Hooray police state!

Every time I read a story like this I get more depressed about the state of this nation, and more convinced that we're headed down a very, very bad path.

Not that it is particularly bad, but even a cursory review finds that we are drifting inexorably into a police state, a nanny-state, and that's somewhere we don't want to go. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope we're not going to end up being a nation afraid of those who protect us, where the people have no power over their "protectors", but that appears to be where we're going.

Science and Religion, getting along at last?

From this week’s issue of Science, an article about Science, Religion, and Climate Change, by Steven A. Kolmes and Russell A. Butkus:

A moment of agreement has arrived for scientists to join forces with religious groups on issues of climate change. This is signaled by the summary for policy-makers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s Fourth Assessment Report, the AAAS Board's consensus statement on climate change, and the unanimity of scientists. Lynn White Jr. proposed in these pages in 1967 that "we shall continue to have a worsening ecologic [sic] crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man." In their Policy Forum "Framing science", M. C. Nisbet and C. Mooney mention the more contemporary and less divisive efforts of some evangelical leaders to frame "the problem of climate change as a matter of religious morality."

As faculty members at a Catholic university, we know the strong stance of Catholic documents on good science as the foundation for discussions of climate change. Two recent examples from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) make IPCC findings their scientific basis. The IPCC Third Assessment Report led to the USCCB's Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good, which states: "Global climate change is by its very nature part of the planetary commons. The earth's atmosphere encompasses all people, creatures, and habitats."

The scientific Summary for Policy Makers of the Fourth Assessment Report was addressed by the chairman of the USCCB's international policy committee. He said in a letter to congressional leaders that the IPCC "has outlined more clearly and compellingly than ever before the case for serious and urgent action to address the potential consequences of climate change as well as high-lighting the dangers and costs of inaction."

While I agree that religion should work together with science, I don’t think they’re going to. Remember, Genesis says that the world was created by God for man, and gives man dominion over it. Saying that we’ve screwed up the world and we need to fix it now runs contrary to this, and contrary to the notion that the world is eternal and unchanging (which seems to also flow from the dominion thing). There’s a reason that global warming deniers are largely religious, just like evolution deniers are largely religious.

I also want to say that scientists can’t pander to the religious and kowtow on certain points to get their help, if we do that then we lose our integrity. But if the Catholic church genuinely wants to help stem climate change, then great. I have absolutely no idea what they can actually do (just like I have no idea what most people could really do), but they should go for it. Maybe they’ll learn to stop worrying and love science (I’m sorry, I couldn’t help that reference).

Another victim of the war

Someone needs to tell me why this is just. Because I can't see any way that it is.

What's wrong with us?

Yesterday, in response to this link-post, I got the following amazing comment by a man named Robert:

Actually I'm just plain old, but I have lived through some interesting political upheavals.

The Province of Quebec, Canada was in my youth little more than a theocracy, ruled by the Catholic Church. So total was its influence on everyday life that it was not uncommon to have a man's paycheck delivered to the parish priest first. This was only one of the abuses that were in common practice here fifty years ago.

This influence was broken during the so called 'Quiet Revolution' when a group of committed people decided to knock down this rotten edifice that from the outside looked impregnable if only from inertia.

They succeeded. Now Quebec has one of the most lively secular cultures in North America.

The United States has not traveled so far down this road that the majority of you no longer remember what you once were, what you once believed, that a fire cannot be lit that will burn away this tissue of lies that cover you.

It's perhaps not my place to lecture you on how you should run your nation; however in OUR dark time it was the light that was shining from the South that gave us hope and showed us what was possible.

Don't let it go out.

I know few people who think the US is headed in a good direction. Although we might all disagree on certain points, the flagrant disregard for the law (both US and international) the current administration has shown, its reckless spending, its absurd tax cuts, the preposterous war on drugs, the tragic rejection of equality for all our citizens, the suspension of habeas corpus, the ridiculous expansion of executive power, and the general mangling of the constitution (over the past century) all need to be fixed.

None of it ever will be changed with a complacent population. Voting is not enough anymore, and don’t even pretend like online petitions or angry blog entries (like this one) mean anything. I don’t honestly know what will make a difference. But I know that something needs to be done.

I used to read an author named Daniel Quinn. He raised similar concerns in people, although on a larger scale (dealing with human civilization as a whole rather than one particular country). I don’t subscribe to his theories as much now, but he was often asked by concerned people, “You’ve made me aware of these problems, but what can I do to fix them?” His answer was simply, “Raise the consciousnesses of others as yours was raised.” If you agree with me and Robert and everyone else who thinks that the US is headed down a bad path, and you want to help, then raise consciousnesses. Make people aware of the problems. The more people who want change, the easier it will be to enact.

Maybe I’m overreacting. Perhaps the people of every age feel their country falling away from what they consider its principles to be, feel it getting worse. Maybe my concerns and those of the people who think like me are unfounded. But as Robert said, at one point we were a “light shining from the South”, and I’m pretty damn sure that the light is fading, if it’s not already out.

I wish I had a strong conclusion, I wish I had a way to end this. But I don’t, and I can’t. It doesn’t end here.

Who are we protecting?

I'd like someone to tell me that this isn't one of the stupidest things you've ever heard. How can someone be BOTH victim and perpetrator of the same damn crime? And how exactly does a law that's supposed to protect children protect children if it's convicting children?

It doesn't, plain and simple. It's high time we start to rethink all of these laws that are supposed to protect people, but instead punish those who engage in reasonable consensual activities. Child molesters should be punished, but children should not.

(Edit: Another case I mention in the comments here)

Who Polices the Police?

Read this, this, and this, and tell me that it doesn’t make you just a little bit afraid. That could happen to anyone with an internet connection. Especially if you use Internet Explorer.

But this shouldn’t be able to happen. Ten years per image? Granted, child pornography is something we should seek to eradicate, but doesn’t it make more sense to go to the supply? Prosecuting users, especially ones who clearly didn’t even view the stuff and who you can’t prove viewed it, is just ineffectual and absurd. The reason we care about child porn is that the children are being exploited, and throwing buyers into jail for 90 years doesn’t change that at all. We’ll arrest foreigners who facilitate internet gambling, why don’t we just arrest foreigners who provide child pornography? I think everyone could get behind that cause.

I also like how the Reason article pointed out that the sentencing for child pornography is actually stiffer than the sentencing for rape. Brilliant lawmaking there. I know I consider looking at pictures to be several times worse than raping someone. Kudos to Arizona. Oh, and a SWAT team to check out a child pornography lead? Seriously overdoing, don’t you think? It’s overuse of the militarized police force in incidents like this that kill hundreds of innocent people.

After the Mark Foley scandal, I remember reading an article about how pedophilia is considered by psychologists to be its own sexual classification, distinct from heterosexuality or homosexuality (which is why they don’t say “homosexual pedophile”, but “discriminating pedophile”). That got me thinking back then (and this reminds me of it) how we have completely stopped trying to rehabilitate people. If pedophilia is psychological problem (which is usually is), shouldn’t we “rehabilitate” child pornography users by trying to rid them of their problem, rather than just throwing them behind bars? I could continue on to a general indictment of the penal system, but that would be just too much.

None of that is dealing with the problem that in all of these cases the accused is not innocent until proven guilty. And these cases can destroy families. There was an article a while ago about a family who went camping and inadvertently shot some pictures of their toddler naked (in the context of camping), who had to deal with an investigation into it. It nearly destroyed them.

Protecting children is a noble goal, their very nature makes them the most needing of protection. But at some point you have to ask yourself if we’ve gone too far. When an innocent kid could be thrown in jail for 90 years or labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life, we absolutely have. This is insanity, and it must stop.

But just like every other insanity perpetrated by the government on its people, it won’t. I’m left shaking my head at these foolish, overreaching, overemphatically enforced policies, and praying that I won’t be the next innocent victim of the police state.

Comment Policy

I have decided that it is time for me to establish a comments policy. I probably should have done this earlier, but I didn’t, so here it is.

I moderate comments. I do this for two reasons, the first is so that I know when I get comments and what has been said, the second is so that anything that I find too egregious and offensive won’t be posted. Because of this, it can take some time for comments to appear. I do have things to (like sleeping, eating, class, etc) that cause me to be away from my computer for extended periods, during which comments won’t show up. This is unavoidable, and I don’t think it’s too big of a problem.

You probably noticed that I said I screen for offensive things, and you might be wondering what exactly qualifies. The honest answer is “I don’t know”, and I haven’t yet rejected a single comment (except for duplicate comments, just to prevent two copies from showing up). I’m a big proponent of free speech and saying whatever the hell you want, but I think that deliberate hatred wouldn’t get through. Just speaking your mind will never get you blocked, no matter how much I disagree with you.

You might have also noticed that I said I like to know when I get comments. It also gives me a good chance to read the comment, which I like to do (I read every comment, no matter how poor the spelling, grammar, arguments, or how much I disagree. The only thing that will get me is if it’s long and I’m busy). So yes, I do read every comment I get.

I also feel like I need to explain when I respond to comments. One blogger I read said that he is pretty “hands-off” with his comments, and that’s what I’m going for. I’m not going to respond to every single comment (which isn’t to say that I don’t appreciate comments, I do). The reasoning behind that is simple: it would take far too much time, I like my original post to speak for itself, and I have very little patience for going back and forth between two people who will obviously never agree. I do respond, and fairly frequently, but I have a loose policy of “once per commenter per post”, and I usually only respond for things I deem urgent.

That being said, if you really do want a personal response from me my E-mail address is posted in the sidebar, I will definitely respond to any E-mail I get. I’m also fairly sure that putting that address on the web has made it a huge spam target, I’ve gotten a crazy amount of those Nigerian scams, and filters don’t seem to handle them well. Oh well, I want the address to be easily clickable (the sacrifices I make!). So again, if you have anything you really want me to respond to, just use the E-mail, I promise I’ll respond.

I think that about covers it, if you have any question, comments, or concerns, just comment!