Whispering No

A list of my favorite books would probably put me on a government watch list: the Fountainhead, Civil Disobedience, V for Vendetta. Recently, I picked up Watchmen, a graphic novel by the same author as the last title on the previous list. It was difficult to pick a favorite character (which is great, since that's the whole point), but, despite myself, I think I found Rorschach most compelling.

Don't get me wrong; Rorschach's character profile is repulsive. He's a fascist, a brutal torturer, and he hates gays, not things I'm ok with. But then again, you're not supposed to like any of the heroes a whole lot; picking a favorite is a moot point. Honestly, as was the author's intention, I was uncomfortable with all the characters. However, Rorschach stood out for me personally in the beginning of the book and at the end. In the end of the novel, he's willing to die rather than betray his ideals, sick though they are, and rather than lie to humanity. Rorschach may be a perverted bastard, but at least he's consistent.

However, it's the one of the first lines of the book, and one of the most famous, uttered by this character, that I enjoy the most: "The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "save us!" and I'll look down and whisper "no." It's a pretty brilliant summary of what made the character what he is, explained later in the book. And really, it's (no pun intended) spot on.

In the wake of a pretty sick recent event, the public outcry hasn't been to examine society or its issues too deeply; it's just been to mount an attack against physical objects: firearms. The problem with this is that blaming guns doesn't make sense. The old adage "guns don't kill people; people kill people," is essentially true. Blame the gun and the man who murders gets a moral pass.

I won't go too much further into that. I know so much more about other people's personal grief than I ever wanted or needed to, thanks to the media, which makes its money off butting into everyone's business and making it a personal affair. The incident is not for me to assess; it's none of my business. I can't imagine what being involved is like, and I won't pretend I can. The people involved deserve their privacy.

I will, however, be directly affected by legislation which limits or prohibits sale or ownership of firearms. I am a gun owner. I'm proud of that. There are many people like me, who have cultivated a useful and potentially life-saving skill, and have a passion for it, who should not have to pay for the sins of others, but will. My little brother is working on building his own personal AR-15 from parts. He's smart and talented, and a great natural tinkerer and shooter. Laws in Congress now may stunt that talent and dash one of his projects and dreams before he's old enough to cultivate them. Say what you want about gun control; it's not fair and never will be. That others have suffered far far worse recently is not a valid justification for that.

The NRA, who I joined yesterday, has been silent. They're embarrassed. They shouldn't be. It's not their fault, and they should be representing their constituency. I paid my dues in the expectation that they would protect my rights. But let's be honest, what can they realistically do? The public is a dirty, ugly, sneering mob. Whether it's invading another country for its alleged nuclear program, taking away our privacy by wiretapping us and strip searching the elderly at airports, forcing people to pay for other people's insurance, or not allowing responsible citizens to own firearms, the people usually get what they want by virtue of force of numbers and with guns of their own, in the hands of the government, to back it up.

The same people who voted Obama into office because they were sick of Bush voted Bush into office because they were sick of Clinton. They deserve every bad policy, every shitty thing that happens to them, every right taken from them. Some people get caught in the crossfire through no fault of their own, but many Americans vote, or protest for some new bill, and the worse things get the more they agitate for the government to take a more active role, to take more control over their lives and make it worse. They deserve the invasive airport security. They deserve the fiscal cliff. They created it. It's their monster, not mine.

It's wrong what happens to people caught in the swirling vortex of dirty politics, and I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about homosexuals who can't get married. I'm talking about Iraqi and Pakistani children who die in drone strikes. If you think your government does not murder and extort, take a look at the civilian death toll in wars we didn't need to fight. Look at your tax bill each year. But the difference between me and the man who votes is that I didn't ask for this.

It used to bother me. Today, it stopped bothering me. Say what you will about Ayn Rand, but when I first read Atlas Shrugged, it was a summary of almost everything I'd ever believed long before I picked up that novel. The heroine of that book goes through a process where she believes she can save the world by fighting those who sought to destroy it, before realizing that she can't - and she shouldn't. I'm there.

Today I started up Google Currents and saw a picture of protesters who held signs saying they were against assault rifles. They were militantly agitating against an inanimate object. I was enraged by their stupidity and their essential wrongness; how can you be against a thing? It is literally senseless. But then I realized that these same people might one day be in a situation where they are trapped by someone with an illegal gun on the street, and had disarmed those who might otherwise have saved them. Would it be the thug with the stolen Glock who murdered them? Ultimately? Or would this be a case of suicide? By fighting gun control, or bad economic policy, or the prohibition of the marriage rights of others, I'm attempting to protect myself, because what you take from a gun collector, or a rich or gay man or woman, you can also take from me. But ultimately, the mob will have its way, and by protecting myself, I'm protecting them too - from themselves.

I don't deserve the results of this messed up system, and neither do thousands like me across the nation. But people like me aren't given any say, and if that's the case, I'm done pretending I can do anything about it. Go ahead, America. Vote. Agitate for more government control. Keep getting what you want at the expense of others. Keep killing. Keep extorting. Keep lying, cheating, and stealing. I won't try to stop you. You're already bankrupt and at the mercy of a government you gave the right to pry into your personal life years ago. You did that. I won't try to help you. Not anymore. Reap the results of your own bad decisions, like any drunken teenage girl who later ends up a mother before she should, or like any young careless boy who plays with fire and burns down the house.

You might think from this writing that I'm bitter. I'm not. There's a certain serenity that comes with the knowledge that no matter how bad things get, you weren't responsible. In knowing that what happens to you happens to those who caused it also, and that, unlike them, you didn't ask for it. I won't be able to own guns, but you'll also be the victims of crime. I won't be able to make much money out of school, but you'll also work well into retirement. The difference between you and me, America, is that I know I wasn't to blame. I can live - and eventually, God metaphorically willing a long time from now, die - knowing that I made the right decisions and never tried to hurt anyone, or force them by sheer numbers or institutional violence to do what I wanted. Can you?

Royal Pain in the Ass

Let's play a game. The game is called, "let's see how many things we can find wrong with society using the following news story: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/world/europe/uk-royal-hospital-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t1."

A psychologist or sociologist could have a field day with this story. There are more things wrong here than the plot of Plan 9 From Outer Space. Let's start with the root issue: the royal family. Not to bring up that whole history thing, but  there was a time in this country when people detested the idea of hereditary nobility. You can argue that it doesn't matter anymore because the nobles don't have any power, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the royal family is famous for literally no real reason.

I'll be the first to admit that America has an extremely unhealthy celebrity culture, but at least American celebrities are known for something. They're actors, or singers, or star in a sex tape. They aren't always good reasons, of course, and being interested in their life isn't exactly what you'd call healthy, but at least there's a reason people do it. Royalty, on the other hand, begins with forceful takeover and continues through  heredity. Taking power through force is kind of a dick move (to use understatement), and retaining it just because you were born to certain (usually inbred) parents isn't much better. Granted, there's no power involved anymore, but I'm not sure I see the point in making someone famous due to heredity either, and I certainly don't see the point in keeping nobles around like national zoo animals.

Let's examine that metaphor further. The idea of a famous royal family is sad and pathetic for two reasons. The first of these stems from the fact that people would be even remotely interested in someone else's life literally only because of their bloodline. It's kind of like picking someone up off the street and avidly following their personal life. What's the point? What do get out of it, exactly? If you need to be involved in the life of a complete stranger to that extent, maybe you should examine your own, because you might be missing something.

I also wonder what this is like for the family itself. It's not like they chose to be famous, after all. The people involved in this scenario can't even pick their noses without the Guardian (or whatever the British version of  the Enquirer or Bild is) finding out about it. A lot of people called the royal wedding "beautiful." Try being a voyeur in any other regard and see if the fact that whatever you were intruding on was "beautiful" makes it any less creepy. The fact of the matter is that these people, through no choice of their own and from birth in the case of one of them, can't even go through important and very personal life events without the entire world sticking their noses in it. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me. You may be happy about their baby (which is sad enough; get a life), but if I was its parent, all that would be going through my mind is what that poor kid will have to go through in life simply because I was the parent. Tough environment to raise a child in. Good luck to the poor bastard. I'd be surprised if he or she didn't develop a complex of some kind. Pat yourself on the back for that one, society.

So really, the entire structure of the royal family is pretty fucked up. But that's not where this news story ends, because apparently there's a commercial aspect to be had here that adds a whole other layer to the debacle. Apparently some  radio show thought it would be amusing to prank the hospital where what's-her-face was admitted for morning sickness. (I'll hold off questioning if that's even an appropriate reason to take up a hospital bed, because as a 22 year old male, I actually have no clue.) Fair enough; it probably was amusing to someone. But still, it's just a tad in poor taste to pester a pregnant woman. And what exactly is going on with the hospital system in Britain that you can call up, just say you're the queen, and talk with a princess? I mean, really? If I call up the White House and pretend to be Obama, I feel like I probably won't have a lot of success getting in touch with his daughters.

So there's that. But it gets better, because the nurse they pranked was so embarrassed that she actually killed herself.

I find this interesting, because, again, really? I will be the first to take back everything I say about this aspect if it comes out that she had some kind of mental issue, because then, obviously, it's not entirely her fault. Assuming she didn't, however, (and the newspaper doesn't say she did) killing yourself? Because you were embarrassed? Even being embarrassed nationally doesn't exactly qualify as a great reason for perpetual oblivion. The idea of either thinking that this sort of thing makes your life bad enough to kill yourself or valuing life so little that you end it because you're embarrassed is not exactly healthy, and speaks to the kind of society we live in, where someone would think that to be an even remotely appropriate response.

Some have blamed the radio hosts, and while that's not exactly fair, I would hope they still feel a little guilty. That being said, the whole thing could have been avoided by not putting so much importance on certain people based on completely arbitrary factors. People would argue that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, and that it doesn't actually have any effect that Britain continues to support this bizarre and antiquated system of hereditary nobility. Ultimately, that's probably the case. However, in this instance, there was a very clear effect, and while the system itself can't actually be held responsible fully, it still played a role.

Not that any of this is surprising. The nobility have been (directly) killing those under them for centuries. What's one more death in 2012? Add it to the roster of deaths caused in whole or in part by keeping up a system based on the opposite of logic. There was a revolution fought in this country which, though multifaceted, aimed partly to destroy this unfair system in the American colonies. Unfortunately, anti-monarchical sentiment didn't last very long. For so many Americans then and now, the allure of power, even an empty power that had little to nothing to do with them, was and continues to be too powerful a draw.

How to: the Highway System

There are a lot of things that annoy me in life. Incompetence is probably the biggest one.

I should clarify, of course, as I am, in fact, pretty incompetent in many fields, chiefly among them mathematics, auto repair, and almost everything not computer or history related. That's not the kind of incompetence I hate. No one can be reasonably expected to be good at everything. It's really only a mass misunderstanding of widely used skills or technologies that bothers me.

The standard example of this phenomenon is the misuse of personal computers (the subject of which will almost certainly be a blog post in and of itself). However, one thing no one seems to understand that everyone (or at least everyone who drives) should, is how to properly use the highway system.

Despite apparent mass confusion about how to drive on the highway, it's really not that hard. Are you going faster than the person in front of you? Move left. If you aren't, then stay right. Which lane you should be in is not arbitrary or subjective. You should be as far right as you can possibly be at all times unless you're passing. You move left only to pass or exit. (Left exits do exist, usually on highways whose designers are as stupid as the people they were designed for). If you're going 55 MPH in the left lane, you need to get out of the way.

Let me also make it perfectly clear that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed limit. If you're going ten over and the guy behind you wants to go faster, then move right if possible. It's really that simple. That's how the system was designed to work. Faster = left. Slower = right. If you can't figure out a system designed in the same vein as reading, you may want to consider staying off the road.

Oh and one thing you should absolutely never do is go the same speed as the person to your right. If you're going too slow in the left lane, people who know how to drive can (and will) pass you on the right if they are able. (Don't be surprised if they cut you off, especially if others on the road are using the system properly.) If you are going the same speed as the person to your right, however, you're blocking traffic. People will get angry, and with good reason.

I drive from PA to Maine at least once a year. In my experience, and for obvious reasons, it's people from Connecticut and Maryland who seem to have the hardest time understanding the highway system. People from PA aren't great either, especially around Philadelphia. (New Jersey drivers are the best, incidentally. No joke.)

To be fair, I know I was never taught this in driving school, which is odd, when you consider that it's pretty important. A lot of people I talk to weren't taught this sort of thing either. Apparently there is a hole in the education somewhere. So maybe it shouldn't bother me, but then again, try following grandma for 80 miles at 55 miles per hour next time you're on a twelve hour drive and see if it doesn't bother you too.

The Poison Apple

I will be the first to admit that I love Apple products. The hardware is pretty decent and you can't go wrong with a UNIX based OS. Additionally the build quality and support you get with Apple put it easily in the top five brands for PC quality. That being said, I don't personally own any Apple products, because while they are some of the best computers around, they're not the best.

For my mobile needs, I recently switched over from iOS to the heavily Google-based Android environment. What prompted me to do so was the Samsung Galaxy S3, widely considered to be the best smartphone on the market. In fact, it is so good that Apple sued Samsung over it.

I made the decision to buy the S3 right after the iPhone 5 came out in all its lackluster glory. The S3, which had come out months earlier, was and still is a better phone. If you're the biggest name in smartphones and your competitor is outselling you, you can either innovate and make a better product or cheat. Apple chose to cheat.

Apple may make good products but their business practices are questionable at best and often downright disgusting. From their misleading marketing linking OSes to OEMs or implying that a Mac is somehow not a PC to their tight control over who gets to use their product and how, Apple is the opposite of everything its UNIX base should have been and in fact is in products like Fedora or Ubuntu.

Of course, the fact that not everyone can or even should use Linux is why Mac OS is a fantastic operating system for the average user. It has the ease and simplicity of a UNIX base without allowing the user to totally break the system, like most users do with Windows. But you can build a user friendly OS without being evil.

Unfortunately for Apple, Google, a very non-evil (if somewhat nosey) company supports Android OS, used in most non-Apple mobile devices. Google is not only extremely useful, providing a plethora of free services (if you're reading this, you're using one now), but is also open with its products, allowing the public to opt into betas and releasing source code for developers. Google products are extremely accessible and innovative, and it shows. Android is the top selling mobile OS, precisely because Apple refuses to release their mobile OS to any third-party OEM.

All this is fine, of course. Apple has excellent reasons for keeping their products in-house. In fact, that they do so and therefore have complete control over their products is what lets them get away with attacking other OSes as "buggy." The problem isn't that Apple chooses to think different; it's that they refuse to let anyone else do the same.

Case in point: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/samsung_were_not_signing_license_deal_apple354

As background, Apple recently sued Samsung for patent infringement. Their case was shaky but they won a billion dollars anyway. My personal theory is that the jury didn't know memory from storage. Either way, Apple demonstrated that in the absence of actual innovation, demonstrated by the iPhone 5 and new iPad Mini (read Kindle Fire or Nexus 7 with an inferior screen), it is willing to sue those whose products surpass its offerings both in hardware quality and sales. The article linked is a clear demonstration of the continuance of that policy: HTC, if you're too lazy to read the article, recently signed a deal whereby they pay Apple six or eight bucks for every unit they sell. One may wonder what HTC gets out of the deal. The answer is, very simply, Apple won't sue them.

The legal term for this practice is cross-licensing. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like plain blackmail to me. Whatever the reasons the jury had for finding against Samsung, there were wide-reaching effects to their decision, one of which is that Apple can now legally get away with bullying other companies whose products surpass their own, rather than innovating and producing a better product. What makes the situation more offensive is that Apple now profits from every new technology its competitor creates without having to do anything at all. The more HTC innovates, the more money Apple makes.

Thankfully, Samsung refuses to give in to this blackmail. By doing so, however, they risk another lawsuit, for which there is now a precedent.

Apple is by no means the only company stifling technological innovation. Verizon blocks Google Wallet and tethering on smartphones that support these features because they want to charge their customers for similar services they provide or are developing, and they know most users won't root their phones. Instead of honestly trying to create a competing service, companies like Apple or Verizon simply hold back innovation until they can catch up. However, without danger of a competitor, such companies have little need to do so; after all, they can just sue and restrict their way to massive profits.

Ultimately of course, these strategies are doomed to failure. Open companies like Google will simply get tired of waiting and create their own product, as Google in fact did in partnership with Asus in the creation of the highly popular Nexus 7 tablet computer. Consumers offered a choice between freedom and restriction will eventually choose freedom. Apple may be the richest technology company in the world, but it isn't the best, and companies like Samsung legitimately threaten their position. Despite its legal trickery, Apple still has to compete, and many companies it has to compete with are in turn backed by Google, a giant in and of itself. Unless Apple learns that technology is about innovation, sharing, and openness  they will not remain on top for long.

Computing is about making lives easier, not simply making a ton of money. The nice thing, though, is that even if it was about making a ton of money (and that's a perfectly valid goal for an individual or corporation), it only works in the long run by making people's lives easier. If people are constantly frustrated by their user experience, they will make the switch over to a competing product. That's how Apple used to market: they knew they had a better operating system for a specific market than Microsoft, and they capitalized on it. Now they're the standard for smartphones, but losing out to competitors who bill their phones as "designed for humans." Only the future will tell, of course, but it was that kind of thinking put Apple on the map; without it, Apple can't even make maps. If Apple wants to become a legitimate company again, they need to start acting like one, by innovating and creating products people want, rather than suing others who provide a better and more accessible alternative.