Not U.S. CNN mind you, what possible interest would American citizens have in this story? No, CNN International - which I might add is now just one web site instead of CNN Asia and CNN Europe. I guess the marketing guys in Atlanta wanted to start consolidating the "message," or something.

Anyway, I won't harp too much on this case. It's already extremely evident that the U.S. government, and the Department of Justice in particular, is far from infallible. I posted this story only so it might become even more clear to everyone that every government agency - and I do mean EVERY agency - is at the end of the day nothing more than an over-funded Department of Motor Vehicles.

Any of you who've ever had to rely on the DMV for anything understands exactly what I'm saying here. Would you allow your local DMV broad new powers of investigation and enforcement? Of course not. Why would you trust such authority to incompetents? Well, that's exactly what's happened here - except instead of the DMV it's the FBI.

I'm not criticizing anyone for wanting to pull Mr. Bond aside, and ask him a few questions (Although, I'm sure at least one FBI moron asked for an autograph). If his identity was stolen, and FBI suspected something was wrong - good on them for checking it out. But what isn't noted in this article is the fact that Mr. Bond was detained for 10 days before anyone so much as asked him his name.

I don't have many people in my family who've been able to manage to live to Mr. Bond's age - and of those none were ever so privileged as to be able to go on a wine tasting tour in South Africa - but to imagine any of them spending three weeks in prison because of a bureaucratic error makes me sick.

Will heads roll for this? No. And it's that much more of a disgrace to our country because of it.

Labels: border security, fbi, media, patriot act, tsa

1. “U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy”

“(Reuters) - A senior U.S. diplomat based in Athens has resigned in protest at the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, State Department officials said on Thursday…Brady Kiesling, 45, political counselor at the embassy and a foreign service officer for about 20 years, sent his resignation decision to Secretary of State Colin Powell by fax on Monday, The New York Times said.”

His reason? His letter of resignation said:

“We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners."

Very nice.

Next up is my second favorite.

2. “Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size” (NYT reg. req.)

The Department of Defense - you know, the civilian guys who “run” our military - refuses to tell our Congress – you know, our representatives in D.C. – how much of our tax dollars are going to be needed for a war and occupation in Iraq. The DOD says that our general’s estimate – you know, the guys who are going to have to fight the war and occupy the country – is way too high. They’re telling Congress not to worry about it because hey what the hell do generals know about how much it costs to fight a war? And besides, we’re going to use Iraqi oil to pay for it – not American taxpayer dollars! Ha. I love that part at the end.

No, they’re not fucking kidding.

But wait…seriously…there’s more! (Honestly I never get tired of that bit).

Apparently the general, our friend Army Chief of Staff Shinseki, also has no idea how many troops it’s going to take! No, really – the DOD says he’s full of shit. Yep, sometimes you have to wonder where they get those crazy generals. What do they know anyway?

And finally, my most favorite story of the night. This one is from BuzzFlash, via JOHO:

3. “Ari Gets Laughed Out of the White House Briefing Room”

I really can’t describe it better than BuzzFlash:

“Ari just drew himself up with imperious indignation and said something like "you're implying that the President is buying the votes of other nations and that's just not a consideration" or words to that effect...And guess what happened? The whole press corps, normally sheep, broke out in laughter... sweet, derisive laughter. They kept on laughing as Ari turned on his heels and strode out. Sheesh.”

Too difficult to imagine? Strain your noodle no more! Watch it here on C-SPAN (RealMedia).

Fast forward up until the counter reads 28 minutes and watch from there to the end. Absolutely priceless.

Labels: Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell, dod, Gen. Shinseki, iraq

“UP to 100,000 body bags and 6,000 coffins have been secretly delivered to a US base in Italy…”

Just to put that in perspective, the United States lost approximately 58,000 lives to the conflict in Vietnam. What could the Pentagon be thinking by preparing for so many losses in Iraq?

To continue a theme, I have an absurd thought. Let's imagine for a moment that Saddam Hussein really does posses a vast store of biological and/or chemical weapons. How would he best use them against the United States? One might argue that he doesn’t have a delivery system capable of reaching U.S. territory. One might also note that Saddam would be unlikely to launch a large scale attack against either Israel or Turkey. While he did launch a limited, and very quietly reported series of military strikes against Israel during the first Gulf War, it’s simply too much ground for his current weapons systems to cover while under the thumb of 200,000 U.S. and U.K. troops. So what are his options?

Saddam has vowed to die in Iraq. He also vowed that the Iraqi people will die with him in a struggle against any invasion force. He knows that urban combat is our worst nightmare. He believes the Bush administration will not stop at nothing before U.S. troops have overthrown his regime.

So when you can’t bring Mohammed to the mountain, what do you do?

It is very likely that if Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction he will use them against an invasion force. Furthermore, those weapons would be made most effective by use in an urban environment. If Saddam is as ruthless and evil as the administration would have us believe, his own civilian losses would be negligible. The toll on U.S. forces however would be catastrophic. The situation becomes even more grim when you consider the Bush administration’s assertion that it would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the event of U.S. troops being subjected to such an attack. How would our Arab allies feel about that I wonder?

This is only my opinion, but I believe that things are going to get a whole lot worse in the Middle East before they get any better.

Labels: iraq, saddam hussein, wmd

George W. Bush is not dumb. Nor is he a slack-jawed buffoon. He is, in fact, an excellent orator. This is not observed by the vast majority of us because we are plebeians not privy to the real George W. Bush. His true persona is reserved for the share holders of America Inc.

Case in point: His recent address to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI). Bush used the opportunity of a dinner sponsored by that most prestigious of “right-wing think tanks” to outline his administration’s long term foreign policy goals (28 min. RealMedia or transcript).

As a long time foreign affairs and international relations junkie, my final analysis of those goals is this: Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Pax Americana is no fantasy. The Bush administration is doing everything in its considerable power to ensure a global hegemony the likes of which have never been known. Following the war in Iraq, the U.S. will maintain instantaneous force projection capability throughout the world. Put simply, we will be able to deploy a significant number troops to any nation on Earth within 24 hours, and their support units will already be in place. Never before has a single nation had such power.

On its surface, this doesn’t seem a bad thing. With this type of reach, our country will be safe from any who oppose it. It becomes troubling, however, when one considers the converse: None who oppose our nation shall be safe.

If American domestic policy was a model for the world - if it did in fact represent the greatest freedoms of the world – I think most Americans would go along with the Pax Americana plan. But this is not the case. Let’s face it, America has some problems.

I could make a laundry list here of cases in which the U.S. government has over-stepped its bounds - either intentionally or otherwise - to the detriment of law abiding citizens like you and I, but I won’t. We all know how badly our government can screw-up sometimes. I’m also not going to say that any other government does everything better than ours. No such government exists. The question is, if every government is flawed, which one is best deserving of the title “ruler the world”?

The answer is none of them. No one nation should ever rule this world. Not even America.

Despite this, the goal of Pax Americana is nothing short of world domination by a single super power. It is a vision of sustainable global stability, if not global peace, under the watchful eye of the United States. The Bush administration, and those who support them, believe that the United States can be a benevolent dictator to the world. But they need Iraq first.

To this end, the administration has been struggling to convince both the international community, and the citizens of the United States, that America can be trusted to act as custodian of one of the largest oil fields ever discovered, and then walk away once a democratic government is in place in Iraq. The administration points to Germany and Japan, and our occupation of those nations after the Second World War as proof of our abilities of self-restraint. It’s an argument not without merit, but it does not apply here.

Iraq is not Germany, and it is not Japan. Neither of those nations had the ethnic and religious diversity of Iraq. Neither of them presented the long term challenges of security and factional conflict that Iraq will. The United States occupied Germany and Japan not only to protect the world from their militaristic aspirations, but also to protect those nations from being consumed by an expanding Soviet Union. We will have no such role in Iraq. Instead, the task of the occupation forces will be to keep Iraq from exploding into a million pieces before a stable government can be established. This is not World War II, this is Bosnia in the desert.

President Bush and his top generals, namely Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Shinseki, have assured us that the U.S. will “stay in Iraq as long as we have to, and not a day more.” But who will decide when it is safe to leave Iraq on its own? America will. When we have decided that Iraq is safe for democracy, we will withdraw most - but not all - of our troops just as we did from Japan and Germany. From that point on, we will pay Iraq for the privilege of hosting whatever U.S. troops remain, just as we do with Germany and Japan to this day. In short, the American military will have a permanent home in the Middle East.

Pax Americana is a brilliant plan. This whole world domination thing really has potential. And yet, it just doesn’t smell right.

Something’s rotten in the state of domestic policy. If we’re going to be benevolent dictators to the world, then that means we’ll be able to protect American freedoms here at home from all manner of threat. All manner of exterior threat that is. That’s the problem with the neat and tidy Pax worldview. It allows the most powerful government in the world to become that much more powerful. And all the while that government is chipping away at the basic freedoms of its own citizens.

This blog is filled with examples of how our rights as individual citizens are being stripped away. These instances are not separate from the role the U.S. is seeking to play on the global stage. At this point, our foreign and domestic policies are more intertwined than ever before.

Make no mistake, our government is still reacting to September 11, 2001. As a matter of fact, I think they're just getting started. Day by day the administration is moving to curtail more of our freedoms and enforce newly minted laws. It’s like a well oiled machine; Humming and spinning, its power grows with each press conference and with every news broadcast.

Be careful, world. A sleeping giant has just awoken, and the administration of George W. Bush is at the helm.

Labels: 9/11, aei, Gen. Shinseki, George W. Bush, iraq, neocon, new american century

This story - "Campus Anti-Piracy Fight Reaches Congress" - from Internetnews.com pretty much cinches it for individual file traders on campus.

Expect an initiative in Congress in the near future that threatens to pull sensitive government contracts from colleges and universities that don't crack down hard on file sharing. Or perhaps just a Congressional go-ahead for the FBI to start cracking skulls will be sufficient.

Why? Because we can't have computer systems that house government funded secrets being exposed to security threats. Or as the RIAA chairman and CEO, Hilary Rosen, said in testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property:

"Rampant file sharing of music and video content imposes a heavy toll on all of us. Despite education campaigns about the illegality of file sharing, and despite numerous court decisions clearly holding that copying music, movies and other copyrighted files is against the law, there is an alarming disregard among students for Internet theft...Moreover, students are often unaware of the dangers of these P2P applications: compromising campus network security, making their own hard drives containing their personal data available to others, and opening the campus networks to computer viruses...Campus systems, with their fast connections, find themselves hosting total strangers."

So which would you prefer? Cake or death?

Labels: Congress, fbi, p2p, riaa

Via mefi:

Ah, yes! And so it begins. Not content with using new powers of enforcement and prosecution to simply crack down on sites peddling glassware in clear violation of the War on Drugs (tm), the DOJ has also begun collecting intelligence in a new pseudo-war right here at home.

"The leading public Internet site dedicated to online copyright piracy was seized by the Justice Department today. Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff and Paul J. McNulty, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia today announced the seizure of www.iSONEWS.com (warning: read on before clicking that link) as part of a previous plea agreement entered into by a defendant convicted of violating the criminal copyright laws."

Do I sound like a broken record when I say, "But wait, it gets better”?

If you go to iSOnews.com you're likely to arrive at one of two sites. One site is a DOJ notice concerning:
1. The official seizure of the site dated February 26, 2003, and
2. The guilty plea entered by the server's owner David M. Rocci, 22, of Blacksburg, Va. to charges of conspiring to import, market and sell circumvention devices known as modification (or "mod") chips in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The other site is a mirror of the original iSOnews.com as it appeared before the announcement of this seizure.

Like the DEA case a few days ago, it is likely that visitors to this site are flagged and filed in the grand DOJ database. It is also likely that this has been the case since the date of the defendant's guilty plea: December 19, 2002.

This is the beginning of the end. Anyone possessing a large number of copies of copyrighted material will likely be targeted should these new DOJ powers withstand even a single appeal.

I guess the entertainment industries have finally found a way to end internet file trading without spending a dime.

By downloading copyrighted data, you're aiding the terrorists.

Labels: dea, doj, fisa, p2p, tia

Oh I am so happy that the impending war in Iraq is going to make lots of people very rich in the near future. Local affiliate television stations, and the people who own them, stand to make the most off of the war in Iraq in the imediate future. So much so in fact, their big brothers up the food chain are doing everything they can to help them out. Remember folks, February is sweeps month.

"Sweeps months are usually strange to begin with, chock-full of stunt programming, blockbuster specials and anything the networks can program to grab viewers' attention. It's when ratings are used to set local advertising rates, so it's important to the networks -- and even more important to their affiliates -- to do well."

Isn't that nice. So what type of zany programming can we expect this year's sweeps month? No, not another Friends marriage (or pregnancy). No, not the big kiss between those two characters you've been following all season, who just haven't realized yet that they’re so perfect for each other. No this year we get a war.

CNN notes:
"First it was Michael Jackson vs. "Must-See TV." Then it was Michael Jackson vs. "Joe Millionaire." And then, of course, it was Michael Jackson vs. Michael Jackson.

But tonight's network battle takes a more sober turn: It's Robert Blake vs. Saddam Hussein. "

Not good enough? Wait, there's more! If you tune in, you get to see them both!

"The Saddam interview airs Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET on CBS' "60 Minutes II," and the Blake interview follows at 10 p.m. ET on ABC's "20/20." "

Hmm, still not tempted, eh? Well how about if I throw in...

"The Saddam interview was conducted over the weekend by news anchor Dan Rather. In it, the Iraqi leader declares that his country will not bow to U.S. military pressure, nor will he go into exile. "

I see I've got your attention now. Good. Watch it, but don't forget that right afterwards...

"Across the dial at ABC, Barbara Walters will be talking with Blake about the charge that he killed his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, in 2001. Blake says he's innocent and maintains that a jury will agree. "I'm not going to be found guilty," he told Walters, according to the "20/20" Web site. "Why? It's real simple: 'Cause God has never, ever deserted me. Can't say I haven't deserted him from time to time." "

Now if that's not good TV, I don't know what is.

Oh yeah, and stay tuned to these stations because you'll get the best coverage of a war...should one break out at any moment sometime in the next two weeks.

I think they called it "shock and awe." Didn't they?

Labels: iraq, media

It seems that I am in good company in my hopes that all of this is some kind of twisted poker game.

Via mefi, John Perry Barlow (Co-Founder & Vice Chairman, Electronic Frontier Foundation) has similar hopes. He believes that Dick Cheney is at the helm:

"While I think that rock n¹ roll and the systemic failures of central planning had as much to do with the collapse of communism as did Dick¹s mad gamble, I have to confess that, by 1990, he didn¹t look quite so nuts to me after all. The MX, along with Star Wars and Reagan¹s terrifying rhetoric, had been all along a weapon for waging psychological rather than nuclear warfare. I¹m starting to wonder if were aren¹t watching something like the same strategy again. In other words, it¹s possible Cheney and company are actually bluffing.This time, instead of trying to terrify the Soviets into collapse, the objective is even grander. If I¹m right about this, they have two goals. Neither involves actual war, any more than the MX missile did."

The rest of his analysis is very similar to thoughts I've been entertaining since the global peace protests of mid-February. The administration's lack of response to those protests lead me to believe, like Barlow, that this is about more than oil, or terrorism, or any other easily packaged and consumed "reason."

Regardless, the final analysis still scares the shit out of me. I find myself very much in agreement with Barlow's final statement:

"By then, I expect to be dancing in Brazil, far from this heart of darkness and closer to the heart itself."

Labels: Dick Cheney, EFF, missile defense

Repeat after me: "People who buy drugs support terrorism, but U.S. tobacco is GOOD!

Labels: dea, patriot act

For those of you on the West Coast:

Soon you will be safe and secure in your homes, your schools, and your shopping malls thanks to the Bush administration’s plan to bypass the testing and approval process for America’s missile defense shield. If you’re worried about having untested missile defense systems stationed throughout your cities – don’t. After all, Donald Rumsfeld says we don’t need no stinking tests!

This system is comprised of many, many little “friendly missiles,” which seek and destroy big “bad guy missiles.” Of course, without testing, we’ll never know how likely it would be for one of our “friendly missiles” to malfunction, and then seek and destroy the nearest “bad guy home,” “bad guy school,” or “bad guy shopping mall” in the area. Or will we?

This whole thing stinks. The Pentagon doesn’t even want this system, and our peers on the Pacific Rim (China and Russia) believe that the introduction of a missile shield can only serve to destabilize the delicate geopolitical balance in the area.

Since these systems are designed to take out missiles and not fuel laden passenger planes flown by terrorists, we know the missile defense shield is not meant to protect us from al-Qa’ida.

So that leaves North Korea. The starving, frigged, Stalinist wasteland who just happens to be capable of producing a nuclear weapon. Despite all the media fanfare, we’ve known about that capability since 1997.

North Korea has yet to field test an operational ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. (Much like we have yet to field test a missile shield that could protect the U.S.). Are they really a threat? You bet your ass. But that’s why we have diplomacy$.

We offered them an aid package as a bribe a few months ago. They rejected it. It might be worth noting that we offered them 90 Million in aid (notice the M there). That wouldn’t be enough to buy heating oil for one of their cities through the harsh winter.

We walked away from the table after that. In turn, they re-started their nuclear power plants. North Korea is about as cold as Maine, I can easily imagine attempting to live through the winter without heating oil or electricity. I’d last about week. Take away food and clean water…Well, you can see North Korea’s predicament.

Meanwhile, a hungry, freezing, armed North Korea watches the administration begin shoveling Billions of U.S. tax dollars onto ships bound for Turkey, Africa, and Eastern Europe – buying their support for our war in Iraq. North Korea is still in the cold after all these months. Yet instead of engaging them we shut them out with our missile defense shield. If we’re not willing to deal$ with North Korea now, then we will have to deal with them later.

Labels: Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, missile defense, national security, North Korea

Via NY Times (reg. req.) and CNet news:

The DEA is seeking court approval to establish honey pots for casual web surfers. That's right, if you go to a web site that's on the hit list, you'll be flagged. Welcome - one and all - to the brave new world. A bit of a stretch? Perhaps.

The CNet article by Declan McCullagh offers this to the discussion:

"Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center said redirecting Web visitors to DEA.gov raises novel legal issues. "It sounds like this is a concluded drug operation segueing into a new sting operation," he said. "In effect, the defunct Web sites become electronic flypaper for those looking for illegal drug paraphernalia, reporters covering the story, and people who have trouble spelling in Google."

That said, I hope everyone reading this will practice their typing skills. Be especially careful not to type any of those banned words in the near future.

Labels: dea, fisa, nsa, privacy, tia

From the Toronto Star:

“A Toronto woman coming home from India says she was pulled aside at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, accused of using a fake Canadian passport, denied consular assistance and threatened with jail…Instead of jailing her on Jan. 27, an INS officer cut the front page of Cruz's passport and filled each page with "expedited removal" stamps, rendering it useless…She was photographed, fingerprinted, barred from re-entering the U.S. for five years and immediately "removed"…Not to Toronto, but to India, where she had just spent several weeks visiting her parents.”

Yes! Finally the United States is safe from this despicable loan officer. Who can say what horrors she would have unleashed upon an unwitting America had she been allowed to return to her home.

I’d like to personally thank whichever coffee swilling, chromosome-deficient, fuck stick bureaucrat who so astutely observed that this women was not white, and thereby deemed her claims of Canadian citizenship to be highly suspect. Your incompetence and bigotry – which I know is not unique amongst your peers – has earned the United States the continued ridicule and ire of the international community. At a time when we are pleading with our peers to support our policies, you have successfully highlighted their shortcomings with an act of astounding stupidity. You should be commended.

My only regret is that this story will not be reported in the United States. Our media is no longer allowed to critique the policies of our government. If they were, perhaps the citizens of America would be made aware of this shameful incident, and could extend their most sincere regrets and apologies to Berna Cruz.

After that, we might even endeavor to begin an honest public dialogue concerning the shortcomings of the new national security measures protecting our borders.

It’s unlikely that any of this will occur, however. And sadly it is equally unlikely that Berna will be the last person to have to endure this type of treatment at the hands of our government.

Labels: border security, ins, national security, patriot act, tsa

Via the New York Times:

“President Bush has begun one of the most ambitious efforts to reinvent Medicare and Medicaid since the programs were created 38 years ago. Combined with his earlier plan for Social Security, the proposals offer a fundamentally different vision of social welfare policy, many experts say.”

Isn’t that wonderful? After proposing 15 Billion in aid to Africa, and reportedly caving to Turkey’s demands for 52 Billion for the privilege of fighting a war from their soil, the Bush administration is finally ready to start spending US tax dollars on US taxpayers. Or are they?

Apparently not. The new plan calls for our nation’s elderly to “rely more on private health plans, and less on the government, for their health benefits.” Yes, you read that right. The BIG plan to save Medicare and Medicaid is to force Grandma and Grandpa America to join an HMO instead of sponging off of us hard working younger Americans. Bravo George, what an excellent fucking idea.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who thinks that this plan is asinine. This week the governors of the 50 states are in Washington D.C. to meet with the President. Many of them represent states that are facing their worst fiscal crisis in a generation. They were planning on asking the federal government for emergency funding to help see them through these uncertain times. That plan was scuttled by partisan politics. As an authority on these matters, Florida Governor Jeb “I am not the mouth piece of my brother’s administration” Bush had this to say: "You can't just keep printing money… That policy position was partisan. It was the position of big government.” Thanks Jeb, while your state’s senior citizens are eating cat food so they can afford their prescriptions, I hope you make damn sure they know how partisan the 52 Billion dollar bribe to Turkey was.

Normally, this would all be troubling enough on its own, but it gets even better. From the Buffalo News we hear that at the meeting of governors in D.C., the president's aides have restricted the governors “collectively to “just two scripted questions" at today's meeting at the White House.” Two scripted questions…Collectively! Now that’s leadership at its finest. Oh and just in case there is some dissent in the ranks, “In addition to limiting questions from the visiting governors, the White House barred the usual media coverage of Sunday night's dinner party.” Well that’s just great. The highest elected officials of our land are now treated like Sheryl Crow at the Grammys.

Of course, its not all doom and gloom in D.C. Not everyone hates the administration’s brave new health care initiative. “Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut, a Republican, was enthusiastic about the plan. "It's a great deal," Mr. Rowland said. "I'm very pleased with the prospect of greater state flexibility."” The Governor of Connecticut is enthusiastic? Not the same Connecticut that’s home to nearly every insurance company in the United States? Why would that state possibly support a plan that forces the elderly to enroll in HMOs? I’m disgusted.

If you have anyone in your family pushing 60, be sure to tell them to start saving now, because all those thousands of dollars they’ve been paying into “the system” over the years isn’t going to be worth so much as a bottle of aspirin once this plan gets passed.

Enjoy!

Labels: George W. Bush, HMO, medicaid, medicare

This week the U.S., the U.K. and Australia will once again plead their case to the UN Security Council. They will insist that Iraq is in "further material breach" of UN resolution 1441. I believe that this will be the last such opportunity for the UN to authorize force before the allies go it alone.

The United States has made no secret of its offer to Saddam Hussein - and his top officials - of immunity to war crimes prosecution in exchange for political exile. As tensions have mounted on Saddam to take an active hand in avoiding war, he has placed his Minister of Defense under house arrest.

U2 spy planes are patrolling the skies over Baghdad. The U.S. threat of finding and killing Saddam within the first 48 hours of an invasion are very real. So the question remains, can this situation end peacefully before such an invasion unfolds?

The cost to the U.S. - regardless of the outcome - will be untold billions of dollars.

One way or another, Iraq will be occupied by either the U.S. or the UN. Inspections and disarmament will continue. In the aftermath, the Bush administration will enter an election year with 200,000 troops abroad, and a possible continued nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. Osama Bin Laden will likely still be at large.

Then of course there is the economy. Will U.S. investors rally following a resolution to the situation in Iraq? Is that all that is keeping them from rallying now?

I continue to search for the answers to these questions. Your thoughts are always appreciated.

Labels: iraq, saddam hussein, UN

I checked-out MoveOn.org's site for their virtual march on Washington D.C. to protest war in Iraq. It’s set for Wednesday the 26. They'd like people to phone, fax, and e-mail their representatives in Washington to show support for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

The site interface sucks. Check it out if you like. Very weak.

Are we too dumb to be trusted to go to congress.org, type in our zip codes, and e-mail our Senators and Representatives on our own? Do we need MoveOn.org to coordinate and coach us on when to speak and what to say?

Please, if you want to participate in an antiwar protest via e-mail, do it yourself. Don't register with anyone. Just go to congress.org on Wednesday, type in your zip code, and e-mail those who represent you in D.C. It's that simple.

As a matter of fact, why not take this opportunity to save the e-mail addresses of your Senators and Representatives, just in case you want to contact them in the future. After all, they are there to speak on your behalf. They can't do that effectively if they don't hear from you from time to time.

Labels: activism, Congress, iraq

Well, I've spent the day tweaking the colors and layout of the blog template. I think it's a decent improvement on a good design. Thanks to Andrew Hoshkiw (andrew@hoshq.com) for the original template.

I've also been spending some time reading and posting on the fark.com and projo.com discussion boards about the fire. CNN's latest headline is 95 lives lost. I've heard from several of my friends still living in RI, and so far everyone seems to have been untouched by the fire. For those few I haven't heard from yet, I am hopeful that you will be as fortunate.

I warn RIers reading this that there are several posts (both text and images) on the fark board that you might find highly offensive. Despite the irreverent and sometimes crass humor there, I still appreciated the discussion. Many RIers sounded off, and let their feelings and loses be known. It's a good community.

Labels: blogging, CSS, Rhode Island, Station Fire, web development

As a native Rhode Islander, the fire last night hit close to home. I would like to offer my most sincere condolences to anyone who may have lost friends or loved ones in either of the nightclub tragedies this week.

In the interests of preventing further loss of life, it is not too close to these sad events to suggest that the outcome of the impending investigations and subsequent public safety hearings not be new laws.

Permits and code enforcement are a means of ensuring that public safety is not needlessly put at risk. However, as we have seen, when an emergency does arise something more is required to protect lives. The responsibility of that task falls squarely on the shoulders of club managers and the performers themselves.

For their own safety and the safety of their patrons, club management should announce the locations of all emergency exits to audiences before performers take the stage.

Furthermore, performers themselves should be made aware of emergency exit locations. In the event of an emergency during the course of a show, performers on stage are the individuals best equipped to coordinate a quick, safe, and orderly escape from a dangerous situation. In an emergency – even in clubs not filled to capacity – seconds can save lives.

I hope that club management and performers alike will take this proactive approach to protecting themselves and their audiences

Labels: Rhode Island, Station Fire

Today it was announced that actor Martin Sheen would voice opposition for a war in Iraq in a television commercial to be aired on CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News. The commercial is sponsored by Win Without War and MoveOn.org.

This will be the boldest attempt to date to reach “regular” Americans with the antiwar message. The commercial advertises a "virtual march on Washington," set for Wednesday. Would-be virtual march participants are asked to “use e-mail, fax machines and telephones to get their antiwar messages to legislators” on that day.

But to call it a virtual march? We are talking about utilizing a television commercial to broadcast a message to television viewers. There’s something missing here that prevents this from being considered a virtual anything.

If the celebrity supporters of the Virtual March honestly believe in the antiwar message, then they should make a personal commitment to reach-out to internet users, and ask them to participate on Wednesday.

Many “regular” Americans today are internet users; At home or on the job, they are networked. In one way or another, these people spend part of their day in front of a computer. But it’s not all work and web surfing is it? They are also involved in - or sometimes they just read - conversations online. They interact with their peers in virtual communities via e-mail, weblogs, and discussion boards.

A very large, very vocal audience ready to discuss the prospects of a Virtual March exists online. Furthermore it’s possible that some members of that audience - who know nothing about or care little for the antiwar cause - can be informed by others.

Members of these communities have opinions, and they are willing to share, discuss, and sometimes change them. They are prepared to engage in conversations with total strangers. They are also willing to communicate with celebrities.

Are the celebrities who support a Virtual March so readily on television also willing to help spread the word online? I sincerely hope they are.

And when I say “spread the word,” I don’t mean by having an assistant build a website with an antiwar banner ad and a couple of glossy photos to field fan mail. I’m taking about celebrities participating in frank, honest discussions online by joining existing community weblogs, or by establishing weblogs of their own.

It is my sincere hope that if celebrities are willing to communicate with a camera for this cause, they will also be willing to communicate with a keyboard and a modem. No pseudonyms or aliases – just as themselves.

Some celebrities already have successful weblogs; They are role models for others who are willing to speak for a Virtual March and for the antiwar cause in general. These web logs are already a powerful means of speaking to people from all walks of life about celebrities’ careers and hobbies, why not also their politics?

I wish Win Without War and MoveOn.org the greatest success in informing as many Americans as possible about the Virtual March. Furthermore, I hope that the many who do hear about the march can be prompted to participate on Wednesday.

Labels: activism, iraq

JUST SHUT UP by Neal Pollack is quality. An excellent criticism of the sudden outpouring of emotion and opinions in America since September 11, 2001.

His assertion:

"Nobody gives a shit what anti-war or pro-war writers think. Really. So shut up. That goes double for poets. Shut the hell up, poets. Everybody just shut up."

I especially appreciate this piece of analysis:

"September 11, 2001, has had all kinds of unintended consequences. One of the least tragic, but most irritating, has been an explosion of absolutely terrible writing. The flow of lousy literature began almost immediately after the attacks, and has continued without pause."

As a card carrying member of the self-important, lousy writers association of America (SILWAA) - please see my credentials for membership littered throughout this blog - I welcome Neal's input.

However, to be honest, I'm probably going to continue write poorly about a great many things - including the war - on this blog.

Anyone reading this interested in a SILWAA membership can e-mail me with comments regarding posts on the blog, or any other topic you believe I might find interesting.

Labels: 9/11, bloggers, blogging, Neal Pollack

Iranian-backed forces moved into Iraq yesterday without US approval, threatening to destabilize a post war Iraq before that war is even fought (“US concern as Iranian-backed troops enter Iraq”).

Last night, Iran lost 302 of its top military troops in a plane crash
(“Elite troops perish in Iran plane crash”, “Iranian plane carrying Revolutionary Guard crashes”). This is a potentially crippling blow to that nation’s military.

Were these troops headed home, or somewhere else?

Their plane disappeared from radar as it was descending to land. It was a Russian built aircraft flying in a mountainous region during snowy weather. Every article on the web sums up the story with a list of other recent plane crashes in the area.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Labels: iran, iraq, Revolutionary Guard

"Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea."

In terms of international law, what implications does this have (If it's actually true)? Is this the smoking gun? If these vessels represent the entire store of Iraq’s banned weapons, could war be avoided? Are all the eggs in the same basket?

One thing is certain: These ships cannot stay out at sea forever. If they do carry banned weapons in their cargo, then they will be found out sooner or later. But at what cost?

In light of the US being prepared to bribe other nations to support an extensive war - and a subsequent occupation - wouldn't it be cheaper for us to propose that the UN weapons inspectors be allowed to claim global jurisdiction in their search for Iraqi engineered weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors would then have the authority of international law to seize and examine the cargo of these vessels whatever their location.

Furthermore, a UN Security Council resolution which bars UN member states from supplying these vessels until they have made a full disclosure with regards to their cargo should be immediately considered. The suspicion of vessels carrying tons of weapons grade materials on the high seas is adequate grounds for the Security Council to act on this matter.

To consider the worst case scenario: If these ships are capable of polluting regional ecosystems, and they do so, UN member nations who are adversely effected by this action must receive economic compensation for their environmental loses.

Either way – its cheaper than war.

Labels: iraq, UN, wmd

I agree that Saddam and members of his regime are guilty of crimes against humanity. The world knows this, and believes he should be removed from power. I don’t believe that is what is at issue here. Let me explain why I feel this way.

Bill Clinton successfully presented the American people with a war criminal in eastern Europe. Then he rallied support around a diplomatic effort convincing the UN - with NATO military support for the first time in history - to depose a government, and bring its top officials to trial in the World Court. The entire thing was a sham to distract media attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yet the governments of the world still went along with him for the ride.

Why has the UN Security Council and three NATO member states chosen now to obstruct US endeavors to police the world from bad men? Are they the pacifists they claim to be? Since when?

I don’t believe for a second that France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and China have become pacifists. They are not. Their opposition to war has little to do with pacifism, and nothing to do with policing the world. Not a single government on the globe gives a damn about the suffering of the Iraqi people under an oppressive regime.

This is about money - not people.

If that’s true, how much would this war cost the United States? It’s being bandied about in Washington D.C. that a war in Iraq – and its subsequent occupation – would cost US taxpayers several tens of billions of dollars over the next two years.

How much more than this must we pay our “allies” to go along with this plan in the first place?

Turkey alone is going to cost the US in excess of 26 billion in grants and loans. What about all the fledgling EU states to be? How much are they each costing us? Why are the poorest nations of the world suddenly so vocally supportive of our policies? Were France, Germany, and Belgium simply too expensive the first time around? Are Russia and China just holding out for better deals when the second UN resolution gets put forward?

Turkey has come late to this game, but they stand to make a considerable profit. With US troops floating off their costs – unable to unload, and unable to turn around – how long can we hold out on them. Even if they only manage to negotiate one or two billion more, its still coming out of our pockets. And when I say “our pockets” I mean that literally.
Everyday the long-term costs of this potential war increase. I am concerned that a war is too costly a venture for our economy to sustain.

So what is our best alternative?

Labels: bill clinton, iraq, saddam hussein, UN

The supreme court is presently being petitioned by the ACLU on two very important issues:

First they ask that the court review a decision by a secret appeals court “that broadly expanded the government’s powers to spy on U.S. citizens.” (ACLU)

Secondly – and perhaps even more importantly – the ACLU has requested that they be allowed to appeal the secret court’s decision even though they were not parties in the lower court proceedings.

This RealAudio stream of “This American Life” – which often airs on Public Radio International (PRI) stations – presents a good deal of background on this topic (Warning: The program is 60 minutes long) .

What are the legal implications of the outcome of these two motions? Will a decision made by a secret court against an individual targeted for prosecution – whom may not be allowed legal council – be impervious to appeal? By denying to hear these cases, is the Supreme Court creating a monster?

Labels: aclu, fisa, patriot act, scotus, warrantless wiretaps

The RIAA spent many millions of dollars last year because of internet file trading. This loss was not due to decreased revenues attributed to individual users trading intellectual property, rather it was caused by the RIAA’s own hands in its pursuit to stem the tide of file trading through costly legal action.

These lawsuits are severely harming the RIAA. Investors and music fans alike are being overwhelmed by a grassroots public relations campaign that paints the RIAA and those whom they represent in the most unfavorable light.

What’s necessary is a radical change of course. The RIAA must adopt a plan to end these lawsuits as quickly as possible, while preserving the continued, long-term profitability of their intellectual property.

Much of the intellectual property ever digitized – Terabytes of data – exists in one form or another on personal computer hard drives numbering in the hundreds of millions around the globe. These files exist beyond the RIAA’s reach. Individual computer users will continue to copy and trade these media files free-of-charge for the foreseeable future.

They will trade these files despite the possibility of receiving a poor quality or incomplete copy of a media file. They will do this even without sure knowledge that they are in fact downloading the media file they intended to, and not a harmful computer virus from a virtually anonymous source.

Yet even so, some of these individuals maintain a collection of high-quality copies of several thousand individual media titles on their home computers. Are these individuals criminals to be brought to task, or are they certifiable points of distribution for this media?

Track for track, many individuals have more titles than some music retailers. The only difference between the two? The RIAA profits from retail music sales, but not from online file exchanges. In return for their expenditure of time, effort, and hard drive real estate – both in downloading a media file and in distributing it to others – individual computer users receive no compensation. This inequity can be rectified to the profit of all parties: The RIAA, music artists, music fans, and music retailers.

It has yet to be proven whether or not file traders will pay for secure, high-quality downloads from a subscription site. Most indications are that it would be a risky venture at best.

I propose a departure from the subscription paradigm.

Instead, servers containing digital copies of media titles comprising the complete intellectual property catalogs of the RIAA corporations must be established. These files will be available for live media stream to the public, and to institutions of instruction, via a napster-like program of RIAA approved design. The RIAA Interface Program (RIP) will be made freely available to the public just as napster-like file trading platforms are today. The media file streaming service will be free to all users.

The quality of the media stream will be less than that of a file downloaded directly to a users hard drive. However, it will be adequate for a user to determine the desirability of an individual media title – or for the purposes of music instruction – yet it will leave something to be desired. Watch any video stream from CNN, or listen to an audio stream via a net radio platform for an example of this level of quality.

The availability of individual media files would be dependent on network traffic and demand. Individual media files in high demand will receive more dedicated resources for its distribution than those not in high demand.

If a user wishes to have a “full version” of the file, they must download it – for a fee – via the searchable napster-like RIAA Interface Program. The downloaded file would then exist on the user’s hard drive. It could be played at the user’s leisure, and be recorded to other media for personal use. It would also be available to be traded with other users of the RIAA Interface Program.

A closed system such as this is doomed to failure without some incentive for users to switch from free and unchecked file trading platforms to an RIAA sponsored alternative.

To that end, when a media file is downloaded or uploaded by an individual RIAA Interface Program user, the program will track the exchange. Once per fiscal quarter, every individual who maintains an RIAA certified quality copy of a media file on their hard drive will receive payment for distribution of that file. This payment will be dependant on how many other users have used the RIAA Interface Program to purchase and download that file from the individual maintaining the file.

Users who maintain files comprising entire albums or artist catalogs will receive discounts from individual labels for the purchase of physical CDs by that artist from music retailers. Discounts on concert tickets and artist related merchandise should also be strongly considered.

Everyone who uses the RIAA Interface Program to purchase and download a media file will receive a distribution payment each fiscal quarter, provided they continue to maintain an unaltered, RIAA certified copy of the file. If they delete or alter the file, no distribution payment will be forwarded. Additionally, only file exchanges using the RIAA Interface Program will warrant such a payment. Payment options should include check, direct deposit, or credit for future media file downloads. This not only ensures file quality, but also user confidence in the media files they are exchanging.

Payment for distribution encourages users to make the file available for download only through the RIAA Interface Program. Additionally it encourages users to abandon other – unprofitable – file distribution platforms.

Users who get paid to download and distribute media files with RIAA approval will pay to download RIAA approved media files.

I sincerely hope the RIAA and those whom they represent will heed this call to end costly lawsuits, and pursue a far more enriching policy regarding the intellectual property they have worked so hard to produce and its open exchange online.

Labels: p2p, riaa

I actually believe the protests this weekend made an impact. That's pleasantly surprising to me, really. I don't know about you, but I grew up with the impression that the antiwar protests of the 60's had a monumental effect on US pop-culture, but never came close to actually effecting US foreign policy. So, in that sense, these protests made a "difference." Whatever your opinion might be about the nature of that difference - whether its good or bad for America and the state of Humanity – it’s still a historic moment.

It’s historic for another reason too. The BBC collecting digital pictures from around the world – that was just the tip of the iceberg. I’m a news and information junkie. I’ve been collecting, collating, and analyzing “news,” blog postings, and discussion board conversations for years, and I’ve never seen an issue with as much resonance online as the possibility of this war. These protests were not organized; They were networked.

Everything buzzed and clicked on Saturday. It was amazing.

What made it most impressive though was that these protesters – not just here in Portland, but globally – were not all stoned-out anarchists and fringe communists. For once those people were in a severe minority of the protestors. Take a look at the pictures and you’ll see that most of the people out there were normal, well-informed people who have just had enough.

There are dangers in the world, we all realize that, but there are also ideals. The question is this: Do we abandon our ideals to confront the dangers? Or, conversely, do we ignore the dangers to pursue the ideals? Isn't there a middle ground here, and if so what is it?

America is in a difficult place right now. How can we believe in ideals? Hell, we don’t even have a dream anymore. The “American Dream” is a punchline. I don’t believe it has to be that way, and I don’t believe a war or even a skyrocketing stock market is going to fix it.

I know that this sounds naive and optimistic but what’s our alternative? Does anyone really and truly believe that taking control of Iraq is going to stop someone from harming the US if they're willing to die to do so? Does anyone believe that war is a GOOD idea for stability in the region and around the globe? Those in our government who support war don’t just support a war in Iraq. Iraq is just the first on a list. A list of wars. When did this happen to us? Remember when the United States was a symbol of democracy, freedom, and peace?

Remember peace? It’s not just a word. For a long time before the 1960’s, peace was an ideology (Some might say for a very long time before the 60’s. Some might also say it was much more than just an ideology). Regardless of it’s origin, peace was approached not as an impossible dream but as a goal yet to be achieved.

People used to talk about the last war. Can you even imagine that? Once upon a time, the last war was one that had already been fought. Not anymore. Now we’re lucky if we can even envision such a thing.

I won’t delve into the histories of the League of Nations and Wilson’s 14 points, they should be common knowledge. But I will say this: The United Nations exists for a reason. Too few recall what that reason is. To feed the hungry, to clothe and house the poor, to promote democracy and free thought around the world. Yes all of those, but they came later. First and foremost UN exists to end the scourge of war.

War, like peace, is not just a word. International coalitions. Regime change. Transitional governments. Military occupation. Do these euphemisms make anyone believe that a generation of human beings will not be permanently scarred by war? An entire global generation will learn the lesson: “War is evil, but sometimes it’s justified.” That’s not the only lesson they’ll learn. They’ll also learn to hate. The children of the victors will learn to hate the children of the defeated. And the children of the defeated will learn to hate the children of the victors. Will these children act on these lessons? Are we giving them an alternative?

History has taught us that war and isolation breeds tyrants. How long can we sanction and punish a nation before its people vow to destroy us and all that we claim to stand for? We’ve seen this before. We could have stopped it before, but we didn’t. And the peace was lost. Now some people are trying to get it back. I still have hope that they can.

Lastly, I have something to say about patriotism. I am a patriot. I love this damn country, warts and all. I was willing to die for the Constitution when I served in the military, and I’m still willing to die for it. More than that, I’m willing to see my neighbors die for it; My family too (I know that they love America as much as I do). That is what it means to be a patriot. We will die – not kill – to protect the freedom of others. Even if those others are different from us.

Given the choice of living in an America that believes that some are more deserving of freedom than others, or living in an America where my life, or the life of someone I love is at risk of being lost because of a random terrorist attack, I’ll take the latter. People die everyday, we can’t stop that no matter what laws we pass or how many bombs we drop.

Freedom – and all the risks that come with it – is our heritage. This is America, and anyone who doesn’t like it can leave. After all, it's a free country.

Labels: activism, iraq, maine, portland