Bloggers Who Risked All In Burma

An anonymous reader sends us to the UK's TimesOnline for a story about dissident Burmese bloggers, who, with the Internet shut down in the country, are no longer posting live stories. Some of them are on the run and fearing for their lives. "Internet geeks share a common style, and Ko Latt and his four friends would not be out of place in cyber cafes across the world. They have the skinny arms and the long hair, the dark T-shirts and the jokey nicknames. But few such figures have ever taken the risks that they have in the past few weeks, or achieved so much in a noble and dangerous cause. Since last month Ko Latt, 28, his friends Arca, Eye, Sun and Superman, and scores of others like them have been the third pillar of Burma's Saffron Revolution."

Comments

Valuable perspective

[goldspider]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Indeed. Eerily ironic, no?

This travesty in Burma is a good chance for all of us living in luxury to get a little much-needed perspective on what real censorship looks like.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Knave75]

The question is though, have the bloggers (or Burma) actually gained anything through their risky activities?

The world has noticed the situation in Burma, but we have not actually done anything to stop the oppression.

Re:Valuable perspective

[geoffrobinson]

From what I hear, countries such as China are preventing sanctions. The other option is to invade.

Except for saying "pretty please don't supress your own people."

Re:Valuable perspective

[TheLink]

"get a little much-needed perspective on what real censorship looks like."

Yeah, and instead of going "see it's not so bad here" we should go "we better ensure this sort of thing won't happen".

Re:Valuable perspective

[mikael]

The success of any revolution is motivating the general public that is is worth them putting themselves at greater risk in the short term for greater security, safety and happiness in the long term. Look at the

The revolution wouldn't have gained momentum if everyone hadn't known what was going on.

A similar thing is happening in Burma. They are more or less in the second day:


The morning of December 18, the centre was being guarded by soldiers and Securitate-agents in plainclothes. Mayor Mo ordered a Party gathering to take place at the University, with the purpose of condemning the "vandalism" of the previous days. He also declared martial law, prohibiting people from going about in groups larger than two people.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like thousands of monks being slaughtered, while the world looks on, because we all want cheap shit from China.

Sure, we're allowed to talk about it, but what good is that?

If anything, this has been a fantastic demonstration of how little anybody cares about freedom or life, despite constant claims that people care about both of these things.

This censorship is allowed not because of flaws in Burma, but rather because of flaws in the rest of the world. But at least we have cheap DVD players.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Seumas]

Actually, the way I see it is this:

These people wouldn't be uprising if they had the NBA playoffs and Sex in the City to worry about. America is a perfect example of a society that can't be bothered with protecting our liberties and freedom against the infringing and encroaching government powers , because we're too busy worrying about whether or favorite video game will be released on time, what is happening with the girls on Sex in the City, how our teams are doing in the NBA playoffs and complaining about how "secular progressives" are ruining our precious little baby-jesusland.

Re:Valuable perspective

[somersault]

I don't consider your post 'overrated', apart from your comment about semi-blissful ignorance being worse than open opression.. it is obvious that there are dodgy dealings in the government of western countries too, but in general I have enough freedom and money left over after taxes to survive comfortably, and I'm definitely not in the super elite (maybe one day :p ). Maybe it's different in the US though (I'm in the UK).

Re:Valuable perspective

[KudyardRipling]

If the revolution fails, it will become a handbook for tyrants and wannabe tyrants.

Governments are dangerous. How can six million be wrong?

Re:Valuable perspective

[smittyoneeach]

The interesting thing about this troll is the tension between the liberal guilt in the first paragraph and the libertarian bile in the second.
A fine Tuesday entry, all around.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Jerry]

Don't forget the reason why that censorship exists; HE WHO OWNS THE GUNS MAKES THE RULES.

You who want to "feel" secure in your country so you vote to outlaw the civilian ownership of guns and depend on the benevolence of your government take notice. You will end up with NEITHER security OR freedom. Without the 2nd Amendment the 1st Amendment isn't worth the paper its written on.

Re:Valuable perspective

[aplusjimages]

According to the article the protesters went from hundreds to about 100,000. The best people to stop the oppression are the people being oppressed. Sure its nice when outsiders help also.

Re:Valuable perspective

[pipatron]

Or possibly the change has to come from within, unless you want Burma to become a state in China.

Re:Valuable perspective

[buttle2000]

Just because some non-US bastards go around shooting people in the back of the head, doesn't mean the US and NATO don't go around shooting people in the head, raping women and children, and destroying whole communities in the name of internation security.

'much-needed' you say? Get real. Let's see some much-needed documentation of the continuos raping of civilization that the rich white have been doing for centuries.

Re:Valuable perspective

[computational super]

have the bloggers (or Burma) actually gained anything through their risky activities?

Well, I hear their ad revenue is through the roof.

Re:Valuable perspective

[kklein]

No. Bloggers make no difference. Burma has been oppressing people for decades. Decades. The first thing I ever learned about Burma in my Asian studies classes was: Burma has been oppressing people for decades. Anyone in power anywhere in the world has known about it.

Simply put: "Sucks to be them." Same as with Iraq. Not that I believe going into Iraq had anything to do with oppression, but even if it had, I wouldn't have thought that a good reason to interfere. I don't want any other countries coming and telling my country how to do things; I don't expect any country does.

It is none of our business. None. We can't save everyone, so we should just stay out of it.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Nimey]

We could try economic sanctions, since those worked so well with Iraq and Cuba.

Maybe a more targeted approach, like we did with North Korea not long ago, preventing luxuries from getting in so the leaders can't buy their underlings' support. The proles will still get their foodstuffs and medicine.

Re:Valuable perspective

[R2.0]

"The proles will still get their foodstuffs and medicine."

Hardly. As long as the foodstuffs and medicine must go through the hands of the government, enough will "stick" to those hands to be sold, the proceeds to be used to smuggle in the banned items. That's pretty much what happened in Iraq in Oil for Food, with a lot of western governments consent and cooperation.

N. Korea is a little different - their only border for smuggling is with China and China is getting tired of N. Korea's bullshit. But I'm willing to bet that if Kim Jong Il [sp?] wasn't such a total whackjob, China would have no problems selling the North Koreans anything they want, sanctions or no.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... so you believe that the society in China, Burma, North Korea, and the like, are superior to the US huh? Your quite comical, just what I needed in the morning. It is rather cute though how you try to compare the Tyranny of Dubya to the enlightement that is China. Why just look at what glorious things the Great Leap Forward did for China, or the who T. Square thingy. Thanks to those the people enjoy a wonderful way of live and a peacful, if not downright lovable, dictator. Oh man I'm laughing so hard now, seriously thanks for the jest.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll only go their and "make peace" if they have some "gas" (like Iraq and Iran)

Re:Valuable perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is though, have the bloggers (or Burma) actually gained anything through their risky activities?

Maybe, but unlikely. As long as China supports them, nothing will happen.

The world has noticed the situation in Burma, but we have not actually done anything to stop the oppression.

For the last 7 years, the professional protestors have been too busy protesting Bush/Cheney/Haliburton/christian/republican/Chimpy/Hitler/neocon/Israel.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Spellvexit]

The idea of sanctions was addressed the other day in NPR as well -- but the speaker mostly dismissed the idea. Burma just doesn't have much of an economy to cripple to begin with, and a great deal of its inhabitants live a subsistence lifestyle. In many areas of the enconomy, the black market trade is suspected to be larger than legitimate trade! A decent overview of their economy can be found at the CIA World Factbook.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Uzbek]

At least world heard about tyranny, massacre and injustice. And world has described it as such. On the other hand, two years ago, when similar events happened in Andijan, Uzbekistan, nobody was aware of them. Thousands of people were murdered by country's security forces and most of the world did not even hear about it. Massacre, genocide and oppression must be heard, so that brutal governments cannot do their business as if nothing ever happened. After public outcry no western public official will want to have any relationships with those murderous generals of Burma.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Lord Ender]

Why do you have to separate everything in to "us" and "them?" It is our damn business because we are all humans, we all share a planet, and the long-term survival of our planet depends on us all cooperating.

Would you make personal sacrifices to help your family? fellow countrymen? Why should people in asia be any less worthy of your help? Invisible lines and a flag? Bah.

Re:Valuable perspective

[mrops]

And we won't do anything either, or rather our politicians won't do anything.

They have no oil.

They have no terrorist (that threaten our lifestyle).

They are not on the map, their existence neither threatens nor benefits us. So we will let UN peace keepers handle this, in due time.

Meanwhile lets talk about more important matters, I just heard Halo 3 is out. Also seems Iranians are oppressed by a mad man dictator president, lets liberate them. /sarcasm

Re:Valuable perspective

[FozE_Bear]

GO TO ONE OF THESE PLACES AND THEN SAY THAT SHIT!!

I am a fervent Patriot but CLUELESS people like you are embarrassing. You disparage American society when it is YOUR worldview that is distorted by your charmed existence. Have you ever seen the shanty villages in places like Burma? It is hard to watch Sex in the City when you can't afford a blanket to sleep on.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

did you just hear a giant whooshing sound above your head? cause I heard it all the way from here.

Re:Valuable perspective

[Raenex]

From what I hear, countries such as China are preventing sanctions. Do sanctions help, anyways? In places like Iraq and North Korea the people bore the brunt, while the rulers don't share any of the pain.

Re:Valuable perspective

[RockDoctor]

The world has noticed the situation in Burma, but we have not actually done anything to stop the oppression.

The most deeply shameful thing about the whole "Burma Affair" is that knowledge of the situation has been out in the open for over 20 years, and almost every government in the world has actively colluded with the junta to allow them to stay in power. And pretty much every major corporation too. Restricting myself to the sector I know best, one of the biggest actors in Burma is Total Oil (see, for example, IndyMedia, unless the police have stolen their servers again). Of course, Total have been major purchasers of our software for most of the last generation of products, which makes the non-sales and non-computing side of the company feel pretty shitty, I can tell you.
But do we feel dirty enough to move? Not yet.

Similarly, for most of my "formative years", the Government was lead by the wife of a director of Burmah Oil. And you can guess where their business foundation was. While Thatcher, D. seems to have been politically astute enough to not openly push Thatcher, M. to favour the Junta, throughout that period there was near-total inactivity on the "pressurise the junta into democritisation" front, compared to South Africa as an example. The politically aware were well aware of this, but could we get anyone to give a fuck? Come off it, this was the society where The Maggon could get away with claiming that "there's no such thing as society".
Did that make a lot of people unhappy enough to move out of the country and stop paying taxes? Well, it certainly made people unhappy, but given that france is no better in this respect, and Spain is too hot for my liking ... we haven't moved yet.

The only people who can claim innocence in the continued existence of the Junta are those in locked mental asylums, those under the age of criminal responsibility (varies between countries), and maybe some members of Amazonian Indian tribes who haven't contacted the modern world yet.

Re:Valuable perspective

[mrand]

Not only us vs. them, but the GP makes the sweeping statement "It is none of our business. None. We can't save everyone, so we should just stay out of it."

Should we have said the same thing when Germany overran France in 1940? Is there any doubt that if we'd stayed out of it, Hilter would have massacred millions more, not to mention likely would have ended up with a repressive Burma-like govt ruling all of Europe?

I'm not saying that we need to involve ourselves in every crisis - heaven knows we've made LOTS of BIG mistakes over the past 40 years. But there are situations where "giving peace a chance" has long since proven to not work. How many people have to die while we wait for peace to work? 10 years worth of people? 25 years?

      Marc

Re:Valuable perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Its very easy to slip into some fantasy world if you have reasons to want to escape from the realities of your life. Why do you think the soaps are so popular among the people from the lowest strata of life ? Take a look at any popular show in countries like India, the most popular shows are centered around people with no connection to the actual realities except on the surface, and people follow the life of those cardboard characters with a religious zealotry. It doesn't matter to them if their government is screwing them over, they will be happy if only they can eat a semi-decent meal and their favourite character marries the one they are rooting for.

Re:Valuable perspective

[trustnothing]

Up to a point. Even peaceful revolution is possible against people with guns. Ask Gandhi. It all depends on how many people you have behind you and how much they are willing to give.

Dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

This is basically a dupe of this story.

Defiantly standing in front of that line of tanks

[doyoulikeworms]

... virtually.

Who put them against the wall?

[Erris]

Have the usual suspects, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Google, been turning over information about these people? Remember this as you help put "intelligence" into the internet there at home. There is no free speech without anonymity. When push comes to shove, tyrants murder people like you and me.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[Paktu]

Or, better yet, perhaps the government of Burma has control of the only ISP and simply obtains logs through them?

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[Joe The Dragon]

there where posting from internet cafe's that where useing software to get around the ISP blocked sites and likely they don't keep logs.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[TapeCutter]

"Have the usual suspects, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Google, been turning over information about these people?"

Quoting from the first post - "This travesty in Burma is a good chance for all of us living in luxury to get a little much-needed perspective on what real censorship looks like."

Think about that quote for a second and visualize the news reports of bloated monks floating face down in open drains. Do you really think the parinoid cult responsible for those murders sees AOL, Google, et-al, as anything but a THREAT to their cozy self isolation from the rest of the planet?

I doubt these companies even operate in Burma let alone knowingly assist the regime, aside from any problems with sanctions there is also zero commercial/political incentive for ANY corporation to invest in a country who's absolute rulers take what they want, when they want.

For example: They decided to cut the internet last week - it's gone the same day, do you think if those "evil" corporations were in Burma and were affected that they would get some sort of compensation for their losses? Do you think they would be given any sort of bussiness certainty in anything they did in the country?

I agree wholeheartedly with the first post, trying to paint corporations as the enablers of this kind of "evil" does nothing but trivialize the iron-fisted oppression the people of Burma have had to deal with for at least the last 45yrs.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[swordgeek]

Balls!

These animals are NOT subpoenaeing information from MSN or Yahoo or anyone else. They have a much simpler criterion: If you have a computer and aren't blatantly supporting us, we'll murder you.

This isn't about your special little fight against the horrid western government 'track everything' threat, it's about people being slaughtered en masse, RIGHT NOW!!! To quote Amnesty International's new campaign, "It's not happening here, but it's happening now."

YOur fight IS important, but it's not the same fight that the resistance in Burma is facing. Not even close. Barely in the same book of threats.

Get. Some. Perspective.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[swordgeek]

Congratulations. That was the most illiterate post of /. in 2007.

However, that doesn't help matters. Military Junta comes in, slaughters the cafe's manager and then starts asking his widow what the guys looked like. Even if she didn't see them, she'll make up something to reduce her chance of being murdered in the next three minutes.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[Seedy2]

I think you have that slightly wrong, free speech needs no anonymity; only in places without free speech, or where it is limited, is anonymity anything but counterproductive. Being able to speak freely is subtly different than free speech.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[Erris]

Balls!

Are you outraged by what I've said?

To quote Amnesty International's new campaign, "It's not happening here, but it's happening now."

There today, here tomorrow. That's what tracking dissidents is all about. The US government tried to blackmail MLK into suicide through an extensive program of wiretaps and bugs, and may have murdered him. Do you think the same government is any cleaner today? Do you think the US power structure will not resort to crimes to maintain power through the shift that electronic publishing is creating? Do you really think that the US government is any less an heir of the wars of Indian Extermination and the US Civil War and Reconstruction than it ever was? It's better to apply the law and stop domestic spying while the penalties are still minor problems with air flights and economic sabotage. Things can get much worse very quickly when government does not obey it's own laws.

In any case, my point was that it's wrong to help implement these things and individuals should avoid companies that help tyrants. The majority of the population should boycot Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, Cisco and Google for the bad work they have already done in China. A hand in the current Burmese bloodshed will make this position crystal clear, and I'm not willing to dismiss the possibility as quickly as you do. Techs should refuse such work and blow whistles for any company that attempts this kind of tracking abroad or at home. Those that don't are building weapons for tyrants.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[weighn]

Have the usual suspects, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Google, been turning over information about these people? I'm not aware of anything to suggest that this has happened. Burma wouldn't have the influence over corporate America that China does. Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald covered Burma's bloggers too. "The junta blocks almost every website that carries information about the country and bars access to email websites."

The info will continue to get around these rudimentary efforts at censorship, but the pro-democracy movement is beginning to realise that the UN just ain't gonna show up, no matter how many are gunned down in cold blood.

I submitted a story in March on the role of the intertubes in exposing tin-pot despots.

Rather than OLPC, many in the third-world would benefit from the gift of a digital camera and a few dollars to outlay at the local internet cafe.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[Lesrahpem]

The article says that Burma licenses all computers to people, and that the government monitors all of the ISP's. That's how they apparently track these people down.

Re:Who put them against the wall?

[smittyoneeach]

Let me reshuffle two phrases and pose a question:

When push comes to shove, tyrants murder people like you and me.

and

Have the usual suspects, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Google, been turning over information about these people?

The listed companies all provide various mechanisms.
I'm not sure it's cool to imply that they are somehow culpable without a fully developed theory linking mechanism to policy, in terms of culpability.
You may very well have a point, but the idea deserves more than four sentences of slogans like:

There is no free speech without anonymity.

Without linkages between people and speech, there is also no accountability.
Fortunately, on this here internet, no one has figured out that I am a toothless, incontinent pomeranian living in Idaho. ;)

The reply about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it Myanmar now?

Re:The reply about nothing

[afaik_ianal]

Only to the current military regime. While it [i]is[/i] technically respected by the UN, Burma's democratically elected parliament never approved the name change. Many countries, including the US and UK refuse to respect the name change.

Re:The reply about nothing

[afaik_ianal]

Gah - stupid BBCode vs Slashcode ;).

There's a BBC article on the Burmah vs Myanmar naming thing here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7013943.stm

Re:The reply about nothing

[Zocalo]

Tell that to the UK/US media. About the only place I've seen so far that has consistently used "Burma" that could be classed as mainstream media is the BBC who have a stated policy on the matter. CNN has been equally consistent with "Myanmar", and everywhere else seems to be leaving it up to the editor or journalist responsible for the article.

Re:The reply about nothing

[afaik_ianal]

Uhh... Ok?

Serious kudos to them

[Enderandrew]

Some people talk about civil liberties while others risk their lives for them.

Commendable, and I wish them well.

Re:Serious kudos to them

[Pudusplat]

Sometimes, though, talking about civil liberties can have just as much of an effect as risking death for them. The riskiness doesn't necessarily mean effectiveness. That being said, those who are effective at the cost of risking their own livelihood, who have no better options, should be commended.

Re:Serious kudos to them

[dolphinuser]

I'd add that it's not only their livelihood (their means of support or subsistence) that is at stake here, but also their LIVES.

Speaking out could not carry a higher cost for them.

Re:Serious kudos to them

[Pudusplat]

Good distinction. I used the term when I ought to have picked something more significant; I suppose one of the side effects of living in a society where, thank god, my life itself is never at stake due to my beliefs or actions (short of murder).

Re:Serious kudos to them

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sometimes, though, talking about civil liberties can have just as much of an effect as risking death for them."

That's exactly what I'd expect someone who does lots of talking and no acting to say as a justification for their cowardice.

Like you I bet.

Exactly

[geoffrobinson]

While debates go on about the balance between security and freedom, this helps put things into perspective.

This is what real repression and censorship looks like. And there are countries standing behind Myanmar preventing economic pressure to be brought to bear.

Re:Exactly

[JonathanR]

Yes it does. It reminds us that the security-freedom balance is a continuum, and that any compromise of freedom should only be given for the duration of the particular security threat. The oppresive behaviour of particular governements does not provide any justification for the erosion of freedoms in unrelated geopolitical regions.

The legal basis for restriction of freedoms should have a review period or sunset clause, in order to prevent continued escalation of governement power.

Of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

>This is what real repression and censorship looks like.

They use live ammunition which is much cheaper than rubber bullets, tasers, and tear gas.

But that's really the only difference, and I consider it a *marginal* difference, between what's going on in Burma today and what happens to organized protests in the USA.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what real repression and censorship looks like.

Is this your way of saying that, since our government is less suppressive (as far as we're allowed to know), that we should just quit bitching until the Myanmar model comes to our shores?

It's already far too late to nip it in the bud over here, so continued resistance is necessary at every step where we're asked (ha!) to give up "just a little more liberty".

Re:Exactly

[Repossessed]

Erm, do you mean westasia, or are the names of the regions particularly messed up?

Or am I completely misinterpreting, and we've been involved with tensions with China for far longer than I thought?

Re:Exactly

[Serious Callers Only]

Please read this book for enlightenment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Re:Exactly

[packeteer]

What the hell are you talking about? The difference is that with real bullets you cant tell people what happened afterwards. With rubber bullets its all going to be on a blog later.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that with real bullets you cant tell people what happened afterwards. With rubber bullets its all going to be on a blog later.

With real bullets, everyone will know anyway. Kent State did more to damage the US government than all the tear gassed rallys combined.

Re:Exactly

[UberHoser]

I think I heard on NPR this morning that Exxon or some other big oil company has interests in Myanmar, and therefore have been "grandfathered" from the economic sanctions that the US has emposed. And that the oil revenues from this big oil company is still filling the coffers of the leaders of Myanmar. Go oil GO !

Re:Exactly

[Lumpy]

step 1 create a universal danger to scare your populace.
step 2 get laws passed to speed up defending against the universal danger.
step 3 convince the populace that their freedoms are helping the danger and must be removed.
step 4 convince the populace that weapons also help the danger and must be removed for your safety.
step 5 show the steps are not going far enough, get populace believing that the danger is near!
step 6 remove ALL judicial protections in the name of security.
step 7 legalize total government secrecy in the name of security.
step 8 convince that term limits are bad and help terrorists and exacerbate the danger.
step 9 have populace elect a new easily controlled patsy as president.
step 10 invoke martial law.

you have successfully converted a democratic free nation into a fascist dictatorship.
The united states is currently on step 4 and step 5.

what is happening in Burma to the vocal dissidents will start to happen here. It already happens in the military as ground troops over there that are vocally against what is happening suddenly turn into government loving " we are doing the right thing, GW bush is awesome" drones in their blogs. That has been even covered here.

Re:Exactly

[computational super]

Well, numerous Slashdot posters such as this one have taught me that "freedom of speech only protects your right to say something, not the consequences of saying it". So if, as in Burma, the consequences are immediate execution, that's still not repression and censorship, since you got to say it just before they put a bullet in your brain.

Re:Exactly

[mdwh2]

This is what real repression and censorship looks like.

I don't understand this logic. Firstly, no one is claiming that things in the US or UK are worse than what's happening in Burma.

Just because worse things are happening doesn't mean that censorship on a lesser scale is okay - it's like showing you a picture of what "real violence looks like", as I slam a fist into someone's face... We're on the same side here, there's no point trying to turn into a comparison.

I suspect that those who disagree with censorship in the US also disagree with it in Burma, and indeed many of them may be actively opposing it.

What's your point exactly?

Re:Exactly

[mdwh2]

Yes it does. It reminds us that the security-freedom balance is a continuum

I agree, although I would add that it's more of a authoritarian-freedom balance, in that in many cases, it's not clear that giving up freedom does give us extra security, like they claim (e.g., here in the UK we are told that compulsory ID cards and national database will help prevent terrorism, but it is not clear how this is true at all).

Re:Exactly

[dapsychous]

It was a reference to George Orwell's 1984. In it, the main character's home nation, Oceania, is at war with the nation Westasia. During a speech, the war changes in the middle to a war with Eastasia, and nobody notices. Of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia. Of course, it's been a while since I read the book, so I might have the countries reversed.

Re:Exactly

[SIIHP]

"Firstly, no one is claiming that things in the US or UK are worse than what's happening in Burma."

Yes they are, and you didn't read all the comments, because it's right there, modded up for all to see. YES, THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY ARE NOT DOING.

"Just because worse things are happening doesn't mean that censorship on a lesser scale is okay "

See, THAT is what "no one is claiming". Nowhere is that point made or implied.

What is being said is that Burma gives great insight into the depth of ignorance of people commenting on censorship in other places. Said people repeatedly and continuously cry censorship, when it's clear base don the issues they claim prove censorship that they are ignorant of what the word means.

"it's like showing you a picture of what "real violence looks like", as I slam a fist into someone's face."

No, it's like shooting you in the face while you're complaining about your hair being pulled and crying about how hair pulling is the greatest horror ever to be visited on mankind. It's about the distorted perception of individuals who claim to have a clear understanding of what censorship is. It's about calling people like that on the hyperbole and propaganda they use because reality doesn't support their rants.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing enlightening there.

Re:Exactly

[CristalShandaLear]

I find this common highly underrated, especially step 4, and do not have the mod points to say so.

Re:Exactly

[mdwh2]

Yes they are, and you didn't read all the comments, because it's right there, modded up for all to see. YES, THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY ARE NOT DOING.

The very first comment on this story started talking about "perspective". The comment I replied to was comment #8, and no one at that time had claimed that. The only thing added since then is a comment modded down as Troll. What comments am I missing?

See, THAT is what "no one is claiming". Nowhere is that point made or implied.

In that case, refer to my "What's your point exactly?" I'm sure those having the debates of security and freedom know "what real repression and censorship looks like" - certainly I would guess they're more likely to have a better idea than the "if you've got nothing to hide" crowd.

No, it's like shooting you in the face while you're complaining about your hair being pulled and crying about how hair pulling is the greatest horror ever to be visited on mankind. It's about the distorted perception of individuals who claim to have a clear understanding of what censorship is. It's about calling people like that on the hyperbole and propaganda they use because reality doesn't support their rants.

Well there's a strawman if ever I've seen. I never see people say that random-act-of-censorship is the "greatest horror ever to be visited on mankind". All your claims here are strawmen - respond to an actual argument, rather than making one up.

If I pull your hair, the fact that someone in another country is getting shot in the face won't stop you complaining, will it?

Again, I ask - what is the point being made here? It seems you clearly do have something against people who complain about censorship, based on your poor stereotyping of them. If you're just saying for no reason at all that the events here are worse than other events, then yes I suspect we all agree, thank you for pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Re:Exactly

[Descalzo]

Except that in the example you cite, it is not a government entity that is refusing service. I think the government/non-government distinction makes all the difference.

Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

Burma falls within China's sphere of influence. China was supposedly preaching restraint to Burma, but in the shadow of the 1989 Tianamen Massacre of China it beggars belief that they'd really do this. Only way to force China to act against Burma and North Korea is to Threaten to Boycott the Beijing Olympics.

It'd leave egg all over the Chinese Governments Face. This is the only thing they are scared of.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[QuantumG]

Uhh, no. I call Titor on that idea.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[karmatic]

How about we don't go deliberately pissing off a nation with enough cash reserves (1.33 trillion) to bankrupt us overnight (assuming it's a trading day - on the weekend, they would have to wait a couple days).

Unless you like the concept of insane interest rate hikes (the wonderful thing about fiat currency is that it's worth pretty much what people think it's worth), which would be needed to attract people back to the dollar, this is a _really_ bad idea. Also, dumping currency on that scale would severely devalue the dollar, reducing the value of US debt (good for the US, bad for those who are owed money). This would greatly reduce the amount the US could borrow. Furthermore, printing money would be less effective (dollar is worth less), and doing so would just make the problem even worse.

Let me put it this way - we're so far in debt (much of it to China) that China doesn't really have to fear a military attack, since they could quit lending to us (this would cause a fiscal crisis by itself), and dump the currency (making what little cash we have worthless, and driving up the cost of goods from everywhere else). We can't pay for Iraq and Afghanistan on our own now, how could we possibly be a threat to China with no money, no credit, and an insane cost on all imported goods?

Don't believe this can happen?
Asian banks are reducing their U.S. holdings, which is expected to drive the dollar further down.

The Euro is at record highs against the US Dollar

The Saudis aren't matching interest rates with us Why?

"Saudi Arabia has $800bn (£400bn) in their future generation fund, and the entire region has $3,500bn under management. They face an inflationary threat and do not want to import an interest rate policy set for the recessionary conditions in the United States" ...
"why bear the risk in these dramatically changed circumstances? We think that a fall in dollar to $1.50 against the euro is not out of the question at all by the first quarter of 2008," he said.

"This is nothing like the situation in 1998 when the crisis was in Asia, but the US was booming. This time the US itself is the problem,"

The Sub-Prime Market imploded, which has been very bad for US banks, like NetBank (which was just shut down by the FDIC).

The budget defecit swelled to 117 billion dollars in August. For those keeping track, that's up 80% year over year, with spending up 30% month over month.

Oh, and for icing on the cake - it looks like housing sales in some areas are down 46% year over year, or 25% month over month.

So, please, we have enough problems - let's not go deliberately taunting the biggest superpower in the world (at least any more - with our 9 trillion in debt, we're not going to be the "world police" much longer.) Also, the "but our GDP grows faster than our debt" argument doesn't cut it when the GDP is shrinking, the currency is in the toilet, and we still get to pay the interest on all that debt.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[smitingpurpleemu]

Moron. Your American government has supported many brutal dictators over the years, and currently support an Iraqi regime which is actively killing Sunnis in cold blood. What Myanmar does is their own business. We only trade with them. We don't practice imperialism like you American punks.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[corbettw]

China could do that, but it would be tantamount to economic suicide for them. You see, we are China's biggest importer. If we stop buying Chinese goods because we can't afford to anymore, they'd be stuck with trillions of dollars worth of worthless trinkets. Not to mention, the yuan is heavily pegged to the US dollar, so as falls the USD, so falls the CY. They could stop the hemorrhaging by pegging the yuan to the Euro, or by floating it on the FOREX markets, but neither of those would happen overnight. In the meantime, their burgeoning middle class would quickly revert to peasant status, along with the other 1.2 billion Chinese. I seriously doubt China would risk all that for Burma (though they almost certainly would if we got serious on Tibet, or put up a fight to keep them out of Taiwan).

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[jimmux]

I have seen various groups lately (one of which I am a member) advocating a boycott of the Beijing Olympics, each for there own reasons.

I fail to see how this would have much effect. After all, it's not like many of us actually pay to `consume' it in any way to begin with. If I never intended to buy tickets or merchandise and my only experience of the Games is via free-to-air TV, then how would my protest even be noticed?

Perhaps these groups are suggesting that I become a star athlete so I can defiantly refuse to grace the event with my presence? Hate to point it out, but I see a flaw in that plan.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[falconwolf]

We can't pay for Iraq and Afghanistan on our own now, how could we possibly be a threat to China with no money, no credit, and an insane cost on all imported goods?

While much of what you say is true, there's at least two problems with China doing anything. One is if the US economy tanks not only would all those bonds and notes the Chinese are holding become just as valuable as toilet paper but China's economy could very well tank as well. The US imports a lot of Chinese goods, if Americans were no longer able to afford to buy Chinese goods Chinese exporters would be very unhappy. A second risk is inside China. China has never been a single unified nation before the communists took over. Instead China is made up with a bunch of different ethnic groups, some who had their own nation states. China recognizes 56 ethnic groups. One is the Uyghur, who are a Muslim people who oppose the Han Chinese takeover of their homeland. Some of them have turned to terrorism. Muslims in the Xinjiang province of China support the Taliban. Taliban extremism can easily spread there. Bush's "War on Muslim Terrorist" benefits China.

Falcon

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[karmatic]

They certainly wouldn't do this over Burma; however, they are promising to do it if we follow through on our threaten to sanction them for their currency manipulation.

My point is that this could be one in a series of things that could potentially push the Chinese over the edge. In general, it's better to just not tick them off.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[karmatic]

Bah. Shouldn't type this late. If we follow through on our threats to sanction them.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[Lotunggim Ginsawat]

If China is pushed to the edge, it is certainly will put USA in some kind of recession. But that recession will not last forever. And when it is over, retaliation by USA towards China will be harsh to say the least. This is even more possible with Democrats-controlled Capitol Hill and later with a (highly probable) Democrat president. And everyone knows Democrats representatives hates China more than Republicans do.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

Only way to force China to act against Burma and North Korea is to Threaten to Boycott the Beijing Olympics.

And while we're at it, as long as the torch will only be paraded in the US in the San Francisco Bay Area, the route must be plastered wall-to-wall with "Free Tibet" signs.

That will put all the egg on their precious "face" that they can handle.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[khallow]

How about we don't go deliberately pissing off a nation with enough cash reserves (1.33 trillion) to bankrupt us overnight (assuming it's a trading day - on the weekend, they would have to wait a couple days).

How effective will this tactic really be? Keep in mind that if China does that it'll be out more than half a year of GDP right at the start. And most of that debt is in the form of bonds to the US government. If it comes to a choice between bankruptcy and defaulting on debt to a hostile power, I'm sure the choice will be easy for the US. Also, I doubt other countries are going to be pleased by these sorts of little games. They will after all harm much more than just the US. Expect long term trade problems from this, especially if it is coupled with the seizure of foreign assets in China.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[specific_pacific]

I would just like to point out that the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang do not support the Taliban, and they do not look favorably at Americans or the Han either. They dislike the Han "generally" for mostly political reasons more than religious, but you can safely say they dislike the US less than the Han Government. The (Han) Government is a direct threat that his historically been trying to equalise the region just like they are in Tibet by pumping in Han Chinese businesses and workers.

Despite all this, it is mostly Sunni muslims (small percentage) who are fanatic enough within Xinjiang to perhaps open up these resistance pockets (I don't know what percentage of these resistance pockets are actually real or not because the government can just point and shoot and call it a camp). I had the pleasure of eating with one in 2005. It's interesting to note he was generally talking about his dislike, then spiked up saying that if they invaded Iran the Muslim rebellion would kill them (then he bought me some tea).

The 11/11 attack did nothing for them, they had no beef with America to support the attacks. If anything they would/should have beef with the Chinese. It just so happens the Chinese used the Americans as an excuse to crackdown on them so perhaps the hatred is misguided. Sorry for all the grammar/spelling fuckups, I had a really bad headache at the moment.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[sm4096]

I could thing of a few other reasons to boycott.
Corruption has other ways of expressing itself...

water...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2005-07-04-pollution-china-cover_x.htm
land....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6582571.stm
air...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70107

effect of being there ... Oh hey they noticed... And you thought global warming a disaster... they could at least cut back on the cancer causing shit.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/16/content_434747.htm

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[The One and Only]

Yeah, let me know if that helps Burma any more than boycotting the Moscow Olympics helped Afghanistan.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[jamar0303]

If you were a Burmese citizen on the wrong side of those with power, would you say the same things of the other countries? If you still would, then bravo to you- unwavering views no matter what the cost.

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[TheoMurpse]

the wonderful thing about fiat currency is that it's worth pretty much what people think it's worth

You mean as opposed to the gold standard, where money is worth pretty much what people think....gold is worth?

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[falconwolf]

I would just like to point out that the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang do not support the Taliban

Not all do, but all it takes is a few bad apples. Neither is the Uyghur the only Muslim ethnic group in China.

The (Han) Government is a direct threat that his historically been trying to equalise the region just like they are in Tibet by pumping in Han Chinese businesses and workers.

They aren't trying to equalize it they are trying to overwhelm the local populace with Han Chinese, much in the same way Niccolò Machiavelli outlined in "The Prince" .

Ne how
Ne how ma?

Falcon

Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the rest of this comment...

What is with you silly fuckers at Slashdot?

This is about the fifteenth time in two weeks that I've read this tired-ass phrase at the end of a posting, then clicked the "read the rest" link only to find the entire posting was on the prior page.

While we're at it, how about knocking off the "one reply beneath your current threshold" shit only to find that half the fucking thread is repeated and we're supposed to re-read the whole goddamned thing to find the "one reply"?

Where is the media? Where are we!?

[loconet]

Each day that passes I am reminded the disgusting state of our society. Thank God for the internet and its ability to deliver raw information. I turn on the TV and all I see is useless reality TV portraying the lives of rich kids and their "complex" love lives or news about Britney Spears. Mean while, stories about potentially thousands of protesters being killed go barely mentioned. Being killed for wanting the very thing the most powerful government in the world allegedly spent the last 4 years fighting for! Where is the outrage? Where is the day after day coverage the way we saw Ana Nicole Smith's death be covered? Why does our society care more about some washed up singer losing custody of her kids than thousands of peaceful anonymous demonstrators getting killed?

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[Anonymous Coward]

what are you doing? If you did nothing two months ago, why are you up in arms now? Africa, East Asia and so many other places need your help.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[goldspider]

You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it.

The whole point of this story (and others like it) is that the media has been completely cut off from these demonstrations and the violence that ensued.

You dislike U.S. news media. That's great; here's a cookie. Try paying attention next time.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume that society today is so bad compared to socienty in the past? You are not the first to complain:

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato.

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and
impatient of restraint."
--- Hesiod, Eighth Century B.C.

"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of
today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for
parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as
if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is
foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest
and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."

Extract from a sermon preached by Peter the Hermit in A.D. 1274.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[loconet]

> You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it.

Oh I paid attention, however, I don't think you have. I understand the media has been cut off, but there are other sources of information. For example, The Daily Mail reports that thousands of protesters have been allegedly killed, yet, I don't see any mention of that on mainstream media, I did see however two stories about Britney's problems tonight.

> You dislike U.S. news media. That's great; here's a cookie. Try paying attention next time.

I hope that's a chocolate chip cookie ;)

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[drgonzo59]

You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it as well.

That point was that when there was access to media, our media in US wasn't paying much attention. Now you are defending them. "Well, heck they shut down access, I guess they have to show news about Britney Spears, what do you expect a blank screen, sheesh!"

  The fact that the media access was shut off is enough to be news story and should trump news about American blonds being abducted in Aruba. But us Americans don't give a fuck about the world. We are happy in our little suburbs, worrying when Paris Hilton will get arrested again. We want to care about other people but we can't because "Look, they shut of the media over there in Bluma, we'll just have to switch the channel and start caring about Spears, it's all better now..."

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[Wes Janson]

So why isn't the media screaming bloody murder about that fact itself? The answer is obvious. If people cared, we would see attention focused on the issue, instead of being relegated to a blurb on page 12. Spice Girls concerts are considered to be more important than the lives of thousands of people living in a 3rd world shithole-that's the honest ethical viewpoint of our society.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[swordgeek]

Well then, your country sucks. :-)

Seriously, the of a mass slaughter (still not confirmed publicly) are being picked up by the news agencies across the world. I was expecting it (just look at the '88 coup) and have been watching the ripple all day. First it was a lunatic site. Then something more respectable. Now the Daily Mail and here in Canada, CBC are taking the stories seriously--although cautiously. I expect a massive uproar late tomorrow or early Wednesday.

Of course, access to live satellite images would probably confirm a lot of this.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[fiddlesticks]

'The Daily Mail reports that thousands of protesters have been allegedly killed, yet, I don't see any mention of that on mainstream media'

? The Daily Mail is about as mainstream media as it gets.

The UK press, TV and radio is *full* of reports about Burma. Is it not being reported wherever it is that you live?

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK press, TV and radio is *full* of reports about Burma. Is it not being reported wherever it is that you live?


He probably lives in the US.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[daveytay]

Yup.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[CmdrGravy]

Where the hell are you living ?

Every news program here has been leading with new about Burma for at least a week now, with up to 15 or 20mins of the program dedicated to it.

If you can get it try watching BBC News 24 although I'm sure CNN and the rest are covering it as well.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[KudyardRipling]

People in the West are possessed by their possessions: cushy F~ jobs, beautiful F~ homes, big F~ SUV's, plump F~ 401k's, humongous F~ entertainment systems, wonderful F~ vacations. The tyrants here have learned how to imprison people in their freedom via the people's possessions. How these tremble (shaking of the hands): "Oh! Oh! Oh! Don't show us that! It makes us uncomfortable! Show us Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, even the Care Bears!"

More flesh, more worms
Hillel - Pirke Avot

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[Sleepy]

That's the beauty of National Public Radio (NPR), which has been making this news item #1 for weeks. The fact that they carry the BBC radio news is a HUGE boost also. Darfur has not been forgotten either.

Is their no oil in Burma?

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[mdwh2]

? The Daily Mail is about as mainstream media as it gets.

Well yes it's mainstream, but it's the Daily Mail, a not-exactly-reliable tabloid. You might as well cite The Sun.

(Having said that, chances are they may well be correct in this case - but I see what the OP was getting at, if a story has only appeared in the Mail, but not non-tabloid mainstream media.)

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[mi]

Each day that passes I am reminded the disgusting state of our society. Thank God for the internet and its ability to deliver raw information. I turn on the TV and all I see is useless reality TV portraying the lives of rich kids and their "complex" love lives or news about Britney Spears.

It comes from the same mentality, that allows phrases like "some peoples just can't live in a Democracy", or "why are we wasting American blood and treasure helping others, when we have such problems at home", etc. Remember people lamenting American military not being here to help the morons, who decided to wait for Katrina to arrive, and the local (mis)government they were and continue electing? Sure, "our own" need to have ice delivered by National Guard's helicopter — and if that means, a tyrant remains in power, than so be it.

Mean while, stories about potentially thousands of protesters being killed go barely mentioned.

There is plenty on my source of news. Both Reuters and Associated Press had continuous coverage including plenty of photographs. According to Yahoo!'s automatic most-popular rating these articles are read and people recommend them to each other. In fact, at the time of this typing the Groups struggle to tally Myanmar's dead is number three on the list of "Most Recommended" — below only the "Why the Amish forgive so quickly" and "Congress wants to curb war contractors".

Being killed for wanting the very thing the most powerful government in the world allegedly spent the last 4 years fighting for! Where is the outrage?

As excited as I was about America going forcibly against the tyrants in 2003, I'm now frustrated unable to decide, whether I hate the post-victory mismanagement of the liberated country more or less than the "pacifist" stand of the war opponents — especially those, who only became opponents, when the going got tougher.

See also my earlier post on whether it is time to rethink NON-INTERVENTION. We got Slobodan Milosevic. We got Saddam Hussein, along with Charles Taylor as a bonus. As another bonus we got Muamar Quaddafi to change (some of) his ways. Then we hit some snags, and now the various MoveOns/Sheehans/ANSWER coalitions are doing their best assuring the remaining set of tyrants (such as Syria, North Korea or, indeed, Myanmar), that America has no more will to come at them...

That is something to be disgusted at. The news-supply is just fine...

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[Rick Bentley]

Where's the media? Where are we? The situation isn't helped with the Internet to the country disconnected. We love images and sound bites. I wonder how we could help get information flowing out of Burma again. Donate some bi-directional satellite gear to get key bloggers hooked back up to the internet? Donate a bunch of Iridium cell phones with data connectors? There's got to be a group out there that would help distribute the gear within Burma, and even handle the donation process... As for Spears -- dunno, don't care. I don't watch when she's on; that's all I can do, I suppose.

Re:Where is the media? Where are we!?

[wanker256]

After following those two links, I was surprised to find that my favorite US news outlets did not mention the massacre at all. This is headline material. I am hoping that they are playing conservative by confirming their source so that by mid day local time, this will be properly reported.

The question is...

[QuantumRiff]

Could you put Your Life on the line for an idea? I like to believe that I could, but if it really came down to hitting submit, or seeing my lady, family, etc again, would I hesitate? Would I do it? God, I hope I never have to find out. I can't explain how much thinking about people dealing with this makes me want to help them. I won't insult you by saying I salute you, it is not nearly enough..

Re:The question is...

[Wog]

Sounds like a very good reason for we (as a people, as a nation) in the US to continue to support the right to bear arms.

The difference between Burma and the US is not the capacity of each country's leadership for evil, but the capability of its people to fight back when the line is crossed.

Re:The question is...

[Adambomb]

Seems to me the bigger difference is they do not have a France to supply aid and organizational support. International recognition is a big boost to peoples willingness to stand up for a cause, as without international scrutiny there will be a huge swath who hold back for fear their efforts will not only be empty, but possibly make things worse.

Oh, and these people do have worse complaints than taxation, with or without representation.

Sorry to sound so bitter, but please remember that the USA wouldn't exist if the world had ignored the words people like Thomas Paine distributed, or without the international support Franklin drew in, etc etc etc.

Re:The question is...

[Wog]

You're absolutely right, of course. The differences are more significant than my one point and my statement is a vast oversimplification.

But I ask: Would the terror being inflicted on the people of Burma have even been considered by their leaders if the populace had easy access to firearms?

What if the monks running down the street in protest were flanked by citizens with rifles? A bloodbath, of course. But the outcome would be better than this and in the end there would be far less killing. It might not have even started.

Re:The question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to sound so bitter, but please remember that the USA wouldn't exist if the world had ignored ...

You're not doing a great job of selling this to the non-USA citizen's of the world there. :o)

Re:The question is...

[Nimey]

I'm laying in a small stockpile of weapons and ammo for when the balloon goes up, and I mean to fight when that happens. I only hope I'll have enough people with me to make a difference.

I also vote and too infrequently give my "representatives" a piece of my mind.

Re:The question is...

[Yoozer]

Firepower is on the basis of parity. A citizen's militia can fight another citizen's militia; things change when tanks, bigger guns and an organized group of soldiers get into the equation. You'd have to train the populace, and then you'd get guerilla warfare.

It's just that when you lack the organization, the right to bear arms won't be of much use. You can learn how to shoot for self-defense on a range; you won't learn tactics or teamwork.

Re:The question is...

[Wog]

Which is why insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan got steamrolled by US troops, where completely annihilated, and quickly ceased to be a fighting force.

(Sarcasm off)

I'm not saying that a citizen militia can outright stomp an organized military force, but it makes the prospect of ticking off the people unpleasant enough that it's not tried.

But there's another important reason for the right to bear arms: The psychological effect of an arms on a populace. It's been said that the rifle is the difference between a subject and a citizen, and I think there's some truth to that. The idea is that having the means to defend one's family and property is the first step toward self-determination. When an entire nation is composed largely of those types of folks, out of whom the manpower for the military is drawn, you then have a military that is principled, at least regarding orders to oppress their own people.

President and Congress: Military, use force to quash the [right-wing|left-wing|atheist|Christian|Islamic|White|Black|Whatever] protests.

Military, from the bottom up: Screw you!

Re:The question is...

[Yoozer]

Which is why insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan got steamrolled by US troops, where completely annihilated, and quickly ceased to be a fighting force.

Haven't seen Rambo III to find out who trained them? ;)

Also, the self-determination and the right to bear arms isn't helping the population of the US - they're already subjects. Just not under a king, but under the corporations. I'm not trying to talk you out of the right to bear arms; by all means, go ahead. I also see your point about the Burmese people, but I think you're skipping too much over cultural differences. It works if it's ingrained in the people from the start, which was the case with the US.

I'm curious. What have you done that's right...

[Anonymous Coward]

and illegal?

I was involved in smuggling documents into a foreign nation. These documents were effective in changing many lives for the better.

I risked being imprisioned by foreign nationals.

I have no problem in breaking unjust laws.

satellite intenet

[mycall]

Could they block that?

Re:satellite intenet

[fmarkham]

You still need an ISP to use satellite internet, and generally that ISP is in your home country. Of course, even if you managed to set-up an account internationally from Myanmar, they could always come and smash your satellite dish...

Re:satellite intenet

[Anonymous Coward]

The military is driving protesters into trucks, taking them into the forest, and shooting them in the head.

And yes Virginia, a bullet to the back of a blogger's head is more effective than any firewall.

Re:satellite intenet

[nxtw]

Well, yes, there are satellite internet services marketed and intended for domestic consumer use in countries like the USA, Canada, and the United Kingdom. However, there are a lot of services marketed internationally for entire regions or continents. These services vary in cost, intended use, and performance, but they're out there.
Dishes shouldn't be a probelm:Satellite dishes in Yangoon
So Internet shouldn't be a problem for anyone who is willing to pay the hardware & service costs and able to get the equipment and pay the bills.

As an alternative, if the hardware made its way into the right hands and someone kept sending payment, a satellite phone terminal with data access would work as well.

Satellite dishes do find their way into places where they are illegal, such as Tehran (relatively common, at least in the past), Cuba (not as common), or North Korea (much less common).

Re:satellite intenet

[Dunbal]

Could they block that?

      No, but they can probably DF it and pay the owners a visit to "pull the plug", so to speak.

Re:satellite intenet

[Dunbal]

You still need an ISP to use satellite internet, and generally that ISP is in your home country.

      Completely wrong. Obviously you haven't spent much time in the 3rd world. In the 3rd world country I live in, there is (legally) only ONE ISP - the official government telco. And they do offer satellite, at extortionate pricing (after all, they are reselling the bandwidth on a bird owned by Hughes (or whoever)). So a black market develops, where you can get a local nerd to install the uplink for you, and you create an account through a foreign ISP. Therefore the local government knows nothing about this "illegal" uplink.

      At least that's how it works in my country. I imagine Burma is not that much different.

Re:satellite intenet

[JustJim0183]

You know this kind of reminds me of the situation in Wartime France.

The Resistance would setup radios and the Gestapo would DF them and then it would become a cat and mouse game between the two. Eventually the resistance won.

Two things come to mind. The bloggers in Burma could take a lesson from History. The tactics used by the French Resistance may prove useful to the Burmese Bloggers today.

The other thing that comes to mind is that money spent on satelite uplinks for the democrats in Burma probably does more to promote democracy then M1 tanks in Baghdad. Anny chance that some org is collecting $$ to buy the equip and donate it to ppl in Burma?

Re:satellite intenet

[vimh42]

Probably not, however, it is my understanding that it is illegal to have a satellite phone in Burma so satellite modems (which is pretty much the same thing) probably are as well. That's not to say nobody has any, they just need to keep them under wraps.

you must be new here

[Swampash]

9-11 changed everything.

The Government is always right.

Re:you must be new here

[guabah]

What? When did Boxer became Republican?.

Speaking of Slashdot memes

[greenguy]

Having just perused the comments on the poll, I would like to propose a deliberately-designed Slashdot meme to honor IT workers or aficionados whose work puts them in direct, physical danger. It probably wouldn't save any lives, but it might be a way to express solidarity with those whose work makes a real difference. Even symbolic gestures take on importance if despots and dictators know that the whole world really is watching.

I don't have any ideas beyond this in mind, but if ever there was a cauldron of collaborative creativity, it's the comments on Slashdot.

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[Sneftel]

"Sire! People posting on an internet tech forum have expressed solidarity with the protesters!"

"They must have been watching us! Quickly, to the escape pods!"

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[TheLink]

In Repressive Burma, its not just your connection that dies.

Anyway, most of the soldiers doing the killing are probably the usual "just following orders" type, you have to find a way to switch their mode to: "WTF am I doing, I'm being the bad guy now!".

Given the similarity in thinking of most of these sorts, if you find the right trigger I bet they'd all switch about the same time. The big bad bosses will still have their cadre of loyalists, but their power would be greatly diminished.

Just make sure there's a decent transition plan otherwise you'd be swapping for another bad one ;).

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[Demolition]

It's rather fitting that, on the 10th anniversary of Slashdot, perhaps you've hit upon a new meme that highlights the risks that these bloggers are taking:

In Repressive Burma, internet connection kills you.

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[tftp]

When soldiers see an angry mob they shoot. If the mob isn't aggressive the commanders make it aggressive. Perceptions can be managed.

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[RealGrouchy]

How about naming the next release of one of the big distros "Saffron"?

- RG>

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[jollyreaper]

Having just perused the comments on the poll, I would like to propose a deliberately-designed Slashdot meme to honor IT workers or aficionados whose work puts them in direct, physical danger. It probably wouldn't save any lives, but it might be a way to express solidarity with those whose work makes a real difference. Even symbolic gestures take on importance if despots and dictators know that the whole world really is watching. x.x

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[Skrynesaver]

What half-wit modded this as a troll?
I think the In Repressive Burma it's not just your connection that dies describes perfectly the murderous intent of the regime and the means by which they shield their actions from outside scrutiny.

Perhaps rather than the Olympics boycott suggested we could look at the western companies who deal with Burma and apply what pressure we can where we can.

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[TheLink]

Nope that's the soviet russia style meme - where in Soviet russia "B does A" in contrast to "A does B".

Soviet russia would be "in soviet russia the bullet bites you".

Whereas:
In Repressive Burma, it's not just the blog that's removed... (unsaid: they remove the blogger too).
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your home directory that goes up in smoke... (unsaid: your home does too).

Anyway, I think it sucks and someone should come up with a better meme :).

In Repressive Burma, the "printer on fire" takes a different meaning ;).

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[Skrynesaver]

Actually more careful reading of their site reveals this list The Dirty list of companies that trade with Burma. Perhaps local action on a global scale of posters/stickers with pictures of dead monks attached to their advertising/products would be something we could do to put pressure on the Junta from outside

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[Anonymous Coward]

from that link:

BJ Services is an American oil services company

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[Demolition]

You're right, of course. I should have said that you had hit on a new take of an old meme.

Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes

[ronabop]

I, for one, salute the ultimate sacrifice made by our new Underlords. R.I.P.

Why did you say Burma?

[HornWumpus]

Sorry I panicked.

Re:Why did you say Burma?

[jamar0303]

Funny! I shouldn't have used my mod points on another article...

Death to Tyrants

[huckamania]

Remember the Spartans, who deposed an Athenian tyrant and gave the world the hope of Democracy.

Yeah, the Spartans weren't perfect, just like the USA, but they were far better then the alternative.

Time for Wimax at the boarder

[Adeptus_Luminati]

Time for somebody in neighbouring India and/or Thailand (I wouldn't risk doing it from China), to setup some WiMax that penetrates a few KM into Burma airpspace, then give out wiMAX broadband cards to a few bloggers, and away we go.

Realistically though, might be easier to blog from Satellite connections, hacked long distance AOL accts or Wi-Fi Ad-hock networks.

I feel sorry for these monks, and I sure hope this will not be another Tibetan like slaughter.

Re:Time for Wimax at the boarder

[Anonymous Coward]

then give out wiMAX broadband cards to a few bloggers, and away we go.

Newsflash: the festering corpses of dead bloggers have little use for WiMax cards. And right now, the Burmese army is slaughtering protesters so fast they can't even take time to dig mass graves.

Re:Time for Wimax at the boarder

[Anonymous Coward]

Burma is the poorest country in South East Asia. Let me compare like this. The neighborhood you live in got a ruthless gangstar who has been bulling around for 40 years and still going strong. If not totally necessary, you will not go mess with him. You either get the whole neighborhood to stand with you or you will just disappear. But since this gangstar group has been around in your neighborhood for over 40 years, they got eyes and ears everywhere and they know all your move. So, all they do is to take care of those people whom they think has already reached their limit of tolerance.

And for the satellite connection / other way of communication,
1. They are so damn expensive for those who would take the risk. Those who can afford are simply somehow related to government (either doing business with them or relative).
2. No matter how discreet you are, government know. They probably act like they don't know so long as you don't do any harm to them. And in burma, if you do such kind of thing, your family / relative disappear.

Put all those in equation, I don't see many blogger coming online after government shutting down all communication. They not only shut down internet and mobile, all the IDD is off too. No body can call in or call out from Burma. And those who live in Burma will never blog for fear of their live. Current bloggers got information from those inside burma but they themself live outside of Burma.

My utmost respect for them.

Re:Time for Wimax at the boarder

[Adeptus_Luminati]

I see.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. You make very sound points. If I had mod points, you'd get them.

Adeptus.

Re:Time for Wimax at the boarder

[Anonymous Coward]

it already has become like one.

Also, my hope is that these bloggers can escape the country alive.

That is, if they're still alive. Given what a few of them have been saying, since the whole deal is now cooling down, the government is actively seeking them, going after their family, friends, etc. They need to leave the country to a friendly country nearby that doesnt approve of the junta as political refugees. Sadly, China might be their best hope as all their neighbors, and even countries like Australia (which I find terribly shocking.. but hey, it's because of the oil! Same reason the US supports many regimes in the middle east and around the world, that is until those regimes deny them oil.), support the Junta.

Exactly.

[khasim]

Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW so we will not have to face a situation similar to their's TOMORROW.

Bitch loudly and fight for even the smallest of your Freedoms because there ARE people who want to take them away from you.

Re:Exactly.

[ScentCone]

Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW

Which censorship is that, exactly, anyway? You certainly seem able to say whatever you'd like here, without fear of political actions being taken against you. Now, certainly there are plenty of university professors that don't want to hear certain perspectives in their classrooms (or have to grade papers expressing them), and there are workplaces where some actions and attitudes simply aren't tolerated... but there is no central authority preventing you from dealing with those situations yourself (if by no other means, then by simply choosing another school or job). I don't have to listen to what you have to say, but that's not the same as censorship. And I can't call up the government and have you silenced (which WOULD be such).

Re:Exactly.

[Kingrames]

Well, I said what I liked, and Bush turned me into a newt!

Re:Exactly.

[soren100]

Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW

Which censorship is that, exactly, anyway? You certainly seem able to say whatever you'd like here, without fear of political actions being taken against you. Now, certainly there are plenty of university professors that don't want to hear certain perspectives in their classrooms (or have to grade papers expressing them), and there are workplaces where some actions and attitudes simply aren't tolerated... but there is no central authority preventing you from dealing with those situations yourself (if by no other means, then by simply choosing another school or job). I don't have to listen to what you have to say, but that's not the same as censorship. And I can't call up the government and have you silenced (which WOULD be such).

It's the corporate censorship where stories that harm a corporation's relationship with the government are spiked. Do you really think a multinational corporation will pay lobbyists millions of dollars to get beneficial legislation, and then jeopardize those invested millions by criticising the government? For exaample, Rupert Murdoch's NY POST refused to print any stories that were critical of the Chinese government because he had business deals pending with that same Chinese government. He wasn't about to screw that up. Was that censorship? Sure it was.

Dan Rather got fired because he his employer wanted to suck up to the Republicans, and his story about Bush ditching his duty in the National Guard was not helping. He is suing CBS about it, and there's an interesting quote about the Internal CBS panel that reviewed Rather's story about the memo.

As the panel called witnesses, Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom (CBS's owner), declared his interest in the 2004 election. "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom," he said. In fact, Viacom had a number of crucial issues before the Federal Communications Commission, including loosening media ownership rules. "I don't want to denigrate Kerry," said Redstone, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people ... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

So Rather is looking to have his day in court, because the memo never was proven false, and he wants to be vindicated. But the case exposes how Viacom was more interested in supporting and promoting the current government than earning money through a sensational story.

Censorship also happens when people get tased for using their free speech. Some Americans still think you can say whatever you want here, but you can't -- the guy who tried his "free speech" rights at John Kerry's lecture found that out when he got tackled and tased for merely asking a question and speaking out of turn. He was not doing anything except standing at a microphone and speaking freely, and got tased for his troubles.

Censorship shows up in other ways, too. You think you might have right to free speech and criticise the government, but you might then find yourself on a no-fly list (like Senator Ted Kerry experienced 5 times until he made personal call to the head of DHS and get it stopped) or on the end of other governmental harassment like political analyst Naomi Wolf, who is now on the "get-searched-every-time-you-fly list".

For serious censorship, look at the old FBI programs like "COINTELPRO" where trying to start a new party or being anti-war would get you harassed, beaten up, vandalized -- anything to stop you from being able to make a political change. Martin Luther King was surveilled by the FBI and blackmailed in an attem

Re:Exactly.

[_xeno_]

So Rather is looking to have his day in court, because the memo never was proven false, and he wants to be vindicated.

Being created in Microsoft Word using the default settings in 1972 doesn't count as proven false? Granted Times Roman was created in 1932, but you expect me to believe that the Air Force was typesetting documents with identical kerning to Times New Roman as printed by Windows XP and using identical default paper sizes and margins as Microsoft Word 2003? I mean, come on, the words wrap at the exact place that Microsoft Word wraps them.

The best you can hope to argue is that the contents are correct and they were retyped, but that doesn't explain the signatures and it most definitely doesn't explain why they read "1972" and not "72" like all other military documents from the time. Or, honestly, all other documents from the time. The whole "four digit year" thing only really started when the Y2K panic started.

Ignore the documents. The story may be true, but those documents do not prove it and serve only to prove that Rather has no journalistic integrity. Rather being fired over that does not prove your point, it only proves that CBS fired a journalist who didn't bother doing even the simplest of fact checking to discover that Microsoft didn't even exist in 1972 and that Word wasn't released until 1983 and that Times New Roman wasn't included until 1992 with Windows 3.1.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried peacefully expressing my disdain for a bank's involvement in old growth logging along with scores of others. On my way home I was followed by undercover police and when I got to an area that was low traffic I was pinned down and beaten by half a dozen officers and told to "keep out of view" (stay away from public protests). They told me I didn't belong there (that city) and the FBI was keeping tabs on me. They had a form with my name and some very personal information that said "Joint Terrorism Taskforce" on it. They said if I continued my "activities" they would find a way to deal with me and create the evidence to back up their story. I am no terrorist. I volunteered, I worked an honest job, and I have never done anything other than peaceably express my opinions. Now I am afraid to. I am censored by the state. Just because you don't hear us crying doesn't mean we haven't been beaten.

Re:Exactly.

[Kreigaffe]

Are you talking about that memo that Rather had supposedly from Bush's stint in the nat. guard that was clearly written in MSWord with all default settings. Absolutely not what was in use in the pre-PC days of typewriters and word processors that were machines, not programs.

Not proven fake? He, or someone he knows, wrote that shit at home, printed it, and photocopied it a bunch to make it look old.

And as for Don'tTaseMeBro guy, he knew exactly what he was doing. Just watch that shit again. He WANTED to provoke it that far -- he only got tased because he began to fight back. It's also important to note that the whole debacle was NOT a free speech issue. It was a disruption. He IS free to voice his concerned, ANY such concerns, but he was in fact INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO SO. That's the key to it all -- you are essentially free to do or say whatever you want until your freedoms begin to encroach upon the freedoms of others. Kerry's speech was not HIS forum, nor was he supposed to rant. Rules were, ask a question, Kerry would answer it. He ranted. You don't follow the format, you must leave. You fight with security officers.. well, things happen. The tasing might have been excessive, but it was NOT a violation of his free speech to have him removed.

All that aside, though.. the memo WAS a fake. Here's a quick google search-located gif to prove it.. massive lulz strike you for over 9000 damage.
http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/cbs-word-overlay.gif

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

"So Rather is looking to have his day in court, because the memo never was proven false"

That's a bad way to run a news room. The onus is on Rather and Mapes to prove that the memo is real. Instead of doing that, they hid their source and ran the story any way. What is most telling, is that their source had plenty of other 'documents' that they didn't use. That is pretty damning, in and of itself.

"Rupert Murdoch's NY POST refused to print any stories that were critical of the Chinese government because he had business deals pending with that same Chinese government....Was that censorship? Sure it was."

If the NY POST was a government run newspaper, you might have a point. However, there are plenty of newspapers that do run stories critical of the Chinese. There are plenty of newspapers where any story that is embarrasing to the Democrats is front page news. Those same papers bury stories that cast the Republicans in a negative light. Is that censorship? No, because plenty of papers do the reverse.

Has there been US government sponsored censorship in the past? Certainly, but no worse than any other country that has ever existed. Is there censorship going on now in the US? I don't see how it could be, with a 24 hour news cycle and the web.

Doesn't seem to have stopped Naomi Wolf from criticizing the US, or the Dixie Chicks, or Sean Penn, or anybody. Even that kid that got tazed for being an idiot had a video up in a few hours. First he was told to ask a question, then he was told to put the mike down, then he resisted arrest and then he was tazed. Sorry, that is not censorship. If anything, he was preventing others from asking questions, which is censorship.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for a most excellent, perceptive posting.

It used to be that everyone understood that we could say what we wanted to in this country, but the circle of allowable statements and actions gets smaller and smaller every day.

As does the circle of "free speech areas" where we can say them.

"... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" has now been circumscribed to damned near wangling an invitation to don a suit and tie and testify at a congressional inquiry. Peacefully assembling on the street and silently carrying a sign to be read by the commander-in-thief is, I guess, considered non-peaceful.

Re:Exactly.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Has there been US government sponsored censorship in the past? Certainly, but no worse than any other country that has ever existed. And that is the standard we should hold our country to? No worse than anyone else? The leader of the free world is no worse than anyone else?

Is there censorship going on now in the US? I don't see how it could be, with a 24 hour news cycle and the web. Are you serious? Here's a clue for you - if censorship is working then the average guy, aka YOU, isn't hearing about it. That doesn't mean the information isn't out there, its just repressed enough to keep the majority from learning about it, enough to marginalize those who actually do learn about it and thus step away from the herd. Just one out of thousands of variations on the theme, do you know who Sibel Edmonds is?

Even that kid that got tazed for being an idiot had a video up in a few hours. First he was told to ask a question, then he was told to put the mike down, then he resisted arrest and then he was tazed. Sorry, that is not censorship. If anything, he was preventing others from asking questions, which is censorship. That would be funny if it weren't sad. You demonstrate with your own words the censorship that occurred there. You don't have a clue as to the question he was asking. All you know is what you've been told to think -- that some dumbshit disobeyed authority and rightfully got his ass tasered.

Re:Exactly.

[smittyoneeach]

Ah, but Bush didn't give you enough courage to run against Cthillary, Mr. Gingrich?

Re:Exactly.

[jofny]

You can have government censorship through inaction. The government should be -ensuring- free expression is alive and healthy in the country as it is a prerequisite for democracy/capitalism (yes, I know we're not completely either of those). The difference between a free market system and anarchy is that there is a governing body protecting against systematic abuses and theft (theft of speech, even). With as much corporate censorship as is going on, it has become a systemic threat to the health and security of the US and so should be addressed formally.

Re:Exactly.

[Lurker2288]

I've gotta cry foul here. The taser boy had a chance to stand up and say his piece. Now, maybe we disagree on this, but from every video I've seen, he basically seems to be reciting a line, and although he does ask two questions, at no point does he pause to wait for any answers. After about two minutes of this, somebody signals the police to take the mic from him, he starts fighting, and from there it escalates.

Point is though, it wasn't about suppressing his speech, per say (UoF campus cops not exactly being the stormtroopers of the NWO); it was about quieting down somebody who was being inappropriately rowdy. If he'd stood up and asked whether the Senator thought Bush was in league with the Saucer Men, much the same thing would have happened, but nobody would be arguing that the kid's rights were violated.

Re:Exactly.

[Nimey]

"Free speech zones" for one thing. Gods-damned fundamentalists getting books banned because they don't fit in with their world view, for another.

Re:Exactly.

[moosesocks]

You're conveniently remembering that the kid was being held on the ground by at least four police officers when he was tased, and wasn't resisting arrest by that point.

It's also pretty doubtful that there was ever the risk of him causing any sort of physical harm to the officers or people in the room.

It's a very clear-cut case of police brutality, especially given the number of people who caught it on film. The police instigated a confrontation, tackled the kid to the ground, and after he had fully submitted to them, he was attacked once again.

Re:Exactly.

[freeweed]

that doesn't explain the signatures and it most definitely doesn't explain why they read "1972" and not "72" like all other military documents from the time. Or, honestly, all other documents from the time. The whole "four digit year" thing only really started when the Y2K panic started.

While I can't speak for the military, this comment is extremely laughable.

Your chequebook may not have had 4 digit years (most just had the 19__ filled in already), but believe me: most documents had 4 digit years. It had nothing to do with Y2K, unless it was computer-generated. Which in 1972 most documents were not. Even then, most computer logic would prepend a default "19" at the beginning.

Yeesh, I can't possibly be the only person old enough to remember TYPEWRITERS...

Re:Exactly.

[ScentCone]

"Free speech zones" for one thing

You've got that exactly, perfectly backwards.

Go ahead an book a large municipal facility for a political event of your own liking. You will ALSO have the zoning rules and law enforcement working to make sure that YOUR supporters and attendees get safe access to the place, that emergency vehicles aren't blocked from using the streets, and so on. EVERYBODY gets the same protection as they exercise their rights to assembly and freedom of speech. You can stand on any street corner you want any time and say whatever you want. What you can't do is chain yourself and your giant puppet to a traffic light and set props on fire in the middle of a street that you haven't got the permit to shut down. You want to shout down someone who's having a formal event? Have your OWN formal event, and you'll see that no one with giant flaming puppets gets to shout you down, either. The First Amendment is being protected when groups assembling to have an event are allowed to actually HAVE that event. If you want to have an event that's just chaos in street, well... have one, then. But if a more civil group wants to book a convention center to pat each other on the back about their stance on abortion, or global warming, or boosting international trade, or stopping international trade, then LET them. If the only way you think you can counter someone else's ideas is to scream at them while blocking the street used to access the facility, perhaps you need to re-evaluate the credibility of your position and re-think who it is you're trying to please and persuade with your theatrics.

In the meantime, enjoy your right to have your OWN event, unmolested by ME, any time you want. Because you CAN.

Gods-damned fundamentalists getting books banned

And what a shock: no books are "banned." They're simply not included in a curriculum, or chosen to be purchased by tax dollars to be stocked on a shelf at a school. And the moment that the judgement about WHICH books fall into that category becomes absurd (say, The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn, for example), the idiots on the school board get to hear all about it as they lose their next election in their locale. And when fundie twits get all hopped up about evolution and try to influence what science texts have to say about it, they're generally shamed right out of their jobs, which is exactly what should happen, and the courts tend to nicely mop up after those really bad policies/decisions. Once again, we're not talking about the government "censoring" anything, here.

Re:Exactly.

[SIIHP]

"And that is the standard we should hold our country to? No worse than anyone else? The leader of the free world is no worse than anyone else?"

I am fairly certain he wasn't suggesting that, so save your straw men, thanks.

"That doesn't mean the information isn't out there"

Then it's not censorship.

"You demonstrate with your own words the censorship that occurred there."

You're right, he was censoring the speech of the rest of the audience by monopolizing the proceedings.

"you know is what you've been told to think"

Ah the tired old, "all of you that don't agree with me are sheep" bullshit. THAT would be funny if it weren't so god damned pathetic.

Re:Exactly.

[Nimey]

tl;dr

You're in denial.

Re:Exactly.

[ScentCone]

You're in denial.

And you're muttering a platitude without actually addressing the substance of what I said.

So: what is preventing you from renting out a convention center the week after the person you'd like to shout down did? In the same given calender year, you see facilities like that rented out and used by goups that are complete, idealogically polar opposites. Both of their views get tons of air time and converage. And both events get to proceed without being shut down by the fire marshal because the building's entrances and road approaches aren't clogged with people who are there to suppress the speech of the people holding the event.

If you've got a THIRD point of view (relative to two in that example), then that facility gets used once again, in the same way, with exactly the same protections for your speech and assembly rights.

I'm not in denial, you're just being a drama queen and don't want to acknowledge that you CAN say your mind any time you want. You just want to have the right to shut down someone else's ability to do so when it suits you. That's intellectual cowardice.

Re:Exactly.

[ScentCone]

Peacefully assembling on the street and silently carrying a sign to be read by the commander-in-thief is, I guess, considered non-peaceful.

Um, except people do it all the time, and CAN do it all the time. Unless their purpose is, in doing so, to block streets from being used by other people, or to get another event shut down by making it impossible to conduct it - which, of course, is actually those people looking to suppress someone ELSE'S rights to assembly and speech. You can walk outside right now with your sign. You can wander into DC and sit right on the grass right next to the UFO cultists, the Jesus freaks, the there-should-be-no-international-trade kooks, and everyone else that are there right now, this morning. Go on! Have a good day doing it - because you'll just be one more person doing more of the same. But you won't because you know that those amateur theatrics actually do your cause more harm than good.

You want to impact the perceptions of the people who actually vote and have a hand in policy matters in a country of three hundred million freakin' people? Have a valid point, and use the tools of communication that actually speak to the people you're trying to influence. Beating drums in the middle of the street and chaining yourself and your friends between light poles to prevent people from attending an event you don't like is just vanity and, ironically, a vain attempt to shout down someone else's gathering. Be careful about advocating for the "right" to block other people from assembling when they organize an event and gather to speak, because then you're also advocating for the rights of someone else to block, disrupt, and shout down your OWN gathering. Is that how you see free speech? The person best able to disrupt someone else's event "wins?"

Re:Exactly.

[krunk7]

That would be funny if it weren't sad. You demonstrate with your own words the censorship that occurred there. You don't have a clue as to the question he was asking. All you know is what you've been told to think -- that some dumbshit disobeyed authority and rightfully got his ass tasered.

I'm so liberal it makes socialists blush. And I have to say, that kid was out of line. I watched the YouTube video and it was quite clear what he was asking. Some conspiracy theory about Kerry and Bush being in cahoots since college via a secret society. Ok, he as a right to his opinions. However, Kerry answered his question then the kid went on some long drawn out diatribe and refused to give the mic up.

That's not free speech or "asking a question", that's protesting and staging a filibuster. We've never had that "right" in the U.S. and rightly so. If you wish to protest an event you can't just storm the room, grab the mics, and exclude everyone else from their peaceful gathering. There are laws that lay out how far from the entrance you have to stand, no harassment or obstruction of the assembly, etc. etc. These laws are here specifically to prevent actions like this kid's.

Should he have been tased? That's up for debate. However, there is no doubt that his monologue, refusal to give up the mic, resistance to being escorted, and crazy antics, thrashing on the ground, and so on brought the actions onto himself.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of fact, in today's New York Post on page 23, there is a column by Ralph Peters called "Myanmar Mess: Blame Beijing", a fairly long column harshly criticizing the Beijing regime for the crackdown on Myanmar.

They have printed plenty of other similar articles recently, too.

Doesn't sound like "corporate censorship" to me (whatever that is).

Re:Exactly.

[vertinox]

Which censorship is that, exactly, anyway? You certainly seem able to say whatever you'd like here, without fear of political actions being taken against you.

There was a quote I always took to heart (it was Lowtax of all people of SA) that went along like this "The perfect crime is not in one that you are never caught, but where there is nothing the police can do even if they catch you."

If I were one to seize power, I would do my best to give the people an illusion of freedom but controlling them none the less. I suppose you could call it censorship through proxy. Rather than having government officials and agents control people, I would put it in the hands of empowered persons (say corporations) who we share power with.

For example... As of 2004, 40% of the US economy is based off government spending and corporate lobbying is at an all time high. I really don't think there is a grand conspiracy but rather a nice system of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" which gives up things like Haliburton, Blackwater, and the ATT NSA scandal.

So with the major corporations in collusion with the government, they can pretty much dictate who can say way. This can be something as petty as disconnecting your service for complaining or firing you from your job speaking out again your companies cooperation with the government on questionable activities or suing your service provider to remove your critical blog with DMCA and so on.

Since you can't take the corporations to court over violation of your first amendment rights, then the government is free to use pressure on the corporations to do their dirty work for them and vice versa.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dan Rather got fired because he his employer wanted to suck up to the Republicans, and his story about Bush ditching his duty in the National Guard was not helping.

You are an idiot, and need to get a clue. The memos are fake. 100% fake. The memos were written with Microsoft Word. Fake, fake, fake. Every single document expert who has looked at these memos says they are fake, including Dan Rather's experts, and Mary Mapes' experts. You can even check for yourself: open microsoft word with the default settings and type in the text in the memo. It is a match.

Now, the story of whether or not George W. Bush fulfilled his duty to the Texas Air National Guard is a different question, and there is some evidence to the effect that he did not fulfill his duty. When presented with some documents that seem to support their predetermined opinion of Bush, Rather & Mapes bought the memo story hook, line & sinker.

Rather and Mapes are so blinded by their Bush-hate that they refuse to accept objective reality.

When a "responsible news organization" like CBS and a "responsible distinguished journalist" like Rather refuse to accept objective fact, they lose all credibility. It also makes you ask how often have they done this in the past and gotten away with it.

Look, even Jon Stewart on the Daily Show was making fun of Dan Rather for being an idiot, and Jon Stewart never misses a chance to criticize Bush.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

... he only got tased because he began to fight back.

And five brave, stalwart, presumably-trained, wannabe cops couldn't restrain the scrawny kid??? Bullshit -- it was testosterone-fueled rage that got him tased, including on the part of the bitch cop who was part of it.

Did you get a good look at the prick cop who was laughing directly into the camera? Shit, if they can't defend themselves against one kid, they have no business being wannabe cops.

Re:Exactly.

[ScentCone]

I am censored by the state.

And yet here you are talking, right now.

was followed by undercover police

You probably didn't even notice the black helicopters, I'll bet!

Re:Exactly.

[Monsuco]

Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW so we will not have to face a situation similar to their's TOMORROW.

Me thinks that if you were truely censored I wouldn't be reading your post.

Re:Exactly.

[GigG]

Prove it. I think you are full of crap.

Re:Exactly.

[wytcld]

but you expect me to believe that the Air Force was typesetting documents with identical kerning to Times New Roman as printed by Windows XP and using identical default paper sizes and margins as Microsoft Word 2003?

Yes. There was an IBM typewriter out at the date claimed for the documents that did just that. The default paper sizes and margins have been the default for American typewritten documents for many decades. Microsoft's Times Roman font was copied from the version used by IBM. The whole point was for Microsoft to prove its output could match that of the best typewriters. Microsoft has always cloned its competition so far as it could.

The whole "four digit year" thing only really started when the Y2K panic started.

I had a job as a "clerk typist" in a government office in the mid-70s, between college and my real career, and we always typed the full year, e.g. "1972." The four digit year "thing" as you call it was universal in formal correspondence since ... well, really, forever.

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

Actually I did hear his questions and his statements, as did millions of others. That's the new censorship, for ya, millions of people getting to hear what you say.

Sibel Edmonds? You mean the Sibel Edmonds with her own Wiki page? The one that is now getting awards and speaking engagements? Is that the one you are talking about? The new censorship, at work again.

As far as holding my country to standards, I try to focus on the present and future. There is nothing you, I or anyone can do about the past. Which was kind of my point. Sure, Sweden may be the most free country in the world, today. 60 years ago they helped round up Jews and send them to the gas chambers.

Re:Exactly.

[steelfood]

Has there been US government sponsored censorship in the past? Certainly, but no worse than any other country that has ever existed. Is there censorship going on now in the US? I don't see how it could be, with a 24 hour news cycle and the web.


This is such a cop-out. What you're effectively saying is, well, we're less evil than Satan, so we must be good. No. There's either censorship, or there isn't. And when there is, it isn't acceptable.

The first amendment stipulates that the government cannot pass laws that limit or take away (abridge) our the freedom of speech. That means, the government cannot censor what we say, or promote censorship. The first amendment, and what most people say is freedom of speech, has nothing to do with what a person can and cannot say. The first amendment says that people can say what they want, and suffer no consequences imposed by the government for doing so. There are caveats to that of course, i.e. yelling fire in a packed theater.

If freedom of speech is just being to say anything, then these Burmese bloggers indeed have such a freedom. They're not physically restricted in any way to say whatever they want, whenever they want. They have that freedom. The thing is, the Burmese government is going to come and haul them off to prison for it. That's a consequence imposed by their government. So they don't really have what the first amendment grants us. They are being censored.

Being flagged as a terrorist, constantly tailed and surveilled upon, put on the no-fly-list, etc. is a consequence imposed by the US government. And thus our first amendment rights have been violated. We are being censored.

The question now is, how restrictive is the government going to get before it reverses, if it eventually reverses?

Re:Exactly.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I've gotta cry foul here. The taser boy had a chance to stand up and say his piece. Now, maybe we disagree on this, but from every video I've seen, he basically seems to be reciting a line, and although he does ask two questions, at no point does he pause to wait for any answers. After about two minutes of this, somebody signals the police to take the mic from him, he starts fighting, and from there it escalates. Try again. The guy asked two rhetorical questions in order to lay the basis for his third question, which he did ask before they turned his mic off. Kerry even said something to the effect that he would answer the questions which (a) we've never heard and (b) should have been a signal to the "campus cops" (who are fully deputized police officers BTW) to back off.

Furthermore, it was a political rally - since when is asking a long-winded question cause to be hauled off and "quieted down?" The guy was not insulting to Kerry nor was he threatening - "rowdy" is hardly the right term. If you really believe that kind of reaction is appropriate in that context then you've already slid too far down the slope.

Re:Exactly.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Actually I did hear his questions and his statements, as did millions of others. That's the new censorship, for ya, millions of people getting to hear what you say. ANd not a single one of them listened. You obviously don't know what he said would have to go watch the video again to figure it out. Sure you can do that because some guy on slashdot challenged you to, but the rest of those millions won't.

Sibel Edmonds? You mean the Sibel Edmonds with her own Wiki page? The one that is now getting awards and speaking engagements? Is that the one you are talking about? The new censorship, at work again. Indeed, and how long did it take? Long enough to suck a ton of money out of Iraq and our pocketbooks, that's for sure.

You are an utter fool if you really believe that censorship is black and white. Maybe its the terminology that has you confused, call it information control, does that help? It's well known that China censors information about the Tianamen Square uprising, but that does prevent some people in China from being aware of their history, just the fat, dumb and happy majority. The point is simple - control enough of the methods of distribution and public focus and you have effective censorship.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. There was an IBM typewriter out at the date claimed for the documents that did just that. The default paper sizes and margins have been the default for American typewritten documents for many decades.

Not true. The antiBush people, of which there are many, tried very, very hard on all sorts of bleeding edge typewriters to duplicate the documents. Some were not bad, but none were close. Further, everyone at the Texas Air National Guard, including the secretary of the officer who allegedly wrote the memo, says they had plain regular typewriters.

On the other hand, if you open Microsoft Word with the standard defaults and enter the text, you get an exact match. Go ahead, do it yourself with Microsoft Word you will get the same results.

Now, this only proves that the memos were created with Microsoft Word, and therefore fake. This doesn't prove that Bush is a nice guy, or that he fulfilled his duties to the Texas Air National Guard.

However, many people, including you, are so blinded by your hatred of Bush that they lose the ability to think.

Re:Exactly.

[jahudabudy]

Me thinks that if you were truely censored I wouldn't be reading your post.

Not to defend the hysterical cries of censorship that are all over the place, but one can be censored without being constantly censored. Being allowed to speak once doesn't justify not being allowed to speak another time.

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

I wasn't talking about China. Only an idiot would try to argue that China doesn't actively censor news and information.

"control enough of the methods of distribution and public focus and you have effective censorship"

No one in the US, not Rupert Murdoch, GE, GWB or Billary have control of even close to enough methods of distribution and public focus to have anything even close to effective censorship. Sibel Edmonds could be the poster child for how little censorship there is in the USA.

Thanks for proving my point.

Re:Exactly.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Which censorship is that, exactly, anyway?

Try posting the code for DeCSS on your personal website for an example.

Re:Exactly.

[zenhkim]

>> Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW so we will not have to face a situation similar to their's TOMORROW.
>
> Me thinks that if you were truely censored I wouldn't be reading your post.

So you propose that the only possibilities are [completely uncensored] versus [completely silenced] ? Me thinks that if you were truly honest I wouldn't be reading your false choice.

Censorship isn't a simple "ON/OFF" binary issue; it involves a continuum of degrees. I would argue that there are blatant, overt forms of censorship (government outlawing of texts, military crackdowns on public protests) as well as insidious, covert forms (unpublicized exclusion of certain figures and opinions from the media, no-fly lists and veiled threats from law enforcement).

So which is more dangerous -- the oppression that you can see in the distance, or the oppression that you don't notice all around you?

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

"What you're effectively saying is, well, we're less evil than Satan, so we must be good."

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Most of what the government has censored in the past is part of the caveats you mentioned, such as calling for the overthrow of the government. If someone was a communist or monarchist, and they want the US to become a communist state or a monarchy, then their speech does not enjoy the protections of the 1st ammendment. Is this censorship? Sure, but it is done so that everyone elses rights are protected. A reasonable person would consider that speech intended to remove the constitution and bill of rights should not be afforded the protections contained in the constitution and bill of rights.

The US government is composed of citizens of the US. It's not like the communist or nazi parties where some people are elevated above everyone else and afforded special rights. We are all equal under the law.

"Being flagged as a terrorist, constantly tailed and surveilled upon, put on the no-fly-list, etc. is a consequence imposed by the US government. And thus our first amendment rights have been violated. We are being censored."

Not sure who or what you are talking about here. There certainly have been people 'flagged' as terrorists in this country. Mainly because there are terrorists in this country. When the government does 'flag' someone as a terrorist, I certainly hope they tail and surveil them. I also hope they get put on the no-fly-list. If it turns out the government was wrong, they can probably get a lawyer and sue for damages. I've heard that you can get $2 million for 16 days in jail. I think most Americans wonder where they could sign up to get the same.

Re:Exactly.

[Lurker2288]

Like I said, we obviously interpret the merit of his speech differently. You see somebody asking legitimate questions in a public forum, and I see the kid acting out. I'd point out that the kid apparently has a history of conducting public pranks, and that before he stood up to ask his question, he gave the girl sitting next to him his camera and said "make sure you get all this." As a result, I feel my initial assessment is accurate--the kid was goofing around, and the cops moved it to put a stop to it.

But even if we disagree on that point, you seem to be suggesting that a couple of boneheaded cops (over)reacting to this kid's rant is some kind of evil portent, as though this was some kind of government facism writ large. I, on the other hand, regard this as merely another example of cops being dicks. So maybe I'm just 'too far down the slope,' but it sounds to me like you just need to loosen up your tin foil hat a little.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

Furthermore, it was a political rally - since when is asking a long-winded question cause to be hauled off and "quieted down?" Don't spin the story. He went on a screechy rant. The mic was open for pointed questions, not long political diatribes. He could have asked his questions without doing that, but he wanted to make a scene, as evidenced by his history and his intention to make sure it was taped.

And big fucking deal, he got tazed. For somebody resisting arrest that's mild.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

If someone was a communist or monarchist, and they want the US to become a communist state or a monarchy, then their speech does not enjoy the protections of the 1st ammendment. That's so wrong. You can argue for a communist or monarchist government all you want, and be protected under the 1st amendment. Advocating violent overthrow is another thing.

A reasonable person would consider that speech intended to remove the constitution and bill of rights should not be afforded the protections contained in the constitution and bill of rights. No, an illogical person would conclude that. What does it mean to have free speech if you can't use free speech to argue against it?

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

"What does it mean to have free speech if you can't use free speech to argue against it?"

It means you are a hypocrite, sociopath, communist, muslim, am I getting warm or should I go on.

Mao said we would sell them the rope that they would use to hang us. He must have been thinking of someone like you.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

... then he resisted arrest ....

Horseshit, you lunatic. Any cop, even those as ill-trained as those bullshit artists, knows how to provoke "resisting". All you have to do is surreptitiously pinch someone on the inside of the arm. Easy to do with any level of commotion. Or even without. "Perp" then reflexively moves his arm suddenly and you've got your bullshit "resisting" charge. It's foolproof.

Except to fools like you.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

It means you are a hypocrite, sociopath, communist, muslim, am I getting warm or should I go on. With all the name McCarthy-style name calling I thought you were jesting for a second, but I think you're serious. No, I'm none of those things. I firmly believe in the ideals our country was founded on.

Mao said we would sell them the rope that they would use to hang us. Your argument is that speaking out against free speech is such a dangerous idea that we need to lock up people and prevent them from such speech. This is the exact same argument used by oppressive governments. Free speech but don't criticize free speech? And you call me a hypocrite?

Free speech allows for people to speak their minds and decide for themselves what ideas are worthy. That some idea is beyond criticism is completely antithetical to the idea of free speech.

Re:Exactly.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'd point out that the kid apparently has a history of conducting public pranks, and that before he stood up to ask his question, he gave the girl sitting next to him his camera and said "make sure you get all this." As a result, I feel my initial assessment is accurate--the kid was goofing around, and the cops moved it to put a stop to it. Can you name even one of those "public pranks?" Party-line all the way man.

As for the camera bit, more party line straight out of a police department press-release. Don't you think that anyone asking a question that they thought was important would want the asking and the answering recorded? You are suffering from the false belief that he intended the results, as if anyone could know that he would be hauled off and "quieted down" for speaking beyond 30 seconds. And if he DID intend to get those results, then Fucking-A more power to him. If its so prevalent that he can be assured of that kind of reaction, then the cover-up has gone too far already.

But even if we disagree on that point, you seem to be suggesting that a couple of boneheaded cops (over)reacting to this kid's rant is some kind of evil portent, as though this was some kind of government facism writ large. I, on the other hand, regard this as merely another example of cops being dicks. Cops aren't dicks in a vacuum. This case is just one event among many. Free-speech zones, the NYPD's national program of infiltration of protest groups pre the republican convention, etc. Too many people want to think of censorship as black and white, all or nothing. That's not censorship and never has been. Censorship is intimidation and marginalization of speakers.

The absolute worst part about what happened to the tasered-guy is not that it happened, but that so many people like yourself think he deserved it. You've already been convinced that even minor stepping out of line is deserving of arrest. The censorship has worked.

Re:Exactly.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Don't spin the story. He went on a screechy rant. The mic was open for pointed questions, not long political diatribes. He could have asked his questions without doing that, but he wanted to make a scene, as evidenced by his history and his intention to make sure it was taped. I'm not spinning, I'm untangling the knots the popular news spun into it. Is 90 seconds a "long political diatribe?" Just what history of his are you talking about? Please, name an event in that history, don't just parrot the party-line. And if you were asking an important question of a major politician, are you saying you would prefer that your question and the answer not be recorded? Should the presidential debates not be recorded this year either? Perhaps set the broadcast flag on the program so no one can record it?

And big fucking deal, he got tazed. For somebody resisting arrest that's mild. The fact that he was arrested in the first place for making a "long political diatribe" of 90 seconds is the issue. The tazing just puts a sharp edge on it. Unfortunately the ignorant prefer to focus on the tazing and ignore the question as to just when the fuck did we start arresting people for speaking an extra minute beyond their turn in this country? Are they going to arrest every speaker during the presidential debates this year, because you know those aren't for long political diatribes either - the candidates are supposed to answer the questions succinctly, but inevitably they will all go over their time limits and with a diatribe or two.

Re:Exactly.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I wasn't talking about China. Only an idiot would try to argue that China doesn't actively censor news and information. Gee, do you always deliberately misinterpret the point when you have nothing to stand on anymore? The point is that china practices censorship that obviously meets your definition -- state-enforced and wide-spread -- and yet even then, the information is only partially suppressed. Thus any argument claiming that as long as the information is only partially suppressed and that there are other ways for the information to eventually get out means there is no censorship is absolutely groundless.

Sibel Edmonds could be the poster child for how little censorship there is in the USA. Where you smirking when you wrote that? Because you obviously didn't have a clue about her before I told you to go look her up. Just like the vast majority of the population still doesn't know who she is or what was done to her.

Censorship is not black and white, all or nothing, stop tilting at that windmill.

Re:Exactly.

[Kreigaffe]

Did you even watch the fucking video. To restrain him would have caused him some serious bodily harm. He fought the whole damn time, at one point did get onto his stomach and they were getting cuffs on, and then he flipped over and started fighting again. It was all a setup.

If you want to talk about testosterone-fueled anything, how about his ego screaming that hey, he's special, hey, the rules of the forum don't apply to him, and hey, who cares if he ruins it for everyone else, HE'S got something to say. What a joke. It's very, very doubtful that he was even going to be arrested, had he left in the first place. You can't cause a disturbance like that and not expect to be asked to leave.

Re:Exactly.

[_xeno_]

Yes. There was an IBM typewriter out at the date claimed for the documents that did just that.

Even assuming the IBM Selectric Composer could produce exact results (which, it's worth noting, it couldn't), no one would ever bother using it for typing memos. It was used to produce camera-ready copy. No one would be typing memos with it for two simple reasons: cost, and the fact that everything had to be typed twice.

The default paper sizes and margins have been the default for American typewritten documents for many decades.

Really? Care to site that? Because I've gone looking and can't find any default margin width. I thought it the default was usually a 1" margin - but Word defaults to 1.25" for some reason. Which may actually be a point for the memos.

Microsoft's Times Roman font was copied from the version used by IBM. The whole point was for Microsoft to prove its output could match that of the best typewriters.

Patently false. Times New Roman was a version of the Times Roman font (imagine that) created by Linotype. It is specifically Monotype's version and is licensed by Microsoft for use in Windows since Windows 3.1. By the time that it was added to Windows, Word was no longer attempting to emulate typewriters or even hardware word processors - it was attempting to be a new beast, a WYSIWYG word processor that allowed you to set up the page on the screen and print exactly what you saw. Also note that it was never part of Word - it was licensed for use with Microsoft's font rendering technology. It wasn't "emulating a typewriter" it was digital typography.

And, finally, we're not talking "look similar" by retyping the memos in Word. We're talking pixel perfect. No pixels out of line. Everything perfectly matches.

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

At what point would you consider there to be no censorship? Would all news outlets have to run the same stories? If one doesn't run a story that you consider important, would that be censorship? Wouldn't forcing news outlets to run stories be censorship itself?

The US has a free press. Does that mean that there is no censorship? Of course not. What it means is that you are free to print your own rag, with your own stories, practicing your own self-censorship.

China doesn't have a free press. China practices government censorship. Which is what I said in my previous post.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

I'm not spinning, I'm untangling the knots the popular news spun into it. By describing it as a "long-winded question" you are adding your own spin. There's more to it than that, and you know it. He was using the mic for a screechy, political rant, and refused to step down. It appears to me security determined he was disrupting the proceedings and wanted to escort him out, as they would any protestor disrupting a meeting.

Could they have been a little less hasty, and given the guy a chance to walk off on his own after they cut the mic? Probably, but it's a heat of the moment situation, instigated by Meyer and further fueled by Meyer when he refused to be escorted out.

Please, name an event in that history, don't just parrot the party-line. Well, I'm just going by what I read in various Google News stories. Maybe there was a vast conspiracy to smear him, but what I read said on his own website he had videos of stunts that he had pulled before. But, I'll go look this up now... Ok, this looks one of the articles that stuck out in my mind:

http://www.local10.com/news/14138122/detail.html?rss=mia&psp=news:

"Meyer, a senior telecommunications major from the Fort Lauderdale suburb of Weston, has a Web site featuring several homemade videos. In one, he stands in a street with a sign that says "Harry Dies" after the latest Harry Potter book was released. In another, he acts like a drunk in a bar while trying to pick up a man dressed in drag."

Is this a boldfaced lie, and do you have evidence to back it up?

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

Originally I was just going to call you a moron. Actually, you are more likely an over-educated, moral relativist.

The idea of free speech has no limits. Sure, who could argue with that. It's only in practice that free speech has limits. Some of those limits are inherent, such as, you can't force people to listen, you can't practice free speech without a medium (tv, radio, your mouth), etc. Some of those limits are imposed, such as, you can't yell fire in a crowd (unless there is a fire), you can't advocate violence (with impunity), etc.

The idea of communism is harmless. The idea of communism would create a workers paradise, universal humanism and a perfect society. It's only in practice that communism is dangerous. Communism in practice has been used to enslave billions, deny those billions the rights we enjoy, such as, free speech, property, religion, freedom of movement, etc. In practice, communism does none of the things the idea of communism purports to do.

All ideas are harmless. The idea of genocide is harmless, the idea of slavery is harmless,... Get the point?

---

Since you brought him up. Joe McCarthy was undoubtably an unscrupulus demagogue who deserves to be vilified, however, history has shown that he was right. The world-wide communist movement had infiltrated our government and many of those same people were working to install communism in America. The fall of the USSR has provided mountains of evidence that proves this.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

Originally I was just going to call you a moron. It's easy to fall into the trap of calling people names when you disagree with them. The ideas are contentious, debated about in the Supreme Court, and changed over time.

Communism in practice has been used to enslave billions Not every person under communism feels enslaved, and it is easy to point out the ills of capitalist society. This is all shallow rhetoric, and a true discussion of communism vs capitalism would be much more in depth, but then you need free speech to do so.

deny those billions the rights we enjoy, such as, free speech But you don't even understand the free speech rights you have, and you yourself advocate against some of them. Should you be locked up because your ideas are dangerous?

I don't think at any point in the history of this country has it been illegal to argue against free speech or for communism. Court cases have been over more specific actions, such as advocating for people to dodge the draft, or for violent overthrow of the government. Could you cite one example otherwise?

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

"Not every person under communism feels enslaved"

This is moral relativism at work. People in communist countries are not allowed to opt out of the system. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep people out, it was built to keep people from fleeing to the west. Even then, it didn't keep people from seeking asylum in the west, it just made it more difficult.

There are plenty of examples of people being prosecuted for lying about being communists. 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party' was a standard question for military and government service. For the military, it used to be right after 'Are you now or have you ever been a homosexual', which they no longer ask. Communism is such a tarnished idea that the only people who still argue for it are over-educated, moral relativists.

"I don't think at any point in the history of this country has it been illegal to argue against free speech"

That is something I never said. What I actually said... 'A reasonable person would consider that speech intended to remove the constitution and bill of rights should not be afforded the protections contained in the constitution and bill of rights.'

I think you may be the first person to argue about arguing against arguing. It's like all the people who are against protesting but have no way to show it.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

There are plenty of examples of people being prosecuted for lying about being communists. 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party' was a standard question for military and government service. That's a separate question than being allowed to advocate communism as part of free speech. I ask again, do you have a specific example where merely being an advocate of communism was held in violation of the law? All examples I know about have to do with violent overthrow of the government. It would be perfectly legal to vote communism in, and it is perfectly legal to advocate for that.

Communism is such a tarnished idea that the only people who still argue for it are over-educated, moral relativists. You keep on trying to pin a label on me as part of an ad hominen attack. I am not advocating communism, but merely arguing that the 1st amendment protects those who advocate it, which is how this whole argument got started.

What I actually said... I fail to see how what you actually said is any different than my characterization of what you said. I noticed you chopped the "and communism" part of my quote, which you quite clearly said was not protected as part of the 1st amendment. You also quite clearly stated before that speech that advocates the removal of our rights, such as the right of free speech, is not protected. Can you find a single example where advocating, via legal means, for a different system of government, such as communism, has been considered illegal?

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

"I ask again, do you have a specific example where merely being an advocate of communism was held in violation of the law?"

The bill of rights is not a set of laws that you break, they are rights that are afforded to citizens and legal residents. They are not just limitations on the government, private citizens, corporations, religious institutions, etc, also can not take away those rights. Anywhile, I'm sure we wouldn't have to look very far into Americas past to find an example of the 'right' to advocate communism being curtailed both by the government and also by the citizenry. The same way that advocating for a return to monarchy was curtailed after the revolution, both by the government and the citizenry.

Furthermore, the right to free speech does not include the rigth to advocate violence, whether it is against the government, private citzens, corporations, religious institutions, etc. If someone advocates violence and violence results from that speech, the right to free speech is no longer a valid argument against criminal and civil liability.

"You keep on trying to pin a label on me as part of an ad hominen attack. I am not advocating communism, but merely arguing that the 1st amendment protects those who advocate it, which is how this whole argument got started."

Never said you were advocating communism, what I did say is that you are a moral relativist. Which means you stand for everything, which is just an over-educated persons way of saying they stand for nothing. Don't be wimp, take a stand.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

So, you have no specific example, and your original claim "If someone was a communist or monarchist, and they want the US to become a communist state or a monarchy, then their speech does not enjoy the protections of the 1st ammendment." is completely wrong. You talk about violence, but I specifically excluded that right from the beginning. Is it so hard to admit you're wrong?

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

I did give you a specific example. Saying you are or even were a communist has been a reason to exclude people from military and government service. Some have even been prosecuted for speaking the word 'No', as in no I'm not a communist. It may not even be true today, mainly because communism isn't much of a threat, but it certainly has been true in the past, all the way up to the 1990s.

It's even more self apparent for monarchists. Many were driven from their homes, property seized, etc. War of 1812 ring a bell? Burned most of Washington. Wasn't a good time to be a monarchist in America.

The only wrong I can see is your inability to seperate being a communist and advocating communism. It's easy for a moral relatavist. A moral relatavist can advocate communism the same as they can advocate the parliamentary system or sharia law or donkey buggery. It's all the same to them and I suspect, to you.

Free speech means being able to speak with impunity. Losing the ability to join the military or work for the government or get a clearance, are all punitive in nature, whether you'd like any of them or not.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

It's even more self apparent for monarchists. Many were driven from their homes, property seized, etc. War of 1812 ring a bell? Please cite a case where a Bill-of-Rights based government restricted free speech for a monarchist.

Free speech means being able to speak with impunity. Losing the ability to join the military or work for the government or get a clearance, are all punitive in nature, whether you'd like any of them or not. No, it's not the same. The government can exclude people from working from them for any number of reasons. Being a security threat is certainly one. The military currently has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuality. Are you claiming that homosexuals' rights aren't protected under the 1st amendment? If you kill somebody, and then give yourself away by talking about the murder, you will be punished for the murder, not for talking.

You have yet to cite a case where merely speaking in favor of communism was considered illegal. The fact is that right has always been protected under the 1st amendment. If it was not protected, then people could have been thrown in jail for just stating their support of communism, yet the government always made it a point to target those who advocated overthrow.

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

"If it was not protected, then people could have been thrown in jail for just stating their support of communism" So someone has to go to jail for their rights to be violated? That's a leap of illogic. The Bill of Rights is not a set of laws a citizen can break. They are rights that cannot be taken away. You've gone from my original statement about being a communist to "merely speaking in favor of communism". You're running out of room for back tracking. You even admit as much when you say... "Please cite a case where a Bill-of-Rights based government restricted free speech for a monarchist." From www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php... "While some Supreme Court justices have declared that First Amendment freedoms are absolute or occupy a preferred position, the Court has routinely held they may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy), or to guard against subversion of the government and the spreading of dissension in wartime. Thus, the Court's majority has remained firm - the First Amendment rights are not absolute." Key phrases being 'to protect the rights of others' and 'to guard against subversion to the government'. Sound familiar?

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

You've gone from my original statement about being a communist to "merely speaking in favor of communism". You're running out of room for back tracking. You are the one who is backtracking. You stated: "If someone was a communist or monarchist, and they want the US to become a communist state or a monarchy, then their speech does not enjoy the protections of the 1st ammendment." [emphasis mine].

You have yet to prove otherwise, and the page you link to clearly states that their speech is protected. Even when it was being attacked, it was done so under the rule of "clear and present danger" involving the overthrow of the government. I never stated free speech was absolute -- that has been your strawman to knock down, not my position.

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

"If someone was a communist or monarchist, and they want the US to become a communist state or a monarchy, then their speech does not enjoy the protections of the 1st ammendment."[EMPHASIS MINE].
The only way you can contend that their speech is protected is if you believe there is a way for the US to become a communist state or a monarchy while leaving the constitution and bill of rights intact. Maybe that's what you are saying, which is another huge leap of illogic. Do you really think the constitution and bill of rights are compatable with communism and monarchy? A reasonable person would clearly see that it is exempt from 1st ammendment protection.

the Court has routinely held they [FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS] may be limited ... to guard against subversion of the government ---

I never stated free speech was absolute You haven't really stated much of anything. Things you did say...

That some idea is beyond criticism is completely antithetical to the idea of free speech. What does it mean to have free speech if you can't use free speech to argue against it?

the Court has routinely held they [FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS] may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy [,FREE SPEECH] ) ---
Nowhere does it say, nor have I said, that the government has to crack down on subversive speech or speech intended to deprive others of their rights, only that it would not violate the 1st ammendment if they did so. You can show a million cases of communists speaking freely and it doesn't negate the fact that the speech is not protected. You could do the same for monarchists and it still doesn't change anything. Call yourself Emperor Norton if you want, just don't fool yourself into thinking that that changes anything.

Re:Exactly.

[Raenex]

The only way you can contend that their speech is protected is if you believe there is a way for the US to become a communist state or a monarchy while leaving the constitution and bill of rights intact. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights explicitly allows itself to be changed, and it has been changed in the past. Whether it is changed piecemeal or wholesale, it explicitly allows it, and any right you currently enjoy can be taken away.

That's why when people get upset about stuff like flag burning they proprose for an amendent to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is protected under the 1st, but if an amendment was passed against it the Supreme Court would have no power to argue otherwise. Following your logic, arguing for an amendment against flag burning is a violation of the 1st amendment, and not protected speech.

Nowhere does it say, nor have I said, that the government has to crack down on subversive speech or speech intended to deprive others of their rights, only that it would not violate the 1st ammendment if they did so. Backpedalling further, I see. Why, when the government was fighting against the spread of communism, and they were arresting people, did they only do so if violent overthrow was being advocated? Why would they let a communist party even exist in the country? If their free speech wasn't protected, they obviously would have.

Today's free speech rights are upheld much more clearly than they were in the past. The very idea that in 2007 aruing for an alternative form of government, even one that unravels the Constitution, isn't protected under the 1st is laughable. "clear and present danger" and "imminent lawless action" being key phrases.

Re:Exactly.

[huckamania]

The government routinely infiltrated, spied upon, tapped, harrased, held public trials over and prosecuted American citizens and legal residents for being communists. The US government is currently embargoing a small communist state a few miles from Miami and actively hinders travel to that country. That's today, when communist states have been shredded every where but a few poor countries.

Whether it is changed piecemeal or wholesale, it explicitly allows it, and any right you currently enjoy can be taken away.

Today's free speech rights are upheld much more clearly than they were in the past. You can't have it both ways. You go from one extreme to another. I'm in the middle saying you can't advocate taking away my rights and expect that to be protected by our rights. Go ahead and say it, but you're likely to be put on a watch list, unless your just saying it cause ya want to be cool.

Why, when the government was fighting against the spread of communism, and they were arresting people, did they only do so if violent overthrow was being advocated? Because you don't have to throw somebody in jail to silence their speech. You can infiltrate, spy upon, tap, harrass, prosecute their friends, relatives and/or threaten to do any of those things for any number of other violations.

I couldn't care less if you burn a flag, so long as it's yours.

Re:Death to Tyrants

[Anonymous Coward]

So the promised land of the Brave and the Free has turned into "at least it's better than Burma."

Hunter S. Thompson once said

[SlappyBastard]

You can't have a decent revolution without at least one fax with a line to the outside world. The internet is just the next logical step.

Superman?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've got Superman on their side, and they're on the run? Is Darkseid running Burma now?

Isn't it Myanmar now?

[camperdave]

Isn't it Myanmar now?

Apparently, the current military regime changed the name, but the change did not receive legislative approval. The US, The Kingdom of UK, Canada, and a number of other countries have not accepted the new name, although the United Nations has. More details here.

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[PsychicX]

Might be of interest to note that Wikipedia has accepted the new name.

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[wylf]

The locals prefer Myanmar as well. Burma is a colonial name derived from a particular race living in a region of Myanmar / Burma, where in fact there are numerous.

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[jrumney]

The locals prefer Myanmar as well.

Nonsense. The elected government prefers Burma, which is why the US, UK and others continue to use that name. Both names are derived from a particular ethnic group's language, Burma from the colloquial name (Bama), Myanmar from the formal written name (Myanma), which is less understood by the largely illiterate general population.

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Kingdom of UK"

The what now?

That expands to "The Kingdom of (the) United Kingdom".

Parent post bought to you by the department of redundancy department.

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for responding back.

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[mdwh2]

Might be of interest to note that Wikipedia has accepted the new name.

Not anymore! The article name has now been changed to Burma.

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[Nimey]

Changed that back to Burma, thanks. ;)

Re: Isn't it Myanmar now?

[jaredbpd]

"Elaine, you may know it as Myanmar, but it'll always be Burma to me!"

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[Zerbey]

"The Kingdom of UK"

The who? When were we conquered - and by whom? And why wasn't anyone informed?

Re:Isn't it Myanmar now?

[GigG]

The name in front of their seats at the UN is Myanmar.

the right trigger

[falconwolf]

Given the similarity in thinking of most of these sorts, if you find the right trigger I bet they'd all switch about the same time.

Buddhist monks did have a trigger but it has since failed. The monks could withhold blessings for a better life when someone reincarnated. However while Burma is Buddhist, secularism has gained ground there.

Falcon

Re:the right trigger

[mi]

The monks could withhold blessings for a better life when someone reincarnated. However while Burma is Buddhist, secularism has gained ground there.

At least in the neighboring Thailand (with identical religion), pretty much every male goes through being a monk in his life. Some decide to stay monks, but most "sign up" for a period ranging from a few months to a few years. The senior "career monks", actually, sided with the regime and tried to convince the younger ones to disperse last week — before the army moved in.

In other words, I doubt they could do anything like denying Communion — the Papacy's favorite weapon of medieval times.

All that blogs is not trendy

[Gothmolly]

I'm an Internet geek, and while I do have long hair, I lack skinny arms, a dark tshirt, or a jokey nickname. There IS a world outside your computer lab, hipster.

FAIL.

Re:All that blogs is not trendy

[swordgeek]

You know what? Nobody fucking cares.

That little piece of the story is a lead in--a bit of filler to get to the important part, which you apparently missed completely.

Bloggers are hiding in fear for the lives in Burma, afraid of joining the (rumoured) thousands of slaughtered monks and civilian protesters, one of the most violent dictatorships in the world is on the march, and you're worried about defending your reputation as a COOL geek.

How about if I came up and shot your five closest friends and/or family members, cut off all internet access, and then beat you senseless before throwing you in an anonymous cell. How important would it be to protect your cred?

Get a fucking piece of perspective.

Re:All that blogs is not trendy

[aadvancedGIR]

No dark tshirt or jokey nickname? Come on, Gothmolly, who the hell are you tring to fool?

Re:All that blogs is not trendy

[Gothmolly]

The comment was directed at the author of the article, and the submitter, and the Slashdot 'editor' who posted the content, rather than the actual event. Something which you apparently missed completely.

Get a fucking piece of perspective.

Re:All that blogs is not trendy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Get a fucking piece of perspective."

Ok, from my perspective, you're an idiot.

Re:Death to Tyrants

[retcon]

Spartans were hardly democratic!!

Do your deed and fight back

[Anonymous Coward]

To any skilled people reading and maybe remembering this

http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/08/01/www.myanmar.com/mirror.html

Bloggers and other cyber activists within Burma risk their lives by publishing any information counter to the government line, but they still do it because they believe that freedom of expression is worth that sacrifice.

You don't have to make such a sacrifice, but if you have computer skills, can breach firewalls, routers and web site security then you could greatly assist the people of Burma. By taking down official Burmese government propaganda and posting pictures, information about the protests, information about the lies of the Burmese junta, and news of the huge support being offered by the rest of the world - preferably in Burmese - then you could help free the people from this terrible regime.

If the information is removed, do it again - automate the attacks, do whatever you can to ensure that the Burmese can see the truth about their government.

You may have hacked for fun, or personal gain in the past - now you have a chance to hack for freedom.

Regime sites:

http://www.myanmar.com/
http://www.myanmar.com/news/index.html
http://www.mrtv3.net.mm/ (blocked from external access)
http://www.mofa.gov.mm/ (blocked from external access)
http://www.moha.gov.mm/ (blocked from external access)
http://www.mpt.net.mm/ (blocked from external access)
http://www.myanmar-information.net/
http://www.myanmar.com/myanmartimes/
http://www.mnped.gov.mm/ (blocked from external access)
http://www.myanmar.com/newspaper/kyaymon/index.html
http://www.myanmar.com/newspaper/nlm/index.html

Re:Do your deed and fight back

[armanox]

Or, we could launch a DoS attack....Pardon me while I start trying to max out there bandwith....

Re:Do your deed and fight back

[armanox]

On second thought, replacing their sites does sound better...

Much Worse Than Feared?

[ToxicBanjo]

Just found this news story reporting 1,000s killed: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/01/burma.html?ref=rss

If true, then the bravery of these bloggers, protesters, and monks is simply incredible!

Re:Much Worse Than Feared?

[Sepper]

All praise CBC/SRC (or BBC) that is giving us this type of information and never mentioned Britney or Paris Hilton or any other fast food news... Seriously... Where else is there a good news source on IMPORTANT information?

Re:what does this story have to do with the iPhone

[Dunbal]

You can't use an iPhone in Burma. So there. See? It DOES have something to do with the iPhone.

Re:This is an excelent time

[Broken scope]

Shoot back?

It always starts small

[Iowan41]

Did you not know?

I'd be a lot more impressed...

[petrus4]

...if instead of being so full of praise for people dodging bullets to overthrow a dictator in other countries, Americans got off their backsides and did something about the dictator in theirs. Some of you are such utterly brainless sheep that you still don't recognise that he is one.

Is Bush going to have to start killing you en masse the way the Burmese government is doing with its' citizens before you'll recognise that, while maybe the magnitude is different, (currently) that he is still cut from the same cloth?

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[ErikZ]

My god! Some guy on the Internet is right!

Rise up in rebellion my brothers!

Huh. No one is rebelling? I guess... we're ok with it then? Right.

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[Broken scope]

Then we have cheney to deal with, and really looking down the line of people, I'm not sure I like any of the assholes behind them. I think I'll wait till those two get tossed out on their asses during election time. With any luck we won't get a complete ass during the 08 elections.

Though thats looking rather unlikely too.

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Some of you are such utterly brainless sheep that you still don't recognise that he is one.

Some are much more cynical, recognise this, and are anticipating the next administration to
take it to the next level.

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

To Petrus4:

FUCK OFF!

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[MMaestro]

Is Bush going to have to start killing you en masse the way the Burmese government is doing with its' citizens before you'll recognise that, while maybe the magnitude is different, (currently) that he is still cut from the same cloth?

Yeah, when Bush goes from randomly screening our telephone calls and reading our e-mail to gunning down mass demonstrations using the U.S. military then we'll do something about it.

Theres a HUGE difference between the censorship in the U.S. and in many other countries. In many other countries in the world (besides Burma aka Myanmar), publicly speaking out against the government carries jail time or the death sentence. In the U.S., the government may stonewall you but nothing that would stop demonstrators on a SERIOUS topic. (Remember how New York City tried to limit the anti-war rallies in Times Square and the demonstrators ended up getting air time on the news channels for several days afterwards?)

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee! Dick, is that you?

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough, there's actually not a lot of difference. The Burmese didn't mind a few people complaining, like they do in the US. Complaining doesn't get in anyones way.

It was only when the people started mass marches in the streets that the Burmese government started cracking down. And, surprise, surprise, that's what the US government does as well. Remember the Orangeburg Massacre?

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course George.

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the book "Unintended Consequences" for an in-depth look at the state of affairs.

But you could just look at what the ATF, a federal tax agency, did at WACO to see what i am getting at. And the various unconstitutional gun "laws" (how can a federal law be a law if it is contradictory to the constituion?) that are enforced.

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[KudyardRipling]

There is no need to do that. Fear of losing the fruits of their hard work will keep them in line.

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[otis wildflower]

Oh get over yourself. What are you, some Brit in University? Insufferable.

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Our police would never resort to violence during a protest.

Nor would the government would never abuse the court system.

Re:I'd be a lot more impressed...

[MMaestro]

Uh, wow. Are all these posts by the same AC?

Orangeburg Massacre: Local police != US government.And, rubber bullets != firing an AK-47 into a crowd. Solution: Lets blame Bush even though it took place in the 60's!

As for Waco, good luck trying to use that as an argument post-9/11. The Davidian was an armed religious cult and the U.S. was (still is) a mentally retarded institution following the mass suicides led by Jim Jones. Have fun writing about that.

And zomg! Jails being used as tools of intimidation! Thats never happened before in any nation at any time in the world!

Kind of like China? Cooperation with Evil is Wrong

[Erris]

Or, better yet, perhaps the government of Burma has control of the only ISP and simply obtains logs through them?

Do you think Burma has better ability than China to do this? I don't and that means they are employing the same western firms that China did to do the dirty work of tracking dissidents.

Exactly who does the tracking is besides the point: YOU need to consider the results of YOUR actions when YOU take a job. Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Google should not be helping China but their moral failure does not excuse your own. None of US should take that kind of work because the end result of helping tyrants is the murder of innocents.

Democratic voice of Burma - gruesome photo.

[arcade]

Democratic Voice of Burma, located in Oslo/Norway got a gruesome picture sent to them yesterday:

http://english.dvb.no/photo1.php

The result of dicatorship.

Re:Democratic voice of Burma - gruesome photo.

[Ravadill]

The Australian ran that picture in full colour over half a page, accompanied by 1 and a half pages on the struggle, im glad some media are getting what they can out there, most other news/media here were hard pressed to do a small column.

Re:Democratic voice of Burma - gruesome photo.

[mikaw]

It was also in BBC's news site. Actually I couldn't find it now so maybe the pulled it off?

Re:Democratic voice of Burma - gruesome photo.

[TheoMurpse]

If that thing doesn't get the Pulitzer, I'll eat my hat. I've been seeing it all over the place the past couple days, and to me, it's the most important photograph of the year.

Granted, I may not have the most objective perspective, since this is going on currently, and when following a story closely it's difficult to stay objective.

Re:Exactly....not

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to folks who got on the secret police no fly list, obviously from their political views. Tell it to the people protesting either of the two corrupt major political parties who are "allowed" first amendment rights in "free speech zones". Tell it to the people who get beat up and tasered and their cameras smashed when they film one of our uniformed overlords in action. Tell it to some of their own employees who do the right thing and try to report illegalities and ethics violations and get hounded out of a job or even arrested and hooded and tortured and "detained" for months by some of our "heroes" and their partners, the "security contractors".

And I have personally witnessed much, much worse.

It's well past the camel's nose under the tent time, it is roughly half way to what you see in burma now. The tech is in place, and they are sorting out their bown and black shirt factions right now.

I suggest you spend a few evenings and go back and peruse the YRO section again, then think of the sum totality of it all. Look at all the endless little parts, from plans for chipping with rfid to cameras everyplace to the government labeling everything "security" to all the wiretapping, to the executive orders giving the decider and cronies virtually unlimited power to..I mean sheesh!

  De-Nile is more than a river in egypt.

Re:Death to Tyrants

[huckamania]

America has always had its dark side. I don't know what America you are thinking of, but it has always been an uphill battle.

In other news, the senate passed the Matthew Sheppard hate crime bill. It's not all false flags and paranoia.

For one, the censorship on coverage of the war

[Optic7]

Look at how tightly any images of dead soldiers, soldier coffins, body bags, etc are restricted. If that's not real and clear censorship imposed by the government, then what is? Or do some people believe that censorship happens only when the police/army come knocking on your door because of something you said?

Re:For one, the censorship on coverage of the war

[Anonymous Coward]

... and look how tightly the news about al qaeda using direct quotes from the quran - the center of islam - to justify their constant mass murder campaigns. Look how tightly the lid is put on how the enemy is not al-qaeda, is not mullahs or even bin laden. Look how tightly the lid is placed on how this is a fight against the monster that is islam.

... and look how few people ask muslims in the united states the direct question "refute these al-qaeda references to your faith, fight the ideological battle with al-qaeda, PROVE THEM WRONG"

... and look how muslims constantly refuse to do this, "not all muslims are terrorists", and then there is al-qaeda saying "all muslims MUST BE terrorists, it's ordered by allah, here look at the quran, it says 'all mustlims must keep fighting and killing until all religion is for allah', how exactly do you interpret that ?" ... al-qaeda clearly is winning, which will soon make just about all muslims the enemy.

Talk about censorship ... talk about the violence that would ensue EVEN ON SLASHDOT against me personally for saying this

"all non-muslims are worth less than the vilest of animals" - allah, in the quran, the very center of muslim beliefs

"kill a few of them on a regular basis if they get uppity" - the summary of the next verses

Free Burma != Boycott Beijing Olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're advocating a "mess with other people's affairs" approach if it falls in your "sphere of influence" and you "don't like (tm)" the situation there?

Frankly, I'd prefer a China that doesn't (unilaterally) mess with other people's affairs, especially not militarily as certain other ambitious countries seem to love to do.

This is not about supporting the military junta. The point is that regime change when brought from within (once it succeeds) is simply far more stable than regime change involving foreign powers. The last century has taught us this lesson time and again.

So what is your great plan anyway? Would you like to have China march in, kick out the baddies and secure the country? And then what? Somehow build a political infrastructure out of nothing? Plant some democracy seeds here and there and let the country flourish?

Sorry, if my post sounds aggressive; but I get kind of pissed off when I see people spouting almost the same rhetoric like on the run-up to the Iraq war, oblivious of the history and culture of that country and thus leading to the mayhem Iraq is in right now - with dozens of people still dying violently every single day, a destroyed infrastructure, a destroyed society and not a ray of light on the horizon after more than four years of war.

I'd support a downfall of that evil regime just as well, but it can only succeed if it comes from within like e.g. French Revolution (which eventually succeeded and inspired all the other European countries to democratize too). It can even work without the people going overboard as Gandhi has shown.

Re:Death to Tyrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a crime to hate Matthew Sheppard now?

I never could stand that skanking a**-wipe......!

That's assuming they're thinking the way we do...

[n dot l]

China could do that, but it would be tantamount to economic suicide for them. You mean like the Great Leap Forward which was also a dumb idea but which they did anyway? Ideology drove Mao to implement the Great Leap Forward; anger could just as easily drive his successors to do something as drastic.

There's also the issue of whether China's leaders actually believe they need us in the first place. After all, they could easily tank the dollar, watch calmly as all their corporations go bankrupt (revert to total government ownership), declare free markets a failure, and revert to traditional communism. At that point boxes and boxes of trinkets become damn useful in terms using them to buy back the public's favor. Yes, the transition would be chaotic and their people would suffer, but they have a government that has considered mass suffering to be an acceptable trade-off for "progress" in the past.

WTF are you talking about??

[Anonymous Coward]

The Athenians were the ones who stood for democracy! Spartans were more similar to what we would nowadays call a fascist state. They thought themselves as superior to other humans including other Greeks, thus unlike Athenians they had no problem enslaving fellow countrymen. The Spartans centered their culture around strength and unity. The Athenians differed from them in that they did not see their people as superior, but their society, emphasizing philosophy and democratic principles.

Eventually Athenian democracy triumphed over the Spartan warrior society; ironically only to be subdued by (very un-democratic) Alexander the Great.

You might want to read up on history, why not here for example. Interesting, that so many people like to equate the US to the ancient Spartans - somewhat telling.

China sold $1.4b in arms to Burma

[weighn]

Burma falls within China's sphere of influence. China talks about restraint but they NEED the current regime in Burma. Burma allows the landlocked Chinese provinces of Yunnan and Sichuan to reach trading ports. China poured bucketloads into repairing Burmese rail routes and sold $1.4b in arms to Burma during the 1980s and 90's (source).

Any consumer lobbyists out there may want to let the networks know that they won't buy stuff advertised as being associated with the 2008 Olympics.

Bread and circuses

[weighn]

Why does our society care more about some washed up singer losing custody of her kids than thousands of peaceful anonymous demonstrators getting killed? You pose a question that has puzzled us for ages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

If you don't like it, don't consume tabloid media. Rather than bitch and moan, try to smile and sound interesting when convincing friends and family to adopt the same personal policy. For bonus happy feelings, you may con yourself that you are part of a social revolution when you see that a vague acquaintance has adopted the same attitude :-)

Re:Bread and circuses

[loconet]

Thank you for that link, I had never heard of that term before.

but this is the Internet!

[r00t]

Doesn't the Internet route around censorship?

Re:but this is the Internet!

[YrWrstNtmr]

Doesn't the Internet route around censorship?

Yes. It is currently routing around Burma.

Not even close!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what real repression and censorship looks like.

Not even close! Only a dozen or so Burmese have been killed? You would have to add four or five zeros to that number in Israel, where some of the worst repression in the world is happening right now.

And yes, there is a country standing behind Israel preventing economic pressure from being applied.

Re:Not even close!

[Anonymous Coward]

We know you're still bitter because an Israeli married the girl you lusted after in high school, but it's time to get over it.

If you can't, suicide.

Re:Not even close!

[Anonymous Coward]

typical jew-bastard response - always have to go below the belt don't you? while you're down there suck my cock and kiss my ass!

Re:Not even close!

[Anonymous Coward]

We know you're still bitter because an Israeli married the girl you lusted after in high school, but it's time to get over it.

Feeble attempt to derail a topic that is clearly uncomfortable to you: noted. There is absolutely no doubt that Israel is now using Nazi techniques on the Palestinians.

By the way, I married that girl, so feel free to eat your words. I hope they taste good.

A war like no other

[Serious Callers Only]

Yes, funny that Spartans would ever be considered 'democratic' - if a state which enslaved an entire nation which lived next door, forced people to live communally in dorms and enlist in the army, and was ruled by KINGS can be considered democratic, I'd like to know what democracy means. The Spartans did win a crushing victory over Athens though (mainly due to Athenian incompetence and demagogues), they just lost the peace - a very interesting story.

Perhaps he learned his history from Hollywood films.

Re:This is an excelent time

[Stephen Ma]

This is an excelent time to realize how powerful, brutal and savage governments are.

As opposed to the peaceful and harmless corporations, who only kill on the quiet? Any concentration of power, whether public or private, needs to be carefully watched. Thomas Jefferson warned us about this, as did James Madison, Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine.

Re:That's assuming they're thinking the way we do.

[Hungry Admin]

In China, the elites that own the banks, corporations, and land are the same elites that run the government and the military. They aren't going to be too interested in hurting themselves so drastically. Any leader crazy enough to try crashing the system is likely to suffer a sudden and drastic loss of health, and be quickly replaced.

What scares me is the total gutting of the American manufacturing sector as companies build factories in areas with slave labor... megacorps don't care what happens to any particular country. Race to the bottom, anyone?

Re:This is an excelent time

[Maelwryth]

And Dwight Eisenhower.

So do something!

[fantomas]

I won't insult you by saying I salute you, it is not nearly enough..

So do something. At least write to your political representative and ask them their position and if they'd be prepared to raise it as an issue next time they are in parliament/house of representatives etc.

Counterpoint

[SuperKendall]

The oppresive behaviour of particular governements does not provide any justification for the erosion of freedoms in unrelated geopolitical regions.

But watery tarts distributin' swords are no basis for a system of government either!

Re:Counterpoint

[smittyoneeach]

"Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

Re:Death to Tyrants

[aadvancedGIR]

Do you mean the same Spartans who conquired and enslaved about 1/4th of what is now modern Greece? There is a good reason most of them were warriors, and it was not democracy, but fear of riots from their workers. Expanding their borders and constantly fight against Athenians were important goals too, but they came far behind.

Living proof

[SuperKendall]

Your post is living proof just how far the US is from having any kind of real censorship issues.

And ironically, a sad commentary on teh state of the educational system as well. A twofer!

Not restricted once the bodies get home

[SuperKendall]

Ask the families - if you can find one who is willing to go along with whatever death fetish you have in mind.

The reason generally photography is not allowed is out of respect for the families, who are allowed to do as they wish once the body has been brought back. There was for example an award winning photojournaism column in the Rocky Mountain News some time ago that showed a weeping widow draped over the husbands coffin.

Re:Not restricted once the bodies get home

[Xiaran]

Perhaps. Or perhaps photos of American draped coffins are not shown because of some of the very powerful images of coffins circa the Vietnam war.

Re:Not restricted once the bodies get home

[vertinox]

Like Cindy Sheehan?

That said, coffins have no names or faces and are unidentifiable by anyone. There is no reason to restrict the pictures of them. Clearly identifiable bodies or coffins with names on them on the other hand...

Re:Not restricted once the bodies get home

[Lord Ender]

Respect? That's your excuse?

There is no such thing as respect. It is a 100% subjective word in this context, and therefore meaningless. That's no defense for anything.

Re:Not restricted once the bodies get home

[zenhkim]

> Perhaps. Or perhaps photos of American draped coffins are not shown because of some of the very powerful images of coffins circa the Vietnam war.

MOD PARENT UP! My Army vet buddy served in both Korea and Nam, and he despises the Bush administration's move to ban all images of military coffins and funerals from the media, on the grounds that "it would be disrespectful to the families of the fallen." More like, "it would be detrimental to the poll numbers of the administration."

You belittle the Burmese with your comments

[SuperKendall]

By Saying that Bush and the US is a situation even remotley comparable, you belittle the thousands of dead Burmese monks who tried to fight true monsters.

It's obvious you have no understanding of what evil is, or where it may be found.

Skinny long-haired heroes?

[quintesse]

"They have the skinny arms and the long hair, the dark T-shirts and the jokey nicknames. But few such figures have ever taken the risks that they have in the past few weeks, or achieved so much in a noble and dangerous cause."

I could just read this is "but few _persons_ have ever taken the risk..." because unfortunately that's always been true throughout history (and I'm not saying I would do any better).

But I actually think the author wants to convey the feeling that somehow skinny, long-haired youngsters that like to sit behind a computer are not hero material. So what do heroes look like? The perfectly groomed playboys we know from US cinema?

Gimme a break. History again shows us that most "heroes" are just people like you and me that "just do what they had to do" because they felt it was the only right option (and most probably didn't even think there _were_ any options to choose from).

International Bloggers' Day for Burma: 2007-10-04

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.free-burma.org/

Re:Death to Tyrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Woo-hoo, Hollywood history gets a score of 2 on Slashdot!

Re:That's assuming they're thinking the way we do.

[smittyoneeach]

What scares me is the total gutting of the American manufacturing sector as companies build factories in areas with slave labor... megacorps don't care what happens to any particular country. Race to the bottom, anyone?

Why be scared?
If there is sufficient demand, and insufficient supply, then won't prices adjust to the point that it makes sense to bring manufacturing back to the US? "The market goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the market returneth again according to his circuits."
By all means, be smart about the investments. Remind me again, though, the point of all this fretting?

Interesting description of the geeks

[NetNinja]

Of course not all geeks are so recognizable from thier physical stature and choice of clothing(wink wink, nudge nudge) but if they are looking to punish a subcluture of Burma why do I have this feeling anyone who looks like the description would be shot dead.

There but for the Grace of whatever Diet...

[stavros-59]

These people are doing something I've never been forced to consider. The Myanmar regime has been a very rich, very powerful military ditatorship for some years and we have stood by in blissful ignorance of terrible things happening in a part of the world we dont live in and don't have to think about. Myanmar's biggest customer is China - It supplies most of China's oil and gas. China is Myanmar's biggest supplier of arms and luxuries. China is unlikely to intervene unless it looks like it could affect the Olympics.

They have made one of the most peaceful Buddhist countries in South East Asia into one of the most terrifying. You could try googling for the history. Here are some links to some stuff that has been got out before the internet was shutdown. Real bodies, real blood of unarmed victims. We do nothing!!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/racoles/1437348927/in/photostream/
http://bp1.blogger.com/_5lDKnFpM4T4/RvlasEw2cGI/AAAAAAAAAPg/1YnNaWBd-wo/s1600-h/denied_-1.JPG
http://moemaka.blogspot.com/2007/09/blood-shed-in-ngwe-kyar-yan-monestery.html

The Burmese government webpage is still available with the oficial version http://english.dvb.no/news.php?id=481 This is a small part of the $40 million wedding for the daughter of the dictator general for contrast. This wedding was one of the tipping points. I'd say it might have cost him that much to marry her off. At 4:00m+ it might be a bit long for /.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHRWToNhkCo ,BR>
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22516505-601,00.html

This one is brutal, not up to the standard of CSI, but a real person whose weapon was prayer
http://soneseayar.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-post_2316.html

All these corporations are happy to deal with a brutal military dictatorship. Recognise any, they aren't fussy about ethics

A World Away Travels Abercrombie & Kent Alcatel Andaman Club Andrew Brock Travel Aquatic Archaeological Tours Asean Explorer Asia Optical Audley Travel Baker Hughes Bales Worldwide Bamboo Travel Ben Line Agencies/ Egt Holdings BJ Services Britannic Garden Furniture Ltd CHC Helicopter Corporation Chevron China National Offshore Oil Corp China National Petroleum Corporation China Petro Chemical Corp (Sinopec) CAN Group Ltd Crown Relocations Danford Equities Corporation Daewoo International Corporation DBS Group Holdings Diethelm Keller/ STA Travel Dragon Travel EGAT EO Burton Essar Group Euro Teck Flatau Dick & Co Fodors/ Random house Gas Authority of India Geckos Adventures Geopetrol Ginnacle Import-Export Golden Aaron Hapag-Lloyd Hawke House Helicopters New Zealand Hunter Publishing/ Nelles Guides Hutchison Whampoa/ 3 Mobile/ Superdrug H2O Yachts Impact Publications Insight Guides Interra Resources Itera Group Ivanhoe Mines James Latham Jet Gold Corp Jetstar Keppel Corporation Kerry Logistics Group/ Kuok Group Kircodan Furniture Kogas Leeward Capital Corporation Lets Go/ Pan MacMillan Lister/Sun Wood Industries Lonely Planet Maersk Marubeni Mekong Travel Mel Flooring Mitsui Mitsui Osk Lines Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Morgan Timber Moss & Co Mountain Travel Sobek New Horizons Travels and Tours NHG Timber Nikko Hotels International/ Japan Airlines Nippon Oil Nobel Caledonia NYK Shipping OCBC Bank Old Burma Tour and Trading Co ONGC Videsh Orient Express Parker Kislingbury Peregrine Adventures Petronas Pettitts Pttep Purple Dragon Road to Mandalay Robbins Timber Ro

UK petitions to Gordon Brown

[crimperman]

If you didn't know and you live in the UK (or an ex-pat) then you can petition Gordon brown at the Number 10 website on this matter. There are a number of petitions relating to Burma, including this one which asks him to "actually DO something instead of just threatening sanctions".

symptomatic

[mapkinase]

I find it symptomatic that of all the "human right violations" in Burma we know about "violations" that are targeting the current regime.

You're a fucking liar.

[SIIHP]

"You're conveniently remembering that the kid was being held on the ground by at least four police officers when he was tased, and wasn't resisting arrest by that point."

And you're lying.

We can watch the video, and I can tell you exactly where and what you're lying about, but you won't listen. I can tell you he pulled his arms free and sat up (while supposedly being held down by four officers) eight seconds before he's tasered, which is clearly shown in the video, but you won't listen.

"It's also pretty doubtful that there was ever the risk of him causing any sort of physical harm..."

No way of knowing that, so again you're a liar. More importantly, his failure to recognize lawfully given commands makes him a threat regardless of what you think about it. But you won't listen.

"It's a very clear-cut case of police brutality, especially given the number of people who caught it on film"

Another lie.

"The police instigated a confrontation"

Yet another. The guy did it himself by failing to follow police instructions. You can't claim they instigated anything when that idiot was the originator of the conflict.

"and after he had fully submitted to them, he was attacked once again."

Another fucking lie. He pulled his arms free and sat up, again with four cops on him, so no liar, he hadn't submitted to ANYTHING, and lying won't make it different.

Fuck you and your flamebait mod

[SIIHP]

It was about time someone questioned the reasoning of people who take their political lessons from a (mediocre) work of fiction.

That you don't like it makes it no less true.

Packet radio against information blackout

[S3D]

Burma in the information blackout now. Phone and data lines cut by military. The way out of this situation - Packet radio. It should get more attention from geek community. It should become information route into closed countries like Burma and North Korea, backup connection in cases of coup d'eta, wars and natural disasters.
What could be done:
Cheap, easy to use equipment sold over the net and shipped all over the globe
Comprehensible instructions how to build it from generally available components
FOSS projects - user-friendly software for packet radio
Such technology can really kill dictatorship.

Re:Packet radio against information blackout

[francium de neobie]

Do you really think the oppressive government would do nothing to detect any suspicious radio activity? Especially considering a very poor country like Burma where not many people have a radio transmitter. A packet radio could very well put a freedom fighter in danger.

Re:Packet radio against information blackout

[ronabop]

We used to have UUCP, so hundreds, even thousands, of emails could burst, making long distance email cheap. ...Wait, we still do. We used to have burst radio connections, that could run off of a mobile platform, making it nightmarish to triangulate. ...Wait, we still do. We used to have an internet, pre CIDR, and the IPv6 initiatives, where the whole fabric of the internet wasn't stoppable as a single netblock. ...Wait. Aw, SHIT!

No

[SIIHP]

"and we have stood by in blissful ignorance of terrible things happening in a part of the world we dont live in and don't have to think about."

Speak for yourself please, I find it frustrating and tiresome that you generalize your own apathy and cowardice to others.

I have been acting on this situation for years, so you can save that "we" garbage.

Re:Exactly....not

[ScentCone]

Tell that to folks who got on the secret police no fly list, obviously from their political views.

Hmmm. Except, people with down right insane political views, from all over the spectrum, get to hop on planes all the time. Domestic flights, international travel, you name it. Failure to cite specifics, and posting as an anonymous coward, is classic FUD, and actually undermines whatever agenda it is you think you're serving.

I suggest you spend a few evenings and go back and peruse the YRO section again

A virtual library of tinfoil-lined nonsense, most of the time. And when it's not, it's shrilly whined about completely out of context. The conspiracy kooks eat that stuff up. Before it was modern tech being arrayed against them, it was sorcerers invoking demons and having them followed by pixies. Not too much about the human psyche has changed in the last few thousand years, but we do have some nice new shiny demons to pin the fantasies on. But most of the time, as you obviously know, it's people with their own political agenda spinning this stuff into a frenzy that they think serves their own purposes. What they don't realize is that when they cultivate an atmosphere of irrational fear and distrust like that, it perists when their own favorite people happen to be in charge, too.

Re:Death to Tyrants

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Yeah, the Spartans weren't perfect, just like the USA, but they were far better then the alternative.

The Spartans kept slaves, practiced conscription, had a caste based society, committed routine infanticide and buggered young boys. I'm having trouble finding worse alternatives.

But, yes. They are a bit like the USA, now that you mention it.

Illiterate?

[huckamania]

I never said the Spartans were democratic. I said they deposed a Athenian tyrant (true), which gave the world its first glimpse of a functioning Democracy.

Everyone likes to credit the Athenians for democracy, but it was the Spartans that freed the Athenians and it was the Athenians who voted to end their brief democracy (true).

Re:Death to Tyrants

[huckamania]

The Spartans did depose an Athenian tyrant, which allowed the Athenians to adopt democracy. This is in no way related to '300'. Also note, that I did not say the Spartans were democratic.

The Athenians gave up on democracy and it was Socrates that paid the price by stopping their earlier efforts to vote in a Republic. Eventually the anti-democracy crowd won and Socrates drank the hemlock.

TRUE poverty and oppression

[FozE_Bear]

Have you ever actually BEEN to Southeast Asia! Do you have any CLUE what a real humanitarian crisis is? I am sure when Clinton was in office all was grand. Or maybe you are such a marxist ass hat that you think the people here have always been oppressed by the Capitalist Pig-Dog.

Go to Viet Nam, Laos, or Calcutta, and look TRUE poverty and oppression in the face! You can't travel one kilometer in these places without seeing a Shantytown of garbage-picking beggars. There is NO socialized medicing in some of these places. No government assistance of any kind.

I can't even think straight enough to compose a reply, so please don't even respond to my post. I'd only be able to type FU over and over in response.

Re:TRUE poverty and oppression

[chimpo13]

What makes you think that their level of poverty is any worse than the level of poverty in the ghettos of America or the UK?

How often have you been in shitholes over here? Probably never because they're not so tourist friendly and if you're white, there's probably going to be a problem. How do you think "garbage picking beggars" is any worse than having to sell crack where you have to worry about being shot or thrown in jail? Is it because American have television sets?

How do you define your poverty and oppression in VietNam, Laos, or Calcutta? How is that different from the class and race problems here?

Next time you're over there, spend time with the people that you make such judgments on. Not just walking through their streets buying tourist goods, and then back to your hotel.

Re:TRUE poverty and oppression

[FozE_Bear]

For the last 10 years, EVERY apartment or house I have lived in was occupied by a welfare/Section 8 tenant before me, and after me as well. I have LIVED in the US ghettos.

My sister-in-law in Saigon died from Tetnus! You say WE have a healthcare crisis? I am not arguing that the US is perfect, but we are comparing it to fucking BURMA! In the US poverty is living on welfare! In these other places poverty is dying from Tetnus!

I do not stay in hotels in Viet Nam, I stay with family, people with no running water or electricity, and therefore no refridgeration.

NO ONE HAS TO SELL CRACK IN AMERICA!! 90% of the crack pushers in the US have a place to sleep that MY TAXES pay for!

I tried to do it, but I can't make it...

FUCK YOU!

Re:Death to Tyrants

[hauntingthunder]

coff splutter

Sparta was set up as a tryany they fought Athens for geopolitical reasons - and whilst Athens did some naughty shit to quote "Grose Point Blank" they didn't have junior death squads keeing the slaves in line.

Read Thucydides :-)

Freedom of the Press

[FozE_Bear]

That is not Censorship, that is freedom of the press (which is limited to those who actually OWN a press).

Little videocams, everywhere

[SchmellsAngel]

I have to guess that more people in Myanmar/Burma have cellphones than computers, or even access to internet cafes. Even if the cellphone network is state-controlled, most phones these days are little autonomous video cameras. This is one bright spot in our new surveillance society; even the tyrants get caught in the act sometimes.

I hope that the monks who just escaped will someday be able to testify to what they have seen. I also hope that those big man-purses they were carrying were stuffed with SIM cards from thousands of cellphones.

Poverty

[Descalzo]

How often have you been in shitholes over here?

I have been to the ones over here. I can tell you that from what I've seen, and from the people who live there, US slums are not as bad as what they've got in, say, Mexico. Hence the mass migration.

Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> with the Internet shut down in the country, are no longer posting live stories.
> Some of them are on the run and fearing for their lives.

Don't worry about it. The guns on the Ironforge auction house take a dozen shots to kill you; I'm sure the real world is the same.

And the bayonettes? Don't make me laugh. They're even weaker than the ranged attacks.

Maybe I listen to too much rap music...

[destroygbiv]

But if someone tries to murder me, I'ma murder them back. Why don't the people of Burma just start murdering the police?

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap music...

[ianumeda]

It's not so simple really (and I would hope killing people never would be). There are several problems with simply killing the troops that are killing you:

1) You have no guns. At best you could flog them unconscious with your PS/2 keyboard that you just blogged your last blog with.
2) The troops are made up of impoverished Burmese from the countryside and mountains who have no better option for the livelihood of their families than to join the military. They are your countrymen, they're just stuck in a hard situation. The troops are not the problem, the psycho generals in charge of the junta are.
3) You are most likely staunch Buddhist and killing isn't a viable option. You do not listen to rap. Instead you enjoy remakes of the Titanic theme song.


I visited Burma in 2000 with some friends and met with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for an interview. We asked what message we should bring to the world that would help bring democracy to Burma. She said the best thing people can do is to keep the Burmese struggle for democracy in their hearts. The best thing the international community can do is to maintain their support for the democracy movement, and keep the political pressure on the junta. (a link, if you'd like to read the story of our meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi)

Call your representative and tell them that this is an important issue to you. Ask them how they will help. Perhaps you could suggest that we start broadcasting gangsta rap into Burma over V.O.A. radio.

Re:Death to Tyrants

[huckamania]

Thucydides is proof that history is written by the winners...

Sparta did depose the Athenian tyrant and allowed Athens to briefly exist as a Democracy. The Athenians themselves were responsible for ending that Democracy. Just ask Socrates.

Re:Death to Tyrants

[Deadstick]

Yeah, the Spartans weren't perfect, just like the USA,

If you want to cite a modern equivalent to the Spartans, the Waffen-SS would be a good choice.

rj

Last Blogger.True Geek Hero. Mett Niknayman

[Anonymous Coward]

For once, I would like Slashdot readers not to post cynical comments but honor this guy

http://committeetoprotectbloggers.org/2007/09/29/burmese-bloggers-go-dark-pt-2/

Niknayman, you are the man !

if i must point it out, i'll do my best

[ClioCJS]

You wont agree with all of these, but hopefully you'll agree with some of them.

Re:what does this story have to do with the iPhone

[tehcyder]

You can't use an iPhone in Burma. So there. See? It DOES have something to do with the iPhone.

The poor bastards, no wonder they're out risking tear gas and bullets on the streets. What the HEll have those generals done?

definition of censorship

[ClioCJS]

The definition of censorship is not limited only to governments stopping expression. That's a conservative "argument", by calling a duck something else. But if it walks like a duck... (Anyway, just look it up on merriam-webster.)