Prop 8

On August the 4th it was widely reported that Prop 8 banning same sex marriage in California had been ruled unconstitutional by court.

"U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in a 136-page ruling, said California 'has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.'

'The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-
sex couples' Walker wrote." (1)

To avoid any kind of missunderstanding, I'll state here and loud that I AM PROFOUNDLY GLAD OF THIS RULING. I think no one should be denied any right because of sex orientation, as stated in the US constitution (and many others throughout the world).

But I also don't like what this ruling means in terms of the 'rules of politics' (or I'd rather say, 'rules of democracy'). I'll leave to experts the discussion of whether Judge R.Walker is right or lawful, so please consider this opinions aside from the rightneousness of it. In fact, let's say it is 100% correct. Let's suppose the Supreme Court will hold it. In this hypothesis, what has been said is that there's a decision point which is more important than a popular vote. And that's a dangerous thing in a country that praises itself ad nauseam of being the most free and democratic in the world.

OK, Constitution is above all laws in the US. And, also in the US, some matters of political discussion are considered so important that cannot be ruled by the people's representatives (aka Congress) and have to be decided by a universal vote. That's the process Prop 8 went through; and through it the people of California, in a democratic and uncontested way (by uncontested I mean that the voting was free and universal and was not challenged as biased in any way) decided that it should become law.

How come a sole individual (judge R. Walker) can rule that even though people have voted that law, it shall not be enforced, whatever the argument? The argument, in essence, is that it is inconstitutional and as such, illegal. Well, the constition is a document accepted by all US citizens also in a democratic way. I'm quoting the Wikipedia here, but a similar quote could be extracted from any text book across the states: "The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of 'The People'" (2)

Thus, if 'the people' (the people of California, in this case) have agreed to a law contradictory to another law also agreed by 'the people', no one else than 'the people' should be able to try and fix the wreck. And, from my point of view, there's only three viable options from this point on (none of which will happen, but still, I fancy the 'political exercise' of putting those together; because I would like to see this fixed in a proper way. And by proper way I mean fixed by those who broke it: 'the people').

1) Call a new and inmediate vote in California on Prop 8. Now people have been lectured by a judge on what is Constitutional on this matter, maybe they have changed their minds. In case they haven't (or we want to consider they were smart enough the first time around) then two new options come to mind.

2) The Constitution should be ammended, so as to fit the new wishes of the people of California. I don't know exactly which parts of it or how deeply (again, I don't want this to become a law technical paper; nor do I know enough on the matter as to do it). This would 'break the tie', probably.

3) As a last option, 'the people' of California should be given a vote of choice. If none of the above options suffice, that decision would be between staying as a part of the US and dropping Prop 8; or upholding Prop 8 and finding a new way of being part of the US without fully embracing the Constitution. Or not being part of the US at all.

I'm being too dramatic on purpose, remember this is a mere exercise. But I really think that the authorities should explore ways to make this again a choice of the people; of getting out of this mess without having a judge or a court override a popular vote. Feet on earth, probably a more realistic way would be a resolution from the California congress and senate (this is, the representatives of 'the people' of California) vote a joint resolution accepting the judge amendment. Now or when the Supreme Court settles the issue, if things are going that far. Not ideal, but it would formally put a good end to this. Not an individual, but 'the people' (their representatives in their name) saying "Sorry, we messed up, now we've been explained the consecuences in full we no longer want this thing we said we wanted in the first time". That's the only (democratic) way out. Or else, we are accepting that in democracy there is something more important than the voice of the people.

Democracy is a political form of government where governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). (3)


(1) Via LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/04/local/la-mew-prop-8-10042010
(2) Via Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
(3) Via Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Friendly URLs and freedom of speech

Friendly URLs are being used more and more,  the idea behind it being that the most important idea (or the most relevant words) published in a web page, if it is relevant enough, should be reflected in the URL. My opinion is that such procedures are silly, since URLs are part of the networking protocols involved and should have no relation at all with the content, but it seems that I've lost that battle, and given that it hurts nobody, we'll let that stay.

The main reason why that is happening is that many of the main searching/crawling algortithms used by the internet search engines (yes, I mean Google) give extra 'points' to words contained in the URLs. And since, to 'exist' in the Internet you have to be as high as possible in Google's (consider that a placeholder for your favorite search engine) result list, friendly URLs use is growing fast.

Why do I bring the freedom of speech into this article? I came to think about this while watching TV news about the iranian elections, specially regarding how many internet services are being censored in an effort to control the information (both coming from the country or being given to the country's people). This is not new and should surprise nobody, since we all know examples of internet traffic being controlled, blog posts being censored (and in some cases their writers being sent to jail), search results being filtered, etc... China and Cuba come first to mind, but there are others.

The kind of governments I'm talking about need to invest big efforts into these duties (or making others make those efforts, let's everybody remember how companies like Google or Yahoo have agreed up to some point to filter their results in such countries). Internet is meant to be free, so, why is it getting easier to censor? Regarding the most important blog platforms and communication groups or newspapers web sites, if you want information about Iran's election fraud (presumptive), by blocking anything that contains the words 'iran' or 'Ahmadinejad' (and maybe a couple more) you've done 90% of the job. That's it. A couple of lines in a proxy configuration.

So, here's my thought: Internet is the tool for freedom of information, freedom of speech, etc... and one of the most important changes that is happening these days is due to economic reasons (google will position you higher, so you use that kind of URLs to grab as much visitors as possible and the only reason for that is to get more money/invest return,....). And I have no problem with that, our world is run by economics. But not when it might the very basis of the flow of information.

Am I being too naive? Have I chosen a too childish example to express my concerns(I mean, boy, who cares about friendly URLs anyway?)? I'd love to hear your thougts

Free markets lead to free people

I'm sure I've heard that somewhere, but I couldn't honestly say where. Anyway, it reflects my views on what commercial exchange should be: The lesser the barriers, the better. The market (the people) will take care of balance, making sure prices are not too high (if someone tries to sell something at a high rate, with too much profit, someone else will offer it at a lower rate, still make a profit and trhow the first one out of the game. On the other hand, prices cannot fall lower than a fair rate, because when profit is not made, no one will offer it at such rates.

The paragraph above describes the 'simplest' (some might say naive) view on a fully free unbounded market, and a too optimistic one. But that's the basis: freedom in markets should be regulation enough to ensure the flow of goods: Wherever a need arises a demand is created and the market will balance it so it is soon covred with an appropiate offer. Offer and demand. The 'magic' balance of capitalism.

So, the so-called free world (or first world) doesn't have a free market, it is regulated and controlled: Heavily in some countries, a little less in others. But always regulated. Taxes are collected and used to cover some basic needs of their people, or to adjust their unbalances. Regulatory commissions, tribunals, etc,.... overlook market operations, make rules, propose and execute sanctions, control abuses, .... A company cannot sell anything at whatever the price, cannot abuse their employees, cannot monopolize a whole area of their bussiness (well, some of those things happen, it is not a perfect world, but some institutions are there to ensure it as far as possible - and please let's leave corruption aside for this theoretical exercise).

So, why doesn't market regulate itself? Where is that balance? Why doesn't an abuser company loose all its employees to a fairer one? Why doesn't a company that overprices, let's say, certain essential goods (food, gas, energy...) go broke because no one buys from them? The answer is something I like to call 'illusion of freedom'. We are not as free as we pretend, and the market is not free as our little theory requires. Sometimes you cannot choose: some grocery stores are closer to your home than others, so you are not entirely free to choose between them. Some areas only have smalll populations, which cannot support more than one provider of goods, whom would then be able to inflate prices. Or even cannot afford any provider at all, which stops them from getting some goods (and it doesn't matter when a population is not good bussines for a Channel or Luis Vuitton boutique, but it would be catastrophic if they got no farmacies or hospitals or food supply only because it is not good bussiness).

And then we have bad practises: in a free market companies, providers... everybody on the 'offer' side fight a fair fight to get a share of buyers (the 'demand' side). But oftetimes those in priviledged postitions will abuse it (I have a great share of the market, so I'll drop prices so I get everybody else out and do my will), or the fight is not so fair (we both have a pretty good part of the market controlled, so let´s deal so prices don't drop and we both keep our profits up). Or..... Does any of those situations sound familiar? If your answer was 'no', grab a paper from any country any day randomly in the last couple of years and take a look at the economy pages.

And finally, freedom means knowledge (and vicecersa, knowledge means freedom). For anybody to be absolutely free to choose, he has to kwow all (or at least most) of its alternatives. And know them well: What good he is being offered by any of the providers, the quality of it, the origin and whatever he feels is important for the decision. Also, what he is commiting to in the deal, and what the other part is (support, right of return,....). Freedom and transparency are key. So when you are being sold a share of a packet composed of a few debts some thousands of people the other way around the world used to pay for an inflated price of some other thing that really doesn't have any value and of which you have never heard of (and if you had it wouldn't maka any difference because you wouldn't understand it) you are not being free to choose. You are, nobody is forcing you to nothing, but that's theory, because you don't have the knowledge.

So yes, we need regulated markets. The lesser the better (I don't trust public officers as much as I should, and I thing bigger power produces bigger corruption), but a good amount of regulation and regulators is needed. And laws. And freedom of speach. And freedom of access to information. And freedom of access to analysis of such information. I don't want a goverment telling me 'this stuff is no good for you, so let's forbid it'. I prefer that 'that stuff' is completely transparent. And I want to get access to experts opinions about them. And probably a government to control that info so it is the truth. That way I'll be free to choose. And with that freedom, and the knowledge available and understandable, why would I choose to do something that is bad for me?

Al Gore's lies - judge unveils

The Blog Action Day has gone by. The lights are off and the dust is settled. But I can't help insisting on Al Gore's (unexisting) merits to speak for the environment. In my last post I complained about the risks of a 'Public Relations' person speaking about scientific facts but breaking the solid barriers of facts, evidences and measures that involve a scientific's serious work. Now, the documentary 'An inconvenient truth' lacks of the scienctific rigourness, but as long as only Hollywood cares, it's fine. This kind of tricks, half truths told to make a story more interesting (an so more 'sellable') are often used in the movies. And again, that's fine because we all know that a movie is enterteinment, and cannot replace a good history class.

But 'An inconvenient truth' has gone one step further. A series of programs are being impulsed in many european countries (Such as France, the U.K., Spain...)for the film to be shown in schools. So kids are going to learn environmental 'truths' from a distorted film. It stomachs me. It's politics in classrooms. With kids.

I wanted to make this analysis this some time ago, but fortunately some Kent (U.K.) school governor took the case to court, so it's not going to be my opinion, but Mr Justice Burton's, High Court judge UK, extracted form what could be probed on his court room. The judge failed to ban the film in schools, but presented a sentence in wich points out 9 LIES in the film and exorts them to be pointed in class. I would have prefered that the film was not shown at all, but let's leave aside any opinions on judges sentences (which I deeply respect) and focus on the 9 points. I provided two links to the news in important UK media, so I won't extend on the details and

1.- When Al Gore's film says that sea-level would rise of up to 20 feet in the near future, science says 'millennia' (that's THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Think about that twice).
2.- This one is pretty silly from my point of view (please don't take this as a simpathy to Mr.Gore): low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated (says the film), but there's no evidence of evacuations so far (says the judge). Fine, I suppose it is evidence of the alarmist tone forced into the movie, so it's worth pointing it in the sentece.
3.- "The documentary speaks of global warming shutting down the Ocean Conveyor", but the court says that's 'unlikely'. This is more important than it sounds. The shutting down of such circulation could only be caused by a monumental climate change, which is the idea Gore's film is trying to push down our throats.
4.- "Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed 'an exact fit'. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, 'the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts'." This one is great for my point: There's a lot of danger in letting scientific data (as plotted in those graphs) to be manipulated or deliverately ill-analized by some hair-regenerator-medicine-seller.
5.- The dissapearance of snow in the Kilimanjaro is attributed to global warming, but scientific consensus rejects the human intervention as the main cause for this.
6.- The drying of lake Chad is also attributed to this, whereas Justice Burton points that it is more likely to be due to population increase among other factors.
7.- This one is my favorite, since it shows the political manipulation of a catastrophe: Al Gore blames hurricane Katrina's devastation in New Orleans to global warming with no evidence whatsoever sustaining it. Don't forget that the film was originally targeted for the USA public, so they would be touched by the tragedy (specially since the premium of the documentary was so close in time with the tragedy. So close I even ask myself if Katrina could have been de 'inspiration' of it).
8.- For this one I'm textually quoting the Telegraph article again: Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description". Nothing else to say. It was a plain an full invention. A great LIE.
9.- The last one has to do with coral reefs, whose bleaching is attributed to global warming, and the judge points that "separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution" was difficult. The legal and scientific evidence in this particular one eludes me (I think it is complex legal details on the precision of a particular phrase rather than a whole manipulation as others), but since it is part of the sentence, let it be part of this blog.

All that said, I will expose my position again:
1.- I believe we have an environmental problem. I think humans have not considered it during the industrial era and we owe the planet one. I think global warming is a comsequence of it, a scientific evidence that something's going on that requires us to act.
2.- I think it is a GREAT mistake to use it in an alarmist way, lacking precission and playing in the 'wild side' of the truth. The environment truth is inconvenient, is not being listened and must be published, learned and taught. Mr. Gore's truth is simply an alarmist LIE. And my fear is that when people realizes, they are going to forget about it in the big box of 'politics borken promises' and 'politics forgotten issues' - and that'll be the end. So let the scientifics tell us what's going on, what they know and what they don't, what they're sure about and what they aren't. And, please, please, please. Let's TEACH our children. We need them aware of the problem, since for sure they'll inherit it. But the must know about it, not be panicked about it by some almost-president with a lot of free time and economic resources. If Gore wants to make a good movie, I suggest he inverts in making a new sequel of "The Godfather", one of the best movies ever. He might even find a role to play himself in such film.

'The inconvenient truth' by 'the inconvenient leader'

For those who haven't heard about it, next monday (October 15th) is the 'Blog Action Day', and the chosen subject for this year's is THE ENVIRONMENT. As many (if not most of you) are aware of, this could be called the year of the environment issue, and the recently awarded Nobel peace prize to Al Gore is the last of the facts pointing this out. He has been the leader of this newly re-empowered environmental debate, and started this monothematic year with his film "An inconvenient truth" and the Oscar it was awarded. This debate is gaining speed and power like a hurricane travelling in the pacific, and Al was smart enough to position himself leading the debate rather than being swalowed into it (as every politician in campaign in the next month will be).

Fact: The word's climate is changing. Cientists all over the world will give you reliable data on this (it is not my intention to fill this bloog with numbers, so I will not produce any data on it, but rather show you an starting point to read about it. And there's no better place to start such an investigation as the Wikipedia). And human intervention has been probably the most important factor for this change, so human intervention (and that means EVERY individual) must help to stop it.

Fact: Al Gore is a succesful bussiness man and a successful politician. And a man whose opinions about environment and his support of the environmentalist lobbies in the U.S. (mutual support, I must point) is not recent. And he has helped to raise the issue.

Then why do I call him the 'inconvenient leader'? First of all I want to make public my own position about this: We can (and we must) do more for the environment. Politicians and leaders of the world should consider it a first-priority and do their part (lead). But Al Gore is a worldwide kwnow man. With his help the issue reached the Oscars and a popularity it couldn't have reached on its own. But once such thing happened, there is an unavoidable risk of making a public enterteinment ot of it. Once the issue reached the first page of newspapers, the public demanded more. And there are lots of journalists working everyday all around the world. And now we know how much electricity Al Gore's house consumes. And his bussiness. And how much more than the american average that represents. And people raises and debates if he should run for president of the U.S. (I find it particulary funny to use an India's news site to show this: this discussion is now REALLY gone world wide, but there's others - by the way, how many of you believe this was casual and Gore himself didn't want this to happen, that he was asked to be back to active politics? I still have my own mind to male). And .... oh jeezz! We forgot the facts!!! We almost forgot about the environment, for a while!!!!!

There's other side of this: We've let a politician LEAD the discussion. That's fine. But we've also let a politician teach us the facts. And that's not so fine. Because he is a great communicator (or his team of co-workers is, don't forget politicians get a lot of help to build their public face), but a not-so-great science man. And he distorted the facts so they look sexier. Also, he is a politician, so he has enemies. In his own party and in every other party. And so this turns into a public fight on 'whose speech is more beautifull'. And also it doesn't help to the issue, because in the world of 'proffessional politics' the truth behind what's said is less important than 'how true and impressive what I say looks'. And everybody knows that, so a lot of importance is taken away from it.

So I think it is fine for politicians to be part of the debate, since they are the public's voice. But it is inconvenient for the issue itself to have them 'creating' and 'moderating' the debate, specially in an issue like the environment which needs everybody behind and pushing, not half the people pushing against the other half. He is inconvenient for the debate. He is inconvenient for the issue. He might even hurt both the debate and the issue. The bad news is that there's no way back. So all we can (and must) do is try to keep the issue on his trails. Don't rush to Mr. Gore's defense. Just rush to the earth's defense. Rush to keep the debate alive, but the REAL debate. Forget that the circus came to town. Because when the circus leaves, and the lights go out and the microphones are lent to some other folk that looks nice on screen, it is us who will remain. And there will still be a lot of work to do.

------------------------------------------------------------

Please alow me to introduce a side note. I don't want to conclude my intervention without saying this: I do not agree with the chosen subject for this year's Blog Action Day. I think environment is an important issue but there are more important ones. Environment protection is a First World concern, most of the rest of the world is more concerned by survival, feeding everybody or cutting their strangling economic ties with the first world so they can build a prosper economy and start concerning by the future of the world instead of the future of themselves or their children. But sorry, I forgot: Blogs are written in the self-called 'First World'. And read in the 'Frist World'. So let's get involved. And let's not think if what we choose to care about is what the world needs us (urges us) to care about. Solidarity should start by finding what others need of us.

About movies, videogames, violence and censure

About movies, videogames, violence and censure

In the last couple of years we've been getting reports saying that the videogame industry has gotten similar or even greater revenues than the film industry. This fact is starting to show off in events like the last week's worldwide release of Halo 3 by Bungie/Microsoft, which has been prepared and advertised with a marketing campaing that remainds (or even overtakes) those paid by the Hollywood greatest studios. And it has gotten a huge success, with first week's revenue comparable to those achieved by 'Titanic' or the more recent 'Spiderman' saga.

I'm not as interested in the exact figures as I am in the fact that the videogame industry has become adult in many ways. What surprises me is that for Halo 3 we've seen movie-like TV ads, and all kinds of written ads in newspapers, magazines and bus stops around the world. Seems that someone in Microsoft (or Bungie or both) suddenly woke up one morning and thought ('Hey, if the Warner Brothers can do it, so can we'). I'm not naive enough to think someone got hit by an apple and discovered the gravity law, but you get the idea.

So, we have a new huge competitor in the entretainment bussiness. And it is really starting to behave as such. The ad industry is happy to have a new big customer in town. The market is ready for it. But is everybody so ready? Let's talk about the social part of this.

First of all I want to point a couple of facts that led me to the thoughts I'll expose below: In the last week we've seen a new 'censure' fight, this time between Rockstar Studios and the British Board of Film Classification’s (BBFC) regarding the release of the sequel of their acclaimed horror game, Manhunt 2. The classification has been denied (twice now) and it still cannot be released for sale in the UK. And it is not the first time, nor the only company and not the only country were this kind of problems arise (Germany and 'Gears of War' being one of the most recent and controversial). In most of these cases, the 'Whatever-board-of-videogames-classification' wants some modifications made in the game to soften its violent or sexual content.

So, based on that, I've come to the conclusion that society (or at least some goverment branches in charge of movie and videogame classification) still consider videogames a kid's issue. My argument being that no one ever claimed that Terminator 3 or Saw II blood be turn green or body pieces being deleted from screen. What's the point in making those exigences to videogame manufacturers? Don't we think that parents can be trusted to control what their children play in their own consoles in their own homes? But they can be trusted to control if their children watch an +18 rated movie in the theater in the mall? Or is it that we trust the girl selling movie tickets but not the one selling videogames to check how old is her customer? (and please, don't bring up the 'piratery' stuff, its much easier to download an illegal copy of a movie than doing the same with a videogame, wich requieres a minimum technical knowledge to crack).

So here is my complaint: I'm 30 years old, and I belong to the Pong-Space Invaders-Tetris generation. I've played the first videogames ever desgined, I've seen the industry come bigger and bigger. And here I am, with a brand not-so-new XBox 360 and an HD-TV in my living room. And some days I want to see and old-fashioned movie, say 'Casablanca'. Others, I prefer 'Save Private Ryan'. Some days I enjoy a driving videogame (loving ForzaMotorsport 2, currently) And some others I want to shoot the bad guys (Call Of Duty, lets say). And yes, I can purchase porn from my cable TV vendor or buy it in my video-rental shop if I please, since I'm old enough. And why not, some day I might want to play a bloody-criminal videogame. I like Manhunt. I might buy Manhunt 2 it if it comes out for the XBox. And I WILL purchase Grand Theft Auto IV, no matter how many implicit or explicit sex scenes it might contain (hell, I'll enjoy them). And I see no earthly reason for some to forbid that. Add as many +18 labels to the box as you want. I'm (wide) over 18. I will play it. I'll have my children or my friends' children not play it. But please, let me choose. We (again, the Tetris generation) have grown. The technology has grown. You watched violence, death and porn on TV in the 80's. I want to play death, and I want to play porn (my alter-ego in videogames is so complex now that I think he'll enjoy it too :D)

Why not?

VIRGINIA, April 16th, 7:15

At that precise time and date, Seung-Hui Cho, 23, shot the first bullet and killed the first of 32 mortal victims in what has become the largest massacre of this kind ever. I'm not going to bore you with the facts, they have been widely spread by the media these last couple of weeks. For details on them, I will refer you to th Wikipedia for the article, the timeline, and the victims list. (it is noticeable how the Wikipedia has grow beyond its limits of being merely and encyclopedia, and it became a source of information probably as reliable as the old consolidated and reputed newspapers or TV news channels for live happenings, but that's an issue for a whole discussion itself)

In the previous post I included just a picture of this young men. Take a calm look at him. How is he different from you, student at UCLA, or you, intern at a CERN laboratory, or from me? We'll come to this question later.

Many comments have aroused these days around this big massacre. Gun control, slow response from Virginia Tech administration, government responsibility...everybody has an opinion (which is fine) and every opinion about everything this days gets related to this (which is not that fine, don't you think?).

It seems that this days every public debate, every political intervention or every columnist worth listening or reading must in one way or another use what happened in this date.

And my opinion is: why doesn't this debate get to what I consider the important questions? Big questions arise, the most important of them being the 'gun control' issue. Europeans saying "this wouln't happen her, we cannot buy weapons in the groceries' " and Americans going a couple of rounds over the "freedom and self defense vs security and control" arguments. And so on. But I think that these are arguments for the other 50 weeks of the year. What April 16th should have alerted us about is "How can someone end up doing that?".

We all get angry these days. Some more, some less, but we all have stress, suffer an incompetent boss, have an grumpy neighbor or suspect our mailman is stealing our mail. Everybody has been irate. Even some of us get into fights, shout, cry, get divorce, break friends relationships... But there's a moral limit restraining us from shooting these people we hate. And all we want to talk about after something like this happens is where he got the weapon?

I think a society into which this kind of thoughts grow (and it is not the first time) has a bigger problem. Arms could be absolutely eradicated from shops across the US. and from the hands of every honest American. And there would still be a problem. If Cho hadn't easy access to weapons, his ill-formed mind (and I say it with all respect, since I really believe a mind capable of that is ill and requires medical treatment) would have found another way of exploting. Maybe he could get an illegal weapon (would it be much harder to get that a shot of cocaine?). Or he might poison the water supply. Or kill people with a piano string (yeah, maybe I've played too many videogames). Who knows. But what made Cho so dangerous was not the weapons he was carrying. It was his own mind and his desire of using it. And that cannot be controlled by federal law. So maybe the cleverest political and social minds of our time should argue this.

And now this is the moment when my first question comes back. How is he different?. Anyone who can provide a valid answer for this question will get us closer to a solution. To a better society, to put it in 'poetry words'

Or have we already given up on this? Don't we believe this can be reversed? Aren't we willing to change this? If that's the case, we are victims of April 16th Virginia, and many other school shootings before. And we are far much more than 32 people.

eLife starts here

Hi all

Some days ago I created my own blog in a different space (tumblr). When I was trying to decide which stuff I think, see or hear everyday is worth publishing I realised that tumblr doesn't provide any reply option to readers. And I like the free exchange of ideas. So I will open this one here. My stuff will be in tumblr. But anything I write that I feel is worth commenting will be here. I'll see you on the net!!