CISPA: Because SOPA and PIPA got shot down... and the following companies are REALLY counting on the short attentions pans of the American People.
Read this list. If you thought the battle over SOPA/PIPA was between corporate giants...
AT&T
Boeing
BSA
Business Roundtable
CSC
COMPTEL
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association
Edison Electric
EMC
Exelon
Facebook
The Financial Services Roundtable
IBM
Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
Information Technology Industry Council
Intel
Internet Security Alliance
Lockheed Martin
Microsoft
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
NDIA
Oracle
Symantec
TechAmerica
US Chamber of Commerce
US Telecom - The Broadband Association
Verizon
You thought the fight was over? Oh no; it's just getting started.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Executive Order
Obama signed an executive order on March 16th (thank you for the birthday present, Mr. President).
Here's the biggest jaw-dropper:
Long story short: In the case of a national emergency, everything is nationalized. A national emergency... as deemed by the U.S. government, the officials of which have long since been deemed unfit to solve the nations problems, now seek to rend what remaining power is left in the people FROM the people...
and among the first things mentioned, agriculture.
I leave the rest of the implications to you.
Here's the biggest jaw-dropper:
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
Long story short: In the case of a national emergency, everything is nationalized. A national emergency... as deemed by the U.S. government, the officials of which have long since been deemed unfit to solve the nations problems, now seek to rend what remaining power is left in the people FROM the people...
and among the first things mentioned, agriculture.
I leave the rest of the implications to you.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Abject Acceptance
Many with whom I interact are very detached from much of what's been happening regarding the political state of the world.
"It's not that bad."
I've heard it too many times.
"Relax."
That's good- don't freak out... but don't rationalize and sugarcoat.
Reputability is context-sensitive.
No, the major news networks aren't covering it anymore. The only people who actually talk about this are the ones who either go out of their way to find out, or seem to be surrounded by it... wouldn't you agree?
How many of your personal friends are looking for a job, or have been? How many people want to contribute, but keep getting shot down at the hands of either incompetence, ignorance, or barriers that are being created just as the doors are discovered?
It's happening more evidently every month. Jobs are running thin and need to be more specialized... and the avenues of specializing in any 'marketable skill' are scarce and continue to be more so.
And all the while, the masses hear of this, know it's happening, and shrug the responsibility off.
It's not a property that's unique to the 1%; it's a property of American culture.
"I'll do my job, and take care of what's mine."
It's easy for many people to hold collective responsibility for cruel deeds, but when the individual is singled out, moral stances seem to change.
When powerful people are held accountable, things change.
Shrugging off the notion that you can make any significant change is submission.
This is a culture of submission and compromise; of abdication and indignation. The infectious desire to possess has overtaken the desire to create in all levels of society, and it needs to stop.
It takes some drastic changes, and people adopting crazy ideas, and doing crazy things. That's what it takes.
And it's happening.
You don't have to believe that it's happening; it'll happen anyway. Things have picked up, and they're not slowing down. You can choose to keep distant and going about your daily musings, tangentially connected to it all, but it'll happen. You can make it easier. You can make it better.
You can talk. You can learn, understand, and spread the word... because this abject acceptance of the status quo is causing far more damage than passive admission.
Don't agree. Disagree. Argue. Exchange information and put in your opinion. Don't take anything for granted.
The news networks can say whatever they like; it's not over.
Not by a longshot.
"It's not that bad."
I've heard it too many times.
"Relax."
That's good- don't freak out... but don't rationalize and sugarcoat.
Reputability is context-sensitive.
No, the major news networks aren't covering it anymore. The only people who actually talk about this are the ones who either go out of their way to find out, or seem to be surrounded by it... wouldn't you agree?
How many of your personal friends are looking for a job, or have been? How many people want to contribute, but keep getting shot down at the hands of either incompetence, ignorance, or barriers that are being created just as the doors are discovered?
It's happening more evidently every month. Jobs are running thin and need to be more specialized... and the avenues of specializing in any 'marketable skill' are scarce and continue to be more so.
And all the while, the masses hear of this, know it's happening, and shrug the responsibility off.
It's not a property that's unique to the 1%; it's a property of American culture.
"I'll do my job, and take care of what's mine."
It's easy for many people to hold collective responsibility for cruel deeds, but when the individual is singled out, moral stances seem to change.
When powerful people are held accountable, things change.
Shrugging off the notion that you can make any significant change is submission.
This is a culture of submission and compromise; of abdication and indignation. The infectious desire to possess has overtaken the desire to create in all levels of society, and it needs to stop.
It takes some drastic changes, and people adopting crazy ideas, and doing crazy things. That's what it takes.
And it's happening.
You don't have to believe that it's happening; it'll happen anyway. Things have picked up, and they're not slowing down. You can choose to keep distant and going about your daily musings, tangentially connected to it all, but it'll happen. You can make it easier. You can make it better.
You can talk. You can learn, understand, and spread the word... because this abject acceptance of the status quo is causing far more damage than passive admission.
Don't agree. Disagree. Argue. Exchange information and put in your opinion. Don't take anything for granted.
The news networks can say whatever they like; it's not over.
Not by a longshot.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Radical Implications
"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation."
"State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."That is an excerpt from Articles 7 and 9, respectively, of La Carta del Lavoro, also known as the Labour Charter of 1927, introduced by Benito Mussolini, and decreed by the Grand Council of Fascism.
Don't snap and declare me a crazy; feel free to make a counter-point.
Don't see red at the mere mention of comparing what's happening in the U.S. to what the history books teach as "fascism". Read it. Learn about it.
"Italian Fascism" was centered around a corporate economic system, which involved collaboration between corporation and state in order to set economic policy; the government's economic intervention was to consist of helping private enterprise. This was supposed to end "class conflict", and criminalized strikes and lockouts, prejudicial to the national economy.
Don't jump to conclusions. Don't take my word for it. This is the internet. Stop, learn, and think. I share with you what I find relevant. Please return the favor.
Now, onto other matters.
I'm sure you know that SOPA and PIPA have been shut down for now, many fear that they will return in some form or other.
In fact, have you heard yet about ACTA: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? It's actually rather strange how the text of the document seems to not be publicly available for reasons involving national security. Why do you think a treaty that deals with intellectual property would affect national security? Of course, you can read it here through the current glory of the internet.
Forbes magazine considers it worse than SOPA. They aren't the only ones worried.
Why is this relevant to my previous quip about the merger between corporate and state? Because on January 18th, the Internet Blackout caused quite a commotion. Websites that participated in this massive wave of collective political activism include Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, Wordpress, Flickr, 4chan, Craigslist, and countless others. Here's a slightly more extensive list.
And how did private enterprise respond? Well, Chris Dodd, a former U.S. Senator and current Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) posted the following in this statement:
“Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the majorWhat astounds me is that the people who claim that this sort of bill is necessary for the financial sustenance of the entertainment industry (or any facet of the economy that suffers from piracy) are almost exclusively those who RUN the industry. Most of the actors/artists/etc. who have spoken out about it are distinctly against it. So is piracy hurting them badly enough for something like SOPA? As far as I can tell, it isn't.
concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their
corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging. It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.
A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”
What is the best part of all of this fun? Chris Dodd publicly threatened on Fox News that he would not contribute to Obama's campaign for speaking out against SOPA.
Ah, the power of money.
...though I fully expect this election to accomplish little in terms of how corporate and state is merging.
Why do I think so?
Mark Patterson: Obama's current Chief of Staff of the Secretary of the Treasury, used to be a Lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.
William Daley: Was Obama's Chief of Staff [and Clinton's secretary of Commerce starting 1997], and was also on the Executive Board of JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Jack Lew: Obama's current director of the Office of Budget and Management, and is slated to become Chief of Staff in February. He was also a Chief Operating Officer for Citigroup.
Valerie Jarett: Senior Adviser to the President. Was the CEO of real estate development and management company The Habitat Company, board member of the Chicago Stock Exchange (Chairwoman for a while), and is on the board of trustees and directors for several other companies.
These people make articles like this seem kind of strange.
So why compare this with 'fascism'? Why be worried? Is the government catering more to private interest than the public good? Well, as I'm sure you know, the Occupy movement, which has been largely targeting big business and corruption in U.S. politics, has been rather active about political dissent.
So, the NDAA Passed. Congress has knowingly created a loophole that can deny the rights stated in the Bill of Rights to U.S. Citizens. This has been met with a LOT of hostility. In my opinion, rightfully so.
Was it bad enough? Apparently not.
Here's the kicker of this blog post:
On October 12th, 2011, Senator Charles Dent introduced the Enemy Expatriation Act. What does this do?
Well, it amends the Immigration and Nationality Act.Rebellion and Insurrection, Seditious Conspiracy, and Advocating Overthrow of Government all qualify as grounds for having one's citizenship revoked. This bill adds the following clause:
"engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States"
I encourage you to read through it, but here's my version of a summary: Actively advocating a change in the government that involves going against the current system is grounds for removal of citizenship. This makes anyone who acts in a manner that encourages structural change that is antithetical to the government's intention subject to whatever the U.S. justice system affords non-U.S. citizens. How does that make you feel?
Here are some other takes on this bill.
In grimly related news, the LAPD will be participating in a joint military training exercise in Los Angeles. AWESOME.
If you disagree with anything stated here, please don't be silent about it.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Convenient Neglect
I think some legal matters have been overlooked lately...
The following is stated in the California Civil Code Section 52.1
This goes out to everyone who thinks that what has happened in Davis, Berkeley, LA, Oakland, San Francisco, Riverside, and Orange County were justified because the protesters were breaking the law.
The following is stated in the California Civil Code Section 52.1
(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under colorThe rest of it is pretty fun, too... and I'm fairly certain this applies to MUCH of what has happened, at least in California, very recently.
of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or
attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the
exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the
rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the
Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring
a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief
in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to
protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights
secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district
attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is
requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who
is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be
awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are
determined to have been violated.
This goes out to everyone who thinks that what has happened in Davis, Berkeley, LA, Oakland, San Francisco, Riverside, and Orange County were justified because the protesters were breaking the law.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Memetic Manipulation
Memes.
Many who read that word will think of the amusing pictures that are spreading across the internet at an increasing rate... but explicitly speaking, what is a meme? Are they new to society?
No.
The explicit definition of a meme is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". Think about that a little critically, and you realize that culture is just a collection of memes, the spread of which is governed by commonalities in the lifestyles of the members of that culture. Everything down to gestures and even words (which begin as slang or jargon and eventually become incorporated into formal language) are, at some level, memes.
So why am I posting about this now? Why should this matter to you?
This was all just made relevant to me as a result of the latest events that unfolded in North Korea- namely, Kim Jong Il's death.
Based on the complete cultural control that the North Korean government has over its citizens, I'm not really surprised that the regime has managed to maintain its power so well. They've memetically destroyed the concept of freedom within their population... and that, is the purest form of destruction.
To control what a person obtains is the simplest type of control.
To control what a person does is a tighter kind of control.
To control what a person knows is even more impressive (oppressive).
To control what a person does or does not believe... that is pure control.
I will extrapolate these concepts to the United States. I know, comparing the U.S. to Korea is more than a little extreme, but the theme of memetic manipulation exists in any government; in order for a political system to work, those participating must have a similar idea of its function, or, at the very least, agree upon it enough to work with it.
Which brings me to my next ideological target: the two-party system, and the (hilarious) idea that every problem that arises in the country can be attributed to one of two political groups.
It wasn't until two weeks after Occupy Wall Street started that any major news network BEGAN reporting on it.
Streets were being blocked. Cars were stopped. THOUSANDS of people on one of the busiest streets in one of the busiest cities in the wealthiest nation in the world... were ignored by the media for two weeks. What disgusts me is that people trust these networks to give them an accurate depiction of the world, despite this.
Memetic manipluation. These people will tell you what's going on.
What else do these people tell you? Republican vs. Democrat. Political problem? Automatically assigned to one or the other.
And why not? They're the most accessible and well-funded media outlets in the country.
Even now, despite all of the political dissent that has been surging throughout the country, people are far too quick to label. Talk about an issue, and it's either the Democrat's fault, or the Republican's fault. Either the liberals are right, or the conservatives know what to do. It can't be both, nor can it draw attention to another.
Control of the media: control of the mind.
Though that's changing now as well, isn't it?
Those who are connected to the information flow outside of the news networks realize how irrevocable the Occupy movement is across the country. Strangely enough, not a single presidential candidate (as far as I have heard) has even publicly recognized the existence of this movement. Many people consider it the left-wing analogue to the Tea Party (surprise! It's either right or left- politics has a single dimension, after all).
The concept of ideologies that cannot be incorporated into Democratic or Republican ideals has been memetically destroyed. Not only are third-party candidates automatically ostracized from major corporate donations (by virtue of daring to venture away from Red vs. Blue), but the very idea that a third-party candidate has no chance to be elected is self-perpetuating. This has come to the point where those who speak out in favor of the third party are encouraged (inevitably by self-proclaimed free-thinkers as well as party spokespeople) to absorb their ideas into either one party or the other.
Divide all through hate, red state, blue state.
Time do discuss the actual issues. Do you believe that the current government has ANY intention of balancing the federal government's budget? The congressional super-committee charged with coming up with a plan to fix the budget failed at doing so.
I feel that, at such a point where a person (or body of people) cannot fix a problem that NEEDS TO BE FIXED, they should consider fishing for ideas outside of their own minds. Different ideas.
Has anyone heard of ideas floating around aside from cutting social programs vs. taxing the rich? I'm certain they exist, but why aren't these discussed? To be consistent with my current rant, it's because they aren't what the Democrats or Republicans have been preaching. Go figure.
For those of you who are sick of the two-party system, stop being quiet about it. This is how to fix it.
Don't blame the Democrats or Republicans for anything. Blame those who act (vote) against what you believe, but this mental compartmentalization of ALL political issues divides the country. It needs to stop.
Stop being quiet.
Stop being complacent.
Stop being apathetic.
Stop waiting for something to affect you directly before you speak out. An idea that isn't shared in any way may as well never have existed.
What you think matters as much as you want it to matter. If you are angry, but silent about it, then your anger does not matter. Prove that it matters.
You don't have to do much. Go on twitter for 10 minutes a day and let people know what you think. Start a blog. Share on Facebook. Yes, these matter.
If you're happy with how things are going, then make sure you are well aware of how things are going; else, you're fooling yourself.
This is the information age. If you have information, share it. Your opinion is information. Share it.
Being scared of those who disagree with you DEFINES the success of all who oppose you.
I encourage all to disagree with me and disobey all commands to keep quiet.
This is democracy. The people in Washington DC clearly have forgotten whom they are supposed to serve. They will forever be ignorant if the masses stay silent. Speaking out is now easier than ever.
If your opinion isn't shared, it doesn't matter.
Does it matter to you?
Many who read that word will think of the amusing pictures that are spreading across the internet at an increasing rate... but explicitly speaking, what is a meme? Are they new to society?
No.
The explicit definition of a meme is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". Think about that a little critically, and you realize that culture is just a collection of memes, the spread of which is governed by commonalities in the lifestyles of the members of that culture. Everything down to gestures and even words (which begin as slang or jargon and eventually become incorporated into formal language) are, at some level, memes.
So why am I posting about this now? Why should this matter to you?
This was all just made relevant to me as a result of the latest events that unfolded in North Korea- namely, Kim Jong Il's death.
Based on the complete cultural control that the North Korean government has over its citizens, I'm not really surprised that the regime has managed to maintain its power so well. They've memetically destroyed the concept of freedom within their population... and that, is the purest form of destruction.
To control what a person obtains is the simplest type of control.
To control what a person does is a tighter kind of control.
To control what a person knows is even more impressive (oppressive).
To control what a person does or does not believe... that is pure control.
I will extrapolate these concepts to the United States. I know, comparing the U.S. to Korea is more than a little extreme, but the theme of memetic manipulation exists in any government; in order for a political system to work, those participating must have a similar idea of its function, or, at the very least, agree upon it enough to work with it.
Which brings me to my next ideological target: the two-party system, and the (hilarious) idea that every problem that arises in the country can be attributed to one of two political groups.
It wasn't until two weeks after Occupy Wall Street started that any major news network BEGAN reporting on it.
Streets were being blocked. Cars were stopped. THOUSANDS of people on one of the busiest streets in one of the busiest cities in the wealthiest nation in the world... were ignored by the media for two weeks. What disgusts me is that people trust these networks to give them an accurate depiction of the world, despite this.
Memetic manipluation. These people will tell you what's going on.
What else do these people tell you? Republican vs. Democrat. Political problem? Automatically assigned to one or the other.
And why not? They're the most accessible and well-funded media outlets in the country.
Even now, despite all of the political dissent that has been surging throughout the country, people are far too quick to label. Talk about an issue, and it's either the Democrat's fault, or the Republican's fault. Either the liberals are right, or the conservatives know what to do. It can't be both, nor can it draw attention to another.
Control of the media: control of the mind.
Though that's changing now as well, isn't it?
Those who are connected to the information flow outside of the news networks realize how irrevocable the Occupy movement is across the country. Strangely enough, not a single presidential candidate (as far as I have heard) has even publicly recognized the existence of this movement. Many people consider it the left-wing analogue to the Tea Party (surprise! It's either right or left- politics has a single dimension, after all).
The concept of ideologies that cannot be incorporated into Democratic or Republican ideals has been memetically destroyed. Not only are third-party candidates automatically ostracized from major corporate donations (by virtue of daring to venture away from Red vs. Blue), but the very idea that a third-party candidate has no chance to be elected is self-perpetuating. This has come to the point where those who speak out in favor of the third party are encouraged (inevitably by self-proclaimed free-thinkers as well as party spokespeople) to absorb their ideas into either one party or the other.
Divide all through hate, red state, blue state.
Time do discuss the actual issues. Do you believe that the current government has ANY intention of balancing the federal government's budget? The congressional super-committee charged with coming up with a plan to fix the budget failed at doing so.
I feel that, at such a point where a person (or body of people) cannot fix a problem that NEEDS TO BE FIXED, they should consider fishing for ideas outside of their own minds. Different ideas.
Has anyone heard of ideas floating around aside from cutting social programs vs. taxing the rich? I'm certain they exist, but why aren't these discussed? To be consistent with my current rant, it's because they aren't what the Democrats or Republicans have been preaching. Go figure.
For those of you who are sick of the two-party system, stop being quiet about it. This is how to fix it.
Don't blame the Democrats or Republicans for anything. Blame those who act (vote) against what you believe, but this mental compartmentalization of ALL political issues divides the country. It needs to stop.
"It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal,engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them." -Sun TzuDividing the enemy is one of the most effective ways to defeat them. This works in physical war, and ideological war. I am fighting an ideological battle, and this is my dissemination strategy: Information.
Stop being quiet.
Stop being complacent.
Stop being apathetic.
Stop waiting for something to affect you directly before you speak out. An idea that isn't shared in any way may as well never have existed.
What you think matters as much as you want it to matter. If you are angry, but silent about it, then your anger does not matter. Prove that it matters.
You don't have to do much. Go on twitter for 10 minutes a day and let people know what you think. Start a blog. Share on Facebook. Yes, these matter.
If you're happy with how things are going, then make sure you are well aware of how things are going; else, you're fooling yourself.
This is the information age. If you have information, share it. Your opinion is information. Share it.
Being scared of those who disagree with you DEFINES the success of all who oppose you.
I encourage all to disagree with me and disobey all commands to keep quiet.
This is democracy. The people in Washington DC clearly have forgotten whom they are supposed to serve. They will forever be ignorant if the masses stay silent. Speaking out is now easier than ever.
If your opinion isn't shared, it doesn't matter.
Does it matter to you?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Fracturing Glass
A lot has happened since my last post... which I had intended to revise, but now will not. I have learned much since then. If you haven't heard about the events of Friday, November 18th at UC Davis, simply drop by YouTube and search "UC Davis", or just click here. Warning: The video is rather intense.
Another video you may find worth your time is The Calm After The Storm (featuring yours truly).
Since then, I have been neck-deep in this movement. It's unlike anything I've ever experienced. I'm sure many will just read this as me "raging against the machine" as a cousin of mine described during Thanksgiving dinner, so feel free to give me some feedback with your perspective.
The way I see it, things are changing. I mean that in the broadest, most significant way possible. Syria and Libya have been completely overthrown. Italy has elected an entirely new government. Egypt has completely overhauled its government, and Israel as declared that it's going to act against Iran, whose government has openly been threatening the existence of Israel for years.
And beyond all of that, the U.S.'s social structure is fracturing more every WEEK, in much the same manner as glass cracks when too much force is applied. Occupy Wall Street has accrued over 4,000 arrests. That is absolutely absurd, and the disconnect between the information generation and the rest of the world is becoming more and more apparent with each passing week.
The event that happened in Davis was recorded by an absurd number of people, and shortly thereafter, the protests at Berkeley went absolutely nuts. Google was inundated with over 700 requests by the government to remove the videos of police brutality.
Google declined.
Under normal circumstances, I'm sure Google would have removed those videos; they are rather violent, but as a private corporation, they may provide their service in whatever manner they see fit. The government may try to pass laws restricting them, but I don't see this as a realistic possibility; the companies who fund politicians rely far too much on the information and advertising mastery of Google.
I thank capitalism for Google's alligiance to this and other occupy movements; indeed, we are their audience and customers.
I don't see Chancellor Katehi as a bad person... I see her as wholly disconnected (or was) from what was happening on campus and completely ignorant of the true nature or ramifications of her actions (and/or inaction/s). I have similar views about the Regents of the U.C.
They aren't malicious, simply ignorant.
The woman IS responsible for the entire university, but does not WORK FOR the entire university. By this, I mean that she was appointed to her position by the regents of the U.C., who were appointed by the regents, who were appointed by the governor (with TWELVE year terms). I expect every worker to work for whomever gets him/her his/her job. Those in public office who get their job directly because of the people will serve the people. So how many of them do? Be realistic.
Can a congressman or senator be elected directly through the people? Would one who tried have a chance against those who sell out to companies who fund their election (and/or re-election) campaigns and get tons of money for advertising, etc.?
Who gets these people their jobs? Whom do they serve?
I don't blame them. The ones who actually want to serve the people don't stand a chance.
The chancellor-candidates who would rather cater to the university students, staff, and faculty than the regents will not get chosen by the regents to become chancellor. In a corporate structure, this is great; CEOs are held accountable to their investors and shareholders. In public office, administrators need to be held directly accountable to whomever they are expected to serve. Yes, serve. That's how a democracy works.
I'm sure some will read this who believe that one who has earned a lot more money is perfectly justified in having a heavier hand in the government. To those, I ask to describe the difference between democracy and aristocracy, and which you prefer.
The influence is spreading. With each passing year, people are realizing how exempt they aren't from the same issues that are peoples' reasons to protest all over the country.
Around me I see college students still convinced that those directly affected by all of these issues are a minority... people who think that working diligently through these years will get them that degree and a job and be successful. For some reason, those who have graduated (and aren't in some graduate or professional school) seem to generally disagree. The burden of loans and the dilution of education are going to hit most people in public universities harder than I think they realize.
Not to worry... those who are spearheading these movements are well educated and well aware.
Those coming out of college aren't necessarily any dumber than those who graduated in the 60's or 70's, when public education was so much more affordable (and even free), but they are in much worse financial situations, both in terms of credit and chances of getting a job (ANY job, let alone the one they want)... and slowly more people are starting to realize this... and they are very upset about it.
I've noticed that talks of the upcoming presidential elections have quieted down quite a bit. Either this is just a calm in the 'cycle of the media', as I have been suggested, or the candidates simply have no idea how to address the foreboding shift of the attitude of the country, like a large structure that is beginning to sway. Will it fall? No idea... but at this point, the smartest thing they can do is watch, wait, and see.
This is going to be one HELL of an election year.
Another video you may find worth your time is The Calm After The Storm (featuring yours truly).
Since then, I have been neck-deep in this movement. It's unlike anything I've ever experienced. I'm sure many will just read this as me "raging against the machine" as a cousin of mine described during Thanksgiving dinner, so feel free to give me some feedback with your perspective.
The way I see it, things are changing. I mean that in the broadest, most significant way possible. Syria and Libya have been completely overthrown. Italy has elected an entirely new government. Egypt has completely overhauled its government, and Israel as declared that it's going to act against Iran, whose government has openly been threatening the existence of Israel for years.
And beyond all of that, the U.S.'s social structure is fracturing more every WEEK, in much the same manner as glass cracks when too much force is applied. Occupy Wall Street has accrued over 4,000 arrests. That is absolutely absurd, and the disconnect between the information generation and the rest of the world is becoming more and more apparent with each passing week.
The event that happened in Davis was recorded by an absurd number of people, and shortly thereafter, the protests at Berkeley went absolutely nuts. Google was inundated with over 700 requests by the government to remove the videos of police brutality.
Google declined.
Under normal circumstances, I'm sure Google would have removed those videos; they are rather violent, but as a private corporation, they may provide their service in whatever manner they see fit. The government may try to pass laws restricting them, but I don't see this as a realistic possibility; the companies who fund politicians rely far too much on the information and advertising mastery of Google.
I thank capitalism for Google's alligiance to this and other occupy movements; indeed, we are their audience and customers.
I don't see Chancellor Katehi as a bad person... I see her as wholly disconnected (or was) from what was happening on campus and completely ignorant of the true nature or ramifications of her actions (and/or inaction/s). I have similar views about the Regents of the U.C.
They aren't malicious, simply ignorant.
The woman IS responsible for the entire university, but does not WORK FOR the entire university. By this, I mean that she was appointed to her position by the regents of the U.C., who were appointed by the regents, who were appointed by the governor (with TWELVE year terms). I expect every worker to work for whomever gets him/her his/her job. Those in public office who get their job directly because of the people will serve the people. So how many of them do? Be realistic.
Can a congressman or senator be elected directly through the people? Would one who tried have a chance against those who sell out to companies who fund their election (and/or re-election) campaigns and get tons of money for advertising, etc.?
Who gets these people their jobs? Whom do they serve?
I don't blame them. The ones who actually want to serve the people don't stand a chance.
The chancellor-candidates who would rather cater to the university students, staff, and faculty than the regents will not get chosen by the regents to become chancellor. In a corporate structure, this is great; CEOs are held accountable to their investors and shareholders. In public office, administrators need to be held directly accountable to whomever they are expected to serve. Yes, serve. That's how a democracy works.
I'm sure some will read this who believe that one who has earned a lot more money is perfectly justified in having a heavier hand in the government. To those, I ask to describe the difference between democracy and aristocracy, and which you prefer.
The influence is spreading. With each passing year, people are realizing how exempt they aren't from the same issues that are peoples' reasons to protest all over the country.
Around me I see college students still convinced that those directly affected by all of these issues are a minority... people who think that working diligently through these years will get them that degree and a job and be successful. For some reason, those who have graduated (and aren't in some graduate or professional school) seem to generally disagree. The burden of loans and the dilution of education are going to hit most people in public universities harder than I think they realize.
Not to worry... those who are spearheading these movements are well educated and well aware.
Those coming out of college aren't necessarily any dumber than those who graduated in the 60's or 70's, when public education was so much more affordable (and even free), but they are in much worse financial situations, both in terms of credit and chances of getting a job (ANY job, let alone the one they want)... and slowly more people are starting to realize this... and they are very upset about it.
I've noticed that talks of the upcoming presidential elections have quieted down quite a bit. Either this is just a calm in the 'cycle of the media', as I have been suggested, or the candidates simply have no idea how to address the foreboding shift of the attitude of the country, like a large structure that is beginning to sway. Will it fall? No idea... but at this point, the smartest thing they can do is watch, wait, and see.
This is going to be one HELL of an election year.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Internet (and Censorship)
Today and yesterday, two internet censorship bills have been brought to the attention of the public.
I consider this an interesting step.
The vast majority of those around me (owing in no small part to the fact that I'm in very close proximity to one of the most progressive areas in the country) are strongly opposed to both of the recent acts that are getting passed through the legislature.
Wikipedia links: Protect IP Act (Internet Blacklist Bill) and Stop Online Piracy Act
There are some behemoths clashing at the political level here; Viacom, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry of America, and Macmillan Publishers are taking on Google (alongside Yahoo! and eBay), and Reporters Without Borders (among many others on both sides).
I am rather ambivalent on the issue.
The objective truth is that this bill would place definitive restrictions on the information flow across the country, and allow the government to regulate (and enforce said regulations) the nature of how files are exchanged on a variety of levels (I won't get into the technical details here; they're on the Wikipedia pages).
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I have heard many arguments regarding the first amendment (many think this will be a frivolously easy case for the Supreme Court in favor of the 1st amendment and against both of these bills), among human rights ideas and whatnot... but honestly, I support these bills, and this is why:
The information age is unprecedented. I don't claim to have a full grasp of the power of the internet, and I don't think anybody else should either... and by power, I mean what it enables in terms of information flow, on all levels. Twenty years ago, if a scientist from Switzerland wanted to collaborate with one in New Zealand, s/he would have to run an experiment, gather data, draw conclusions, and send it via what we now happily call 'snail mail' to his/her colleague, which could take weeks or even months (more like days in more modern times, but the analogy works, I swear) to reach the other scientist. This is how they would communicate. Today, they can run the experiment nearly in real time with one another, transferring large amounts of data (which could take reams of paper) in seconds.
Forget science: the arts. Social networking sites like Deviantart have allowed artists (in all senses of the word) to meet, collaborate, and learn from each other in ways that were previously impossible.
I could cite examples until the end of time, but it's all now become an unprecedented degree of information flow. Humans are interacting with each other in ways that almost transcend physical reality into... I am cringing while typing this... a sort of meta-reality. The significance of the internet is directly derived from humanity's use of it. Beyond how people use it, the entire 'information superhighway' is completely obsolete. It matters only as much as the collective of people who use it.
So... time to loop this back around:
The internet is re-shaping modern society and is quickly becoming the primary source of information for an increasing number of people every year. First, it was on a few computers in universities networked across the country... then it started creeping into homes... and then into cell phones, gaming consoles, cars... how many people reading this have used the internet on only ONE device (not regularly... I mean overall). Of those, how many can remember using it for the first time?
The internet is reshaping how society interacts with itself. The acquisition of information for an individual connected to the internet is much more efficient than one who is watching television or listening to the radio- at least in terms of what that individual WANTS to learn.
Having blabbered about the internet long enough, I will NOW come back to why I support these two bills (for reals, this time):
Society needs rules. People need rules. Where rules do not exist, the lack of rules will be exploited. Where rules do exist, they must be enforced. The only objective rules in this universe are the laws of nature... and they are the only reason anything exists. Society exists because of the laws imposed by the government. The next step is to impose rules on the next level of information exchange; as a species, we have moved on from exchanging gestures to tasks to words (spoken) to words (written) [and pictures along the way] to ideas to concepts and to higher levels of organization as society has developed (at least that's what the history books have taught me... though I was never quite good at history).
My point is that the internet is modern human society's next primary medium of information storage and exchange, and rules need to be set and enforced. The rules proposed by congress, I believe will accomplish this. Yes, they will anger MANY people (and quite frankly, I don't believe they'll hold up for very long, since the American public already is rather angry with congress); at some point, even if not now, the internet will need to be structured, regulated, and safe. Online interactions must not always be allowed to elude established societal constructs (like the criminalizing of piracy) in the name of freedom. Nobody fights to remove the lanes from freeways in the name of freedom (successfully), why? I should be able to drive wherever I want. No. Certain aspects of the internet have caused significant damage to a significant number of people socially, economically, and politically (I'm looking at you, Anthony Weiner), and they need to be regulated.
Granted, this may not be the right time to take this sort of step, I do believe it needs to be taken. The internet has much more potential than how we currently use it, and the only way to reach that is to structure it in a way that is conducive to the individual alongside those that try to capitalize on it. Capitalism is progress- it flourishes in a structured system. Let it do so, and watch the internet soar beyond what anyone could have imagined.
I consider this an interesting step.
The vast majority of those around me (owing in no small part to the fact that I'm in very close proximity to one of the most progressive areas in the country) are strongly opposed to both of the recent acts that are getting passed through the legislature.
Wikipedia links: Protect IP Act (Internet Blacklist Bill) and Stop Online Piracy Act
There are some behemoths clashing at the political level here; Viacom, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry of America, and Macmillan Publishers are taking on Google (alongside Yahoo! and eBay), and Reporters Without Borders (among many others on both sides).
I am rather ambivalent on the issue.
The objective truth is that this bill would place definitive restrictions on the information flow across the country, and allow the government to regulate (and enforce said regulations) the nature of how files are exchanged on a variety of levels (I won't get into the technical details here; they're on the Wikipedia pages).
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I have heard many arguments regarding the first amendment (many think this will be a frivolously easy case for the Supreme Court in favor of the 1st amendment and against both of these bills), among human rights ideas and whatnot... but honestly, I support these bills, and this is why:
The information age is unprecedented. I don't claim to have a full grasp of the power of the internet, and I don't think anybody else should either... and by power, I mean what it enables in terms of information flow, on all levels. Twenty years ago, if a scientist from Switzerland wanted to collaborate with one in New Zealand, s/he would have to run an experiment, gather data, draw conclusions, and send it via what we now happily call 'snail mail' to his/her colleague, which could take weeks or even months (more like days in more modern times, but the analogy works, I swear) to reach the other scientist. This is how they would communicate. Today, they can run the experiment nearly in real time with one another, transferring large amounts of data (which could take reams of paper) in seconds.
Forget science: the arts. Social networking sites like Deviantart have allowed artists (in all senses of the word) to meet, collaborate, and learn from each other in ways that were previously impossible.
I could cite examples until the end of time, but it's all now become an unprecedented degree of information flow. Humans are interacting with each other in ways that almost transcend physical reality into... I am cringing while typing this... a sort of meta-reality. The significance of the internet is directly derived from humanity's use of it. Beyond how people use it, the entire 'information superhighway' is completely obsolete. It matters only as much as the collective of people who use it.
So... time to loop this back around:
The internet is re-shaping modern society and is quickly becoming the primary source of information for an increasing number of people every year. First, it was on a few computers in universities networked across the country... then it started creeping into homes... and then into cell phones, gaming consoles, cars... how many people reading this have used the internet on only ONE device (not regularly... I mean overall). Of those, how many can remember using it for the first time?
The internet is reshaping how society interacts with itself. The acquisition of information for an individual connected to the internet is much more efficient than one who is watching television or listening to the radio- at least in terms of what that individual WANTS to learn.
Having blabbered about the internet long enough, I will NOW come back to why I support these two bills (for reals, this time):
Society needs rules. People need rules. Where rules do not exist, the lack of rules will be exploited. Where rules do exist, they must be enforced. The only objective rules in this universe are the laws of nature... and they are the only reason anything exists. Society exists because of the laws imposed by the government. The next step is to impose rules on the next level of information exchange; as a species, we have moved on from exchanging gestures to tasks to words (spoken) to words (written) [and pictures along the way] to ideas to concepts and to higher levels of organization as society has developed (at least that's what the history books have taught me... though I was never quite good at history).
My point is that the internet is modern human society's next primary medium of information storage and exchange, and rules need to be set and enforced. The rules proposed by congress, I believe will accomplish this. Yes, they will anger MANY people (and quite frankly, I don't believe they'll hold up for very long, since the American public already is rather angry with congress); at some point, even if not now, the internet will need to be structured, regulated, and safe. Online interactions must not always be allowed to elude established societal constructs (like the criminalizing of piracy) in the name of freedom. Nobody fights to remove the lanes from freeways in the name of freedom (successfully), why? I should be able to drive wherever I want. No. Certain aspects of the internet have caused significant damage to a significant number of people socially, economically, and politically (I'm looking at you, Anthony Weiner), and they need to be regulated.
Granted, this may not be the right time to take this sort of step, I do believe it needs to be taken. The internet has much more potential than how we currently use it, and the only way to reach that is to structure it in a way that is conducive to the individual alongside those that try to capitalize on it. Capitalism is progress- it flourishes in a structured system. Let it do so, and watch the internet soar beyond what anyone could have imagined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)