Can A Transhuman Future Survive Without Libertarian Ideals?

As a transhumanist, I am all too keenly aware of the good and the ill that can come of technology. One technology, however, that seems to have only ills springing from it these days is that of surveillance technology. Consider, for example the perhaps not so infamous as it ought to be 'dragonfly spy':

The little robot you see on the fingertip is a prototype created by the Harvard Microrobotics Lab. While it does not carry any optical equipment -- there are optics of sufficiently small size to fit. More on this particular topic can be found at the Sydney Morning Herald's article, "Washington abuzz with talk of dragonfly spies". There are many obstacles to the development of such machines -- and, to be frank, they offer a multitude of uses beyond mere surveillance. For the moment, however, we'll discuss 'merely' surveillance.

There is another, perhaps more insidious, approach which has been suggested which entails literally growing insects around MEMS devices. What possible benefit to the would-be super-spy is there in this, you ask? Well, the answer to that question becomes more prevalent when one considers that researchers have already -- if crudely -- decoded the neural activity of a cat's brain into visual information.



So you see -- we may come to a point where it will literally be possible -- from a sensory point of view -- to be a "fly on a wall." This becomes all the more troublesome when we consider that -- regardless of Ray Kurzweils's 'law' of accelarating returns -- technological development is outstripping society's ability to regulate our machines. There's nothing really new about that idea -- but still; it is strongly worth paying attention to when we consider the advocates of regulation for new, 'existentially risky' technologies -- such as molecular manufacturing, or synthetic biology, or viral engineering, or... well, by now the point is clear. Surveillance, however, is the name of today's game. More and more, we are told that the new cameras being installed are for our own protection; that they are to prevent crime and the like. Now, numerous studies have shown that they really can't be said to do any such thing:

According to the information, London police solve only 21 percent of all crimes, and the rate of success does not appear to have any correlation to the number of CCTV cameras installed in each borough.

The numbers led a spokesperson for the group to say, "Some of this money might have been better spent on police officers. Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in preventing or detecting crime and too often still, calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is time we engaged in an open debate about the role of CCTV cameras in London today."

So what, then would the impact -- let alone impetus -- of such advanced technologies as 'bug-cameras' be on society? Given the FBI's now infamous abuse of "national security letters" to bypass the 4^th Amendment (that'd be the one that protects "a bloke" from "unreasonable search and seizure"), is there any doubt that, left in the hands of government agencies, these devices would find their way into uses we could not now either imagine nor approve? But, of course -- as I already hinted at -- such devices almost never stay solely in the hands of our governments -- trustworthy or otherwise. And as technology itself becomes more and more readily manufactured by the private citizen, the question facing us is this:

How, exactly, will we adapt to the fact that legislation will be completely inadequate to the task of protecting us from our own ingenuity?

And that's a very, very serious question -- however, it doesn't seem to be one that even my fellow transhumanists recognize, which I personally find troublesome. Consider this another political screed, then: it is abundantly clear that our technologies will never be sanitized, never be made safe by bureaucracies nor by legislation. The 'kiddy porn' epidemic is only another example of this -- things that are legal and perfectly fine, such as a fourteen year old engaging in sexual acts on film, in some former Soviet Bloc countries; these things are profoundly illegal (let alone immoral) here in the 'States. This, 'once upon a time', wouldn't have been an issue -- but communications technology has changed that, as it seems everyone is now aware. As it is, it remains abundantly clear that our government is either incapable or else simply lacks the desire to react to new technologies and techniques. Much like the constant white-hat/ black-hat divide -- or the ongoing 'hacking the iPhone' saga -- bureaucratic organizations; such as religious institutions and yes, the ubiquitously mentioned yet nebulously referenced, "Government", are simply incapable of doing anything more than react to the machinations of "Progress." It's the nature of the beast. This leaves us with a simple question:

What possible solution is there to even mitigate the risks to society that new technologies and techniques present?

Yes, yes -- I know: I'm being about as subtle as a lead ingot dropped on your head from the top of the Empire State Building (how's that for a visual?) And of course the answer -- or at least the one I propose -- is equally as 'subtle'... and equally as simple.

Entrust the protection of society to... social expectations. It is my proposition that the only societies which will survive the raw power that futuristic developments represent will be ones that, much as with the advent of nuclear weapons, are possessed of powerfully strong social mores against their improper use (power plants = okay, global thermonuclear warfare = bad). And here's the catch: So long as we expect our bureaucratic institutions -- and those institutions alone -- to provide for our security and provender, we are essentially doomed to the abuse of new devices -- such as our friendly dragonfly spy cams. And that, ladies and gentlemen of my audience, is exactly the reason behind the "libertarian" argument: socializing the idea of personal responsibility, of the idea that being irresponsible is perhaps the single most immoral, or reprehensible, behavior one can engage in. To get there, we libertarians realize, will require a great deal of change in our ways of doing business and in what we believe government is "good for." It's a simplistic screed -- but it's a vitally important one, if we expect to have the best of all possible outcomes.

How Many "Breakthroughs" Away Are We From The Sex 'Droids?

Perhaps there are more tasteful ways to put that point. But when you combine the American invention -- the "RealDoll" -- with this latest development from (where else) Japan, of a robot that performs facial massages, yet another advent of science-fiction seems ever more the likely.

What development is that, you ask? Why, this one:

It's a minor step -- but the idea of objects (inanimate or otherwise) performing and being used for human luxuries seems to be more and more... common nowadays. One can only imagine that it won't be too long now until some entrepeneurial spirit figures out he can rig up a -- by then -- simple machine to something like the RealDoll, and then rent 'her' (or 'his') time to johnny-on-the-street.

What makes this interesting is: will the moral crusaders see fit to try and ban such an activity, should it develop? And -- if they don't -- what, then, is the justification for telling a real flesh-and-bone woman that she can't do the same with her own body?

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies?

Tragedies can strike anywhere, at any time. There is no real pattern to be discerned from when and where mad gunmen will strike -- saving that they tend to commit their mass shootings on so-called 'gun free zones' -- but when the mad gunman is himself a policeman, we have to ask: who will protect us from the people whom are supposed to protect us?

Insanity At The Gates

So I admit it -- today is a bit of a slow news day. But those of us with a Transhumanist mindset also tend to keep our eyes on the future; while many also take on the label of "progressive", not all of us do. Either way, however, this eye on the prize, as it were, gives us a perspective that not everybody else can perceive. Today I will share the benefit of this perspective with you, my reader. Forgive me if you've already seen this particular item already.

What is it, precisely, that I'm talking about? That would be nothing short of the apparent revivalism of the Soviet/American "Cold War". Now, this has been discussed by this blog before, when I asked: "Could Somebody Please Tell Me What Year It Is?" So some of this is apparently just recision, or iteration, for my 'regulars'. For those of you whom are not -- consider the following:

There's more to this, of course -- a good deal more. Today, I pull -- perhaps hedonistically would be too strong of a word? -- from the AP:

President Vladimir Putin announced in August that Russia was resuming long-range bomber flights over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans for the first time since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Russian Air Force officials in Moscow could not be reached for comment after hours. They have repeatedly said that the planes were not violating any nation's airspace or any international agreements.

But in mid-September, British and Norwegian jets intercepted Russian military aircraft after they breached NATO airspace close to the U.K. and Finland. And on a handful of occasions this year, NATO nations including Britain and Norway have sent fighters to escort Russian bombers nearing their territory.

Now, on it's surface this is no major fiasco; no huge problem, as it were. If a nation wants to saber-rattle, a little, that's just fine. But take this into context; with the opening up of Atlantic-ocean resources, it would seem that the term cold-war could take on more literal meanings than in days past. Further, take into context the fact that Russian law-makers are voting -- unanimously -- to censure former Soviet Union countries for siding with the US over Russia. Add into that the fact that the US and Russia remain the world's largest suppliers of arms to 'developing countries' such as China, India, Pakistan, and the Middle East. It is worth noting that in the last four years -- that is, since 2002, more than 70% of all US arms deals were with Middle Eastern countries.

(Hey, while we're at it, here's a thought: If we're so miffed about Iran supplying the insurgents weapons, why don't we stop supplying the insurgents with weapons first?)

In the meanwhile, however, if the US and Russia are to renew the cold-war era conflicts between one another, which it would seem Vladimir Putin is seeking to accomplish, we have to ask ourselves: who would be cast as the totalitarian police state this time around? I don't mean to be biased -- truly I don't. But between Russia and the US, it is my country that has domestic spying programs. It is my country that wants to use SPY SATELLITES ON ITS OWN POPULACE. It is my country that has an effective real taxation rate of roughly 40% on its entire populace. It is my country that is engaging in extraordinary rendition, and it is my country that is torturing innocent civilians. (See Section IV, second paragraph.) So Again: Which of us is the totalitarian/authoritarian state? Throw in the blatant corporatism of the medical, agro, and energy companies, and the picture gets even worse. Remember; the Soviet Union was defeated due to economic collapse. And if David Walker -- the Comptroller General of the United States -- is only half right, the US isn't that far away from one of its own.

We can't afford to replay history, folks. We "plain and simple", "straight and narrow", can't afford it. At a time when we should be curtailing government spending however possible -- even if by transferring our social security, welfare, and medicare over to private non-profits (as opposed to not-for-profits) so as to benefit from the massive increase in efficiency per dollar spent (This considering that the US has a higher welfare spending rate than any other OECD-listed country save Luxembourg, on a per Capita basis), and thus avoid the need to increase spending over time -- we are instead arguing with ourselves over whether or not to expand the SCHIP program -- meant to care for the nation's poor and needy children -- to cover families which make almost twice the national median income.

Whether it be the revival of the Cold War, the selling of arms and armaments to our sworn enemies, or the spending of money we don't -- and will never -- have, this insanity has got to stop.

Video: Death "Raises Questions" About Gene Therapy

Not too long ago, a woman died tragically and unexpectedly. Her name was Jolee Mohr. A detailed report can also be found here. In short, she died of a fungal infection that became developed, acutely, the day after she received her second injection of a gene-therapy trial viral vector for rheumatoid arthritis. This death is tragic. But given that it was a trial, and that the company involved is doing everything in its power to act responsibly, do we really need to "question" Gene Therapy, or is this just luddist activism encompassing one family's tragic loss? Watch this video, and form your own opinions.

Is Moderate or Bipartisan Politics The Enemy of America?

There is a saying: "[...]extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice [...] moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.". It was spoken by the failed Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, in 1964. It would seem that, today, somehow this has been transmogrified into an endorsement of "extremism in the defense of moderation." Or so, anyhow, our political leadership would have us believe.

It doesn't take very much digging to find it: bipartisanship is apparently the greatest virtue of politics today. Our very own President (I didn't vote for the guy), Mr. Bush, was hailed on this very issue once upon a time. He was to be a "Uniter, not a divider." We were told that he was a "compassionate conservative" and thus could bridge the gap. Now, compassionate conservatism is a separate issue that I won't be going into today, but suffice it to say that I think it is one of the greater deceptions pulled over the eyes of the public today: when you hear "compassionate conservative", expect a theocratic/religious political agenda.

There is, however, a more subtle evil at work in this; "We the People" have been fooled into believing that extreme politics is bad. We have been deceived into thinking that bipartisanship is good moderation. And I am here today to say, that just isn't so. Now, the chances are fairly strong that neither the democratic-socialist agenda (before you respond here, you need to realize that democratic-socialist is a mainly european appelation that specifically applies to American liberalism) nor the conservative agenda will be going away anytime soon. They seem to be too firmly rooted in the basal psyche of the human race. I could not count, if I used all my fingers, toes, and teeth, the number of times I have heard mostly non-political people state that "what we really need in this country is a party that represents the moderate perspective."

There is no such thing as a -- in the singular, unified sense -- moderate perspective. Nor should there be. It is as simple as that.

What our country (America, that is) needs is not moderation. What we need is not bipartisanship. What we need is extremism.

By way of example, there is a much larger than you'd think number of extremists whom belong to the political philosophy called liberal conservatism. That philosophy can be described -- and is, by Wikipedia -- as follows:

Liberal conservatism is a political philosophy which generally means combining elements of "conservatism" with elements of "liberalism". As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings.

Historically, it often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which stressed the importance of laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and, sometimes, although in an increasingly lesser-sense, religious values. In this way it contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.

By way of contrast, there is also "classical liberalism", which today has far more in common with American conservatism than it does American liberalism. Wikipedia again comes to my rescue:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism^[1] and laissez-faire liberalism^[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,^[3], Montesquieu, Voltaire ^[4] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.^[5] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,^[6] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.^[7] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,^[8] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,^[9] which grants a more interventionist role for the state.

Compared to standard conservatism and standard liberalism, both of these political philosophies could be -- quite easily -- called "moderate". And yet, when you see a political moderate in an electoral campaign, they never represent this -- in action, at least.

There's a very good reason for that: the ones who appeal to moderation are in fact appealing to compromise, not moderation. That's precisely why you'll never hear, all too often, of the so-called "radical middle". By way of exemplifying exactly where this sort of compromise thinking leads us, I will now direct your attention (if you're still reading this far in, that is) to the Moderate Party. Or, more specifically, their platform. Reading through it, you'll notice that there is a great deal of "Supports this" and "Supports that" -- but almost no details on how they intend to accomplish it. And when they do engage in actual details, they tend to be contradictory in nature:

The Moderate Party believes that the United States must return to its primary role as international peacekeeper.

The Moderate Party believes that although the United States may disagree with other nations' politically and/or socially inhumane ideologies, where those nations have not directly threatened American security, we do not have the right to preemptory invasion.

Hate to break it to 'em, but you gotta pick one or the other. You can't both be a pacifist nation and have a 'primary role as international peacekeeper'. The two are somewhat contradictory to each other. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't act in other nations; pacifism or non-interventionism is not isolationism. But it does mean that if you're going to walk softly and carry a big stick, you can't go playing whack-a-mole with other countries' petty dictators. (My mind imagines Iran yelling out, "Don't Tase Me, Bro!" -- while wearing a burkha, since countries are traditionally referred to in the feminine sense. A characteristic I've always found peculiar.)

So what is the general argument I make here, today? It's relatively simple enough: if extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, then let us no longer shun the kooks, the crazies, and the extremists, from the arena of politics. Let's give up on the appearance of agreement and consensus; instead, let us move on to having politicians who say what they mean, are respected for it, and actually attempt to accomplish what they say they will. As opposed to the shenanigans we now get to endure, where a Democratic majority was elected on the basis of getting us out of Iraq... and what we get is a non-binding resolution that can't get passed and a Speaker of the House who refuses to act on the articles of Impeachment despite there being a number of members of congress having endorsed them against both Bush and Cheney. And why? Because it won't get the votes. That is sheer weak-willed duplicity, and it's time we as a nation called both the White House and Capital Hill on it; that we told them, effectively, "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."

Joke of the Day: Equipping The Young

The image is also a link to the source.

Video: Anybody Remember the "TB Guy"?

Whilst digging around for material, as I am wont to do, I came across this little tidbit, and could not help but think the blogger's equivalent of "Remember the Alamo!!": Remember that guy who was the first to be quarantined by the CDC in the US since 1963? Yeah, well, turns out his tuberculosis wasn't "end-of-the-world OMGZORZ" after all. And he's "Free At Last!" Anybody want to guess how long it will take before he sues the federal government and has his case thrown out due to State's Secrets?

How Much Would It Cost To Become Transhuman?

Most Transhumanists look to the future as the time of enhanced human experience. It's symptomatic of the transhumanist condition; we're all futurists. To our minds, who wouldn't want the shiny new metal arm with the strength of a hundred men, or to be able to quote Neo and utter the infamous line, "I know Kung-Fu!" thanks to a brain-computer interface implant. And this is, of course, the primary criticism of our 'cause.' So, from time to time, it behooves us to recall that improvements to the human condition are already within today's technological reach. And more-over -- they're within the reach of Joe Everyman.

This piece is in many ways a follow-up to a previous article, "The Organic Transhumanist":

As it turns out, it is possible to induce savantism using transcranial magnetic stimulation:

The Medtronic was originally developed as a tool for brain surgery: by stimulating or slowing down specific regions of the brain, it allowed doctors to monitor the effects of surgery in real time. But it also produced, they noted, strange and unexpected effects on patients' mental functions: one minute they would lose the ability to speak, another minute they would speak easily but would make odd linguistic errors and so on. A number of researchers started to look into the possibilities, but one in particular intrigued Snyder: that people undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, could suddenly exhibit savant intelligence -- those isolated pockets of geniuslike mental ability that most often appear in autistic people.

(More on this here).

There's much more on piece, covering nootropics and transcranial magnetic stimulation in general, but what was distinctly absent was, of course, resources which purported to show the availability of these mechanisms.

Today, I will correct this error.

Another blog, "MindHacks", was in many ways instrumental to accomplishing this goal: it turns out that there are two, closely related, movements to produce my favorite of favorites: open-source (Author's Note: Open Source is Made of Win.) 'hacks' ... of our minds. I know, I know -- who would have ever guessed that a blog entitled "MindHacks" would discuss how to hack our minds? The very idea is just out of left field, yes? Okay... </sarcasm>. Those two 'movements' are the Open EEG group and the Open rTMS group. The Open rTMS has a link to a site that offers TMS devices, depending on the desired level of complexity, for between 65 to 220 dollars, with 5.00 shipping. Unfortunately, in the realm of neurofeedback, the resources are... somewhat less available. As discussed in their FAQ: The current estimate is around 200 USD for the electronics. Parts like a box, electrodes, cables and batteries will raise the cost, but by how much depends largely on what you assemble yourself (e.g cables) or buy.. It's worth noting that a medical-grade EEG device would cost roughly 8,000.00 USD. So a 400.00 expenditure with a few man-hours is no big feat, comparatively speaking.

But still, let's say we're splurging, and not sharing, here: 500 for the Neurofeedback device. 250 (for nice round numbers) for the TMS device. Both of which can produce nootropic effects. So, ask yourself: is 750 dollars worth the ability to periodically sleep for only 2 hours for the day, increase your IQ by up to 30 points, and be effectively 'stress-free'?

If all of this is too much commitment for you, however -- or just not enough -- there's another route one can take: the pharmacological. The nootropic drug touted in The Organic Transhuman was "Modafinil", or "ProVigil". Well, it turns out that Modafinil is a restricted drug in the US; it requires a prescription to obtain. And that can put a cramp in the admittedly quite ill-advised home-brewed self-nootropic-medicator's style. But all is not lost: it turns out that there is a drug, which when digested becomes modafinil, which is not so restricted. In fact, it isn't regulated in the United States at all -- despite the fact that it is manufactured by the same agency. It is called Adrafinil. From Adrafinil's Wikipedia entry:

Adrafinil is a prodrug; it is primarily metabolized in vivo to modafinil (Provigil®), resulting in nearly identical pharmacological effects. Unlike modafinil, however, it takes time for the metabolite to accumulate to active levels in the bloodstream. Effects usually are apparent within 45-60 minutes when taken orally on an empty stomach. [...] Adrafinil does not currently have FDA approval in the United States, although it is used in France and elsewhere in Europe. The drug is marketed by the American pharmaceutical company Cephalon, which acquired Group Lafon in 2001, under the brand name Olmifon.

Also from the Wikipedia entry:

In United States, adrafinil is currently unregulated.

Various resources, uncovered during my research, indicated that the 'best' site to acquire adrafinil within the US is a site called Biogenesis.com. There, one can acquire a 1-month supply for $33.25. Thus, a one-year supply would be in the order of 350 dollars.

Added up, that's ~$1,100.00 USD. Now, ask yourself; is "mild" transhumanity at that price too much to ask?

Now, for the record: This is all stuff that is at the 'leading edge' of medical science. That means, people, that What the drawbacks and side-effects of using TMS, neurofeedback, and pharmacologic nootropics, are -- is unknown.. Do this stuff AT YOUR OWN RISK. This is, of course, all legal -- and thus as a libertarian I can't tell "you" not to do this -- but it is worth noting that, even as a transhumanist, the person writing this entry has not partaken of these items.

The Niemöller Test -- The UF Student Tasering Meets Voltaire

Much ado has been made around the 'blagosphere' as the author of the webcomic, XKCD likes to call it, and in the mainstream media, of a certain ranting prankster who committed the heinous act of jumping the line and ranting three questions at John Kerry during a Q&A session. For this, he was forcibly removed, 'resisted arrest', and was subdued using multiple pain-compliance techniques, not the least of which was the now-infamous tasering.

Many people seem to be of the impression that this fellow "got what he deserved" -- after all, if he didn't want to be tasered, he shouldn't have created a ruckus, right? And it would seem that he wanted to get arrested; that he wanted the police to arrest him. Why else would he have handed off his own video camera to a student he didn't know and ask her to film him -- asking very poignantly, "Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?"

This of course is from the report by the New York Time's blog, "The Lede":

Moreover, one of the widely circulated videos of the incident was filmed with his own camera. As he pushed his way toward the microphone to put his questions to Senator Kerry, he handed his camera to Clarissa Jessup, a student he didn’t know, and asked her to record him.

Then, just as his diatribe was heating up, he turned to Ms. Jessup and said, “Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?,” according to the police report.

A very poignant response to this item was made by one "Kristina" in the comments section of that blog, which definitely and powerfully needs to be heard elsewhere: "Saying that he was a prankster so he deserved to get tasered is like saying that a woman who has had several sexual partners deserved to get raped." I'm going to let that stand on its own.

However, there is something which is somewhat under-reported as of just yet: what were the charges the police laid upon the young man? Turns out -- according to a longer-length youtube video which showed his being placed in handcuffs (If you haven't seen it already, google it; you'll find it quickly enough), that he was arrested for inciting a riot. And this, specifically, means that he was falsely arrested. Why? Well, take a lawyer's opinion on the matter. What is are the legal qualifications to be considered "inciting a riot"? Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. It does not apply to someone who merely advocates ideas or expresses beliefs, if those ideas and beliefs do not involve advocating violence. Nowhere, notice, did the young man request or intimate that others should get up out of their seats, nor was there a reaction greater than laughter or applause from the audience. Hence, no riot nor incitation therein... that is, until the police themselves acted. Should, then, the police be charged with inciting a riot? Sadly, this will never happen.

However, much could also be made of the circumstances under which this young man was acting; certainly the ethical burden of fault is on him for his instigation, yes? Well -- if you believe that, you are wrong. To explain why, I reference a previous article by myself: Identity: "Google" Sousveillance vs. REAL ID:

All of this of course basically means that whether we like it or not, there will be a (nearly) universal, comprehensive identification system replete with individual histories; we are already contributing to its existence, right now. This adds to the development of what is coming to be called sousveillance:

(IPA: [suːˈveɪləns], French [suvɛjɑ̃s]) [...] the recording of an activity from the perspective of a participant in the activity (i.e. personal experience capture).

Whether or not this is necessarily a good thing, is certainly up to debate. But it definitely allows for something of which there is far too little of these days; "Sunlight", or "transparency", in government actions on all levels. One sterling example of the dangers, however, of employing such technology against government agents can be found in online archive of The Daily Tribune of Bartow County, Georgia.

Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1,200 mounting three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their home, which is at the bottom of a hill. They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son.

The Sipples allegedly caught Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone speeding up to 17 mph over the speed limit. Perrone alerted Bartow authorities, who in turn visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking.

What did this young man do, really, save create a legal scene and ensure that it was on film? Kerry wanted to answer the question; the students were all calm and in their seats when the police interfered. This means this Andrew Meyers was, effectively, exercising his Constitutionally-protected 1st Amendment right in the most fundamental way. In that sense in particular, to be the annoying sand-chigger in the heel of government is, thusly, every American's Patriotic duty. This is historical truth; does anyone think that the Boston Tea Party was really about anything other than symbols? Yet the participants in that "prank" are today seen as heroes. It would seem that in spirit this Mr. Meyers shares much more in common with our Founding Fathers than is comfortable to admit in these days. Or, at the very least, that he was channelling them in this instance.

We have had demonstrations, as a result of "the police"'s actions -- that wouldn't have happened if this Andrew had been given his head and allowed to move on quietly. But that didn't happen. Which of course draws historically resonant echoes of other instances of -- admittedly much, much more grievous and aggravated -- police abuse of force, such as the Kent State Massacre. It is worth mentioning here that no one of a 'procedural' responsibility level was held responsible then, either.

At the end of the day, however, it is people like Andrew Meyer that determine precisely how free as a nation we are. The "freedom to be normal" is not freedom. The freedom to be obnoxious is absolutely the fundamental underpinning of the 1st Freedom. If you doubt that, I suggest you go have a long talk with one Reverend Martin Niemöller. If you don't like him, try Voltaire.