Yes, this is just a coincidence, but it's a sad one.
Every generation has an epic challenge it must rise to. Whether it is a struggle for a free Europe and a free world, toeing the line against the spread of communism, rising from the ashes of the Great Depression, or going to the moon. There are moments where we have opportunities to leave an imprint of positive change on the world. These moments are not free. They are costly, in blood, treasure, or both. But the cost of ignoring these moments is greater.
The time has come for every American to ask how they can cut back and save, to direct resources toward the building of a mighty green infrastructure, that can power us, and perhaps the world. We need to demand on every level that people work together to support this. Push our science departments to dedicate research resources to green energy. Push politicians to collaborate on green funding. If you can possibly do it, try to be an early adopter of green tech - and I don't mean a Prius, I'm talking about a roof full of Solar Panels. It is time to blend our determination, our hope, our expertise, and our drive to build an infrastructure for the next few centuries.
]]>Yes, this is just a coincidence, but it's a sad one.
I give you Florida state law:
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.--A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
I've bolded the most relevant portion. Here's what we need to know:
(1) Police are only acting legally in the use of force if an exemption is permitted by this statute;
(2) The police had no reason to believe that a handcuffed student, on the ground, with 6 police and 1 student, represented any threat whatsoever to them or anyone.
Consequently, those police are not justified in the use of the taser.
If the police declared they intended to arrest him, then they were justified in physically restraining him to cuff him. Once he was cuffed, and outnumbering him 6:1, there is no possible justification for the use of force. So to my reading, the officer using the taser was committing battery, and each other officer holding him down was an accessory to the crime.
The State attorney should immediately file charges against them. The tape alone is sufficient evidence to merit a trial.
]]>He was given time for a question in Q&A. He began with an introduction talking about how a bunch of reports had said Kerry won the 2004 election, leading to a question as to why Kerry did not contest the 2004 vote. I think that's a fair question. He grew slightly more agitated as people almost immediately tried to push him off the mic.
He finished his (three) questions, as he tacked two more on rapidly at the end, taking up about 90 seconds total.
The police began to escort him out. That's inappropriate, but neverminding that...
His minor attempt to resist police ended with him down on the ground, screaming that he was being arrested for nothing. I largely tend to agree. Is he fringe? Maybe. But I don't want to judge the question. He was passionate, he was polite - he was not vulgar, he did wrap up fairly fast when asked to do so.
In any event, he's on the ground, and clearly a cop had out a taser and he was begging to not be tasered. "Don't tase me, man, I haven't done anything," he pleads. Then you hear the 'tic tic tic' sound of the taser going off, and he screams.
Amnesty International reports there have been 245 taser-related deaths since 2001. The taser is a lethal weapon, and should be used when a danger exists to the police, in lieu of using a firearm.
This leads me to ask - at what point, when the police are being unjustifiably violent, does it become legal and moral to resist them? Because watching this video, my first instinct is to tackle the cop with the taser. What would they have done if that cop had pulled out a gun and shot the kid in the leg? Would it be justifiable to tackle the cop then?
In any event, we clearly need laws against the spurious use of tasers, and we also clearly need to ensure that police are prosecuted themselves under the law when they use excessive force. I am once again inclined to pursue a law degree so I can start suing people. It seems like passing the bar is probably the best way that someone can take action against the advance of a tyrannical state.
]]>Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape?
So true. First, this is a fundamental problem with religion, beyond anything incredibly vague. If we begin with a statement such as, "I believe an intelligent higher power is at large in or one with the universe.", we might get a lot of agreement. By the time we are into specifics of Jesus, Muhammad, Trinities, holy books, carbon dating, and so on, we have opened up a can of worms that simply will not settle. Many religions seem, to me, to be fundamentally incompatible.
The author discusses various activities of book burnings, disrespect, and the undertone of violence, and says:
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.
Indeed, there can be no concession. Religion and principles it espouses cannot be forced upon people, but Islam is not the only offender. How many public policies are justified with invoking "God" in the United States? There are restrictions on liquor, a fight against abortion, crusades against pornography, statutes against sodomy, and even pickets protesting Harry Potter. But the Christians of the United States are far more numerous than the Shia, so they don't feel the need to resort to violence (with exceptions), but the pursuit of a theocratically-driven secular policy agenda isn't significantly better. Moreover, the social assumption that those not subscribing to a belief set should be ostracized furthers an agenda of homogenization in the country that is dangerous. Homogenization quells discourse and stifles creativity.
So I agree: there can be no concession, but we must all agree to live in a secular world, not just the Muslims. So when you claim a moral authority, be prepared to argue it from a universal principle. That murder is wrong is not contested (quacks aside), despite the Ten Commandments. But that doesn't mean we will or should approve of stoning adulteresses to death. Universal principles.
I've had the pleasure recently, in Utah, of meeting a LOT of very devoted religious people who also seem to have found a balance between living their faith, even promoting their faith (since almost every Mormon goes on a mission for two years, usually at around 19 years of age), and yet accepting a secular world around them. I can respect any belief set that can respect the right of others to believe otherwise. When a Muslim can say that as well, I welcome them into society with open arms. When they cannot - whether they deny that principle a cry for immediate Jihad, or a whisper that a true revolution must wait for the rise of a Caliph to lead them - then I reject that. And we all should.
]]>It's definitely something to think about. Ultimately, it seems we fear things we should not, and do not fear things that we should.
]]>The senior Democrat on the Subcommittee of IP and the Internet is Howard Berman. Berman is a longtime hollywood DRM pimp. He was behind the horrendous idea that we should let studios hack computers to stop P2P file transfers. Techdirt lists his wide array of anti-consumer initiatives:
Among Berman's proposed or supported laws were the ability for copyright holders to take vigilante action on those they believed were sharing their content allowing them to hack into your computer, a bill to strip away many fair use protections, a bill to let the entertainment industry use the FBI's seal when going after copyright infringers, a bill to give jail time to those caught file sharing (rather than just fines), a proposal to put people in jail for registering a domain with fake info and has been a big supporter of adding a broadcast flag requirement to consumer electronics.
In short, he's a shill for the content giants.
]]> On the other hand, we have Rick Boucher. The enlightened Boucher, hailing from Virginia, is something of an IP savant. Not only did he peg the anti-consumer provisions of the DMCA for what they were, but he seems unphased by the barrage of misinformation and misdirection that is showered on Congresscritters by the entertainment lobbies. We're talking about an industry that has been following Jack Valenti's lead since he compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler. Hyperbole is the order of the day; the only question is whether or not it will be followed by a dessert course of out-and-out deception.But Boucher isn't merely saavy about Copyright issues, he's also aware of the problems that patents pose. He and Berman co-introduced patent reform legislation. (Keep in mind, Berman is only slavishly devoted to content providers; therefore, while he favors absolutely totalitarian copyright infringement laws, he isn't necessarily an IP nazi in other areas, such as patents).
In any event, Boucher has even written a why we should rewrite the DMCA opinion piece. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a man who knows the difference between a truck, and a series of tubes, even without Senator Ted "Bridge to Nowhere Porkhound" Stevens telling him.
Ironically, I firmly believe that Boucher will actually be good for the content industries, because they don't know what's good for them. Ultimately, DRM fails. Those who want to pirate, will. The industry isn't getting around the analog hole for decades, and even if they did, the digital versions have been cracked even recently. But DRM confuses consumers - if I can't control digital files, what am I buying? Consumers hate DRM. They have tolerated it on things like DVD players because it is completely transparent - and ironically, completely ineffective. But as people start wanting to switch from the iPod to a Zune, or dump Windows for Linux, or who knows what, expect to see growing anger, doubt, and uncertainty (it's almost FUD) over DRM. Non-DRMed products are easier to pirate, yes, but it's like saying that a 1/4lb weight is easier to lift than a 1/2lb weight. They're both trivial. But DRM-laden products discourage honest consumers, not pirates.
But perhaps more importantly than the Copyright regime, Boucher may stem the tide of patent abuse. We are at risk of drowning in patent attorneys and patent litigation, to the detriment of our IT industries. Bill Gates mentions that we're not educating enough IT professionals, but I have to ask: why go into an industry where you're guaranteed to be enslaved to a corporation large enough to employ a bevy of patent attorneys? I've worked as an independant software developer. When you're small, your only hope is to go unnoticed; to be judgement-proof by virtue of being a broke shell company. If someone sues you for infringement, and you don't have hundreds of thousands or more to defend yourself, you lose by default. And since frivolous patents are granted all the time, you either accept whatever terms you are offered, or you go out of business. IT and software deserve better; they're industries where anyone can invent and innovate, but an insane IP policy makes it infeasible. Software patents also drastically slow the pace of development in the industry; they aren't contributions to the useful arts, they are systematic roadblocks thrown up either as defense against patent suits brought by rivals, or as impediments to would-be competitors. Or, for some enterprising firms comprised of nothing but lawyers, just sue people for a living. The problem is, most so-called "inventions" aren't really the creation of something nonobvious and novel, they're just people who patent it first, or with the trickiest new claims. Patents are a quagmire of he-said, she-said for non-technical people, and that includes most judges. Consequently, patent trials can easily devolve into injunctions, expert testimony, and decade-long investigations of a patent's pedigree. Quite simply, an untenable situation.
Boucher has shown he gets it. He's not out to completely overturn the patent regime, but he knows that moving in a direction that makes it harder to file non-innovative patents is good for the economy. If we don't get on board some patent reform, it is quite possible it will help use lose our competitive edge in information sciences to other countries. (Or, will help us fall further behind, depending on your viewpoint)
Here's hoping Berman "finds other interests" and lets Boucher run the show.
]]>I'm very, very happy that corruption made it into the spotlight. This is the issue I have pushed. You can't abdicate insisting on honest legislators simply because you're afraid of the "other party". People who take lobbyist money and favors for votes, who are dishonest and corrupt, need to go. And when it becomes endemic and systematic to a party, that party needs to go. Good-bye, Republican Congress. Come back when you've learned that it is not enough to cut taxes, you must balance the budget also. Putting your largesse on the nation's credit card is NOT a viable economic policy.
]]>Actually, there's lots of good news.
(1) Ted Stevens, of "The Internet is not a truck, it's a series of tubes" fame, was stymied in his attempt to wreck net neutrality in the name of special interests. Huzzah.
(2) The Republicans may lose control of the House and Senate. It's still a long shot - but it's a shot. Their poll numbers are awful. (I know that's a shock; Bush only has a few more points to lose before he's less popular than Nero)
]]>In September 2005, VA Information Security employees seized Berg’s office computer because they claimed “government equipment was used inappropriately…during government time for drafting an editorial letter.” No evidence was recovered to support that belief. [...]Simonson added: “The reference to ‘sedition’ is shocking. Even if Laura had used the office computer it would change nothing. None of her actions -- her criticism of the government, or her appeal for a change in the heads of government -- approach an act of unlawful insurrection. Is this government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of ‘sedition’?”
The Bush administration supports totalitarianism, and it's that simple. Want to remain free? Don't vote for them. Frankly, if you voted for Bush in 2004, you voted for the closest thing to Hitler we've ever had. Irrational war policy, Stalinesque press manipulation, abuse of military power against citizens (warrantless arrests), and of course, Gestapo-like spying on Americans without warrants or oversight.
It's not really safe at this point to vote for Republicans, period. Certainly not on a national level. They need a severe reminder that the place of the government is in service of the people. We the People.
]]>They can Burn effigies of our leaders and president, effigies of Christians, burn our flag, chop off heads of innocent civilians, kidnap journalists...shall I go on? All of this is the name of Mohammed, but we have a cartoon and it sparks riots, boycotts and violence all over the world. The Danish Government is to be congratulated for not offering and condolences or apologies on behalf of freedom of the press.
In today's news, the BBC reports that an Iranian paper is seeking cartoon submissions about the Holocaust.
"Does the West's freedom of expression extend to... an event such as the Holocaust or is this freedom of expression only for the desecration of the sanctities of divine religions?" the best-selling paper said in its announcement.It also asks for cartoons covering "America and Israel's crimes and plundering".
Iran's conservative rulers are supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who argue that the systematic slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II has been exaggerated for political ends.
I applaud them. This is an appropriate response. And I can say for my own part: the freedom of expression extends to all expression. I don't care if you're preaching your religion, promoting your political point of view, pandering to the ignorant by linking immigration to a poor economy to promote racist attitudes, or discussing your opinion of a great movie. Speech is speech. If you're not directly threatening someone, or inciting an immediate danger by yelling Fire in a crowded theater, then your speech is okay.
Not everyone agrees with me. For example, in the Age newspaper, they wrote:
THE newspapers that opted not to publish the cartoons offensive to Muslims that triggered riots in the Middle East should also have avoided publishing material that deeply offended Christians, says Treasurer Peter Costello.
And also:
"And Christians didn't have a riot, you know, they voiced their protest and just as the newspapers have the right of free speech to publish these things, so you have the right of free speech to condemn it." [Said Treasurer Peter Costello]
I disagree. Out of the blue, I'd largely agree. That is, I don't necessarily see the purpose of just spuriously offending a bunch of Christians. But this week, in the context of the Mohammad cartoon and the response and discussion, clearly offending Christians isn't a terrible idea, because it serves the interest of placing them in the shoes of the Muslims who were offended by the Mohammad cartoon.
Notice, however, the Christians did not have a riot, and this is key. I can't find the reference right now, although I suspect it may have been in the majority opinion in Cohen v California, but one of my favorite quotes can be paraphrased as: "The best cure for bad speech is more speech."
As I see it we have two choices: we can either get used to being offended, we can isolate ourselves from each other, so each society is perfect in its homogeneity, or we can homogenize the world. The last will be a bloody and futile endeavor, and the second simply isn't any more realistic than deciding we should all give up electricity. So our last choice is to simply learn to live with one another. Every time we grasp at the illusion of success with the other two choices, we will cause problems. In that sense, at least, I can only hope we are all offended once in a while, and we get used to it.
It's clear to me that many Muslims are ignorant - either intentionally or unintentionally - of how our press system operates. Since my impression is that a number of these religious states have state-run media arms, this isn't a surprise. To many of them, something in a UK newspaper is a declaration by the UK government. But we know better. Not to say the government doesn't have a shamefully large influence over our press at times, but certainly it is safe to say that our newspapers do not simply print what they are told to print, and avoid what they are told to avoid.
Clearly the direct message straight from the government of Iran that the holocaust is a fraud is no less offensive to jews than these cartoons are to Muslims. I expect jews to react with some sense of outrage to such claims, as I expect Muslims to react with some sense of outrage to these cartoons. But outrage in these cases must be channelled into peaceful protest, discourse, and more speech.
From this PBS interview:
STEPHAN RICHTER: That's a good point, but moderate Muslims also need to take the battle into their own societies, into the structures, into Saudi Arabia and so on. And that's what's missing because you have plenty of Middle Eastern Muslim papers that are full of viciously anti-Semitic cartoons every day, and this is the law of two standards, and that doesn't work because we really need to apply all standards that you advocated also into those societies, and then we can make it work.AHMED YOUNIS: And I think the majority of Muslims would agree with that. And our track record is clear, whether it is the Taliban with Buddhist temples or attacks against Christian communities in Muslim countries, we're very consistent, religious freedom is for everyone, not just for ourselves.
This will likely become one of the great debates facing society in the future. From whence do we derive our morals? Of course, it is easy to say, "religious freedom is for everyone", but why are women not permitted to show their face in public in some predominantly Muslim countries? Is such modesty not religious in origin?
Until recently, I might have believed Ahmed Younis. Perhaps I still do. Certainly, electing Hamas to power in Palestine is a frightening indicator that the extremists may outnumber the moderate or secular Muslims. But on that note, I must look to my own country, because I am equally afraid the extreme religious right may outnumber moderate or secular Americans.
And so I think everyone should ask: from whence come moral standards? Because if your answer is religion, your morals are guaranteed to be incompatible with someone else's. I think there are self-evident and universal principles that can evolve with thought into a moral system. Secular philosophy can lead to morality. We do not need a book - whether it is the Bible or the Koran - to tell us how to be moral.
Scott Adams was relatively deft with this dilemna in God's Debris. We have little or no empirical evidence to help us select between religions. Choose your book - the Bible, the Koran, a bunch of Watchtower society pamphlets or the Book of Mormon, among others. Why one and not the other? Do Christians not think Muslims are a bit crazy for their fervor? Do you not think Muslims believe Christians to be misguided at best for theirs?
I think the BBC story on escalating tension is worth a read.
"We're seeing ourselves characterised as an intolerant people or as enemies of Islam as a religion. That picture is false. Extremists and radicals who seek a clash of cultures and religions are spreading it," Mr Rasmussen said.
There is no doubt in my mind that whatever the opinion of a majority of Muslims, there is certainly everything to gain and nothing to lose for extremists to incite violence and protest among their fellows. The greater the rancor, the easier it is to fost further violence, and that is what they thrive upon.
Did you know the cartoons were originally published September 30, 2005? Even the Norweigan reprint is almost a month old now. Clearly, there are forces at work here other than natural outrage, because natural outrage would have happened sooner.
We need to be keenly aware of the demogogues who operate by preying on religious fervor domestically, just as much. To look to the Bible a moment, we must be sure there is no plank in our own eye before removing the spec of sawdust from our neighbor's eye. I've written many times - and will continue to - about the influence of the religious right on our politics and the dangers of both liberal and conservative positions on issues. One thing remains obvious to me, however: Bush is the most dangerous President to be elected in my lifetime, and perhaps ever. He has little or no respect for the Constitution, little or no respect for civil rights, and is willing to trod all over both to promote either a pro-Christian-right agenda or a pro-totalitarian agenda. He's done little or nothing to actually protect us from terrorism, since it is clear that invading other countries and fomenting resentment is not going to protect us from terrorism half as much as would strengthening our border security, creating a truth-driven intelligence community, and hardening our infrastructure to make terrorist attacks on key targets more difficult. Instead, 9/11 has been used as a red herring to incessantly expand government size and power. And the religious right is a key voting bloc that Bush would be unelectable without. So we walk into the fire as a nation.
I hope everyone, Christian, Muslim, and everyone else keeps talking about this issue and other issues. I hope we try to evaluate things based on all the information we can find. I hope we stop spinning and start paying attention and thinking. The cartoons, in a sense, are admirable. They've sparked a response that has led to an important discussion about how we all get along in a world where our beliefs will sometimes offend one another. We either need to learn to get along - and that means sometimes knowing we will be offended - or we may as well start fighting now.
]]>Agreed. As a business owner (or co-owner), I find Google ads a very attractive way to spend my dollars. I am utterly certainly about the ROI for each dollar spent. And while the ads that work in the space (Scrapbooking Supplies, which my wife sells both online and B&M) are not "cheap", they are effective and measurable. Compare that to neighborhood fliers left on doors by hand, or to back-of-magazine classifies ads or even the more expensive traditional radio, magazine, and TV ads. They're all nearly impossible to track. Moreover, they clearly do not work generally in an immediate way. My father runs a jewelry store and did extensive TV advertising. He has learned, and I have heard advertising salespeople repeat this, that you need to advertise on TV reasonably heavily for about 6 weeks before your "message" "sinks in" and people respond. Compare that to my click throughs, where the majority of successful clicks result in immediate sales, and I can also easily know who signs up for a newsletter or such and orders later, and who returns to order more times in the future.
None of this is a new line of thought, but fundamentally, *this* is why TV content producers and distributors should be falling all over themselves to do TV on demand. Basically, people should rent a cheap box that lets them get VOD. The VOD should basically give them access to all content, with either a viewing fee, a purchase fee, or an "advertising viewing" ratio. But if the system has you "sign in", then data about you and your interests and such can be used to tailor commercials for you. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that everyone wins with more targeted ads. You see a smaller number of ads which you find either aesthetically appealing, funny, or interesting. Advertisers get interested consumers and better results. Win-win.
Let me take this a step further. TVs, equipped with videophones, can voice-recognize interest.
And if you don't say anything, in 3 seconds it hops over to your content.
Can you imagine a TV that can respond to an expression of interest by a consumer and connect them to someone who can help the process along?
This could happen tomorrow. All of the technology exists now. Heck, you could skip the video and just have voice recogniition. Register your TV with your phone number. You say "operator", and your phone rings. And API could even handle interest contacts for different mediums. Download a free show for your video iPod. It says "Interested?" and you say yes or no, and the yes triggers an email/call/etc when you reconnect your iPod. (or, in a world with a wireless/cell-enabled iPod, you get a call then, or an SMS message with a number or whatever)
TV is an awesome channel for entertainment, but pay-per-click has shown it really stinks for advertising. Sure, it has reach, but it doesn't channel consumer interest well, it is difficult if not impossible to evaluate advertising effectiveness, etc. Plus, with Text ads, you can try 5 different bits of copy and google will automatically gravitate towards the one that works best. Imagine if a big TV advertiser could show 5 TV ads and the ones people "liked" automatically moved more into rotation.
I can't go as far as Cringely and actually predict any of this will happen. There's no catalyst. I expect to see a move toward direct user-supported TV in the near future. Frankly, I have to wonder why I should pay $60/mo for digital cable... I already have DSL, don't I? I should be able to get my TV over one pipe, getting just the shows I want. Assuming the pipe costs $40/mo (that's more than the $30 you can get DSL for in a lot of places now), that leaves $50/mo that phone companies could claim a big fat piece of by dislodging cable. I mean, Cable companies are offering IP based phone service - why are bells not offering IP-based TV service?
]]>Wil wrote an artcile for Salon that came out a week or so ago. Here's a quote:
The thing is, though, I know better than to bring up politics with my dad. Ever since he started listening to talk radio for hours out of the day, he's slowly lost his ability to objectively look at the facts and draw his own conclusions. If Rush, Hannity, Dennis Prager or O'Reilly say it, my dad believes it as surely as he believes anything. Thanks to this abdication of rational thinking, both of my parents completely bought into the Swift Boat liars, still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11, and recently decided to move to Montana, which my mother described as "the real America" to me and my siblings.
But his Salon essay stirred up a nest of hornets, because it turned out he had jumped to conclusions. And now, he's apologizing and clearing his parents' name with a blog post.
He titled it Nothing is More Important than Family, but I think the title is a bad choice. I don't think anyone doubts Wil loved his family. And let's be honest - if you were pondering writing an article that was more construed as a rant against the right-wing media establishment, you wouldn't necessarily want to get into another fight with your parents over what you saw as the fine details. But Wil pulls no punches in his self-flagellation:
However, it's entirely my fault, for allowing an impression of my dad to be created without thinking through the consequences of that impression, or giving him an opportunity to at the very least respond to it.I take full responsibility for bringing this grief upon my parents. I was unfair and irresponsible, and this is my effort to set things right.
Wil's newest portrayal of his father is one I recognize:
While they both do not dispute the accuracy of the Wheaton Family Christmas Incident, they took great issue with the way I described and portrayed my father. My dad isn't a Talk Radio Wingnut; in fact, I've learned that he's a proud conservative, whose values have remained consistent (and far more moderate than I understood,) even as George Bush's Republican party has abandoned him, and people like him.
In this sense, I resemble Wil. I have a father who has always been conservative. He clearly does get a lot of his information from the media and not all of it is accurate in fact or interpretation. (And of course, that's my interpretation, so my opinion about his correctness is obviously viewed through my lens) He began as a liberal - a hippie, even. He moved to Vermont, where I was born, and tried to start a commune. It was a miserable failure, because the people who latched onto the idea were looking for a place to live where they wouldn't need to work. My father began as an idealist and ended as a conservative, as he, in his words, "... cleaned shit off of farmer's watches to make ends meet". He became a watchmaker. Over the years he moved us to California, went into wholesaling jewelry findings (findings are the little accessories jewelers use making jewelry, like clasps and settings for stones). Eventually he built up his inventory and wholesaled jewelry and then opened a retail store. He worked 80, sometimes 100 hours a week. On top of that, he eventually became a very successful Amway distributor, and I watched firsthand as his ethic and guidance transformed several peoples' lives for the better.
And he became conservative. He began with nothing. He tried his experiment in unity, was taken advantage of, and turned to self-reliance and hard work, and those paid off. I don't blame his attitude. My perception for those years was that the bulk of democrats wanted to tax and spend. And this perception seems justified and in many senses, still seems justified. It turns my stomach when I read the term, "economic justice", which I still think must be code for "redistribute wealth". But by the same token, the Republicans have gone absolutely mad in the past 6 years. I was teetering on the fence in Bush vs Gore. I ended up voting for the libertarian, Harry Browne. I was in Texas, after all, and there was simply no question that Bush would carry Texas' electoral votes in '00. And frankly, I align still more as a libertarian than anything else. Fiscally conservative, and socially permissive. Do what you want if it isn't hurting anyone else. Live and let live. My libertarianism is tempered by a streak of pragmatism that the libertarian party - in its own brand of idealism - does not share. But I have been on the fence. I am, in many ways, still near the middle.
Back to the matter at hand. It is hard to not be divisive. Almost no matter who you are, someone is doing something in the sphere of politics that looks like madness. For me, it is Bush's all-out assault on civil liberties. It is the one thing I am clearly and utterly against, and it has driven me into the arms of the Democrats, who seem to be the best hope for preserving liberty with the ballot box. For my father, Bush's proposal to legalize millions of illegal immigrants made him near apoplectic.
But as I've tried to discuss things with my father, I've seen both of us benefit from thorough discussion. I've opened his eyes, I think, to the bad things the Republicans have been up to: the assault on civil liberties, the great Prescription Drug Benefit Giveaway. To say nothing of the deficit gone completely mad.
The point here, however, is this: Our perceptions are perpetually colored by our own set of assumptions, whatever those may be. Even the brightest among us often know far less than we think we know. The best route to the truth - both for ourselves and for those we'd like to convince - is to honestly and earnestly consider the other side.
Listen to the arguments. Weigh the evidence. Consider the possibility. Ask questions. Discuss things respectfully, and arm yourself with as much information as you can from all sides.
America needs you. And it doesn't need you to be an Air America junkie, or a dittohead. It does not need wingnuts or moonbats. It needs thinkers. It needs talkers. It needs people who can chat with the other side, say: we all want the same things. We all want a properous, safe, happy America. We want peace. We want our families and friends to do well. We don't want criminals or crime, unwanted pregnancies or abused children. We want a strong economy, a budget surplus, and lower taxes. We want affordable health care. But we are all going to find different paths to this sort of thing.
There will always be people on either side who are "wackos". They're going to be so dogmatic their minds can never be changed. But that is not true. I honestly think my father may not vote Republican in '08, almost regardless of who they field. (And even more likely not if they field a "spiritual successor" to Bush, assuming Bush isn't impeached in the meantime for spying on Americans). We need to learn to talk to each other about the issues without it becoming a war of dogma. And if we can't start by talking with our own parents, who can we talk to? We all have our lenses on, whatever the color. But despite those lenses, I think there is truth and wisdom to be found if we make the effort to seek it.
]]>