Back in the pre-internet days of 1992, there was a trial of four Los Angeles police officers for their actions while arresting Rodney King the previous year. In my personal experience from the time (I lived in Sylmar, CA at the time - not exactly ground zero, but I could see the helicopters circling over the arrest site), I predict that the Chauvin trial in Minneapolis will follow essentially the identical script.
The state trial, despite Minnesota AG Keith Ellison's best efforts to the contrary, will end in an acquittal of Officer Chauvin due to his third-party documented compliance with Minnesota state law and Minneapolis Police Department policies and procedures in place at the time of the final arrest of George Floyd in 2020. Also like the acquitted Los Angeles police officers 30 years ago, Chauvin will be arrested within days of his acquittal by the US DoJ for violating Floyd's civil rights, even though the arrest was entirely legal, and Chauvin at the least will be convicted by a federal jury with all of his personal property preemptively seized by the US government at the time of his federal arrest.
If he's smart, Chauvin will have already begun negotiating a federal plea deal as I write this, that ends up with him being a felon, but with as little federal prison time as community service sentencing will permit. Maybe he will be able to keep some of his personal possessions.
Whatever else Derek Chauvin experiences in the rest of his life, he can be certain that it will be very, very different to anything he has experienced so far.
UPDATE 4/22/2021: If anyone needs evidence as to why I haven't won the lottery yet, herewith submission #1.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2021
SSDD
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
On Friendship
A couple of long-simmering thoughts on the topic of Friendship and relationships more generally have come to the forefront of what passes for my brain recently, so I thought I'd share.
Firstly, much as in the novel Fight Club, there are rules to Friendship in real life. The First Rule of Friendship being: "Never Lie". Not too surprisingly to anyone who has been party to pretty much any relationship with another human being, there is the Occasional Corollary to the First Rule which reads: "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!", which itself has the subsequent Supporting Directive of: "Immediately Change The Subject as compellingly as you can".
Lemme 'splain this last one.
Say your Significant Other asks you: "Does this make me look fat?" (regardless of what "this" is).
Your immediate rejoinder should be something along the lines of: "You and I both know how much thought and effort you put into your diet and fitness, and how much your fashion choices and physical appearance always reflect that. Anyway, you have the ability to make anything look good."
You see how this works? The subsequent fight will be over willingness to accept responsibility (which will be your fault too) rather than your poor (not to mention cruel) judgement. These distinctions matter farther into the future than you may believe (yet).
Unlike the (purely hypothetical, he says) example above, there are those unfortunate situations in real life, when you feel compelled as a friend to abide by Rule 1 even though you know full well that all would be so much more placid in your life if you went with the Occasional Corollary option instead. Should you find yourself in such a circumstance, bide your time until the Placatory Offering tactic becomes acceptable by both (all? who knows these days?) involved (never forgetting the non-involved who have waaay too much to say about not-their-business) parties, then present your best considered offering (and, yes, there's a strategy for getting through this process too :)).
Secondly, the issue of Intra-Species Relationship Courtesies and Considerations has brought itself to my attention - again. Particularly as these involve both genders of the species (look, this issue is complicated enough without trying to slice this particular biological pie any more finely than it comes out of the slot in the usual fashion - don't deliberately make this any harder to live through!).
With no offense intended to Mr. Bill Maher;
New Rule: Anyones personal cell phone, hand bag or wallet is theirs alone, and no one else has any reason for gettin' inside anyone elses!
Now, I understand that the cops claim an exception to this, which basically works out for the rest of us as: "even if you should somehow win this particular segment of the argument, you're still going to lose the rest of the fight, so surrendering as gracefully as you can is usually your best option". Other than the cops though, if it ain't yours, stay out of it!
Look, if my wife/girlfriend/Mother asks me to get her something out of her purse, what's going to happen is I'm going to hand her the entire bag. I don't know what's in there. I don't even want to know what's in there. Should I ever have to ask anyone to hand me my wallet (? it goes in my pocket well before the gun does), I don't think I am at all out of line, or the least bit unreasonable, to expect and insist that all that happens is that the entire wallet - contents unexamined - ends up in my hand. I also don't think it the least bit exceptional to expect such consideration from other's about my or any other cell phone that isn't their personal property (Ok, the exception that proves the rule; if you give your child something like a cell phone, it's a basic term of the transaction that you are only allowing them mutual access to whatever it is - as long as you're paying for it, it's yours too).
If you want to share content from your phone with anyone, Forward it to their email (or whatever) or just show it to them directly. Other than that, nobody has any right to access the contents of your cell phone, handbag, or wallet, and any effort to convince you otherwise should arouse immediate doubt in your mind about the desirability of keeping the person making such an argument quite so closely involved in your life.
Life is a complicated experience, involving an ever-changing matrix of competing influences to impinge upon our decision making process, the result of which often seems to make suicide an option at least briefly worth considering. With Healthy Life Extension scientific research from people like the SENS Research Foundation offering more and better treatments and therapies to consider, it seems a foregone conclusion that we can only expect an even longer time span in which to suffer the consequences of our more poorly chosen actions and statements towards our loved one's. Adherence to a few basic, simple rules should go a long way towards making that extended healthy life a much Happier one too. Never mind the children; think of yourself!
Firstly, much as in the novel Fight Club, there are rules to Friendship in real life. The First Rule of Friendship being: "Never Lie". Not too surprisingly to anyone who has been party to pretty much any relationship with another human being, there is the Occasional Corollary to the First Rule which reads: "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!", which itself has the subsequent Supporting Directive of: "Immediately Change The Subject as compellingly as you can".
Lemme 'splain this last one.
Say your Significant Other asks you: "Does this make me look fat?" (regardless of what "this" is).
Your immediate rejoinder should be something along the lines of: "You and I both know how much thought and effort you put into your diet and fitness, and how much your fashion choices and physical appearance always reflect that. Anyway, you have the ability to make anything look good."
You see how this works? The subsequent fight will be over willingness to accept responsibility (which will be your fault too) rather than your poor (not to mention cruel) judgement. These distinctions matter farther into the future than you may believe (yet).
Unlike the (purely hypothetical, he says) example above, there are those unfortunate situations in real life, when you feel compelled as a friend to abide by Rule 1 even though you know full well that all would be so much more placid in your life if you went with the Occasional Corollary option instead. Should you find yourself in such a circumstance, bide your time until the Placatory Offering tactic becomes acceptable by both (all? who knows these days?) involved (never forgetting the non-involved who have waaay too much to say about not-their-business) parties, then present your best considered offering (and, yes, there's a strategy for getting through this process too :)).
Secondly, the issue of Intra-Species Relationship Courtesies and Considerations has brought itself to my attention - again. Particularly as these involve both genders of the species (look, this issue is complicated enough without trying to slice this particular biological pie any more finely than it comes out of the slot in the usual fashion - don't deliberately make this any harder to live through!).
With no offense intended to Mr. Bill Maher;
New Rule: Anyones personal cell phone, hand bag or wallet is theirs alone, and no one else has any reason for gettin' inside anyone elses!
Now, I understand that the cops claim an exception to this, which basically works out for the rest of us as: "even if you should somehow win this particular segment of the argument, you're still going to lose the rest of the fight, so surrendering as gracefully as you can is usually your best option". Other than the cops though, if it ain't yours, stay out of it!
Look, if my wife/girlfriend/Mother asks me to get her something out of her purse, what's going to happen is I'm going to hand her the entire bag. I don't know what's in there. I don't even want to know what's in there. Should I ever have to ask anyone to hand me my wallet (? it goes in my pocket well before the gun does), I don't think I am at all out of line, or the least bit unreasonable, to expect and insist that all that happens is that the entire wallet - contents unexamined - ends up in my hand. I also don't think it the least bit exceptional to expect such consideration from other's about my or any other cell phone that isn't their personal property (Ok, the exception that proves the rule; if you give your child something like a cell phone, it's a basic term of the transaction that you are only allowing them mutual access to whatever it is - as long as you're paying for it, it's yours too).
If you want to share content from your phone with anyone, Forward it to their email (or whatever) or just show it to them directly. Other than that, nobody has any right to access the contents of your cell phone, handbag, or wallet, and any effort to convince you otherwise should arouse immediate doubt in your mind about the desirability of keeping the person making such an argument quite so closely involved in your life.
Life is a complicated experience, involving an ever-changing matrix of competing influences to impinge upon our decision making process, the result of which often seems to make suicide an option at least briefly worth considering. With Healthy Life Extension scientific research from people like the SENS Research Foundation offering more and better treatments and therapies to consider, it seems a foregone conclusion that we can only expect an even longer time span in which to suffer the consequences of our more poorly chosen actions and statements towards our loved one's. Adherence to a few basic, simple rules should go a long way towards making that extended healthy life a much Happier one too. Never mind the children; think of yourself!
Friday, March 28, 2014
Yee, Hee Hee
I predict that California state Senator Leland Yee will be post facto "discovered" to have been a state undercover agent the whole time, once the Democratic Party masseuses have there way with the "evidence".
You read it here first (I hope), but you know you've been thinking the same thing since you first heard this story.
You read it here first (I hope), but you know you've been thinking the same thing since you first heard this story.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
The Hard Part About Inalienable Rights
Glenn Reynolds points to a piece at Reason.com by Ed Krayewski and asks: "Is that the right analogy?"
As seems the usual case; yes, and no.
Yes, these are analogous as questions of political and legal debate. Both are examples of individuals abusing lawful activities in what is already legislated to be a criminal fashion.
But that's not what anybody wants to talk about in either instance.
The hard part about inalienable rights is coming to terms with the decisions individuals sometimes find themselves compelled to make. Mostly we question the choices of others, but ...
And, mostly we try (when we don't absolutely insist upon) considering those decisions in isolation, not as the difficult-choice-in-a-complex-(often hurried)-and-demanding-context-of-countervailing-options-amidst-doubts-and-uncertainties-galore they actually so often are. So, no, they are not analogous because one [Gosnell] is acting in response to a legal request (however illegal his method of response unquestionably seems to have been) and the other [Lanza] imposed his unilateral decision on an unconsulted other.
Lets get one critical aspect of what's involved here clearly out in the open; as a society, we in the United States have decreed that killing is not unlawful - only highly constrained. Indeed, it is a fundamental stipulation of the concept of "inalienable rights" that the decision to kill another person is an inherent condition of anyone who possesses such rights (and that's just for Texas; your state may have differently worded laws, but they're just as complex in practice - go look for yourself and see). As a matter of law, beyond recognition of the individual's option to conform to moral edict in purely private and personal matters, religion can play no formal role in deciding what the law will prohibit. Like the responsibility for the outcomes of our personal choices, responsibility for the consequences arising from the laws we cause to be written is ours.
Abortion is a type of killing of another human being that we as a society have chosen to sanction under stipulated circumstances. The question facing the court in Philadelphia is whether, and to what degree, Mr. Gosnell exceeded the constraints placed upon that otherwise legislatively sanctioned killing. Mr. Lanza, however, was never within the constraints of the law in his act of killing others, so the judgement he would have faced is seemingly a more straightforward issue.
In America, the law is always a matter of imposed considered judgement (anything else being a failure of law). As such, the law is itself always subject to reconsideration and evaluation, as it should in a representative form of government (I would like to argue in any form of government, but outright tyranny makes for a very slow and ... how to put this, rigorous evaluation process, usually lasting only as long as the tyrant-in-question). While individual moral judgements of both men are inextricably bound up in the process of considered judgement as to the lawfulness of their respective choice of action, religious preemptive commands have no place in American statute. We damage our society by forgetting that in moments of aroused passion in response to circumstance.
The temptation to cast moral aspersions at another for their behavior is a personal judgement; calling for a religious verdict as a matter of law is simply another form of tyranny. Justice and Tyranny are never analogous.
The case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, horrific on its own, is not helpful as a stand-in or argument in the wider debate about abortion and reproductive rights (because what he did is already illegal), just as the case of Adam Lanza, horrific on its own, is not helpful as a stand-in or argument in the wider debate about personal safety and gun rights (because what he did is already illegal).
As seems the usual case; yes, and no.
Yes, these are analogous as questions of political and legal debate. Both are examples of individuals abusing lawful activities in what is already legislated to be a criminal fashion.
But that's not what anybody wants to talk about in either instance.
The hard part about inalienable rights is coming to terms with the decisions individuals sometimes find themselves compelled to make. Mostly we question the choices of others, but ...
And, mostly we try (when we don't absolutely insist upon) considering those decisions in isolation, not as the difficult-choice-in-a-complex-(often hurried)-and-demanding-context-of-countervailing-options-amidst-doubts-and-uncertainties-galore they actually so often are. So, no, they are not analogous because one [Gosnell] is acting in response to a legal request (however illegal his method of response unquestionably seems to have been) and the other [Lanza] imposed his unilateral decision on an unconsulted other.
Lets get one critical aspect of what's involved here clearly out in the open; as a society, we in the United States have decreed that killing is not unlawful - only highly constrained. Indeed, it is a fundamental stipulation of the concept of "inalienable rights" that the decision to kill another person is an inherent condition of anyone who possesses such rights (and that's just for Texas; your state may have differently worded laws, but they're just as complex in practice - go look for yourself and see). As a matter of law, beyond recognition of the individual's option to conform to moral edict in purely private and personal matters, religion can play no formal role in deciding what the law will prohibit. Like the responsibility for the outcomes of our personal choices, responsibility for the consequences arising from the laws we cause to be written is ours.
Abortion is a type of killing of another human being that we as a society have chosen to sanction under stipulated circumstances. The question facing the court in Philadelphia is whether, and to what degree, Mr. Gosnell exceeded the constraints placed upon that otherwise legislatively sanctioned killing. Mr. Lanza, however, was never within the constraints of the law in his act of killing others, so the judgement he would have faced is seemingly a more straightforward issue.
In America, the law is always a matter of imposed considered judgement (anything else being a failure of law). As such, the law is itself always subject to reconsideration and evaluation, as it should in a representative form of government (I would like to argue in any form of government, but outright tyranny makes for a very slow and ... how to put this, rigorous evaluation process, usually lasting only as long as the tyrant-in-question). While individual moral judgements of both men are inextricably bound up in the process of considered judgement as to the lawfulness of their respective choice of action, religious preemptive commands have no place in American statute. We damage our society by forgetting that in moments of aroused passion in response to circumstance.
The temptation to cast moral aspersions at another for their behavior is a personal judgement; calling for a religious verdict as a matter of law is simply another form of tyranny. Justice and Tyranny are never analogous.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Is Marriage Unconstitutional?
This began as a comment at The Conservative Sociologist in response to her reaction to the GMM (Gay Marriage Movement). She isn't opposed, but finds the logic and media presentation to be flawed and annoying - she writes an interesting blog, you should check it out.
What I said was:
Marriage as it is commonly practiced in the US is an historical relic from a time when the state and church were functionally combined; the US constitution explicitly forbids state and religious union (I know that's not a direct quote). The US Supreme Court has a history of straining social camels through the constitutional needles eye, so that isn't a realistic objection. If all that be true, to be constitutionally consistent shouldn't we either amend the document to grant explicit exception to the "no established religion" prohibition regarding the institution of marriage or write a law that makes formal the distinction between the religious commitment of marriage and the issue(s) of property rights and inheritance and all the rest?
Along with everybody else (to include Mrs. [and Mr. for all of that] Supreme Court Justice), I think it a given the gay folks amongst us will be just as much up in arms about such a ruling as pretty much everybody else will be; they are the stars of the marriage movement at the moment, in this circumstance they aren't any different from their parents and that can't be what equality is all about can it?
I expect this is all built on very shaky constitutional ground and has long since been resolved, but it applies an interesting filter to the questions surrounding marriage nonetheless, I think.
What I said was:
What I rarely see discussed is the unconstitutional nature of government regulated marriage in the USA.
In English Common Law (the law of the land when what would become the USA was still British colonies) the State is the Church and thus there is no conflict between the governments regulation and sanction of an expressly religious ceremony. The US Constitution explicitly forbids government sanction or recognition of religion. On its face, this would seem to make (federal of a certainty and arguably state as well) government involvement in marriage unconstitutional as a matter of constitutional prohibition.
Making this all so much about anything other than the gender of either participant is the acknowledged transfer of ownership of real property (to include at least one of the participants for the historical purists amongst us) that is part and parcel of the religious ceremony in contention. I don't know about a crisis necessarily, but it is certain that no government will waste an opportunity to claim taxes and fees so I don't expect the Supreme Court to take up this issue any time soon.
Of course, anyone seriously advancing this argument can be certain pretty much everyone will have the knives out in response ... literally; virtually all of human society bases property rights and law on this explicitly religious arrangement, whatever particular religion may be the facilitator.
To be constitutionally consistent in the USA, marriage would have to be strictly a religious commitment and property rights associated with that arrangement would have to be explicitly made a contractual and entirely separate agreement between the involved parties, whether part of a civil union type contract or otherwise.
I think we can take it as a given that the GMM will be among the most fervently opposed to this question ever arising.
Marriage as it is commonly practiced in the US is an historical relic from a time when the state and church were functionally combined; the US constitution explicitly forbids state and religious union (I know that's not a direct quote). The US Supreme Court has a history of straining social camels through the constitutional needles eye, so that isn't a realistic objection. If all that be true, to be constitutionally consistent shouldn't we either amend the document to grant explicit exception to the "no established religion" prohibition regarding the institution of marriage or write a law that makes formal the distinction between the religious commitment of marriage and the issue(s) of property rights and inheritance and all the rest?
Along with everybody else (to include Mrs. [and Mr. for all of that] Supreme Court Justice), I think it a given the gay folks amongst us will be just as much up in arms about such a ruling as pretty much everybody else will be; they are the stars of the marriage movement at the moment, in this circumstance they aren't any different from their parents and that can't be what equality is all about can it?
I expect this is all built on very shaky constitutional ground and has long since been resolved, but it applies an interesting filter to the questions surrounding marriage nonetheless, I think.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Going For The Gold
Via Drudge I learn from this AP story that some private US domestic organisation claims to have "stripped" Lance Armstrong of all of his 7 Tour de France titles - an authority actually exercised by the International Cycling Union. The USADA also claims authority to revoke an International Olympic Committee authorized Bronze Medal awarded to Armstrong for his (carefully drug monitored) performance in the 2000 Olympics, as well as "... any awards, event titles and cash earnings."
I think I begin to smell a motive for all this.
If the USADA does succeed in claiming for it's own all of Lance Armstrong's "earnings" over the course of his sports career, how much of his cancer foundations monies (reportedly some $500+ million) count as his earnings?
Talk about going for the gold.
I think I begin to smell a motive for all this.
If the USADA does succeed in claiming for it's own all of Lance Armstrong's "earnings" over the course of his sports career, how much of his cancer foundations monies (reportedly some $500+ million) count as his earnings?
Talk about going for the gold.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Picture Of War Crime Justice
At the very end of his Dec. 22 Chaos Manor post, Jerry Pournelle links to a Treppenwitz post, now several months old, which examines a famous photo from the Vietnam War. Therein blogger David Bogner reviews some of the lesser known facts surrounding both the picture itself and people's perception of the recorded image.
All of that is interesting, yet the single most operant fact that contributed to the circumstance playing out as it was recorded at the time is never directly mentioned.
Without recounting the Treppenwitz post, the basic facts are: in 1968 the Communist Viet Cong/Viet Minh insurgent forces staged extreme acts of violence in violation of a negotiated truce throughout much of then-South Vietnam. Captured in the act of mass murder, one of these VC was summarily tried and executed by the military and civil police commander for the city and military district of Siagon (the city since re-named as Ho Chi Minh City). This summary execution was captured on both still and motion photography, the still image probably being the more historically famous of the two.
Here's the thing; the executed man (formally Captain Bay Lop, South Vietnamese Communist Party Army, Viet Minh) was properly judged and sentenced "in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention (aka Laws of Armed Conflict) regarding "Armed Partisans", " civilian combatant s", and "crimes against non-combatants". Were an American or other NATO officer to be presented with an insurgent in Afghanistan captured committing the same crimes, he would be equally in accordance with the law (negotiated treaty having force of same in the USA) in also issuing a summary judgement and execution. We would also subsequently crucify him too.
We cry about how terrible something is, empower someone to impose our considered will upon any perpetrator of that thing, and then cry in horror that we didn't mean for what then happens to take place, all while we set out to destroy those who did our bidding in our name. Police, soldiers, politicians; you name it, the list is virtually endless. We put people in a position to act with our authority, then refuse to accept responsibility for the predictable results of our decision. If we want honest and open enforcement of our societal decisions, we must be prepared to accept responsibility for what those we so empower do as a result. Further, if we want an open and honest society (government, law enforcement, whatever) we must judge all things - not least ourselves - just as openly and honestly.
In executing Capt. Lop, South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan was photographed performing his sworn duty in an entirely lawful manner. The honest image of that honorable act was subsequently used in deliberate campaigns of lies and misdirection, both here in the United States and elsewhere, which are themselves symptoms of what still ails American society - possibly fatally. We very well may not be able to elect ourselves out of our present national condition, but I suggest Gen. Loans experience is instructive of the consequences if we don't.
My thanks to Jerry Pournelle for this timely reminder at the outset of our latest national election year. Sometimes, harsh facts are best illustrated by harsh images.
Merry Christmas.
All of that is interesting, yet the single most operant fact that contributed to the circumstance playing out as it was recorded at the time is never directly mentioned.
Without recounting the Treppenwitz post, the basic facts are: in 1968 the Communist Viet Cong/Viet Minh insurgent forces staged extreme acts of violence in violation of a negotiated truce throughout much of then-South Vietnam. Captured in the act of mass murder, one of these VC was summarily tried and executed by the military and civil police commander for the city and military district of Siagon (the city since re-named as Ho Chi Minh City). This summary execution was captured on both still and motion photography, the still image probably being the more historically famous of the two.
Here's the thing; the executed man (formally Captain Bay Lop, South Vietnamese Communist Party Army, Viet Minh) was properly judged and sentenced "in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention (aka Laws of Armed Conflict) regarding "Armed Partisans", " civilian combatant s", and "crimes against non-combatants". Were an American or other NATO officer to be presented with an insurgent in Afghanistan captured committing the same crimes, he would be equally in accordance with the law (negotiated treaty having force of same in the USA) in also issuing a summary judgement and execution. We would also subsequently crucify him too.
We cry about how terrible something is, empower someone to impose our considered will upon any perpetrator of that thing, and then cry in horror that we didn't mean for what then happens to take place, all while we set out to destroy those who did our bidding in our name. Police, soldiers, politicians; you name it, the list is virtually endless. We put people in a position to act with our authority, then refuse to accept responsibility for the predictable results of our decision. If we want honest and open enforcement of our societal decisions, we must be prepared to accept responsibility for what those we so empower do as a result. Further, if we want an open and honest society (government, law enforcement, whatever) we must judge all things - not least ourselves - just as openly and honestly.
In executing Capt. Lop, South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan was photographed performing his sworn duty in an entirely lawful manner. The honest image of that honorable act was subsequently used in deliberate campaigns of lies and misdirection, both here in the United States and elsewhere, which are themselves symptoms of what still ails American society - possibly fatally. We very well may not be able to elect ourselves out of our present national condition, but I suggest Gen. Loans experience is instructive of the consequences if we don't.
My thanks to Jerry Pournelle for this timely reminder at the outset of our latest national election year. Sometimes, harsh facts are best illustrated by harsh images.
Merry Christmas.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Just Bad Strategy
Via Say Uncle comes notice of recent events in Houston (actually, the north-west outskirts of the city).
Leaving for another time the whole issue of structuring a war so as to inflict the greatest amount of damage upon your own territory and people, let's focus our attention on what is reported in the Houston Chronicle story linked above and some of the known behavior of the participants mentioned there-in.
Skipping right past the obvious willingness of US law enforcement officers to resort to apparently unrestricted rules of engagement as regards their own firearms, not to mention their shameless willingness to place a non-LEO citizen in such an obvious high profile target position, we have self-identified Mexican national criminal gang members operating within the US just as they are accustomed to doing in Mexico.
So let's look at that for a moment. Both of the major gangs operating in N. Mexico routinely target law enforcement personnel (and their families) who display even the slightest willingness to oppose their activities. The newspaper makes a good effort to clearly identify as many of the cops (or at the least their agency) involved in this incident as could be fit into the story.
How long can we expect to wait for the news report on the execution of any of these officers and/or their family members by other elements of the Zetas as is that group's long established practice?
What might the 1st Amendment consequences be throughout the United States as a result of such an obvious occurrence?
What is the likelihood of such an organisation (Zetas) being willing to spread cash around to politicians and senior cops (pardon the redundancy) so as to not overload their limited personnel's ability to inflict damage on an enemy without interfering with "business"?
Any "strategy" that doesn't clearly articulate both recognition of obvious problems like these as well as obviate them via conceptual structural organisation is an exercise in deliberate failure. Or a false-flag operation to disguise some other intended objective, depending on your preferred flavor of kool-aid or hat materials.
The cops named in this story (along with their families) are now all under death sentence per long established Zetas protocol and the Houston Chronicle has obligingly provided the initial target list for that groups all-too-experienced killers with the willing cooperation of thetargets police themselves.
Well done all.
The only "improvement" this story could have is if it should turn out that Fast & Furious guns (those provided to Mexican drug gangs with the active connivance of US federal law enforcement) were used in this gun fight too.
This is all the fault of ordinary American's unwillingness to refrain from any activity their government decides they shouldn't be doing, you understand, so take up your share of the blame and send more money to your government as restitution for your failure as a citizen.
Or not.
The mission was supposed to be a textbook “controlled delivery” — a routine trap by law enforcement officers using a secret operative posing as a truck driver to bust drug traffickers when their narcotics are delivered to a rendezvous point.
Instead, things spun out of control. Shortly before the marijuana delivery was to be made Monday, three SUVs carrying alleged Zetas Cartel gunmen seemingly came out of nowhere and cut off the tanker truck as it rumbled through northwestern Harris County ...
Leaving for another time the whole issue of structuring a war so as to inflict the greatest amount of damage upon your own territory and people, let's focus our attention on what is reported in the Houston Chronicle story linked above and some of the known behavior of the participants mentioned there-in.
Skipping right past the obvious willingness of US law enforcement officers to resort to apparently unrestricted rules of engagement as regards their own firearms, not to mention their shameless willingness to place a non-LEO citizen in such an obvious high profile target position, we have self-identified Mexican national criminal gang members operating within the US just as they are accustomed to doing in Mexico.
So let's look at that for a moment. Both of the major gangs operating in N. Mexico routinely target law enforcement personnel (and their families) who display even the slightest willingness to oppose their activities. The newspaper makes a good effort to clearly identify as many of the cops (or at the least their agency) involved in this incident as could be fit into the story.
How long can we expect to wait for the news report on the execution of any of these officers and/or their family members by other elements of the Zetas as is that group's long established practice?
What might the 1st Amendment consequences be throughout the United States as a result of such an obvious occurrence?
What is the likelihood of such an organisation (Zetas) being willing to spread cash around to politicians and senior cops (pardon the redundancy) so as to not overload their limited personnel's ability to inflict damage on an enemy without interfering with "business"?
Any "strategy" that doesn't clearly articulate both recognition of obvious problems like these as well as obviate them via conceptual structural organisation is an exercise in deliberate failure. Or a false-flag operation to disguise some other intended objective, depending on your preferred flavor of kool-aid or hat materials.
The cops named in this story (along with their families) are now all under death sentence per long established Zetas protocol and the Houston Chronicle has obligingly provided the initial target list for that groups all-too-experienced killers with the willing cooperation of the
Well done all.
The only "improvement" this story could have is if it should turn out that Fast & Furious guns (those provided to Mexican drug gangs with the active connivance of US federal law enforcement) were used in this gun fight too.
This is all the fault of ordinary American's unwillingness to refrain from any activity their government decides they shouldn't be doing, you understand, so take up your share of the blame and send more money to your government as restitution for your failure as a citizen.
Or not.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Not-Fisking Phil Bowermaster
Phil Bowermaster is the (co- ?) creator of The Speculist blog, co-host of Fast Forward Radio and now the on-line "voice" of the Zapoint company. I have been a long-time commenter on The Speculist as have Phil and his blog-partner Stephen on my blog; Phil has even gotten desperate for interview guests had me as a guest on Fast Forward Radio. He and I have a shared context, so I'm confident he won't be offended by my adopting the utility of the more normally offensive form this post's structure has admittedly been drawn from.
In his Transparency Revolutionary persona, Phil posted a complex viewpoint on secrecy and transparency that made reference to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Before getting into Phil's post, let me take this opportunity to make clear that I personally regard Mr. Assange as being repulsive, self-aggrandising scum deserving the worst treatment humanly possible for his abusive betrayal of other's safety merely to stroke his own ego and financially better himself. As he has operated it to-date, Wikileaks and all who participate in that great betrayal deserve the professional attentions of Seal Team Six at their next opportunity.
I'm widely known to be an easy-going guy though, so perhaps I understate my feelings.
Phil wrote:
Right you are Phil; it's nonsense on stilts! Facebook is an accumulation of unsourced data points that might by correlated to indicate potential (and extremely tentative) conclusions to anyone willing to put forth the time and work necessary to structure the data to some unintended (by Facebook and it's users) purpose.
A spy searches out data that has been deliberately obscured. In the Facebook example, a spy would spend extensive resources searching for the data concealed by the self-posted data available to anyone who logged on to the site. I am confident this is not what Mr. Assange refers to, so "spy" is entirely misleading as is his description of the nature of the data made available by Facebook's users.
Actually, as it's structured Facebook is at best a collection of data that could have intelligence value in an extremely precise application by any party willing to search out those statistically few data points of relative value to the express purpose. Uncle Sugar may very well have access to every piece of information it could possibly want about you and in all likelihood wouldn't ever know it did unless the .gov was already looking at you beforehand and knew to search for data specific to you. Otherwise, we're all securely lost in the daticular sea of confusion that is Facebook.
Other than the potential for data search convenience once a specific data sequence has been identified, Facebook is a nightmare of data overload.
And here we come to the point of contention.
Just in passing (and I am far from the first to make this observation), I notice Herr Assange - and Wikileaks more generally - seem to have the decidedly Circumstantialist policy of not revealing the secrets of those who have the reputation of actually killing those who do so. {cough}Putin{cough}
That out of the way, the US government is, at least in design, an extension of the citizens of that country. Even if only to the degree that can still be said to be true, the secrets he/they brute about are mine! The US federal government is a deliberately crafted construct intended to permit the greatest opportunity for expression of all the citizenry's interests in all of their often gloriously contradictory intent. If Mr. Assange wishes to take active part in adjusting that construct, he should take out citizenship, otherwise I am in danger of agreeing with Vice-President Biden and the psychic shock of that occurance isn't to be contemplated.
In his view, government (and particularly intelligence agencies) represent a class of universal, indiscriminate exploiters of information. Yes. Yes they are. In fact, I would go so far as to say that is one of the deliberate and designed-in purposes of the US federal government expressly for the benefit of the US citizenry at large. True "whistle-blowers" work to make sure the data exploitation doesn't get directed against the citizens by their own government - who, it should be acknowledged, is expected to exploit everybody else (secretly, of course). Working to defeat this function is one of the actions taken by an active enemy of said country and it's citizens.
Just sayin'.
exposing corruption to the light of day is a good and necessary thing. Disagree on principle. Exposing corruption may well be a just and necessary thing, but "good" can only be derived from the context within which an action takes place. Exposing someone for stealing to feed his/her family (receiving food stamps fraudulently, say) would be Just, but precious little Good would come of it.
"Justice" and "Goodness" are synonyms only to those who impose judgement upon others, which is not the same thing as judging something for one's self. This may seem a pedantic point of distinction, but it remains an important distinction nonetheless, I submit. Without a fixed meaning applied to concepts like language, human civilisation fails.
Wikileaks "power" is the direct result of the degree of use others make of it, not some factor inherent to the structural model. If, as has been charged, some soldier hadn't violated his oath of service, Wikileaks wouldn't have access to the data it has cooperated in betraying, ergo Wikileaks would have nothing to leak on it's own. Wikileaks' only "power" is it's promise of betrayal. Betrayal of those who confide in it. Betrayal of the trust of those who's data is stolen.
Let me conclude by stating that I hold Julian Assange in such low regard not due to my love of government intrusion or fondness for data classification protocols, but rather due to his unrepentant and deliberate disregard for the impact his actions have on those who's lives are part and parcel of the data he exposes so indiscriminately. Not so much for the individual actors, those who are knowingly participants in that which Assange reveals (though they are equally deserving of having their trust respected), but more for those associated with them, their families and other associates. All these and more are actively endangered just so Julian Assange can have me typing his name onto my computer screen (among other claims to infamy). Perhaps even more than all of that though, Julian Assange deserves contempt for his desecration of the human condition expressed in the word "trust". In my view, people everywhere are more suspicious of each other, and less generous of forgiveness, as a direct result of Assange's Wikileaks debasement of trust, and for this most of all I despise him and all his works.
The reality is that every decision to disclose or withhold information involves a trade-off of risks and benefits. This.
Colored by the realisation that all people (as individuals or in organised fashion) work to achieve advantage for themselves, the gains realised through transparency will always need to be balanced by the advantage gained from closely held knowledge as well.
Which is just another way of saying what Phil said in closing.
UPDATE: The one time I don't check Instapundit first, he has this bit of Facebook relevance on offer. Talk about your "spy machine". ;-)
In his Transparency Revolutionary persona, Phil posted a complex viewpoint on secrecy and transparency that made reference to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Before getting into Phil's post, let me take this opportunity to make clear that I personally regard Mr. Assange as being repulsive, self-aggrandising scum deserving the worst treatment humanly possible for his abusive betrayal of other's safety merely to stroke his own ego and financially better himself. As he has operated it to-date, Wikileaks and all who participate in that great betrayal deserve the professional attentions of Seal Team Six at their next opportunity.
I'm widely known to be an easy-going guy though, so perhaps I understate my feelings.
Phil wrote:
The Spy Machine and Absolutes
Posted on May 3, 2011 by Phil
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is known for having strong opinions about things, e.g.:
Wikileaks Founder: Facebook is the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented
Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence.”
I don’t think that’s just hyperbole.
Right you are Phil; it's nonsense on stilts! Facebook is an accumulation of unsourced data points that might by correlated to indicate potential (and extremely tentative) conclusions to anyone willing to put forth the time and work necessary to structure the data to some unintended (by Facebook and it's users) purpose.
A spy searches out data that has been deliberately obscured. In the Facebook example, a spy would spend extensive resources searching for the data concealed by the self-posted data available to anyone who logged on to the site. I am confident this is not what Mr. Assange refers to, so "spy" is entirely misleading as is his description of the nature of the data made available by Facebook's users.
Putting aside the question of whether the US government has unhindered or even special express access to the Facebook database, such a collection of data is a tremendous intelligence tool and is bound to be used as such. Before Facebook, Google was the most appalling spy machine ever built. A decade or so ago, AOL was. Before that it was email. A century ago, it might well have been claimed that the telephone directory was.
Actually, as it's structured Facebook is at best a collection of data that could have intelligence value in an extremely precise application by any party willing to search out those statistically few data points of relative value to the express purpose. Uncle Sugar may very well have access to every piece of information it could possibly want about you and in all likelihood wouldn't ever know it did unless the .gov was already looking at you beforehand and knew to search for data specific to you. Otherwise, we're all securely lost in the daticular sea of confusion that is Facebook.
Other than the potential for data search convenience once a specific data sequence has been identified, Facebook is a nightmare of data overload.
Assange is something of an absolutist when it comes to transparency. The defining principal behind Wikileaks is that any information that has been deemed restricted and that can be published…should be published. Assange is the universal, indiscriminate whistle-blower. In his view, government (and particularly intelligence agencies) represent a class of universal, indiscriminate exploiters of information.
And here we come to the point of contention.
Just in passing (and I am far from the first to make this observation), I notice Herr Assange - and Wikileaks more generally - seem to have the decidedly Circumstantialist policy of not revealing the secrets of those who have the reputation of actually killing those who do so. {cough}Putin{cough}
That out of the way, the US government is, at least in design, an extension of the citizens of that country. Even if only to the degree that can still be said to be true, the secrets he/they brute about are mine! The US federal government is a deliberately crafted construct intended to permit the greatest opportunity for expression of all the citizenry's interests in all of their often gloriously contradictory intent. If Mr. Assange wishes to take active part in adjusting that construct, he should take out citizenship, otherwise I am in danger of agreeing with Vice-President Biden and the psychic shock of that occurance isn't to be contemplated.
In his view, government (and particularly intelligence agencies) represent a class of universal, indiscriminate exploiters of information. Yes. Yes they are. In fact, I would go so far as to say that is one of the deliberate and designed-in purposes of the US federal government expressly for the benefit of the US citizenry at large. True "whistle-blowers" work to make sure the data exploitation doesn't get directed against the citizens by their own government - who, it should be acknowledged, is expected to exploit everybody else (secretly, of course). Working to defeat this function is one of the actions taken by an active enemy of said country and it's citizens.
Just sayin'.
For those of us who aren’t transparency absolutists, the world looks a little murkier. I agree with Assange that exposing corruption to the light of day is a good and necessary thing. I also agree that the government’s rather covetous attitude towards our rapidly diminishing private information is a cause for concern–if not alarm.
exposing corruption to the light of day is a good and necessary thing. Disagree on principle. Exposing corruption may well be a just and necessary thing, but "good" can only be derived from the context within which an action takes place. Exposing someone for stealing to feed his/her family (receiving food stamps fraudulently, say) would be Just, but precious little Good would come of it.
"Justice" and "Goodness" are synonyms only to those who impose judgement upon others, which is not the same thing as judging something for one's self. This may seem a pedantic point of distinction, but it remains an important distinction nonetheless, I submit. Without a fixed meaning applied to concepts like language, human civilisation fails.
When I look at Facebook, I see a lot of things, but I don’t know that a “spy machine” is among them. Nor can a look at Wikileaks and see an unmitigated good. (I don’t doubt that Wikileaks is powerful, however, and likely to become more so.)
Wikileaks "power" is the direct result of the degree of use others make of it, not some factor inherent to the structural model. If, as has been charged, some soldier hadn't violated his oath of service, Wikileaks wouldn't have access to the data it has cooperated in betraying, ergo Wikileaks would have nothing to leak on it's own. Wikileaks' only "power" is it's promise of betrayal. Betrayal of those who confide in it. Betrayal of the trust of those who's data is stolen.
I can see the appeal of the absolutist mindset. Everything is so tidy; there are no difficult choices to make. The government should never conceal any information, and any that is concealed should be revealed. Any government interest in personal information is, by definition, not legitimate and to be opposed. And, of course, any large collection of personal information is nothing more than an opportunity for exploitation.
Those ideas are close enough to the truth to be appealing, but far enough from it to be dangerous. The reality is that every decision to disclose or withhold information involves a trade-off of risks and benefits. There is frequently ambiguity around who owns any given piece of information, who is entitled to know it, and who benefits either from its concealment or disclosure.
The absolutist approach leads ultimately not to transparency but to a kind of information anarchy. The element of trust is what’s missing both from closed organizations and societies and from the worldview of the transparency absolutists. Real transparency is all about leveraging the power of openness and authenticity within a complex and often ambiguous framework that we know as “the real world.” A transparent society or organization is self-aware, self-directed, and self-optimizing in a way that a low-trust society or organization never could be.
Let me conclude by stating that I hold Julian Assange in such low regard not due to my love of government intrusion or fondness for data classification protocols, but rather due to his unrepentant and deliberate disregard for the impact his actions have on those who's lives are part and parcel of the data he exposes so indiscriminately. Not so much for the individual actors, those who are knowingly participants in that which Assange reveals (though they are equally deserving of having their trust respected), but more for those associated with them, their families and other associates. All these and more are actively endangered just so Julian Assange can have me typing his name onto my computer screen (among other claims to infamy). Perhaps even more than all of that though, Julian Assange deserves contempt for his desecration of the human condition expressed in the word "trust". In my view, people everywhere are more suspicious of each other, and less generous of forgiveness, as a direct result of Assange's Wikileaks debasement of trust, and for this most of all I despise him and all his works.
The reality is that every decision to disclose or withhold information involves a trade-off of risks and benefits. This.
Colored by the realisation that all people (as individuals or in organised fashion) work to achieve advantage for themselves, the gains realised through transparency will always need to be balanced by the advantage gained from closely held knowledge as well.
Which is just another way of saying what Phil said in closing.
UPDATE: The one time I don't check Instapundit first, he has this bit of Facebook relevance on offer. Talk about your "spy machine". ;-)
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Law? It's For The Little People
So, will this little incident disqualify Tarrant Co. from participation in the court jury process as it does for Texas citizens? Not only is this multiple counts of "fraud by check", it's serial attempts as well. As we all hear every time we appear for jury service, even instances when the check writer doesn't actually receive trial is the equivalent of conviction for the purposes of jury duty qualification.
So, is the court above the law it exists to adjudicate?
So, is the court above the law it exists to adjudicate?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Conservative = Conspiracy?
Much to Alan's proclaimed mystification, I'm a fan of Vicious Circle and greatly enjoy the interaction of the gun blogging "characters" who directly participate. As a result, I tend to read their personal blogs frequently as well. Most of the time they each tend to be fairly consistent with their "on air" persona's and intellectual positions. And I must confess, I've long suspected that Alan was a little more "out there" (in the Alex Jones/George Noory tradition) than he was want to let on. As evidence of this, his propagation of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory as "Conservatism".
Not only is this patently false as history, it completely distorts both the concept of "money" along with that of "conservative".
Because some Hollywierd Left Out takes the opportunity his flapping in the breeze on the backside of Andrew Breitbart's coattails provides him doesn't make the result even remotely true. Please, Alan, tell me that you aren't serious about any of this - most particularly the cheap and over-done rip off of the whole "300" meme at the end?
I find it hard to believe that any serious person, particularly one who champions individual firearm ownership and usage, would even consider for a moment the obvious logical fallacy in the whole "gold = money" hysteria. I can't believe, Alan, that you would seriously argue that the gun is the civil right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution; why then would you allow yourself to even appear to argue that one of the many manifestations (a particular refined metal) of the intellectual concept of money actually is the concept itself?
Added to all that, do you even realise, Alan, how you have positioned yourself as a practitioner of one of the oldest and most frequently disproved racist libels of human history? Red Shield? Rotts Schield? Rothschild? You're not seriously going to promote "The Evil Jew Banker" as being in any way equivalent to "true conservative values", are you Alan?
And please don't think for a moment just taking my word on either of the preceding two paragraphs. Read for yourself what Niall Ferguson (that would be the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and not some other one) has to say on all of that in his quite readable The Ascent Of Money.
Want to argue means and methods for keeping money a transparent and measurable allotment of value? Have at it, I'd love to take part, but not if the premise is in any way based on myth, slander or mysticism (all common attributes of the "gold is money" fabulists position). Here's an opening gambit: In what ways are variously refined metal's monetary position equivalent to the historic claim of Roman Catholic Church doctrinal claims of primacy in all questions having to do with religious or ethical debate?
The logical inconsistencies alone will keep you occupied for some time, I predict, but the answer is quite simple and direct.
Not only is this patently false as history, it completely distorts both the concept of "money" along with that of "conservative".
Because some Hollywierd Left Out takes the opportunity his flapping in the breeze on the backside of Andrew Breitbart's coattails provides him doesn't make the result even remotely true. Please, Alan, tell me that you aren't serious about any of this - most particularly the cheap and over-done rip off of the whole "300" meme at the end?
I find it hard to believe that any serious person, particularly one who champions individual firearm ownership and usage, would even consider for a moment the obvious logical fallacy in the whole "gold = money" hysteria. I can't believe, Alan, that you would seriously argue that the gun is the civil right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution; why then would you allow yourself to even appear to argue that one of the many manifestations (a particular refined metal) of the intellectual concept of money actually is the concept itself?
Added to all that, do you even realise, Alan, how you have positioned yourself as a practitioner of one of the oldest and most frequently disproved racist libels of human history? Red Shield? Rotts Schield? Rothschild? You're not seriously going to promote "The Evil Jew Banker" as being in any way equivalent to "true conservative values", are you Alan?
And please don't think for a moment just taking my word on either of the preceding two paragraphs. Read for yourself what Niall Ferguson (that would be the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and not some other one) has to say on all of that in his quite readable The Ascent Of Money.
Want to argue means and methods for keeping money a transparent and measurable allotment of value? Have at it, I'd love to take part, but not if the premise is in any way based on myth, slander or mysticism (all common attributes of the "gold is money" fabulists position). Here's an opening gambit: In what ways are variously refined metal's monetary position equivalent to the historic claim of Roman Catholic Church doctrinal claims of primacy in all questions having to do with religious or ethical debate?
The logical inconsistencies alone will keep you occupied for some time, I predict, but the answer is quite simple and direct.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Are they trying to start a fight?
Yes, they are Tam. And the way they win is to get you to swing first.
This is basic classical strategy, folks. When forced to engage an enemy within a defined boundary (like a national border), every effort must be taken to provoke as many localized incidents as possible so as to prevent formation of an organised and unified opposition. Especially when attacking from a position of (societal) dominance, it is desirable to incite actions in response to which exceeding established societal constraints and limitations can be argued as imposed necessity. The more extreme the enemy (that would be our fellow citizens, you understand) can be portrayed to be, the easier it is to claim the rightness of whatever behavior needs justification. Claiming the moral high ground isn't enough, being acknowledged as being in the ethical and moral right is mandatory for the ultimate legitimacy of any "victorious" claimant.
Do you know why fascism ultimately failed following WW II? Because the Jews held the moral high ground 'till the gasping, fiery end and were acknowledged as having done so. How many of us are prepared to go to such an equivalent extreme in order to "restore the Constitution" or "show that socialist _______ (name of politician of your preference here) what's what"?
Have you - not just you personally, Tam - have we taken a moment to consider just who it is we are most likely to violently confront "come the revolution"? It won't be Judge George Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, some bureaucracy, or any politician; no, it's going to be the people specifically employed to "interface" with the public. You know, the cops. With the fire fighters and EMS types very quickly to follow.
Take a look at the riots in the LA area back in 1992. While the fuzz was all forted up during the first 36 - 48 hours of the thing, the FD and EMS were regularly shot at (and even occasionally hit). Persistent denial of authority's intrusion into disputed territory is one of the most commonly chosen tactical errors known. I say error because the simple fact of control of a region being visibly/publicly disputed is sufficient to undermine authority's claims thereon; actively engaging them (especially from within the boundaries of that region) on their own terms thereafter is a recipe for defeat in detail.
Are we really prepared to accept the almost certainly utterly insignificant nature of the incident(s) that will spark off the conflagration? It won't be the next act of further infringement on our rights itself, it will be some cop's trying to "do his duty" afterwards that has Joe and Jane Six-Pack going off. Maybe the FBI "... tagging you like a migrating harp seal every time you want to run to the 7-11 for a bag of chips, and warrant be damned" or just Officer Random Example serving a subpoena. All without any of us going anywhere near a Costco you will note.
Before this goes too much further, might I suggest a close examination of the French Resistance during WW II? Pay attention to who was associated with whom, and by what political ideology and/or class distinction, and then determine how almost everyone eventually "just happened" to come to the Gestapo's peculiar attentions. France is a pretty unified country compared to America, any bets on how long it takes for the debt settling to get good and bloody here? Then add all of those foreign US bond (government debt) holders trying to get some of their own back into the mix.
There's never a "good" time to start fighting and "history" is always much nastier in the doing than in the telling later. Before we do this, maybe take the time to check for alternative options just one more time? We don't want to fall victim of "their" manipulations, do we?
Even if you can put it out in time, there's just not much you can do with a burnt bridge afterwards.
This is basic classical strategy, folks. When forced to engage an enemy within a defined boundary (like a national border), every effort must be taken to provoke as many localized incidents as possible so as to prevent formation of an organised and unified opposition. Especially when attacking from a position of (societal) dominance, it is desirable to incite actions in response to which exceeding established societal constraints and limitations can be argued as imposed necessity. The more extreme the enemy (that would be our fellow citizens, you understand) can be portrayed to be, the easier it is to claim the rightness of whatever behavior needs justification. Claiming the moral high ground isn't enough, being acknowledged as being in the ethical and moral right is mandatory for the ultimate legitimacy of any "victorious" claimant.
Do you know why fascism ultimately failed following WW II? Because the Jews held the moral high ground 'till the gasping, fiery end and were acknowledged as having done so. How many of us are prepared to go to such an equivalent extreme in order to "restore the Constitution" or "show that socialist _______ (name of politician of your preference here) what's what"?
Have you - not just you personally, Tam - have we taken a moment to consider just who it is we are most likely to violently confront "come the revolution"? It won't be Judge George Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, some bureaucracy, or any politician; no, it's going to be the people specifically employed to "interface" with the public. You know, the cops. With the fire fighters and EMS types very quickly to follow.
Take a look at the riots in the LA area back in 1992. While the fuzz was all forted up during the first 36 - 48 hours of the thing, the FD and EMS were regularly shot at (and even occasionally hit). Persistent denial of authority's intrusion into disputed territory is one of the most commonly chosen tactical errors known. I say error because the simple fact of control of a region being visibly/publicly disputed is sufficient to undermine authority's claims thereon; actively engaging them (especially from within the boundaries of that region) on their own terms thereafter is a recipe for defeat in detail.
Are we really prepared to accept the almost certainly utterly insignificant nature of the incident(s) that will spark off the conflagration? It won't be the next act of further infringement on our rights itself, it will be some cop's trying to "do his duty" afterwards that has Joe and Jane Six-Pack going off. Maybe the FBI "... tagging you like a migrating harp seal every time you want to run to the 7-11 for a bag of chips, and warrant be damned" or just Officer Random Example serving a subpoena. All without any of us going anywhere near a Costco you will note.
Before this goes too much further, might I suggest a close examination of the French Resistance during WW II? Pay attention to who was associated with whom, and by what political ideology and/or class distinction, and then determine how almost everyone eventually "just happened" to come to the Gestapo's peculiar attentions. France is a pretty unified country compared to America, any bets on how long it takes for the debt settling to get good and bloody here? Then add all of those foreign US bond (government debt) holders trying to get some of their own back into the mix.
There's never a "good" time to start fighting and "history" is always much nastier in the doing than in the telling later. Before we do this, maybe take the time to check for alternative options just one more time? We don't want to fall victim of "their" manipulations, do we?
Even if you can put it out in time, there's just not much you can do with a burnt bridge afterwards.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Who Own's The Dead?
Or, perhaps more fully phrased as; can the dead retain "rights"?
In comments to this film review of the then-recently released James Cameron film Avatar by Phil Bowermaster and Stephen Gordon, I said in part:
I forget who's scifi story I read it in (lo, these many years ago now), but the idea put forth was that technology had developed to the point that it allowed then-living actors to emulate long dead performers (who already had an established marquee value) in new on-screen entertainment productions. For the life of me, I can't see how the technology behind Avatar wouldn't allow this to actually occur now. Mind you, I'm not looking forward to watching "John Wayne" and a 13 y/o "Brooke Shields" as they star in the new production Rio Blue Lagoon, but I don't doubt someone in Hollywierd will try that very thing some day too soon. Or worse.
The possibilities are a bit frightening actually, given the degree to which people's experience has trained them to associate a broadcast image with the person being depicted. If someone used the Avatar technology to film an actor killing a person, and the crime was actually committed, what with all the physical evidence of a murder having occured, could you prove that wasn't actually you in the video of the killing posted on You Tube? Or the President or the Pope, as the case may be? The possibilities are ... interesting, aren't they?
While trying to be somewhat provocative yet mindful of courtesy on another's blog page, I may have mis-served my objective.
Expanding upon my initial (and thankfully still hypothetical as of yet) example, what are the property rights (amongst other) complications deriving from the example I offered above? Imagine if you will, an explicitly pornographic "entertainment" (pre-supposing that actual film and present-technology digital media aren't the only distribution possibilities) depicting the physical image of John Wayne from the motion picture Rio Bravo in a graphic display of sexual congress (or, in more sailorly terms: a two-fisted three-holer) with the film image of the then-13 y/o Brooke Shields from the motion picture Pretty Baby combined with her performance two years later in The Blue Lagoon, giving rise to my speculative title; "Rio Blue Lagoon".
Let me take just a moment to acknowledge both that, not only is the ever-lovely Brooke not dead yet, Mrs. Henchy is eminently capable of defending her own interests. In the present circumstance, what she provides is the context for a rare alignment of interests (mine); speculation on the possible ramifications of future developments, individual rights, strategy and smokin' hot babes. Not necessarily in that order of precedence.
Returning to Mr. Cameron's technical triumph (and I don't believe it can honestly be described as anything less), there do seem to be a number of unintended consequences to his quest for the 2.5 billion dollar gross. The possibility I raised first on The Speculist has now been considered by none other than Brian Wang of the Lifeboat Foundation and principal author of the Next Big Future blog, where-in he also notes the less light-hearted possibilities:
"There is also the increased possibility of fake news interviews. The image of President Obama could be made to say or do anything. Similarly for Osama bin Laden."
Drawing inspiration from the recent electoral event in Massachusetts, consider the following:
Dressed in casual attire, Senatorial candidate Scott Brown is seen leaning against a parked pick-up truck's rear fender, speaking into the camera. While he does so, the nude figure of Martha Coakley is seen in the near background entering into the sex act with an heroically priapic Sen. Edward Kennedy while he rests his buttocks against a low bridge railing.
It almost doesn't matter what verbal content is conveyed by such a video appearing on YouTube, Vimeo and all the rest of the on-line outlets available, the visual one is the message. The image technology displayed in Avatar makes this type of moving image's falsehood essentially undetectable to all but the most in-depth examination of the process by which it was created, I believe (those with actual detailed knowledge of the technology's limitations are encouraged to step in here - all I've got is how it has been publicly characterised to this point).
Possibly even more inimical is that precisely the same "performance" could be created by supporters of either of the two actual Senatorial candidates - to equal effect. Dueling douche-baggery, if you will.
Mr. Brown's (either of us actually, but "the other" is most pertinent to this discussion, he selflessly asserts :)) history of apparent casualness regarding personal nudity plays into such an accusation of attacking an opponent in this fashion. Similarly, the predictable response of "shocked" "violation", "virtual rape" and similar vociferous pronouncements from the Coakley camp.
All of which distract from my question today: what (if any) rights are retained by Mr. Kennedy, or his estate, in such a now-plausible scenario in light of Mr. Cameron's visually stunning achievement?
Understand, all of the "actors" in the foregoing little (and also thankfully still hypothetical) drama would be performed by real, living people who's images were subsequently re-worked with Avatar-type technology to seamlessly appear as presented above. The two candidates at least would still have the option to pursue recourse under existing laws governing electoral practices if in no other venue. Mr. Kennedy isn't afforded that opportunity any longer and I'm unclear on what alternative option might plausably be pursued, and by which "offended" parties, under any existing US legal construct (leaving for the moment the more direct time-honored methodology that modern social and legal institutions frown upon).
The actors could claim legal innocence plausibly enough. If the post-production work was done outside US legal jurisdiction, I'm not sure any recourse via the courts would be possible under current legal codes.
For myself, I think the concept of property extending to one's image is well-enough established that a straight-forward extension of that concept into perpetuity as the default legal standard doesn't seem that contorted. Such a legal position allows for added revenue possibilities for individuals as well as those who also hold more limited rights to someone's visual image, along with further complication of estate planning, but these are details that markets are well demonstrated to sort out given a sufficiently solid demarcation within which to do so.
Any thoughts? Mrs. Henchy per chance? :)
In comments to this film review of the then-recently released James Cameron film Avatar by Phil Bowermaster and Stephen Gordon, I said in part:
I forget who's scifi story I read it in (lo, these many years ago now), but the idea put forth was that technology had developed to the point that it allowed then-living actors to emulate long dead performers (who already had an established marquee value) in new on-screen entertainment productions. For the life of me, I can't see how the technology behind Avatar wouldn't allow this to actually occur now. Mind you, I'm not looking forward to watching "John Wayne" and a 13 y/o "Brooke Shields" as they star in the new production Rio Blue Lagoon, but I don't doubt someone in Hollywierd will try that very thing some day too soon. Or worse.
The possibilities are a bit frightening actually, given the degree to which people's experience has trained them to associate a broadcast image with the person being depicted. If someone used the Avatar technology to film an actor killing a person, and the crime was actually committed, what with all the physical evidence of a murder having occured, could you prove that wasn't actually you in the video of the killing posted on You Tube? Or the President or the Pope, as the case may be? The possibilities are ... interesting, aren't they?
While trying to be somewhat provocative yet mindful of courtesy on another's blog page, I may have mis-served my objective.
Expanding upon my initial (and thankfully still hypothetical as of yet) example, what are the property rights (amongst other) complications deriving from the example I offered above? Imagine if you will, an explicitly pornographic "entertainment" (pre-supposing that actual film and present-technology digital media aren't the only distribution possibilities) depicting the physical image of John Wayne from the motion picture Rio Bravo in a graphic display of sexual congress (or, in more sailorly terms: a two-fisted three-holer) with the film image of the then-13 y/o Brooke Shields from the motion picture Pretty Baby combined with her performance two years later in The Blue Lagoon, giving rise to my speculative title; "Rio Blue Lagoon".
Let me take just a moment to acknowledge both that, not only is the ever-lovely Brooke not dead yet, Mrs. Henchy is eminently capable of defending her own interests. In the present circumstance, what she provides is the context for a rare alignment of interests (mine); speculation on the possible ramifications of future developments, individual rights, strategy and smokin' hot babes. Not necessarily in that order of precedence.
Returning to Mr. Cameron's technical triumph (and I don't believe it can honestly be described as anything less), there do seem to be a number of unintended consequences to his quest for the 2.5 billion dollar gross. The possibility I raised first on The Speculist has now been considered by none other than Brian Wang of the Lifeboat Foundation and principal author of the Next Big Future blog, where-in he also notes the less light-hearted possibilities:
"There is also the increased possibility of fake news interviews. The image of President Obama could be made to say or do anything. Similarly for Osama bin Laden."
Drawing inspiration from the recent electoral event in Massachusetts, consider the following:
Dressed in casual attire, Senatorial candidate Scott Brown is seen leaning against a parked pick-up truck's rear fender, speaking into the camera. While he does so, the nude figure of Martha Coakley is seen in the near background entering into the sex act with an heroically priapic Sen. Edward Kennedy while he rests his buttocks against a low bridge railing.
It almost doesn't matter what verbal content is conveyed by such a video appearing on YouTube, Vimeo and all the rest of the on-line outlets available, the visual one is the message. The image technology displayed in Avatar makes this type of moving image's falsehood essentially undetectable to all but the most in-depth examination of the process by which it was created, I believe (those with actual detailed knowledge of the technology's limitations are encouraged to step in here - all I've got is how it has been publicly characterised to this point).
Possibly even more inimical is that precisely the same "performance" could be created by supporters of either of the two actual Senatorial candidates - to equal effect. Dueling douche-baggery, if you will.
Mr. Brown's (either of us actually, but "the other" is most pertinent to this discussion, he selflessly asserts :)) history of apparent casualness regarding personal nudity plays into such an accusation of attacking an opponent in this fashion. Similarly, the predictable response of "shocked" "violation", "virtual rape" and similar vociferous pronouncements from the Coakley camp.
All of which distract from my question today: what (if any) rights are retained by Mr. Kennedy, or his estate, in such a now-plausible scenario in light of Mr. Cameron's visually stunning achievement?
Understand, all of the "actors" in the foregoing little (and also thankfully still hypothetical) drama would be performed by real, living people who's images were subsequently re-worked with Avatar-type technology to seamlessly appear as presented above. The two candidates at least would still have the option to pursue recourse under existing laws governing electoral practices if in no other venue. Mr. Kennedy isn't afforded that opportunity any longer and I'm unclear on what alternative option might plausably be pursued, and by which "offended" parties, under any existing US legal construct (leaving for the moment the more direct time-honored methodology that modern social and legal institutions frown upon).
The actors could claim legal innocence plausibly enough. If the post-production work was done outside US legal jurisdiction, I'm not sure any recourse via the courts would be possible under current legal codes.
For myself, I think the concept of property extending to one's image is well-enough established that a straight-forward extension of that concept into perpetuity as the default legal standard doesn't seem that contorted. Such a legal position allows for added revenue possibilities for individuals as well as those who also hold more limited rights to someone's visual image, along with further complication of estate planning, but these are details that markets are well demonstrated to sort out given a sufficiently solid demarcation within which to do so.
Any thoughts? Mrs. Henchy per chance? :)
Monday, December 21, 2009
Yes Redux
Now this is how you respond to a circumstance as discussed at the links included here. Get allies.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Yes
I first posted what follows as a comment on Tam's blog but wish to provide a forum for discussion or objection on my own real estate as well. For better context, first read this piece by RobertaX followed by this rebuttal by Joanna. For added background and commentary, see this post by Caleb. Forthwith, me:
"I think, my fellow gunnies, that far too many of us just faced a threat - and flinched. Badly.
As I believe is the case in most states that require licensure, certainly when I applied for mine, I did so in the full knowledge that it was not a confidential transaction. That the state (Texas in my personal experience) would indeed maintain a public database regarding my status much like it does regarding my vehicular driving record. As to all of that, nothing about having that data made available in some alternate forum changes my status or condition in any way.
The suggestion of retaliating by publishing abortion proceedure recipient's identities does not equate, IMO, because there is a specific expectation of privacy both in custom and in law in regard to the medical conditions and proceedures we confront in life. Even publicly considering such an action damages the reputations of gun owners and supporters of same, whether or not actually undertaken.
For myself, I decided to carry a gun because I accepted that my safety is ultimately my own responsibility. I knew at the time I made the choice that there were many of my fellow citizens who didn't agree with my assessment or trusted me to act responsibly. That some few of them have (and continue) to act callously with regard to my (or, indeed, potentially their own as well) safety does not justify my, or any other purportedly responsible adult, reacting in kind.
Since taking up guns in self defense, I have trained as well as my circumstance permits in anticipation of confronting just such a potentiality. It has been my presumption that those who decided similarly to myself would do the same. Given the tenor of the present example, I fear that hope is now seriously called into question.
Nothing has changed, people; there are still those who mean us harm and we still accept responsibility to undertake our own defense should some other take the decision to harm us or those we love or simply share a circumstance with, however fleetingly. In my judgement, the more proper response to these annoyances is a stolid look and a "Yes."
Honor isn't just a David Weber character and always exacts some price. I confess some small relief the bill is so diminutive this time."
h/t to ... well, everybody mentioned above. For the rest, "come and take them".
"I think, my fellow gunnies, that far too many of us just faced a threat - and flinched. Badly.
As I believe is the case in most states that require licensure, certainly when I applied for mine, I did so in the full knowledge that it was not a confidential transaction. That the state (Texas in my personal experience) would indeed maintain a public database regarding my status much like it does regarding my vehicular driving record. As to all of that, nothing about having that data made available in some alternate forum changes my status or condition in any way.
The suggestion of retaliating by publishing abortion proceedure recipient's identities does not equate, IMO, because there is a specific expectation of privacy both in custom and in law in regard to the medical conditions and proceedures we confront in life. Even publicly considering such an action damages the reputations of gun owners and supporters of same, whether or not actually undertaken.
For myself, I decided to carry a gun because I accepted that my safety is ultimately my own responsibility. I knew at the time I made the choice that there were many of my fellow citizens who didn't agree with my assessment or trusted me to act responsibly. That some few of them have (and continue) to act callously with regard to my (or, indeed, potentially their own as well) safety does not justify my, or any other purportedly responsible adult, reacting in kind.
Since taking up guns in self defense, I have trained as well as my circumstance permits in anticipation of confronting just such a potentiality. It has been my presumption that those who decided similarly to myself would do the same. Given the tenor of the present example, I fear that hope is now seriously called into question.
Nothing has changed, people; there are still those who mean us harm and we still accept responsibility to undertake our own defense should some other take the decision to harm us or those we love or simply share a circumstance with, however fleetingly. In my judgement, the more proper response to these annoyances is a stolid look and a "Yes."
Honor isn't just a David Weber character and always exacts some price. I confess some small relief the bill is so diminutive this time."
h/t to ... well, everybody mentioned above. For the rest, "come and take them".
Monday, September 7, 2009
More Kevin; Framing The Question, with Addendum
Yesterday I linked to this Kevin Baker post and enjoyed the referred to movie again last night.
Today I wish to take a pass at what I perceive to be Kevin's underlying issue.
There is a technique that most people associate with formal verbal debate commonly known as "re-framing the question". The tactic of altering the context within which your opponent has referenced his most telling points against your position can frequently be achieved by modifying the context within which they are refuted. I think Kevin's quandary regarding "rights" is largely the result of the effect of this linguistic ploy arising from the accumulation of historical debate of the issue.
To exist at all, a frame must first be constructed; herewith, my attempt at such.
The bing fa, from the document which was introduced to the non-chinese speaking world as The Art of War, is a self-referential system having applicability to virtually any form of human political or social structure, but which relies upon it's own internal ethos to achieve consistency and avoid contradiction. It can be applied successfully by virtually anyone in almost any circumstance within which a human being can survive and function with some degree of individuality and independence. I am not prepared to argue that it can be successfully applied entirely independent of any other form of human social construct, but I do assert that the inherent ethos I mentioned earlier resolves the logical inconsistency that so troubles Kevin:
"The core of the discussion to date has involved three primary questions:
A) Are there "absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights" that exist regardless of whether a society recognizes (much less protects) them;
B) do those rights belong to all people, everywhere, at all times, simply because they are human - and;
C) are those rights "self-evident?"
My answer is: A) Yes; B) No; and C) Self evident to whom?
Yes, I realize that position A) contradicts my initial "what a society believes it is" statement, but bear with me. I believe in Rand's "one fundamental right," and have so stated in earlier posts. The source of that right I have stated before:
Reason.
Or Nature. Yaweh. Christ. Vishnu, Mother Gaia, Barney the Dinosaur. I don't know, nor do I care overly much, but reason works for me.
I believe that right is "real" because I believe that - given the chance - average specimens of humanity will conclude through reason that they are of value (to themselves if no one else), and that their physical selves and the product of their labor belongs to them and not another.
It's in what comes after that "one fundamental right" that we begin to run into problems. Let's proceed backwards. Are the "Rights of Man" self-evident? Then:
1. List them. All.
2. Illustrate which are axioms and which are corollaries of those axioms.
3. Explain why every society in history has violated all or at least the overwhelming majority of these rights, if they're absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate, and self-evident.
4. Explain what a society that honored and protected these rights would look like. And, finally,
5. Explain why such a society does not now exist and never has."
My contribution to the discussion has to do with the source issue, the question regarding from whence "rights" emanate, as I believe most of the succeeding quandaries are so because of the traditional assertion(s).
The Bing Fa assumes that the act of individual birth presents each and every human with an inheritance of opportunity; Stephen Hawking, myself and Kevin are each, equally and independently, the inheritors of exactly the same opportunity simply as a result of our successful live birth. No deity figure required (though such is certainly not necessarily excluded either; intervention by a Deity is simply not required for whatever follows the unique act of cellular procreation our parents contrived between themselves). Thus it can be safely asserted that all humans are born equally opportune, I think. What we subsequently make of all that is a separate matter, and therein lies the "right" of it, I suggest.
Our individual opportunity from birth doesn't guarantee anything, of course; catastrophic natural event, violent invaders or simple poor hygiene can abruptly curtail our individual development of opportunity, as can the social context (there's that Ayn Rand influence again :)) within which we seek to do so. It is far more likely that it is this last that will influence us than anything else other than a predatory family member. That last being notoriously hard to control for by any measure not involving the most direct of individual means, let's look at that social context proposition in a bit more detail.
Sun Tzu observed that the best General was the one who achieved the objective by the least damaging means, and worded the concept variously throughout his treatise to emphasize it's importance. Extended to the extreme of a social context, this could be taken to mean that the "best" citizen is that one who achieves both personal and societal success at the least cost or damage to both him/her self and to the society within which s/he happens to live (at the most extreme, the entire planetary or even galactic or universal social context within which both exist). The obverse of that definition being that the "best" free person - the one most fully exercising rights at least damage to all else - might very well prove to be a very bad "citizen" indeed.
In any final analysis of action or deliberation, we are all each our own "General" in that we all possess the ultimate authority to decide every question to the degree to which we are a party. That being true, it follows that we are each fully responsible for all that results from our decision - by way of extreme example, if we agree that the equivalent of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were again to become necessary at some point, then we would be fully responsible for every radiated body that resulted from that decision. Own it. Accept also that a refusal to actively decide an issue is a form of decision itself and doesn't entail any obviation of the subsequent responsibility.
So, in a social context, we are each born into opportunity and we each assert our individual right to develop our opportunity over the course of our lives; in an immortal phrase, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that fulfills our opportunity of birth. From which it can be seen that, indeed, "rights" are self-evident if only because we each assert them for ourselves. It is in the nature of a "social context" that a process be mutually agreed to whereby some constraint upon exercise of our individual rights be accepted by all to achieve said context in the first place. Self-evident is no more a logical inconsistency that is the concept of implicit responsibility when stated within a given context. As I observed in comments in this recent post "Like alliance, definition can be conditional as well." Words do indeed mean things, but that meaning becomes distorted with even a minor change of context. As with words, so too with society and even ethics and morality.
Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest mathematical intellect extant on planet Earth today, was born to the identical opportunity as was I who can only rudimentarily grasp the mysteries of algebra (with Kevin alighting somewhere between, thus completing the triumvirate :)). To what extent, and from among which means, we select to advance our development of our intrinsic opportunity is massively influenced by the social context within which we find ourselves born, but ultimate responsibility for that development rests to a large degree on the means and resoluteness we apply to asserting our right to do so.
Almost without fail, the first word a baby learns of its own volition is "No". It is only through long years of personal education and often painful trial and error attempts that we learn to exercise the same degree of consensual right by saying "Yes". In my experience, mostly we just call this "growing up", but like the child, so too the civilisation. Kevin laments that our founding Constitution is lost to us and likely not retrievable. To which I respond, "Yes", and implore him not to charge resolutely into the ravening mob, but be a better general instead.
When the battle seems lost, re-frame the question.
Addendum: Richard Fernandez offers a classic example of the way in which definitions change as a result of differences in context in his most recent Belmont Club post We The Chosen. Wretchard will be a very successful general come the day ...
Today I wish to take a pass at what I perceive to be Kevin's underlying issue.
There is a technique that most people associate with formal verbal debate commonly known as "re-framing the question". The tactic of altering the context within which your opponent has referenced his most telling points against your position can frequently be achieved by modifying the context within which they are refuted. I think Kevin's quandary regarding "rights" is largely the result of the effect of this linguistic ploy arising from the accumulation of historical debate of the issue.
To exist at all, a frame must first be constructed; herewith, my attempt at such.
The bing fa, from the document which was introduced to the non-chinese speaking world as The Art of War, is a self-referential system having applicability to virtually any form of human political or social structure, but which relies upon it's own internal ethos to achieve consistency and avoid contradiction. It can be applied successfully by virtually anyone in almost any circumstance within which a human being can survive and function with some degree of individuality and independence. I am not prepared to argue that it can be successfully applied entirely independent of any other form of human social construct, but I do assert that the inherent ethos I mentioned earlier resolves the logical inconsistency that so troubles Kevin:
"The core of the discussion to date has involved three primary questions:
A) Are there "absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights" that exist regardless of whether a society recognizes (much less protects) them;
B) do those rights belong to all people, everywhere, at all times, simply because they are human - and;
C) are those rights "self-evident?"
My answer is: A) Yes; B) No; and C) Self evident to whom?
Yes, I realize that position A) contradicts my initial "what a society believes it is" statement, but bear with me. I believe in Rand's "one fundamental right," and have so stated in earlier posts. The source of that right I have stated before:
Reason.
Or Nature. Yaweh. Christ. Vishnu, Mother Gaia, Barney the Dinosaur. I don't know, nor do I care overly much, but reason works for me.
I believe that right is "real" because I believe that - given the chance - average specimens of humanity will conclude through reason that they are of value (to themselves if no one else), and that their physical selves and the product of their labor belongs to them and not another.
It's in what comes after that "one fundamental right" that we begin to run into problems. Let's proceed backwards. Are the "Rights of Man" self-evident? Then:
1. List them. All.
2. Illustrate which are axioms and which are corollaries of those axioms.
3. Explain why every society in history has violated all or at least the overwhelming majority of these rights, if they're absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate, and self-evident.
4. Explain what a society that honored and protected these rights would look like. And, finally,
5. Explain why such a society does not now exist and never has."
My contribution to the discussion has to do with the source issue, the question regarding from whence "rights" emanate, as I believe most of the succeeding quandaries are so because of the traditional assertion(s).
The Bing Fa assumes that the act of individual birth presents each and every human with an inheritance of opportunity; Stephen Hawking, myself and Kevin are each, equally and independently, the inheritors of exactly the same opportunity simply as a result of our successful live birth. No deity figure required (though such is certainly not necessarily excluded either; intervention by a Deity is simply not required for whatever follows the unique act of cellular procreation our parents contrived between themselves). Thus it can be safely asserted that all humans are born equally opportune, I think. What we subsequently make of all that is a separate matter, and therein lies the "right" of it, I suggest.
Our individual opportunity from birth doesn't guarantee anything, of course; catastrophic natural event, violent invaders or simple poor hygiene can abruptly curtail our individual development of opportunity, as can the social context (there's that Ayn Rand influence again :)) within which we seek to do so. It is far more likely that it is this last that will influence us than anything else other than a predatory family member. That last being notoriously hard to control for by any measure not involving the most direct of individual means, let's look at that social context proposition in a bit more detail.
Sun Tzu observed that the best General was the one who achieved the objective by the least damaging means, and worded the concept variously throughout his treatise to emphasize it's importance. Extended to the extreme of a social context, this could be taken to mean that the "best" citizen is that one who achieves both personal and societal success at the least cost or damage to both him/her self and to the society within which s/he happens to live (at the most extreme, the entire planetary or even galactic or universal social context within which both exist). The obverse of that definition being that the "best" free person - the one most fully exercising rights at least damage to all else - might very well prove to be a very bad "citizen" indeed.
In any final analysis of action or deliberation, we are all each our own "General" in that we all possess the ultimate authority to decide every question to the degree to which we are a party. That being true, it follows that we are each fully responsible for all that results from our decision - by way of extreme example, if we agree that the equivalent of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were again to become necessary at some point, then we would be fully responsible for every radiated body that resulted from that decision. Own it. Accept also that a refusal to actively decide an issue is a form of decision itself and doesn't entail any obviation of the subsequent responsibility.
So, in a social context, we are each born into opportunity and we each assert our individual right to develop our opportunity over the course of our lives; in an immortal phrase, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that fulfills our opportunity of birth. From which it can be seen that, indeed, "rights" are self-evident if only because we each assert them for ourselves. It is in the nature of a "social context" that a process be mutually agreed to whereby some constraint upon exercise of our individual rights be accepted by all to achieve said context in the first place. Self-evident is no more a logical inconsistency that is the concept of implicit responsibility when stated within a given context. As I observed in comments in this recent post "Like alliance, definition can be conditional as well." Words do indeed mean things, but that meaning becomes distorted with even a minor change of context. As with words, so too with society and even ethics and morality.
Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest mathematical intellect extant on planet Earth today, was born to the identical opportunity as was I who can only rudimentarily grasp the mysteries of algebra (with Kevin alighting somewhere between, thus completing the triumvirate :)). To what extent, and from among which means, we select to advance our development of our intrinsic opportunity is massively influenced by the social context within which we find ourselves born, but ultimate responsibility for that development rests to a large degree on the means and resoluteness we apply to asserting our right to do so.
Almost without fail, the first word a baby learns of its own volition is "No". It is only through long years of personal education and often painful trial and error attempts that we learn to exercise the same degree of consensual right by saying "Yes". In my experience, mostly we just call this "growing up", but like the child, so too the civilisation. Kevin laments that our founding Constitution is lost to us and likely not retrievable. To which I respond, "Yes", and implore him not to charge resolutely into the ravening mob, but be a better general instead.
When the battle seems lost, re-frame the question.
Addendum: Richard Fernandez offers a classic example of the way in which definitions change as a result of differences in context in his most recent Belmont Club post We The Chosen. Wretchard will be a very successful general come the day ...
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Hey, Michael Anissimov, this one's for you!
[The titular reference to an 80's Tommy Lee Jones movie should serve as fair warning to all regarding the serious nature of the scholastic standard applied to the following content by the author.]
As part of the comment thread to Michael's recent blog post I reiterated an earlier e-mailed offer to engage in discussion/debate with him on this and related topics. The pertinent portion of his specific answer was:
I will not be at all surprised to discover that we also differ as the precise delineation of "pertinent". :)
Otherwise, one can't ask fairer than that. Forthwith, a summary of my general position on matters Singularity and related.
I suppose I should begin by noting that all of my interrogatives and premises are founded upon my amateur understanding of the tenants and principles that underlie the philosophy and practice of strategy as codified by Sun Tzu (I particularly recommend the translations developed by Gary Gagliardi). I have found this to provide a structure that relies upon neither mysticism nor higher mathematics to attain understanding of any topic I have considered in light of said principles. For the uninitiated, these principles and axioms are actually better applied at the individual level despite their being couched in language intended to intrigue a potential monarchical employer. By way of example, the primary principle upon which all else is predicated is that of protection and advancement of position as I first wrote about here.
I suppose my first examination of Singularity and AGI would be this post titled Strategy for a Singularity Model of Economics which is better understood in light of an earlier post titled Future Ground. The Singularity post garnered additional interesting commentary at the time here and here. I don't believe anyone can engage in a realistic discussion of these two issues (Singularity and AGI) without at least a casual examination of the economic aspects they inherently entail.
This seems a reasonable point to acknowledge that I am indeed one of those heretics who believes that AGI as such isn't particularly necessary to the possibility of a Singularity event. With all due respect to Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil, and stipulating that their basic (Ok, Ray's doorstop hardly merits the acolade "basic", whatever one's opinion of the contents) conjecture regarding AI/AGI, I regard the Singularity phenomenon as being an ever-receding point of speculative human understanding of the physical sciences beyond which no further meaningful extrapolation is possible, pending additional advancement of scientific understanding. While the development of operant AGI certainly meets that qualification, I contend that it is not the only potential development that does so. Perhaps for this reason I would seem to be less susceptible to the potential for threat that AGI of a certainty entails than Michael seems to be (though I further suspect this may be at least as well explained by the differences in our respective ages and personal experience referents).
That all said, I also appear to differ from Michael as to the degree of willingness to advance towards ... what to call it, precursor AGI technology? Limited AI, perhaps? For the moment, at least, I will use the acronym LAI to indicate an artificial intelligence that specifically lacks the ability Stephen Omohundro called a "self-improving system". To bring this initial discussion right on point, the recent DARPA solicitation Michael and I take contrasting points of view over seems to me to be specifically targeted at developing LAI types of intelligences rather than an AGI entity (from the solicitation: "... and create tools to engineer intelligent systems that match the problem/environment in which they will exist.").
I submit that such entities, even should they prove to be developable given the limitations of current bio-science technology (I would argue not ... yet), would not possess the mechanism to "improve" themselves and that a human developer would so organise their construction such that it couldn't be altered without destroying the original construct's cognitive capabilities - essentially forcing a would-be bio-hacker back to developmental square one - if only as a means of copyright/trademark and liability protection.
See what I mean about economic issues being unavoidable to discussion of this topic?
Another aspect of Michael's position I find particularly troublesome is his willingness to argue that certain people are simultaneously capable of designing bio-weapons from their personal nanofactory (the other general topic of contention between Michael and myself) yet are too ignorant to comprehend the existential threat to themselves inherent to their manipulations. This logically questionable assertion seems to be the principal basis for his proposed regulatory scheme I treat so rudely here.
It is only proper that I take note of the fact that Michael and I don't appear to actually differ all that much as to the potential for threat and advancement entailed in both of these technologies. Our principal points of difference seem to revolve around their separate and combined potential for deliberate mis-use, the most-likely-to-be-successful mechanism for inhibiting that as well as the likelihood that LAI technology necessarily leads to AGI (leaving unsaid my own serious doubts that AGI is even practicable at all, at least in the form Michael, Kurzweil and Vinge propose it to take).
Regarding this last point, I contend that AI technology is most likely to achieve practical expression as some "enhancement" technology to existing human biology rather than as a stand-alone entity. Leaving the substance of the argument for another occasion, I submit that should this prove to be the actual course of events that develops, then AGI necessarily becomes "human" and the existential threat source remains unchanged (not to be correlated with unaltered). Simply put, adding capability all around (I did say "simply") doesn't offer much if any practical change to the presently understood threat environment, does it? The pre-existing mechanisms for inhibiting actualisation of threats would still basicly apply given the spectrum of potential each individual would enhance within.
I see I have not yet mentioned the more-than-a-little-questionable ethical aspects these two topics raise. These are so myriad and application-dependant that I content myself by observing that they are an important aspect of this discussion between Michael and myself (not to mention actual development of the technology just by the way) and that we will almost certainly contort ourselves into logical absurdities attempting to confront them. But not today.
It does not go without saying that, like any other technologic advancement recorded in human history, there will be inequities and dangers inherent to the process of development and dispersion of said technology throughout humanity. While there may in fact prove to be some aspect unique to either technology under discussion here that offers a truly existential threat to the human species, I confess I haven't seen anything plausably proposed that doesn't seem to have a near-analog in human history (and thus a practical near-analog to a solution). Such being the case, I associate myself with J. Storrs Hall's position regarding the concerns under discussion herein (hard to go too far wrong there, I think) with the proviso that I remain open to Michael's subsequent persuasions on the matter.
Over to you, Sir, I think.
As part of the comment thread to Michael's recent blog post I reiterated an earlier e-mailed offer to engage in discussion/debate with him on this and related topics. The pertinent portion of his specific answer was:
I’m afraid your blog post on the matter only has a paragraph or two of original content. I might be open to discuss/debate the Singularity and AGI, but could you perhaps make a longer blog post on your general position
I will not be at all surprised to discover that we also differ as the precise delineation of "pertinent". :)
Otherwise, one can't ask fairer than that. Forthwith, a summary of my general position on matters Singularity and related.
I suppose I should begin by noting that all of my interrogatives and premises are founded upon my amateur understanding of the tenants and principles that underlie the philosophy and practice of strategy as codified by Sun Tzu (I particularly recommend the translations developed by Gary Gagliardi). I have found this to provide a structure that relies upon neither mysticism nor higher mathematics to attain understanding of any topic I have considered in light of said principles. For the uninitiated, these principles and axioms are actually better applied at the individual level despite their being couched in language intended to intrigue a potential monarchical employer. By way of example, the primary principle upon which all else is predicated is that of protection and advancement of position as I first wrote about here.
I suppose my first examination of Singularity and AGI would be this post titled Strategy for a Singularity Model of Economics which is better understood in light of an earlier post titled Future Ground. The Singularity post garnered additional interesting commentary at the time here and here. I don't believe anyone can engage in a realistic discussion of these two issues (Singularity and AGI) without at least a casual examination of the economic aspects they inherently entail.
This seems a reasonable point to acknowledge that I am indeed one of those heretics who believes that AGI as such isn't particularly necessary to the possibility of a Singularity event. With all due respect to Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil, and stipulating that their basic (Ok, Ray's doorstop hardly merits the acolade "basic", whatever one's opinion of the contents) conjecture regarding AI/AGI, I regard the Singularity phenomenon as being an ever-receding point of speculative human understanding of the physical sciences beyond which no further meaningful extrapolation is possible, pending additional advancement of scientific understanding. While the development of operant AGI certainly meets that qualification, I contend that it is not the only potential development that does so. Perhaps for this reason I would seem to be less susceptible to the potential for threat that AGI of a certainty entails than Michael seems to be (though I further suspect this may be at least as well explained by the differences in our respective ages and personal experience referents).
That all said, I also appear to differ from Michael as to the degree of willingness to advance towards ... what to call it, precursor AGI technology? Limited AI, perhaps? For the moment, at least, I will use the acronym LAI to indicate an artificial intelligence that specifically lacks the ability Stephen Omohundro called a "self-improving system". To bring this initial discussion right on point, the recent DARPA solicitation Michael and I take contrasting points of view over seems to me to be specifically targeted at developing LAI types of intelligences rather than an AGI entity (from the solicitation: "... and create tools to engineer intelligent systems that match the problem/environment in which they will exist.").
I submit that such entities, even should they prove to be developable given the limitations of current bio-science technology (I would argue not ... yet), would not possess the mechanism to "improve" themselves and that a human developer would so organise their construction such that it couldn't be altered without destroying the original construct's cognitive capabilities - essentially forcing a would-be bio-hacker back to developmental square one - if only as a means of copyright/trademark and liability protection.
See what I mean about economic issues being unavoidable to discussion of this topic?
Another aspect of Michael's position I find particularly troublesome is his willingness to argue that certain people are simultaneously capable of designing bio-weapons from their personal nanofactory (the other general topic of contention between Michael and myself) yet are too ignorant to comprehend the existential threat to themselves inherent to their manipulations. This logically questionable assertion seems to be the principal basis for his proposed regulatory scheme I treat so rudely here.
It is only proper that I take note of the fact that Michael and I don't appear to actually differ all that much as to the potential for threat and advancement entailed in both of these technologies. Our principal points of difference seem to revolve around their separate and combined potential for deliberate mis-use, the most-likely-to-be-successful mechanism for inhibiting that as well as the likelihood that LAI technology necessarily leads to AGI (leaving unsaid my own serious doubts that AGI is even practicable at all, at least in the form Michael, Kurzweil and Vinge propose it to take).
Regarding this last point, I contend that AI technology is most likely to achieve practical expression as some "enhancement" technology to existing human biology rather than as a stand-alone entity. Leaving the substance of the argument for another occasion, I submit that should this prove to be the actual course of events that develops, then AGI necessarily becomes "human" and the existential threat source remains unchanged (not to be correlated with unaltered). Simply put, adding capability all around (I did say "simply") doesn't offer much if any practical change to the presently understood threat environment, does it? The pre-existing mechanisms for inhibiting actualisation of threats would still basicly apply given the spectrum of potential each individual would enhance within.
I see I have not yet mentioned the more-than-a-little-questionable ethical aspects these two topics raise. These are so myriad and application-dependant that I content myself by observing that they are an important aspect of this discussion between Michael and myself (not to mention actual development of the technology just by the way) and that we will almost certainly contort ourselves into logical absurdities attempting to confront them. But not today.
It does not go without saying that, like any other technologic advancement recorded in human history, there will be inequities and dangers inherent to the process of development and dispersion of said technology throughout humanity. While there may in fact prove to be some aspect unique to either technology under discussion here that offers a truly existential threat to the human species, I confess I haven't seen anything plausably proposed that doesn't seem to have a near-analog in human history (and thus a practical near-analog to a solution). Such being the case, I associate myself with J. Storrs Hall's position regarding the concerns under discussion herein (hard to go too far wrong there, I think) with the proviso that I remain open to Michael's subsequent persuasions on the matter.
Over to you, Sir, I think.
Friday, November 7, 2008
A Stain On The Trousers Of Their Courage
Would it be too much to ask all of you Wall Street investors who are busily cashing up at a loss to pause for just a moment, loosen your belt, reach deeply into your trousers, fondle the contents of your scrotal sack with however many fingers pleasures you then give said contents a good hard flick with your finger-nail?
Once your eyes have stopped watering sufficiently to permit you to stand again, would you then take a further moment to observe that absolutely nothing has actually occurred yet to justify your latest craven display?
I'm well aware that President-elect Obama has made certain less-than-temperate remarks during the course of the recently ended campaign. I'm even shallowly versed in the possibly unintended consequences some of those inclinations might result in should they be enacted. However, since it appears that it actually does need to be said, Senator Obama isn't in a position to make a credible attempt at anything yet and there's absolutely no assurance as to what he might ultimately propose for some future Congress to consider.
Is there even the slightest possibility that you could be convinced to leave some smidgen of a scintilla of an actual financial asset for the rest of us to squabble over come that over-fraught day? I have it on reasonably good authority that even if then-President Obama enacts a tax change immediately after taking the oath of office there's this quaint notion that prohibits making such a change retroactive. You'll have time to bail when circumstance actually warrants doing so.
On a not-entirely unrelated note, it remains an open question how many stock and commodity traders have chosen to exit their office directly through an upper-story window as a result of a completely unilateral decision-making process. I see no reason to believe this mystery can't be extended to include anyone suitably damp-drawered.
Now ... buy it all back. If you happen to be one of those who does so at a profit, you might even be shown the stairs instead. They leave their own mark, of course, but you'll mostly have time for such to fade.
Your stain is permanent, so stand downwind in future.
Once your eyes have stopped watering sufficiently to permit you to stand again, would you then take a further moment to observe that absolutely nothing has actually occurred yet to justify your latest craven display?
I'm well aware that President-elect Obama has made certain less-than-temperate remarks during the course of the recently ended campaign. I'm even shallowly versed in the possibly unintended consequences some of those inclinations might result in should they be enacted. However, since it appears that it actually does need to be said, Senator Obama isn't in a position to make a credible attempt at anything yet and there's absolutely no assurance as to what he might ultimately propose for some future Congress to consider.
Is there even the slightest possibility that you could be convinced to leave some smidgen of a scintilla of an actual financial asset for the rest of us to squabble over come that over-fraught day? I have it on reasonably good authority that even if then-President Obama enacts a tax change immediately after taking the oath of office there's this quaint notion that prohibits making such a change retroactive. You'll have time to bail when circumstance actually warrants doing so.
On a not-entirely unrelated note, it remains an open question how many stock and commodity traders have chosen to exit their office directly through an upper-story window as a result of a completely unilateral decision-making process. I see no reason to believe this mystery can't be extended to include anyone suitably damp-drawered.
Now ... buy it all back. If you happen to be one of those who does so at a profit, you might even be shown the stairs instead. They leave their own mark, of course, but you'll mostly have time for such to fade.
Your stain is permanent, so stand downwind in future.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Of Perturbations And Probabilities
(*le sigh redux*)
Kevin Baker's done it again
The near-endless debate over the dreadful State of our national Union has inspired the man to point out an assumption that underlies contentions put forth to advance even the most diametric of political positions. In summary, there is a widespread belief that a "return to Constitutional fundamentals" will somehow eradicate all the current plague of societal woes that beset us. This prescription is often prompted by opinions like the one Kevin notes being publicly aired.
Drawing from the same Billy Beck post as Kevin did allows me to summarize the contention of our age:
Everybodys certain they know a better way, but nobodys agreed as to "What" or "How", let alone "Why", to achieve the assumed state of grace. The basic conflict of assumptions extends in both directions of history as well.
Leaving Mr. Beck's actual position to his own able advance, I wish to alter the field of conflict by injecting our potentiality into the equation being cyphered.
In the present iteration examined by Kevin, much is made of distinctual differentiations in the race to Armageddon by the contenders du jure. Instead, I suggest that our steady advancement of technological mastery will provide us with the mechanism to exceed our historical aggregation of limitations.
Liberty is defined as:
The open source nature of technology like the RepRap Project promises the means of rapid prototyping technology to anyone willing to make the effort to duplicate the mechanism from the freely provided instructions. This project is explicitly intended to serve as an introductory format for eventual nanoscale manufacturing at the individual consumer level of the economy. I suggest that the ramifications resulting from such an occurrence (in the next decade and a half, I predict) will do much to alleviate the impositions on personal liberty that have accumulated over the preceding two centuries of constitutional tampering and manipulation. The potential suggested in this and other near-future technological achievements makes it plain to me that the better application of our present energies ought to be toward minimizing efforts to inhibit our realising those advancements. Through them we can achieve the terms and objectives set forth by the nation's founders two centuries and more ago and simply supersede the intervening restraints to our natural condition.
The Endarkenment will always remain to tempt us, regardless. Revolutions are enacted by a relatively tiny minority of a given population, so it is indeed true that "(the) 3% can drag - perhaps kicking and screaming, but drag - a significant (and, more importanty, sufficient) portion of the population into the fray". Although, I would seriously recommend close examination of the conflicted motivation and support influencing the "significant portion" thereafter. They may indeed hold their place in the line of resistance, but they'll do so with a baleful eye in the 3%'s direction, I'll warrant. Then we'll see for whom how glorious the Coming Day proves to be.
Since it seems a swim to the bottom of history's compost pile remains an ever-present option, why not concentrate our efforts towards some alternative outcome instead? With the right technology development, and a portion of perseverance on our part, the damn horse very well might sing after all.
Kevin Baker's done it again
The near-endless debate over the dreadful State of our national Union has inspired the man to point out an assumption that underlies contentions put forth to advance even the most diametric of political positions. In summary, there is a widespread belief that a "return to Constitutional fundamentals" will somehow eradicate all the current plague of societal woes that beset us. This prescription is often prompted by opinions like the one Kevin notes being publicly aired.
Drawing from the same Billy Beck post as Kevin did allows me to summarize the contention of our age:
Here is the central problem surrounding what you people are talking about:
There is no coherent and cohesive philosophy underpinning it. Everybody's pissed off, but you all have your varying degrees of what you'll settle for.
Everybodys certain they know a better way, but nobodys agreed as to "What" or "How", let alone "Why", to achieve the assumed state of grace. The basic conflict of assumptions extends in both directions of history as well.
Leaving Mr. Beck's actual position to his own able advance, I wish to alter the field of conflict by injecting our potentiality into the equation being cyphered.
In the present iteration examined by Kevin, much is made of distinctual differentiations in the race to Armageddon by the contenders du jure. Instead, I suggest that our steady advancement of technological mastery will provide us with the mechanism to exceed our historical aggregation of limitations.
Liberty is defined as:
lib·er·ty (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
The open source nature of technology like the RepRap Project promises the means of rapid prototyping technology to anyone willing to make the effort to duplicate the mechanism from the freely provided instructions. This project is explicitly intended to serve as an introductory format for eventual nanoscale manufacturing at the individual consumer level of the economy. I suggest that the ramifications resulting from such an occurrence (in the next decade and a half, I predict) will do much to alleviate the impositions on personal liberty that have accumulated over the preceding two centuries of constitutional tampering and manipulation. The potential suggested in this and other near-future technological achievements makes it plain to me that the better application of our present energies ought to be toward minimizing efforts to inhibit our realising those advancements. Through them we can achieve the terms and objectives set forth by the nation's founders two centuries and more ago and simply supersede the intervening restraints to our natural condition.
The Endarkenment will always remain to tempt us, regardless. Revolutions are enacted by a relatively tiny minority of a given population, so it is indeed true that "(the) 3% can drag - perhaps kicking and screaming, but drag - a significant (and, more importanty, sufficient) portion of the population into the fray". Although, I would seriously recommend close examination of the conflicted motivation and support influencing the "significant portion" thereafter. They may indeed hold their place in the line of resistance, but they'll do so with a baleful eye in the 3%'s direction, I'll warrant. Then we'll see for whom how glorious the Coming Day proves to be.
Since it seems a swim to the bottom of history's compost pile remains an ever-present option, why not concentrate our efforts towards some alternative outcome instead? With the right technology development, and a portion of perseverance on our part, the damn horse very well might sing after all.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Tempting Fate
I wonder if Gov. Palin and her family aren't pushing their luck just a bit?
Specifically, while I don't doubt young Levi Johnston's love for Bristol Palin, she is still only 17 years old. By making them both prominently part of the family's public appearances, to include the convention stage last night, both the Governor herself and Senator McCain have done all that could reasonably be expected to show acceptance of the fait accompli presented to all by Levi and Bristol. Being that Todd Palin hasn't already shown him the first half of last season's race course yet, it appears the family truly has accepted events and have determined to pursue the positive potential inherent to Bristol's pregnancy.
Being a dad myself, I'm not certain how well I'd have done presented with similar circumstance.
That all said, is anyone giving odds as to how long we will have to wait 'till some Democrat operative seeks to have young Levi prosecuted for statutory rape? Come to that, and given the opinion most of the old line Alaskan Republicans have for Gov. Palin, I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them try the same stunt.
Politics is a nasty business at the best of times. The present political climate in the US makes such a slimy tactic seem almost inevitable somehow instead of beyond the pale. It may wind up being both.
Gov. Palin strikes me as politically savvy, certainly Sen. McCain is. It seems incomprehensible that they both wouldn't have sought legal advice on this very possibility long since. Even so, the Democrat purpose is just as well served by a very public accusation and arrest of young Mr. Johnston as it is by a successful prosecution. Ultimate vindication will be politically irrelevant so long as it occurs no sooner than November 6th.
I hope my suspicions prove overly pessimistic about this. I keep returning to Saul Alinsky's lesson on means and ends though.
Specifically, while I don't doubt young Levi Johnston's love for Bristol Palin, she is still only 17 years old. By making them both prominently part of the family's public appearances, to include the convention stage last night, both the Governor herself and Senator McCain have done all that could reasonably be expected to show acceptance of the fait accompli presented to all by Levi and Bristol. Being that Todd Palin hasn't already shown him the first half of last season's race course yet, it appears the family truly has accepted events and have determined to pursue the positive potential inherent to Bristol's pregnancy.
Being a dad myself, I'm not certain how well I'd have done presented with similar circumstance.
That all said, is anyone giving odds as to how long we will have to wait 'till some Democrat operative seeks to have young Levi prosecuted for statutory rape? Come to that, and given the opinion most of the old line Alaskan Republicans have for Gov. Palin, I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them try the same stunt.
Politics is a nasty business at the best of times. The present political climate in the US makes such a slimy tactic seem almost inevitable somehow instead of beyond the pale. It may wind up being both.
Gov. Palin strikes me as politically savvy, certainly Sen. McCain is. It seems incomprehensible that they both wouldn't have sought legal advice on this very possibility long since. Even so, the Democrat purpose is just as well served by a very public accusation and arrest of young Mr. Johnston as it is by a successful prosecution. Ultimate vindication will be politically irrelevant so long as it occurs no sooner than November 6th.
I hope my suspicions prove overly pessimistic about this. I keep returning to Saul Alinsky's lesson on means and ends though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
