 When I was very young, there was this bully. He was obese and taller than everyone else and just generally mean-tempered and unpleasant all the time. He used to watch a lot of pro wrestling and was obviously internalizing those lessons because he threatened people with violence when he didn't get his way. I know that I made it a point to avoid him then, to avoid getting into the confrontation. And in a way, I let the bully control me, though he never once threw a punch or took my lunch money. My fear of him controlled my actions. Fear is one way that others can control us, but it's also something we can do to ourselves. We make decisions that minimize risk or conflict. And that's perfectly rational, perfectly intelligent. We don't walk down the dark alley at night. We avoid the scary looking men on the corner. We stay away from areas where bad things happen. That's prudence. But at the same time, it creates areas where we may not go. If the police were equally prudent, those alleys would stay dangerous and the criminals would control our cities. The US government has a strict no negotiation policy with terrorists. We've found over the years that capitulating to demands backed by threats of terror or violence only breeds more terror or violence. Allowing someone to control you, like that bully, may be prudent, but it also means sacrificing the freedoms we already have. So a lot of people disliked Thunderfoot's video where he burned the Quran-loaded hard drive. I understand that. It seems imprudent. It seems like a provocative act. And it seems like he's doing something to deliberately provoke someone. I think I understand where those people are coming from. It's not the kind of thing I would think to do. The more I consider it, though, the more it makes sense to me. The madman in Florida who burned a Quran was attempting to be a bully, a jerk. And he wanted the world to react to him. I have no defense for his cowardice and stupidity. But the violent reaction he sparked wasn't just outrage. It was a threat. It was bullying in its own right. Outrage Muslims demanded that people be silenced, be prevented, be restrained when it came to their holy book. I don't blame them for an emotional gut response to what they see as an offense, though I do condemn their violence and murder. But I also see a potential pitfall ahead. Prudence says that we should ignore the actions, allow the whole thing to die down, and walk away from anything provocative. But what message does that send? What happens if we fear to walk down the dark alley? Are we creating a pattern of reward for violence? Aren't we validating the approach that violent actions always influence Western nations? What the protesters want is respect for their holy book. They want everyone to treat it as sacred as they do. If we harm their book, they will harm people. So by the fear of physical harm to others, they can control our actions, limit our freedoms, make us afraid. I don't think that's acceptable, but I don't want to see retaliatory threats either. Thunderfoot seems to have come up with a solution. He's not using violence, he's not even resorting to a physical act. He's demonstrating that burning a Quran is not worth protesting over. We write and delete data from hard drives all the time. And we do it without fear of the consequences of destroying the information. This is the difference between burning a book and deleting a file. The original is easy to reproduce, the information is free and easy to obtain, and the information can't be destroyed by a single person. The madman in Florida has done nothing more than contribute to CO2 emissions and waste paper. Thunderfoot has done nothing that the Muslim world haven't done themselves on a daily basis by clearing their internet cash. He made a point that modern data isn't sacred to us, therefore it's not worth killing over. Now I don't expect everyone to participate, I don't expect everyone to understand, and I expect a lot of people will continue to complain about Thunderfoot. I think that's fine, disagreement and debate is usually a good thing. I just wanted to say I see a lot of value in a protest that does no violence, but refuses to capitulate to threats of violence. As to the actual act of burning the drive, I'm going to chalk that up to the myth buster effect. Pyrotechnics increase the educational value of any lesson by four fold. It was just a way to hold his audience's attention for an otherwise dry lesson in nonviolent resistance. The best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them, running and fighting both encourage violence. The most appropriate response is a calm act of defiance. Thanks for watching.