In Plain Sight

Nuclear War

Is it any surprise that North Korea considers the UN sanctions against it an act of war? It shouldn't be.

North Korea has learned from the example of other nations and has itself a fine nuclear weapon. 'sup with that?

Right now it anticipates the respect of nations not their castigation. After all, the best and the brightest nations have such weapons and protests against that fact by their populations have been ignored by those governments for years.

Right now, North Korea is rightly proud of itself. It is a big deal that they have developed the competence to defend their nation in a hostile world. Why would anyone object to that?

Of course, we argue, it is not as simple as that. We fear the Reds. That used to be because we feared that their ideology would corrupt the minds of our children, but we no longer have that fear. The communist cause has manifestly not served the people well. We fear them because they are the last of a dying breed of social revolutionaries, a lost cause. When lost causes are backed into a corner there remains only one thing left - martyrdom.

They will die for their cause if we sanction them too hard. We will leave them no alternative.

Right now North Korea feels it is the picked on kid in the playground of international politics. Right now they feel the need to command some respect. Right now they know that Japan has the example of the USA to follow. Right now they know that the old policeman of international politics, the USA, has zero credibility and has lost any leadership role on the international stage.

The USA is standing on the street corner in its worn out coat of integrity. It has its hands in its pockets. It's playing with itself and scratching its behind. We have a democracy to cheat by manipulating the reputations of our opponents - at least. We have a people of our own to oppress by manipulating their fears and anxieties to ensure that the strengthening tyranny of massive government under the hammer of terror continues. Thank you George. We are such a fine example of abuse of power.

Right now, if you were in the shoes of North Korea, what would you think? What would you do? Hit low, hit hard?

When All Revolutionaries Are Terrorists

As I was growing up the term most widely used to describe what we today call "Terrorists" was the term "Revolutionary." The term "Terrorist" has slowly crept into the Western vocabulary as a convenient way to characterize all acts by revolutionaries. Today there is no difference drawn in the media between violent acts against government and violent acts against the people. The attack on the USS Cole is characterized as another terrorist act, like that of 9/11 - and there must surely be a difference.

This is because the notion of revolution had become acceptable and this challenges conservative centralized government. In many circles, especially those here in Silicon Valley, revolution is today viewed as necessary to the continued evolution of good societies. It had become recognized that revolution has clear benefits. The term became associated with situations that were judged on their merits. Some revolutions were good, some were bad - some executed well, others poorly.

But no such margin exists when the term "Terrorist" is used to label all revolutionary acts - because, clearly, terrorism is bad and it cannot be rewarded. By blanketing all revolutionary acts with the term we deny dissent any justice. This reflects the "by all means necessary" attitude toward opposition of modern politics. But by removing the ambiguity and the possibility of just resolution we leave open the only path possible for the disenfranchised - escalation.

Weapons of Mass Destruction That Bush Let In

So fixed was he on taking the family feud forward and finishing the job for daddy in Iraq, that George W. Bush neglected to pay proper attention to the situation in North Korea. Now they have nuclear weapons and are predisposed to sell them to the world - they being a rich source of income that they desperately need with potential disruptive benefits that a nation under siege simply cannot ignore.

The inevitable consequence of nuclear weapons in the world was always that "rouge states" or revolutionaries would lay their hands upon them, and the inevitable consequence of that is that they will be used. The good news is, of course, that one nuke can take out a city but we no longer live under the insanity of "mutually assured destruction."

The Cold War was a war of terror. In 1980 my eight year old step-son hid desperately, in tears, from the fear of nuclear destruction and it reminded me of the fear and sense of helplessness that I had faced my whole life in the face of the constant threat. When the Berlin Wall came down I felt a sense of relief. Even when it became clear that the flush of immigrants from the East threatened to destabilize the West, it seemed a small price to pay to have the weapons pointed elsewhere.

Governments use such fear to manipulate and control the will of the people. Just as now the War on Terror steers us like cattle to yield our liberties for the fantasy of security.

We are collectively at less risk with Nukes in the hands of terrorists than we were during the Cold War. The brinkmanship of mutually assured destruction played by large centralized governments threatened everything and everyone. The tyranny of fear prevented us from acting naturally. Now we stand to loose only New York, London or Paris and, sadly, that may be necessary to bring the people, collectively, to their senses.

Apple Assists My Quality of Life

My quality of life is vastly improved by the latest round of Mac adverts. They had me laughing out loud - the funniest stuff I've seen in awhile - OK, that's geeky, I know.

Apple "Get a Mac" adverts.

HP Scandal: Patricia Dunn and Common Sense

So Patricia Dunn, the now retired HP Chairman, says that she did not know that it was illegal to pretend to be someone, and use confidential information like social security numbers, so that you can solicit their phone records. The fault, she says, is the lying and cheating HP employees that assured her it was OK to do that.

Now, you see the problem with this I hope. Firstly, where on earth was her own sense of right and wrong. Secondly, whatever happened to "The buck stops here"? Not only does she have no common sense or sense of decency, she has zero leadership skills and blames her employees.

How did this woman ever get to be Chairman of the great Hewlett Packard?

I know Dawn Kawamoto, by the way, the CNET reporter targeted by Dunn - and in the past I have seen executives complain about her reporting. She's good. She's smart, tenacious and direct - and that is what great reporters are supposed to be like. Hiding from them, tracking them down to discover their sources, is not only unethical, it is astoundingly unethical and, dare I say it, "UnAmerican."