More Insanity: Spy Drones For Civilians

Just when you thought that the soft police state couldn't get more blatant, along comes this.

Last week I was watching the premier of the Eighth season of 24. In the first episode, it is mentioned that CTU (now reformed) has begun utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and counter terrorism work. These UAVs are even equipped with missiles. They were even supposed to have worked in taking out a hand-held rocket weapon. They didn't. Not the first time the government failed on a job right?

Work of fiction right?

Not entirely quite.

This morning, InTheEndIWasRight posted a new video. Go ahead and watch it, knock yourself out. It seems that several police departments in Britain are looking to use UAVs for their own operations. Here's the article. Cool right? Here's a video from a couple of years ago. I wonder how much they've progressed since then!
















Once more, I'm certain that if this is successful, it will undoubtedly not be used for what it was intended, but as yet another tool to invade people's privacy. Kind of like the Patriot Act being used to listen to Americans' phone sex. I'm predicting it now: the UK (or any other state that fits your fancy) will say something along the lines of "we need this technology to keep people safe from terrorism (or any other scary substitute)!" They'll get it (or at least part of what they want). Then, some incident will happen (like last month's Christmas bomber), and these security measures will be proven inadequate. They'll then call for more security measures. They'll be just a little more intrusive, just a little more of what the state needs to prevent a horrendous act of terrorism. It's the same old story every time: just a bit more freedom for just a bit more security, a vicious cycle. And it's completely deceptive. More often than not, the state wanted to have these powers anyway, and the terror is a perfect excuse. It's like a child running back to a parent that has already been proven incompetent when it comes to protecting children, and the parent then proceeds to abuse the child with the newfound power.

I know, sarcasm and annoyance are dripping from my words. I'm just sick of constantly having to give up (or hear of others having to give up) my liberty for a false sense of security, when the state has already many times been proven completely incompetent when it comes to the matter. No added security measure or super-duper technology is going to change this. This is very important to understand. Sure, you'll hear of some success stories, but eventually, and inevitably, something will happen, and incompetence will probably show. This is because one entity simply cannot manage all the responses needed to ensure high rates of safety (especially when this entity in question is beset in a civil war of squabbling bureaucracies). Consider it the Economic Calculation Problem transplanted onto the service of providing security.

Ultimately, if we desire to truly be safe from terrorism, we as a people must understand the motivations of those committing the acts in the first place. Most of these motivations are triggered by America's (and the West's) foreign policy. I've stated this before in a previous post "24 Season Seven and Non-Intervention," so I won't go into it here.

To end this, I'll turn to an overused quote from Benjamin Franklin.

"Those who give up a little liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both."

How right he was!

Life: Mediocre, or Passionate?

Thinking comes naturally to me. It's that little moron thing I do as George Carlin put it. I've been thinking a lot in terms of life outlook over the holiday season. I learned so much in 2009 that I wonder what I'll do next. I'll of course continue my education (my real one), but what more?

During the Iliad, Achilles was offered a choice:

"Mother tells me, the immortal goddess Thetis with her glistening feet, that two fates bear me on to the day of death. If I hold out here and I lay siege to Troy, my journey home is gone, but my glory never dies. If I voyage back to the fatherland I love, my pride, my glory dies...but the life that's left me will be long, the stroke of death will not come on me quickly." (Achilles, to Odysseus, Ajax, and Phoenix, Iliad, Book 9.)

Once Patroclus was slain by Hector, Achilles made his choice:

"Then let me die at once, since it was not my fate to save my dearest comrade from his death! Look, a world away from his fatherland he's perished, lacking me, my fighting strength, to defend him. But now, since I shall not return to my fatherland...nor did I bring one ray of hope to my Patroclus, nor to the rest of all my steadfast comrades, countless ranks struck down by mighty Hector- No, no, here I sit by the ships...a useless, dead weight on the good green earth- I, no man my equal among the bronze-armed Achaeans, not in battle, only in wars of words that others win. If only strife could die from the lives of gods and men and anger that drives the sanest man to flare in outrage- bitter gall, sweeter than dripping streams of honey, that swarms in people's chests and blinds like smoke- just like the anger Agamemnon king of men has roused within me now...Enough. Let bygones be bygones. Done is done. Despite my anguish I will beat it down, the fury mounting inside me, down by force. But now I'll go and meet that murderer head-on, that Hector who destroyed the dearest life I know. For my own death, I'll meet it freely-whenever Zeus and the other deathless gods would like to bring it on! Not even Heracles fled his death, for all his power, favorite son as he was to Father Zeus the King. Fate crushed him, and Hera's savage anger. And I too, if the same fate waits for me...I'll lie in peace, once I've gone down to death. But now, for the moment, let me seize great glory!- and drive some woman of Troy or deep-breasted Dardan to claw with both hands at her tender cheeks and wipe away her burning tears as the sobs come choking from her throat- they'll learn that I refrained from war a good long time! Don't try to hold me back from the fighting, mother, love me as you do. You can't persuade me now." (Achilles, to Thetis, Iliad Book 18)


















Long quote, yeah, I know. But you get the point. When Achilles was offered the choice between a long, peaceful life, or a short life filled with glory, he chose the latter. I admire him for it. That's not to say that I think young men (like me!) should choose to fight and die. In fact, I believe that Homer was showing all throughout the Iliad just how stupid and pointless the Trojan War was.

What I mean, is that Achilles was faced with two choices: a life of mediocrity, where one fades into the background, treading toward death softly, or where one does great deeds that fulfills him as a person, a strong man worthy of respect and remembrance. He chose the latter.

A question I've been asking to people that I know in the past couple of weeks is: if you had the choice- to live a life of intensity, excitement, filled with passion that leaves you feeling enlightened and fulfilled as a human being- but you die young, or, you could live a long life, but it's one where you fade away into the background, a mundane existence among other people living a mundane existence, defined more by what you have than who you are, which would you choose?

I'd choose the former, naturally. That's not to say I want or plan to die young, far from it. The trick of course, is to live that kind of life that fulfills you for as long as you possibly can.

Think of what we value. What do you usually ask someone you just met. "What do you do?" Or, "what's your major?" This is not a bad thing per se, certainly a good job (one that you actually want) can leave a person feeling fulfilled, but many, perhaps most times, this isn't the case. Most people tread softly toward death. They fade away, find a job, pay taxes, find a house and cars, and allow themselves to be defined by what they have rather than who they are. This is the "American Dream."

No, I'm not one of those anti-materialists. Certainly, nice possessions are a welcome addition to your life, but I view them as just that: an addition. They do not define who I am. I find people who admire others for their jobs, homes, or cars to be peons. Same thing with people who merely seek out those possessions. Certainly they live the life of mediocrity.

That's my biggest fear in life. I don't want to live the life of mediocrity. I don't want to live the way we're told to live: to be happy with our mundane lives, seek an endless amount of consumer goods (often which we cannot afford anyway, thus we must go into debt), and pay taxes to the state. I live for myself and myself alone. Most people in the world live for others. I think this is why most people are peons. It sounds arrogant of me to say that, but it's the truth.

My passion is to educate and inform, to rally people in revolt against stupidity. That's why I have this blog and my Youtube channel. That's why I'm writing my book too. This is what leaves me fulfilled as a man: finding my own enlightenment and then spurring others to do the same, and act on it. That's what I want to do in my life. That is my life of passionate fulfillment that leaves me as a strong man. How that happens doesn't matter, even if I need to get a "day" job. It won't define me.

I don't need to die as Achilles did beneath the walls of Troy, but I won't tread softly toward death. I don't need to be admired as he so desired, but I believe admiration naturally follows strong people who live a life of passion, whether it be widespread or in that person's social circle.

"We all end up dead. It's only a question of how and why." -Mel Gibson as William Wallace in Braveheart.

So...which do you choose? Mediocrity, or passion?