Slashdot Mirror
Wiretapping Law Sparks Rage In Sweden
castrox writes "This Wednesday at 9am the Swedish Parliament is voting on a new wiretapping law which would enable the civil agency (FRA — Defense Radio Agency) to snoop on all traffic crossing the Swedish border. E-mail, fax, telephone, web, SMS, etc. 24/7 without any requirement to obtain a court order. Furthermore, by law, the sitting Government will be able to instruct the wiretapping agency on what to look for. It also nullifies anonymity for press tipsters and whistleblowers. Many agencies within Sweden have weighed in on this, with very hefty criticism, e.g. SÄPO (akin to FBI in the US), the Justice Department, ex-employees of FRA, and more. Nonetheless, the ruling party block is supposedly pressuring its members to vote 'yes' to this new proposed law with threats to unseat any dissidents. After massive activity on blogs by ordinary citizens, and street protests, the story has finally been picked up by major Swedish news sources. The result will likely be huge street protests on Wednesday. People have been completely surprised since this law has not gotten any media uptake until very late in the game."
Jeez... if only Americans would have done the same thing in response to this guys efforts in his administration to do the same thing.
Seriously, where has the outrage been in the US? Did not George Orwell warn us? The number of Constitutional rights we've lost under the current administration is truly stunning and if we do not stand up and resist, this sort of thing will continue to spread throughout the world as it has in the UK, Japan, the US and many other European countries.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Obvious answer - too many Americans believe that the government knows best.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
I'm getting sick and tired of people constantly referencing George Orwell whenever some government institutes a wire tapping law. There wasn't any bloody wire tapping in Animal Farm!
I have nothing compelling to say
Father does know best. And, Mommy too when the Dems are in power.
The problem is that a lot of this nonsense was supported on both sides to some extent, the patriot act for example was voted for by both sides with only a few [you can count them on one hand] voting against it. Which is an important point to be made, it isn't just the administration alone that has condoned this, after all these could not have been passed without democrat support to some extent especially now with the democrat majority. it's a severe problem with our government that extends far beyond bush.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I think most slashdotters are more paranoid about governmental control than communism currently
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Obviously you've never had soylent greens, nor have you read 1984. Good job, move on, enjoy your perceived to be excellent life. The rest of us will keep fighting for what barely remains of most rights.
Or can they snoop encrypted messages too?
Lately, it seems that various governments (the US, UK, Sweden, et al.) are passing laws to take away freedoms from their people. What happened to "by the people, for the people"? Oh yeah, I remember. It is now "By the corporations, for the corporations".
This worldwide trend towards Nineteen Eighty-Four authoritarian governments is very disturbing. It also shows the apathy of the general public towards their governments. This is what happens when your attention span is devoted to Paris Hilton and Miley Sirus, folks.
P.S. Would the Slashdot equivalent of Paris Hilton be Jeri Ryan?
What Europe needs is another fascist. You know, one who can "get things done" without opposition.
Nazi's = Neutal Swiss Email tapping = Nazi Swiss. Where did the Swiss' neutrality go now?
Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
If you tap peoples' phones for good reasons, pretty soon you'll be tapping them for bad ones.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
microsoft, everybody loves to hate them
The US has long been resigned to give up freedoms gradually to 'ensure their security', but the end result is nowhere near worth the cost. Free thought has slowly been taken from us as a direct result of our willingness to sacrifice for no apparent reason; the current administration has really done nothing to be forthcoming with what is really going on, and we're on the way to being screwed as a result.
And this bit of legislation, whether we here in the States realise it or not, has much broader implications than just the privacy of Swedes being impeded; as I understand the article, any communications that hit Sweden are subject to monitoring; and as the article doesn't cite whether or not this requires the Originator or Terminator of a given communication be physically present in Sweden, this could include US-based items that pass through a network element of some sort that IS Swedish. And there's nothing to say that there won't be information sharing with governments of other countries, including ours, to implicate our citizens of crimes (where there are none being planned, let alone committed) on the basis of nothing but the content of a phone call or email that happened to cross through or end in Sweden. And it is foreseeable that the United States, in order to circumvent what discord there is domestically, may use that fact to continue the abuses that are already occurring, and in a way that may not be open to much challenge. All in all, this shouldn't be an outrage just for Swedes, but for anyone who would prefer that not everything they do be subject to some form of monitoring that is declared legal by some manner of court in the world.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
Funny thing, I thought Animal Farm was about democracy failing due to an uneducated public.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I know, that's generally why I am opposed to the Patriot act well acts really, the second draft was altered after all- and a host of other blatently unconstitutional bills that were passed anyway, it's just rather disturbing to see the collusion that was required for all of this to be passed in the first place.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
"Obviously you've never had soylent greens..."
What sort of meat comes with the greens?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I think you need to bear in mind that Orwell wrote books other than Animal farm. Such as 1984, which featured a variant on the "panopticon", in the form of electronic surveillance.
It's an important book to read - it's on the school curriculum in most western nations. The USSR banned it, and people in the USA have tried to (w.t.f.???).
Why are governments all over the world still taking things so slowly? By now, I'd have expected at least several 1st world countries to be 100% police state. Tapping, tracking, and using every tidbit of information regarding citizens is such old news. We'd have less to discuss if we talked about the countries that are NOT taking this road.
Personally, I've given up caring about what governments do. Until the general population is ready to literally rip their government down, nothing is going to change. Somebody should really start by assassinating a few key politicians and corporate lobbyists. (Hrm, I wonder if a sentence like that is enough to land a person in Guantanamo these days).
TFA is about SWEDEN, home of the hot HRH Princess Madeleine, not SWITZERLAND, home of this, which is delicious when hot, particularly with wine and spices as a dip for bread, but very different.
This post brought to you by someone from Australia which happens to be nowhere near Europe.
I don't therefore I'm not.
100,000 hits a day since june 6th on the main blog covering the opposition, and this is the quote from one of the politicians. Despite the worries expressed by those who have written to him, Widman, who also sits on the Riksdagâ(TM)s Committee on Defence, said it was âoevery unlikelyâ that he would change his position.
âoeI am going to vote yes,â he said.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Word on the street is that laws to do kind of the same thing are being run through the Finnish government, without much visibility or discussion, backed and sponsored by various multinational corporations.
All this does is make legal what they ALREADY DO! Ask people who work in those agencies, they stated this off the record of course already.
Wont change a thing.
Here are two facts: 1) Google already said they will not place any servers in Sweden, in case the law goes through. 2) Sweden's prime minister in conjunction with the defense minister fairly recently (no exact estimate) signed a treaty with the United States of America with the express purpose of sharing information obtained with wiretapping. Sweden's and the U.S. systems will be "integrated" and experience shared.
Ergo: big business have already identified this threat and we've already established a nice contract with the U.S. Telia, the largest ISP in Sweden, moved mail servers to Finland because their Finnish customers were getting worried.
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
communism is the ultimate form of governmental control, the ideology that spawned the phrase "from each according to ability to those according to need " is the same one that requires that same ever-present government that many slashdotters including myself do not turst all that much.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Now I welcome my All knowing, All seeing, (you have absolutely no rights what so ever) Overlord. All hail the hypno-toad.
I'm a bit confused where all this "never mentioned by the major media previously" is coming from. There's been several articles, editorials and other mentions in the newspaper since the law was introduced. It just seems that people didn't really care enough to notice until now.
"It's an important book to read - it's on the school curriculum in most western nations."
Yes, I first read 1984 at high school circa 1974. I think you need to bear in mind that the OP looks like an attempt at insightfull humour.
OT Trivia: In the appendix of my old copy it says (paraphrase) "C is a precise language used only by technocrats".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I wish I had mod points for parent and GP
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
If you tap peoples' phones for good reasons, pretty soon you'll be tapping them for bad ones.
What do you mean by "soon"? J. Edgar Hoover (FBI) and Nixon are known to have abused domestic spying capabilities for political and dogmatic reasons. John Lennon was spied on, for example, merely for political statements not too different from the lyrics of songs like "Imagine".
Table-ized A.I.
They would just say, "Hey Bill [in the U.S.]... did you get that? We have him clearly visible now. Oh, AES is it? You need help with the brute force? Sure thing."
Sweden reports to the U.S. and vice versa. This is fact. I don't think they'd cut you off transmitting. In any case they would make it easier for you in order to get you to talk more and contact the rest of your terrorist buddies in the good old Soviet.
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
One main protest site here, there is also a Google translation here. Oddly, the Google translation has problems with common words such as "integritetsintrång", "utredningsbegäran" and "åsiktsregistrering". :P
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Anti-freedom laws are springing up left and right, and invariably they're pushed through in some cloak-and-dagger midnight sessions, often either completing the bare minimum of readings or even trying to get away with simply ignoring the necessary process. Pressure is being used to browbeat MPs of the ruling parties into submission (where necessary) while every trick in the book is being used to avoid informing the opposition (and population) earlier than absolutely necessary.
Makes you think. I mean, those people are supposedly being voted into office by the majority, supposedly working for their interests. Why the hush-hush-rush-rush? If you're doing what your voters wanted, why bother trying not to inform the press? After all, what you do must be in the interest of the majority, so why care about the outcry of some naysayers and professional paranoiacs?
You're doing what your voters want, right? Right?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The complacency of American citizens is disturbing. It's almost comparable to Germans "going with the flow" in the 1930's. Privacy, judicial review, and the right to a fair and open trial are being sucked down the drain with only a mild whimper.
Table-ized A.I.
So did I - shall we tell them all to get off our lawns?
Slightly off-topic - David Davis' stand against the Brown/Bliar junta hasn't had the coverage I'd expect on /. - is it because he's a Tory?
I'm a libertarian/anarchist (after reading Homage to Catalunya and The Road to Wigan Pier in my youth) myself, but I really appreciate a politician who's prepared to stand up against the creeping advance of the surveillance society.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
:P
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Graduated high school in '01.
brave new world was on the curriculum, but not examined nearly as thoroughly as king lear or the scarlet letter.
1984 was not on the curriculum.
any coincidence that my state was a heavy red state, and the republicans had control of congress for 3 years before I even entered high school?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Sweden has been snooping around peoples packets for years. This law just makes it legal... and probably admissible in court.
Soylent red? Or maybe yellow? Or soylent pink?
*sigh* No, communism - the economic theory - has absolutely nothing to do with ultimate government control. In a communist system, there is no government. Perhaps you're thinking of socialism? Or Marxism-Leninism?
Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Tonight it's a delectable primate sausage, or alternatively spam, spam, spam or spam*.
*note SPAM, as it is referred to here, stands for Spicy Piece of A Man
Sweden was high on my list of 'free' countries to which I could immigrate for a number of good reasons. If this gets made into a law, I'll have to find a new candidate for the top of my list.
Any suggestions?
congressmen no longer read bills.
Further, since 1998 the media has had an agenda, and has become a close bed fellow with legislators.
they trade favors, and have obviously developed a strict code of conduct to cover for one another's acts.
I see no reason why the current media wouldn't help the republican administration by threatening blitzes against those who refused to vote for the act.
Frankly, this won't stop until every media company is broken into 8 or more smaller companies, and all current officers are legally forbidden from practicing business in the sector.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
...welcome our new evil...[gumfff]
Table-ized A.I.
Actually, the final form of communism is about as far from centralized government control you can get. The big problem occurs because of Phase 2 when transitioning from a capitalist/fascist society to the utopian form of communism:
Phase 1) you supposedly have to instigate a revolution to get control of the society away from the rich fatcats,
Phase 2) there is a totalitarian phase where the revolutionaries assume absolute control in order to reconstruct all of the social & economic institutions to support the new communistic structures (while crushing any attempts by the fatcats to reestablish THEIR institutions), and
Phase 3) eventually everyone lives in little communes caring for each other (hence the name communism) and the political power is supposed to flow UP from those little communes.
I have forgotten just about all of the details, but this was the gist of what I remember reading (a long, long time ago) about Marxist Communism.
Needless to say, there hasn't been a major attempt at communism yet that made it past step #2. Somehow, the revolutionaries always seem to get stuck at that phase stamping out just one more discontented "enemy of the State" before they're quite ready to give up power.
The cynical might even suspect that, at least in some cases, the revolutionaries never actually intended to get past step #2, and instead were just using the "workers unite!" propaganda to build their revolutionary armies from the poor, desperate and gullible.
"To find out if she has a boyfriend" is one of the good reasons to tap her phone, right?
Actually, it is more like not enough people think the government is evil.
And with a few exceptions, they aren't. Thats why almost everyone railing against the government seems to come off as or is viewed by the public as a kook or some sort of nutbag.
But I guess in this case, more publicity is actually doing good.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
It should be noted that it is unknown if the ruling block is pressuring its members of parliament. The official statements are "everyone is free to vote after their conviction". Also, the law was actually first introduced by the previous ruling block (the lefties). That said, it's absolutely moronic and it seems like the parliament members are the only ones in Sweden in favour of the law. What the hell do we need politicians for again?
This was reported a week ago on torrentfreak and the swedish media is running this just now? It's sad that I, an American, knew about this before the average swede. Fucking media.
Actually you've lost no constitutional rights at all. They're all still there on paper. They're just re-interpreted a different way now, admittedly nothing like the way they were intended to be. This is what you get for letting legal folk squirm about the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law
There goes Scandinavia, the last civilized big brother-free region of the earth. Oh, well, there's always Antarctica.
Who's comin' with me?!
I'm not an anarchist but my lawn is booby trapped. :o
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The New World Order as mentioned by Bush Sr. in a speech
to the whole world.
Old news, and most ppl are too busy watching sports, TV,
racing, or some other distraction to pay it any mind.
We warned, but most ppl said they were conspiracy nuts.
The NAFTA super highway made them think otherwise.
The good part is yet to come when we all get RFID tags.
Will start out on the outside of the body, and end up on the inside.
It will happen slowly, because if you stick the frog in warm water
and slow raise the temperature it just dies before it knows
it is being slow cooked.
Have Fun !
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
I think most slashdotters are more paranoid about governmental control than communism currently
Communism is a form of government....
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
This may seem counter-intuitive at first, and believe me I don't compare any current people to MLK or any nonsense like that. However, like the civil rights movement, the internet offers a place for regular people to exchange information and ideas (at very little cost and in a semi-anonymous fashion). Websites like Wikileaks frankly scare the shit out of governments. The masses are, and always will be, the #1 enemy of the state.
Basically, as the internet grows more adept at connecting disparate people, the less likely we'll be willing to fight wars. I can go right now and become friends or at least become familiar with someone from China, Iran, Egypt, and even Iraq. Wars, especially for America, are extremely profitable for the propertied classes. It's the reason businesses like Standard Oil sold to the Nazis and the British in WWII. It's the reason IBM had no qualms helping the Germans index Jews for extermination. Now these same companies lobby to congresspeople on a daily basis, and you and I will probably never meet our representatives in person.
And people wonder why the needs of the people aren't being met. It's really quite simple - the people don't matter to most governments. They are the enemy. The people at the top -- you know, the 1 percent of people who own nearly half of all investments in the stock market -- really like things the way they are.
So far all forms of government communism or otherwise are
always screwed up by those in power.
So no matter what you hope or plan for you always get some
bastardized corrupt version.
In other words your better off with no huge Ultra National
organization regulating every minute detail down to toilet
flow rates.
We get the same failed systems we have seen for Millenia.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Ugh, outside the flamewar:
I have seen the banner on thepiratebay.org while searching for, uh, legal downloads for uh, research. The banner link leads here: STOPPA FRA.
FairTax baby!
In a communist system, there is no government.
Well there is not state to be precise. Whether there is government (as in some form of self government), is slightly different question. But yes, OP needs to get a clue. And the "to each according to their need ..." is the FOSS slogan, no? ;)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Or that they can't be bothered. And/or that this won't affect them.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Obama in his Flint, Michigan, campaign speech today said, "We will increase monitoring programs ... mentoring programs..." He almost started laughing, but then got himself and the audience to forget about it with his hypnotic rolling voice.
As usual, Sweden beat us to it. (It is always either Sweden or Belgium, why is that?)
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
Funny thing, I thought animal Farm was about Communism failing due to greedy bastards exploiting their comrades.
Well, I guess if you're homeless, oops, that's a USA or Catholic dominated social disease, you can still roam across the border. I'm happy the great Roman Catholic Church has decided to take us to destruction without asking permission of the rest of us. BURN A CHURCH and KILL A CATHOLIC, or a Christian of your choice, Since their all EVIL.
Because the rich know they are screwing the rest of us. They aren't totally stupid: they know we won't go down without a fight, so they are putting all the repression apparatus -- the laws, the spies, and the weapons -- in place before the shit hits the fan.
The frightening truth is that the only reason this sparked an outrage is that they introduced too much too fast. Had they broken this up in three or more minor laws and introduced them with a few months in between, they would have successfully boiled the frog that is Swedish personal integrity and freedom from arbitrary monitoring.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Those revolutions never succeeded precisely because of that. "Communist" revolutions were all about creating a new upper class (bureaucracy instead of aristocracy) and had little to do with the ideals they used as slogans to enroll the masses.
Funny thing, I thought Animal Farm was about democracy failing due to an uneducated public.
Animal Farm is a fairly obvious allegory of the betrayal of the hopes of the Russian Revolution. (HINT: The pig 'Napoleon' is Stalin and the horse 'Snowball' is Trotsky). In Orwell's mind that was "democracy failing," but that is perhaps not how you meant the phrase.
Bear in mind that Orwell was a revolutionary socialist, who fought for the Trotskyist POUM in the Spanish Civil War (SCW) and that the POUM was crushed, not so much by the Falangists, as by the Stalin controlled Communist Party. Stalin during the SCW, was actively supressing all worker-led collectivisation of industry and reinstalling the middle-class owners in the (vain as it proved) hope of convincing France and Britain to join him in opposing Germany and Italy (who were involved in the SCW on the Franco/Falangist side).
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Well that's what everyone in Sweden thinks anyway. Or that's what I think we believe, so if this is true that we will have a huge protest, then I was wrong and probably you too.
I misremembered! Just looked it up and Snowball was a pig too! It has been a long time since I read it.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I want to kiss you... Well, not really, but it's a rarity to see someone else on Slashdot that actually realizes that communism involves the dismantling of the state.
Well, you've got at least one example where this step 3 was slightly touched : the Commune in Paris in 1871. Which ended with the Prussian army lounging and seeing French troops mass murdering inhabitants of Paris. In the most violent ways possible, to spell it clearly that any other city looking forward to such a different conception of 'polis'.
spying on john lennon because of his politics = stupid
spying on john lennon so that you blackmail him into saying certain things = smart
Actual I fear an "Absolute Monarchy" more than Communism. Communism at least has a veneer of "looking after you", rather than looking after "Number 1".
Fear governments. All governments. Be suspicious once, twice, three times. They are, after all, about power. With the right personality type (ie, corrupt) the only thing better than a little power, is a lot of power. The honest ones don't really care about supervision, or checks and balances, they get along fine with it.
1984 was about power taken to (one of) it's logical conclusions.
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
you forgot Phase 4) ??? and Phase 5) Profit!. I'll get my coat.
One of the clearest statements of the goal of making the state "wither away" is in Lenins "The State and Revolution" which is mainly concerned exactly with the abolition of the state. For example:
Finally, only Communism renders the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed-"no one" in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle with a definite section of the population.Arguably that is one of the chief sources of the Marxist-Leninist view of the state.
Note that Lenin did not advocate the removal of the state immediately - on the contrary he though it necessary as a way of suppressing the capitalists after a socialist revolution. This too is firmly rooted in Marx' and Engels writings - being the basis of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" in contrast to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" which was a term Marx' and Engels used to refer to capitalist "democracies" that oppress the poor.
What confuses people is often that what Lenin and his successors called a socialist state, people in the west started calling communist.
One can argue over whether even the socialist label of that society was true, and to what extent they followed their own supposed principles once they gained power or whether the many reprehensible actions taken were a perversion or abuse of the symbolism and support they had built with no connection to the original ideology. Regardless of which side one falls down on in that discussion, it should be quite clear that there was never even any indication from the Soviet leadership that the saw their society as communism in any shape, way or form - it was at least in name intended to be socialism.
This becomes even more clear if one studies the debates that raged in early Soviet society over how soon the transition to communism would be complete, and where depending on who and when you asked the answer might be anything from a generation in the future to hundreds of years - communism was seen as a long term goal by most people.
Wasn't Snowball Lenin?
That sound you heard was the joke going over your head.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
I would say most Americans are just to lazy and enamored with fatty foods, idiotic TV shows and what their favorite celebrity is up to.
Conservatives and libertarians always wanna blame the government, yet YOU are the government. The less we participate, the more they win control.
Isn't it strange that government fails miserably when the right gets control, Heck of a job Brownie, yet seems to function ok when the lefties get control? You still have your guns don't ya?
Seriously, where has the outrage been in the US?
hey, we're pretty annoyed. and we're about to do som-
**OMG, did you hear - newegg has a gigabit switch on sale for $9!! kewl! **
uhh, what were you saying, again? oh yeah, we're really pissed off about this freedom stuff. we really are.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Fortunately we took such measures here in the US years ago...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
*cough*
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
"as I understand the article, any communications that hit Sweden are subject to monitoring"
What do you think happened in that secret NSA room at AT&T's San Francisco facility?
Do you think they only snooped on Internet traffic originating or terminating at AT&T considering that the room was hooked up to the backbone network as I understand it?
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Few people here have likely studied political science at a level of anything greater than basic history lessons in text books. The same people who think that the Soviet Union was communist also think that the United States of America are a democracy even though both of those two examples are pretty clearly neither a communist state nor a democracy but, well, this is /. and not politician dot I suppose.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The sad truth is that the Americans who do realize what's happened and are just too apathetic to mount any kind of protest. Practically everyone else is just voting for the "home team", Republican or Democrat. If you really pay attention to the news while they talk about presidential candidates, you'll realize they aren't really saying anything other than this guy is good, that one is bad. Maybe they'll throw in some sound bites. Most of the time you could take away their names and insert any popular set of sports teams and it'd sound not at all out of place. Hell, most people don't even recognize the names of the "other people" they are voting for come election day. What it boils down to is the media isn't informing anyone, and people are too damned lazy, apathetic, or ignorant to inform themselves. "We the People" are just sitting back and watching our country go to hell because we honestly don't care anymore.
the beacon of freedom and democracy.
You're wrong (but it's a common mistake). Go read "The State and Revolution" by Lenin. Even Lenin, who arguably later fucked up and betrayed those ideals himself, did not believe this.
The typical reason why people fail to understand the theoretical basis here is because most people only hear the superficial terminology and never bother to learn what they mean. Marx, and later Lenin, talk about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which will exist under socialism, as the method of transitioning society to communism.
It is also perhaps one of the reasons why it's proven so easy to trick people into supporting these dictatorships, and a key reason why so many revolutions ("socialist" or otherwise) lead to oppression.
Fact of the matter is that even Lenin's works makes it clear that the proletariat of the dictatorship refers to the working classes oppressing the capitalists in the same way that the capitalists in a capitalist country oppresses the working classes, and hence a net increase in freedom (on the basis that the working classes make a larger part of the people. The whole point is to abolish the capitalist class, by taking away their privileges, and making them gradually become members of the working classes.
Since this would effectively turn them into members of the ruling class, and eventually make everyone members of the ruling class, the idea is that it would eventually lead to a classless society where the state then just "withers away" and disappears.
This is further underscored because Marx and Engels refers to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a way of talking of capitalist countries when they wanted to put across the point that without economic power political rights alone does not put people on equal footing.
In fact, to quote Lenin on the dictatorship of the proletariat:
Thus, in capitalist society, we have a democracy that is curtailed, poor, false; a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to Communism, will, for the first time, produce democracy for the people, for the majority, side by side with the necessary suppression of the minority-the exploiters.This idea of "producing democracy for the people, for the majority" is much of the basis of the early introduction of the "soviets" after the overthrow of the Czar.
One of the big problems with Leninism, though, is that it also emphasizes a "revolutionary vanguard", and enforces extremely strict party discipline. Historically, most revolutionary movements regardless of their goal, tend to push for far more radical changes than the people as a whole wants - you're more likely to be prepared to take to arms if you have more reasons to be unhappy with the current regime after all.
And when you then have a very disciplined organization that has spent years or decades building themselves up under the idea of always being in danger (because they were), and that people really supports their end goals (because that's how they justify taking to arms against the current regime), you have organizations that are primed to see any resistance as proof of "counter revolution".
It's a recipe for disaster, and sufficient to pervert any ideology, no matter how much people believed or believe in it at the time of the revolution. You can see that in movements across the political spectrum - movements ranging from the far left to the far right have been seduced into using extreme violence because they "know they are right".
It's a tricky one, because sometimes overthrowing the existing regime clearly is the right choice, but the more protracted that fight is, the more chance of developing an organizational culture that has a strong "us vs. them" mentality that will extend past a victory, making it very easy for a new regime to turn to the same methods as the regime that was overthrown.
You're placing too much emphasis on the word "government".
You should be a little more abstract and fear "large organizations", which would include governments AND companies. (There are, of course, other forms of organization, but governments & companies are the only ones I can think of which become large enough to become a serious problem to societal health.)
Any organization that grows large enough, whether it be government or company, is more likely to become both corrupt & have the resources to crush opposition.
Your description is more detailed than my memory; it seems like I've remembered more the "revolutionary vanguard" part for my Phase 2 than what I thought was the Marxist version, possibly because the description of most of the communist revolutions that I've read about seem to fit your description of that model than the Marxist one.
Actually I had a joke of my own there :)
didn't miss it, but kinda worded it a bit harsh now that I look back at it.
I've always though of Snowball as being Trotsky, and Old Major (?) as being an amalgam of Marx and Lenin. I'm not sure that it matters too much; I doubt Orwell was necessarily going for pin-point accuracy on the finer details of the Russian Revolution ;-)
(I vote for no pigs - I vote for no vote).
This is where the serious fun begins.
Indeed, I'd tap those asses without a warrant!
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The difference now will only be that the secret police has a paper that says they are allowed to snoop.
I don't think anyone anywhere expects anything else than that the secret police is already snooping, only in secret.
The sad truth is that the Americans who do realize what's happened and are just too apathetic to mount any kind of protest.
That's just not true. When Baby Bush decided to invade Iraq, tens of thousands protested in the streets of Chicago, shutting down traffic on State Street and Michigan Avenue for a time. Anyone working or living downtown in the Loop (which I did at that time) saw the protest and marvelled at its size--a sea of people stretching a dozen blocks or more filling our streets, peacefully protesting.
They got almost no mention in the news. A brief page 13 story that there had been small protests against the war in Chicago and other cities. Nary a mention on the evening news (local or national).
Why, when we have a free press that loves a big, dramatic story? Well, draw your own conclusions, or form your own conspiracy theories as you will. I don't know why. I only know it happened, as I witnessed it with my own eyes.
People do protest. The problem in America has become that most of these protests seem to go unreported or underreported. Since the whole point of protesting is to make your cause known and get media attention, the protest is thus emasculated and rendered impotent. And of course, the more impotent protests become, the less people are inclined to go out and do it.
Americans do care. In their millions. The problem is, short of armed violence, there seems little chance of making those concerns known to the wider country, much less world. And frankly, most of us don't have the stomach for armed violence, and with the Bush Interregnum coming to an end at last, most of us don't think it's necessary.
So, right or wrong, we've chosen to have our voices silenced rather than start an insurrection, and until you're willing to see your own streets burn because your media muzzles your protests, I don't think you have any place criticising us for choosing to not burn our streets.
Not that things can't get bad enough that that becomes necessary (and without a voice, the odds of that have certainly gone up), but I don't think they're anywhere near that bad yet.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
There is nothing wrong with tapping phones *with* a warrant. This is one of the reasons that the courts exist. Not all wiretaps are wrong, as not all searches are wrong. You just need probable cause before you do them.
What is wrong is searches without warrants. Don't confuse that with searches in general.
The US government appears to be able to sell anything they like to the public by playing the "fear" card*, then saying "we can protect you".
You'll all say "not me!", but a government doesn't need 100% of the votes to get elected, just a majority.
[*] Insert car analogy here - most American cars seem to be sold on the same principle.
No sig today...
Ever heard of big brother, Two Minutes' Hate or newspeak, terms coined in 1984.
I have not actually reread 1984 since 1983, so I apologise If I remember anything wrong.
in Italy the government is trying to pass a law that forbids most (warranted) wiretapping, with the exception of a few mafia related crimes.
In the last few years many white collar crimes made the news after wiretaps transcriptions were leaked the the newspapers.
Since people in the government (or friends and families thereof) were involved they're trying to bypass this 'problem' by prohibiting wiretapping altogether.
Needless to say there was no street protest about this, only a few articles on blogs or newspapers.
Seems like it's most of the world that's asleep and will wake to a harsh reality.
Now I'd really like to see where the parallels are to democracy. Seriously, I can't remember where the animals got to vote.
If you judge the book merely on the fact that it depicts a form of government that fails through greed of the leadership, then it applies to pretty much any kind of government. But where are the pointers to democracy?
The whole "Let's work together for a greater good"-shtick is not a theme that democracy has ever been about. Democracy, with commercialism close on its tail, has always been about everyone having their own opinion and letting the majority decide. Try as I might, I can't find those in Animal Farm. But the communist propaganda that everyone is one big family, brothers or comrades, the fact that the leaders decide how much everyone deserves instead of making that dependent on the work an animal and so on...
Excuse me, but I really fail to see it. Is there any source that could give me a few pointers?
But why should that surprise anyone... we're already the world's #1 phone wiretapper by an (un)comfortable lead. I'm surprised our national security agency doesn't already have powers similar to these.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Animal farm shows neatly, what happens when citizens trust government. The book is attack to communists, because they did just that - promised better times, delivered none of it, ruling people worked only in their own interests and nobody else had a clue before it was too late.
I see no problems applying this to "democratic" governments as well. After all, everyone agreed, that pigs are the ones to be trusted with ruling.
There really is no practical route to true Communism - selfishness, greed and the will to power (© Friedrich Nietzsche) will always get in the way.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
I was speaking about what I thought was the moral of the story the first time I read it, I was just out of HS and pretty much all I knew about Russia was that they were supposed to be the bad guys. I agree that Orwell took his inspiration from real world events and people but I think he also painted a broader picture of power, corruption and ignorance. IMHO 1984, AF and The Time Machine can all be seen as cautionary tales about how easily the "ignorant masses" can be herded and slaughtered.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Seriously... someone's got to make the simple point of asking why they need this. Sweden doesn't even have any emotional event like 9/11 to point to in order to induce people to comply. This is an embarassment to the rest of Scandinavia.
Well, Lenin was off to a good start, a lot of actions he took came right out of the Manifesto. It's just that he wasn't able to take it far enough or provide a mechanism against the anti-socialistic bureaucracy of Stalin before he died. Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed illustrates this nicely. I personally think that most current states in the EU have a much more socialistic nature than the USSR under Stalin.
Ultimately Stalin's actions lead to the perversion of socialism into a state built upon corporatism/fascism. The Soviet Union and communism as a whole was the largest intellectual experiment of the 20th century, and it has shown that mankind simply isn't ready for the ideals in the Manifesto. On a small scale it might be workable, but the world-wide revolution as portrayed by Marx is simply too vulnerable to individual greed for power.
Time for some god-given capitalistic coffee.
This sig is intentionally left blank
Animal farm is an allegory for the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalinism.
Old Major is Lenin (or maybe Marx), Napoleon is Stalin, and Snowball is Trotsky. The other characters and events were all based on Russian history.
This really isn't up for debate, unless you're a postmodernist, and frankly Orwell didn't like postmodernism.
The question posed to the public was: "Should members of parliament vote in favour of the surveillance law even if they don't believe it is right for Sweden?".
Resluts:
* Yes, they have a duty to respect party policy : 2%
* No, they should have the courage of their convictions: 98%
You may think the poll question is very biased, but... it is a very common argument from swedish members of parliaments: "I dont like it but I have to follow the party opinion"
Poll can be found at TheLocal.se (swedish news in english): http://www.thelocal.se/12476/20080617/
She made the willows dance
If you're in or around Stockholm tomorrow morning, meet the people outside the parliament at 0800, local time.
Map
Wiretapping has been with us since the telephone was invented and now contines in its broad assortment of formats. Trial after trial, in country after country find criminals arrested and sometimes convicted
as a result of wiretap evidence. While the popular phrase is "Say nothing and go free," a few beers or keystrokes can change all that (talking/boasting). Regardless of the age of man, it seems difficult for him to realize the results of his actions - unless the results are immediate - can be harmful to himself and others be they a labourer or president of some country. Sadly, each of us pay for that ignorance, too.
Criminals rely on all of us to do the talking, while they do the crime upon us.
Read http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213699181&sr=8-1
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I'm not sure why there is all this outrage over such actions by Sweden, since the US has stated years ago that it considers *any* internet communication that touches a US-controlled machine in any way to be in its jurisdiction... Which, in todays' world, is virtually the same as claiming global jurisdiction over all communication.
Or is it only a problem if *other* governments are doing it, instead of your own?
unfortunately, the same goes for Sweden, and many people are of the opinion: "but they're only chasing criminals, and i'm not a criminal, so it doesn't affect me" , and this is where the big problem is. They pulled through a law on wiretapping, which has been forbidden, under the same motivation.
and you know what the irony of it all is? i voted for this block, just to keep this from happening. Because the old block had began to trod this dangerous path. isn't it ironic?
i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
Well, I like your intentions but that is a bit of a red herring.
You see, the majority of government, for the majority of people, is not going to hell. The majority of people saw the NSA wiretaps as the government doing something, that's why it didn't hurt Bush's reelection. They think the war in Iraq was proper although they might believe it was mismanaged or manipulated to start it. I personally think it was 8 years too late. Clinton should have went in back in 1995 and Al Qeada wouldn't have thought our reaction to 9/11 would be blowing up another asperin factory in the Sudan. But that's another story.
The problem is, the road to hell leads to different places for different people. Your hell might be another persons paradise or you thinking that we are almost there might be interpreted by someone else as sitting a the cross roads figuring out which way to go. In all, it (hell, or the idea of it) is an opinion that someone holds but this opinion can vary greatly. It is apparent that the majority of people think we either aren't on our road to hell, or we are driving the opposite direction and going away from it.
When I talk to people about politics, it is funny. As pissed off as they get with Bush, you ask them how Gore or Kerry would have done and they admit to wanting bush instead. If you ask them about Obama or clinton, it get sort of iffy too. They don't seem to be interested in their pledges to get rid of the bush tax cuts which means they will be paying more once again in an economy that is soaking them dry. So for at least a few people, we could be sitting still on the road if some people are elected and moving one way or another if a different person if elected. However, the idea of hell and the road to it will be different to each and every one of them. That makes it a little of a clouded issue escaping the real truth to the matters.
One might also, from the outset, wonder if it is theoretically possible to build a phase #3 system of communes that would never become sensitive to exploitation by new fatcats, meaning phase #2 would have to be reinstated from time to time...probably continually, eh? "And we'll use our absolute power to build cities in the clouds, for everyone!"...
World over the same tactic is being repeated: Governments conspire to become more Big Brother, while closing down any doors that disclose their own secrecy. USA, Canada, UK (Forerunner), Germany (defeated), India, Singapore (known case), Australia, and now Scandinavian countries.
And a Press controlled by corporatations keep deafening silence as such Big Brother benefits them most at tax payers' expense. Take for instance the law in US to force US Marshalls to act as copyright cops and doing the job of RIAA/MPAA at zero cost to the companies. The same cops can't defend the common man on street, and numerous courts have ruled that cops do NOT have a duty to protect citizens from violence: They can only come to aid after the crime is committed. But the RIAA and MPAA want tax payer money directed to protect their interests.
Governmental secrecy will only enable such daring laws to continue.
Take for instance impeachment bill: Fox, CNN, CBS, MSNBC do not discuss it. PBS of all stations discusses it!
I say the next war for freedom should be freedom of press. The Press was free during Nixon era and resulted in his removal.
Corporate control of Press should be banned by law.
But i guess, it will only be a matter of time before slashdot and such sites themselves are banned under "voluntary" compliance by ISPs who seek to protect the 'children'.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
*WHOOOSH*
...who supplied the British Security service with the names of friends and colleagues who he believed to be communist supporters, and whose book, Animal Farm, was translated into many languages and published around the world, at the expense of the US and British secret service, because it was believed that it would help disillusion potential supporters of the Soviet Block.
George Orwell was no radical, came from a posh privileged background, and tried to thwart those who were fighting the ruling classes. In the mean time, he made a good living convincing the prols to buy his books and waste their energy wittering on about them while his kith and kin carried on as usual.
Really? That's news to me, because it doesn't seem to be the case with regulation of business. Every time the government intimates that it may regulate this or that industry there is a firestorm of criticism. In any case there are millions of Americans that at the very least are skeptical of the ability of government to do anything right, but we don't get heard because we don't pay millions of dollars to lobbyists. These lobbyists then contact the media and government in order to control the spin around any issue.
I'm not saying I disaggree with you, but I am curious i you could elaborate. I hear this all the time and either I am clueless or the government is so deft with its work that I am not even aware of it.
In Soviet Russia,
1) Profit!
2) ???????
3) You!
Jonah Goldberg has zero credibility on the subject of fascism. He doesn't even seem to know the textbook definition.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_historyhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=nVjb_-5kkf0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=biSrwMX7oM0
The majority of people saw the NSA wiretaps as the government doing something, that's why it didn't hurt Bush's reelection.
More proof that majority rule can be a miserable failure... when the majority is un/misinformed and too comfortable to give a damn about anyone else and thus wrong. Those of us who care about our rights need to protect ourselves from them.
What?
Maybe they should outlaw bumper stickers.
What?
It takes time and they need to start now building the infrastructure. My point is, how are the governments who see what's coming, plan to maintain order when the population grows beyond their capacity to police it if they don't use automation?
Considering the population limit that the Earth can reasonably support is around seven billion using artificial energy like hydrocarbon. Take away artificial energy (peak oil) and the Earth can only support about three billion. Add to that changing climate, changing growing patterns, water shortages... Smart government leaders are anticipating and planning for the eventual chaos.
When the Earth eventually reverts back to being able to support (only) two billion and there's 12 billion to feed how will governments control the populace unless the steps are taken today to build the infrastructure to control the population? No legislation will solve the problem. They can only plan for it.
-[d]-
Your assertion that some objective "textbook definition" exists is as feckless as your anonymity.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
This is important. I'm replying just in case anyone has AC filter on.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
Sure. Well, that is if you or we are actually correct about our rights or the infringement on them.
I'm not going to argue about the events of the NSA wiretaps but it is entirely possible that we at some point in time think we have a right that society hasn't granted us or that we could incorrectly assess an infringement on them (an act doesn't actually infringe but leaves the impression to some of it infringing).
So I guess it all boils down to who is actually right or wrong for whatever reason.
Funny thing, it's the left-parties in Sweden that are heavily against this proposal. It's the right-wing parties that want it.
Sweden's "the left party" has a leader who used to call himself a communist until very recently. His party is heavily against this new wiretapping law.
I quote from the current debate that's on Swedish TV from another left-party person - "we have learned from our history of Soviet and eastern Europe, obviously the right-wing parties have not".
It's time to re-evaluate what communism is, and understand that most of those who called themselves communists (Soviet, China, etc) are dictator regimes. Not communists. They call themselves communists because it (as opposed to in the west) sounds very good, and people more easily stand behind it.
Todays big-brother society is mostly developed in major military countries (USA, Russia, China) and younger-brother countries (UK and sadly now perhaps also Sweden).
It really has nothing to do with communism, capitalism or anything like that. It's cross-ideology.
Money is the root of all evil?
Right or not, this three-step program for Communism is how most textbooks depict it. At least the textbooks I had at school.
Just saying.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
You know, violent insurrections against the ruling party rarely give way to stability and peace and freedom...usually things get worse once the rabble tears down the establishment, since they pave the way for the ascedency of a psycho with no checks and balances (you destroyed the old system, the psycho remakes it to suit him). And don't bring up the American revolution...that was effectively our elites waging a battle against a foreign occupier...and our elites were still in control afterwards.
Bzzzz wrong! Educate yourself.
Or at the very least site a link to back your statement up. I did a quick google search and didn't find much.
Money is the root of all evil?
Yes, we will finally have Colonel Sanders chicken recipes! I say tap away!
For people who claim to hold the First Amendment dear, many right-wingers on the Net exhibit a conspicuous hostility to anonymous speech. This tendency certainly seems fascistic -- that is, if I'm free to re-interpret the historical meaning of "fascism", seeing as how there's no textbook definition. ;)
Plenty of Americans believe the government is full of BS. They just also believe that "somebody else" will take care of the issue for them.
I myself use an approach that doesn't sound so "cool" as a shouting slogan is, but which people accept much more easily: I actually explain what the issue with government is. I tell them basically this: that any group, by being a collective of individuals, has a collective "moral level" that is at best the average of the "moral level" of each individual that's part of it. Thus, government being a collective group composed of all the people in government, you just have to ask yourself what's the typical politician's morals. If you can answer that, you can answer what's the average moral level of government itself. Compare that to the average moral level of the population as a whole, and it becomes pretty clear that government is almost by definition "just worse".
By switching from a "good vs. evil" discourse to one of relative scales where neither "us" nor "them" are at either extreme, but we both are in the middle, "they" just a little below than "us", those with whom I talk recognize that yes, we actually must watch government carefully so that they don't drop "too much".
Longer, but truer. And by being truer, it just works.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I do not see a problem with listening in on the conversations, and videos of the "Ruling Block". Who knows, the entertainment of listening, and watching what these power brokers do could be Verrrrrrrry enlightening.
I stated the idea that an arguable claim amounts to little if the author won't stand by the claim by name.
This has been turned into a "conspicuous hostility to anonymous speech".
You may as well call me a racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies, a sexist for disagreeing with Clinton's, or ageist for disagreeing with McCain's, or unpatriotic for disagreeing with Bush, or a bigot for falling short of agreement with California's.
Keep going, that I may be the world's first bumper-sticker mummy.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It seems to me that I've heard snippets of similar legislation in Austrailia and Germany, now Sweden too.
It is possible that nearly all western countries are going down the same path that the Bush Administration did?
Here's a good opportunity for responsible journalism. Reporters could research and report on domestic spying trends in other countries.
Politically, I see the possibility that a future Obama administration may be exalted for doing the same things that the Bush administration was crucified for.
No, it's more like:
Phase 1) Bloody revolution.
Phase 2) Ruthless dictatorship.
Phase 3) ???
Phase 4) Communist Utopia
Problem is, not only does no one know what Phase 3 is, but the people in charge of Phase 2 have no interest of finding out.
David Davis's stand for 'civil liberties' would look a lot more convincing if he hadn't
- Voted in favour of extending detention without charge from 7 to 14 to 28 days based on basically the same arguements as 42 days. And he's *not* saying now that 28 days was a mistake.
- Voted against an equal age of consent
- Voted in favour of the original enabling legislation for ID cards (although he's aparently against them now)
- Voted in favour of the death penalty, which whatever you think of the principle, in practice means the state will regularly kill innocent people - maybe only a small number, but an innocent person being judicially killed has got to be about the worst state infringement of civil rights possible.
So as a libertarian myself, excuse me if I'm not impressed. I can easily see an alternate reality in which if he had been home secretary and was doing the 'tough on terror' bit, he would have found all sorts of good reasons why 42 or 56 or 90 days was just fine.
Labour and the Tories both *stink* on civil liberties in general. Under the right circumstances, they would both sacrifice just about any rights we have if they thought it would show up the other party or pander to the tabloids.
Putting aside the issue of its fascistic character, the insistence that an informal argument have some kind of signature attached seems deeply rooted in the false comfort of the egocentric world-view. You would be none the wiser if I registered a new account with a phony but real-appearing nick; but more importantly, the validity (or lack thereof) of my arguments wouldn't have changed at all. But if you insist, you may call me/us "Publius". ;)
The media isn't informing anyone because the media has its own agenda. We saw that extremely clearly with the manipulative questions politicians are asked in the primaries. The media (and those controlling it) wins by funneling a "lesser of two evils" choice to the general populace to continue the "mirage" of democratic choice. They could care less whether McCain or Obama wins because they are set with their behind the scenes policy groups, especially in regards to Israel and foreign policy, international banking, and big government redistribution programs to manage to ensure the bureaucratic cut.
If the election were to have been Kucinich versus Paul, the media would be in crisis mode. The next president is determined by media manipulation early in the primary debate process, before the general population has a clue of what's going on. This is done by framing who is the "front runner", who is the "fringe kook", etc. Huckabee's surge was controlled and set up by Anderson Cooper's "Jesus" question.
YouTube clips made this manipulation too obvious to too many people, and it is imperative for the powers that be behind the scenes to control information flow with things like DMCA takedown notices, making independent news delivery on the internet too expensive, and using jack boot thug scare tactics such as wiretapping and invasion of privacy to try and stem the tide of a never before seen giant international town hall of message board talking heads competing directly with the officially sanctioned opinion shapers. This is a Berlin Wall falling historical moment.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
"You see the problem is that the majority of people no longer believe in the Constitution or even know what it says."
Well if they don't have time to read it they could just listen.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
It is interesting to note that the Swedish people has had a long history of trusting the government and governmental bureaucracy, with some historian speculating that the trust has its roots in the kings of the old times actually generally supporting the majority of the population, since they'd otherwise be overthrown. Even in ancient medieval times kings were elected ("Mora stenar") and could be overthrown by the people if they were too unpopular. This is one thing that makes this story spectacular. It might be evidence of a government trust that has been steadily decreasing over the last decades.
Yes, that's right. In response to an article about a proposed law in Sweden, the FP waited until the fourth word of his post (not including post title) to mention America. The fourth fucking word. Does he get modded offtopic? Noooo ... his post is +5 interesting, and somewhere around 100+ comments so far have replied. Including this one.
Look, I get it, there's a lot of people here who hate Bush, blah, blah, blah. I'm not debating whether Bush is evil, or has eroded Constitutional rights, or hates cute little animals in ANWR, or whatever. You know why? Because that's not the point of the frickin' article, that's why.
The sad thing is, you can look in just about any article around here, and sooner or later the discussion devolves into the same thing: "Stupid Amerikuns luv there beer, gas guzzlin cars, gunz, and red meet all because of frickin' Bush, who is stealin our rites". That happening here makes about as much sense as a Linux kernel discussion spontaneously breaking out on the Huffington Post every day.
I'm not saying the FP doesn't have a point about the erosion of our Constitutional rights, and I enjoy reading some of the more thoughtful posts. I even get a chuckle out of some of the way-out tinfoil hat rants. I'm just sick of every discussion going down the same off-topic US-centric rabbit hole. No wonder everyone else says that we here in the US can't seem to think outside our borders for more than a nanosecond.
People, for crying out loud, focus, will you? Does anyone here actually have much of anything to say about wiretapping in Sweden?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
In theory, companies are supposed to compete with other companies and not get as powerful as governments. In practice, Adam Smith's dream has as many holes as Marx/Lenin's.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Oh look it's another neo-con. Silly neo-con politics are for people with a brain.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
Actually it's more like most Americans are fat and lazy.
Good thing Sweden has something like the 2nd Amendment to keep the government in check!
Oh.... wait a minute.... maybe they don't? OOPS.
This should be a warning to all Americans - coming to a country near you!
Self Defense - A Human Right www.a-human-right.com
Lawn gnomes with lasers attached to their heads? :)
Best "String" Ever!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Wait, Kucinich and Paul aren't fringe kooks? /mod this funny
The items in the proposed swedish bill have already been implemented in the US. Kudos to the Swedish for doing something to oppose this and to block it. What has happened, when police state legislation such as this has been introduced in the US? Almost nothing, there is nary a whimper of protest. The causes of this are of interest and a topic of inquiry. Perhaps americans are simply not very well organised enough, and are simply complacent and apathetic when it comes to actually doing anything substaintial to truly protect their freedom. If we want to protect our freedom we need to oppose legislation such as this. The only way we can lose our freedom is if we give it up, and the only ones who can truly take it away from us is the government. A rag tag group of violent extremists can threaten us, but as long as we do not permit ourselves to be overcome by fear so much that we give away our freedoms, they cannot take our freedoms from us. The iraq war and so on has nothing at all whatsoever to do with freedoms. It is a war of aggression that has violated international law. One can perhaps call the involvement in afghanistan a security effort but I would also say it has little or nothing to do with "protecting freedom". These are just government buzzwords to manipulate the simple minded and ignorant people into supporting government policies. These are just distractions to keep the ignorant and gullible masses into the thinking the US government is doing something to "protect your freedom", while they rob you of your freedom blind, where it counts. It is ironic that the same US government that blathers on about how they are supposed to be protecting our freedom are the very ones who are stealing it from us, and doing so right under our noses with most of the ignorant and gullible sheep of the brain dead, asleep country, not noticing. We are told we "cant let the terrorist win", and the terrorists what to take away our freedom, well if we give up our freedom and allow laws which take away our freedoms to be passed, arent we allowing the terrorists to win. Laws like the patriot act, wiretapping, strip searches in airports, torture, thought crime bill where people can be arrested for nothing more than the words they have said, the military commisions act which allows habeas corpus to be suspended, indefinite detainments, and proposed or enacted legislation that allows the entire gamut of civil liberties to be suspended for acts the government has deamed terrorist, which are increasingly defined as anything it wants, including, eventually, peaceful protests? I would not be surprised if one day they labelled protesters trying to bring attention to pollution of the environment by mega corporations, or demanding union representation, as terorrists because they threaten corporate profits. Or those who oppose the iraq war, as such because they threaten the policies of the elite leadership in washington who wishes to do whatever they please with complete indifference and impunity, towards the will of the people. Furthermore, the definition of terrorism is using violence to coerce the public into supporting certain government or political policies. The US government has made an art form out of using the terrorist threat to basically scare and coerce the people of this country into supporting whatever laws it proposes to take away their freedom. They are using the terrorist threat to turn the US into a totalitarian police state, to enlarge its power, and that of its corporate sponsors. So one must ask, who is the terrorist, who is the enemy?
Legal protections such as a prohibition of illegal search and seizure, habeas corpus, and journalistic source confidentiality forms critical pillars of a free society and are designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the innocent and of the people. Something like a ban on torture, right to attorney client privelege, right to habeas corpus, speedy trial by a fair and impartial jury, etc, are there to protect the innocent and to make sure that people cannot be arbitrarily arrested for an
Silly internet troll, flaming is for people with reading comprehension.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Snowball is actually a pig, too.
Here's a quick summary of Sweden's parliamentary politics. Although the parliament isn't divided between two parties, things are not as good this might lead you into thinking. Unlike in neighboring Finland, in parliamentary elections you can't vote for an individual. Sweden uses a closed list system, where the party draws up an order of preference, the closed list. You only get to vote for the list, not any individual candidate.
The implication is that you only need to buy the party bosses and the parliament is yours. The party boss can destroy or threaten to destroy an inconvenient MP's political career. This is easily done by simply not including him on the party's closed list. The party bosses don't even try to hide this; they have done this publicly and with impunity.
As you can see, there's corruption in the Nordic countries, too. It's only so institutionalized that no one recognizes it as such.
Majority rule and democracy in general only work (well) if the people are educated.
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
You have to define "communism" before you can answer that question.
George Orwell was a socialist, who fought with the Trotskyists during the Spanish Civil war. George Orwell was also critic of Stalinism. To most Americans, who believe that Socialism == Communism == Marxism == Leninism == Stalinism, this probably seems odd; but clear thought about socialism has been the exception rather than the rule in the U.S. since the first Red Scare.
Orwell wrote, "For quite a decade past I have believed that the existing Russian régime is a mainly evil thing, and I claim the right to say so, in spite of the fact that we are allies with the USSR in a war which I want to see won."
And also, "[I]t was of the utmost importance to me that people in western Europe should see the Soviet regime for what it really was. Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. "
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Thank you. It took people way too long to catch my joke here :)
The type of meat usually varies from person to person.
EZLN is well beyond Phase 2. It could be argued that they have achieved a sustainable Phase 3.
TeliaSonera Finland moved email servers serving Finnish customers back from Sweden just because of threat of this law passing as it would be against finnish law.
But then the people who have something to hide will hopefully do that by using encryption. And then the system will just snoop on the people who don't got anything to hide.
It's also a waste of money if the program don't get thru considering they already have the machine, don't they? They should have given that money to me instead.
According to earlier news, they would tap everything at the border, so if you had e.g. a .us--.us route or an .se--.se route which crossed the border,
your packets would be covered.
I don't know that your statement is as universal as you think. I have been watching to my amazement over the last few years where other countries are making the same claims about their own populations. England recently has an issue with kids and PE and banned some foods from the school lunch and so on.
Your statement, however accurate or not, just isn't relevant to the situation being discussed.
Where is the outrage? A lot of people think that it's a national government's job to monitor international communication or at least that it should be.
The reason they never got passed phase 2 is because capitalism and the bourgeosie was never defeated. The West won. Can you imagine what would have happened (what the US would have done) had Russia disarmed and then dissolved it's government to transfer power to 'communes'?
Land sharks...
Seems by swedish newssite idg.se http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.168493 (in swedish) that the real reason for this law is Russia. This is because almost all of their internet traffic goes through Sweden. And if the US have a agreement with Sweden to exchange information, IÂll bet that some of the Langley farm boys are salivating right now. This will be the motherload of information if the law passes.
As for "mentioning religion", I have no problem if an elected official is religious and uses that fact as a part of his/her campaign. But I do get very upset if I hear that elected official voting for laws that favor one set of beliefs over another, or using his personal religious justification to argue for a law (gay marriage, anyone?). If a law is really that good of an idea, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with an argument that doesn't rely on a religious dogma.No, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not protect the right to hunt. Never has, never will. The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to be responsible for defense of community (and by extension, yourself).
As for "never meant for a modern world", that's also false. If you owned property in or near the LA riots of 1992, or in Southern Louisiana for about three months after Katrina, or were in one of the wrong classrooms at Virginia Tech, or any number of other more local instances where the police either opted out "until the dust settled" or were unable to prevent "bad things" from happening, you would know that you are still personally responsible for your own safety.
The Second Amendment is highly relevant in the modern world, in it's original wording, with it's original intent.Activist court? Ugh. You're one of those people.
You don't seem to be aware that invalidating laws that violate the constitution and/or lawful treaties is the responsibility of the judicial branch. Nullification is a critical check and balance that the courts have to offset the sometimes overreaching efforts of the legislature and executive. And that every time a court uses that power, it's necessarily saying that something passed by a majority vote is in fact, a really bad idea?
Go back to high school civics. You were apparently napping at a few critical moments.
Actually, the separation of church and state belongs to a letter written to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 and authored by Thomas Jefferson when he was governor. It has something to do with the churches fear of being outlawed because of some belief that the church was allowed to exist only as a formality of law not because of some inherent right.
In modern time, the wall of separation has come to mean that churches and religious organizations can't use public grounds and so on. I'm not talking about the concept with the living document, I am talking about the application of the concept. The first amendment was never intended to stop or restrict religious groups or churches from accessing public space.
You elect people because of who they are and what is presented to you for consideration. When that person acts from who he is, you shouldn't be getting upset. I'm personally against gay marriage but not because of religious issues but because of it creates an entitlement of rights based on a choice. Marriage is supported by the natural act of reproduction and if you choose to not participate in that act, you shouldn't have any special rights because of that choice. There are ways to get the same benefits without marriage. As for men and women who are sterile, it is too difficult to screen them through so going by a sex instead of an ability known or unknown, is sufficient for me.
And as I said previously, it isn't the concept but the application. In this case, it actually changes the concept. I agree with you on this but there is a powerful political factions working to distort the constitution on the basis of it being a living document. That is the problem that causes distortions like these and what the op was referring to when the citizens don't know the constitution. It isn't really that they don't know it, it is that political factions among us has presented a different rendition of it. There is a difference of opinion in what some or most of the constitution says or means. That is the point I was attempting to make.
To a degree.
Bzzzz wrong! Educate yourself.
Educate yourself!
I did a quick google search and didn't find much.
Try searching for the definition of 'WOOOOSH!'
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
People don't decide to become mathematical or musical geniuses or star athletes. Sure some work or exercise is usually necessary develop a latent genetic talent. But I don't believe that any amount of "choosing" is going to help you develop specific new brain structures after the age of puberty, and that includes developing heterosexual brain structures if your body is wired for homosexuality. Marriage is supported by the natural act of reproduction and if you choose to not participate in that act, you shouldn't have any special rights because of that choice. Or you could say that marriage is supported by the decision to raise the next generation necessary to continue civilization. There's no reason why gay couples can't do as good a job of that through adoption as straight couples do. Since homosexuality is not a choice, they're not going to have an effect on the sexual orientation of the child (although they will probably have an effect on that child's ability to tolerate differences from the norm). There are ways to get the same benefits without marriage. Not in certain jurisdictions that deliberately discriminate again homosexuals.
Now, my wife and I have just had a boy and we're hoping he'll be heterosexual for a couple of reasons. Primarily because with only 10% of the population being homosexual, being homosexual cuts his mating pool down by an order of magnitude (and probably more since a good portion of that population still feels it has to live in the closet due to the intolerance of others and is seriously mentally messed up as a result). In addition, male heterosexual sexual activity generally does have a higher risk of STD transmission, even with the use of prophylactics.
It will also probably be at least be another couple of generations before homophobic attitudes are properly widely recognized as ignorant, intolerant, and about as valid a worldview as that of Creationists/Int. Design and flat-Earth proponents. I would prefer if my child wasn't directly threatened by such unreasoning and unscientific attitudes while they are still a rationalization for people's mindless hate.
In the end, as the evidence mounts that sexual orientation is predestined rather than chosen, people with religious objections to homosexuality are going to have to come to accept that you can't have a just god condemn a sexual practice which is hardwired as one of the most basic and fundamental need and instincts in a significant fraction of the human population.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Touché
Money is the root of all evil?
Guess no one noticed the electric fence surrounding the Farm ;)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Communism didn't come about because people trusted the gov't.
Suggested reading: Why They Behave Like Russians
http://openlibrary.org/details/whytheybehavelik00fiscmiss
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I am outraged for one anyway... However, I would imagine that the dead hand of the EU lies at the heart of this, with one of its edicts, perhaps being gold-plated by Sweden.
Oh the irony. Want to hear the US Constitution? Go to a Canadian site.
I beg to disagree, laziness is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand. That's the real problem, laziness and lack of confidence. The majority of people either won't make the effort or don't believe they can make any difference when it comes to calling their government to account.
Real happiness lies in the completion of work using your own brains and skills.
I blogged a bit about this late yesterday and my part in making this happen. In essence don't think things will sort itself out, fight before you regret that you didn't: http://www.arnold.se/chris/2008/06/the-day-that-swedes-lost-their-integrity/
I'm not going to argue the merits of homosexuality. I will simply say that sex is a choice that all participating parties have to make. Otherwise it is called rape. Homosexuality is defined by an act of sex. Just like the star athletes, the mathematical or music geniuses, they have to make a choice in order to act out or take advantage of it which makes it a choice.
I'm not going to open marriage to the next generation because it is historically about reproduction. And no, there isn't any reason why a gay person couldn't do just as good of a job. And yes, Homosexuality is a choice. The very act that defines it requires a choice to participate in it. And no, I'm not worried about homosexuals converting children into queers. I would be more worried about them molesting the child when they get a certain age but I would fear that from anyone raising children without a biological link to them. Of course regular parents sexualy abuse children but it happens far more often when the child and the abusing parent does not have a biological link.
That's just nonsense. A child that age has no sexual orientation at all. It should be the farthest thing from your mind unless you are attempting to manipulate it into one or the other and that is just wrong. And just because he exhibits traits that you would attribute to homosexuals, doesn't mean that he is. I know plenty of people who act queer but aren't and who are queer but act more normal then me.
Here is the problem. Not wanting to create a set of rights for someone who makes a choice is not homophobic. Here your running the gauntlet of religion bashing and all the usual intolerant bullshit to make some point that because you can talk bad abou
Laziness might be relevant but "Americans being fat and lazy" isn't.
I would like to see some studies on what the majority of people really think. You see, I simply don't think the majority of Americans think that. We have locked a certain number or people away from voting like minors children under 18 and convicted felons in some states. Once you take that out of the picture, the number of registered voters seems to be better then half the population and when over half of them show up to vote, you find that the majority of people have a difference of opinion. Sure, there are people who are lazy or complacent or who think they can't make a difference. But I wouldn't call them a majority.
You know, damn the trolling accusations, I have one explanation: Americans are too stupid and ignorant.
Run right out to the street in America, and start quoting the text of your comment to any passer-by on the street. You'll get "George Orwell who? What did he write? When was this? Constitutional whats? The UK... don't you mean Canada?"
This is what you get when you concentrate all of your effort into raising the stupidest possible population who are carefully educated only to the level sufficient to barely hold a job, and then feed them a diet of pop culture news, propaganda, psych-meds, and saturated fat. They'll stay alive just long enough to breed while remaining clueless, and any of them who wise up get doped back down to dumbness.
This would be a valid argument if majority did rule. It doesn't. People that majority elects rule. If a form of direct democracy existed nobody would vote themselves out of their rights. Even if tricked in doing so, instant reversal would be possible.
The law passed. 143 yes / 138 no. Bedtime for democracy.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see your comment as a troll. Don't know why it was modded as such.
I suppose what I'm saying is that we can not depend on the government to protect our rights. See, I don't accept that it's up to society to "grant" rights. It's not for it decide where I can go, what I can say, or any other consensual act I commit. So, while I realize I live amongst a fairly civilized bunch, it's up to me to go the last mile and just do what I can to protect myself from the Fifty-One Percenters. On goes the arms race. They're perfectly welcome to toss their rights away. Leave mine alone....please...with sugar on top...
What?
I believe Bill Hicks was murdered, via a "cancer sprinkle".
Those who speak out now either die of heart attack (via poisoning), fast-moving cancer, or some accidental type of method, never the lone gunman anymore.
Sure, lots of people will say, "But Hicks smoked his ass off!" Fuck that, the guy was at his peak, ready to bloom in America and his life was cut short by a "cancer sprinkle" from the powers that be. "Where's your proof?" Watch his videos, audio, everything from the guy, absorb through your eyes and ears, breathe his stuff, you'll see he was a lone preacher in the wilderness, trying to open our hearts to the reality of our present dictatorship. Friends, there is no land of the free, we are all slaves.
Bill Hicks:
"They dont want the voice of reason spoken folks, cos otherwise wed be free. Otherwise, we wouldnt believe their fucking horseshit lies, nor the fucking propaganda machine of the mainstream media and buy their horseshit products that we dont fucking need and become a third world consumer fucking plantation which is what were becoming. Fuck them. They are liars and murderers."
Where are voices of reason like this in today's media? Nowhere. The guy making a comment about GB hating black people and Rosie on The View telling people to Google gulf of T..... was as close as it got.
When a person speaks out to the people and for the people in a voice they can understand, they don't end up well soon after, this is fact. At the very least they are pulled from a show, or the show cancelled. If they are vocal enough and well respected enough not to be smeared or jailed, the shadows swirl around them.
Vote for Wesley Snipes and send a message: fuck your taxes we are not slaves.
Your not missing anything. I have pissed some people off in other threads who finally got mod points. I have seen posts that basically say ME too have a nice day clubbed like that. It will get hammered out in metta moderation so life goes on for the rest of us.
And I agree with what your saying about rights. It's just that society, or government through society and to some degree take rights from you or add to them. It doesn't really mean you don't have them, it means that you can't use them. But not being able to use them is just as bad as not having rights. Sometimes we think we have rights that we don't have and sometimes society doesn't think we have certain rights.
"I'm personally against gay marriage but not because of religious issues but because of it creates an entitlement of rights based on a choice."
this doesn't even make sense
everyone is entitled to rights by virtue of being a citizen of the country that grants the rights.
there is nothing in any democratic country's laws that says equality under the law, unless you're gay.
in fact, the laws generally say rather the opposite.
the reason why someone is gay is not at all a factor
the fact that there are gay people and the fact that other people discriminate against them is enough to ensure equal access to laws
the reason that minority rights protection is enshrined in law, is because the majority cannot be trusted to ensure that minorities are included in the SAME COVERAGE AND APPLICATION
same rights are not special rights
Nina, married Lesbian, Proud Canadian
it's because he's a Tory in an extremely safe seat and a politician who opposed the repeal of Section 28 and against the equalization of the age of consent, who supports the reintroduction of capital punishment, and who has used some poorly chosen words about nationals from the newest members of the European Union.
It is possible that he genuinely believes his seat is at risk, and that the electorate in his constituency -- if it returns him as MP -- will somehow be considered to be that of the whole of the population of the UK rejecting the 28->42 day change. However it seems even liklier that the people calling his resignation a stunt are correct.
.. even the justice and law enforcement divisions are opposed to it. Good for Pirate Bay for finding workarounds.