..dang, thought I spotted an obvious loophole. OK, check this out, how about internet cafes? You go in, view a ton of copyrighted work, maybe listen to internet streaming, etc. How is that different, or is it and they just ain't got around to it yet?
I dunno, been boycotting full price cd's, live over priced big name concerts and pro team sports so long can't exactly remember when I started, but it was way before I started using the internet. I consider most of that stuff part of the dumbing down bread and circuses action that entrenched power/command/control parties use, to get political about it. I like some music, buy it used or listen on the radio or not at all. Movies I only go to when girlfriend throws a hissy fit about it, but I get in a grumble everytime, and that is maybe once a year tops, although we get used movies on tape, that I mostly don't watch anyway, she does. Sports are the funniest, I live in bubba land and sports are pretty big topic, some guy will start talking to me about his "team" and I just go "sorry, don't waste my time anymore on that silly stuff when there are so many more important things going on" or something like that and change the subject. It's like if you aren't addicted to team sports you ain't cool or something. Means naught to me.
Anyway, to get back to subject, seems the only real practical way to get these guys to stop is to see if they could be busted for price fixing, and I think that was tried and didn't work very well, IIRC. That and just shun them, do the boycott, one person to another, explain the why's of boycotting. Handing them money, making personal exceptions to the rule all the time, well, they'll just keep on with the draconian nonsense. Besides that I just don't know, seems like a better way for "them" to do business is to have kiosks set up at the retailers where you pay by the cut, burn on the spot, and make it cheap and easy and very good quality.
..not sure what the bogus law is, but as far as I know any "human" can play his own boombox with his "legal" cd's or over the air radio. Now probably the store can't as an official policy play music without paying the vig to the goons, but suppose they didn't tell you to turn off your music when you came in, and for some reason the other customers could hear it and they didn't mind? How it would work is first come, first served, just like the meal. If you as a customer come in, and no one is playing their radio or cd player, swell, it's your choice to fire up tunes or talk of choice and listen until you leave the restaurant, then it's the next customers turn if they choose so.
Maybe some famous anonymous slashdot internet & music lawyer might want to comment?
--different employment laws apply to part timers, AFAIK. That's why so many companies are going that way, or using temps or making almost everyone a "manager" and salaried and not hourly.
Re:read between the lines...
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 2
--I agree. Read the whole thread down to here, see nothing but as you suggest-the dotgov is more scared of anonymous civilian communications than interference. It was also my first impression at the top of the thread and when I read about their concerns about wifi helping the terrosists. They want to try and get the "little guy" communications jenni back in the bottle as much as possible. the wired internet they can control at the main backbones, it just wouldn't take that may people to show up and start to flip switches. the broadcast commercial media they can takeover automatically with the FEMA command and control boxes they have installed all over. Next step for them is to try and come up with a way to control personal radios of various kinds, including wifi.
I don't mind someone doing a post and if their own work/business is relevant to the discussion, swell, add in a link to the product or service, but to do it sneakily is just... wrong.
IIRC radio shack is going out of the shortwave business. I don't know about transceivers though. With that said, they got some deals on shortwave receivers. Shortwave is both fun and practical, these days you got no idea when "normality" will change on you, in an emergency it's *nice* to have the option to be able to at least listen to some "news" that might not be filtered through some government propoganda FEMA control box that are installed at the commercial broadcast stations. Even better is to have the ability to converse. HAM and shortwave are very interesting geekish hobbies. So is "alternative energy". Tons of interesting and practical gift ideas in those areas.
--to get free or cheap big dishes, drive around in the country and look for them, then see if they also have a small dish installed. Chances are pretty good if they have a small dish the big dish is now yard art. Knock on door, ask if you can have it for dismantling it, or perhaps a small fee and dismantling it. It's Christmas season, people are up to extra cash in their wallets. I got one for just the asking, but alas the receiver was broken, I'll find one though sometime. The dish itself and the pole mount and tracker/adjustment mechanism are "neat stuff", even if I don't ever get the receiver I was thinking of some solar projects with it, or maybe some other wireless stuff. Don't know but I collect gadgets like that, ya never know when a project inspiration will present itself. Conversely if you can get the dish, perhaps ebay would provide the receiver cheaply.
...ask any potential customers what they might want, let them use their imaginations for you, then make their IT dreams and desires reality. Then charge them for it. I guess to be very general about it-say-ask them to tell you "if you wanted this whole computer infrastructure you have to DO something for you, what would it be? what isn't happening for you you'd like to see happening?" Something along those lines. Innovation comes from either a desire for something new, or just a lack of anything to "do" what needs to be done. Traditional "sales" efforts are most times backwards, they revolve around Product A being pushed on a potential customer-whether that customer actually NEEDS that thing or not or if this product A will actually benfit him. Ask the customer what they want FIRST, see if it's possible, see what they might be willing to spend for the solution you can provide. Turn their frustrations into your business. I imagine every businessman out there wants something that he doesn't have yet, or what he has doesn't really do what he wants, he can probably verbalise what he wants, but the application and implication elude him, that's where you step in.
...plus, he gets *first dibs* on seeing the submitted articles. I just cannot fathom why any megascale investor would want to see advanced technological information like that.....
--I've seen several slashdot threads now on starting your own business, moaning about the company you are in, etc. The two recent were the tech trends thread and the hilarious wobbly headed CEO doll "bonus". Anyway, I found the most fascinating thing in the article was that, to the owner, balloons were just fun! That's how he got into it, doing what he thought was fun and cool! Fun can translate into enthusiasm which leads to making some radical but maybe cool decisions. More power to the guy, and hope he figures out how to keep them in place! And is this a new job title, certified stratonaut network administrator*? CSNA* What a job!
--you are most welcome. I'm going to post a smidgen from the northwoods documents here for anyone's immediate gratification:
note, it is up to the researcher to investigate fuirther on this subject to satisfy themselves as to it's accuracy, this is presenterd "as is"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.htm l
From _BODY OF SECRETS_, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82 and following: scanned and edited by NY Transfer News....In [Joint Chief's chair] Lemnitzer's view, the country would be far better off if the generals could take over. [JFK assassination legend has it some general presided over the fudgy JFK autopsy. --Mk]
For those military officers who were sitting on the fence, the Kennedy administration's botched Bay of Pigs invasion was the last straw. "The Bay of Pigs fiasco broke the dike," said one report at the time. "President Kennedy was pilloried by the super patriots as a 'no-win' chief . . . The Far Right became a fount of proposals born of frustration and put forward in the name of anti-Communism. . . Active-duty commanders played host to anti-Communist seminars on their bases and attended or addressed Right-wing meetings elsewhere."
Although no one in Congress could have known it at the time, Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.
According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of antiCommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.
The idea may actually have originated with President Eisenhower in the last days of his administration. With the Cold War hotter than ever and the recent U-2 scandal fresh in the public's memory, the old general wanted to go out with a win. He wanted desperately to invade Cuba in the weeks leading up to Kennedy's inauguration; indeed, on January 3 he told Lemnitzer and other aides in his Cabinet Room that he would move against Castro before the inauguration if only the Cubans gave him a really good excuse. Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." What he was suggesting was a pretext a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.
Although no such war took place, the idea was not lost on General Lemnitzer But he and his colleagues were frustrated by Kennedy's failure to authorize their plan, and angry that Castro had not provided an excuse to invade.
The final straw may have come during a White House meeting on February 26, 1962. Concerned that General Lansdale's various covert action plans under Operation Mongoose were simply becoming more outrageous and going nowhere, Robert Kennedy told him to drop all anti-Castro efforts. Instead, Lansdale was ordered to concentrate for the next three months strictly on gathering intelligence about Cuba. It was a humiliating defeat for Lansdale, a man more accustomed to praise than to scorn.
As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly "go soft" on Castro, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade Cuba quickly slipping away. The attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead and Castro, unfortunately, appeared to have no inclination to launch any attacks against Americans or their property Lemnitzer and the other Chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion into hating Cuba so much that they would not only go along, but would insist that he and his generals launch their war against Castro. "World opinion, and the United Nations forum," said a secret JCS document, "should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere."
Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths, all to satisfy the egos of twisted generals back in Washington, safe in their taxpayer financed homes and limousines.
One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. On February 20,1962, Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that . . . the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic.]"
This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war.
Glenn lifted into history without mishap, leaving Lemnitzer and the Chiefs to begin devising new plots which they suggested be carried out "within the time frame of the next few months."
Among the actions recommended was "a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations."
The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.
We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). . . . We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."
Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings:
*"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
*"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation."
*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."
Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:
An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.
From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.
Finally, there was a plan to "make it appear that Communist Cuban MiGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack." It was a particularly believable operation given the decade of shoot downs that had just taken place.
In the final sentence of his letter to Secretary McNamara recommending the operations, Lemnitzer made a grab for even more power asking that the Joint Chiefs be placed in charge of carrying out Operation Northwoods and the invasion. "It is recommended," he wrote, "that this responsibility for both oven and covert military operations be assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
At 2:30 on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 13, 1962, Lemnitzer went over last-minute details of Operation Northwoods with his covert action chief, Brigadier General William H. Craig, and signed the document. He then went to a "special meeting" in McNamara's office. An hour later he met with Kennedy's military representative, General Maxwell Taylor. What happened during those meetings is unknown. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer that there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.
Undeterred, Lemnitzer and the Chiefs persisted, virtually to the point of demanding that they be given authority to invade and take over Cuba. About a month after submitting Operation Northwoods, they met the "tank," as the JCS conference room was called, and agreed on the wording of a tough memorandum to McNamara. "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future," they wrote. "Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime."
Lemnitzer was virtually rabid in his hatred of Communism in general and Castro in particular "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military intervention in Cuba without risk of general war" he continued. "They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of UN action." However; what Lemnitzer was suggesting was not freeing the Cuban people, who were largely in support of Castro, but imprisoning them in a U.S. military-controlled police state. "Forces would assure rapid essential military control of Cuba," he wrote. "Continued police action would be required."
Concluding, Lemnitzer did not mince words: "[T]he Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that a national policy of early military intervention in Cuba be adopted by the United States. They also recommend that such intervention be undertaken as soon as possible and preferably before the release of National Guard and Reserve forces presently on active duty."
By then McNamara had virtually no confidence in his military chief and was rejecting nearly every proposal the general sent to him. The rejections became so routine, said one of Lemnitzer's former staff officers, that the staffer told the general that the situation was putting the military in an "embarrassing rut." But Lemnitzer replied, "I am the senior military office--it's my job to state what I believe and it's his [McNamara's] job to approve or disapprove." "McNamara's arrogance was astonishing," said Lemnitzer's aide, who knew nothing of Operation Northwoods. "He gave General Lemnitzer very short shrift and treated him like a schoolboy. The general almost stood at attention when he came into the room. Everything was 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir.'
Within months, Lemnitzer was denied a second term as JCS chairman and transferred to Europe as chief of NATO. Years later President Gerald Ford appointed Lemnitzer, a darling of the Republican right, to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Lemnitzer's Cuba chief, Brigadier General Craig, was also transferred. Promoted to major general, he spent three years as chief of the Army Security Agency, NSA's military arm.
Because of the secrecy and illegality of Operation Northwoods, all details remained hidden for forty years. Lemnitzer may have thought that all copies of the relevant documents had been destroyed; he was not one to leave compromising material lying around. Following the Bay of Pigs debacle, for example, he ordered Brigadier General David W Gray, Craig's predecessor as chief of the Cuba project within the JCS, to destroy all his notes concerning Joint Chiefs actions and discussions during that period. Gray's meticulous notes were the only detailed official records of what happened within the JCS during that time. According to Gray, Lemnitzer feared a congressional investigation and therefore wanted any incriminating evidence destroyed.
With the evidence destroyed, Lemnitzer felt free to lie to Congress. When asked, during secret hearings before a Senate committee, if he knew of any Pentagon plans for a direct invasion of Cuba he said he did not. Yet detailed JCS invasion plans had been drawn up even before Kennedy was inaugurated. And additional plans had been developed since. The consummate planner and man of details also became evasive, suddenly encountering great difficulty in recalling key aspects of the operation, as if he had been out of the country during the period. It was a sorry spectacle. Senator Gore called for Lemnitzer to be fired. "We need a shake up of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" he said. "We direly need a new chairman, as well as new members." No one had any idea of Operation Northwoods.
Because so many documents were destroyed, it is difficult to determine how many senior officials were aware of Operation Northwoods. As has been described, the document was signed and fully approved by Lemnitzer and the rest of the Joint Chiefs and addressed to the Secretary of Defense for his signature. Whether it went beyond McNamara to the president and the attorney general is not known.
Even after Lemnitzer lost his job, the Joint Chiefs kept planning "pretext" operations at least into 1963. Among their proposals was a deliberately create a war between Cuba and any of a number of.n American neighbors. This would give the United States military an excuse to come in on the side of Cuba's adversary and get rid of "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS [Organization of Americas] member could be set up," said one proposal, "and the attacked state could be urged to 'take measures of self-defense and request ice from the U.S. and OAS; the U.S. could almost certainly obtain necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."
Among the nations they suggested that the United States secretly were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Both were members of the Commonwealth; thus, by secretly attacking them and then blaming Cuba, the United States could lure England into the war Castro. The report noted, "Any of the contrived situations de above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation."
The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for ration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. naval base at] Guantanamo." The act suggested--bribing a foreign nation to launch a violent attack American military installation--was treason.
In May 1963, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze sent a the White House proposing "a possible scenario whereby an attack on a United States reconnaissance aircraft could be exploited toward the end of effecting the removal of the Castro regime." In the event Cuba attacked a U-2, the plan proposed sending in additional American pilots, this time on dangerous, unnecessary low-level reconnaissance missions with the expectation that they would also be shot down, thus provoking a war "[T]he U.S. could undertake various measures designed to stimulate the Cubans to provoke a new incident," said the plan. Nitze, however, did not volunteer to be one of the pilots.
One idea involved sending fighters across the island on "harassing reconnaissance" and "show-off" missions "flaunting our freedom of action, hoping to stir the Cuban military to action." "Thus," said the plan, "depending above all on whether the Cubans were or could be made to be trigger-happy, the development of the initial downing of a reconnaissance plane could lead at best to the elimination of Castro, perhaps to the removal of Soviet troops and the installation of ground inspection in Cuba, or at the least to our demonstration of firmness on reconnaissance." About a month later, a low-level flight was made across Cuba, but unfortunately for the Pentagon, instead of bullets it produced only a protest.
Lemnitzer was a dangerous-perhaps even unbalanced-right-wing extremist in an extraordinarily sensitive position during a critical period. But Operation Northwoods also had the support of every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even senior Pentagon official Paul Nitze argued in favor of provoking a phony war with Cuba. The fact that the most senior members of all the services and the Pentagon could be so out of touch with reality and the meaning of democracy would be hidden for four decades.
In retrospect, the documents offer new insight into the thinking of the military's star-studded leadership. Although they never succeeded in launching America into a phony war with Cuba, they may have done so with Vietnam. More than 50,000 Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese were eventually killed in that war.
It has long been suspected that the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident-the spark that led to America's long war in Vietnam-was largely staged or provoked by U.S. officials in order to build up congressional and public support for American involvement. Over the years, serious questions have been raised about the alleged attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on two American destroyers in the Gulf But defenders of the Pentagon have always denied such charges, arguing that senior officials would never engage in such deceit.
Now, however, in light of the Operation Northwoods documents, it at deceiving the public and trumping up wars for Americans to fight and die in was standard, approved policy at the highest levels of the Pentagon. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin seems right out of the Operation Northwoods playbook: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba . . . casualty lists in U.S. newspapers cause a helpful wave of indignation." One need only replace "Guantanamo Bay" with "Tonkin Gulf," and "Cuba" with "North Vietnam" and the Gulf of Tonkin incident may or may not have been stage-managed, but the senior Pentagon leadership at the time was clearly capable of such deceit.
Book epigram:
"The public has a duty to watch its Government closely and keep it on the right track." --Lieutenant Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, NSA, _NSA Newsletter_, June 1997
--"old time lefties"? I started my political career working on the AuH2O campaign, and also working for sane common sense conservation issues, how about you? I support personal and national soverignty, plain english laws, following the Constitution as it was written in english with the words defined by webster in the era when they were written, and reducing government down to the levels it was originally designed for. That ain't "left wing" friend.
--I'm a constitutional independent now, belong to no particular political party, and I for sure can recognize a dictatorship when I see one. The US in late 2002 is analogous to Germany circa 1936 or so. It's a junta, no other word fits. Corporate-slash-military dictatorship with high level bureaucrats and politicians and ranking military officers serving or retired being simultaneously "officers" in the corporations making the most profits, ergo, corporatism,ergo "fascism", so by definition, it's a "junta". It's not "left versus right" anymore, it's closer to say it's "right versus wrong".
"I mean the horrendous events of Sept 11th didn't slip past the security services because there wasn't enough information available, they slipped past because none of the analysts connected the dots between known associates of terrorists in the USA + money being sent to these people from Saudi + lots of odd(*) people wanting to learn how to fly jets = big friqin problem."
I have a different take on it. I think this event was allowed to happen, on purpose, for precisely the "bad" political agenda you can imagine. The most common analogy used for this is 9-11 was a "reichstagg fire" event.
Just some of the biggees are high level people warned not to fly prior to 9-11, air force non-standard emergency measures in regards to hijacking information, stock market airlines stock short selling immediately prior to 9-11 by brokerages connected to the cia, high level officials ordering lower level to cease investigations, the bin laden family jet being allowed to leave the country when every single other private airplane was ordered grounded, thousands of "taliban" officials and fighters flown out of afghanistan on US military jets during a "time out" period in the war over there, and etc. Check out the link (anyone), there's many hours worth of reading there.
--in a reverse sort of way, poindexter and kissinger were great appointees to repectably TIA and one of the 9-11 "truth finding" commissions, they helped focus on the fact how BOGUS they are. The media and public reaction have been pretty good-almost universal condemnation. Much better this junta tips their hand to their true agenda by showing who they think are "good guys" that they pick, known past goons. Just their "goonishness" magnified the press coverage and contributes to the needed outrage. And that TIA logo? HAHAHAHA! Just about anyone can look at that and see it's just weird cult demonic, it looks terrible, it's scary looking to most sane adults. I'm glad the junta is being so stupid, more and more people are tumbling to their agendas.
---freeking hilarious! tell ya whut, sell it at a yardsale, take the cash, slip it in an envelope and mail it to the ceo with a little note "Here, you obviously need this more than me"
heheheheheheh
I make so little(really, joe poverty level, but the tradeoff is I get to live out in the country where it's very nice) I am just glad I still have ANY employment. I probably have to work christmas day as well. No christmas party or anything like that, that's really only for corporations, big businesses, etc. Count your blessings, the economy is tanking generally, official unemployment is 6%, real unemployment is most likely close to double that (maybe, probably)as they DON'T count people off unemployment insurance rolls.
Still cracking up, a bubble head doll. Funniest thing I've heard of in quite a while. Hmm, there's always target shooting! That wiggly head make a nice target at the range! MUAHAHAHAHAA!
...it probably was, you are correct. I won't identify the app, but it's a pretty common gui front end for a *real* important application that I would guess most linux users use. And there it is right in the docs, for a problem that I bet a lot of people see, it says 'well, if you see this kernel foobar on bootup, shoot it's easy, just write a script to fix it"and THAT'S IT! Well, if it's "that easy" like why wouldn't the developer just type the few lines necessary and include it? it's easy FOR HIM to "write a script" he knows What he's thinking and talking about. Me, I have no idea, no idea what language, what it's supposed to do or say. I ALREADY got a job, I just ain't gonna learn some programming language just to write a few lines of this cryptic "script". Is typing the few sentences that are necessary all that hard? I'd do it if I even knew how, so there's zilch I can do to either fix it or offer any help back. En-screwed again. That's what I am thinking, stop coding a minute, type a few explanatory lines, change the docs so a non programmer might have a clue. Just bugged me when I saw that.
--here's a wild thought, IT admins get paid until something breaks, then they go off the clock until it's fixed. Anytime the system is running smoothly, it's no big deal, that's the results the companies are paying for. Companies don't really want broken stuff or barely running stuff, they want it functional all the time and not have to fork around with it. The admins then get to be the judge of how they spend their time, goofing off surfing or learning more things, keeping up with the industry. The way it is now, they get paid no matter what, so there's no real incentive to make things better, just maintain a low end status quo. You explain it to the bean counters that way, and write that maintenance contract precisely, so there's no wiggle room for either party. You as an admin ask them what results they want, then YOU tell THEM what combi8nation of hardware and software will give them those results. This is the basis for the contract. Tell them it's cheaper in the long run, as they only pay for what they want, that it's YOUR job to make sure they get the results they want, and they don't have to worry about doing two jobs, the bean counters and managers shouldn't be concerned with the precise minutiae of how IT works, they ned to build and sell widgets, that's their primary job. overlap don't work, the concept of differnt specialised jobs came about because that's the only way to have a complex org run efficiently. Look at it like a car, how sane would it be for a car exec to tell his engineers "ya know, make the carb do the starters job as well". That's nuts obviously, and there's no reason for the engineers to have to even consider that. Same with IT.
I've had bosses try to micromanage me before, it NEVER works.
--different tangent----
Another thing is, and this is NOT going to sink in until it's too late (IMO), is that IT people need to stop being predators on each other and be a more collective force. In case anyone hasn't noticed, jobs are going off shore (speaking as a US person) and they will continue to go offshore until society demands the "boss class" to stop that. That's going to require banding together in an organization that has CLOUT, and also abandoning thinking that either of the two major political "parties" are going to help you keep your job. They aren't, this is obvious, that coffee pot has been steaming away for many years now, it's very easy to smell it. Speaking as a blue collar guy, I'll tell the white collar guys to WAKE UP to this reality, it's knocking on your door. Just because you are "smart" doesn't mean you still can't get screwed.
--thanks for bringing up documentation! As a semi noob still and a non coder, I get frustrated as heck when I see the instructions for some program tell me to "write a script". OK, I can mangle out some terrible html. How is that gonna help? I got no desire to be forced to become a unix admin. Or if I follow the install readme down to the letter, look 5 times before I hit enter in the console, and it still don't work. I tried linux once years ago, went "no way jose, I'll wait". I'd say it's close now but still needs more functionalty/ease of use, less eye candy emphasis on customizing skins and "themes". It's very good as it stands now at least how I use it, no idea about anyone else I only know one other person in my whole area uses linux and don't talk to him much. I got the internet and that's it for help. I use google, I am on my second full printed out notebook of notes, and starting on the third, and still am not really comfortable changing things to make them work. Although I used windows off and on in the past I never cared for it,same deal with getting in and trying to fix files was just way too bogus for me, hated it, so have been mostly always a mac classic until steve jobs priced me out of computers and OS, which is the opposite experience, I never had anything fail to install or run, it just never happened to me. classic had a few problems, speed and memory management the two biggees, but honestly it never was that bad installing and running programs or having some accessory work. Plug it in, worked. Never had to "edit a file". It's hard for non-coders sometimes in linux and harder to find instructions that are de-acronymed adequately. I'm finding myself NOT trying out programs as much as I'd like as I got a "sort of" working pretty good computer now an am more or less chicken I'm going to screw it up (again) and have to start all over again, and this shouldn't happen, IMO. I also still won't use linux for any online e commerce, there's no way to tell as a noob if you are owned or not, I just go boot the old mac back up if I ever order anything online. I can't take a chance on that yet, casual surfing is one thing, having to be a trained systems engineer in security is another. I like the concepts, I support my distro, but I'm looking for a more professionally finished product, and I don't care if the cd install disks have half as many programs either. The winner will keep getting my cash, not twice a year, but every other year for an upgrade, I see zero need to "upgrade"constantly, as do most people. Great for some folks, but they are in the minority, vast numbers of people I know just don't want to do that.
--I remember my favs from the 5 and dime, when stuff actually costed a 5 or dime... hmm, slingshots, 10 cents, pack 0 trading cards with gum, a nickle, capbombs, those where cool, open the heavy end, insert one cap, close, throw, they come down, bang, great sport, marbles, would actually play for deadly serious keepsies, jackknives were good -hmm a trend here, politically incorrect toys sorta phased out a little, balsa wood gliders, the expensive ones were a whole quarter with the wind up rubber band props- now a few higher end price wise, upto the few buck range- jump ropes, clamp on roller skates, wooden boomerangs, mad scientist kits with mr lizard on the box, the invisible dude, then it got to be heathkits and shotguns and then cars and then GIRLS and all bets went off, stuff costed serious lawn mowing and snow shoveling and fruit picking and then real job money.
--this is not only incredibly arrogant, but they are so blatantly relying on the naievete of a lot of people. Like we aren't gonna have various militaries weaponizing this stuff? C'mon! EVERY single tiny bit of high technology research is ALSO used by militaries when they get their hands on it, ALL of it. Anyone can go google for themselves, bioweapons are "alive and well" and still being researched and developed all over the world, despite the public "no we aren't" treaties.
These "scientists" are monsters, I don't care how "innocent" they appear. They KNOW my above statements are *true*, and they do it anyway. No different from the high tech globalist goons helping -say, for just one more example- china build their great firewall of censorship, they know it's just slap wrong, but do it any way for mere money. No different from any cheap mercenary, that's it.
"oh, but they are gonna study it and come up with the cure" and whine, excuse, etc. uh huh, yep, sure they are...
--blind patriotism is just that, "blind". If you read more of my stuff you'd see I'm just as "down" on our US goon insane "leaders" as yours, or red china's, or any other agressive nation's. Your country has a dismal track record of invading and occupying and you know it. It has a past dismal record of enslaving it's own pople, from the czars on up, a master/serf nation. If you can break that cycle, good for you! Unfortunately my country has set itself down the same path, we are heading to a two class society of masters and serfs, and I think *all* of it sucks. All I do when I post is point out inconsisterncies with what government or corporate leaders "say" as opposed to what reality is, and I usually try to back it up with relevant linkages, just like I did in my post. Step back a second and think about it that way, the original post was russia is " too broke" and "can't afford" peaceful space station payments. I pointed out it's not as "broke" as they say publically, that they divert money from peaceful projects into weapons of mass destruction, and it doesn't get acknowledged or covered much in the mainstream press. they get caught lying blatantly, same as our leaders get caught lying, it just happens. The same applies to the US, we let these international arms and construction contractors drive our foreign policy via their tame bribed politicians WAY too much, in my opinion, because "war" is "good for business" at least according to these spilled blood merchants. I find I am fair and consistent with my "dissing" and "put downs" of these people, in any country, and your country don't get a skate on it as far as I am concerned, I'm an equal opportunity complainer!
Be proud of the good things your nation does, as I am of mine, but don't be blind to the things that slide into the "bad" area. Best advice I have.
--good for you,congrats! I have a firm belief that commercial closed source propietary software should be like any other consumer product, ie, have a warranty with it and be treated like any other product out there. If it's defective or if you don't agree with their obscured license you can't even see until after you open it up or try to install it, it should be easy to take back. I think if software companies were held to the same standards as a durable good, that we'd see a lot less releases but of much better quality. Right now they just state "too bad this stuff may or may bnot work but we're gonna charge you hundreds of dollars anyway and if you get owned or this stuff actually don't work as advertised or winds up costing you a ton of money then tough luck and by the way we reserve the right to hack your machine whenever we feel like it". That's their EULA broken down and distilled into normal english, more or less. Heck with that noise, that's the single biggest problem software has now, IMO. It's also the main reason I switched to open software, I am geting more or less the same "caveat emptor" type experience with my choices now but at least I know people are working on it because they WANT to as opposed to people who just HAVE to and it becomes drudgery and they usually have zero control over what actually gets released. I feel sorry for the programmers stuck because of economic realities working for these big companies, because I bet a lot of times they know that "whatever" isn't finished yet and buggy, but watch it go out the door.
I've said it several times before here on slashdot,and this is just one example of many but a large and common one, for instance I would have much rather seen microsoft be a decent successful company with 20 billion in the bank instead of 40, and that other 20 billion gone into quality control and useability by choice in the matter and corporate ethics. I just don't agree with the get out of jail free card that their EULA represents being "accepted". I have heard all the arguments 'well, just don't use it" etc. I am fully aware of that, my point is, it's bad precedent. We have consumer protection regs for a reason, they have been proven to be necessary else industries gradually all go to a "screw you" mindset and monopolies. I don't see where software companies get away with it when every other industry has laws to protect the consumer. I mean, how would it be to buy cars with no warranty, or no protection? If ALL the cars came that way? Would that really be a choice then? Maybe that's not a direct analogy but close enough for my point.
..last summer had an aquaintance of mine purchase a shrink wrapped XP box off the shelf at his local retailer. He opened the box, but hadn't installed it yet when he started actually reading about XP and decided he didn't want it. So he tries to return it, first try was a no go, they refused, as the shrinkwrap was opened. He asked me, I said go back and complain that you had no way to read the eula until you opened it, that you didn't agree with it, and never installed it, which was the plain simple truth. He goes back, argued that point at the service desk, mentioned he just might want to take it to court, gets the store manager finally, runs the same thing past him, and the upshot was he got his full money back.. I don't know if this is common or not and I know it isn't relevant to a bundled package with a new computer, but still goes to show it's possible at least.
Slashdot Mirror
..dang, thought I spotted an obvious loophole. OK, check this out, how about internet cafes? You go in, view a ton of copyrighted work, maybe listen to internet streaming, etc. How is that different, or is it and they just ain't got around to it yet?
I dunno, been boycotting full price cd's, live over priced big name concerts and pro team sports so long can't exactly remember when I started, but it was way before I started using the internet. I consider most of that stuff part of the dumbing down bread and circuses action that entrenched power/command/control parties use, to get political about it. I like some music, buy it used or listen on the radio or not at all. Movies I only go to when girlfriend throws a hissy fit about it, but I get in a grumble everytime, and that is maybe once a year tops, although we get used movies on tape, that I mostly don't watch anyway, she does. Sports are the funniest, I live in bubba land and sports are pretty big topic, some guy will start talking to me about his "team" and I just go "sorry, don't waste my time anymore on that silly stuff when there are so many more important things going on" or something like that and change the subject. It's like if you aren't addicted to team sports you ain't cool or something. Means naught to me.
Anyway, to get back to subject, seems the only real practical way to get these guys to stop is to see if they could be busted for price fixing, and I think that was tried and didn't work very well, IIRC. That and just shun them, do the boycott, one person to another, explain the why's of boycotting. Handing them money, making personal exceptions to the rule all the time, well, they'll just keep on with the draconian nonsense. Besides that I just don't know, seems like a better way for "them" to do business is to have kiosks set up at the retailers where you pay by the cut, burn on the spot, and make it cheap and easy and very good quality.
..not sure what the bogus law is, but as far as I know any "human" can play his own boombox with his "legal" cd's or over the air radio. Now probably the store can't as an official policy play music without paying the vig to the goons, but suppose they didn't tell you to turn off your music when you came in, and for some reason the other customers could hear it and they didn't mind? How it would work is first come, first served, just like the meal. If you as a customer come in, and no one is playing their radio or cd player, swell, it's your choice to fire up tunes or talk of choice and listen until you leave the restaurant, then it's the next customers turn if they choose so.
Maybe some famous anonymous slashdot internet & music lawyer might want to comment?
--different employment laws apply to part timers, AFAIK. That's why so many companies are going that way, or using temps or making almost everyone a "manager" and salaried and not hourly.
--I agree. Read the whole thread down to here, see nothing but as you suggest-the dotgov is more scared of anonymous civilian communications than interference. It was also my first impression at the top of the thread and when I read about their concerns about wifi helping the terrosists. They want to try and get the "little guy" communications jenni back in the bottle as much as possible. the wired internet they can control at the main backbones, it just wouldn't take that may people to show up and start to flip switches. the broadcast commercial media they can takeover automatically with the FEMA command and control boxes they have installed all over. Next step for them is to try and come up with a way to control personal radios of various kinds, including wifi.
I don't mind someone doing a post and if their own work/business is relevant to the discussion, swell, add in a link to the product or service, but to do it sneakily is just... wrong.
IIRC radio shack is going out of the shortwave business. I don't know about transceivers though. With that said, they got some deals on shortwave receivers. Shortwave is both fun and practical, these days you got no idea when "normality" will change on you, in an emergency it's *nice* to have the option to be able to at least listen to some "news" that might not be filtered through some government propoganda FEMA control box that are installed at the commercial broadcast stations. Even better is to have the ability to converse. HAM and shortwave are very interesting geekish hobbies. So is "alternative energy". Tons of interesting and practical gift ideas in those areas.
--to get free or cheap big dishes, drive around in the country and look for them, then see if they also have a small dish installed. Chances are pretty good if they have a small dish the big dish is now yard art. Knock on door, ask if you can have it for dismantling it, or perhaps a small fee and dismantling it. It's Christmas season, people are up to extra cash in their wallets. I got one for just the asking, but alas the receiver was broken, I'll find one though sometime. The dish itself and the pole mount and tracker/adjustment mechanism are "neat stuff", even if I don't ever get the receiver I was thinking of some solar projects with it, or maybe some other wireless stuff. Don't know but I collect gadgets like that, ya never know when a project inspiration will present itself. Conversely if you can get the dish, perhaps ebay would provide the receiver cheaply.
...ask any potential customers what they might want, let them use their imaginations for you, then make their IT dreams and desires reality. Then charge them for it. I guess to be very general about it-say-ask them to tell you "if you wanted this whole computer infrastructure you have to DO something for you, what would it be? what isn't happening for you you'd like to see happening?" Something along those lines. Innovation comes from either a desire for something new, or just a lack of anything to "do" what needs to be done. Traditional "sales" efforts are most times backwards, they revolve around Product A being pushed on a potential customer-whether that customer actually NEEDS that thing or not or if this product A will actually benfit him. Ask the customer what they want FIRST, see if it's possible, see what they might be willing to spend for the solution you can provide. Turn their frustrations into your business. I imagine every businessman out there wants something that he doesn't have yet, or what he has doesn't really do what he wants, he can probably verbalise what he wants, but the application and implication elude him, that's where you step in.
heh hehheh
--I've seen several slashdot threads now on starting your own business, moaning about the company you are in, etc. The two recent were the tech trends thread and the hilarious wobbly headed CEO doll "bonus". Anyway, I found the most fascinating thing in the article was that, to the owner, balloons were just fun! That's how he got into it, doing what he thought was fun and cool! Fun can translate into enthusiasm which leads to making some radical but maybe cool decisions. More power to the guy, and hope he figures out how to keep them in place! And is this a new job title, certified stratonaut network administrator*? CSNA* What a job!
*copylefted, have fun!
--you are most welcome. I'm going to post a smidgen from the northwoods documents here for anyone's immediate gratification:
m l
...In [Joint Chief's chair] Lemnitzer's view, the country would be far better off if the generals could take over. [JFK assassination legend has it some general presided over the fudgy JFK autopsy. --Mk]
.n American neighbors. This would give the United States military an excuse to come in on the side of Cuba's adversary and get rid of "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS [Organization of Americas] member could be set up," said one proposal, "and the attacked state could be urged to 'take measures of self-defense and request ice from the U.S. and OAS; the U.S. could almost certainly obtain necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."
note, it is up to the researcher to investigate fuirther on this subject to satisfy themselves as to it's accuracy, this is presenterd "as is"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.ht
From _BODY OF SECRETS_, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82 and following: scanned and edited by NY Transfer News.
For those military officers who were sitting on the fence, the Kennedy administration's botched Bay of Pigs invasion was the last straw. "The Bay of Pigs fiasco broke the dike," said one report at the time. "President Kennedy was pilloried by the super patriots as a 'no-win' chief . . . The Far Right became a fount of proposals born of frustration and put forward in the name of anti-Communism. . . Active-duty commanders played host to anti-Communist seminars on their bases and attended or addressed Right-wing meetings elsewhere."
Although no one in Congress could have known it at the time, Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.
According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of antiCommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.
The idea may actually have originated with President Eisenhower in the last days of his administration. With the Cold War hotter than ever and the recent U-2 scandal fresh in the public's memory, the old general wanted to go out with a win. He wanted desperately to invade Cuba in the weeks leading up to Kennedy's inauguration; indeed, on January 3 he told Lemnitzer and other aides in his Cabinet Room that he would move against Castro before the inauguration if only the Cubans gave him a really good excuse. Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." What he was suggesting was a pretext a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.
Although no such war took place, the idea was not lost on General Lemnitzer But he and his colleagues were frustrated by Kennedy's failure to authorize their plan, and angry that Castro had not provided an excuse to invade.
The final straw may have come during a White House meeting on February 26, 1962. Concerned that General Lansdale's various covert action plans under Operation Mongoose were simply becoming more outrageous and going nowhere, Robert Kennedy told him to drop all anti-Castro efforts. Instead, Lansdale was ordered to concentrate for the next three months strictly on gathering intelligence about Cuba. It was a humiliating defeat for Lansdale, a man more accustomed to praise than to scorn.
As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly "go soft" on Castro, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade Cuba quickly slipping away. The attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead and Castro, unfortunately, appeared to have no inclination to launch any attacks against Americans or their property Lemnitzer and the other Chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion into hating Cuba so much that they would not only go along, but would insist that he and his generals launch their war against Castro. "World opinion, and the United Nations forum," said a secret JCS document, "should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere."
Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths, all to satisfy the egos of twisted generals back in Washington, safe in their taxpayer financed homes and limousines.
One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. On February 20,1962, Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that . . . the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic.]"
This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war.
Glenn lifted into history without mishap, leaving Lemnitzer and the Chiefs to begin devising new plots which they suggested be carried out "within the time frame of the next few months."
Among the actions recommended was "a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations."
The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.
We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). . . . We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."
Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings:
*"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
*"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation."
*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."
Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:
An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.
From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.
Finally, there was a plan to "make it appear that Communist Cuban MiGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack." It was a particularly believable operation given the decade of shoot downs that had just taken place.
In the final sentence of his letter to Secretary McNamara recommending the operations, Lemnitzer made a grab for even more power asking that the Joint Chiefs be placed in charge of carrying out Operation Northwoods and the invasion. "It is recommended," he wrote, "that this responsibility for both oven and covert military operations be assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
At 2:30 on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 13, 1962, Lemnitzer went over last-minute details of Operation Northwoods with his covert action chief, Brigadier General William H. Craig, and signed the document. He then went to a "special meeting" in McNamara's office. An hour later he met with Kennedy's military representative, General Maxwell Taylor. What happened during those meetings is unknown. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer that there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.
Undeterred, Lemnitzer and the Chiefs persisted, virtually to the point of demanding that they be given authority to invade and take over Cuba. About a month after submitting Operation Northwoods, they met the "tank," as the JCS conference room was called, and agreed on the wording of a tough memorandum to McNamara. "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future," they wrote. "Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime."
Lemnitzer was virtually rabid in his hatred of Communism in general and Castro in particular "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military intervention in Cuba without risk of general war" he continued. "They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of UN action." However; what Lemnitzer was suggesting was not freeing the Cuban people, who were largely in support of Castro, but imprisoning them in a U.S. military-controlled police state. "Forces would assure rapid essential military control of Cuba," he wrote. "Continued police action would be required."
Concluding, Lemnitzer did not mince words: "[T]he Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that a national policy of early military intervention in Cuba be adopted by the United States. They also recommend that such intervention be undertaken as soon as possible and preferably before the release of National Guard and Reserve forces presently on active duty."
By then McNamara had virtually no confidence in his military chief and was rejecting nearly every proposal the general sent to him. The rejections became so routine, said one of Lemnitzer's former staff officers, that the staffer told the general that the situation was putting the military in an "embarrassing rut." But Lemnitzer replied, "I am the senior military office--it's my job to state what I believe and it's his [McNamara's] job to approve or disapprove." "McNamara's arrogance was astonishing," said Lemnitzer's aide, who knew nothing of Operation Northwoods. "He gave General Lemnitzer very short shrift and treated him like a schoolboy. The general almost stood at attention when he came into the room. Everything was 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir.'
Within months, Lemnitzer was denied a second term as JCS chairman and transferred to Europe as chief of NATO. Years later President Gerald Ford appointed Lemnitzer, a darling of the Republican right, to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Lemnitzer's Cuba chief, Brigadier General Craig, was also transferred. Promoted to major general, he spent three years as chief of the Army Security Agency, NSA's military arm.
Because of the secrecy and illegality of Operation Northwoods, all details remained hidden for forty years. Lemnitzer may have thought that all copies of the relevant documents had been destroyed; he was not one to leave compromising material lying around. Following the Bay of Pigs debacle, for example, he ordered Brigadier General David W Gray, Craig's predecessor as chief of the Cuba project within the JCS, to destroy all his notes concerning Joint Chiefs actions and discussions during that period. Gray's meticulous notes were the only detailed official records of what happened within the JCS during that time. According to Gray, Lemnitzer feared a congressional investigation and therefore wanted any incriminating evidence destroyed.
With the evidence destroyed, Lemnitzer felt free to lie to Congress. When asked, during secret hearings before a Senate committee, if he knew of any Pentagon plans for a direct invasion of Cuba he said he did not. Yet detailed JCS invasion plans had been drawn up even before Kennedy was inaugurated. And additional plans had been developed since. The consummate planner and man of details also became evasive, suddenly encountering great difficulty in recalling key aspects of the operation, as if he had been out of the country during the period. It was a sorry spectacle. Senator Gore called for Lemnitzer to be fired. "We need a shake up of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" he said. "We direly need a new chairman, as well as new members." No one had any idea of Operation Northwoods.
Because so many documents were destroyed, it is difficult to determine how many senior officials were aware of Operation Northwoods. As has been described, the document was signed and fully approved by Lemnitzer and the rest of the Joint Chiefs and addressed to the Secretary of Defense for his signature. Whether it went beyond McNamara to the president and the attorney general is not known.
Even after Lemnitzer lost his job, the Joint Chiefs kept planning "pretext" operations at least into 1963. Among their proposals was a deliberately create a war between Cuba and any of a number of
Among the nations they suggested that the United States secretly were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Both were members of the Commonwealth; thus, by secretly attacking them and then blaming Cuba, the United States could lure England into the war Castro. The report noted, "Any of the contrived situations de above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation."
The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for ration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. naval base at] Guantanamo." The act suggested--bribing a foreign nation to launch a violent attack American military installation--was treason.
In May 1963, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze sent a the White House proposing "a possible scenario whereby an attack on a United States reconnaissance aircraft could be exploited toward the end of effecting the removal of the Castro regime." In the event Cuba attacked a U-2, the plan proposed sending in additional American pilots, this time on dangerous, unnecessary low-level reconnaissance missions with the expectation that they would also be shot down, thus provoking a war "[T]he U.S. could undertake various measures designed to stimulate the Cubans to provoke a new incident," said the plan. Nitze, however, did not volunteer to be one of the pilots.
One idea involved sending fighters across the island on "harassing reconnaissance" and "show-off" missions "flaunting our freedom of action, hoping to stir the Cuban military to action." "Thus," said the plan, "depending above all on whether the Cubans were or could be made to be trigger-happy, the development of the initial downing of a reconnaissance plane could lead at best to the elimination of Castro, perhaps to the removal of Soviet troops and the installation of ground inspection in Cuba, or at the least to our demonstration of firmness on reconnaissance." About a month later, a low-level flight was made across Cuba, but unfortunately for the Pentagon, instead of bullets it produced only a protest.
Lemnitzer was a dangerous-perhaps even unbalanced-right-wing extremist in an extraordinarily sensitive position during a critical period. But Operation Northwoods also had the support of every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even senior Pentagon official Paul Nitze argued in favor of provoking a phony war with Cuba. The fact that the most senior members of all the services and the Pentagon could be so out of touch with reality and the meaning of democracy would be hidden for four decades.
In retrospect, the documents offer new insight into the thinking of the military's star-studded leadership. Although they never succeeded in launching America into a phony war with Cuba, they may have done so with Vietnam. More than 50,000 Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese were eventually killed in that war.
It has long been suspected that the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident-the spark that led to America's long war in Vietnam-was largely staged or provoked by U.S. officials in order to build up congressional and public support for American involvement. Over the years, serious questions have been raised about the alleged attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on two American destroyers in the Gulf But defenders of the Pentagon have always denied such charges, arguing that senior officials would never engage in such deceit.
Now, however, in light of the Operation Northwoods documents, it at deceiving the public and trumping up wars for Americans to fight and die in was standard, approved policy at the highest levels of the Pentagon. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin seems right out of the Operation Northwoods playbook: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba . . . casualty lists in U.S. newspapers cause a helpful wave of indignation." One need only replace "Guantanamo Bay" with "Tonkin Gulf," and "Cuba" with "North Vietnam" and the Gulf of Tonkin incident may or may not have been stage-managed, but the senior Pentagon leadership at the time was clearly capable of such deceit.
Book epigram:
"The public has a duty to watch its Government closely and keep it on the right track." --Lieutenant Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, NSA, _NSA Newsletter_, June 1997
---thanks, appreciate the links. I look at as much data as I can, from a variety of viewpoints.
--"old time lefties"? I started my political career working on the AuH2O campaign, and also working for sane common sense conservation issues, how about you? I support personal and national soverignty, plain english laws, following the Constitution as it was written in english with the words defined by webster in the era when they were written, and reducing government down to the levels it was originally designed for. That ain't "left wing" friend.
--I'm a constitutional independent now, belong to no particular political party, and I for sure can recognize a dictatorship when I see one. The US in late 2002 is analogous to Germany circa 1936 or so. It's a junta, no other word fits. Corporate-slash-military dictatorship with high level bureaucrats and politicians and ranking military officers serving or retired being simultaneously "officers" in the corporations making the most profits, ergo, corporatism,ergo "fascism", so by definition, it's a "junta". It's not "left versus right" anymore, it's closer to say it's "right versus wrong".
I have a different take on it. I think this event was allowed to happen, on purpose, for precisely the "bad" political agenda you can imagine. The most common analogy used for this is 9-11 was a "reichstagg fire" event.
Relevant link here, government prior knowledge
Just some of the biggees are high level people warned not to fly prior to 9-11, air force non-standard emergency measures in regards to hijacking information, stock market airlines stock short selling immediately prior to 9-11 by brokerages connected to the cia, high level officials ordering lower level to cease investigations, the bin laden family jet being allowed to leave the country when every single other private airplane was ordered grounded, thousands of "taliban" officials and fighters flown out of afghanistan on US military jets during a "time out" period in the war over there, and etc. Check out the link (anyone), there's many hours worth of reading there.
--in a reverse sort of way, poindexter and kissinger were great appointees to repectably TIA and one of the 9-11 "truth finding" commissions, they helped focus on the fact how BOGUS they are. The media and public reaction have been pretty good-almost universal condemnation. Much better this junta tips their hand to their true agenda by showing who they think are "good guys" that they pick, known past goons. Just their "goonishness" magnified the press coverage and contributes to the needed outrage. And that TIA logo? HAHAHAHA! Just about anyone can look at that and see it's just weird cult demonic, it looks terrible, it's scary looking to most sane adults. I'm glad the junta is being so stupid, more and more people are tumbling to their agendas.
---freeking hilarious! tell ya whut, sell it at a yardsale, take the cash, slip it in an envelope and mail it to the ceo with a little note "Here, you obviously need this more than me"
heheheheheheh
I make so little(really, joe poverty level, but the tradeoff is I get to live out in the country where it's very nice) I am just glad I still have ANY employment. I probably have to work christmas day as well. No christmas party or anything like that, that's really only for corporations, big businesses, etc. Count your blessings, the economy is tanking generally, official unemployment is 6%, real unemployment is most likely close to double that (maybe, probably)as they DON'T count people off unemployment insurance rolls.
Still cracking up, a bubble head doll. Funniest thing I've heard of in quite a while. Hmm, there's always target shooting! That wiggly head make a nice target at the range! MUAHAHAHAHAA!
...it probably was, you are correct. I won't identify the app, but it's a pretty common gui front end for a *real* important application that I would guess most linux users use. And there it is right in the docs, for a problem that I bet a lot of people see, it says 'well, if you see this kernel foobar on bootup, shoot it's easy, just write a script to fix it"and THAT'S IT! Well, if it's "that easy" like why wouldn't the developer just type the few lines necessary and include it? it's easy FOR HIM to "write a script" he knows What he's thinking and talking about. Me, I have no idea, no idea what language, what it's supposed to do or say. I ALREADY got a job, I just ain't gonna learn some programming language just to write a few lines of this cryptic "script". Is typing the few sentences that are necessary all that hard? I'd do it if I even knew how, so there's zilch I can do to either fix it or offer any help back. En-screwed again. That's what I am thinking, stop coding a minute, type a few explanatory lines, change the docs so a non programmer might have a clue. Just bugged me when I saw that.
thanks for your reply
--here's a wild thought, IT admins get paid until something breaks, then they go off the clock until it's fixed. Anytime the system is running smoothly, it's no big deal, that's the results the companies are paying for. Companies don't really want broken stuff or barely running stuff, they want it functional all the time and not have to fork around with it. The admins then get to be the judge of how they spend their time, goofing off surfing or learning more things, keeping up with the industry. The way it is now, they get paid no matter what, so there's no real incentive to make things better, just maintain a low end status quo. You explain it to the bean counters that way, and write that maintenance contract precisely, so there's no wiggle room for either party. You as an admin ask them what results they want, then YOU tell THEM what combi8nation of hardware and software will give them those results. This is the basis for the contract. Tell them it's cheaper in the long run, as they only pay for what they want, that it's YOUR job to make sure they get the results they want, and they don't have to worry about doing two jobs, the bean counters and managers shouldn't be concerned with the precise minutiae of how IT works, they ned to build and sell widgets, that's their primary job. overlap don't work, the concept of differnt specialised jobs came about because that's the only way to have a complex org run efficiently. Look at it like a car, how sane would it be for a car exec to tell his engineers "ya know, make the carb do the starters job as well". That's nuts obviously, and there's no reason for the engineers to have to even consider that. Same with IT.
I've had bosses try to micromanage me before, it NEVER works.
--different tangent----
Another thing is, and this is NOT going to sink in until it's too late (IMO), is that IT people need to stop being predators on each other and be a more collective force. In case anyone hasn't noticed, jobs are going off shore (speaking as a US person) and they will continue to go offshore until society demands the "boss class" to stop that. That's going to require banding together in an organization that has CLOUT, and also abandoning thinking that either of the two major political "parties" are going to help you keep your job. They aren't, this is obvious, that coffee pot has been steaming away for many years now, it's very easy to smell it. Speaking as a blue collar guy, I'll tell the white collar guys to WAKE UP to this reality, it's knocking on your door. Just because you are "smart" doesn't mean you still can't get screwed.
--thanks for bringing up documentation! As a semi noob still and a non coder, I get frustrated as heck when I see the instructions for some program tell me to "write a script". OK, I can mangle out some terrible html. How is that gonna help? I got no desire to be forced to become a unix admin. Or if I follow the install readme down to the letter, look 5 times before I hit enter in the console, and it still don't work. I tried linux once years ago, went "no way jose, I'll wait". I'd say it's close now but still needs more functionalty/ease of use, less eye candy emphasis on customizing skins and "themes". It's very good as it stands now at least how I use it, no idea about anyone else I only know one other person in my whole area uses linux and don't talk to him much. I got the internet and that's it for help. I use google, I am on my second full printed out notebook of notes, and starting on the third, and still am not really comfortable changing things to make them work. Although I used windows off and on in the past I never cared for it,same deal with getting in and trying to fix files was just way too bogus for me, hated it, so have been mostly always a mac classic until steve jobs priced me out of computers and OS, which is the opposite experience, I never had anything fail to install or run, it just never happened to me. classic had a few problems, speed and memory management the two biggees, but honestly it never was that bad installing and running programs or having some accessory work. Plug it in, worked. Never had to "edit a file". It's hard for non-coders sometimes in linux and harder to find instructions that are de-acronymed adequately. I'm finding myself NOT trying out programs as much as I'd like as I got a "sort of" working pretty good computer now an am more or less chicken I'm going to screw it up (again) and have to start all over again, and this shouldn't happen, IMO. I also still won't use linux for any online e commerce, there's no way to tell as a noob if you are owned or not, I just go boot the old mac back up if I ever order anything online. I can't take a chance on that yet, casual surfing is one thing, having to be a trained systems engineer in security is another. I like the concepts, I support my distro, but I'm looking for a more professionally finished product, and I don't care if the cd install disks have half as many programs either. The winner will keep getting my cash, not twice a year, but every other year for an upgrade, I see zero need to "upgrade"constantly, as do most people. Great for some folks, but they are in the minority, vast numbers of people I know just don't want to do that.
--I remember my favs from the 5 and dime, when stuff actually costed a 5 or dime... hmm, slingshots, 10 cents, pack 0 trading cards with gum, a nickle, capbombs, those where cool, open the heavy end, insert one cap, close, throw, they come down, bang, great sport, marbles, would actually play for deadly serious keepsies, jackknives were good -hmm a trend here, politically incorrect toys sorta phased out a little, balsa wood gliders, the expensive ones were a whole quarter with the wind up rubber band props- now a few higher end price wise, upto the few buck range- jump ropes, clamp on roller skates, wooden boomerangs, mad scientist kits with mr lizard on the box, the invisible dude, then it got to be heathkits and shotguns and then cars and then GIRLS and all bets went off, stuff costed serious lawn mowing and snow shoveling and fruit picking and then real job money.
--this is not only incredibly arrogant, but they are so blatantly relying on the naievete of a lot of people. Like we aren't gonna have various militaries weaponizing this stuff? C'mon! EVERY single tiny bit of high technology research is ALSO used by militaries when they get their hands on it, ALL of it. Anyone can go google for themselves, bioweapons are "alive and well" and still being researched and developed all over the world, despite the public "no we aren't" treaties.
These "scientists" are monsters, I don't care how "innocent" they appear. They KNOW my above statements are *true*, and they do it anyway. No different from the high tech globalist goons helping -say, for just one more example- china build their great firewall of censorship, they know it's just slap wrong, but do it any way for mere money. No different from any cheap mercenary, that's it.
"oh, but they are gonna study it and come up with the cure" and whine, excuse, etc. uh huh, yep, sure they are...
--blind patriotism is just that, "blind". If you read more of my stuff you'd see I'm just as "down" on our US goon insane "leaders" as yours, or red china's, or any other agressive nation's. Your country has a dismal track record of invading and occupying and you know it. It has a past dismal record of enslaving it's own pople, from the czars on up, a master/serf nation. If you can break that cycle, good for you! Unfortunately my country has set itself down the same path, we are heading to a two class society of masters and serfs, and I think *all* of it sucks. All I do when I post is point out inconsisterncies with what government or corporate leaders "say" as opposed to what reality is, and I usually try to back it up with relevant linkages, just like I did in my post. Step back a second and think about it that way, the original post was russia is " too broke" and "can't afford" peaceful space station payments. I pointed out it's not as "broke" as they say publically, that they divert money from peaceful projects into weapons of mass destruction, and it doesn't get acknowledged or covered much in the mainstream press. they get caught lying blatantly, same as our leaders get caught lying, it just happens. The same applies to the US, we let these international arms and construction contractors drive our foreign policy via their tame bribed politicians WAY too much, in my opinion, because "war" is "good for business" at least according to these spilled blood merchants. I find I am fair and consistent with my "dissing" and "put downs" of these people, in any country, and your country don't get a skate on it as far as I am concerned, I'm an equal opportunity complainer!
Be proud of the good things your nation does, as I am of mine, but don't be blind to the things that slide into the "bad" area. Best advice I have.
Now, just perhaps, perhaps if they weren't building 500 or more new sixth generation topol-m strategicmissiles they wouldn't be so "broke".
Perhaps if the russians weren't building over 200 underground nuclear war fighting bunkers including one as large as the entire DC area inside the beltway , then perhaps they wouldn't be so "broke".
Nope, IMO the russian leaders, like most insane megalomanaic world leaders, are big fat liars.
--good for you,congrats! I have a firm belief that commercial closed source propietary software should be like any other consumer product, ie, have a warranty with it and be treated like any other product out there. If it's defective or if you don't agree with their obscured license you can't even see until after you open it up or try to install it, it should be easy to take back. I think if software companies were held to the same standards as a durable good, that we'd see a lot less releases but of much better quality. Right now they just state "too bad this stuff may or may bnot work but we're gonna charge you hundreds of dollars anyway and if you get owned or this stuff actually don't work as advertised or winds up costing you a ton of money then tough luck and by the way we reserve the right to hack your machine whenever we feel like it". That's their EULA broken down and distilled into normal english, more or less. Heck with that noise, that's the single biggest problem software has now, IMO. It's also the main reason I switched to open software, I am geting more or less the same "caveat emptor" type experience with my choices now but at least I know people are working on it because they WANT to as opposed to people who just HAVE to and it becomes drudgery and they usually have zero control over what actually gets released. I feel sorry for the programmers stuck because of economic realities working for these big companies, because I bet a lot of times they know that "whatever" isn't finished yet and buggy, but watch it go out the door.
I've said it several times before here on slashdot,and this is just one example of many but a large and common one, for instance I would have much rather seen microsoft be a decent successful company with 20 billion in the bank instead of 40, and that other 20 billion gone into quality control and useability by choice in the matter and corporate ethics. I just don't agree with the get out of jail free card that their EULA represents being "accepted". I have heard all the arguments 'well, just don't use it" etc. I am fully aware of that, my point is, it's bad precedent. We have consumer protection regs for a reason, they have been proven to be necessary else industries gradually all go to a "screw you" mindset and monopolies. I don't see where software companies get away with it when every other industry has laws to protect the consumer. I mean, how would it be to buy cars with no warranty, or no protection? If ALL the cars came that way? Would that really be a choice then? Maybe that's not a direct analogy but close enough for my point.
..last summer had an aquaintance of mine purchase a shrink wrapped XP box off the shelf at his local retailer. He opened the box, but hadn't installed it yet when he started actually reading about XP and decided he didn't want it. So he tries to return it, first try was a no go, they refused, as the shrinkwrap was opened. He asked me, I said go back and complain that you had no way to read the eula until you opened it, that you didn't agree with it, and never installed it, which was the plain simple truth. He goes back, argued that point at the service desk, mentioned he just might want to take it to court, gets the store manager finally, runs the same thing past him, and the upshot was he got his full money back.. I don't know if this is common or not and I know it isn't relevant to a bundled package with a new computer, but still goes to show it's possible at least.