|
About Paul HobbsI live in Brisbane, Australia. I have a young family; I run my own business (which will hopefully make me rich one day); I don't like intrusive "big government", but I also believe in a government (and society) which takes care of the less fortunate and disenfranchised. Huge fan of real Rugby (the game they play in heaven). Go the Wallabies! |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Peppe Le Pew
I'm sorry, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I thought of those things about two weeks before you. As well as the thermal refreshing of bread - that was one of mine as well.
Re: Re: If only...
I couldn't agree more.
There was a definite shift from the end of WWII in the way that the US conducted itself on the world stage. I would characterise it as Imperialism. But the big question for me has always been "why"? Certainly there were economic factors at play - US companies wanted to be able to expand into foreign markets. But I think there is more to it than that. My gut feel is that it was largely fear-based. Perhaps it was Pearl Harbour, or just WWII in general, but I think a switch got turned on (in the American psyche) around that time (and it hasn't been turned off ever since). So much of American foreign policy (both official and unofficial - yes, CIA, I'm looking at you) seems to have been predicated on the belief that the rest of the world is a threat, be it economic, political or military, and the best defence is a good offence.
If only...
America is a great country, but it could be a REALLY REALLY great country if it just stopped being such a military and economic bully.
I believe just some of the benefits would be:
1. America would be far more respected by the rest of the world;
2. The threat of terrorism would most likely drop, which would hopefully lead to an easing of farcical security theatre practices;
3. Innovation and creativity would increase, which would stimulate your economy, and reduce unemployment
4. Huge reduction in the national debt by spending less on pointless wars (including the War on Terror)
There's probably a bunch of other benefits, but even if there weren't, wouldn't those four be enough?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I should mention I just made up the percentages in relation to heroin and Colombia. I was just trying to make a point.
Re: Re: Re:
You're absolutely right, but I also said "most acts of terrorism". I fully recognise that there is domestic terrorism (in many countries, not just the USA). I don't know for certain, but I suspect that even if you look back several decades, for each case of domestic terrorism (in the USA) carried out by "white people", there would be multiple cases of terrorism carried out by "non-white people". Maybe not all on US soil, but certainly directed at the USA.
Please don't misunderstand me - the fact that someone is not white is clearly not what makes them more (or less) likely to be a terrorist. Terrorists are made, not born. But to make a terrorist requires certain conditions, and it so happens that those conditions are more prevalent in certain parts of the world. I also don't think it is a coincidence that many of those places where terrorists are more likely to be "produced" are places where the US has a strong military presence and where there is a strong resentment towards the USA for "meddling". But that is a whole other debate. :-)
By way of an analogy, what I am saying is that if you know that 80% of the heroin being imported into the USA comes from Colombia, and that 80% of the mules who have been caught are Colombian, then you would be dumb not to pay close attention to Colombians. But you don't just look at Colombians. You look at how drug mules behave, study the surveillance footage of mules who have been caught in the past - were they nervous; how did the carry themselves; what was their general demeanour; etc. Then you look for tell-tale signs in anyone passing through the airport, but you focus more on Colombians than on 87 year old white ladies. Sure, the little old lady *could* be a drug mule, but it is pretty unlikely. That said, I think the War on Drugs is as stupid and misguided as the War on Terror.
Ultimately, I think effective profiling is more about studying behaviour than ethnicity, but you can't ignore ethnicity. And I suspect if the general public was better educated with regard to the key "tells" of someone who is prone to doing massive violence, as a community we may be able to prevent tragedies like Oklahoma City or Columbine or Port Arthur or the massacre in Norway last year. That doesn't mean everyone needs to be an expert "profiler" in the FBI sense. It just means that people pay attention to their friends and neighbours, etc. Of course, at the same time we don't want to end up with a situation where everyone is a volunteer spy for the government - that would be even worse. But there must be some way for society to keep a collective (and benevolent) eye on its members without turning into Orwell's Oceania.
Re:
What exactly is the problem with profiling? Like it or not, most acts of terrorism (directed against the USA) in the past decade were carried out by people of Middle Eastern or African extraction. There are a whole host of reasons for this, many of them political and in no way related to race or ethnicity. But that is the reality you (Americans) face.
I assume that the main argument against profiling is that it assumes guilt on the basis of appearance. Which naturally means that a reasonable number of innocent people would be subjected to fairly intense scrutiny. I would counter that by saying that the current system assumes EVERYONE is guilty, which is preposterous. Not everyone is likely to be a terrorist. And some people are absolutely more likely to be terrorists. So, you can have a system which assumes everyone is a likely terrorist, and treats them accordingly. Or you can have a system which recognises that there are different probabilities of people being a terrorist, and that you deal with the high probability people differently than the low probability people. And the other thing is that profiling is much more than just looking at appearance or ethnicity. If that was all it was, I agree that it should be avoided (if only because it would be easy to evade by simply recruiting someone who looks "OK"). Profiling, done properly in the context of security, considers a whole range of factors, of which appearance is just one.
The Israelis have been practising profiling as part of their security protocols for decades, and while it can be very intrusive for a relatively small number of people, for the majority, passing through airport security is relatively painless. Essentially, the Israeli position is that when it comes to security, there is no room for political correctness.
Rafi Sela, former chief security officer at the Israel Airport Authority has this to say: "[many] airports are so concentrated on finding your bottles of water and perfumes that they don't even look at you. The security personnel forget that they are in the business of looking for terrorists."
Granted, it is easy for me to advocate in favour of profiling because I don't fit the profile of a "typical" terrorist, and perhaps I would less inclined to support such a measure if I did fit the profile.
I'm also not sure I agree with one of the statements made by the former TSA boss: "No security agency on earth has the experience and pattern-recognition skills of TSA officers".
It seems to me that the TSA could benefit from a dose of humble pie and seek advice from the people who have been doing this type of thing a lot longer (and a lot better).
Re: Re: Re:
I think it is fair to say she is a terrorist and should be sent to Guantanamo Bay. But even worse than that, but her surname is CLEARLY infringing on the copyright that DreamWorks Pictures has over the name "Real Steel", so they should sue her for at least half a billion dollars. In addition, the star of Real Steel is Hugh Jackman, who is also an Aussie, which makes it very clear that she is orchestrating a concerted and deliberate attack on the entire Australian film industry. Under Section 4 of the Australian Film and Television Protection Act (1997), the penalty for such an egregious attack is triple the revenue of all Australian films ever produced. That includes any film which was filmed in mainland Australia (eg: The Matrix), or any film which was filmed outside Australia which stars an Aussie actor.
Re:
Seriously? A gang member deliberately gets done for running a red light (or 20), just so he can smuggle in a weapon to use against a rival gang member WHO IS ALREADY IN PRISON? If my enemy is in prison and I'm not in prison, doesn't that mean I've already won? I'd rather send my enemy a post card saying something pithy like "The weather is here, wish you were beautiful", or "Na-na-na-naaaa-na"
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, that's just one of the reasons. There are others.
Re: Re: Re:
Here, here! The reason they say that Rugby is the game played in Heaven is that Jesus plays in the Heavenly First XV. And during the summer months he bowls leg spin almost as well as Warnie.
Re:
Rather than being disappointed by this, rejoice! Think of it as the taxpayers paying for the system to do its job, and hopefully police will now think twice before arresting someone just for filming them.
Better to pay one person $170,000 and prevent similar cases in the future than to have many folks being arrested because the cops got away with it once.
Re:
Plus, you can bet your arse that if someone was able to patent a method for thermally refreshing bread (Patent number 6080436 = fucking toast), someone else has patented the process of delivering food using unmanned devices (flying or otherwise).
I'll bet my left nut that the second after the first TacoCopter delivers its first taco, Intellectual Ventures lawyers will be all over this like a rash.
Re: Seriously?
Don't feel bad. America did give us Jerry Springer, the Kardashians, Richard Nixon, Dubya, and Sarah Palin. That's a pretty impressive run rate right there!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright isn't property.
So why not create an account? I understand you probably value your right to privacy and anonymity, but you also expose yourself to the problems of mistaken identity (or no identity) - for all I know, every AC is the same person (despite the little coloured icons). What do you have to lose by creating an account? You can use a fictitious name, and no-one will know "who" you are.
Not saying you have to create an account - I just don't quite understand why so many ACs prefer to remain anonymous.
Re: :eyes closed:
Awww, don't be like that. There are some great places to live:
http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/united-nations-announces-world%E2%80%99s-happiest-co untry-247768
I live in Australia (we came second on the happiest countries list), and while far from perfect, it's a pretty nice place to live. Sure, we're not a superpower, but we do have cute koalas and 17 of the 20 most venomous snakes in the world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DanMitchell on Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 8:00pm
OMG - that is hilarious! Even better than the original ad! That said - I own Old Spice, so I am about to sue you for a trillion gazillion dollars for copyright infringement. You'll be hearing from my attorneys shortly, once I stop giggling.
(untitled comment)
"Since the U.S. is the largest producer of (intellectual property) that is consumed around the world"
Really?? I find that hard to believe. For example, Hollywood may have the highest revenues for movies worldwide, but Bollywood dwarfs Hollywood in terms of the number of films that are produced, and the size of it's target audience. As for music, I don't have the figures but I'm pretty sure that there are lots of bands/artists in other parts of the world. I've heard some of them.
A message to Lamar Smith (he reads this blog, right?):
Let's agree that America is a great country. But it is not the only great country. And it isn't the only country to produce "intellectual property". Brazil is a great country. New Zealand is a great country. Germany is a great country. You, sir, need a Copernican revolution. You need to realise that America is not the centre of the universe.
Re: Re:
Actually, I would suggest that the MegaUpload thing (plus the ICE domain seizures) demonstrates that whatever laws are in place are immaterial - the government will do what it (or the MAFIAA) wants, and worry about the consequences later.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Up until a couple of weeks ago, the MAFIAA was paying the piper. I think that Congress is waking up to the fact that the likes of MPAA and RIAA may write nice big cheques at fund raisers, but they don't vote.
Re: Re: This is not what copyright protects.
Think of the pedophiles!!
No, wait. Ummm, that's not quite right. I know it's something like that. Oh, I've got it!
Think of the children!!
This is very encouraging
Recently I posted a comment appealing to Americans to mobilise, take a stand, and basically do something about all the crap which is going on (eg: corruption in Washington; unwarranted power of MAFIAA; erosion of rights in the name of national security; huge drop in journalism standards; etc). I have to say, this letter is very encouraging. The response of people (not just in the US, but across the world) to injustice, corruption, abuse of power, etc, is wonderful to see. Hopefully the protests in Europe will see ACTA go the way of SOPA/PIPA.
It seems to me that the best thing which can happen now is for HUGE numbers of people - ordinary folk with jobs, mortgages, etc - to actually make the (minimal) effort to contact their representatives and endorse the objectives of the letter. The more I think about it, the more I am amazed at the paradox of how democracy can become so warped and deformed, despite the fact that such warping and deformation can be prevented by simply participating. All it takes is a phone call or an email, or even a visit in person to make an impression on a representative, and right there you have democracy in action. (Perhaps it isn't strictly a paradox, but it is puzzling).
I recently watched the video of Jack Abramoff being interviewed by Lawrence Lessig, and I was transfixed. It was fascinating to me how things actually work in Washington (and I'm not even American). But the most telling part (for me) came towards the end where a member of the audience asked "how does a new member of Congress get corrupted?" And the answer was chilling in its simplicity. When newly elected politicians arrive in Washington, the first thing that happens is they meet with their leadership. The leadership informs new members that their number one priority is to get re-elected at the next election. And since most new members arrive with a debt (presumably from running a campaign), the leadership informs the new members that they need to retire that debt. And here is a group of people who are very good at helping you to retire that debt - meet the lobbyists. Now the lobbyists (for the most part) represent large corporations and other special interests (eg: MPAA, RIAA, etc). But here is the kicker. Lobbyists, companies, etc can give all the money they want to a member of Congress (and in doing so "buy" a vote), but there is one thing they can't do (despite a corporation being a "person", which frankly is ridiculous), which real people can do. Vote. If a member of Congress was inundated, on a scale previously unheard of, with phone calls, letters, emails, and personal visits, I suspect that most members would take notice, and probably do the right thing (whatever that is). Remember, the leadership has already told them that priority number one is to get re-elected. I suspect that the reason it is so easy for lobbyists and special interests to get their way is it is a one-sided tug-o-war. There aren't enough people pulling the members of Congress in the other direction.
Which brings me to my next observation. A democracy is a double edged sword. It is great because it affords us many freedoms. But it demands that EVERYONE participate. If only a handful participate, you may have elections, and you may call it democracy, but to the extent that people are not involved (usually out of apathy), it is not a democracy. In ancient Greece, the term "idiot" referred to a private person, a person who took no interest in politics. Involvement or participation doesn't necessarily mean running for office, or volunteering in a campaign, or joining a party. Personally, I define participation as making your views known to your representative. That is as simple as it needs to be. If 100% of the population did that, lobbyists would be completely redundant.
The tricky part, of course, is how do you get people involved? How do you motivate someone to make that phone call or write the letter? I think the thing which prevents most people is inertia. Somehow we need to make taking that first step (eg: writing a letter or an email) as painless as possible. The Internet is probably the single most powerful tool available for connecting with people to get them motivated/activated. And there are probably lots of strategies for achieving this. But that needs to be the goal - mass mobilisation.
I am reminded of some of the things that Winston Churchill had to say about government and governing:
"But it is not Parliament that should rule; it is the people who should rule through Parliament."
"No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
PS: Sorry for the long post - I get carried away sometimes.