weeding out the casual

This post is for readers.

What can be communicated?

This question has been hanging over my head for more than a month, still, I find it confounding.  I feel that my knowledge has been significantly increased over this time, my perspective feels more satisfying.  I still think the answer to this is beyond my abilities and my resources.  Having posed it is almost enough for me.  I have to try anyway.

It's always best to start at the surface and dig deeper when confronted with a difficult question.  In fact, this may be the only approach.  So, what is the most superficial way in which humans communicate?  Damn, that's a doozy too.  Does this mean the most transparent attempts at communication or the most functionally insignificant?  

Let's say functionally insignificant.

Talking about the weather or about topical, universally known facts or concerns.

"Damn, it's been hot the last few days."

"Seriously.  I've had to spend all day indoors with the air conditioning on!"

"That'll jack up the ol' electric bill."

"Yeah, tell me about it.  And I definitely don't have the money to spare, either."

"Amen to that, brother."

Apparently, no information has been exchanged here.  Both parties are talking about obvious issues that everyone in the climatic (is that an acceptable use of that word?) area knows about.  Also referenced are the general scarcity of money and the difficulties associated.  Another obvious issue that most people deal with daily and are intimately familiar with.

But what else?

Discomfort associated with the heat and financial hardship imposed through an attempt to deal with this discomfort are wide ranging concerns.  However, presumably, not EVERYONE in the area is troubled or annoyed by them.  For example, some people might prefer the high heat to spring-like temperatures.  Others might not be the least bit concerned about the additional cost of air conditioning.  So, in this exchange, it is confirmed that both individuals are indeed concerned about these current problems.  On a certain level, both parties end this exchange knowing that they share some common ground and their minds are, at least to some degree, on the same issues.

This is important.  Knowing that another's mind is similarly engaged is, I find, calming.  Sometimes people can become isolated in their own minds, feel that they have unique problems that no one else faces, that they are up against impossible odds.  The recognition that others are engaged in the same struggles is heartening, even if this is irrational.  I would say that talking about local sports falls into this category, even if these concerns are a bit more abstract and artistic in nature.  Something like gas prices affects a wider group of people than any weather front, but I believe the principle is the same.

So much for that.

I'm going to try to distinguish this form of communication from that which discusses a Specific topic that is known only to the two people discussing it, or perhaps, a small group.  I don't feel it necessary to work all the way down the continuum of less and less universally acknowledged problems.  Still, I wonder whether this example will be too big of a jump from the last.

Discussing a friend.

"I'm really concerned about (name).  (Pronoun) seems to be isolating (Pn)self a lot lately and isn't coming out with us the way (Pn) used to.  I wonder if (Pn) still hasn't gotten over that big breakup?"

"Oh, I know what you mean.  (Pn) really hasn't been the same since that.  Maybe we should throw (Pn) a party or something.  Or just get the whole crew together.  Let (Pn) know that we're all behind (Pn)."

"Good idea."

The first thing I notice about this example, contrasted with the first, is that the problem being discussed is one that the two individuals feel they can do something to correct or resolve.  They are not merely commiserating on the unfortunate effects of the problem, they are planning to attack it.  Indeed, this is a big jump.  Take a half step back.  Perhaps an intermediate stage would be a problem that no direct action could be taken towards but to which potential solutions could be posed.  (nothing can be done to change the weather)

"If the two parties could just work together maybe we could get some real health care legislation passed that would benefit everyone."

Half step back forward.  Deep breath.

I can feel my logic, as it is, slipping away.  I must attempt to continue.

The example at hand is an exchange between two people.  It doesn't involve a lot of communication because there is no tension or disagreement - both agree as to the best course of action.  However, that is the key, the conversation is a prelude to action as opposed to pure commentary.  It is goal-directed.  It focuses the attention of both parties on the problem and gets them thinking on the details of how the plan should be carried out.  It forces an allocation of resources, in a sense.  It carries an obvious functional purpose (as the general speculation about potential solutions for problems out of reach does not).

I'm going to endure internal argument and self-criticism over this, but, I believe that the communication of emotions is somehow more significant, or, at least, requires the transmission of more information than talking about the external environment whether it be comment or problem solving.  I'm not saying that emotions are more important, merely, that communicating them is more difficult and therefore stretches communication further, deeper.  I will try to demonstrate this with an example.

Fuck.

As I'm trying to write out an example, I realize that emotion is the most universal concern/experience.  Everyone is trying to feel happy, good.  Everyone knows what it is like to feel angry or sad.  While we can't (at least easily) convey the richness and nuance of our emotional experience, people can empathize with us if we say "I am so sad" or "I am so happy".  While their experience is probably not just like ours, they can easily relate.

I've been beaten by this question, but, I did make a forceful and somewhat effective attack.

This isn't over, communication.  I'll whoop you yet.

fighting self

I'm going to consider this a post-script and use it to inform my next post.  I'm not ready to dive into the next topic in question, yet, but I want to at least write it down as a reminder and as motivation to get on it at a more reasonable time.

Communication.  What an absurdly wide field of examination.  So much information, so many signals, in so many different forms, are exchanged constantly.  The idea of trying to pinpoint the foremost "innovation" in communication is just silly.  Human communication may be, for my purposes, the ultimate form, but since communication of one kind or another has occurred for so very, very, long, attempting to name the most important point in the unfolding of its history is a naive and foolish pursuit.  Verbal/written language is but a grain of sand on a beach.

That said, I'd like to move onto the question of what can be communicated other than information.

Again, this might just be testing the limits of the English language.  But I'd like to work that out for myself when it's not so late and I'm not so sleepy.

Sometimes you just wake up with an idea.  Most of the time, it's best to go back to sleep.

Read quotation marks at your discretion.

meaning less

As I continue to push my arguments and instincts to their breaking points here my limitations become more clear to me.  I don't find this troubling, rather the opposite, I relish the opportunity to patch up holes where they appear to be.

Now, to the question.

This seems to be a fairly arbitrary point in human development to fully celebrate communication...I'm not certain as of the beginning of this first sentence why the construction "question" is a more significant attempt at, or tool for, communication than making eye contact with another, or pointing at something, or a statement, or the e-mail.  Heh.

What does a question do?  It prompts, and arguably, demands a discrete response.  It points... well, why not just go to the dictionary and get as much out of it as possible?

"a sentence, in interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in a reply."

That's basically the definition I was thinking of.  there are several - this one is also relevant, I think, so I'll include it.

"a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation."

This has been a theme underlying everything I've covered, so with my examples, I'm going to stick with very simple survival and proliferation-based subject matter.  I'll start with what is the opposite of a question in this context, and another contender for most important innovation in communication, the statement.

"There is food over by the lake."

This conveys important or at least potentially important information to whoever may hear it and understand it.  However, there is also the possibility that it could be completely useless.  If it were an appropriate response to a question its value becomes less impeachable.

"Is there any food around here?"

"There is food over by the lake."

Another example:

"I would like to be your mate."

Higher stakes, not only potentially irrelevant but potentially offensive as well.  Combined with a question it becomes the consummation of a very significant interaction.

"Would you like to be my mate?"

"I would like to be your mate."

A question not only begs information, it lends meaning to whatever statement follows it.  It modifies and enhances.  More so than non-verbal communication it promotes continued interaction.  It seems also to allow more complicated exchanges of information.  As it developed it allowed the discussion of more abstract concepts, things that could not be referenced (by pointing or looking at) in the external environment.  Example.

"How do you feel today?"

Getting information about another's feelings colors communication and gives a frame of reference by which certain topics can be deemed appropriate or inappropriate.  I am only scratching the surface as usual.

Socrates, as I infer from his behavior, believed that the question was the gateway to all knowledge and that asking questions was a sign of wisdom.  When speaking to someone, it is best to assume nothing about what they think or what they believe.  A question is the original way to discern this information.  It provides access to the internal world, it is a gateway to the mind of another.  I emphasized in my post-post-conversation last time how important I think the community element is to the development and definition of science.  Questions and answers are a predicate to community - determining the needs of each and agreeing to work together to meet those needs.  

I have a major qualm with the original dictionary definition I've posted.  A question is not always addressed to someone.  Everyone knows the cliched action of screaming out "WHYYYY????!!!!".  Asking why, in general, is a dramatic and perhaps profound action.  A question is a means by which to speak without necessarily revealing anything about one's own beliefs.  It is also a means of getting at causes, which, as I also mentioned last time is crucial to science.  A question is the beginning of the scientific method as we know it- a hypothesis is a statement, a guess, but also implies a question to be asked and answered.

I think I've gotten to the heart of the question's value, though I haven't completely convinced myself of it's superiority.  This is a subject I will have to continue working on.  Moreover, the idea of seeking knowledge is beautiful, and the question is a fundamental expression of this desire.  I constantly wonder how communication will change and improve (?) but I am troubled by how impersonal communication is becoming.  Eye contact is so valuable, I almost detest not being able to look at someone when I am conversing with them.  

I love asking and being asked questions.  There are so many to be posed.

one march post, or, it's raining again.

At points in my life I've felt like I've said everything I ever needed to say.  Nothing is worse for a writer than forcing out ideas or phrases that seem to be contrived or regurgitations of things one has heard or, abysmally, said.

  

This is a block.

I'm going to, at least directly, leave society alone on this one.

Instead, I will discuss our potential (possible) status as divine creatures.

I have been reminded in recent days that science is the devil.  As much as I find this idea ridiculous, and thus appealing, I have a hard time offering it any sort of treatment.  I'll do it anyway.

Way before there were scientists, there were mathematicians, attempting to put a universal abstract logical language to the workings of the physical world.  This toil was largely without a rigorous method of practical testing and derived more credibility from the intuitive and internal sense it made rather than what it could accomplish.  It was lifting theoretical loads, not actual ones. (this reminds me of the South Park episode where the boys create a homoerotic video featuring Butters and earn 10 million theoretical dollars for the people of Canada.)

Of course, this is not strictly true.  Geometry has been essential to construction for centuries and thus achieved practical relevance.  Clearly (?) the Egyptians used mathematics to do what they did in terms of building monuments of living death for their human gods.  I point to the late 18th and early 19th century in Western Europe as a time where math led to discoveries about the elements that make up our environment and to mechanical achievements that set off an industrial revolution which is finally catching up with us in terms of consequences.

If I don't try to get back on topic now, I never will.

Our understanding of the universe is pitiful.  We can explain and name the details of the things that are currently happening but we can't answer any fundamental questions.  In terms of knowing the history of an action, we can only scrape the most recent surface.  Origins elude us.  Deductive reasoning is an achievement that we give great respect to because so rarely do we accomplish it in a grand or meaningful way.  

I can think of one time, one individual who did it well, and his piece of reasoning provides the most powerful challenge to our conceit that we are divine and special and above all else earthly and natural.

Charles Darwin provided a completely reasonable explanation for how human beings could have come about, starting from a simple life form, after a whole lot of time.  This is why many have cursed his name and many others have praised it.  He spent his last years with his family breeding pigeons and isolating himself from the scientific community.  It must have taken some kind of guts to release his theory knowing what it would do to all who read it.

Are our genes really the most significant part of us, or even, more significant than us as whole organisms or a society of organisms?  Are they the entirety of what drives us to do the things that we do?  

The question that has been posed strongly in the past is: does the end justify the means?  I think a better way to phrase that question is, are the means required to achieve an end more significant than the end?  It has been postulated that the journey is more significant than either its origin or its final destination.  This is appealing to me and might pose an answer to my new question.

Last night, I saw a concert at an art installation exploring the war in Iraq.  It was, I would say, a rock band consisting of a drummer, a cello player, and a guitar player/vocalist who was a young Iraqi woman.  She was beautiful, as were her words, which were inspired by Persian poetry of all stripes.  This poetry was rooted in the earth - the most visceral experiences of being alive.  Intoxication:  both on drugs and on love for others.  A celebration of the phenomenon of waking up every day and celebrating the rhythms that are instilled in our perceptions.  The constant rising and setting of the sun.  The beating of the heart.  Finally the transiency of each of us and the possibility that we are not finished when our current consciousness closes.  Love as a binding force that is more mysterious than any other and whose implications will be understood only after we understand all that our five senses detect.

A friend of mine from the past nicknamed me "Mr. Science" because of my constant preoccupation with facts and logic and my skepticism, or even contempt, for things apparently inexplicable or imperceptible at the time.  This contempt and skepticism no longer seems to me appropriate.

Non-human animals can communicate.  But it seems as though their communications are all related to the collection of food, warnings of predators, or mating.  I suppose this is a way of sharing perceptions and consciousness but I think it is different and less complex than our own.  We ask each other questions, not related to these immediate and important concerns, but purely for the purpose of sharing experiences.  I think there is a desire to connect that is entirely divorced from the compulsion to mate or survive.  This is close to godliness.

I can't think anymore.  I have worn myself out.  However, I feel that I have achieved my continual goal of digging deeper into our shared experience and forcing myself to think about things that make me uncomfortable.  

To ensure that I post again soon, in an attempt to justify my claim, I put forward the idea that the most important innovation human beings have ever achieved is the question.

complex

Meeting others' expectations.

Everyone has a desire to express their own feelings, to behave as they feel moved to, to make their own decisions.  This, I suppose, could be called freedom.

However, when a person cares about the feelings of others or even wishes to get along among others, freedom must constantly be compromised.  This is no novel statement - it is the basis of the social contract and indeed of society in general.  We must make sacrifices for the good of the group.  Those who do not are punished for their selfishness.

I think there is a deep and fundamental irony in a nation that is so thoroughly influenced by its code of laws, persecutes criminals so aggressively, yet values freedom above all else.  People aren't free to cross the street wherever they want to or to smoke indoors or to walk around naked in public, (to give three out of a million possible examples) yet we champion ourselves as being the freest nation in the world.  Where I take exception to laws is where they restrict us beyond any reasonable demonstration of the potential harm of the targeted behavior.  Laws are necessary but at a point they become cumbersome and service powerful minorities rather than the society at large.

But this is all too grand for what I intend to discuss.  Relationships between one person and another or one and a small group are much more interesting to me than the relationship between a person and society at large.

Immediately in discussing interpersonal relationships I come across a tension.

I can say, and feel pretty convinced of my accuracy, that the more we care about someone, the further we go out of our way (in terms of restricting our will) to help them to be comfortable and happy.

However, at the same time, I find that often we compromise our freedom most around those people who we have just met and barely know, so as to avoid them making harsh judgments of us or forming a poor first impression.

So who are we more concerned with pleasing?

I think it is clear that while we will hold back significantly in respect of people we do not know very well and are interested in forming a potential relationship with, truly large sacrifices in freedom occur only with those we hold closest.   

For example, in a social situation with friends and a new person, I will find myself holding my tongue about issues I would normally speak passionately about among just friends.  I will be self-conscious and attempt to portray myself as a fairly middle of the road, temperate individual.

However, with someone I truly care about, I may be willing to make a compromise as deep as where I choose to live or may even give up something that I am truly attached to in order to please them.  These are two entirely different levels of self-denial.  New friends may cause me to "act" differently in a very superficial sort of way but people I love have the ability to influence decisions that will truly affect my life in the long run.

I have given much thought to this issue before.  A conclusion I came to once is that the only way to be truly free is to free oneself from all social ties and live as a gypsy, a hobo, a person who answers to no one and to no group.  

Quickly, I determined that shutting oneself off from all other people eliminates many potential feelings and options of things to do, opportunities, and negates freedom rather than promoting it.

So, how do we live amongst others and still take advantage of freedom - to be our true selves without being neglectful of others' feelings, needs, and rights?  

Every decision to act or not to act deserves a consideration of the facts accompanying the situation.  This is pragmatism.  Say I'm with a group of people, conversing, listening to music, when I suddenly have the urge to sing along loudly to the music.  I am moved by the beauty and the passion of the music and I want to express that, I want to join along with the artist, to share in that moment the pleasure they are experiencing by expressing themselves in that way.  But I consider that this would be rude and would decrease everyone else's enjoyment both of the conversation that is occurring and, possibly, of the music that is being played.  

Am I less myself if I choose to restrain my desire to sing and merely continue to sit quietly or to converse on whatever subject the other people are discussing?  Or, does my decision not to burst out singing speak more of my true self than my desire to sing in that situation does?

I choose the latter.  I think that a desire not to act out of the consideration of others represents an exercise in freedom.  It is an expression of the strength we have to control our impulses and make compromises that will maximize the happiness among a group of people, whatever the size.  Not acting is as much an expression of oneself as acting.  We all have desires that feel real, visceral, fundamental to us.  But controlling them successfully is even more meaningful to the definition of who we are.  When we choose the well being and happiness of others over our own we are making ourselves into loving and caring individuals.  Every time we restrain an impulse considering how exercising that impulse might negatively affect others we grow - we overcome our animal instincts, we reach to a higher goal of harmony.  

When we live in harmony with others we experience true freedom.  

I apologize for the delay since my last post.

teeth

Let me begin by saying that people are compulsive about their grooming habits.

I met someone in college that would brush (pronoun) teeth the way that some people smoke cigarettes.  If there was a quiet moment, or a moment of transition, it would be used as an excuse to brush.

My grandfather had about seven toothbrushes that he would cycle through, I assume a different one for each day, and I also assume so that they would stay cleaner and last longer.  It's also possible that each of them had a different function... some for lighter jobs and other for having lots of stuff in your teeth.  As far as I know, the man never used a computer, but he seemed to stay on top of toothbrush technology advances.  Let me correct that.  He read books on DOS at the very beginning of "PCs" and had a pretty comprehensive understanding of how those directories and commands worked (truly astounding for someone who never really sat at a terminal).

But I digress.

Women spend significant amounts of time on their hair and subject it to all kinds of stress.

I could write a lot about this and still not be covering the topic adequately (from a lack of knowledge) but I'll just focus on one thing.  And that is dyeing.

I've always been pretty satisfied with my hair color.  I mean, I can only think of a couple of times (read - 2) where it even occurred to me to change the color of it at all, and when I talked to my girl friends about it they strongly and immediately dissuaded me from doing so.  Odd.  Anyway.

Again, I could go into the subject of dying at some depth and still not do it justice, so again I will focus on just one effect that seems to be regularly sought (and, arguably, achieved) - blond hair.

How many girls with blonde hair out there actually have blonde hair without chemical intervention?  I don't think about this that often and certainly don't go out of my way to look at hair to try to determine it on a case by case basis.  However, conservatively, I think it would be fair to postulate that less than 20% of girls with apparently blonde hair actually grow blond hair.  I don't get it.  OK, command decision, I'm going to actually try to take this one on, heads up.  *deep breath*

I'm fairly certain that fair hair and skin (F) are recessive traits, or, at least less likely to express themselves than dark pigmentation (D) in a cross between D and F.  So, that means that the F phenotype is not only rare but is getting rarer.  This is self-evident and reveals my absurdly huge cultural bias.  I wonder what percentage of people in the world have legitimate blond hair.  I doubt that information is available to me.

...

OK, this is humbling but double-convinces me I've hit on an interesting topic.  On the wikipedia article for "blond" there are 11 adjectives listed for different types of blond hair.  Blond hair represents about 2% of the world population's hair color, according again to wikipedia, which I take as a font of all knowledge.  I'm just going to leave red hair alone in this discussion.  Not too many people dye their hair red anyway so it's not as interesting to me.  Goodness.  I've (again) opened a can of worms far too large for me.  Check out the article for yourself.  I'm not even going to try to speculate as to how blond hair developed or what other traits might accompany it.  I'm going to merely focus on how blond hair is perceived aesthetically.  Even this is too big.  But I'm pot-committed at this point.

Blond hair is clearly something that European/American cultures consider beautiful and cultures without naturally occurring blond hair have found fascinating and even other-worldly.  Understandably so.  Rare is often taken as beautiful.  When I try to come up with examples of beauty that everyone recognizes I always go with sunsets.  I'm not sure that every sunset is beautiful, but once in a while the setting sun dramatically changes it's color from the bright yellow/white we are used to and fills a huge portion of the sky, coloring everything it touches and striking awe and humility.

Natural processes are beautiful at least partially because they are difficult to predict and yet often lead to astounding order and recognizable patterns.  Living things are not only suitable for human cognition, they are the most relevant things that we can observe.  Living things have historically represented the biggest threats to our survival, sources of food and thus continued survival, and in the case of inter-species, social interaction including mating and procreation.  The amount of brain tissue that is dedicated to recognize faces alone is striking.

But why blond hair?  I'm leaning towards the idea that the fascination is cultural rather than instinctual.  Royalty in western European cultures has possessed the trait in unnatural proportions, and later, famous people (another version of royalty) have over-expressed it.  Romances written early in the history of the English and French languages have glorified it.  Blond hair is most highly expressed in Northern European countries (Norway, Holland, etc.) and when you move out of this area it drops off almost exponentially.  I think it's interesting that Americans find blond hair beautiful but are not fascinated by hardly any other aspects of these cultures.

I don't want to go into the whole Germanization and eugenics issue because it upsets me.  The whole idea that such a small part of the world's population was somehow superior is absurd and not worthy of serious treatment.  But it is an extreme example of this fascination.  

Blond hair does nothing for me and indeed I haven't dated or even hooked up with a person of blond hair - maybe one but my definition of blonde is pretty strict.  In my younger years I remember finding it appealing but somehow I have grown out of this.  I won't take my psychology as a further example or give it any further attention here.  For those who really know me maybe it could be meaningful. (a reaction to my prior tastes?)

Personally I think this fascination is fading in general.  It's rarity increases on a daily basis, but Americans have seen plenty of it, so it's not striking anymore.  I guess we can thank all the people who have attempted to imitate blond hair for this shift.  

One more thing.  I have known people with brown hair to get a lighter color during the summer or in general after prolonged and regular exposure to sunlight.  Color is determined by a mix of pigmentation in humans as it is plants.  Maybe in some way it is functionally advantageous.  Meh.

Gentlemen prefer blondes.  Ha.  A true gentleman would not discriminate between people based on something as trivial as their hair color.  An opinion.

I have a feeling I will return to this subject in some way.

restraint

I have a lot of problems with the "criminal justice" system that exists in this country.

It is a lumbering goliath that employs millions upon millions and "serves" many millions more... arguably the entire country indirectly.  As of 2006, there were 2.2 million people incarcerated in prisons and jails in the country, representing the highest number of any country and also the highest rate.  What has been hammered home to me in the last, well, few years, is how hilariously this number misrepresents how many people are REALLY in state custody.  If you throw in people on probation or parole the number goes up to 7 M... something like 2% of the population.

I work with kids who are in state custody - not in prison or jail, but in a residential treatment facility, a placement that is essentially confinement but which counts as a school.  All are on parole.  There are a lot of places like this, that force a structured and limited lifestyle on people either in response to crimes or merely to the inability of their families to care for and protect them.  There are a LOT of people in this country who, if left to their own devices, are deemed to represent a threat to themselves and/or to others.  And this deeming is not arbitrary or, I think, wrong.  Spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to house, observe, and... well... control one kid who has a very high likelihood (according to doctors utilizing our body of psychological learning) of offending sexually against other kids if released is, I would venture to say, a good expenditure on the part of the state - at least compared to a lot of the other things the state spends its money on.

In lockup, the staff is not attempting to rehabilitate inmates.  I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that.  They are not, and, really, cannot (because they are so heavily outnumbered), pay particularly close attention to the interactions that are going on between inmates and certainly cannot stop crimes from occurring in their facilities.  About the best they can hope for is to avoid full-scale riots and to keep murders very low.

This "good", the control and incarceration of past offenders, is something that is in demand.  The citizens of this country want their criminals locked up.  Violent crimes are viewed individually as tragedies - evoking sympathy for the victims and anger towards the offenders.  It is demanded that District Attorneys seek and judges hand out strict punishments and sentences.  It's not like this system is imprisoning so many people because it wants to.  It is merely selling a good.  People are buying it.  They are buying it by reading newspapers about and listening to news reports about crimes more thoroughly than on any other subject and by talking to their legislative representatives about how important it is to them that the rapists and murderers and arsonists be off the streets so that they can feel safe.

Safety is the good.  More money is spent on "safety" in this country than almost anything else.  I can't articulate all of the expenditures... this should really be a doctoral thesis in sociology or something that then leads to a lifetime's worth of research.  Cameras and recording equipment, the training of bomb-smelling dogs, police, military, weapons from the average gun to spy satellites and stealth bombers... we pay a lot to compensate for our fear of being violated by others.  

Which makes sense.  We have a lot to lose.  Those of us in this country who are free, particularly free and with money to spend on the things we want, live a lifestyle that very few human beings have had the opportunity to live.  Seeing nothing else makes us take it for granted and makes us sublimate and forget our fear, forget how much we as a nation pay for it.

It shouldn't be too hard to understand how people in other countries around the world would resent our lifestyle, resent all that we have, want to take it away from us and redistribute it.  I for one do not want that to happen.  I want my friends and family and self to be able to drive around in our cars and eat and drink what we want and wear what we want and say what we want.  If nothing else, I want to be able to sit at my expensive computer and type out what I think and have it be available for others to read and think about and talk about with their friends without being persecuted.  I am free and I value that above... anything else.  I want it for everyone but not everyone can have it.  Maybe this isn't just and lord knows it makes me feel guilty.  

This guilt, and this fear, is bought and paid for.  I am happy to keep paying.

This is disorganized.