Off By One

In contrast to my last post, this one is a bit less perky.

The fact that this happens at all is nearly enough to make me physically ill. The fact that I’m probably never going to encounter it, simply because I’m not brown-skinned…

It’s rare that I see something that makes me feel like we technonerds are doing unqualifiedly good things for the world.

So, I’d like to thank Dean Kamen for just… doing good things.

If you want to while away a few hours, and find out more about one of the more unnerving celebrity-sponsored cults out there, I recommend checking out Operation Clambake when you have some time to spare.

What I get out of this is a low-level sense of fear that the reportage we get on the subject of scientology — or the lack thereof, more accurately — is a reflection of a more thorough penetration of the media by this very media-savvy organization.

And then I accuse myself of being paranoid and move on… but never completely without a care.

Scientology is the one and only thing that makes me glad it is impossible to be elected in the US or Canada without professing to some christian belief system.

This post brought to you as a tiny, tiny shot from the Internet’s side of Scientology vs. The Internet.

I’ve been keeping an eye on the southern neighbor these days; the election coming up down there will have regrettably far-reaching consequences for not only the US but for us, too. I’ve seen more than a few things that bother me, not least of which is the fact that there is literally not one candidate for any party that strikes me as anything other than an opportunistic, grasping, myopic shell of a human being. I wouldn’t move to the US right now if someone paid me.

Okay, well, maybe if they paid me a lot.

It’s the last epithet that concerns me, though; I expect grasping, and opportunistic is synonymous with ‘career politician’. The persistent failure of vision, however, is scary; they can’t see past their clawing to the top to acknowledge the wounds they’re inflicting on themselves in the process. And Bob forfend that we suggest that the process is flawed, that’s frankly unamerican.

I know, I know, I devote too much thought to this for someone who doesn’t even live within the borders, let alone have a right to vote there, but the US elections are merely a logical endpoint (not the only logical endpoint, mind) of the particular form of representative democracy that is so widely believed to be the one, true way. I know I’m going a bit off-message for myself here, but I blame a combination of my usual bugbear (the unending manipulable and moronic voting public) and a new beast: Corporate finance.

I’m a devoted supporter of freedom of expression, so this is hard for me, but I believe more and more that allowing corporate freedom of expression is suppressing individual freedom of expression too much. I know that there’s a good argument to be made that corporations’ speech is just a collective expression of individual freedom to speak, but I’m no longer convinced that it’s a valid defence. I’m arguing ethics from consequences here, which is not always a safe path to tread. Here, however, the consequences look increasingly dire.

Still, in the end, it’s the people who keep putting this system over themselves.

What’s a libertarian to do?

Christ, do I feel like an old man this morning.

My shoulder is sore and my hip hurts. I’m sitting on the couch because, damn it, I deserve some relaxation at this point.

To top it off, well… Okay, I’ve got nothing to top it off. I read the news this morning and it contained neither inspiration nor indignation for me, which suggests that I’m just really, really tired

In a much sillier vein: Fat cat in a short coat

Well, by this time I’m sure that all of us have heard of, and been outraged by, the story of Sandra Bergen, the Saskatchewan woman who sued her dealer when the methamphetamines that she overdosed on left her in a coma.

(She’s got a website, by the way: Meth Today. Very… irritating web design, leaving aside any other cause for complaint.)

My initial reaction was a resigned disgust so intense that I couldn’t even get disgusted by it. I saw the headline, blinked once, and went on with my day, secure in the fact that at least I am not so pathetically stupid nor incapable of taking responsibility for my actions. Nor, in the main, has that sentiment changed; this sad individual made bad choices that led her to pain. However, I’ve questioned this a bit today, enroute to that final conclusion, and I thought I’d share my thoughts, such as they are.

There’s a lot of questions about addiction and its position as an illness; whether an addict is responsible for their actions, or if they should be treated as being sick and preyed upon. I fall on the former side of the fence, and have for most — if not all — of my adult life. Coming from the other side in this, however, is the argument that there are already criminal responsibilities in this matter, and that this woman was guilty of those crimes, but that the civil responsibility should be shared between her and her procurer.

So, I thought about this for a while… in fact, I was thinking about it as I started this post and even then I was waffling in the other direction — until I started framing it as responsibility in the second paragraph. It’s seductive, though, this idea that the blame for this kind of choice can be ‘shared’ somehow, as though we’re not really in control and so how can anyone really point a finger at us if we do something catastrophically stupid. But that seductive call is a siren, luring one onto some metaphorical rocks… (here I stop with the attempted classical metaphors). The sad truth of the matter is that, irrespective of the criminal acts being perpetrated, Sandra is no less responsible for her actions than any other person that harms themselves in the pursuit of pleasure. If I jump out of a plane and injure myself, I’m not going to blame the pilot of the plane, nor will I blame the instructor who ‘gave me my first hit.’

And that’s what’s happening here. And it shouldn’t.

Sorta.

I spent the last week tearing into a fairly complex piece of old code, digging out some poor design decisions and cleaning up the legacy of student programmers past. It was… terrifying.

But I’ve survived, and the world is a better place for it.

If anyone noticed that I was a bit distant and distracted in the last week, though, that was why.

Well, thank you, Stewart Brand, for doing a fine job of saying something that I’ve held to be true for a good long time: Good old stuff sucks.

This is part of the EDGE questions for 2008; “What did you change your mind about in 2007?” This is a web thing, I suppose, but some fine thinkers are involved, and their responses run the gamut from predictable (Sam Harris) to interesting (Richard Dawkins).

I recommend checking the rest of them out from the provided links. I’m on my way to work, but I think that this evening I’ll try to add my own “What did I change my mind about in 2007?” to it; if I can find one

It’s the end of 2007, and last night I was asked by our waitress if I was “ready for 2008.”

It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? In the absence of epic new plans for the coming year what does “ready” mean? I’m not panicked about the coming year, if that’s what she meant. I’m not planning to do anything for which I am not ready, too.

This bit was, of course, a bit of a non sequitur.

Basically, I want to wish everyone that reads this a happy new year. Be well, be happy. Hopefully your coming year is as good as my previous one.