The Neutral Zone of Free Expression, what is it?

A Neutral Zone is a sort of “buffer zone“, or “No Man’s Land” that lies between the boundaries of two or more territories or areas. When talking about “Our Rights”, the “Neutral Zone of Free Expression” is the “Grey Area” between the rights of two or more people or groups. This is the area where conflicting rights meet head on and interfere with each other.

In this article I would like to touch upon the subjects of “Free Speech” and “Free Expression”, I would also like to discuss some aspects concerning why ‘Free Speech isn’t always Free” and use the situation of “Removing Holocaust-deniers pages from Facebook” as a prime example. I also wish to write a little about Brian Cuban and his fight to have these ‘hate groups’ removed from Facebook. Let’s begin with Brian Cuban.

The Plight of Brian Cuban

Today I read Brian Cuban’s the latest entry in his notes on his Facebook page. The entry was entitled “A Final Word (for now) On Holocaust Denial” and is a part of the on-going issue of ‘removing holocaust-deniers pages from Facebook”.

In the opening paragraph Brian stated:

“It has never been my intention to minimize the “idea” of free speech in the Facebook realm regardless of the actual application of the 1st amendment. I value the concept of the free and open exchange with every bone in my body. I also understand that FB is attempting to shape its policies to mirror 1st amendment ideals to encourage “free speech”. This is commendable.”

I feel compelled to comment upon this comment because I have been reading Brian’s articles and commentaries for over a year now and I firmly believe that he is one man who “never intended” to “minimize the idea of Free Speech” in any way, whether the comments he made concerned Facebook or any other social site on the Internet. I believe Brian actually values the concept of “Fee and Open Exchange”, perhaps he values it even more than I do. Furthermore I believe Brian feels that FB does make the “attempt” to ”shape its policies to mirror the 1st Amendment ideals” in order to ‘encourage Free Speech” and he doesn’t intend to make it seem as if Facebook is some evil entity hell-bent on destroying ‘the rights and freedoms” of it’s membership in some on-going pursuit of some deep, dark Facebook agenda.

I have no doubt that Mr. Cuban is as concerned about our rights and freedoms as I am and it bothers him how some people out there utilize such honorable ideas as “The Freedom of Speech” and “The Freedom of Expression” as a protection to spread their own agenda of hatred, intolerance and warped sense of justice. It may also bother Brian that so many people who were born and raised in America, educated in our schools, and lived in this country their entire lives are unaware o f what our rights and freedoms truly mean.

Brian seems knowledgeable about our rights, as well as the responsibilities that goes along with our rights and freedoms. This knowledge is shown when he states:

“There however is a fundamental difference in how Mr. Zuckerberg and I view this idea. To overuse a cliche, while we have free speech in this country, not all speech is in fact free. Certainly not hate speech.”

Over the years I have heard many people “cry” and moan about their ‘rights’ being violated through censorship, but in almost every case it is never mentioned that others have rights as well. It never seems to enter the person’s mind that something they have said may conflict with the rights of another. It is evident that Brian is well aware of this fact and understands that “Free Speech” really doesn’t mean we have the right to say anything we wish at any time we want.

I am under no misconceptions here, Brian and I probably could have lengthy arguments over what the First Amendment covers and what it don’t. We could walk away from our discussions never agreeing with each other on particular issues, however I feel confident that Brian would understand the fact that a person doesn’t have the right to ‘say anything they like” without the possibility of some repercussions in return. I am positive that he would understand the fact that along with our rights and freedoms comes a responsibility.

The Problem With The First Amendment

The problem with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides “every citizen of the U.S.” with the “Right” that our founding fathers called “The Freedom of Speech”. In the years since the signing of the U.S. Constitution and the passage of our Bill of Rights, the courts widened the meaning of the term “Freedom of Speech” to include the things that became known as the “Freedom of Expression”. In addition, regardless of exactly whom our founding fathers originally felt held these rights, it has become accepted by law that “every U.S. Citizen”, at least those who are “Adults”, can and will enjoy these rights. Some argue that anyone within the borders of the U.S. enjoy these rights that the citizens of our country enjoy.

America today has a projected population of 306,429,890, we can assume that approximately 200 Million of those people are “Adults”, or of the age of majority, and enjoy the full and equal rights of an adult citizen of this country. This means that:

The rights and freedoms of the Christian Fundamentalist are just as important as those of the Atheist.
The rights and freedoms of women are equally important to that of men.
The rights and freedoms of the minority are equal to that of the white man.
The rights and freedoms of the Homosexual is no less than that of the heterosexual
The rights and freedoms of the young are as important as those of the elderly.

We also should bear in mind that the opposite of what is said above is true.

The rights and freedoms of the Atheist is just as important as those of the Christian Fundamentalist.
The rights and freedoms of men are equally important to that of women.
The rights and freedoms of the white man are equal to the rights of the minority.
The rights and freedoms of the Heterosexual is no less than that of the homosexual
The rights and freedoms of the elderly are as equally important as those of the young.

In short, no person’s rights in this country outweigh that of another, with a few exceptions of course. I’ll discuss that later.

So what happens when we enter the Neutral Zone of Free Expression, where the ‘rights’ of one conflicts with that of another? Whose rights outweigh whom?

I think these questions are things that people like Brian Cuban struggle with often because they know the importance of our “Rights” and “Freedoms” and they understand what is at stake if we abuse these things (or aren’t willing to stand up and protect them). So without further adieu, I discuss this issue of “Free Speech” and “Our Rights”, I welcome Brian (or anyone else for that matter) to consider the concepts that follow and analyze the ideas for whatever value they can get out of the information.

What is The Freedom of Speech?

The Freedom of Speech is a right that the majority of Americans know about, but not everyone understands. You can see their lack of understanding in the words they say. So let’s begin by discussing the First Amendment, especially the “Freedom of Speech”.

According to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The “Freedom of Speech” is the freedom (or right) to speak freely without censorship or limitation, however over the years the courts broadened the term to include verbal, non-verbal, visual and symbolic forms of “Expression” as a part of our “First Amendment” rights. This became known as the “Freedom of Expression”.

Exceptions to the First Amendment

The freedoms (or rights) granted to us by the First Amendment, in the United States, are not “all encompassing”. There are certain “Exceptions to the First Amendment” that are recognized by the courts which ‘limit” or “censor” our “Freedom of Speech”.

The justification often used by the courts is usually along the lines of “the expression in question could cause substantial harm to the public” or “the expression in question is considered as speech that the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect”. There are also, traditions that have been a part of the old common law traditions from England, which was the basis of our American legal system, which have also been used as a part of the justifications used by the courts. These are some of the “Exceptions to the First Amendment” that the courts uphold today:

(1) Defamation: Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another person.
(2) Causing panic: False statements that may cause a panic, such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
(3) Fighting words: “Fighting Words” are words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
(4) Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a crime, such as inciting a crowd to riot.
(5) Sedition: It is prohibited to advocate unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government.

Other items that may be viewed as “Exceptions to the First Amendment” includes:

(A) Obscenity: What we may consider as “Obscenity” may not always be viewed as “Obscene” in a court of law. The U.S. Supreme Court has established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions that would not violate the First Amendment:

(a) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
(b) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
(c) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

(B) Establishment of Religion: Some speech is restricted because it constitutes the establishment of religion, which is itself prohibited by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Is “Offensive Speech” an exception to the First Amendment?

It has been argued that offensive speech or expressions should be an exception to the First Amendment, however the US Courts have rejected this idea. It has basically been decided by our courts that we, as mature adults, are expected to have to put up with a certain amount of things that we may not care to hear and that everything shouldn’t have to be regulated by law.

Philosophy and the Freedom of Speech

John Stuart Mill, an English Philosopher, stance concerning the freedom of expression and the government in 1859 provided a test for appropriate government interference with human liberties. This is found in his well-known “harm” principle:

. . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

The Problem With Facebook

The problem with Facebook, as with most forums or social sites on the net today, is the fact that these places want to be ‘popular’ and in order to be ‘popular’ they have to appeal to the general public. Popularity of a site is an important thing to most site owners because the more popularity your site has, the more it can bring you things such as wealth and fame (It’s good for stroking one’s ego, but I won’t get into that for it may sound “insulting”.)

The best way for any message forum, chat room or other social site to be popular is to allow the illusion that these places are ‘democracies’ which allow the members of the sites to have such ‘rights’ as ‘the freedom of speech’. The problem is that these forums are not really democracies at all, in fact most are ‘Benevolent Dictatorships”. As Brian Cuban stated:

“The prorogation of 1st Amendment ideals in the private realm is a two way street. People have the right to express their opinions, FB as a private entity has the right to choose not to publish them. These types of decisions are made in newspapers and other media all over the world.”

Brian is absolutely right in this, “Facebook” pays for their site and they are held (by law) to do certain things… but for the most part they are a private entity that allows people to join and use the services they offer. This basically means that ‘Our First Amendment Rights” are null and void on their system and in it’s place are “Rules and Guidelines for the site”. Facebook, however, does make the attempt to provide us with some of our ‘First Amendment Rights’ and that is commendable (as Brian stated earlier in his article).

Finally…

In brief I have shown what the “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Expression” are, I have also shown where there are “Exceptions to the Freedom of Speech” that are accepted by the courts. In addition it has been shown where Facebook is a private entity and isn’t obligated to provide its members with our First Amendment rights. It’s been said that the attempt to provide Facebook members with the “Freedom of Speech”, or a form of it, is commendable. Additionally it’s been stated that these “Holocaust-deniers’ are mostly interested in spreading their agenda of hate and hate speech is something frowned upon by the laws of various countries and Facebook itself.

So what’s the problem?

In any society there must be a set of rules which everyone who is a part of that society are expected to follow. These rules are set up for various reasons, most of which are for the purpose of maintaining peace and tranquility within the communities that arise within that society. If we do not set the rules and enforce those rules when required, we end up with a chaotic state where everyone is doing their own thing. This chaotic state usually ends up with disharmony and disruptions within that society that could result in simple arguments or expand into more serious trouble stemming from rage.

In what some refer to “The Real World” our words are often tempered with the fact that we are in close proximity to others who may not react well to what we say. The intelligent, reasonable person tends to pick and choose their words in order to avoid unpleasant or dangerous situations. Of course there are plenty of instances where people do not do this, however (as I said) “The intelligent, reasonable person” picks and chooses their words.

The Internet is a place that can be just as dangerous as the real world, but is often shielded by such things as the “anonymity factor” and ‘feeling safe through distance”. Many people on the net become less careful of the words they say because they simply feel that no one knows who they are, and even if they did the odds are in favor of nothing serious happening in response to the words being said. The mere fact that a single site on the Internet can reach millions of people and there is little in the way of personal danger to the person gives rise to the willingness of trolls and hate groups voicing their opinions as they wish. Spreading misconceptions about our freedom of speech and freedom of expression act as tools to protect the harassment and hate-mongering factor.

Some people on the net will ‘test’ the authority of site owners through various means, they will even go to the extent of creating blogs that do nothing but denounce the site and make claims of the staff and management of the site ‘violating our rights’. This doesn’t take away the fact that it is the site owner’s responsibility to control their site and try to keep things ‘civil’ for all of their members to enjoy.
When a site announces a policy of providing ‘the freedom of speech’ and ‘the freedom of expression’ to it’s members then the people making the decisions must either understand what these terms mean or write up their own definition for the terms and place that definition in the terms that their members agreed to follow. Site owners and those responsible for moderating the site should avoid using ‘blanket terms’ without a set definition for those terms. That only breeds confusion and chaos amongst the members of the site.

Facebook needs to take a stance on this issue and quit playing with terms of vague meanings. They need to avoid using terminology that can have different meanings to different people and say outright exactly what they mean by such terms as “The Freedom of Speech”, “The Freedom of Expression” and “Our First Amendment Rights”. Facebook would benefit greatly by not catering to ‘hate groups’ and ‘net abusers’ who wish to use our rights and freedoms as a shield for spreading their poison.

Principle Source:

Freedom of Expression at the National Endowment for the Arts

The BBC site had an interesting article called “Are There Women Paedophiles?”, which addresses the question of “Women pedophiles”. My initial thought upon first seeing the article was “How stupid, of course there are women pedophiles”, however as I read the article the realization of there being people in this world who think that “minorities” cannot be racist made me ask the question of “Why can’t some people think that there are no women pedophiles?” This thought made me want to explore the “Pedophiles and Women” issue.

First, let’s discuss some words and terminology!

I hate it when I use words or terminology I think people should understand and find out that I have to provide definitions because the people don’t know, or ignore, the true meaning. I hate it even more when I use a word or phrase that I think I know only to find out I am in error. I found that whenever I am discussing important issues, if I add some basic definitions for the words and phrases I plan to use… the conversation doesn’t get sidetracked by arguing over the terminology being used because of a thing I call “Personal Definitions”.

What is a “Personal Definition”?

People have a tendency to define words and terms according to what they think they mean… or “how” they want to define the words and terms being used. Whether a person is simply mistaken in what they think the word or term means or they alter the word’s meaning intentionally to make the word or term mean what they want, the end result is the same… it causes confusion in the conversation and may cause arguments because the whole idea being expressed is altered in some way. These ‘changes’ in the meaning of the word to suit oneself are a part of what I call “Personal Definitions”.

Pedophilia and Pedophile:

I use the dictionary at Answers.com often due to the site giving results from several different sources. It often saves the time and trouble of having to search multiple sites for a definition. Answers.com defines the word “Pedophile” as meaning “An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children”.

I decided to visit the Merriam-Webster website next, I found they defined the word “Pedophile” as “one affected with pedophilia”. This caused me to search the Merriam-Webster site for the definition of the word “Pedophilia” and I found that it meant “sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object”. So basically Merriam-Webster is saying that a “pedophile” is “a person who has the sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object” or “A person who is sexually attracted to a child or children”. I figure the meaning of the word “Pedophile” for both dictionaries mean about the same thing.

The problem is when one is defining terms where the law is concerned then sometimes the meanings are a little different, so I like to provide a legal definition for certain words and conversations. The Law.com website tells us that the word “Pedophilia” is “an obsession with children as sex objects. Overt acts, including taking sexually explicit photographs, molesting children and exposing one’s genitalia to children, are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder”. I then went to the Duhaime.org website, which is another legal dictionary site, and found “Pedophile” defined as “A person afflicted with pedophilia, a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner”.

I am sure that everyone sees the reoccurring trend for the definition of “Pedophile” and “Pedophilia” in these definitions, so I see no need to search any further for definitions. We can say that a “Pedophile” is a person who has a sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual partners.

The next word to define is the word “Child”.

“What is a Child?”

It seems really dumb to have to define the word “Child” for a normal person would most likely think that everyone should know the definition, however while doing my research on this subject I found out that some people have different ideas over what constitutes “a child”. In some forums and articles people claimed that a child was ‘anyone under 18’, in other places I’ve found that some claimed that a child was “someone not yet an adult’ or a ‘Juvenile’”. I even ran across a person saying that a child is “someone who is immature’. Upon looking up the definition I found that a “Child” had two definitions, as follows:

a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

Uh-oh … just wonderful! So what do “Puberty”, “Maturity” and “Legal Majority” mean? I simply know that I, or someone else, would muck up one or more of these definitions. It’s inevitable due to the fact that the definition should be obvious and these things are a vital part of the topic. Sometimes it’s a pain being such a believer in Murphy’s Law.

Defining Puberty

Puberty is the period of human development during which physical growth and sexual maturation occurs. Answers.com gives this description for the word “Puberty”:

“Beginning as early as age eight in girls—and two years later, on average, in boys—the hypothalamus (part of the brain) signals hormonal change that stimulates the pituitary. In turn, the pituitary releases its own hormones called gonadotrophins that stimulate the gonads and adrenals. From these glands come a flood of sex hormones—androgens and testosterone in the male, estrogens and progestins in the female—that regulate the growth and function of the sex organs. It is interesting to note that the gonadotrophins are the same for males and females, but the sex hormones they induce are different.

In the United States, the first sign of puberty occurs on average at age 11 in girls, with menstruation and fertility following about two years later. Boys lag behind by about two years. Puberty may not begin until age 16 in boys and continue in a desultory fashion on past age 20. In contrast to puberty, adolescence is more of a social/cultural term referring to the interval between childhood and adulthood.”

Once again I wanted more of a “Legal Definition” for the word “Puberty” and at the ‘Lectric Law website I found this definition:

“In the civil law, the age of a man was divided as follows: namely, the infancy of males extended to the full accomplishment of the 14th year; at 14, he entered the age of puberty, and was said to have acquired full puberty at 18 years accomplished, and was major on completing his 25th year. A female was an infant – til 7 years; at 12, she entered puberty, and acquired full puberty at 14; she became of fall age on completing her 25th year.”

Age of Maturity/Age of Majority/Age of Consent

I like to use Wikipedia, unlike numerous people I have known on the net, for the reason that Wikipedia is often a good place to start or get leads for further research. I may cringe at having to use Wikipedia for my only factual evidence in anything, but that doesn’t make the online encyclopedia worthless. Wiki informs us about a term called “The Age of Consent”, it says “In the United States, the age of consent for sexual activity can vary by jurisdiction. Some states are as low as 16 years of age, while others are set at 18”. Wikipedia also tells us “The age of consent is the age at or above which a person is considered to have the legal capacity to consent to sexual activity. Both partners must be of legal age to give consent, although exceptions may exist when both partners are within a certain number of years in age. Persons below the age of consent may not, by law, give consent, and sexual relations involving such persons may be punished by criminal sanctions similar to those for rape or sexual assault. Non-violent sexual contact with persons under the age of consent may be punished as “statutory rape” or a similar legal term.”

According to ‘Lectric Law, there is a term known as “The Age of Maturity” and it tells us the age of maturity is “The age when a person acquires all the rights and responsibilities of being an adult. In most states, the age is 18.”

Nolo.com tells us the following about the “Age of Majority”:

“Adulthood in the eyes of the law. After reaching the age of majority, a person is permitted to vote, make a valid will, enter into binding contracts, enlist in the armed forces and purchase alcohol. Also, parents may stop making child support payments when a child reaches the age of majority. In most states the age of majority is 18, but this varies depending on the activity. For example, in some states people are allowed to vote when they reach the age of eighteen, but can’t purchase alcohol until they’re 21.”

Even though a person may attain the age of majority, he or she may still be subject to age-based restrictions (such as the right to stand for elective office, act as a judge, and many other matters).

Age of Majority vs. Age of License

Wikipedia has an entry about the Age of Majority, which tells us the “Age of majority is frequently confused with similar concept, the age of license, which also pertains to the threshold of adulthood but in a much broader and more abstract way. As a legal term of art, “license” means “permission”, and it can implicate a legally enforceable right or privilege. Thus, an age of license is an age at which one has legal permission from government to do something. The age of maturity, on the other hand, is legal recognition that one has grown into an adult”. Wiki adds “For example, in any jurisdiction, the age at which an individual is allowed to exercise the franchise (vote), leave school without taking a diploma, enter into legally binding contracts (other than for necessaries, to which no age of license applies), operate a motor vehicle, purchase and consume alcoholic beverages, and so on – these are all ages of license, at which the law permits an individual to perform certain acts and exercise certain rights, with or without any restrictions.“

Let’s return to the discussion…

The article, “Are there women pedophiles” opened up with the following comment:

“Paedophiles are invariably thought of as men and they mostly are. But do women commit sexual abuse against children, and if so, why is it rarely discussed?”

The Perception of Pedophilia

The perception of what constitutes a “Pedophile” may differ from one person to the next for a variety of reasons. Let’s outline a few examples of what different people may think classifies another as a pedophile. As a special note, the word “Child” also includes teenagers up to 18 years of age.

The Moral Person: A person may define the word “Pedophile” in accordance with their degree of morality or ethics. For example: A person of strict morality may view anyone speaking of a ‘child’ in any way that he or she deems as ‘inappropriate’ as a Pedophile, whereas another person may be of the mindset that only the act of touching a ‘child’ in a sexual way makes one a pedophile.

The Agenda-guided Person: A person with an agenda of making it acceptable and legal for adults and a ‘teenager’ may view a pedophile as a person who expresses the desire to have sex with children under the age of 12 years old. A person with the agenda of making it legal, and/or acceptable, for adults to have sex with child may have the stance that there is no such thing as a pedophile.

The Unaware Person: A person who is unaware of the definitions of the word may think anyone having sex with a ‘Child” of 17 or younger is a “Pedophile” because they think that is what the law states.

Is it permissible for an Adult and Juvenile to legally have sex?

I am not a lawyer, nor a judge, but according to what I have read I have found that one of the most common misconceptions is the idea that a person is a juvenile until 18 years of age and anyone under the age of 18 cannot legally give their consent for sex. A parent may find the idea of their 16 or 17 year old being able to have consensual sex could be quite disturbing, but the facts seem to show that (at this point in time) a ‘juvenile” under the age of 18 may be able to have consensual sex with an adult. The whole legality of this depends upon the laws governing the area you are residing. A “Parent” can search the Internet for sites that provides you with the information for the various ages of consent for your area.

What’s the big deal about teens and sex?

Let’s open this up with something I found on the WorldLaw Direct web site:

“It seems to many teens that adults are always making a big deal about people having sex under the age of consent. Many young people think that if they feel ready to have sex and they use protection, it is nothing to do with anyone else. But every teen needs to know the laws and what they mean.”

Reading this reminds me of a saying that I learned a long time ago, it went “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things”. As a child I could not fathom the adult viewpoint, even though I thought I could at certain ages. The reason for this was due to the fact that I never had experience as an adult when I was a child and teen and even though the adults would provide me with their reasoning… I thought as a child of my rough age bracket would think. At the time my ‘learning” and “experiences” may have seemed vast to me, I didn’t realize just how limited I was. It was not until later in life that I realized how little I actually knew of the adult world around me, yet at the time I thought I pretty much knew it all because I had some experience and learned my lessons from books and school. In this article there were a couple of comments and replies made by the author that are similar to commentary I’ve often heard as a teen.

The first comment is “But our parents say it’s okay….”. The author states “That doesn’t make any difference – your parents don’t make the law. Teens can’t get around the laws for smoking, drinking or driving because their parents say so, and it’s the same with this. The age of consent laws always apply, whether you’re in love, or you’ve been together for ages, or you’ve had sex before”.

I’ve heard teens often say, while growing up, that their parents said they could do certain things that I knew the law said otherwise. The most common thing that the teens were using this comment as justification concerned alcohol and under aged drinking. Since I knew many police officers I knew that it didn’t matter if my parents said I could drink… the law said I couldn’t.

The second comment is “But it’s no-one else’s business. Why do we have these laws?”. The author’s answer is “Although many young people are mature enough to know how to deal with it if someone tries to get them to have sex, some teens are not grown up enough to know what to do. Age of consent laws are there to stop young people from being exploited by adults”.

I’ve tried this argument, when I was younger, and honestly believed in the idea of what I did was no one else’s business… it never worked with my parents, teachers, or the cops. Dad explained the situation rather well when he told me “I am responsible for you until you are 18 years old, everything you do wrong could come back on me and your mother financially and in other ways… so everything you do is ‘my business’, as well as yours!” I didn’t like that response, but I lived with it because he was right.

So can women be a pedophile?

The BBC article says “Women can commit a wide range of sexual offences, he says, including rape. And their victims commonly experience sexual confusion and a fear of intimacy. Anger can manifest itself as violence towards a wife or girlfriend in later life” and it goes on to say “Female offences against teenagers (hebophiles rather than paedophiles) are more of a mystery, he (Professor Kevin Brown) says, because victims don’t come forward, partly because in a patriarchal society boys are even expected to enjoy that kind of abuse, and not admit how scared they are by it.”

Why would a woman become a Pedophile?

There are varying opinions concerning why a woman would become a Pedophile or Hebophile, the most widely accepted reason has to do with control. The BBC article states “One of the issues of controversy is the thinking that if women do this, it’s because men made them do it,” says Ms Elliot. I disagree with that. I think there’s no difference in the motivation between men and women, which is sexual gratification and power over a child. It’s very selfish.“

In Summary

The question of “Are there women pedophiles?” can be answered in one word – “Yes!” According to the definitions, any woman who has sex with a boy under the ‘legal age’ (as defined by the laws of the area in which they live or the sexual act occurs) is as guilty of being a pedophile as a man who has sex with under-aged females. A woman can no more be excluded as a pedophile due to her sex than a minority can be excluded as a racist due to their skin color.

This morning I decided to go to Razzmuffin’s Blog to do my weekly check on whether anything new was posted and found Razzie placed an article on his site called “Bo Obama and the Obamamization of America”. In that article he referred to a local Phoenix DJ named Chuck Powell and a comment he made on his show the other day. Chuck apparently made commentary upon the media’s insistence upon giving the White House dog a last name. Razzie also gave the address to the Chuck’s Blog Cabin site, so I decided to go check Chuck out.

On that blog I saw Chuck posted an article called “Does your dog have a last name?”… I thought it was hilarious and you may as well. Now before you Obama fans out there get all excited over a perceived attack upon your idol, it should be said that my impression is that Chuck is apparently attempting to find some humor in a president that even the big time comedians are having a hard time in needling. The reasons this phenomena occurs mainly deal with the official excuse of “The man is so intelligent that there is nothing to pick on”, so instead of finding, or making up, stuff anyway (as was the standard MO of late night talk show hosts and comedians everywhere) – they leave an awkward void. It’s good to see a guy like Chuck treat the president as he would any other president by trying to find something funny to rib him about – even if that joking is in the abstract sense or round-about way.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s get to the point of the media apparently fawning and gushing over the Obama’s to the point of having to give their dog a last name.

Let it be understood that I am not talking about calling your dog “Buster Puppy” or your cat “Hell Cat”, I am talking about giving the animal your last name, such as Fluffy Smith or Butthead Borowitz. I have met people who called their dogs “Sgt. Slaughter” or “Mr. Bones, but they often referred to the animal as “Slaughter” or “Bones” as if the name was a first name and the Sergeant or Mister part was a title. I even knew a woman who gave her cat a first and middle name, after her grandfather. She used the initials commonly to call her cat, but her vet always called the cat by its proper name.

Chuck pointed out that there were a few pets out there that were graced with a first and last name and another site I visited had an article, called “Naming Your Dog” by Sandy Moyer, claiming:

“Dogs are frequently named after actors, actresses and other celebrities. They’re named after popular sports figures, presidents, and politicians – past and present.”

I once knew a kid that named his dog “Mickey”, after Mickey Mantle, but no one in the family every referred to the dog by both names. On the other hand it wouldn’t shock me to find out someone named the family dog “Barack Obama”, “Michelle Obama” or even “Brad Pitt”. This doesn’t take a thing away from the point of the media’s insistence upon giving the First Puppy the Obama last name, especially when the White House web site didn’t list the dog by a first and last name.

It will be interesting to see what Chuck comes up with on this issue of giving last names to the family pets, but I suspect he’ll find that last names for dogs and cats are a rarity.

Upon searching the net I have seen this Bo Obama name listed by the score. It would not surprise me in the least to find out that many people out there cruising the net and paying attention to the media will adopt the idea of giving their pet a last name as well… simply because the media did it for the Obama family. On the other hand people are lazy creatures, they like to try to shorten names. So even if they give their pet the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt they will still call the dog “Frank” or “FDR”.

I wonder how many dogs out there are called “JFK” or some variant?

I went to Beverly Kidd’s blog this morning and read her latest post. The article was called “Help From My Friends” and was an update for her diet. In the article Bev said, “Well, its been a month since I stepped on the scale, so I thought I would update you on my progress. In a word. Slow. Depending on which scale I use, I’ve lost 3-5 pounds. Not too bad, but I’m not in bathing suit shape yet, and it will be summer before we know it.” This gave me a smile and an idea for a blog post.

To get everyone up to speed… Bev is the evening news anchor at news channel 3 in the evenings. Ms. Kidd has been in the Phoenix area since 2001 and spent the 10 years prior to that at a news station in Virginia. Beverly is a pretty 40 year-old mother of two who is into Health and Fitness. In her copious free time between parenting and career, Bev enjoys playing the drums, sometimes she can be seen at the local Phoenix establishments pounding away like a pro on the skins.

In the comments section of her post, Beverly stated “…and thank you for the nice comments:) I’m so looking forward to feeling “proud” in a swimsuit again.”

I will not attempt to guess Ms. Kidd’s height and weight for numerous reasons, the first being that I’ve never seen her standing near someone (or something) that I knew how tall it was – the other is because I wouldn’t want to make Bev feel insulted or bad because of my misjudgment. Anyone interested in what Ms. Kidd looks like can probably find a few pictures of her on the net.

What I will say is that I, personally, do not see what Bev would have to be ashamed over and I’ll leave it at that.

Personal Belief

My personal belief about how a person looks is simple enough for as long as they are happy with themselves then it doesn’t matter to me whether they look like Zelda Rubenstein or Marilyn Monroe. In this life there are enough things to he unhappy over that looks and appearance are trivial things, besides I have learned through out my life that not everyone views beauty in the same way. In fact I sometimes found myself to not hold the same requirements to judge things as beautiful or ugly, too thin/heavy or just right, etc. Sometimes my judgments alter because of the way I feel or other factors, such as the lighting or place. This may sound strange, but it’s true enough.

I also have learned a long time ago that I can usually find something attractive or repulsive in anyone. Well, repulsive might be too strong of a word to use, but I’ll stick with it for the sake of showing the distinction between extremes.

The bottom line is that in life people have to be happy with themselves in order to have a happy life. It doesn’t really matter whether anyone else agrees or not, just as long as they are happy with who and what they are.
Apparent Contradictions

Even though I realize the happiness of the person depends on their personal views of themselves, I still will have my own opinions. In the past I have been told that I contradict my beliefs in how people look with the opinions I spew from time to time. I’ve learned to agree that there may be contradictions between belief and opinion, but it’s a moot point because I never tell people their appearance has to suit my tastes and what I say is merely opinion to accept or blow off as the person wishes. Nice way to cover a personal hypocrisy, eh?

Don’t worry, many others don’t buy it as an excuse either, but the fact is that I am human like everyone else and as long as my hypocrisies are over unimportant things and don’t hurt anyone then I have other things more important to worry over. Not buying that one either? Drat!

Why Write This Blog?

Over the years I noticed that people, especially women, get pretty darn critical over their appearance. The most common concern seems to be weight, but other concerns can include just about any part of their body. It always fascinated me as to why a person gets so critical and Bev’s article caused the interest over this to come to the forefront once again.

I’ve pretty much decided that the reason why a person becomes critical of the way they look is due to them seeing themselves everyday and they begin to see things about them that they consider as ‘faults’. Once the idea is implanted in their heads, the idea festers and grows. A person may think they have put on a few pounds and it becomes an obsession to lose that weight, meanwhile the people around them may think they look just fine. It’s all perception of the one judging.

An 11-year-old from Wrigleyville, Illinois was hailed as a big hero two years ago after she (then 9 years of age) crawled through a window to rescue her 84-year-old landlady. The landlady fallen and lain on the floor of her apartment for an estimated 15 hours before the girl noticed there was something wrong and took action. The girl was born with a birth defect and has multiple holes in her heart. In the past 20 days the young girl missed 14 days of school due to her health problems. “Medically, it’s been one of her hardest months in many years” said her mother.

Now, it seems, the girl and her family are being evicted. The girl’s family lived in the same upstairs apartment of the two-flat for four years. According to the Chicago Sun Times, in an article entitled “Landlord’s Family Evicting Hero”:

“Missy’s family paid their rent on time, court documents show. But Slattery’s relatives said Missy’s mother, Deb Gordils, had “agitated and disturbed”

Missy doesn’t understand why all this is happening, telling her mother “But Mommy, I saved her”. Missy’s mother told her daughter that the landlady wasn’t doing this, it was being done by others.

So what’s the problem? Well it seems that the family of the old landlord is claiming that Missy’s mother has been making comments aimed at hurting the now deceased woman and her family. The family claimed that Missy’s mother violated a court order of protection by ringing the landlady’s doorbell and telling everyone who would listen that that those responsible for the aged landlady were actually responsible for the her death and they conspired to kill her with overdoses of medication.

Missy’s Mother claimed that the landlady once told her that she wasn’t happy with other people making the decisions and mentioned that she felt she was “being over-drugged”. The mother claimed she only advised the landlady to “talk to her doctor.” Missy’s Mom also said she once called the city’s Department of Aging to ask for a well-being check on Slattery after the protection order was issued.

In the wake of the landlady’s death, her relatives agreed Tuesday in court to let Missy and her family stay in the apartment until June 1, feeling that this would be adequate time to find a new place to live.

Opinions and Outrage

When reading the article, it is also important to read the replies to the article. Overall it seems that many people are making opinions which side with Missy’s family, while a few are talking against Missy’s mother. This is pretty typical.

Let’s analyze the situation in as fair of a manner to all as we can, at least until all the facts come out (and I hope the truth does come out on this matter). A very possible scenario is as follows.

In, or around, 1985 a family moves onto the 2nd floor of a private home or apartment house. The family consisted of a mother and 2 children, ages 7 and 3. 2 years later the elderly landlady takes a fall and becomes virtually helpless for around 15 hours, the oldest girl in the family on the 2nd floor notices something is wrong, probably looks into a window of the landlady’s apartment, sees the landlady lying on the floor and the girl crawls into the window and gets help for the woman. The little girl instantly becomes a ‘hero’ and the relationship between the landlady and the family grows closer than they were in the past.

The mother, being a decent woman, probably stops by the landlady’s apartment on occasion to see how the old woman is doing or maybe asks her if she needs anything at the store and such. The little girl probably gets a little friendlier with the aged landlady too. The relationship probably goes a little beyond the normal landlady/tenant relationship… maybe they begin feeling as if they are friends or family and maybe it doesn’t develop that far and they just become closer acquaintances than they would have if the saving of the landlady’s life didn’t happen.

When the mother of the family hears the old woman’s complaints and sees her declining, the mother becomes concerned. She probably said many things to the old woman, including things reported in the article. It’s not uncommon for people to misunderstand comments made or say things in ways that cause misunderstandings… and it is especially not unique for people to develop attitudes over misunderstandings or disagreements in opinion. The family and caregivers probably heard comments supposedly made by Missy’s Moms through stories related by the old lady and end up taking exception to what was being said with out thinking the old lady misunderstood the comments said them in ways that changed the intent somewhat. This may have caused the Family of the Landlady and the caregivers a basis for thinking that Missy’s Mom was saying things she didn’t actually say or intend to say. As things progressed, words were probably exchanged and the whole situation simply escalated and got out of hand. Now both sides do not want to be reasonable about it.

Summary

When reading the article and comments, I can’t help but to feel as if Missy and her family are being wronged. I sympathize with them and have the tendency to side with them, but I also know that prior to my jumping on someone for being wrong that I would like to hear more of the story. The thing is that more input is needed to find out who is right or wrong.

This scenario isn’t to say that one side or the other isn’t ‘more wrong’ or ‘more right’ than the other… it’s simply to set up a situation that led to the current situation. I am sure that things were said on all sides over the past months or years that attributed to the current situation, many of those things were probably said in the heat of the excitement and that could change how a person says something, takes what is said or hears what is said. It’s a shame, but even on message boards and blogs, where the words are clearly written, it is commonplace for people to not read what is said as it was written. Just take a look at the comments for the news article and the very first comment shows where a person claimed something was indicated that wasn’t. So if the written word can be misconstrued, what hope have we of the verbal word being understood as intended all of the time?

So I am wondering what everyone else thinks?

Special thanks to Rick D’Amico of Fox10 News Arizona for his “News of the Weird” that brought about today’s blog post.

Warning: the Internet may contain traces of nuts.
~Author Unknown

Today’s internet has an estimated population of over 1.2 Billion Netizens.  If we considered it a country of it’s own, it would cover a land area larger than the old Soviet Union and more populated than the country of China.  This country would exist partly in the real world, part in a fantasy world and would be inhabited by people of all walks of life.

The Internet is arguably a tool for great possibilities involving social change, it provides us with ways of interacting with people from all over the world in ways not possible  2 decades ago and new ways of doing business.  Sadly it also provides some with a tool that can be used for darker purposes in ways not 20 years ago.

The Real World

Life is just a fantasy, can you live this fantasy life
~ Aldo Nova

There is a term out there used by some people on the net known as “The Real World”.  I hated this term with a passion for over 10 years now.  Even though I will sometimes use the term myself, I have always felt that it downplayed the reality of the net and made the net seem as if it were a harmless world, like of the nature that you’d find in some elaborate role-playing game.  The Internet can be as real as the so-called “Real World”.  We can fall prey to others who wish to take advantage of others on the net and the effects can be every bit as real.

Everyone On The Net isn’t There For You!

You may never understand
How the stranger is inspired
~ Billy Joel

One of the biggest misconceptions I’ve seen on the net is the idea that everyone is on the net to make friends or to be open and honest with others.  Although it is true that you can meet some of the best people you have ever seen through the net, the opposite is equally true.  On the net you can meet some real scumbags who are out for their own self-gratification and don’t really care one iota for anyone or anything else.  It isn’t easy to pick out the worst elements of the net, in the past I met some who seemed like really decent people… right up until they turned on someone for no good reason.

Internet Crimes And Near Crimes

I cant believe the news today
Oh, I cant close my eyes and make it go away
~ U2

According to an article entitled “Internet Crime Complaint Center Releases 2007 Statistics” by Matt Sarrel:

“In 2007, the IC3 received 206,884 complaints of Internet crime of which they referred more than 90,000 to law enforcement.  In total, there was almost $240 million in reported losses, a $40 million increase over 2006.”

Much of the harm that can be done to us on the net involves fraud of some sort.  People who are unscrupulous by nature have all sorts of scams to defraud us out of our hard-earned money.

Harassment and stalking are other things which can occur on the net, and they occur more often than some people wish to believe.  Harassment can be minor things, such as one member of a forum hassling another consistently with-in a forum… or it can be major by one person going outside the net to harass a person in their real life.  Stalking became such a problem on the net that it developed a new term called “Internet Stalking”.  Internet stalking allows people to follow others around on the net with-out ever leaving their computer chair and it can be as much of a pain as in the “Real World”.

According to Wikipedia, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children funded a study by the Crimes Against Children Resource Center in 2006 of youth Internet users over a five year period. The findings were:

An increase in encountering unwanted exposures to sexual material (from 25% to 34%)
An increase in cases of online harassment (from 6% to 9%)
A decrease in those receiving unwanted sexual solicitations (from 19% to 13%)
40% of all youth Internet users said online solicitors asked them for nude or sexually explicit photographs of themselves.
Only a minority of youth who had unwanted sexual solicitations, unwanted exposures to sexual material, or harassment said they were distressed by the incidents. One-third of the solicitations (31%) were aggressive, meaning the solicitors made, or attempted, offline contact with youth.

Predators abound on the internet and the worst part is that it’s fairly easy to fool someone into thinking your are someone, or something, you aren’t.  These predators do not always confine their activities to the net, there have been case after case reported over the years, as well as sting operations set up by those in the Law Enforcement community and the Media, which proved internet predators are alive and well.  There are even cases where these predators came from other countries to prey on our young.

As with most things, there are sites out there who wish to debunk the stats found for some reason.  There are such articles as Schneier on Security (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/02/fear_of_interne.html) and I Speak Of Dreams:  Debunking Internet Predator Statistics (http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2006/05/debunking_inter.html) which try to debunk the stats being given out.  The real fact of the matter is that in some cases these debunkers are right or partially right.

Cyber bullying is another phenomena on the net which is not only practiced by teens on the net, but adults that one would normally think should be mature as well.  The net allows normally mature adults to behave in ways they would most likely never do in person.  It the next section we will touch on a few of the reasons why this type of thing happens.

The Criminal Element

Trust everybody, but cut the cards.
~ Finley Peter Dunne

The Internet is a great place for the criminal element to thrive, due to it offering some things which are advantages to them.  In addition many law-enforcement agencies are either over-burdened with work or they don‘t take reports of net-crimes seriously enough to follow up on.  The following are only a few of those advantages::

Anonymity

The first thing all Netizens should understand is the fact we don’t know to whom we are speaking. On the net we can claim to be whoever, or whatever, we wish to be… we only have to keep to the script and be consistent in what we tell people.

Obscurity

I could say I am anywhere I choose and most people wouldn’t know or bother to find out.  I could also use a variety of methods to show I am from where I say.  I can go to great lengths to prove where I live, but most often I could be a little evasive in offering proof because of personal net security reasons.

Personality

We can seem to be anyway we wish on the net.  We can seem like the nicest person in the world, but in reality we can be nasty and mean.  A person can act as if they are a wholesome and honest person, but all the while plotting a way to take advantage of you in ways that would really hurt you mentally, physically, emotionally or even financially.

Trusting Souls

I’ve been on one net or another for almost 15 years now and the one thing I learned is that most people are trusting souls.  My theory on this is that since they are on the net to have fun and not harm anyone, then they figure most others are too.  They are often easily fooled by people who ‘seem” nice or pleasant.  Even if they are aware of the fact that there are some real sleazebags on the net, if you talk to them long enough and treat them right… they automatically assume you are an o.k. person.  This plays in favor of those who are out to take advantage of people.

The Freedom of Speech And Other Rights.

Our right to throw a punch ends where it invades another’s personal space!
~ Anon.

Censorship is something many Netizens oppose, they often take the default position of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.  They most often resort to such claims when it is they, or friends of theirs, who have been called down because of some violation of the rules.

There is an old adage which states, “Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose”, I personally prefer the revised version of the saying “Our right to throw a punch ends where it invades another‘s personal space”.  The intention of either saying is to impress upon the minds of people that the things we view as rights and freedoms do not only pertain to them… they are for everyone.

Internet Concerns

“Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.”
~ Will Rogers

Our main concern is not over what information that big business or the government has on us for that information is most often used for valid reasons and they don‘t always make the personal information on people they have records on public.  Real businesses have a thing called The Privacy Act which they must abide by or face penalties.. There are also certain records on files in the business world that are not on computers, let alone on the Internet.  Other businesses keep their business records separated from their internet computers.. Yet there are some places that do put out information, under the guise of public information, which are quite personal.  Many court systems across the country, for example, have information online about the court cases which went through their courts.

We are concerned too much over what information these people have, but we are concerned over the information on us which Joe Netizen can obtain on us… or should be. In other words we have to differentiate between public and private records.  There used to be a saying that dealt with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When we justify that some insurance company or the Government has data on us to support the idea of our giving out things like where we live, how often our 14 year old daughters are alone at home and when, or how much we earn a year… we are simply allowing the mindset to grow that we don’t need to be held liable for our own personal safety.

It’s not always easy to find accurate information about a particular person on the net.  You do have things such as  People Searches on the net, but to get any possible information of value… you have to pay for it.  Even if you pay for the data, there is no guarantee that information, or all of that information, belongs to the exact person you are interested in.

There is also a thing called “The White Pages“ or “Internet Phone Books“, however the drawback to that is if  a person doesn’t have a phone in their name then what good does it do?  There is also a thing called Private Phone Numbers, where the person pays a little extra a month to keep there phone number unlisted, in most cases these online phonebooks will not contain these private numbers.

Many people like to use  IP Trackers, but mostly these trackers will only take you to where the server is located or it will go to a thing called “City Level“.  In large areas like Phoenix or Los Angeles, these trackers don‘t always take you to the sections of the city or the neighboring cities.  For example, if you lived in the Phoenix Valley, a search on your IP number may say Phoenix, Glendale or Tempe when you actually live in Avondale or North Phoenix or Peoria.

Another search site are places like ARIN or RIPE.  Both of these are known to not even take you to the proper city, let alone straight to your home.  A very common result from WHOIS is Amsterdam and in the past that was said to happen because many servers go through that city, as does many proxy sites.

There are other sites on the net which can be utilized, but even with them the person doing the research has to have something known in order to judge whether the information they obtain is good or bad.

Never Assume… for it makes an @ss out of U and Me

Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.
~ Steven Segal

Steven Segal was basically right when he made this quote.  When analyzing facts, people have the natural tendency to make leaps of logic, they put 1 and 1 together and get 3 or 4 for their answers.  Another thing to remember is that once someone gets it into their head that something is right, it’s hard to shake them of that belief.

Genealogy is the study of one’s ancestry, basically.  It’s very much akin to what we are talking about here.  When searching an ancestor, you may find dozens of possibilities in the records for the person you are researching.  Sometimes you will find people that you are convinced are your people, only to find out later that you made a mistake.  Anyone can assume something is right just because it seems right, but to successfully find your ancestors, you have to weed through the facts and match up various bits of information.
Trying to find someone on the net today is not unlike researching genealogy.  You still have to search through many names and facts in order to match it to the person you are wanting to find.  Most often the only way to confirm that the person you want to find will depend upon information from that person or people who actually know that person.  If we neither confirm nor deny, all most research will do is provide unproven claims.

Now, as a side note, if a child predator on the net is after your child… odds are they won’t care if they get your child or someone else’s.  The upside is if they pick the wrong child, that child might end up getting the person caught because they have no idea who the person approaching them is and they call for help.

In Summary

Privacy is not something that I’m merely entitled to, it’s an absolute prerequisite

~ Marlon Brando

We can’t expect to live in today’s world and have none of our personal information let out to those we feel don’t need it, but we take precautions against Identity Theft and other crimes against people.  We may tear up or shred items with our important information on them before throwing them out in the garbage or we don’t give anyone talking to us on the phone or in person any bit of information they ask of us.  I know many people refuse to put their social security numbers on their state driver’s license because they would rather remember a new number than have someone get their data.

On the net we also should strive to not make it easy on the criminal element.  Many sites now will tell you such things as “We will never ask you for your password” and they advise you to notify them of any case where someone claims to be a part of the site and asks such information.  In message forums we ought to be aware of what we tell people, search your own messages and see how much information you let out and then learn the lesson by watching what you say.

Even Business men and women need to be aware of safety on the net.  Many businesses have facilities set up for their business and they have phone lines and internet accounts for that purpose.  Other people who operate businesses on the net don’t have such things.  These people will often work out of their homes and use the tools they already have because they really can’t afford to do more or because the opt to work from home.  These are the people who need to be more wary of the information they let give out.  There are several ways to deal with the business/personal safety issue — but I will name two good ones:

1. Email:  The purpose of email is to provide a way to be contacted or to contact someone.  Usually emailing is a quicker and easier way to contact those in the business world than by phone or a written letter.  Take a look at the number of successful business people who provide email addresses, they do this for a valid reason.  You can start off by only allowing people to contact you by email, once you get and review the email then you can decide whether you want this person to have your home phone or home address.  It’s like part of a scanning process.

2. Cell Phones:  Cell phones are a great way to avoid giving out your home phone number.  Most Cell Phone search sites will only take you as far as the city level and the cell phone is great for people on the go.  Cell phones and services can be very affordable, you can go to the Tracfone site and get 50 minutes of air time and a phone for about $25.  I prefer using one of the regular cell phone companies and you can get a free phone with your service for $30, more or less.   Those people that want to spend more can do so, if they wish, and they might be better off… but the idea here is to show how inexpensive a cell phone can be.  With a cell phone you can also shut it off when you are at the doctors or out playing golf.

Not everyone on the net are only on the Net for strictly business reasons. Some of us enjoy visiting the message boards or doing the Myspace or Facebook thing.  If you are of this type of person, you may wish to separate those identities from your business identity. In some cases that will be hard because in the business world people tend to go by their real names.  You may look into whether the systems you are on allows for multiple accounts and set up your Business account with your business email address.

Remember, it is up to you as to whether you want to not only run risks for yourself… but for your family and friends as well.

Source:

US Legal

2008 Internet Fraud, Scams and Crime Statistics

Internet Crime Complaint Center Releases 2007 Statistics

The Golden Path

The Golden Path, what is it?  Some of the ideas about this include, but are not limited to, the idea of The Golden Path being:

• The path to success
• The proper route to follow
• An unlimited power of intuition used to master life
• A metaphysical theme for success

Although similar, in some ways, these ideas are not exactly the same.  The Path to Success, for example, is not always The Proper Route to Follow for we can often achieve a goal by the use of alternate paths.  Also “an unlimited power of intuition used to master life” is not the same as a path or route to success for one can achieve goals with-out utilizing the power of intuition. .

In short people take the basic meaning of the term “The Golden Path” and they define it in ways they understand… or want it to mean.  Prior to going on, let’s check out Frank Herbert’s Golden Path.

Frank Herbert, Dune and the Golden Path

“And he saw the vision of armor. The armor was not his own skin: it was stronger than plasteel. Nothing penetrated his armor — not knife or poison or sand, not the dust of the desert or its desiccating heat. In his right hand he carried the power to make the Coriolis storm, to shake the earth and erode it into nothing. His eyes were fixed upon the Golden Path and in his left hand he carried the scepter of absolute mastery. And beyond the Golden Path, his eyes looked into eternity which he knew to be the food of his soul and of his everlasting flesh.”

~ Heighia, My Brother’s Dream from the Book of Ghanima – Dune

According to Wikipedia, The Golden Path was “an expansive prescient interpretation that was only visible to the Kwizatz Haderach, a term within the Dune universe used primarily by the Bene Gesserit. which translated as literally meaning “Shortening of the Way”.  It foretold the fluid events of the future, both great and small. More profoundly, however, it revealed an optimum path through the countless threads of cause and effect that were encountered by the human race.”  Now what does this mean?

Well, what this tells me is that the Golden Path was “A vision of the future, large in scope or content, which was only visible to a select group of people”   The Golden Path dealt with powers of the mind and/or spirit, along with the ability to make the choices to make these visions either a reality or to avoid them entirely.  I will agree that my translation of The Golden Path begins to swerve from that of Mr. Herbert’s, but to this point I think I am still close enough to proceed with what The Golden Path came to mean in the world outside of that created by Frank Herbert and his son.

Our Golden Path

The Golden Path is basically a path to enlightenment.  Frank Herbert utilized the metaphysical and Buddhist philosophies for his story and he wove some of those ideas into a fairly well written story.  People became so enamored with the idea of a Golden Path that they adopted the term to fit in with their own ideas and ways of wording things.

The fact is that there is just not one Golden Path, or route to enlightenment, for everyone.  All Golden Paths may have similar aspects, but since each of us is different in some way… our paths will vary to a greater or lesser degree.  Two elements have to exist for a person to be on their Golden Path.

The first element is that The Golden Path must include aspects of “enlightenment“.

According to Emanuel Kant, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.”

The Golden Path and Success

The Golden Path and Success are not one in the same.  The Golden Path, when keeping to Herbert’s ideas set forth in Dune, basically follows a path to enlightenment to a successful outcome which was for the benefit of mankind, whereas Success is “a personal  achievement which is desired, planned, and/or attempted“.  You can be a success in life with-out the spiritual or zen-like qualities, there have been many successful people in history who’s only desire was for the self and it didn’t matter who was hurt or killed in the process of their achieving success.

In Frank Herbert’s Dune, the Golden Path did not exclude great power or wealth from the heroes of the story, in lieu of performing a greater good for humanity.  In fact the materialistic and spiritual went hand-in-hand.  Paul and his son both achieved greatness for themselves, while the entire human race benefited from their actions.

The Golden Path is not always “the easy route to follow“ either. If you read Dune you will find that the heroes took some pretty hard roads in their attempts to succeed, even though we might have wondered why do things that way – another way may have been easier.  The fact is that people can take easier paths in life to success and they probably can achieve some semblance of  successful conclusion to the visions of their future they have had… but quite often short-cuts change things.

So to be on the Golden Path takes involves more than the self and our personal success, it also incorporates the effects our decisions have on others.  We can achieve personal success through the Golden Path, but following the Golden Path also involves some benefit for the masses.

The Golden Path, Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing

Remember, the basic definition of The Golden Path is the road to enlightenment, which may bring one success in obtaining their goals.  The Golden Path often involves a humanitarian aspect where success is only achieved when the person helps others.  There really is no rule saying that all a person does, who is on The Golden path, has to be for the betterment of mankind.  You can achieve great personal success while making things better for all.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

I know I am repeating myself in this blog, but the message must be made clear that the Golden Path is just not a path to our personal success or failure.  A person on the Golden Path may reap no benefits for themselves, Buddha, for example, did not gain wealth and power because of his Golden Path.

The Golden Path, where social marketing and social media marketing are concerned, involves a way for the entire community to benefit… it’s not all about selling my product or service or idea and making millions.  This Golden Path may involve my coming up with something which helps others in the long run, and the fact of whether I personally benefit in the materialistic sense or not is a separate issue entirely.

Someone on the Golden Path, where it concerns SM and SMM, may have opened up a group like “Love it or hate it” or “Social Marketing Central”, they may have developed a place like “Email Delivery Jedi” or they might post blogs aimed at helping others who are interested in social marketing.  The fruits of their labors may be the reward they get for when giving people something back with out the expectation of being paid for the service – one achieves a spiritual or karmic quality that those expecting to be rewarded do not often get.  The helping of others also might be a way for a person to achieve materialistic rewards. People sometimes respond well to being helped and the effect of “What comes around, goes around” comes into play.

Summary

To an extent I believe “The Golden Path” is real, it’s as real as the air we breath and the things we can see and touch.  To judge whether a person has traveled the Golden Path is extremely difficult, especially if we personally do not know the person and have first-hand knowledge of all the person has done in their lives.

Bill Gates, for example, is an extremely wealthy man and with that wealth comes a certain amount of power. There is no doubt that Bill achieved success in his life, only a fool would try to deny that Microsoft and the accumulation of his own personal wealth is anything but success… but has he followed the Golden Path or has he simply followed a path to success is anyone’s guess.  We can gain insight by what greater good he has done with his wealth or the products he put out, but you don’t find a lot on the media concerning how much money or materials he donated for those in need.

Mother Theresa, however, obviously traveled the Golden Path in her life because of the good she has done in her life with-out concern over her own personal being.

A third example I give is Andrew Carnegie.  Despite what some say about him, the benefits of Andrew’s labors in life extended far beyond his lifetime and are still felt today by many. Andrew obviously traveled the Golden Path and it brought him wealth, power and fame — but it also helped many others who were less fortunate than he.

In closing, the Golden Path and personal success are not mutually exclusive, but just because someone is successful does not mean they traveled the Golden Path.  There is much more to it than the acquisition of personal wealth or power.

A Lie Is A Lie

A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a lot of explanations.
– Saki

Whenever a discussion arises concerning lying, often someone will state the fact that “a lie is a lie”, or something that amounts to the same thing, but are all lies the same and are there instances where the lie is better than the truth. This article will explore “The Lie”.

In order to understand “The Lie”, we first must know what it is.

What is a lie?

Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies. — Oliver Goldsmith

The definition of the word Lie, according to Answers.com, is “A false statement deliberately presented as being true“. The definition does not say that a lie is a false statement which is intended to do harm and all else are simple fibs or untruths. Also, there are no qualifiers in most definitions of the word “Lie” which states that there are many levels of lies. The definition simply states that a lie is a statement made, which is known to be untrue, but presented at the truth.

Who lies?

Delusions are often functional. A mother’s opinions about her children’s beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.
- Robert Heinlein

Everyone lies, so it is said. At some point in everyone’s life, we lie about something. Quite often our first lies occur while we are very small children. Sometimes the lying child is considered cute at first, but parents and other adults quickly decide that laughing at the child for lying will only serve to teach it that lying is funny. You can see proof of this on such shows as America’s Funniest Videos where an entire audience of adults can break out in hysterical laughter over a video of a 2 or 3 year old covered in cookie crumbs telling his mother NO when she asked if he ate the cookie. More often we can see it in the home first hand.

To make this shorter, through out our lives we find that lying can be a convenient way to save us from all sorts of unpleasant situations or to make someone feel good. We learn that there are such thing as acceptable lies and unacceptable lies.

Types Of Lies:

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic — John F. Kennedy

There are two primary types of lies, those intended to do harm and those which are meant to be harmless. Everything else can usually fit into one of these two categories. Through-out the ages we find people have broken lies down into more categories than the two named.

St. Augustine de Hippo, 13 November, 354 ~ 28 August, 430, wrote the book “De Mendacio (Of Lying)“ as a part of his work “Retractions” in 395 A.D. Scholars have derived from his works the fact that St. Augustine claimed there were 8 types of lies:

1. Lies in religious teaching.
2. Lies that harm others and help no one.
3. Lies that harm others and help someone.
4. Lies told for the pleasure of lying.
5. Lies told to “please others in smooth discourse.”
6. Lies that harm no one and that help someone.
7. Lies that harm no one and that save someone’s life.
8. Lies that harm no one and that save someone’s “purity.”

Today the list of lies became more detailed. The following are the most commonly accepted forms of lying and are not listed in any order of importance:

A, The Harmful Lie: These types of lies are intended to do harm, they are sometimes known as the “Black Lie” or the “Big Lie”. Many of the types of lies given below, such as lies of exaggeration or perjury, could be made with the intention to do harm to another.

B. The Harmless Lie: These types of lies are not meant to harm anyone. They include such lies as “The White Lie“, “The Brag“ and certain “Lies of Exaggeration“.

1. The “White Lie”: This type of lie is told for a reason, yet it is not intended to do any harm to a person, place or thing if the lie is found out. They are often told for the benefit of the liar, or someone whom the liar is covering by saying the lie. These types of lies are most often told to avoid offending someone from the unpleasantness of the truth.

2. The “Emergency Lie“: This type of lie is a form of “White Lie” and is used when the truth cannot be told with out offending or causing harm to another.

3. Lies-To-Children: This is a euphemism for statements said to children. Mostly this type of lie has the intention of making something which is of an adult nature acceptable for children to hear. Lies to children may also include subjects not of an adult nature.

There are probably other types of “harmless lies” as well.

C. Lies of Misconception and Discord::

Lies of Misconception and Discord may also include Lies intended to Mislead. These lies can be either Harmful or Harmless.

1. . Lying By Omission: This occurs when someone tells us a truth, but deliberately leaves out important facts which may cause us to disagree with their view upon the subject. It is a lie of Misconception.

2. Noble lie: This lie would normally cause some type of discord if uncovered, but it offers some benefit to the liar and/or others. It is often told to maintain law, order and safety. It may also help the elite to maintain power.

3. Perjury: Perjury is when one lies, or makes a false statement, under oath in a court of law or any of the various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a lie which is punishable by law due.

4. Misleading Lie: This lie occurs when a person makes a statement which isn’t exactly an outright lie. The purpose of this lie is often to make an untruth seem like the truth.

5. The Bold-faced Lie (also known as “The Barefaced Lie): This is when an untruth is said which is obviously a lie.

D. Lies not perceived as Lies by the majority:

1. Jocose Lies: These are lies which are meant in jest and are usually understood as such by all present parties.

2. Bluffing: This is another type of “harmless” lie, but one that is found to be acceptable. This lie is an act of deception used when playing a game or trying to get out of some situation that might be harmful to the liar.

3. Exaggeration: An Exaggeration is often a true statement which has aspects of being untrue due to the degree of the statements made.

a. The Brag: This is a type of lie which falls under the Lie of Exaggeration. It can be based on truth or it could be complete fabrication.

Jocose Lies: No harm, no foul?

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with it’s credibility. And vice versa.
~ Robert Heinlein

The jocose lie is one told for the purpose of, or under the guise of, amusement. Whether the lie is harmful or harmless depends solely upon two main things:

1. How the speaker presents the “Joke”. Some comedians tell their lies for a laugh in ways which support the lie as being the truth, even though it is presented in humor.

2. How the audience perceives the “Joke”. Some listeners of jokes told by comedians accept the “Lie” told in humor as the truth, even if the comedian makes it clear they are ’lying’ for a laugh.

It is strange that St. Augustine did not add the Jocose Lie as a part of his types of lies, obviously he did not have comedians and talk show hosts in his day and age or else his views would have included lies that are made under the guise of humor.

Every day citizens are not the only ones who lie!

A monarch’s neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright.
~ Robert A. Heinlein

In life we find out that the common person is not the only ones who lie, in fact we often are quick to recognized a lie from someone who is important or famous. In some cases we will listen to people who know no more about something than we do and believe their accusations of someone lying over the person who is accused of lying.

One of the groups of people that many, if not most, of us believe to be liars are politicians. I would hazard to guess that it is believed by more people that politicians lie and any other group of people… with the possible exception of lawyers. We will often blame the politician for lying, while allowing the news person who asked a question that he or she knew couldn’t be answered completely or honestly by any one in the government escape with out as much as a look of disdain in their direction.

Politicians lie for many reasons. Sometimes they lie because of National Security Issues or Security Reasons, sometimes they lie because if they told the truth they would interfere with the due process of law, sometimes the appear to lie because they are misinformed themselves by underlings who are supposed to tell them the truth or because what they say is taken out of context, and sometimes they lie for personal reasons. As with all lies, we should try to discern the real reason for the lies we are told, instead of blindly following the words of someone who really may not know the full story either.

Synopsis:

The lie is something perpetuated by many, they can be for the purpose of harming others or they can be meant to simply conceal something that we would rather not have known. The choice is ours , but there is always an option to lying. That option is just telling people that you don’t think they need to know that information.

]]>