Showing posts with label dictators.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dictators.. Show all posts

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Google : Communist sympathizer !!

Google is willing to bow to China on search censorship . but yet Google fights the American Government on releasing search data.
Seems clear to me . Google 's motto of " Do no evil", is easy to abide by when you have your own definitions of right and wrong. ~~ TP
-------------
--------
By Jane Wakefield
Technology reporter, BBC News website

Google has acknowledged that its decision to launch in China will be seen as inconsistent with its mission to make information universally accessible but believes it has little choice.

"We don't want to risk becoming irrelevant or useless due to the way that our content is blocked or filtered currently," Google's senior policy adviser Andrew McLaughlin told the BBC Radio Four's Today programme.

"We feel it is a step forward. Not a big step forward but a step forward. We understand that many people will find the decision either puzzling or objectionable," he said.





Sunday, August 28, 2005

Congratulations, It's a Theocracy! By David Sarno

~~` Cute headline this morning at Slate.com .

~~ TP

------------------------

Congratulations, It's a Theocracy! By David Sarno: "today's papers A summary of what's in the major U.S. newspapers.

Congratulations, It's a Theocracy!
By David Sarno
Posted Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005, at 4:50 AM PT "

Monday, January 31, 2005

The president's challenge to friendly dictators.; By Duncan Currie [ an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard..]

~~~ ~ : America has never based it’s diplomatic relations with other nations on the standards of freedom in those nations. Our Foreign Policy has always been , based on whether the Government –-- [which could be either a dictatorship or a republic or some other political hybrid] -- generally supported American Business interests and American Military policies. This has been true since the inception of this nation.

To be fair , the USA is not unique here. This Morally Blind Foreign Policy of ; “As long as you do not help my enemy, you are my friend ! (Even if you are a murdering crook)” , seems more to be an axiom of history than a particular American invention.~~ TP



Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Washington (The Daily Standard) -:

The president's challenge to friendly dictators.
By Duncan Currie [ an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard..]


FDR REPORTEDLY SAID IT FIRST, though the story could be apocryphal. Sizing up Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua's brutal (but pro-American) dictator, Roosevelt quipped, "Somoza may be a son of a b-tch, but he's our son of a b-tch."

Prescient words, if he in fact spoke them. During the Cold War, America, through sheer necessity, cultivated ties with lots of SOBs, including military regimes in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Spain, Zaire, South Vietnam, Indonesia, South Korea and the Philippines.

Conservatives often justified such alliances by the lesser-of-two-evils canon. To wit, forging pacts with nasty pro-American dictatorships prevented the rise of even nastier pro-Soviet dictatorships. So it was both moral and pragmatic to prop up "our SOBs," lest "their SOBs" take power.


But when the Soviet Empire jumped on the fast lane to the ash heap of history, many felt the our-SOB principle should go with it. Absent a global Communist threat, they reasoned, how could America continue to support despots? Then came September 11, and the subsequent war on terror. Few questioned the prudence of warming up to Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf. If "coddling" Musharraf helped snuff out the Taliban--and it did--then we could overlook the general's autarchic rule. Likewise, hardheaded geopolitics demanded we keep our close links with tyrannies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Despite his pro-democracy rhetoric, Bush had to pick his battles wisely. And toppling U.S. enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq took precedence over nudging nominal U.S. allies toward liberalization. (Still, it was hard not to wince when Bush hosted Saudi crown prince Abdullah at his Texas ranch.)

Does the president's second inaugural mark a change in course?
President Bush would do well to follow suit. For, alas, we still need our SOBs. And we'll need them long after Bush leaves office. That may not be morally satisfying. But international politics has ever been thus. As Charles Krauthammer once observed, "The essence of foreign policy is deciding which son of a bitch to support and which to oppose--in 1941, Hitler or Stalin; in 1972, Brezhnev or Mao; in 1979, Somoza or Ortega. One has to choose. A blanket anti-son of a bitch policy . . . is soothing, satisfying and empty. It is not a policy at all but righteous self-delusion."

Duncan Currie is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.

_______________________________
--------------------------------------------

Sunday, January 30, 2005

"First Amendment No Big Deal,Students Say." , By BEN FELLER AP Education Writer

This article below about how American High School students dismiss the First Amendment as too broad & granting too much freedom , is quite distressing.

However I would not be surprised if a poll of adults turned out any different. Most American Citizens, [or at least most that i know] , fail to grasp the most basic principles that are the foundation of our free society.

As Hodding Carter III is quoted below : "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future." A very true and important concept. You cannot protect rights you do not understand!

The first Amendment is America's first defense against tyranny rising from within our own boarders.

Those who think "it can't happen here" should read the book with that title by Sinclair Lewis or Philip Roth's latest "The Plot Against America".

The rights embodied in the First Ten Amendments of the American Constitution are what separate our Democracy from Dictatorships.

During the 1960's , Free Speech was an "it" thing among the kids.
Will the 2000's be the decade of peer-pressured - constrained speech ?
A country where the legal entitlement of first amendment rights are so generally misunderstood, that they will be asserted less and less by the general population?


Remember Big Corporations & Rich People are ALWAYS excreting -- and are always looking to expand--- their constitutional rights & powers.~~~~
~~~~ TP



Monday, January 31, 2005 4:01 p.m. ET

By BEN FELLER AP Education Writer
"First Amendment No Big Deal,Students Say."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.

It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

"These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future."

"The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media," said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. "Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms."

On the Net:

Future of the First Amendment report: http://www.firstamendmentfuture.org/

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=983353&tw=wn_wire_story

______________________________________________
________

Monday, July 12, 2004

Kofigate Gets Going,, By WILLIAM SAFIRE

July 12, 2004 http://www.nytco.com/
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Kofigate Gets Going

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON — All our July chin-pulling about polls and veeps and C.I.A. missteps has little to do with November's election, which will be decided by unforeseeable events. Instead, let's counter-program, to examine a political corruption story beginning to gain traction that will reach warp speed in hearings and headlines next spring.

At least eight official investigations have begun into the largest financial rip-off in history: preliminary estimates from the G.A.O. point to $10 billion skimmed or kicked back or otherwise stolen in the U.N. dealings with Saddam Hussein.

Seeking to manage the news of the scandal, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed former Fed chairman Paul Volcker to head an internal investigation. That seemed to slam the door on U.N. cooperation with truly independent inquiries, but Volcker last week announced that "appropriate memorandums of understanding with a number of official investigatory bodies are in place or in negotiation."

To overcome criticism like mine of his committee's lack of subpoena power or ability to take testimony under oath, Volcker has hooked up with Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney, who has been prosecuting two men in an unrelated distressed debt case at BNP Paribas; that's the French bank the U.N. used for its oil-for-food letters of credit. That grand old prosecutor has a staff skilled at following money and has sitting grand juries available to encourage truth-telling.

Morgenthau's crew, in turn, has a collaborative relationship (pardon the _expression) with the nonpartisan staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (P.S.I.). The U.N. has stonewalled three committees of the U.S. Congress, refusing to reveal its 55 internal audits, claiming that our State Department's members on the U.N. "661 committee" had approved all kickback-ridden contracts.

But State has been slow-walking Congressional requests for documents that reveal its own poor oversight and that embarrass the U.N., which it now wants to placate. State could impede the hunt overseas through mutual legal-assistance treaties, and can continue to diddle the House committees of Henry Hyde and Chris Shays, but our diplomats cannot evade chairman's letters from the Senate P.S.I.

Who else is on the trail of the skimmed billions, much of it owed to those Kurdish Iraqis shortchanged by U.N. dispensers of largess? Playing catch-up to Morgenthau, a Justice Department U.S. attorney in New York has subpoenaed records of several American oil companies; our Treasury Department charged a couple of minor players with illegal transactions with Iraq.

Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, where much of the grandest larceny ignored by the U.N. originated, the investigation by the old Governing Council was stopped by Paul Bremer because its leaks alerted the world and upset the U.N. The search for damning documents was re-launched under non-Chalabi auspices, but the chairman of Iraq's Supreme Audit Board, Ihsan Karim, was killed on his way to work two weeks ago. Criminal enterprises have heavy money at stake in this.

Volcker, still in a start-up stage after four months, assures The Wall Street Journal he hired a great senior staff. But one is Richard Murphy, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a veteran Arab apologist on TV. Will he prevail on Jordan's king to get the Philadelphia Investment Corporation in Amman to open its files about financing favored "beneficiaries"? Or dare to demand the United Arab Emirates order its Al Wasel and Babel trading company to explain the lucrative electrical projects that had nothing to do with food?

Another is Prof. Mark Pieth of the University of Basel, of high repute in countering money laundering. Key to the transmission of oil-for-food funds is Cotecna Inspections, a Swiss corporation that got the U.N. contract to monitor deliveries and whose "notice of arrival" was pure gold to corrupt sellers. Mr. Annan's son was its consultant just before the fat contract was issued; even after a U.N. audit showed suspicious inspection inadequacies, Cotecna's contract was expanded. Professor Pieth's work will be judged on whether he can crack Swiss government secrecy to reveal the goings-on at Cotecna.

These investigations were triggered by the press. But why should competitive journalists wait months for official leaks? Bankers, traders and honest U.N. underlings are eager to whis-tleblow; shoe-leather reporting is required to hot-foot the watchmen now that they are finally awake.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |

Saturday, July 20, 2002

The Techno-Political-Digital-Age at barely a decade old is still very much in its early infancy.

The Techno-Political-Digital-Age at barely a decade old is still very much in its early infancy. Like first time parents, global and national political policy makers are cautiously raising this baby and formulating their policies without the benefit similar experience. In the United States the depth of both the cultural impact and the massive financial scope of the ongoing Microsoft anti-trust case highlights how powerfully and deeply ingrained Techno-Political affairs have become in government, corporate, academic and personal operations, and how difficult the "correct" public policy can be to create. Since September 11, 2001 the Techno-Political issue of personal privacy has become the newest test of constitutional civil liberties in the United States and Europe.[i] How much privacy should one be expected give up for the right to enter cyber-space in now a major issue of E-Governance policy. For the Internet to be a democratizing tool, access to it and the information on it must be unfettered. Already in American workplaces and college libraries use of the Internet is closely monitored and regulated. The issue of Internet use in American public libraries made major news this past May 2002 when a federal court struck down the Children's Internet Protection Act.[ii] The three branches of the American government have just started sorting out exactly what rights to privacy citizens retain in cyberspace ----(and public space too in light of new surveillance technologies)---- during use in work, school and home. The E-Governance topic of cyber-privacy is sure to be a focus of public and legal debate for generations to come, much in the same way other privacy issues have been throughout American History. Just as the American Courts have had to continually re-address search & seizure and privacy laws as new technologies arise, so too will the issue of Cyber-Privacy will become a major discipline of law, both in America and around the globe.

In China, Cuba, Vietnam and other dictatorships, E-Governance control of the Internet is at the forefront, with totalitarian governments expending much time and energy in seeking to contain the potential subversive effects of the digital communication and Internet age.[iii] [iv] To ban the Internet completely is impractical for dictatorships if they want their oppressed citizenship to be able to compete in the globalized world economy. So for dictatorships the only authoritarian option is to attempt control and stifle political cyber-dialogues the best they can without curtailing economic activity. Or in other words to use their powers of E-Governance in order to constrain the citizen use of Cyber-Activism.

It is anybody’s guess as to whether the Globalized Digital Age of Techno-Politics will be a blessing or a curse, and for whom. Will democracies grow stronger and dictatorships weaker? Or will democracies --- especially in the light of terrorist threats---- grow more oppressive, using the technological tools of the political digital age to monitor citizen activity with greater precision than ever before possible.[v] Or maybe the Techno-Political Digital Age will just be a big sum zero impact with the global political and economic status quo unfazed. (In the next chapter of this paper we will explore these questions within the sphere of American politics.)

An excellent overview of the academic side of Techno-Politics is posted on the homepage of UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner in an essay entitled Intellectuals, the New Public Spheres, and Techno-Politics. [vi]


[i] ASSOCIATED PRESS. One effect of 9/11: Less privacy : New surveillance laws passed worldwide, report says. September 3, 2002. Accessed date of publication via www.msnbc.com @ http://www.msnbc.com/news/802878.asp?0na=x227T3J0-

[ii] ALA News Release. American Library Association applauds federal court ruling on the Children's Internet Protection Act. The American Library Association (ALA) http://www.ala.org/ . : May 31, 2002 The deep-links are active as of August 25, 2002.

“The American Library Association (ALA) applauds the decision of the federal

court in Philadelphia today, which ruled unanimously that the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is unconstitutional. The opinion was written by Chief Judge Edward R. Becker of the Third Circuit and joined by U.S. District Judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III.”

[iii] Ruwitch, John. China Appears to Block Web Search Engine Google. Reuters

Sep 2, 2002. Accessed via Yahoo.com news on date of publication @

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=575&e=1&u=/nm/20020902/wr_nm/internet_china_google_dc_1

[iv] Reuters: Vietnam Cracks Down on 'Harmful' Internet Use. August 7, 2002.

Accessed on date of publication via www.yahoo.com news @

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=582&e=4&cid=582&u=/nm/20020807/wr_nm/media_vietnam_internet_dc_1

“Communist-ruled Vietnam has ordered local authorities to inspect Internet usage in its two biggest cities in a crackdown on "harmful information" from cyberspace, officials said on Tuesday. A spokesman at the Directorate General of Posts and Telecommunications (DGPT) told Reuters the scrutiny, which started last week, would be nationwide after initially targeting the capital city Hanoi and commercial hub Ho Chi Minh City.”

[v] McCullagh, Declan. Will Canada's ISPs Become Spies? CNET News.com August 27, 2002, Accessed on date of publication @

http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1023-955595.html?type=pt&part=msnbc&tag=alert&form=feed&subj=cnetnews

[vi] Kellner, Douglas. “Intellectuals, the New Public Spheres, and Techno-Politics”, Available at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/newDK/intell.htm