Twitter-Pated

I finally broke down this week and joined Twitter. As social networking goes, it’s really great, I’m sure, but the reason that I joined wasn’t so that I could hook up with friends. It was because a friend told me that Iran needed my help. Being that I’m a curious sort, I started asking questions about how my being on Twitter could help. The answer I was given: “To help protect the lives of people who need to get information out.”

This is a heavy kind of trip, and it’s certainly not something I’d have expected. But the real truth is, the Basij troops were victimizing people in an attempt to regain control. They are hated in their own country—and apparently with good reason: plain-clothes Basiji troops were verified to have stormed homes, broken into universities, and as of this writing have killed over 30 people and arrested hundreds of people. A couple of the Ayatollahs even got into the act—one declaring violence against the people Haram (against Islamic law), and the other apparently condoning the violence on the grounds that the people were being violent (which, mostly, they weren’t).

But the sheer cruelty of the authorities against the people who weren’t actually making trouble was made apparent in every one of the thousands of images and dozens of videos which came through unofficial channels—and there was evidence through the official channels of Photoshop being used to increase the numbers of people who were present. It’s as though they believe the public is stupid or infantile. This kind of sounds like some Hollywood executives, too… but I digress.

The most difficult thing in the world is to break an idea. You can kill people; you can’t kill an idea, once it catches on. The government’s been caught red-handed in election fraud (though an even 120% of the election counts say that the incumbent was the winner). And they’ve been trying hard to build a propaganda machine, but it just hasn’t worked.

To their credit, the Obama administration has kept their noses out of it, promising to open dialog with whichever side actually wins. This is really about democracy, and the will of the people to effect change in a regime which has resisted change for 30 years. When the smoke finally settles, I hope that a productive and peaceful dialog can be opened, in which both Iran and the United States can walk away winners.

But wow, the people who try to take advantage of the number of people who are simply in there to try to help! Spammed adverts for software, music, and even services not related to anything seem to be essentially shooting themselves in the foot. People don’t like it when you advertise something fun in the middle of a somber occasion.

And they don’t like it when you rig an election, either.

Helping the Homeless

I have a new widget on this blog. I’ve decided to try to help some of the local homeless people who want to organize a protest.  The issue is, how can they get what they need in order to be able to conduct an effective (not to mention legal) protest? There are some 95 homeless people who all have issues they want to air as a group, which means it’s more money than I can take out of my own pocket to help them. Once the funds become available, I’m sure it will actually double.

This money would also be used to help people who are not necessarily homeless, but who are too broke to afford things like magic markers and posterboard. The homeless tend to be invisible to most people. When I heard some of the things they want to protest, I was actually surprised!  I almost couldn’t believe the well-reasoned and rational arguments that were being forwarded. There were some real whoppers, too… but that’s a whole different thing: the valid points are what we aim for, like some of the following:

• Access rights: many homeless complain (and have records of) harassment by police officers, who want to get them out of an area because they scare people by their appearance (and really, some soap is all they need in many cases).
• Donations: many people use the homeless as their own personal trash deposit for things they would feel guilty about throwing away. This includes broken toys, ragged clothing, expired and spoiled food, and things which the rest of us would really find no use for.
• Communications: Believe it or not, I was there when an officer confiscated a brand-new cellular phone from a homeless man on the grounds that he couldn’t possibly have afforded it (and arrested him on suspicion of drug peddling). Knowing what I do about the guy, I can say the charge is not unfounded, but it was unwarranted. The police still hadn’t returned the phone 4 weeks later.
• Harassment: Police harrassment in general, particularly of those with gang-oriented tattoos (and who aren’t associated with those gangs any more). Apparently, people aren’t allowed to straighten up their lives.

And a plethora of others.

Even if it gets no laws changed, keeping the homeless essentially bound and gagged doesn’t serve the rest of us. It means that if we become unwanted, the same can happen to us. I’ve watched it happen.

David Carradine’s Death

I want to preface this by saying that I have never met David Carradine. I never garnered an autograph, never contacted a fan club, and had no connection that I know about to his family. But I was a fan, and I care about the lives of others. His loss is felt, because I looked forward to seeing him in more stuff. And for 73, Carradine looked better than I thought possible.

When I first read the news about the death, that he was found naked in a closet with a rope around his neck, I started thinking about conspiracies and all kinds of other things. Knowing what I do about David Carradine, I knew that he had a lot left to live for, and that the timing of his death was about as bad as it gets (not that there’s a good time to die, but that it had the effect of maximum damage). I dismissed it all as paranoia, because people who commit suicide do so for a wide variety of reasons.

A week later, I’m now reading a different story: one which calls the suicide into question. This is about what I was thinking a week ago! That it’s confirmed by a forensics expert on the scene means that what I dismissed as paranoia might have been closer to the mark than the news story.

I’m suspecting that criminal ties to someone financially (or possibly) involved in the project might be responsible. Let’s see if my suspicions are confirmed.

Love and Lust, Fear and Anger

Dichotomies in Emotional States of Human Beings

Wow, that title almost sounded scientific. Too bad this isn’t science.

I’ve accepted for a long time that love and lust are basically two sides to the same emotion. And, for the same reasons, I’ve accepted that fear and anger are two sides of the same coin as well. And I can use what little I know of psychology to back my position (any experts in psychology out there? Weigh in, let me know someone’s actually reading this crap, eh?).

First, let’s tackle love and lust. Lust is a biological drive—the need for sexual relations which all animals feel, including us of the human kind. Love is the desire for a continued relationship. Love is what allows a couple to demonstrate to others that they are committed. But what is the biological use for it? Science hasn’t been able to say. So, I’m filling in the blank with my own (very unscientific, gut-based, intuitive) theory:

Love is the drive which allows the chance for success in raising a child. If one parent or both are not successful within about 4-5 years, love fades (thus the divorce rate, etc.). Loving your partner is not merely about companionship for you; it’s about ensuring that a good parent is there for your child. In those who have similar values about children, and who apply these values as principles to guide their child-rearing activities successfully, we should expect that the divorce rate is roughly half the norm.

This will require more data to even reach a proper hypothesis stage, but it should still pretty much make the idea clear.

And now for the fear/hate mechanism. Fear is “flight” and anger is “fight”. They are part of the same mechanism in the brain, which we call the “fight or flight response”. When you feel either, your survival instincts climb. Maybe I shoulda started with the simpler one. Meh. It doesn’t matter. I’m not afraid. Not angry. Well, not about that, anyway.

Jedi Studies

There are people in the world who actually embraced the philosophies first presented by George Lucas in his Star Wars movies. Lucas never intended for it to start a religious philosophy, and in fact the movement really took off a few years ago as a kind of joke-turned-serious. But in studying the philosophies of the Jedi, I’ve come to a few realizations about what I believe, many of which are reflected in the Jedi way.

• Symbiosis is the act of living in balance and harmony with all things, in all places. A Jedi in the films was as “at home” in the wilderness as in the cities. The Jedi understood the concept of interdependence, and lived it fully.
• Jedi also understood the need for legacies. This was why the requirement of apprenticeship was necessary: legacies are a way to ensure that ideas are continued and continue to develop long after one’s own death.
• The Jedi as a whole practiced martial arts for the health of mind and body. Martial arts are about 75% mental, and 75% physical (yes, there is overlap where it’s both, and it still comes out to 100%). The parts where no physical portion is present are philosophical (about 25%). And in the middle of this philosophy, objective critical thinking was taught.
• There is the Force, which in a way is like God: it is the source of all life, and it surrounds all living things, connecting them to the universe. This concept is similar also to the Tao. One of the possible translations of Tao is actually “Force", though the most direct translation is “Way”. I’m sure Lucas thought about this very carefully.

There are other things that I find interesting and even captivating.

But one thing that the modern-day Jedi adherents are adamant about: they don’t claim to have control of the Force in the way that the movies do (thus, no psychic powers), nor do they claim to have light sabers. And they don’t run around in movie costumes repeating lines like “You want to go home and rethink your life” or something else from the movies. They carefully avoid the cynical trappings of their movie origins (and fully admit to the origin being the deep philosophies of these films), and are serious about developing the Jedi philosophy.

Because they’re careful not to make false claims, I think they’re worth checking out. The Institute for Jedi Realist Studies seems to be a great place to start. Google is sure to be a source for other sites.

I guess I’m a Jedi Realist. Wow, who’d have thunk it?

Psychic Ghost Hunting Through UFO Sightings

That’s right: I’ve decided to work on a database which incorporates UFO sightings, ghost-like activity, and claims of psi. By creating a tool which correlates these events, we can see a variety of possible links between these types of activities. I mean: what if what we think of as ghosts are actually aliens? And what if all of these things are actually created by people who don’t know that they’re psychic? And what if it’s all just in our heads, and actually correlates to each other in a way which implies mental illness? And what if it’s all real?

The only way we can even hazard a guess as to whether or not any of this is a workable theory is to collect the data all in one place and to tell the computer to analyze it. My own analysis of some 15,000 reports of different kinds of activities seems to indicate that there is indeed a kind of effect at work. But to prove it, I’m going to need closer to 25 million reports—this represents about 10% of the total number of reported cases.

I contacted ASSAP about this a couple of weeks ago. They want a research proposal, and I’m a little flustered. I can do the research myself; what I need is a boatload of help in creating, designing, deploying and updating the web site, in addition to the data entry. It’s going to take years for a large group to enter in all of that data, classify it, and error-check it. I couldn’t do that in a lifetime by myself.

The end result is a tool which everyone can use, not simply a research project. I might as well write up the research proposal, and focus on the tool’s development. I don’t really want to go about it that way, because the research I want to do requires the tool, and is quick and painless once the tool is completed

I just wish I knew how I was going to do it. It’s going to take more than I can actually do, and I don’t know how to ask for money. Or from whom. Or where to get help. Any ideas, readers?

Remote Viewing: Test Run #1

Okay, so sue me: I’m working on either proving that remote viewing doesn’t work, or becoming a psychic. I just bought some lessons by Ed Dames from someone who claims she got it to work, but isn’t really all that interested in going through all the lessons. She said she was interested “for a while” but that now her interest is more focused on taking care of her kids. And, knowing her the way I do, this is a major shift in priority: her main aim before was in paying someone else to take care of her kids. If psychic training can have that kind of an impact on someone’s priorities, it’s well worth my attention!

So, I’ve gone through the first DVD. Woop-de-doo. I found out everyone’s actually psychic: it’s a matter of degrees and what people are good at. And my own results were rather impressive to me, but about average for someone doing this for the first time. I successfully drew elements which related to the photos they show in the DVD (I won’t say what those are, since I don’t wanna ruin it for someone who wants to try it later).

And in about two weeks, I’ve amassed a little over 150 mb of data about the background of Remote Viewing.

Ed Dames, a retired Major from the US Army, was employed during the 1980’s and 1990’s by the CIA in Project Stargate—a project which has now been somewhat declassified. Stargate was not something most people think is real: it was psychic spying.

In reading the final report about why it was shut down, I was very interested to find out that it wasn’t due to a lack of measurably positive results; but instead, in the fact that people weren’t comfortable trusting those results as the basis for intelligence operations. They call this “lack of utility in intelligence operations” and it’s basically an expression that they’re really uncomfortable with it, not that it’s effective or not. Science rejects the idea utterly, without so much as an inkling of evidence to refute the thousands of pages of documents I’ve amassed.

Someone asked why they don’t publish in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, thinking that to be the end of the argument. After careful examination of the literally hundreds of reputable peer-reviewed journals, I can’t seem to locate a single one which would be suitable to publish findings such as these. Therefore, the issue is what we call a “reverse file-drawer problem,” which means that significant results cannot be disclosed because of a lack of suitable outlet. The only solution is disreputable or non-peer-reviewed journals, none of which could really serve to spark scientific interest—and of the ones which might actually work, the main issue is that of infinite regress. Everything would be required to be proved, and then the proof would have to be proved, and then the proof of the proof would need to be proved… yeah, no thanks. Can we say “lockout”?

The other solution is just to move forward, until science actually gets sick of dealing with it to the point that they grudgingly make some concessions about validity, at which point we set up a demonstration, and the scientific examination of psi actually begins.

I’m no expert, but I think that odds of 200 trillion to 1 against there being any other effect in play after 25,000+ trials is a pretty good starting place.

But I still wanted to try my own. Here’s my unscientific experiment, and its results:

So, I took the kids out, and my lady spent about $20 on magazines. I had no idea which ones she’d buy, and she had only a few instructions about how to prepare the envelopes. She was to write down two sets of four numbers with a black felt-tip marker (a “Sharpie” marker) on a photo, which was to be placed inside a manila folder, which was then placed inside of a Kraft paper envelope, on which the same numbers were written. She then destroyed the magazines she didn’t want to keep by dropping them into a black trash bag, then depositing them in the trash bin outside (which accepts trash for 3 businesses and 40 residents of my building) before I got home.

We tested: holding it up to the sunlight, I couldn’t see anything inside. And in the house, even less so. Then it was her turn to take the kids. She handed me the printed list of numbers she’d typed up. After she left, I rolled some dice to pick 10 of the 30 envelopes.

I went through the remote viewing sessions, writing down my impressions. In 10 trials, I correctly identified 2 of the photos, and got significant elements of all of them which were unique to the photos, or which were obvious by looking at them. My lady says I got 10 out of 10; I think I only actually got the 2 that I nailed perfectly. If we split the difference: 60% accuracy. And, I was told, that’s because I’m skeptical.

I mean, come on: how much more proof do we need to start actually looking at this? Science doesn’t think it’s useful. On the contrary, I think this is one of the most important discoveries in history! How can anyone just sit there, nod, and justify spending time negating any claim, instead of actually doing something scientific like, oh, I don’t know, experimentation? I wonder if they know about this little thing I like to call the Scientific Method. Or how about the Philosophy of Science? No? Critical thinking, perhaps? Any of this ring a bell inside that thick skull that can spend all the time in the world telling me how wrong my interpretations are, but which isn’t willing to spend a fraction of that time in actually testing to see if a result can be achieved?

Except, wow: 25,000 results by a very reputable scientific organization have been done, and nobody can publish the results.

Sucks to be them. Who wants to be a psychic? Bah, that’s kids’ stuff from comic books. If that’s so, I shouldn’t have been able to discern anything about any of the contents of the envelopes. My success after only a few hours of training (less than a day) from a DVD indicates a high probability that this effect can be duplicated at a scientific level.

If this is real, I have to start wondering what else might actually be able to work. If science can figure out why this works, might we unlock the human mind’s abilities in other ways? Perhaps ESP isn’t enough: maybe we have to demonstrate telepathy, too. And psychokinesis. Or whatever else we might consider trying to study. Maybe ESP is the only thing that works. Or just maybe, it’s the tip of the iceberg. We can’t know until something really happens in the way of study. Science is what gave us remote viewing: not religion. In fact, religion used to persecute people for claiming to be psychic, since it was heavily associated with witchcraft. Nothing witchy about this: it’s nothing more than thinking about and writing down impressions. I don’t even actually “see” anything in remote viewing. I only get vague impressions, which I then construct into a picture that I draw using these vague impressions. The process itself seems kinda hokey, actually. But the results are nothing short of stunning—the scientific controls seem to produce better results, but I need lots more data on something like that.

After some serious review of the papers I have (I still need to do more), I’m thinking that the best move will be to save up enough and buy some more training in California, because I’m fairly sure that another way might increase my results.

If you’re interested, there are quite a few web sites devoted to remote viewing, but the experts from the CIA’s project definitely have it together better, and aren’t sounding all fluffy and new-agey. I’m sticking with them for the moment.

And I just found out about a convention in Vegas in July. I can’t go, finances aren’t permitting for the travel at the moment. Which sucks. But that’s life. Maybe next year.

The Rape Scene

My main character, Kate, ran into a snag, and she was essentially raped by creature which feeds on blood. The feeling of being violated is something I’ve experienced, though not something I know a great deal about.

A healer type came and took away her memory for a short time, and it made things worse instead of better for Kate. And when she came out of it (she passed out from blood loss), she didn’t want anyone touching her. Still, a female bodyguard (she is an actual princess, remember) insisted on a hug, and gave Kate the option of refusing. Kate just sat there and cried for what seemed like hours. I figured this was a very real reaction to something so traumatic. I’m just glad this is a fictional character.

Meanwhile, a male bodyguard (also in the room) was asleep, head on the bed that Kate was resting in, hand resting palm-up. As he woke up, he provided some much-needed comic relief and laughter for Kate. These are Kate’s friends.

When I set out, I didn’t intend for this to be included in my book. When I started to write it, I thought it might be some weird, sick, twisted little thing. I didn’t realize what I was setting up. I don’t know how I really feel about it. The emotions are a very mixed bag.

This is really a tough subject for me. I really have to say, feeling the horror and sensitivities of what I write for my characters changes my perspectives on lots of things. But when I’m doing something traumatic, putting my characters through the wringer, most of the time I can detach. In this case, I wasn’t able to. It’s one of those things I just don’t know how I could detach from. So why write it?

Because it’s important. The concept of rape to someone who has never experienced it firsthand—especially to those who have misconceptions about what is or isn’t rape—is difficult to talk about. It’s difficult to discuss, because it’s so very personal. And when you’re motivated against talking about it by whatever set of factors you have, getting motivated to talk about it is really tough. It takes facing the fears you have, setting them aside, and plunging headlong into an entire world of uncertainty.

What’s worse, Kate’s real mother (a queen) is going to try to hide it, because she doesn’t want to have to deal with shame or pity. She doesn’t want people to think that nobility ever undergo a moment of vulnerability. The perception that her daughter is vulnerable emotionally means that the enemies of the crown (and there are plenty) will do what they can to take advantage of the situation. It’s dangerous to reveal.

The only thing worse than everyone knowing is nobody knowing. And if Kate can convince her mother otherwise, perhaps courtiers can be informed, and some minds can start work on preventing something like this from happening again. You see, that’s the power of being informed: people can work on ideas to help prevent the bad stuff from happening. It’s when ideas are suppressed, such as when people think that their idea isn’t worthwhile, that nothing gets done. Ideas lead to action. Action leads to prevention. It’s just the way things work.

You don’t have to publicize something like this. Truly, too much publicity can increase the effect of the trauma for someone who is in an emotionally-vulnerable state. Victims should be protected from attention as much as possible. Perpetrators are the ones who need the real attention. But even that can be overdone—I mean, really: is it fair to believe that some idiot who decided to go nude sunbathing in Utah in the wilderness is the same kind of sexual predator as the Good Father who isolated and molested some 60 children? Yet we look at these in the same light, because the nude sunbather might come into view of kids.

Give me a break. Seriously. The problem isn’t the idea that kids might accidentally see something. Incidental exposure isn’t what does the damage; it’s the reaction of everyone around them. Certainly, it’s a shock to see someone without clothes on if you’re used to the opposite, but an accident is an accident. It’s not like this sunbather person is in a church—a place which is intended to be safe—targeting children who are planned victims. Seeing nudity repeatedly lowers its impact, makes it so that naked people really just don’t get you excited.

You see, most sexual predators and serial killers get a thrill from violating a boundary, breaking a rule, and so forth. They thrive not on the sexual thrill (that’s just a payoff—a reinforcement which makes the danger worthwhile), but on the secret breaking of rules. We all do! It’s human nature. But the part of a serial killer or sexual predator which this feeds doesn’t result in guilt. They’ve learned through having their guilt played on throughout their lives (usually from overbearing mothers, according to FBI profiler training) to turn their guilt off. When guilt is used as a tool to control someone, it turns into something dangerous.

But the rapist in my story wasn’t even sentient. It was a complete accident, amplified by a well-meaning doctor who was trying to something to take the memory of the rape away. Instead, he made it worse, because when the memories finally returned, she remembered everything, and heaped on top of the feeling of invasion she felt guilty because she’d been acting solely on instinct instead of memory, judgment, and understanding. She enjoyed it. Did this negate the fact that it violated her? No. The enjoyment made the violation worse.

In speaking with several victims (perpetrators are harder to interview), where there was an element of enjoyment, the enjoyment was negated by the fact that they submitted to sexual intercourse out of intimidation or trickery on the part of the assaulter. The issue wasn’t whether or not she enjoyed it; it was whether or not she was willing.

This led me, believe it or not, to ask some people about S&M, especially about rape scenes and pretending not to submit. While all involved (both “tops” and “bottoms”) stated flatly that they were fully willing participants, and the likelihood of those who were inexperienced and unaware of someone who was on the fringes and not actually in “the [S&M] scene” was low. This is by SSC (“Safe, Sane and Consensual”) rules, which require consent prior to any rape scene. Anything else opens one up to not only legal issues, but to social and injury issues as well. Consent is a formal arrangement in such scenes, even if the online porn (which I haven’t checked out yet) doesn’t really show that aspect of it. Safety and sanity require that rape scenes be entirely pretend, and by arrangement: in other words, role-playing.

Other kinds of sexual situations came to my attention, including date rape, but these still conform to the ideas I established above. And in the end, no consent or withdrawn consent is rape.

But what about “rape after the fact”? For those who don’t know what this is, it’s where consent is withdrawn for the act after it was completed. In speaking to a few of the victims, this has actually happened where there was a person that a group wanted to be rid of. This is enough to warrant a trial, because not every case is actually considered rape. Because it’s known that this has occurred in the past, an automatic conclusion cannot be reached.

The recent court victory of a teacher accused of having sexual contact with a sixteen-year-old girl (several, in fact) resulted in a bench trial, where the verdict was that there was no evidence of sexual contact between teacher and student. We can’t know for certain whether or not anything happened. The law said he didn’t do anything, but the mere accusation will haunt that teacher for the rest of his life—if not just his career.

People are afraid of sexual predators. There’s good reason to be afraid! But the problem is that popular media tends to blow all of the things to be afraid of way out of proportion. The mere accusation results in a kind of “better safe than sorry” attitude, even if there was really nothing to the accusation to begin with. And after the little revelation that some people are actually set up, I’ve been rethinking the whole accusatory stance.

But what if the rape is entirely a case of mixed signals? This is a question I asked a lawyer who tended to take on such cases. The result in court is basically a long “he said/she said” argument. If there’s no recording, then any sexual contact is presumed to be forcible contact. This is because it’s the only evidence they’ve got. This doesn’t negate “after the fact” rapes, where someone simply changed their minds about the sex and cried rape, but that’s what a trial is really for. Even then, the (now fake) victim gets the benefit of the doubt, and the prosecution of the case is basically assured a guilty verdict. Even if these are the vast minority of the cases, I’m basically seeing a reason never to try to have sex again—because you can actually be prosecuted for raping your wife.

Sexual contact of any kind can result in rape, legally, even if there was no rape in fact. That’s scary.

And all of this, just because I decided to write a very disturbing scene in a work of fiction. I think I’m basically ruined forever. I hope not, because, you know, I happen to like sex… but the risks involved are so high that I have to wonder if it’s worthwhile.

Stupid people don’t worry about risk. Maybe that’s why there are so many!

My Fiction Work

My character has just discovered she’s a fairy. And no, I don’t mean the kind which goes to Pride Day.

She’s really, honestly a fairy: wings, cherubic face, the whole nine yards. And she has a kind of spell over her which changes her shape to human, but which doesn’t change her brain. Once she feels the wings, she gets phantom limb syndrome when they aren’t there.

Oh, yeah: and she’s a princess. Thought that might be fun. But her castle is held by the enemy. That will make things interesting.

I’m not going to reveal everything, but I will say this: Kate’s an awesome character. I’m having loads of fun writing a twenty-year-old girl who almost has an eating disorder, considering I’m a thirtysomething man who is fat and genetically inclined to being bald. And I’m kinda homely, too. Except for that kinda part. But I compensate really well with my ego.

In my story, I’m dealing with men in black, space aliens, UFO sightings, psi, ghosts… the whole ball-o-wax-o-rama. I’m working on research which incorporates all of these things. And it started with this kinda cool idea about a fairy princess who was hidden among the monkey-brained humans to ensure that a prophecy didn’t come true about the royal line ending… the question I have right now is if I will end it or not, and if I do, how. I honestly don’t know at this point.

As of this writing: 25,000 words toward this being a novel.

The Word “Thoughtie”

Also spelled thought-y, this word basically means the same as “overly thoughtful” but in a negative connotation. Sort of like “overthinking” but more positive. Maybe it’s close to “deep and philosophical.”

Okay, and now for the truth: my grandmother told me I was “very thoughtie” when I came up with anything which was both clever and not really useful.

And now you know. And knowing is a quarter of the battle. (Forget that “half” propagandist tripe.)

Tiananmen Square

Today is the twentieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square incident. I’m doing my own little candle-light vigil kind of a thing, to remember just how good I have it: I can write anything I want to here, and even be critical of my government, and there ain’t jack they can really do about it (as long as I’m not openly advocating a revolution or inciting others to violent riot or something like that). I’m glad I’m allowed to dissent, and that my dissent is considered patriotic because we value free speech.

In China today, the incident in Tiananmen Square in 1989 is a forbidden topic. In publishing this post, I have very likely sealed my blog out from behind the “Great Firewall of China” because of this fact. But I wanted to make some points which I can make no other way.

The laws of any place are important to establishing and maintaining social order. But where that social order prevents an ugly event like Tiananmen Square from being permitted in discussion, even in passing or education, it cannot possibly serve anyone but those who are afraid of the implications of allowing a true democracy to flourish. And in this statement, I’m being critical of China, but I’m also being critical of my own country: the United States. At a social level, we’re afraid to demand our rights be observed. We’re an oppressed people in some ways, and we have it worse off than the Chinese dissidents in a lot of ways. But in every way that counts, we are still clinging to democracy: that dying dream of public participatory government.

The students in 1989 didn’t know what they were in for. They created a scene, and one which embarrassed the Chinese government of the day. But it was ultimately pointless and fruitless. Today, demonstrators are probably trying to assemble again, if only to honor the dead of that day. And these same people are risking arrest and imprisonment for merely implying that anything untoward happened. The United States takes absolutely no stand on the subject—we can’t. The Chinese have shown that the subject is “fightin’ words” and that they’re willing to ignore it all the way to war if it comes down to it. Such an unreasonable posture certainly degrades the culture of beauty and outward serenity by acknowledging that they simply cannot deal with ugliness, even if it’s of their own making. Bold words, and words which might get me arrested if I wrote them while in mainland China. But I’m not in China; and if I was, I would certainly be respectful of their laws, and I wouldn’t even make a passing mention of Tiananmen Square as anything but a tourist attraction.

But I’m not there. I’m here, and here I have the right to speak out on almost any subject of my choosing. It was most certainly a tragedy that occurred 20 years ago today. And it was a pointless one, judging by the amount of people who today join me in my candlelight vigil. Nobody even remembers the ugliness. It took a reminder of the timeframe and a mention of China to refresh one friend’s mind. For another friend, we both remember the young lady who disappeared during the following few months, but he remains unable to say or do anything twenty years later. I have no fear. Whatever might be done twenty years after the fact is minimal, and can hardly be called worse.

We’ve succeeded in tolerance by allowing them to keep to their own business. But we should encourage them to send us their dissidents, because these brilliant people can actually benefit us by helping us to appreciate what we have. They can also give us a much-needed outside perspective: the one thing the Chinese government doesn’t appear to be able to accept. And they don’t have to: it’s their country, and their way. But I sure do wish that they would acknowledge the ugliness, instead of burying it. Suppression lends power to the ideas which surround it. It’s the one thing that guarantees there is no solution, and that the quiet resistance builds in secret. And this means that China is a powder keg, which could go off tomorrow, or next year, or never at all.

Secrets are only useful when the net result is positive.

UPDATE: I had six other people join me, one who was a fourteen-year-old Chinese-American girl who has never seen China, and her parents (I didn’t press for information at the the solemn occasion). She said that her parents supported the movement, though she is the fourth generation born in this country. I taught her how to say “hello” in Mandarin. I’m not sure what flavor of Chinese her ancestors spoke, but the few words of Mandarin which I speak, badly, seemed to make her happy. Of the other three, one was someone I know. It was small, but at least I wasn’t the only one there.

I’m… Too Sexy For This Blog

Yeah, I’m sexy. Like a whale. On the beach. For the third day. Not! But I am smart. My brain is sexy. So, I’ve decided to start a blog.

Yes, I know: blogging is a pastime that it seems trendy these days. But I’ve discovered that the really big ideas that I have are quickly lost if I don’t write them down, and nobody gets to benefit if I don’t make my ideas available. So this blog is basically random crap for anyone to draw on. It’s whatever I’ve been thinking about. It’s an insight into what makes me tick. And it’s ultimately a collection of notes for me to refer myself back to when I’m doing my favorite pastime: writing.

I write all kinds of things: political essays, philosophical pieces, research articles, fiction, poetry, fringe science white papers, and anecdotes about really weird stuff which happens. And to hear me tell it, my life is strange more often than I’d like it to be. You’re hereby warned.

Also, some of what I write might be character perspectives for fiction that I’m writing. I don’t necessarily believe everything I write. And neither should you, because some of it might contradict what I write another time. And both articles might contradict what I actually believe. If you believe something I write, don’t blame me for your belief. Own it! Be responsible for your own thoughts!

If you want to know the truth of what I write, apply your own thinking to them. If they ring true, I’d suggest further research to cement the true parts of it—the “separating the wheat from the chaff” kind of thing. Chaffing words is just as easy or difficult as chaffing wheat. You just have to let oxygen do the work and apply what you yourself believe. I can point in a number of directions—enough to lose you. And if you choose to believe something from this, I can’t be held responsible for that choice.

What I can do—the most responsible thing to do at this point—is to encourage you to find even more resources to support your idea, and to challenge that idea with things which don’t support it. The litmus test of any idea is to try to break it—and to really, honestly try. In some cases, it comes down to what we each believe. In other cases, facts arise which can only lead us one direction if we’re rational, logical beings.

Please, let’s all be rational! Tag, you’re it.