I know I don't blog very often; however I feel like I need to say this in something more than a short tweet comment. It requires a more verbose approach than the venue that twitter maintains.
First a little background; you have to understand my father was a police officer for most of my childhood, first in the Air Force as an SP (the Air Force equivalent to the MP's, the Security Police). This was because in the 70's when my father decided to try to be a cop in Michigan, they wouldn't let him because they had a vision restriction (he has glasses). The Air Force did not, so he enlisted. He served his term, as an SP guarding missile silos in the god-forsaken hinterlands of Wyoming. This resulted in him becoming a cop for the City of Cheyenne after he left the Air Force.
Now my dad and I are on relatively opposite ends of the spectrum politically, at least these days. He has broken for the Tea Party on most things; I am much more aligned with the 'shit's fucked up' avenue of the OWS guys. But there is one thing both groups agree on: Money has corrupted Politics, possibly irrevocably. This is why Ron Paul (as off the wall as he is on some issues) has not discredited the Occupy movement out of hand; he sees that they are a populist movement with some common goals. Some people are calling him opportunistic. That may be, (he is a politician after all) but I think he is probably more human and realistic than that. Disclaimer: Do NOT mistake my candor as a ringing endorsement of Ron Paul; I disagree with him fundamentally on quite a few things (like the Austrian School of economics, his desired withdrawal from NATO, and his stance on Women's right to choose. It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for him because of those deal breakers.
But that is all color and background for what my topic is today: Police militarization and their totally inappropriate response to these protests. They have been heavy handed, coordinated and disrespectful. These police departments feel justified and protected by the many years of being propped up by the DHS. The FBI has been weakened and disenfranchised by the DHS. Federal policing is supposed to be their exclusive territory (with the exception of escaped convicts, which weirdly is exclusively the purview of the Marshall's office I believe).
My father taught me that his belief was that a police officer was meant to Serve and Protect the public, regardless of how the officer felt about the individual in question. He was meant to use force only when it was necessary to protect them from themselves, or when they had demonstrated a 'clear intention of harming others'. It is clear to me that these police officers are not engaged in honest police work; they are scared men and women. I am sure that many of them are just like the people they are facing: scared of losing their jobs, their homes. Like everyone they are just doing what their bosses tell them because they are afraid. America is now in a culture of fear, and has been living there since, 9-11-01. Five days before my wedding. The maid of honor was on one of the first flights into my airport.
An interesting thing about fear though; it excuses all manner of behavior. It is the fundamental weapon in a propagandists war chest. It's also worth noting that Propaganda and Marketing are EXACTLY the same thing. They use the same methods, the same tools, the same psychologies.
Fear is what Hitler used to come to power. Fear is what Stalin used. Fear. Those are the obvious ones; how about some others shall we?
Nixon
Kennedy (The Russians will get to space FIRST!!!!)
The Boston Tea Party
Fear based marketing is commonplace as well; it is commonplace in Insurance commercials obviously, the Allstate 'Mayhem' series is a great example. However less obvious is stuff like Oil of Olay commercials. They play on your fear of aging, getting old, and dying.
Fear based propaganda/marketing (I will forever read them as the same thing), appeals to our hindbrain, skipping the logical part altogether. One of the problems with the Occupy movement is also one of it's beauties; it is attempting to appeal to your HUMAN brain, your thinking mind. Not the fear riddled, hiding in a cave animal instinct side. The one that lashes out at perceived interlopers.
I had a point, I really did. And to sum it up it is this: Police need to stop being afraid. We, as citizens look up to you to NOT be afraid. It is your job to not show fear, to be the best of us. I implore you as a Public Servant to do what you signed up to do, and to Protect and Serve ALL the citizens, regardless of race, creed, gender or religion. If your captain is telling you to do something out of fear, you need to tell him to stop being afraid. Tell him, these people are not a threat, they are CITIZENS.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Cyberpunk est mort, vive le Cyberpunk!
Ah it seems that we are in a state where this applies. The original cyberpunk movement, with it's roots extending deep back into the early origins of computer sciences (the late 60's), peaking around 1994 or so.
Those heady days for me, just after High School where the convergence of cultures created a hotbed for a social, political, and literary storm known collectively as 'Cyberpunk'. The popularity of fiction (Gibson, Stephenson, P.K. Dick etc) espoused a collective thought of dystopia, miasma and contrarily, a hopefulness brought about by enabling the common man access to heretofore unprecedented levels of access to information.
It was a time when 'Information Needs to be Free' was common, in the hearts and tongues of those of the movement. The movement is not dead, but sleeping. And lacks identity. Those in the movement have buckled down, gotten jobs, families, etc. They have not entirely abandoned their hopes, dreams and nightmares, but they have set them aside.
From 1 Corinthians 13:11
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"
And much of this does indeed seem to be where the status of the 'movement' such as it ever was, rests.
However just a bit further down is this gem:
(1 Corinthians 13:12 'βλεπομεν γαρ αρτι δι εσοπτρου εν αινιγματι'
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."
Which is both more allegorical and certainly representative of a core principal of (at least in my mind) 'teh movement'. To me, this passage says, "We see where the world could be, in it's darkest reflection". And by that token means that those that do see it's darkest reflection, are the most well-suited to survive, thrive, and provide for others.
This is an open call. If you have ever used the term cyberpunk to describe yourself, (or one of the ancillary/alternate labels such as cypherpunk, phreaker, cracker, black-hat, white-hat, etc etc etc) then please remember why you got involved in the first place. Tell me what your philosophy is, where it has changed, where it has adapted.
I expect it has changed, as 'Cyberpunk' as a definition was certainly nothing more than a placeholder for something we all collectively felt but lacked the words to describe. If there is truly one consistency, it is that we believe in the organic and adaptive nature of any system that humanity comes into contact with.
Oh and please don't let the biblical quotes fool you; I am by no means dogmatic nor even particularly Christian. They just make excellent allegory.
Those heady days for me, just after High School where the convergence of cultures created a hotbed for a social, political, and literary storm known collectively as 'Cyberpunk'. The popularity of fiction (Gibson, Stephenson, P.K. Dick etc) espoused a collective thought of dystopia, miasma and contrarily, a hopefulness brought about by enabling the common man access to heretofore unprecedented levels of access to information.
It was a time when 'Information Needs to be Free' was common, in the hearts and tongues of those of the movement. The movement is not dead, but sleeping. And lacks identity. Those in the movement have buckled down, gotten jobs, families, etc. They have not entirely abandoned their hopes, dreams and nightmares, but they have set them aside.
From 1 Corinthians 13:11
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"
And much of this does indeed seem to be where the status of the 'movement' such as it ever was, rests.
However just a bit further down is this gem:
(1 Corinthians 13:12 'βλεπομεν γαρ αρτι δι εσοπτρου εν αινιγματι'
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."
Which is both more allegorical and certainly representative of a core principal of (at least in my mind) 'teh movement'. To me, this passage says, "We see where the world could be, in it's darkest reflection". And by that token means that those that do see it's darkest reflection, are the most well-suited to survive, thrive, and provide for others.
This is an open call. If you have ever used the term cyberpunk to describe yourself, (or one of the ancillary/alternate labels such as cypherpunk, phreaker, cracker, black-hat, white-hat, etc etc etc) then please remember why you got involved in the first place. Tell me what your philosophy is, where it has changed, where it has adapted.
I expect it has changed, as 'Cyberpunk' as a definition was certainly nothing more than a placeholder for something we all collectively felt but lacked the words to describe. If there is truly one consistency, it is that we believe in the organic and adaptive nature of any system that humanity comes into contact with.
Oh and please don't let the biblical quotes fool you; I am by no means dogmatic nor even particularly Christian. They just make excellent allegory.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Going Straight to Hell
I find myself in a strange transitional stage, like many today. I have a certain melancholy about the shape of the world, especially as it relates to me directly.
The economy is in a shambles (and is still pinwheeling out of control). My own job is in question. I have a daughter and a wife to support. The whole situation is depressing, and crushing to be honest. My wife wants to return to her hometown (or at least close by) but financially it is virtually impossible to do since the cost of living is insane there.
This is the territory that my brain resides in at the moment, and is the jumping off point for the rest of my thoughts as they follow.
To whit:
We have a new president who is selling us hope; is this a good thing? I think so. Is change good? well that is debatable. Many insist that change (or 'Change' as ol Barry would have it) is not necessarily good in and of itself. I would argue quite the opposite in fact; change itself may be uncomfortable, dangerous, scary and even destructive. But absolutely nothing ever improves unless change happens, even if the initial change is destructive, we learn from it and improve. Change is by it's very nature catalytic. If we never changed we would never learn as a child to not put our hand on the stove. If these catalytic changes did not occur we would still be in the stone age. We would not have language, tools, buildings.
In religious history fire was brought to us by a god or other messenger. For example, in Apache mythos Fox stole fire from the fireflies and brought it to the world (and amusingly incidentally created the first drum as well). In Cherokee belief Water Spider solved the puzzle of the burning sycamore and carried a burning coal across the water in a basket she had weaved once most of the others had failed to transport it (indicating superior intelligence and craft as opposed to strength or prowess). In Norse mythology it is Loki (the rough equivalent of Lucifer in christian faith) that brings fire to humanity; mostly to piss off the gods. Loki is an interesting figure in and of himself as he represents a more human take on the 'devil's advocate' role. He advocates change, many times at the cost of safety (even his own on a regular basis as Thor tends to beat the crap out of him for his tricks). Interestingly if you look at their history, the Norse gods would never have done anything but sit around and party (like veritable Lotus Eaters) had Loki not kept screwing with them. Which brings us to the most interesting comparison; the ol' devil himself, Lucifer, Satan, Satanaiel (sometimes even Samaiel). In various references fire (the ultimate symbol of change) is brought altneratively by either Satan (to anger/thwart God) or as a gift by Gabriel(? one of the other host... not sure off the cuff). Depending on reference it makes the cases for change quite different. I have to wonder if the differences in the presentation were not interpretation intended to make the Church (Catholicsim most notably) more attractive to other cultures (the Norse for instance) much like some of the holidays were shifted to certain periods of time (Christmas being the most notable example, falling strikingly close to pagan holidays celebrated throughout Northern and Western Europe during the dark ages).
At any rate if it is a Gift from God via angel (or Archangel if you prefer), then it makes the case that change is not only gifted from god, but is encouraged. That questioning the world around you is not only acceptable but is expected. However it also makes things changes 'God approved' and means that you should tacitly seek god's acceptance when you make changes.
The alternative is however that God is petulant and that Satan/Sataniel/Samael/Lucifer had to steal fire for humanity as a slight paints a very different picture. It paints the relationship between God and Satan as far more petty than I would hope it would be, as humanity would simply be the poor children in a shitty custody battle being used to slight one another.
I happened upon some interesting and less popular references to the fall of Satan as well, coming from Persian interpretations. In their concept of the fall, it is that God created man and advised his angels (Sataniel was born of fire, humans of clay for reference) to bow to them as his greatest achievment. Here is the twist; it is not that he was jealous of humanity so much as that he had such a great love for God that he could not follow his directive as he could see nothing to be superior to his god. So his fall is that of a spurned lover, devout, and devoted to the absolute end. It is an interesting twist that colors the battle between heaven and earth with a different twist, at once more personal and more intimate. Surprising to me is that this is something espoused by Sufi tradition (or at least it is based on this Persian belief). [For reference, most of what was Persia is now Iran, and most 'Iranians' will tell you they are Persian not Iranian; they have pride in their heritage, not so much their country. Not so different from America I guess].
Another side note on 'Satan' There is a lot of confusion about this identity, particularly his fall. Interestingly it is only really in the King James (and other similar-era versions of the english translation of the bible) that the proper name 'Lucifer' is used. The fall is refrenced twice, once in Isaiah and once in Ezekial with strikingly similar language. Also of note is that one is in reference to Lucifer (proper) and the other is in reference to the unnamed King of Babylon...
Anyway I have digressed almost entirely from the point of the post which is that I believe wholeheartedly in change. I do not approve of Bush and never have. I have groused quietly, but would not suggest disobeying, or deriding him for anything other than reasonable legal issues. He has done things that violate the law, the consitution and has caused innumerable amounts of damage to our image on a worldwide stage. Can Obama undo it? I have no idea. I think he will try. I think we need to step the hell out of his way and let him make mistakes just as we let W do. It is our civic duty to support our president while he is in office, regardless of what we think of him. Should we watchdog Obama? hell yes. He is still a politician after all and anyone who WANTS to be president should be watched closely. I do NOT however believe that we should be obstuctionist just because we may not agree with him on certain wedge issues.
Wow. In the same post I managed to talk about half a dozen devils and two Presidents. I am going straight to hell.
The economy is in a shambles (and is still pinwheeling out of control). My own job is in question. I have a daughter and a wife to support. The whole situation is depressing, and crushing to be honest. My wife wants to return to her hometown (or at least close by) but financially it is virtually impossible to do since the cost of living is insane there.
This is the territory that my brain resides in at the moment, and is the jumping off point for the rest of my thoughts as they follow.
To whit:
We have a new president who is selling us hope; is this a good thing? I think so. Is change good? well that is debatable. Many insist that change (or 'Change' as ol Barry would have it) is not necessarily good in and of itself. I would argue quite the opposite in fact; change itself may be uncomfortable, dangerous, scary and even destructive. But absolutely nothing ever improves unless change happens, even if the initial change is destructive, we learn from it and improve. Change is by it's very nature catalytic. If we never changed we would never learn as a child to not put our hand on the stove. If these catalytic changes did not occur we would still be in the stone age. We would not have language, tools, buildings.
In religious history fire was brought to us by a god or other messenger. For example, in Apache mythos Fox stole fire from the fireflies and brought it to the world (and amusingly incidentally created the first drum as well). In Cherokee belief Water Spider solved the puzzle of the burning sycamore and carried a burning coal across the water in a basket she had weaved once most of the others had failed to transport it (indicating superior intelligence and craft as opposed to strength or prowess). In Norse mythology it is Loki (the rough equivalent of Lucifer in christian faith) that brings fire to humanity; mostly to piss off the gods. Loki is an interesting figure in and of himself as he represents a more human take on the 'devil's advocate' role. He advocates change, many times at the cost of safety (even his own on a regular basis as Thor tends to beat the crap out of him for his tricks). Interestingly if you look at their history, the Norse gods would never have done anything but sit around and party (like veritable Lotus Eaters) had Loki not kept screwing with them. Which brings us to the most interesting comparison; the ol' devil himself, Lucifer, Satan, Satanaiel (sometimes even Samaiel). In various references fire (the ultimate symbol of change) is brought altneratively by either Satan (to anger/thwart God) or as a gift by Gabriel(? one of the other host... not sure off the cuff). Depending on reference it makes the cases for change quite different. I have to wonder if the differences in the presentation were not interpretation intended to make the Church (Catholicsim most notably) more attractive to other cultures (the Norse for instance) much like some of the holidays were shifted to certain periods of time (Christmas being the most notable example, falling strikingly close to pagan holidays celebrated throughout Northern and Western Europe during the dark ages).
At any rate if it is a Gift from God via angel (or Archangel if you prefer), then it makes the case that change is not only gifted from god, but is encouraged. That questioning the world around you is not only acceptable but is expected. However it also makes things changes 'God approved' and means that you should tacitly seek god's acceptance when you make changes.
The alternative is however that God is petulant and that Satan/Sataniel/Samael/Lucifer had to steal fire for humanity as a slight paints a very different picture. It paints the relationship between God and Satan as far more petty than I would hope it would be, as humanity would simply be the poor children in a shitty custody battle being used to slight one another.
I happened upon some interesting and less popular references to the fall of Satan as well, coming from Persian interpretations. In their concept of the fall, it is that God created man and advised his angels (Sataniel was born of fire, humans of clay for reference) to bow to them as his greatest achievment. Here is the twist; it is not that he was jealous of humanity so much as that he had such a great love for God that he could not follow his directive as he could see nothing to be superior to his god. So his fall is that of a spurned lover, devout, and devoted to the absolute end. It is an interesting twist that colors the battle between heaven and earth with a different twist, at once more personal and more intimate. Surprising to me is that this is something espoused by Sufi tradition (or at least it is based on this Persian belief). [For reference, most of what was Persia is now Iran, and most 'Iranians' will tell you they are Persian not Iranian; they have pride in their heritage, not so much their country. Not so different from America I guess].
Another side note on 'Satan' There is a lot of confusion about this identity, particularly his fall. Interestingly it is only really in the King James (and other similar-era versions of the english translation of the bible) that the proper name 'Lucifer' is used. The fall is refrenced twice, once in Isaiah and once in Ezekial with strikingly similar language. Also of note is that one is in reference to Lucifer (proper) and the other is in reference to the unnamed King of Babylon...
Anyway I have digressed almost entirely from the point of the post which is that I believe wholeheartedly in change. I do not approve of Bush and never have. I have groused quietly, but would not suggest disobeying, or deriding him for anything other than reasonable legal issues. He has done things that violate the law, the consitution and has caused innumerable amounts of damage to our image on a worldwide stage. Can Obama undo it? I have no idea. I think he will try. I think we need to step the hell out of his way and let him make mistakes just as we let W do. It is our civic duty to support our president while he is in office, regardless of what we think of him. Should we watchdog Obama? hell yes. He is still a politician after all and anyone who WANTS to be president should be watched closely. I do NOT however believe that we should be obstuctionist just because we may not agree with him on certain wedge issues.
Wow. In the same post I managed to talk about half a dozen devils and two Presidents. I am going straight to hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)