Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Arrogance and Warming

Friday, December 21st, 2007

This is so over-the-top it leaves one speechless. The Bush administration refuses to get on-board and provide any meaningful leadership on the global climate crisis and now they are actively blocking folks who want to take action. History will not judge them well.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

Rome burns while Nero fiddles

The Bush administration’s decision to deny California permission to regulate and reduce global warming emissions from cars and trucks is an indefensible act of executive arrogance that can only be explained as the product of ideological blindness and as a political payoff to the automobile industry.

The decision, announced Wednesday by Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, overrode the advice of his legal and technical staffs, misconstrued the law and defied both Congress and the federal courts. It also stuck a thumb in the eyes of 17 other state governors who have grown impatient with the federal government’s failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and wanted to move aggressively on their own.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 gave California authority to set its own clean air standards if it first received a federal waiver. The law also said that other states could then adopt California’s standards. In 2004, California asked permission to move ahead with a law requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and light trucks by 30 percent by 2016. That would require improvements in fuel economy far beyond those called for in the energy bill signed this week.

Over the years, California has made 50 waiver requests to regulate smog-forming pollutants and other gases and has never been denied. This was the first request involving emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to regulate.

For three years, the E.P.A. also hid behind the argument that it had no authority over carbon dioxide emissions because carbon dioxide was not specifically identified as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court demolished that argument last April. Subsequent court decisions have upheld the states’ authority to set their own standards while refuting the auto industry’s assertions that meeting the California standards would be technologically and economically impossible.

More: ➡

– Research thanks to HD

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Climate Change, CrashBlogging, Politics - The Wrong Way, The Perfect Storm | 1 Comment »

Egalitarianism vs. Big Money

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

One of my frequent themes concerns the corrupting influence of big money.

We advertise many of our western societies as ‘Governments of and for their people‘. And we like slogans like, ‘One man – one vote‘. But, in truth, in our supposedly egalitarian societies, some folks are more ‘equal’ than others in getting to decide how our governments govern us. And this representational imbalance is very often the result of big money.

In the U.S., those who watch Washington, D.C., know well just how pervasive the lobbying industry is there. Wealthy individuals and powerful corporations spend lavishly to insure that laws are passed or amended to best suit their preferences and needs. This has been going on for so long and has gotten so endemic, that Americans take it all for granted.

Some Americans, and I am one, see representative democracy in the U.S. as partly, and maybe even largely, a sham. Many of the real decisions are predestined by the lobbyists and power brokers behind the scenes. Corporate America often has more say about America’s directions than the American electorate.

But, it hasn’t always been that way in the U.S. and it certainly isn’t as pervasive in many other western nations. But the general tendency for democracies to move in this direction is always there where ever the predominate ethic is Capitalism. Because where ever people gain and possess great wealth, they will inevitably try to use their wealth to alter the political landscape to make their lives easier and their fortunes bigger.

Here in New Zealand, with just over four million people, a battle is currently being fought over this issue. Led by the New Zealand Green Party, people are trying to close campaign finance loop-holes with the Electoral Finance Bill and make sure that New Zealand election results fairly represent the will of all the people and are not just reflections of the will of the wealthy few.

Predictably, those who benefit from the continued existence of these loop-holes are attacking the Electoral Finance Bill and attempting to convince folks that the bill is a attack on free speech. And those who oppose the bill are well financed and can afford to run large campaigns devoted to defeating it while those who support it struggle to find the funds to defend electoral egalitarianism.

Green Party Ad in New Zealand

The above is an ad placed in New Zealand national newspapers by the Green Party. Unfortunately, as the ad discloses, they were only able to run the ad once because they don’t have backers with deep pockets who see the Green’s policies as being in their best interests.

When those with large amounts of money use it to defend functional corruption, the only thing that can defeat them is an alert and concerned electorate.

I have hopes for this process in New Zealand. It’s a small country and people feel a closer connection to their decision makers and they have a greater sense, I believe, that New Zealand is their country and they can influence her behaviors. The idea that the government exists to serve the needs of its people is strong here. Perhaps this lingers from the years before the 80’s when New Zealand had a much more Socialist bent.

Today, I received an E-mail from the New Zealand Green Party about the new Electoral Finance Bill and where they stand on it and why. Things are so far gone in the U.S. that, frankly, I cannot imagine ever receiving something like this there.

I’ve copied the E-mail, below. I hope you’ll read through it and reflect on how much sense it makes – and how large are the forces of greed and corruption arrayed against this sort of thing – world-wide.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Protecting free speech and fairer elections

From Green MP Metiria Turei and Green Co-leader Russel Norman

Please forward this email to as many people as you can to get the truth out there.

www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/electoralreform/

Many of you will have seen media reports and even paid advertising about the Electoral Finance Bill. Given the controversy around this Bill, we thought it was important that we wrote to you directly to explain the Green position.

The Electoral Finance Bill deals with one of the most important issues in our democracy – controls on the financing of election campaigns to protect the integrity of the ballot from the inequality of the wallet.

The Greens have had many concerns about this Bill but we have chosen to work constructively with all parties. Our aim has been to improve the laws around campaign finance so that we have a fairer election system, ensure a more level playing field, and limit the corrupting influence of large secret donations on political parties.

The opponents of campaign finance reform

However, much of the publicity that has surrounded this Bill has been one-sided and, in fact, some has even been funded by wealthy donors who want the law to stay the same. They are trying to frighten New Zealanders by saying the Bill impacts on freedom of speech – this is not true.

Some media organisations have also been running an active and misleading campaign against the Bill. Journalists have contacted us to tell us that they oppose the misleading editorial line of their papers, but it is very difficult for them to get their views across.

So what does the Bill do (and what doesn’t it do)?

· The Bill does not restrict freedom of speech – it just caps election campaign spending.
· Any person or group can purchase as much issue advertising as they want at any time.
· The Bill only places limits on how much election advertising political parties and others can purchase in an election year. That limit is $2.4m for political parties and $120,000 for any other group or individual.
· Any group or individual who purchases more than $12,000 in election ads must register with the Electoral Commission so there is transparency about who is involved in the election campaign.

The spending caps exist to stop parties spending millions on campaigning and then needing to raise those millions in donations. Once parties rely on millions in donations they become heavily influenced by those who provide the money. The caps on political parties only work if there are caps on spending by other groups, otherwise the money goes into parallel campaigns.

The Royal Commission supported spending caps

The 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System wrote: “It is illogical to limit spending by parties if other interests are not also controlled. Supporters or opponents of a party or candidate should not be able to promote their views without restriction merely by forming campaign organisations ‘unaffiliated’ to any party…Nor should powerful or wealthy interest groups be able to spend without restriction during an election campaign while [the parties] are restricted.”

Closing the loopholes

Those who are most strongly opposed to the Bill took advantage of two major loopholes in our electoral financing regime in 2005.

The first loophole enabled an organisation to work with a political party to run an almost identical campaign – known as parallel campaigning. This meant that the spending of the organisation was not capped even though it was a planned party election campaign.

The second loophole allowed for millions of dollars to be given to political parties without the public knowing who gave that money. Both the USA and Australian electoral systems have suffered from the corruption that arises from the secret funding of political parties.

The Greens are proud to assist in the closing of those two loopholes. This work will protect our electoral system from the threats of corruption that other similar democracies face.

It’s far from perfect

However, we still have some outstanding issues with the Bill and with the process for these electoral law reforms. We are still pursing the option of a citizens’ assembly which would allow for a number of randomly selected citizens to consider the issues of electoral finance and to find the best system for New Zealand. This system has been used successfully in Canada and we believe that the people of New Zealand should be able to make these decisions.

We have not achieved the ban on anonymous donations over $1000 that is our policy. However we have severely restricted the anonymous donations that can be received by both a third party and a political party. This is a major change in the law and goes someway towards a system that is open about who is funding political campaigns.

Changes the Greens achieved in the Bill

In summary, the Greens have made the following amendments:

Amendments to protect freedom of speech

1. Alter the definition of election advertising to protect issues advertising. This means that individuals and groups will be free to campaign on the issues that are important to them, regardless of whether one or more parties is also campaigning on the same issue. The Greens come from a campaigning background and we were determined to protect the right of groups to continue to campaign. For example, Greenpeace can continue to campaign against whaling, even though it is a campaign the Green Party has a profile on.

2. Remove the requirement for a statutory declaration for spending less than the threshold. This means that people or groups don’t have to sign a statutory declaration every time they spend money under the threshold for listing as a third party. It was an unnecessary burden that performed no useful function.

3. Lift the cap on election spending by non-party groups from $60,000 to $120,000. Many groups and individuals engage in election advertising during campaign year. This advertising encourages voters to support parties that adopt certain policy positions. The Bill as introduced limited this spending to $60,000. The Greens have supported amendments that increase this limit to $120,000, 5% of the $2.4m party limit and twice that originally proposed.

4. Lift the spending limit at which a group must list as a third party from $5000 to $12,000. This was important because many groups and people engage in election advertising through pamphlets, newsletters or community newspaper adverts. These ordinary election activities should not require a person or group to have to list as a third party where the spending is under $12,000.

5. Enable under 18 year olds and permanent residents to be able to list as a third party. We fought for the inclusion of this because it is a breach of the rights of a citizen to be prevented from engaging in election advertising activities simply because they are not old enough to vote. This change also means that groups will not be excluded from listing as a third party simply because one member is under 18 years old.

6. Protect donations to groups that are not for election purposes. This means that groups that register as third party participants in the election will not have to declare any donations that are not specifically for election purposes.
Groups are entitled to raise and collect money for their regular activities without interference. Only donations given specifically for electioneering will need to be disclosed.

Amendment to restrict anonymous donations

7. Severely restrict anonymous donations to political and third parties. The Greens insisted on an anonymous donations regime that will restrict Labour and National’s ability to raise money through anonymous donations. Our policy is that all donations over $1000 should be identified as to the true source – they shouldn’t be listed as anonymous nor should they be hidden behind secret trusts.

In negotiations over this bill we have made progress towards achieving our policy by introducing a system that will limit political parties to a total anonymous donations income, for donations over $1000, of 10% of their spending cap over the three year electoral cycle – this would cut Labour’s anonymous donations income by at least half and National’s secret trust income by about 90%. Labour and National don’t like it but we make no apologies for this.

In addition the money must be passed via the Electoral Commission to distance the parties from the process and donors must identify themselves to the Electoral Commission and give an assurance that they are not telling the parties about the donation on the sly. There is a limit of $36,000 on how much any one donor can give to a political party via this mechanism.

If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask us by emailing Metiria.Turei@parliament.govt.nz or Russel.Norman@greens.org.nz.

We hope that you have an enjoyable break over the holidays with time to spend with your family and friends. And we also hope you get to spend some time enjoying the natural environment that makes New Zealand such an incredible place to live.

Best wishes

Metiria and Russel

Metiria is the Green MP responsible for the Bill in the House; Russel is Spokesperson on Electoral Matters.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, New Zealand, Politics | No Comments »

Life and Death in Capitalist China

Sunday, December 9th, 2007

The Salt Lake City Tribune published a six part series recently about what the embrace of unencumbered Capitalism in China has meant for the workers there. This should be a wake up call for all of those who think that if Capitalism is unleashed, all our problems will be solved.

Their core idea that Libertarian Capitalism will solve everything because every time a problem arises, an entrepreneur will also arise to provide a solution – is deeply flawed. The only problems that get addressed are the ones that provide someone with a significant profit on the other end of the sequence. And the pell-mell rush to profit by the strong, using the weak as fodder, produces many problems of its own.

No, the political and governmental systems we devise must take the good of their people as their highest goal and limit Capitalism whenever its activities begin to impinge on that good. Capitalism is the engine of creation and advance but as an engine, it must be throttled and controlled so that it benefits all people and not just the rich and powerful.

Read the following to see just how very wrong things can go.

= = = = = = =

Salt Lake Tribune Special Report:
Chinese workers lose their lives producing goods for America

By Loretta Tofani
Special to the Tribune

GUANGZHOU, China — The patients arrive every day in Chinese hospitals with disabling and fatal diseases, acquired while making products for America.

On the sixth floor of the Guangzhou Occupational Disease and Prevention Hospital, Wei Chaihua, 44, sits on his iron-rail bed, tethered to an oxygen tank. He is dying of the lung disease silicosis, a result of making Char-Broil gas stoves sold in Utah and throughout the U.S.

Down the hall, He Yuyun, 36, who for years brushed America’s furniture with paint containing benzene and other solvents, receives treatment for myelodysplastic anemia, a precursor to leukemia.

In another room rests Xiang Zhiqing, 39, her hair falling out and her kidneys beginning to fail from prolonged exposure to cadmium that she placed in batteries sent to the U.S.

“Do people in your country handle cadmium while they make batteries?” Xiang asks. “Do they also die from this?”

‘Big problem for Americans’
With each new report of lead detected on a made-in-China toy, Americans express outrage: These toys could poison children. But Chinese workers making the toys — and countless other products for America — touch and inhale carcinogenic materials every day, all day long: Benzene. Lead. Cadmium. Toluene. Nickel. Mercury.

Many are dying. They have fatal occupational diseases.

Mostly they are young, in their 20s and 30s and 40s. But they are dying, slow difficult deaths, caused by the hazardous substances they use to make products for the world — and for America. Some say these workers are paying the real price for America’s cheap goods from China.

“In terms of responsibility to Chinese society, this is a big problem for Americans,” said Zhou Litai, a lawyer from the city of Chongqing who has represented tens of thousands of dying workers in Chinese courts.

The toxins and hazards exist in virtually every industry, including furniture, shoes, car parts, electronic items, jewelry, clothes, toys and batteries interviews with workers confirm. The interviews were corroborated by legal documents, medical journal articles, medical records, import documents and official Chinese reports.

And although these products are being made for America most Chinese workers lack the health protections that for nearly half a century have protected U.S. workers, such as correct protective masks, booths that limit the spread of sprayed chemicals, proper ventilation systems and enforcement to ensure that their exposure to toxins will be limited to permissible doses measured in micrograms or milligrams.

Chinese workers also routinely lose fingers or arms while making American furniture, appliances and other metal goods. Their machines are too old to function properly or they lack safety guards required in the U.S.

In most cases, U.S. companies do not own these factories . American and multinational companies pay the factories to make products for America. From tiny A to Z Mining Tools in St. George to multinational corporations such as Reebok and IKEA, companies compete in the global marketplace by reducing costs — and that usually means outsourcing manufacturing to China. Last year, the U.S. imported $287.8 billion in goods from China, up from $51.5 billion a decade ago, according to the U.S. Commerce Department. Those imports are expected only to increase.

Never even visit the factories
Worker health and safety are considered basic human rights. But in the global economy, responsibility to workers often gets lost amid vast distances and international boundaries.

“This is a big-picture problem,” said Garrett Brown, an industrial hygienist from California who has inspected Chinese factories that export to America. “Big-picture problems don’t have quick or easy solutions.”

The International Labor Organization (ILO) publishes international standards for workplaces. China agreed to many of those standards and also enacted a 2002 law setting its own rigorous standards. Under Chinese law, workers have the legal right to remain safe from fatal diseases and amputations at work.

But the law has not been enforced, Chinese and international experts agree. Economic growth has been a more important goal to China than worker safety.

Even the World Trade Organization, which maintains some barriers to trade to protect consumers’ health, does not concern itself with issues of workers’ health. As a result, enforcement of health and safety standards has been left to the governments of developing countries and the companies that outsource to those countries.

Often, smaller companies never even visit the factories where their products are made. Larger companies try with only limited success to audit operations, often complaining that their efforts are failing. Records are falsified and unsafe machines are used after audits. Safety guards are removed so workers can produce faster.

“Through auditing tours, we can make good improvements and changes, but those changes are not sustainable,” complained Wang Lin, a manager for IKEA based in Shanghai. “Chinese government law enforcement is greatly needed,” added Wang. “Without that, companies cannot sustain a good compliance program.”

More: ➡

Tags:, , ,
Posted in CrashBlogging, Culture - How not to do it, Politics - The Wrong Way, The Perfect Storm | 1 Comment »

It’s the Oil

Friday, October 26th, 2007

– This piece explains what the US is actually doing in Iraq – as opposed to what it says it is doing and what most people think it is doing.   What Jim Holt says here parallel’s my own thoughts on Iraq and the US quite well.   It is an excellent article and well worth a read.

============================================

By Jim Holt for the London Review of Books

Iraq is ‘unwinnable’, a ‘quagmire’, a ‘fiasco’: so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be ‘stuck’ precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no ‘exit strategy’.

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.

Who will get Iraq’s oil? One of the Bush administration’s ‘benchmarks’ for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years. ‘The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy,’ the analyst Antonia Juhasz wrote in the New York Times in March, after the draft law was leaked. ‘They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.’ As negotiations over the oil law stalled in September, the provincial government in Kurdistan simply signed a separate deal with the Dallas-based Hunt Oil Company, headed by a close political ally of President Bush.

How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’ are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions. (It takes a brave reporter to leave the Green Zone without a military escort.) In February last year, the Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks described one such facility, the Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad. A piece of (well-fortified) American suburbia in the middle of the Iraqi desert, Balad has fast-food joints, a miniature golf course, a football field, a cinema and distinct neighbourhoods – among them, ‘KBR-land’, named after the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the construction work at the base. Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world’s busiest. ‘We are behind only Heathrow right now,’ an air force commander told Ricks.

More… ➡

Posted in CrashBlogging, Politics, The Perfect Storm | 3 Comments »

China postpones pollution report

Monday, July 23rd, 2007

China has indefinitely postponed the release of an environmental report on the costs of economic development.

Several local governments are reported to have objected to the release of “sensitive” information about the pollution they cause.

Government officials from different departments also appear to disagree on how to calculate the figures.

But despite the setback, the man in charge of the scheme says the research should continue.

The project – to calculate how much money pollution costs China each year, the so-called “green gross domestic product” – was launched in 2004.

But the scheme seems never to have progressed smoothly.

Rare insight

Figures for 2004 – which revealed pollution cost China about 511bn yuan ($68bn, £33bn) or 3% of GDP – were not released until late last year.

Although officials have promised on a number of occasions to release the results for 2005, these figures have yet to materialise.

Now Wang Jinnan, the technical head of the project, has told the Beijing News that the release will be “postponed indefinitely”.

“Some local governments are quite sensitive about the research and calculations for their provinces,” he said.

“Separate trial provinces and municipalities have formally issued a request not to publish the calculation results, and have exerted pressure.”

Mr Wang added that despite the difficulties, the research should continue.

There also appears to be a difference of opinion between the State Environmental Protection Administration and the National Bureau of Statistics.

Earlier this month, NBS head Xie Fuzhan seemed to cast doubt on whether a figure for the “green GDP” could even be calculated.

Wang’s comments give a rare insight into the arguments going on within the government about how to achieve sustainable development.

They also show that even admitting how much damage pollution causes in China is a sensitive topic.

Last month, the Financial Times said the Chinese government had successfully removed controversial figures from a forthcoming World Bank report.

It said China had objected to statistics that revealed some 760,000 people died prematurely from air and water pollution each year.

To the original… ➡

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, CrashBlogging, Culture - How not to do it, Politics, Politics - The Wrong Way, The Perfect Storm | No Comments »

Public Floods FCC with Net Neutrality Support

Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

Over 95 Percent of Comments Filed at Agency Demand a Free and Open Internet

WASHINGTON – JULY 17 – Tens of thousands of public comments supporting Net Neutrality flooded the Federal Communications Commission before the close of the agency’s official inquiry yesterday. In a landslide, well over 95 percent of the comments called for rules that prohibit phone and cable companies from discriminating against Web sites or services.

People from different backgrounds, living in every corner of the country, demand this basic Internet freedom. Internet users from all 435 congressional districts used SavetheInternet.com’s online tools to send personal messages to the FCC.

“I am living the American dream because of Network Neutrality — my games have been used in thousands of schools all over the world,” says Karen Chun, a single mother and owner of a successful online educational games business. “Without Net Neutrality, my little Web site would have been consigned to oblivion because I wouldn’t have been able to pay the fees the ISPs want to charge.”

Net Neutrality supporters include a broad range of small business owners, students, churchgoers, bloggers, political candidates, educators and activists who say that protecting Net Neutrality is fundamental to their family life, work and interests.

“In rural America, the Internet is very important in staying informed,” wrote Charles and Carol Swigart of Huntingdon, Pa. “We read several national newspapers every day to get the news our local paper does not thoroughly cover. All persons who publish on the Internet should have an equal opportunity to have their voices heard.”

Kelly Jones of Portland, Ore., told the FCC that “corporations are not, and have never been, qualified as gatekeepers to American communication and growth. If the FCC believes in true democracy, it must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.”

Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — co-sponsors of the bipartisan “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” — sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin urging the FCC to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.

“We see that thousands of people have submitted comments describing how a free and open Internet benefits consumers and telling you the discriminatory practices planned by their Internet service providers would substantially harm their online experience,” Dorgan and Snowe wrote the chairman. “We hope you take note of these thousands of public comments\nurging you to protect Internet freedom.”

In 2005, the FCC removed the rules that had guaranteed Net Neutrality since the Internet’s inception. The heads of the biggest phone and cable companies have repeatedly stated plans to discriminate against Web sites that don’t pay extra fees to get higher quality service and faster speeds.

More than 1.6 million people and 850 groups from across the political spectrum have called for the FCC and Congress to reinstate Net Neutrality.

The Commission opened its Net Neutrality inquiry in March, asking for comment on why a neutral Internet is important; how phone and cable company efforts to discriminate against content online affect everyday lives; and whether the agency should enforce rules that would prohibit such discrimination.

“Once again, the public has sent a clear mandate to Washington: Protect Net Neutrality,” said Timothy Karr\, campaign director of Free Press, the group that coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. "Internet users want competitive and affordable services. They don’t want phone and cable companies to manipulate the free flow of information and distort the Web’s level playing field. Now, the FCC must heed demands from people of every walk of life and enforce full Net Neutrality.”

– To the original at CommonDreams.org: ➡

– I wrote earlier on this subject here: ➡ & ➡

– And Bill Moyers did a wonderful piece here on press freedom and net neutrality: ➡

– Thx to Michael M. for directing me to this piece.

Posted in Capitalism & Corporations, Politics, Politics - The Wrong Way, Technical, The Perfect Storm | No Comments »

Seeing Yellow Protests “Big Brother” Laser Printers

Monday, July 16th, 2007

– I was pretty amazed to read this though, apparently, it’s been around for awhile. Some color laser printers lay down a fine pattern of yellow dots on their printed pages which the Secret Service can use to back track to the specific printer that printed the document. It’s apparently a way to track-back to the folks who would use the printers to make counterfeit money, for example. And, in the most perfect of worlds, where the authorities aways acted only in the public good, that would be fine.

– But this is the country where J. Edgar Hoover bent the government to his will through several presidencies. It is the country where a professional agent’s career in the current administration was ruined because the administration didn’t like the fact that her husband reported the truth about the absence of WMD in Iraq. And it is the country wherein “Scooter” Libby, fully and fairly convicted of crimes connected with the agent’s unmasking – had his sentence commuted by the president. This list could go on for a long long time. But those were just the few things that came to mind this second. But, do I think all the government’s decisions are always and solely for the best good of the American public??? Naw, I don’t. So read this story and see how it makes you feel. Laser printers today, cell phones yesterday, door knobs tomorrow?

— — — — — — —

MIT Media Labs launches SeeingYellow.com to call for protest against printer manufacturers whose laser printers secretly monitor usage

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other privacy advocates have long warned that some color laser printers produce a nearly invisible grid of yellow dots on documents that store the serial number of the printer and the date stamp of the printed page. Now Benjamin Mako Hill and other members of MIT Media Labs’ Computing Culture research group have established seeingyellow.com to spotlight this practice as an incursion on the civil liberties of the users of the laser printers. The yellow-dot “watermark” allows the US Secret Service to enlist the help of the manufacturers in tracking counterfeit currency generated on laser printers. A statement on seeing yellow.com calls this practice a “direct attack on the privacy of the owners and users of printers, and in particular, on their right to free, anonymous speech.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation previously reported on this issue and has posted a DocuColor Tracking Dot Decoding guide that explains how the Xeroc DocuColor model printers produce the yellow dot pattern. It also provides a utility for translating your particular dot pattern to determine what information it stores. The DocuColor pattern is a repeating 15 x 8 grid of yellow dots on the entire page that encodes up to fourteen 7-bit bytes of data, such as model number, serial number, and date of printing. Other manufactures such as Brother, Hewlett Packard and so on also produce similar tracking patterns.

On his blog Mako points out that “The Federalist Papers were one of the most important set of documents in early US political history and they have fundementally shaped the way the US and its governments grew. They were (originally) published anonymously and there’s reason to believe that they would have said what they did or even been published at all if were immediately traceable to their authors.”

Alexander Hamilton co-authored the Federalist Papers, before being blackmailed by James Reynolds for having an affair with his wife, Maria Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds was later arrested for counterfeiting.

To the original: ➡

Posted in CrashBlogging, Politics, Politics - The Wrong Way, The Perfect Storm | No Comments »

Net Neutrality is now Red Hot

Sunday, July 8th, 2007

Net Neutrality is now Red Hot

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.

The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the market sort out the issue.

This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.

———————–

Truth via humor

– Most of the news we get is filtered. A small list of big corporate entities own the majority of America’s major news outlets. We’re talking radio, television and newspapers here. Sadly, much of the American public is unaware that their news comes predigested for them by corporations which have vested interest in spinning the news to benefit themselves.

– And why shouldn’t they? Corporations are, after all, entities created and designed to seek profit for themselves and their stockholders above all else. So, for example, if academic papers began to appear discussing how corporate America is picking and choosing the news they deliver to you to benefit themselves, do you think that this same big media would report the story to us as news so we can be better informed citizens?

– People with lots of money and vested interests are always trying to spin the news to influence you and manipulate your perceptions.

– Look at what the paint industry did all through the 40’s and 50’s trying to convince the American public that the lead in their paints wasn’t harmful to people.

– Look at all the lies the tobacco industry broadcast for decades claiming that cigarette smoke wasn’t harmful to people.

– Look at what Exxon and other oil and coal companies are doing today trying to sow confusion and doubt in the public’s mind as to the causes of global climate change.

– Make no mistake about it. Big corporations have big vested interests and they will do whatever they need to to protect their markets and their profits.

– And the news media is extremely important in all of this because the media is the best tool to leverage to public’s perceptions and beliefs. Everyone who’s got big money on the table has realized how central controlling the news media is.

– Now, flip the situation over and look at how the Internet and all of the alternative news that gets reported there looks to the big corporate interests. Exxon would like to convince us that there is no particular relationship between the amount of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, we generate when using their products and global climate change. Do you think they appreciate the fact that alternative news sources, such as those widely available on the Internet, are diluting their efforts to shape our perceptions and opinions about this important issue? If enough people read these alternative news sources, a political ground swell might well result and laws could get passed that would badly damage Exxon’s bottom line. Wahdayaa think? That they’re happy that Americans have alternative news and are therefore better informed citizens – or are they trying to find ways to lessen the danger to their bottom line that alternative news represents?

– Well folks, that brings us to Net Neutrality and why it’s an issue you should care about very deeply. Advocates of retaining Net Neutrality warn that broadband providers will use their power over the “last mile” to block applications they do not favor, and also to discriminate between content providers (i.e. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors.

– Now, if you go out and read widely about Net Neutrality, you are going to see a lot of opinions – pro and con. It can be a confusing issue within which you can get lost in all the terminology and arguments.

But, cling to this idea:

– Once big corporate interests get the right to begin to differentially charge us according to what the content is, it will only be a matter of time before new sources which those corporate powers don’t like will find themselves being pushed further and further towards the edge of the Internet stage.

– To those who want to control the information you receive for their own benefit, there is no bigger source of uncontrolled information than the Internet. If they can begin to drive wedges into it, they certainly will. And every time they can drive those wedges a bit further, bettering their position and diminishing their opponent’s – they will.

– It is extremely fortunate for all of us that the Internet came along just about the same time in history that corporate consolidations essentially took the ‘freedom’ out of America’s Free Press.

– I know some of you will have strong doubts as to whether this issue and my concerns about it are overblown. To those of you that have such doubts, I offer you this link. Follow it and read it and if you still doubt, then so be it.

– And to those if you that do believe that Net Neutrality is a burning issue, follow

 

➡ this link ➡

to a site which has suggestions as to what you can do, right now, to speak your piece on this before freedom of information on the Internet is cut right from under our feet.

—————

– thx to Kevin at The Cryptogon for alerting me to this story about the FTC’s decision.

Posted in CrashBlogging, Politics, Politics - The Wrong Way, The Perfect Storm | 1 Comment »

— President Bush commutes the jail sentence of I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby

Monday, July 2nd, 2007

America, are you watching?

It’s gotten to the point where there’s no need for these folks to even pretend that they don’t consider themselves above the law.

You might even imagine they are sneering at us – except for the fact that they really and truly don’t care what we think.

Posted in Politics, Politics - The Wrong Way, The Perfect Storm | No Comments »

U.S. Corporations and Terrorism

Monday, June 18th, 2007

Kyle de Beausset, of Immigration Orange, has been Blogging on an issue that has to do with the recent revelation that the Chiquita Brands International company paid 1.7 million dollars to right-wing paramilitaries (a designated global terrorist group) for eight years in Colombia to protect their interests and their personnel. And, there are other American companies who’ve allegedly done the same thing including Drummond (coal giant), Nestle and Coca-Cola.

Kyle’s post on this references a story in the Christian Science Monitor which details Chiquita’s admission of the payments. Kyle has asked other Bloggers to post on this as well because the story has been getting virtually zero traction in the U.S. popular press. In fact, the silence in the main stream media, as they say, has been deafening.

I strongly agree with Kyle on this issue. I think it is wrong for US companies to pay terrorist groups for protection.

Perhaps these companies get ‘protected’ for their money but along the way they are also putting big dollars into the hands of these groups. And that can only strengthen the ability of the groups to implement their agendas – and let’s be clear, these are terrorist agendas.

I hope people will follow these links and familiarize themselves with this seriously under-reported story. And, I admire Kyle for taking this issue on.

Posted in Politics, Politics - The Wrong Way, Terrorism, The Perfect Storm | 3 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »