Let me begin by saying that I am encouraged that Barack Obama won the democratic nomination. But then I would have been encouraged in exactly the same way if Hillary had won.
That a woman and a black man got to run off for the democratic nomination is interesting and encouraging. In my view it does say good things about the social condition of our society. It is a move in a more enlightened direction. But don't get too comfortable with it. It could also set us back severely.
The cynical view is not that a black man won but that patriarchy won: rather than pick a woman, the democratic party preferred any kind of man, even a black man.
If you have been tracking the development of my political theories you will know that I take none of this seriously. Politics is futile. It is simply the drama surrounding inevitable social outcomes. Politicians are instruments of these outcomes but have no real control over them. The public cannot help but get itself drawn into these futile entertainments. It is literally no better than watching a bad TV show like "Jeopardy" and it has about as much impact upon the world.
I deplore this glorification of bureaucrats regardless of color or gender. However, there are several potential and "inevitable" outcomes that are worth considering for those of us that make long term plans and need to navigate societal activity (even if it is just to avoid it entirely). I use "inevitable" here in the sense that whichever of them is "true" there is nothing that can stop them now.
First, it seems to me, is the very likely case that Obama loses. It seems unlikely that the democratic party will risk nominating either a woman or a black man again any time in the foreseeable future, and that will be a sorry state of affairs in which to find ourselves. If Obama does not win, the right and just social cause in the current system for blacks and women is set back decades. It could be another 20 or even 50 years before such an event becomes "politically viable" again.
The second case to consider is the exceedingly unlikely case that Obama wins. So let me address my negativity here. Why do I consider it so unlikely that Obama will win?
Consider that this is the nation that elected George W. Bush in two consecutive terms. That is an important data point. It is a reflection of the state of the nation and is a clear indication of just where it's "head" is at. Simply put, it has its head up its ass. So what has changed so much in convention over the past 4 years that it would elect a black man? The answer is nothing at all.
In fact, despite the ruckus over Iraq, things are not as bad in terms of public perception as we thought they might just be three years ago. Today most people are more concerned with the close to home matters that effect them personally. In other words, they are worried about the economy.
The war in Iraq is bad, but not so bad as to wreck the fortunes of the Republican Party, clearly.
Sure George Bush is the worse Presidential PR exercise since Richard Nixon, and he really IS a crook. On his watch America became a country that threw out the Geneva convention and eliminated international moral standards that took centuries to establish. On his watch he introduced an oppressive regime, falsely imprisoned the innocent, and severely damaged the foundations of American righteousness.
But, apparently, everyone is fine with that. We are so scared of the Islamic Boogie Men that we are actually prepared to accept what had previously appeared in my mind to be inconceivable. America sacrificed the constitution and accepted the leadership of fools. It has only itself to blame.
In this light McCain is an American Sweetheart and I fully expect him to win - and I can say that because I simply do not, under any circumstances, vote. My vote would have no effect what-so-ever on these outcomes and I am not prepared to sanction the farce. The outcome is inevitable, remember.
Worse for Obama, McCain is familiar in a way that Obama never can be. McCain looks like a president, he is what the majority expect as a president, he will not look out of place in the history books that every America child has read.
Jimmy, Ronny, George, Bill, George ... Barack ... nah ... John. It just fits.
Now this is not to say that Obama can't win. In fact, he should win. But not only should he win. He must survive his presidency.
Obama won the nomination in large part because he was able to mobilize the minorities. He could, perhaps, win in November by the same means. The very fact that a black man is running will inevitably bring out the minorities to vote. People that have never voted before will run to the election in droves. Many will see it as a chance to put a nail in the coffin of the white man. So his win may indeed be inevitable, despite my expectations. These expectations are not directed by my experience in California, where Barack will, I have no doubt, be greeted with open arms. They are directed to some degree by my knowledge and experience of the East Coast, South and Midwest of America.
So the question really becomes: is the Right of America sleeping? Are they alert to the danger that the conservative lifestyle faces? If it is sleeping and it is not alert now then it will awaken in January with a shock. The inevitable backlash that will produce could bring bloodshed on this soil.
No one wants to say it I know, but that blood could be Obama's and he has no doubt considered this. The biggest challenge of an Obama Presidency is going to be keeping the man alive.
There is a lot of criticism of Jerry Yang around but I say Kudos to Jerry for standing up to the bully.
Whether it was in his motivation or not, this outcome is best for Yahoo employees and for Silicon Valley as a whole. I am rather appalled that he is being criticized for declining a quick profit for shareholders yet he was smart enough to recognize there was a price that they could not refuse. That price was $37 and it was a price that Steve Ballmer was unwilling to pay. So it goes ...
Clearly Yahoo! has some challenges ahead, but then so do Microsoft.
As to a deal with Google. I think it just makes eminently good sense for Yahoo! to farm off their operations of search onto Google. They will continue to get the revenue, lower their costs and sharpen their focus.
It makes perfect sense for them to play to their strengths and there is a more valuable prize to be won than Search. I agree with what BJ Fogg said in his Stanford class last week. The social graph is a much more valuable prize than search and Yahoo! have a good stab at that, while Google has little chance at it.
I wish Yahoo, a Sunnyvale company, the best of luck and I firmly believe their CEO did the right thing.
So my first advice this election year is, forget it. Focus upon something that will really make a difference.
If you really can't run with that, and this will be because you've been conditioned to believe it is important that you behave a certain way during election season, then I have this advice for you. Don't even consider voting based on personality. It makes no difference.
That's not to say you should not vote for the candidate you like intuitively, you should do that - but ignore whatever you hear about the candidate, trust your instinct.
Will this help?
No, but you'll feel better about it.
If you really do have to put some effort into considering which candidate to vote for then the right thing to do is to consider which set of conventions surrounding the candidates that you want to have in place in Washington, because it is the conventions that rule. The individuals are just players that act out the drama, they have no real say in the outcomes of events.
Will THIS help?
No, but at least you were aware of what is really important. Why does this not help? The truth is that the difference between conventions embodied by the candidates and their parties is not substantively different and statistics is on the side of fate.
And here is the really bad news. The winning candidate is already the inevitable consequence of our society, how you vote is going to make no difference what-so-ever.
So what should you do?
Well the one guy in the field that is actually making a difference and really could affect outcomes, because he is actually evangelizing and advocating a change of conventions, AND HE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, is Al Gore. So if you really want to make a difference election year then stop glorifying bureaucrats and get behind someone like Al Gore and help them to execute their mission.
Does this mean that you will make a difference in this coming election year?
Well, yes, in bit-part way.
If you really want to make a significant difference in the world next year, if you want to improve our society and make our world a better place, then it is better still that you dissent, that you advocate a position that, like Al Gore's, is deeply rooted in a personal mission. You can make a real difference by simple dissent and advocacy - and it really doesn't matter what your position is, just have one; discover or invent one.
Don't worry, you won't be shouting against a crowd of similar advocates because the number of people that will read this blog and actually go off and do something like this is miniscule, if any at all. But if you want to escape the fantasy of election year drama and actually do something that will improve our society and the lot our our fellow citizens then "dissent."
What do I call this philosophy? Well, it is funny that you should ask because it is called "Democracy." It is a philosophy that advocates the right of dissent and a fair hearing, and it has nothing to do with "the vote" or our current system of government. You may have heard of it.
I don't celebrate Christmas. I haven't celebrated Christmas, despite being raised a Christian, since I left home in my mid-teens. And as I grew up my general attitude toward binge celebration has made me something of an outsider. If one takes the position of an outsider it should not come as a surprise that one is in fact placed on the outside, excluded.
I have not written before about my philosophy on these matters and I do not generally take the time to explain it because, frankly, most people do not want to hear it. But I am moved this week to write about it because on discussing the matter with a close friend he, albeit affectionately, referred to me as "Scrooge."
The implication is, of course, that anyone that does not comply with the social imperatives of Christmas must be mean and hold those things that the season is meant to celebrate as unimportant. Worse, if that person is a parent and denies their children the celebration of Christmas, or some surrogate of it, they are abusers of children or, at least, they deny their children something of the joys of childhood.
Bah! Humbug!
Let's face it, the modern Christmas is still defined by Charles Dickens. The iconic Christmas celebration is the nineteenth century ideal and the cynic views any denial of the Dickensian model as merely excuses for a mean spirit.
Now I confess that my own rejection of Christmas is in some part the response to my own childhood experience of it. It is true that the Christmas I remember from my childhood is fraught with tension, drama and unpleasantness. My parents made Christmas a war zone. Poverty did not allow us to participate in the nineteenth century ideal and its popular conception and expectations led the entire working-class community into which I was born to consumerism, debt and deep feelings of inadequacy. These pressures, frustrations and simple confusions often manifest by the influence of the excessive consumption of cheap alcohol that is, apparently, a necessary part of numbing the English working-class experience.
But you should not believe that my rejection of Christmas celebration is an emotional response to an unhappy childhood. I assure you that is not the case. It is, rather, a rational response.
Nor is it a bitter rejection of the teachings of Jesus. I am sad that my parents felt as they did but today, with the objective distance that time can bring to these matters, I feel that I do understand what they went through and why it was happening. Like most of the working-class, they did not have the education to appreciate their predicament and the peer pressure to accept the Dickensian ideal is and was overwhelming. They certainly did not have the competence to challenge it.
The truth is that despite my natural positivist and existentialist nature I do hold the teachings of Jesus in very high regard. I take these teachings to highlight the importance of compassion, love of friends and family, and the love of our enemies. The latter of these teachings seems to me to be especially important since it is the foundation of forgiveness and tolerance.
I thought this all out in my mid-teens. For me this was a time of deep reflection during which I began considering my life as a priest. It was my dearest wish until my mid-twenties to find some way into ordained priesthood. Ultimately it was a tradentine Catholic priest, Father Morgan, who helped me realize that, in fact, one did not need to become ordained or dress in a priestly garb to have the sensibilities and life of a priest. "Holy men will be born, not shorn from some theological college." I wrote later.
It was in this context that my views toward Christmas celebration came about. I did not reject the binge mass celebration of the Christian ethics because I rejected the teaching of Jesus, rather I rejected that celebration because I embraced those teaching with a new depth and feeling.
I am not going to repeat the cliche recognition that this time of year historically fails to manifest these teachings in the actions of our fellows. I will let your own experience of it speak to that. I will, however, share with you my own recognition.
Firstly, in my own quest, I recognized the value and strength of individuality and independent spirit, of thinking independently, of rejecting what "society" does by convention for the simple sake of it. It seems to me to be laziness to follow and that it is better to live and be free, better to encourage dissent than to encourage others to blindly follow what others do because it is expected.
But in addition to this, if what you celebrate at this time of year has a sensibility deeper than simple indulgence. If what you seek to demonstrate is your personal recognition of your love and compassion for others in fellowship. If you recognize and advocate the value of the extreme forgiveness that comes from loving your enemies, as Jesus taught, then this is not something to celebrate.
If these things are important to you. If, like me, you have a strong and committed autoaesthetic or spirituality, whatever you like to call it, then surely these are things to celebrate in every single day and surely the sincerest form of excess celebrating these things is that which arises spontaneously and from necessity.
Did I mention that the information I have on 25 million members of the UK public includes their banking information? Buy this data today and I'll throw in the additional details of 3 million members of the UK public that have just passed their driving test. The perfect UK demographic for consumer marketing.
How much are you prepared to pay?
This information is guaranteed by the UK government and comes with a free Englishman's castle (which we are apparently simply giving away).
I have two CD's that contain the personal details of 25 Million UK child benefit claimants.
The details include the personal information of 7.25 million claimants, 15.5 million children, including some who no longer qualify but whose family is claiming for a younger child, 2.25 million 'alternative payees' such as partners or carers, 3,000 'appointees' who claim the benefit under court instructions, 12,500 agents who claim the benefit on behalf of a third party.
I'm open to offers. How much are you prepared to pay?
If I were the enemy the very last thing that I would want is the USA to disengage in the middle east.
So if I was a strategic and tactical advisor to the enemy leaders right now I'd be telling them to chill a little. By this means they can keep us engaged and resurge after the current antiwar feeling in the United States has subsided.
Yes, I do buy that there is a war going on. And, yes, as much as I hate it I am squarely on one side and they are on the other. Radical Islam is the clear and current enemy of the free world, and it is second only to the current US administration and similar forces at work in the West from the Christian side, followed closely in forth by the naive stupidity of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, et al.
Reasonable men of science are stuck squarely in the middle.
So I've been thinking about this a little. Do you think it could be this simple? That the reason we do not have a civil and youth based outcry against the war in Iraq is simply because it is manned by volunteers and there is no draft? I think so. How sad is that?
Forty years ago next year the youth of the day took to the streets in a nation wide student strike and peaceful demonstrations that expressed that generation's deep feelings about what was going on. They were expressing outrage at the warmongering, the oppressive and deceitful behavior of government, and the social injustice of the time.
Why is there no anti-war youth movement to speak of today? Why is the youth of today putting up with the warmongering, the lies and the social injustice of our time? Why do they appear to be so accepting, so useless, so helpless? Have we brain-washed the sensibility out of them? Did we make them so self-interested and so afraid of losing position that they fear to speak out, to rock the boat? Why are they so afraid to act?
I was too young to participate in 1968, though the events of that year left an indelible mark on my psyche. I knew which side I was on. If I were a student today I hope and pray that I would be speaking out, that I would have something to say about what is going on right now, and that I would have the courage to take action against it. The state of the times is an issue for youth, my generation can only offer support and encouragement. It is for you to act.
The fortieth anniversary of the 1968 civil unrest is a reminder. Remember. If you have to be fearful of anything, be afraid of inaction.
"The Monarchy is a vital element of our constitution, and personifies both national and commonwealth unity. As a result of a long process of evolution, during which the Monarch's absolute power has been progressively reduced, The Sovereign acts on the advice of Her Ministers. Britain is governed by Her Majesty's government in the name of The Queen.
The Government fully supports the Monarchy and the continuation of the Crown."
This response is both deeply disturbing and deeply disappointing - especially from a labour government that professes to be a socialist democratic party. I am not a supporter of socialism.
It should be clear to all that Monarchy is intrinsically racism and its continuance is an afront to all who cherish liberty and any notion of democracy.
Apple begin their promotion of Leopard and I am excited - it promises many good things. I am looking forward to everything except one feature - Time Machine.
Now if memory serves, Time Machine is an implementation of what Dave Gelernter first imagined in Life Streams and Mirror Worlds. Early on in that development I recognized a pragmatic disadvantage to this model - and it is a show stopper really.
I worked with Dave Gelernter at Yale, for a while as an external collaborator while I was at INMOS and later as an invited member of his group at Yale. I like Dave a lot and there is much about his work and his thinking that I admire. I don't much like his Right Wing diatribe of recent years, to be honest, but I know him to be a fine man.
I have publicly observed fundamental flaws in Dave's models in the past. So, sorry Dave, I'm not picking on you, honestly. This is directed at Apple.
The truth of the matter is, that the kind of right wing society that Dave promotes and that has sadly landed upon us, no-one can afford to keep a trace of everything they do - not even a little. The litigation risk is simply too high.
Also imagine what a corrupt government would do with Time Machine. For example, imagine a government that rejects the basic tenets of individual liberty. It's not hard, is it? You know who you are.
Lots of people willl turn Time Machine on at first. But just wait a little until the courts start laying sopenas to a few instances of those. My guess, we'll see the first major cases appear within two years. I project that at Apple the feature will, of necessity, either be eliminated entirely as a bad idea or it will be revised to something that looks more like selective version control.
The thing is, in an ideal world it would be a really good idea. But in the world as it is today, it's a good idea that's really really bad.
OK, so think about this for a moment. Your representatives have just approved spending the gross national product of a medium sized first world country to pursue the war in Iraq for the next year - something close to the gross national product of neighboring Iran and nearby Israel.
We've got this all wrong! I say we should follow an alternative approach. At these rates we can simply give everyone there a vacation for the year. So I suggest we simply pay them to take the time off, to recover and relax.
I want Al Gore to be president because we'd simply feel better - it's a quality of life thing. But I want him to continue his other mission too because that can, in fact will, have a more important impact - and a real one (though not necessarily the stated goal).
At least, this is how is appears to me. It may be the case that the end of the species is simply inevitable and all we can hope for is the best management of our perception of that end. Alternatively, it may be the case that conscious modification of convention can change such outcomes.
To illustrate, apparently the following video was not shown during the Gore Campaign in 2000. Shame.
My friend Pierre wrote to me recently telling me of the "right to housing" by decree likely to see the light of day in France very shortly. It is a fascinating proposal placing the right to housing along side the right to health care and education.
It is such a good idea that it gives me pause to consider. My preference is clearly against government decree and the distribution of resources is, in my view, the responsibility of individuals, not states. But this has to necessarily go along with a change in property notions and ethical imperatives. And that will take time, it doesn't help now - and there are a lot of people that need help now.
In France, perhaps more than anywhere else, such decrees in fact turn out to be the product of popular ethical imperatives. Yet the problems of large central governments and central planning are well known to be the road to serfdom. Are the French there yet? The gating factor in France is the willingness of the people to both speak out and take action, and their rather healthy and laid back approach to government and bureaucracy.
I approve of the "right to housing" but I would rather see it come to be as the product of a generally accepted revision of our property notions where the responsibility for its execution lay not in the hands of government but in the hands of you and me.
The homeless really should be allowed to sue the rich.
There are many ways to kill a man, but one does wonder what strategic thinking lies behind using a highly traceable substance to do so. I mean it sounds all high tech an' all, but seriously, why would you want to use a substance that leads right back to your door to poison your enemy? Think about, I'll be asking questions later.
The death of Alexander Litvinenko, the former Russian spy that died on November 23 after falling ill more than three weeks earlier, is attributed to high doses of polonium-210. A radioactive trail leads investigators to identify the path of the assassin, which apparently leads all the way back to Moscow, and - by implication - Valdimir Putin. In remarks before his death, Putin is Litvinenko's pick for the villain here.
Now, I'm no supporter of tyrants and Russia is - how shall we say? - "politically confused." But we are left with only one of a few possibilities when we apply good reason - and it points away from Putin.
We can't ignore sheer stupidity, but it seems unlikely. Assuming sheer stupidity can be dismissed, we must assume that the use of a radioactive substance, and the resulting trail, are entirely intentional. Whoever killed Litvinenko knew that the element would be identified, because radiation poisoning has distinctive symptoms, and they knew that the element would leave behind traces.
So why? It really can only be one of two possibilities - and they are so obvious that the planner's of the assassination just had to know this ambiguity existed. One, it's a set up. Someone wanted a high-profile way to point the finger at Putin - and one can only begin to imagine the political nuances that lead to that plan. Or two, it's a statement. Putin wanted to send a clear statement to Russians living abroad that might be causing trouble for the nice guy at the top.
So which is it? I can only say for sure who it does not seem to be. It does not seem to be the Russian ex-pat community. The plan relies on their outrage and the clear threat against them simply eliminates them from the picture. So it either is Putin, or someone in Russia that wants to bring Putin down. Given that Putin seems to also be at clear risk here, the probability is the latter.
If whoever it is is capable of getting access to Polonium-210, then they are either a pretty sophisticated bunch or they really are stupid. Watch out in the coming days for either more political instability in Russia or a return of the cold wall of silence.
My mother, that's her with me in a picture taken last year, wrote to me this morning rightly asking what my interest was in Education Reform in the UK. She is confused perhaps because she knows my love of and commitment to the USA.
She is prompted to ask because I recently created a petition to the British Prime Minister asking for Education Reform of Curriculums in Public Schools (SEE THIS LINK AND, IF BRITISH, PLEASE SIGN). I am still a UK citizen, and this may well be my last act as one since I will apply for US citizenship in the coming year.
Here is how I explained it:
"First, I am at an age where I feel some responsibility to my origins. I am in general interested in working-class issues and have developed a number of proposals that, I think, will help. I advocate these proposals when the opportunity arises and they apply globally. I do what I can to help kids like my brothers and me here or in the UK, from a social and political point of view. I do so by developing new ideas for the problems they face, by someone that has faced a few of them. I am also at an age that people actually listen to my crazy ideas :-)
Second, I have a professional interest in all systems like the petition system Downing Street is developing. I study not only the technologies but how people use such systems (that's my field, "semeiotics") and I have found that the best way to understand the system, both from a technology point of view and from a "human" point of view is to do something with it. So I try everything, anyway.
I also applaud the effort being made here. The petition system actually supports true democracy - which makes a change. True democracy, remember, is not "the vote." It is the right of dissent and a fair hearing for individuals. It will be interesting to see if this is truly aided by this effort.
This particular proposal has merit. The Public Education systems design their curriculum's so that good working-class people will be good working-class people, they sell them short. I find that offensive, since it amounts to education directed by the state. My proposal is that everyone deserves the opportunity to develop freely - and especially in the working-classes, to be given the capacity to fully appreciate their circumstances, and the skills necessary to direct their own destiny.
If anything could change the class system in the UK, this one proposal could."
I am a critic of the current political process on the basis that it implements neither democracy nor liberty but I am cautiously optimistic and welcome the results of this election.
I had no doubt that Arnold would keep his place - people in California voted for the person, not the party - and celebrity counts. We are simply more comfortable with the familiar, and Arnold is familiar. I doubt anyone really cares about his politics - that is just fine while there is the right of dissent and a just hearing (I keep reminding you that this is the true meaning of democracy).
Perhaps now we can weather the storm that this incompetent president has brought upon us - though one cannot understate the negative impact his handling of the presidency has had upon the world. I watch with interest and a healthy cynicism.
So I find that I have more to say about North Korea, thousands of miles and an ocean away, than I do about Oaxaca which is just a little south of here in Mexico. To some extent the business in Mexico comes as a surprise because mostly the situation down there has been ignored by the media - which has its attention elsewhere.
This much seems clear, a revolution is under way. The newly elected government is clearly not justly elected in the heart and minds of the people - and that is what counts more than the fact or endorsements by observers. As always, the vacuum of revolution is sucking in causes and it is to be lamented that the old tired cause of socialism is the only one present to take advantage of the tension. Let's be grateful that it is not the Islamic cause or some other irrational religious cause, like fundamental Christians ... wait for it ...
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?
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.
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.
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."
I rather startled a lady in a book store at San Jose's Valley Fair Mall in 1999 by walking up to a life size cutout of President Bill Clinton, saluting and proclaiming "Thank you Mr. President, what's good enough for you is good enough for me!" It was a humorous observation aimed at the ridiculous obsession that propagandists had at the time with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
In fact, subliminally, that propaganda could be the real reason that I began smoking the occasional premium cigar a few years later. I'll have to think about that.
Anyhow, as you know, I hate politics but I liked Bill Clinton - and that visceral intuition is important - and it seemed to me that he did a lot of good things for this country. He moved toward more open government, he reduced government. It's shocking how quickly that good work was undone.
OK, I was really pissed with Janet Reno over the David Koresh and Branch Davidian thing - unforgivable behavior on the part of the government regardless of how nasty we all thought Koresh was - but Clinton never really attracted my wrath. And the Lewinsky thing was a disgrace - but it wasn't Clinton's.
It has been a few days now since I watched the Fox News interview with former President Bill Clinton and while I generally agree that he has cause to fight back against the Bush propaganda and the current Administration's treasonous behavior, something has been troubling me.
And just so that we are clear on our allegiances here, I fully believe that the preemptive removal of the Bush administration is entirely appropriate ... necessary even ... so, come on, arrest me.
There is, however, just something very distasteful about any President, in office or out, saying "We tried to kill him and I'm sorry we didn't."
Bill let me down. What happened to us? When did we descended into this terrorist mentality - so that even the pacifist that I am is willing to advocate the overthrow of a government?
Whatever happened to the notion of bringing a man to justice, the right of dissent, and a just hearing?
That, BTW George and Bill, is the true definition of democracy - the right of dissent and a just hearing. Even Osama Bin Laden has that right.
Must we all watch our words for fear of violent oppression? Should we accept threats to any life because of views expressed, no matter how offensive? Should we accept a call for the death of a person because they have caused offense?
The Pope argued, rightly enough it seems to me, that the a call to Jihad (holy war) is against the nature of God. Whatever you conceive God to be, a call to provoke such violence is against humanity.
The call by Islamics for the death of the Pope - or any other - is simply not OK, no matter what he said. But that he spoke against violence and for dialogue between religions makes it appear that the muslim clerics deliberately misinterpreted, using his words as a pretense for conflict.
You may not remember this, but five years ago today people around the world were proud to show their solidarity with us by using the phrase "Today, I am an American." It was a very moving experience to both witness and receive.
Well, we need to ask ourselves quite seriously how it is that in the interceding years we managed to loose not only the sympathy but the respect that was shown to the USA then.
Here's what happened: George W. Bush betrayed the nation and the people.
Is the ABC miniseries scheduled to show this weekend Bush Administration propaganda? It sure sounds like it. It sounds like a blatant attempt to place the blame for the current mess on the previous administration.
Just a brief note to express my dismay at the revelation today from George Bush that the rumors are true. The government of this nation has keep secret prisons and denied individuals the right of due process.
When this government acts, it acts by the consent of the people. It is and it must be bound by the laws of this land wherever it may act in the world. To claim any exception is a betrayal of public trust. We have been so betrayed.
The use of religious language by the president is also to be condemned as contrary to constitutional objectives, inciting prejudice and exploiting ignorance.
Two years ago today, September 10 2001, I stepped from a 'plane at San Francisco airport after a week long conference in Indianapolis. We had just launched the technology we had spent the previous three years working on. I was tired but excited, the economy was in a frump but I had faith that we could pull out of it, there were signs of an up, not many, but they were there. I collapsed in my apartment, in Sunnyvale, uncertain but happy that we were finally getting the word out there.
I awoke early in the morning, as was my habit I turned on the TV - I liked to watch CNNFN before I left for the office. I wasn't in a hurry.
To my surprise the first channel I tuned to was off air "Due to the incident in New York." I had no idea. I tuned to CNN. It was early still on the east coast, someone told a crazy story about an aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center. Terrible! No one could guess what the next 30 minutes would unfold. In terrifying disbelief I sat and witnessed the unthinkable. Another aircraft, as I watched, amazingly drove into the side of the building as the camera, and I, looked on. I felt helpless.
I know that those moments cannot have had the terror of being there physically, but I was there. I stood by, helpless, as another 'plane flew into the towers. I shook as I realized that this was no accident but some vile attack. I cried as those people jumped from the windows, no option but down, and certain death. No horror is greater than what happened next.
We had stayed at the towers just weeks before, in the Marriott there. A conference, economic uncertainty and optimism. Priscilla had gone shopping in the mall below those magnificent giants.
My son said, "Man, can you imagine what that would have looked like at night." His Hollywood production values shielded us for a moment in our innocence as we sought to protect our psyche from the horror of it. Despite the horror, the perpetrators hadn't thought all of the production values through. Somehow, for a moment, it seemed just a little less horrifying.
In the weeks that followed, I and many business men stood in defiance, we would not let those bastards change our plans, ruin our dreams. But despite the obvious nobility of it, we were wrong to continue. Two years later I feel the horror of it even more now than I did then, my business in a state as far from New York as you can get - along with the rest of California's Silicon Valley suffered what may be terminal damage. No more hitech toys. There are only a few more to layoff. Skilled engineers once earning three figures an hour are unemployed and have been for more than a year - the work now goes to China or India where local companies pay just one figure an hour for the same skills. Some of our guys are competing to work in Starbucks. We lost the momentum. We lost the initiative. We are no longer stars.
We fell. We fell to earth with a bump and we are sat squarely on our asses, bruised and bleeding equity. No one wants an innovator unless he or she can trace Bin Laden ... a cause that any of us here would serve ... despite our idealism and passivism, even though we know a new world war is upon us and we only have to awaken to see it.
It takes time to heal but the worse may be yet to come. Despite the media and government promise the empty buildings that have increased in number over the past two years at an astonishing rate speak all that needs to be said. This isn't the ordinary ebb and flow that we have known these past few decades, this is different.
So ... what are we to do? Eighteen months ago my mantra was "Optimise for recovery" but I think most of us are beyond that now.
I have always been an idealist and confirmed passivist but I am also a student of history.
If a new world order is already upon us and a world war is here then there is nothing we can do or should do except accept that fact, start taking sides and get on with it ... fight for the preservation of freedom and the pursuit of happiness just as those before us have ... route the enemy and win.
This is not a war the governments or states can fight to win - this is not about the state - and we cannot make it a war about preserving them. This is a new war against individual freedom, a war that demands that each of us, wherever we are in the world, each free individual must fight the war, in whatever way we are presented it, to preserve freedom, to preserve life, to restore the pursuit of happiness.
Recent Comments