It is most interesting that, while listening to Zeitgeist, I see on Wikipedia’s page about the .va domain name [that belongs to the Vatican] that some of their name servers are named after Egyptian mythological figures.
The nfo [about] page mentions something from Faithless’ “Weapons of Mass Destruction” : Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction.
Certainly, the ways of action are diverse and extend, across the board, from peaceful talks to violent protests. The way of the anarchist has always been radical in a belief that the only results that society will react to — not governments but the people that the anarchist believes to be serving — are those that shock and scare. Bombings, hijackings, vandalism. Governments have offset this belief by manipulating the media to shed a very negative light on said acts and instill fear in the populace — the theme has been exploited from Conrad’s “The Secret Agent” to Moore’s “V for Vendetta”. As a result, the masses turn to the only authority they know and somewhat trust — not because it’s what they believe in but simply because a change might be for the worse. You might or might not believe those stickers claiming that 9-11 was an inside job; but you have to agree, by looking at present-day United States, that people have happily given up many of their freedoms in search for protection. Approval ratings for Bush sky-rocketed, internal conflicts were paused - all because America was fighting against terrorists and the gruesome facts they perpetrate.
Whenever the media or the police reports on arrests, criminal acts or apprehended terrorists they always use the word ‘alleged’ - and for good measure. I am sure most of us are aware of why this is done - but I do not think it is relevant anymore.
If the TSA admits [via Schneier] they’re not effective at protecting anything, why may I be subjected to biometric scans at any US Port of Entry?
I almost don’t want to comment on this excerpt from a Fox News interview that Dick Cheney gave on January 14th
CHENEY: Polls change day by day, week by week. I think the vast majority of Americans want the right outcome in Iraq. The challenge for us is to be able to provide that. But you cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, “Gee, public opinion’s against; we’d better quit.”
That is part and parcel of the underlying fundamental strategy that our adversaries believe afflicts the United States. They are convinced that the current debate in the Congress, that the election campaign last fall, all of that, is evidence that they’re right when they say the United States doesn’t have the stomach for the fight in this long war against terror.
They believe it. They look at past evidence of it: in Lebanon in ‘83 and Somalia in ‘93, Vietnam before that. They’re convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us. They can’t beat us in a stand-up fight, but they think they can break our will.
And if we have a president who looks at the polls and sees the polls are going south and concludes, “Oh, my goodness, we have to quit,” all it will do is validate the Al Qaeda view of the world.
It’s exactly the wrong thing to do. This president does not make policy based on public opinion polls; he should not. It’s absolutely essential here that we get it right.
So… *contains sad laughter* Public opinion is just kids’ play, throw’em a bone or something. We know what we have to do and nobody can tell us otherwise!
Yeah I can see that policies must go beyond the ocasional change of support that a president may receive from its people; but how brief is brief? ‘Cause these guys have had lower and lower support for the past 4 years and they’re sticking to their guns. Is there really no limit, is this really the US policy for the next 40 years [read the rest of the article.]
I gotta get a flight out to Mars…
So the music and movie cartels are at it again. Under the umbrella of the IIPA, Canada is being bullied to make their copyright law more like that of the US. penalty for not doing it? getting blacklisted. there’s a bit of a press scare going on which will surely be misleading to many people that are too far removed from the realities of today’s technology that they will simply want the country to cave in. that would be a blatant violation of national autonomy and should generate something like the uproar that went on in Sweden when thePirateBay was illegally taken offline under pressure from lobby groups.
Michael Geist has a few thoughts on this issue, including some links to other articles concerning how Canadian artists were denied entrance to the Canadian Minister of Heritage. most of these artists are not supportive of what the cartels want and are quite happy with the current state of affairs.
this is about the right time to enforce those democratic rights and let everyone know what’s going on.
I picked this up from 2600 magazine [winter edition] today: http://irrepressible.info
This is a campaign pro Internet free speech, backed by Amnesty International. It mainly consists of signing a petition that states you, too, want free speech to remain an alienable right [or, to many, to just become a right in the first place] in new forms of media as well as old - the Internet being under ‘investigation’ at this time.
Do I think this will be effective? Not really. Am I backing up any manifestation of free speech that I think might - if not anything else - raise awareness and *possibly* change something? You bet. Even if it means as little as spreading information through this blog or tagging whiteboards at University, you have to do something.
I know there are plenty of issues out there worth time and effort. Global warming, wars and famine. I also know why I believe Internet free speech is important:
1. awareness of other issues through this medium
2. advancement of the human race through technology
3. it is a technical environment that I know something about and could make a difference
The Internet is limitless in possibilities. Advertising, news, technology, games, networking… information. Things that make your life easier or things that annoy you or things you simply don’t care about. But it’s all there and why shouldn’t it? Let the government start taking down blogs of political dissidents and you won’t know what’s going on in Iraq; let Big Oil have put pressure on ISPs and bye-bye global-warming awareness websites. The list goes on and you know it. So how about you? What are you part of that can make a difference?
[tags]politics, technology, activism, hacktivism, think[/tags]
I went down to Seattle over the weekend. I have been to the States on a number of occasions and I more or less know what to expect, but Seattle doesn’t seem as ‘bad’ as L.A. [my other common destination.]
On the bus ride home one of the days we [I was with the Father] got into a conversation with a guy about… things. We’ve gone through numerous aspects of society, politics and the U.S. in general. The guy knew a lot of things. Sure, I knew most of that stuff too, but I am student and I navigate in circles where such information is discussed at length. Not to say that maybe he wasn’t navigating similar circles or collecting information from other sources.
But you have to be careful. Before the 1989 Revolution, the Securitate [Rom. Security] used knowledgeable people to gain trust and retrieve information from others. Their youngest recruits were 12 and they would report parents and friends of parents etc. This group would deter the formation of any kind of mobs, considering that any one of the members could be a covert agent. So, why wouldn’t the NSA/SS do the same? I have no idea how the marks would be made, recognized on the street etc. Yet we are talking about the largest-funded organization of this kind in the world; they probably have their ways.
I probably have nothing interesting enough about myself to become a mark. My dad even less. The idea is, though, that if these ‘fingermen’ do exist, you have to be careful to whom you disclose what.
And so, paranoia ensues…
