Ohio and the crumbling facade of democracy
Funny thing about the Ohio recount: John Kerry doesn’t care. Now, anyone that reads this blog already knows how I feel about American “democracy” and electoral politics. It’s a lie, a facade designed to hide the truth. What’s interesting in the case of the 2004 elections is not the fact that the election was stolen nor is it the fact that the corporate media is not talking about the obvious evidence that has emerged to those on the ground in Ohio. I fully expect that to happen. No, what is interesting is that John Kerry and the Democratic Party quit the fight so quickly. I have come to expect that the establishment, Republican and Democrat, do care about appearances. They have an interest in maintaining what has become a one party system and so to an extent they have an interest in the illusion of choice. I would have expected John Kerry to put up just a little more of a fight but the danger there is that too much fight might draw too much attention to the little game going on.
The facade is crumbling and the irony is that those that care most about democracy are fighting for the integrity of the lie. It’s a strange situation. I think about those fighting the fight in Ohio and I wonder, do they really want John Kerry to be president? While they struggle for a recount, he apparently has given up the fight and is hoarding the remaining millions of dollars given to elect him. I’ve felt from the beginning that he’s a scumbag and the truth is I think that anyone who’s put up for the presidency from the Republicrat establishment is just going to be a representative of that establishment and not of the people. What we can see here is that it is that there is the distinction between the professional party bureaucrats that make up the machine and those on the ground that supposedly represented.
My suggestion: let the facade crumble. Let us look directly upon the truth of governance by the wealthy few. Those that are organizing for the recount, stop. Now is the time to build the movement that will destroy the lies of false democracy and challenge not just the one party system, but the system as a whole. Frankly, I don’t care if you’re Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic, Hindu; I don’t care if you are black, white, red, yellow, green, blue, or martian; I don’t care if you have a penis or a vagina and I don’t care what you like to suck or fuck.
I propose that we live on one planet and that it should not be a planet of me against you.
Technorati Tags: Democracy, Ohio, Political Corruption, Politics, John Kerry
Blogs: do we learn from disagreement?
As I’ve been browsing through Blog Explosion sites over the past 2 weeks I’ve noticed that there are, as we’d expect, many conflicting opinions regarding U.S. politics as well as U.S. foreign policy. There’s nothing wrong with this conflict, but it has me wondering about the role of the internet, and blogs in particular, in the mediation of political discussion. My initial thinking is that blogs offer citizens the opportunity to engage one another and that this could be most useful when those involved in the discussion have differing viewpoints. I have doubts though. Much of what I see can be best characterized as shallow and angry reaction. Should we not be making more of an effort to work through our differences? I suppose this is really just a question about the goals of communication. I’d guess that our behavior here is reflective of our “real life” communications.
Why do we blog? Why do we read the blogs of others? Is it that we are brilliant and must share our genius? Or is it based on a desire to learn from others? What do we really learn when we read the words of those we disagree with? Just a few of many possible questions.
Technorati Tags: Blogging
Getting to know Direct Action
Interested in fighting back? Check out Crimethinc’s Twelve Myths About Direct Action
Direct action—that is, any kind of action that bypasses established political channels to accomplish objectives directly—has a long and rich heritage in North America, extending back to the Boston Tea Party and beyond. Despite this, there are many misunderstandings about it, in part due to the ways it has been misrepresented in the corporate media.
1. Direct action is terrorism.
Terrorism is calculated to intimidate and thus paralyze people. Direct action, on the other hand, is intended to inspire and thus motivate people by demonstrating the power individuals have to accomplish goals themselves. While terrorism is the domain of a specialized class that seeks to acquire power for itself alone, direct action demonstrates possibilities that others can make use of, empowering people to take control of their own lives. At most, a given direct action may obstruct the activities of a corporation or institution that activists perceive to be committing an injustice, but this is simply a form of civil disobedience, not terrorism.
2. Direct action is violent.
To say that it is violent to destroy the machinery of a slaughterhouse or to break windows belonging to a party that promotes war is to prioritize property over human and animal life. This objection subtly validates violence against living creatures by focusing all attention on property rights and away from more fundamental issues.
3. Direct action is not political expression, but criminal activity.
Unfortunately, whether or not an action is illegal is a poor measure of whether or not it is just. The Jim Crow laws were, after all, laws. To object to an action on the grounds that it is illegal is to sidestep the more important question of whether or not it is ethical. To argue that we must always obey laws, even when we consider them to be unethical or to enforce unethical conditions, is to suggest that the arbitrary pronouncements of the legal establishment possess a higher moral authority than our own consciences, and to demand complicity in the face of injustice. When laws protect injustice, illegal activity is no vice, and law-abiding docility is no virtue.
4. Direct action is unnecessary where people have freedom of speech.
In a society dominated by an increasingly narrowly focused corporate media, it can be almost impossible to initiate a public dialogue on a subject unless something occurs that brings attention to it. Under such conditions, direct action can be a means of nurturing free speech, not squelching it. Likewise, when people who would otherwise oppose an injustice have accepted that it is inevitable, it is not enough simply to talk about it: one must demonstrate that it is possible to do something about it.
5. Direct action is alienating.
On the contrary, many people who find traditional party politics alienating are inspired and motivated by direct action. Different people find different approaches fulfilling; a movement that is to be broad-based must include a wide range of options. Sometimes people who share the goals of those who practice direct action while objecting to their means spend all their energy decrying an action that has been carried out. In doing so, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: they would do better to seize the opportunity to focus all attention on the issues raised by the action.
6. People who practice direct action should work through the established political channels instead.
Many people who practice direct action also work within the system. A commitment to making use of every institutional means of solving problems does not necessarily preclude an equal commitment to picking up where such means leave off.
7. Direct action is exclusive.
Some forms of direct action are not open to all, but this does not necessarily mean they are without worth. Everyone has different preferences and capabilities, and should be free to act according to them. The important question is how the differing approaches of individuals and groups that share the same long-term goals can be integrated in such a way that they complement each other.
8. Direct action is cowardly.
This accusation is almost always made by those who have the privilege of speaking and acting in public without fearing repercussions: that is to say, those who have power in this society, and those who obediently accept their power. Should the heroes of the French Resistance have demonstrated their courage and accountability by acting against the Nazi occupying army in the full light of day, thus dooming themselves to defeat? For that matter, in a nation increasingly terrorized by police and federal surveillance of just about everyone, is it any wonder that those who express dissent might want to protect their privacy while doing so?
9. Direct action is practiced only by college students/privileged rich kids/desperate poor people/etc.
This allegation is almost always made without reference to concrete facts, as a smear. In fact, direct action is and long has been practiced in a variety of forms by people of all walks of life. The only possible exception to this would be members of the wealthiest and most powerful classes, who have no need to practice any kind of illegal or controversial action because, as if by coincidence, the established political channels are perfectly suited to their needs.
10. Direct action is the work of agents provocateurs.
This is another speculation generally made from a distance, without concrete evidence. To allege that direct action is always the work of police agent provocateurs is disempowering: it rules out the possibility that activists could do such things themselves, overestimating the powers of police intelligence and reinforcing the illusion that the State is omnipotent. Likewise, it preemptively dismisses the value and reality of a diversity of tactics. When people feel entitled to make unfounded claims that every tactic of which they disapprove is a police provocation, this obstructs the very possibility of constructive dialogue about appropriate tactics.
11. Direct action is dangerous and can have negative repercussions for others.
Direct action can be dangerous in a repressive political climate, and it is important that those who practice it make every effort not to endanger others. This is not necessarily an objection to it, however–on the contrary, when it becomes dangerous to act outside established political channels, it becomes all the more important to do so. Authorities may use direct actions as excuses to terrorize innocents, as Hitler did when the Reichstag was set afire, but those in power are the ones who must answer for the injustices they commit in so doing, not those who oppose them. Likewise, though people who practice direct action may indeed run risks, in the face of an insufferable injustice it can be more dangerous and irresponsible to leave it uncontested.
12. Direct action never accomplishes anything.
Every effective political movement throughout history, from the struggle for the eight hour workday to the fight for women’s suffrage, has made use of some form of direct action. Direct action can complement other forms of political activity in a variety of ways. If nothing else, it highlights the necessity for institutional reforms, giving those who push for them more bargaining chips; but it can go beyond this supporting role to suggest the possibility of an entirely different organization of human life, in which power is distributed equally and all people have an equal and direct say in all matters that affect them.
Via the Infoshop
Technorati Tags: Anarchism, Politics, Direct Action
Americans are killing their Christ
My good friend Thom has a few thoughts about Bush and his Rightwing Christ Killers::
When I was 12, I dedicated my life to Christ. In the time since, I have been taught by well meaning people that Christians should side with the current conservative political party. I have to say that Jesus couldn’t disagree more.
When Bush commands troops to war in Iraq, he is killing Christ. Every child maimed and murdered, every mother with no food or water, every brother or sister watching their civilian siblings burn up in the fire of our smart bombs is the personification of Christ - “the least of these” are Christ’s siblings. Our tax money makes us participants - a nation of goats - of modern day Christ-killers. The neo-conservatives execute Christ everyday, and they do it with mockery and glee. Their weapons? In Iraq, it is with Bombs and bullets. In the United States, death row and the machines of poverty-making. Christ-killer - a term mostly used perjoratively by anti-semetic bigots - is more accurately used to describe the conservative culture of the US.
Christ said, “If you love me you will do what I told you to do.” (New American Thom version.) Jesus told us that in the past, an eye for an eye was the legal standard. Christ then instructed us to turn the other cheek. To combat evil with good. Not bunker busting bombs. To stop theivery with radical charity. Not police brutality.
Technorati Tags: George Bush, Politics
German solar energy development shows the way
While the U.S. resists the Kyoto Agreement and continues its dependence on fossil fuels, it is Germany that demonstrates real leadership for the planet. The San Francisco Chronicle reports on Germany’s push for renewable power:
Muhlhausen, Germany – A solar-power project built by a Berkeley company may point Germany toward a pollution-free future.
Set in the heart of Bavarian farmland, the 30-acre facility went online earlier this month, becoming the biggest solar energy plant in the world."
…
“There’s a huge amount of opportunity here in Germany because the government has created a system that encourages large installations,” said Thomas Dinwoodie, chief executive officer of PowerLight Corp. of Berkeley, which built and operates the Muhlhausen facility and two other solar parks nearby.
…
PowerLight’s three Bavarian solar parks, consisting of 57,600 silicon-and- aluminum panels, will generate 10 megawatts of electricity – enough to power 9,000 German homes. The amount of electricity produced is much less than power plants fueled by coal or natural gas, but with very low operating costs, the solar project is expected quickly to turn a profit while emitting zero pollution.
…
“This is part of our commitment as a government, to make Germany the world leader in alternative energy and in taking action against global warming, " said Juergen Trittin, Germany’s environment minister. “We are willing to do what is necessary."
The country is now the No. 1 world producer of wind energy, with more than 16,000 windmills generating 39 percent of the world total, and it is fast closing in on Japan for the lead in solar power. Wind and solar energy together provide more than 10 percent of the nation’s electricity, a rate that is expected to double by 2020.
Technorati Tags: Solar Energy, Sustainable Development
Oil and Empire
Jim Kunstler has written yet another great article about U.S. dependence on oil in which he touches on the political, social, and economic consequences. Oh, Come All Ye Clueless:
Time Magazine’s Person of the Year had a famous father who famously remarked a decade ago that ‘the American way of life is not negotiable.’ This remains the animating principle beneath most of America’s troubles in the world.
A good many people in the United States probably still agree with this notion, but how realistic is it? How long can America base its economy on suburban land development? Realistically, that way of doing things has to end now. Unless we want to try to turn the entire Middle East (including Saudi Arabia) into an occupied colony, which would seem beyond our military capacities, to put it mildly, since we can’t even enforce civil order in Iraq.
To keep the suburban expansion going indefinitely we will need to continue using one-quarter of the world’s oil every day. Since this resource is about to head over the all-time peak production arc, there will be incrementally a few percentages less total oil produced every year after the peak. We’ll probably have to occupy Venezuela, too, and Nigeria, to keep the suburban expansion going – not to mention the daily operation of it, with the sixty mile commutes and the estimated average seven car trips per day per household to chauffeur kids and run errands. As we maintain our oil consumption under these conditions, other nations will have to use proportionately less. How will the Europeans and the Chinese feel about that? Will there be discontent over it? And might it affect our relations with them?"
Why is this not being talked about? Read through the news sites and the blogosphere and you’ll see that the subject of oil is utterly absent from the discussion. Look for it. Go ahead. You won’t find it. We have created a society that is based on oil and yet we don’t talk about it? We don’t discuss the issue at all. It is ridiculous and dangerous. We may not be willing to negotiate our way of life but, as Kunstler suggests, we better “get ready for reality to arbitrate it for us."
Thousands of U.S. troops have deserted since invasion of Iraq
Jaded Reality offers a Disaster Alert - aka Iraq round up. What really caught my eye:
There is also a whopper of a stat in the latest issue of Harper Magazine’s (Jan 2005) Index:
The G.I. Rights Hotline (800-394-9544) has received approx. 34,800 phone calls this last year from soldiers seeking a way out of the military.
– G.I. Rights Hotline, as of November 2004
This, combined with the latest reports that 5,000+ soldiers have deserted since the invasion of Iraq, may be an indicator that some in the military do not agree with the current state of affairs.
Pentagon nervous about Germany's war crimes case against Rumsfeld
This is as it should be. Let’s hope Germany moves forward with this. I look forward to the day that U.S. war criminals go to jail. Juan Cole at Informed Comment writes about the Pentagon threat against Germany:
The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Berlin’s Republican Lawyers' Association has filed suit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of 4 Iraqis who allege they were mistreated by American troops. A number of other high-ranking US officials are also named. AFP writes:
' The groups that filed the complaint said they had chosen Germany because of its Code of Crimes Against International Law, introduced in 2002, which grants German courts universal jurisdiction in cases involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. It also makes military or civilian commanders who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts liable. ‘
What is interesting about the Pentagon reaction to this suit is how frantic the Department of Defense seems. Although spokesman Larry DiRita dismissed it as “frivolous,” he threatened Germany with dire consequences if the suit goes forward.
DiRita said,
“Generally speaking, as is true anywhere, if these kinds of lawsuits take place with American servicemen in the cross-hairs, you bet it’s something we take seriously . . . I think every government in the world, particularly a NATO ally, understands the potential effect on relations with the United States if these kinds of frivolous lawsuits were ever to see the light of day."
These remarks raise several questions. Why is DiRita hiding behind the fact that American servicemen are “in the cross-hairs? What have Rumsfeld’s policies or legal problems got to do with grunts on the front line? You think they like Rumsfeld? Look what happened when he let them ask him questions.
Then, if the lawsuit is frivolous, why should it produce grave consequences for Germany? It should produce frivolity and hilarity if it is frivolous. It seems actually to be taken very seriously.
Is the real threat the damage to Rumsfeld’s public image, or the danger that the lawsuit may prompt a discovery process?
Finally, surely DiRita is not suggesting that the Federal government actively interfere with a legal process? Wouldn’t that be the Executive squelching the Judiciary? Isn’t that contrary to the separation of Powers? Or is the new monarchism to be imposed on Germany as well, now that it is the model in Washington?
Technorati Tags: Pentagon, War Crimes, Rumsfeld
Public life and public space: Europe and the U.S.
Jim Kunstler over at Clusterfuck Nation discusses the difference between America and European public life and use of public space:
“Amsterdam, Holland, was pretty much the same story as Paris, though it is physically quite different from Paris – the scale is smaller, the intimate streets are deployed along a network of beautiful canals, and the car is barely tolerated (or even much in evidence). There, we would duck into a ‘brown bar’ (so-called because of the dark wooden wainscotting) at five p.m. and it would be full of well-dressed, gainfully employed adults in animated conversation. Public life in Europe is only minimally about shopping and maximally about spending time with your fellow human beings.
…
American public life by comparison is pathetic-to-nonexistent. Americans venture out only to roam the warehouse depots, and only by car.
…
The process of making America an alienated land of solitary, obese driver-shoppers has been very profitable for predatory corporations. They have systematically disassembled the public social infrastructure and repackaged pieces of it for sale – starting with the single-family house isolated on its lot from all the normal amenities of culture and society. Everybody now has their ‘home theater’ so the cinema is only a place to park children for two hours so you can drive elsewhere to buy the cheez doodles, frozen pizza, Pepsi, and other staples of the American diet. You equip your kitchen with an espresso machine and there is no reason to “waste your time” in a cafe. Everybody has to have their own pool, so the kids can go swimming by themselves. Family values. The rest of the human race is unimportant.
It’s an excellent post, check it out.
Technorati Tags: Community, Public Space
Ohio Recount: Blackwell Locks Out Recount Volunteers
This is going to get very interesting. Just how much evidence is needed before the citizens of the U.S. realize that democracy here is just a farce? Even the illusion of democracy is now disregarded by those in power.
Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell has apparently declared that the voter records are now not public records and will not be made available to recount volunteers. According to the blog Ohio Election Fraud:
Ohio Election Investigation Thwarted by Surprise Blackwell Order
On Friday December 10 two certified volunteers for the Ohio Recount team assigned to Greene County were in process recording voting information from minority precincts in Greene County, and were stopped mid-count by a surprise order from Secretary of State Blackwell’s office. The Director Board of Elections stated that “all voter records for the state of Ohio were “locked-down,” and now they are not considered public records."
The volunteers were working with voter printouts received directly from Carole Garman, Director, Greene County Board of Elections. Joan Quinn and Eve Roberson, retired attorney and election official respectively, were hand-copying voter discrepancies from precinct voting books on behalf of the presidential candidates Mr. Cobb (Green) and Mr. Badnarik Libertarian) who had requested the recount.
One of the goals of the recount was to determine how many minority voters were unable to vote or denied voting at the polls. Upon requesting copies of precinct records from predominantly minority precincts, Ms. Garman contacted Secretary of State Blackwell’s office and spoke to Pat Wolfe, Election Administrator. Ms. Wolfe told Ms. Garman to assert that all voter records for the State of Ohio were “locked down” and that they are “not considered public records."
Quinn and Roberson asked specifically for the legal authority authorizing Mr. Blackwell to “lock down” public records. Garman stated that it was the Secretary of State’s decision. Ohio statute requires the Directors of Boards of Election to comply with public requests for inspection and copying of public election records. As the volunteer team continued recording information from the precinct records in question, Garman entered the room and stated she was withdrawing permission to inspect or copy any voting records at the Board of Elections. Garman then physically removed the precinct book from Ms. Roberson’s hands. They later requested the records again from Garman’s office, which was again denied.
Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26 that requires all election records to be made available for public inspection and copying. ORC Sec. 3599.161 makes it a crime for any employee of the Board of Elections to knowingly prevent or prohibit any person from inspecting the public records filed in the office of the Board of Elections. Finally, ORC Sec. 3599.42 clearly states: “A violation of any provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud within the purview of such Title."
Technorati Tags: Democracy, John Kerry, Ohio
What is before us?
Understanding the complexity of the current moment is difficult, attempting to predict the future unfolding of the present is even more difficult; seeing truths within the larger context, these seem to be our stumbling blocks. I ask, where are we bound? I like this question in part because it can be interpreted in different ways, all of which are interesting. It is a statement or question about humanity and its direction into the future. It is also a question about our ties to one another and to ideas. How are we bound to one another? How are we bound by assumptions and their effect upon our interpretation of reality? How are we bound by our individual history as well as our collective history?
As individuals we are born into a context and from that moment on we are bound up through socialization. We learn about reality through our parents or larger family and the total environment that surrounds us. This total environment likely includes television and some sort of “education” system as well as some sort of neighborhood-community. This totality of experience, defined by space and countless interactions, provides the environment for our physical and mental development. Sometimes we are painfully aware of the individual elements that are a part of the overall process, sometimes we are not.
Do you see what I see? We often function without ever questioning the mental framework of our understanding of reality. As we age we may learn to analyze parts of the framework. It is also possible that we never even realize that the framework exists. Yet another possibility is that we realize that it exists but choose not to examine it. I won’t pretend to understand the complexities of the human mind, I just want to suggest that our understanding of our world is severely limited though we often act otherwise. We usually act as though our understanding is absolutely correct and that we are properly informed.
What is before us? What do we know about the world? What do we know about the current operations of the government? What do we know about the origins of “our country” and “our” government? What do we know about “our” history? What do we know about “our” economy? How are we forming our understanding of the world? What are the systems that disseminate information to us? Who owns these systems? Who is responsible for their content and the method of delivery?
In any moment, are we aware of the medium? Are we aware of the message?
Everyday we make choices which are based on our understanding of the way the world works as well as the routines we’ve created to adapt to this world. This routine means that each day is often very similar to the previous day. It is a dynamic worth considering when we try to understand ourselves, how we interpret the world, and how we behave. The smooth flow of routine within our daily lives is an important aspect of our sense of security and comfort. The repetition of experience is a part of our training and mental structuring. Repetition of sanctioned ideas is important if a population is to accept its own indoctrination. Repetition creates “truth” and a sense of legitimacy.
What is before us?
Consider the attacks of 9/11 and the U.S. response, the “war on terror”. Consider Iraq. Consider the recent U.S. elections and the allegations of massive fraud. Each of these is an example and there are countless others. What do you know and why do you know it? What is your opinion and why is it so? Just as important, what might you be totally unaware of because your primary source of information may not have mentioned it? It’s not just the uniformity of perspective of information that is presented to us that is important, but the fact that certain important sub-stories may never be discussed at all.
How do we proceed? What is our goal? What kind of society do we want to create? What kind of world do we want to work towards? How do we develop processes and systems that deepen our understanding of one another? How do we communicate more affectively? What process might we develop that allows for a global discussions that might take us towards a common vision? To those that would reply that this is not possible, I ask you to prove it. I believe that another world is possible, one which we have never seen. I believe that we can do much better than we have if we choose to. We do not have to accept the mental and social structures that produce, among other things, fear, insecurity, poverty, and war. We do not have to accept the world that is.
Iraq's destruction based on aluminum tube lies
Mithras over at Fables of the Reconstruction writes about Bush and the Aluminum Tubes of Death:
The NYTimes.com has 10,000 words on the Bush Administration’s telling the public that the aluminum tubes Saddam was buying were for nuclear bomb production. In short, the article says, they lied.
Please go read the article. Make sure you’ve got a cup of coffee, or maybe a whole pot because it’s going to take you a while to get through it. Take your time, read every single word.
Anyone that is thinking of voting for George Bush should read it twice because it outlines very clearly how Bush and Co. lied. Of course the article also shows how the blame should also fall squarely on the heads of Congress, specifically folks such as Sen. John Edwards who was on the intelligence committee. They did a piss poor job of questioning what they were being told. John Kerry as a Senator also did a terrible job of questioning. According to the article:
But in October 2002, when the Senate voted on Iraq, Mr. Kerry had not read the National Intelligence Estimate, but instead had relied on a briefing from Mr. Tenet, a spokeswoman said. “According to the C.I.A.’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons,” Mr. Kerry said then, explaining his vote. “There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.
The report cited by Mr. Kerry, an unclassified white paper, said nothing about the tubes debate except that “some” analysts believed the tubes were “probably intended” for conventional arms.
“It is common knowledge that Congress does not have the same access as the executive branch,” Brooke Anderson, a Kerry spokeswoman, said yesterday.
Mr. Kerry’s running mate, Senator John Edwards, served on the Intelligence Committee, which gave him ample opportunity to ask hard questions. But in voting to authorize war, Mr. Edwards expressed no uncertainty about the principal evidence of Mr. Hussein’s alleged nuclear program.
“We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,” Mr. Edwards said then.
As I’ve often said on this blog, the democrats are little better than the republicans in regards to this fucked up war. As recently as last week’s debate Kerry continued to maintain that taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. It was an act of criminal aggression. Bush lied, Kerry followed. Republicans and Democrats, the two party system is fucking bullshit. It’s not democracy. Not even close.
(Via Fables of the reconstruction.)
Edit: Just want to add the following from this article at the Washington Post:
Administration officials at the time did not acknowledge that debate, though Rice acknowledged yesterday she was aware of it. “I knew that there was a dispute,” she said. “I actually didn’t really know the nature of the dispute."
She didn’t know the nature of the dispute? Wouldn’t it be her job to become aware of the nature of that dispute?
But, she said, “a policymaker cannot afford to be on the wrong side, underestimating the ability of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein.” She said she stood by “the decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein and remove this threat to American security."
Um, what threat?
In July, a bipartisan report by the Senate intelligence committee, which reviewed all of the intelligence on the tubes, said that information available to intelligence analysts “indicated that these tubes were intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program.” The report also said that assertions that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program were “not supported by the intelligence."
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security who has written extensively on the tubes, said that Rice “was grasping at straws” to suggest there was still a debate on the issue. He said there was little dispute within the intelligence community now, with the “overwhelming number of experts and the evidence” concluding the Energy Department analysis was correct.
“I think she is being disingenuous, and just departing from any effort to find the truth,” Albright added.
Bitch. I don’t use that word often… almost never, but fuck, can we please put this lying criminal bitch in jail? Please? How many thousands of people have to die because of these fucking war criminals in the white house? What a joke…
Technorati Tags: George Bush, Iraq, Aluminum Tubes
Killing the truth
Very interesting article at the Washington Post:
Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence
The evidence continues to mount. It was not just the 16 words and we know that.
The President lied. Bush lied. George did not tell the truth. I have an idea: impeach bush and then put him and his crew on trial for war crimes.
Found via fables of the reconstruction.
August 11, 2003
U.S. Income Astronomy
This article over at Alternet was a little confusing at first because I’m not the brightest porch light on the block but after exerting a bit of effort I did get it. It’s not a new subject for me, just a different and very interesting way of visually displaying the information.
I think there might be a problem… just maybe.
I’ve said it before and will say it again. We do not need reforms. We do need to get rid of Bush but that will not be enough. Until we do something about the fundamental flaws of this filthy system, we will swing back and forth between evil and lesser evil.
We need to finish the American Revolution.
August 11, 2003
The real threat
Okay, Bush and company stretched the truth just a wee little itty bit when they claimed Saddam posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and went to war. Yet there is a very real and verifiable danger very close at hand… and it’s being ignored. Hello? Anyone home? Incompetent fools. They should be arrested for public endangerment.
Found via the The Mad Prophet Blog
August 11, 2003
Funny Bush
Very funny. A flash animation starring George Bush, Tony Blair, and others. Check it out.
Found via the The Mad Prophet Blog
August 11, 2003
Lilly
We create each other.
August 10, 2003
I don’t believe it: Halliburton getting most of the Iraq oil work?
According to this article at the New York Times Halliburton is unfairly favored by the bidding process.
Of course those making the decisions say everything is fair and square. Excuse me if I think that they are being less than truthful.
What a scam.
I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this, but Bush, Cheney and the other liars and profiteers should be tried for war crimes.
August 10, 2003
Moving
Well folks, I’ve decided to move on over to a new home in blogsville. I’ll miss this space as it’s been my first real blog. I had a blast setting it up and using blosxom which I recommend. But TypePad is just amazing and I can’t help myself. It’s a sinch to set up and modify. It’s soooooooo easy to post to. They’ve designed an interface which loads super fast and is easy to navigate. The code is tight and oh so compliant. In just three days my readership has jumped from 15/day to over 100/day! I think this is due to the ever-changing list of recently updated blogs on the main page. The tech support is great. I’ve had several questions and all have been answered lickity-split.
I know there are a few benefits I’m not thinking to mention here but I think I’ve got the important stuff covered.
If you have me linked to your blog please consider updating to my new address. As of this post I won’t be updating this anymore. I will leave it intact for awhile. I should have most of my archive moved over in the next week or so.
08/10/2003
U.S. used napalm in Iraq
According to this article at the Independent U.S. pilots used napalm in the advance towards Baghdad.
Of course, it’s okay because the U.S. did not sign onto the 1980 U.N. convention which banned the use of napalm.
The Pentagon initially denied the use of napalm. They assert that something different was used: Mark 77 firebombs. These are not napalm though they do contain ingredients which are nearly identical and have the exact same effect.
I sure do appreciate the honesty of these folks at the Pentagon. They’re just like their boss at the white house.
08/10/2003
In an instant… gone!
No more moments? Peter Lynds, a 27-year old college drop out in New Zealand is shaking the pillars of reality. What if our understanding of time is wrong? I’m still trying to wrap my mind around this one.
08/10/2003
Mute Blog
Very cool: muteblog
Go check it out. An interesting way to browse around.
Moblog comment
Okay, maybe it was too late at night for me to try but last night’s phone-based blog entry was, er, scary. Perhaps I have not had enough practice typing with a cell phone. It took me forever to type in a very simple entry. Yuck.
Now this would be cool. I’m using a 12" Powerbook (with built in bluetooth) and a t68i (also with bluetooth) and with Mac OS X’s address book I can send SMS messages from the computer to anyone with an SMS capable phone. If I could send email the same way… oh, that would be sweet. In other words, if I could use my PB to type the email and send it from the phone just as I can SMS.
I may be borrowing a friend’s mobile camera that will work with my phone and I’ll try a photo. Perhaps that’s more fun than trying to email a text entry.
August 09, 2003
george w
Ever wonder what the w stands for? go find out now. Funny. Very funny. Found by way of .
First moblog!
Posted from my phone!
August 09, 2003
Community Technology or How Do We Grow Our Tomatoes?
Much of this article is taken from my writings in 1994. If you’ve read my blog you know I’m very critical of the general state of the world. I thought I’d post some of the underlying thought for my criticisms and perhaps begin to paint a picture of where I think we need to go. I’ll warn you now that the following is a bit radical. I’m not for reforming the current system because I think it’s flaws are too fundamental. We’ve gone on for far too long accepting the basic ground rules of our current social, political, economic, and technological systems. This first resurrected essay addresses the issue of technology as it relates to community and society…
How can we begin to define new social ecological and community technologies? What is the role of these technologies in a social ecological revolution? Can we use these technologies to empower people in their communities and through this break the strength of the capitalist nation-state? Indeed, how can these technologies be reclaimed by communities and elaborated to work bioregionally from within the community?
**Eco-Technology in Organic Society **
In order for us to understand the social ecological potentialities of technology we must first understand the origins of, development of, and current condition of science and technology. Humans, unlike all other species on the earth, have become dependent on tools for their survival. In our slow and graded development in the natural world we were required by our physical weaknesses and propelled by our developing mental capacity to create and use tools. At first it is probable that we used objects as we found them. It did not take long, however, for early humans to begin to alter and improve upon the things they found. They began to create an early technology and along with this they began to create a social matrix in which their technology was rooted.
Community Garden in an apartment complex of the Southern-Highland neighborhood of Memphis, TN, 1993
In early, organic society, technology was intricately intertwined with the natural world and was used by the small community. This technology was guided by an organic outlook which was often highly democratic and based on the needs of people not their every whim or desire. In short, their technology was carefully crafted from within their community and the natural eco-community of which they were a part.It is of critical importance that we understand that this technology was not created to dominate and exploit a machine-like nature. Rather, it was a technology which, like the people who created it, gracefully fit into a spontaneous and balanced nature. The people of this time did not objectify nature and so the tools they created were to work from within nature–from the inside, pushing out to further elaborate themselves and the natural world. This is directly opposite the modern view of dominating an objective nature which must be forced from the outside to “yield her fruits”.
From Organic to Modern Technology
How has our technology become what it has–what kind of society produced it? The technology that we have today has as its base two aspects of 16th century philosophy and science. In her book The Death of Nature, Carolyn Merchant describes the transition from an organic outlook to a mechanical one:
Central to the organic theory was the identification of nature, especially the earth, with a nurturing mother: a kindly beneficent female who provided for the needs of mankind in an ordered, planned universe. But another opposing image of nature as female was also prevalent: wild and uncontrollable nature that could render violence, storms, droughts, and general chaos. Both were identified the female world. The metaphor of the earth as a nurturing mother was gradually to vanish as a dominant image as the Scientific Revolution proceeded to mechanize and to rationalize the world view. The second image, nature as disorder, called forth an important modern idea, that of power over nature. Two new ideas, those of mechanism and of the domination and mastery of nature, became core concepts of the modern world.
It is important to understand that while this transition to a mechanical view of nature was crystallized by Bacon’s development of scientific method, its evolution was gradual and did, in fact, take thousands of years.
The second philosophy which has helped form our current science and exploitive technology is that of Kant. For it was with Kant that we began to study our systems of knowledge instead of nature. Kant undermined the idea that we could ever truly understand an objective nature. Bookchin writes that “Kant denatured nature in the Presocratic sense by removing the material ‘grade of being’ as such….Kant left us alone with our subjectivity”(Philosophy 64). Kant removed any inherent meaning within nature. Whether nature was viewed as an organism or a machine was no longer of importance. There was a fundamental shift in science from an “objective” study of the outside world to a study of humanity and its perceptions or interpretations of that world. Science as a discipline of “objective” observation of “natural laws” developed alongside of an increasingly objectified and meaningless nature. The natural world had laws but it had no meaning or, if it did, science and philosophy was no longer concerned with what it was. This was to be the grounding for the dangerous technologies that were developed along with the elaboration of an increasingly powerful capitalist nation-state.
So, modern technology has developed without reason and without an ecological ethics. To be specific, “our” technology developed without the careful and rational reasoning human beings are capable of. We have been asking how rather than why. It is a technology that has been stolen from people and communities and is now controlled, to a great extent, by multinational corporations and the nation-state. The “science” which produced this technology is a shallow, instrumental one which is used, not to meet the needs of people and communities, but to obtain greater and greater profit for those in control. One such example of this which was mentioned earlier is that of General Motors' 1950’s successful plot with oil and rubber companies to dismantle the entire U.S. trolley system. Another example might be today’s attempt by agribusiness to genetically engineer foods to thrive in the chemical bath that now constitutes agriculture in this country and others. Monsanto does not care about people’s health or the stability of ecosystems. Rather, Monsanto is concerned with profit, and technology which will increase profit. As we will see, this may sometimes include new “ecological technologies”.
Ecological Technology of the Capitalist State
With the 1970’s energy crisis and the developing “environmentalism” of that time we begin to see a slow and insignificant shift to greener technologies. These “eco-technologies”, however, have only been a forced adaption undertaken by the capitalist nation-state in an attempt to sustain the current system of control and domination. Let me illustrate with the example of the immense development of solar collection fields taking up several square miles of California desert land. This was the development of a potentially revolutionary technology by a huge corporation called Luz, not to improve people’s lives and challenge the existing social order but, quite simply, to make a profit by selling energy. Indeed, Luz failed not only beause of its huge scale, but because according to government/industry standards, it was not big enough to qualify for the tax breaks that drive the power production industry. In this case, however, the technology used for the profit was, to some degree, an “ecological” one. But it is just as authoritarian and out of control of the community as even a nuclear power plant.
Another example that I will site is one in which I have had personal experience. I was employed by the Squash Blossom Market of Memphis Tennessee for approximately ten months. In this short time I was able to carefully analyze one example of “green capitalism” and the cooptation of one ecological technology by capitalism. Organic or, more correctly, sustainable farming, has been slowly growing for the past twenty or so years with a boom in the last four to five years. While the “organic” farming industry does seem to be making some progress as far as educating people about the technology of sustainable farming, it is, at the same time, turning this technology into just one more way to further capitalism and make a profit. Indeed, it is becoming a multi-million dollar industry. The result is highly centralized growing patterns (you guessed it, California is a huge exporter of organic foods) which contribute to very high prices and little gain for local communities. To be certain, this sort of “development” of sustainable food production does nothing to make communities self-reliant and is, in fact, little-to-no better than the modern methods of chemical farming. The food is still produced in one place and then shipped across country to people living in far away cities. There is no integration of town and country, just the continuation of a resource dependent city and culturally dominated country.
A community garden created by a local group of Greens in Kirksville, MO 1991
Ecological Technology Directed by Community
The role of ecological technologies should be the empowerment of people in their communities. If they are to be any kind of solution at all they must be radicalized and decentralized so that they are controlled, not by huge multinational corporations or state governments, but by democratic communities. These social ecological technologies must play a supportive role in our development of our communities by adding to the social life and material base of our neighborhood revolutions. In Community Technology Hess writes that:
So long as technology actually seems that remote and that majestic, it will not serve us. Like a monarch, it will rule us. Rather, those who manage it will rule us. The fact is that technology is simply the way we use tools, actual tools in the material sense, and tools of knowledge in the sense of skills and craft and technique. It is not majestic. It is quite earthy. It is not remote. It involves us all. It involves shopkeepers in crowded cities. It involves farmhands. It involves kids. Everyone. People here. People around the world. We are all tool users and knowledge users, from the tribal farmer scratching a seed furrow with a pointed stick to the high-energy physicist aligning a particle accelerator, from the shaman to the molecular biologist(7).
From the perspective of social ecology, when we examine and seek to develop technology we must do so from within the community in which that technology will be used. The many projects of the Peace Corps in “developing” countries are a clear example of what “good” intentions can result in when they are imposed from outside a particular community and its surrounding eco-community. The technologies often worked against the existing social forms and institutions of the local culture in which they were placed because these were not considered in the “plans”.
One of the best examples of this program was the widespread installation of gas and diesel powered water pumps and new wells in Africa. These pumps and wells lasted long enough to change the local settlement patterns and then, sometimes after only two or three years, they failed. Not experienced in the technology and not provided funds if they were, many villages were forced to leave and resettle closer to other water sources. Thus, the end result was the disruption of native lifeways which were, to a great extent, adapted to the original water supply. One analogy that might apply here would be attempting to transplant the organ of a wolverine into that of a badger; this, quite simply, will not work because the bodies of the two organisms have evolved differently and so the internal organs are too specific to be able to adapt to that kind of imposition.
It is common sense which tells us that imposing one specific technology on many different places will never work. The technology must be adapted or developed by the people living in the community for it is they who can determine their needs and they who know the surrounding ecological community. Indeed, social ecology asks not just how to develop a specific technology but, more importantly, why develop it. For the question of how tends toward instrumentalism while the question of why tends toward ethics. An ecological technology must be developed carefully and democratically so that it is based on an ethics of not just sustainability, but freedom. Just as important as the technology is the social matrix from which it is elaborated. In discussing the problems of technology Bookchin writes that:
Just as serious as the extent to which we have mechanized the world is the fact that we cannot distinguish what is social in our lives from what is technical. In our inability to distinguish the two, we are losing the ability to determine which is meant to subserve the other. Herein lies the core of our difficulties in controlling the machine. We lack a sense of the social matrix in which all technics should be embedded–of the social meaning in which technology should be clothed(Freedom 240).
The social matrix of which Bookchin in speaking must be highly democratic and participatory. Technology is not the solution but only a part of the solution and it should be carefully crafted by people who are engaged in the practice of citizenship. It is from this social and community matrix that an ecological ethics and technology will evolve.
Sustainable Food Production in the Community
Since the period of the World Wars food production in the United States has become more and more centralized. We grow our food in one place (California is my favorite example) and ship it far away to cities. The centralization of food production has been, for the most part, based on the development over the past 50 years of the huge agribusiness industry. The industry has its roots in the weapon industry with early fertilizers being made out of chemicals (mainly nitrates) left over from the mass production of bombs. As this industry grew in size so to did the size of farms. Relatively small, family owned farms gradually went into debt and were bought out by corporations with many small farms being swallowed up by the greatly expanding cities. Today, practically every city is dependent upon these distant “centers of food production”. According to Co-op America Quarterly, “When you sit down to eat a meal the food on your plate has traveled an average of 1,300 miles to reach your table. Supporting local agriculture improves economic self-reliance as well as providing healthier food”(Spring 1993).
A sign in front of the deCleyre Cooperative in Memphis, TN. The sign reads:
Our Garden Resource Center and Cafe
Permaculture is the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems.
Books, magazines, journals on topics such as anarchism, ecology, women’s liberation, race, class struggle, and labor. Come enjoy a cup of organic coffee or tea with us too! The deCleyre Co-op actively works to promote cooperative living and permacultural design through community education and radical media.
Community food production is possible anywhere: small cities, towns, huge cities, and, most obviously, in the country. All that is required are simple hand tools, soil, kitchen food waste, seeds, people, and the desire to learn about ecology. There are many sustainable technologies which may be used by a community to grow its food supply including both the Biodynamic/French Intensive and permaculture methods. These methods are very space intensive and rely upon the principals of ecology for their basis. In his book How to Grow More Vegetables, John Jeavons describes the philosophy of the biodynamic/French intensive method of horticulture as:
a quiet, vitally alive art of organic gardening which relinks people with the whole universe–a universe in which each of us is an interwoven part of the whole. People find their place by relating and cooperating in harmony with the sun, air, rain, soil, moon, insects, plants, and animals rather than by attempting to dominate them(2).
Using these methods a city community could begin to grow a percentage of its food supply and in a few years could most likely be growing most of its food. How can this be? For one, biodynamic horticulture and permaculture are not just ways of growing food. They are far more. They are art and design. There are countless ways in which we can begin to integrate food production into our existing neighborhood spaces. Obviously vacant lots can be transformed into gardens but what about rooftops, alleys, windows, front yards, and basements? And in a future with fewer cars we could begin to use some ares which are currently paved after the soil was tested and detoxified.
Thus far I have only spoken of gardens as a place in which we can grow our food but it is also important to consider the side benefits. For example, in city neighborhoods, gardens often serve to be far more than places of food production:
On a smaller scale are community gardens. Community gardens are transforming urban vacant lots, strewn with garbage, into a center of community. Neighborhood gardens serve as a catalyst for community development, beautify local areas, reduce food costs, and provide valuable recreational and therapeutic benefits. Community compost projects can be coupled with community gardens(Co-op America Quarterly Spring 93).
As well as being food producers and beautiful places gardens can also serve as recycling centers for organic wastes such as leftover food items, wood, leaves, manures,… All of these are essential in nature’s recycling process. If we take out nutrients during the food growing process then we must replace them by composting our organic “wastes” into humus. In her book Start With the Soil, Grace Gershuny writes that “Composting is a low-cost, nonpolluting alternative to sending household food and yard wastes to the landfill…On the compost pile, yard wastes will recycle themselves quickly”(67).
In cities with more open spaces and in smaller towns in the countryside one productive form of food production might be the CSA or Community Supported Agriculture. While a CSA could also work in a city it tends to require more land than is often available. According to Coop America Quarterly :
Community supported agriculture (CSA) offers people a unique way to reconnect with their food and the land through a direct relationship with a farmer and a local farm. Through CSAs, a community of citizens purchases shares in a farm. A share entitled the shareholder to a set amount of organically grown produce during the growing season. By paying up front, the shareholders also share the financial risk of farming. The guaranteed income means the farmer can focus on growing high quality food, rather than on what crops will get the best price(Spring1993).
We should also remember the relationships that can be created between the countryside and the city. In the past, cities have, as we can so clearly see today, evolved a parasitic relationship with the countryside. Often times doing more harm than just draining away resources without returning them, cities have come to dominate the countryside culturally as well. It is important that we restore a balance to the relationship between town and country–ecological food production must figure into this balance. This balanced relationship must replace the historical development in which the countryside has become little more that a chemical food factory (or a place for other resource extraction or victim of urbanization).
The Bicycle as Community Transportation
Of all the devices invented by human beings to increase their speed of travel the bicycle is perhaps the most beautiful. Why is the bicycle beautiful you ask? The answer is simple. Bicycles are relatively cheap. They require very little material for their production. They can be easily modified to suit practically any need of a community. Their construction is simple enough so as to allow a community to manufacture its own supply. They are easy to repair. Last, but certainly not least, they cause little pollution in their construction and maintenance, and emit no pollution of any kind when they are used.
Revolutions Bike Co-op, Memphis, TN
Also very important in the community is the conversion of “normal” bicycles into working bicycles or, put in another way, bicycles which can carry heavy and sometimes awkward loads. According to an article entitled “Making Workbikes for the Neighborhood”:
Better bike designs for hauling loads were first available nearly a century ago, then fell into disuse with the advent of the combustion engine. But today a tiny international network of ecology- minded bicycle engineers is leading a renaissance for workbikes. The old bikes are being brilliantly redesigned with lessons of the past century in mind, including the experience of being overrun by the automobile industry( Rain Winter/Spring 1992:14).
It is important that we understand the potential of bicycles as a completely radical and ecological technology. This is a technology that can completely undermine the oil industry and one which can, with a little work, be controlled by communities. What is needed is a shift in technology and the development of inexpensive tooling devices for the neighborhood bikeshop. Indeed, “local economies benefit from decentralizing and personalizing bike production. Custom Italian bicycle frames are famous throughout the world because each Italian neighborhood has bike designers and builders”(Rain: 15). The bike shop becomes a community institution of ecological technology. A place in which neighbors can learn not just about bicycle technology but technology in general. And the bike shop could very easily serve as a catalyst to further development of various eco-technologies.
Revolutions Bike Co-op, Memphis, TN
Recycling “Junk” in our Communities
Recycling is one of the most accessible of ecological technologies easily available to communities. Anything from wood to metal piping to an old grocery cart can be “recycled” and made into new, useful forms to improve the material base of a neighborhood. While it is necessary to carry on with the more common “recyclables” such as aluminum and steel cans, glass, newspaper, and other such items, we must also begin to see that these and other recyclables be turned into a community resource not a profit for BFI (Browning Ferris Industries) or city hall. It is, unfortunately, becoming a common practice for cities and states across the country to extend wastehauling relationships with large corporations into recycling relationships often times resulting in the coercion of people and the enforcement of recycling. In these instances a potential neighborhood resource is taken away and shipped elsewhere for processing and reproduction.
One possible solution to the recycling problem is the creation of neighborhood recycling and technology centers. A center of this kind could easily be located in an old garage, storage building, or some other kind of structure that is not being used or has been abandoned. Someone in the neighborhood may even have extra space and volunteer that. People in neighborhoods should also begin to form technology and recycling collectives to work in the centers they create. Such centers should develop eco-tech libraries and could, after becoming established (or as a part of the process of becoming established) offer community workshops and technical assistance on projects such as solar and wind energy, permaculture, building weatherization,… It will only be through this hands-on work that our neighborhood “junk” will be turned into community resources and an added material base for self-reliance.
The overall beauty of community technology is that the resources for it already exist in most neighborhoods–the potential is there, waiting for us to develop it. It is imperative that, as we create our communities we also work to create an ecological, community controlled and developed technology. It will be with this technology that we feed, cloth, and shelter our bodies and it will be through this technology that we interact with nature. We should create this technology just as we would a garden: first, with careful and artistic planning, getting our hands into the soil, then we nourish and craft it as it grows.
The President get’s his vacation, did you get yours?
This is gross. Really. We’re paying him to make wars we don’t want and take vacationshe doesn’t deserve. I guess lying to the people of the world is terribly stressful… “our” poor president needs plenty of rest. Give me a break.
He needs to spend his next vacation in the slammer. What was that? Did I hear someone say war criminal?
08/08/2003
Corporate reform?
Tenniel over at CyberEcology has a great writeup on the dynamics of consumer activism and corporate reform. Evidently McDonald’s is reforming some of it’s practices. This is great as far as it goes. The problem, as Tenniel points out, is that the public never really knows if these reforms are real. It’s important that we not take the glossy brochures distributed by corporations as truthful representations. Often times they are nothing more than PR spin.
My take is that corporations, which function in the context of capitalism, cannot reform. It’s not a part of their nature. Asking a corporation to function in a socially just or ecologically sustainable way would be like asking the toaster in the kitchen to fly across the room. Not going to happen. At most a corporation will have at least one socially responsible option… so that they can comply with their pr.
08/08/2003
Bush’s Uranium Lies
The Washington post has an informative article which outlines the determination of Bush and company to use the African uranium “intelligence”. Not only did he use it in his state of the union, but the White House used it before and after that. It’s been said before and will be said again: Bush is a liar. He’s not the only one though. Say it with me: War Crimes.
Found via Body and Soul.
08/08/2003
Memphis Flash Mob
So yes, looks like there may be a Memphis Flash Mob… stay tuned for more info.
To TypePad, or not to TypePad
Well, I guess I don’t have to decide today but soon. Do I switch from my current blog which is based on blosxom and hosted as a part of the MeDiA Co-op site or do I switch to this new and nifty TypePad site? If I stay with this site I don’t have to pay a dime out of my own pocket and I have more control over configuration. Of course there benefits to switching too.
I guess I’ll need to play around with TypePad a bit more before I can decide whether the benefits justify the switch. Ugh.
I’m terrible at decisions.
08/07/2003
Ballot tampering in the next election?
If Bush could push his way into office when Clinton was in office surely he’ll find a way to keep his position now that he’s there. I’m sure he’s got a plan to keep himself in power and I wonder if a part of that plan is manipulate electronic voting systems, some of which contain numeorus security holes. Of course, I don’t mean to imply that we have a democracy, we don’t. You’ll find more info about voting machines here.
Pixels and Paper
Jason over at kottke.org has some interesting thoughts on how we read differently when we read via the web.
Reading this prompted me to consider the last book I read. I have not completed a real, paper-based book in, er, years. I no longer read books. Nearly everything I read is delivered to me via the lcd of my laptop and most of it is web-based. Should I be worried?