#Nymwars: Content is King, and King is Content.

My patience has ended. 


I'm just about to pull the pin on Google+ so that I can take some time and think about my reliance on other Google services. The entire debate tells me that for whatever reason, google as a corporation has jumped the shark and I do not feel comfortable investing my social capital in it.

And if that social capital were not valuable, they would not be locked in a death match with Facebook over data-mining futures, and governments would not be petitioning them for their databases.

Oddly, my decision is not based on whether I have anything to hide. I have always made the point of never putting anything on the Internet that could put me at risk, and I make a point of distancing myself from those who do.

"Content is King, and King is Content." The reality of the Internet is there is always someplace else - and moreover, wherever you are will cease to be anyplace sometime in the future.  One SURE way of ensuring that the interesting people will leave is to send out invitations to the "bridge and tunnel set," the sort of people who think that the Luxor casino is even better than the actual pyramids of Egypt.

This is about investment, and where my time is best spent and to what ends. Google, at the moment, seems like a very poor investment for my social capital and I shall be investigating other social investment vehicles.

You see, I'm a fucking punk;  I understand the difference between civility and civilization. "Civility" is being careful about the words used to boast about raping a peasant wench.

"Civilization" is a condition in which it's considered wrong to rape peasants, and a right and proper outcome is to bring rapists to justice, regardless of their station in life.

If that distinction is unclear to you - and it seems to me that it is - a discussion about "civility" as being a way to make things "better" will create no better thing that I care to participate in.

"THE First Amendment Issue Of Our Time"

Senator Al Frankin speaking at Netroots.

Carrie Prejean, the Also-ran Queen

I've been taking a little vacation from internet news the last while, because, well, I was starting to burn out. One response was to experiment with a more graphic approach to graphictruths.

But that meant that all I got was television pop-culture. Well, I'm late to the gate with the Peroxide Christian Conservatism of Carrie Prejean, Also-Ran Queen for Miss Trump USA.

But it seems that while the story ain't fresh, it's a great BIG pile of cultural carrion, and the Usual Vultures are far from reaching the bone.

Palin defends Carrie Prejean Miss California USA

from staunchusa

Carrie Prejean news of the day! Sarah Palin is defending Carrie Prejean.

“The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against (Miss California) Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable,” Palin said in a statement.

Gov. Palin said that her and Prejean spoke right after Miss California expressed her honest opinion regarding same-sex marriages during the Miss USA pageant.

At that point, the circus began thanks to gay-activist and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

“What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what the President and Ms. Clinton believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” Palin added. “Our Constitution protects us all — not just those who agree with the far left.”

This week, Palin announced that she is woking on her memoir, saying that she wants to be “able to tell (her) story unrestrained and unfiltered.”

What I find remarkable is that Palin's apparent belief that those who react to public stupidities with derision are doing it for political reasons. Sometimes a really stupid remark is just a really stupid remark!


Perez Hilton explains why the bimbo lost and what she could have said that would not have insulted anyone's moral values, something he "meanspiritedly" observes, is appropriate for someone who wishes to be an icon for all Americans - including, of course, truly fabulous drag queens and Christian Reconstructionists alike.



Sometimes, when people say that your remarks are some form of bigoted incoherence, it's not because they are radical liberals out to foist Teh Gay upon all Ghod Fearin' Chromefishtians - it's because they are repulsed by your choice to tie YOUR politics with bigoted incoherence and a set of publically defended ethical positions that Jesus Himself would personally kick your ass for attaching to His name.

Sadly, she either does not understands this, or sees some personal advantage in choosing to not see it. But if she'd been smart enough to note the distinction, I suspect Carrie would be the current Miss USA, not Miss Also-Ran.


I think she needs a little help with her Inner Voice Recognition Software.

Bluntly, correlation does not equal causation. One does NOT have to be a flaming liberal who wishes to tax and spend and impose "moral clarification" classes in public schools just after the morning flag burning and right before The Rainbow Pledge to think that Carrie Prejean is the cartoon example of Cultural Conservative Values. She's a "Whited Sepulchre" made of remarkably cheap materials; a marketable commodity of short term value - a person who by choice has stepped into a glass house and who chose to throw stones of self-rightious judgment regarding the moral values of others from her vitreous front porch.

We are supposed to credit with the intelligence that should distinguish her from a common whore - even as she publicly demonstrates a lack of wit and an incapacity to lie convincingly that would get a stripper laughed off her pole. This leads me to presume that she lacks even the virtues associated with the World's Oldest Profession.

Let me speak even more sharply to the point. Carrie Prejean is simply a peroxide opportunist, but one without the wit to actually sieze the day. I don't actually blame her for positioning herself to fulfill her ambition to be a pneumatically-enhanced status symbol, and even in that role, she has no defect that could not be corrected with a ball-gag.

Once the fact came out that the pagent had paid for her "enhancements," I believe that anyone with two neurons to rub together and the insight to be a real liberal or the cyincal realism to be a real conservative realized what was going on.

To cite a possibly apocraphal exchange between Winston Churchill and a nameless woman of the sort Ms. Prejean aspires to become:

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Which leads us into the starkly surreal landscape of Barbie from the Taiga defending this Vaseline-toothed centerfold tease as a legitimate and important voice for Conservative Values.

I agree, of course. She is the Perfect Republican Female, just as Joe the Plumber is the Perfect Republican Male. Together, they exemplify exactly what is wrong with that version of American Family Values.

Wake up, America! Wake up and smell the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

I think that she is, indeed, the perfect spokesmuffin; an absolutely accurate exemplar for what passes for the culture that Palin would like to conserve. A set of unconnected, mindless reflexes, a literal bimbo who can be trusted to say whatever needs to be said to please whoever needs to be pleased in order to be awarded the Tennis Bracelet of Social Correctness.

But, well, I have nothing against a girl rocking the assets she has to offset deficits of birth. I'm not so charitable as to suggest that setting a high price on flesh makes the flesh trade any less ethically questionable.

I of course absolutely defend her right to say any damn-fool thing she wishes to say in public. But - while the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights carve this precept in stone and inlay it with imperishable metal, that consideration extends equally to the response to such free speech.

She said a damn-fool thing in public. People reacted by saying she IS a damn fool.

I will simply sweep away all the clutter of all the various reflexive moralists and boil it right down to essentials, and then allow you readers to figure out why she, Palin and everyone stupid enough to defend her words as being not merely protected, but informative speech deserve an equal measure of eye-rolling derision.

A moral position cannot be ethical if it mandates harming those who merely disagree.

Compliance is not moral behavior. It's merely compliance - and that is the best possible outcome.

A valid moral position is one that is - by definition - ethical, and we know it to be a moral and ethical truth because practicing it is obviously and inherently beneficial; first to the individual and by extension to all of society.

It feels good to do good things and doing good things produces good results. It takes all manner of bad political theory and rotten theology to produce a system of brainwashing and propaganda that can obscure this truth, to appeal to the basest lusts and fears of the people while attaching those lusts and fears to false virtues.

When you choose to say hateful things and do harmful things to others - like, say, refusing to allow them to be with their loved ones in hospital, because you don't approve of their relationship choices, or tearing up prescriptions for emergency birth control in a fit of self-righteousness - you are choosing to do a harmful thing in the supposed service of good. This is not just true, it's intuitively, obviously true and neither legislation nor sermonizing can argue against such truth. To make the argument in the first place is to illustrate your own moral failure in public.

This sort of moral vision, this sort of willful confusion between good and evil deeds makes it easy to defend the use of torture against strange brown people from the pulpit.

Thank you, Ms. Prejean, Mrs. Palin, and of course, Mr. Cheney. May you reap the rich rewards awaiting you in the next life for your service to the spiritual principle you have chosen in this one.

Now, you may say that it's "Liberal Politics" that makes people object to such expressions of personal views. Me, I think it to be revulsion for a set of affirmative beliefs that people like Palin assert as being essential, core, conservative values, and the result of seeing such acts Republicanism committed in public.

You don't have to be a Liberal to see crap, smell crap and decide not to consume crap; you just have to trust your own senses. But if Palin wishes to associate Republicanism with being deluded enough to confuse crap and chocolate pudding, there are obvious political benefits to parties and movements that do not inspire such revulsion. That, however, is not a "Liberal Plot" or a smear campaign. No, when you are being "smeared" by your own words - that is your problem. Nor is it a political issue.

Or at least, forgive me for saying so, but there is a level of intelligent discorse and a certain basic understanding of reality, of causes, of effects and of human needs and nature that should be expected of anyone who has ambition toward public, political service. Niether Palin nor Prejean qualify - by the standards they have established by their own words.

Some of us may continue to feebly argue that Conservatism does not require one be stupid, that there ARE virtues and traditions that should be upheld - but unfortunately, none of those virtues and traditions are the ones the Palindromes insist upon, either in principle and practice. And, rather than give such creatures any comfort or support, I'd much rather be mistaken for a flaming liberal. It's far less insulting than anyone presuming I stand for what has come to be thought of as "conservative."

These "conservative values" have been applied upon us ruthlessly and relentlessly since the dawn of the Regan era, and with every decade that has passed, the cost in human and social terms has become clearer and clearer.

One hardly needs to assert that "Godless Liberalism" is better to observe that it's time to put an end to this chapter before the current Conservative Value Set has done it's worst. When the authoritarians have become so obviously bereft of the ability to recognize that what they are saying in public is morally and ethically repugnant as well as being offensive and stupid, many will say that we need different and better Authorities in charge.

"Public Service" should actually be just that; as opposed to being "Large and In Charge."

Authorities should be equipped to inform and advise while citizens should make informed decisions in the contexts in which they live - including within the field of elective, appointive and professional public service. I see a general trend away from blind acceptance and trust of such folks - including a healthy skepticism toward the omniscience and omnipotence of the Obama Administration.

Alas, I have little faith that after such long a time under such a head of steam, that the shoals ahead may be entirely avoided.

Meme/quz fails to fail.

I occasionally take one of these stupid tests. Even more occasionally I post the results. Usually I do this regardless of whether it's useful or accurate; I do it because it's funny and because I can think of nothing better to have had done with that time, even in retrospect.

It was in that spirit I took this test, after finding that, as I had long suspected, I was "Spiderman." Damn it. I had wanted to be The Dark Phoenix.

But this quiz is different. Why is it different? We will get to that.

What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Existentialism Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life. Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. It is up to you to give [life] a meaning. --Jean-Paul Sartre It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth. --Blaise Pascal More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...

First, I'm not sure that I am mostly an Existentialist... Ok, let's break down the results.

What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com

Existentialism 100% Hedonism 80% Utilitarianism 70% Justice (Fairness) 55% Apathy 35% Strong Egoism 35% Kantianism 35% Divine Command 20% Nihilism 10%

Ok, I don't think hedonism should come into the top three, and if I'd been asked to predict the result, I'd have predicted "Utilitarianism."

So I think there might be some testing bias in there somewhere. On the other hand, you will note that I'm seriously using the term "testing bias" while referring to something found on "Quiz Farm."

Quiz Farm gives up the addresses of the quizzes. Compare and contrast, shall we?

No	Name	Author
1.	What Rock band are you?	painbehindeyes
2.	witch evil villian r u	slayer2000
3.	i kno your name	ugien
4.	Are you A Good or Bad Flirt?	HardHittin
5.	are you ugly or hott????	budda_69
6.	'Which Anime Character Are You Mostl Like?
7.	butt or boob	deadman1
8.	Are you Ugly, Pretty, Hot, Or on Fire?
9.	this quiz can guess your name	bob46
10.	What Beatle Are You Most Like?	LisaMP
11.	Can you play Guitar?	Maverick0220
12.	what type of girl r ya
13.	true metal guitar	robgrimsm8
14.	!!!!!!!!!!!!ARE U GAY!!!!!!!!!!	imtiredandhung
15.	How stupid are u? An IQ test
16.	How will you first kiss???
17.	wat drug personality R U?	Chicken420
18.	what sex organ are u?	mudafuca
19.	R u fat, skiny, ugly, or pretty	246810
20.	Theology Quiz	jedawe

Ok. There's our standard of competition. Now, let's look at the comments on the quiz; having found that it's definitely not one of the top twenty, we should expect it to be relatively unpopular, if it provoked any comment at all.

177 responses - about half positive, about half critical and about a third hilariously revealing or utterly clueless tells me this is a meme WELL worth passing on. With slight reservations and hopes for refinements, of course.

It's hard to pick a favorite, but my prize for "most obviously missing the point" goes here.

3.

2008-08-26 21:48:11

Annonymous Visitor

Too long for a quiz.

Now, "Wheel of Morality, Turn Turn Turn! Tell Us The Lesson We Must Learn!"

In life, as in quizzes, if you fail to have pissed anyone off AND have failed to please at least as many as you have pissed off - you are probably wasting your time.

Go, Thou and annoy someone usefully.

Portland Meetup of the Ron Paul Riders.

PDX MEETUP
Originally uploaded by pdx-ronpaul2008.

That is what you would call an unlikely confluence of support.

Bad Cop. No Doughnut.

This post started as a response to a comment on a now notorious YouTube video by one akfuzz.

Here's the video again.



Here's what he said:

Obviously you have never been in this type of situation. Perhaps you could go out and do the job since you seem to know what the deal is. When you get stabbed or, or worse, shot, by an irrational handcuffed suspect, write back and let us know what you think, eh? BTW, I was not defending this officer, merely stating that given the limited video, 'tis hard to say what really happened.

Ok, that sounds almost reasonable, until you actually think about it.

There are two minutes and thirteen seconds of sadistic pornography captured on that tape - and as a cop, in a live situation, you are expected to assess threats, probable perps, instigators and victims in under 15 seconds, with any more time being a distinct luxury.

But with good training, that's easily possible, and that's a good thing, because you can get all sorts of dead in 15 seconds. So I KNOW who the perp is. And I really don't care that the victim was "acting out."

Here's what SHE said about it:

In the video, Gill, once inside the police car, kicks the back-seat window and continues to scream. "At this point, I had been Tased for so long and just drug around by my handcuffs. I was terrified of this man. He was no longer a police officer to me."

I suggest to you that that was not compliant mindset the officer was supposedly intending.

And if you ever find yourself in this situation, I assure you that a jury will find that amount of video more than enough time to assess whether sober compliance or panicked flailing is "more reasonable" to expect of a drunken woman already - by her own admission and according to the testimony of others- already in an aroused emotional state.

Earlier, akfuzz had uttered this deadpan confirmation of observations and criticisms I'd made earlier about cops, tasers and contempt of those currently in power for the rights and dignity of the citizenry.

akfuzz (2 days ago) Sh

And, the Taser is used to gain compliance, nothing more. A suspect who continues to resist will be Taser'd again, handcuffed or not, male or female...It is not a gender bias thing, I have seen both men and women do horrible things while handcuffed. Nobody can say what they would have done unless they were in the same situation, not even other police officers such as myself. It would not be fair.

akfuzz (2 days ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

It is very hard to Monday morning QB something like this. I could see where folks would be upset seeing this limited video footage, however, not knowing all the details makes it wrong to judge either the officer or the suspect. I am sure the internal investigation will reveal what really happened, and it's not right to bow to political pressure or the media, such as it appears in this case.

Yes, fuzzynuts, we HAVE seen how tasers are used to "gain compliance, nothing more." Even when it's a compliance that's a flat out violation of constitutional rights or completely unreasonable to expect, due to the obvious mental state of the person being tasered.

And in both cases, there's reasonable evidence to suggest from the raw video that there's a component of sadistic enjoyment in using the taser to inflict pain and enforce compliance.

Now, sir, my standards tell me that a person doing that without a badge has no right to expect restraint on my part to end their offense against the decent expectations of civilized persons. How do you then excuse those who do the exact same thing under color of law? Have you no shame? Have you no professional standards? Aren't you personally embarrassed by the mere existence of such walking trouser stains?

The raw footage from an officer's dash camera - a device intended to prevent the impasse of "he said, she said" situations in court is not "media pressure." It's presenting evidence of a situation that is of concern to the community.

In the real world where knowing truth from fiction is important, outside of the realm of Fox news, facts are facts, and evidence trumps protests of supposed innocence.

Note, when I say "evidence," I mean precisely that, in an exact legal sense. Whatever motivations or training deficits turn up, we don't need to wait to find out what "really happened." The why of it may be of interest, but what we saw IS exactly what happened. What we saw was a repeated assault against a person who was no threat to the officer.

What we do not know is what caused the situation to escalate to that point out of range of the camera - but it would be unwise to assume that testimony from either the cop, the club or the bartender mentioned in the dispute will be without any trace or shade of self-excusing selective interpretation. Besides, we know another thing.

ALL assaults against a person are, in fact, intended to "gain compliance, nothing more."

The blunt truth is, if you have to immediately resort to force to gain compliance, it doesn't show a lot of confidence in your own ability to control a situation, or much respect for the willingness of the average citizen to comply with reasonable, lawful directions in a tense situation.

Perhaps this is because their contempt for your understanding of "lawful order" is well earned? Perhaps it's due to the fact that, having a central nervous system capable of pointing and firing a Taser, you also have some doubts about the solidity of citizen support for your authority that the actual existence of the Taser implies - a means of enforcing compliance that any semi-trained thug can use in situations where a citizen's rightful response would otherwise be amused or enraged contempt at best?

You see, when you pull a weapon to enforce your will, you admit your powerlessness to affect the situation without it. You have abandoned any pretence of moral or lawful authority. You directly state - simply by carrying the damn thing - that you are no longer willing to depend on citizens being willing to comply because they respect you as a symbol of the rule of law and order. You expect them to comply out of fear.

But you pull the trigger, even on a "less lethal" weapon, you have just publicly admitted that your willingness to settle for fear and enforced compliance has bought you a buttload of paperwork - and that's the BEST possible outcome.

I've never been a cop - but I've ten years of martial arts under my belt, an art with a heavy emphasis on avoiding situations and resolving them with an absolute minimum of force. You learn to read body language, you develop a sixth sense for body language, and you make a habit of respectfully treating everyone as if they were Bruce Lee dipped in nitroglycerin. Why?

Because the most dangerous opponent is the one who realizes they don't exist on your threat-o-meter and is just drunk or distraught enough to need to prove you wrong.

Wait, make that a city councilman, a partner in the state's largest personal injury firm, who happens to be Bruce Lee, dipped in nitroglycerin.

And here's another why you should think like that. This jerk figured there was no downside to shocking the hell out of the pretty blond who wouldn't even look at him out of uniform.

What's she gonna do about it? He asks himself, Have a hissy fit?

Yeah. On CNN, no less. With her lawyer. With his very own porn tape playing in the background.

That cartoon cop was confident in the lack of power the suspect had in the situation, and willing to exploit that power imbalance to publicly humiliate her and disrespect her in front of her friends and peers - in order to avoid the heavy lifting (mental and physical) that is the job.

To protect and to serve includes suspects and panicked drunken blond chicks. It does NOT include acts that can be validly compared, metaphorically and in terms of impact on the victim and onlookers, to literal, physical rape.

Your primary tools are your presence, you aura of confident command, your knowledge of law, your reputation, your ability to create peace and security out of thin air, your patience and your integrity. All the rest of the crap hanging off you is available to any five buck an hour security guard - strike that, to anyone with an Internet connection. Including the uniform and the badge.

So the first thing you MUST keep in mind is that the casual use of said crap can erode every one of your main tools. The last thing you want is for peaceful citizens - even peaceful CRIMINAL citizens - to see you as a random, personal threat.

There must be fifty people who saw that incident, and one thing you can rely on - they will hesitate to call the cops in any preventative way, because they are now aware that calling the police will not prevent a situation from turning into an incident, it will absolutely guarantee it.

And people wonder why the violent crime rate is so high in the US.

If you have to rely on your uniform, your badge or your service issue plastic penis to prove you are a cop - like the fat-ass lazy jerk in the video - if you have to enforce compliance with a perfectly reasonable command - in the back of your mind, in the dead of night, and especially as you do the routine CYA in the report, realize that somehow you screwed up and were lucky enough to live through it because the citizen or citizen you abused or oppressed gave you a pass. Don't turn that mistake into a freaking policy, much less get lazy and expect you have a right to a life where it doesn't matter that you stupidity is committed in front of your own dashboard camera.

I mean, were I a lawyer, I would surely point out the fact height of arrogance that reveals and the depths of contempt for the good opinion of the citizenry implied by that particular lapse.

As for the risks involved in policing, do not whine to us about that. You get the uniform, you get the fast car with the sirens, you get to play with things that go bang and the county pays you for the ammo. It's an inherently dangerous job, with the perk of all the free adrenaline rushes you can stand. People actually jump out of perfectly good airplanes to get that rush, at a couple-hundred bucks a pop. You, well, we pay you for that.

Besides, it's a lot like a snowboarder stressing about wipe-outs. The only proper response is to try and keep a straight face and gently suggest golf as an alternate avocation.

A cop unwilling to take risks on behalf of the citizenry is simply an armed thug. And when I look at something like that and realize that as a potentially armed citizen I could handle that situation better - I will. And while I could not do your job on a day to day basis, Sir, there is nothing that would prevent me from handling such an incident far better. I know this as a fact, because I've been in such a situation, with a drunken, possibly suicidal citizen talking about the revolver he had in his waistband.

Not only did I handle the situation, I handled it without violence and without anyone at the bar I happened to be in becoming aware that there was a situation. That is because I relied on my ability to talk him down, rather than on the concealed weapon under MY shirt.

I'll bet you a box of Krispy Kreems that Ohio club has now hired their own security, so they don't have to rely on the risk of the city sending some random jerk to deal with loud drunks. Just because they wanted her gone that day didn't mean they didn't want her to come back - but not only did you traumatize her, but you scared the hell out of everyone else who was there. And it's a fact that whether it's fair or not, people avoid people and situations that remind them of very traumatic events. So the taxpaying owners have a very legitimate beef with that cop, his boss and the city. I imagine they have lawyers calculating the odds of successfully suing the city - and everyone else in range - for the loss of business.

So, really, it would probably have been better for everyone had that cop just slept off his ill-gotten doughnuts because his "resolution" of a breach of the peace was worse than the scuffs, hurt feelings and property damage he was sent to prevent.

Here's a new, related video that's brand new, and I'd like your professional opinion:

Consider this - and remember that tasers actually log their usage, for later use in court.

Now, here we don't know the exact situation, but it's difficult to imagine how a properly trained officer could end up tasering a schizophrenic woman - the person, by the way, who had actually CALLED 911 - and expect this to be taken as a good outcome. Oh, by the way, she passed away as a result of being tazed multiple times with two separate weapons. And yes, she was armed and she was delusional.

Oh well, that just adds to the challenge for a good cop. With good cops, situations like this end with rueful handshakes and mysterious appearances of chocolate chip cookies in the squad room. Anything that ends in a death is considered less than ideal, pretty much by the "duh" standard.

I know, I know, "we can't know what really happened." But, actually, we do know what happened - a homicide occurred as the outcome of a routine call.

We pay police to handle situations exactly like this with the expectation that they will be trained and equipped to as a matter of routine, with as little fuss and conflict as possible. We have the reasonable expectation that they have the training to deal with such situations better than we could. Let's recall that she called and asked for help. Obviously, help is precisely what she did not get.

So, whatever the resolution, whatever the facts, no matter what happened to make it all drop in the pot and to cause TWO able-bodied, fully armed cops to taser a morbidly obese schizophrenic confined to a power chair. She had two paring knives and a hammer. They carried guns fully capable of disabling the power chair, rendering her immobile, or at least very, very slow.

So why is she dead? WHY is the person who called the police for help dead as a direct result of police action, and what affect will that have on the willingness of people to call for help?

Presumably the cops expected a delusional schizophrenic to process an order to drop the weapons as if she were a sane, solid citizen who was NOT being menaced with the threat of force. They were clearly unwilling to accept even the tiniest risk of injury to themselves. But she was too freaking crazy to process that order, and the normal response of police - as you yourself stated - is to apply pain to "encourage" compliance.

Now, here's the bottom line. You are not employed by the "good citizens" in order to keep the "bad guys" in line. You are employed by the taxpayers - that would be all of us - to maintain law and order. So when you commit a breach of the peace as stock reaction to a fuckup in progress, you simply make a far worse fuckup than if you just stayed home.

Who in their right mind would call you for help, and why should you be collecting a paycheck? Hey, there are lots of people willing to beat the crap out of other folks for free, we surely don't need to pay for such a dubious "service."

Seems to me people who react like this are on the wrong side of the bars. When situations like this become commonplace, a widespread disrespect for and distrust of peace officers is inevitable. It makes the job more difficult and dangerous and ensures that when a situation does come to your attention, it's far worse than it would be for a society that is well policed and is generally law-abiding by choice.

Jeez; people like the cops shown in these videos - of which there are far, far too many to choose from - make Reno 911 look like a training film. And yes, we note "the blue wall" reaction, the automatic assumption that a fellow cop can do no wrong.

Well, as understandable and as human as that reaction is, policing is a profession with a skill set and a desired outcome - which is peace, safety, law and order. You are expected to handle confrontation, stress, danger, irrational and unreasonable people BETTER than other people.

When that does not occur, questions must arise, and you - as a person directly affected by the damage bad cops do to the reputation of good cops - should be the one asking them. Quite frankly, incompetent cops cause situations that get good cops maimed and killed. Believe it or not, I consider that an unacceptable outcome even though I stand firmly behind the next statement.

As citizens, we have the second amendment right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from the abuse of power by armed thugs, especially armed thugs employed by governments and powerful people who wish to "enforce compliance."

We delegate that power to the police, but nobody who has actually read and studied our Constitution, our history, and the Founder's intent can delude themselves that any cop has more authority than that, or needs it. Your badge simply signifies that you are a citizen trained to keep the peace and can, presumably be trusted with that duty.

There is no inherent right for a peace officer to use force to impose their will, nor do they have any broader mandate to use force than, say, me. Actually, their mandate to use force is narrower, tied to the reasonable force doctrine with the understanding that they can be reasonably be expected to react faster and be better armed in most ordinary situations, as well as mentally prepared to make actually skillful decisions in dangerous situations. Therefore, a situation where I might be excused for blowing someone away would not excuse a police officer in the same circumstances, because a cop has more options than I do.

There is no authority they may appeal to that is superior to that of any other citizen. Indeed, their authority is identical, coming from the same constitutional authority. The citizen - and that includes the one you may be arresting at the time - has exactly the same responsibility and obligation to uphold and ensure the peace.

There is no "cop exception." A cop is simply a member of a "well regulated militia" who's especially trained to do that better than an armed mob.

And if it becomes clear that they cannot regulate themselves, and ARE no better than an armed mob, if they become arrogant and abusive it's not merely the right, but the actual, literal constitutional duty of a citizen to suck it up, and deal with the threat that band of thugs presents to the community.

Because, if I see a large armed man torturing a woman who is clearly no credible threat, I know what the immediate problem is. I also know what reasonable force doctrine tells me is a reasonable response for citizen without training and experience presented with such a situation - exactly enough force to resolve the situation without danger to bystanders or unacceptable risk to the citizen.

So for the average armed citizen with a concealed-carry permit, that would be three to the center of mass if you failed to comply with a reasonable order to "STAND DOWN, SIR!"

Understand clearly; under our Constitution, Law is not imposed by force, it exists by consent. When the use of force against citizens becomes routine, it becomes exactly the situation the constitution was enacted to prevent - and it not just authorizes, but mandates getting rid of not just the particular offenders, but all of those who employ them knowing that is what they will do.

That's the situation George Washington found himself in - and you, sir, are excusing as standard procedure the exact actions of Redcoats; in large part illiterate Hessian mercenaries who, after all, were just trying to earn a living until they were eligible for their pensions, such as they were.

And that sir, is exactly what you defend when you retreat to your "blue wall" tactics of solidarity. You are actually defending the philosophy of hired Hessian mercenaries who were not paid well enough to much care for taking risks in the line of duty, people that professional British soldiers held in contempt for good reason.

Mercenaries almost always prefer massive overkill - because it minimizes their personal risks. Of course, it also means they consider themselves separate from and not answerable to the folks they may find themselves shooting. Hell, Hessiens didn't even consider themselves part of the same physical Empire!

Now, when I see street cops expressing that same attitude, of not even being in the same empire as the ordinary schlubs they deal with every day, it seems to me that we have become two entire empires - those who get to tell the police who to beat up, and those the police get to charge with the "crime" of scuffing the officer's shoes with their objectionable asses.

And when you buy into that, you are a mercinary in the pay of would-be Earls and Kings.

So my question for you is this: Are you a cop in service to the people and the Constitution of this Grand Republic? Or are you a redcoat mercenary, jacking off to your copy of Soldier of Fortune and willing to do as you are told without conscience or question, so long as the king's schilling rings true upon the iron?

Is your ethos "to protect and to serve," or is it "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out?"

If you are the former, there is little I'm unwilling to do to support you in your duties, up to and including some personal risk on my own behalf. If you are the second - well, my forebears considered you excellent fertilizer, and so do I.

You should consider that situation deeply, because perception is everything. In order for you to do your proper job, the one we assume you signed up to do, the first thought of an average citizen should not be the desire to be suddenly elsewhere, but to welcome you and cheerfully aid you in your inquiries.

The first thought of a citizen should NOT be whether they will have to defend themselves against a police assault. They should not have to consider the possibility that they may be beaten up and than imprisoned for having protested that they were being assaulted.

Dear Lord in Heaven, the idea that it might be a better option to shoot a cop than to let a jury sort things out shouldn't cross even a criminal's mind, much less every single Black Florida citizen driving up from the keys to Miami.

But I bet it does.

And it does because people now consider their government and their police to be a potential, direct threat to their persons and their Liberty. Police abuse has become routine in the service of the interests of the powerful, people have been deliberately made reluctant to stand on their rights. But when you "send a message" to people - as was clearly part of the intent when Andrew Meyer was "dealt with" in order to prevent him from further embarrassing one of our Lords and Masters - you may not be sending quite the message you thought.

Here's another authoritarian response to the Meyer/Kerry incident and a citizen's reply.

conebone42 (1 day ago)

Ok, this guy deserved what he got. Not only was he SCREAMING at a US Senator, he refused to go quietly when the police asked him to leave for acting that way. Nothing that they did was out of line. You resist arrest, you get tazered. The police had every right to do what they did.

nyarltep (1 day ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

im sure that attitude will keep you out of the fema camps

Here Endeth the Lesson son. Come the day, I hope you know which side of the thin red line to stand on.

Kerry Triangulates New Failure.

In a widely publicized incident, there was a confrontation between University of Florida campus police and one Andrew Meyer who may well have been intending to "provoke a scene."

Still, it's difficult to imagine that he anticipated the sheer, overwhelming and vicious nature of the assault upon his person - and his constitutional rights, which included being knelt on and tasered while handcuffed.

Video is all over the web and it is covered in many places with many different spins. But my story is not about the incident per-se, it's about the public reaction to the incident, a reaction distressingly evident in the discussion thread following the story itself.

Here's one such response:

As usual, we get a distorted synopsis from the distorted, liberal media.

This kid deserved what he got, and MORE!

There is a line between dissent and 'healthy discussion' as Kerry misspoke, and breaking the law. This kid, obviously a spoiled brat, learned a good lesson: Obey a lawful police order.

John Kerry also has a great deal to learn, because when a U.S. senator cannot distinguish between inciting a riot and a 'healthy discussion,' we're all in trouble.

Reminds me of the melee at Columbia University -- another bastion of liberal assininity.

Posted by: Ed | Sep 18, 2007 1:52:44 PM

Political Radar: Kerry Condemns Heckler Arrest

I felt obliged to add my own reaction, and then realized it was more of a post than a response, so I repeat it with some revisions and tweakings.

I come late to this story - but then, in my mind, the real story is the reaction to the story. I think the young man probably did try to "provoke an incident" in order to illustrate and provoke this very discussion.

And THIS is what it's about. Yes, the young man was provoking a response. But the specific response - that was under the control of "handlers" and the police themselves. And the response he provoked was ineffectual butt-coverage on Kerry's part and a violent police assault on the provocateur.

It does not matter that he was "disrespectful." There is no citizenship duty to respect ANYONE - unless that disrespect rises to actual violence.

And to me "resisting arrest" is not the same thing as refusing to quietly take your lumps. I saw resisting assault, and quite frankly, given the level of threat presented, I do not think the young man would have been unjustified in resorting to deadly force.

It would have been the wrong call, but police have been given passes for equivalent mistakes - that's why you can't find a black water-pistol in toy stores anymore.

Indeed, even the manner of the arrest itself - a "shock and awe" swarming of a supposed "perp" - is a tactic developed in prisons (to the best of my understanding) to safely restrain a very violent, hardened offender. It's also designed to strip the dignity from the target, to force submission and to extract a price in pain and humiliation - a lesson to inspire future compliance.

From the reactions here, the lesson has not been lost so much as taken for granted. And yet nobody on either side has asked what "rules" were in existence that would trump Andrew's constitutional right to free speech, and consultation with someone who wants to be his elected representative.

It was a not very metaphorical rape, a public punishment for a trivial "offense" of "disrespect for authority."

That itself should make you not just question, but to presume that such authority is unworthy of such respect - and more tellingly, knows what a hollow shell of pure bluster it is and how tenuous their grasp on society's willing compliance has become that their first response to a lack of immediate compliance is overwhelming force.

I find calls to treat anyone who does not immediately submit to any police command this way to be appalling. This was not so much an arrest as it was a summary judgment and execution of sentence.

It was a very effective demonstration of the respect ordinary citizens are given by the police in the United States.

I should add that, while this might well be the result of training and police doctrine, there are quite different training and doctrine sets that result in VERY respectable and appropriate security without unavoidably offending anyone's dignity, that in fact rely strongly on our social conditioning to avoid making a scene as a primary tool.

I'm pretty sure I know how the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) would have handled this, ideally. They probably would have stepped up, right at the edge of his comfort zone, and loomed at him until he ran down, simply making him aware of their presence, and their expectation that he would govern his own actions.

Then, if that were insufficient, with appropriate Sirs and polite deferences, they would have respectfully led him away - in a manner designed to be polite but inarguable - and without making an embarrassing scene for everyone.

Canadian police are not feared, nor do Canadians expect them to act with predictable violence to any challenge. Their job is to maintain the peace, not to breach it.

They ARE widely respected and trusted, even though Canadian cops are in enough violent confrontations that get in the news for the average Canadian to be aware that there is but one predictable outcome for the drunk, the stupid and the violent.

(One great advantage of the RCMP way is that if a confrontation does escalate, it's in such a way that there is no serious doubt as to who's being the ass in the equation.)

But their attitude towards the public is quite different from police here - as is the willingness to accept a degree of risk in order to resolve a situation peacefully. And yet, generally they do.

There is another fact illustrated here that has gone largely un-addressed.

The initiator of violence is the one who has lost control of the situation, and it's that sheer funk that I smell here - the idea that one weedy college student is somehow threatening our society by asking awkward, pointed questions. He was "being disrespectful" and "deserves" to be beat down for "running his mouth."

As it happens, there is no Constitutional exception to the First Amendment for speech that is rude, embarrassing, disrespectful or awkward.

Even the ranting of the clearly mad is protected speech - and there is no "right to not have to put up with it." The only constitutional remedy to offensive speech is more speech, or of course, to walk away.

Kerry - both for failing to realize that he was both in charge at the time and responsible for this outcome and for failing to acknowledge a publicly embarrassing leadership failure - has lost any remaining benefit of my doubt.

He's triangulated himself into impotence, lost any sense of command authority he may have one time had, and as such, has demonstrated his lack of qualification to be a leader, for his failure to restrain this clear abuse of authority.

And for this service, you should be thanking Andrew Meyer. He may be an idiot - but yes, he has been a very useful one.

tag: Andrew Meyer, John Kerry, Taser, Tasering, Free Speech, University of Florida

Why I didn't blog for 9/11

There comes a point when you realize that there are some people who are so willfully contemptuous of reality that nothing can be said, and further, at this point everything that could persuade reasonable people HAS been said. If you are still a Republican, and you still support leadership that can say things like the following, the only rational response remaining is a swift kick to the frontal lobes.

And in this sort of Republican, those are located just below the penis.

This is the response House Minority Leader John Boehner had for Wolf Blitzer - a man hardly known for asking loaded questions. If you manage to look stupid by answering a Blitzer question, it's because you are stupid.

AlterNet: Blogs: Video: GOP Minority Leader Says US Casualties in Iraq Are a "Small Price" to Pay:

Here's the transcript of the exchange:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

To say the obvious - that this is a new definition of "pulling a Boehner" is beside the point. It's almost too obvious to observe that it's difficult to calculate which is worse, the possibility that he is sincere, or the possibility that he thinks he's more credible and convincing than the Iraqi Information Minister.

But the most truly disturbing thing transcends all questions of policy and partisan politics; and that is the question as how he became Minority Leader - and why he remains in that position. It would seem to me that being clearly mad as a hatter would render one ineffective in that role, and at the very least, the Minority Leader should be someone who does not provoke snickers and sighs of pity from the majority.

But then, the majority leadership, while not actually delusional, don't seem to be a great deal more connected with the will of the people or terribly interested in considering what is right over what is momentarily expedient.

9/11 and the response to it has exposed the rotting substructure of our national facade of Liberty, the depth of our commitment as a people to the principles expressed in the Constitution and the commitment of our leaders to communicating honestly with the people, according to their duties and oaths.

And on days like this, when the entire effort of communication with anything short of a large, heavy wrench seems pointless, I can do little other than explain that if my perception becomes general - there will be no United States, nor will any remainder or successor enterain such foolishness - for small nations cannot afford to suffer such fools, gladly or otherwise.

I will confidently predict that whatever the evolution of the next two years - the outcome will not leave those who seek to keep their power in power. In the end, there is more to being in power than just having the will to do what it takes to keep power. Even Stalin had to realize that if there was no Russia and no Russians, his "power" over them was meaningless.

And saner rulers and leaders realize that power is conditional upon meeting the needs and fulfilling the desires of the governed.

I will predict with equal confidence that those particular corporate entities that have profited the most from exploiting 50 years of constant warfare are approaching the end of their reign - though the final days may well be quite profitable!

But in the final frames, those corporations are nothing without their own people - and corporations have come to believe they are separate from both employees and clients - even from shareholders.

It is a fantasy - and it will come crashing down, as people realize that if governments and corporations interests cannot be trusted to take care of their own in return for loyalty and service that that loyalty and service will be withdrawn.

And with the web and other powerful ways for individuals to meet many of the needs that governments and corporations thought their exclusive domain, it's doubtful that anyone will be able to reclaim that which is, even now, being withdrawn.

There is a reason that public approval ratings for Congress are even lower than those of George Bush - we have stopped expecting common sense, much less any respect for the will of the people from Chimpy the Shrub. But we voted to return Grown-Ups to power in congress, expecting them to take some painfully obvious corrective steps to end the war and forestall the painful economic corrections that this drunken spree of debt-fueled misadventures had aimed us toward.

They have not even managed to come to the aid of New Orleans, much less end this disastrous war.

But if the terrified sheep that think they lead us and command our loyalty continue their delusions for many months - or truly, even weeks, much less assent to any of the plans for overthrowing the remaining shreds of our democracy that Bush is clearly contemplating - I, for one, will consider them as one with the Bushites.

Ignorable, insignificant, deserving of no respect, loyalty or attention. And should they insist on commanding my attention, thinking they are entitled to my obedience and that of my fellows, I think they will find themselves in for a rude awakening.

I'm not so much expecting a civil war as I am expecting widespread rude indifference. I expect States and local governments, in the face of federal malfeasance and utter irrelevance to more or less politely go their own way without benefit of any public delcaration of secession. I expect that over the next while, the weight of meaningful authority will gravitate to state and local governments, and that state and local laws will be passed to make it difficult or impossible for the Federal Government to fund it's activities.

For instance, it may come in the form of state laws requiring state court orders for the IRS to garnish wages.

It may be in the form of states chartering their own banks - or even issuing their own currencies. It may come in the form of requiring that all federal agents be first credentialed as agents of the specific State to have authority in that state.

It will certainly come in the form of states increasingly preferring to make their own policy even at the price of sacrificing federal funds - especially in those states where federal policies come at a net loss to the state.

We have come to the point where we must coldly look at our extant federal system and ask ourselves, "who does it benefit?" And I, like many others, am aware that almost nothing it does benefits me more than it costs me, and that of all the good things it does, most could and should be done better and more cost-effectively at the state or local level.

What the Bush Years have made obvious is what various "nut cases" and "conspiracy theorists" have been ranting about for years - that our government is run, not for our interests, but for the limited and even self-destructive visions of a small, inbred, narrow-minded and fairly stupid plutocracy that cannot see beyond the range of a quarterly profit and loss statement.

Well, I suggest to you that it's not even in the interests of the fairly wealthy to permit this to continue, for it is obviously a very silly game that can end only one way, with a cry of "There can be only One!"

To hell with that noise. The only "side" I will chose is my own - within the bounds of conscience and Constitution. And I will selectively choose to donate power where it most effectively empowers me to mind my own business more effectively.

And I, for one, have no desire to replace a stern Daddy State with a disempowering Mommy State, as many committed liberals seem to consider the only possible alternative.

What about the simple idea of empowering people to simply take care of themselves? It may take tools, it may take systems, it may even require money - but what it does not take is being told what to do or jumping through hoops. Most of us are smart enough to do those things for ourselves, and those who are not are mostly able to find the help of someone who is. This leaves a vanishingly small percentage that does not require provisions that intrude upon everyone to ensure the minority have the minimum necessities.

The bottom line is this: Government must be of service to and of use to the people, or the people have every right to replace it with something that serves them better. Should it be so arrogant as to think there is an inherent right of power or position to impose itself on those it thinks weaker or inherently inferior, there will come a time when that assumption is brought to the test.

History tells us that it's best to forestall THAT outcome with a little humility.

Tactical Simulation and Mil-Sim Paintball.

When you draw down on the "bad guy" with your spiffy new 10mm autopistol - will you hit them, or will they cut YOU down with the dirty old .38 they have long known and loved?

Worse yet, will the "bad guy" turn out to be a "good guy?" Do you know when NOT to shoot, and even better, when to duck, when to run, and when to run like holy hell?

I'm a second-amendment fetishist, But I am a realist - if you cannot reliably use your chosen weapon in a real, tactical situation under stress, we would ALL be better off if you just shirked your constitutional duty, thanks very much anyhow. If you want to pad your crotch, use a sock. It's far more comfortable.

And keep that gun locked up. Call yourself a collector, if you like, but if you cannot reliably use a handgun or rifle in combat, don't pretend to be willing to answer the call.

But if you ARE willing to answer the call - if and when - then you need to get together with friends and practice. Obviously, you cannot mix tactical training with live ammo, so you need an effective training system. That is why paintball has become a military simulation standard.

The paintball store has got to be my pick for guns, gear, parts, equipment and of course... paint balls. The prices seem reasonable, and everything is in one place; the site is easy to navigate, and they take PayPal. That covers the basics.

Oh, it's an awful lot of fun, I'm told. But to me, it's about developing skills - indeed, RE-developing skills our forebears took for granted. From a sport viewpoint, it's certainly both more ethical and less messy than hunting, even while it develops all the same skills, and it can be a genuine family activity.

I firmly believe that citizens should at least understand the reality of those who choose to serve in the armed force - and in the worst case, understand it well enough so that if they are ordered into action to suppress your right to dissent, that you can make that action prohibitively expensive.

There are other things you can do to practice needed skills. Second Life and other MMORPG's offer the chance to develop your leadership (and followership) skills in a forgiving context - games like this are to strategy and Grand Strategy what paintball is to small unit and individual tactics. A "well regulated milita" is one where every member knows their best weapon - and can use it to further the group goals. My favored weapon is the pen, and my "Militia" is those who think that unless we show our government that we are serious about it serving us, rather than vice versa, the end of this nation as what it was and is meant to be is at hand.

What I do when I'm frustrated

I've been having a grand obsess, perseverating like hell on something that at first blush seems utterly unrelated to art, blogging, or Graphictruth, all because I don't want to get into ... hm.

Ok, I've just decided it - as much as I'm impressed with Wordpress - I don't have the spare kiloquads for the learning curve. Blogger and Google may celebrate.

However, back to what I was doing, because I was so rudely interrupted. You see, as an aspie, an interruption in my routine is damnably disturbing, leading to all kinds of bizarre things. I'm lucky, for me, the acting out is almost always creative. It's hell on the people around me, though.

This particular obsession came from a decision to give 2nd Life another try. I'd be happy to tell you what I've been up to, but it might just curl your nose hairs. For the most part, it belongs over on our sister blog, erotictruth.blogspot.com.

Even there, I may just have to include a NSFW warning. However - just as the Internet before it and then the World Wide Web - the sorts of places I have been is where the obsessive people who create the platform hang out, relax, share and develop new ideas in an environment that is neither mission critical nor subject to criticism based on anything other than performance.

If you can depict, simulate, transmit, record, or usefully participate in human sexual activity to the limits of the medium, the system itself is both robust and flexible enough to support eCommerce, government agencies and, of course, spam and "griefers".

2nd Life is now robust enough to support a degree of parasitic activity that is either not based on actively expanding the system and it's communicative and associative intents, or indeed directly aimed at screwing with people and what they would otherwise freely and benignly choose to do. Therefore, the republican mindset says that it's ripe for exploitation and domination. The problem is, you cannot strip-mine an intellectual property, nor meaningfully restrict access to it as a commodity. The commodity itself has a very large say in the matter.

Creative people tend to create contexts wherein they can do what they wish to do, governed only by their own ethics and morality, when that environment is (at least for a time) too challenging for those people who object to the rude rejection of social norms that authoritarian figures would impose by diktat.

So of course, 2nd Life is simply lousy with porn, eroticism, sexual imagery and people humping (virtually) like Bonobos.

One explanation for the sexual activity at feeding time could be that excitement over food translates into sexual arousal. This idea may be partly true. Yet another motivation is probably the real cause: competition. There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.

I once observed a young male, Kako, inadvertently blocking an older, female juvenile, Leslie, from moving along a branch. First, Leslie pushed him; Kako, who was not very confident in trees, tightened his grip, grinning nervously. Next Leslie gnawed on one of his hands, presumably to loosen his grasp. Kako uttered a sharp peep and stayed put. Then Leslie rubbed her vulva against his shoulder. This gesture calmed Kako, and he moved along the branch. It seemed that Leslie had been very close to using force but instead had reassured both herself and Kako with sexual contact.

During reconciliations, bonobos use the same sexual repertoire as they do during feeding time. Based on an analysis of many such incidents, my study yielded the first solid evidence for sexual behavior as a mechanism to overcome aggression. Not that this function is absent in other animals--or in humans, for that matter--but the art of sexual reconciliation may well have reached its evolutionary peak in the bonobo. For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs.

The Chimps find this behavior both confusing and distracting from their goals of social domination, which generally includes the idea of who gets to do what with whom - and who has to put up with taking it up the ass. Or in other words, authoritarians see sex along with everything else as being about "winners and losers," a world filled with a vast pool of obedient submissive citizens and a few very powerful Alpha figures who display their dominance by some form of symbolic or literal anal rape - and the fact they control the system well enough that they cannot be held accountable in either legal or extralegal senses.

Me, I'm more of a bonobo. Social contexts in which intimate contact, sexual or otherwise - are welcome as an alternative to conflict/dominance models feel a great deal safer to me. I would rather be at a BDSM/Fetish party than a corporate culture retreat or holiday destination for that class of person, even though in both cases, I probably wouldn't get all that intimate with anyone I didn't know, I understand and respect the ethics and social customs of the former better than the latter.

And in general, I've found that the people who populate the fringes tend to be much more honest and with better ethics in general. This may seem paradoxical, but I could and have written reams on the topic.

But, believe it or not, the Justice Department was concerned enough about the specter of gambling in 2nd life to put pressure on Lindon Labs. Their response has been mixed and confused, as they are not really quite sure if their open source platform is really a proprietary content site (such as AOL pretends to be) or a "common carrier," such as any internet access provider. The difference? A common carrier cannot be held accountable for your activities.

I personally think that Second Life has grown way, way too big for LL to realistically even think of controlling content - and they certainly don't have the time to enforce dictates that governments would like to impose. But more on that later. Right now, I'd suggest that Lindon Labs seriously consider the implications of what they have already made possible, with whole areas of Second Life run on independent, sponsored servers, such as Brazil's virtual nation, which, if subject to law at all, are certainly NOT subject to US law.

Second Life - if it's to be governed at all - must be governed from within by the people who "live" there and according to the needs, desires and of course, the available time of the people there. Even more radically, the Internet as a whole depends far more on self-regulation than society does simply because it's realistically impossible to prevent access or demand compliance. We have hand an Anarchic Internet for - well, goodness, since it began, and it's nature is to oppose and network around pesky strictures. There were competing models that were much more government-like, such as Fidonet, but the people voted with their feet when the Internet became widely available.

There are still many safe, protected preserves, where you can pay through the nose for the privilege of being exposed to content and advertising that you are demographically and socially determined to need. In Second Life, I'm sure there are equivalent virtual "gated communities," intended to keep out riff-raff such as myself and the writers of the US Constitution, where all that is not mandatory is prohibited. All of these safe havens are based on code and protocols developed by people who would not bother to tarry there if they were not exceedingly well-compensated - and who generally do contribute to other areas of the network and internet culture with great generosity.

The beauty of the Internet is that anyone can set up their own little kingdom - and nobody can be compelled to stay within it's borders. It had best be a viable, interesting and worthwhile place to be - or people will leave. Increasingly, this is a realization that entire, literal nations are learning. It's easy to control the majority of the people - but it's the minorities that makes a nation work - the people who are exceptional in some way - and who could be equally exceptional anywhere. And on the Internet, "exceptional" does not just mean "rich."

I remember making that point in an AOL "Room" - just before I was banned, that it was not a "privilege" for me to post there - there are any number of far more prestigious fora where I'm quite welcome. By taking the time to post, I was doing THEM a favor and I expected to be treated in light of that reality, with the courtesy and respect due my contributions of time and insight into the issues being discussed.

I was banned nearly instantaneously, just as I was banned from a 2nd Amendment forum there for pointing out that the second amendment exists to protect an implicit social duty of all citizens, to serve as an armed, competent and credible deterrent to government intrusion, so when activism is reduced to slide-jacking and posturing intended to manipulate government in favor of some people - as opposed to opposing it's intrusion on people as a matter of principle and duty - it becomes pointless.

Governments govern by force while sneeringly asking, "whatcha gonna do about it?" Well, on the Internet, at least, the alternates are nearly endless. With the aid of such networking, this is increasingly true in Real Life, by reducing the knowledge and communication barriers that make it difficult for individuals to avoid dependence upon government.