Slashdot Mirror
Domain: ainfos.ca
Stories and comments across the archive that link to ainfos.ca.
Comments · 7
-
Re:The Myth of the Meritocracy
"... where workers collectively manage the means of production without bosses or owners."
And, as such, its not as much about the product as the organization producing the goods. It is about not having such a great need for leadership roles and giving the stake-holders more room at the table.
I would like to make the case that we no longer need representives in D.C. - that tech exists which
eliminates the reasons why the 'house' has to exist at all. We can still keep congress, but the function of these critters is by-gone from times when distance from home district to D.C. was
a considerable factor. That no longer is the case and the electorate would be better served by a different (open-n-transparent) process, by referendum.That, to me, is an anarchistic alternate approach.
Eliminate Senatorial and Congressional elections in your State. Have a mixed panel of R-n-D's that disseminates pending federal legislation and presents it in clear coherent ways to the citizens,
then let them vote on it on a given day.
Give every resident a "voting card" that can be swiped (once) at a gas station, library or ATM. Swiping means 'yes', not swiping (not voting) means no. A certain percentage implies passage.That's an anarchistic alternative that works for me; take the elections, all the campaigning, the PACs and the Parties completely out of the picture. Just stick a 20" display in the chair with a big thumb that goes up or down and let the people at home decide directly using an open and transparent process.
I am not anti-capital, I believe in commerce and economies. What we have now is corruption beyond shame. Anarchy has less to do with economic model as with social organization; or 'social ecology' as the term currently in fashion.
There's a lot of thought regarding this in my neck of the woods. Not saying all that input is necessarily better, or less fraught with unintended consequence, but it can't be worse than the sorry state we're in now.
http://www.freesocietycollective.org./
http://www.homemadejam.org/renew
http://www.anarkismo.net/
http://www.ainfos.ca/
http://www.zmag.org/AWatch/awatch.htmIn closing, I'd like to note that every idealistic
notion branded as 'wishful thinking' today usually becomes the only pragmatic solution of tommorrow.Be well, enjoy your reality.
-
Re:An amazing achievement
Easy there, no need for histrionics.
Did you happen to read any of the articles I linked to? At KSC, at least 1,000 people were protesting, and many were arrested trying to climb the fences. They even organized a shrimp-boat protest to prevent the launch. 15 congresscritters sent a petition to President Clinton. A statement was read the the UN.
It was a big deal, and with the help of the internet it flared up around the country and world. I remember it being a low point of hysteria vs reason.
There was grave doubt that Cassini would be launched at the time since it unfortunately followed on the heels of the ill-fated Russian Mars 96 probe that crashed into South America with 0.44 lbs of Plutonium onboard. IIRC the President had to sign off on its launch - that certainly is odd for something that should've been a routine scientific activity.
I agree that solar panels were likely the best choice for the MER rovers from a weight perspective, but so much capability was left back on earth because of that decision. I look forward to the new rover; bigger, badder, and powerful!
-
Re:Don't let them fool you
Here is another indie news source.
-
Try some real backgroundSome actual background from Dan Hartung:
Here's the UN's own backgrounder on UNOSOM I, which unfolded from limited coordination teams to a Security Council resolution imposing an arms embargo to another unanimous resolution calling for a humanitarian assistance mission. Note particularly that the United States did not participate at this time. A $700B aid program began, but soon deteriorated under the conflicting aims of local warlords:
Implementing the programme proved difficult. Continuing disagreements among Somali factions
In other words, the situation in Somalia deteriorated severely before the United States ever got involved. The forces most viciously opposed by the warlord Aidid were fellow Muslims from Pakistan. In December, the UN Security Council again passed a unanimous resolution (remember: this includes not only the five permanent members, but also the temporary regional members in rotating seats) to authorize the United States deployment of a security force. The US forces remained there under a marginally improved security profile, but the UN remained concerned as aid was not getting to the provinces and looting and violence against humanitarian workers continued.
Finally, under UNOSOM II, the mandate of the force was expanded as follows:
monitoring that all factions continued to respect the cessation of hostilities and other agreements to which they had consented;
That's a pretty heavy workload, leaving little room for "guarding oilmen", and again, this was the goal that all members of the UN Security Council agreed on, with the US presence providing a backbone but hardly the majority of the forces. This phase led to a hopeful, temporary peace agreement and plans for an interim government and disarmament of the warlords.
* preventing any resumption of violence and, if necessary, taking appropriate action;
* maintaining control of the heavy weapons of the organized factions which would have been brought under international control;
* seizing the small arms of all unauthorized armed elements;
* securing all ports, airports and lines of communications required for the delivery of humanitarian assistance;
* protecting the personnel, installations and equipment of the United Nations and its agencies, ICRC as well as NGOs;
* continuing mine-clearing, and;
* repatriating refugees and displaced persons within Somalia.
At this point Aidid's cooperation deteriorated swiftly.
Following the transition to UNOSOM II in May 1993, it became clear that, although signatory to the March Agreement, Aidid's faction would not cooperate in the Agreement's implementation. Attempts to implement disarmament led to increasing tensions and, on 5 June, to violence. In a series of armed attacks against UNOSOM II troops throughout south Mogadishu by Somali militia, 25 Pakistani soldiers were killed, 10 were reported missing and 54 wounded. The Special Representative stated that the soldiers were "murdered as they sought to serve the neediest people in the city". The Security Council adopted [a resolution] strongly condemning the unprovoked armed attacks against UNOSOM II. On 8 June, 11 Somali parties condemned the attacks and expressed support for [this] resolution.
So, we had a US presence as part of a UN humanitarian mission that was starting to deteriorate under the determined opposition of a warlord who stood to lose power under the interim government. After non-American forces tried to disarm his troops, he massacred them, placing the entire mission in danger. If the troops themselves were at risk of outright mob violence and murder, how safe were the humanitarian workers? The next step was explicitly authorized by the United Nations Security Council members. Even though the United States had been expecting to ramp down its presence in Somalia under UNOSOM II, setting a firm withdrawal date of March 1994, the new conflict with Aidid required them to participate in an escalation of the mission, which involved several obvious things like taking control of the radio station and forcibly disarming those militia they could. After the June massacre the United Nations issued an arrest warrant for Aidid. (The UN, not the US.) This is when the Army Rangers went in, later joined by the Delta Force squadrons and temporarily the AC-130 gunships. Even so, it was not until October of 1993 that the fatal raid took place.
Were there Western oil interests present in Somalia? Yes. Was there contact with the representatives of those oil interests? Yes. Would a stabilized Somalia be profitable to Western oil and business interests? Yes. But it would also be a humanitarian boon to the people of Somalia, and this was the basis for the 100% agreement of the entire United Nations Security Council on every step of the UNOSOM mission. The US didn't even want to play a central role, with plans to quietly slip out and let the UN run things, until the murder of UN peacekeepers forced a response.
Amazingly, with a globalized economy and free trade covering most of the globe, there is a high likelihood that US or Western business interests will already be present wherever there is a conflict. Noting this is hardly evidence, in and of itself, of murkier, craven motives. To say "we were there to protect American oil interests" is to trivially oversimplify a very complex situation.
Alex Cox, the author of that column [that inspired Dan's piece, not the parent post here], is well known as a left-leaning muckraker given to conspiracy theories. (He's also had at least a moment as a good director.) Cox's narrative "capriciously" suggests that Bush moved unilaterally by "sending in the Marines", but this part of the mission proved relatively peaceful. It was not until the unprovoked massacre of Pakistani soldiers that the UN mission character changed to one of confrontation with Aidid. Cox sneers that the Marines' main task was "guarding oil men" and places scare quotes around the word partners (why not just come right out and say lackeys?). In any case Cox deliberately omits in his story any mention of the massacre which provoked the unanimous response of the United Nations Security Council. Nope; Cox has it that we just "decided that Aidid was [our] enemy". What a foul lie, Mr. Cox. In describing the fatal raid, Cox omits any mention of the deliberate RPG attacks on US helicopters, and suggests that the US troops became "confused" when surrounded by an angry crowd and proceeded to "massacre" Somalis. Cox fails to note that this angry crowd was armed and had been primed over a period of weeks for just such an ambush. The RPG attacks on the helicopters involved planning, procurement, training, and strategizing. Cox would like to have it merely be an "angry crowd" but it was a disciplined militia force that hid inside an angry, incited crowd. Then he goes off on an "all American elite forces are racist" riff that probably satisfies his muckraking impulse but fails to ask a single soldier whether he harbored racist feelings for the people of Somalia. (Most of them didn't; they thought they were doing a good deed, boy scout style.) There was a major error when the Quick Reaction Force attacked an Aidid shura meeting with a missile; accounts vary as to how many died, but it does seem likely that not all of them were military lieutenants.
The indignation Cox puffs up at American "war crimes" is somewhat diminished when one actually reads Bowden's book(which does not omit mention of the incidents, as he suggests). The prisoner praying in custody in an Army 6x6 took an incoming bullet, as Bowden and other sources make clear. The woman who was shot near the crash site was apparently unarmed, but the book adds the information that she was stepping into the street to "spot" for nearby gunmen and pointing out the soldiers' position, making her a combatant. A tough call in any situation, even a firefight for your own life. Update: I've found the Richard Dowden piece that Cox implies is based on independent reporting, but in fact it's entirely derivative of the publication of Bowden's book and Inquirer series, and the wording is Dowden's own spin.
Really, that's a disgusting little piece of distortion and I've lost any respect for Alex Cox now that I've read it. I mean, if you're going to tell this story and say not one word about the massacre of the Pakistanis, how can you lay any claim to honesty? The word Pakistan does not even appear in the article. Cox: for shame. -
Other protesters opinions on Philly
-
Re:So much talent to no great purpose.
Well the anarchists do have their own free (as in freedom) news service which I as an anarchist pro-lifer have been "banned" from posting on, but take it for what it's worth.
A-Infos -
We need to fight back!
I keep seeing these draconian laws being passed by our government, and these orwellian systems being created and implemented by profit- and power-hungry corporations. It seems every day there's a different post to Slashdot describing some new method for controlling the flow of information and the freedoms that we should be taking for granted...
And what are we doing about it? Why do we keep allowing our rights and freedoms to be taken away?
Why are those in power doing this to us? That's easy to answer: Because they can. Because anybody in power will seek to extend their power and control.
Why are we allowing this to happen? I don't know. Some of us are fighting back as much as we can, but most of us simply post to Slashdot and complain.
Listen up! All this bullshit that we've been fed ("We live in a free country!", "The economy is doing great!"), it's all just that: bullshit! We're losing our rights and freedoms on a daily basis, our economy is fake (the drop on last Friday was equivalent to Black Tuesday in 1929), people all over the world are being forced into sweatshop slavery in the name of "economic progress", and our environment is being raped and destroyed at an alarming rate in the name of profit.
And most importantly? The technology that we all love and support is being turned back on us in order to control and monitor people. They're usurping something that they have no right to usurp. We have to put the power of technology back into the hands of the people!
It's time to fight back! It's time for a revolution!
http://www.indymedia.org - Support independant media!
http://www.soaw.org - Why are our tax dollars being spent on training murderers?
http://www.corpwatch.org - So you think only governments can oppress and censor?
http://www.spunk.org
http://www.infoshop.org - Communism is dead, Capitalism is close to it. There is another alternative, and it's time we started exploring it.
http://www.adbusters.org
http://www.rtmark.com
http://www.subvertise.org - Subvertising (also known as adbusting) at it's best.
http://www.ainfos.ca - Keep informed on what is happening in the world, from an anti-authoritarian, grassroots perspective.
http://www.a16.org - Seattle and D.C. are just the beginning.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net