Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Californians, Utah Mormons and other evil creatures

I was born with an inherent dislike for Californians. At least I can never remember using the word "Californian" without a certain disdain attached.

I think that was a feature of being raised in Idaho. I was raised on the stories of stupid city slicker Californians who'd come to Salmon to play Grizzly Adams for a weekend, all decked out in yuppie gear, and unable start a fire with a match and dry grass. Or California hunters who shot horses because they couldn't tell them from mule deer ("I swear it is a true story! My friend told me his friend told me his friend...") And there was plenty of enmity for the snobby, rich Californians who moved to Idaho to get away from the big city, paid too much for land, and built oversize houses, causing the local real estate to go bonkers. And then, after moving to Idaho to get away from the city, they'd go around trying to city-fy everything.

I don't think I picked up my disdain for Utah Mormons until I moved to Utah. I heard the occasional remark about Utah Mormons before then. But it wasn't until I moved to Utah that I fully adopted the opinion that Utah Mormons were sheltered, lazy idiots who had no idea what it was like in the "real world", and who were so stuck on themselves that they were unable to treat anyone else like a human being. You are a project, to be assimilated into the mindless horde, or you are an outsider, to be shunned. And the hypocrisy of Utah Mormons - Drinking, Swearing, Drugs and Raves, then spouting off pious testimonies on Sunday. Just like the Zoramites on the Rameumptom. Provo Utah Mormons are the worst. A breed apart. A whole new level of ridiculous.

I am married to a Californian now, and I have lived in Utah for as long as I have lived out of it. I have slowly come to a realization that my attitudes towards Californians and Utah Mormons are precisely the same thing as Racism.

All families, and all groups are the same in many ways. there is always a crazy uncle in the mix, always a stuck-up-snob, a handful of clueless nitwits. a few random "individualists" who work hard at being different than the rest (just like the rest of the individualists. A group within a group... but don't tell them that...).

My problem was that I viewed all Californians/Utah Mormons through the filter I constructed from my impressions of these few nitwits. It funny how once you have that filter in place, "They all look the same". You watch for and pick up any little word or nuance or action that fits your model, and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Let me give one example, This specific story is fictional, but based on a number of real events I have observed over the years. A guy moved into a neighborhood in a small Utah town. Nice houses, lots of extended family. Mostly LDS. He was not LDS, a bit rough around the edges - had tats, liked Harley's, Loud music, Beer... His neighbors initially did the neighborly things - brought fresh bread, said "Hi". He had been warned about this by his friends - warned that they be over to try and convert him . He made it clear he didn't want anything to do with their religion.

It went downhill from there.

The girls in the neighborhood were all stuck up, and wouldn't ever date him. Cops came to his house because the neighbors complained about his loud music. They were always having neighborhood get-togethers, but he never got invited. It irritated him to no end that he couldn't buy beer on Sunday on account of these stupid Mormon's control of the government.

Now here's the other side of the story. His neighbors had come to say hi - to get to know the new guy. They were greeted with suspicion. He didn't seem appreciative of the gift they brought, and then he attacked their religion, which was something important to them. He didn't seem to want to be friends with his neighbors.

Half the houses in the neighborhood he had moved into were all the same extended family. They had frequent, informal family gatherings. They weren't excluding him, they were just... family. They were young families, with lots of little children, who needed sleep.  And mothers who needed a break from their children - and noise in general. His initial standoffish-ness when they welcomed him to the neighborhood made them all nervous about approaching him about his music blaring at 11:00 at night, so they used the police to deliver the message instead. The single girls in the neighborhood were involved in church activities, babysitting, and the like, and to be honest, they didn't really have anything in common with him. They politely declined his offers of dates to R-rated movies, and raves, and any activity he offered on Sunday, which was often his only day off.

So. Yeah. A few missteps on both sides, actually. A bad intro because of a filter imposed by friends and their filters, a disregard for others' culture. And it went downhill from there.

After 15+ years living here, I have come to realize that Utah Mormons are just like everyone else. Most are decent folk. They are mostly kind, considerate, sincere, imperfect, flawed, busy people. For most, their religion is a significant feature of their lives. That is a cultural feature, like the Queen and Football (The kind you play with your feet) in England. Like any group they want their culture to be treated with respect. And like any culture, there are a handful who hang in the culture but don't really apply the culture (thus seem like hypocrites), and there are a handful on the other extreme who paint their faces in team Colors.


Unfortunately the extremes are what stick out, and what we base our filters on. And we make judgements based on what people say or do, with our filters in place, and no idea what is acutally going on in their heads. Or lives.





So, when I am talking to someone, anyone, I am going to try harder to remember to ask myself. "What filters am I looking through when look at this person? Am I putting words in their mouth - or intent in their speech and actions - based not just on their skin color, gender, or race, but also their state of origin? religion, or group affiliation?" I am going to try harder to see more of what I have in common with them, and less of what is different between us.

Wish me luck.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

I am being watched!!!

This morning I received an email from amazon.com. It had the rather generic opening "Are you looking for something in our Crafts, Hobbies and Home books department?"

This was followed by a very specific list of books on raising Border Collies.

How does amazon.com know I have a Border Collie? I never told them that. I have never looked for anything even dog related at amazon.com.

I have done several searches on google and youtube recently. Perhaps they sold me out. Or perhaps one or more of the sites I went to from google dropped a cookie from one of the third party marketing companies.

Those are the two most likely avenues. What is certain is that someone has been spying on me, and gave amazon a tip about what I might be looking for.

With all the recent news about NSA spying, this led me to ponder a few questions.

If we are bothered by the NSA spying (which according to polls we are bothered, by it, but mostly accept it as necessary), why is there not an equal degree of concern about evil sneaky corporations spying on us?

Should we even be bothered by any of this information gathering?

People raise the concern that government will use this information in malicious ways, the "Red Scare/McCarthyism" all over again, only on a much grander scale, or they will use it to manipulate political boundaries to serve their ends, or to target troublesome groups (like the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups).

But couldn't corporations do much the same thing with the data they have? Marketing groups have spent billions understanding how color, shape, etc.. influence us. Couldn't they take advantage of this greater volume of information about us to subconsciously manipulate us? Subvert us?

On the other hand, all this information COULD be put to good use.

In the case of my amazon.com message, yes, I am looking for Border Collie information, and perhaps one of their suggestions is exactly what I am looking for, but didn't show up amid the billions of search hits I got from Google.

It is not impossible to imagine a time when someone could wake up and find an email informing them that there has been a high probability of a specific form of cancer among people born in a certain area with a  certain lifestyle, which they match, and that certain preventative measures drastically reduce that risk. This could be culled from the population at large by collecting enough information. amount where people live, what they eat, what they do,... The more information gathered, the more patterns could emerge, given sufficiently powerful computers and analysis algorithms.

But there is the risk of abuse. You might get rejected  for insurance because your mom gave you peanut butter when you were 9 months old.

Ultimately I conclude that the information is simply a tool, which can be used for good or evil. The real problem with this information gathering is that it is one-way, with no transparency. "They" are collecting all this information on me. I should have the same information on them. I should know exactly what they are collecting, and how they are using it. (I am working on a series of posts that delve more into the information age failure, which will conclude with some suggestions related to this.)

Until then (if then) what do I do to protect myself? I could use an anonymous browsing service, such as Tor. I could use a live CD, or create a virtual machine, and do all my browsing from there. Thus all the cookies and such would be saved to volatile memory, instead of to disk. They would be associated with an anonymous account, not with me, and they would get erased every day, or more frequently, when I turned of the computer (or virtual machine).

(If there is interest, I would be happy to create tutorials on any of these above methods. let me know).

There is a downside to this though. Many of these sites, which are providing me with free information, depend on money they receive from these advertising groups. It costs money to host a web site. Their options are to advertise, or to charge me.

What to do, what to do...

What do you think?





Monday, June 3, 2013

Open letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I recently watched a video clip of you talking about gun control, specifically about opponents of gun control, and their fear mongering rhetoric regarding evil government's plans to oppress them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0R-WB2Jf8Y

 Your response to this was that "The government is us...", That "We the people" are in charge. I whole-hardheartedly agree with you that we the people SHOULD be in charge. However, we the people are NOT in charge.

"We the people" have been horribly split by divisive politicking., distracted by media fear-mongering, confused by a relentless barrage of half-truths and full lies. "We the people" aren't thinking rationally enough to be in charge.

More than that, "We the people" have lost significant control of our government. I point you to President George W. Bush  and the acts of government which brought us the department of Homeland security as a recent example. For years now, there has been ever increasing consolidation of power under the office of the president. You yourself have wielded "executive orders to effect, though not nearly so often as some of your recent predecessors.

I remind you that we are a representative democracy, not a true democracy. "We the people" select our representatives from a dreadfully short list of individuals, and generally based more on their abilities as momentary charmers, than their abilities as prescient leaders.

The original design for the United States was more of a loose union of largely autonomous states. The states would make most decisions regarding how things were to be done. If you found circumstances of a particular state untenable and unchangeable, there was plenty of other states to choose from. The federal government was to serve as the coordinator for those events which impacted the entire union, not as the director of basic state affairs. This model allows for different people, with different values to join together and form communities around their ideals. It offers the greatest degree of freedom for the greatest number of diverse individuals, while still provide a fundamental linkage for their shared values as a whole nation.

We have shifted from that model to a much stronger federal model, a more centralized approach.

In 2011, I wrote two Blog posts on the subject of kings. The first, titled "The Case for a King"
(http://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2011/09/case-for-king.html). Discussed the many benefits of a dictatorship, why it is appealing, and why it is ultimately a bad idea.

The Second, "Kings Revisited" (http://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2011/11/kings-revisited.html). discussed some of the ways and circumstances which cause or allow kings materialize.

While I am no great wordsmith, I would nonetheless ask you to carefully consider the points made in these posts.

Finally, consider these key points of many studies done on inherent human behavior. I offer two poignant links:

One on a Halloween candy study - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/31/which-kids-will-steal-your-halloween-candy-theres-a-study-for-that/

And one to "The Lucifer Effect", and analysis of several studies, as well as application to real worl events. - http://www.lucifereffect.com/


The key takeaways drawn from these and many other studies are:

  • There are many (roughly 1/3) people in the population who will tend to act in their own self interest, without thought of the consequences their actions may have on others. 
  • There are a similar number of people who will tend to act with consideration of the consequences of their actions on others regardless of circumstances. 
  • And the remaining third will tend to parrot the actions of the group (or more typically, the most charismatic individual in the group).


Given that, I found myself  troubled after watching the previously mentioned clip from your speech. To suggest that "We the people" don't have to be constantly, consistently vigilant, is naive at best. To suggest that Americans are somehow immune to the kinds of events that have occurred in Iran or Turkey or any of a number of other places in world over the the past few years is particularly irresponsible of someone in your position.

I urge you to consider the realities of historical and present human behavior, and recognize the need for every citizen to be informed and prepared. Prepared to actively participate in government, and yes, prepared to defend itself against government, should the need arise. Because there will always be those who hunger for power, and those who will take power with the sincerest of desires to act as benevolent dictator (and in their own eyes they will be), but will in fact be to their subjects a malevolent oppressor. We the people are in control of our government only so long as we retain the ability to wrest control from those who would usurp it.


Sincerly,

Edwin C. Philips




Friday, May 24, 2013

Info Age Fail 7: Accountability

(This is part 7, read part 1 here).

This issue has it's roots in the excessive level of anonymity. I gave several links on that subject in the post on anonymity, but here's one more, on a study of the behavior of masked trick-o-treaters, and the increase in bad behavior associated with anonymity. People say all kinds of awful things online, under the cloak of anonymity, with virtually no fear of consequences.

But the accountability issue goes far beyond that. Watch the news coverage of any major story. The "Facts" are all over the place. Here are a few links regarding a couple of recent events...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/17/fbi-media-exercise-caution-bombings

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/04/19/has-media-coverage-of-boston-marathon-bombings-been-responsible

http://www.businessinsider.com/sandy-hook-shooting-media-inaccuracies-2012-12

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02pubed.html?_r=0


Many of these fallacies did not come from random bloggers or anonymous attention seekers. These came from the "Hallowed halls of Journalism". The people we are supposed to be able to trust to get the story correct.

There is a certain irony in that last link. Walter Cronkite was considered the most trusted man in America at one point. He was thorough, meticulous, fair, impartial, and accurate in his reporting. It is said he personally required three solid sources to verify a fact.

No longer is this the case. And why would it be? There is really no consequence for getting it wrong. It is more important to get it first, than to get it right. In a few months, these crimes of inaccuracy will be forgotten. And those who perpetrated them will have moved on to the next great misadventure.


And thus we, the citizens of 21st century earth find ourselves swimming in a morass of misinformation, disinformation. and non-information.

Is it fixable? Yes, I believe it is. Not easily though.  I suspect it will take something rather drastic, something approaching a "new world order".

<< To Part 8>>

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Info Age Fail 6: Transparency

(This is part 6. See Part 1 here.)

In 1975, the last US troops in Vietnam withdrew, more or less signifying the end of the Vietnam war for the United States. For the Vietnamese, the war continued until 1975.

But what we didn't know until quite recently is that the war should have ended in 1968. It seems the the North and South were very close to a peace deal at that point, until Richard Nixon leveraged his contacts to get South Vietnam to pull out of the talks. He convinced them that they would get a 'better deal' when he was president. Nixon then used President Lyndon Johnson's "Failure to end the war" as one of his key talking points.

We know this now, because President Lyndon Johnson had tapes of bugged telephone conversations. Johnson didn't bring this information to light of course, because doing so would mean admitting that he was illegally wiretapping foreign dignitaries.

How many lives were lost because of this game of political subterfuge?

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668)



In 2009, a hacker released a series of emails showing that climate scientist had intentionally omitted some data related to global warming. Specifically data from tree-ring analysis was omitted. The data was a problem for the global warming argument, because it indicated that since roughly the year 2000, the warming trend was slowing.

Now of course there are plenty of rebuttals for this "climategate" scandal, explaining why the tree-ring data is no longer trustworthy and so forth. Well and good. The problem is so called scientists made a decision to hide this information from the general public, based on the premise the the general population wouldn't understand (i.e. the general population is too stupid).

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html)

In both of these cases, the problem is a lack of transparency. Science should be 100% transparent. The scientific method demands that an experiment be repeatable. Not just by your cohorts, but also by your skeptics.

And the United States Government, a government of, by and for the people, how is it the the people didn't know about this until decades after the fact?

Of course many will argue that the government has to have secrets. Most everyone loves a good spy flick. Loves the idea of a super-secret, super-stealthy black-ops group sneaking around the globe identifying and neutralizing threats in the shadows. Doing dark deeds "for the greater good".

There are a few serious problems with this. First of all, let me refer you to "The Case for a King". Once you have set up a powerful, secret organization, that operates outside the law, how do you ensure that they remain "champions of good"? (hint: you can't).


The next issue is that whole "greater good" thing. Osama Bin Laden operated under that motto too. Most terrorists do. Quite often, the factor that distinguishes a hero from a villain, is the author that wrote the story.

If you want to be the "Good guy" you need to act the part. Every time. All the time. Don't buy into the myth that you have to cheat to beat a cheater, that "To catch a fox you have to think like a fox.". If you are at the table with a cheater, leave the table, or make the cheater leave, if he remains disagreeable, punch his lights out. As for the fox, send out the hounds, grab your thermal goggles, track him, corner him, and shoot him.

You don't need to be sneaky, you need to be committed. You don't need stealth, you need conviction. You don't need shadows, you need all the cards on the table.


<<Part 7>>

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Info Age Fail 5: Privacy

This is Part Five: See Part One here


The main problem with privacy is the misuse of the word. It frequently gets tangled up with anonymity (doing something in public without anyone knowing it is you. I talked about this on in the previous post), and secrecy(retaining information within a subset of the public, this subset can be as small as one: yourself. The smaller the group, the more likely the secret is to remain secret. There is very little legal protection for secrecy, apart from what you may have established via contractual obligation with the secret keepers).

Privacy is neither of those. Privacy is freedom from intrusion. For the most part, privacy is an illusion. The constitution provides some protections. The Third amendment says Soldiers can't be placed in your home during peacetime (wartime can be allowed in circumstances "prescribed by law"). The Fourth amendments protects your person, house, papers and personal effects from unlawful search and/or seizure without specific court approval via a lawfully obtained warrant (probable cause). That is the extent of it. The confines of your home and your person are the extent of your privacy (This does bring in to question the legality of airport searches though, that is pretty personal, and without a warrant...). Nowhere else can you expect any. As a society, we generally recognize and choose to honor privacy in a few additional places. Bathrooms typically afford some privacy. Public phones often have a booth that provides a degree of privacy.

If you are on the street, in a store, at a restaurant, or public sporting event and pick your nose, be prepared for it to end up on YouTube. If you post it on your facebook wall, or tweet it or blog it, don't be shocked when your employer, family, significant other, etc... finds out about it (think of the internet as the worlds largest street corner, there are Billions of people standing there at any one time).

 
<< Part 6>>

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Info age fail 4: Anonymous overdose

<This is part 4 in a series. Part 1 is here>

Let's start with anonymity. We are obsessed with it. discussion boards abound with posts under the name of anonymous, or strange pseudonyms which are nearly as anonymous. Look in the comments of virtually any YouTube video. You'll see what I mean.

The primary arguments in favor of anonymity are protection for 'whistleblowers', and protection from retribution, and these are both sensible arguments. It makes sense that how you voted be anonymous, to prevent people from the other side of the vote doing something stupid. It makes sense that there be ways for those who notice criminal or harmful behavior to have a safe way to 'blow the whistle'.

But neither of those things happen on you Tube, or really any other internet forum, or in most other places that we go on about needing anonymity

There have also been quite a few studies on the negative effects that anonymity has on our behavior. The results are not good, from increased levels of violence, to increased likelihood of theft.

http://www.lucifereffect.com/about_content_anon.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12934837

http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/powerevil.pdf  (starting on page 6)


So a first good step to improving information quality if to stop the abuse of anonymity. This inherently increases accountability (more on that later). What about the retribution concern? This can be mainly resolved by fixing privacy (coming up next).


<to Part 5>