1. Unique DNA

Each one of us has a unique combination of DNA. Actually, that statement isn’t true, since there are a finite number of possible combinations and expressions of human genes, but in practical terms, the number is so large that it’s a safe bet that you’ll never meet yourself. That is, unless you’re a twin, but even twins may have enough differences to be detected.

But what about cloning? If someone were to use my DNA to make a clone, would that person be identical to me? This brings in the term, epigenetics, the fact that genes interact with their environments and produce different results, based on the variations in those encounters. Unless a clone can be raised in exactly the same conditions that I experienced, said creature would be distinct from me. There’s another factor that will have to be taken into account, but I’ll say more about that in a moment.

2. Viability

This is the condition of a creature that has independent existence. The definition of parasite, depending on which source you look at, includes the idea of the host being a separate species, but in practical terms, laying aside sentimental notions, a fetus is a parasite and necessarily so until the end of the second trimester.

Of course, a person on life support is dependent on machinery for life, but such a person is not connected to another organism in the manner of a parasite. This category is complicated in that patients in a vegetative state are unlikely to recover and thereby are not able to live without being sustained continually and may be considered to fail in this category.

3. Life experience

Memory is a fundamental element of human existence. Speaking more broadly, who we are is, in part, what we have done. This is another way that twins or clones are different. Unless they do exactly the same actions throughout their lives, they will be distinct individuals. I’m not limiting this category to any particular length of time. The first action or memory is enough to qualify.

What of people who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease or similar forms of dementia? The disaster of those conditions is that over time they rob a person of the quality that makes us consciously distinct.

I propose the following:

A unique human being has at least two of those three elements.

Does an embryo or fetus during the first two trimesters qualify? No. It fails items two and three. How about a comatose patient? Yes. The person possesses the first two, regardless of whether the third remains extant. An a clone that is allowed to come to term and grow into adulthood? Yes. That person will certainly have the latter two characteristics and given enough time will also acquire the first, as described above.

While it is best to respect organisms who possess any of these three characteristics, human life requires at least two to qualify for full rights.

The problem is that in each of those, competing values make an easy resolution difficult to justify if we are to remain intellectually honest. If all we care about is bloviating and exercising power, then no twinging of conscience is needed.

Let’s take the simplest one first, namely what to call someone who crosses our border without permission. Can a person be illegal? That would imply that we can shrink all the characteristics of someone down to a single quality. Of course, we do that all the time. Sex, skin color, height, weight, and so forth are readily observed facts about a person. If I see a person unknowingly drop his wallet, and I can’t get his attention, I would tell Lost and Found or a police officer that a tall man wearing a blue jacket and red hat is the owner. Those are the characteristics that would allow the proper authorities to identify the person in question on sight. Does he also play chess, vote for the Green Party, live with a lizard, or play the trombone? I have no idea, and it doesn’t matter in this case.

We do this because we don’t have time to list out everything there is to know about someone else when we discuss that person. Tolkien’s Ents live for thousands of years and can afford to give themselves comprehensive names. We can’t. That being the case, we have categories to organize and summarize what we’re talking about.

One such category is “criminal.” That is really what we’re talking about. Someone who crosses our border illegally has broken the law. The person’s whole being isn’t illegal, but by nature of that one act, the person has become a law-breaker. To obfuscate that fact is to attempt to hide the truth about what is going on.

But the obsession over status dooms any reform to failure. The total length of our international borders is 7,458 miles. That doesn’t include the various islands and the state of Hawai’i that are also U.S. territory. We’ve fought a War on Drugs since the Nixon administration. While some drugs are grown or produced within our nation, many are imported–smuggled, actually–in, and stopping that flow has proved impossible. In the same way, people will cross into our country without getting permission if there’s an incentive to do so.

There is a Klingon story about a man who insisted on facing a storm, rather than hiding safe inside the city. That fellow died. When the current flows one way, all we can do is try to steer it a bit. When the wind blows, we can try to stop it, or we can put up turbines to use what is inevitable. Instead of desperate measures to “secure” our borders, measures that are doomed to failure, how about putting printers and laminators at each port of entry. Anyone coming in will be issued an ID card that will work like a social security number when the person gets a job. It’s a whole lot easier to get employers to use the E-Verify system than to stop people from sneaking into the country.

The values in competition here are the dignity of work, the right of movement, and the need for security. I’ve shown that security, at least the form that many in the Republican Party seek, is an illusion. We may also ask here about the burden on social services, but if more workers were paying taxes and so forth, that burden, which we’re already carrying, would be reduced. While much more open borders wouldn’t guarantee that we know everything that we feel the need to know about immigrants, it would create a more open system. Greater danger lies in migrants who are hidden and who have to elude the government, rather than deal with it in the light of day.

This makes breaking the law only necessary for those who intend to commit more crimes. It also recognizes the worth of any person who comes here willing to work. That person can be a tax payer. That person will spend money in local businesses. That person also brings a desire to succeed, something that we throw away only at our cost.

What I have been able to do is find good, lightweight, and functional programs that do exactly what I need them to do without arguing about it. When I want to defragment my hard-drive in a hurry, MyDefrag does the job. I do most of my writing on OpenOffice software. When Windows Media Player balked at playing what I wanted to watch, I got this.

But the title of this article promised politics, and I’m about to deliver. I look at government programs in a way similar to my take on computers. We citizens don’t exist to serve government. Government exists to work for us.

My favorite example of good government is NASA. Said agency has never had even five percent of the Federal budget, but look at all that it has achieved. And it has done this without preventing others from operating in space. Look at SpaceX and Virgin Galactic for examples. The former of those is now delivering cargo to the International Space Station.

Take in contrast the Microsoft-esque attempt at healthcare reform. That massive piece of political software is being rolled out over a period of years. The beta testing has so far given mixed results. And soon, lots of Americans are going to face the bureaucratic equivalent of a pop-up that asks, Are you sure?

I have no objection to government being helpful. But that help should be genuine. It should be effective. And most importantly, it should come with no compulsion.

What I’d like to see, for example, would be a government insurance program such as what I discussed here–in other words, a lightweight program that does only what it claims to do and does that well and without argument.

The problem is that political software developers so often are afflicted with big visions while at the same time lacking in the quality that the best engineers are blessed with–a love of simplicity. Politicians so often operate under the fear that the voters are coming, so they’d better look busy. Many of them have a heartfelt desire to do good and confuse the nature of their desires with the nature of their ideas.

The principle that I’m suggesting here is that when considering the creation or expansion of a government program, we must ask what is the smallest number of actions that will accomplish a worthy goal.

Really?

I’m not an exhibitionist. Whether I’m relieving myself in the jakes, enjoying someone’s company in the bedroom, or washing dishes in the kitchen, I want to decide who gets to watch–and perhaps sell tickets to, if you have a yearning to see me scrub a pan.

But that’s not what we’re talking about–at least not yet. For now, the debate focuses on activity in public. The Supreme Court tells us that we have a diminished right to privacy in public spaces. That seems reasonable, though I remain suspicious any time some branch of government lays out how much intrusion into our lives it will allow itself and others.

Consider this: Who is watching, what will be done about what is seen, and what kind of record will be made and how long it will be kept?

1. Who is watching?

If I watch you walking down the street, you may be annoyed by my attention, but there’s not much I can do just by watching. (We’ll get to keeping records in a bit.) By contrast, government has power that private citizens don’t have. The more the government knows, the more it can do. As we’ve seen too many times, governments that watch but aren’t watched–in other words, governments without accountability–go wrong in a hurry.

2. What will be done with what is seen?

Watching without a purpose isn’t going to happen. Governments don’t have money just to enjoy the view. Will what is seen be used as a way to work around having to obtain warrants? What methods of analysis will be used to draw conclusions about activities done in public? We’ve seen driving while black being treated as a criminal act. That’s an example of an innocent act can be taken as potentially unlawful by government observers. Add more and more cameras, and the chances for this kind of thing grow.

3. What kind of record will be made and how long will it be kept?

Recordings from the cameras theoretically could be kept forever–or at least until the digital file becomes excessively corrupt. Will those records be available to the person in the video? Since more than one person is likely to be on tape, can anyone come see the recordings? Will dossiers be compiled on every person or on some people regarded as suspicious by those in power? What oversight will monitor this?

Now come back to the question that I raised earlier. If you’re not doing something wrong, why would you object to being watched? All of us make minor errors or missteps. It’s human nature to see a blunder and make a broad statement about the person making it. That’s called a hasty generalization.

More than that, pick anything that you do. Someone will tell you that it’s wrong to do it or that you’re doing it in the wrong way. The more we are watched, the more times our actions will be called into question, often by people who have no business asking. We protect ourselves particularly from government by requiring those in power to work hard if they wish to hold us to account. Investigations and trials demand the painstaking gathering of evidence and reasoning. The more we do to make that process easy for the government, the more often we will have to defend ourselves.

Watching is an intrusive act. We tolerate it being done by others like us because most watchers are limited in what they can do with what they see. Government has many fewer practical limits. That being the case, we must impose as many legal limits as possible to remain free.

We are told competing messages. Islam is alternatively a religion of peace and a cult of terror. The majority of Muslims oppose the heinous acts of a few, or they remain silent in the face of dangerous people among them. In all of this, a great many outsiders take it upon themselves to characterize beliefs that they know little about and cultures that they have not studied.

I am not a Muslim, and therefore, what I am about to say here is also the voice of an outsider, but in my defense, I have read the Qur’an and teach portions of it every semester to my World Literature students. Consider the following two passages:

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. Camp outside the camp seven days; whoever of you has killed any person or touched a corpse, purify yourselves and your captives.

And

O mankind! reverence your Guardian Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from them twain scattered like seeds countless men and women–reverence God, through Whom ye demand your mutual rights, and reverence the wombs that bore you, for God ever watches over you.

Or how about this pair:

If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you. But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord.

And

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear God, who believe in the unseen and are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them, and who believe in the revelation sent to you, and sent before your time, and in their hearts have the assurance of the hereafter. They are on true guidance from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper. As to those who reject faith, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.

Finally,

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements–surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?

And

You certainly know already the first form of creation: Why then do you not celebrate His praises? See you the see that you sow in the ground? Is it you that cause it to grow, or are We the cause? Were it our will, we could crumble it to dry powder, and you would be left in wonderment.

Call this an intellectual parlor game. Of each pair, which comes from the Bible and which from the Qur’an? The passages are from Numbers 31:17-19, Job 38:4-7, James 1:5-8, and Suras 2:1-6, 4:1, and 56:62-65, if you want to look them up.

What’s the point? The language of the two books is so much alike as to be hard to distinguish. In fact, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are much like Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian in how closely related they are. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all come from the same place and share the same cultural heritage. The Hebrew word for God, El, is the same as the Arabic word, Allah.

Have atrocities been committed in the name of Islam? Certainly. The same, though, must be said for acts done from supposedly Christian motives. Conflict between these two daughter faiths of Judaism has gone on for centuries, and both sides have bad actors within their midst. Religion, like any human endeavor, has a mixture of good and evil. The three monotheistic faiths that arose out of the Middle East have been the source for much that is the best of our creations and have shown the worst in us.

Rather than dismiss one as having nothing worthy in it while believing another without introspection, it is better to study all three, to see how they are three members of the same squabbling family, a family that for better or worse has shaped much of our world. To hate one is to hate all, for they share the same spiritual DNA.

Crossposted on English 301: Reading and Writing.

1. Anyone who can get through a shopping experience without cussing must be heavily medicated.

2. Why does dishwasher detergent come with a safety seal?

As I’ve said many times, if you’re not hurting me (or an innocent person), do as you will. The Wiccans use that saying as the basis of their ethics, and it’s a good summary of the libertarian philosophy. It is also at the heart of the American way of doing things.

At the same time, Americans have a Puritan strain running through our collective consciousness. Recall H. L. Mencken’s line about Puritanism–the haunting belief that somewhere, someone is having a good time. It’s the reason that our missionaries wandered the globe making women wear woolen dresses in the tropics. It’s the reason that we forced a change of governments in Iran in 1953 and in Chile twenty years later. It’s tied up in the reason that we removed Saddam Hussein from power. In all of those, we had the belief that people were doing things in a way that we didn’t approve.

In our nation and in any society, there will always be a tension between the individual and the group. It’s been my observation, both as a student of history and by keeping my eyes open, that while individuals screw up from time to time, to make a royal mess of things requires the idiocy of crowds. That being said, I generally favor regulation to increase in direct proportion with size. Individuals deserve wide liberties, while groups often need to be restrained.

At the same time, I recognize that actions do have consequences and those consequences at times demand a response from the rest of us. When that’s the case, we have to balance the harm that could be done against the rights that we all should value.

Consider, then, the two issues that I named above. Take gay marriage first. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal considers the evidence of harms and benefits. The conclusion given, based on a review of the literature, is that there is evidence toward looser unions when same-sex couples are allowed to marry, and those same-sex couples have a lower concern about monogamy. That being said, children raised in same-sex couple households do as well as children in other relationships, and the time a relationship lasts and the number of partners tolerated in a relationship reflects overall changes in society in general.

What about guns? About 30,000 persons die in a given year from gun fire, and a couple hundred thousand are injured. The majority of deaths are suicides. Accidental deaths come in around 600. Contrast that with the number of defensive gun uses in the same period–in other words, cases in which someone uses a firearm to defend against a lethal threat–run anywhere between 108,000 and 2.5 million, depending on which study you accept. We also see that over the course of the last two decades, as gun laws have loosened and more states have allowed citizens to carry guns, the rate of violent crime has dropped. While cause and effect are hard to link, the evidence does show that more guns in more hands doesn’t result in more violence.

In other words, both gay marriage and gun ownership and carry have a mixed bag of results for society. This is where I have to fight against that Puritan yearning that so pervades American thinking. It is not the job of society to sweep in and right every wrong. A world in which no wrongs can occur is a soulless existence. Human beings are born with the power to choose, and that includes choosing right or wrong. It also includes a vast territory of grey, even presuming that our understanding of the two opposites is as good as we wish to believe.

I come back to my original idea. The fundamental principle of a society must be that each member is entitled to as much liberty as can be. The limits of liberty are defined by what would destroy the society or harm its members unduly. I realize that these terms are vague. To introduce clarity, look at the data that I cited above. Despite the mixed results, we see no evidence that either freedom will destroy us all. In fact, on balance, both freedoms create more good than harm. That being the case, I ask here a question that I often raise when the subject of control vs. freedom comes up:

Give me a reason to support control that does not depend on the theology regarding your favorite deity.

That means, obviously, the Christian God, but it just as well applies to pronouncements from social theorists in the absence of proof. Yes, the Bible in a literal reading is against homosexuality. Yes, a number of political philosophies are against private citizens having firearms. But America, a Constitutionally defined secular and agnostic nation, cannot base its laws on theology. Understand that by secular, I mean the law must be independent of any reference to an outside power, and by agnostic, I mean that without evidence and in the presence of speculation, the law must admit to not knowing.

We in this country have made the extraordinary choice to build our law on that principle. It was a good choice, both in terms of utility for the individual and the society as a whole. It was the correct choice if we believe that we all are born with rights. It is a choice that each generation has to make again and defend again.

How would the marriage of a same-sex couple affect your decision or ability to be married?

I have never heard an answer to that question, not even one that makes no sense. The talk is about defending the institution of marriage. Fine, where’s the threat to marriage?

I’m Libertarian, except when I have to go Green. This means that as long as you’re not hurting me, you should be free to do as you wish. I’ve never seen an explanation of how same-sex marriage harms me. I am not harmed when someone else does things in a way that I don’t do them. I am not harmed when someone else believes something that is different from my beliefs. To me, it’s that simple.

Perhaps you thought that being football players gave you permission to do whatever you wanted. Perhaps you’re simply stupid. Perhaps you’re evil. Here’s a message: I don’t care. American culture has a problem in choosing its heroes, and that may increase the temptation, but that’s just too bad.

What you did was wrong. The punishment that you will receive is not nearly enough, but you were right in one respect. Your lives have been labelled forever. Whatever good comes into your lives from here on out will have to be earned. We discussed a river above.

But here’s what you missed: You did this to yourselves.

Here’s another thing that you missed: The girl you raped has also had her life changed. Your complete lack of regret about this would be telling, but we already know what you’re worth–if you’re in doubt, go to a cow pasture once you’re back in circulation and find a pile of shit. The difference between you and the pile? The pile returns something of value to the world.

Why am I bothering to write about this? Because CNN whined about what is happening to you. I don’t want there to be any doubt regarding my position on the subject. One news organization may feel sorry for you. I do not.

I hope that I’m not alone.