While sitting in church today, my minister talked about social justice which has been a theme at both UU churches I visit (the one closest to me and the closest one with a functioning young adult group which I need). He talked about calling for justice and moderation (in a nutshell) and how the two are intertwined.
My personal opinion/experience is that these two are irreconcilable. There has never been a social justice movement in history which has been both successful and has not made enemies. Systems of oppression exist because some people benefit in the short run from keeping other people down. This is usually from discrimination and societal illness which poisons the mind of people. This makes them think that helping another group is hurting the dominant group, so-called "reverse racism" which is impossible. Moderation would encompass actions like the three fifths compromise, the Missouri Compromise, and the section of the 13th amendment allowing prison slavery. While in the short run they keep the peace, they merely pass the ball of progress down to future generations who have to deal with the problems of yesterday instead of moving forward.
Science and reason are the only methods I have ever observed which have actually worked to open people's minds in ways which benefit humanity. Calling for moderation and detachment which is popular in many religions I believe leads people to not work on self-improvement, or working on themselves without the tools to use their deeper understanding they get from introspection. When people follow philosophies of self-impoverishment this usually ends up with the king/priest/God Emperor of the country being the only one with any real power. It is a massive conflict of interest when the religious organization which calls for the letting go of physical goods is also the political organization which locks up people who speak out against the state. One must ask questions about why ideologies ask their followers to give up their tools of resistance. Places where these values are followed most frequently end up undergoing massive campaigns of religious persecution against anybody who preaches differently from that of the God Emperor. The list of people victimized by such is almost endless, Jesus, Al Wei Wei, Michael Severtus, the Burning of Books and burying of scholars, among so many other losses for humanity. Wikipedia has many lists of martyrs, English, Unitarian, and other groups.
Science and reason do not have moderation under a clear understanding of the word. Seeking common ground from where you start is not the same thing as seeking out reality. Societies based on science and reason are the only ones I have observed which consistently avoid episodes of mass martyrdom when science and reason are dominant. Sometimes a group is simply in the wrong. With a debate between the Nazis and SPD in the 1920s in Germany, the Republic of China and PRC over the last 80 years, and now between Trumpists and the rest of America the differences are so vast and detachment from reality so clear, trying to find middle ground with such ideologies is ultimately destructive. You are led to a situation where you have to choose between defending human rights and trying to negotiate with dictators who do not care about human life. By trying to negotiate with dictators by giving them leeway and try to give ground to people following purely evil ideologies which destroy the lives of millions of people you give them more power and by doing so further damage the lives of the people they oppress. The actions of Neville Chamberlain only deepened the horrors of the Third Reich and made the inevitable World War II longer than necessary. The sending of Jews from New York Harbor back to the meat grinder of the Third Reich was a great loss to the world. The same goes for other dictators in history. I cannot see any middle ground. History is very clear on this topic.
Science and reason demand an introspective life. Constantly questioning our current beliefs and actions. They demand us to not take anything for granted, understand why we have the beliefs we hold, understand their roots and consequences, and change our opinions when we are proven wrong. This is not a moderate viewpoint, this is a quest for understanding the world around us. When people try to hold on to old ideas which have no grounding they are committing an act of self-deception which then eliminates their ability to make the world a better place. If you deny global warming is real (IT IS REAL) then you are not going to be able to tackle the problem. If you do not go study how something works or at least seek out the scientists who have dedicated their lives you will not be able to understand the underlying roots to a problem.
I think of gardening for a day to day experience of this solution. When you pull most plants you can't just break the plant from the ground. You have to take out the roots otherwise the plant will grow back with bigger roots than before. I have yet to find a problem this analogy does not work for. Fighting global warming has to be done by transitioning off of fossil fuels, the root of the problem. Fighting for racial justice to a point where everybody has equality of opportunity demands us to understand 1. What race is from a sociological/political/economic point of view, 2. why some countries have race while others don't, 3. intensely study diverse nations which have different nations living together in peace, and then once you understand those three things 4. how do you move from a society with incredible racial inequality to a place of coexistence. This cannot be done overnight, this takes years of studying and learning to understand, but it does not require a college degree either.
This is not a moderate path. This is not a 3/5 compromise. This is not a path of self-sacrifice. This is an intensive, challenging journey of studying the world and building a picture of what is happening which changes with new information and allows you to then manipulate with predictions of what your actions will actually do. It is a path of personal intellectual/spiritual growth which when practiced and channeled properly has the ability to change the world.
This also does not mean that you will get everything you want in one go. That has never happened before in history. You push for the best thing you can do and always do the right thing to the best of your knowledge. You focus your energies into the highest impact activity you can do in order to maximize your impact. This strategy has worked in the past with the Underground Railroad, Suffragist movement, Civil Rights Movement, and I believe it accurately describes the push from Black Lives Matter for police accountability among other demands. The modern push for civil rights by great people in history has a long history stretching back to the resurrection of Western Philosophy by Cosimo de Medici stretching to the present day and I hope it will last for the rest of humanity.
So, push for the best methods you can, use your time and money efficiently. Do not waste and be impactful in the world around you for a better future. If someone says you are wrong, inquire why you are wrong to gain insight they may be able to give you, and change your mind if they give you a more accurate picture of the world with better evidence than you have. When a good plan is on the ballot, if it will create more good than harm, vote for it.
The main goal I believe that we must work on is to work for justice around the world so that people are free. Stand up to dictators and always seek and tell the truth to the best of your ability. Engage in discussion for people to understand what is around the world. Build your complete viewpoint with the pieces to be accurate. A house built of paint would not work, but it is generally all you can see with your eyes. Behind the paint are wires, pipes, trusses, and details which hold the house together, even though all you can really see is the paint on the edge. An architect must start with the structure and understand how it all fits together to be resistant to weather, and general wear and tear, even though almost all the work will be hidden behind the paint. Accurate models of the world are similar in that even if you see the surface level equations there is always a deeper level of understanding to the world and what drives the moving parts which are necessary to fully understand what is happening.
The final question which must be answered is what justice is. Justice has many ways of being defined in history, Hammurabi, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, and Adolf Hitler all had very different ideas of what justice is. Everybody in the world has an interpretation of the concept of justice, even if they do not call it justice themselves. I personally believe as a strong liberal that 1. each and every person is important, no exceptions, 2. people have the rights to freedom of thought, speech, and life, 3. Nations and class do not need to divide us and everybody deserves these rights no matter where they live, 4. People have the right to opportunity and respect from others. 5. Building up a system which is sustainble for the future. These are my core values on how we need to treat one another. They are not uniquely Western, there are records of people who believed these ideas around the world for thousands of years. I do not always succeed in these high ideals but I always do my best in the situation to the best of my knowledge and as soon as I realize I failed I try to fix the given situation. A just system would then maximize human welfare and give everyone the opportunity to be their best and fullest on a material and spiritual level. This goal is probably unreachable in full, but we can and should get as close as we can to making a good world. It is not a quest for moderation but is a quest for universal human dignity.
In current politics these ideals lead me to the following actions: As in my last post, write an accurate obituary of the tyranny Fidel Castro created in Cuba. Oppose Donald Trump's plan for my country to the best of my ability. Fight climate change to the point where I will quit my job if an opportunity arises. Lobby my state legislature for legislation which supports education, builds infrastructure, increases economic opportunity, and fights climate change using the best science we have today. Most importantly, make people think about their current stances to the point where new information can broaden their understanding of the consequences of their actions. Seek out new allies on all of these causes and talk with people on how to achieve our goals in the least amount of time for the smallest amount of money.
This is how I interpret the principles of a free and responsible search for truth and meaning combined with the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all. To not stand up to oppression and give into the temptation to make everybody equally unhappy is to drop that honorable goal of world community, and to not test your beliefs is to drop the responsible part of the free and responsible search, after which you will be victim to fraud, deceit, and lies. Combining the two principles fully however gives anyone the ability to change the world.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Fidel Castro
With the passage of yet another undemocratic communist dictator, do not make him out to be better than he was. Castro was a monster who restricted freedom of the press and religion in his totalitarian state which until 2013 was the only country in the Americas which limited the ability of its citizens to leave. He also persecuted gays and admitted it willingly. When it comes to his policies, he was far more like Kim Jong Un than Willi Brandt which a lot of right wingers are going to make him out to be today (if they only knew who Willi was). Merely having public health care does not make a country free. Praising Castro is pissing on the people of Cuba. I hope the monster had a painful death for his crimes against humanity.
Burn in hell you monster.
If you consider yourself left-wing than you have to consider yourself a liberal (communist thought and practice has not respect for human rights, and the largest body count of any ideology in history), then remember him for who he was and his multiple atrocities against the people of Cuba. Cuba has the worst Freedom of the Press in the Americas, bans gay marriage, their government regularly tortures prisoners, and has no freedom of assembly. Granted, the United States is not perfect either, and also has large problems with prisons and the current attacks on Standing Rock are a massive violation of the rights of the Sioux, both under treaty and the Bill of Rights. This is why we, like every other country in the world, do not have a perfect score on any broad freedom metric. But when political scientists analyze both Cuba and the United States there is no doubt that Cuba is far less democratic and free than the United States. This is a system which Fidel Castro built, and it is a monstrosity against the people.
If you want a hero to idolize, than there are good people who are worth remembering and living up to. German Chancellors Konrad Adenauer, Helmut Schmidt, and Willi Brandt built the system of Germany based on liberal thought and Germany is now beats the United States on every freedom metric except gay rights where the USA beats Germany. Willi dissented from the Nazis during the Third Reich at great personal risk before being our greatest Chancellor. Pierre Trudeau built Canada's respect for Quebecois culture and Medicare and was a great man. Clement Attlee built the British Welfare State and was the greatest Prime Minister they ever had, reversing Labour's indefensible policy of appeasement and led decolonization. Lyndon Baines Johnson signed most of our civil rights laws and worked hard to try to get us out of Vietnam while leading a booming economy. Bob Hawke led Australia's economy through the turbulent 80s with skill which no other leader in the world had at the time, introduced medicare, and made their social policy more liberal. Nelson Mandela led South Africa to freedom.
There are great people in history who stood against dictatorship and built freedom and prosperity. Remember them for who they are and remember that Fidel Castro was a man who all of them actively opposed for that reason.
Burn in hell you monster.
If you consider yourself left-wing than you have to consider yourself a liberal (communist thought and practice has not respect for human rights, and the largest body count of any ideology in history), then remember him for who he was and his multiple atrocities against the people of Cuba. Cuba has the worst Freedom of the Press in the Americas, bans gay marriage, their government regularly tortures prisoners, and has no freedom of assembly. Granted, the United States is not perfect either, and also has large problems with prisons and the current attacks on Standing Rock are a massive violation of the rights of the Sioux, both under treaty and the Bill of Rights. This is why we, like every other country in the world, do not have a perfect score on any broad freedom metric. But when political scientists analyze both Cuba and the United States there is no doubt that Cuba is far less democratic and free than the United States. This is a system which Fidel Castro built, and it is a monstrosity against the people.
If you want a hero to idolize, than there are good people who are worth remembering and living up to. German Chancellors Konrad Adenauer, Helmut Schmidt, and Willi Brandt built the system of Germany based on liberal thought and Germany is now beats the United States on every freedom metric except gay rights where the USA beats Germany. Willi dissented from the Nazis during the Third Reich at great personal risk before being our greatest Chancellor. Pierre Trudeau built Canada's respect for Quebecois culture and Medicare and was a great man. Clement Attlee built the British Welfare State and was the greatest Prime Minister they ever had, reversing Labour's indefensible policy of appeasement and led decolonization. Lyndon Baines Johnson signed most of our civil rights laws and worked hard to try to get us out of Vietnam while leading a booming economy. Bob Hawke led Australia's economy through the turbulent 80s with skill which no other leader in the world had at the time, introduced medicare, and made their social policy more liberal. Nelson Mandela led South Africa to freedom.
There are great people in history who stood against dictatorship and built freedom and prosperity. Remember them for who they are and remember that Fidel Castro was a man who all of them actively opposed for that reason.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Freedom and Schengen
With the latest terrorist attack in France people are trying to reduce the liberalization of Europe. Under attack now is the Schengen treaty with xenophobes calling to close the border. The issue is that there have been very few terrorist attacks in Europe relative to other countries is still very low, and his won't stop them. Even with massive surveillance no country has succeeded in stopping a single terrorist attack through such methods, and without that information all closing the borders will only waste money and hurt the economy. The United States has the NSA of course, and there is no evidence that surveillance has ever been necessary to stop a terrorist attack.
https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists/
I do not think closing the border will make any significant difference regarding terrorist attacks. There were attacks before open borders, and there are still attacks. All it will do is isolate Europeans from each other and inconvenience travellers.
To fight terrorism, the only thing we can do is reach out to people at risk of these groups. Increasing communication and trust between peoples through travel, internet, and friendship will help tear down dictators and expand liberty. Closing the borders only plays into their hands by doing the opposite.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
More on Visa Policy
Since George W. Bush was in office the United States has mad large efforts to alienate us from the rest of the world, to the point where only Canadians, Palauans, Marshall Islanders, and Micronesians can enter the United States without some sort of visa. There are two ways this happens, either through the "Visa-Waiver Program" which is a misnomer, and through the normal visa system.
For those who don't know, the Visa-Waiver program is offered to 38 countries, and this requires people to sign up before they land in the United States (one major characteristic of a visa) and they pay a fine of $14 (it is basically a special type of visa). This has no real effect on catching terrorists (the people who bombed the World Trade Center and Boston Bombers all had visas) but only serves to inconvenience people who want to visit the United States by making them have to pay more money and spend more time before arriving. It is more expensive meaning more processing time for people across the world without actually protecting us.
Now Canada is going to start their own Visa Waiver Program, for everyone except the US (because we're friends) which will seriously inconvenience people who are able to visit Canada without providing any realistic benefit. I am not Canadian, but they should not give in the United States government on this issue. Unless if we were starting a customs union with Canada (which would be a very good thing for both countries) this action is completely counterproductive for Canadians.
Instead of further tightening of our border what we should do is eliminate the Visa Waiver Program altogether and institute visa-free travel from all the countries currently under it which requires no pre-registration, like every other free country except Australia practices today. Individuals who are known to be dangerous from foreign countries we have a visa-free regime with will be blocked from entry, and their passports will be blocked, and this has the advantage of blocking those we do want to block without inconveniencing everyone else. I personally am on the ultra-liberal side of having as few restrictions on travel for this issue, because I see it as a tool for furthering goodwill among nations and making for a better world altogether. I also don't see the threat when the total number of terrorist attack in every other country that has an economy like the United States and doesn't have a large group of home-grown extremists doesn't see large numbers of terrorist attacks.
I don't see any reason to believe that this prescreening works at all, and see no reason to ask people from our closest allies to fork over money to visit America when we don't have to do the same in their country. Plus, we already scan everyone's passports when the enter the country (like every other country I know of that isn't participating in a customs union with other union members) which means we will have records of who is coming in.
In general, this is the wrong direction for Canada and America. We need to fully analyze the costs of having pre-authorization for people from Europe, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, and other highly developed stable democracies and not go backwards on such issues.
We will only know peace when the majority of people can meet people from other cultures and know that we are all human. This is how we fight extremism, and we do this by allowing as many people as possible to travel freely.
Sources:
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-12-07/html/notice-avis-eng.html#d108
For further information, read about the "Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan" which is the official policy between the US and Canada.
For those who don't know, the Visa-Waiver program is offered to 38 countries, and this requires people to sign up before they land in the United States (one major characteristic of a visa) and they pay a fine of $14 (it is basically a special type of visa). This has no real effect on catching terrorists (the people who bombed the World Trade Center and Boston Bombers all had visas) but only serves to inconvenience people who want to visit the United States by making them have to pay more money and spend more time before arriving. It is more expensive meaning more processing time for people across the world without actually protecting us.
Now Canada is going to start their own Visa Waiver Program, for everyone except the US (because we're friends) which will seriously inconvenience people who are able to visit Canada without providing any realistic benefit. I am not Canadian, but they should not give in the United States government on this issue. Unless if we were starting a customs union with Canada (which would be a very good thing for both countries) this action is completely counterproductive for Canadians.
Instead of further tightening of our border what we should do is eliminate the Visa Waiver Program altogether and institute visa-free travel from all the countries currently under it which requires no pre-registration, like every other free country except Australia practices today. Individuals who are known to be dangerous from foreign countries we have a visa-free regime with will be blocked from entry, and their passports will be blocked, and this has the advantage of blocking those we do want to block without inconveniencing everyone else. I personally am on the ultra-liberal side of having as few restrictions on travel for this issue, because I see it as a tool for furthering goodwill among nations and making for a better world altogether. I also don't see the threat when the total number of terrorist attack in every other country that has an economy like the United States and doesn't have a large group of home-grown extremists doesn't see large numbers of terrorist attacks.
I don't see any reason to believe that this prescreening works at all, and see no reason to ask people from our closest allies to fork over money to visit America when we don't have to do the same in their country. Plus, we already scan everyone's passports when the enter the country (like every other country I know of that isn't participating in a customs union with other union members) which means we will have records of who is coming in.
In general, this is the wrong direction for Canada and America. We need to fully analyze the costs of having pre-authorization for people from Europe, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, and other highly developed stable democracies and not go backwards on such issues.
We will only know peace when the majority of people can meet people from other cultures and know that we are all human. This is how we fight extremism, and we do this by allowing as many people as possible to travel freely.
Sources:
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-12-07/html/notice-avis-eng.html#d108
For further information, read about the "Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan" which is the official policy between the US and Canada.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
When we shall have peace
A ceasefire just started in Israel, which hopefully will continue, but given the scope of the destruction in Gaza and who is currently leading both sides I doubt it will last. The beginning of this conflict was justified, but the way IDF went about it was completely unjustified with targeting non-military targets. If the IDF had only targeted the military base of Hamas and used their immense intelligence gathering effectively there would be absolutely no doubt that Israel would have been on the right side of the conflict. Instead there have been far too many attacks by the Israeli government on civilian homes which brings them down to the level of Hamas in how they target non-military targets and they blew it big this time. There are now pending charges for crimes against humanity on both sides which I have no doubt are legitimate and hopefully will remove military support from both sides.
The Israeli government has continued to breed extremism with their latest onslaught on houses in Gaza but have not targeted military targets, with most of the deaths being those of civilians. This is a war crime and there needs to be justice. As long as Israel continues to bomb Palestinian homes in these events and evict them to build settlements in the West Bank without due compensation young Palestinians will continue to have nothing to lose. As long as the blockade on Gaza prevents them from trading with the outside world (For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World ~ US Declaration of Independence) and preventing food and medical supplies from reaching the people who need them and preventing the development of the Gazan economy people will have no other option but to revolt against the Israeli government. Trade is invaluable to people because it brings opportunity. The other major barrier to peace is the taking of Palestinian land without compensation which no wise government in history willfully takes the land of people who live on their land because if they steal too much there will be a revolt. It unfortunately worked in the Americas because disease killed the Native American population before they could fight back (which is the largest genocide in the history of the world) but the Israelis don't have diseases that will kill the Palestinians before they will fight back against the evictions. All of these actions make people look for any way to improve their well being and this is how groups like Hamas are able to get people to follow them because they offer a way to get people's homes back, even though their ideology is extremely misguided and historically doomed to fail.
One important point is that Israel is a democracy and when center-left parties have been in office there have been improved relations with Palestine. The attacks on Palestinian homes occur when either Likud becomes the government in Israel or Hamas becomes the government in Palestine. Attacks by Israel like the one this month are invariably linked to the leadership of the right wing. Attacks on Israel (such as the Yom Kippur War) are of course rightfully defended and every state has the right to self-defense. This means if there is to be peace in the region the government of Israel needs to return to the center-left led by Kadima which will almost definitely lead and sign an armistice agreement with the Palestinian Authority. This is essential to any path to peace,
There needs to be an agreement that the UN will defend any side that is in the defensive given a resumption of attacks. There needs to be a right to education for all people in the area. Property rights need to be absolute and if either government takes land from anyone there must be just compensation. Access to courts is absolute regardless of citizenship.
Also, Israel needs to change their laws and have real freedom of the press which currently doesn't exist under a system of gag orders which exacerbate extremism and lack of information for Israelis increasing the power of their extremist government. This policy is contrary to the claim that Israel is a free democracy because no nation can be free when you need the government's permission to publish information that doesn't have to do with things whose release would threaten national security, such as nuclear passwords.
The cost in Israel of these extremist governments increase the number of Israelis who support these sorts of policies. Racism is increasing among people on both sides of the conflict of all ages. There is no global leader today, except maybe Pope Francis, with the cultural clout to help bring people back to a place where we can live together in peace. This is what we need. The world needs leadership and we have no one who is willing to use their power effectively. I hope President Obama will prove me wrong with his current actions on the Southern Border which has become a humanitarian catastrophe, but given 6 years of compromise (which historically was the bringer and keeper of slavery in the USA) it will take a lot more work which I hope will come. We cannot afford to have a humanitarian crisis in the Middle East with either side getting annihilated which is what the current Government of Israel will cause if they continue the actions they are doing with disproportionate attacks.
We also need to increase communication between people on both sides of every conflict. Peace cannot happen without dialogue and once there is dialogue we will realize we are all people and that war is a pointless endeavor.
With all of this we need strong treaties that are proportionately reinforced and strong leadership that can bring people together to recognize that we are all brothers and we are all our brothers' keeper. Only then can we have lasting peace. Otherwise war and suffering will continue.
The Israeli government has continued to breed extremism with their latest onslaught on houses in Gaza but have not targeted military targets, with most of the deaths being those of civilians. This is a war crime and there needs to be justice. As long as Israel continues to bomb Palestinian homes in these events and evict them to build settlements in the West Bank without due compensation young Palestinians will continue to have nothing to lose. As long as the blockade on Gaza prevents them from trading with the outside world (For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World ~ US Declaration of Independence) and preventing food and medical supplies from reaching the people who need them and preventing the development of the Gazan economy people will have no other option but to revolt against the Israeli government. Trade is invaluable to people because it brings opportunity. The other major barrier to peace is the taking of Palestinian land without compensation which no wise government in history willfully takes the land of people who live on their land because if they steal too much there will be a revolt. It unfortunately worked in the Americas because disease killed the Native American population before they could fight back (which is the largest genocide in the history of the world) but the Israelis don't have diseases that will kill the Palestinians before they will fight back against the evictions. All of these actions make people look for any way to improve their well being and this is how groups like Hamas are able to get people to follow them because they offer a way to get people's homes back, even though their ideology is extremely misguided and historically doomed to fail.
One important point is that Israel is a democracy and when center-left parties have been in office there have been improved relations with Palestine. The attacks on Palestinian homes occur when either Likud becomes the government in Israel or Hamas becomes the government in Palestine. Attacks by Israel like the one this month are invariably linked to the leadership of the right wing. Attacks on Israel (such as the Yom Kippur War) are of course rightfully defended and every state has the right to self-defense. This means if there is to be peace in the region the government of Israel needs to return to the center-left led by Kadima which will almost definitely lead and sign an armistice agreement with the Palestinian Authority. This is essential to any path to peace,
There needs to be an agreement that the UN will defend any side that is in the defensive given a resumption of attacks. There needs to be a right to education for all people in the area. Property rights need to be absolute and if either government takes land from anyone there must be just compensation. Access to courts is absolute regardless of citizenship.
Also, Israel needs to change their laws and have real freedom of the press which currently doesn't exist under a system of gag orders which exacerbate extremism and lack of information for Israelis increasing the power of their extremist government. This policy is contrary to the claim that Israel is a free democracy because no nation can be free when you need the government's permission to publish information that doesn't have to do with things whose release would threaten national security, such as nuclear passwords.
The cost in Israel of these extremist governments increase the number of Israelis who support these sorts of policies. Racism is increasing among people on both sides of the conflict of all ages. There is no global leader today, except maybe Pope Francis, with the cultural clout to help bring people back to a place where we can live together in peace. This is what we need. The world needs leadership and we have no one who is willing to use their power effectively. I hope President Obama will prove me wrong with his current actions on the Southern Border which has become a humanitarian catastrophe, but given 6 years of compromise (which historically was the bringer and keeper of slavery in the USA) it will take a lot more work which I hope will come. We cannot afford to have a humanitarian crisis in the Middle East with either side getting annihilated which is what the current Government of Israel will cause if they continue the actions they are doing with disproportionate attacks.
We also need to increase communication between people on both sides of every conflict. Peace cannot happen without dialogue and once there is dialogue we will realize we are all people and that war is a pointless endeavor.
With all of this we need strong treaties that are proportionately reinforced and strong leadership that can bring people together to recognize that we are all brothers and we are all our brothers' keeper. Only then can we have lasting peace. Otherwise war and suffering will continue.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
We should have stood up earlier
This is extremely to me, as a blogger, someone who had family in Germany in the 1930s and has studied the era of the rise of Hitler in my free time, and as an American.
This man should not be persecuted for reporting on something the government doesn't want to be leaked, because when the government gets to determine what constitutes freedom of the press it is the fox watching the hen house and it is impossible for anyone to be a neutral party when they are the person being investigated.
This is a very dangerous path, and it leads to where there is no independent journalism. I don't scare easily, but this does scare me. Democracy cannot thrive when freedom of speech is curtailed.
This is the gift of compromise. Democratic voters have been so willing over the last 20 years to make amends to the Republicans that the difference betwen the right wing Democrats and mainstream Republicans truly is small on a number of important issues. Sure, the Democrats still do some good things like the environmental action this week, but it is not enough. We need to protect our liberties and not allow them to do these actions in the background when we are not watching and celebrating a victory.
Shame on President Obama. He is giving up his heritage. This persecution of a journalist is treason.
Source:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/244525/risen-obama-administration-is-this-generations-greatest-enemy-of-press-freedom/
This man should not be persecuted for reporting on something the government doesn't want to be leaked, because when the government gets to determine what constitutes freedom of the press it is the fox watching the hen house and it is impossible for anyone to be a neutral party when they are the person being investigated.
This is a very dangerous path, and it leads to where there is no independent journalism. I don't scare easily, but this does scare me. Democracy cannot thrive when freedom of speech is curtailed.
This is the gift of compromise. Democratic voters have been so willing over the last 20 years to make amends to the Republicans that the difference betwen the right wing Democrats and mainstream Republicans truly is small on a number of important issues. Sure, the Democrats still do some good things like the environmental action this week, but it is not enough. We need to protect our liberties and not allow them to do these actions in the background when we are not watching and celebrating a victory.
Shame on President Obama. He is giving up his heritage. This persecution of a journalist is treason.
Source:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/244525/risen-obama-administration-is-this-generations-greatest-enemy-of-press-freedom/
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Website Censorship
The FCC has finally caved into Comcast et al to allow them to block certain websites. This is a very slippery slope because they can just slow down the base service and the only decent speed will be for the people who pay up, effectively discriminating against small website owners like me. This is a very slippery slope I have no desire to explore. We need to keep the internet as a free and open forum where all people can talk freely. Looking across the world access to internet and other freedoms are very closely correlated and we need to make certain the United States stays ahead of the curve. We need to defend our constitution.
Call your representative and senators today: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/net-neutrality-finally-dies-ripe-old-age-of-45
More legalese explanation: our founding fathers put in a public postal service as a job of our government. If our founding fathers were alive today I have no doubt they would see the existence of a free and open internet equal to importance to a well run postal service because of the possibility of corruption of companies that deliver mail. Having public oversight in a democracy provides a protection that the private sector in a monopolistic or oligopolistic market cannot provide. The same can be said about the internet, there will only be one major internet provider in any area, and we have seen Comcast become the largest ISP in the nation. Without regulation it is very possible that Comcast could abuse their position and removing these regulations will do just this. We need to protect our liberties in the spirit of our founding fathers to protect the free flow of information which was clearly important to them and is the American way. This decision is not just an assault on the internet but a direct assault on the fabric that makes America such a special and unique country among 196 different nations. This type of decision is going to damage our position on economic and liberty indexes and erode our liberties when these companies abuse their position for all of these reasons. History has shown unregulated monopolies routinely abuse their position, which is why we have the FCC in the first place to protect our civil liberties and political and economic culture.
Call your representative and senators today: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/net-neutrality-finally-dies-ripe-old-age-of-45
More legalese explanation: our founding fathers put in a public postal service as a job of our government. If our founding fathers were alive today I have no doubt they would see the existence of a free and open internet equal to importance to a well run postal service because of the possibility of corruption of companies that deliver mail. Having public oversight in a democracy provides a protection that the private sector in a monopolistic or oligopolistic market cannot provide. The same can be said about the internet, there will only be one major internet provider in any area, and we have seen Comcast become the largest ISP in the nation. Without regulation it is very possible that Comcast could abuse their position and removing these regulations will do just this. We need to protect our liberties in the spirit of our founding fathers to protect the free flow of information which was clearly important to them and is the American way. This decision is not just an assault on the internet but a direct assault on the fabric that makes America such a special and unique country among 196 different nations. This type of decision is going to damage our position on economic and liberty indexes and erode our liberties when these companies abuse their position for all of these reasons. History has shown unregulated monopolies routinely abuse their position, which is why we have the FCC in the first place to protect our civil liberties and political and economic culture.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Your American tax dollars at work in Israel
The latest news story coming out of the almost 70 year old humanitarian crisis in Israel is on Reuters this week.
Yes, Israel is detaining Palestinian children as young as nine years old and bombing residential areas.
This is a very short-term action by the Israeli government and reminiscent of the Russian attack on Gori in 2008 and nearing the treatment of how Nazis treated Jewish children during the Holocaust. One would think a country that was formed in response to a genocide wouldn't commit another one, learning from their mistakes, but given the vast number of news stories about how Israel treats non-Jews, I have serious suspicions about their internet censorship. Salon (which I know is liberal) did a good report on what I would consider de facto internet censorship because in order to print anything Israeli reporters need to get it cleared by the government. How can Reporters Without Borders give them such good rankings and claim that Israeli reporters "enjoy real freedom of expression despite the existence of military censorship"? This sounds about as stupid to me as saying "North Koreans have real freedom of movement despite the fact that many families are locked away for decades for something their ancestor did." It is completely absurd, and I have lost my trust in Reporters Without Borders.
Support freedom, oppose Likud.
Yes, Israel is detaining Palestinian children as young as nine years old and bombing residential areas.
This is a very short-term action by the Israeli government and reminiscent of the Russian attack on Gori in 2008 and nearing the treatment of how Nazis treated Jewish children during the Holocaust. One would think a country that was formed in response to a genocide wouldn't commit another one, learning from their mistakes, but given the vast number of news stories about how Israel treats non-Jews, I have serious suspicions about their internet censorship. Salon (which I know is liberal) did a good report on what I would consider de facto internet censorship because in order to print anything Israeli reporters need to get it cleared by the government. How can Reporters Without Borders give them such good rankings and claim that Israeli reporters "enjoy real freedom of expression despite the existence of military censorship"? This sounds about as stupid to me as saying "North Koreans have real freedom of movement despite the fact that many families are locked away for decades for something their ancestor did." It is completely absurd, and I have lost my trust in Reporters Without Borders.
Support freedom, oppose Likud.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
European Privacy Law Improvement
Concerning: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590869-38/eu-court-lawyer-backs-google-in-right-to-be-forgotten-case/
A case in the European Court of Justice recently decided that European residents do not have a right to force search engines like Google (the main party because they are the best search engine for most things) to eliminate results on them. This is a good decision for several reasons:
A case in the European Court of Justice recently decided that European residents do not have a right to force search engines like Google (the main party because they are the best search engine for most things) to eliminate results on them. This is a good decision for several reasons:
- If you have committed a violent crime and are seeking employment the last thing you would want is for a potential employer to find that information. If the (I'm dying not to say crazy people) plaintiffs in Spain had won their case then a felon (or the reasonable equivalent in their country's law) would under EU law have the right to remove their information from the internet making it harder for people to find their crime. Also, there are many types of search engines that are specific to finding information about people and if the EU gave people this right to remove their information from search engines than private investigators who companies hire to screen their employees would be unable to check that their applicant is safe unless if they had to go right to the specific location where the crime is placed. Since this is extremely tedious looking through every local court in the entire European Union this would of course be an absurd ruling and make background checks far too expensive for most small businesses to do because of the time it would take to get all that information every single time. This has no benefit to society and it is good that the EU decided people have no right to remove publicly available information from search engines. While I would understand some laws for people who have been acquitted of a crime removing information, a blanket allowance of removing information is a very slippery slope, and such a law would be extremely difficult to get right. An easier approach would be to not have restrictions on information (except threats, obviously) and that if someone acted inappropriately based on information they found on someone online they would be committing a crime which would be hitting the problem at the source, easier to enforce, and have no possibility of devolving into an infringement of the freedom of speech which is critical for democracy to function.
- The website that hosts the information was not the party being targeted, it was the search engine which only directs people to other information. If one search engine started getting infringed on another search engine would pop up (probably through the Tor Network) that would allow people to get the information anyways. Information wants to be free. Despite their best attempts, both North Korea and China cannot block out the outside world's information, which makes this entire purpose completely moot.
I am pleased with this decision, it would be like arresting journalists for uncovering government corruption, like is happening right now with Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, but it is most like Julian Assange's charges for hosting a website whose purpose was to host news stories that are not covered by the private media. Now we just need to insert whistleblower protections to our laws to prevent further abuse of power as the next step.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
The House passes CISPA
Today the House, including 96 Democrats, did the shameful act of passing the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. This is a completely unconstitutional act. If passed it will allow the government and internet providers to access your browser data for any reason without a warrant, and there is no way you will legally be able to protect yourself. They will be able to share it with the government at any time for any reason. This is bad enough to say it is completely unnecessary and unconstitutional, but it also says that the military, for god's sake, the military can access your information without a warrant. So, let's say that you go to court because you don't like how a company was stealing your information and giving it to the military or some other agency like the FBI (think J. Edgar Hoover, I know he's dead but he built the agency) and there is now absolutely no legal path you have to keep your privacy.
I try not to be a radical who thinks everything should be completely private, and I realize that there are times where information should be shared. I have a private investigation agency which I am building and this issue is central to my chosen career. But when the government for any reason can tap into your records which are not sensitive and can make large profiles on you that have no criminal value, than we have taken a massive step in the wrong direction. We had a fourth amendment for a reason, but since the PATRIOT ACT was passed and now that it looks like CISPA is going to be passed, the constitution is basically dead. Now, Obama may have said he was going to veto it, but with his recent announcement to cut social security benefits and raise student loan interest rates I have absolutely no faith that he will veto it, because those two things he said he wouldn't do, but he did anyway.
To my representative Denny Heck I want to send this message:
Why did you vote for CISPA? I thought you were different. I campaigned for your campaign for hours because I thought you were progressive. I thought putting a Greener into the House of Representatives would bring reason and good policy that didn't infringe on the first and fourth amendments of our constitution. I was wrong. You have lost my vote for reelection.
I try not to be a radical who thinks everything should be completely private, and I realize that there are times where information should be shared. I have a private investigation agency which I am building and this issue is central to my chosen career. But when the government for any reason can tap into your records which are not sensitive and can make large profiles on you that have no criminal value, than we have taken a massive step in the wrong direction. We had a fourth amendment for a reason, but since the PATRIOT ACT was passed and now that it looks like CISPA is going to be passed, the constitution is basically dead. Now, Obama may have said he was going to veto it, but with his recent announcement to cut social security benefits and raise student loan interest rates I have absolutely no faith that he will veto it, because those two things he said he wouldn't do, but he did anyway.
To my representative Denny Heck I want to send this message:
Why did you vote for CISPA? I thought you were different. I campaigned for your campaign for hours because I thought you were progressive. I thought putting a Greener into the House of Representatives would bring reason and good policy that didn't infringe on the first and fourth amendments of our constitution. I was wrong. You have lost my vote for reelection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)