For those of you truly interested, this is just a little page of my political standpoints and various rants. A word of warning: I'm mostly very left-wing, though I have a couple of libertarian leanings. For those of you who couldn't care less, you can escape by clicking here.
Besides, John Ashcroft and Osama Bin Laden are a lot more similar than you might think. Religious nut? Check. Uncomfortable with the female form? Yup. Paints the world in a black and white struggle against evil? Sure. Thinks the entire world should obey his own corrupted dogma? Oh yeah. Willing to use deadly force to control people who are just trying to live peacefully? Definitely.
The reason I say this isn't to say that there's no difference between Bin Laden and Ashcroft. There obviously is. But I think it points out that we are being arrogant, and we need to remember that we are not immune to becoming what we despise.
And if that doesn't sway you, consider this. Why did 9/11 happen? Why did Bin Laden do it? Surely he knew we'd come after him. Surely he knew there would be war. I think that's exactly what he wants. I believe the man wants to foment another World War, the West versus Asia and the Mideast. I think attacking Iraq has sent many, many young, desparate men into his arms as the next suicide terrorists. Bin Laden wanted us to do it. He wanted us to bomb the hell out of Baghdad.
So now we've got a religious civil war in Iraq, and America's credibility is totally shot. Isn't that lovely? Thank you, Bush, for being Osama's bitch.
Basically, my opinion is this: it doesn't matter what's "out there." For all I know it could be a loving god who cares for each one of us, infinite nothingness, or anything in between. Regardless, it is more than any human being could ever comprehend. I think too many people think they have an understanding of what God is and what He wants from us. I find that kind of thought vain in the extreme. The best we can do is just try to be decent human beings and be kind and understanding to one another.
I have studied the Bible and though I feel it does contain good words, it is the product of another society in another time. I feel that we've mistranslated and misunderstood the precepts that are layed out. At best these mistakes are harmless; at worse they are seriously unethical. Jesus was a Galilean peasant protesting the way the rich hoarded its wealth and treated the rest of the world. I feel that as Westerners, we are the very people that Jesus spoke against. Modern Western Christians have very little in common with those from 2000 years ago.
Beware those who presume to speak with the voice of God.
However, this same point of view that makes me completely support individual women makes me extremely leery of mainstream feminist groups. I've seen too many members subscribe to a kind of groupthink. Any person who disagrees with one of the group's precepts obviously must be an enemy. Take abortion as an example. I think it is perfectly possible to believe strongly in the inherent equality of women, and yet still believe that abortion is wrong. Yet to most feminist groups, these two points of view seem to be anathema.
Everybody's guilty of prejudice. There's very little denying that the sexes are different, and that those differences spring from biological functions. Yet in our society not to treat someone as an individual is to do them a great disservice. I myself have seen too many situations where the stereotypes have been reversed (such as women beating up on men) to believe any different.
And as for those who complain about "activist judges" rewriting the law—let me just point out that it is the sworn duty of the courts to review the laws we pass, and make sure that it doesn't conflict with the Constitution. It's called checks and balances. They've been doing this for years. It was these same "activist judges" who enforced civil rights through much of our history, and decided Brown v. Board of Education. They're not rewriting the law. They're pointing out that the current law is in conflict with American ideals of justice and equality. That's their job.
Of course, feminist groups have a tendency to be just as fanatical. I don't like the "my body, my choice" attitude that defines the problem in black and white. But I can't think of a better legal approach to the problem.
Nevertheless, I am hesitant to say that it should be illegal for the general population to have firearms. The Second Ammedment exists in America to prevent a hostile government from taking away our basic freedoms. Nevertheless, times are changing. Whereas 200 years ago the way to do this was through personal weaponry. Today, I believe that cryptography is a better tool.
What this means is unprecedented levels of freedom. No matter how many guns I stockpile, a hostile government will still have the resources to take me out. Further, I risk tragedy in my family. The best protection lies in not giving the government a reason to take action against me. If they cannot read my communications I could foment revolutions and still be totally anonymous. And even if I don't want to start revolutions (and I have no reason to do so at present), it's still a great way to send a "fuck you" to a government to which I really feel very little loyalty.
Regardless, there is nothing that can be done to change the Internet. It doesn't matter what laws we pass here. The Internet is a global entity, and eventually some small country with the proper resources will realize the enormous profit that can be made in storing people's data, even people's stolen data. When cryptography and anonymous transactions enter the picture, it becomes clear that the recording industry needs to adapt to the changing situation. If it doesn't, it will get swept away.
Napster's dead, and other file-sharing programs may go that way, but in the long run the RIAA will lose this. I won't be sorry to see them go.
That being said...drugs do destroy families. While I have no problem with pot, substances like heroin are both dangerous and stupid. I simply believe that the government shouldn't tell people that they can't be stupid.
This is what happens when the computer-ignorant make policy decisions. We cannot police the entire Web. Instead, how about parents just learn something about computers, and watch their kids?