I am going to Zihuatanejo over spring break! I am keeping a daily update of the trip here.

I feel that I need to make a distinction. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the concept of libertarianism which leads people to uneducated assumptions.

This issue comes about since I often overhear the discussion of politics on campus. It's a true shame that people still watch televised news for their sole source of political information. In any case, I pay little attention until I hear the mention of "Ron Paul", a particularly delightful political figure that I have come to favor. Typically this discussion takes place in the presence of individuals who have little idea who Dr. Paul is and are quite surprised that something they've heard him say makes logical sense. This bewilderment is generally followed up by a comment from the group's local neo-conservative known-it-all: "but he's a libertarian".

Let's just assume for a moment that any of these people know what libertarianism is; what is wrong with libertarianism? It's not really in line with my political beliefs, but I wouldn't discount someone for being libertarian any more than someone for being conservative or liberal. Libertarianism more closely resembles the beliefs of this nation's forefathers than the current mainstream views in this country.

More importantly, Dr. Paul, although having numerous views consistent with libertarianism and running for president in the 80's as a libertarian, does not represent a libertarian platform. Dr. Paul is a strict constitutionalist (check his voting record). By definition, a constitutionalist would advocate strict adherence to a constitution, which this country has possessed since its founding. Unfortunately, the United State's constitution is typically ignored by lawmakers. Although Dr. Paul advocates individual rights, he does not advocate federal law to mandate state's adherence to individual rights. A libertarian would advocate enforcement of individual rights through federal law. A constitutionalist would simply not allow unconstitutional laws inhibiting or enforcing individual rights on the federal level. This power would be left to the states. A constitutionalist would give power to the states to govern themselves beyond the limitations of the federal government as defined by the constitution. This is a clear and important difference.

May 1st was a chaotic day for digg.com. After the HD-DVD encryption key was posted on the site and dugg up to be one of the most dugg stories in digg's history, it was removed for Terms of Service reasons. It was then reposted along with stories critiquing digg for its censorship. Those too were removed and the users banned. The revolt began.

Today the story was retold on many news sites and more information can be found in those stories (they are referenced at the end), but my discussion will focus on the mindset of the revolt. Many people think of it as childish, and certainly much of the behavior was. However, the revolt was not about the key. The revolt resulted from censorship. Not only had the article been removed which contained the key, but other postings, some of which had no mention of the key, were removed and their posters banned. I do not think it was childish to fuel this revolt. I was there posting and digging away. The purpose was clear. A precedent needed to be set. Many of us have been waiting for a moment to push the issue and enforce our freedoms on the internet. Digg acted as a place where any discussion could be had and any topic openly debated. It was understandable that certain things needed to be removed from time to time. It wasn't a place to post porn or pirated games. Suddenly the users of digg are being scrutinized as childish pirates for parading around the encryption key. The cracking of the encryption was news and that’s all it was going to be if censoring didn't make it a big deal. As others have said, the key acted as a catalyst. Diggers were going to enforce their rights and no one wanted to see Digg being bullied by some snobby corporation who was obviously hurt by the spread of there precious key. The key is just a number though. There is an important debate to be had. Should it be illegal to speak of a number? I certainly don't think so.

References:
NY Times: In Web Uproar, Antipiracy Code Spreads Wildly
BBC: DVD DRM row sparks user rebellion
Digg Blog

Sharp has created an LCD which allows for two unique images to be viewed at different viewing angles from the display. This would be particularly handy when two individuals would like to view two separate television programs on the same television. For more information, see Digital Tech News: Sharp Two-Way Viewing Angle LCD

The video posted below is a terrific source of information regarding the problem of the immigration policy of the United States. This clip from the longer video, Immigration by the Numbers, features Roy Beck demonstrating the catastrophe of the huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigration by Third World people into the modern nations. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making. For more information, visit numbersUSA.org.