Ron Paul pwnz!!

This just published on Wired: Ron Paul supporters are planning to have a rally on January 1st, 2008, at 8:30pm EST ... in Azeroth. That's right boys and girls, we're about to witness the first virtual Presidential rally in the World of Warcraft!

Regardless of whether the Ron Paul Revolution actually gets him into the Whitehouse (and I can only hope that it does), I firmly believe that we are witnessing a real revolution that will fundamentally change the face of political campaigns forever. The WoW rally is just the latest manifestation of a conflagration of grassroots support that has risen predominantly through internet aided spontaneous order that's almost never coordinated by Ron Paul's campaign at all.

To me this is an incredible phenomenon. Without a giant political machine, having rejected all PAC donations, this campaign has certainly shown the untapped potential the internet community can generate. At first, no one in the mainstream media even paid attention to Ron Paul. It was the grassroots support that has made it impossible for the media to ignore Ron Paul. After every GOP debate, every major media poll shows that Ron Paul won the debate. The fervor of support has caused a lot of reporters, most notably Sean "Cry Baby" Hannity, to call Ron Paul supporters nutcases who just want to manipulate the results*. At every mention of Ron Paul on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and even on news radio, supporters email or call in ad nauseum.

What's more incredible is that this is no empty lip service support either. Many people, including yours truly, have put their money where their mouth is. First there was the money bomb on Nov. 5th that raised over $4 million in a single day. More than just the amount of money raised, it was shocking for two reasons: 1. the money didn't come from a small handful of wealthy donors or large corporations, it came from tens of thousands of small donors. 2. it was organized by someone who had no contact with the Ron Paul campaign and who had never been involved in political organization, ever. Then on December 6th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, another moneybomb got Ron Paul even more money -- to the tune of $6 million in a single day. Compare that to Mike Huckabee's money dud yesterday that raised, that's right, $95000. That's less than half of Ron Paul's daily average over the entire 4th quarter.

Ghandi once said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". The media started out ignoring Ron Paul, and then ridiculing him as a Libertarian kook. But faced with the incredible outpouring of support at the grassroots level, they are now actively attacking Ron Paul. They find every reason to brand Ron Paul as an isolationist, a cold-hearted Libertarian, a Dixiecrat, and a racist. For probably the first time, post-GOP debate polls were thrown away by mainstream media because they claimed that all the votes for Ron Paul were sent by two people. Surprisingly, even Objectivists have weighed in to criticize Ron Paul's support for the gold standard.

Yet for every critic of a certain political party or walk of life, a vocal supporter also exists from the same group. I can think of no better vindication for Ron Paul's position on racism: "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals". At every Ron Paul rally, there are Libertarians, Barry Goldwater conservatives, and even democrats and anarchists.

The diversity of support Ron Paul has been getting shows that the amount of grassroots support isn't just about a secret tactic that's used to tap into previously unused political potential. The fact that most of the support has been formed spontaneously without coordination from the campaign illustrates this point perfectly.

Ron Paul espouses a lot of things that has struck a raw nerve with his supporters. Democrats like him because he is pretty much the ONLY candidate in EITHER party that unequivocally opposes the war in Iraq. Traditional conservatives like him because of his position on fiscal responsibility. And libertarians and anarchists love his position and track record on defending individual liberty. Personally I feel comfortable with him as President even though I am strongly pro-choice and I am strongly anti-religion. Why? Because he does not want to take undue power and he won't assume unauthorized power. It might feel good to have someone who agrees with you 100% take office and then give him lots of power to get things done. But what if the next guy to take office agrees with you 0%? Now he's got all that power and he's not going to stay away from it. You're going to get fucked like you just dropped a bar of soap at Riker's Island.

Ron Paul's supporters picked the "Ron Paul Revolution" as the slogan to unite their support for Paul. What they didn't realize is that even if Ron Paul does not win the election, Ron Paul supporters have already started a revolution in political organization. But more than anything, *I* hope that people realize the truth about what Ron Paul has said about his own supporters: "Freedom unites people", and Shamans and Rogues and Paladins.

The German Consulate, or, Why I Want My Citizenship

My fingers are still shaking a little from fury so it's little hard for me to type this right now.

I'm planning for a trip to Munich in 12/7 and I, being a non-US citizen, needed to get a Schengen tourist visa. So I went to the German Consulate on Monday to send in my application. Before hand, I had spent several hours preparing all the documents together, exactly according to the specifications posted on their website. I even instructed the lady at Walgreens on the exact chin-to-hairline dimensions that would meet the requirements of the illustrious Generalkonsulat der Bundesrepublic Deutschland.

I get there early, and get in pretty quickly. I'm second in line so I get to the window without much wait at all. Score I thought, this is going to be quick and painless. Wrong! First, the lady says, you only have hotel reservations for one night, you need to have hotel reservations for the entire time. I explain that I might go to Prague depending on the weather, so I can't plan. "I don't care", she says, "Schengen rules." So I run out to the internet cafe around the corner, spend about $10 booking 18-bed mixed dorm room youth hostels in Prague and Munich. I come back. She says, "you're proof of insurance letter is insufficient." After several exchanges, I got her to say something other than mechanically repeat that previous mantra of all socialist...I mean...Schengen states. "Your letter has to say that 'medical, hospital, and repatriation' are covered." She was pretty nice about it though. She said, "you can come back on Wednesday to pick up the visa, just make sure you fax in the letter."

So obviously I spent the next few days chasing down HR and requesting additions to the letter. I fax it in last night, and brought an extra copy with me this morning. Mind you I live in Connecticut now so every time I go it's 3-4 hours of my time. I get to the window, first thing the guy says, "how are you getting to Prague?" You need to have your airfare booked. "WTF did you guys never tell me that before?" I thought. But I said, "Actually I'm picking up my car, so if the weather is good I might drive." Luckily, I had brought my car purchase order, so that shut him up. Then he goes back inside for like 30 minutes and then comes back again and says, "I can't give you the visa because there's no co-pay amount on your letter". "WTF did you guys never tell me that before?!" I thought again. After some further arguing with the guy, I finally gave up and came back to the office.

At this point I'm pretty fucking pissed. I'm going to Germany to pick up a car, and they worried that I can't afford my health insurance co-pay?! What the fuck! What's worse, is that I will have to spend another 4 hours going back to get my visa again. I spent hours of my time preparing my documents so that I don't waste their time when I get there. How can they dick me around like this over and over and over again? Every time I go back it's always something else!

But oh this gets better. After I got back to work, I checked with HR again and got a really quick update with the co-pay amount. I fax it in, and then I call to confirm. First time the guy is like, send it again we didn't get it, even though my fax receipt cleared stated it was a success. So I fax it again, and call again. "Ah yes" He says derogatorily, "you faxed it twice." I'm already pretty fucking speechless at this point. Then he says, "Hmmmm...this letter is from your health insurance broker. We cannot accept a letter from them. It must be from your insurer." I tried to explain that our policy differs from other policies at the actual insurer so if anything, it's the broker that would know the details better. "No, this is Schengen rule," the guy says, "I don't care." Heck, it's pretty clear this guy doesn't give a shit about people going to the consulate. So points for honesty there.

He then says, "I'm trying to help you, so I'll advise you to spend $50 at Access America and they'll issue you a proper letter". "But I already have health insurance," I pined. At this point I look down at the list of proof of insurance requirements and Access America is listed right at the top. At this point I'm just thinking, do they get a kickback from Access America for these forced referrals? What a great scheme. The consulate acts all hard ass on people so that they would be "advised" to go get travel insurance from Access America. Obviously, Access America could charge higher rates before guess what, customers without choice have no bargaining power. I half seriously wonder how much of a bonus this guy is getting from these travel insurance places.

So, finally, back to my title. While my green card has allowed me to travel between the US and China completely unhindered, I now look forward to applying for citizenship. However, the right to vote is no longer my primary motive. Avoiding European bureaucrats is. Who knows, once I get my American citizenship, I might just be tempted to fly to Europe and visit hospitals every where without my wallet.

Rights and Germans

Disclaimer: this post has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Haven't written a post in a long while, but something I came across today prompted the urge to get something off my chest. I was at the Generalkonsulat der Bundesrepublik Deutschland on 49th and 1st, and I picked up a pamphlet about Germany. On the last page on religion, the first sentence read "The Grundgesetz (basic law) of the Federal Republic of Germany grants Germans freedom of religion". In the "history" section, there was another short blurb on "the majority [of the people] were poor peasants who did not own land and had no rights". As much as I hope it was a typo, I just don't think anything was lost in the translation.
Things like these show a profound misunderstanding of what rights are, and point to one of the things that made American political thought (at least at its founding) fundamentally different from the rest of the world.
What are rights? Rights are naturally existing ethical principles that are pre-requisites for the existence of man qua man in a social context. They do not come from a mythical creature with a warm and fuzzy variety of omnipotence nor do they come from the divinity of kings; and they sure as hell don't come from some hodge-podge of crooked politicians and backroom bureaucrats. Get this straight in your head right now: Rights precedes government and precedes the law. If a government is supposed to justify its existence by fulfilling the function of a protector of rights, then how can the government be the grantor of those rights? The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anyone the right to free speech, it explicitly protects it. There's an oft forgotten clause that states that any power not explicitly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the state and the people. What was stated in the pamphlet about Germany was the exact opposite of this very principle. It implies that people have no rights unless the government explicitly grants them. And if a person does not have basic rights without the approval of the government, it means that his/her very existence is dependent on the sanction of Bundestag. And when the whim of the mob changes, rights that were "granted" to you can be taken away quicker than you can say "Dem Deutschen Volke".
Our only hope is that everyone gain a clear understanding of rights so that any government that claims to have the power of sanction over the fundamental rights of its citizens will be made to quake with fear.

Passion

People believe that ideas can be dangerous, and being passionate about an idea can be even more dangerous. Because we have seen and learned about innumerable horrifying crimes committed by people with incredibly strong conviction about their ideas. The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, and the Cultural Revolution are just 3 examples that come to mind immediately. As a result, we are told by today's society that we should be tolerant of other ideas and not be too "arrogant" as to think that we are right and others are wrong. It seems that if we say to ourselves that there is really no one right answer, then we're bound to build towards a more tolerant and peaceful society.

But is passion dangerous per se? Sure, if you are passionate about a belief that tells you to kill people who didn't do what you tell them to do, then that is dangerous. If you act on a belief that tells you to enslave people of a different race because they're sub-human, then that is dangerous. But what if you believed in freedom, reason, and respecting other people? What if you believed in living an independent life of happiness? Is passion about these ideas dangerous too? Socrates believed in reason so strongly that he was willing to die for his belief in it. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson believed in freedom so strongly that they risked their lives to gain and protect it. How can you equate these men with the likes of Hitler and Stalin?

It is ideas that are dangerous, not the passion. Holding evil ideas, even if very weakly, can be dangerous. Would Hitler have been able to succeed had he not had the acquiescence of the general German public? Would the extreme part of Islam today succeed if the rest of "moderate" Islam is largely silent as acts of unspeakable evil are committed? If you hold a dangerous idea, then even if you don't act on it, you are still dangerous. That's because you will simply acquiesce to those who would act on it.

Why would people think that passion is dangerous? Because passion makes people ACT. So to tell people "it doesn't matter WHAT you believe in, just don't be too passionate about it", is to say that the only good idea is to not act on your ideas. To believe in an idea so stupid would be funny if only it wasn't so sad.

Three Huzzahs for SIR Rushdie

For those of you who have not heard, Salman Rushdie has been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. Of course, this promptly incited groups of Muslims in Pakistan to burn effigies of both Rushdie and the Queen in protest. Even Pakistan's national government is getting involved. Pakistani Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan Khan Niazi told the National Assembly, "The 'sir' title from Britain for blasphemer Salman Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims across the world. Every religion should be respected. I demand the British government immediately withdraw the title as it is creating religious hatred."

I'm sorry Mr. Niazi, but my respect is not granted causelessly. You want my respect, you better freaking earn it. When your Minister of Religious Affairs says that "If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title", he is telling the world that you don't really want respect, you want fear. When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa that ordered Muslims around the world to kill Rushdie for the perceived injury that his words have done to Islam, that is also telling the world something. It says that the Ayatollah feared Rushdie's words so much that he was willing to resort to violent and terrorist tactics to try to silence the author. Please, Mr. Niazi, tell me how I can give my respect to someone who does not even respect the basic right to life of another person? How can I give my respect to someone who resorts to violence whenever he or she is insulted? How can I give my respect to someone who asserts that the mere existence of another person creates "religious hatred"? Have you no shame?!

Congratulations Sir Rushdie. I hope you live a peaceful and prolific life. And kudos to the U.K. -- for a country that is afraid to teach kids about the Holocaust because it fears offending holocaust deniers, I'm glad you've finally grown a bit of a backbone. I hope that in the future people all over the world will have the courage to fight, not for Queen and Country, but for Life and Liberty.

人之初

生命和理性是道德的充要条件。也就是说，道德并非社会关系的产物。就算世上只有一个人，他也需要在生活中做出选择。换一句话说，道德其实是人类自我保护及延续之本性的产物。社会关系只是这种本性的另一个产物。既然道德是建立在生命之上，那么就不可能对生命本身定下善或恶的结论。人之初，没有善和恶。一个人不能选择是否出生。没有了选择也就没有善和恶之分。如果可以对一个刚出生的婴儿甚或是一个未出生的胎儿定下善或恶评论，那么就也可以给凳子椅子铅笔钢笔甚至是每一个分子原子定下善恶来。这很明显是一种吃饱了撑着的行为，毫无意义。

道德的源泉

何谓道德？道德是一套用来衡量行为的准则。人在生活上永远会面临多个选择。但是人不是机器，不能自动地做出选择。所以才需要这么一个标准来帮人决定取舍。

这个道理很简单，但是有的时候简单的东西反而更难充分的理解。理解道德的关键就在“选择”这两个字上。这两个字是道德的来源，也注定只有人才会需要道德。一张板凳不需要道德。 你踢它它不能不动；你拿它打人它不会跟你说“施主且慢放下屠刀立地成佛阿弥陀佛”。可见活着是道德的必要条件。可是光是活的还不够。一棵树是活的，但也不需要道德。风吹过来它不能不动。你砍它的枝节它不能躲闪。它对外界变化的反应是完全自动的。

人能够有选择是因为人有意识和理性。感性认知让人有了对存在的意识，然后理性认知帮人了解宇宙的规律。有了理性才有选择。有了选择才需要道德。所以说，生命和理性是道德的充要条件。正确的道德必须以这两点为基础。