and only 30% of that is typically intermediaries). They're the biggest, meanest dogs on the block, and their marketing model is failing miserably to cash in.

So what does any of this have to do with democracy?

Put bluntly: the people in these organizations are anti-democracy. Their conservatism crossed the line into fascism long ago, and with that change they began to lobby Congress to pass laws that are still awaiting the test of Constitutionality. Because they are self-serving and greedy, they inspire a lack of cooperation and even rebellion against them. And with their complicit behaviors, Congress is also inspiring dissent and the seeds of rebellion have been planted. This becomes dangerous when people learn how to counteract disruption techniques that the government does on a regular basis to break up smaller groups.

The current US Administration's tendency to be self-serving is also showing up in poll after poll that places Bush at the bottom of the heap. People just don't feel as though the government serves them anymore. And in this, I agree with Barack Obama. But what I don't agree with is that the government has become anti-democracy. Those in the government I've spoke to believe that by serving these companies, they ultimately protect the national product of the United States, which in turn offers citizens a better quality of life. Though this isn't actually true, it is logical. In practice, what happens is that we erode our civil liberties with five very wrong Acts of Congress (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, the NET Act of 1997, the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001, and the acts of Congress passed earlier this year which essentially strip any expectation of privacy we can enjoy in our communications).

We can ill-afford to simply ignore the Constitution. We don't have the right any more, for example, to photocopy a page from a book for research purposes. We can't show off a woodcut out of an old out-of-print book because someone might still own the copyright. We are no longer allowed to creatively derive anything from music. We can't make backups of music or software CD's, and wear out the backups instead of the originals. All of that in the United States is illegal.

Fair use under the law is basically no more. There are some limited fair use rights, but the long history of traditional fair use is now illegal. This is an erosion of free expression (and therefore, free speech), and it deserves our attention. We should work to change laws over time to return these individual rights, so that the music industry can continue to create products we enjoy. We should encourage the music industry to make radical changes to their model in order to encourage artists to produce, rather than discouraging them from producing elsewhere. We should point out the exploitations against us, because if the population as a whole is saying something, the government must listen. If it doesn't, it's no longer a democracy.

Republican democracy or no, our country is at a turning point in its history. Either we'll continue to become one of the most open and creative societies in existence, or we will make ourselves into the new Soviet Union, fooling ourselves into believing we're the best simply because we said so and we have one or two nice things that don't actually balance the ills that occur.

Make no mistake: the enemy is not government, nor even big business in general, but these few specific organizations and individuals who insist on changing the laws to accommodate their practices which would be criminal if they were anyone else. The enemy is the fascist mindset that every aspect of everything must be controlled, and that individual rights have no meaning in the face of (and I quote) "larger interests".

The very definition of fascism is that individual rights are secondary to state interests, as it was defined by "Grandfather" Mussolini. Today, the word fascist is considered a political slur, but the truth of the matter is that these organizations and individuals are indeed acting fascist, according to the definition. At the time, we were against Mussolini, and we took out his regime fairly efficiently. Democracy will always win, if it's organized enough to care. Individuals can care, but until we get organized as consumers and voters to take back our government, we are not deserving of democracy and will continue to lose to fascism until there's nothing recognizably democratic about the way we operate. We're headed to become just like China, and I (for one) don't think that's really a democracy, in spite of what their constitution says.

Religious Freedom Means Tolerance

I know, I know… I promised a blog entry on religions. I said some pretty rotten things in my last post, mostly to try to get people who read that post to read this one. Mostly, I was blowing smoke and standing up mirrors. A day later, those mean, rotten, nasty comments aren't real. I'm very respectful, actually, of others' beliefs. I couldn't bring myself to tear down someone else's beliefs, even if I did lob a few choice bombs to rile people up a little.

So here it is: if you want to be free to have your religious preference protected in the United States under the Bill of Rights, then you are going to have to tolerate the religious preferences of others. Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist, Animist, Wiccan… or any of the other hundreds of thousands of other religious preferences out there, you have to protect the beliefs you don't agree with so that you can maintain the ones you do agree with. Notice I didn't say "religions" because Atheism isn't a religion; it's a religious preference. Atheists might still balk a little, but lack of religion is, fundamentally, a religious choice.

Those who are familiar with your religious works (or good philosophically-supporting ones, if you don't have religious works), please get a copy. If that means a new browser window, fine. Just keep this one open.

Now, in your philosophical or religious works, I'd like to point out the similarities in all of them. All of them have the benefit of the individual in mind, but also bear heavily on the good of the whole (regardless of the different methods used to accomplish this aim). They all believe that there is a better way than stumbling blindly around, believing things that aren't true (and again, they disagree about what is or isn't true in a lot of cases). They all teach things that are valuable and which empower people. And all of them are convincing to one person or another.

Now, switch books. If you're Buddhist or Hindu, grab something from one of the non-Eastern philosophies; if you're Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, grab one of the pagan holy books. As long as it's something you're not familiar with, it'll work for this exercise. And it won't be comfortable.

When you read this other work (and read it you must, or the exercise won't work), give it an empirical run-down. List the points you personally agree with, and the ones you don't. If you're Christian, for example, and reading the Tao te Ching, you can list things like "doesn't mention God" as things you disagree with, and "help other people selflessly" as something you do agree with. There is likely to be a good-sized list. But if you're not honest about it, you're likely going to harm only yourself (since I'm not coming around and checking your work).

Then read your own holy works again. See how many of the things you agree and disagree with can be settled by that work. Chances are, almost all of them will settle in nice and neat. It's not about which religion or religious belief is right and wrong; it's about finding principles that are universally true. These universal principles mean that no religion can have a corner on the "Whole Truth" because at their foundations, we humans are the ones who must interpret what we believe to be true from the best information we have available. The point of this exercise is about looking for things that are different from what you believe, and yet still good and desirable.

Tolerance of what others believe means working together to understand the differences. Understanding, for example, the difference between schools of thought in Islam means studying the Koran. Knowing why the Chassid believe what they do and why that differs from other sects of Judaism means you have to understand the Torah and its history. Know why Kali worship isn't well-received means reading up on both the Upanishads and the Baghavad-Gita. Understanding that Buddhists aren't supposed to embrace Buddhism too closely, means studying the hundreds of texts of that religion. And all of this together means that a life-long study of religions is needed, in addition to other things.

There is one result that's been of value: I've grown stronger in my own beliefs by learning about the differences in belief of others. I've also freed myself of the intolerance that many people have. My only intolerance now is intolerance. That's right: intolerance will not be tolerated.

So it pisses me off when people try to say one religion is "better" than another, or that theirs is the "only true way" that things can happen. While I believe that there is a well-defined path through the forest, being on the path is not necessarily the best course of action at all times. There are many ways through a forest to get to the same destination. The path just means you're not likely to get lost on the way if you're in unfamiliar territory.

Likewise, if you rely on God, Goddess, Brahma, Krishna, Allah, Jehoweh, the Buddha, the Jade Emperor, your Higher Self, or whomever else you might believe in, for guidance, then you are going to use their path. And there are many paths through the forest, and many ways to avoid becoming the victim of pitfalls and perils. There is good to be found in all religious preferences: even in Atheism, the power of rationality, logic, and self-worth that are promoted to empower individuals to act in the absence of an all-seeing or all-knowing metaphysical entity have quite a high value and worth. And I will say that Atheists were something I tended to shy away from until one taught me how to be logical. But it backfired: instead of diminishing my beliefs, it strengthened them significantly. And it bolstered my understanding of personal experiences, and extended my tolerance to include the benefit of secular logic.

But that's just me, right?

No. I have made a study the past few years of democracy, which is why I've elected to write this blog in the first place. And I've discovered that democracy is more important to human progress than any other force in history. There cannot be any force of religion that can claim a corner on democracy, because the principles of democracy are universally-true. The differences, whether compatible or incompatible, are what make humanity resilient and able to bounce back. Mere tolerance of those differences means that the human race as a whole increases its survivability. Embracing those differences would mean even better survivability, because we would not only understand that these differences exist and accept them, we would really listen to one another's ideas instead of dismissing the ideas because of whom they came from.

Democracy isn't about borders, or politics, or religions. But it makes all of those things possible, desirable, and even beneficial to us. It allows us to embrace the differences that are most certainly the product of progress, and it allows us to use those differences to progress even more. But religious freedom is only one part of the equation.

There is a larger set of freedoms that are ultimately at the heart of democracy. This larger set is lumped together under the heading "belief" (as in: "freedom of belief"). The right to believe differently is one of those basic, fundamental things that is required in order for democracy to truly exist. It depends upon the right to privacy (the right to be free from governmental intrusion on daily life: q.v., my last post). It depends on free speech. And most of all, it depends upon the tolerance of others. Without the right to believe something differently, democracy is simply not possible. You see, this is because if we have groups who believe differently, we are going to arrive at something either universally true, or we are going to arrive at a peaceful compromise. The alternative is to fail to have democracy, and to fail utterly at maintaining freedom.

So, moving away from religion, let me take three things that I don't personally hold in my own belief system: neo-Nazism, homosexuality, and Satanism. These three are offensive to one group or another. I am personally offended by hate speech. The thought of homosexuality actually disgusts me. I find that most (but far from all) Satinists are puerile sissies with a severe lack of self-discipline and an inability to accept anything that might benefit more than one person at a time. I'm entitled to these opinions under a democracy.

But they are entitled to have their opinions, too. I will uphold the right to be a Nazi, even though I strongly disagree with the Nazis. I will uphold the right to be homosexual, in spite of the fact that I don't have much in the way of leanings that direction. Satanism is little more than a rebellious version of Christianity, but I uphold the right of the adherents to that belief to believe it. How can I do this?

Well, the reason I'm able to do this is because I'm a religious minority with my own minority sexual proclivities, and I don't believe in the concept of "race", which by itself puts me into a fairly large minority. I'm not going to go into much more detail about that, but suffice it to say that by protecting these others' rights to believe what they believe, I'm allowed to expand my own understanding of human nature. Likewise, permitting these people to explore their own personalities and beliefs helps us to get to the truth of things, instead of blindly adhering to things that are untrue.

We're discovering, for example, that sexual proclivities are largely based in genetic predisposition, and that some people may actually not have a choice as to their sexual preferences. But even while these may not be choices, we still have a choice about how to handle those proclivities. Denial of sexual urges, we're finding, is harmful to us. Again, the way we handle these urges is the issue, rather than having the urges themselves. Radically zealous Christians, for example, tend to use one minute passage of the Bible to show that homosexuality is a sin. But on closer inspection, we see that it's not the law of God that's the issue, but the law of Moses. People think they're the same thing; they're not.

Moses sought to try to give people an understanding of how God's laws worked, and to interpret them. However, he had his own biases and prejudices to work in there and (being human), I'm sure that in more than one case he was injecting his own stuff in there instead of keeping it purely God's laws (the 10 commandments). God didn't say "thou shalt be married under the laws of mankind" in order to be able to have children. What God did say was that you shouldn't be jealous. Marriage actually helps prevent jealousy by drawing a mental barrier of ownership. And that ownership goes two ways.

But people are now realizing that we can't own one another and still be happy. We have to permit happiness; we cannot force it. We have to decide for ourselves what is right, and we don't like being owned. For a lot of us, it's against our essential programming. Human nature demands self-direction, even if that self-direction is against our own best interests. If we don't have that self-direction, then we rebel. Therefore, a parent's duty is to teach how to conduct that self-direction. Many parents believe that this self-direction is taught by forcing a child to conform to the will of others, but this only leads to a rebellious nature later on. Self direction is taught by finding these universal principles (like those of democracy) and applying them in a personal way to personal situations. It is only in this way that we are able to deal effectively with societies and learn to integrate in a healthy way, even while at the same time not accepting everything that others tell us as the absolute truth. This simply is not rational.

The pro-democracy folks in Asia, for example, must understand that the government will not simply release its absolute authority over the people and relinquish that power at a whim. They have to have proof. They have to have time to mull it over. And they must learn to accept that those truths are true by illustration in the long term, rather than being forced to change. The alternative is Tiananmen Square in June of 1989. China still hides the ugliness of that night, but I think this is a mistake. And expressing this opinion is my right as a member of a democracy.

Suppressing information like this hurts China, and because I believe in the beauty of Chinese culture and the high level of dignity that Chinese history has typically held, I find this suppression harmful because it reduces the chance that anyone will be able to learn from that lesson. And because the lesson here is suppression, I fear that China may be doomed to repeat it at some point in the future when the current generation's memory no longer brings the ugliness of the lesson to the surface. Like Kung Fu, history can sometimes only teach by a limited amount of pain and suffering.

Likewise, in Burma there are only so many bullets they can fire before they finally run out. And the fact that there are no weapons on the side of the pro-democracy population there is a testament to the power of democracy. It frightens the military regime in Burma to believe that their way is not the most correct way. And like China, outside interference may do more harm than good. I find the UN's handling of the sovereignty of Burma acceptable and correctly-principled. I support democracy in Burma, but if such democracy is forced on them, then it will certainly never be lasting. China, probably better than anyone, recognizes this, but I suspect they have their own agenda where this is concerned. I would rather assist the junta in a peaceful resolution of the conflict than risk an all-out war. If they simply kill all of the people who oppose them, they will eventually run out of subjects.

The days of Myanmar are numbered at this point. The will of the people to rid itself of the military dictatorship that now rules the country with an iron hand has been heard. A government can only last for as long as the people permit it. Many would rather die than accept the military's rule. Having a military in a country such as Burma is important; but it shouldn't be all-encompassing. The peoples' inalienable right to believe has trumped every bullet in Myanmar's arsenal. Some rights are inalienable by definition. When people learn there is a better way, they will want it. Power cannot exist if there is no one to have power over. It's now only a matter of time before Myanmar becomes Burma once more. It may be tomorrow, or decades away, but I'm not too worried: it will happen, and the price will be higher than either side can really afford. But, in the words of one of our founding fathers in the United States: "The tree of liberty must occasionally be fed by the blood of patriots and of tyrants: it is [the tree's] natural manure."

We must uphold the right to believe differently. This means tolerating China's suppression of information. It means allowing Burmese people to accept and reject their own government. It means helping those who believe differently to not become victims, but instead creating martyrs for the religion of tolerance that is democracy. Every drop of blood spilled by those in power is added to the scale against them by the tide of the will of the people at large. When they've had enough, they'll speak. And it'll be bloody, and a hard fight. But if even one government realizes that the power of democracy cannot be held by any central authority, then that's the place where democracy is real. That's the place where I want to be.

So far, America really does have a corner on the market, where democracy goes. We have far to go, but we're the closest so far. We can't change China or Burma. We can't force the world to accept our ways. What we can do is to support and encourage. If we interfere, we subvert the entire reason behind democracy. It has to be the free choice of others, because it's the greatest choice anyone can make. Until we can let go of the differences that divide us and embrace the differences that allow us to be separate and yet unified—many individuals supporting the cause of being individuals together—then we cannot have, and probably don't deserve to have, democracy. We need to learn that our strength is not in a unified front, but in a consensus agreement to pursue a goal. Presentation of a unified front means failure to adhere to the principles of democracy that allow differences of opinion and belief to make us stronger. It might take a slightly longer time to arrive at a decision, but if we listen to all objections, and actually invite these objections in, then "duke it out" with logic and reason, then what we will have in the end is something as close to perfection as possible.

In a democracy that is operated on entirely correct principles, disagreement is the rule, but the power flows from the bottom up. This creates a foundation that is unshakeable. This creates something stronger than what we now have. This creates a perfect democracy.

My next post will be about freedom of association and how it ties in with freedom of speech, privacy, freedom of belief, and I'll include a brief run-down of how consensus should work in a democracy.

An Essay On Privacy in the USA

Yes, this is a long post. But, I hope, worth it.

The claim that privacy is not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right is a valid one, since the word "privacy" is not used anywhere in any of the documents our Founding Fathers used as the basis for the Constitution. But the facts of the matter are that we are still guaranteed a level of privacy in that the government isn't supposed to be able to snoop into any kind of private affairs without both due process and a warrant. This raises the question of warrantless wiretapping and creates an issue of Constitutionality. Yet our president maintains that we're not afforded a right to privacy under the United States Constitution. I happen to disagree, and here's why:

The definition of privacy in the Constitutional context is to be free from intrusion, interference, or influence of government in our personal spaces. This includes communications, and the sovereignty of a person within their home. However, a warrant can be issued that temporarily suspends that right if there is a probable cause or provable belief that something illegal is happening. Thus, the government's ace-in-the-pocket is to have a warrant before they invade what is essentially sovereign space. We need an oath or affirmation that they believe something is happening, and that's the only purpose they can be there for.

For example, if a police officer believes that there is a drug dealer living in a certain apartment, that officer can swear out a warrant for the property which covers drugs, drug residues, drug paraphernalia, weapons, and the drug dealer himself. The officer then typically knocks politely on the door (and occasionally uses a battering ram for knocking not-so-politely when they require the element of surprise to prevent the stashing of drugs), and enters the property. But let's say that instead of drugs, they find an illegal gambling operation instead. The officer didn't specify any gambling equipment, and his discovery precludes him from being able to use what he sees as evidence against the occupants in a legal case. In spite of the fact that he sees illegal activity, he cannot place anyone under arrest, and he has to disregard anything he sees that isn't contained in the warrant.

But in recent years, officers have received expanded power that allow them to "camp" on the spot and obtain another warrant for the new criminal activity while they wait. So it's not drugs, but the occupant of the property is still likely going to jail for breaking the law, this time on a somewhat lesser charge, in the eyes of most citizens.

The original intent was that officers should obtain solid proof before the fact. They should have enough of an idea of what's happening that such a mistake isn't made in the first place. The fact that there was a lot of traffic in and out of the property is a sign that something is happening, it's true, but the real question is whether or not that the something is illegal activity, such as drugs. Officers are no longer allowed to use their own judgment under the law, because the people have learned that police forces can be sued. What this means is that there is an "us versus them" mentality, and one which should not be acceptable. Officers should respect the dignity and sanctity of a person's home enough to get all of the facts before they enter.

Governmental intrusion into a person's home is still relatively rare here in the United States. In other countries, where there is no protection, officers may walk in at will. England is the only country in the world where individual privacy has been held to a higher standard than ours, and still has a long way to go in order to afford a level of autonomy that allowed democracy to take root. You see, privacy is so fundamental and so basic a need for democracy that any encroachment on individual privacy from government intrusion at any level, or by anyone in a position of power should be considered an assault on democracy as a whole. By removing the ability of people to be private in their own homes, we effectively prevent the very thing that creates democracy: free thought.

Knowing that the police cannot simply barge in on you for no reason is a comfort that only those in a democracy can know. Such relaxation allows individuals to arrive at thoughts they would not normally be able to have. Having lived in an area where privacy was not permitted to this extent, I can say that it alters one's ability to think clearly and rationally about things. But on the flip side of that coin, it also enhances some kinds of neuroses, so too much sanctity probably isn't a good thing. However, people who live in a home should not expect privacy from one another, because of the nature of living together. The expectation should be that those in power cannot intrude at will, be they landlords, employers, businesses, or government. The sanctity of the home has been upheld numerous times and in numerous ways, and yet the Bush Administration persists in its insistence that there's nothing wrong with warrant-less wiretapping. The expectation has been set, they say, that our private communications are now forfeit. Such intrusion is against the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is essentially the entire scope of the right to privacy in the United States. But we need to look at the original intent in order to really understand what they meant.

First and foremost, the security of a person against unreasonable search and seizure means that unless officers have a clear idea that a person is carrying something illegal, they cannot simply search that person. They must first obtain a warrant to go through someone's pockets. I see this provision violated all the time on television cop shows, though it's justified because officers were looking for weapons instead of the drugs they found. Well, no warrant, no arrest. They can confiscate the drugs as contraban, but the real issue here is that unless they had reasonable suspicion that someone was actually carrying the drugs, the drugs should be inadmissible in court. As detrimental to society as that sounds to some people, the price of democracy is that right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure. Please note that it does not say "government" anywhere in the Fourth Amendment: this implies that the freedom is inalienable, and applies to pretty much anyone.

The right to be secure in their houses against unreasonable search and seizure means that nobody (government or otherwise) can intrude on a person's home. Police seem to believe that if an individual citizen makes a discovery, that's admissible in court. In general, I tend to agree. However, if someone enters a property with the intent of informing the police or other authority about anything in there, then they are acting in the capacity of infringing upon a person's privacy. A person's home should be inviolate, and this intent that I mentioned means that they are acting on the authority of those in power. It means this shouldn't be admissible in court, period.

The right to be secure in one's papers means that personal items, identity documents, correspondence, and other items that aren't really anyone else's business should be kept away from the eyes of those who don't really have a compelling need. The real sinker here is the implication of correspondence. In my estimation, all communications have the right to be free from interference and intrusion by those in power. You can't operate a business if nothing you do is private. You can't operate a political party if your competition is in power, particularly if you want to prevent those in power from overrunning the freedoms you enjoy. If you have a secret that you want to hold until an opportune time, it should be allowed under the Fourth Amendment, if you're one of the people to which the rights are ascribed.

The last part, the right to be secure in one's effects, is intended to be a catch-all. Today, personal effects include computer data, which could also be construed as being one's papers. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that people could pass along information freely. They also wanted to ensure that someone's personal effects couldn't be seized. With the USA-PATRIOT Act in full swing, seizures of small personal effects (like granny's nail clippers at an airport) became the norm. I suspect that in spite of that fact, the seizures in such cases are unreasonable.

An interesting quote to round some of the point up and link it to the next bit is given to us by Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, in 1787 (this would be 11 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and shortly after the ratification of the US Constitution), in a letter to William Smith: "[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

In order to secure a free democracy, privacy is (as I've already said) fundamental. The government is worried about home-grown terrorists and those plotting against the administration in violent ways, it says, but the fact of the matter is that the more we impede individual rights to privacy, the more people find ways to circumvent any system put into place that violate it. By preserving the right to privacy in the first place, we effectively deny any refuge to those plotting violence for any time, except if they start acting secretively. The difference between maintaining privacy and being secretive is a semantic one, to be sure, but one which bears attention. I'll use the 9/11 attacks as an example of this principle.

On the morning on September 11th, 2001, six journalists approached President Bush's hotel in Florida. It was six in the morning, well before any of the attacks later in the day occurred. Nobody was aware that anything special was about to occur. These journalists claimed to have scheduled a poolside interview with President Bush, but they did not appear on the schedule for that day (nor any other). The journalists were denied access on that basis. The Secret Service, in protecting the privacy of the president from the media (who is very much in power, in spite of some opinions to the contrary), they ultimately saved his life. You see, these six journalists were all of Middle-Eastern descent, and they matched the descriptions of people who, only days before, has succeeded in assassinating a leader in Pakistan (if memory serves... I could be wrong on this, and I didn't look up my facts, because the location isn't really important to the point).

Later that day, 3,300 people died. This does not include the 200 who died in one embassy bombing a few years before, nor the 2,000 who died in airline terrorism in the previous decade, or the nearly-100 soldiers who had died in the line of duty, or any of the countless other civilians who have died for the cause of furthering terror in our homeland, or who were US citizen... and this doesn't include those who were citizens of other countries either. I'll put the number on it of 10,000 Americans dying by the directives of one terrorist leader. By comparison, Bush is indirectly responsible for the deaths of some 35,000 civilians, most of whom were killed accidentally because they didn't conform to rules we'd tried to notify everyone about. Our soldiers are fighting a war that had nothing to do with terrorism until we got involved.

But I digress. In the weeks and months that followed, it became clear that our very way of life is offensive to these people. They attacked us because their leader uses an unpopular religious philosophy to justify political activity. In the 1700's, we called such acts piracy, and the thought of the day was that we would simply pay them off and they'd leave us along. Except that they didn't. So, in 1799, we wiped out the Barbary Pirates. We didn't declare war. We didn't tell anyone or brag about it. We expressed sorrow that we had to do it, in fact. We didn't invoke any kind of rights or make any new laws. Congress didn't really get involved. President Jefferson simply declared them enemies of the state, and we went and sank their ships. Every one. We didn't stop to discuss terms of surrender. To this day, our policy is that we don't negotiate with terrorists. Terrorists only understand one language: terror. We kill terrorists, rather than negotiate. That's been the policy for 208 years as of this writing, and always has. The war we've been waging in the Middle East is a mockery of not only this policy, but of the entire system of democracy.

The only accomplishment of Bush's administration, really, is the significant erosion of civil rights by bullying his way through the courts and Congress to get his way. People just don't think that it's true, until they are personally affected. Bush did exactly what good old Ben Franklin warned us about: he traded our civil liberties for temporary measures designed to increase security. Today, our civil liberties are diminished, and the security promised by the USA-PATRIOT Act has yet to surface. We're at a constantly-high state of alert in our country. The real threat is not from al-Qaeda or even domestic terrorism: it's the man occupying the office of President of the United States. The Presidential office is one I respect and even uphold in my daily conversations with people. But I've lost significant respect for the person in that office. Shame on you, George!

If Bush had really been looking out for the security of our country, he would have given us measures to protect ourselves. He would not have decreased the ability of our population to speak to one another, but would instead have armed us with correct information about what was really happening. He was not interested in upholding democracy; he was interested only in his own bottom line.

There's another organization that operates like this: the RIAA. Their recent activities with Jammie Thomas show that they not only are really concerned with controlling the popular tastes. They aren't interested in truth, or justice, or even money. What they want is power. And powerful they are: they recently assisted in a bid to try to cut radio at the knees. Combined with an overabundant consolidation of radio networks, we're really at kind of a loss as to how to keep radio going unless we protect it. And radio stations are actually the basis of our telecommunications infrastructure, so their importance cannot be understated. But that's for another post.

The RIAA uses techniques that invade privacy. Cary Sherman, the president of the RIAA, claims that any idea that using software to intercept communications which are then used to secretly obtain the names of people who may never be notified so that they can prepare an adequate defense and preserve their own evidence, is "bizarre" (and that's a direct quote). The RIAA is in power. Heck, it's even on the right side of the law. But the one thing that they are lacking is a sense of ethical and dignified treatment of people. Their aggressive tactics only alienate them, and people already know that what they do isn't defending the artists' rights, because the companies associated with the RIAA typically take all rights to any work that the artist produces in exchange for marketing that to the public. And as we all know, the artists' main venue (the main way for artists to make money) is with public performance. If I see someone performing music or dance (or both) and I'm in a position to give them something of value, I give it. If it's a penny or a dollar, it doesn't matter: every little bit helps. I think I've given a twenty to a performing artist before.

But many people don't want performance. They want digitally-enhanced music that they aren't able to play without a license, to the point that if they're playing a car stereo too loudly they can be sued for public performance. Or if another artist has a take on the song, it cannot be performed publicly, because the song is copyrighted. Every time we sing "Happy Birthday," we infringe copyright. Such a standard inhibits our innovation through derivative works. It stifles our cultural pride. It reduces us. It is a direct threat on our freedom of thought and belief, and an attack on the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional duty to promote innovation. True, they are supposed to protect these works, but not at the cost of innovation.

But the most offensive portion of all is that if someone is playing a song too loudly on the stereo (a song, I might add, being broadcast freely by a radio station), then that person is also considered a copyright infringer. The sanctity of the home no longer exists under this new copyright regime. We come up short every time we try to fight it. Well, no more. Groups like the Pirate Party of the United States and the rapidly-growing media piracy movement have had enough. Many of us are also fighting back individually. People like Jammie Thomas are likely going to prove to be the rule and not the exception.

Pirates in history did evil things, like murder, rape, kidnapping, pillaging, plundering, ransoming, and enslaving people. Now pirates do even worse things, like copyright infringement.

Gimme a fucking break.

It's time for a mutiny. But unlike mutinies of the past, where people often got the idea of killing or dumping off the captain of the ship somewhere, this mutiny is one of democracy. And it takes votes. If you're not a registered voter, you're unwittingly working for the likes of the RIAA and the others in the copyright regime. Voter registration isn't hard. It's also not expensive, since a postage stamp is less than half a dollar to mail in a voter registration form to anywhere in the country. State voter registration is where this fight can and will be won. And it's the only way. We can't simply raid the RIAA's headquarters. We're not that kind of pirates.

We're computer geeks. We're artists. We're scholars. We're inventors. We use these things to keep ourselves separate. But in the end, the only thing linking us is the fact that we're sick to death of not being able to maintain the sanctity of our home and the privacy of our communications. If we don't exercise our rights within the law, then we shall find ourselves outlawed. The right of the people to be safe needs to exist again. And unless we hold the threat of removing those in power from those very comfortable and lofty seats, we are powerless to stop them.