If “Christians” really wanted to prevent abortions, they’d encourage the use of birth control and condoms; things proven effective in reducing abortions, unlike “abstinence-only” education.

But that’s the key, it’s not about abortion, it’s about punishing women for having sex and controlling women’s agency as individuals; the moral equivalent of making them wear a burka

So Prince is dead. And with the current media-driven hysteria being the boogeyman (boogeypersons?) of transgenders in bathrooms, the overlap and juxtaposition this, and of people mourning his loss, creates a sort of absurd, but beautiful music.

Lots of calls for more gun control this week. I find it all bitterly hilarious given what’s behind it all.

The root of the argument against armed citizens is the cynical view that the balance of people are bad, untrustworthy with liberty, and that the good, trustworthy people are working for the government.

What is the magical force that turns a man unerringly good when he seeks to attain authority over his fellow citizens? Obviously no one has ever abused their power to steal from the public  or kill out of anger  or betray the Bill of Rights and use an  illegal spying apparatus for personal gratification.

Are these people outliers? I want to think so. But so are criminals. And I refuse to believe that everyone in my country is just a murderer waiting for a means and motive. That’s the argument against an armed citizenry, and it is, frankly, bullshit.

So if that’s not the case, if people aren’t just ticking time bombs teetering on the edge of homicide, then there’s no justification for this never-ending campaign that seeks to incrementally de-quill all the porcupines because they can’t tell the difference between them and wolves.

The difference between peasants and free men is that peasants are only allowed to bear arms in the service of their betters.

The bulk of feudal peasants led lives that, for the time, were safe and comfortable; as long as they served the nobility well and knew their places. But we abandoned Feudalism for a reason, and our ancestors faced all sorts of horrors and brutality at the hands of princes to do so for their children’s children: us.

Fear may be the most effective force for motivating large groups of people, but it tends to motivate people in one of two ways: to prepare for a fight, or to huddle together in the hope someone stronger will protect them.
Which group you fall into says a lot about your character.

You know, if the President just came right out and said “yeah, that stuff about chemical weapons and humanitarian aid was all BS; we’re interested in deposing Assad in order to ensure Russia doesn’t have a monopoly on oil sales to Europe”, I’m pretty sure the American people wouldn’t be as quick to roll their eyes at this whole ‪#‎Syria‬ thing.

But given the last 10 years, I don’t think anyone’s buying the narrative that America is a real-life Justice League, and with more and more people turning to the Internet instead of traditional outlets for their information, treating the public like a bunch of kids sitting around a TV on Saturday morning isn’t going to be an option much longer.

The Internet has made it much harder to wag the dog, but that apparently doesn’t stop the ass-end from trying. (Conversely, any wonder why Internet freedom is under attack from all directions right now?)

Originally posted on Facebook here

Because people can’t be trusted to run their own lives and make the best decisions for society we need a Government, which is made up of people. Anyone else see the flaw in this logic, or does being elected somehow make you a better person?

I’m just curious because either this is an argument in favor of being ruled by an aristocracy, or I should seek public office as a means of self-improvement.

Heinlein said:  “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”

Count me among the latter, because I still think Human Beings are inherently good. Am I wrong, or just not cynical enough?

This is from a speech Robert Heinlein gave in 1973 to the United States Naval Academy.  I’ve picked it up where he gets to the heart of the subject he wanted to impress upon the midshipmen; the fundamentals of morality and why patriotism is a practical matter of survival.

…why would anyone want to become a naval officer?

In the present dismal state of our culture there is little prestige attached to serving your country; recent public opinion polls place military service far down the list.

It can’t be the pay. No one gets rich on the pay. Even a 4-star admiral is paid much less than top executives in other lines. As for lower ranks the typical naval officer finds himself throughout his career just catching up from the unexpected expenses connected with the last change of duty when another change of duty causes a new financial crisis. Then, when he is about fifty, he is passed over and retires. . .but he can’t really retire because he has two kids in college and one still to go. So he has to find a job. . .and discovers that jobs for men his age are scarce and usually don’t pay well.

Working conditions? You’ll spend half your life away from your family. Your working hours? “Six days shalt thou work and do all thou art able; the seventh day the same, and pound the cable.” A forty-hour week is standard for civilians — but not for naval officers. You’ll work that forty-hour week but that’s just a starter. You’ll stand a night watch as well, and duty weekends. Then with every increase in grade your hours get longer — until at last you get a ship of your own and no longer stand watches. Instead you are on duty twenty-four hours a day. . .and you’ll sign your night order book with: “In case of doubt, do not hesitate to call me.”

I don’t know the average week’s work for a naval officer but it’s closer to sixty than to forty. I’m speaking of peacetime, of course. Under war conditions it is whatever hours are necessary — and sleep you grab when you can. Read the rest of this entry »

Google's China HQ

Ni Hao, Google?

This post on Webmaster World dealing with the recent shenanigans around Google’s Chinese venture, caught my eye. So I’m reposting it here:

What have we got so far?

Google: PR smokescreens from MV telling the main stream media that they do this for two reasons 1) censorship debate, and 2) hacking attempts on Gmail accounts. Google making https connections the default for Gmail. A revenue of $200M generated in the PRC. They threaten to uncensor the results on google.cn. (I have not seen a credible source that Google already has uncensored their results.)

The PRC: Reacts as expected, pointing to Chinese laws and equal rules for all (Internet) companies operating in China. Also they have strict laws against hacking etc etc. And they pull the plug, or will pull the plug once Google uncensors their results on google.cn. Business as usual. They have no issue with that, and they prefer Baidu over Google anyway.

Possible explanations:

1) Google has suddenly realized they can indeed be not evil and decided to pull out of the PRC. No, no, and no – this does not make sense at all. Why now? Why link it to the hacking attempts? Why not just say, “we’re done with this censorship thing” and wave good-bye? No.

2) Google are fed up with the treatment from the Chinese regime and are in dire need of positive PR in the western world who have been really upset about recent Google statements, launches and announcements. But I do not think that Google would just withdraw from one of the main future markets to get a short-lived PR value in the western world. Typically, companies never actively reduce their growth opportunities to get some positive PR. Nah.

3) Google realized that they can not compete with Baidu and decided to pull out. This could be the case, but somehow it just does not sound like Google, who certainly have the spirit to keep fighting. Also they do have the cash to keep the operations running, maybe on maintenance mode. Why give the whole thing up, when they operate in other markets where they also are not number one? Nah.

So what could be it? I have only two plausible theories what really happenend.

A) Through analysis of their massive usage data they (think they) can predict what is going to happen in PRC, i.e. they know that the tide will be turning and that the PRC will change. Soon. So they decide to pull out for the moment, trying to speed up the freedom process and to leave a positive impression in the western world AND IN CHINA. Just see those Chinese folks putting down flowers in front of the Google offices in China! They certainly do have fans over there. And when the liberation comes, Google get in again, with big hoopla and enjoy a bigger market share. — This theory is interesting, because it could be true. Google placing a bet on “change, soon” and takes the positive PR value on its way out. Could be. Still does not solve the question of the “why link all this to hacking”, but hey.

B) The Google China office had one or more sophisticated “moles” who had access to source code and/or user data, or tried to gain access to source code and/or user data. Google corporate security caught one of the moles while stealing the stuff, or found the code that should have done this. They could not identify the mole(s) and realized they have a massive security issue. Massive! Google then decided that the risk of operating an office in China is simply too high. When you can not trust your employees in such vital questions, then you have to shut the whole thing down. — This theory is the best in my view. It would explain the strange link to the hacking attempts; it would explain why the employees are (according to CNN) already on paid leave. The whole censorship discussion covers up the embarrassing facts of Google being very vulnerable. It hurts to give up China, sure. It’s a massive failure, sure. It probably throws you back years, sure. But it has to be done if you don’t want to lose the whole thing. Just imagine, if the moles had access to user data! They would need to release just a tiny sample to the press, and Google would be toast. Noone would ever trust Google with anything again, especially with the whole privacy debate right now. (From the fact that they “just” closed the office and seem to continue the discussion Chinese officials we know that no data has been compromised, so they can not be blackmailed.)

Personally, I think option (B) is the best explanation for what has been going on.

Best analysis I’ve seen of the situation. Hopefully Google does pull out of China completely, and sincerely; bottom line be damned. Given recent comments by their CEO on the issue of privacy, I’d like to think Brin beat him about the head with a “Don’t Be Evil” stick, and that they’re back to taking the motto seriously.

Because like Fox Mulder, “I want to believe” in Google.

An old friend of mine is currently living in the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  While keeping up with the goings-on in her life over there, I’ve gotten a clear sense that she’s growing progressively more frustrated with how things are done in a country run by a fundamentalist religion.  I genuinely feel for her in that predicament.

Moral pantywaist apologists notwithstanding, I would hope most clear-headed people are aware of how culturally backwards things are in any country which allows itself to be governed by something as nebulous as faith, and ruled by something as archaic as a monarch.

But my contempt for that situation leads me down a path of thought that intersects with something else that I hold in great contempt; the fact that many (most?) people have a deep-seated need to subject themselves to some form of peonage, be it governmental, ideological, religious, or all three.

I get it, life is already hard enough as it is, and it’s extremely convenient to buy a pre-packaged set of morals, laws, or beliefs.  It’s even more convenient when they’re either free, or in some cases, you’d have to literally fight not to accept them.

I’m also not putting myself above this either; I consider myself a patriot, a Skeptic, and a futurist, all labels that provide others  a certain set of expectations as to my values and actions.  However, when I do label myself, for the sake of convenience, I also make an effort to “hang a lamp” on the fact that it’s precisely the convenience factor that compels me to do so.  Few people would actually care to know anyone’s entire set of values and convictions in casual conversation.  So the act of labeling oneself is useful to allow others to get a sense of who you are at the ten-thousand-foot level.

But just because you stick a label on your forehead that reads “Libertarian”, that doesn’t require you to cast a straight-party ballot, any more than wearing Joe Snuffy’s name tag makes you Joe Snuffy.  Too many people, however, do make this mistake and confuse their self-stuck labels with their core identity, instead of using them as tools for communication.  And when this happens, you start down the road towards the dangerous kind of group-think that destroys individuality, an ultimately, individual sovereignty.

A label isn’t a brand;  you should never be so attached to your convictions that you make them permanent, inescapable, and requiring vigilant devotion. By doing so you fail to allow yourself the opportunity to examine new evidence, consider new points of view, or ultimate, even think for yourself.  You also put yourself in a position where you are obligated to defend views in the face of evidence that refutes them.

The reason this issue concerns me is because of a trend I think I see emerging.  As religious faith in the western world is on the decline, it seems to be being replaced with a religious-like attachment to another ideology.  This is most noticeable in the Skeptics movement, of which as I’ve referenced, I consider myself a part.

If you follow a lot of  “Skeptics” online discussions, you often get a sense of a “party line” to be followed, which is counter to the fundamental nature of “Skepticism” in the first place.   And when you do run into this counter-intuitive phenomenon, it can be extremely frustration.

(For the record, I’m making this criticism as more of a “heads-up”, than an assault on the Skeptics movement, lest some of the conspiracy theorists, paranomalists, or garden-variety looneys try to reference this in an attempt at validating their nonsense.)

I think I owe anyone who reads this, examples of this happening.  Unfortunately I’m pressed for time a bit on what should have been a short jotting of things bouncing around in my head at the moment.  I’ll try to revisit that later, and include my observations about the subjects on which self-labeled Skeptics likely to suspend their critical thinking as well as the types of individuals who seem prone to doing so.

But the most important thing to take away from this is that, you are not your name tag, your labels, your government, or your religion.  You are you, and when you chose to stop being you in exchange for falling in-line with a label, you renounce your individuality.   A human being is not a hive insect; cultural, spiritual, and moral laziness should never be allowed to devolve him into one.

Like many people inextricably plugged-in to the Internet, I’ve been following the (hopefully) historic events in Iran over the past several days with a combination of horror and hope. Will we get to see the birth of a new, true democracy in the Middle East, or will tyranny slam its fist down upon the people?

But if you haven’t been keeping as much of an eye on the situation, here are a few key things that bear pointing out:

Mousavi, the candidate who lost the “election”, is also the former president of Iran. Under his watch in the 80’s, Iran began its nuclear weapons program. He has, smartly, positioned himself as the defacto head of the uprising, but is nowhere near as liberal as the majority of the people that comprise this movement.

There is an apparent power struggle going on between the Mullahs who appoint candidates for election, and it’s possible that Mousavi only seeks to shift the balance of power within the current system as opposed to what many of the protesters want, which is truly free elections and representative democracy as seen in the west.

The Basij are an extra-government branch of thugs chartered to keep order in support of the hard-line elements in the regime. Ahmadinejad, or “Dinner Jacket” as he’s been not-so-lovingly referred to in many tweets/facebook posts, was once a member of this group.

“Dinner Jacket” apparently was coined by our own former president, in reference to the man’s choice of wardrobe.

60% of Iran’s population is under the age of 30, and highly tech/internet savvy.

Anonymous has offered its support in the cause of free speech and open communication, for what that’s worth.

Fox News, for the most part, has been doing a surprisingly good job of coverage while CNN appears to be toeing the line with the Iranian regime to keep their access to the country. MSNBC has taken off for the weekend and is showing prisonsploitation documentaries. The BBC has apparently been kicked out of Iran (according to the latest news).

Twitter seems to be the primary outlet for most information despite the Basij smashing computers in universities and internet cafes, and the general internet crackdown across the country.