Authoritarianism marches onward in the United States. A kinder, gentler authoritarianism: You just need to ignore those people singled out almost as enemies of the state, for no real reason, and subjected to harassment and abuses that are ``plausibly denied.'' And you must ignore the random citizens selected without their consent for weapons research and experimentation. Other than that, we are a prosperous nation, in a period of special prosperity. So they tell us. The raw numbers do not reflect the distribution of that wealth, but poor people these days have no real political voice anyway. There is ``no downside'' these days, in the political jargon, to ignoring the poor and their very real concerns. What we get is phony paternalism as a mask for authoritarianism.

Speaking of speaking, the flag burning amendment is making its way through Congress again. This amendment would make it a crime to burn the American flag. Let me quote from The World Almanac, 1997, a passage which in essence is printed in thousands of other books:

When the flag is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, it should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

But doesn't our system protect speech? Doesn't the First Amendment protect speech, and in fact prohibit Congress from making any law to infringe on it? Especially political speech the government finds objectionable. For that matter, did anyone ever really die for the flag? For a piece of cloth? If they did they were idiots. What is worth fighting for and dying for are the principles represented by the flag -- and one of those principles is the right to free speech. So now do we need an amendment to restrict the First Amendment, to counter a ``problem'' that is not a problem anyway?

I used to be in that camp which says that while I find flag burning objectionable, I will defend the rights of American citizens to express their political views even if I disagree. I still am in that camp, but only if I associate the flag with the United States as a land, and with whatever subset of its people still support liberty and freedom in practice rather than with empty rhetoric. But if I were to associate the flag with the U.S. government -- which honestly I do not think it represents -- then I would have to agree with someone who burns it as a political statement. If it becomes against the law to burn the flag, will it next become against the law for me to say that the U.S. government is a global criminal conspiracy and that it holds and exploits American citizens as slaves?

Continuing on with the free speech violations, a court recently ruled (July 3, 1998) that Peter Junger, professor at Case Western Reserve University Law School, cannot publish computer codes for his class on data security on the web. This is distinguished from code printed in books: someone might have to actually type that code in, or use a scanner. Computer code is not considered a form of free speech, because it can be used by a computer to actually perform the function described. (What happens as computers get better and better at natural language processing?)

This code and technology is already freely available around the world. Restricting American researchers only makes the research climate in the United States more restrictive than it already is. I have already noticed that many if not most of the innovative and valuable research papers in my particular fields of expertise now come from foreign authors. I suspect the trend is much wider. In restricting cryptography, not to mention other research, American businesses suffer by not being allowed to export competitive products.

If I trusted the NSA and government officials it might be one thing, but they have repeatedly violated any trust ever placed in their undemocratic and unaccountable power base. No one in his or her right mind would trust ``privacy'' software with a U.S. government back door, or even the possibility of it. Our corrupt government has violated that trust too many times, and usually for political, commercial, and monetary reasons rather than for actual national security, which has become a tired and bankrupt phrase.

On another note, there has been a new round of gay bashing by public officials, giving the implicit permission to others that gays are fair game for disparagement and worse. This is the type of thing that leads to beatings, violence, and threats of violence. I think people are free to hold whatever prejudices they hold, but they are certainly not free to act on those prejudices to deny basic civil and human rights to the citizens they happen to dislike. Most particularly, the government and its agents are not free to single out adults for their private and consensual sexual conduct in their bedrooms, or for their speech in that regard. The most basic freedom is the freedom to be left alone by the government. The Supreme Court might disagree, but then again it is now in many respects a party to the diminishment of rights enunciated in plain English in the Bill of Rights. This special attention to gays also amounts to selective enforcement. If there were a massive campaign to root out oral sex behavior by heterosexuals -- illegal in many states -- there would be a massive outcry. As it is, Americans tend to think that as long as they are left alone it does not matter if someone who is ``different'' is persecuted.

Please note that the option of free speech is always open. People can demonstrate and talk and express their views, and attempt to convince others. The low road is when some group attempts to use its political power to get other people, usually law enforcement, to enforce their own views of morality in private, consensual conduct.

The government is now gearing up to spend $2 billion dollars ($1 billion from the taxpayers) on a media campaign against drugs. I cannot comment on it now, since I have not yet seen it. I hope it will present factual information on the dangers of drugs and the options for treatment. I hope it will reflect the obvious awareness that the drugs lumped under the generic terms ``drugs'' and ``illegal drugs'' are actually pharmacologically distinct substances which present different risks and dangers. I also hope that legal drugs will be given the same treatment in accordance to the risk they pose to individuals in our society, and that a distinction will be made between adults and children. Realistically, though, I worry that we are in for a new wave of demonization that will ``justify'' expanding the already world-record level of incarceration of American citizens. (And as always, the government's ``war on marijuana'' is hypocritical, unsupportable, and counterproductive.)

The United States continues its headlong rush into authoritarianism, at least in the public realm. For citizens whose rights have already been squashed as if they did not exist this is just so much more political posturing. So what if the Bill of Rights is desecrated? It does not mean anything in practice anymore anyway. So what if some grandstanding ignorant and/or expedient politicians propose some oppressive law? That is just the law following the practice that has long been indifferent to whatever laws there already are. There is no real rule of law in the United States. At least legislated authoritarianism would not be the hypocrisy we have currently. The politicians and the media feed us phony information, phony data, and phony scandals that in the end mean nothing. We are being titillated right into legislating the slavery that too many Americans suffer under already. In the current system, only money and playing along can save you. You can buy some time by joining the herd that blindly follows the lies. And who will speak out when they come for you?