Little Brother is Watching You

In 1949, George Orwell released his terrifying vision of the future with his novel, 1984. In it, a tyrannical government keeps a close eye on its citizens via scattered screens, through which everyone’s every move is observed, recorded, and scrutinized for the slightest suggestion of nonconformity. This gave birth to the phrase, “Big Brother is Watching You.”

The year is 2012, and I am pleased to report that Orwell’s prediction has proven incorrect. Backwards, even. If you have a cell phone, you have not just a means to communicate anything to anyone with all the speed and clarity of the most skilled telepathist, but you also wield a camera, a camcorder, an audio-recording device, and instant access to Twitter, Facebook, and Yourtube. Who shall police the police? Who shall “Watch the Watchmen?” We all shall.

There has never before existed such transparency. A witness who (ten years ago) could only provide verbal testimony, can now produce physical evidence.

It seems little wonder that many politicians—with their doubletalk and denials of past claims and actions—have supported ideas like SOPA, which would limit the free exchange of videos, pictures, and audio clips on such vehicles as Digg and Reddit.

One night, well over a decade ago, I rode by bicycle home after working the nightshift, bussing tables at a diner in Fort Myers, Florida. My route took me down US 41. Part of that route hadn’t a sidewalk, and a member of the Highway Patrol had previously warned me against riding in the street (even though a bicycle has every legal right to be on a street). So I rode through a parking lot belonging to a shopping plaza featuring a Target (this was across from the Bell Tower Plaza, for those of you familiar with the area).

A Sheriff’s Deputy stopped me, made me get off my bicycle, and berated me for pretty much the sheer hell of it, asking me what gave me the “right to be out so late.” Being an adult, I thought I had every right, but I only replied that I was riding home from work. The police officer and his partner then dared me to “Take a swing” at them. Of course, I refused. Then they threatened to drag me behind a building and physically assault me. This went on for what seemed hours, until they finally arrested me, leaving my bike sitting on the sidewalk, from which it disappeared.

I spent the night in jail. I would have spent the entire week if a friend’s parents hadn’t posted my bail. In court, I explained to the judge what had happened. The judge told me that my side of the story struck him as far-fetched. He believed the officers’ version, in which they arrested me for unspecified, suspicious behavior. Only then did I learn what charges I faced, despite the fact that I had demanded that information numerous times.

In the end, I paid about five hundred dollars in fines and had to spend some time on probation, scooping trash off the side of the road. I had to explain this arrest when I signed up with an US Army Military Intelligence Reserve Unit. I had to explain it for every security company for which I worked. I had to explain it for every school at which I ever worked at or interned.

I believe the situation might have ended differently if I had had the advantage of a cell phone. Consider the following clip, for which I have posted the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGlbWKKbD4&

At the risk of sounding off-topic, I can’t help but compare the situation from the link above with that of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. The shooting (which took place not far from where I am writing this post) has generated such a media orgy that I have more-or-less avoiding commenting on it altogether. However . . .

Zimmerman might easily get away with the killing (I won’t rehash the event. If you’re not familiar with it, I recommend you Google and read up on it immediately). Zimmerman might walk because of Florida’s asinine Stand Your Ground Law, which states in the vaguest, most easily manipulated terms that if you feel threatened, you may defend yourself as you see fit. This law might excuse Zimmerman for chasing down an unarmed child half his size and shooting him to death.

In the video (towards which I directed you above), a Houston police officer draws a Taser from his belt and threatens a group of young adults. Can those young adults—who clearly have every right to feel threatened—“Stand Their Ground” and use deadly force against the officer? Of course not. Even though the young adults aren’t breaking any laws and have every right to go about their business without being detained, harassed, or endangered, they have no right to protect themselves against the larger, heavily armed officer. They don’t even have the right to flee.

Not having these seemingly God-given options for defending themselves, these young adults must “Stand Their Ground” by Standing Still and “Not Resisting.” They must risk their safety, freedom, reputation, and perhaps even their lives because their assailant wears a badge.

Let me be clear here. I am not bashing the police department as a whole. I’ve worked with many an officer while serving in the military, and I stand convinced that—despite my past misdealings with a few deviant officers—most of them are wonderful human beings who take their jobs seriously and honor the code of Protect and Serve.

Some don’t. While the Stand Your Ground Law allows me to defend myself against an unarmed child half my size while I’m chasing him through the streets in the middle of the night, it does nothing to protect me from these few, dishonorable officers. Fortunately, those who abuse their powers are likely to discover their actions plastered across the Internet.

This is even more reason to keep the Internet untethered by ideas such as SOPA, which aim to cripple the Internet’s power, to help people avoid accountability for their actions. Police departments ought to embrace any tool that helps weed out the bad apples and keep the honest ones honest.

Drunken Rants - Everyone Gets Two

Okay. Three points:

First rant: In regards to a past post, many people (men and women) protested, because my remarks suggested that men can’t help being mindless, horny, pigs. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting this. I am stating it. As a fact.

It’s a widely accepted fact that the average man has a sexual thought once every three seconds. There’s good reason for this. Using only two-thirds of our thinking power, we’ve managed to make nuclear missiles, sniper rifles, mustard gas, M. Night Shyamalan movies, and Windows Vista. Can you, dear reader, imagine the destruction we might unleash if we used our full computing power? <shudder>

If anything, we need to think about sex more to further distract us from our mission of self-annihilation. It’s the only path to world peace. Consider that the countries with the least sexual restrictions are less prone to war. Consider that those countries with the most sexual restrictions demonstrate the opposite effect.

Second rant: I am sick of people telling me how much safer they feel living in a gated community. You people are standing on a crust-covered ball of lava that’s spinning around a ticking time bomb in the form of a mammoth fireball, flinging us through a vacuum four hundred degrees below freezing as meteors burble, galumph, and snicker-snack around us with the speed and power to wipe out every trace of our existence.

What the hell is your cute, little gate going to do? Nothing. That’s what.

Finally: Not too long ago, Mitt Romney shamelessly pandered to southern voters by saying “Y’all” and claiming to have tried grits for the first time. His supporters met this with wild applause. Immediately afterwards, Newt Gingrich smeared Romney for only just now having tried grits. Gingrich assured his supporters that he, Gingrich, has eaten grits “all my life.” His supporters greeted this with wilder, heated cheers.

This matters? We deserve a shitty president. We honestly do.

America as the New Kid

At what point did war become not only the answer to America’s problems, but America’s potential problems as well? Why are so many Americans supporting the notion of a preemptive strike against Iran? Iran can’t reach us with nuclear weapons, nor does Iran yet possess such weapons. We don’t even know if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is plans to make or fire such weapons in the first place. Such a preemptive strike is no less ludicrous than arresting a person for a crime that she or he might have the opportunity to commit.

What’s more, invading Iran will only further sour America’s relations with the worldwide, Muslim community. Such an invasion won’t endear us to the rest of the world, at the very least from a financial prospective. Preparing for war can prove beneficial for an economy, while waging one . . . As the common metaphor goes, when America gets a cold, the rest of the world gets pneumonia. America can’t afford another war, and the rest of the world can’t afford for us to do so, either.

I could easily explore all the reasons why a war with Iran would prove far more difficult to wage than those already fought in Iraq and Afghanistan (urban environment, bigger army, less approval from foreign nations, so on and so forth). For the moment, let’s just focus on the dilemma of justification. That ought to come first, anyways.

From where would such justification arrive? Regardless of the nuclear program that Iran may or may not use to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, we stand far from Iran’s firing range, and we already have weapons with which to respond to such an attack. In fact, we already have them sitting within firing range of Iran. At the very least, we have them via Israel.

While no one should have nukes, I can understand Iran’s position, wanting the same weapons that their adversaries possess. For those same reasons, I understand why Iran would take offense that the United States—the country that armed Iran’s enemies with nuclear weapons—would disallow them access to those same weapons. One nation’s paranoia feeds that of its neighbor, like two mirrors set facing each other. Decisions forged in fear rarely yield anything greater than senseless destruction, financial waste, the loss of human life, and resentments that scatter the seeds for the next wars to come.

Many Americans fully support the notion of invading Iran. Few of these people will experience the resulting battles or have to sacrifice family members to such a fruitless cause. Our own intelligence programs (and therefore Israel’s) have twice concluded that Iran demonstrates “no intention of building a nuclear bomb.” Yet so many of us rattle our swords and demand a preemptive strike.

If Iran completed their theoretical, future weapons program, that wouldn’t spell a forgone conclusion of nuclear war. North Korea has nuclear weapons, and yet, surrounded by those considered his enemies, Kim Jong-il never delivered a single atomic blow (besides for an alleged test firing). India and Pakistan couldn’t stop waging wars upon each other until Pakistan gained the nuclear advantage. Pakistan hasn’t fought a war since. That was over thirty-five years ago.

I know that a mushroom cloud sounds scary. Nothing frightens people more than a threat against their loved ones, especially one that they’re powerless to prevent. When people feel powerless, they feel fearful. Not to sound like Yoda here, but fear leads to hate, hate leads to—ah, you already know how this one.

We haven’t a logical reason to perform a “preemptive strike” upon Iran. Preemptive strikes are weapons wielded in kneejerk reaction to fear and anger. You can’t prevent a war by starting one. You can’t end terrorism by justifying the terrorists’ opinions of us.

Everyone from Bill O’Reilly to Vice President Joe Biden has used the metaphor of the new kid at the schoolyard. The new kid must brave a school bully, or he faces becoming the target for every bully at school. The moral is simple. When someone pushes you, push back and push hard. That way, everybody gets the message: Leave me alone. Many pundits have recently echoed this message as a call to arms against Iran. There are holes in this metaphor, though.

If Iran is the bully, it’s worth mentioning that this bully hasn’t yet stomped onto our side of the swing set. Should we just sit here, then? You might ask. Wait for the trouble to come to us? If we march over there with a “get them before they get us” attitude, who’s the bully? Whom will the rest of the world identify as the bully?

In general, the metaphor has several other weaknesses.

1) The argument is inaccurate. If taking the offensive deters would-be terrorists, then why do terrorists continue to target Israel, a country with a strong, offensive policy? How does a country with no offensive policy like Canada remain in one piece? Wouldn’t the bullies fear Israel and target Canada, instead? I could argue that Canada lives under America’s fabled “umbrella of protection,” but then I would have to counter-argue with myself that America has always had Israel’s back, while we allow neighbors such as Mexico to fall to pieces while we turn a blind eye. When it comes to America’s protection, proximity means little.

2) The argument is poorly balanced. There’s a world of difference between fighting the school bully and fighting a war. There’s a world of difference between fighting the school bully and removing all your classmates from their classrooms before sending them off to spend the next ten years fighting the school bully for you. It’s easy to act with valor when someone else has to pay the price.

And the number one reason why this metaphor doesn’t fit:

3) How children settle their differences on the playground shouldn’t serve as a apt example of how adults should settle their own disputes.

I know it’s not in our nature, but sometimes the best thing to do is wait-and-see, take a breather. And while we’re sitting on our butts, the terrorists might get us! Perhaps, but probably not. America possesses countless means for detecting, deterring, and withstanding an attack, not the least of which is our home field advantage. Besides, who wants to live in fear? America will always have enemies. That’s the price of free speech, and it’s a bargain.

Dear Diary

Dear Diary.

It’s your friend, Ahmadinejad again. What a terrible week I’ve been having, Diary.

That Israeli girl is acting like such a fart! She thinks she’s hot stuff just ’cause that American boy bought her those nuclear-yellow pumps. OMG! She looks like such a total whore in those!

Well, today, I started looking at a nuclear-yellow hat, and that Israeli bitch got all up in my face like she owns the color nuclear-yellow. Her stupid, American boyfriend started giving me all this crap, too. I told them both to talk to the Hand. If they want to get into a slapping contest during recess, I’m, like, totally game and stuff.

Me and Israel got into it before at recess back in third grade. Back then, I always played on the slide. The slide was mine. I claimed it. Then Israel’s boyfriend tells me that the slide belongs to Israel. WTF!!!! He was all, like, “You gotta give Israel the slide because she’s all depressed and stuff about that field trip she took to the holocaust museum. Israel is such a drama queen! I swear! That field trip never even happened.

<sigh> You’re the only one who understands me, Diary.

Femi-not-me

Someone asked me if I considered myself a feminist. As a guy, it felt weird saying “Yes.” I do believe that society shouldn’t limit or accelerate advantages, rights, or opportunities based on “qualifications” such as race, sex, OWL scores, or religion. If that makes me a feminist, then I suppose I qualify.

Except that many feminists took issue with me on this subject. (The sexists weren’t too thrilled with me, either. Isn't it nice that these two groups found something upon which they can agree?)

“Do you watch porn?”one enraged feminist asked me.

“Of course,” I said. I also assured her that I held no intentions of stopping anytime soon.

“Then you’re just another sexist asshole,” she informed me.

Hmm.

Is it willful ignorance on my part that I don’t see the connection? I asked a few female friends about this. For the most part, they agreed that whether I watched hardcore midget-on-farm-animal porn, soft porn, a Sears catalog, a girl dancing, or (on some particularly lonely days) an anime girl dancing (what the hell did we do at work before the invention of the internet, anyways?), I am, therefore, a disgusting pervert.

Worse, I’m a hypocrite for having masqueraded as a feminist by taking part in marches, voting democrat, and volunteering my time at a woman’s shelter. At best—so my female friends informed me—I do these things out of guilt, because deep down, I know I’m a sexist scumbag.

Hmm².

I can't help but wonder if they have a point. Then again, they’re probably just a bunch of crazy bitches.

Look. Watching women dance half-naked makes me happy. Okay? I can’t turn that off. I didn’t put this stuff online, but it’s there, whether I watch it or not. Can’t I just enjoy it without becoming a douche bag?

You may recall the television program The Man Show. It was hilarious—and the target of many feminist groups who found the material sexist. And it was. To guys. The material made fun of men. That didn’t seem to matter, though, because the show featured a group of half-naked, dancing women (they called themselves the Juggies, if I remember correctly).

It seems that my culpability is that I like to watch girls dance online or onstage. However, those girls don’t seem to mind. No one forced their participation, after all. At least, I hope not. Of course, those girls had every right to be there. They were hot, and well aware of it.

I believe this brings us to the real issue. I think a great portion of what upsets so many women regarding younger, better-looking women being “objectified” springs from insecurities about their own looks. That’s understandable. Unless you’re a guy.

You see, guy’s rarely think this way. We don’t have to. If we’re unattractive physically, we can make money or buy a sports car. We can seek a position of power, such as a Congressman, the CEO of a big bank, or a level eighty-three paladin (It’s the capes. Chicks dig capes). We can get a job doing something heroic. We have options.

I’m not saying that we fail to share our female counterparts’ insecurities. Our heroes while we grew up were athletes, Batman, James Bond. We honestly thought that we were supposed to be those guys. But we eventually realized that we could just be funny, make money, have a nice personality, drug ’em, or write poetry. Whatever.

You don’t hear too often about guys developing eating disorders. At worse, a guy might shoot-up steroids or buy a Hummer to improve his physical appearance. But guys usually abuse steroids to improve their athletic abilities, rather than their looks. And most guys settle for those Diet Hummers (the H2 or 3), which tell the world, “I have a small penis, but I can’t afford to compensate for it in full.”

Look. I enjoy watching girls dance, strip, and do other stuff that would turn Rick Santorum even whiter. It causes my tired, stressed-out, overworked, neurotic brain to release chemicals that make me happy. I swear, swear, that not one drop of those chemicals causes me to believe that a woman should receive lower wages than a man, be subjected to unwanted advances, or have to share an elevator with Rush Limbaugh (who wouldn’t fit in one, anyways).

I can enjoy looking at a painting and still respect it. Can’t I do the same with women?

Then again, maybe I am in denial. Maybe I am every bit as horrible as the usual lineup of disgusting sexists. I hope not. Do I get points for not wanting to be those people? How many points? Can I apply them to my OWL score?

A Word on Birth Control

Unless you’ve been living in a cave that hasn’t WI-FI, you’re aware of the current, birth control controversy. In case you are such a cave dweller (which raises the question of how, exactly, you’re reading this), the deal is as follows. Insurance companies love saving money, so their CEOs cling to any excuse to deny their clients the coverage for which they pay. Recently, they have decided that they no longer wish to cover the cost of birth control. Their excuse: paying for it would upset their (convenient) religious beliefs.

These same people claimed that paying for abortions upset their religious beliefs. They’re against aborting unwanted pregnancies. They’re against preventing unwanted pregnancies. They’re not leaving women with many options for acting responsibly or taking control of their own bodies.

Presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum stated that insurance companies shouldn’t have to pay for the examinations of unborn children because their mothers might learn something that may encourage them to have an abortion. Santorum has proven a loud advocate for the Prolife Movement. When asked if exceptions should exist for women who have become pregnant through rape, Santorum said that all pregnancies, regardless of how they occurred, were miracle performed by God. Nice.

Saying that you don’t want to pay for an employee’s health insurance because she might use it for an abortion is a lot like a Hindu refusing to pay taxes because some of that money will go to food stamps, and some of those food stamps will pay for the eating of beef.

You could drive this sort of logic to an even greater extreme. Let’s say that your employer is a Christian Scientist. As such, he or she would have a religious opposition to all medical procedures. I suppose such an employer would have an excuse not to provide his or her employees with any insurance. What would happen if your employer is a Muslim or an orthodox Jew? Could such an employer deny his or her employee’s request to receive a lifesaving transplant of a heart valve from a pig? Such a transplant would surely offend their religious beliefs.

Nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion, eat pork, or wait until she’s married to have sex. That’s called religious freedom, and it’s guaranteed by our country’s Constitution. But many people mistake religious freedom for religious oppression. Such people, when they see their ability to cram their religious beliefs down other peoples’ throats, feel that this means that the government has trampled upon their own religious freedoms.

If the Republicans have their way, women will lose the ability to purchase birth control, the ability to monitor the development of the fetuses inside their bodies, and the ability to abort unwanted pregnancies.

I can already hear a lot of you shouting, “But why should I have to pay for someone else’s birth control?” Because it’ll save future taxpayer dollars. Because it allows women to follow a calling higher than that of a baby-making machine. Because if you don’t defend their rights, why should they defend yours? Because we don’t need to fill our country with poor, unwanted children.

Much of our taxes go to waste, but birth control is not such a waste. Neither is standing up for a woman’s right to control her body.