Slashdot Mirror


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."

8 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The reply about nothing by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  2. Isn't it Myanmar now? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  3. Re:Free Burma == Boycott Beijing Olympics by karmatic · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

  4. Re:Exactly. by soren100 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  5. Democratic voice of Burma - gruesome photo. by arcade · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  6. Re:Exactly. by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  7. Re:Speaking of Slashdot memes by Skrynesaver · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    --
    "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
  8. Re:Exactly. by wytcld · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton