Category Archives: Feature

Government, Money and Us (just doing my duty)

Posted on by
2

You are an intelligent person. There are no stupid people on this list. If you are reading this on the blog, maybe you are stupid. I have no idea. I would like good things for us all, though. That is another thing shared in common with the people on this list. You are smart, and fundamentally a good person, and more than little beyond the pale.

In the culture of United States, being intelligent is not like being beautiful. In fact, if you are intelligent, and have some degree of humility, you spend a good deal of effort trying to hide the fact, almost apologetically. If you do not, you are considered an “asshole” by most, and that’s not so fun for we socially-oriented humans creatures.

Unfortunately, any pressure that causes you to “dumb yourself down”, resulting in silence, even in the interest of being “nice” to others, has consequences. Just look at all these quoted words and phrases I’m using. They’re like soft little cotton balls, you use to tip-toe around idiots, so I won’t be called “mean”. Intelligent people collect a lot of soft, logically fuzzy cotton balls over time. Probably for no other reason than they help us get laid.

For some reason several of you have put aside niceties when dealing with me. I’m not angry about that. In fact, I’m honored. There is no greater gift than a journey toward truth. Notice the lower-case “t” in truth. I don’t know the way, and you probably don’t either. But be assured, if you are reading this in your email, you are someone that at least can recognize truer paths and turns, and are someone who is willing to question what you hold dear, often down to the deepest places. I’ll even risk sounding patently ridiculous for a moment and say, that is enough for me to love you. It is a rare, vulnerable, and oftentimes isolating quality, being someone so open-minded. It is far simpler and easier on the mind to just close things down. Yet you choose to remain open. You choose to look around honestly. And most of all, you’re not afraid to be thought a lunatic. That’s why I love you, in the broadest sense of love. Perhaps it’s as uncomplicated as imagining myself the same, and finding validation that you are, too. I would like think there is a good deal more empathy involved, though. I know there is. Because if there was not, it wouldn’t be love.

So, we have enough of the pleasantries, and it’s off to the matter at hand. I am being hounded to write something on our current political and financial situation, and quickly, as some social overtone of urgency seems to dictate. My guess is that you are remembering previous politically-oriented writing, and are interested in hearing my 2 cents. Perhaps that is conceit. I’m going to go with it, though, and give you something political-ish, nevertheless. Mostly just to cover my ass, ethically, to do what I can do, when I can, in what way that I can. My apologies to those who do not wish to hear me blather on.

Interpreted broadly, everything we write or say has political force. I am aware of this when I write or speak with people. However, the meaning and scope of politics is not limited to solely to institutions of government that are structurally in force. In other words, it is not a government entity that is important. It is our thoughts, beliefs, values and our well-being that is important. Any government entity is simply an outwardly tangible manifestation of our collective will (or lack of will). And, like all orthodoxy, it is prone to manipulation and exploitation by twittering moths seeking the heat of our collective power. It is we, individually, who imbue any orthodoxy with power. We can do this actively by participating in it. We can do this passively by following along, keeping our noses clean. We can even do it inadvertently by just not bothering to think that a government is little more than orthodoxy — that without our collective commitment to an idea, that idea is meaningless and holds no sway.

No, this is not some back-handed promotion of anarchy. That would be a simplistic interpretation that stupidity requires. Saying that orthodoxy holds sway because people buy into it does not mean that orthodoxy ought to be eliminated. In fact, I have little doubt that we can accomplish the most amazing things by working toward our common good. And orthodoxy helps focus this. The question is, what manner of orthodoxy is currently holding sway over our lives? And can it be improved?

First, yes. I believe it can be improved. Nearly all that I write or say has this belief firmly seated within it. But in some way, engaging in governmentally-shaped political issues directly merely perpetuates that orthodoxy. In other words, if you use only the tools of orthodoxy, all you get is orthodoxy. Change must come into orthodoxy from the outside. Orthodoxy is incredibly resistant to change, yet at the same time, it is fragile. This is a characteristic of inflexibility. In this sense, the old metaphor is true: a flexible tree bends in the wind, where the solid tree breaks. Wind, from the outside, is what causes movement. And no, I’m not saying, do not vote. Voting and badgering our political leaders is all we have, unless we take up force. And taking up force would be a tragic and costly turn of events, particularly considering domestic wiretapping, spy satellites turned upon our own streets, and recent military deployments at home being trained to quell civil disobedience.

Instead, my approach is an attempt to help bring clarity, with a tacit belief that, with clarity, we are, perhaps, better people as a whole than we might imagine. In politics, the beginning of this clarity rests in the understanding that government is simply a somewhat solidified orthodoxy. And that all orthodoxy is subject to modification, though not without great resistance, and sometimes cost. I think few Americans now would say that change is not absolutely necessary. But what change? That is very difficult to answer without creating more orthodoxy.

So instead, I will ask a question. If you find someone unconscious and bleeding on your porch, why do you help them? Fear of liability? Fear of some law that compels you to under the threat of punishment? Is it fear that causes you help them? Fear has nothing to do with it. Fear would be ineffectual and possibly even counter-productive. The answer is, you are aware — a living being yourself. And you are aware of this other being, who is completely at your mercy. I ask again, why do you help him to live? Why would many of you even risk your own life to help him?

Each of us is endowed with awareness. You can call it your mind, or you can call it your spirit. We do not consider nearly enough how wondrous this is. You are aware. Alive. You learn. You respect other people’s awareness to varying degrees, based upon your own (prejudices). We would not let people suffer and die on our own doorstep. Somehow, we see ourselves in them. Mike might suggest this is a result of our brain’s mirror neurons that have helped us survive together, mutually, as a species. Whatever the reason, we help them survive because we wish to survive. All of us. We do not wish ourselves, or others, to die.

It is a different matter, however, when the person in need is thousands of miles away, made anonymous behind some abstract categorization of people. Perhaps this is how we determine people who have strongly developed mirror neurons; those of us who still manage see victims on our own porch, even at great distances. But even within our own country, close to home, where do we draw the boundaries of suffering? Does bleeding and imminent death mean that it’s okay to help, but barely having enough food to survive should be ignored? A heart condition that could easily be repaired should be denied, and the person left to slowly die, because the company they worked for went out of business? Sports stadiums should be built instead of housing for more than 10 million people currently out of work?

Our awareness glazes over when confronted with large statistics and issues. It’s hard to see an actual person when you say, 10,000,000 people are without work. That’s a lot of people either out on the street, or frightened they soon might be. Here are a few more glazing statistics, just for fun. 46,000,000 people in the United States have no health insurance. More than half of all bankruptcies are a result of medical bills. Yet strangely, Americans spend more money per person than any nation on the planet, far more than countries where medical care can be freely had, if needed. Our president vetoed a recent bill that would have provided, at least children, with health care, saying it was too expensive. It would have cost us $5 billion per year, for 5 years. It’s strange seeing that small number in comparison to $750 billion, which is something we apparently can afford. Some say, we are “investing” the $750 billion, not spending it. Just like we are investing another $85 billion to buy the country’s largest insurance company, AIG. Maybe some “financial genius” might find a way to provide health care, if nothing more than making it personally affordable, after purchasing such a giant insurance company, with all this other cash laying about, too.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. We are caught up in something. It’s another orthodoxy. It’s called economics. If you think of government as one galaxy, and economics as another galaxy, you will find that they have long ago merged into one. But there is a devil in the details here. The merged orthodoxy considers economics to be synonymous with business interests, and therefore business interests are synonymous with government interests. This is not the case. Business interests are merely tied to economic interests, just as we, as people, are tied to economic interests. As such, what is good for business is not necessarily good for people, just as what is good for people, is not necessarily good for business. However, something bad for either business or for people can have adverse effects economically.

There is another galaxy in rotation, and although it is smaller than the galaxy of people, it is highly dense and gravitationally powerful. This is the galaxy of business interests. Business interests do not, by definition, care if someone is bleeding on the porch, unless that business interest will be adversely effected. Business interests do not have mirror neurons in empathy with people. Business interests are oriented toward their own self-interest, which is the accumulation of money and influence. Anything else is a by-product. It is extreme capitalism that exploits our greed, resting on the assumption that if everyone enshrines greed, our greed will somehow, inadvertently, make the world a better place. It does not even take an intelligent person to recognize the flaw in that logic.

No, I am not anti-capitalism. But here are some more facts. Economies do not require capitalism to function. Capitalism is not the same thing as freedom. Freedom can exist without capitalism. Capitalism has nothing inherent within it that makes a nation prosper economically, as a whole people. Capitalism encourages a Darwinian kill or be killed mentality of competition, with no ethical center. Capitalism reveres money and marketing popularity (power) while completely disregarding any moral or philosophical considerations. This can also be considered a benefit of capitalism. When you hear the word “freedom” in relation to capitalism, this is not freedom as people generally envision it. Freedom in capitalism means freedom for business interests, to avoid any restrictions placed upon their greed. In that sense, we have a very free society.

Now here it is important to distinguish that capitalism is not a political system. However, few would disagree that economic systems have not merged almost completely with political systems. As such, we can no longer truly distinguish our government from business interests. And business interests no longer possess loyalties to any country. Business interests are now multinational. The United States government is one part, although a large part, of global business interests. You can see this in the complaints we are hearing from other world government leaders, that our Congress must act by infusing business interests with our collective people’s wealth. And so, our Congress acts, while our presidential candidates line up to follow suit.

This is where I will loose many of you. That’s okay. I’ll be quick, then on to the more important stuff. Here are some things to keep in mind. Capitalism does not require that a lot of people have money. In fact, it is natural that just a few people will come out on top, just like any feeding chain. The concept of “trickle-down” is a myth. Especially in a global economy. Why would we have workers here, when we can get so much cheap labor in other countries? How could we hope to compete in world markets with the high labor costs of employing people at home? How would this effect world currency values, in relation to one another? The answer is simple: it doesn’t matter. What matters is making money, however and wherever you can. You will find that the truly influential business interests are not concerned, in the least, with any country’s, or their citizenry’s well-being, even the United States citizenry, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. Business interests do not recognize governmental borders. When it encounters any, it works to dismantle them.

Incidentally, this is how fascism arises, when business interests are thrown behind a person or government, and that person or government gives favors back, without regard to its citizenry. US business invested heavily in Nazi Germany, exploiting free prison labor. Yes, the Bush family was involved. Yes, the United States has more people in prison than any other country in the world, in the history of the world, and we exploit their labor. Yes, we are phone tapping our citizens. Yes, we can disappear people indefinitely without charge, and threaten neighbors and relatives with prison if they say anything. It’s called the Patriot Act. No, there is no fear of torture here. Of course private military contractors are bound by Posse Comitatus. But that doesn’t matter, because we’re now deploying the “real” military at home anyway, and training them to combat civil disobedience, amongst other things, with new, non-lethal weapons. Hmm. I did turn a bit cynical there.

Nobody ever thinks they will end up living in a fascist state. We may not. But it is usually wise to keep our eyes open. Have we veered too far astray in our discussion of business interests (money) and the people’s government? Perhaps. But let’s look at a couple more things, briefly.

We know that our political leaders cannot be elected unless they have a lot of money personally, or are supported by business interests. All attempts to break this truism have failed. Breaking the hold of money on our political system would require that we restrict the rights of private entities to speak their minds, in national ads, even if what their minds are speaking is merely propaganda. However, we could limit public servants from entering into business relationships after their tenure in public service. This policy has even been enacted, in a feeble and ineffective way. I would suggest that it might be prudent severely limiting our public servant’s options after serving their office. This would insure that only people truly interested in doing good for more than just themselves, would enter government.

But to the issue at hand, which, I imagine, has forced me to write this: the bail out. It is not complicated. Remember, our government currently exists for business interests, nothing more. The United States government serves business interests, or more accurately, people who gain membership in the power club. Anything else is a smoke screen. And Bill, don’t you even pretend with me.

We as people can invest. It is a wonderful thing that we can buy into corporations that we like, and that we think might do well, financially. That is what Wall Street used to do — they were the brokers who helped bring together buyers and sellers of company ownership. However, over the years, Wall Street has become far more. Today, Wall Street is basically the world’s largest casino, swarmed by gamblers and ruled by organized “crime”. You can sell things you don’t even own, hoping for an insightfully-predicted roulette spin that will gain you some cash. The companies no longer matter. How the horses perform, and their odds, does. The casinos have their godfathers, too. This casino is a significant contributor our gross domestic product. The financial services industry has, for the last couple decades, been the industry with the highest market value. However, recently, that market value has been crashing. This means that people are selling their stock ownership in such companies.

The first major dip downward in value started at nearly the exact time that Paulson left as CEO of Goldman Sachs to become the US Treasury Secretary. Within a few months of him taking over the US Treasury, the financial sector experienced a colossal rise in value for nearly a year and a half. They sold toxic mortgages to people here at home, and sold many of those mortgages to people overseas. In a curious turn of events, Goldman Sachs continued underwriting mortgages, while simultaneously betting against the mortgage industry. Their investors lost a lot of money, and some divisions of Goldman Sachs lost a lot of money, while other parts won big. The value of all these financial companies began to fall around this time last year. Now, the value of the financial industry companies are back to what they were about four years ago. And they want $1,000,000,000,000. The only main competitor to Goldman Sachs left alive today is Morgan Stanley, which is selling 20% of itself to Japan.

Now Secretary Paulson is known to have intimate connections to China’s wealthy elite. China has invested heavily in our mortgage finance markets, as have other nations around the world. An interesting deal-breaker condition for Paulson in any Wall Street bailout is that it must give him the ability to purchase any subprime mortgage ever written, even if it is held by someone who is not a US citizen. In other words, our casino mafia of Wall Street, which Paulson was a founder, sold Americans toxic loans, which they often, snake-ily re-sold and offloaded onto foreign investors. Maybe those foreign investors are angry. They certainly sound angry when you hear them on TV, demanding that our Congress give Paulson money so he can buy back those toxic mortgages. Remember, business interests are not concerned with countries and their citizenry. They are concerned with money. Paulson, Bush and Wall Street thinks that we should pay for these mortgages. However, many would say that this is a private matter, and in the interest of free markets, should be dealt with privately. It’s an interesting situation.

Jeff sent a neat video on this, which I’ll link to. The guy on the video is irritating (to me), but it has some good information. If you’re interested, you can view it on YouTube. It might be worth your 9 minutes. Thanks Jeff. And Dan. And Christopher. And Emil. And Warren. See, I’ve said something now, and done my part. And I have contacted my representatives.

But I hope I have managed to do more than just say, this is bad, we need to do this and such thing… I have little faith that we will progress in any measurable way, unless all of us make it a point to not only question and learn, but to also make the changes we need to make — on a personal level as well as societal. This money could, once again, easily build a national infrastructure of hydrogen and also provide every family with hydrogen storage tanks at their homes. Instead, we are extending tax breaks to the oil companies, which will mean less money for us. We have just passed the largest military funding in history. Yet we don’t have enough money to let kids go to the doctor. We have to piggy-back on Russia to get to the space station. And Wall Street continues the fight to get its hands on our social security money. Milk has doubled in price. Something is terribly, terribly wrong.

I have to ask, can you see what it is? And more intimately, can you see it in yourself? It just so happens that we have many bodies on our porch right now. The question is, are you going to help? And the bigger question is, when will get tired of these idiotic games and do something amazing with the people of this planet? I shiver at the potential we have. Let’s start using it!

An Equation, Whose Velocity is Sculptural

Posted on by
Reply

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.

- René Descartes

This was a clever Frenchman, born in the late 1500′s. René was a philosopher and a mathematician. In fact, he invented analytic geometry, or Cartesian geometry. For some reason, truth was important to René. He is also considered the founder of modern philosophy, creating a solid intellectual basis from which the natural sciences could evolve.

René believed we must throw out all ideas that cannot be reasonably proven. Often, he toyed with more abstract mathematics as an exercise to better understand truth. In doing so, he laid the foundations that led to Newton’s calculus. He is also the origin of the phrase, “I think, therefore I am.”

Unfortunately, that phrase is not exactly mathematical. But we’ll afford him some leeway. After all, he was bringing philosophy and mathematics together in new and exciting ways, and the “why am I?” question is an oldie but a goody. However, it does bring to light a certain difficulty that we still face today.

Modern philosophers know that “Cogito ergo sum” is not, actually, a very good proof. But René was hindered in large part by not taking his own advice: doubt, as far as possible, all things. René believed that our minds exist separately from the physical world, and as such, were not really subject to ontological considerations. He did not imagine that our consciousness might arise from the physical properties of our existence. So, in a way, he was putting the cart before the horse.

This is not surprising. The duality of mind and body was a concept solidified within the minds of his contemporaries. It was both a social given, and a spiritual “truth”. Interestingly, he did not believe animals had minds. Nor did they feel pain. This was well-reasoned. He often performed vivisections upon live animals to study them. I wonder how he held to his belief, as the animals cried out and struggled. Perhaps it is one of the powers of science, that allows us to carry on in our convictions despite contrary appearances. At least when our convictions are well-reasoned.

Chris and I have had some fun discussions lately, some of which are related to consciousness and existence. There is always something refreshing about returning our attention to origins. One thing is clear, we live in very different times than René, when Western civilization was taking its first steps toward the Age of Enlightenment. They were trying to make sense of the physical within a world of the spiritual, while we are left trying to find at least some room for the spirit in a world of mathematics.

How different we have become, even those of us who claim to lead “the simple life.” Our electricity flows to us through the equations of electromagnetism. Our shoes, ropes, jackets and food containers, formed by petrochemistry. Our money, an imaginary collection of computer memory addresses, modified by equations. Our minds, altered, repaired or enhanced through specific chemicals, electricity and physical modification. The machine work within the cells of our bodies, re-programmed and turned loose by conscious design. And the very fact that my words enter your mind now, a result of quantum positions within the subatomic…

Who needs a spirit any more? When the cells of my body that somehow comprise the mind that speaks to you, are not even real, but are instead a vibrating collection of particles that both exist and do not exist. And each of them, surrounded by a vast sea of empty space. Who needs a spirit, when I am mostly insubstantial already?

When mathematics has all the answers, what is the difference, if you maximize a ledger balance or not? What does it matter, the risk assessments in war? In the collection of particles, of dust, that we are, that move out with our will, which among them is the greatest? Which is the least? Which is me? When all things are functions to be weighed and solved, playing out from their own accord, what does anything truly matter?

This abstraction, with its dehumanizing characteristics, can be attributed to the inherently metaphysical status of mathematics. It brings us far up above ourselves, where we can look back down. It is a peculiar phenomenon. In science, phenomenology is making observations that lead to some conclusion that pays no attention to how we feel things should be, nor what they actually mean. Quite differently, in philosophy, phenomenology is, in a way, the search for a bridge that might somehow lead out from just yourself, to other people, ideas or things.

In philosophy we reached a crisis of sorts with the Existentialists, after our long passage through the the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment. In a sense, it carries us through the processes of logic and mathematics, then plops us down squarely into meaninglessness. We can observe the processes of our world, but in doing so we must acknowledge that these observations originate from our bodies. However, our bodies and the senses we inhabit, are limited. We may construct machines that extend our senses well beyond their limitations, but only along the narrow lines we designate as extensions, i.e., vision or sound. The question arises, is the truth of truths constrained by our physically perceptual and rationally conceptual human limitations? Such a notion is extraordinarily prejudiced and leads us to consider the absurdity that lives at the foundation of science when it purports to be anything more than an art. Art, which merely hints at truths through the tools of its trade. And like all art, what is pleasing to our aesthetic we grant validity, meditation and devotion.

Mathematics exists within its own universe. It is self-referential — self-contained. It follows a logic more pristine than our human thoughts, nestled within the gross confines of language, can achieve. In mathematics, we can determine with certainty whether something is true or not, yet this truth is only valid within the universe of mathematics. If we choose to apply the universe of mathematics to the larger reality we inhabit, we do so only with risk. The bridge between the universe of mathematics and our universe of existence is a metaphysical bridge. In other words, an atom does not work out the equations of quantum mechanics to decide its next action. Nor can we pass laws in mathematics that force the physical universe to behave in different ways. We shape, and reshape our presumptions within the universe of mathematics in an effort to conform to the phenomena we observe within our own. And in doing so, we claim the prize: physics and metaphysics merge. This is the beauty we attribute with truth. However, philosophers, except for the exceedingly naïf ones, understand that truth need not be beautiful. In fact, truth does not, necessarily, require any aesthetic at all.

In this sense, the aesthetically pleasant merging of the physical and metaphysical universe through mathematics can, at best, be considered a metaphor for truth. This metaphor is constrained by the limitations of our senses. Although science can make predictions and often control our physical universe via its metaphysical tools, it is important to remember its more artistic basis when considering the truth of truths.

As we discover an aspect of our existence, even through science, it is often our first thought to re-shape that metaphorical truth toward something even more ideal. In effect, to “correct” a part of our existence within the physics we believe we inhabit. In other words, we may discover a truth, yet even though our understanding of this truth is incomplete, we might have within our minds an improvement upon this truth, which, through our metaphysical tools, we often seek to modify into an idealized state. This is a dangerous flaw inherent within the belief of science as truth: our incomplete understanding of truth often leads us to alter that truth toward an ideal, founded upon nothing but our own prejudices or desires. This is what leads us to consider the prospect of filtering out gay babies, since they will not procreate or will be evil. This is what leads us to ethnic cleansing, based upon a system of rationality. Or war. where millions can be killed based upon probabilities or the maximization of abstract numerics which we imbue with cultural power. Or pharmaceuticals that restrict our minds within the narrow bounds of some normalized function.

Unlike other art, a strongly absolute and literal validity is bestowed upon science. This is, perhaps, why science, like all art, is often under attack by social forces who are determined to instill their own ideas of truth. There is, perhaps, some characteristic of art that we innately recognize as a metaphor for truth. This can easily threaten ideologies based upon weak tautologies. Science, even more than other arts, can threaten as a result of the profound validity we bestow upon it.

However, this power comes at a price. Unlike other arts, science is incapable of critiquing itself. In other words, science cannot question the foundations of science, within the terms of science. In this sense, as a means of determining truth, science becomes, like mathematics, a universe unto itself, self-referential and solipsistic. As such, it lives in isolation as an abstract construction as all beliefs do. We imbue science with its power through a conscious act of attribution: a belief in its indisputable access to truth. To my mind, as beliefs go, this is better than most.

Interestingly, other arts do not suffer in cold isolation like science. Then again, other arts do not claim any absolutism within their basis. What gives science its power is the same force that isolates it from us: the notion of a purely objective and utterly rational universe, despite the limitations inherent within our humanity to fully experience it.

Caught within our consciousness, we seek that which is outside ourselves. Perhaps we desire to understand ourselves within the boundaries of our own perception. Perhaps we simply wish to feel less isolated. In this way, science and the mechanics of rationalism have led us to marvel at the outside world, drawing our attention to the menagerie of pseudo-objective materials that presumably comprise our existence, while simultaneously discounting the importance and highlighting the fallibility of our own subjective experience, and hence, the subjective experiences of others, even though we sense some inherent access to truth within our own subjectivity. Science can only approach this from the outside, and we doom ourselves to conform to its edicts. However, other arts are somewhat gentler. It is a characteristic of all art that we may discover bridges between what might exist within the world, that can span, at least in part, to our experience of individuality; and across those bridges find, perhaps, something truly meaningful. This is, in part, the philosophical meaning of phenomenology.

When we look at the processes of science, we find two primary symbols: theoretical terms and observational terms. “Good” science is generally defined by observational terms linked to correspondence rules into theoretical terms. That is, theoretical entities do not exist unless they can be shown, through correspondence rules, to be connected to observation. What makes science more of an art is the recent lack of distinction between theory and observation, which correspondence rules rely upon as a given. The result is, any disconcerting observations can always, eventually, be accommodated by any theory. Science chooses theories pragmatically: those which fit best with other theories blessed into general acceptance. Observation is no longer required. This is most certainly closer to art than any truth of truths. And as such, it is as close to the truth of truths as art.

The phenomenological philosopher at the outset finds themselves trapped in the isolation of Existentialists, much like science is trapped within its own objectively solipsistic universe. However, the phenomenological philosopher finds themselves in a somewhat different landscape. We suspend any disbelief in ourselves. We assume that we, as an individual, must exist, in one way or another. And in what others might consider a leap of faith, though there are some compelling arguments otherwise, we assume that other things also exist. Even sentient things. Like, and unlike ourselves. Each of us perceives the universe through our own subjective senses. I have no access to the truth of what you see, except through the objects of language and metaphor that we build and share, both within and outside of ourselves.

A phenomenological philosopher is very skeptical of anything claimed to be an absolute object of truth existing within the shared, intersubjective experience we inhabit. However, they are not ruled out. Nor is any object in the intersubjective world blessed into the objective, as a Truth, lightly. It is here that scientists fail as philosophers. They are hasty and reckless in their determinations, with flawed claims of an objective process that is, largely, metaphysical. However, as artists, and even tortured artists, scientists are magnificent. Most scientists will perceive this as a wild accusation.

But, like all artists, an engrossment within your work can lead to a dangerous myopia. It is also the signature of genius. Any passionate pursuit leads inevitably to the darkened beauty of egoism. It is an irony that, in the endless pursuit of the objective truth, the subjective ego should flourish and grow. “The holy egoism of genius,” the The Art of Noise sang.

It leaves me wondering, when you look into the eyes of another — a stranger — and something profound between you is shared and known, without any words, without any hints, that hits at the gut… Who among us is quick to attribute the experience to an equation? Who is quick to say, this is a spiritual exchange? What we do know, is that it is a phenomenon, experienced by us all. And the meaning is to be found within each of us.

Is Freedom?

Posted on by
Reply

I rarely receive such a large response, but the piece on Free Software elicited an unusual reaction — and all of it was positive. The most interesting thing to me was learning that people, even those people who work closely with the information industry, are largely unaware of the history of Free Software. In particular, they did not realize that Richard Stallman played such a significant role as the founder of the the Free Software movement.

This is not really surprising. When you mention Free Software, or Open Source software, most people immediately think of Linux, and the personality most associated with Linux, Linus Torvalds. Undoubtedly, Linus has played a monumental role. However, it is Richard Stallman’s unwaivering adherence to ethics and the cause of freedom that originated the Free Software movement. And it is Richard who continues to act as the little angel (or devil, if you prefer) who whispers within the goodly minds of every Free and Open software developer.

Most end user consumers of Free Software remain unaware of its history and the ongoing forces that drive it. The consumer hears that Free Software is excellent stuff, and that it is free, in every sense of the word. And that is enough to know. That’s fine. In fact, it’s wonderful. Have at it! That’s what it’s there for. Software developers love that you love what they create. They’re happy to help, in fact, they’re usually honored to help. Well, sort of. Sometimes it can be overwhelming, when their creation becomes popular. But strangely, communities tend to grow around such things, and those communities exist to help. They also exist to continue the process of building creations, together. It’s a remarkable phenomenon. In a sense, it is an accidental manifestation of a virtual Socialism. No membership required.

Developers using Free Software for the first time encounter something different than end users do. First, they are happy they haven’t had to pay any money. Second, they are often astonished by the sheer scope and detail that is often available to them within Free Software. It is not uncommon for Free Software developer documentation to exceed any commercial offering by orders of magnitude. I suspect this happens because, as developers, everyone is in the same boat. And that boat should make for a comfy ride. Developers in Free Software also, refreshingly, detect the aura of science behind the tools they employ, rather than marketing. Nothing is hidden, including agendas.

One of the peculiar side-effects of writing with Free Software tools is that your conscience gets tweaked a bit. Even when you are, perhaps, building a system that is meant to be closed and kept secret for some business interest, you feel a compulsion to give back to the community in whatever way you can. This, I believe, is a universal feeling. Perhaps it even speaks volumes about our inherent nature. And it is speaking good things.

But Richard pointed out a few things in that last piece. These are things we should not forget, nor overlook. Speaking of it will require a bit of context. Free Software has been an incredible benefit to the world. As I pointed out, it’s not just about free software. It’s also a statement about freedom. In many ways, we can think of the Free Software movement as a tangible embodiment that represents and vividly demonstrates the benefits available to us from a higher order of freedom. The Free Software movement happened because someone took a stand for freedom, and other people did too. And now, all of us benefit. All of us, except for those who seek to take away freedom, to solidify their own power. There are many ramifications in this, at many levels, both societally and personally. We’ll stick to software, though, for now.

TiVo

I mentioned the TiVo, which created a revolution of its own in home entertainment. The TiVo was the first digital video recorder successfully adopted by the masses. It has always run GNU/Linux. Justin introduced me to the TiVo, and when I first saw it, I was amazed at the capabilities and the sheer beauty of it operation. He had the Series I model, and he could use it just like a normal GNU/Linux computer, as well as a DVR. He could write or install his own programs on it. In fact, a whole community formed around the TiVo where people shared the interesting and amazing new programs they wrote for the TiVo, enhancing its capabilities.

I was sold. I shelled out the money and purchased a TiVo for myself, and now I can’t imagine watching TV any other way. However, by the time I purchased mine, the Series I TiVo was no longer manufactured. I purchased a Series 2. It had a faster processor, more external ports, and more upgrade capabilities than the Series I. However, TiVo had done something bad, too. They began locking down the TiVo, making it impossible to customize it to you desires, unless you wanted to do something risky and radical to gain access. In essence, they continued to take advantage of the GNU/Linux Free Software, but shackled it behind bars, claiming your system as fully their own.

This angered many people, and rightly so. However, TiVo placated the developers by releasing a software development kit, where developers were still unable to access the GNU/Linux system, but they were, at least, able to write custom applications for the TiVo — much like what Apple is doing with their iPhone. TiVo even went so far as to have contests to see who could write the best TiVo application. Many of these applications were very good and eventually found their way onto everybody’s TiVo, through TiVo’s regular software updates. Then, with the release of the Series 3, TiVo closed down all modifications, happily keeping for themselves what others had contributed as part of their own product offering.

Now, although this is somewhat nightmare-ish from the standpoint of freedom, one good thing came about. All GNU/Linux systems are released to the public with legal licensing requirements, just like commercial software. This license is called the GPL (GNU General Public License). When TiVo decided to use GNU/Linux to build their product, they were bound by this license. As a result, and only after a good deal of saber rattling, TiVo released to the public the source code modifications they made to Linux, as was required by the GPL. That may sound a little draconian on the part of the GPL. And it is. This is why:

Free Software is all about freedom (and other good stuff). If someone releases their free software under a GPL license, they get the draconian dragon. It lives within the license for a few reasons. One of the primary reasons is to safeguard the freedom of that software forever afterwards from those would would seek to take that freedom away. The GPL says, in essence, that this software is free! Take it. Use it. Give copies of it to other people. Sell it. Modify it to you heart’s content. But if you do modify it, you must give those modifications back to the community from which the free software was born. And if you sell the free software, or give it away, you can only do so under the terms of the GPL, which basically means, you must always give credit to the programmers who actually wrote it. And other people who accept the software from you must also be bound by the GPL. The freedom dragon follows along, always on vigil.

In this way, once software is made free and released to the world under the GPL, then the dragon works to keep that software free. TiVo didn’t want it to be free. They made some modifications so that GNU/Linux would work with their hardware, but they didn’t want to tell anyone else about it. In other words, they wanted to benefit from Free Software, but they didn’t want to share, and they wanted to lock GNU/Linux into their box. They still do. However, eventually they did release the modifications they made to the GNU/Linux system, which are available for anyone to use.

That is all fairly straight-forward. But as we know, corporations love their money. They like to say, “mine, mine!”, and then make you pay. The record companies are great at this. So are the movie companies. I’m sure many of you remember the CSS encryption fiasco… the young Norwegian boy who cracked CSS encryption that is used to encrypt data on DVDs… Movie companies do not want you to make copies of DVDs. CSS encryption of the DVD data was meant to thwart duplication. However, this boy figured out how to get around that encryption. He nearly went to jail… (thank goodness he was Norwegian).

Similarly, TiVo, to please movie and television companies, does not want you to have the capability to copy shows. However, if you can access GNU/Linux on your TiVo, they feel you are more likely to gain duplication capabilities. As such, they are doing all they can to keep you locked away from your hardware. They are also doing all they can to keep the software locked in.

This is bad enough. But TiVo has done something even more sinister. They are making it impossible for you to use your TiVo hardware for anything other than what TiVo wants. In other words, TiVo must have complete control of your hardware, or your hardware will not work.

They accomplish this by building hardware that expects encryption from the GNU/Linux system TiVo is using. If the hardware does not receive the proper encryption keys, the hardware will not function. So, although technically not breaking the “letter” of the GPL version 2, it does circumvent the intent via technological tomfoolery.

On first glance, it might appear that nothing is wrong with this. Why shouldn’t TiVo be able to do what they want with the hardware they build? They will still release any modifications they make to the GNU/Linux system. But, like many things that appear innocuous on first glance, the more nefarious implications are hidden in subtlety.

TiVo is, in essence, holding GNU/Linux hostage, through a veil of smoke and mirrors. TiVo is using GNU/Linux. However, they have, through hardware modifications, created a requirement that only TiVo can provide you with your GNU/Linux system. If your GNU/Linux system comes from anyone but them, your hardware will not work. This is what flies in the face of the GPL’s spirit. And, it is very terrible for TiVo to do such a thing. Currently, GNU/Linux on TiVo is no longer Free Software.

As a countermeasure, the newest version of the GPL, GPL version 3, contains language that prohibits this sort of circumvention trickery, giving the dragon some new teeth to defend GNU/Linux’s freedom, and ours. In many ways, the GPL behaves the opposite of copyright by protecting freedom instead of restricting freedom. This sort of behavior in a license is often called copyleft. Hopefully, Linus will see fit to release subsequent versions of Linux under the GPLv3, which contains the additional protections, instead of GPLv2 which does not.

So here we have an example of Freedom under attack in some subtle and underhanded ways. I will be discontinuing my TiVo service and building a free Linux MCE system, which is actually a considerable step up in capabilities (and far less expensive). This is my personal act to further the cause of freedom. I’ve been considering switching to MythTV for some time. Linux MCE is a nice bundle of free software, including MythTV. Unfortunately, this requires effort. It is why I have delayed. But I am re-convinced now, after writing this all down. My machines want to be free. Thanks to Chris for pointing Linux MCE out to me.

Apple OSX

Early in Apple’s history they aired a commercial about Big Brother and how you could escape his tyranny if you purchased a Mac. Today, Apple can control aspects of your iPhone without you even knowing. And your computer. Just like Microsoft. In essence, your computer is fundamentally more under their control than it is yours. That is not Free Software.

With OSX, the operating system from Apple that runs newer Macs, Apple has taken a peculiar turn. Apple needed a new, modern operating system for their hardware. They wanted something flexible so they could easily develop, and they wanted something both secure and rock solid. They chose Unix.

Today Apple’s OSX is really FreeBSD Unix. Apple takes FreeBSD, makes some modifications, and re-releases it as an operating system called Darwin. They don’t release their modifications to FreeBSD for ARM CPU’s, however. Those are the CPU’s used in the iPhone. I am not certain about the legalities of this — much of FreeBSD is released under a different license than the GPL. This FreeBSD license does not have provisions to require people to contribute back to FreeBSD.

Regardless, Apple is certainly taking something that is free, exploiting it, and taking away that freedom. Apple will attack any person or company that installs OSX on any hardware that is not built by Apple. In this way, Apple is playing the same game TiVo is. Take something that is free, exploit it, then lock it into a hardware cage where only you have the key. Such an ugly thing, from something as beautiful as Apple products.

Interestingly, too, even if you install Darwin on your computer, you will not have the Apple desktop, nor will you be able to run any of the Apple programs that are so wonderful to look at on that desktop. Apple releases what they feel they should, but it stops there.

Apple is far from a model for Free Software. They happily take from Free Software, but they immediately entrap it. Microsoft does the same. And even as Microsoft takes from Free Software, at the same time they enjoy threatening Free Software with their patent claims. They say, anyone who dares to use and contribute to Free Software is in danger. Thankfully, the Free Software community has been busy on the patent front, as well, and companies like Microsoft and Apple are violating some.

Carry a Big Stick?

These are just two small examples taken from the last piece, addressing some of the concerns Richard raised. It was originally my intention to focus only upon the good stuff that Free Software has brought us, keeping the ongoing war against Freedom hidden. Usually people do not like unpleasant things. There is a tendency to stick your fingers in your ears, cover up your eyes, and run away. Just mind the big pits in the dark.

Unfortunately, we sometimes need to look at the unpleasant. War happens for a reason. The true reasons may not always be clear, and, in fact, may be hidden. Just as I hid them. But the underlying reasons are what contain the broader truths. And broader truths are always important.

A root concept within the struggles of Free Software to remain free is this notion of “intellectual property”. There is a prior post called Healthy Intellecual Symptoms you might want to read for some background information. Keep in mind that copyright (and copyleft) are different from patents. Basically, the question is, can we own thoughts? And if we can, should we?

The piece I just cited goes into some details related to problems we encounter when we try to own intangible things, like ideas. If we believe we can own ideas, the inevitable question arises: where does the scope of this idea begin and end? If I patent, say, clicking on a link with a mouse, does this mean that a patent issued for one-click shopping infringes upon my patent? How about 2-click shopping?

Suppose I invent a new and revolutionary machine. It’s a new way we can interface with computers. This is a tangible, physical object. That’s normal ground for patents. But now let’s look to the intangible patents. Should I be able to patent all possible fundamental uses of this new physical device, as well as the device itself? Can I patent one-eye-look shopping, instead of one-click shopping? Can I make all these new patents on intangible things, before I even release my hardware to the public for sale?

The notion of “intellectual property” is excellent business for patent lawyers. However, it also stifles creativity and innovation. Imagine if the TCP/IP protocol were patented, requiring the payment of royalties for its use. Imagine if Domain Name services required royalty payments. You would be effectively “taxed” for every use of the Internet. Thankfully, we don’t have that. As a result, we can use it, and contribute things to each other across the Internet freely.

Microsoft readily admits that it perceives Free Software as a threat. It also believes Free Software is its main competitor. Free Software is free, so it really doesn’t care what Microsoft thinks. Until Microsoft starts attacking it. By threatening users of Free Software with lawsuits. By scaring businesses who choose Free Software; saying they are violating the law. By funding ridiculous and wasteful lawsuits through other companies, like SCO.

Fortunately, the history of the Internet is difficult to erase, and we see Free Software vindicated on every front. But this doesn’t deter Microsoft. Microsoft has been very busy patenting ideas. Even ideas that were not their own, yet the desire to own. Patents on ideas are like fabricating an arsenal of bombs for warfare. If you have bombs, and deep enough pockets, you can easily prevail over the smaller people, who are the ones supposedly protected by patents. But Free Software has gathered a patent arsenal of their own, in response to threats. And Free Software has many friends, including legal scholars and lawyers, who are happy to do their part in the name of Freedom. So far, this has pretty much kept the patent dogs at bay, curtailing any full-scale confrontations.

If this were not enough, Microsoft has another favorite assault tactic. They call it, “embrace, extend and extinguish”. However, it might be more accurately called, “steal, corrupt and behead”. This is where Microsoft identifies a protocol, data format or program, usually innocent and free, that they either like and want for themselves without competition, or view as a threat. They take it (embrace it), then change it so that it only works with Microsoft products (or sometimes best with) (extend it), and then claim it as their own, forever afterward a part of their closed, proprietary software offerings (extinguishing it). Oftentimes the effect can be devastating to other companies who originally created or rely upon those technologies. Microsoft uses their monopoly position to provide their users with the Microsoft corrupted technology. Then, when this Microsoft corruption becomes the de facto standard, they disallow other companies from using the very technology they “embraced” and “extended”. That’s the “extinguish” bit.

In a sense, this is exactly what TiVo is doing, and very much what Apple is doing with OSX. The only difference is, they are not doing it with the intention to extinguish Free Software. They just want to make a buck. And they are not concerned with any impact they might have upon Freedom while making their buck.

So there you have it. A brief glance into the sordid underbelly of a mostly invisible war. Do not think for a moment that the war’s outcome will leave you unaffected. Many of the same ideologies being fought for are relevant within other sectors as well. Fair use of the Internet, otherwise known as Net Neutrality, shares much in common with Free Software. As does openness in government, through the efforts of such organizations as The Electronic Frontier Foundation, and OpenTheGovernment.org. Actually, when thinking about it, I realize that the tenets within Free Software are similarly shared and held dear by many human-oriented organizations. And unquestionably, the thread that each holds in common is, a firm commitment to fight for what is right and ethical in the world.

So throw off those shackles, me hearties! Ok, so I’m a day or so late. Silly pirates, anyway.

Freedom is Free!

Posted on by
1

When you do things for free, or ask very little in return, it’s very easy to get taken for granted. GNU is such a thing, and I wanted to take a moment to say something.

Pretty much everyone has heard of Free Software, or Open Source Software by now. If you use a computer, particularly for the Internet, it is nearly a certainty you are relying on Free Software at many levels. For example, most websites are served by the Apache Web Server, which was created and is maintained by the Apache Foundation along with many other technologies. Back in 1995, most websites were served by a web server developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. When the author of the NCSA web server, Rob McCool, left NCSA, development of the web server software stopped. The Apache project came into being from a group of webmasters who wanted to continue developing the software into something ever more powerful and useful. Now, for over a decade, the Apache HTTP server has set the bar for all other web servers.

There are many other free technologies we take for granted, too. The Internet domain name system, for example, that translates the names you type into your browsers and email clients into IP addresses. Or NTP (Network Time Protocol) that keeps computer clocks synchronized across the world. Even such things as LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) that companies like Microsoft have taken, twisted and made their own within their closed Active Directory systems. And, of course, the Linux kernel.

Interestingly, Linux was just emerging into something useful to more people than specialized hobbyists around the same time Apache began. But even a decade before this, Richard Stallman of MIT had a radical idea: he believed that software should be free. And by “free”, Richard meant free, as in free speech, unshackled by any rule of tyranny, and meant for everyone.

That was almost 25 years ago. In fact, the birthday of the GNU Project is coming up in just a couple days, on the 20th. Steven Fry, which surprised me, has some wonderful words to say about GNU software, and free software in general, in a short video statement he gave for the anniversary. Nobody seems to appreciate the truly profound revolution that Richard Stallman started all those years ago. But this man, with his keen technical skills, his highly developed sense of ethics, his humility, and his generosity, fundamentally re-wrote the very fabric of the information revolution. If I have a modern day hero, Richard Stallman, that kind and insightful lunatic, is the man.

When Richard broke with “just the way things are”, software was locked into monolithic entities and controlled by the few. In his words:

The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or the 68020, had their own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you had to sign a nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy.

This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not to help your neighbor. A cooperating community was forbidden. The rule made by the owners of proprietary software was, “If you share with your neighbor, you are a pirate. If you want any changes, beg us to make them.”

The choice for Richard became a moral, or rather ethical one. In 1984 he quit his position at MIT so he would be free of any interference and wrote a C compiler that he released to the world. This was the genesis of the Free Software movement, and continues to the be a fundamental basis. Over a decade later, Linus Torvalds released the Linux kernel under the GNU public software license. By this time, the cooperative software development paradigm, founded upon sharing, openness and mutuality was beginning to pick up some serious momentum. By combining the Linux kernel with the GNU operating system, people had, at last, totally free and open use and control of their own computer systems.

Today, as the efforts of developers across the world continue to make and improve upon their proud and beautiful creations, a growing number of people are turning to Free and Open Software for their daily computing needs. Some do it because free is a good price, while others do it because free means freedom, in every sense of the word.

As a testament to the power and profundity of what Richard has accomplished, all we need to do is look at the pathologically closed, dark and nefarious world of intelligence agencies. The ranks of their own people are now speaking of “Open Source Intelligence”, which is a movement to bring as much light as possible into what is hidden and closed from us.

All of us owe a great debt to Richard Stallman, and also to the people ceaselessly working on the GNU projects, the crazed and bickering little geniuses who continue proudly enhancing the Linux kernel, and all the thousands of other projects that have made the Internet into the whacky and wonderful thing it is today.

The number of websites and programs written from Free Software are too numerous to count. The fastest computers in the world, manufactured by IBM, are now powered by Free Software. Even your TiVo, a happy part of your daily life, runs on Free Software. And Apple Macs running OSX? Well, that’s FreeBSD Unix.

So here’s a toast to Richard Stallman, and the GNU Foundation, for their 25th birthday. And another toast to all you hackers out there making the best software humankind can make. And a toast to you, too, you nitpicky, set-in-your-way end users. Because we care about you, and want to make you happy. And we want you to be free. Just because you ought to be.

Addendum: More information on Free Software and its struggles to maintain its freedom can be found in a subsequent post.

Comic courtesy of xkcd.com

Your Word, My Twitching Cat

Posted on by
Reply

If you ever decide to do it, you might regret studying philosophy. The cliché of the philosopher, angry, wild-eyed and rambling incoherently is not always so far from the mark. The same holds true for poets. Bedfellows, once again. But why, in the name of all that’s holy, are they like this? Well, it’s usually not their fault. It’s everyone else’s.

You see, people say things. And usually, it’s more akin to burping than speaking. I do concede that burps do have a certain charm. There was a burp in the previous paragraph: “in the name of all that’s holy”. It didn’t need to be there. It said nothing, really. However, it did accomplish something. It drew attention, like a big belch, while simultaneously offering a hint of comic relief. This helps soften the edges of the subject matter: that angry, raving lunatic philosopher.

Unfortunately, using that phrase will just make him madder. He’ll feel manipulated and simultaneously disgusted by the use of such a transparent device. You can’t blame him, really. After all, his senses have been honed to take in every word, instilling each with the collective nuances of any surrounding words, concepts and the larger framework of philosophical positions. And you just threw down a greasy doughnut wrapped in a water-soaked rag, to the ground, at his feet. Why not rave like a lunatic, particularly when everyone is doing the same thing all the time, everywhere?

Like I said, you might regret studying philosophy. But scientists ought to be required. Unfortunately, since scientists seem to instill the “language” of mathematics with the access to truth, there is little reason for them to study the broader disciplines of philosophy. I think they might change their minds, however, if they could see all the soggy jelly doughnut trails they leave behind. I’m going to try showing them a few, without challenging any of their theories or methods. Non-confrontational. That’s because I’ll be holding my little philosopher’s glass sphere in one hand, and the twitching dead cat of the poet in the other. Yes, I know it sounds yummy. Straight from the lunatic’s cook book. Secretly though, it will be little more than a brief exploration of semantics with a splattering of ontology, revolving around the celebrity of scientists that has recently emerged. Now pay attention, I’m trying to help.

“…in the name of all that is holy…” Holy: purity, sacredness, an unchanging otherworldly force beyond humanity. All things that are holy, brought together — the entirety of all otherworldly sacredness, under one roof. And then, given a singular name. That’s what philosophers hear. The twitching dead cat hears that, too. That’s what drives us mad, when people carelessly fling a phrase like this about. Even when we know it’s a burp. Sometimes, especially when we know it’s a burp. But not always.

The point being, when you are trying to convey something to another person, other than mutual burp-fests, your choice of words and phrases are very important. Why would an atheist wish to evoke images of God and sanctity when discussing evolution? (the question is rhetorical) The phrases do have an impact whether or not we intend it. It perpetuates a way of thinking which can be very much at odds with your goal. The tricky part about phrases in common parlance is that we disregard their impact by telling ourselves they are devoid of meaning by the sheer preponderance of their overuse. However, it might be surprising, even to those who feel apart from their culture’s historical traditions, just how tied we truly are to the cultural forces from which we emerge. Our language does not escape it. Our use of language certainly does not. In many ways, even the fundamental shapes of our consciousness are formed, in large part, by the long, ponderous histories we inhabit, simply by coming into being within a culture.

Now here is something that only people knowledgeable in information systems understands. Remember the hot girl, or hot guy that comes up to you, saying their computer is “broke”? You know that it probably isn’t broke. More likely, some program isn’t working how this hot body expects. You ask them, “did you see an error message?” And then they smile, and laugh, saying, “I’m so dumb with computers. I don’t know anything. Can you look at it?” nudge, wink. These people actually think it is cute not being able to answer a simple and obvious question. My dead cat twitches.

Scientists, most of you are the same in your use of language when communicating with the public. You do not always look carefully at the larger contextual meanings of the words you choose. This is not good writing. It is not poetic. It is not even cute. And worst of all, you do both yourself and your audience a disservice when you do not carefully choose your words.

For example, the Discovery Science Channel is one of the largest disseminators of various cosmological sciences to the masses. Several programs mention the Big Bang Theory. Almost without fail, the narrators or scientists say, basically, “the universe was created from a singularity, unimaginably small.” What does this mean? Something used a singularity to create the universe? A singularity created the universe from itself? The word “created” inherently implies that someone is doing something, resulting in a creation of some sort. I don’t know of any mathematics or postulates that predict someone is creating something within Big Bang theory. It is far clearer, and more accurate, to say “the universe emerged from a singularity,” even though such a thing seems impossible.

That being said, I suppose it is possible that these scientists and narrators who use the word “created” might have an agenda in doing so. Perhaps they are promoting Creationism. And strangely, even though most Christians, at least, do not like the Big Bang, that theory is probably their best shot at keeping God as close to the traditionally-perceived Creator as possible. Alternatively, perhaps these scientists and narrators use the word “created” to better allay religious people’s skepticism, to draw them more readily into the theory. Although devious, they would, at least, escape criticism for a use of blundering words.

Another common error for commentators, though in this case usually not scientists, is referring to the “vacuum” or “nothingness” of space. Although the twitching cat likes this, the glass sphere rattles in alarm. Space is not a vacuum — it contains stuff. Saying that space is a vacuum is flat-out wrong. Also, space is not nothingness. Space is something, even if we do not know what it is. Nothingness is what space is expanding into, though even that is misleading, because it implies that nothing is something that can be expanded into. So telling folks about the nothingness between planets or galaxies is patently misleading. People adopt their ideas of what space is, very early on. It is apparent for anyone teaching physics how difficult it can be getting people to re-think their assumptions, let alone deceptions, later on, when it becomes necessary.

What exactly is this “something” that we call space, that others choose to call “nothing”? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else, with any certainty. But regardless of our ignorance, is it not best to admit that we do not know what comprises the fabric of our physical reality? Why should we perpetuate an error, whether purposefully or by the accidental means of sloppily-chosen words?

I know that many scientists would like their pet theories accepted by both the scientific community and by lay people. However, no badly chosen words, nor the implementation of marketing techniques, will result in a theory’s acceptance. But if you are a snake oil salesman, it might get you some funding. I suppose a girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do.

The final point does not lay with ill-chosen words. It lays within the context of how facts and theories are presented. People want to believe, and people want to understand their existence, even when it may appear they are not so concerned. Scientists have a great deal of specialized knowledge and the public often looks to scientists for impartial answers. That is a heavy responsibility for scientists to bear. But it is immensely important that scientific ideas are presented for what they are: theory or fact. Spend time placing the ideas within an objective context that admits any shortcomings or questions remaining unsolved. Reveal your skepticism as strongly as your convictions. In other words, if you are truly interested in furthering knowledge, present yourself in a truly academic way that will bring your notions to light while allowing the possibility you might be wrong, or at least not entirely right. Though it may not always seem it, people like helping others. And they will. And you can help them, particularly when you are not simply furthering your own agendas. We lay people are getting rather good at recognizing snake oil salesmen, any more.

But, all the being said… love ya! Seriously. Thank you…