The FBI released a statement denying the charges brought forth by Matthew Rothschild in Progressive magazine a few weeks ago. However, based on a new article Rothschild has published in response, I am more convinced that the FBI released nothing but a confirmatory denial. What I mean is that they deny the language that the reporter used but don't refute the substance of the claims.
Click here for Rothschild new article.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Nonsense about Denying the Existence of Global Warming
So Exxon-Mobil, the largest oil refiner in the world, held a conference today at which skeptics of global warming were able to stand atop their soapboxes. Many skeptics are using the current winter season as proof that global warming is not happening.
Well, let's think about this...
A company that is entirely dependent on environment harming processes and is one of the largest produces of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming is hosting this conference. There seems to be a vested interest at play here.
Let's also consider that, as far as I know, an overwhelming majority of the scientific community has shown that global warming is indeed happening. Moreover, a body of scientists put together solely for the study of global warming came out within the past year saying that they are very confident that humans are the main contributors to global warming.
Trying to use one season as irrevocable proof of a trend is like looking at the price of a stock on one day and determining where it will be in three weeks based solely on that bit of information. In truth, this winter has been average and this past December was one of the warmer ones on record. Nevermind the fact that something like eight of the warmest years on record have been since 1990.
Most of the people who deny global warming are non-scientific amateurs (or morons, e.g. Glenn Beck) who have no better idea than anyone else on the street or they are members of an industry that would be hindered by policies to alleviate global warming.
Another thing: it really seems that the only anti-global warming sentiment is coming from America (I, of course, could be entirely wrong but I have heard of no strong opposition from elsewhere in the world). To me, that just screams that the corporate interests of those who would be held back by measures to ameliorate the effects of global warming are so pervasive that they have a foothold across the country. It also suggests that a sizable chunk of the country does not pay attention to science.
(You'll have to forgive me if any of that information is incorrect. I wrote this from memory, so I may have misquoted. However, I am confident that most of the information I refer to is valid.)
Well, let's think about this...
A company that is entirely dependent on environment harming processes and is one of the largest produces of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming is hosting this conference. There seems to be a vested interest at play here.
Let's also consider that, as far as I know, an overwhelming majority of the scientific community has shown that global warming is indeed happening. Moreover, a body of scientists put together solely for the study of global warming came out within the past year saying that they are very confident that humans are the main contributors to global warming.
Trying to use one season as irrevocable proof of a trend is like looking at the price of a stock on one day and determining where it will be in three weeks based solely on that bit of information. In truth, this winter has been average and this past December was one of the warmer ones on record. Nevermind the fact that something like eight of the warmest years on record have been since 1990.
Most of the people who deny global warming are non-scientific amateurs (or morons, e.g. Glenn Beck) who have no better idea than anyone else on the street or they are members of an industry that would be hindered by policies to alleviate global warming.
Another thing: it really seems that the only anti-global warming sentiment is coming from America (I, of course, could be entirely wrong but I have heard of no strong opposition from elsewhere in the world). To me, that just screams that the corporate interests of those who would be held back by measures to ameliorate the effects of global warming are so pervasive that they have a foothold across the country. It also suggests that a sizable chunk of the country does not pay attention to science.
(You'll have to forgive me if any of that information is incorrect. I wrote this from memory, so I may have misquoted. However, I am confident that most of the information I refer to is valid.)
Dictator Much
So, I was reading a blog by Naomi Wolf (author of The Beauty Myth and The End of America) in which she was detailing in her decision to vote for Obama.
In that blog, which you can find here, she mentioned the "National Security Presidential Directive" (also know as Presidental Directive 51). It was signed by the President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007.
Essentially, this directive gives the president the ability to act as all three branches of government should a catastrophic emergency occur. However, the definition of such an emergency is quite broad, so who knows what really qualifies as a catastrophic emergency.
Even worse is that part of the directive is still classified, so the public can't know what all it entails. Even Peter DeFazio, member of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of Representatives, was denied access to the whole document.
There has been in a law in place in 1976 that essentially does the same thing as this directive, but that law allows for Congressional oversight. As far as my sources can tell, there is no such provision in the presidential directive. For fairness sake, it is important to note that past presidents have also signed similar orders in secret without providing any knowledge to the public.
In my mind, the fact that this order was made public is more alarming because it serves to remind the public to watch our collective ass because Daddy is gonna git you.
Hopefully, an order like this gives you some slight chills. At the same time though, I am not too surprised by Presidential Directive 51 because this is the same administration that fought to get an abomination like the Military Commissions Act passed. (For those not in the know, the MCA allows the government to declare anyone, citizen or not, an "enemy combatant" and hold you without trial or charges indefinitely.)
When a democracy (or republic or whatever you want to call it) has laws and a mentality like this, you can be sure that something is breaking within the system. Paranoia, fascism, empirial rule: these are some of the things that come to mind when I consider laws like those mentioned above. Hopefully, we can get someone into office who will not stand for such abuses of power and degradations of human (and Constitutional) rights. In the meantime, we should still be taking proactive measures like writing Congresspeople to let them know that we are in extreme opposition to measures like the MCA and Presidential Directive 51.
Information on:
Presidential Directive 51
Military Commissions Act
Contact your Senator or Representative:
The U.S. Senate (look at the top right to locate your senator)
The U.S. House of Representatives (look to the top left to find your representative)
In that blog, which you can find here, she mentioned the "National Security Presidential Directive" (also know as Presidental Directive 51). It was signed by the President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007.
Essentially, this directive gives the president the ability to act as all three branches of government should a catastrophic emergency occur. However, the definition of such an emergency is quite broad, so who knows what really qualifies as a catastrophic emergency.
Even worse is that part of the directive is still classified, so the public can't know what all it entails. Even Peter DeFazio, member of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of Representatives, was denied access to the whole document.
There has been in a law in place in 1976 that essentially does the same thing as this directive, but that law allows for Congressional oversight. As far as my sources can tell, there is no such provision in the presidential directive. For fairness sake, it is important to note that past presidents have also signed similar orders in secret without providing any knowledge to the public.
In my mind, the fact that this order was made public is more alarming because it serves to remind the public to watch our collective ass because Daddy is gonna git you.
Hopefully, an order like this gives you some slight chills. At the same time though, I am not too surprised by Presidential Directive 51 because this is the same administration that fought to get an abomination like the Military Commissions Act passed. (For those not in the know, the MCA allows the government to declare anyone, citizen or not, an "enemy combatant" and hold you without trial or charges indefinitely.)
When a democracy (or republic or whatever you want to call it) has laws and a mentality like this, you can be sure that something is breaking within the system. Paranoia, fascism, empirial rule: these are some of the things that come to mind when I consider laws like those mentioned above. Hopefully, we can get someone into office who will not stand for such abuses of power and degradations of human (and Constitutional) rights. In the meantime, we should still be taking proactive measures like writing Congresspeople to let them know that we are in extreme opposition to measures like the MCA and Presidential Directive 51.
Information on:
Presidential Directive 51
Military Commissions Act
Contact your Senator or Representative:
The U.S. Senate (look at the top right to locate your senator)
The U.S. House of Representatives (look to the top left to find your representative)
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Why I Am Going to Vote for Ralph Nader
Some may think that voting for Nader is a wasted vote because he has such an infinitesimal chance of winning. Admittedly, this is the case. However, part of the reason I have decided to vote for him is precisely that fact.
I believe there is something horribly wrong with the system when there are only two viable parties from which to choose for any elected office. Given the plethora of personalities and viewpoints in this world, how can two platforms possibly describe any majority of people? In the past few elections that I have been old enough to care about, I have heard repeated multiple times that the presidential election is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
I don't want to vote for any evil! I want to vote for someone who I feel truly represents my interests and beliefs about what is right.
Moreover, the impression I get is that there are not many legitimate, tangible differences between the two parties. That is because, in my (cynical) estimation, the parties are subject to fads and financial influences (so that they can finance their campaigns).
The second reason, which has sort of been mentioned already, is that I really believe Nader is a good candidate. Using OnTheIssues.org as a source, I find that Nader is aligned pretty much entirely with my personal beliefs. Follow this link to get a thorough description of his stances. Some of the issues he supports includes pro-choice, corporate reform, alternative energies, pro-gay marriage, anti-Iraq war, etc.
Perhaps he may never win the presidency, but I cannot bring myself to vote for a person that I don't fully support. And again, I believe that our system is broken and voting for someone I cannot support is only perpetuating that broken system.
So, I guess to close, if you feel that one of the major candidates really represents your beliefs, then you have every right and responsibility to vote for them. However, if you find yourself weighing which candidate has the least negative factors in order to make your vote, then I really hope you can find and will vote for someone who represents you.
Here is a story from Progressive Magazine about Nader's announcement for candidacy, with a bleaker picture of his chances for getting any votes but nonetheless good: link.
I believe there is something horribly wrong with the system when there are only two viable parties from which to choose for any elected office. Given the plethora of personalities and viewpoints in this world, how can two platforms possibly describe any majority of people? In the past few elections that I have been old enough to care about, I have heard repeated multiple times that the presidential election is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
I don't want to vote for any evil! I want to vote for someone who I feel truly represents my interests and beliefs about what is right.
Moreover, the impression I get is that there are not many legitimate, tangible differences between the two parties. That is because, in my (cynical) estimation, the parties are subject to fads and financial influences (so that they can finance their campaigns).
The second reason, which has sort of been mentioned already, is that I really believe Nader is a good candidate. Using OnTheIssues.org as a source, I find that Nader is aligned pretty much entirely with my personal beliefs. Follow this link to get a thorough description of his stances. Some of the issues he supports includes pro-choice, corporate reform, alternative energies, pro-gay marriage, anti-Iraq war, etc.
Perhaps he may never win the presidency, but I cannot bring myself to vote for a person that I don't fully support. And again, I believe that our system is broken and voting for someone I cannot support is only perpetuating that broken system.
So, I guess to close, if you feel that one of the major candidates really represents your beliefs, then you have every right and responsibility to vote for them. However, if you find yourself weighing which candidate has the least negative factors in order to make your vote, then I really hope you can find and will vote for someone who represents you.
Here is a story from Progressive Magazine about Nader's announcement for candidacy, with a bleaker picture of his chances for getting any votes but nonetheless good: link.
A Secret Army of Business People Has Been Established by the FBI
Who makes up this secret army? Some 23,000 business people across the country. The reason I call it an army is that, if martial law were to be put into effect, this organization (called INFRAGARD) has the right to shoot to kill in order to protect their pieces of the American infrastructure. It's been around since about 1996.
Now, in my eyes, there are a few problems with this.
1) INFRAGARD has no accountability to anyone but the FBI. If they overstep their boundaries, there is no recourse for the victims of their abuses.
2) I can't imagine a more unqualified group of people to have this sort of authority.
3) INFRAGARD is supplied regularly with information not available to the public about possible threats.And, as you muay guess, there are more.
Please follow this link to get the whole story from Progressive Magazine.
Now, in my eyes, there are a few problems with this.
1) INFRAGARD has no accountability to anyone but the FBI. If they overstep their boundaries, there is no recourse for the victims of their abuses.
2) I can't imagine a more unqualified group of people to have this sort of authority.
3) INFRAGARD is supplied regularly with information not available to the public about possible threats.And, as you muay guess, there are more.
Please follow this link to get the whole story from Progressive Magazine.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Facebook Beacon: Someone is recording your every e-move
So I recently found out about this Beacon program that Facebook recently implemented. If you're unaware of it, it essentially is a partnership and program between Facebook and many corporations in which any activity you perform on one of the partner sites will be recorded by Facebook, potentially displaying on your profile (depending on what you set your privacy level at), and almost assuredly that information will be sold to the other partners. HOWEVER, even if you choose the privacy option that disallows companies to post on your wall, you sleep soundly knowing that your information is still being collected.
Anyone have a problem with that? It's like 1984 except the corporations are taking the place of the government as Big Brother.
Now, I'm not saying that Facebook is the first or the only to track all of my data. I am well aware of Google's questionable privacy policies. And I also know that my information is being stored at basically every page I visit (hence, the reason I allow cookies from only pages that I frequently use and trust). However, this is probably the most egregious violation of my privacy that I have personally witnessed. It is obviously a profit-motivated strategy in which we are unknowingly, unwillingly the subjects of intense scrutiny.
Do they really think that we will get some extreme added value of knowing what book or CD our friends bought on Amazon? Or that Alex O'Hagan was playing WoW yesterday? Or Jennifer Gahenna bought whatever-the-hell at Wherever-the-hell? In reality, if something was that good, you'd find out about it. Normal advertising has served us well for a long time, and I for one am thoroughly opposed to such invasions of privacy for this alleged added value.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that this move had any altruistic motives or a motive beyond profit. To be clear, I don't think Beacon was implemented with malicious intentions; I do think that there needs to be some serious dialogue on how far companies can pry into our lives. Or, to put it another way, on how far they can go to continue to indoctrinate us into this consumer culture. (Fact: Approximately 70% of U.S. GDP is derived from consumer spending.)
Here are some basic points that I think apply here (these may or may not have been mentioned above):
1.) The definition of privacy needs to be redefined.
2.) Limits need to be placed on how far third parties are allowed to dive into your data, what data they are allowed to keep, how long they are allowed to keep it, and what they are allowed to do with it.
3.) Some serious discourse needs to be had on the purposes and motivations of corporations. It is my contention that the profit motive of corporations is an indelible, if implicit, factor in this. Why is that a problem to me? I am not convinced that profit should be the #1 aim of any corporation, but that needs to be reserved for another post.
4.) Consumers need to be very careful of what products they use and need to be aware of what they are handing over when they sign up to use services like Facebook.
5.) Education on the impacts of the loss of privacy needs to happen.
6.) I am extremely concerned about the pervasiveness of corporations into every aspect of our lives. I am no history scholar, but I would go so far as to say that the role that corporations play in society today far outstrips the role that the Catholic Church played in Europe in the Middle Ages (partly due to technology).
Anyway, I am getting off topic and can offer my critique of capitalism another time. To close, there are at least two things you can do to help protect your information.
1.) Use the privacy settings (under External Websites under the Privacy options) to disallow companies to post stories on your profile. Please not the caveat above: your information will still be collected, just not used in quite the same manner.
2.) If you use Firefox, you can download an extension called Blocksite to prohibit Beacon from working (at least in theory). Details here. There are other add-ins that can enhance privacy like Track Me Not and NoScript, so check those out.
There is a way to block sites using IE and Netscape (as far as I know), but I don't know how to do it.
Take care.
P.S.: Sorry for the length of this, but I had a closing thought: For all the ease of life that technology was supposed to offer (which it has in some respects), it is providing us with a whole new set of complications that are far more tenuous and impacting than any of us could have ever imagined.
Anyone have a problem with that? It's like 1984 except the corporations are taking the place of the government as Big Brother.
Now, I'm not saying that Facebook is the first or the only to track all of my data. I am well aware of Google's questionable privacy policies. And I also know that my information is being stored at basically every page I visit (hence, the reason I allow cookies from only pages that I frequently use and trust). However, this is probably the most egregious violation of my privacy that I have personally witnessed. It is obviously a profit-motivated strategy in which we are unknowingly, unwillingly the subjects of intense scrutiny.
Do they really think that we will get some extreme added value of knowing what book or CD our friends bought on Amazon? Or that Alex O'Hagan was playing WoW yesterday? Or Jennifer Gahenna bought whatever-the-hell at Wherever-the-hell? In reality, if something was that good, you'd find out about it. Normal advertising has served us well for a long time, and I for one am thoroughly opposed to such invasions of privacy for this alleged added value.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that this move had any altruistic motives or a motive beyond profit. To be clear, I don't think Beacon was implemented with malicious intentions; I do think that there needs to be some serious dialogue on how far companies can pry into our lives. Or, to put it another way, on how far they can go to continue to indoctrinate us into this consumer culture. (Fact: Approximately 70% of U.S. GDP is derived from consumer spending.)
Here are some basic points that I think apply here (these may or may not have been mentioned above):
1.) The definition of privacy needs to be redefined.
2.) Limits need to be placed on how far third parties are allowed to dive into your data, what data they are allowed to keep, how long they are allowed to keep it, and what they are allowed to do with it.
3.) Some serious discourse needs to be had on the purposes and motivations of corporations. It is my contention that the profit motive of corporations is an indelible, if implicit, factor in this. Why is that a problem to me? I am not convinced that profit should be the #1 aim of any corporation, but that needs to be reserved for another post.
4.) Consumers need to be very careful of what products they use and need to be aware of what they are handing over when they sign up to use services like Facebook.
5.) Education on the impacts of the loss of privacy needs to happen.
6.) I am extremely concerned about the pervasiveness of corporations into every aspect of our lives. I am no history scholar, but I would go so far as to say that the role that corporations play in society today far outstrips the role that the Catholic Church played in Europe in the Middle Ages (partly due to technology).
Anyway, I am getting off topic and can offer my critique of capitalism another time. To close, there are at least two things you can do to help protect your information.
1.) Use the privacy settings (under External Websites under the Privacy options) to disallow companies to post stories on your profile. Please not the caveat above: your information will still be collected, just not used in quite the same manner.
2.) If you use Firefox, you can download an extension called Blocksite to prohibit Beacon from working (at least in theory). Details here. There are other add-ins that can enhance privacy like Track Me Not and NoScript, so check those out.
There is a way to block sites using IE and Netscape (as far as I know), but I don't know how to do it.
Take care.
P.S.: Sorry for the length of this, but I had a closing thought: For all the ease of life that technology was supposed to offer (which it has in some respects), it is providing us with a whole new set of complications that are far more tenuous and impacting than any of us could have ever imagined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)