Politics

Informational malnutrition, and the death of Truth

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

The George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin situation in Florida.

I’ve written numerous articles voicing my thoughts on the situation, but I’ve published none of them because nothing quite captured how I felt. But writing them, talking about the situation with some close friends, and watching everything unfold over the past some days, and I’ve begun to congeal my response to the situation.

My Understanding

My understanding of the situation at the time of this writing is there are few indisputable facts. Zimmerman was head of a neighborhood watch. Zimmerman has a CHL and had his gun on him. Zimmerman was patrolling the neighborhood and saw what he believed to be a suspicious person, Martin, behaving in a manner he considered suspicious. Zimmerman called 911 to report the situation, then began to follow Martin. Martin called his girlfriend. Both parties communicated with their respective callers. Eventually the two people came face to face, something happened, Martin is dead.

And as far as I know, that’s about all the true concrete information we have.

Sure there’s lots more information, but it’s all disputed. Lots of “he said she said”, lots of things that have nothing directly to do with the case but muddies the water (Geraldo), and lots of uncertainty. But, lots of new information comes out every day.

Bottom line to me: we just don’t have enough information.

My (perceived) bias

It’s possible that some will perceive me to defend Zimmerman. I have a CHL. I believe “stand your ground” laws are reasonable (I also believe many of those presently talking about such topics have demonstrated they don’t know what they are talking about). I believe it is OK to use deadly force if you are truly in fear of your life and it’s the last resort answer towards the preservation of your life or the life of someone you love.

But I’m not defending Zimmerman.

I can’t defend his actions.

I don’t have enough information to defend him nor persecute him.

Based upon what little information I do have, I do think Zimmerman failed the “beer and tv maxim“. I think his choice of tactics was unwise, because, at least as far as I can see, he pursued something he didn’t have to. Was he in fear of his life? Was there a loved one in danger? Yes, legally you can use force to defend property (well, here in Texas; I don’t know Florida law but roll with me here), but that doesn’t mean you always should. I wrote about this very topic just a few weeks ago. If I see someone in my neighborhood doing suspicious things, I might look a little harder to determine if it’s really a problem or nothing to worry about, but I don’t want to put myself in danger nor invite trouble into my world. I may have my gun on me, because I know shit happens and can unfold in an instant, but if my family or myself wasn’t in imminent danger, I’d call the police and let them deal with it. Beer and TV maxim.

But then, that’s me. I don’t know what Zimmerman considered important. I read some interviews with neighbors saying how the neighborhood had been the target of a lot of crime, a lot of burglaries, in recent months. I figure that will give someone a different perspective. Perhaps Zimmerman thought pursuing Martin was worth dying over. Or perhaps, Zimmerman wasn’t thinking at all.

I don’t know.

I don’t know what was going through Zimmerman’s head, and I’m not going to pretend nor assume to know.

I also don’t know what was going on in Martin’s head. And unfortunately, we’ll never know. Thus, lacking information, I can’t defend nor persecute him either.

But the bottom line is: I don’t know.

Where’s the Truth?

I admit I don’t know.

Alas, I don’t see that going on in the popular media, nor around the world. I see the news reports. I see postings on Facebook and Twitter. I see all sorts of things that make me wonder… how do these people know? They’re all speaking with such confidence. They know that Zimmerman is a murderer. They know he was motivated purely out of racial hatred. They know he needs to be brought to justice. They know that Martin is totally innocent. That Martin was doing nothing wrong. That Martin never did anything wrong in his life, just an innocent black kid whose life was snuffed out too quickly by this white (latino) man. They know what’s going on, and they are all capable of passing perfect judgment… and Zimmerman should be drawn and quartered for what he did.

How do these people know?

Must be some news network that I haven’t heard of or am not tuning in to. Or maybe the facts are floating around the Twitterverse now and I just missed the tweet.

Is no one interested in finding Truth?

I do know they want to make Zimmerman “pay” for things, regardless of facts, regardless of Truth. When you have the New Black Panther Party offering $10,000 for Zimmerman. When you have Spike Lee retweeting Zimmerman’s address (which apparently was incorrect, and the innocent elderly couple that lives there are in fear of their lives due to the death threats they’ve been receiving). Gee… I thought lynching was frowned upon? But that’s what is happening to Zimmerman. Look at how people are talking about him. Look at how the media portrays the situation, be it their choice of photos or creative editing of the 911 calls. And because of this severe anger, people are afraid to speak, even as more facts come to light.

Is this right?

Is this Truth?

Is this Justice?

I guess I’m only a person of half-color… maybe even less, because mixing white and yellow just winds up some odd shade of pale. I’ve felt the sting of racism and discrimination because I’m Korean, I’ve felt it because I’m white, I’ve felt it because I’m a half-breed, I’ve felt it because I have long hair, I’ve felt it for numerous other reasons because someone judged me based upon shallow perceptions. I know it exists and have dealt with being the victim of racism and discrimination throughout my life.

And that’s where it comes from: shallow perceptions. People unwilling to get the whole truth. They get the tidbit that they want, then that’s good enough for them. They pass judgement, they execute, and they are satisfied to leave it at that. George Carlin lamented about the “sound bite” and how it dominates modern news media… and how it’s “just a bite. No chewing, no digestion, no nourishment. Malnutrition.”

That’s the greater tragedy I see happening in this Martin/Zimmerman case, and countless other stories reported every day (regardless of the race issue). There’s only a morsel of information, but people pick from that what they want, especially if it lends support to their cause and their righteousness. Calling for justice in this and every criminal case is warranted, but by saying “bringing this man to justice” you have already convicted him based upon what scant solid facts and evidence there is out there. Is that just?

If we want justice, if we want Truth, then we must seek it. That means we must gather information before we reach a conclusion. That we must question, but not seek to harvest only data that supports our desired conclusion. We must not and must not tolerate twisting and misrepresentation of fact, since that only leads away from Truth. Truth may be ugly. Truth may offend our sensibilities. Truth may totally up-end everything we know and hold to, it may shake us to our core. We may be wrong about what we thought was Truth, and we must be willing to give up what we clung to if we realize it is false. But it is Truth, and hopefully what we’re seeking. Anything less doesn’t do anyone, nor society in general, any justice.

Thought for today

/ hsoi

We seek security, constantly demanding that there shall be no disturbance; and it is this desire not to be disturbed that makes us avoid what is and fear what might be. Fear is the ignorance of what is, and our life is spent in a constant state of fear.

-Krishnamurti, via Maku mozo!

Brainwashing

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Any time the word “brainwashing” gets used, it’s never good.

It’s usually associated with cults and other people trying to assert evil influence. Consider this description/explanation:

…a process in which a group or individual “systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated”. The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual’s sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. In Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, Jacques Ellul maintains that the “principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man’s habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.”

Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements (NRMs).

Unethically manipulative.

To the detriment.

Subverting an individual’s sense of control over their own thinking.

Aims to destroy a man.

Totalitarian indoctrination.

So… I’d like to hope we can agree that those engaged in brainwashing aren’t up to any good.

Thus, it becomes really bothersome when the Attorney General, Eric Holder, casually throws about the term.

“We just have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We have to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Folks, you don’t have to like guns. You can be the biggest gun-banner out there if you want to.

But when people are put into positions of power and authority, and they wish to use that power and authority to brainwash? That’s not just scary, that’s really damn scary. Our own government? Brainwashing? If they’re willing to do it for one topic, it’s not too far a stretch for them to do it to another… whatever your favorite may be.

This is not right. This is not freedom. This is not how a free country is supposed to operate.

How could the answer be “no”?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

I read about this CSM quiz on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

For giggles, I started taking the quiz.

But I haven’t finished it.

I answered question #5:

5. What did the Supreme Court decide in the 2008 case?

That’s the Heller case.

After you answer each question, it of course says if you’re right or wrong and gives a blurb expanding upon the answer. #5’s blurb was this:

The Heller case left open the broader question of whether the constitutional right to possess arms for personal protection extends beyond the home to include a right to carry those arms in public places.

That is correct, the Heller case did leave that open. I read the quiz blurb, clicked forward to the next question, but then hit my browser’s Back button because something about reading that struck me.

If we make it a yes or no question: “can/should people be allowed to possess arms for personal protection outside of the home, a right to carry them in public places… yes or no?” I cannot see how someone could answer “no” to that question. That is, if you understand the realities of life and the world we live in.

I speak with a lot of people on this topic, and so far I’ve yet to encounter someone against the notion of home defense. Home is very personal to us, not just because it’s where we keep all our stuff, but because it’s our little slice of the world, our sanctuary, our refuge. It’s very personal when our homes are violated, and I don’t know of anyone that would deny others the right to protect themselves and their posessions within the grounds of their own home. But then some of those I have spoken with that are fine with protection in the home feel that doesn’t extend outside the home.

And I don’t understand that line of reasoning.

Wife was outside our home when she was sexually assaulted. Are you saying she has no right to defend herself?

When I think about the almost 60 students of Tom Givens that have been involved in personal defense incidents, just about all of them were not in the home. They were in parking lots, parking garages, sidewalks. If the majority of assaults and violent crimes against people are not in the home, how can we say personal protection doesn’t extend outside the home! That’s where most of the incidents occur and thus where you are most likely to be the victim of a violent crime. Why are we denying that to the law-abiding citizenry?

Then you say people could use something like pepper spray, or a taser/stun gun. Before you go recommending such tools, you probably should increase your understanding of those tools, their applications, and their limits. They aren’t what you think. A gun is a lot more effective. It’s like saying we should still use carrier pigeons and pony express to communicate around the world, instead of the Internet. We have better technology, we have more effective technology, and we are happy to use it. So why are we discouraging the use of better, more effective technology when it comes to personal protection?

Remember, I wasn’t always a gun guy. Once I took my fingers out of my ears and started listening to the logic, I changed my stance. Once the ugly realities of the world pressed themselves upon me and I accepted them as unavoidable fact, I changed my stance. I’m willing to be swayed, I’m willing to be persuaded, because the only thing I keep a stake in is finding Truth. If that means I have to abandon everything I know and based my life upon, then so be it. I don’t want to be right, I want to know Truth. So if someone can present me with facts and logic as to why we should be denied the right to preserve and protect our own lives, and to do so with the best technology available, I’m all ears.

Our home may be personal, but it doesn’t get any more personal than your own person. Your home being violated is bad, your body being violated is worse. Society encourages us to protect our homes: alarm systems, big dogs, adequate exterior lighting, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers. Why does society fail at encouraging us to protect ourselves?

Liberals, consider Ron Paul

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

It’s time to let go of the left-right paradigm. It’s even time to abandon the four-pronged Nolan Chart. We live in a time where the status quo is devolving into a bipartisan pro-war, corporatist, anti-free speech police state, and the only candidate who will turn it around is Ron Paul. If the likes of Nader or Kucinich were frontrunners in the 2012 primary, this blog post would be about them. Sadly, that’s not happening—but if liberals would reach across the aisle to embrace this iconoclastic libertarian’s surprisingly viable candidacy, iconoclastic progressives might have a chance in the future.

“Violasong” (Victoria) pens an interesting article about how she, as a progressive liberal, is going to vote for Ron Paul.

It’s well worth the read. No, she’s not 100% in agreement with him on all issues, but it’s one reason I’ve like Ron Paul as well: he stands for something. The man has principles and has stuck with them. He’s not like Mitt Romney nor Barak Obama, who are established flip-floppers, willing to do whatever it takes to get and stay elected. Thus who are they serving? Certainly not you.

Go read.

That’s a good question

/ hsoi

RB: If you could ask President Obama one question, what would that be?

PJ: What good things do you think the government should NOT do? What do you trust us to take care of ourselves?

— PJ is Penn Jilette

Full story here. It’s just a quick set of questions, “if you had 5 minutes with the President, what would you discuss with him?”.

Go read. It’ll take you less than 5 minutes.

on copyrights, SOPA, and education

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Because of SOPA and GoDaddy’s support of it, I’m going to be switching all my domains away from GoDaddy. I’m a little late in joining the throng; been busy, better late than never.

Yeah yeah, GoDaddy claims to have dropped support. I’m not convinced the senior management truly believes SOPA is bad. I can only believe they made the public stance reversal due to all the bad publicity and potential loss of revenue. If they really believed SOPA was bad, why wasn’t that their initial stance? I know people can change their mind and do complete reversals of stance (I’ve been there), but this smells too fishy. Besides, I hate using GoDaddy’s website as they’ve apparently never heard of the KISS principle. I’ve wanted to leave for a while, and SOPA finally broke my inertia.

I’m all for protecting copyright. As someone that’s written software professionally for 15+ years, I understand the importance of copyright, especially in the digital realm. Every time someone steals my software, they’re taking food out of the mouths of my children.

I look at it this way. You want my product/service because it somehow makes your life better. Be it software, be it a movie, be it music, whatever, you like my stuff, consume my stuff, and feel your life is better because of it. Great! That’s why we create these things; trying to make the world a better place, trying to make people’s lives better. Nevertheless, we also need to feed ourselves, put a roof over our heads, put clothing on the backs of our children. With a finite amount of time in a day and energy in my body, I must use those finite resources at my disposal to make money to feed, house, and clothe myself and my children. Given a choice, I’d love to use my time and energy to make the world a better place doing what I do best. If someone can compensate me in exchange, great! If however I cannot make money at it, then I must find something else to do to support my family. If I have to do something else, that means I can no longer create and provide you with that thing that makes your life better. So you see, if you steal from me, eventually I will be forced to do something else. We both lose: I can’t create the thing you like, and you can no longer enjoy the thing I made. If however you compensate me for my work, we both win because I get to create it and you get to consume it. Both our lives are better.

So please, don’t steal. Ultimately your theft hurts both of us — yes, it will come to hurt you too. If instead you make a small sacrifice, maybe don’t buy that Venti White Chocolate Blended Creme Frappuccino today but instead send the $5 my way in exchange for my software you’ve been using well… now both our lives are going to be better in the long run (and you didn’t need those 760 empty calories anyways). You support me, I create for you. It works out for both of us.

I think the solution to this copyright and “digital theft” problem is to eliminate the dinosaurs that want to criminalize their entire potential customer base. I think we need to foster education in consumers about copyright and how things work and need to work so we can labor and they can enjoy the fruits of our labor, both now and for many years to come. Customers need to realize that “free” is not a successful long-term business model, and unless they pay up sooner or later, whatever you like won’t just stop being free… it’ll just stop being. Customers need to realize how supporting those that create the services and goods you enjoy means good things for THEIR lives too (and how not supporting ultimately comes back to hurt them). To pay isn’t trying to rip you off, it’s an understanding that there are costs in the world (gotta host this website somehow, gotta eat), and by helping to do something about those costs we can all benefit. We creators also need to listen to our customers about what they want and strive to strike a balance.

Heavy-handed measures like SOPA may work to address symptoms and make some assholes in Washington feel like they’re “doing something”. But they aren’t striking at the root of the matter, and they’re not really working to solve the problem. In fact, they’re only going to make things worse. I mean, do you really want decisions made by people who think the Internet is a “series of tubes” and take pride in their ignorance of the technology but are getting their pockets lined to shove the legislation through? Does that seem right to you?

Elephant Repellaphant

/ hsoi

In her usual style, Tam’s commentary nails it:

[The TSA] come out and admit that they haven’t foiled any terrorist plots of which they’re aware, but they “argue that the random nature of the searches and the presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent and bolster public confidence.”

In other words, you don’t see any elephants around here, do you? So the elephant repellant must be working! Also left unexplained is how the public’s confidence is supposed to be bolstered by getting their crotch randomly sniffed by that noted Fourth Amendment legal expert, Fluffy the Uberhund.

The kicker? There are a fair number of people who believe security theater actually works and is doing good at keeping this country and its citizens safe.

The sad part is, those people keep getting elected.

The sadder part is, there are people who keep electing the first group of people.

 

Some of us already knew this

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

It’s Christmastime.

People travel to see family and friends.

And of course, that means being violated by the TSA.

All in the name of safety, of course.

Do you really think any of those measures actually improve safety and security? Vanity Fair has a revealing article on the security theater. (h/t Slashdot)

To a large number of security analysts, this expenditure makes no sense. The vast cost is not worth the infinitesimal benefit. Not only has the actual threat from terror been exaggerated, they say, but the great bulk of the post-9/11 measures to contain it are little more than what Schneier mocks as “security theater”: actions that accomplish nothing but are designed to make the government look like it is on the job. In fact, the continuing expenditure on security may actually have made the United States less safe.

[…]

Security theater, from this perspective, is an attempt to convey a message: “We are doing everything possible to protect you.” When 9/11 shattered the public’s confidence in flying, Slovic says, the handful of anti-terror measures that actually work—hardening the cockpit door, positive baggage matching, more-effective intelligence—would not have addressed the public’s dread, because the measures can’t really be seen. Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, “Have confidence in Uncle Sam,” when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense. Over time, though, the value of the message changes. At first the policeman in the train station reassures you. Later, the uniform sends a message: train travel is dangerous. “The show gets less effective, and sometimes it becomes counterproductive.”

I was at a credit union today. While waiting for the teller I saw a placard discussing their measures regarding identity theft. I forget the exact wording, but one word stood out to me: “feel”. It spoke about how difficult it is to “feel safe” (in a post-9/11 world, referencing the PATRIOT Act and how it changed banking regulations). And you see, that’s what it’s all about: trying to feel safe. Not actually doing anything that actually will make us safe, just a feeling of safety, even if it’s a lie.