Although gnome is yummy snd cool, it's main drawbacks (to me) are
1) not stable enough. Maybe 2.0 will be different, but my win98 box crashes less frequently (although by "crashes" I should say "freezes up" I can always kill enough processess to get going again.)
2) no.init file. I miss my one stop init file.
3) slow slow slooow (maybe 2.0 better)
Here's a quick history lesson. England's empire was built with the idea that raw materials (cotton, sugar, spices, ores) would be cheaply exported from its colonies back to the homeland by a group of powerful corporations (such as the hated "East India Company" whose tea was dumped over board in Boston harbor). To this end it forbid/discouraged the manufacture of these resources domestically. So no cotton was weaved in the states but raw cotton was sent to England, and if you wanted to buy a shirt you'd have to import it from there. Moreover, farmers in America (and later colonies) had to sell their crops to chartered conglomerates who controlled prices, and when they placed orders for manufactured goods, they had little control about the price or quality of what was shipped to them. Washington once ordered a carriage, and by the time it arrived, he opened a door and the whole door came off in his hand. Many people were very pissed and had a revolution.
Immediately afterwards, large tarrifs and sometimes embargoes were passed so that the states could develop their own industries. That is how the US developed. In the industrial revolution, especially. There was lots of cronyism, but it was aimed towards the native conglomerates as opposed to the foreign ones. Carnegie went to Europe where the Bessemer process for smelting steel had just been invented and when he returned to the states, congress passed high tariffs against european steel. Carnegie then began to build native steel plants, married the daughter of the secretary of the Navy, and another "self-made" billionaire was born. We got a steel navy and lots of factory jobs out of the deal. So, a lot of cronyism, but directed at national interests, helped to develop our economy. Another example: England banned Indian textiles because it couldn't compete on price, then they conquered the country, burned down all the cotton "gins", cut the thumbs of the home-weavers, and reimported massive amounts of cotton back home. Then, and _only_ then, did they proclaim the need for "open" markets. Wars were similarly fought to "open" china. You do your own research.
So the story is the same. All countries which have _ever_ developed _any_ industry have done it with large govt. subsidy as well as a protective wall of tarrifs. I challenge you to cite just _one_ example of this not happening (wheras I have cited several examples when this did happen). The examples of the Asian tigers, as well as china, shows this playing out in the 20th century. Those nations which followed a "neoliberal" process have all ended up in shambles. Before nafta, 25% of mexico lived below the poverty line. That figure is now 50%. You can look at Indonesia, central america, brazil, the congo for more examples.
Now, we (the US) are doing the same thing to much of the third world that England has done to us:
We forbid or overthrow their govts. if they try to control their own resources (i.e. Iran nationalizing the foreign imposed oil "company" which has a monopoly on extracting oil, or Zaire taking the diamond monopoly from DeBeers, etc.)
We try to prevent them from raising tarrifs to protect their own industries (like the US forced on Japanese automakers, or the steel example citied above, or the ban on mexican tomatoes we had just a few years ago, or the current tarrifs against lamb from new zealand).
We punish those (foreigners) who subsidize their domestic companies. Note that the US still gives many billions to _our_ farmers, accounting for about half of median farm-owners' incomes. US corps pay only 10% of govt. expenditures. Recall the bailouts of chrysler or the many subsidies that we pour into high-tech sectors and aerospace. The 70 billion we're giving US comapanies now because of 9/11 is another example of this double standard.
The above are the policies. We don't have colonies such as Britain, but we enforce these policies on the rest of the world through our military (we put "our guys" in power) in some cases and purely institutional pressures in other cases:
IP laws allow us to monopolize key technologies.
Large syndicates such as cargill engage in price-fixing for many raw materials.
the "loans" US taxpayers send to third world dictators (many of whom we've put in power) make the third world reliant on us and institutions such as the IMF. In order to get more loans to cover the interest, we force them to engage in the economically suicidal practices cited above, thereby insuring that they will remain dependant on future loans, and so not develop independent economic policies.
free flow of foreign capital ensures that investments flee at the first sign of economic nationalism.
One significant difference is that while England assembled the raw materials at home which provided more higher paying jobs and gave birth to their middle class, modern conglomerates use the sweatshops in the third world. These are far from "heavy handed" laws such as minimum wage and environmental protection. So that we in the US don't even get the benefits that the British got 150 years ago.
This is why many oppose "globalization" as it's practiced today. It has nothing to do with trade and comparative advantage. It's just the modern version of the East India Company wrecking havoc on both our own country and on the third world.
because the internet is a cooperative network. For instance, say a site wants to do business on the web. They want you to visit, but they don't pay for the cables or the routers or for your hardware or connectivity costs. They pay for their own bandwidth and you pay for your bandwidth to visit them. Both sides are already paying money to be able to visit the site. So there's no clear line between between who pays for whose real cost.
Same with viewing a site. Your user agent may or may not display (using your cpu cycles/monitor,etc.) exactly what the publisher wants you to see. It all relies on cooperation. Now this is very different from other business models, and so people get upset when a site changes its formats. Why? because they are not involved. They don't know what is a real operating expense and what is a plan to pay for unwanted expansion. maybe they'd rather have the site load slower and charge less, or maybe they want lighting speed at a premium. We dont see any expense reports or business plans and have no control over the future of the site. It's as if a partner suddenly changed the rules of the game without consulting you. That's fine in a brick and mortar world where you take it or leave it, but on the net it doesn't work, since I can always tell my user agent to not display the crappy iframes. My hope is that there's a chance that those sites which involve viewers and give them some control over site development/business plans/ subscription rates will have an audience of cooperative visitors. Others will get their ads blocked. But the consideration has to be earned in any case, and does not follow just because the webmaster really really wants you to view the ads.
I did miss that thread, and thanks for pointing out the essay. My source is much less authorative, since it's my physics teacher from uni. and some old department folklore.
Clueless-Rep: Hello, My name is "Jane" and I'll be your satisfaction-fullfilment specialist today. How may I help you?
client: Uh, my internet wont work. I can't get email from my friend in Australia.
C-R: I'm very, very sorry to hear that, sir. Would you like to sign up for our new DSL-BIZ-PRO package? It's only..
client: No, I just want to get email.
C-R: Can you hold, please?..
[SNIP]
C-R: Well, it seems that your friend is "blocked". We can unblock that account for only $9.99 per month. Let me transfer you to our Blocking-Fullfilment Specialist in Bombay. By the way, when was the last time we billed you?
I think the context of that quote was that Hooke objected to Newton not giving him proper credit for "Hooke's Law" --that the restoring force of a spring is proportional to its displacement from equilibrium. Newton then did some research and found about 20 other guys who also "discovered" this rather obvious observation, and cited all of them, placing Hooke's name last on the list. Then he fired off this quote. So the real message is more of a flame of Hooke, yet most people consider it some great admission of humility.
It's just that in light of recent events, I find myself fighting a sort of "holding action". More and more I have to justify my right even to criticize the govt.
In a healthy and functioning democracy all the the things I suggested would seem reasonable and doable *without* an ID card, but that's not where we are. So since there are powerful political (not as yet law enforcement) reasons for adopting a national ID card, I was trying to suggest some ways to limit its impact on our freedoms, and possibly "sneak in" some liberalization along the way.
See, copyrights are not granted to "protect" or benefit "owners". They're granted to increase the amount of useful sciences and arts which are available to the public. Ultimately, to increase the public domain. That's the justification behind them. _Not_ classical property law. Now, if a copyright holder does certain things to restrict the availability of their products to the public (and this includes things like price-fixing), then they are undermining the reason why we (i.e. The Govt.) give them special monopolies. If a monopoly is found to be abusive, then the govt. has the right to rescind it, break it up, slap it on the wrist, whatever.
The monopolists (RIAA) have a right to complain that Napster (as a file sharing company) is violating their monopoly.
But Napster (the would be fee-paying download site) also has the right to complain that the RIAA is abusing their powers.
No contradiction here. Just two different legal violations.
(btw, if your sense of laughter was sparked by the fact that Napster was found guilty and so has no rights to sue the RIAA for _anything_, then perhaps you should also have been laughing when the RIAA, which was previously found guilty of abusing it's monopoly (i.e. MAPS) and yet had the gall to sue Napster afterwards. There is plenty of dirty laundry to go around.)
Thanks for the links. Methinks I'm gonna start a virtual "clip" file, in case my grandchildren ever wonder what the hell we were thinking in giving away the store.
I think the main objection here is loss of privacy. So let's find some other ways to protect our privacy:
From the bottom, let's declare that personal info is our property. Let's use rights management software to tag _all_ data about ourselves, so that we can follow it, so we know exactly who has it and for how long. Some of that data we ought to be able to revoke, or "license it" in such a way that it expires. If I can't copy Word and sell it to my friend, why should a business be able to do the same with my credit card purchases, or questionnaire responses. Moreover, if a police agency is monitoring or collecting data about me, I should have a right ot know this. If the FBI needs a personal ID card, let them use it for purposes of identification, and not of spying. They still gotta do the gumshoe thing for that.
From the Top. If we are giving govt. more info about us, then we need more powers to hold govt. accountable. Let's require some stronger freedom of information policies. Declassify more docs. Publicize notes and meetings. Shine a light on black budgets. Full disclosure of lobbyists' notes/itinerary. I wanna be able to download the pda and schedule for any registered lobbyist (and they damn well better be registered, tagged, collared,..;)). All available on the web (say, two-weeks after the fact). You guys think of some other/better ideas. There are lots of ways to improve govt. accountability.
Needless to say, we don't want oracle or MS or Sun running the show in some proprietary monopoly. This should be a non profit, fully open process.
We can make a trade. National ID card in exchange for more open governance. More accountability. If this happened, I'd personally feel a higher level of privacy than I do now.
But, what if this is not a solution? Or if the drawbacks outweigh the benefits? Are you saying that we shouldn't debate the proposal on its own merits?
I argued that we should be hesitant to expand state power, because historically this power has been used to stifle dissent and political opposition.
About the Indymedia incident, the police obtained the supena fraudulently,
claiming that Bush's travel plans were posted to the web, thereby hurrying the supena through on national security grounds.
(no such itinerary was posted).
requiring the source of a news media story requires personal review by the Attorney General and proof that alternative methods wont work. None of this was done in this case.
the gag order on Indymedia was an abuse of govt. authority, since it requires at least that US laws be violated (no US law was violated). The gag order was later repealed on these and other grounds.
Lefties seem to have trouble realizing that the law is the law, and if you want to fight it, do it properly from within the system.
It seems that you don't think that the laws need to be followed, or at least that the govt. need not follow its own regulations. This is the kind of abuse of power that those of us who care about freedom of the press are worried about.
BULLSHIT. Even some of the anarchists and communists there acknowledged that any "infiltrators" were few and far between, and that THEY were responsible for trashing the city.
oh..so only "a few" infiltrators are ok, huh? I don't want any infiltrators, thank you. Because I don't think that the govt's job is to break up protests it doesn't agree with. Are you beginning to understand why some of us are suspicious of state power?? Btw, the 600 neo-nazi infiltrators were videotaped talking with the police. They wore black uniforms and gas masks and were widely reported to commit most of the violence. Detailshere.
I have no doubt those carabinieri would have been killed by those thugs if the police hadn't DEFENDED themselves.
I'm sure you have no doubt of many things, but a G8 inquiry into the killing as well as eyewitness accounts contradicts you. In fact most of the violence was perpetrated by the police on the demonstrators (see above or do a simple google search. Le monde also has good coverage.)
Typical lefty doublespeak..
If you think that the Genoa protest was about "smashing the state," then I am horrified at your ignorance. There were 300,000 mostly peaceful demostrators there, who were attacked, beaten with baton clubs, tear gassed, and infiltrated by black masked police agents. They were protesting serious issues of our day, such as what power private investors have to nullify local laws, wether nations will be forced to adopt new IP laws, what power a nation has over its currency, and wether committees of beaurocrats will be able determine how a govt. chooses to spend its money. If you have any idea of the nature of the protests, of the NGO's, working groups, or organizational drives which went on during Genoa, then you would be embarrassed by your accusation.
But my post was not really relevant to which side of the "globalization" debate you fall on, although I seem to have pushed a hot-button with you with that example. I was citing examples of abuses of state power (you were unable to counter any of my other examples). Specifically, the dangers of the ATA in expanding the definition of "terrorist" to include civil disobedience and protest. You just made my point perfectly in this line:
This is why you're seen as terrorists - because you are
First of all, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I am not a terrorist, and the fact that you can so blithely call me one, in these times, because of my words illustrates exactly what we are fighting against. The 300,000 in genoa were not terrorists. "lefties" -- whom you know so well -- are also not terrorists.
.. you like to throw around justifying the Taliban sheltering of bin Laden while his followers kill THOUSANDS. .
I've never justified the Taliban in sheltering bin laden. It seems that if I don't agree with whatever war rhetoric you happen to favor, then I must automatically be on the side of the enemy, in your mind. Maybe, like Bush's press secretary said, I had better "watch what I say". Is a twinkle of revelation entering your mind why many of us are concerned about the lack of debate or endagerment of our freedoms?
Just be lucky you live in AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where you can spew your totalitarian bullshit with impunity, while right-thinking people freely ignore and refute your sick ideology. Yes, America *is* the land of the free and the home of the brave. But we have to share this country with you, Anonymous Coward. And you are trying to make it less free, with your "totalitarian" rhetoric:
You attack as terrorist those whose politics you don't agree with.
You defend police violence because the "lefties" "deserve whatever happens" to them.
You equate those who disagree with you as "justifying the Taliban."
But some of us actually want to preserve the bill of rights, specifically, "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of the press". You may be ignorant of how much this country has benefitied from public protest, from the Boston Tea Party (property was destroyed! Terrorism!) to the civil rights marches, to the Pullman strike and 8 hour work days. That's a big part of why we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. But I wont accuse you of being a terrorist, nor will I claim to understand everything in that angry head of yours. All I can do is pray that you are in no way connected with govt. or a law enforcement agency. Also, I can ask of you this:
Don't wrap your totalitarian rhetoric in our Old Glory. It's hard enough trying to care for her with the ATA and DMCA to worry about.
You need not set your flamebait to her stars.
Confirms my theory
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 5, Funny
..that Osama was merely a puppet, while Bert was the true Mastermind. No wonder Condi is worried that Osama's speeches contain secret messages.
Problem is, we just got out of the Cold War, in which people were arrested for their political beliefs (socialists/communists), loyalty oaths were imposed, and a national security state descended upon us. Then, after our enemy rudely abandoned the game, we had the War on Drugs, with asset forfeiture laws, more wiretaps, and a bigger budget for the security agencies. Now we have the War on Terrorism, with more police powers, bad laws, and yes even more money for the security agencies. After that, you'll be laying down the bill of rights because of the War on Pollution.
Reading the article, my impression is that it provides an example of FBI bungling.
The article only states that the Justice department must approve the request, not that they didn't have enough evidence from the French Intelligence and the testimony of the flight school people. It seems that the FBI's answer to this problem, rather than trying to improve the coordination between the two agencies, is simply to ask for power to not be required to seek Justice dept. approval at all.
This might actually make us less secure, if it leads to less cooperation between the agencies.
But thanks for the link. I think that before *any* legislation is introduced, the FBI needs to perform a thorough audit of where it failed, and then really see if the best way to fix its bugs is to increase its power. It may be mostly a matter of improving its policies/communication/training. After all the other options have been eliminated, then it can introduce some new bills to expand its authority. Only then. What's happening now is that Ashcroft is just presenting the same wishlist he himself attacked after the Oklahoma bombings.
btw, I agree that roving wiretaps are a good idea, since the person, and not his communication device, needs to be monitored. That's about the only reasonable provision I see so far.
Finally, as to the police-state crack, well people have reason to be suspicious of government. Remember the shoot-outs and assasinations of black panther groups in the 60's. Nixon's "enemies" list, the fbi files on Martin Luther King, clinton's "filegate" scandals. racial profiling. Recently, police infiltrators in the Genoa demonstrations wrecked violence in an attempt to justify a crackdown. Before that, police in Seattle seized a copy of indymedia.org's server logs, and put in place a gag order to prevent the site from reporting this. These were purely political acts, not fights against terrorism. They used the gag order to release public statements against indymedia which the site was forbidden from replying to. So the moral of the the story is that govt. has and will use its police powers to attack legitimate political dissent. Perhaps that's why so many are suspicious of giving them greater authority, especially without a demonstrated need for it.
is any sort of justification. For instance, increased wiretap auhtority. Just how would it have prevented the attack of Sept. 11? What sorts of nasty things are terrorists doing that we can't combat with the current system? How would required back doors make us safer?
I'm beginning to see a purely visceral response: terrorism => we are in danger => police need more powers.
On another note, where is the debate? I keep hearing that there will be one, but has anyone seen a member of the administration make a reasoned defense of these bills? Outlined why they are needed? Responded to criticism? Has there even been any criticism in the major media? (links would be appreciated)
You're right about the phraseology. It's easy to get my emotions raised in the general din and clamor. And being so confrontational doesn't accomplish much in this case when everyone else has high passions from Sept. 11.
I'll just rant now and give my 2 cents on what I'd do if I was in power.
There are two issues here. One is nation building for afghanistan. The other is the "war" against terrorism. About the first, I think the Afghans are very tired of war, and that bombing them will not bring them closer to democracy. We like to think that, so our bloodlust seems more noble. I think bombing will probably strengthen the radical factions among them -- those groups calling for war and vengeance. Just like it has in Israel. Just like it has in the US. But Iran, for instance, has made a lot of progress recently with Khatami and liberalization. That was after a period of economic development and relative peace. Now they want our blue jeans. As soon as you no longer live in a cave, the mindset of the stoneage will also lessen.
For dealing with terrorism.
First, Afghanistan played little role other than it's leaders harboring bin laden, to whom they owe much because of his help in the war against Russia. And if the fact that the leaders of a country harbor/finance terrorists is reason to be bombed, then many nations deserve as much, including our own.
Again, our real desire is bloodlust, and not justice. Most of the funding comes from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Manpower comes from Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, Yemen. Look at the nationalities of the terrorists. We wont bomb those countries because they are allies. But they don't have the political will (ability?) to shut down the radical (and popular) mosques and "education" centers, or to stop the flow of money to al-quaeda cells (in hamburg, egypt, etc.). There is trouble, especially in Pakistan, where the dictator just fired two of his top generals (who were sympathetic to the Taliban) with rioting in the streets. If it becomes destabilized, it will be a taliban-type state with nuclear weapons. So in this case, at least, sanity has prevailed and we are not targeting them.
So what can we do? I think that this article (http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2001/09/14/klar e/) outlines a better plan than what we're doing. Read it, and then reread bin laden's speech, if you're spending as little time working today as I am:). Also, restraint, now, on our part, would do a great deal to boost our standing in the Islamic world. It would cut one of bin laden's strengths. After he is isolated, we could negotiate, and I think the taliban were willing to negotiate (but not capitulate) to his extradition and trial. Possibly the Hague, as was done with the lockerbie bombings. The end result would be a safer, saner middle east. bin laden behind bars, and most importantly, al quaeda would be a weakened, rougue network without the popularity/influence it now enjoys. At least I would try this route. You can always bomb/invade. You can never unbomb.
Finally, the last benefit to moderation might be that we wont have a "minister of Fatherland security", and hacking wont be considered terrorism, we wont add 60 billion to our military budget, and a lot of bad laws wont get passed by a cowed congress.
That's my 2 cents, and probably why I will never get elected to any sort of office. I appreciate your encouragement, though.
First, more context for the "political development" line is this: Indonesia had a boisterous democracy in which opposition parties were allowed. One of them was the communist party,PKI, which had 3 million members. The US helped to instigate a coup in which a group of generals took power and began to "elimante" the PKI. This was happening at the time of the vietnam war, when we were trying to eliminate another communist party with widespread support. So the "political" and "military" action were one in the same: elimination of the PKI. Of course the supporters of this, in public, preferred to call it a political action. This qualifies as euphemism in my book. Or at least understatement. Here is the more context for the first quote you question:
"One of the most persistent complaints among officials in Washington is that our political troubles in Vietnam are not balanced adequately
by reports in the press of the more hopeful political developments elsewhere in Asia.
The savage transformation of Indonesia from a
pro-Chinese policy under Sukarno to a defiantly
anti-Communist policy under General Suharto is,
of course, the most important of these developments. Washington is careful not to claim
any credit for this change in the sixth most
populous and one of the richest nations in the
world, but this does not mean that Washington had
nothing to do with it.
There was a great deal more contact between the
anti-communist forces in that country and at least
one very high official in Washington before and
during the Indonesian massacre than is generally
realized. General Suharto's forces, at times
severely short of food and munitions, have been
getting aid from here through various third
countries, and it is doubtful if the coup
would ever have been attempted without the American show of strength in Vietnam or been sustained without the clandestine aid it has
received indirectly from here."
Now, when I say the US, I don't mean Joe six-pac. Joe six-pac, as you said, was unaware and didn't approve of the action. But that's the problem, isn't it? I think we agree on this point. The difficulty I face is when someone tries to tell Joe six-pac what is going on, that massacres are being committed, and that our military forces are being used to kill civilians in order to achieve political or economic gains, then Joe six-pac shoots back that I am suffering from white guilt, and that he doesn't want to hear about his country doing bad things, and that I am somehow taking pleasure in pointing out things which would be better swept under the rug as unfortunate abuses of power.
Personally, the emotion I feel is not guilt over anything, but exasperation in trying to point out that things like sealing the border with Pakistan (through which all food and economic activity to afghanistan flows), bombing what little infrastructure is left, refusing to negotiate, restarting the civil war with the northen alliance. These will be the atrocities that, 30 years from now, someone on slashdot will be pointing out. And I am hampered by this zoroastrian rhetoric coming from our administration, which paints America as some sort of saintly country, and afghanistan as evil, and shouts down most calls for a diplomatic and multinational solution as unpatriotic.
I am not gorbachev, but this is not Russia. America is a democracy and the only way we can change the "sneakiness" is by exposing it and publicizing it, and putting public pressure on our officials to stop it. I've enough faith in the public that if they get enough information, if they truly know our history and are sufficiently suspicious of our leaders' claims, that they will know how to reign in the empire we have built. But the naivete must be the first thing to go before we can really intelligently affect foreign policy.
Another reason to publicize America's foreign policy past is to put the situation into more context. I'm upset by the action-thriller lens with which many see most of our foreign conflicts. It's like a mono-a-mono match between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. Reagan vs. Khadaffi, Clinton vs. Noriega, Bush vs. Hussein, Bush vs. Bin Laden. It's like we have no idea why the second most popular name for boys in Pakistan is now "Osama", or why a wall street journal poll of wealthy Saudi businessmen showed that 80% of them considered america to be a dangerous bully. Why so many in the middle east view this as an attack on Islam. Why theaters and banks are being burned in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Egypt. Why the Palestinians have taken to the streets in cheers after hearing bin Laden's speech. All we see is the evil Osama (who is mostly a figurehead) vs. freedom fighter Bush, with no history, no context, no humility that we may not know the best thing to do, and no sense of repercussions of the human or political consequences.
The third reason to point these things out, of course, is to rant on slashdot, and argue, and vent. Thank you for your kind words and for the debate. Most of the time I doubt anyone even reads these rants. Hopefully, the next thirty years will be much better.
A quick google search will bear things out. You are right, in that I've mixed up Sukarno and Suharto again. The latter overthrew the former. Actually a council of generals did that of which suharto was the leader. Here are some quotes for you:
NYTimes June 19, 1966. In a piece titled "A Gleam of Light in Asia", James Reston calls the massacres "a hopeful political development."
NYTimes March 12, 1966. In a piece titled "Elated U.S. Officials Looking to New Aid to Jakarta's Economy", Max Frankel writes:
"The Johnson Administration found it difficult to hide it's delight with the News from Indonesia, pointing to the political demise of President Sukarno and the communists."
Some declassified documents from the National Security Archives are at http://www.pir.org/foia/indolist.html
You can also find more documents offline. For instance, declassified cables from Jakarta embassy officials stating that
"that the embassy and the U.S. G[overnment] were generally sympathetic with and admiring of what the army was doing."
(Embassy to State, 5 November 1965; quoted in Kahin and Kahin, "Subversion as Foreign Policy")
To verify my statement that we armed the military explicitly in order to commit the massacres, look at Frederick Bunnell, "American `Low Posture' Policy Toward Indonesia in the Months Leading to the 1965 `Coup,'" in "Indonesia" 50 (October) 1990, 59-60, wherein Bunnel writes and quotes from other embassy cables:
"The U.S. quickly fulfilled an army request to the embassy, on 6 November 1965, for weapons "to arm Moslem and nationalist youth in Central Java for use against the PKI," as part of the overall army policy "to eliminate the PKI.""
For further U.S. support to the army in December, see Robinson, "Dark Side of Paradise".
Here is another declassified embassy cable of December 20, 1965:
"Elimination of Communists continues apace....Ban of PKI... brings total of province-level areas in which party formally terminated to 14. Only 11 more to go! Continuing massacre in Bali....American observer reports many headless bodies encountered on roads....Tourists would probably be well advised to postpone pleasure trips to island of the gods."
I sense elation in that quote, don't you?
Well, I don't have time to do more digging for you, but the record is out there. It's not hard to find. The best thing about the U.S. is that ours is the most open nation on earth. The worst is that when someone is confronted with a claim which violates Received Opinion, they stop reading. I hope you're not in the latter category. Do your own digging for more context/info to the above. Also,
The NSA (Archives, not Agency) is still in a lawsuit over other, still classified documents, but they have even more docs.
Slashdot Mirror
Although gnome is yummy snd cool, it's main drawbacks (to me) are
.init file. I miss my one stop init file.
1) not stable enough. Maybe 2.0 will be different, but my win98 box crashes less frequently (although by "crashes" I should say "freezes up" I can always kill enough processess to get going again.)
2) no
3) slow slow slooow (maybe 2.0 better)
Here's a quick history lesson. England's empire was built with the idea that raw materials (cotton, sugar, spices, ores) would be cheaply exported from its colonies back to the homeland by a group of powerful corporations (such as the hated "East India Company" whose tea was dumped over board in Boston harbor). To this end it forbid/discouraged the manufacture of these resources domestically. So no cotton was weaved in the states but raw cotton was sent to England, and if you wanted to buy a shirt you'd have to import it from there. Moreover, farmers in America (and later colonies) had to sell their crops to chartered conglomerates who controlled prices, and when they placed orders for manufactured goods, they had little control about the price or quality of what was shipped to them. Washington once ordered a carriage, and by the time it arrived, he opened a door and the whole door came off in his hand. Many people were very pissed and had a revolution.
Immediately afterwards, large tarrifs and sometimes embargoes were passed so that the states could develop their own industries. That is how the US developed. In the industrial revolution, especially. There was lots of cronyism, but it was aimed towards the native conglomerates as opposed to the foreign ones. Carnegie went to Europe where the Bessemer process for smelting steel had just been invented and when he returned to the states, congress passed high tariffs against european steel. Carnegie then began to build native steel plants, married the daughter of the secretary of the Navy, and another "self-made" billionaire was born. We got a steel navy and lots of factory jobs out of the deal. So, a lot of cronyism, but directed at national interests, helped to develop our economy. Another example: England banned Indian textiles because it couldn't compete on price, then they conquered the country, burned down all the cotton "gins", cut the thumbs of the home-weavers, and reimported massive amounts of cotton back home. Then, and _only_ then, did they proclaim the need for "open" markets. Wars were similarly fought to "open" china. You do your own research.
So the story is the same. All countries which have _ever_ developed _any_ industry have done it with large govt. subsidy as well as a protective wall of tarrifs. I challenge you to cite just _one_ example of this not happening (wheras I have cited several examples when this did happen). The examples of the Asian tigers, as well as china, shows this playing out in the 20th century. Those nations which followed a "neoliberal" process have all ended up in shambles. Before nafta, 25% of mexico lived below the poverty line. That figure is now 50%. You can look at Indonesia, central america, brazil, the congo for more examples.
Now, we (the US) are doing the same thing to much of the third world that England has done to us:
We forbid or overthrow their govts. if they try to control their own resources (i.e. Iran nationalizing the foreign imposed oil "company" which has a monopoly on extracting oil, or Zaire taking the diamond monopoly from DeBeers, etc.)
We try to prevent them from raising tarrifs to protect their own industries (like the US forced on Japanese automakers, or the steel example citied above, or the ban on mexican tomatoes we had just a few years ago, or the current tarrifs against lamb from new zealand).
We punish those (foreigners) who subsidize their domestic companies. Note that the US still gives many billions to _our_ farmers, accounting for about half of median farm-owners' incomes. US corps pay only 10% of govt. expenditures. Recall the bailouts of chrysler or the many subsidies that we pour into high-tech sectors and aerospace. The 70 billion we're giving US comapanies now because of 9/11 is another example of this double standard.
The above are the policies. We don't have colonies such as Britain, but we enforce these policies on the rest of the world through our military (we put "our guys" in power) in some cases and purely institutional pressures in other cases:
IP laws allow us to monopolize key technologies.
Large syndicates such as cargill engage in price-fixing for many raw materials.
the "loans" US taxpayers send to third world dictators (many of whom we've put in power) make the third world reliant on us and institutions such as the IMF. In order to get more loans to cover the interest, we force them to engage in the economically suicidal practices cited above, thereby insuring that they will remain dependant on future loans, and so not develop independent economic policies.
free flow of foreign capital ensures that investments flee at the first sign of economic nationalism.
One significant difference is that while England assembled the raw materials at home which provided more higher paying jobs and gave birth to their middle class, modern conglomerates use the sweatshops in the third world. These are far from "heavy handed" laws such as minimum wage and environmental protection. So that we in the US don't even get the benefits that the British got 150 years ago.
This is why many oppose "globalization" as it's practiced today. It has nothing to do with trade and comparative advantage. It's just the modern version of the East India Company wrecking havoc on both our own country and on the third world.
because the internet is a cooperative network. For instance, say a site wants to do business on the web. They want you to visit, but they don't pay for the cables or the routers or for your hardware or connectivity costs. They pay for their own bandwidth and you pay for your bandwidth to visit them. Both sides are already paying money to be able to visit the site. So there's no clear line between between who pays for whose real cost.
Same with viewing a site. Your user agent may or may not display (using your cpu cycles/monitor,etc.) exactly what the publisher wants you to see. It all relies on cooperation. Now this is very different from other business models, and so people get upset when a site changes its formats. Why? because they are not involved. They don't know what is a real operating expense and what is a plan to pay for unwanted expansion. maybe they'd rather have the site load slower and charge less, or maybe they want lighting speed at a premium. We dont see any expense reports or business plans and have no control over the future of the site. It's as if a partner suddenly changed the rules of the game without consulting you. That's fine in a brick and mortar world where you take it or leave it, but on the net it doesn't work, since I can always tell my user agent to not display the crappy iframes. My hope is that there's a chance that those sites which involve viewers and give them some control over site development/business plans/ subscription rates will have an audience of cooperative visitors. Others will get their ads blocked. But the consideration has to be earned in any case, and does not follow just because the webmaster really really wants you to view the ads.
I did miss that thread, and thanks for pointing out the essay. My source is much less authorative, since it's my physics teacher from uni. and some old department folklore.
Clueless-Rep: Hello, My name is "Jane" and I'll be your satisfaction-fullfilment specialist today. How may I help you?
client: Uh, my internet wont work. I can't get email from my friend in Australia.
C-R: I'm very, very sorry to hear that, sir. Would you like to sign up for our new DSL-BIZ-PRO package? It's only..
client: No, I just want to get email.
C-R: Can you hold, please?..
[SNIP]
C-R: Well, it seems that your friend is "blocked". We can unblock that account for only $9.99 per month. Let me transfer you to our Blocking-Fullfilment Specialist in Bombay. By the way, when was the last time we billed you?
I think the context of that quote was that Hooke objected to Newton not giving him proper credit for "Hooke's Law" --that the restoring force of a spring is proportional to its displacement from equilibrium. Newton then did some research and found about 20 other guys who also "discovered" this rather obvious observation, and cited all of them, placing Hooke's name last on the list. Then he fired off this quote. So the real message is more of a flame of Hooke, yet most people consider it some great admission of humility.
file a patent on filing patents on obvious software practices for which there exists lots of prior art.
You're right, of course.
It's just that in light of recent events, I find myself fighting a sort of "holding action". More and more I have to justify my right even to criticize the govt.
In a healthy and functioning democracy all the the things I suggested would seem reasonable and doable *without* an ID card, but that's not where we are. So since there are powerful political (not as yet law enforcement) reasons for adopting a national ID card, I was trying to suggest some ways to limit its impact on our freedoms, and possibly "sneak in" some liberalization along the way.
See, copyrights are not granted to "protect" or benefit "owners". They're granted to increase the amount of useful sciences and arts which are available to the public. Ultimately, to increase the public domain. That's the justification behind them. _Not_ classical property law. Now, if a copyright holder does certain things to restrict the availability of their products to the public (and this includes things like price-fixing), then they are undermining the reason why we (i.e. The Govt.) give them special monopolies. If a monopoly is found to be abusive, then the govt. has the right to rescind it, break it up, slap it on the wrist, whatever.
The monopolists (RIAA) have a right to complain that Napster (as a file sharing company) is violating their monopoly.
But Napster (the would be fee-paying download site) also has the right to complain that the RIAA is abusing their powers.
No contradiction here. Just two different legal violations.
(btw, if your sense of laughter was sparked by the fact that Napster was found guilty and so has no rights to sue the RIAA for _anything_, then perhaps you should also have been laughing when the RIAA, which was previously found guilty of abusing it's monopoly (i.e. MAPS) and yet had the gall to sue Napster afterwards. There is plenty of dirty laundry to go around.)
Thanks for the links. Methinks I'm gonna start a virtual "clip" file, in case my grandchildren ever wonder what the hell we were thinking in giving away the store.
I think the main objection here is loss of privacy. So let's find some other ways to protect our privacy:
From the bottom, let's declare that personal info is our property. Let's use rights management software to tag _all_ data about ourselves, so that we can follow it, so we know exactly who has it and for how long. Some of that data we ought to be able to revoke, or "license it" in such a way that it expires. If I can't copy Word and sell it to my friend, why should a business be able to do the same with my credit card purchases, or questionnaire responses. Moreover, if a police agency is monitoring or collecting data about me, I should have a right ot know this. If the FBI needs a personal ID card, let them use it for purposes of identification, and not of spying. They still gotta do the gumshoe thing for that.
From the Top. If we are giving govt. more info about us, then we need more powers to hold govt. accountable. Let's require some stronger freedom of information policies. Declassify more docs. Publicize notes and meetings. Shine a light on black budgets. Full disclosure of lobbyists' notes/itinerary. I wanna be able to download the pda and schedule for any registered lobbyist (and they damn well better be registered, tagged, collared, .. ;)). All available on the web (say, two-weeks after the fact). You guys think of some other/better ideas. There are lots of ways to improve govt. accountability.
Needless to say, we don't want oracle or MS or Sun running the show in some proprietary monopoly. This should be a non profit, fully open process.
We can make a trade. National ID card in exchange for more open governance. More accountability. If this happened, I'd personally feel a higher level of privacy than I do now.
But, what if this is not a solution? Or if the drawbacks outweigh the benefits? Are you saying that we shouldn't debate the proposal on its own merits?
2.4.11 + "finer numbering scheme" + some deduction = joke.
ugh. why bother. never diagram your own jokes.
very.
Don't you know that the odd numbered kernels are experimental?
I argued that we should be hesitant to expand state power, because historically this power has been used to stifle dissent and political opposition.
About the Indymedia incident, the police obtained the supena fraudulently,
claiming that Bush's travel plans were posted to the web, thereby hurrying the supena through on national security grounds.
(no such itinerary was posted).
requiring the source of a news media story requires personal review by the Attorney General and proof that alternative methods wont work. None of this was done in this case.
the gag order on Indymedia was an abuse of govt. authority, since it requires at least that US laws be violated (no US law was violated). The gag order was later repealed on these and other grounds.
.. you like to throw around justifying the Taliban sheltering of bin Laden while his followers kill THOUSANDS. .
Lefties seem to have trouble realizing that the law is the law, and if you want to fight it, do it properly from within the system.
It seems that you don't think that the laws need to be followed, or at least that the govt. need not follow its own regulations. This is the kind of abuse of power that those of us who care about freedom of the press are worried about.
BULLSHIT. Even some of the anarchists and communists there acknowledged that any "infiltrators" were few and far between, and that THEY were responsible for trashing the city.
oh..so only "a few" infiltrators are ok, huh? I don't want any infiltrators, thank you. Because I don't think that the govt's job is to break up protests it doesn't agree with. Are you beginning to understand why some of us are suspicious of state power?? Btw, the 600 neo-nazi infiltrators were videotaped talking with the police. They wore black uniforms and gas masks and were widely reported to commit most of the violence. Details here.
I have no doubt those carabinieri would have been killed by those thugs if the police hadn't DEFENDED themselves.
I'm sure you have no doubt of many things, but a G8 inquiry into the killing as well as eyewitness accounts contradicts you. In fact most of the violence was perpetrated by the police on the demonstrators (see above or do a simple google search. Le monde also has good coverage.)
Typical lefty doublespeak..
If you think that the Genoa protest was about "smashing the state," then I am horrified at your ignorance. There were 300,000 mostly peaceful demostrators there, who were attacked, beaten with baton clubs, tear gassed, and infiltrated by black masked police agents. They were protesting serious issues of our day, such as what power private investors have to nullify local laws, wether nations will be forced to adopt new IP laws, what power a nation has over its currency, and wether committees of beaurocrats will be able determine how a govt. chooses to spend its money. If you have any idea of the nature of the protests, of the NGO's, working groups, or organizational drives which went on during Genoa, then you would be embarrassed by your accusation.
But my post was not really relevant to which side of the "globalization" debate you fall on, although I seem to have pushed a hot-button with you with that example. I was citing examples of abuses of state power (you were unable to counter any of my other examples). Specifically, the dangers of the ATA in expanding the definition of "terrorist" to include civil disobedience and protest. You just made my point perfectly in this line:
This is why you're seen as terrorists - because you are
First of all, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I am not a terrorist, and the fact that you can so blithely call me one, in these times, because of my words illustrates exactly what we are fighting against. The 300,000 in genoa were not terrorists. "lefties" -- whom you know so well -- are also not terrorists.
I've never justified the Taliban in sheltering bin laden. It seems that if I don't agree with whatever war rhetoric you happen to favor, then I must automatically be on the side of the enemy, in your mind. Maybe, like Bush's press secretary said, I had better "watch what I say". Is a twinkle of revelation entering your mind why many of us are concerned about the lack of debate or endagerment of our freedoms?
Just be lucky you live in AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where you can spew your totalitarian bullshit with impunity, while right-thinking people freely ignore and refute your sick ideology.
Yes, America *is* the land of the free and the home of the brave. But we have to share this country with you, Anonymous Coward. And you are trying to make it less free, with your "totalitarian" rhetoric:
You attack as terrorist those whose politics you don't agree with.
You defend police violence because the "lefties" "deserve whatever happens" to them.
You equate those who disagree with you as "justifying the Taliban."
But some of us actually want to preserve the bill of rights, specifically, "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of the press". You may be ignorant of how much this country has benefitied from public protest, from the Boston Tea Party (property was destroyed! Terrorism!) to the civil rights marches, to the Pullman strike and 8 hour work days. That's a big part of why we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. But I wont accuse you of being a terrorist, nor will I claim to understand everything in that angry head of yours. All I can do is pray that you are in no way connected with govt. or a law enforcement agency. Also, I can ask of you this:
Don't wrap your totalitarian rhetoric in our Old Glory. It's hard enough trying to care for her with the ATA and DMCA to worry about.
You need not set your flamebait to her stars.
..that Osama was merely a puppet, while Bert was the true Mastermind. No wonder Condi is worried that Osama's speeches contain secret messages.
Problem is, we just got out of the Cold War, in which people were arrested for their political beliefs (socialists/communists), loyalty oaths were imposed, and a national security state descended upon us. Then, after our enemy rudely abandoned the game, we had the War on Drugs, with asset forfeiture laws, more wiretaps, and a bigger budget for the security agencies. Now we have the War on Terrorism, with more police powers, bad laws, and yes even more money for the security agencies. After that, you'll be laying down the bill of rights because of the War on Pollution.
Reading the article, my impression is that it provides an example of FBI bungling.
The article only states that the Justice department must approve the request, not that they didn't have enough evidence from the French Intelligence and the testimony of the flight school people. It seems that the FBI's answer to this problem, rather than trying to improve the coordination between the two agencies, is simply to ask for power to not be required to seek Justice dept. approval at all.
This might actually make us less secure, if it leads to less cooperation between the agencies.
But thanks for the link. I think that before *any* legislation is introduced, the FBI needs to perform a thorough audit of where it failed, and then really see if the best way to fix its bugs is to increase its power. It may be mostly a matter of improving its policies/communication/training. After all the other options have been eliminated, then it can introduce some new bills to expand its authority. Only then. What's happening now is that Ashcroft is just presenting the same wishlist he himself attacked after the Oklahoma bombings.
btw, I agree that roving wiretaps are a good idea, since the person, and not his communication device, needs to be monitored. That's about the only reasonable provision I see so far.
Finally, as to the police-state crack, well people have reason to be suspicious of government. Remember the shoot-outs and assasinations of black panther groups in the 60's. Nixon's "enemies" list, the fbi files on Martin Luther King, clinton's "filegate" scandals. racial profiling. Recently, police infiltrators in the Genoa demonstrations wrecked violence in an attempt to justify a crackdown. Before that, police in Seattle seized a copy of indymedia.org's server logs, and put in place a gag order to prevent the site from reporting this. These were purely political acts, not fights against terrorism. They used the gag order to release public statements against indymedia which the site was forbidden from replying to. So the moral of the the story is that govt. has and will use its police powers to attack legitimate political dissent. Perhaps that's why so many are suspicious of giving them greater authority, especially without a demonstrated need for it.
Maybe a /. interview is in order.
is any sort of justification. For instance, increased wiretap auhtority. Just how would it have prevented the attack of Sept. 11? What sorts of nasty things are terrorists doing that we can't combat with the current system? How would required back doors make us safer?
I'm beginning to see a purely visceral response: terrorism => we are in danger => police need more powers.
On another note, where is the debate? I keep hearing that there will be one, but has anyone seen a member of the administration make a reasoned defense of these bills? Outlined why they are needed? Responded to criticism? Has there even been any criticism in the major media? (links would be appreciated)
You're right about the phraseology. It's easy to get my emotions raised in the general din and clamor. And being so confrontational doesn't accomplish much in this case when everyone else has high passions from Sept. 11.
r e/) outlines a better plan than what we're doing. Read it, and then reread bin laden's speech, if you're spending as little time working today as I am:). Also, restraint, now, on our part, would do a great deal to boost our standing in the Islamic world. It would cut one of bin laden's strengths. After he is isolated, we could negotiate, and I think the taliban were willing to negotiate (but not capitulate) to his extradition and trial. Possibly the Hague, as was done with the lockerbie bombings. The end result would be a safer, saner middle east. bin laden behind bars, and most importantly, al quaeda would be a weakened, rougue network without the popularity/influence it now enjoys. At least I would try this route. You can always bomb/invade. You can never unbomb.
I'll just rant now and give my 2 cents on what I'd do if I was in power.
There are two issues here. One is nation building for afghanistan. The other is the "war" against terrorism. About the first, I think the Afghans are very tired of war, and that bombing them will not bring them closer to democracy. We like to think that, so our bloodlust seems more noble. I think bombing will probably strengthen the radical factions among them -- those groups calling for war and vengeance. Just like it has in Israel. Just like it has in the US. But Iran, for instance, has made a lot of progress recently with Khatami and liberalization. That was after a period of economic development and relative peace. Now they want our blue jeans. As soon as you no longer live in a cave, the mindset of the stoneage will also lessen.
For dealing with terrorism.
First, Afghanistan played little role other than it's leaders harboring bin laden, to whom they owe much because of his help in the war against Russia. And if the fact that the leaders of a country harbor/finance terrorists is reason to be bombed, then many nations deserve as much, including our own.
Again, our real desire is bloodlust, and not justice. Most of the funding comes from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Manpower comes from Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, Yemen. Look at the nationalities of the terrorists. We wont bomb those countries because they are allies. But they don't have the political will (ability?) to shut down the radical (and popular) mosques and "education" centers, or to stop the flow of money to al-quaeda cells (in hamburg, egypt, etc.). There is trouble, especially in Pakistan, where the dictator just fired two of his top generals (who were sympathetic to the Taliban) with rioting in the streets. If it becomes destabilized, it will be a taliban-type state with nuclear weapons. So in this case, at least, sanity has prevailed and we are not targeting them.
So what can we do? I think that this article (http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2001/09/14/kla
Finally, the last benefit to moderation might be that we wont have a "minister of Fatherland security", and hacking wont be considered terrorism, we wont add 60 billion to our military budget, and a lot of bad laws wont get passed by a cowed congress.
That's my 2 cents, and probably why I will never get elected to any sort of office. I appreciate your encouragement, though.
First, more context for the "political development" line is this: Indonesia had a boisterous democracy in which opposition parties were allowed. One of them was the communist party ,PKI, which had 3 million members. The US helped to instigate a coup in which a group of generals took power and began to "elimante" the PKI. This was happening at the time of the vietnam war, when we were trying to eliminate another communist party with widespread support. So the "political" and "military" action were one in the same: elimination of the PKI. Of course the supporters of this, in public, preferred to call it a political action. This qualifies as euphemism in my book. Or at least understatement. Here is the more context for the first quote you question:
"One of the most persistent complaints among officials in Washington is that our political troubles in Vietnam are not balanced adequately
by reports in the press of the more hopeful political developments elsewhere in Asia.
The savage transformation of Indonesia from a
pro-Chinese policy under Sukarno to a defiantly
anti-Communist policy under General Suharto is,
of course, the most important of these developments. Washington is careful not to claim
any credit for this change in the sixth most
populous and one of the richest nations in the
world, but this does not mean that Washington had
nothing to do with it.
There was a great deal more contact between the
anti-communist forces in that country and at least
one very high official in Washington before and
during the Indonesian massacre than is generally
realized. General Suharto's forces, at times
severely short of food and munitions, have been
getting aid from here through various third
countries, and it is doubtful if the coup
would ever have been attempted without the American show of strength in Vietnam or been sustained without the clandestine aid it has
received indirectly from here."
Now, when I say the US, I don't mean Joe six-pac. Joe six-pac, as you said, was unaware and didn't approve of the action. But that's the problem, isn't it? I think we agree on this point. The difficulty I face is when someone tries to tell Joe six-pac what is going on, that massacres are being committed, and that our military forces are being used to kill civilians in order to achieve political or economic gains, then Joe six-pac shoots back that I am suffering from white guilt, and that he doesn't want to hear about his country doing bad things, and that I am somehow taking pleasure in pointing out things which would be better swept under the rug as unfortunate abuses of power.
Personally, the emotion I feel is not guilt over anything, but exasperation in trying to point out that things like sealing the border with Pakistan (through which all food and economic activity to afghanistan flows), bombing what little infrastructure is left, refusing to negotiate, restarting the civil war with the northen alliance. These will be the atrocities that, 30 years from now, someone on slashdot will be pointing out. And I am hampered by this zoroastrian rhetoric coming from our administration, which paints America as some sort of saintly country, and afghanistan as evil, and shouts down most calls for a diplomatic and multinational solution as unpatriotic.
I am not gorbachev, but this is not Russia. America is a democracy and the only way we can change the "sneakiness" is by exposing it and publicizing it, and putting public pressure on our officials to stop it. I've enough faith in the public that if they get enough information, if they truly know our history and are sufficiently suspicious of our leaders' claims, that they will know how to reign in the empire we have built. But the naivete must be the first thing to go before we can really intelligently affect foreign policy.
Another reason to publicize America's foreign policy past is to put the situation into more context. I'm upset by the action-thriller lens with which many see most of our foreign conflicts. It's like a mono-a-mono match between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. Reagan vs. Khadaffi, Clinton vs. Noriega, Bush vs. Hussein, Bush vs. Bin Laden. It's like we have no idea why the second most popular name for boys in Pakistan is now "Osama", or why a wall street journal poll of wealthy Saudi businessmen showed that 80% of them considered america to be a dangerous bully. Why so many in the middle east view this as an attack on Islam. Why theaters and banks are being burned in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Egypt. Why the Palestinians have taken to the streets in cheers after hearing bin Laden's speech. All we see is the evil Osama (who is mostly a figurehead) vs. freedom fighter Bush, with no history, no context, no humility that we may not know the best thing to do, and no sense of repercussions of the human or political consequences.
The third reason to point these things out, of course, is to rant on slashdot, and argue, and vent. Thank you for your kind words and for the debate. Most of the time I doubt anyone even reads these rants. Hopefully, the next thirty years will be much better.
A quick google search will bear things out. You are right, in that I've mixed up Sukarno and Suharto again. The latter overthrew the former. Actually a council of generals did that of which suharto was the leader. Here are some quotes for you:
NYTimes June 19, 1966. In a piece titled "A Gleam of Light in Asia", James Reston calls the massacres "a hopeful political development."
NYTimes March 12, 1966. In a piece titled "Elated U.S. Officials Looking to New Aid to Jakarta's Economy", Max Frankel writes:
"The Johnson Administration found it difficult to hide it's delight with the News from Indonesia, pointing to the political demise of President Sukarno and the communists."
Some declassified documents from the National Security Archives are at http://www.pir.org/foia/indolist.html
You can also find more documents offline. For instance, declassified cables from Jakarta embassy officials stating that
"that the embassy and the U.S. G[overnment] were generally sympathetic with and admiring of what the army was doing."
(Embassy to State, 5 November 1965; quoted in Kahin and Kahin, "Subversion as Foreign Policy")
To verify my statement that we armed the military explicitly in order to commit the massacres, look at Frederick Bunnell, "American `Low Posture' Policy Toward Indonesia in the Months Leading to the 1965 `Coup,'" in "Indonesia" 50 (October) 1990, 59-60, wherein Bunnel writes and quotes from other embassy cables:
"The U.S. quickly fulfilled an army request to the embassy, on 6 November 1965, for weapons "to arm Moslem and nationalist youth in Central Java for use against the PKI," as part of the overall army policy "to eliminate the PKI.""
For further U.S. support to the army in December, see Robinson, "Dark Side of Paradise".
Here is another declassified embassy cable of December 20, 1965:
"Elimination of Communists continues apace....Ban of PKI... brings total of province-level areas in which party formally terminated to 14. Only 11 more to go! Continuing massacre in Bali....American observer reports many headless bodies encountered on roads....Tourists would probably be well advised to postpone pleasure trips to island of the gods."
I sense elation in that quote, don't you?
Well, I don't have time to do more digging for you, but the record is out there. It's not hard to find. The best thing about the U.S. is that ours is the most open nation on earth. The worst is that when someone is confronted with a claim which violates Received Opinion, they stop reading. I hope you're not in the latter category. Do your own digging for more context/info to the above. Also,
The NSA (Archives, not Agency) is still in a lawsuit over other, still classified documents, but they have even more docs.
So if you use Word, then you must be 100% lockstep behind of all of MS' business practices, huh? Sheesh.