Slashdot Mirror

The US is not encumbered by the the need to observe international treaties.

1) Yes, they most certainly are, in every practical sense.

From the first page of a Google search. You can educate yourself by reading further, or not, I don't care, but you are incorrect.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0926-IranPlant.html
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0311-NPT.html
http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/violatinginternationaltreaties.htm
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty.html
http://rwor.org/a/110/greatest-proliferator-en.html

2) Judging from this and other posts, you're just short of being a moron.

Oh dear! You think so? I'll consider where that is coming from, sort of a catch-22.
If a moron calls you a moron, does a tree fall in the forest?

There are no "60's progressives" out there any more. Or rather, the few that remain have no influence since they are so clearly senile.

That's not what Bill Ayers said in this interview.

  That's one of the things that's actually annoyed me for about 40 years of being a progressive educator - Bill Ayers, faithfully following his 60's communist ideology to this day (well, up until October 1, 2006 anyway).

Another choice quote: But he never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you're trying to build in a classroom.

Please drop out of any further public discussions on the interwebs, until you have done some reading on current issues and can identify your opponents.

Well, since your proposition that "60's progressives" (communists) have disappeared or lack influence has been shown to be wrong, we can conclude that either (1) you didn't know you were wrong, in which case it in necessary for those of us who understand to educate others or (2) you did know you were wrong and are trying to silence opposition to communist propaganda, in which case it is necessary for us to oppose you since we disagree with communism.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume (1). Either way, no, we won't be dropping out of public discussion.

I'm not a conservative, but placing the curricular focus on "social justice, equity and community", you have to sacrifice other, more important areas that are founded in fact (like science).

That's not the curriculum, that's the ideology of the system being argued for.

That might be what you are hoping for, but as far as Ayer's agenda goes you are wrong.

From "Revolution, Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" interview with Bill Ayers "he never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you're trying to build in a classroom" so he is very much wanting to spread that ideology in the classroom.

I assume you're referring to evolution

No, I'm talking about the political and social agenda pushed through the education system. I assume from your post that you didn't read my other linked post (since you probably wouldn't have brought up evolution otherwise). I linked to an Ayers interview http://rwor.org/a/063/ayers-en.html in which he states: "But he [John Dewey] never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you're trying to build in a classroom." Which is to say that Ayers regards radical political and social change to be a central purpose of the education system. As I said in my other post: "The man wants the government to force me to give him access to my children so he can indoctrinate them with cultural, political and social values I don't agree with. What's the reason I should cooperate again?".

Being a homeschooling parent, it isn't that my children are being indoctrinated, it's that I'm being forced to pay for the indoctrination of others. I'd even go as far to say that it isn't any particular part of curriculum that bothers me, nor the quality of teachers (I know some excellent teachers) but the system itself. In my view the most important and consistent lesson of mass compulsory schooling is not "think" but "obey", a lesson I see as fundamentally incompatible with a free society. This lesson is necessary to the system and largely independent of any curriculum content, although there are those that would add the propaganda content as well. Some people just aren't content to let people think for themselves.

Evolution/creation is just a distraction. We all want children to be taught the truth, both sides insisting that their view be taught and maligning the other. Both wanting the government to have their view taught. Neither side asking the real question: "What business is it of the government to decide what my children are taught". Science has a way of sticking around, I doubt very much that it would disappear without compulsory schooling. While people are arguing about content of science classes they are missing the fact that propaganda in the classroom is a favorite tool of despots. I don't want to put the tools of tyranny in the hands of anyone, whatever their beliefs.

And you wonder why conservatives don't like Ayers?

I hadn't before, but I am wondering now.. what is it about small schools, social justice, equity and community that conservatives dislike?

This interview with Bill Ayers might help you understand. "But he [John Dewey] never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you're trying to build in a classroom." Ayers openly admits that his purpose for "education" is to pursue a social and political indoctrination system. Since the interview is on "Revolution, Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA" I'm sure you can connect the dots as to what the intended indoctrination is.

When you consider the place of importance Marx and Engels give to public education as part of their revolution you will see exactly why conservatives don't like government schooling in general and Ayers in particular. If you read his pdf linked in the summary, you will see that one of his main objections to what's going on is what he calls the "ownership society" a.k.a private property rights.

The man wants the government to force me to give him access to my children so he can indoctrinate them with cultural, political and social values I don't agree with. What's the reason I should cooperate again?

So what you're saying is:

We have to pave the earth in order to save it

Oh, I get it.. If people own guns it is a bad thing. However, the governments know how to control them and make sure everyone is safe.


I think the people of Uzbekistan, Turky, China , SUDAN, Mexico, Sri Lankan, and Ethiopia would disagree, if they had not been killed in massacres by there governments.

Do we not remember our origins with the ARPANET, a project nurtured in and entirely funded by America's favorite crypto-socialist organization, the Department of Defense?

We remember that perfectly well, but interpret it differently. The Internet is the result of a "spillover" of the dual-use technology. Developed by the DoD for itself, it turned out (or was wisely designed) to be usable by others. This was terrific and has since been matched only by GPS in popularity.

Mind you, ARPANET has paid only for the development of software and the standards — it did not pay for the pipes or other hardware, that today's socialists demand be upgraded.

Yours really is a non-argument here. I believe, you just wanted to see the words "crypto-socialist" posted.

It's not a question of arguing "the free market is failing" - the Internet's very existence is thanks to the government realizing "the market" had no way of getting where it wanted to be.

Creating and maintaining the standards (TCP/IP, 110V, HDTV) is perfectly within the government's domain. Utilizing those standards is up to the free market, which is what it did and continues to do.

I, as a user, don't care what Verizon wants; I want to pick which ones I'm using.

Verizon's walled garden will be broken up by the free market, just as AOL's was. Yes, I too would like the break-up to happen sooner, but if the price of the haste is introduction of more government regulation, then no, thanks — that is worse, than any harm Verizon can cause.

A large part of me blames this whole mess on the McCarthyism-induced confusion between socialism and communism in America. We've given ourselves just the right kind of collective brain damage to be unable to tell the difference.

McCarthy — despite his un-American methods — was right in principle: there really were plenty of Soviet spies in America, and Communism-sympathizers were getting sponsored by the KGB (and not just in America, of course; their influence set India back for a decade or two as well, for another example). This fact was well confirmed, when many of the KGB documents got opened briefly in the 1990ies. You will notice, how America's Communist Party disappeared together with the Soviet Union, with only a pale shadow remaining.

As for the distinction between Socialism and Communism — yes, these are distinct. Their true adherents tend view the former as a prelude to the (inevitable) latter, however, so mixing them up is not really such a fallacy... It is highly off-topic here, though.

It is all right here. Revolutionary workers unite!

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that... there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

Critical thinking isn't a fact of life 'round these parts anymore.

With the military Considering Anti-war protest groups a security threat, you're taking a big chance that they won't invent something to take you in on, using the logic that 'if you weren't doing anything wrong, you would have nothing to hide.'

And yes, an anti-war group can be a security threat. Too many of these "peacenicks" have (and even wear in public!) Che Guevarra T-shirts and other Commie symbols, and openly support such "peaceful folks" as Fidel Castro, FARC, Shining Path, and the Nepalese insurgents. These organizations wage war against their countries' governments, and ours opposes them.

It is perfectly logical to prepare for their supporters trying to attack our interests. Disbanding/banning/incarcerating them would violate the Constitution, but being prepared seems fine to me.

Critical thinking isn't a fact of life 'round these parts anymore.

With the military Considering Anti-war protest groups a security threat, you're taking a big chance that they won't invent something to take you in on, using the logic that 'if you weren't doing anything wrong, you would have nothing to hide.'

And yes, an anti-war group can be a security threat. Too many of these "peacenicks" have (and even wear in public!) Che Guevarra T-shirts and other Commie symbols, and openly support such "peaceful folks" as Fidel Castro, FARC, Shining Path, and the Nepalese insurgents. These organizations wage war against their countries' governments, and ours opposes them.

It is perfectly logical to prepare for their supporters trying to attack our interests. Disbanding/banning/incarcerating them would violate the Constitution, but being prepared seems fine to me.

Critical thinking isn't a fact of life 'round these parts anymore.

With the military Considering Anti-war protest groups a security threat, you're taking a big chance that they won't invent something to take you in on, using the logic that 'if you weren't doing anything wrong, you would have nothing to hide.'

And yes, an anti-war group can be a security threat. Too many of these "peacenicks" have (and even wear in public!) Che Guevarra T-shirts and other Commie symbols, and openly support such "peaceful folks" as Fidel Castro, FARC, Shining Path, and the Nepalese insurgents. These organizations wage war against their countries' governments, and ours opposes them.

It is perfectly logical to prepare for their supporters trying to attack our interests. Disbanding/banning/incarcerating them would violate the Constitution, but being prepared seems fine to me.

Critical thinking isn't a fact of life 'round these parts anymore.

With the military Considering Anti-war protest groups a security threat, you're taking a big chance that they won't invent something to take you in on, using the logic that 'if you weren't doing anything wrong, you would have nothing to hide.'

And yes, an anti-war group can be a security threat. Too many of these "peacenicks" have (and even wear in public!) Che Guevarra T-shirts and other Commie symbols, and openly support such "peaceful folks" as Fidel Castro, FARC, Shining Path, and the Nepalese insurgents. These organizations wage war against their countries' governments, and ours opposes them.

It is perfectly logical to prepare for their supporters trying to attack our interests. Disbanding/banning/incarcerating them would violate the Constitution, but being prepared seems fine to me.

The ongoing large-scale executions were largely in the form of starvation.

That's not an execution - you're now trying to change your claim, given that your prior claim wasn't supported. Unfortunately, this claim is equally false (see below):

In 1999, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator estimated that 6,000 to 7,000 per month were dying due to starvation because Saddam was refusing food shipments allowed by the sanctions system.

Completely false. Here's what the coordinator, Dennis Halliday, actually had to say. Halliday resigned because he blamed *the UN*, and most specifically, the *US*, for the starvation deaths in Iraq. He reported that Iraq had been cooperating excellently with the program, and once described the country as a giant "soup kitchen".

The US invasion removed this obstacle that stood between Iraqis and their food.

Completely false. Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos: Malnutrition Nearly Double What It Was Before Invasion

"BAGHDAD -- Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government."

Iraq Body Count reports 26,599 victims.

IBC only counts direct war deaths, and of those, only the ones reported in the media. The only count of all deaths came up with a number of around 100,000, and that was half a year ago. Note that they tossed Falluja as a datapoint to get this *low* of a number.

There are imaginary totals as high as 100,000 killed as a result of war activity since the allies struck in early 2003.

The "imaginary" totals that you refer to are determined from the same method used to do epidemiology studies in Africa, and met the scholastic standards of the Lancet. Read up about passive vs. active counts, and why the former (such as IBC) are guaranteed to undercount.

The rest of the message included grudging admissions that Iraq had WMD just before the invasion.

It includes no such thing. Please repeat your attempt at reading.

You attempt to get around this by claiming that the WMD were too few or too small.

No. As I informed you, the mustard gas referred to was found in 1998, and was under UN control since then; even that find was miniscule, and considered by the teams to have been overlooked by Iraq.

You even try to justify Saddam having "50 litres of Mustard Gas" by mentioning WW1.

I said no such thing. Look, if all you're going to do is make straw men, why should I even bother talking to you? I was putting the quantity of Mustard Gas into perspective. I stated that's what I was doing, and nothing more. On average in WWI, there was one chemical agent fatality for every ~2400 kg of chemical agent produced.

The existence of any WMD was a gross violation.

Any violations were to be decided by the inspection teams. The inspection teams declared no "gross violations", and the heads of both the IAEA and UNMOVIC both opposed the invasion.

In it, they mention 50 litres of Mustard Gas

That Was Bloody Well Found Five Years Prior, And Had Been In UN Control Ever Since. Furthermore, it was a find that the teams considered to have been overlooked, and they did not refer the case to the SC (the referal would have been in 1998 anyways). In the US, we have several *tons* of unaccounted for chemical agents, most of them in unexploded shells on munitions ranges, but probably elsewhere as well.

At least, at this point, no-one can argue that the WMD did not exist.

Nobody is arguing that the WMD never existed! They didn't exist when we invaded. Just because the UN had

Fortunately, there are still some people willing to stand-up for the little guy. We have to stop these corporations from hijacking the Web. INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!

Pressure for what? People have been arrested in europe for "supporting terrorists" for doing very similar things. See this

Why is it OK to arrest a webmaster in england as opposed to Turkey?

Are you seriously suggesting nobody has ever been arrested in Europe for disseminating unauthirized information? Don't you guys censor nazi links on google?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Are we rapping against the People's War for Liberation?

Well, aaaaactually, homo sapiens has lived this long because of its generalization (in things they could control like choice of habitats, nutrition, etc.) not because of specialization. That's how lots of species die off. Bring on an ice age and *poof*.

"From a scientific standpoint, Homo sapiens certainly is among the most generalized species on Earth." http://www.fact-index.com/h/hu/human.html

"we are at this point one single, highly mobile and globally distributed species. We inhabit every single corner of the earth and every single kind of habitat" http://rwor.org/a/v24/1181-1190/1183/evolution.htm

The closer primates get to us in the evolutionary chain the more generalized they become. http://mason.gmu.edu/~jlawrey/biol471/humannotes.h tml

SOOOOOOOO, my point is that even if a person doesnt LOVE a certain subject (like computers, cars, construction, etc.) it would do him good to at least know more than just the basics *especially* when at this point in time information about anything can be so easily found.

There is no excuse. I'm not expecting everybody to be an expert or even average. It's just that some things are plain common sense.

For example, compare this to downloading sypware/malware. If a stranger gives me a bag and tells me this is a great fuel optimizer for my car, I have two choices: 1) I could put it in and suddenly realize my car doesnt work like it used to, or 2) I could stop and look at the bag and realize that it's labeled "SUGAR".

Gee, you forgot to mention Iran's (mock) endorsement. That said, just seeing these people blast Bush seals the question for me...

America is a nation where killing can be shown on any broadcast television, but nudity is banned.

America is a nation where a thirteen-year-old schoolchild can be let in to watch a movie starring action hero becoming a vigilante and gunning down and knifing all the bad guys that have been trying to get in his way, but where that same thirteen-year-old cannot watch a movie where two people are making love.

America is a nation where exchanging money for sex is illegal everywhere but in parts of a single state of the fifty, but exchanging money to kill, becoming a corporate mercenary working in Iraq, is considered laudable and encouraged.

America is a nation where up until one year ago, thirteen states had laws banning consentual anal sex. Forty years ago, *every* state made consentual anal sex illegal. Fifty years ago, sodomy could widely be (and was) punished by "corrective actions", such as forced lobotomies. For those of you unfamiliar with lobotomies, they are commonly performed by inserting an ice pick through a patient's skull and swirling it around in certain areas of the brain in hopes of destroying portions of the brain that induce "deviant behavior".

America is a nation where (well, with the exception of San Francisco), being in public showing bare breasts (unless one is nursing an infant), genitalia, or one's rear end is grounds for lewdness arrest, but carrying a loaded gun visibily on one's hip is legal and acceptable.

America is a nation where a seventeen-year-old who convinces his seventeen-year-old girlfriend to send him a nude picture of herself has committed a felony (United States Code Title 18, Part I, 2251).

America is a nation where it is perfectly legal for an Olympic swimmer and lifeguard to stand by a pool and point, yelling insults and mocking, as someone drowns.

America is a nation where we cannot expose nipples, but we cheer on invading Afghanistan to "free women from the burka" and promote other human rights.

America is a nation that values free political speech, as long as it isn't:

(a) in Iraq and in opposition to the invasion (freedom of press was one of the first things removed from Iraqis, and newspapers and the only available television station were shut down for being critical of the invasion).

(b) Involving presidential candidates debating other than Bush or Kerry.

(c) Involve any Islamic advocacy. A student volunteer forum webmaster visiting the United States was charged with terrorist activities for running Islamic websites. The other side is well represented and permitted to operate, however -- consider the following quotes from this single forum thread:

My vote is that if they nuke us, we don't bother asking exactly where the bomb came from. Instead we turn ALL the likely sponsor nations into radioactive parking lots. The we tell the rest of the Islamic nations that if they don't get rid of their own terrorists, they will face the same thing.
*** ...I agree with your nuclear solution with one addition. As we find out the names of the people involved, we hunt down and kill every son, daughter, aunt, uncle, and every other relative they have on the entire planet right on out to the 8th cousin.

Payback isn't payback unless they continue to hurt for a long, long time. As each father, mother, and child is assasinated, it will be very hard for anyone to celebrate the conspirators as martyrs.

The message would be, "We won't only roast your damned nation. We will kill every last person on earth you ever cared about."
***
I take it one step further - desroy Mecca and Media. That's right nuke their holy lands - get rid of them and than start destroying the mosques. Sprinkle their lands with pig blood. We might as well face it - this is a holy war against us supported by Muslims (look at the

My question is that does such a hash function live up to Shamir's and Rivest's claims?

You'd be much better off asking a cryptography newsgroup/forum/mailing list than me -- I'm not a cryptographer. Use of prime factorization in hash generation in an earlier post of mine was an idea that I just pulled out of the air without no thought or references. It was not intended to be a serious suggestion -- I simply needed an example of a simple, obvious one-way operation that could be done using a processor.

As for the .sig:

Mole.

Student forum moderator.

I would have provided links, but for Slashdot's 160 character limitation.

Obviously, as has been pointed out by many, the Yugoslavia tournament dates way back to before the War on Terror -- on the other hand, it is only the post-9/11 extreme nationalism in the United States that would allow a country to have extradited and prosecute an elderly man who has been on the run for many years for playing a *chess game*, especially a man who was once lauded as a pillar against the "evil" Soviet Union.

The fact that the man is horribly disillusioned with the United States seems quite reasonable; he wanted to play chess, and was turned into a political tool, had his name illegally commercialized, was hunted by US agents, and had to live in exile due to playing a chess game. It seems quite reasonable to dislike a country that has done something like this to you.

The government can throw me in Guantanamo Bay...

Not if you are a U.S. citizen!

If you are a citizen you have a right to a fair and speedy trial by your peers!

Oh, wait...

"The government is moving quickly toward a more fascistic form of rule under which persons, including citizens, can be held incommunicado indefinitely, without charges or judicial review, based solely on the president's decision."
- RWOR.org

The government can throw me in Guantanamo Bay...

Not if you are a U.S. citizen!

If you are a citizen you have a right to a fair and speedy trial by your peers!

Oh, wait...

"The government is moving quickly toward a more fascistic form of rule under which persons, including citizens, can be held incommunicado indefinitely, without charges or judicial review, based solely on the president's decision."
- RWOR.org

2,500 years is an instant in evolutionary time and the existence a group of organisms that are just recently isolated is quite a different matter from life that evolved totally independently.

It does not matter, because if this article is any indication, almost all US Toy companies are guilty of bad practices - Hasbro, Walmart, Mattel, Fischer-Price, Tommy, Toys-R-Us, McDonald's, Disney, etc.

Hey, dumbass, get a clue and actually research what this guy's telling you. Is it so hard to listen to someone and check Google to see if they're full of it or not, instead of assuming they are?

Oh, but wait, you know everything and liberals are stupid. As if privacy knows party lines and liberal/conservative is relevant in this discussion.

I've noticed this 'horse sex' crapflooding running through this entire thread.

Are you an American Maoist trying to drive away readers, or just the usual ilk?

(whew! putting those two links beside each other was scary. those two sites would as soon exchange sectarian bullets as anything else.)

The Bush administration has as much control over the domestic media as the Chinese do, they're just better at not letting censorship become an issue.

Your mind is as corrupted by a polarized world view as many of the Americans you decry. People, blinded by ideology (that is either popular or runs against the grain) calling themselves "free", you see it all the time. It is a cliche. Ironically, many of the patrons of this store in New York City - called Revolution Books - would likely agree with you because they are similarly mislead and ill informed.The store does not even have a website because they are luddite leftists; mistrustful of technology. But, they are affiliated with an organization that is online: The Revolutionary Worker. Both organizations owe their ability to disseminate the leftist view to liberties that are essential to American life.

Actually, let me restate something I've said earlier in this post. Most patrons of this store are quite informed and passionate about learning from alternative news sources. But what many of them fail to realize is that a Barnes and Noble sized store that serves as a clearing house for alternative information could NEVER repeat NEVER exist in a country like China.

I am not "Ra Ra" president B0sh or our government. What I think is precious, sacred and unique to the Earth are the foundations of our culture which holds freedom of the individual as a virtue. THAT is why stores like Revolution Books don't have armed gunman storming in, shooting the proprietors and patrons and shutting its doors.

it becomes more of a misnomer to refer to China as "Communist", just because the government there is called the "Communist" party.

The government of China is dominated by the Communist party. The goverment is not the Communist party.

As an illustration of this, I (used) to know some American party members (not the Communist Party, USA- that is/was a patsy group for the old moribund Soviet CP). They would occasionally send delegations to China. Their delegations would engage in party-to-party activities. When a US head of state visits China, s/he engages in state-to-state activites.

Incidentally, the quasi-official US Communist organization that tows the 'Chinese Line' these days, and gets recognition by the Chinese part is what was one day called the 'Revolutionary Workers Headquarters' it was a split off the Revolutionary Communist party, who went nuts and sided with the 'Gang of Four', and now are a rabid Maoist bunch without 'official relations' with any Communist state.

The 'Revolutionary Workers Headquarters' have their website here. 'Freedom Road' is apparently the 'public friendly' front group they work under these days. Some here who were in college in the 80's and early 90's might remember the 'Progressive Student Organization', their student front group.

The 'Revolutionary Communist Party (USA)' have their website here. It's hard not to know who the RCP folks are at a demo. They're generally waving the red flags and trying to incite a riot.

http://rwor.org/badmoonrising/

It's really wonderful to know that the system mostly works.

The problem is it doesn't always work that way. Don't forget Cointelpro, and more recently the Ramparts case in LA and the Riders case in Oakland. As if to disprove that wide-spread, systematic abuse was part of the past, the DOJ brought us their post 9/11 roundup policy.

Getting a warrant is trivial. It is not an impediment to law enforcement and represents only the most inconsequential of protections (no wiretap request was turned down last year). What it does provide is a paper trail a tiny bit of oversight, and that means some recourse for the Abner Louima's of the world, and possibly a moment of reflection for the cops to question their own actions, even if the judge really isn't likely to.

It's right to help law enforcement in their legitimate business, but it's not up to a private company to determine legitimacy, it's up to the courts. That everyone has the right (I think still) to refuse to cooperate without a warrant is our only fig leaf; dropping it voluntarily just encourages abuse. We all owe it to our police forces to make it harder for the bad apples to ruin things for the good cops.

Hopefully some bad cop somewhere will misuse this policy of eBay's and the injured party will file a massive lawsuit against eBay for aiding and abetting the crime and collect a meaningful punitive reward. Probably not, but we can hope. In the mean time, eBay makes it easy for anyone who wants a few credit card numbers to pay their bills.

Because it makes it easier for people to get along and not kill each other so much if they aren't always bickering over "my god can kick your god's ass!" type stuff.

So you would think. But it's not so. Man is just evil, regardless.

For all the "religion is the cause of all wars" tripe you hear, most wars supposedly caused by religion are really clashes of culture, or more genuinely over resources and land. Religion is usually just the patina dressed up to justify it for the proles.

The common thread to all of this is Donald Rumsfeld.

1. under nixon/ford/reagan: war on drugs
2. under bush: war or terra, tied in with WOD
3. soon under bush: war on pirates, ie nuke s-e asia, full spectrum dominance of the networks, via eschelon, carnivour, etc, a grab for global jurisdiction...

and the whole time, sitting there right behind the wings is the perhaps the most evil man in the world, Donald Rumsfeld. This man who was described by Kissinger as a despot was Secretary for Defence under Nixon, Ford, Regan (by proxy) and Bush - think bombing of cambodia, think nicuragua, think the rise of suharto in indonesia and the US embassy supplied hit lists. As his official CV makes clear, he was CEO of some of the world's most evil companies and full time spook.

His plan is so simple, yet so evil. Divide the world into the haves and have nots. kill the have nots or use them as slave labour, don't bother making death camps in kolma when you can have prison labour labelling underwear.

the future for the haves is different. they must pay and pay for the privelidge of having.

the have's are really just the cream of the have nots. they, by benefit of luck, some innate special skills or knowledge can seem like they have, even though their main daily activity is the generation of other people's wealth.

there is of course the final elite group, the core cabal, illuminati, star chamber whatever. they have and like the man says, them that have get more. rupert, donny, bill (both of them), the georges charleses etc etc, and all those born to rule date rapists you hated at high school and university. these guys have robbed the whole world blind. they have murdered, stolen, lied, enslaved, violated and desacrated to further their own evil agendas. their agendas have a common goal, they are all in one way or anothers players of a huge game of risk.

this is not a generational war, this is september 11 for your digital rights.

we used to be able to drink water from a stream. now we must buy it in bottles. the guy busking in the local mall will be busted for music piracy, or be forced to pay an APRA fee if he plays covers of songs in order to get a licence to busk.

the war on piracy is a protection racket, like the war on drugs and the war on terra.

you now must pay top dollar to get

• clean water
• healthy 'organic' food
• 'fresh', ie 'pollution free' air - often mistaken for cool air.
• 'unspoiled' (ie by vast acres of self-similar housing developments, ads, human detritus,) wilderness
• free (as in beer, marijuhana, nelson mandella) software and data.
• i could go on but it's all just too upsetting.

who would have kids in this day and age? they'd be chipped by 6 to protect them from predators lurking on the internet. a bluetooth/802.11/gps/dsp implant to monitor and protect your kiddie 24x7. chipped kids get more rights than unchipped kids, and by chipped think 50cc tablet swallowed before leaving the house, not a permanent implant. this thing will keep an eye on your little darlings for as long as it is in your system, and they then shit it out and need to take another one to be 'protected'. they'll cost a bucket and sell faster than viagra and to be sure, you'll give 'em one with every meal. and who was ceo of some of the world's biggest drugs companies and high-tech bio-surveillance technology companies? big don.

The common thread to all of this is Donald Rumsfeld.

1. under nixon/ford/reagan: war on drugs
2. under bush: war or terra, tied in with WOD
3. soon under bush: war on pirates, ie nuke s-e asia, full spectrum dominance of the networks, via eschelon, carnivour, etc, a grab for global jurisdiction...

and the whole time, sitting there right behind the wings is the perhaps the most evil man in the world, Donald Rumsfeld. This man who was described by Kissinger as a despot was Secretary for Defence under Nixon, Ford, Regan (by proxy) and Bush - think bombing of cambodia, think nicuragua, think the rise of suharto in indonesia and the US embassy supplied hit lists. As his official CV makes clear, he was CEO of some of the world's most evil companies and full time spook.

His plan is so simple, yet so evil. Divide the world into the haves and have nots. kill the have nots or use them as slave labour, don't bother making death camps in kolma when you can have prison labour labelling underwear.

the future for the haves is different. they must pay and pay for the privelidge of having.

the have's are really just the cream of the have nots. they, by benefit of luck, some innate special skills or knowledge can seem like they have, even though their main daily activity is the generation of other people's wealth.

there is of course the final elite group, the core cabal, illuminati, star chamber whatever. they have and like the man says, them that have get more. rupert, donny, bill (both of them), the georges charleses etc etc, and all those born to rule date rapists you hated at high school and university. these guys have robbed the whole world blind. they have murdered, stolen, lied, enslaved, violated and desacrated to further their own evil agendas. their agendas have a common goal, they are all in one way or anothers players of a huge game of risk.

this is not a generational war, this is september 11 for your digital rights.

we used to be able to drink water from a stream. now we must buy it in bottles. the guy busking in the local mall will be busted for music piracy, or be forced to pay an APRA fee if he plays covers of songs in order to get a licence to busk.

the war on piracy is a protection racket, like the war on drugs and the war on terra.

you now must pay top dollar to get

• clean water
• healthy 'organic' food
• 'fresh', ie 'pollution free' air - often mistaken for cool air.
• 'unspoiled' (ie by vast acres of self-similar housing developments, ads, human detritus,) wilderness
• free (as in beer, marijuhana, nelson mandella) software and data.
• i could go on but it's all just too upsetting.

who would have kids in this day and age? they'd be chipped by 6 to protect them from predators lurking on the internet. a bluetooth/802.11/gps/dsp implant to monitor and protect your kiddie 24x7. chipped kids get more rights than unchipped kids, and by chipped think 50cc tablet swallowed before leaving the house, not a permanent implant. this thing will keep an eye on your little darlings for as long as it is in your system, and they then shit it out and need to take another one to be 'protected'. they'll cost a bucket and sell faster than viagra and to be sure, you'll give 'em one with every meal. and who was ceo of some of the world's biggest drugs companies and high-tech bio-surveillance technology companies? big don.

No, I haven't read Marx. Actually, I haven't read Marx for a very explicit reason: I'd like to be able to say to people, "I haven't read Marx." This is primarily a political maneuver. There is a fear of anyone who has read Marx in certain circles, and I'd like to be able to talk with those people.

Given that, I have a friend who's a died in the wool Russian communist, and we argue very frequently, and with much shouting and rivalry. I have asked him to explain Marx's ideas to me, at least as best he understands it, and I have asked others the same.

Here is basically what I have learned (that is relevant to this conversation): There are three stages. The first is capitalism, and people eventually feel oppressed. Then there is a revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat rises to power. This middle stage is called "Socialism". Then finally the dictatorship dissolves itself, and you end up in a Communism.

I asked my friend what the Communism stage is like, and after he described it to me, I said, "Well, that's an Anarchy!" Regional democratic control of things, stuff like that. So, I understand that, and I agree with that point.

The trick is that middle stage, and that's where Anarchists and Communists disagree. The Communists insist on a dictatorship in the middle. I've read some pretty scarry Maoist stuff in that respect. In fact, after the revelution in Russia, there were several communities that just skipped the middle stage. They went straight into Anarchism. But I have read that the "All power to the Soviets (Communities)" was betrayed, and they were taken, by force, into the State Communism. Because apparently the theory demanded it. They couldn't just go right into an Anarchy, they had to belong to the State first.

Anyways: This is how Marx has been described to me, and this is what I read, and how I interpret it.

As far as I can tell, power is never given up readily. It doesn't matter who's taking it, or receiving it, or whatever; It's just like the One Ring from Mordor. It's addictive, and terribly dangerous.

No "Revolution of the Proletariat" for me.

I don't know; Maybe I'm wrong about Marx. Maybe he didn't actually say that there should be those three stages. I haven't read him; This is just hearsay. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I should note- My Communist friend, who I spoke about earlier- he believes that the third stage, the Anarchy, what he called "Communism"- he thinks it's a mistake. He thinks that a government of the proletariat should rule. He thinks that it should never disband it's power. He is, basically, a Facist. He believes that a strong and powerful government should rule everything, and just "be nice".

Well, I don't know; There are a handful of Fascist systems that have worked. For example, Thailand is a Monarchy (not exactly facist, but it's close), and they have a great thing going- for the time being, with the current Emporer. No sarcasm- the people there really Love him, and with good cause; He's been, from what I understand, a fair and good guy. Everyone hates the congress, but they take their Emperor very seriously.

So I suppose if you get the good king out of a million, you're all right. But the vast majority are bad, and state communism, state capitalism, state whatever- I don't trust.

I've rambled too much.

And also ask, globalization of what? capitalism? culture? religion? ideology? which ideology? whose ideology? for whom and for what? which class benefits?

"globalism" is a pretty vague term in and of itself, so trying to say it's inherently good or bad is kind of a weird point. seems to me globalism could mean too many things, and it's more important to ask whose globalism? which class's globalism? global what? does it mean thinking globally, or acting globalally? and then you have ask who is acting globally, and in whose interests? global capitalist-imperialists acting globally to make more profit and make the gap between haves and have-nots wider ... no good! activists, anarchists, genuine communists, socialists, and good-hearted people thinking about the betterment of all humanity and trying to change the world to make it better for all and not just a playground for the rich ... yes yes yes yes yes we need that!

please read: background on imperialist globalization and the fight for a different future by Raymond Lotta.

If you think China is communist, you'd better read the Communist Manifesto over again. They are capitalists waving red flags around, and have been since the coup in 1976, shortly after Mao Zedong's death (exactly what Mao warned would happen if Deng Xiaoping became chairman). They are what's known as "phony communists".

If you'd like to know more about the difference between real and phony communism, and how to spot a phony communist, read Phony Communism is Dead, Long Live Real Communism! by Bob Avakian.

If you know what actual, real communism is, you know that the current regime in China AIN'T IT!

China was once on the road to communism, but after Mao died in 1976, the revisionist headquarters of Deng Xiaoping quickly staged a coup, arrested all leading real communists in the Party (the so-called Gang of Four), and set China on the capitalist road. But they kept waving red flags around anyway so they could get away with fooling everybody while they consolidated their power. This is why it is so repressive today, and why they have sweatshops in China, which were nowhere to be found during the revolutionary years 1948-76. It is at the core of why Tiananmen Square happened, and why they are cracking down on this righteous webmaster.

So it's very ironic when people point to China today to complain about how terrible 'communism' is, because they are actually pointing the finger at capitalism operating under a veil of 'socialism' and 'people's democracy'!

If you know what actual, real communism is, you know that the current regime in China AIN'T IT!

China was once on the road to communism, but after Mao died in 1976, the revisionist headquarters of Deng Xiaoping quickly staged a coup, arrested all leading real communists in the Party (the so-called Gang of Four), and set China on the capitalist road. But they kept waving red flags around anyway so they could get away with fooling everybody while they consolidated their power. This is why it is so repressive today, and why they have sweatshops in China, which were nowhere to be found during the revolutionary years 1948-76. It is at the core of why Tiananmen Square happened, and why they are cracking down on this righteous webmaster.

So it's very ironic when people point to China today to complain about how terrible 'communism' is, because they are actually pointing the finger at capitalism operating under a veil of 'socialism' and 'people's democracy'!

If you know what actual, real communism is, you know that the current regime in China AIN'T IT!

China was once on the road to communism, but after Mao died in 1976, the revisionist headquarters of Deng Xiaoping quickly staged a coup, arrested all leading real communists in the Party (the so-called Gang of Four), and set China on the capitalist road. But they kept waving red flags around anyway so they could get away with fooling everybody while they consolidated their power. This is why it is so repressive today, and why they have sweatshops in China, which were nowhere to be found during the revolutionary years 1948-76. It is at the core of why Tiananmen Square happened, and why they are cracking down on this righteous webmaster.

So it's very ironic when people point to China today to complain about how terrible 'communism' is, because they are actually pointing the finger at capitalism operating under a veil of 'socialism' and 'people's democracy'!

the people protesting the WTO, World Bank, and IMF (and the Republican and Democrat Conventions) are spoiled, self-important, ignorant facsists.

I think you don't know what you are speaking of. Try reading the literature of some of the opponents of the WTO. One such paper is here.

Some excerpts:

The removal of import controls and tariffs on the entry of cheap agricultural products has undermined indigenous subsistence agriculture and led to the bankruptcy of small-scale indigenous farmers. This is pushing them to abandon their organic and low-impact agricultural practices and shift to high-chemical input, commercial cash-crop production. To add insult to injury, those who were pushed to shift to the production of so-called `high-value, globally competitive' crops, could not even rely on any support and protection anymore since these are considered trade barriers.

The destruction of the traditional lifestyles of indigenous peoples because of the appropriation of their lands and resources, has resulted not only in the degradation of the environment but also in ill health, and high levels of stress manifested in alcoholism and suicides. This is a conclusion reached in the "International Consultation of the World Health Organization with Indigenous Peoples"

The liberalization of investment laws, like the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, has allowed for the entry of foreign mining corporations. They are allowed to lease lands for 75 years, are given the right to evict peoples from these mineral lands, and have full rights to the water. They can also repatriate 100% of the profits. Indigenous peoples who were not successful in resisting the entry of these mines, now find themselves displaced and the use of open-pit mining methods is destroying their lands and polluting the seas and rivers.

Here is another article.

Some excerpts:

While total world trade expanded rapidly in the past two decades, the 48 poorest countries--where 10 percent of the world's population live--saw their share of world exports decline by almost half. The U.S. and the Western Europe countries have roughly the same total population as the 48 poorest countries--but account for almost half of the world's exports. More than 80 countries in the Third World are worse off today economically than they were a decade ago. Global food production increased almost 25 percent between 1990 and 1997--yet 800 million people around the world are malnourished.

"Free trade" and globalization are also leading to further impoverishment and ruin of peasant farmers around the world. Small farmers in countries like Mexico, India and the Philippines cannot compete with cheaper agricultural imports from countries like the U.S. This is contributing to massive social dislocation in the countryside of the Third World and accelerating concentration of land ownership--while traditional agriculture and basic food production are being destroyed. When the NAFTA Treaty went into effect in 1994, there were estimates that millions of Mexican peasants were going to lose their land over the next decade.

Aside from the reality of the severe effects of the WTO on the world, I really have to wonder how when people protest and are met by tear gas and billy clubs how the people doing the protesting are the 'fascists.'

have a day,

-l

have a day,

-l