Convenient Neglect

I think some legal matters have been overlooked lately...
The following is stated in the California Civil Code Section 52.1

(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color
of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or
attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the
exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the
rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the
Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring
a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief
in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to
protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights
secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district
attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is
requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who
is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be
awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are
determined to have been violated.

 The rest of it is pretty fun, too... and I'm fairly certain this applies to MUCH of what has happened, at least in California, very recently.
This goes out to everyone who thinks that what has happened in Davis, Berkeley, LA, Oakland, San Francisco, Riverside, and Orange County were justified because the protesters were breaking the law.

Memetic Manipulation

Memes.
Many who read that word will think of the amusing pictures that are spreading across the internet at an increasing rate... but explicitly speaking, what is a meme? Are they new to society?
No.
The explicit definition of a meme is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". Think about that a little critically, and you realize that culture is just a collection of memes, the spread of which is governed by commonalities in the lifestyles of the members of that culture. Everything down to gestures and even words (which begin as slang or jargon and eventually become incorporated into formal language) are, at some level, memes.

So why am I posting about this now? Why should this matter to you?
This was all just made relevant to me as a result of the latest events that unfolded in North Korea- namely, Kim Jong Il's death.
Based on the complete cultural control that the North Korean government has over its citizens, I'm not really surprised that the regime has managed to maintain its power so well. They've memetically destroyed the concept of freedom within their population... and that, is the purest form of destruction.

To control what a person obtains is the simplest type of control.
To control what a person does is a tighter kind of control.
To control what a person knows is even more impressive (oppressive).
To control what a person does or does not believe... that is pure control.

I will extrapolate these concepts to the United States. I know, comparing the U.S. to Korea is more than a little extreme, but the theme of memetic manipulation exists in any government; in order for a political system to work, those participating must have a similar idea of its function, or, at the very least, agree upon it enough to work with it.

Which brings me to my next ideological target: the two-party system, and the (hilarious) idea that every problem that arises in the country can be attributed to one of two political groups.

It wasn't until two weeks after Occupy Wall Street started that any major news network BEGAN reporting on it.
Streets were being blocked. Cars were stopped. THOUSANDS of people on one of the busiest streets in one of the busiest cities in the wealthiest nation in the world... were ignored by the media for two weeks. What disgusts me is that people trust these networks to give them an accurate depiction of the world, despite this.
Memetic manipluation. These people will tell you what's going on.
What else do these people tell you? Republican vs. Democrat. Political problem? Automatically assigned to one or the other.
And why not? They're the most accessible and well-funded media outlets in the country.
Even now, despite all of the political dissent that has been surging throughout the country, people are far too quick to label. Talk about an issue, and it's either the Democrat's fault, or the Republican's fault. Either the liberals are right, or the conservatives know what to do. It can't be both, nor can it draw attention to another.

Control of the media: control of the mind.

Though that's changing now as well, isn't it?
Those who are connected to the information flow outside of the news networks realize how irrevocable the Occupy movement is across the country. Strangely enough, not a single presidential candidate (as far as I have heard) has even publicly recognized the existence of this movement. Many people consider it the left-wing analogue to the Tea Party (surprise! It's either right or left- politics has a single dimension, after all).

The concept of ideologies that cannot be incorporated into Democratic or Republican ideals has been memetically destroyed. Not only are third-party candidates automatically ostracized from major corporate donations (by virtue of daring to venture away from Red vs. Blue), but the very idea that a third-party candidate has no chance to be elected is self-perpetuating. This has come to the point where those who speak out in favor of the third party are encouraged (inevitably by self-proclaimed free-thinkers as well as party spokespeople) to absorb their ideas into either one party or the other.

Divide all through hate, red state, blue state.

Time do discuss the actual issues. Do you believe that the current government has ANY intention of balancing the federal government's budget? The congressional super-committee charged with coming up with a plan to fix the budget failed at doing so.
I feel that, at such a point where a person (or body of people) cannot fix a problem that NEEDS TO BE FIXED, they should consider fishing for ideas outside of their own minds. Different ideas.
Has anyone heard of ideas floating around aside from cutting social programs vs. taxing the rich? I'm certain they exist, but why aren't these discussed? To be consistent with my current rant, it's because they aren't what the Democrats or Republicans have been preaching. Go figure.

For those of you who are sick of the two-party system, stop being quiet about it. This is how to fix it.
Don't blame the Democrats or Republicans for anything. Blame those who act (vote) against what you believe, but this mental compartmentalization of ALL political issues divides the country. It needs to stop.

"It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal,engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them." -Sun Tzu

Dividing the enemy is one of the most effective ways to defeat them. This works in physical war, and ideological war. I am fighting an ideological battle, and this is my dissemination strategy: Information.

Stop being quiet.
Stop being complacent.
Stop being apathetic.
Stop waiting for something to affect you directly before you speak out. An idea that isn't shared in any way may as well never have existed.
What you think matters as much as you want it to matter. If you are angry, but silent about it, then your anger does not matter. Prove that it matters.
You don't have to do much. Go on twitter for 10 minutes a day and let people know what you think. Start a blog. Share on Facebook. Yes, these matter.
If you're happy with how things are going, then make sure you are well aware of how things are going; else, you're fooling yourself.
This is the information age. If you have information, share it. Your opinion is information. Share it.
Being scared of those who disagree with you DEFINES the success of all who oppose you.
I encourage all to disagree with me and disobey all commands to keep quiet.
This is democracy. The people in Washington DC clearly have forgotten whom they are supposed to serve. They will forever be ignorant if the masses stay silent. Speaking out is now easier than ever.
If your opinion isn't shared, it doesn't matter.
Does it matter to you?

The Curtain Falls

Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress

Read this article. I know it's long, but please read it. Please.

This floored me completely.

As it turns out, the full bailout... the amount of money that was loaned to banks from the federal reserve totaled 7.77 TRILLION DOLLARS.

THAT IS OVER TWICE THE FEDERAL BUDGET OF 2010.

My god.

It's beyond me.

This is going to change votes. There is not a single person who knows a shred of economics who can justify this... who thinks that whomever caused this to happen has the country's best interest at heart. They cannot justify it.

This will rattle the consciences of people who previously supported the banks (or passively thought they weren't so bad). I always thought "Make Banks Pay" was a bit too far left for my taste... but this is no longer the case. The only way that this can be justified, as far as I can see it, is:

It was profitable for those in charge.

Fracturing Glass

A lot has happened since my last post... which I had intended to revise, but now will not. I have learned much since then. If you haven't heard about the events of Friday, November 18th at UC Davis, simply drop by YouTube and search "UC Davis", or just click here. Warning: The video is rather intense.
Another video you may find worth your time is The Calm After The Storm (featuring yours truly).
Since then, I have been neck-deep in this movement. It's unlike anything I've ever experienced. I'm sure many will just read this as me "raging against the machine" as a cousin of mine described during Thanksgiving dinner, so feel free to give me some feedback with your perspective.

The way I see it, things are changing. I mean that in the broadest, most significant way possible. Syria and Libya have been completely overthrown. Italy has elected an entirely new government. Egypt has completely overhauled its government, and Israel as declared that it's going to act against Iran, whose government has openly been threatening the existence of Israel for years.

And beyond all of that, the U.S.'s social structure is fracturing more every WEEK, in much the same manner as glass cracks when too much force is applied. Occupy Wall Street has accrued over 4,000 arrests. That is absolutely absurd, and the disconnect between the information generation and the rest of the world is becoming more and more apparent with each passing week.

The event that happened in Davis was recorded by an absurd number of people, and shortly thereafter, the protests at Berkeley went absolutely nuts. Google was inundated with over 700 requests by the government to remove the videos of police brutality.

Google declined.
Under normal circumstances, I'm sure Google would have removed those videos; they are rather violent, but as a private corporation, they may provide their service in whatever manner they see fit. The government may try to pass laws restricting them, but I don't see this as a realistic possibility; the companies who fund politicians rely far too much on the information and advertising mastery of Google.
I thank capitalism for Google's alligiance to this and other occupy movements; indeed, we are their audience and customers.

I don't see Chancellor Katehi as a bad person... I see her as wholly disconnected (or was) from what was happening on campus and completely ignorant of the true nature or ramifications of her actions (and/or inaction/s). I have similar views about the Regents of the U.C.
They aren't malicious, simply ignorant.
The woman IS responsible for the entire university, but does not WORK FOR the entire university. By this, I mean that she was appointed to her position by the regents of the U.C., who were appointed by the regents, who were appointed by the governor (with TWELVE year terms). I expect every worker to work for whomever gets him/her his/her job. Those in public office who get their job directly because of the people will serve the people. So how many of them do? Be realistic.
Can a congressman or senator be elected directly through the people? Would one who tried have a chance against those who sell out to companies who fund their election (and/or re-election) campaigns and get tons of money for advertising, etc.?
Who gets these people their jobs? Whom do they serve?
I don't blame them. The ones who actually want to serve the people don't stand a chance.
The chancellor-candidates who would rather cater to the university students, staff, and faculty than the regents will not get chosen by the regents to become chancellor. In a corporate structure, this is great; CEOs are held accountable to their investors and shareholders. In public office, administrators need to be held directly accountable to whomever they are expected to serve. Yes, serve. That's how a democracy works.
I'm sure some will read this who believe that one who has earned a lot more money is perfectly justified in having a heavier hand in the government. To those, I ask to describe the difference between democracy and aristocracy, and which you prefer.

The influence is spreading. With each passing year, people are realizing how exempt they aren't from the same issues that are peoples' reasons to protest all over the country.
Around me I see college students still convinced that those directly affected by all of these issues are a minority... people who think that working diligently through these years will get them that degree and a job and be successful. For some reason, those who have graduated (and aren't in some graduate or professional school) seem to generally disagree. The burden of loans and the dilution of education are going to hit most people in public universities harder than I think they realize.

Not to worry... those who are spearheading these movements are well educated and well aware.
Those coming out of college aren't necessarily any dumber than those who graduated in the 60's or 70's, when public education was so much more affordable (and even free), but they are in much worse financial situations, both in terms of credit and chances of getting a job (ANY job, let alone the one they want)... and slowly more people are starting to realize this... and they are very upset about it.

I've noticed that talks of the upcoming presidential elections have quieted down quite a bit. Either this is just a calm in the 'cycle of the media', as I have been suggested, or the candidates simply have no idea how to address the foreboding shift of the attitude of the country, like a large structure that is beginning to sway. Will it fall? No idea... but at this point, the smartest thing they can do is watch, wait, and see.

This is going to be one HELL of an election year.

Writing the Annals of Civilization

Since I have become aware of human history, I have always wondered what to expect during my lifetime. Granted, the recent surge of activism arising in the U.S. is hardly worth noting in a history textbook, I do expect something significant to happen in the coming years that will add some pages to the annals of civilization.
The economic tides are shifting across the globe- China, which 20 years ago was still considered well below "developing", seems to be tightening its economic grip on the West, which can't seem to get its act together.
Italy is electing an entirely new government, and the IMF's European chief resigned very recently. Despite the economic difficulties, the corporations of the United States still -own- everything in terms of business stratification, but more labor is being exported each year. More producing ability is being exported each year. The economy of the United States is so heavily dependent on that of foreign economies (either in the form of subsidiaries or labor), but nobody seems to mind. Historically, every revolution has fallen in the favor of the producers, and against the financiers (owners, aristocrats, etc.), and apparently, they think they have it right this time as well. Nobody is doing much about it.

The American aristocracy seems to have little intention of improving the state of education of its population; after all, that would threaten their superiority, no?
The companies hire producers, accepting the notion that these producers are now dependent on said companies for their wages. Is this the case? If profit is maximized by investing more resources into a single producer, then who is the dependent- he who sells, or he who produces? Neither- it is he who buys without producing. That's where the United States is right now, from the households who are sold mediocre (but pretty!) computers (yes, this is a shot at Macs) to the financiers who move massive sums of money between producers. Yes, the ultra-rich CEOs of Goldman Sachs and AIG can raise and demolish factories and towns with the money they move, but the producers at the bottom of the proverbial socioeconomic ladder seem to be more forgotten with each passing year.
The U.S. has moved from producing to managing production for its own population (as have many European nations). So far, this has served the country very well, and I think it's a fantastic step in the direction of maintaining global economic supremacy... except for the next step, which is using that money to MAINTAIN supremacy. If supremacy lies in the financiers, then it is far too fickle. This is why:
If forced to choose between the producers and the consumers, where do the financiers turn? The obvious answer is the resources. Financial resources lie in production and consumption. The U.S. is exporting its production capacity. Connecting the dots, yet?

And above all of this, the government doesn't seem to care much about education. Funny how that works, since as the information age grows, the country with the most people who are adept at manipulating this information (intelligent people?) will have a great advantage... yet education seems to be getting cut at every hardship the budget encounters...

...which brings me to the current surge of activism with which I've been instilled.

As a student of UC Davis, I should expect no less from the strongly progressive sentiments that surround me, but the behavior of the UC Administration certainly eludes me. The California State Legislature has cut more funding to the U.C., which has resulted in staff layoffs, cutting classes, and reduced financial aid across the board.
What has the UC Administration (regents) done about this? They've moved money around to try to make things work, allegedly... which is important. Good.
Have they publicly appealed to the California State Legislature? No.
Have they launched any campaign against the funding cuts? No.
Have they at least EVENED OUT the money a little to mitigate the damage done? THEY GAVE THEMSELVES RAISES. I don't type in all caps very often, but I consider this justified.
Have they made any significant action to even ATTEMPT to provide their university students or staff with a better education or work environment? I see none (granted this may be an environmental bias, I have searched and found nothing).

This is simply another instance of misplaced responsibility as a result of a flawed system. The regents may have been intellectual academic philanthropists when the UC was given autonomy by the California State Legislature, but this is no longer the case. Their primary responsibility must be to the students and staff of the UC, and this clearly is not the case. Something must be done about this.

People should always be expected to act in their own best interests.

The Internet (and Censorship)

Today and yesterday, two internet censorship bills have been brought to the attention of the public.
I consider this an interesting step.
The vast majority of those around me (owing in no small part to the fact that I'm in very close proximity to one of the most progressive areas in the country) are strongly opposed to both of the recent acts that are getting passed through the legislature.
Wikipedia links: Protect IP Act (Internet Blacklist Bill) and Stop Online Piracy Act
There are some behemoths clashing at the political level here; Viacom, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry of America, and Macmillan Publishers are taking on Google (alongside Yahoo! and eBay), and Reporters Without Borders (among many others on both sides).

I am rather ambivalent on the issue.
The objective truth is that this bill would place definitive restrictions on the information flow across the country, and allow the government to regulate (and enforce said regulations) the nature of how files are exchanged on a variety of levels (I won't get into the technical details here; they're on the Wikipedia pages).

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I have heard many arguments regarding the first amendment (many think this will be a frivolously easy case for the Supreme Court in favor of the 1st amendment and against both of these bills), among human rights ideas and whatnot... but honestly, I support these bills, and this is why:

The information age is unprecedented. I don't claim to have a full grasp of the power of the internet, and I don't think anybody else should either... and by power, I mean what it enables in terms of information flow, on all levels. Twenty years ago, if a scientist from Switzerland wanted to collaborate with one in New Zealand, s/he would have to run an experiment, gather data, draw conclusions, and send it via what we now happily call 'snail mail' to his/her colleague, which could take weeks or even months (more like days in more modern times, but the analogy works, I swear) to reach the other scientist. This is how they would communicate. Today, they can run the experiment nearly in real time with one another, transferring large amounts of data (which could take reams of paper) in seconds.
Forget science: the arts. Social networking sites like Deviantart have allowed artists (in all senses of the word) to meet, collaborate, and learn from each other in ways that were previously impossible.
I could cite examples until the end of time, but it's all now become an unprecedented degree of information flow. Humans are interacting with each other in ways that almost transcend physical reality into... I am cringing while typing this... a sort of meta-reality. The significance of the internet is directly derived from humanity's use of it. Beyond how people use it, the entire 'information superhighway' is completely obsolete. It matters only as much as the collective of people who use it.
So... time to loop this back around:
The internet is re-shaping modern society and is quickly becoming the primary source of information for an increasing number of people every year. First, it was on a few computers in universities networked across the country... then it started creeping into homes... and then into cell phones, gaming consoles, cars... how many people reading this have used the internet on only ONE device (not regularly... I mean overall). Of those, how many can remember using it for the first time?
The internet is reshaping how society interacts with itself. The acquisition of information for an individual connected to the internet is much more efficient than one who is watching television or listening to the radio- at least in terms of what that individual WANTS to learn.

Having blabbered about the internet long enough, I will NOW come back to why I support these two bills (for reals, this time):
Society needs rules. People need rules. Where rules do not exist, the lack of rules will be exploited. Where rules do exist, they must be enforced. The only objective rules in this universe are the laws of nature... and they are the only reason anything exists. Society exists because of the laws imposed by the government. The next step is to impose rules on the next level of information exchange; as a species, we have moved on from exchanging gestures to tasks to words (spoken) to words (written) [and pictures along the way] to ideas to concepts and to higher levels of organization as society has developed (at least that's what the history books have taught me... though I was never quite good at history).

My point is that the internet is modern human society's next primary medium of information storage and exchange, and rules need to be set and enforced. The rules proposed by congress, I believe will accomplish this. Yes, they will anger MANY people (and quite frankly, I don't believe they'll hold up for very long, since the American public already is rather angry with congress); at some point, even if not now, the internet will need to be structured, regulated, and safe. Online interactions must not always be allowed to elude established societal constructs (like the criminalizing of piracy) in the name of freedom. Nobody fights to remove the lanes from freeways in the name of freedom (successfully), why? I should be able to drive wherever I want. No. Certain aspects of the internet have caused significant damage to a significant number of people socially, economically, and politically (I'm looking at you, Anthony Weiner), and they need to be regulated.
Granted, this may not be the right time to take this sort of step, I do believe it needs to be taken. The internet has much more potential than how we currently use it, and the only way to reach that is to structure it in a way that is conducive to the individual alongside those that try to capitalize on it. Capitalism is progress- it flourishes in a structured system. Let it do so, and watch the internet soar beyond what anyone could have imagined.

Shifting Sands

The Occupy movement has spread much more quickly than I had expected, and I'm actually very thankful for this. There are now two distinct groups, each representing a significant portion of the population, which also feel ostracized by their government though both of them have some rather polarized viewpoints.
Capitalism in the U.S. has gone too far unregulated, and the ultra-rich corporations are, year by year, in more control of the government that is supposed to keep them in check.

The two-party system is very convenient for both ideologies and elections, but it is now much too integrated with the democratic process and this must be fixed. For the government to cater almost exclusively to two specific sets of opinions undermines the basic tenets of democracy.

Politicians no longer serve the people- they serve those who will get them elected- those with the MONEY to get them elected. They are not to blame.
Corporations do what they do best- return profit to the stockholders, by any means necessary. They do their job well, but they are machines. They will take every measure possible to make money, and this should not change. They are very good at what they do. They are not to blame.
The voters are fed information through the media and far too many don't care to look any further. Public education dwindles every year.

The weak-minded need a target... a scapegoat... an opponent to motivate them to shout their voices. There is no opponent here. This is simply a time indicative of the fact that the system needs to be changed. Something needs to be done differently, and the best way to do it is democratically (go figure) via collaboration. Instead, each side is too busy pointing fingers at the other to realize that the problem isn't the other side- the problem is that there are only two sides. The two party system must be left behind. Public office campaign funds must be publicized.
When the best interest of the congressman, senator, or president, is no longer to the many people who elect him/her, but to the few have enough money to get said politician elected, the system is out of balance. It needs to change.

First Post: "The Intelligencia"

This term is used by Richard Dawkins fairly often. I realize this says little of who he is, but his references to the Royal Society and MENSA on the public stage certainly portray him as one who surrounds himself with top-tier intellectuals. Frankly, I'd surround myself with only the most intelligent people around if I could, but I recognize that this would, at length, give me a very skewed perspective of the world, regardless of how aware I am.

This post was inspired by this video.

And yes, the title does say "Militant Atheism", because in this video, he denounces tolerance of religious views. He cites studies that suggest (negative) correlations between intelligence and religious faith (religious vs. agnostic vs. atheist), although he doesn't claim that these are definitive results and suggests more intensive studies be done on the subject.

Granted, this video was taken in 2002, and much may have happened to his perspective on the matter since then, but in my experience, the majority of people with strong religious views (regardless of any suspected correlation to intelligence [though a more definitive study yielding similar results wouldn't surprise me]) would not be comfortable in an environment that is distinctly against religious thought. If those who are dubbed members of "the Intelligencia" were openly against religion and projected negative attitudes towards displays of it, then the rift between those who rely on religion to help them psychologically through their day and those who reject it would widen. Seeing as how the latter seems to be the minority in this matter, the idea of this anti-religious ideology snowballing into a social consensus to eliminate religion from matters of significance such as politics is quite a gamble, though the most renowned atheists (such as David Silverman, current president of American Atheists) seem to suggest that enough religious people would abandon their religion and join the atheist movement if it were more widely accepted (though Silverman suggests a more moderate approach).
I see religious people as having an insecurity- they aren't comfortable with questions such as "Why do we exist?" and "What happens after death?" having answers akin to "I don't know." They aren't comfortable with not knowing. I am. Are you?

I'm an atheist, in the traditional sense. I believe that there is no sentient being that interacts with the universe in any way that humanity can perceive, manipulate, or (evidently) even observe.
Ask me whether or not I believe in God, and I will ask you to define God.