So I found Airwolf online for viewing, and have been piping it to my fancy new TV, watching 80’s reruns like I’ve never seen them before. And something interesting just came up. Ernest Borgnine has been one of my favorite actors since I was a youngster. He’s not super-bad like Clint Eastwood, not pretty like Vin Diesel. He’s approachable, the friendly kind of fellow that I could leave my kids with for an hour while I run to the store, and would expect they’d be munching on chocolate chip cookies when I returned.

The episode I’m watching is the sixth, in which his character, Dominic Santini, attempts a dangerous movie stunt. At issue is the question of his age, whether or not he’s getting to old to pull off the feat. With some frustration, he expresses that he’s not ready to retire yet.

That was something like 25 years ago. He’d be 92 today. So imagine my surprise when I looked him up on wikipedia, and he is in fact 92 today, and still working as an actor, including the occasional cameo appearance on Spongebob Squarepants as Mermaid Man. 25 years ago, there was a debate as to whether or not he was old enough to retire. Today, the debate is clearly and soundly settled. He’s still working. I’d rather enjoy meeting him, I suspect.

I’m trying my best to get Youtube and a few other online TV sites to play nicely with Ubuntu. It has been a minor headache. The thing that never seems to come up in any of the how-to’s is Hardware Acceleration.

Right-click in the flash window, and disable hardware acceleration.

What’s that for? It’s not as though Flash is doing high-volume hardware texturing and lighting. Bizarre.

My biggest political notion, in light of the Portland Police’s predilection for shooting civilians, has always been to gut the police budget, cutting it to something approaching 15% of its current levels, and reallocating all of the funds to education. It would ultimately turn the town into an educational mecca, the sort of place that people move to specifically to get their children the best possible education. Good things will come of filling an entire city with people whose first priority is education.

Tonight, I watched my fiancee call and attempt to file a non-emergency police report, and while waiting outside my job in the cold for them to show up, watched three cruisers slide calmly by, no lights or sirens, and completely ignore me.

The premise people will continue to throw around when it comes to eviscerating the police budget is that response times will go up. Many of the people suggesting that outcome will in fact be police officers and union members just trying to avoid layoffs. I can’t help but think that if layoffs were 85% of personnel at all levels, that the 15% remaining would be far more efficient, and response times might actually decrease. Underdogs are often far more successful in achieving goals. In any case, I wouldn’t watch three cruisers go by ignoring someone who needed them an hour ago.

When you buy a Geo, you suddenly begin to notice everyone else who drives a Geo. It’s a scientifically documented fact. When you’re waiting to become a parent, you might notice parenting advice and pregnant people, but when you actually become a parent, you’ll quickly focus on watching the parenting techniques of those around you, and if you’re clever enough, note the results.

I’m no exception. I’ve seen parents let their children raise themselves solo, providing no structure whatsoever, and ultimately coming to suffer a close association with rude, manipulative bullies of their own design.

I heard it said once or twice while living down South how important it is to teach your kids respect and smack them around a bit while they’re little so they don’t turn on you when they’re big enough to do real damage. The more conscientious parents season that by evolving it into a sense of the importance of teaching respect. Specifically, if they’re not taught respect while they’re small, they’ll come back and hurt you when they’re grown. Indeed, the very same advice is often given in the Southernmost parts of the country relevant to raising puppies into dogs.

Raising your children, or pets, by being mean and hateful toward them, but showing a constant lack of kindness or respect, can create offspring and animals that will eventually turn on you and strike back, bigger and stronger.

My parents have raised a child into a man watching their overwhelming fear, and often suffering as a result of the fears of the adults around him, observing how once-great people can drop and run away from their sanity without looking back. For my part, I think I’ve managed to escape the fear relatively unscathed, aside from a bitter taste in my mouth when I smell the fears of those around me.

But now, I’m within physical striking distance of the crazy people, the result of my decision to move close to my friends and family (not to be confused with relatives) when I divorced my ex-wife. Now, I’m close enough that they can actually go out of their way to spread fear and negativity over the people I love and care about most: my wife and children.

I’ve reminded my father once or twice that a man left with no legal recourse is left only with illegal recourse. I’ve learned that goons and lawyers in the same room will never intimidate one another because they speak different languages of dominance, and know that their language is the one that involves lawyers and money.

When an animal is backed into a corner, it will politely show claws and teeth before attacking to defend itself. Last week, I mailed a certified letter, a cease-and-desist letter demanding they cease all contact with my family.

Will they see the claws and teeth? Will they be clever enough to understand the danger of continuing to harass my family? Will they be prudent enough, at least, to sense the danger and leave us alone altogether?

I confess to being torn. I spent two and a half hours berating my father for not attempting to put his foot down to stop my mother’s unacceptable, childish, malevolent behavior, both now and in the past. It felt good to finally verbalize the terrible way I felt every time I’ve tried to keep things positive with them, and it felt good to finally accept the way things truly are, to embrace the reality that nothing good can come of someone so encumbered with their fears that they have to impose them on those around them. I’m torn between the hope that giving up and walking away will mean lasting peace, and the desire to engage, to exact some sort of retribution on behalf of myself and my family.

But what could that possibly accomplish, except to further spread their malice? Certainly, there is no way to undo any damage, only to make more. The frightening part is embodied by the words “will stop at nothing.” When someone will stop at nothing, and their path lies across a swath of damage in your family, then you have to choose to accept damage to your family, or moving unilaterally to put it to a stop. These are the circumstances under which nuclear weapons begin to seem just the slightest bit rational in their scope: when your adversary chooses not only to be an adversary, but also that they will stop at nothing to harm you.

Can they understand how much I just want to disengage with every rational part of me, and how much I just want to strike back for the hurt they’ve caused my family?

It’s a bit like “how does one prevent viruses on linux” or “How does one replace the distributor cap on a diesel”? It simply does not apply. In the corporate licensed (locked) world, Windows cannot and will not afford the cost of unlocking DVD’s for every potential user and purpose, so it falls to individual applications to decode DVD’s for playing. Much of the cost of PowerDVD and its ilk comes from proprietary CSS libraries that are incorporated into the program itself. Newer DVD’s require installation of a special program to handle this on a disk-specific basis.

AnyDVD and DVD43 remove CSS protection so that ideally any software package will have access to the contents of any disk. If encryption is updated, only your decryption program needs to be updated, and only a small part of it, not the collection of other programs you’ve got installed already.

This is clearly the simplest solution, though ultimately expensive and legally muddy. The makers of these programs are daily faced with the decision of paying protection fees to content owners to reassure them that they’re being reimbursed for the possibility of illegal DVD copying, or just ignoring their protecion fees altogether, and risking litigation ala DeCSS.

Under Windows, Microsoft retains ultimate control, and no one risks going rogue because along with lawsuits, content owners can simply require Microsoft to shut down a particular program in its next Windows Update. Linux has no such central authority. There is, generally speaking, no one to sue, no one to file an injunction against, no one to threaten. Having a centralized decryption library makes the most sense, and is the simplest solution for DVDs.

libdvdcss accomplishes this, so once it’s installed, it’s as though DVD43 or AnyDVD is always running. By the same token, without libdvdcss, all encrypted dvd’s will appear broken in all programs. We don’t worry about some Hollywood movie conspiracy making a virus to disable libdvdcss, because the thought of allowing anyone else to run our systems, including a virus, is just silly. Additionally, so is the notion of having to install anything proprietary to do anything else.

Actually, you’ll find Ubuntu a good starting place, if nothing else because there’s a simple how-to for just about everything. And everyone is terribly kind about posting commands to use. They’re governed by a community of people who want you to succeed because they want Ubuntu to succeed, so malicious users are few and far between, and rigorously persecuted.

The short of it is that if you’ve got linux on your system and want to [make coffee automatically, change the channel on your tv, send an email] there’s a means of doing so and a how-to as well.

Except for DirectX gaming.

I’d like to believe my story is one to inspire amazement, insight, or even moral fortitude. But these are not things I control, because mine is not to read the story or understand its impact. Mine is merely to write it, and put myself into it sincerely and honestly. I know that glossing over ones faults doesn’t make a story more glorious, and glorifying my mistakes wouldn’t make it more compelling. Inventing details or integrating parables won’t accomplish anything except to confuse me as I recount not only the events, but my understanding of them.

I’ll not set down a chronicle or cold sequence, nor wallow in emotional drivel. It is what it is.

But to me, it is compelling. To me, life is insightful, morally demanding, and above all, interesting.

Make no mistake, we are not free, in this “free country” of ours. The plow horse cannot help but feel the tug of the bridle at each step, and whether it chooses to chafe at it or not, it cannot help but taste the bit in its mouth, and feel the rein on its neck. Much care has been given to making ours a comfortable slavery, to camouflage our trappings and imprisonment, but make no mistake, we are bound nonetheless. This part of my story will probably occupy much of my attention for some time.

It’s depressing, sucks the life out of my desire to write, to come home and find that the three-quarters finished posting I’d started has been closed out by someone else using the computer. Like a lazy moron, I’ve grown lax with modern conveniences like autosave, and almost completely abandoned my paranoid failsafe techniques, such as writing and saving a posting to a text file locally, and only copying and pasting the finished post in its entirety.

The internet allows me to be long-winded, which perhaps is what I really need. Is it sick and sad that more than a need to be heard, I have a need to talk? In my brighter, happier moments, I’d like to think I’m a bit of a prophet, attuned to the fabric of the cosmos around me, and able to help and heal those I speak to by knowing precisely what they need to hear. Or more often, having no direct knowledge of what I’m supposed to be saying, no personal understanding of the advice I’m giving, except to try to articulate the energy around me into words. At darker times, I wonder if a prophet is simply someone with the instinctual need to talk who merely adopts wisdom and forethought as coping mechanisms for functioning in polite society.

It really doesn’t help that everyone around me is so darn accommodating, and that some of the things I say actually seem to help. The two folks I’ve helped work on a particular area of performance at work are doing rather well lately, enough of a tease to make me suspect just for a moment that I actually know something of value. But realistically, and terrified of the manifold dangers of hubris, I know deep down that I am who I am because I’m standing in this particular spot at this very moment, and as soon as I move to a different spot, will cease to be useful in this way, replaced by whomever else comes along. It is a blessing to serve.

I do have an instinctual need to write, a buildup of pressure not unlike sexual tension that has to be released once in awhile for my head to stay clear. Last night’s post was brilliant and unique, or at least it felt inventive, and the thought of starting it over from scratch is draining, dismal, and oppressive, which abates the urge not in the slightest.

Thus, I trifle with this jot, in hopes I can clear my mind, and be able to take a leaner, more well-reasoned approach to the idea next time I can’t stand to be in the same room with my ideas for another minute.

And maybe I’ll save my unprintable work next time.

It is humbling that my poor past post is missing altogether. Flagged down, perhaps? Or worse, did I do something clever, like forget in my haste to confirm the posting?

There is today a growing gap between the rich and poor. Convenient as it might be to point fingers at America, our recent crises have only served to humble us help us to share a plight with the entire human race, rather than politely acting as saviors and liberators, always pausing to wash our hands when we finish. If complete and total economic ruin is required to remind us of our own humanity, so be it. It is a priceless lesson that we all must learn.

The struggle to either clarify or eliminate the gap between rich and poor is an ongoing and repetitive conflict, and to not see it playing out in American politics requires blindness or silliness. In the United States, it takes the form of corporate blundering and dehumanization.

America wasn’t always in its current state of division, but one of the most fundamental principles, that of a tendency of certain individuals to accumulate material wealth, is an inevitable outgrowth of a thriving financial system, America being no exception. Our country, our economy, and our culture act together as a living entity, in a constant flux of change and growth, and a perpetual slide of theater and distraction.

Thinking on a grander scale, how far we have come as a race, and ultimately ours is a shared prosperity at the end of it! Once, in the dim mists of antiquity, ours was a collective struggle between the haves and have-nots for our very survival. There were times when those with the power of fire survived, and those without perished. More recently, we moved to a point where those without resources discovered that it was possible to violently overthrow those with a monopoly on resources and violent force. A subtle shift, but it was critical that we begin to rediscover the power of the masses.

Now we have made another brilliant discovery, the notion of non-violent non-cooperation, the simple realization that slavery ultimately requires the cooperation of both captor and slave.

Ghandi listed the fundamental principles of non-violent revolution, elaborated on its benefits, and ultimately proved its effectiveness. His basic principles can largely be summed up as elminating the notion of “us vs. them”. When we can all, rich and poor, understand that our common adversary is the chasm between us (cultural, financial, educational, or otherwise) and not one another, our prosperity will be a shared one.

Martin Luther King, Jr. emulated the philosophies of Mohandas Ghandi with great success, but any continuing gap between black and white highlights the fact that while the actions were similar, he failed largely due to the lack of a corresponding cultural shift on both sides, due no doubt to his assassination. While healing a partial rift in the south, people still walk around with a notion of “us” and “them”.

We must evolve our ways of thinking to achieve peace, or we will remain no better than violent animals. We must challenge our basic assumptions to achieve cultural literacy, or we will develop no further than a masked and decorated feudalism.

I can hear my own parents now, wondering why their son has turned to new-age feel-good warm fuzzy togetherness after being brought up to know better. It is this very tendency to try to educate our young to think in those terms that must be overcome.

Someone once told me that true change takes several generations: one to stage a revolt, one to tolerate the change, one to begin to live the change, and finally one to be born into a completely new way of life.

We need to begin reading our Ghandi.

One day, Locke, I’ll be happy to wield the tiniest (and most kind) bit of power from orbit, and allow you to be the ruthless but practical face of the future. It amazes me how strong our friendship, in spite of (or because of) how completely opposite we are. I’ve been blogging this whole time and basking in my complete lack of an audience, practicing writing without public opinion to lend a hand, and thought it high time I do some good.

But to the point!

Chicago is pushing for a camera on every street corner, much the same way Clinton once spoke of a cop on every corner. Perhaps in an inner-city war zone that sort of strategy might make sense. In an occupied territory, that might make sense. Many things make sense in the heat of battle that seem inappropriate elsewhere.

One could quickly and easily argue that in the relatively civilized and polite city of Portland, an over-abundance of trigger-happy officers, armed to the teeth and eager to shoot someone in the face to break the monotony, proves ill-suited in a host of ways. They impinge upon our freedom. They intrude upon our privacy. Their tendency for bullying makes the streets less safe than the presence of the criminals they claim to thwart. They feel themselves to be above the law, and thus damage the rule of law, making Portland a little bit less civilized by their daily choice of behavior. A paranoid, ill-tempered, well-fortified security force might be the solution to the streets of Kabul or Mogadishu, but Portland is a different city. I don’t have to be judgmental or high-minded to suggest that other places in other circumstances call for completely different approaches to the question of security.

But what in fact is the question of security? A series of assumptions about what the question entails result in the wild variation in the answers offered.

I have been involved with the raising of small children, and one of my favorite techniques when their methods of communication were inadequate was to disallow a particular method altogether. They soon found themselves required to describe a wide array of emotional responses on par with adults when fussing and crying went mostly ignored. They learned that there was no such thing as being “bad” or “good”, only what you do and do not do. Consequently, it was far more effective to have a discussion about obedience or manners rather than just telling them to stop being bad, and be good instead.

In the same manner, let’s drop the question of “security” altogether for now, and focus on describing what we would each like to see accomplished in concrete terms that can be measured and achieved. We quickly see two distinct questions emerge, as different from one another as can be, and both claiming the title of “security.” The first set of goals, shared almost universally, find their voice in the Magna Carta: to be able to maintain ones home and raise a family free from unnecessary interference. This includes notions such as privacy, a desire to avoid home invasion, and personal safety. The other question, one that becomes stickier, and ultimately proves destructive to the first set of aims, is the desire for control. It takes many forms, from neighborhood associations to lawsuits, but boils down to a desire to mitigate the changing world around us, and limit the number of unpleasant surprises we might face.

Different cultures balance these two competing notions in a variety of manifestations, ranging from outright totalitarianism at one extreme to something not unlike the nascent American representative democracy, a miracle of design in the face of technological and informational limitations. But so long as these are all described as a struggle to “enforce” or “ensure” security, there will be confusion.

The more group-conscious will see a struggle for civilization and culture in all its diverse forms. They walk around with a desire to limit crime, to make it difficult and painful to harm your neighbor, to prevent it whenever possible. Others will see it as a struggle for control. These are the types trying to make it more and more complicated to get on an airplane or buy a nasal decongestant. You’ll notice that their efforts in these areas, often costly and intrusive, completely fail to ensure personal safety in any way and seem to be more distraction and obfuscation than doing anything to improve quality of life.

Chicago is trying to put cameras on every street corner, making huge strides in establishing control over an uncoordinated populace, and completely failing to make any conscious effort to make it a safer city in which to live or visit.

Portland and its ilk tend to favor the notion of self-determinism, gently paraphrased as “freedom.” It is this thing alone, not weather, economics, or environmentalism that make Portland the wonderful place to live that it has become. This is what we value, and what we have purchased. We set out specifically each morning to make our home a comfortable one, and that is what our efforts have borne. In a city where individuals set out to dominate those around them, to concentrate their power and monopoly on the use of violent force, what other outcome can their possibly be but an edgy police state?

This is all lovely rhetoric, but I do in fact have an aim.

Ghandi made his big push using “civil disobedience,” another way of saying “polite rebellion,” and we can already see examples in recent history. When it was discovered that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were using torture to interrogate detainees, several state legislatures and municipalities passed resolutions specifically making torture illegal, drawing attention to the fact that the greater whole, the United States, had no such law, much to our collective embarrassment. When the NSA began raiding telecommunications companies for phone records, Qwest politely rebelled, refusing as much as possible to cooperate.

I would like to propose, much to the embarrassment of Chicago, a law of civil disobedience. In the City of Portland, it should be unlawful to operate an unmanned camera or recording device on public property for any reason.

Before anyone gets frustrated about the thought of removing dash cams from police cars, ask yourself whether it’s more dangerous at the end of the day to have less police oversight in a freer city, or more police oversight in a surveillance society. Allow me to answer: power-hungry men will control all of the footage every time. Any other result is an illusion. Those who would operate a surveillance camera want control, to prevent you from selling drugs, or demonstrating without a license, or loitering too long in one place. Those same recordings quickly disappear when they might inconveniently expose an abuse of power. It takes breathtaking naivete to expect anything else, here, in Chicago, or anywhere.

Plato once imagined a world of atoms, tiny particles to small to accurately imagine, impossible to ever see.  He explained that these were the fundamental building blocks of our universe, that nothing smaller could exist.  While bits of rudimentary materials science had dabbled in chemistry and engineering, he was busy considering things on a much smaller, more detailed scale.  One wonders if he sheepishly doubted the absolute limit of size he’d set forth, believing the world to be much, much smaller than even he could imagine.

Centuries later, we refer to Planck’s Constant, and the Planck Length as the smallest possible unit of granularity in our universe.  Plato had every bit as much reason to believe his atom was the ultimate basis for all matter, and we brazenly declare that nothing smaller than the Planck Length could possibly exist, that we’ve found the deepest resolution of reality itself.

Paleontologists watch the grand sweep of history over millennia, and tell their stories, huge sweeping swaths of time in which ice ages occupy a sentence, and all of human history an afterthought.  They measure and imagine, and when we read their stories we imagine with them, and try to learn from what has been on this planet before us.  We sigh, and content ourselves with scratching the surface, because that is literally all we are currently capable of doing, pricking tiny holes and scratching shallow inscriptions in the surface of our home.  We are humbled to note that men of irresistable power and their immortal empires, after a blink of an eye, are rubble and dust, with hungry seekers finding little more than crumbs hinting at their once mighty existence.

Historians craft a different sort of story.  Theirs is a world of names and dates, a curious interplay of political forces and intrigue, documenting wars and treaties, rises and falls, intermarriage, campaigns, kingdoms and martyrdoms, documents and fragments, a flurry of dots connected after the fact by so many forensic magicians.  We take delight in our occasional discoveries that someone’s cousin or lover was important, if not then certainly now.  Because the power of hard science with its facts and figures plays weak second to documentation and substantiated allegation, men are tempted from time to time to lately bestow honor or dishonor, nobility or ignominy.  We silently wonder what part we might play in the greater scheme, and whether our name will be mentioned a thousand years from now.

Biographies draw us in more quickly to a world more recent and more personal, a tasty hybrid of personal storytelling and an attempt to incorporate it into a broader context.  The human predilection for focusing on abstract hard facts in lieu of tangible life lessons is evident in the Bible.  Consider how many books are devoted to the chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah, with a scant 31 chapters devoted to the lessons they learned.  We find ourselves glancing at the annals of the kings of America and Europe, but only the oddball beatnik reads the likes of Ghandi or the Dalai Lama.  There are lessons to be learned from contemplating the scope of a man’s life, single-dose mantras that generally boil down to “follow your dreams”.

In reality, much of history does in fact come down to following your dreams.  If one thing is frightfully apparent, it is the ephemeral nature of a human life, as tangible as a dream upon waking.  The only thing history guarantees us in cold, harsh terms is that our quietest whimper and earth-shakingest roar will be equally erased before ten thousand years are past.

Individual journals can provide close-up snapshots of daily life, although we again find ourselves limited by the bias toward history.  One might argue that the journals of the Whitmans are not so informative when they mention the distance the traveled on a given day, or the number of souls saved, as to encourage later settlers to not abuse the natives.

But the main consideration here is that reality is a fractal.  Before we’d even discovered Plato’s atom, we’d discovered molecules.  Leptons and hadrons were next, and even quarks may be made up of smaller bits.  But no smaller than what Max Planck will allow.  Probably.  There is always more detail to be discovered, whole odysseys to be indulged at the controls of a magnifying glass, alien landscapes living under an electron microscope.

Patterns emerge in the sweep of epochs and eons, histories and biographies.  And always, no matter how much more closely we look more detail and more beauty emerge.  We can find beauty in following the course of the Bible, take lessons from its progression from Adam’s Fall to Christ’s Redemption.  We can follow the path of Christ, and see a trend pointing toward the value of the individual.  But we can look closer, and other truths emerge, such as the value of family and loyalty when we read of Ruth and Naomi.  Even from individual stories multiple principles can be derived.

If the sweep of history has its strange beauty, if the stories of great leaders carry their truths, how much beauty is there to be found at the 1:1 level of detail, in the living of life itself?  There is no comparing a parable teaching us to cherish those who are close to us, to the smell of your lover’s hair, or the unfettered abandon in the embrace of your children.  You can read a thousand stories of great men stumbling over their own hubris.  But look sharp!  You may only get one chance to stumble over your own.

And this is the terrible truth of reality television, that we find the daily goings-on of others so terrifically fascinating, without catching the blatant lesson to go out and live our own stories.  Executives, living their own dreams, see millions of viewers.  Meanwhile, millions of lives are put on pause to soak in canned micro-biographies meant to sell detergent and movie tickets.

I’m fading fast, and struggling to find the end to encapsulate what I was feeling moments ago.  It’s night, the house is terribly quiet, my children are in bed, and my own bed is cold because I’ve chased my beloved off to go see a doctor so she can be over her bronchitis.  There are traces of snow on the ground outside, and the air is crisp, without biting too badly.  My kids have got their nightly hug and kiss in bed, which reminds me that I spend more time than I’d like teaching and chastising, and not as much time as I’d like snuggling and playing.  I strike a delicate balance between ruining their future with a pleasant and carefree childhood, and the knowledge that there’s a sea of stories of those who lost their children early and find themselves wishing their final moments had been just a little gentler.

Early tomorrow, long before the sun comes up, I’ll get out of bed and drive to work to collect debts and help keep the economy moving, not because the bank has any real need for a particular payment, but because tomorrow as a result of my prodding and insistence, someone will finish the day having met their obligation, hard though it may be, instead of having given up on one more thing.  I’ll have spent the morning with several friends, hard-working genuine people in the same line of work.

And frankly, I’ll sleep much better having got this down on paper, and no longer rattling around my head.

Live your dreams.