A Fearsome Tool

Given the current political climate, and my past blog posts, there is a good chance that the title of this post brings guns to mind first. After all, there is an intense national debate on what to do about guns, particular those most fierce looking ones, the so called assault rifles.

A fearsome tool indeed, yet in the hands of a responsible citizen, it is merely a tool.  A deadly one, true, dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible person, and doubly so in the hands of someone with evil intent.  A tool that requires great personal responsibility to wield properly

But that is not the fearsome tool I’m thinking of today. No, there is another tool that many of use, some of us daily, that is also dangerous, that has also led to unwanted deaths, that also causes fear and distress among many of our citizens.

The automobile?

Nope - another tool that requires personal responsibility to use, but still not the one I’m thinking of.

I’m thinking of the internet.  Yes, the internet.

The internet is a wonderful tool that has allowed some profound changes in the world. But it has a darker side, a side that requires personal responsibility. A shadowy side to it that we ignore at our own peril.   I’m not referring to the dark underbelly of the internet where porn and piracy sites reside, nor the cybercrooks and spammers.

To paraphrase Caveat Emptor -

“Let the user beware.”

Most of us adults are quite aware of the dark underbelly, and take appropriate precautions.   But the shadowy side I’m referring to is not typically part of the dark underbelly, it sits boldy in the light, sometimes even unaware of it’s own darkness.

I am referring to misinformation.

The internet makes it so easy to spread misinformation in the guise of facts and truth. Much of it is done without ill intent - that is, people pass on information because they think it is helpful, without taking the time to check it.  Things like fake stories of children missing, or the supposed trick of using your ATM PIN backwards to call police.

But some of it is deliberate, too, particularly among teens - the internet has become the new home of nasty rumors and bullying.

Bottom line, when you think about it, the internet - for all the good it’s brought us - can be used in many, many different ways to hurt, and yes, even kill people.

Like any dangerous tool, using it demands personal responsibility.

Perhaps we should put the same onus of responsibility on using the internet that we do on things like automobiles and firearms?

You can do it. No you can't.

Earlier this week, Defense Distributed announced they had finally achieved their goal of a 3d printable gun, called the Liberator, and revealed it on their website, defcad.org. The political backlash of this act is only just starting.

New York Representative Chuck Schumer - “Now anyone, a terrorist, someone who is mentally ill, a spousal abuser, a felon, can essentially open a gun factory in their garage. It must be stopped.”

New York Representative Steve Israel is pushing to update the current Undetectable Firearms Act to include the Liberator and other like weapons.

California State Senator Leland Yee is proposing legislation to ban 3D Printing in California.

Gun control advocates in Australia like Sam Lee have already begun pressuring the state and federal governments there to regulate 3D printers. 

Similar statements can be found across the world, in Canada, Britain, Europe and beyond. Overall, the general reaction is “You can’t do this!” and “We have to stop this!”    It is a predictable reaction - to clamp down when faced with an apparent threat. 

And in between the time I started writing this and before I got to post it, the US Department of Defense has pressured Defense Distributed to remove the files under its International Trade of Arms Regulations. 

No matter your viewpoint on this situation, it serves to illustrate something vital to understanding and coping with the future.

Many of our technological developments, particularly those of the last 50 years, are serving a far grander purpose of empowering the individual.  This is something that our founding fathers understood about firearms - they empowered the individual - and empowered individuals is something they tried to embody in the form the government they established.

The United States has constantly been on the forefront of technological change that empowers the individual, particularly in the last 50 years.  The computer, the laser printer, and the celphone are just a few of the technologies we have that empower the individual. And none more so than the internet. These developments have allowed the individuals to interact on an unprecedented global level. A perfect example is this blog - even as little as twenty years ago, my ability to make my voice heard would have required great personal expense, and most likely would have reached a much smaller audience than the small audience I’m reaching now.

At this point in history we can share knowledge more freely than before. Knowledge empowers the individual. And the more empowered we are as individuals, the better life should be, right?

Then why is it that government and society tend to be moving in the opposite direction, and attempting to contain the individual? Seatbelt laws, Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, Anti- Smoking laws, Gun bans, even soda bans all attempt to contain the individual in some manner.

These two things are completely at odds with each other.  Technology empowers us, while government and society attempts to contain us.  You cannot give a man more power, then tell him you don’t trust him with it. The natural human reaction to such a situation is to lash out.

In an era with empowered individuals, the emphasis needs to be on personal responsibility. Because only those capable of personal responsibility and entrusted with it can truly be entrusted with the technology that empowers them.

Increasingly, though, our government is moving in directions that actively discourage personal responsibility.  This is not a good situation - we cannot continue to punish those who are practicing personal responsibility by decreasing their liberties while at the same time rewarding those who practice irresponsibility by “taking care of them.”  Especially not in an era of technological change that empowers individuals. 

Empowered individuals have the capability to strike back at government and society, and there is little that can be done about it. At least not without imposing draconian and tyrannical measures of control on everyone. And the more you do that, the more people you have with reason to strike out and government and society.  

If we really want to see the utopian ideal of a world of peace and harmony, the path lies with personal empowerment, personal responsibility and trust, not down the path of control, restriction and distrust.

Just something else to think about.

Dealing with the Absurdity of a Pop Tart Gun

Many years ago, during my time as a junior petty officer in the Navy, our division got a new senior chief, and almost immediately, everyone in the division hated him. Yet, by the time I left there, he was my favorite chief. To this day, he still is, because of the many leadership lessons he instilled in me, mostly by example.

The base we were at had an absurd rule regarding when and where command baseball caps vs traditional naval white hats could be worn. I don't know how long the rule had actually been in place, but from at least before I got there. For the most part, the sailors most affected by the rule ignored it, as did those who should have enforced it. Everyone was happy.

Until this senior chief showed up. Almost immediately, he began requiring strict enforcement of all the rules in his division, including this absurd one. Most of us in the division were pretty understanding of the enforcement of most of the other rules, but the one about the baseball caps really, really rankled us. It didn't take long for us to hate our new senior chief over it.

After some time – probably only a couple of weeks, but it seemed like months at the time – he confessed to us that he, too, thought the rule was absurd. “Then why are you enforcing it!?!”, we practically screamed at him.

His answer was enlightening. Because sometimes the best way to deal with an absurd rule is not to complain about how absurd it is while ignoring it, but to show how absurd it is while enforcing it. That was the gist of his explanation. And with that explanation, the rest of the division got on board, and the rule began being enforced outside our division as well, to the point that no one liked our new senior chief. Not too long after that, the base commander changed the rule to a more realistic one we could all live with.

That lesson has stuck with me. I've rarely had need to use that method since, but when the story of the schoolboy disciplined for chewing his pop tart into a gun shape came about, I realized it's another great place to apply that lesson.

In case you hadn't heard the story, a 7 yr old in Maryland was suspended from school when a teacher overreacted to him chewing his pop tart into a gun shape. There has been a lot of various outraged reaction to it in the media, but it got me to thinking about how I would react if it were to happen to any of the children at my kid's school.

I've decided that my old senior chief's example is the best way to proceed. Let the school have their way, with the only response from me being “you realize you're setting a precedent with this absurdity, don't you? I will use that precedent against you in the future, and you will not like it.”

Then wait for the opportunity to arise, and because it's a school, it surely will. The teacher sends home an assignment with a map of Florida or Oklahoma on it? There's an opportunity (because those two states are as obviously as gun shaped as a pop tart can be) to storm into the school and demand that they apply equivalent disciplinary procedures to the teacher as they did to the child for sending home “images of guns.” Or show outrage at a student assignment or teacher handout that shows an image of the flag of West Virginia (which has guns upon it), or the Virginia state flag, (which could be considered worse, because it has a man standing with one foot upon the chest of a fallen (slain?) foe.)

The cool thing about being educated or just knowing how to do a little research is that you can find these things within their curriculum pretty easily. Things that should be right under a teacher's nose, that they should be aware of, but never, ever consider when they become a little too overzealous.

Situations like this highlight the problem with zero-tolerance policies, and over-zealous political correctness. But it can almost always be used against the very people applying the policies, if someone can remain calm enough to realize it. And frequently, until it's used against them, most of these types of people won't ever realize when they've crossed the line into absurdity. Indignant outrage rarely moves them, but a decent helping of common sense and critical thinking applied against them in the same manner they used almost always gets their attention.Or the attention of someone in a position to do something about them.

Never be afraid to fight absurdity with well-reasoned absurdity.

A quick footnote:

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not ranting against teachers, or school administrators here. In my experience, for every teacher or school administrator who does this, there are a hundred more whom are reasonable people, have common sense, and are good people. But given the multitude of educators that a child comes in contact with through out their school years, it's inevitable that most parents will encounter at least one like this. In most cases, another adult within the school will already be on your side, but just in case – remember, you can fight absurdity by taking it to the next level!