So the Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday, and it isn’t really a good one in the long run although I think in the short run it doesn’t really seem all that bad.

Basically, what they said was that public employees can be fired for things they say IF they’re saying it as part of their job.

There was a lawyer in LA’s district attorney’s office. He thought a cop had lied to get a search warrant, and said so in some internal memos he wrote and sent in his office, urging his bosses to dismiss the prosecution case. He was denied, transferred to a lesser-ranking job, and denied a promotion.

The employer (in this case, the LA DA’s office) said that this was because he went against policy and that he doesn’t have First Amendment rights while at work.

On the face of it, this seems reasonable. For example, if you worked on airplanes for United Airlines, they would probably be entitled to fire you if you told customers “I wouldn’t fly our airline, our planes are unsafe”.

But the line gets blurred if you’re telling other employees that as part of your job. Say you write a memo to your boss that says the same thing. Can they fire you for that? What if you had verbal conversations on the subject ahead of time and the boss says “I’m telling you to let it go, you can get in trouble for this.”

The thing is that we’re not dealing with a private-sector job here; we’re dealing with a public job. Shouldn’t public employees have a right to free speech?

The Supreme Court, in its decision, noted they were ruling on the employee speaking out AT WORK as a function of the employee’s job duties. By saying this, they’re trying to say that the employee still has the right to speak out while *off* the job, as a citizen, and that our First Amendment rights there are not harmed.

To me, this seems to be a bit of a cop-out. The public overall is served well by whistleblowers, and this certainly seems to say that whistleblowers now have no rights at work. Who draws the line between what you say “as an employee” and as a private citizen away from the job?

What’s more, people (like me) who are federal employees are actually required to speak out at work and report certain things- but now I don’t have any First Amendment right protecting me if I do so. What if I see what I believe to be an operational error and say so inside the FAA, and my supervisor punishes me for it? Does that improve safety? I can no longer say “I have a First Amendment right to speak out”, at least by the Supreme Court’s decision.

This is a bit of a mess, in my opinion, and I think they got it wrong.

So the other day, in comments to my post “Who Would Jesus Torture?”, a reader named Allie left a comment. (This makes me very happy for multiple reasons; it means someone’s reading, it means they cared enogh to comment, and since she didn’t really agree with me 100%, that’s good too; if everyone always agreed, life would be boring! Thanks for the comment, Allie!)

Allie said (in part)…

…Yes, Jesus healed the sick and accepted the socially unaccepted. Maybe if all of us today did that, regardless of religion, the world would be a better place. But that is a different issue…

…I am sorry but everything cant be all peace and harmony all the time…

(I edited out some of her comments because I don’t really want to get into a back-and-forth debate on some of her points; suffice to say we agree to disagree.)

Her comment that “maybe if all of us today did that” got me thinking, though. It seems to me that a reasonably good test of whether or not a particular religion can be thought of as a good one, or one that’s a positive force in the world, is to look to that religion’s founders or original leader and say “if everyone emulated him/her, and lived like that, would the world be a good place?”

One of the things that frustrates me about modern Christianity is that so many of the so-called Christians really don’t seem to live like Christ did. It’s one thing to say that Jesus was likely a fairly observant Jew, and therefore didn’t eat pork (but we eat sausage) or other restrictions like that. But what I was getting at in my post was that many Christians are, to my eyes anyway, fairly hypocritical about stuff that seems to be pretty major. Take, for example, capital punishment. You’d think that the followers of someone who was put to death by the government would be, in general, against governments putting people to death- yet that’s certainly not the case today in the United States!

But this post isn’t meant to be a rant about Christians. Rather, a musing about which leaders of religions would be good ones to follow, and which ones bode ill for how they acted in their lives.

Jesus, obviously, a good one. He went around and taught; he had tremendous compassion for others, healing the sick and feeding the hungry. He was willing to accept and hang out with (and treat with dignity and respect) all people, even reviled and hated people like prostitutes and worse still, tax collectors. His teachings resonate with the notion that it’s not important what you do, but the motivation in your heart with which you do it.

About the only people that Jesus ever really treated harshly, at least from my recollections of Sundays spent in the basement of Hope Lutheran Church, was when Jesus went into the temple and kicked a little ass on the moneychangers that were doing business there. Of course, he didn’t actually thump any of them; he just went in, raised a ruckus, and turned over their tables. His point was that this was supposed to be a holy place, for prayer and reflection, and that isn’t so bad- the world could use places like that where people can have a reprieve from greed and commerce.

If everyone lived like Jesus, well, we might not get a lot done; he and his pals didn’t seem to do much work during his ministry. (Then again, lots of the religious leaders are like that.) But we’d certainly be a heck of a lot nicer to each other. We’d die out after a generation, though; Jesus (the DaVinci Code notwithstanding) reportedly never married and never had any kids, which certainly couldn’t have made his (Jewish) mother very happy at all.

Buddha (aka Shakyamuni Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, aka Tathagata, who we think of as “the Buddha”) was also a good one to follow. He was a thinker, like Jesus going beyond the standard teachings of the day. Buddha was awakened to the universal sufferings in life that all people face. Some of the texts have him getting married and fathering a child, so unlike Jesus if everyone emulated Buddha, the human race would continue onward.

When Buddha saw and realized the sufferings that we all face (old age, illness, death, and life itself in this troubled world as a suffering), he wanted to do something about it, so he decided to take up the study of these things and to find a solution to help people with these sufferings. This is a noble thing to do and a worthy goal, and plainly the world would be a lot better off if we would all put aside (at least to some extent) our desires and try to do something to relieve the suffering of ourselves and others.

Buddha went beyond his teachers, though, and was willing to ask questions and showed a thoughtful and creative mind. He realized that they didn’t have the answers, but that living a live of sheer self-indulgence was no way to live, either. Again, this is a very good thing, and something that we should all emulate.

Instead, Buddha sought out the Middle Way (aka “The Middle Path”), a path of moderation. He came to several realizations, and then after thinking about it for a while, decided to share his teachings and his enlightenment (aka attaining “nirvana”) with the rest of the world. He taught for decades and his teachings, since they do not require divine intervention, mean that anyone can discover the dharma (truth).

Buddha, like Jesus, was perfectly willing to meet and take company with people from all walks of life. He founded a community of Buddhist monks and nuns who would continue his teachings after his death, and made his religion open to all castes and races. Buddha was known as being very fit, walking and hiking many miles in a week (despite the common conception of Buddha as a fat guy in much of Western culture) and plainly this would be good for us as well.

So I think we can reasonably say that Buddhism is a good religion, because if we all followed Buddha’s example, the world would be a good place, happy and treating people with compassion and respect.

Muhammed, on the other hand, is a bit problematic. At least he was married and had children, so the human race would live onward…

Muhammed, as a young man, had a reflective mind and would spend time in meditation and reflection. At some point, he was visited by the angel Gabriel, and was recognized (at first by his immediate family) as a prophet of Allah (God). Indeed, traditionally the story goes that the first to see Muhammed as a prophet of Allah (Muslims generally believe that he was the last true prophet) was his wife and her Christian cousin.

At the time of his first revelations and teachings, Muhammed lived in Mecca. When he started preaching, he was seen as a threat by the local bigwigs, who (as was common at the time) worshipped a variety of gods and dieties. Muhammed eventually had to lead his local followers out of Mecca and moved to Medina. He kept converting people and wound up integrating two warring tribes in his religion, serving as a peacemaker.

Interestingly enough, at this point he and the Muslims would pray towards Jerusalem, because that’s where the Temple was; he wanted Jews to see him as a prophet and join with him. When by and large they didn’t, Allah directed him to switch to the Kaaba in Mecca. He also laid out some rules by which non-believers would be able to continue living in the midst of the Muslims.

Thus far, it bodes well for us if we were to live like Muhammed; he was able to get along with some people, left when pressure was threatening to cause trouble, and was not only tolerant but specifically said that others (Christians, Jews) were “People of the Book” and that they should be treated in a reasonable manner.

Unfortunately, relations with Mecca went downhill, and war followed. Muhammed and his Muslims started raiding Meccan trading caravans, and went on to expel some Jews that they suspected of aiding the Meccans. He also married more than one woman at a time, and in my mind polygamy is a recipie for disaster. They went on to execute another tribe of Jews that they suspected were helping the Meccans.

Eventually, his followers built up in enough strength to go in and capture Mecca. He went to the Kaaba and destroyed the idols there, and established it as a Muslim shrine. Indeed, to this day the Kaaba is the holiest place in Islam.

So we know that Muhammed was a man who was not only not afraid of violence, but who seemed to partake in it willingly. Muslims would say that he only fought in self-defense. The Meccans, threatened by his gaining strength, did attack him; however, the facts certainly seem to show that Muhammed expanded his empire by violent means, and compared with other historical leaders like Buddha and Jesus he is obviously much more violent.

I am afraid that if we all followed his example, well, the world would be a considerably more violent place. And I think we’re seeing the effects of that today in many places.

There are other leaders of religious movements that we could study, but I think that Allie’s comment and thinking about these things in general shows us how we should try to live and is a reasonable test for which leaders to follow. It’s not a perfect method; for example, many people would say that when we are attacked, we would do better to follow Muhammed’s example rather than Jesus’s. Jesus was quite pacifist, even rebuking one of his followers who cut off a Roman soldier’s ear when they came to take Jesus away. And the pacifism of Buddhists is of course well-known.

But all in all, I think we could do much worse than to say “if everyone tried to live like this leader, all the time” as a guide for our own lives.

Well, I just got back about an hour ago from seeing X-Men: The Last Stand, aka X-Men 3.

Great flick!

Of course, I say this as a big fan of the first two… and I am afraid to say this one wasn’t quite as good. The main storyline continues, and most of the main characters are back, which is good news. IMO, you really have to watch all three of these movies sequentially, because in this one they’ve left some of the character development out- but if you saw the first two, you already understand the relationship between Logan and Rogue, or how it’s a struggle for Logan to stick around and be a responsible grownup type.

Quibbles… I really wish Brian Singer had directed this one as well. He had an awesome touch for the first two, and Brett Ratner (who directed this one) is just too in love with the close-up. The editing was a bit choppy and at 104 minutes, it felt like they could have left another 8 to 10, maybe 12 minutes in the movie (well, to me, anyway) without too much harm done- and it would have been a better movie.

Anyway, if you liked the first couple, you’ll probably like this one. Of course, I dig Halle Berry and Famke Janssen (who I will always remember as Xenia Onatopp, a villianess in the James Bond movie Goldeneye. She killed by squeezing men’s chests with her thighs, and I always recall the gleam in her eyes as she kills them. Which perhaps says more about me than her acting, but let’s not go there, mm-kay?

X3 was the biggest movie of the weekend and the fourth biggest opening of all time, and it will probably continue to do well, based on fanboys like me. The funny thing is that I wasn’t ever really a comic book fan growing up, and am still not; I just really like the moives that are done well based on comics (the Spiderman flicks come to mind).

Other movie picks… despite a lot of talk, I think the Superman movie will do fairly well (and I have high hopes for it, as it was directed by Brian Singer, who did the first two X-Men movies). But I really like the looks of two of the MANY previews I saw.

First up is “Fearless“, or maybe the official title is “Jet Li’s Fearless”, I couldn’t tell. From the preview, the plot doesn’t make any damn sense, but it just looks like a TOTAL guy movie- lots of awesome kung-fu fighting and stuff. Basically, there’s this super-fighter dude (Jet Li) who gets into a tournament to fight for the pride of China… whatever, there’s lots of cool fighting.

Guy that did the “wire” work for the Matrix movies, Yuen Wo-Ping, worked on this one as well. Inexplicably, it appears that scenes with Michelle Yeoh were DELETED from this movie (see the IMDB entry). Why on earth would anyone do that, unless they were afraid it was going to make TOO MUCH money at the box office?

(Can you tell who the Michelle Yeoh fan is here? )

The other movie that I’m picking to make a lot of money this summer is “My Super Ex-Girlfriend“, with Uma Thurman and Luke Wilson. Or maybe it’s Owen. The dark-haired Wilson who has half a brain, not the blonde surfer brainless Wilson. (But they’re both damn funny.)

Luke hits on Uma, and she turns out to be psycho woman. Which is okay for the first sex part, but quickly goes south, so he dumps her to start dating a different chick and so Uma goes REALLY psycho ex-girlfriend on him. Only she’s also a superhero called “G-Girl”, so she can go WAY above and beyond the whole normal psycho-hose-beast-ex-girlfriend routine.

I just have a great feeling about it after seeing the trailer. Of course, it could be that they showed every last good part and the rest of the movie sucks (I know, it’s a shock to think that they’d do that). But Uma Thurman has always had this weird combination of gawky too-tall stick girl combined with uber-sexy, powerful rad robo-babe, and I think she’s funny, too. And Luke Wilson is a safe bet. So is his brother. Who isn’t in this, as far as I can tell.

Okay, it’s WAY past bedtime. I was kinda jazzed up after X3. Watch the first two on DVD again, then go see it.

One of the buzzwords that techy media used to love slinging around is “convergence”. It’s the notion that everything is converging towards everything else- your TV is also your DVD player is also your computer is also your VCR is also your video game console is also your stereo.

And did you ever think that your Walkman would converge with your shoes?

Some of this has turned out to be true- computers can store massive amounts of music and movies, for example, and with simple little devices networked in (assuming you have network wiring or can use wireless) you can link it all up to your home stereo and TV.

But some of the much-vaunted “convergence” hasn’t really taken shape yet. When I first started using the internet, back in the days of Mosaic web browser, I wish I could say I was smart enough to DO something about the obvious convergence that was starting to happen… but I didn’t. And lots of other people haven’t either.

Some things have turned out to be natural, though. iPods are ubiquitous among people who’re out exercising; they don’t skip like cassette or CD players can, they’re small and lightweight, and you can preprogram your tunes to give you a little boost while you’re out jogging or whatever.

But here we are, out there running with what is essentially a computer strapped to our bodies (well, I use the word “running” in theory- I am not much of a runner) and we’re not putting it to much use. Convergence hasn’t brought us any big leap forward.

Until now. Or soon, I should say. From Apple and Nike, two of the savvier companies in the world when it comes to marketing, comes convergence- of your shoes and your iPod.

Here’s the scoop. You buy a pair of shoes with a little cutout in the insoles. Then you buy a little adapter jobber that has two parts- a sensor that you pop into the cutout, and a receiver that plugs into the bottom of the iPod. Load up some software, and shazam- you’ve just linked up your shoes with your iPod, which will (thanks to the software) now display how far you’ve run, how fast you’re running, how long a time… and what’s more, it gives you voice feedback over the top of the music you’re playing while you’re running.

You’ve got a little computer keeping track of your run that actually TELLS you how the run is going!

What? Not enough? Okay, when you get home and plug the iPod back in to the computer, it syncs up and uploads the information about the run to your computer. Now you’ve got it keeping track of all your runs; you can see improvement, calories burned, you name it.

Still not enough? Okay. Your info can go out onto the internet and you can have virtual “races” against people anywhere on the globe. You can have custom music mixes that are picked by top athletes (available, of course, for a small fee if you don’t already have the songs). You can even have specially designed workout routines with coaching, motivational talks, and training tips- over your continuous mix of music.

Folks, NOW we’re talking convergence. This is the kind of thing that the internet and some smart designers can bring us.

Personally, what I’d like is a computer that integrates all kinds of other stuff. Imagine your PDA/cellphone/iPod device helping to manage your life. You turn it on by saying “hello” to it in the morning, and it says back to you “hey, it’s been a while since your last haircut- ready for one?” If you say “yeah, sure, schedule one” then it goes online to your barber’s computer, finds open appointment times, double-checks them against your schedule, and says to you “haircut appointment available on Tuesday at 4pm. Acceptable?”

It’s even smart enough to double-check the history of traffic trends to be sure that you’re going to be able to make it to the barber’s shop on that day, knowing where you’re leaving your last appointment from. On the day in question, it gives you a reminder that you better get going; it checks real-time traffic situations, and if something is up that’s slowing things down it spurs you to leave a bit earlier to be sure you can make it. If you get caught in the traffic, it lets the barber know that you’re running late- and the barber’s computer checks with ANOTHER client to see if they can shuffle appointments around.

Meanwhile, your device is playing music for you. When it notices you turn up a song by a particular artist, and it sees that you have played that artist louder in the past, it sees that the artist has released a new single- so it asks you if you’d like to hear a clip of the new song. If so, and you like it, you can buy it by merely saying so.

When you get lost on the way to the barber (you took a detour because of the traffic problem) it uses GPS to find you a new route and suggests it. On the way home, it suggests a new route that goes right past a butcher’s shop, which is good because you need to stop and get a couple of fryers for dinner that night. It sees the additional money that you spent (because you’re having guests over) and adjusts the budget for that month for the next time you sit down to figure out your checkbook.

By using the GPS, it sees when you’re close to home and turns up the heat in time that it’s just right when you walk in the door. You change into your workout togs and it’s ready for your run, using the software Apple and Nike developed to track it. When your dinner guests arrive, their devices link up to yours and jointly select some background music that’s played wirelessly over your home stereo.

You get the idea. The amount of convergence that’s possible in the computerized world in the future is immense; surprisingly, much of what I talked about above is already out there- it’s just not linked up in standardized form.

Okay, it’s late and I’m a bit dopey/dreamy. But the point is this- these shoes plus an iPod represent just the front edge of what’s possible, of what we’re capable of in the future. It’s an exciting time to be alive, isn’t it?