Nov 11 - remember the dead

15,000,000 in WWI
60,000,000 in WW2

10,000,000 in Korea
5,400,000 in Vietnam
100,000 in Gulf War
12,000 in Afghanistan
150,000 in Iraq

These are only wars America was involved in, and only since WWI.
Would these 90 million men, women, and children thank any veteran for being a part of their annihilation?

Let's think of scale. Take the nine last people you talked to.  

For me, this is my fiancee, my two roomates (my friends for the past year), two of my fiancee's coworkers, my younger brother, my father, and two neighbors. 

Now imagine you killed them. Some of them you shot, some of them you bombed, others you gassed. 

Now, multiply that experience by a million. That's only a tenth of the anguish caused by a handful of world leaders who thought war was the best solution. That's a tenth of the destruction caused by the veterans who did their part helping the cause. 

I'm not saying killing is never a good thing. I'm just saying that we see the tip of the iceberg on Veteran's Day. We see nice uniforms and manly faces, but no pile of corpses, each of which had a story and once meant the world to somebody. 

If we could only regret death more than we celebrated killing. 

Modern Iconoclasty

I read in a libertarian-minded article recently (how's that for proper citational format?) that the modern iconoclast (don't worry, I looked it up too) is the person saying "don't worry, be happy". What was meant was that the norm of media fearmongering and consequential 24/7 hype over the latest developments in inconsequential world regions has incited an opposition of people bent on optimism. How great is it that all we must do to be rebellious is not worry, that to fulfil a desire to be different we must only be contently pacified? I like it.

I'm going to initiate a retaliatory war against the wannabe terrified world. I'm going to tell people not to worry so much about the fate of other countries or our own country, about our health or our driving. When I'm burning at the stake I'll look into their fear-addled eyes and start singing the peaceful regge; "don't worry, be happy now..."

Tax the rich!

Just noticed something which may be quite a revelation. 

When people say a tax should be levied, they're never the ones who are affected. "The RICH should be taxed more" or "CORPORATIONS should be taxed more" or "IMPORTS should be taxed more. People always reveal what they know about themselves by indicating the opposite in others who should be taxed. So, a person is poor if they believe the rich should be taxed. If a rich person calls for higher taxes on the rich, he's revealing his own financial weakness. If anyone wants higher taxes and has the money to pay for them, let him simply write an unprompted check to the treasury and encourage others to do so.

Iranian vs. American government

This article suggests a strategy for liberating Iran. It doesn't suggest military use, coercion, or any form of force at all, but promotes the exploitation of a flaw in the Iranian government's governing: their lack of quality education. Through opening our borders to Iranian college students, we would (1) drain the country of talented students, (2) install into the country pro-America Iranians (assuming the international students enjoyed their stay here) and (3) reveal to these students just how repressive their government is by juxtaposing it with ours (assuming our govt appears less oppressive, that is).

This would help Iran by (hopefully) instilling a love of liberty in the younger generation, which would eventually lead to the government there being less oppressive for Iranians. Americans would benefit from the increase in tuition payments from these new students and from an eventual peace with Iran. American Government, least importantly, would benefit from the eventual decrease of Iranian hostility toward America.

Once again, our government stepping out of an issue could benefit everyone now involved!

Somehow, the US government, having started with the noble cause of being left alone, unmolested by a colonizing world power, has become what it once abhorred. How much better it could be for both Iran and America if both were left to their business and both respected the other's ground. How much better it could be if that most peacemaking enterprise, free and unrestricted trade, were applied instead of sanctions.

To Propagandize or not to Propagandize

That is the question.

Say, for a minute, that the cares of the world have taken seed in my affections. How can I, without violating my conscience, further my political, economic, and philosophical goals? Is it not evil to persuade through half-truths, is it not worse to give my cause the best defense possible?

Two truths I can know for certain, three I can rely on:

• Propaganda can work in the short term.
• Propaganda eventually becomes history. 
• Propagandists, when found out, are despised. 

But who would want to join the ranks of bias? This would make the mechanism of furthering a cause no less repugnant to a critical thinker than a biased cable news show. But not all who would hear the message would understand the bias, in fact most wouldn't. One can be so crafty with words as to fool the masses, but one can't fool everyone all the time. It's really the critical thinkers one wants as allies, not those who believe whatever they're told.

I know my course; I must not be ashamed of my actions first and foremost. I cannot tell a half-truth in support of my cause, I must be truthful to myself, my reason, and my human matrix. It would be far worse to convince a bunch of halfwits and convert the majority to a cause than to remain honest and earnest, gaining the alliance of the few who would fully understand it.

Unorthodox application of non-laws

Lest week, a friend of mine (also a Virginia Tech student) was kicked out of the university library for watching a youtube video about a firearm he was interested in. It is completely legal to watch this, even as a university code complying VT student on a library computer. It appears that some anonymous person peered over my friend's shoulder and thought the worst of the situation. It's like seeing someone watching Mythbusters blow up Buster and calling the police for assault.
Come to think of it, this is exactly what happened with my friend. A person was put in fear of imminent harm by the actions of another, the definition of assault.
My friend wasn't watching in order to scare those peering over his shoulder, he was peacefully pursuing a personal interest.
An excerpt from an email from my Governor-Appointed better, the President of the university, tells me that I should:

"Avoid visiting or commenting on sites that contain threatening and harassing material.
If you observe behaviors that cause you concern for your safety, or that of the community, contact the Virginia Tech Police."

I wonder if the recommendations are now policy? Can I visit sights that talk about negative things anymore? Am I bound by the VT standards of community to shun certain subjects? Or should I not do anything that might cause busybodies to fret?
I don't think I can do any of those. As an unschooler I must pursue my own curriculum.

The excerpt above merits little fear, but the situation my friend was put in was a result of these recommendations. How bad does an application of pseudo-policy have to be in order to be reprehensible? Say, the level caused by limitation of internet use to approved content?

Today's Terrorism

From Afterward of Little Brother by Cory Doctorow
     Have the terrorists already won? Have we given in to fear, such that artists, hobbyists, hackers, iconoclasts, or perhaps an unassuming group of kids playing Harajuku Fun Madness, could be so trivially implicated as terrorists? There is a term for this dysfunction, it is called an autoimmune disease, where an organism's defense system goes into overdrive so much that it fails to recognize itself and attacks its own cells. Ultimately, the organism self-destructs.

     Right now, America is on the verge of going into anaphylactic shock over its own freedoms, and we need to inoculate ourselves against this. Technology is no cure for this paranoia; in fact, it may enhance the paranoia: it turns us into prisoners of our own device. Coercing millions of people to strip off their outer garments and walk barefoot through metal detectors every day is no solution either. It only serves to remind the population every day that they have a reason to be afraid, while in practice providing only a flimsy barrier to a determined adversary.

     The truth is that we can't count on someone else to make us feel free… no matter how unpredictable the future may be, we don't win freedom through security systems, cryptography, interrogations and spot searches. We win freedom by having the courage and the conviction to live every day freely and to act as a free society, no matter how great the threats are on the horizon.

Bible Abuse: Romans 13

I wrote this on facebook recently when this particular passage was brought up as a way to show that disobedience to government was wrong. I'd had enough of this passage and its use in argument, so I blitzed it with every fact and idea I could think of and have now thoroughly confused myself on the veracity of scripture. Another day, another dilemma.

1. “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
• God established Hitler’s authority, and submission to that authority would have been wrong. The government of our day has done equally egregious things, should we obey it? Support it? No, we should overthrow it.
2. “Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
• No human being is capable of bringing judgment on another, God is the only judge. There are others who will try it, but that is not justice, that is enforcement of law. There are several types of law, but the one earthly judges use is man made, not divinely instituted. If one man makes a law for another it is not rebellion against God for the tyrannized to disobey.
3. “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.”
• Put this to the test and I’ll bail you out. Since when are good deeds unpunished? The writer was extremely naïve, to prove this just look at how he died.
4. “For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
• Rulers do their subjects no good at all. Do you think that the ruled benefit from tyranny? That’s like saying “The Peace of Rome” benefited those whose lives it ended. Rulers are only God’s servants in that we are all his servants; the thrower’s pot has no choice in such matters.
5. “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.”
• Conscience does not dictate obedience to artificial, earthly authorities, but to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
6. “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.”
• Wrong again. This could have been written by Caesar himself. Or a guilt-tripping pastor concerned with tithing.
• When your human rights are restricted and breaches of them made, are you supposed to believe that the criminal who injured you deserves whatever he takes from you? No, you’re supposed to protect yourself from further abuse. This is why the government is an adversary, not a kindly old ruler whose only thought is your good.
7. “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
• Give everyone what you owe him, sure, but do I owe anything to a tyrant? No taxes, revenue, respect or honor is owed to an enslaving ruler or to any ruler not voluntarily submitted to. This is the heart of the matter: Human Liberty. Anyone who trespasses this right deserves nothing less than the most violent opposition.