*** Unbelievable dumbing down
Brits happy to ditch civil liberties
- The Register
Three out of four Brits would happily hand over their civil
liberties in exchange for better security against terrorist attacks,
according figures from pollsters ICM.
It is interesting to note that this is the same general public that
rails against any attempts to make them drive more slowly, or with
more care. This is in spite of the fact that in 2004, 671
pedestrians were killed in traffic accidents, and a further 2,550
people died in other road accidents.
The ICM/Guardian-backed survey found that 73 per cent of Brits
overall support a trade-off between liberty and security. Tory
voters are even keener than average to do so, with 79 per cent of
respond ants backing the idea. Labour voters and Lib Dems came in
at 72 per cent and 70 per cent in favour, respectively.
Further, 62 per cent of respondents were in favour of deporting
foreign radical Islamists, even if that deportation was to a country
that used torture. Only 19 per cent directly opposed this idea.
Similarly only 19 per cent opposed calls for terror suspects to be
held for three months without charge, with 62 per cent welcoming the
proposal. Currently, the upper limit is 14 days.
However, the poll also revealed that a sizeable minority was still
in favour of having an independent judiciary.
Although 52 per cent of those polled said judges should not be able
to rule against government measures, 40 per cent said they agreed
that judges should "protect our civil liberty and continue to
overturn anti-terrorist measures if they feel it is right to do so".
A spokesman for Liberty told The Guardian that the results of the
poll were a cause for concern, but cautioned against knee jerk
legislation.
He added that people would realise that defending our basic values
would be a better way to protect our society, rather than passing
"counterproductive" and "superficially attractive" security
measures.
Shamrock's comment: The governments' efforts to scare the hell into
people because of terrorism is about about getting them to give up
their civil liberties is working, we are sad to report.
Please visit our sponsors
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Thread: Dumbing Down
-
18-09-2005, 06:12 PM #1
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Dumbing Down
-
Sponsored Links
-
18-09-2005, 06:14 PM #2
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Dumbing Down Award of the Month
Dumbing Down Award of the month
Goes to the UK Metro Police
Hypocrisy knows no Bounds!
Shamrock's comment: The Terrocracts want CCTV's camera's to spy on
you everywhere. There are thousands of them around London and more
are being put in place every week to 'protect you'. Soon they'll be
in your home.
However when an innocent victim is brutally slaughtered with seven
gun shots to the head at close range by (UK) police on a public
underground (subway) station surprise, surprise, the CCTV cameras
just happen NOT to be working on that particular day and at that
particular underground stop! They said the same thing about the
cameras not working on the London bus and underground bombings of
July 7th.
Believe that lying B.S. from the police then I've got a bridge to
sell you!
*** Platform CCTV 'was working'
London - A newspaper on Monday alleged that three closed circuit
television cameras (CCTV) on a London subway platform, where an
innocent Brazilian was shot dead by police, were working despite
police claims to the contrary.
However, a spokesperson for Scotland Yard, dismissed the story as
speculation, noting that the police had never disclosed any comment
about the CCTV footage.
The latest report about the controversial shooting of Jean Charles
de Menezes came as two senior Brazilian officials arrived in Britain
to grill police officers and investigators about what happened.
Wagner Goncalves, from the attorney general's department, and Marcio
Pereira Pinto Garcia from the department of international judicial
co-operation at the ministry of justice, flew into London's Heathrow
airport earlier.
Fatal blunder
The London Evening Standard cited senior sources on the London
Underground challenging police claims that there was no footage of
the final movements of the 27-year-old electrician mistaken for a
suicide bomber at Stockwell station, in a fatal blunder on July 22.
The newspaper said a log book, which was kept to record events at
the station and any faults, had no reports of problems concerning
the CCTV cameras at the time of the shooting.
It quoted a senior transport union official as saying: "At least
three out of four of the cameras were working. There were no
reports of anything wrong with the cameras.
"Sometimes you may have trouble with one camera, but staff cannot
understand how none of the four recorded anything. It is most
unusual to say the least."
The newspaper said the sources spoke out after "police had returned
tapes taken from the cameras saying, 'These are no good to us. They
are blank'".
However, the BBC had reported that there was a shortage of CCTV
footage for the incident as discs for the cameras had been removed
the previous day by police officers investigating the failed 21 July
attacks on London transport and not replaced.
-
18-09-2005, 06:16 PM #3
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cannon Fodder
Homeland Insecurity: Big Brother Is Watching You
- Charlotte Twight
Charlotte A. Twight, professor of economics at Boise State
University and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is the author
of "Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over the Lives of
Ordinary Americans" (Palgrave/St. Martin's Press, 2002).
Terrorism is a serious problem for America. But when our elected
representatives vote for telephone book-sized laws they have not
read, it also represents a serious problem.
That's just what happened when Congress passed the "Homeland
Security Act," a 484-page law most House members did not even read.
And that should make us all a little, shall we say, insecure in our
homeland.
The troubling details are now trickling out. Title II creates a
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
within the Department of Homeland Security. The directorate is
given open-ended power to "access, receive and analyze" information
from federal, state and local government agencies and the private
sector, to integrate this information, and to disseminate it to
government and private recipients.
The act's occasional lip service to privacy is a sham. As with
recent medical privacy regulations, here too federal officials
genuflect toward privacy while they strip it away.
The surveillance system outlined by the Homeland Security Act builds
on prior federal laws that mandated creation of many of the
databases that will be inputs to the proposed integrated system.
Few complained when, over the years, federal officials ordered our
banks, our schools, our doctors, our employers, and others to
collect detailed information about us. Nor did many complain about
the vast array of government databases gradually assembled by the
IRS, FBI, SSA, and the Departments of Labor, Education, HHS, and the
rest.
Piece by piece, the central government demanded creation of key
components, which, if integrated, could be used to create a virtual
surveillance state. That integration is now an explicit objective
of the Homeland Security Act.
Of course, there are also good provisions in the act, such as a
program to arm airline pilots. But that is the point. By combining
a variety of measures, good and bad, in a nearly indecipherable
484-page bill, and giving legislators less than 24 hours to examine
its contents, key officials facilitated passage of provisions that
otherwise might not have been accepted by Congress or the public.
Labeling the bill as the "Homeland Security Act" guaranteed that few
would dare to oppose it.
Unfortunately, this episode is not an isolated incident. In the
past few weeks, we have discovered the Pentagon's planned
consolidated database on nearly 300 million citizens. That's right,
on all of us. The traditional presumption of innocence is being
supplanted by a presumption of guilt. Defense officials now want to
know everything there is to know about you--your bank account, the
checks you write, your credit card transactions and other purchases,
your educational records, your e-mail, your travels, and more--all
without a search warrant.
This database proposal is a brainchild of the "Office of Information
Awareness," led by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter and housed within
the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Its
stated goal is to consolidate central government access to
commercial as well as government databases. By centralizing
analysis of such information, the government is doing what some have
long feared, with predictable implications for privacy and liberty.
The office's emblem is an eye scanning the world, with the caption
'Scientia Est Potentia' (knowledge is power). That caption is
chillingly accurate: Government officials' unrestrained acquisition
of personal information about us will give them unprecedented power
over us.
What is new about the surveillance contemplated by the Homeland
Security Act and the Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness"
system? For openers, surveillance is being centralized at the
national level to an unprecedented degree. The government is
further destroying barriers between commercial and government
databases, seeking nearly unfettered access to private-sector
information, and using data-mining to scrutinize innocent citizens.
Ever more bureaucrats and business people are being granted access
to government-compiled information about us without our knowledge or
consent. While the pretense of court authorization sometimes
remains, in actuality safeguards preventing surveillance of
law-abiding citizens are being cast aside. The central government
is openly seeking to spy on all Americans.
Congressman Bob Barr, R-Ga., has condemned the creation of these
monster databases, but he tried to defend his colleagues in Congress
by saying they were not fully aware of what they were voting for.
Only in Washington, D.C., would such a "defense" be seriously
advanced. This is not the America that I grew up in, but this is
the America that will be handed to the next generation. We should
all tremble for the future of our nation.
-
18-09-2005, 06:22 PM #4
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
*** Police and Tube firm at odds over CCTV footage of innocent
Brazilian's shooting - London Independent
Comment: Isn't it cute when the overwhelming benefits of CCTV is
rammed down our throats whenever they catch a bad guy but whenever
the police get caught covering up their own criminal activities the
fantastic cameras mysteriously malfunction! It's just one big
coincidence, just like all the cameras strangely malfunctioning
right as Diana's Mercedes entered a Pont D'alma tunnel crawling with
MI6 agents!
Police officers and station managers were at odds last night over
the existence of crucial CCTV-footage of the shooting of a Brazilian
man wrongly suspected of being a suicide bomber.
None of the cameras at the scene of the shooting of Jean Charles de
Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July were working, a police
document revealed.
Cameras on the platform and the train were not operational, officers
told the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The
submission by the Metropolitan Police, obtained by ITV News, puts
officers at odds with a statement from Tube Lines, the company
operating the station.
The police document says: "Stockwell station and environs has been
surveyed and all existing CCTV has been seized.
"During the course of this it has been established that although
there was onboard CCTV in the train, due to previous incidents the
harddrive has been removed and not replaced.
"It has also been established that there has been a technical
problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no
footage exists."
However in a statement to The Mail on Sunday, Tube Lines said: "We
are not aware of any faults on CCTV cameras at that station on that
day. Nothing of that nature has been reported to us." Yesterday
the company refused to elaborate.
While some sources denied police had deliberately wiped the tapes,
others remained convinced there was a cover-up.
One union official argued however that the on-board cameras may have
been empty.
Employees' representatives said Met officers emptied the cameras the
day before police killed Mr de Menezes as part of their
investigation into the failed bombings on 21 July.
According to a report he would have passed eight cameras, two in the
station entrance pointing at the barriers, another aimed at the
Northern Line escalator and another on the way down.
When Mr de Menezes reached the bottom of the escalator, another
camera would have captured him. And as he turned on to the platform
one above the track and three more at each end of the platform would
have caught him on film, the reports say.
This information should have been sent to a control room and passed
to video tape. Yet there is apparently no footage of him in and
around the platform.
The source, who is close to the investigation, said reports of a
cover-up were "absolute rubbish''. The source said reports that the
tapes had been handed back to London Underground staff were
"nonsense'' because such material would have been kept as evidence
in the ongoing inquiry.
A spokesman for the IPCC said: "We are not willing to comment about
every story that comes up.''
But confusion still surrounds the contents of surveillance tapes
taken from Stockwell station. Sources have suggested that the tapes
had been recovered from the station booking hall, which had shown
images of Mr de Menezes and that there was limited footage from
cameras inside the carriage where the shooting took place.
All Northern Line Tube trains are equipped with CCTV - at either end
of the carriages, but the only photograph published of the incident
seems to have been taken from a doorway.
The confusion deepened as two senior Brazilian officials flew into
London to examine the background to Mr de Menezes' death. The
officials will want to know if CCTV footage of the incident exists.
The Brazilian government has expressed "shock and bewilderment" over
the death and has said it wants answers to "a number of matters".
Wagner Goncalves, of the federal prosecutor's office, and Marcio
Pereira Pinto Garcia, of the ministry of justice, went from Heathrow
airport to Scotland Yard, where they met senior officers led by
deputy assistant commissioner John Yates. They are also due to meet
members of the IPCC tomorrow.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has faced
unrelenting pressure since it emerged last week that initial police
accounts of the killing were at variance with the facts.
Members of the Metropolitan Police Authority yesterday said Sir Ian
still had their full confidence, but admitted that a public inquiry
into the death appeared inevitable.
For the second time in two days, Downing Street issued a statement
declaring the Prime Minister's complete confidence in the
Commissioner.
A spokeswoman said Mr Blair, who is on holiday in Barbados, had been
kept fully up to speed with the matter. She added: "The Prime
Minister recognises that the Metropolitan Police, led by Sir Ian
Blair, do a very difficult job and they do it very well."
Clare Short, the former Cabinet Minister, said it was now clear that
the public had been misled over the death of Mr de Menezes. She
told ITV News: " We've been lied to. This should be bigger than
just calling for Sir Ian Blair to go. We need to find out exactly
what happened. Who was telling the lies?"
As relatives and supporters of Mr de Menezes began a vigil outside
Downing Street, his mother, Maria de Menezes, demanded justice for
her son.
She said of the officers who shot: "They took my son's life. I am
suffering because of that."
Speaking from Brazil, she told the BBC: "I want the policeman who
did that punished. They ended not only my son's life but mine as
well."
Mr de Menezes' cousin, Alessandro Pereira, handed a letter to
Downing Street demanding a public inquiry.
The unanswered questions
* If the CCTV cameras showed Mr de Menezes using his Oyster card to
open the ticket barrier, why did police sources suggest he vaulted
it?
* Were cameras trained on the platform in full working order?
Police and Tube sources contradict each other.
* How could all four cameras around the platform have failed at the
same time?
* If the cameras had failed, why did the station log book contain no
details of the fault?
* Why had CCTV onboard the train been removed?
-
18-09-2005, 06:24 PM #5
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
*** Tech-savvy criminals 'to trump UK ID cards'
- Contractor UK
The Government's bid to arm every Briton with an identity card has
suffered a setback by new research claiming the biometric scheme
will fail to stop identity fraud, and potentially lead to an
increase in crime.
Researchers at the University of East Anglia say interviews with
criminals prove that rather resign from their lifestyle in the face
of new technology, fraudsters adopt new ways to use technologies to
their advantage.
Emily Finch, the University's criminologist, told the Association
for the Advancement of Science how a shift from human vigilance to a
reliance on new technology is failing to curb crime, and in some
cases, is fuelling it.
At the heart of her concerns, is the "worrying assumption" that
technical advances and new defences will provide the solution to
identity theft, despite the study finding it "may actually aggravate
the problem."
According to the Daily Telegraph, the underlying worry of Ms Finch
and her team is that the plan to use documents, such as birth
certificates and driving licences to prove card applicants are who
they say they are, is not up to scratch.
Her claims about the associated risks of advances in technology
cited the recent introduction of 'chip and pin,' designed by the
Government as a way to cut credit card fraud.
"Chip and pin has not stopped fraud or even reduced it," said Dr
Finch.
"It has altered the way people behave, and so fraudsters have just
changed their strategies."
According to the research, the focus for credit card fraudsters has
simply shifted to acquiring the pin, a process Finch believes, "is
very easy to do, if you look at the till."
She added that checkout assistants who turn away when customers
input their pin are less vigilante, and said she had been able to
swap details with a male colleague to use each others' cards to make
purchases.
Under current proposals, British citizens would have to disclose
details of bank accounts, proof of residency and address, birth
certificate, passport number, NI number and a credit reference
number to obtain an ID card.
The sheer amount of personal data required has angered the scheme's
most vocal critics, and prompted fresh criticism from anti-ID card
lobbyists after the Bill received its second reading to a Government
majority in June.
Over the weekend, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary stoked the
debate by claiming he was in charge of 'Big Brother.'
He reportedly told the Eastern Daily Press that Brits already live
in a "Big Brother society" and that it is his job to control it,
branding civil liberties concerns "ridiculous," and independent
costing of the scheme "absurd."
Phil Booth, national coordinator for anti-ID card lobbyists, NO2ID,
said that the Home Secretary is confusing the British public with
"doublespeak" and his arguments simply "don't stand up."
"This is an important admission," said Mr Booth, referring to Mr
Clarke's comments.
"His stated intent to 'control Big Brother society' shows the
Government's real agenda: to monitor law-abiding citizens throughout
their entire lives.
"There may indeed be a lot of databases containing our data, but
they are quite rightly kept separate and constrained by law. Giving
the Government control of all of them by creating a single index
would be both unprecedented and dangerous. It is nothing like any
other ID system in Europe."
NO2ID also pointed out that despite Mr Clarke's dismissal of
independent pricing estimates of the biometric scheme, a reference
to the LSE's controversial report, the Home Office response "has
been shown to contain fabricated figures."
"Mr Clarke says concerns are just about cost, and we fully expect
him to cap the price of the card itself," said Mr Booth, speaking on
behalf of 25,000 private members and 70 NGOs.
"But the money for the biggest IT project anywhere in the world
still has to come from somewhere. This too is a diversion," he
added.
"Government wants to control your life: of course that will cost you
money. But the ultimate cost of the scheme will be in freedom and
privacy. And everyone will pay."
-
18-09-2005, 06:26 PM #6
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
*** As goes Amerika, so goes Canada
Big Brother might watch your laptop
- CanWest News Service
Police and security agencies would be able to surreptitiously track
unwitting Canadians via their cellphones, BlackBerrys and laptop
computers, even when the devices are turned off or their location
features are disabled, under a "creepy" measure contemplated as part
of the federal government's planned electronic surveillance bill.
The government made the proposal during consultations this year on a
legislative package expected to be unveiled in the fall.
The proposal would amend the Criminal Code to expand the types of
"tracking devices" available to police under a warrant.
The proposal was raised by justice officials with groups consulted
by the government.
The definition of a "tracking device" would be changed to include a
computer program, in addition to any other device that can be used
to help identify the location of any thing or person.
The new definition of tracking device would take in such ubiquitous
products as laptops with wireless Internet connections, cellphones
with global positioning systems, and wireless personal digital
assistants.
"What they are talking about clearly is devices which have an active
and a passive component in the sense that the active component could
be controllable by the user who could turn the machine on or off,
but the passive device will be built in and accessible to police,"
said Richard Rosenberg, a retired University of British Columbia
computer science professor and board member of the B.C. Civil
Liberties Association.
"I think the assumption is that we should be trackable whether we
want to or not," he said. "It's very creepy. We will be in a
society where we will have this incredible density of
interconnections which will make it almost impossible to ...
exercise what I think is one of our basic rights, which is anonymity
in a free and democratic society."
Rosenberg said it is possible to build devices that retain select
functions, even when they seem to be turned off. "There's no reason
it couldn't happen because it's not a big, complex thing to do," he
explained.
Police are able to obtain warrants for tracking devices much more
easily than for other types of electronic surveillance such as
wiretaps.
To get a warrant for a tracking device, police need only convince a
justice of the peace they have "reasonable suspicion" an offence has
been or will be committed and the tracking order will help their
investigation. By contrast, for other types of surveillance
authorities must at least demonstrate to a justice they have
"reasonable and probable grounds to believe" that an offence has
been or will be committed and information relevant to that offence
will become available via the surveillance.
Vancouver lawyer Greg DelBigio, vice-chairperson of the national
criminal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, said computers
and cellphones might reveal a lot more information than the types of
tracking devices currently contemplated by the Criminal Code. His
34,000-lawyer association does not accept that such a serious
erosion of privacy should be allowed simply on the basis of police
"suspicion" a crime might be in the offing.
"Technology is rapidly making it increasingly difficult to remain
anonymous within the world and retain privacy, despite positive
steps one might take to protect these interests," DelBigio said.
"We must ask:'Just because the technology exists, is it the case
that law enforcement should have access to the technology or
information available through that technology and, if so, in what
circumstances and with what control?'"
-
18-09-2005, 06:32 PM #7
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
New Legislation Threatens Privacy for Canadians Once Again!
- Vive Le Canada
The Globe and Mail report by Bill Curry on Aug.19,2005 stated, "The
federal government will introduce legislation this fall that would
give police and national security agencies new powers to eavesdrop
on cellphone calls and monitor the Internet activities of Canadians,
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said yesterday." The first question
should be why? Is there no longer a presumption of innocence in
this county? Have we all become possible criminals as we go about
our daily lives?
The article goes on "The bill would allow police to demand that
Internet service providers hand over a wide range of information on
the surfing habits of individuals, including on-line pseudonyms and
whether someone possesses a mischief-making computer virus,
according to a draft outline of the bill provided to the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada." The Privacy Commissioner should be
speaking out loudly against such invasions of Canadians privacy. We
ought to be able to go about life without looking over our shoulder
constantly. It would appear that Canada is becoming a police state,
where everything we do is suspect.
Canadian law enforcement needs the tools to fight crime, but that
should not include spying on law abiding citizens, just in case they
are thinking about doing something. There are already sufficient
laws in place that allow court orders to search property, including
computers, but there must be justifiable cause to do so. This new
law appears to give the state excessive powers to invade Canadians
privacy. It threatens freedom of speech and the ability for
citizens to discuss political or other matters in private. How far
are they willing to go?
Tie this into the already existing rules, such as, anti-Terrorist
legislation (Bill C 36) and Bill C7 which gained Royal Assent: 6 May
2004 and which gives dictatorial powers to a number of Ministers who
have the capacity to shut down the country and declare martial law
without any checks and balances, and without going to Parliament.
Add to that the new Smart Border plans being proposed and the
biometric identification cards on the horizon (proposed by the
Tri-lateral Task Force which includes the U.S. Council on Foreign
Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Mexican
Council of Foreign Relations; the business elite of the three
countries).
Then you can see, we are losing our freedom all in the name of some
dark shadow that was, created by fear and hate, called, 'terrorism'.
This new world we live in has become 'might is right'!
Clearly the rise of terrorism has coincided with the pre-emptive
strike on Iraq, ironically in retaliation for an act by several
Saudi's! I believe it is noteworthy to consider that with all the
security, spy agencies and technology, the two men who were
'America's most wanted', are still alive, while thousands of
innocent people have been murdered. How many more people will be
arrested, detained, murdered or falsely imprisoned on the basis of
lies, or false intelligence information?
According to a Standing Committee Report by The 'Ligue des droits et
libertes' a non-profit, non-partisan group, these proposals come at
the request of the United States not because Canada deems them
necessary. I quote from their report, ' In the fall of 2002,
Minister Denis Coderre launched the idea of an identity card to
facilitate border crossing for Canadians at the U.S. border ..On
December 6,2002 John Manley and Tom Ridge, the director of Homeland
Security, agreed on a 30-point Smart Border Action Plan. The first
point concerns biometric identification. .The purpose of the plan
was to meet the requirements of the United States rather than any
need felt in Canada."
Really I ask you, who is being terrorized? After Sept 11, we were
inundated with slogans, 'they will not win' and 'situation normal'
and 'please go about your daily affairs, because if we live in fear
THEY will have won'. Today, 'they' are not imposing the fear. It
is coming from those who should be creating an environment of calm,
reassuring the public instead of creating mass hysteria. Today, we
are inundated with a different slogan 'The evil must be annihilated'
and 'We are fighting this war on terror', and reminding us to watch
our neighbours and be suspicious of people's activities. Quite
frankly, it sounds like the 'war on drugs', something which never
ends, because the root cause is never addressed.
All of this new security is being done without the consent or
request of the Canadian people. It would appear that our government
is now taking instructions from someone other than those who have
elected them. When the U.S. brought in the Patriot Act, we
followed with anti-terrorism laws, (Bill C36) .
When they started the 'no fly' list for airlines, Canada followed
with our own. Now they want more power to invade Canadians privacy.
Canada's Census, the collection of very private and national
security information, will be influenced by Lockheed Martin(a
Manufacturer of Weapons), which leaves us susceptible to the Patriot
Act's over reaching powers to access information from any company.
Why would Canada ever allow a foreign company to be involved in our
census at any level?
I ask you, what is the definition of democracy on today's stage and
what manner of freedom do we profess to embrace? With all the high
tech security we have in place today, and much of what was in place
prior to 911, certainly prior to the recent bombings in Britain, did
it prevent such attacks? Does spying on the law abiding citizen,
give them a sense of security? Civil rights are being eroded fast
and furious, and seemingly our Canadian government is succumbing to
the law of another nation.
We are inviting the DEA, FBI and other U.S. agencies into Canada on
the premise of assisting our law enforcement. Texas troopers are
detaining people on B.C. highways, with no legitimate explanation
for their boots on Canadian soil! This is the incident as reported,
'CBC News, Jan. 28, 2005 VANCOUVER - A Vancouver man has won an
out-of-court settlement from the RCMP after an incident in which he
says he was illegally searched. David Laing says police overstepped
the law when they stopped his car, decided he was driving under the
influence of marijuana, and searched his vehicle and two-year-old
son. Under Canadian law, that kind of search is illegal. What
upset Laing even more is that some the officers he tangled with were
actually American police officers."
Consultation with the people is a required element to validate a
democracy. Canada's very sovereignty is being threatened through
the glorification of a global ideology that promises peace, harmony
and security, but in reality offers nothing more than colonization.
When our government no longer acts independently to create laws,
control our monetary supply, health regulations, and security
measures suitable and appropriate to the people of Canada, we
abdicate our sovereignty. The very real threat to become nothing
more than a mere landmass, storage for natural resources, and
military bases, grouped within the boundaries of a North American
Fortress and under control of a global power is no longer the
substance of sci-fi novels.
Canada's ability to remain a nation, separate and distinct, with
unique and specific laws, customs and values is being eroded, at an
alarming rate. We are indebted to foreign investors and private
banks, our military is heavily influenced if not under the control
of a foreign power in many ways, we have laws on the books which
allow the U.S. to send troops into Canada without our consent.
This new legislation is another element added to the decline of our
rights as citizens in a sovereign country. The writing is no longer
just on the walls. It is on every bar of this symbolic cage we are
creating for ourselves in the name of freedom!
-
20-09-2005, 08:51 PM #8
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Just Plain Stupid
- Harry Goslin
These days, trying to figure out what Americans are thinking isn't
an easy task. Trying to figure out how Americans think is even
tougher. Judging by how many Americans "think," as measured by
polls, statistics, and reaction to the ruling class, maybe they
don't think at all. One thing is certain, though. Too many
Americans are prone to fickleness, short-sightedness and just plain
stupidity.
Among other things, the Clinton years should have taught that polls
should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. The Republicans
and their noted mouthpieces in the media used to howl whenever
apologists for Clinton and his extracurricular activities would
point to the polls as defense against impeachment. We were
constantly reminded that Clinton 's dalliances and linguistic skills
were no grounds for impeachment.
Now the roles are reversed. The Republican apologists for a
warmongering half-wit and his coterie of like-minded murderers and
thieves have thus far been patting themselves on the back that their
decision to stand by the Liar-in-Chief these last few years was the
"right" thing to do. That's what the polls showed in overwhelming
numbers. Looks like that's changing, now. If the numbers continue
to crash, so may the Republican majority in 2006. Live by the poll,
die by the poll.
What polls suggest is that Americans should turn off their
television sets and maybe just stare at the wall. Perhaps just
shutting down their brains from any outside stimuli for short
periods at a time will be an important first step in reviving the
ability to think critically. If proven to be successful, it would
certainly preempt the tendency for knee-jerk and follow-the-crowd
responses to loaded polling questions. Pollsters would be forced to
ask more direct questions or quit. Politicians and academics who
now refer to the polls to justify their actions will be necessarily
forced into oblivion.
Recently, Matt Taibbi ripped into that class of people that provided
the Bush administration and the war crowd with the confidence it
needed to kill over 1,800 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
They were given the chance, in a way, to make a contribution to the
national cause without bearing any responsibility or facing any
danger. Through polling, they made the numbers on public support
for going to war so high. Now, this same group has changed its
mind. As Taibbi said, many who supported the war "have since become
freaked out by the fact that, surprise, surprise, people are dying."
Had the pollsters asked the right questions two years ago, the rush
to war would not have been such a rush.
What would have been the right questions to ask then? Taibbi
suggested the following: "Would you yank your son out of college and
send him to die for this bullshit? Would you yourself be willing to
give your life for this cause? If yes, grab your shit; there's a
bus outside." Such direct questioning would have forced these
people right then and there to weigh just a few of the consequences
of saying "yes" from the comfort and safety of their homes.
Excuses can be made for why people who seem to be intelligent become
irrational, blood-thirsty, warmongering nationalists: caught up in
the moment, the need to be part of the crowd, patriotism, education,
up-bringing. But at some point in life, excuses cannot be made for
making bad decisions, especially when the consequences of those
decisions reach beyond the individual making them. When that
threshold is crossed, it should be safe to say that many people
become just plain stupid.
Getting back to the war, recent American casualties have pushed talk
of finding an exit strategy to the front of the things-to-do list
for the president and Congress. Republicans, looking at the polls
and down the road to the 2006 mid-term elections, are becoming
anxious to at least put out some exit plan for public consumption.
Stephen Cimbala, a Penn State University political scientist, said,
"If you look at it from a Republican point of view, by the 2006
congressional elections, you're going to want to have a timetable in
place for withdrawal of U.S. forces and their replacement by
Iraqis. And by the fall of 2008, you will want to have most U. S.
forces out of Iraq ."
It should be obvious that any proposals on complete or partial
withdrawal from Iraq are predicated on what is most likely to help
the Republicans first retain control of Congress, then the White
House. Over the next year, the Bush administration and its core of
hacks in Congress will attempt to create the illusion that troops
will come home, less Americans will be killed, we accomplished our
mission, and democracy and freedom were given to the people of Iraq.
All they have to do is convince enough Americans it's true until
after the elections. If they are successful, it will not be a
measure of their marketing skills so much as it will prove, once
again, that many Americans are just plain stupid.
One thing most people will avoid when faced with the prospect of
being proven to have committed a colossal act of stupidity is admit
that they were stupid. Instead, most people will rationalize their
own behavior and actions, or, the behavior and actions of others who
have committed colossal acts of stupidity in their name and with
their full support. No amount of logic, truth or facts will get
most of these types to see the error of their ways. They would
rather go over the cliff in flames with everyone else than jump off
the train. Some might call such irrational commitment stubbornness,
but it's just plain stupidity.
Matt Taibbi concluded his criticism of the fickle, short-sighted
crowd that first supported the call to war and then changed its
mind, with the following: "A nation that indulges in anonymous
casual cruelties like The Swan should not be consulted in the same
manner before war. In matters of life and death, stand up and be
counted--by name, swearing on the blood of your children. What kind
of country goes to war whispering 'yes' into a telephone?" What
kind of country? A country where too many people are just plain
stupid.
-
20-09-2005, 09:08 PM #9
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
*** Unbelievable Dumbing Down
Remote-Controlled Humans
- Forbes
LOS ANGELES - Smiling nervously, the young woman walks forward in a
straight line. Suddenly, she veers to the right. She stumbles and
stops, attempting to regain her balance, and continues to walk
forward. And then she veers off to the left.
No, she's not intoxicated. The young lady's vestibular system,
which controls her sense of movement and balance, has been thrown
off-kilter by two weak electrical currents delivered just behind her
ears.
This sort of electrical stimulation is known as galvanic vestibular
stimulation, or GVS. When a weak DC current is delivered to the
mastoid behind your ear, your body responds by shifting your balance
toward the anode. The stronger the current, the more powerful its
pull. If it is strong enough, it not only throws you off balance
but alters the course of your movement.
GVS has been known about for at least a century, but it attracted
relatively little interest until the last 20 years. If researchers
at the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (nyse: NTT - news - people )
Communication Science Laboratories have their way, that interest may
soon accelerate--and even go commercial.
At the 2005 SIGGRAPH computer graphics conference in Los Angeles
this week, NTT researchers debuted a device designed to exploit the
effects of GVS. Known as "Shaking the World," the project is the
result of research carried out by NTT researcher Taro Maeda. Maeda
and his colleagues constructed a headphone-like apparatus to deliver
the electrical current and a small radio control to direct the
strength and direction of the signal. Whoever wears such headphones
can be steered by remote control.
Conference attendees lined up to try to maintain their balance as an
NTT spokesperson gently steered them left and right. Some attempted
to counteract the current's effects, while others almost ran into
the crowd of onlookers as they stumbled haplessly along. But nearly
everyone was curious.
Where might this research lead?
The most persuasive commercial applications of Maeda's GVS device
will most likely be in gaming; researchers put together a crude
virtual racing game to demonstrate how GVS heightened the perception
of centrifugal force as users watch the car wind its way around the
track on a video screen. Manabu Sakurai, NTT's marketing manager,
says the company is currently investigating whether or not gamers
would be interested in the device. Flight simulators are another
area of interest.
"Many people talk about that," Sakurai explained. "Because GVS
causes you to feel the same kinds of motion as a large-scale flight
simulator, it could be a much simpler and more cost-effective way to
train people."
NTT researchers also point, rather improbably, to GVS's potential
for collision avoidance. A demonstration video shows a young man
walking down the street nearly run over by a passing motorcycle,
steered to safety at the last minute by a guardian angel wielding a
remote control. But wouldn't that require that people wear electric
nodes behind their ears 24 hours a day?
Well, yes. And according to Maeda, the long-term effects of GVS are
unknown. But he plans to continue investigating ways to bring the
phenomenon to the public.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-
01-10-2005, 01:59 AM #10
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 274
- Feedback Score
- 0
- Thanks
- 0
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
*** Unbelievable Dumbing Down
Kids a danger to national security?
- Fairfield Daily Republic
Did you hear last week that babies have been prevented from boarding
planes because they had similar names to people on no-fly lists?
Recently, my girlfriend's 8-year-old granddaughter Lauryn flew out
to visit from North Carolina and was given extra scrutiny, including
being wanded. It got me thinking. Maybe airline security is onto
something.
Perhaps, borrowing the president's argument, North Carolina's
airport security is fighting Lauryn there so we don't have to fight
her over here in California.
Still, I went over the list of the 19 hijackers who terrorized
America on Sept. 11 and couldn't find a single third-grader. But
that doesn't prove anything. Why wouldn't al-Qaida recruit an
8-year-old? If you've ever seen what an 8-year-old's bedroom can
look like, they can cause quite a bit of destruction.
One of Lauryn's favorite places to go when she's out here on the
West Coast is San Francisco. In fact, earlier this month she
insisted I take a picture of her with the Golden Gate Bridge behind
her. Was I duped? Could she have been casing the bridge for
possible terrorist acts?
If the government would use the Patriot Act and go after Lauryn's
library records, they might find that she's read subversive books
like "Curious George," an obvious insult to the commander in chief.
Since my home office doubled as her bedroom, I had unique access to
her belongings. Once, when I was alone, I decided to look into her
bag. I opened it with much trepidation and beheld the contents: two
dollars and 65 cents, some candy and a one-legged Barbie Doll.
Either this is what a normal 8-year-old would have or she's some
kind of terrorist MacGyver who's planning on using those components
to fashion some kind of unknown weapon.
The only connection I could make between her and Arab Muslim
extremism was the fact that she slept on an air mattresses facing
Mecca, had a VHS copy of Aladdin in her possession and she loathed
watching coverage of the Iraq war on the news, preferring an
animated yellow undersea sponge.
When we played Disney's Extremely Goofy Skateboarding on my PC, I
noticed that Lauryn was only interested in the tricks that Goofy
could do while in the air with his skateboard and wasn't at all
interested in how to take off or land. This is definitely one of
those things that make you go. . . hmmm.
Once, when I took her to the store and offered to buy her candy, she
selected Pop Rocks. Now she could have chosen a positive,
life-affirming candy like Lifesavers, but no, she chose an exploding
candy. Another clue?
Comedian Bill Maher mused that the people who handle security in Las
Vegas should be in charge of airline security because in Vegas,
they're so good that they can detect people doing math in their
heads! But no, we have geniuses keeping babies off flights until
their identities can be proven.
To paraphrase Bobby Mercer, these security people couldn't find
boobs in a strip joint.
I understand that babies can "explode" in screams at any time and
have been known to sport "loaded" diapers, but are they really a
threat to national security? Couldn't there be a better use of our
tax dollars? Babies? Eight year olds? Are they a threat to bring
down a jetliner? Couldn't they focus on the elderly and disabled,
for instance? Peace.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-
Sponsored Links
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
24 Hour Gold
Advertising
- Over 20.000 UNIQUE Daily!
- Get Maximum Exposure For Your Site!
- Get QUALITY Converting Traffic!
- Advertise Here Today!
Out Of Billions Of Website's Online.
Members Are Online From.
- Get Maximum Exposure For Your Site!
- Get QUALITY Converting Traffic!
- Advertise Here Today!
Out Of Billions Of Website's Online.
Members Are Online From.