One thing we can all agree on is that this case was a tragedy. At the end of the day, a young man is dead and another man's life is ruined as he will live as a social outcast for the rest of his life. The lives of the victim's family has been torn apart forever. None of this should have happened. If George Zimmerman hadn't been a wannabe cop, racial profiler and busy body, all of this could have been avoided. It's telling how people who knew Zimmerman said he would call the police up to 20-30 times per day. He's the kind of white (or at least half white) guy you would absolutely hate to live near--uptight as fuck, never minding his own business, and likely giving you shit about the state of your lawn. If I were Trayvon Martin and this guy was giving me shit for no reason, I would have wanted to give him a good throttling, too. Zimmerman had it coming to him.
The problem is that while Zimmerman deserved a beating, he didn't deserve to die, and Martin didn't have the right to kill him. A witness at trial and the pathologist both testified that based on eyewitness testimony and the nature of the bullet entry wounds to Trayvon Martin, he was on top of Zimmerman and pounding him in the head and wouldn't stop. The injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head confirm this. Getting your head slammed against concrete will kill you. Based on Florida's "stand your ground" law, you can defend yourself with lethal force if you believe your life is threatened. The facts of this case are clear here that Zimmerman could have reasonably believed this given the circumstances.
Initially, this case wasn't even going to be filed. Prosecutors are charged with only bringing cases when the facts warrant them. They have discretion to decide when something is worth pursuing or not. Given how weak the case was against Zimmerman, the prosecutor wasn't going to bring this case. It was only after the Obama administration weighed in on the matter publicly and political pressure was brought to bear that the case was brought against Zimmerman. The problem with this is that the rule of law is inconsistent with playing political games. As Obama has little respect for the rule of law given his disregard for the Fourth Amendment with respect to privacy rights and surveillance, this isn't surprising.
It wasn't right for Zimmerman to racially profile Martin. It wasn't right for him to engage him, which led to a fight. But under Florida law, this doesn't make Zimmerman a murderer. A certified dickhead? Definitely, but not a murderer.
There are folks like Al Sharpton who are saying that this verdict is an "atrocity" and that this case is reminiscent of the type of racial injustice served up by the Old South. This inflammatory rhetoric doesn't apply to the circumstances of this case. If people are unhappy with the expansive "stand your ground" legislation, they need to work on getting the law changed, but using the court system to punish Zimmerman for being racist is inconsistent with the rule of law. When we violate that, then eventually we all lose because eventually every one of us is on the wrong side of politics.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Monday, July 8, 2013
Fighting For Our Freedom: It is in Our Hands
The greatness of America is not rooted in our current presidency. It is not rooted in the vast military-industrial complex that has taken hold of our government since the 1950's and that was warned about by former top general and president Dwight Eisenhower. It is not rooted in our economic strength, nor in our ability to kick ass using brute force.
The greatness of America is instead that conceived of by our founding fathers and written into the Constitution. The notion that we would be a country run not by the whims and egos of politicians, but by a rule of law. The notion that all people are treated equally under the law and that favoritism, nepotism, and other forms of tyranny would not rule.
The founding fathers through the Bill of Rights asserted that citizens have some rights the government may not take away. These include the rights to free speech, religion, and peaceable assembly, among others.
Freedom isn't something we win so then can go rest on our laurels. Men and women who run for political office tend to be narcissistic and selfish. Power tends to corrupt. When one has been in office long enough, power can go to one's head and lead to a sense of entitlement and arrogance. The desire to control the people and subjugate them is an old story. That is precisely why the founding fathers designed a system of checks and balances into our government. The presidency is limited by Congress. Tradition has led to the Supreme Court checking the power of Congress when it passes unconstitutional laws. It is our job as citizens to remain aware of what is going on and hold our politicians accountable when they attempt to seize too much power for themselves and violate the Constitution. If we fail to do so, we will eventually lose all of our freedoms.
Ever since 2000, the power of the presidency has grown totally out of control. From illegal torture to drone strikes to mass surveillance, Bush started the abuses and Obama doubled down on them. Instead of rolling back the abuses, Obama enhanced them. As it stands now, he is far worse than Bush with respect to violating the rule of law and overstepping his bounds. He has punished journalists and whistleblowers more aggressively than any other president under the Espionage Act. He has violated international law by enhancing the drone strike program, and has even taken to killing American citizens without a trial. Hundreds of innocent men, women and children have been murdered by these strikes. Each of them is nothing more than an American terror campaign which terrifies the locals in Yemen and Pakistan and leads to the creation of more terrorists, not less.
What is so reprehensible about Obama is how dishonest he is. Bush was more or less honest about his Constitutional abuses. Obama said he was going to reduce the power of the imperial presidency and Bush's abuses. Instead he expanded them.
It is unfortunate that now in Washington, we have two parties which serve the same masters--corporate America, the rich, and the military-industrial complex. So called liberals like Diane Feinstein team up with right wing politicians like Lindsey Graham to support mass spying and surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Ironically, the only people still supporting the Constitution are strange bedfellows--right wing Rand Paul and left wing Bernie Sanders both oppose the drone strike program and mass surveillance. Believing in the Constitution is not a Democrat or Republican issue anymore. It is something we must all do.
It was just the fourth of July. As usual, there is talk about how free we are and how special America is. This won't be true forever. Elites like Obama and Diane Feinstein are hell-bent on crushing whisteblowers and those who expose government abuses of power. We must remember that it is America who has violated international law by putting pressure on countries throughout the world to extradite Edward Snowden, even though he has the right under the U.N. to apply and receive political asylum. It is America that pressured France, Spain, and other countries to nearly cause the presidential plane of Evo Morales of Bolivia to crash by denying his flight over these countries on the mere suspicion that Snowden was aboard his plane.
It is America that sends flying robot drones to murder people in foreign countries, violating their sovereign status. It is America that sends trained killers to murder people, not Bolivia or Venezuela. Freedom is more than words. It is more than Obama's lies and bullshit. He can say whatever he wants, but what he does it what matters, and his record is horrendous.
As citizens we are called to apply pressure to our politicians. If we say nothing, we are culpable. Each day our freedoms are being rolled back. If we fail to do anything because we don't want to be bothered. Then under the name of "security" from terrorism we will become slaves. We have already lost our privacy.
I believe in America. I believe that this nation can be what our founding fathers intended. And I refuse to lie back and say nothing while egomaniacs like Obama shred the Constitution.
The answer is not violence. The answer is not terrorism against our government. When enough Americans peacefully protest and raise their voices, change can happen. It is a struggle that is long and hard. Think of the civil rights struggle. It took many years. It is one of continuing to struggle and not giving up. Grassroots efforts are important.
Freedom is in our hands. If we lean back and focus on updating our Facebook statuses and texting while our rights are stripped away, then once we are reduced to the state of quasi-slaves we have no one to blame but ourselves.
The greatness of America is instead that conceived of by our founding fathers and written into the Constitution. The notion that we would be a country run not by the whims and egos of politicians, but by a rule of law. The notion that all people are treated equally under the law and that favoritism, nepotism, and other forms of tyranny would not rule.
The founding fathers through the Bill of Rights asserted that citizens have some rights the government may not take away. These include the rights to free speech, religion, and peaceable assembly, among others.
Freedom isn't something we win so then can go rest on our laurels. Men and women who run for political office tend to be narcissistic and selfish. Power tends to corrupt. When one has been in office long enough, power can go to one's head and lead to a sense of entitlement and arrogance. The desire to control the people and subjugate them is an old story. That is precisely why the founding fathers designed a system of checks and balances into our government. The presidency is limited by Congress. Tradition has led to the Supreme Court checking the power of Congress when it passes unconstitutional laws. It is our job as citizens to remain aware of what is going on and hold our politicians accountable when they attempt to seize too much power for themselves and violate the Constitution. If we fail to do so, we will eventually lose all of our freedoms.
Ever since 2000, the power of the presidency has grown totally out of control. From illegal torture to drone strikes to mass surveillance, Bush started the abuses and Obama doubled down on them. Instead of rolling back the abuses, Obama enhanced them. As it stands now, he is far worse than Bush with respect to violating the rule of law and overstepping his bounds. He has punished journalists and whistleblowers more aggressively than any other president under the Espionage Act. He has violated international law by enhancing the drone strike program, and has even taken to killing American citizens without a trial. Hundreds of innocent men, women and children have been murdered by these strikes. Each of them is nothing more than an American terror campaign which terrifies the locals in Yemen and Pakistan and leads to the creation of more terrorists, not less.
What is so reprehensible about Obama is how dishonest he is. Bush was more or less honest about his Constitutional abuses. Obama said he was going to reduce the power of the imperial presidency and Bush's abuses. Instead he expanded them.
It is unfortunate that now in Washington, we have two parties which serve the same masters--corporate America, the rich, and the military-industrial complex. So called liberals like Diane Feinstein team up with right wing politicians like Lindsey Graham to support mass spying and surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Ironically, the only people still supporting the Constitution are strange bedfellows--right wing Rand Paul and left wing Bernie Sanders both oppose the drone strike program and mass surveillance. Believing in the Constitution is not a Democrat or Republican issue anymore. It is something we must all do.
It was just the fourth of July. As usual, there is talk about how free we are and how special America is. This won't be true forever. Elites like Obama and Diane Feinstein are hell-bent on crushing whisteblowers and those who expose government abuses of power. We must remember that it is America who has violated international law by putting pressure on countries throughout the world to extradite Edward Snowden, even though he has the right under the U.N. to apply and receive political asylum. It is America that pressured France, Spain, and other countries to nearly cause the presidential plane of Evo Morales of Bolivia to crash by denying his flight over these countries on the mere suspicion that Snowden was aboard his plane.
It is America that sends flying robot drones to murder people in foreign countries, violating their sovereign status. It is America that sends trained killers to murder people, not Bolivia or Venezuela. Freedom is more than words. It is more than Obama's lies and bullshit. He can say whatever he wants, but what he does it what matters, and his record is horrendous.
As citizens we are called to apply pressure to our politicians. If we say nothing, we are culpable. Each day our freedoms are being rolled back. If we fail to do anything because we don't want to be bothered. Then under the name of "security" from terrorism we will become slaves. We have already lost our privacy.
I believe in America. I believe that this nation can be what our founding fathers intended. And I refuse to lie back and say nothing while egomaniacs like Obama shred the Constitution.
The answer is not violence. The answer is not terrorism against our government. When enough Americans peacefully protest and raise their voices, change can happen. It is a struggle that is long and hard. Think of the civil rights struggle. It took many years. It is one of continuing to struggle and not giving up. Grassroots efforts are important.
Freedom is in our hands. If we lean back and focus on updating our Facebook statuses and texting while our rights are stripped away, then once we are reduced to the state of quasi-slaves we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Why Obama is Out of Control
Who is this man in the White House? He certainly doesn't appear to be the same person who talked about transparency, hope, and change in 2008. The shape shifter we have for a president now has turned out to be the reincarnated spirit of Woodrow Wilson. Like Wilson, this man is drunk on power, hates transparency and governmental accountability, and is hell bent on smashing any political opposition he may face. The Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold, has become his toilet paper.
Who would have known that he would invoke the Espionage Act more than any other president combined? Who could have guessed that instead of apologizing after his administration was found to be spying on average American citizens and destroying their privacy rights, instead he defends such behavior under the guise of "protecting us from terrorism?" Is this the same man who grew up to become a community organizer, church going Christian, and civil servant?
Ed Snowden, the whistleblower who exposed the lies and corruption is now being charged by the Obama administration with espionage. Snowden should be receiving a medal for his heroism, not facing up to 10 years in prison and extradition. The Obama administration is also behind the cruel and unusual punishment and prosecution of Bradley Manning, the whistleblower who exposed thousands of instances of government lies, corruption, and murder. While Nixon was known for his hatred of whistleblowers, he is nothing compared to this administration. In fact, Nixon is a raging liberal compared to Obama.
Anyone who still believes the nonsense about allowing the government to impose itself into every aspect of our lives in the name of "protecting us from terrorism" need only look to the Boston bombings. The spy state didn't prevent that, now did it? Hell, the Russians directly called the U.S. government and warned them about Tamerlin Tsarnaev and nothing was done. It appears that the use of spying and information collection by this administration is being used to control, cover up, and smash its political opposition. It views the enemy of the state to be the actual citizens of the U.S.
It is also interesting how this administration has no second term agenda. The first term at least had the goal of reforming health care. This term is all about playing political games and increasing the powers of the government. It is about waging terror strikes using drones and ordering cyber attacks on other nations while hypocritically condemning other countries from doing the same types of cyber attacks.
The sad thing is that Obama is the president because our system put him there. Romney would have been worse. The system only promotes those who unquestioningly accept corporate power and elite control. Around election time we get some well rehearsed propaganda to make us believe we are in control. After the election, the real business of America happens--this means free giveaways to Monsanto, big banks, and other deep pockets. The rich and elite of America ensure that their power remains strong. We are fools to believe that if we simply elect the right man or woman, things will get better. The system, with its corrupt campaign finance system, prevents that from happening. True change can only come from widespread political organization by the masses and an involved and engaged citizenry.
Who would have known that he would invoke the Espionage Act more than any other president combined? Who could have guessed that instead of apologizing after his administration was found to be spying on average American citizens and destroying their privacy rights, instead he defends such behavior under the guise of "protecting us from terrorism?" Is this the same man who grew up to become a community organizer, church going Christian, and civil servant?
Ed Snowden, the whistleblower who exposed the lies and corruption is now being charged by the Obama administration with espionage. Snowden should be receiving a medal for his heroism, not facing up to 10 years in prison and extradition. The Obama administration is also behind the cruel and unusual punishment and prosecution of Bradley Manning, the whistleblower who exposed thousands of instances of government lies, corruption, and murder. While Nixon was known for his hatred of whistleblowers, he is nothing compared to this administration. In fact, Nixon is a raging liberal compared to Obama.
Anyone who still believes the nonsense about allowing the government to impose itself into every aspect of our lives in the name of "protecting us from terrorism" need only look to the Boston bombings. The spy state didn't prevent that, now did it? Hell, the Russians directly called the U.S. government and warned them about Tamerlin Tsarnaev and nothing was done. It appears that the use of spying and information collection by this administration is being used to control, cover up, and smash its political opposition. It views the enemy of the state to be the actual citizens of the U.S.
It is also interesting how this administration has no second term agenda. The first term at least had the goal of reforming health care. This term is all about playing political games and increasing the powers of the government. It is about waging terror strikes using drones and ordering cyber attacks on other nations while hypocritically condemning other countries from doing the same types of cyber attacks.
The sad thing is that Obama is the president because our system put him there. Romney would have been worse. The system only promotes those who unquestioningly accept corporate power and elite control. Around election time we get some well rehearsed propaganda to make us believe we are in control. After the election, the real business of America happens--this means free giveaways to Monsanto, big banks, and other deep pockets. The rich and elite of America ensure that their power remains strong. We are fools to believe that if we simply elect the right man or woman, things will get better. The system, with its corrupt campaign finance system, prevents that from happening. True change can only come from widespread political organization by the masses and an involved and engaged citizenry.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Rethinking Texting: Taking a Second Glance
"Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief..."
Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2
In an earlier post, I mentioned why I wasn't into texting. Since that time, however, I have changed my mind. In law school, we had a professor who required us to answer a single question for a law exam. We had 24 hours to produce an answer to the legal question. The rub was that we had to be concise and precise. He gave a strict word limit that meant no bullshitting. One had to know what one was talking about in order to properly analyze the problem and answer the question. At the time I didn't understand why he required this. His explanation was that judges, when reading briefs, want to read legal pleadings which are short and to the point. They don't have time for trivialities.
In time I have come to recognize that brevity is indeed the soul of wit. Being able to filter out extraneous information and distill information down to its bare essence is far from easy. In fact, it is one of the more difficult analytical things we can do.
Just listen to the way most people tell stories. A good storyteller won't waste time with irrelevant details. He won't be overly descriptive, but will emphasize the right elements at the right time. Having a sense of pace and proportion in storytelling is critical. Most people, however, stink at telling stories because they ramble on and fail to get to the point.
In an age when cell phone calls and long distance are essentially free, the temptation to over talk is rampant. Something that could be said in a few moments ends up taking much too much time. Efficiency and productivity of the workday suffer. At the end of the day, you wonder where your time went because you didn't get anything done.
A text message that limits you to a limited number of characters requires you to put some organization and thought into your message. You are forced to distill things down to their bare essence. For many types of communication, such as dinner plans, scheduling changes, etc., this is the perfect medium.
My phone is still old and not designed for texting. It is slow and arcane. Yet I am coming to appreciate the hidden beauty of texting. It reminds me of my old law school professor and his brief exams. Sometimes understanding comes slowly, but sometimes it finally does arrive.
The future involves texting, and I am finally okay with it.
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief..."
Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2
In an earlier post, I mentioned why I wasn't into texting. Since that time, however, I have changed my mind. In law school, we had a professor who required us to answer a single question for a law exam. We had 24 hours to produce an answer to the legal question. The rub was that we had to be concise and precise. He gave a strict word limit that meant no bullshitting. One had to know what one was talking about in order to properly analyze the problem and answer the question. At the time I didn't understand why he required this. His explanation was that judges, when reading briefs, want to read legal pleadings which are short and to the point. They don't have time for trivialities.
In time I have come to recognize that brevity is indeed the soul of wit. Being able to filter out extraneous information and distill information down to its bare essence is far from easy. In fact, it is one of the more difficult analytical things we can do.
Just listen to the way most people tell stories. A good storyteller won't waste time with irrelevant details. He won't be overly descriptive, but will emphasize the right elements at the right time. Having a sense of pace and proportion in storytelling is critical. Most people, however, stink at telling stories because they ramble on and fail to get to the point.
In an age when cell phone calls and long distance are essentially free, the temptation to over talk is rampant. Something that could be said in a few moments ends up taking much too much time. Efficiency and productivity of the workday suffer. At the end of the day, you wonder where your time went because you didn't get anything done.
A text message that limits you to a limited number of characters requires you to put some organization and thought into your message. You are forced to distill things down to their bare essence. For many types of communication, such as dinner plans, scheduling changes, etc., this is the perfect medium.
My phone is still old and not designed for texting. It is slow and arcane. Yet I am coming to appreciate the hidden beauty of texting. It reminds me of my old law school professor and his brief exams. Sometimes understanding comes slowly, but sometimes it finally does arrive.
The future involves texting, and I am finally okay with it.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Angelina Jolie Deserves Applause
Yesterday, Angelina Jolie announced that after learning through genetic testing that she was a carrier of the BRCA 1 "breast cancer" gene, she underwent preventative double mastectomy surgery to reduce her chances of suffering from breast cancer. Jolie's mother died from the disease after a decade long battle at the age of 56. Jolie wrote an op ed article in the New York Times describing why she underwent the surgery and why she decided to go public with her decision.
Angelina Jolie is regularly rated by magazines and media outlets to be considered one of the most beautiful and sexy actresses in Hollywood. In an industry obsessed with physical perfection and body ideals, a woman revealing that she had this type of surgery could endanger her career. Yet Jolie felt that it was important enough to break the stigma and raise awareness of BRCA 1 testing and preventative mastectomy procedures to help save lives. Instead of keeping this private decision private, she risked her career to reach out to others.
The choice to have a mastectomy even when diagnosed with breast cancer is usually very difficult for women. The removal of one's breasts can lead to a sense of reduced femininity, apart from losing an important part of one's body. To have one's breasts removed for preventative purposes is no small act. It requires enormous courage. In this case, Jolie said that the doctors informed her that her chance of getting breast cancer was 89% and the loss of her mother and the fact that her children would never know her informed Jolie's decision to have the surgery because Jolie didn't want her children to lose her like they did their grandmother. Now her chances of getting breast cancer are reduced to 5%.
In 2004, at the young age of 49, my mother died from breast cancer. The disease ravaged her body. Watching her die was hell. Every day I miss her and wish she were still here with me. It kills me that she will never know her grandchildren. She never was able to meet my wife, Cynthia, whom I know she would have loved. I don't believe my mother had the BRCA 1 gene mutation. But if she did and preventative mastectomy were available to her, no doubt she would have opted in. She loved life and was a warm and glowing light whose cast was snuffed out too soon. I hope that all women whose mothers, sisters, or aunts have had breast cancer receive genetic testing and discuss their options with their doctors. Angelina Jolie's bravery in revealing her decision will no doubt save thousands of lives.
Much like her charity work at the United Nations, Jolie's choice to have a large natural and adoptive family, and her other actions, Jolie has shown that with age comes maturity. She is no longer the wild child making out with her brother or wearing viles of blood around her neck with Billy Bob Thornton--she has grown up and become an amazing human being.
In interviews, Jolie comes across as down to earth, approachable, and warm. This is refreshing given she grew up a privileged child of Hollywood (her father is veteran actor Jon Voight). Her life partner is Brad Pitt and she makes millions of dollars starring in films and directing films. If that doesn't cause you to act like a stuck up, entitled bitch, then nothing will.
I applaud Angelina Jolie on her decision to put her children first and to share her decision about preventative mastectomy with the world. God bless her.
Angelina Jolie is regularly rated by magazines and media outlets to be considered one of the most beautiful and sexy actresses in Hollywood. In an industry obsessed with physical perfection and body ideals, a woman revealing that she had this type of surgery could endanger her career. Yet Jolie felt that it was important enough to break the stigma and raise awareness of BRCA 1 testing and preventative mastectomy procedures to help save lives. Instead of keeping this private decision private, she risked her career to reach out to others.
The choice to have a mastectomy even when diagnosed with breast cancer is usually very difficult for women. The removal of one's breasts can lead to a sense of reduced femininity, apart from losing an important part of one's body. To have one's breasts removed for preventative purposes is no small act. It requires enormous courage. In this case, Jolie said that the doctors informed her that her chance of getting breast cancer was 89% and the loss of her mother and the fact that her children would never know her informed Jolie's decision to have the surgery because Jolie didn't want her children to lose her like they did their grandmother. Now her chances of getting breast cancer are reduced to 5%.
In 2004, at the young age of 49, my mother died from breast cancer. The disease ravaged her body. Watching her die was hell. Every day I miss her and wish she were still here with me. It kills me that she will never know her grandchildren. She never was able to meet my wife, Cynthia, whom I know she would have loved. I don't believe my mother had the BRCA 1 gene mutation. But if she did and preventative mastectomy were available to her, no doubt she would have opted in. She loved life and was a warm and glowing light whose cast was snuffed out too soon. I hope that all women whose mothers, sisters, or aunts have had breast cancer receive genetic testing and discuss their options with their doctors. Angelina Jolie's bravery in revealing her decision will no doubt save thousands of lives.
Much like her charity work at the United Nations, Jolie's choice to have a large natural and adoptive family, and her other actions, Jolie has shown that with age comes maturity. She is no longer the wild child making out with her brother or wearing viles of blood around her neck with Billy Bob Thornton--she has grown up and become an amazing human being.
In interviews, Jolie comes across as down to earth, approachable, and warm. This is refreshing given she grew up a privileged child of Hollywood (her father is veteran actor Jon Voight). Her life partner is Brad Pitt and she makes millions of dollars starring in films and directing films. If that doesn't cause you to act like a stuck up, entitled bitch, then nothing will.
I applaud Angelina Jolie on her decision to put her children first and to share her decision about preventative mastectomy with the world. God bless her.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Google Fiber is a Paradigm Shifter
Google Fiber is a project by the Internet search giant to provide gigabit speed Internet access to selected cities around the U.S. Gigabit Internet speeds are approximately ten times faster than what most people are currently receiving through their DSL and cable providers. Internet at this speed is a game changer because it allows individuals to stream Internet video, upload files, and search the web at breakneck speeds.
Google also hopes to provide Internet access to those who traditionally have been underserved by giving slower Internet access away for free and only charging a modest installation fee. This is an attempt to democratize innovation. Children who might have only been able to access the Internet at the public library can now search for information on their home computers.
The current state of the Internet for most of the United States is a patchwork of service that is overpriced, underpowered, and deliberately capped for the sake of corporate profit. Bandwidth is arbitrarily limited solely to increase revenues by cable and telephone service providers. Multiple studies and reviews by experts in technology have proven that the cable providers in the U.S. are not facing a bandwidth problem and that 97% profits are being made by overcharging customers.
Google Fiber hopes to turn the tide by providing healthy competition to this monopolized and crippled market. Once the consumer gets used to gigabit Internet speeds at reasonable prices, he or she won't accept the bandwidth caps and crippling speeds imposed by the cable providers. Capitalism and the market economy sometimes do work.
Before Google Fiber was rolled out, one major cable company was experimenting with bandwidth caps for home service in an attempt to extort even more money out of its consumers. Now those plans have been scrapped. Their monopoly is being threatened. That's a good thing.
The cost of hooking up every city in the U.S. to Google Fiber is beyond its capacity. Its genius is its ability to inspire local municipalities and others to respond to the demand for an Internet that is like our public highway system--one that is open, free, and accessible to all for the greater good of the nation. Google's foray into providing affordable and high quality Internet access may be a real paradigm shift for a nation that has become stagnant with respect to Internet speed compared with nations like South Korea which is vastly better connected.
For the U.S., the current Internet infrastructure makes us less competitive. It is time that changed. Since the government is currently in bed with the cable providers, it is up to all of us to demand more and expect more from our cable providers. Thank God Google is leading the way to help us enable that demand.
Google also hopes to provide Internet access to those who traditionally have been underserved by giving slower Internet access away for free and only charging a modest installation fee. This is an attempt to democratize innovation. Children who might have only been able to access the Internet at the public library can now search for information on their home computers.
The current state of the Internet for most of the United States is a patchwork of service that is overpriced, underpowered, and deliberately capped for the sake of corporate profit. Bandwidth is arbitrarily limited solely to increase revenues by cable and telephone service providers. Multiple studies and reviews by experts in technology have proven that the cable providers in the U.S. are not facing a bandwidth problem and that 97% profits are being made by overcharging customers.
Google Fiber hopes to turn the tide by providing healthy competition to this monopolized and crippled market. Once the consumer gets used to gigabit Internet speeds at reasonable prices, he or she won't accept the bandwidth caps and crippling speeds imposed by the cable providers. Capitalism and the market economy sometimes do work.
Before Google Fiber was rolled out, one major cable company was experimenting with bandwidth caps for home service in an attempt to extort even more money out of its consumers. Now those plans have been scrapped. Their monopoly is being threatened. That's a good thing.
The cost of hooking up every city in the U.S. to Google Fiber is beyond its capacity. Its genius is its ability to inspire local municipalities and others to respond to the demand for an Internet that is like our public highway system--one that is open, free, and accessible to all for the greater good of the nation. Google's foray into providing affordable and high quality Internet access may be a real paradigm shift for a nation that has become stagnant with respect to Internet speed compared with nations like South Korea which is vastly better connected.
For the U.S., the current Internet infrastructure makes us less competitive. It is time that changed. Since the government is currently in bed with the cable providers, it is up to all of us to demand more and expect more from our cable providers. Thank God Google is leading the way to help us enable that demand.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
On Aggression--Thinking About the Psychology of Terrorists
While aggressiveness may serve a useful function for lions and other predatory creatures, in the human population it serves a distinctly counterproductive function. If you are chasing down a gazelle or scaring away a larger animal hell bent on eating you, being the most outrageously aggressive works wonders--it may even save your life or the lives of your family members.
Living in the 21st century, a time in which we buy our food processed in well lit and clean supermarkets and need only run to catch the next elevator, things have greatly changed. While early humans lived in small clans with peer groups little larger than 30 to 50 individuals, inter-tribal aggression was a real concern. Suspicion, paranoia, and stereotyping served a valuable function--it kept you alive. But now we live in a hyper connected digital age in which the global has been made local. We live in cities with dense populations of diverse groups. Aggression in these settings--such as the acts of horrific terrorism we saw in Boston this week--only highlight the point that aggression now threatens our survival as a species. Indeed, where once humans could only inflict relatively small injuries using rocks and spears, we now have the capacity using nuclear weapons to literally make the planet uninhabitable for all but a few million cockroaches who may indeed inherit the earth.
As a lawyer, I work in an adversarial role. The legal system is essentially the use of the civil system to avoid self-help measures by individuals to resolve their differences without resorting to violence. That is why it is called "civil" procedure. Unfortunately, however, I run across many individuals who fail to understand this basic premise. While they aren't advocating violence, they foolishly believe that only through the most extreme, rude, vile, and unpleasant tactics, they can win their case. In their minds, a lawyer who yells the loudest is the most effective. If you aren't abusing the other side, then you aren't "aggressive" enough.
The problem here is that aggression in the legal system almost always backfires. Judges are not morons. Yelling and screaming doesn't persuade them. When opposing counsel swears at me, screams, or acts abusively, it NEVER works. Instead of working toward a resolution, such behavior inevitably leads to the matter being dragged out longer and the parties paying more money. I am totally unmoved by Rambo litigators. Other lawyers I know are the same way. As lawyers, we weren't born yesterday. We have been around the block a few times and know how the system works. Bullying only serves to make things more unpleasant for everyone. When I have clients who demand such behavior, I refuse to engage in such behavior. If you are looking for a paid asshole that is going to run up your bill by being difficult, you can look elsewhere.
Much of this has to do with the nature of legal problems themselves. Some people have constant legal troubles because they themselves are too aggressive. When interacting with their loved ones or with business associates, their aggressive behavior leads to legal problems. Instead of recognizing this antisocial behavior and remedying it, they then believe that their lawyer should use the same tactics to help them resolve their problems. In this sense, such people lack the social intelligence to realize that the source of their problems oftentimes is their aggressive behavior. If they were able to put themselves in the place of others and imagine what they must be thinking, they would already be on their way to acting in a manner that might resolve their problems.
Lack of such social intelligence is also rampant amongst the terrorist types. Throughout history, radicals have believed that if they commit some shocking act of violence, people will change their minds about the current political or social system and change will result. Such radicals often believe that governments may change the behaviors they don't like if some shocking act of violence is committed. Yet history has proven them wrong. Most of the time, it actually causes the governments to behave in even more repressive ways, ways that the radicals were originally trying to eliminate. If Osama bin Laden thought pre-911 was bad, the Bush doctrine, the Patriot Act, and the Obama administrations are much, much worse. Jihadists in Egypt believed that by killing President Sadat that the people would have been inspired to rise up and overthrow their secular leaders and impose a fundamentalist type government. The opposite actually happened.
Of course, that is why some people become terrorists. They are usually frustrated social outcasts who have a warped sense of reality. They are excessively paranoid, tribal, and unwilling to engage in civil society. They are our modern day predators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)