Slashdot Mirror

What is scary about this U.S. government talk of not allowing secure encryption is that it is working so well. Even the intelligent, educated people who comment on Slashdot (Don't joke about this, it's the truth.) are being led completely away from the real issue.

The real issue is that they are trying to get you to accept that you have no right to privacy.

The really important matter is that the U.S. government is trying to get you to accept the principle that it can spy on you. They know they will lose the encryption battle.

Do you ever have the right to privacy? If there is a single case in which you have the right to privacy, then you have the right to encryption, because you need it for that case.

From the article, What should be the Response to Violence? :

"The U.S. government has three separate, very large agencies that function as global secret police: The FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. The first two are authorized to kill other people. These agencies are secret in two senses: Their activities are hidden from the people of the U.S., even though the U.S. is a democracy. They also have secret budgets. These agencies function everywhere in the world, including inside the U.S."

It has somehow been established that U.S. citizens will accept that they cannot be told about either the activities or the budget of the secret "national security" agencies. Clearly, if they did know, and if they had a chance to vote, most citizens of the U.S. would vote against many of the activities. However, U.S. citizens are not allowed to have enough information to make an informed decision about the secret agencies.

Have a look at the article: What should be the Response to Violence? .

My best guess is that the secret agencies of the U.S. government are not acting for the good of the country. Also read the article Friendly Dictators which is linked there.

The book, The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, linked there is excellent also. It is a quick read, and very valuable.

The real problem seems to be the secret agencies of the U.S. government, not the military. As I mentioned above, I've tried to gather information and links together to support this observation: What should be the Response to Violence? .

In some ways the U.S. is the best, also: What should be the Response to Violence? .

I agree. You should believe nothing without good evidence.

The article referenced at the bottom of this post provides official U.S. government statistics. (Search on "prison".) An interesting link mentioned there gives another statistic: The murder rate in Washington, D.C. is 170 times the murder rate in Brussels, Belgium.

You can do a Google search for the prison rate in other countries. You will find that European countries have about 1/6 as many of their citizens in prison as the U.S.

"Ever read The Gulag Archipelago?"

Yes, I read that book. During that time in the Soviet Union, there was a far smaller percentage of people in prison than now in the U.S. Also, the Supermax prisons in the U.S. are less humane than Gulag prisons. There is a difference, though; the U.S. apparently has few or no political prisoners.

Check out one prisoner's story: Supermax Prison is Torture and Death. This is not obscure data. I learned about U.S. prisons from a PBS TV program. The two links in this and the previous paragraph are just the 2nd and 4th Google links from a search on "supermax prison".

We live in a time when a well-dressed, educated man or woman in a leadership position will look into your face or a camera, be very clear and logical-sounding, and speak complete nonsense. That's how things got to be such a mess. Tonight on a TV news program a U.S. government official was talking about the "Talley Bahn". He meant the Taliban. From years of experience with this kind of thing, I know it is a good guess that the speaker knows nothing of importance about Afghanistan.

More about the social breakdown: What should be the Response to Violence? .

The U.S. is undergoing a social breakdown. The U.S. has the highest divorce rate in the world. The U.S. has the highest percentage of obese people. The U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world.

There is evidence that the secret agencies of the U.S. government and the weapons manufacturers have too much control. Few Americans know how much the U.S. government has meddled in the government of Saudi Arabia, so few realize the extent to which Arab complaints are justified.

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends. The U.S. government has a history of valuing the lives of its citizens much more highly than the lives of people in poor countries. Although violence can never be condoned, it is not surprising that some people want to make an effective protest against this.

Yes, the U.S. may be becoming a police state. Not only does the U.S. have at least three agencies that police the entire world, the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA, but the U.S. has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of any country ever, in the history of the world.

Here are the official December 31, 2000 prison statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice. Sorry about the formatting. The lameness filter is lame. It won't let me post enough leading dots.

The total population of the United States, projected to September 24, 2001 at 6:34:55 PM PDT is 285,218,008. Therefore, 2.3 percent of the entire U.S. population is in prison or involved with the criminal justice system. But remember, many of those are babies or children. About 3.1 percent of all adult U.S. citizens are in prison, jail, or on probation or parole.

An April 20, 2000 ABC News article, U.S. Prison Population Rising says that the percentage of growth of the U.S. prison population is rising.

There is other evidence of social breakdown: An August 19, 1998 BBC News article, The United States of murder, says that the city with the highest murder rate, Washington, D.C., has a murder rate 170 times higher than the city with the lowest murder rate, Brussels, Belgium. The nine U.S. cities in this study of murder rates all were in the list of the 12 cities with highest murder rate.

There is evidence that the secret agencies of the U.S. government and the weapons manufactureres have too much control: What should be the Response to Violence? .

Not only did Catholics support the Crusades, they enthusiastically supported them. That outbreak of mental illness lasted from 1095 A.D. to 1291; it was not an isolated circumstance. During that time Europeans traveled to Arab lands to kill them. At that time almost all Christians were Catholic.

Many people don't understand the significance of the Crusades, which happened a long time ago. The significance is that the moral teaching of the Christians did not prevent them from designing and participating in a killing rampage.

The Crusades were not the only Christian killing rampage. The Spanish Inquisition was another outbreak of craziness.

The moral teachings of the Christians have not changed significantly since the Crusades. Arabs ask themselves, "What would prevent Christians from being part of another killing rampage?" That's why the crusades have significance in modern thinking. It is easy to understand that when President Bush talked about a crusade in a speech to the entire nation of the U.S., while at the same time declaring "war", Arabs became anxious.

It is remarkable how quickly the discussion of terrorism became off-topic. People are blaming PGP!!! Do you have a right to speak to your wife in private, with no interference or listening from the government? If you do have this right, then you have a right to use PGP. Your wife may be in another country, and PGP is a way of being sure you speak only to her. If you don't have this right, then the government can legally force its way into anything you say to your wife.

The primary reason for the violence seems to be corruption in secret agencies of the U.S. government like the CIA. For example, the CIA trained Osama bin Laden. If there is more trouble, the CIA receives more funding. So the CIA, at least unconsciously, wants more trouble.

Israel receives an astounding $905 per year from the U.S. government for every man, woman and child who lives there. A large part of that money is spent on weapons bought from the United States. Senators in the U.S. who represent the states with weapons manufacturers have lobbied to continue giving money to Israel. The U.S. weapons manufacturers also sell weapons to the Arabs.

I've tried to pull together information about these issues: What should be the Response to Violence? .

The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in the last 30 years, killing about 3,000,000 people. Yet Phil Zimmermann gets hassled for causing problems!!! Duh!

The U.S. government has heavily influenced Saudi politics in favor of the house of al Saud. There are Saudis who would like a more representational government. There has been a lot of U.S. government meddling in Saudi politics that does not appear in the news.


The CIA trained Osama bin Laden: What Should be the Response to Violence?

From the referenced story, Afghanistan Is Like Nothing You've Ever Seen, Soviet Vets Say:

First, there are no real "bases" for terrorists, they say. Fighters live in ordinary villages. Air or artillery strikes against them will invariably kill civilians.

Moreover, there are few targets other than villages, the veterans warn. There are few bridges, no factories. Most of the country's infrastructure has been destroyed in decades of civil war.

"Even in Iraq you had something to bomb," Lisinenko said. "But there are no targets in Afghanistan. There's nothing there to bomb."

I'm very happy that Slashdot is covering this. If the U.S. government starts a huge war, it will affect our computer jobs. Not only that, if I did not read Slashdot, I would never have seen the article.


The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people: What Should be the Response to Violence?

"doesn't seem unreasonable.

If you can get the 2,500,000 million people who are threatened with starvation to agree that this is reasonable, it's fine with me.

Also, your solution seems to assume that the Taliban are a bunch of intelligent guys sitting around talking. In reality they are poorly educated, highly stressed people who are sometimes half crazy, and maybe even hungry themselves. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi and an Arab. (Afghans are not Arabs.) Perhaps you presume more order than there really is.

"Reasonable" left Afghanistan several decades ago.


The secret U.S. government agencies control U.S. violence: What Should be the Response to Violence?

From the story referenced above:

"That's like telling people to take their house key down to the police station," Goodlatte said. "People are not going to have greater confidence in their security by doing that."

Good analogy. These things must be made simple, because most lawmakers have no technical education whatsoever. Did I say NONE at all? As in Duhhhh!


Secret U.S. government agencies control U.S. violence: What Should be the Response to Violence?

According to a September 21, 2001 BBC story, Aid agencies prepare for Afghan tragedy, Workers in the WFP, World Food Program, have pulled out of Afghanistan because of fear for their safety. If you look at the story, be sure to see the face of the woman in the photo at the top. Her face tells everything. She is one of the innocent people.

The story says, 'According to latest estimates, as many as six million Afghans are now affected by drought, war or displacement. Aid agencies are issuing urgent pleas that the U.S.-led "war against terrorism" does not become a war against innocent civilians. Correspondents say the WFP withdrawal alone has left two and a half million Afghans without any visible means of support.'

"... or have they all suffered from the Economic Darwinism of the early 21st century?"

It wasn't "Economic Darwinism" that killed the dot-coms. It was utter foolishness.


Violence is not Religion. Religion is not violence: What Should be the Response to Violence?

Senator Hollings official bio says, " Hollings uses his seniority, experience and know-how to fight for South Carolina. The state now receives $1.16 from the federal government for every $1 it sends to Washington."

... Hollings embraces Inglis' charges that he's a pork-barreler: "He calls it pork. This is government." He has spent 32 years wangling roads and airports and sewers for South Carolina, and he doesn't mind reminding voters about it. Inglis' spokesman derisively calls this Hollings' "I got you ... I got you ... I got you ... I got you ... I got you ..." speech.

Hollings introduced a bill to tax the Internet: 1999: New 5 percent Web sales tax proposed.


The CIA trained Osama bin Laden: What Should be the Response to Violence?

This FrontPage EULA is just a trial of the concept. If there are not a lot of complaints, expect other Microsoft EULAs:

Microsoft Photo Editor: Users are forbidden to draw horns on photos of Bill Gates.

Microsoft Turd^H^H^H^H Word: Users are forbidden to write anything bad about Microsoft.

Microsoft Internet Explorer: Explore only Microsoft approved sites.


The CIA trained Osama bin Laden: What Should be the Response to Violence?

"All your thoughts are belong to us!"

That reminds me, whatever happened to the Natalie Portman and hot grits posts? And where is signal11?

The EULA of the future will prohibit even thinking a bad thought about Microsoft. The serial numbers will be 100 digits long, and you will be told to post a photo of Bill Gates above your desk. Some reviewers will say that Microsoft was very kind to include a photo in the box, so that users do not have to buy one separately.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

Microsoft EULA: "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography."

I think the part about "racism, hatred or pornography" is only there to get sympathy and to hide that Microsoft is trying to repeal the U.S. constitutional right to free speech.

If Microsoft is allowed to continue this way, it will eventually be: United States, a Microsoft company.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

From the Slashdot story, "... Microsoft will never fix the problem without making sure people have to pay a monthly subscription for their OS."

I think this is exactly the problem. That's why Windows 2000 was reportedly shipped with 63,000 action items still unfinished. Microsoft knows that, once they deliver one good operating system, most people wiil never buy another. They want to make sure that they never finish the job.

Forcing users to pay for subscriptions would allow Microsoft to make money every year even if it did no more work on the OS. That seems to be the goal: money for nothing.

Microsoft is a very adversarial company, in my opinion. They are not good citizens.

A good partial resolution of the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case would be to prohibit secret file formats. Then there could be competition again. At present, if a big customer upgrades to a new version of Microsoft Office, and sends out files incompatible file with previous versions, all people who receive the files are forced to upgrade. Companies don't want to go to a good customer and ask them to re-send a docuemnt in a former format.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

So by your logic and knowledge, after the Oklahoma bombing, USA should simply have gone out and bombed Bagdad to a pile of rubble? Throw away law, due process and step down to the level of a lynch-mob.

Do you honestly believe that this was Bin Laden's work because it was done by arabs? Why are you so willing to act on this without further proof? Why do you feel like rushing it?

Here's an article I found on /. that explains more. Please take the time to
read it and understand why your attitude is part of the problem.

- Steeltoe

"Just out of curiosity, it's World War II. What is your answer to Hitler's violence? How do you think it should have been solved?"

First, you would have to start early. Non-violent methods, like violent methods, take time to have effect.

Second, the most powerful non-violent methods would use the fact that people are more knowledgeable about their inner reality than they were in Hitler's time. So, what I am about to say won't sound realistic for back then, because it presumes the knowledge that many people have today. Let's just talk about solving the problems we have today, rather than try to transport ourselves back to Hitler's time.

Third, achieve a complete understanding of what causes violence. Violence, including war, is caused ONLY by a particular kind of mental illness. There is NO other cause. If you understand that, and begin looking for that kind of mental illness, solving the problem of violence is not so difficult. It is still difficult, but not impossible.

When you understand that violence is cause by errors in brain processing, stopping violence becomes a troubleshooting problem. Stopping violence is a problem of troubleshooting errors in the human bio-computer. This is the kind of work many Slashdot readers know. Train Slashdot readers, and we have 1,000 or 10,000 technicians to put in the field.

Many Slashdot readers already know how hard it is to find a processing error. They have learned not to be intellectual wimps. If it takes 90 tries and two weeks to find an error in a C++ program, they know that's what must be done.

Fourth, there needs to be a recognition of how nutty things are today. I just watched an official on the September 19, 2001 CBS TV show "60 Minutes II" talk about the 1998 U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.

According to the show, the U.S. sent 60 cruise missiles, each of which cost $2,000,000, into a dry mountainous region where the total value of all the surrounding buildings was probably less than the equivalent of $10,000.

According to the local Afghanis on the show, the missiles costing $120,000,000 destroyed part of a mosque and killed a few children and adults. This was an expression of a need of a few people to act out inner conflict. Why do I say that? Because $120,000,000 spent on doing good works in Afghanistan would, literally, put you in a position to be elected president of that very, very poor country. The people who sent the missiles did not want to solve the problem. They wanted to act out their inner conflict, and make more problems so they could do more trouble-making later, too. Do you see why I say the only explanation is mental illness?

The official being interviewed saw no evidence of anything crazy about this back then. He still didn't, even after being repeatedly questioned.

Read Limbs of no body: World's indifference to the Afghan tragedy A million people died of starvation! This article was referenced in an earlier Slashdot story.

On the local news tonight, newscasters said that a huge number of jet aircraft have been sent to the Middle East. Ships are on their way also. This when they have absolutely no more clue about where to aim their weapons than before.

There needs to be recognition of how often a well-educated, well-dressed person looks you in the eye, talks in an elegant, logical-sounding way, and speaks complete nonsense.

I have considerable experience teaching people how much craziness there is in the world, and how to recognize it. A good student can learn a lot in 9 months to two years.

Fifth, recognize that the conflict in the Middle East has NOTHING to do with religion. People have been using religion as a way of justifying violence since before Islam existed and before Judaism existed. It's nonsense. There is NO connection. Violence is ONLY caused by mental illness. It's that simple.

Sixth, learn enough to recognize that Arabs have a real gripe. The U.S. has been meddling in the region for years. Saudis, for example, have a right to complain about their government. How would you like it if you were an American working for changes in the U.S. government, but the Saudi government was preventing the changes? How would you like it if the Saudis who were preventing improvements knew nothing about the politics and didn't even speak English?

Conflicts are solved partly with personal understanding and personal relationships.

Step seven is where it starts getting messy. An outbreak of mental illness like a war is composed of many mini-outbreaks. Your technicians must identify each one. Each one requires personal attention.

If it is Hitler we're discussing, it is necessary to recognize early that there is a potential outbreak. Warn everyone. In the early days, the Nazi movement was weak.

The result of working with each mini-outbreak is that you drain the energy out of the mental illness, and people go back to just yelling at their kids.

This isn't complete, but it is enough for a Slashdot post. There's more in the article: What Should be the Response to Violence? .

To understand the present assault on freedom, it is necessary to understand the background. There are people who want to make war, simply that, as a way of acting out their own inner conflict.

What is the most important lesson of the terrorism? Understanding the corruption in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict of interest; they are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more money if there is more trouble.

I have tried to pull together information about this in an article: What Should be the Response to Violence? . The article is now considerably improved.

I feel really uncomfortable when people wonder whether open source software can have a profitable business model.

My company makes plenty of money by supporting the computer operations of businesses. My company provides the software at cost, without profit. The cost of the software is small compared to the support costs for training, hardware and software glitches, and specialized programs.

Open source software is more reliable, but support is still needed.

Red Hat, and other companies that provide support for open source software, are unbelieveably terrible at marketing. They just have no clue. That's part of the reason they have trouble making money.

If Microsoft were as bad as Red Hat at marketing, Microsoft would still be trying to sell Microsoft Basic. What's worse, Red Hat is better than most of the others at marketing.

When I look at most open source projects, I can't even understand the home page! Even the home pages are written with the idea that you work on the project, so you already know everything.

If you have a project involving GNU/free software, and need help with communicating to your prospective users, I may be able to help, as a volunteer. Send me email. Even when software is free, there is still a need for marketing communication.


Want to understand the situation in the middle east? Read What Should be the Response to Violence? . Most important lesson? Understanding the corruption in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict of interest; they are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more money if there is more trouble.

From the comments above:

Nos: "Security and freedom are inversely related."

Bistronaut: "Security and freedom are not inversely related!"

cybrthng: "It is inversely related."

Whan a discussion is confused, it is often because of discussing the wrong issue. It is possible to have both security and freedom if you understand the situation better:

First bombing of the World Trade Center: When followers of Osama bin Laden bombed the WTC the first time, bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, said it was because he wanted the U.S. government to stop interfering with politics in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. government (not the people, most of whom who have no idea what their government is doing) strongly supports the dictatorship there. There is evidence that the reason is corruption of some people in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. When dealing with a dictatorship, it is easy to arrange embezzlement of U.S. government funds. With a democracy, or some more representative form of government, it would be difficult.

Second bombing of the World Trade Center: bin Laden warned after the first bombing that there would be further trouble if the U.S. did not stop interfering.

The article, What Should be the Response to Violence? explains the entire situation. See the heading, "There was plenty of warning."

ALL violence is 100% reprehensible and crazy. However, it does help to understand the people who think violence is the answer.

"Your post is the first I have seen stating this goal..."

The article, What Should be the Response to Violence? explains the U.S. goals in the middle east, and the entire situation.

See the headings:
There was plenty of warning.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.

Basically, Osama bin Laden does not want the U.S. to interfere in the government of Saudi Arabia. Saudi friends who live here in the U.S. have told me that they believe that Saudi Arabia should have a democratic government. The U.S. strongly supports a dictatorship. There is evidence that the reason is corruption of the secret agencies of the U.S. government. When dealing with a dictatorship, it is easy to arrange embezzlement of U.S. government funds. With a democracy, it would be difficult.

Real power is not adversarial:

What Should be the Response to Violence?

I can tell by what you wrote that you are a well-educated person.

The article I wrote is about 8,000 words long. I say that the U.S. government has killed 3,100,000 people in the last 30 years. I say that the U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy.

If the U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy, it is an extraordinary matter.

You give no response to this opinion. Instead you only talk about my criticism of the Jewish culture.

Do you see how what you wrote is an example of what I said? People of the Jewish culture often give the impression that they care only about themselves. That's part of what caused the problems of the last 3,100 years, in my opinion.

I am very much against ANY unpleasantness toward Jews. But I don't think the U.S. has any answers. The problems between Jews and Arabs are not problems about which the U.S. seems to have creative ideas.

In your comment, you have painted a picture of the Jews as being a gentle group who only want to live in peace. However, I have seen Israeli helicopters shooting at Arab buildings.

I said, "If you have alternate explanations, please provide them." I'm not in love with anything I said. If there is a better explanation, I will support that. But you ignored the fact that people have been persecuting the Jews for about 3,100 years, not just the last few hundred. What other group has inspired such dislike? Could people of the Jewish culture examine themselves to see if they could improve their relations with other cultures?


What Should be the Response to Violence?

I can tell by what you wrote that you are a well-educated person.

The article I wrote is about 8,000 words long. I say that the U.S. government has killed 3,100,000 people in the last 30 years. I say that the U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy.

If the U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy, it is an extraordinary matter.

You give no response to this opinion. Instead you only talk about my criticism of the Jewish culture.

Do you see how what you wrote is an example of what I said? People of the Jewish culture often give the impression that they care only about themselves. That's part of what caused the problems of the last 3,100 years, in my opinion.

I am very much against ANY unpleasantness toward Jews. But I don't think the U.S. has any answers. The problems between Jews and Arabs are not problems about which the U.S. seems to have creative ideas.

In your comment, you have painted a picture of the Jews as being a gentle group who only want to live in peace. However, I have seen Israeli helicopters shooting at Arab buildings.

I said, "If you have alternate explanations, please provide them." I'm not in love with anything I said. If there is a better explanation, I will support that. But you ignored the fact that people have been persecuting the Jews for about 3,100 years, not just the last few hundred. What other group has inspired such dislike? Could people of the Jewish culture examine themselves to see if they could improve their relations with other cultures?


What Should be the Response to Violence?

Yes. The only point, which I did not make very well, was that any damage might be such that it would be possible for guerillas to continue fighting. Because the guerillas have no way to take radiation measurements, they would not have any knowledge that they were at risk of radiation damage, and, as someone commented earlier, they would not die immediately of radiation exposure.

I had hoped to make the point that is not possible to stop war in the mountains with nuclear bombs.

The ONLY purpose in this is to demonstrate a few of the HUGE number of negative side-effects of war. I think stronger, better ways can be found to be powerful and to assure security, if only there were an initiative to do the research.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

"Maybe this will mean cheaper G4s for those of us who buy computers somewhat lower on the food chain, too."

You know you are heavily involved with computers when you call them "food".


What Should be the Response to Violence?

Maybe the difference between "war" and "terrorism" is whether there is advance notice. War is engaged in a public fashion; citizens have a right to make comment. Terrorism is hidden from as many people aa possible.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

I wasn't saying that the weapons makers own the media, as in "owning" a politician. I was saying the weapons makers own the media, as in it is legally theirs. For example, Westinghouse and GE both own TV stations. They therefore have a "duty to the stockholders" to "maximize their profits". This means that they have a "duty to the stockholders" to encourage war. Do they do this consciously? Maybe not. But it happens that the really negative issues of war are not fully discussed.

War for the corporate executive is a way of temporarily relieving the pressure of his anger by acting it out. He views killing people in poor countries as better than having a fight with his wife.

They must be poor countries, however, like Sudan, Cuba, Granada, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. He wouldn't make war on a customer country, because that would not be "maximizing profits".

Is this cynical? No, it seems to be a description of the facts. You can watch news shows all day and not see one instance of someone demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the cultures they are discussing bombing. Tonight on the CBS TV show "60 Minutes", former CIA officials said that very few in the CIA even speak Arabic.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

"I'm curious as to whether anyone knows if there is a significant difference in the quality of living between people living under Taliban rule and those living in northern Afghanistan."

I'm curious about that too. My guess is that life is miserable in both places.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

"What should the US do if the foreign government engages in bad public policy that results in food shortages. Should the U.S. charge in and change the policy?"

You brought up some interesting thoughts.

I think the U.S. cannot try to solve all the world's problems. We have extremely severe problems at home. We have the highest divorce rate in the world. We have the highest percentage of our citizens in prison of any country, ever, in the history of the world. We have the highest percentage of obese people. We need to help ourselves.

Where the U.S. feels able to help, the help should come before there are severe social problems, not after. The problems with bin Laden have existed for years; the U.S. government helped him by its meddling and backward policies in the region.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

"Yes, the U.S. should be involved in influencing other peoples politics where they differ from the fundamental freedoms..."

I completely agree with this. However, the way to have influence is through understanding 10 years before problems might occur, and then doing something to help. Violence is not a cure for violence. War is not a cure for war.

"Don't bring up the old Cold War coups that the CIA cooked up."

The CIA acted AGAINST the best interests of the the country it was supposed to serve. We tend to hear about things the CIA did about 30 years after they were done. We don't know what they are doing now, but that doesn't mean they've stopped the corrupt activity. Don't forget, the CIA and other even more secret U.S. government agencies are secret. It is difficult to know what they are doing; that means that we don't have a voice. It means that, in that area, we don't have a democracy.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

"Just make the whole Middle East a parking lot.."

As I've mentioned before: The laws of Physics are against this. Nuclear bombs work on cities. In the countryside, a 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little damage. The damage spreads only about 15 miles from the center of the blast.

In the mountains, as in Afghanistan, the energy of a nuclear blast would be deflected upward.

Nuclear blasts also make all the air everyone breathes radioactive. Thus everyone is punished, even people who haven't been born yet.

I hope you will read, Limbs of no body , one of the stories referenced in the Slashdot story above. The people of Afghanistan are among the most unfortunate people in the world. Here is a quote from the article: "But why didn't anybody except UN High Commissioner Ogata express grief over the pending death of one million Afghans as a result of severe famine?"

Unhappiness breeds war. Maybe if we had fed these people, they would not support terrorism. If we had gone in with our billions 20 years ago, and helped in a big way, would there be problems now? I think not. Why so much enthusiasm for killing and so little for helping?

Wars fought in Afghanistan, and their outcomes:
British, 19th century -- British DEFEATED.
British, 19th century, 2nd conflict -- British DEFEATED.
Russian Imperial Army, 19th century -- Russia DEFEATED.
Soviet Red Army, 1979 -- Russia DEFEATED.

Wars fought in Vietnam, and their outcomes:
Some I don't remember -- They were DEFEATED.
French, 20th century -- France DEFEATED.
U.S., 20th century -- U.S. DEFEATED.

I presume that your enthusiasm for war comes from the fact that you are thinking of watching it on television. But suppose it was you who lost a limb. Suppose it was you who was starving. Would you feel differently?

The weapons makers and the military and the media owned by weapons makers have encouraged you to believe lies about war. A new war would be long and expensive, and that's what the weapons makers want.


What Should be the Response to Violence?

I don't think Arabs would give the U.S. much attention, except that there has been U.S. interference in the region.

Walk into any bar and start throwing your weight around. Someone will pick a fight with you. Stay out of the bar, no fight.

If you really understand what bin Laden is saying, and you understand the culture of the region, and you understand the long history of U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia, it is not as crazy as it sounds at first. But, I agree with you, there is a LOT of craziness.

In earlier posts, some people have mis-understood my comments. So, I repeat, I'm against terrorism. I'm not agreeing with Arab politics. Osama bin Laden wants to unite all the Arab nations. His method is force. I don't like that method.

There are at least 50 destructive governments in the world. The world is an imperfect place. We cannot intervene in every bad situation. If we do intervene, is our violence really better than their violence?

I tried to gather together what I think is relevant information: What Should be the Response to Violence?

"First, your entire post appears to be a cut and paste from the linked article."

Yes, but I wrote the article. The article just pulls together separate sources.

"Which Arabs? Which citizens of Saudi Arabia?

Arab friends of mine have told me that the government of Saudi Arabia is opposed by people who want representation. I've also seen this on television documentaries. Please realize that there are many sources I haven't included. The article I wrote could use more supporting information. The article is only a Slashdot post. I didn't want to take up a lot of space, so I uploaded the article to a personal web page, and provided a link.

"The US military has only been there in force since Desert Storm. The Saudis may not much care for their presence or their government but they also have no desire to be ruled by another Taliban."

Yes, but some Arabs don't like a continued military presence. You are mistaken about the U.S. government being there only for the Gulf War. The U.S. has a long history of involvement with the house of al Saud. Some of those who are not part of the ruling family say the government of al Saud is corrupt. I am not trying to give a personal opinion. This is an opinion of some Arabs.

"If anything, the original author is simply re-iterating the words of bin Laden himself."

That's the point! I am referencing bin Laden and others. It doesn't matter whether you or I consider that bin Laden has acceptable political aspirations! He says he will bring the war to the U.S. if the U.S. government continues interfering. Do you doubt that?

Osama bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, says he has a right to representation in the government of his country. The point: Does the U.S. have a right to say he doesn't? Second point: Are you willing to die for this cause? Are you willing to be unsafe for the rest of your life over this cause?

Why does the U.S. have to be involved in this dispute? Many bad things happen in the world. If the U.S. wants to help the world, why does it have to be with fighting?

Twenty percent of the people in the world don't have enough to eat. Why doesn't the U.S. help them? My opinion is that there are people in the U.S. who want to engage in battle. They just want to fight. They want to get involved in any battle available. And there's lots of money in secretly embezzling U.S. government funds.

My article: What Should be the Response to Violence?

There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. government uses the violent retaliation as a justification for more hidden and public violent activity.

One problem with secretly violent agencies is that there is a conflict of interest. If there is more violence, they get more money and prestige. So they have reasons to encourage violence. I am not claiming that they do so consciously. However, there is certainly unconscious pressure to increase violence and de-stabilize governments.

I think the record shows that the secret agencies of the U.S. government don't really work for the people of the U.S. They make trouble, they don't stop it.

See What Should be the Response to Violence? for more on this subject.

Sample headings:
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.
Once again, intelligence agencies were useless.
There was plenty of warning.

"The United States government has so far shown a great deal of restraint..."

I don't agree with this. There have been many, many calls for action. Bomb someone! I think the U.S. government would have bombed already, but no one knows who to bomb.

I think for most people in the U.S., bombing other countries is like an adult video game. They don't have any feeling for the pain that bombing causes.

Citizens of Saudi Arabia want to be able to try to change the political structure of their country. They want to do this without U.S. interference. This is not an unreasonable request. Certainly if the Saudi government tried to involve itself in a political dispute in the U.S., the U.S. would put forward whatever resistance was necessary to stop the interference.

For years there have been Arabs who have said that if the U.S. continued interfering, there would be attempts to bring the conflict to the U.S. After years of warning, that's what happened.

It seems self-destructive that there is never any serious consideration of their complaints. People in the U.S. expect to have self-determination. Should the U.S. deny that to other countries?

See http://www.hevanet.com/peace/ for more on this subject.

I'm feeling really uncomfortable with the lack of logic in valuing the lives of people, who happen by chance to have been born in the U.S., so much more highly than people who were born elsewhere.

The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends.

The average killing by the U.S. government in the last 30 years has been about 100,000 people per year.

The recent terrorism is, like all violence, reprehensible. I grieve for my country, and I grieve for the people lost. However, if 5,000 people have been killed in New York and Washington D.C., that is only 5% of the U.S. government's yearly average.

I grieve for those killed by the U.S. government, also.

The Bush Administration was requesting $343.2 billion for the Defense Department in Fiscal Year 2002. Now the budget will be much more.

Would it be too much to ask to spend 1% of that amount on an initiative to try to discover how the U.S. could live in the world without killing? I've tried to pull together some ideas about relating to other people in a non-violent but powerful way in an article called, "What should be the response to violence?"

This Slashdot story begins: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though KNOWING more will somehow help."

Perhaps if this person had been aware of what his government was doing, he would have lost much more sleep. Knowing more will help.

This is such an obvious and sensible objection that it makes me wonder. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a large part of the U.S. government no longer serves the purpose of democracy. The war may be, not on terrorists, but on the American people. My guess is that it is not conspiracy, but widespread government corruption.

That's the only conclusion that supports all the information. For example, the U.S. CIA trained Osama bin Laden. See the 1998 MSNBC article referenced in the first paragraph of What should be the response to violence? where I've tried to pull together some of the facts.

Whenever there is a problem, there seem to be two situations that go together: 1) The U.S. government intelligence agencies say they did not foresee the problem, and 2) the intelligence agencies had a years-long prior involvement with the person who caused the problem. Osama bin Laden is one example of this.

Another example is General Noriega of Panama who had a working relationship with the U.S. CIA for years before he was accused of drug trafficking. Was the exposure of Noriega caused by his not taking orders? A quick Google search on "Noriega General Panama CIA" gave a link to a chapter in a book by Noam Chomsky, The invasion of Panama. Chomsky's book is called What Uncle Sam Really Wants.

Another link on the first Google page was, The Real Drug Lords, A brief history of CIA involvement in the Drug Trade by William Blum.

See the latest version of the letter above at What Should be the Response to Violence?

One of the headings: "The CIA trained Osama bin Laden."

See the latest version of the letter above at What Should be the Response to Violence?

One of the headings: "The CIA trained Osama bin Laden."

My post below seems to echo your experience; I'm also in Portland, and used Teleport (*sob*) until recently. Who's your ISP now? Why do you like them? I've signed up with Hevanet, who are still small enough for real people to make customer-satisfaction decisions. They seem good in other respects too, but time will tell...

question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes

"What has happened in the Internet industry to cause such a decline in not only sales, but in jobs as well?" Consolidation has happened, and it's going to keep happening. DSL and cable are putting mom-and-pop ISPs out of business left and right. For every cable sign-up, one person leave LocalISP Inc. forever. Each DSL signup makes it harder to run a cheap 56k modem-based operation. "...where is this going to end?" When there are a handful of huge national ISPs and a bunch of local, hacker-friendly "boutique" ISPs.

It's ironic that, as promised 50 years and more ago, machines and computers really are labor-saving devices, just not in the way we hoped. Machines don't save you from doing more labor, but they save your company from paying for more labor. As more dataflow gets automated, and as hardware and software get easier to use, less human intervention and ingenuity is required to keep things running (less in aggregate, I mean, not in depth).

The ISP apocolypse is similar to what has happened in nearly every other industry: start off with thousands of little operations which compete fiercly for customers and market share. Eventually only a few will be left. After a while the service stops being differentiated from company to company and they compete on price. Once that happens, the company with the best economics - the most efficient - wins.

Look at Earthlink; their slogan is, "We're 10% better than AOL." For most people that's enough. Sure, people reading this comment probably want shell access on a *nix box for their $20/month, but Joe Sixpack just wants something that's easy to use (i.e. limited in options and functionality so it doesn't confuse him).

Yes, it's very sad that so many good ISPs are going away. My personal favorite, Teleport, was based in Portland, Oregon for years. They were reliable, responsive, and hacker-friendly. The got bigger, got inhaled by OneMain which was promptly inhaled by Earthlink. My service went from "shell access to pine" to "pray that 50% of my mail makes it through" in less than a month. And now I'm stuck with Earthlink's port 25 blocking.

I just signed up with another local ISP. Hopefully they won't be bought too soon. :)

question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes

Exception: Superosity. Chris Crosby is a freaking genius.
--