Supporting the Troops? 11/21/2007 01:37:50 pm by Dan Krohn

	Contrary to what one would think, the current leadership of the United States has not been very kind to its fighting men and women. Those fighting in Iraq today do not get the same level of medical care on their return as those who fought in the first Iraq war. The deficit budget tries to save money in sometimes cruel ways. Like many wars before it, the war in Iraq has become very controversial. However, in one respect the controversy surrounding this war is unique. This blogger believes that one factor affecting our debate is that this is a remote war to most Americans – we do not see it up close and personal, unless we happen to be among the minority to know someone injured or killed there. Unlike most prior wars, there has been no tax increase to finance it. Unlike most prior wars, there has been no draft - nothing approaching universality to military service. In an effort to maintain remoteness, the U.S. government even adopted a law prohibiting military coffins being returned to the States from being filmed. This remoteness is not an accident; it is clearly a matter of intent. So how much do we really care about the women and men who are fighting there? It seems not much. Military recruiting has become increasingly difficult, and to help the recruiting effort substantial signing bonuses are promised to those who volunteer. But apparently with a big “gotcha”. If one volunteers and is sent overseas to fight and is crippled, that person is viewed as no longer useful so no longer deserving of funds. If a soldier is no longer able to fight, his or her bonus ceases to be paid - or s/he might be asked to pay some back. Have we no shame! Life is really tough for anyone with a crippling injury. Has war become so remote that we need not even assist our wounded veterans on their return? There are those who think otherwise. It’s been reported that Rep. Jason Altmire, a Democrat from Pennsylvania , has introduced the "Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007" (H.R. 3793), and that it now has in excess of forty sponsors. The shocking aspect of this situation is that such a bill needs to be proposed. The president is the commander and chief, as he so often reminds us; and it is his job to oversee the military. President Bush should never have allowed this shameful policy to go into effect. Someone at the Defense Department or the Pentagon should have questioned this and it should have been fixed. Now it is possible that legislation funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan require such shameful treatment of our military - in which case all those who voted for that legislation should be pilloried along with the president who signed it.

	[1 comments]

Online Rudeness 11/21/2007 11:04:14 am by Dan Krohn

	Having just read a story about online rudeness, this blogger has been inspired to simultaneously say “Duh” and reissue a warning. According to this article, people are more inclined to be rude and obnoxious online because they lose some sense of their own identity. That is no doubt true, but merits further examination as to why this is the case. This blogger suggests that the first cause is a matter of avoiding responsibility for one’s actions or comments. Many studies have shown that people are much more likely to act in an offensive, even criminal, manner if they have no concern about being caught. This results from being able to avoid punishment, either immediate shame or later more serious ramifications. This blogger suspects as second cause arises from being able to hurt without actually watching the effects. It’s much easier to support a war when one does not have to look at the injured children. And likewise it’s much easier to shoot someone in the back than between the eyes, where one might have to watch the expression of agony that follows. For those humans who possess a conscience, this is punishment. There’s nothing new in any of this except for the Internet’s empowering people to act badly while avoiding the otherwise natural ramifications. Philosophically, this situation is further evidence that our species is not “little lower than the angels” as some sages have suggested or as we might like to think. Truth is, we humans should endeavor do the right thing for no other reason than it’s being right. We should need neither hope for reward (in this life or hereafter) nor fear of punishment to inspire us to act morally. But we do, so now the warning. Anything one posts online is there for anyone to see. And one can never be sure that anonymity will hold up. People who you would not want to impress as boorish or worse will be forming impressions of you based on your online persona. These people include potential dates and their friends, employers, potential employers, and investors. Your banker might even be among them. Take care.

	[comments?]

Virtual Worlds Continued 11/04/2007 04:39:02 pm by Dan Krohn

	The ideas bubbling up concerning virtual worlds keep expanding. It has been announced that Linden (owner of Second Life) and others are in the process of developing avatars that can crossover from one virtual world to another. The implications are tremendous. At this time the administrator of a virtual world is an all powerful entity. If an admin wants to change the rules, it owns the world - so be it. But the only way one can imagine avatars moving from one virtual world to another is if there is some agreement among virtual world administrators to comply with a standard. Initially this need only be a matter of software, but one wonders what will come next. It had to happen sooner or later. Someone who makes substantial real dollars in his Second Life existence is suing another “player” for what in essence seems to be theft of trade dress. Translated, the defendant liked what the plaintiff was doing and copied it. At least in the United States, one company can only copy so much from another company before being liable for damages. But in a virtual world? Just what are the rules? Well, where there is real, not virtual, money being made, there will be people expecting commercial law to intrude. So what will control, the rules of the game or the law of whatever state a court believes applies. How will this work with avatars wondering from one virtual world to another? Say an avatar breaks the rules of one world for which the standard penalty is to have its speed of movement cut 25% by the admin. But the penalty in its home world might be different, or the behavior bringing forth the punishment might not be frowned up at all. How is this all to be resolved? One can only imagine fascinating “treaty” negotiations among virtual world administrators in an effort to agree upon a universal code of conduct. Perhaps people will need to “own” multiple avatars for travel within different confederations of virtual worlds with different rules and different software. Will virtual world negotiators do better than their real world counterparts? Given the state of the real world, this blogger certainly hopes so. There is something about all this which is a pity. The fantasy is being lost. It has long been said that to find the power, just follow the money. Well, the money is moving into virtual worlds at breakneck speed. And in a battle between money and fantasy, where would you place your bet? This blogger, being an attorney, will find all of this fascinating and exciting. For others, the lure of virtual worlds may become commerce and cease to be escape.

	[comments?]