The British public, or certain sections of them, often display sheep-like qualities. Much encouraged by British politicians who would prefer to (if your forgive me) to be able to pull the wool over their eyes on demand.
British politicians seem truly terrified of the prospect of the prospect of an armed informed electorate and encourage the sheep to bleat to that effect whenever possible... along with the familiar mantra of wondering why the innocent would ever object to the surveillance society.
The citizen is in practical terms strongly discouraged from defending themselves, their family, friends and property by the police and the way the courts administer the law. Citizens are often actually advised against trying to tackle anti social behaviour by the authorities.
People who do tackle burglars in their own homes seem as likely to end up being prosecuted by the authorities and sued by the burglar for having thir human rights infringed.
Now there is yet again more talk of rationalising the admittedly overly complicated UK gun law. This time yet again after a rampage. Whatever the outcome it is practically certain to only restrict legal gun ownership and use further.
The fact of the matter is of course that the practical result is the only section of the population who have no problem acquiring and owning firearms are those who have less qualms against ignoring the legal niceties... essentially the “Criminal Community”.
It is relatively easy to rent or acquire a weapon illegally. It is the law abiding citizen who is disarmed. Such laws mean little to those who hold them in contempt.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Sunday, 19 December 2010
FIFA foe fum Pantomime season
The initial furore over the abject failure of England's bit to host the soccer word cup has subsided.
New things take attention away from it and it sometimes seems that there is quite a limited public attention span for such things. Politicians and officials probably rely rather strongly on that. I imagine Joseph (Sepp) Blatter and his cronies are... having arguably decided attack is the best form of defence.
England's bid to host the soccer world cup was solid. It offered a concentration of some of the finest actually existing venues anywhere on the planet. There is a transport infrastructure and the country is stable.
It seems unlikely that, all else being equal, the bid should have secured more than two votes. while there is no guarantee of victory it seems unlikely such a solid bid would fare quite so badly.
One might also wonder at the countries FIFA actually selected, Russia will need to do a fair bit of building and one wonders at the attraction of a tiny hot middle eastern state such as Quatar with very little soccer related infrastructure that if built might be considered to be overkill, given their population (less that that of the county of Derbishire., much less than the City of Birmingham)
It seems clear more than two votes had been confidentially promised to the England bid team. At least 6 to be precise.
It says something that the English Football Association's acting chief Roger Burden, known for being 'above board', has unequivocally stated that he can no longer trust members of Fifa.
Three prominent members, Nicolas Leoz, Issa Hayatou and Ricardo Teixeira are implicated it taking money from a Sports Marketing company in exchange for being awarded contracts.
There is a strong suggestion, apparently backed by evidence that FIFA is blighted by dishonesty, and corruption.
Now Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, (allegedly one of those who had indicated, apparently inaccurately if they did, that they would support the England bid) has justified what looks suspiciously like a planned 'revenge' by claiming: "Fifa could not have voted for England having been insulted by their media in the worst possible way." "... To do so would have been the ultimate insult to Fifa."
It is perhaps time the England no longer lent FIFA credibility by taking it seriously.
In any event England are unlikely to get a look in. Members of FIFA have apparently taken against England because the UK press reported on some of their corruption.
One suspects it will likely be a cold day in hell before FIFA gives England the time of day, let alone anything else. Seeing England have little to loose it would seem to make sense to take the lead in an unenviable task and to do its best to unrelentingly root out any corrupt individuals and attempt to force some real anti corruption rules upon FIFA.
Unleashing if not the dogs of, war, then the press, upon FIFA. Possibly even with a quiet information related nudge or two from MI5.
It might also be worth seriously considering starting something like a Commonwealth Football cup. Maybe put our money where our mouth is and show how things can be done.
Possibly it could be based around nations, possibly around teams. Possibly best of all more on the lines the FA cup. We should ensure it is absolutely honest and above board. Matches could be played in many nations improving the game across the board and earning smaller nations the chance to earn money also to develop and showcase talent. It could be a fresh breeze and good for the game.
New things take attention away from it and it sometimes seems that there is quite a limited public attention span for such things. Politicians and officials probably rely rather strongly on that. I imagine Joseph (Sepp) Blatter and his cronies are... having arguably decided attack is the best form of defence.
England's bid to host the soccer world cup was solid. It offered a concentration of some of the finest actually existing venues anywhere on the planet. There is a transport infrastructure and the country is stable.
It seems unlikely that, all else being equal, the bid should have secured more than two votes. while there is no guarantee of victory it seems unlikely such a solid bid would fare quite so badly.
One might also wonder at the countries FIFA actually selected, Russia will need to do a fair bit of building and one wonders at the attraction of a tiny hot middle eastern state such as Quatar with very little soccer related infrastructure that if built might be considered to be overkill, given their population (less that that of the county of Derbishire., much less than the City of Birmingham)
It seems clear more than two votes had been confidentially promised to the England bid team. At least 6 to be precise.
It says something that the English Football Association's acting chief Roger Burden, known for being 'above board', has unequivocally stated that he can no longer trust members of Fifa.
Three prominent members, Nicolas Leoz, Issa Hayatou and Ricardo Teixeira are implicated it taking money from a Sports Marketing company in exchange for being awarded contracts.
There is a strong suggestion, apparently backed by evidence that FIFA is blighted by dishonesty, and corruption.
Now Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, (allegedly one of those who had indicated, apparently inaccurately if they did, that they would support the England bid) has justified what looks suspiciously like a planned 'revenge' by claiming: "Fifa could not have voted for England having been insulted by their media in the worst possible way." "... To do so would have been the ultimate insult to Fifa."
It is perhaps time the England no longer lent FIFA credibility by taking it seriously.
In any event England are unlikely to get a look in. Members of FIFA have apparently taken against England because the UK press reported on some of their corruption.
One suspects it will likely be a cold day in hell before FIFA gives England the time of day, let alone anything else. Seeing England have little to loose it would seem to make sense to take the lead in an unenviable task and to do its best to unrelentingly root out any corrupt individuals and attempt to force some real anti corruption rules upon FIFA.
Unleashing if not the dogs of, war, then the press, upon FIFA. Possibly even with a quiet information related nudge or two from MI5.
It might also be worth seriously considering starting something like a Commonwealth Football cup. Maybe put our money where our mouth is and show how things can be done.
Possibly it could be based around nations, possibly around teams. Possibly best of all more on the lines the FA cup. We should ensure it is absolutely honest and above board. Matches could be played in many nations improving the game across the board and earning smaller nations the chance to earn money also to develop and showcase talent. It could be a fresh breeze and good for the game.
Friday, 17 December 2010
Taking the Wikileak II
Initially I was fairly convinced that the denial of service attacks Wikileaks complained of were more likely to be a result of the massive number of hits generated by huge international interest in the site than a denial of service attack.
I am more fond of the idea of occam’s razor than of conspiracy theories. I really don't think most of the supposed possible conspiracists are smart or watertight enougn to have a hope in carrying them off.
I am still fairly certain that much of Wikileaks DOS type problems were/are generated by massive and continuing interest in their site, just search engine traffic is likely to be enough to cause problems.
Having said that it does seem they may be subject of a concerted campaign to silence them, or at least make it so much bother keeping going they are rendered ineffective.
PayPal has made it more difficult for people to make donations, by permanently restricting their account. MasterCard is apparently restricting payments to the site and their Swiss bank, PostFinance has closed Julian Assange's account. we are apparently expected to believe this is all a pure coincidence and all alleged to be unmotivated by any political consideration.
What is the old saying? "Once is chance. Twice is coincidence - but three times is enemy action."
Then there is the problem Wikileaks seem to be experiencing with finding hosts and with their domain name.
I still believe that some of what they are releasing should not be easily available, or necesarily in the public domane at all. I worry it may risk lives.
It does seem that, less through any conspiracy than simply by, frankly p*ing off a lot of powerful people and interests, 'They' may really be out to get Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
It all sows a seed of doubt about the attempts to extradite Assange.
I am more fond of the idea of occam’s razor than of conspiracy theories. I really don't think most of the supposed possible conspiracists are smart or watertight enougn to have a hope in carrying them off.
I am still fairly certain that much of Wikileaks DOS type problems were/are generated by massive and continuing interest in their site, just search engine traffic is likely to be enough to cause problems.
Having said that it does seem they may be subject of a concerted campaign to silence them, or at least make it so much bother keeping going they are rendered ineffective.
PayPal has made it more difficult for people to make donations, by permanently restricting their account. MasterCard is apparently restricting payments to the site and their Swiss bank, PostFinance has closed Julian Assange's account. we are apparently expected to believe this is all a pure coincidence and all alleged to be unmotivated by any political consideration.
What is the old saying? "Once is chance. Twice is coincidence - but three times is enemy action."
Then there is the problem Wikileaks seem to be experiencing with finding hosts and with their domain name.
I still believe that some of what they are releasing should not be easily available, or necesarily in the public domane at all. I worry it may risk lives.
It does seem that, less through any conspiracy than simply by, frankly p*ing off a lot of powerful people and interests, 'They' may really be out to get Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
It all sows a seed of doubt about the attempts to extradite Assange.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Quote of the Day
"No public man can be just a little crooked"Herbert Hoover
"Never esteem anything as of advantage to thee that shall make thee break thy word, or lose thy self-respect."Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
Monday, 6 December 2010
Will that be eat in or takeout?
It seems it's official - According to Wikileaks anyway, Saudia Arabia is basically funding Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, to the tune of millions of dollars.
Not the Saudi state, officially at least, though it might be said there is a blurring between the stae and certain individuals there. It is reportedly through companies/charities/groups within Saudi Arabia. This region is the seat of the extreamist Whabbi funamentalist Islamic sect.
It is interesting that Saudi Arabia, like Kuwait and some other ostensibly 'friendly' middle eastern states seem to be more keen on dealing with internal terrorism, when they can't risibly blame it on westerners allegedly blowing each other up in fatal disputes over alcohol smuggling.
They seem far less keen on dealing with what amouts to the export of terriorism and steming the flow of funds to it from it's citizens.
One presumes one reason is these states feel they are less likely to suffer the effects of terrorism themselves - if it takes place off their own soil. If they allow what might otherwise be an internal problem with their own dissidents who might destabilise their own regimes to be safely occupied much further away, targeted agaisnt western 'infidel' interests else where.
One wonders, given this apparent massive terrorist funding through Islamic 'charities', how much of their funding is actually due to the trade in drugs and goods counterfeiting that western governments seem keen to blame it on - and why they are.
A continued uniterrupted supply of supply of oil might be a good reason. with the added bunus of providing a nice justification for new laws and powers.
Not the Saudi state, officially at least, though it might be said there is a blurring between the stae and certain individuals there. It is reportedly through companies/charities/groups within Saudi Arabia. This region is the seat of the extreamist Whabbi funamentalist Islamic sect.
It is interesting that Saudi Arabia, like Kuwait and some other ostensibly 'friendly' middle eastern states seem to be more keen on dealing with internal terrorism, when they can't risibly blame it on westerners allegedly blowing each other up in fatal disputes over alcohol smuggling.
They seem far less keen on dealing with what amouts to the export of terriorism and steming the flow of funds to it from it's citizens.
One presumes one reason is these states feel they are less likely to suffer the effects of terrorism themselves - if it takes place off their own soil. If they allow what might otherwise be an internal problem with their own dissidents who might destabilise their own regimes to be safely occupied much further away, targeted agaisnt western 'infidel' interests else where.
One wonders, given this apparent massive terrorist funding through Islamic 'charities', how much of their funding is actually due to the trade in drugs and goods counterfeiting that western governments seem keen to blame it on - and why they are.
A continued uniterrupted supply of supply of oil might be a good reason. with the added bunus of providing a nice justification for new laws and powers.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Quote of the Day
"Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint."Daniel Webster
"Just because you can doesn't mean you should."Truism
"Restraint is a measure of intellectual acuity and self-control.
The ability to place thought before action."Wes Fessler
"Self-righteous people can talk themselves into forgetting they
are part of a civilization. They can then feed on that culture,
bringing it down. It's happened many times in the past.
It could happen to us."David Brin
"Honesty is the cruelest game of all, because not only can you
hurt someone - and hurt them to the bone - you can feel
self-righteous about it at the same time."Dave Van Ronk
Taking the Wikileak
It is becoming difficult to decide if Wikileaks is, on balance, a force for the betterment of mankind - or the reverse.
I must admit that I was initially inclined to the former view, but of late I am somewhat reluctantly coming round to the latter.
Now I am naturally inclined to see something like Wikileaks as on the side of the angels, so that is really saying something. I have no doubt that if people discover incompetence wrongdoing or cover-up in the organisation they work for they should be able raise the matter and get it addressed internally - and if not to blow the whistle on it.
What has really pushed me into mentally classifying the Wikileaks site as a net disbenefit is the release of the US diplomatic communications.
There seems to be something irresponsibly, parochially naive about the mentality behind these releases the site have made, something self-congratulatory and it is an interesting choice of news organisations Julian Assange has chosen to share the greater details with.
One suspects it says something about his politics. Being suspicious, one wonders if any cash or quid-pro-quo is involved.
I find it difficult to imagine these releases of diplomatic information will not ultimately cost actual lives.
It may be Wikileaks is of the view you can’t make omelettes without breaking eggs. There are a disturbing number of people who seem to take that view. I can’t help feeling It a bankrupt, lazy, way of thinking, from a site who’s’ only real justification is taking the moral high ground.
Apologists have argued that US Diplomats should be more careful about their cables.
This is disingenuous. Diplomats are there to smooth situations and argue a countries part... well diplomatically with foreign powers. They are also there to give their own government a warts and all accurate clear eyed view of things. To do less would be a disservice to their nation and make for improperly informed faulty decision making.
They must be brutally honest in their assessments with their own government – not ‘diplomatic’.
It is not even as if we don't all know such frank assesments are made in private, or as if we don't all know the value of tempering our public utterances, unless we are so socially inept for it to be classed as a 'condition'. The mere fact that such communications exist can hardly be cause to lay them bare. They may on the face of it seem two faced, but there needs to be some greater over-riding need.
To argue they should be more careful suggests either a flippant, possibly deliberate misunderstanding, or the sort of thinking that can justify stealing someone’s TV if they forget to lock their door when they go out.
To me it all seems uncomfortably like someone overhearing a husband and wife privately discussing a used car salesman, his merchandise and their available cash in the middle of making a deal – and then shouting it out to all and sundry including the staff in the car dealership. Basically a pretty scummy thing to do in those circumstances.
Politicians have denounced the site, some suggesting it be classed as a terrorist organisation. Intriguingly one of those particularly incensed is Representative Peter King (New York), possibly suffering from a serious case of double standards, is calling for Wikileaks to be designated as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization" and outlawed in the US.
A long supporter of the political wing of the IRA he might know a thing or two about “foreign terrorist organizations”...
On balance it is probably not a terrorist organisation. Although one fears there can be little doubt that some of the information they release will be of succour and assistance to terrorist organisations and powers unfriendly to the US.These latest releases seem more akin to spying than to terrorism. The documents were clearly stolen. Wikileaks will argue what they are doing is justified in the greater public interest.
It may have been true in the past. In this and in recent instances that is surely questionable. One wonders why no one has attempted to legally gag the site as might be a newspaper. One wonders if that is largely to avoid inflaming conspiracists imaginations.
Interestingly Wikileaks claimed to be under ‘cyber attack’ just prior to their releasing the information. A denial of service attack they claimed. This is where multiple botnet controlled computers are made to access a site in huge numbers. Assange seemed to imply the US might be behind the ‘attack’ attempting to ‘silence’ the site.
It all sounds most ‘conspiracy theory’ish until, if you have even half a brain, you realise there would have been massive worldwide interest in the site after they touted the so-called release. This would have resulted in huge numbers of people attempting to access the site, especially just before the information was published as they kept checking back – Still it helps pump Assange’s ego and publicity machine some more.
No deliberate ‘denial of service’ just overwhelming interest. Weirdly many media outlets uncritically pass the denial of service clams on unchallenged, don’t reporters have any understanding of the net?
I must admit that I was initially inclined to the former view, but of late I am somewhat reluctantly coming round to the latter.
Now I am naturally inclined to see something like Wikileaks as on the side of the angels, so that is really saying something. I have no doubt that if people discover incompetence wrongdoing or cover-up in the organisation they work for they should be able raise the matter and get it addressed internally - and if not to blow the whistle on it.
What has really pushed me into mentally classifying the Wikileaks site as a net disbenefit is the release of the US diplomatic communications.
There seems to be something irresponsibly, parochially naive about the mentality behind these releases the site have made, something self-congratulatory and it is an interesting choice of news organisations Julian Assange has chosen to share the greater details with.
One suspects it says something about his politics. Being suspicious, one wonders if any cash or quid-pro-quo is involved.
I find it difficult to imagine these releases of diplomatic information will not ultimately cost actual lives.
It may be Wikileaks is of the view you can’t make omelettes without breaking eggs. There are a disturbing number of people who seem to take that view. I can’t help feeling It a bankrupt, lazy, way of thinking, from a site who’s’ only real justification is taking the moral high ground.
Apologists have argued that US Diplomats should be more careful about their cables.
This is disingenuous. Diplomats are there to smooth situations and argue a countries part... well diplomatically with foreign powers. They are also there to give their own government a warts and all accurate clear eyed view of things. To do less would be a disservice to their nation and make for improperly informed faulty decision making.
They must be brutally honest in their assessments with their own government – not ‘diplomatic’.
It is not even as if we don't all know such frank assesments are made in private, or as if we don't all know the value of tempering our public utterances, unless we are so socially inept for it to be classed as a 'condition'. The mere fact that such communications exist can hardly be cause to lay them bare. They may on the face of it seem two faced, but there needs to be some greater over-riding need.
To argue they should be more careful suggests either a flippant, possibly deliberate misunderstanding, or the sort of thinking that can justify stealing someone’s TV if they forget to lock their door when they go out.
To me it all seems uncomfortably like someone overhearing a husband and wife privately discussing a used car salesman, his merchandise and their available cash in the middle of making a deal – and then shouting it out to all and sundry including the staff in the car dealership. Basically a pretty scummy thing to do in those circumstances.
Politicians have denounced the site, some suggesting it be classed as a terrorist organisation. Intriguingly one of those particularly incensed is Representative Peter King (New York), possibly suffering from a serious case of double standards, is calling for Wikileaks to be designated as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization" and outlawed in the US.
A long supporter of the political wing of the IRA he might know a thing or two about “foreign terrorist organizations”...
On balance it is probably not a terrorist organisation. Although one fears there can be little doubt that some of the information they release will be of succour and assistance to terrorist organisations and powers unfriendly to the US.These latest releases seem more akin to spying than to terrorism. The documents were clearly stolen. Wikileaks will argue what they are doing is justified in the greater public interest.
It may have been true in the past. In this and in recent instances that is surely questionable. One wonders why no one has attempted to legally gag the site as might be a newspaper. One wonders if that is largely to avoid inflaming conspiracists imaginations.
Interestingly Wikileaks claimed to be under ‘cyber attack’ just prior to their releasing the information. A denial of service attack they claimed. This is where multiple botnet controlled computers are made to access a site in huge numbers. Assange seemed to imply the US might be behind the ‘attack’ attempting to ‘silence’ the site.
It all sounds most ‘conspiracy theory’ish until, if you have even half a brain, you realise there would have been massive worldwide interest in the site after they touted the so-called release. This would have resulted in huge numbers of people attempting to access the site, especially just before the information was published as they kept checking back – Still it helps pump Assange’s ego and publicity machine some more.
No deliberate ‘denial of service’ just overwhelming interest. Weirdly many media outlets uncritically pass the denial of service clams on unchallenged, don’t reporters have any understanding of the net?
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Happy Thanksgiving
A Happy Thanksgiving to any US Readers. Have a great holiday here's hoping you enjoy it and you get to spend it with those you care for.
Every now and then it is good to take a moment and reconnect with some of the main reasons why we bother at all. Friends, Family, children, the home... Be glad we made it through another year, be grateful for what we have and remember those who ca't be with you, for small, big, or more final reasons.
Also here's a grateful thought for those who have given their lives to allow things like this moment of thought, to protect our way of life.
Every now and then it is good to take a moment and reconnect with some of the main reasons why we bother at all. Friends, Family, children, the home... Be glad we made it through another year, be grateful for what we have and remember those who ca't be with you, for small, big, or more final reasons.
Also here's a grateful thought for those who have given their lives to allow things like this moment of thought, to protect our way of life.
What is this doing to democracy?
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, or rather their pet Lawyers, went to court and actually argued that no one sensible believes manifesto promises. The phrase used was that they were “not subject to legitimate expectation.”
Fair enough It seems. No one can claim they weren’t warned.
Really - voting slips and manifestos should carry a public health warning stating it clearly, possibly with graphic pictures of something like - the Ark Royal being broken up, A harrier Jump Jet being scrapped, or a student turning their pockets out.
Up to now we had to put up with Labour telling us that an EU constitution was not a constitution if it was an identical document... but they called it a treaty instead. We could imagine the other parties might have more respect for the democratic process or the truth.
I must admit I was sceptical of Nick Clegg, once he took the same line as Labour over that “treaty” in Lisbon.
But now it seems that coalition is a marvellous excuse to chuck out your principals and firm “watch my lips” promises. You can handily blame it on the other party in the coalition.
So we are treated to a positive Christmas market of pork pie salespersons. Nick Clegg supporting hikes in university fees despite signing some pointless piece of paper that he would oppose them. We see good old Dave Cameron not only back pedalling on his talk of no more giving up sovereignty without a referendum. Now apparently theEU Constitution Lisbon “Treaty” can’t be pulled out of, or re negotiated.
But more telling he is making agreements to pool our armed forces with the French - Again with not a hint of consulting the citizenry.
And given that the only really credible (before he got his hands on them) armed forces in Europe are British and the French then that is basically what would comprise a European Defence Force. Well we can see where he is going with that.
So basically - any promises, no matter how apparently firm, that any politician makes in order to get you to vote for them are just not to be believed. They will be dumped for the sake of expediency at the first hurdle. It seems there can be no doubt that the only reason to “Watch their lips” is to be able to spot when they are - lying.... through.... their.... teeth.
The question is: What does that do to the democratic process? How does someone who is not dangerously self destructively naive actually decide who towaste their vote on vote for?
When they do get in and utterly fail to do what they promised, even if they do the exact opposite, you have absolutely no comeback - apart from voting for some other collection of proven liars, when it suits them, every 5 years or so.
Fair enough It seems. No one can claim they weren’t warned.
Really - voting slips and manifestos should carry a public health warning stating it clearly, possibly with graphic pictures of something like - the Ark Royal being broken up, A harrier Jump Jet being scrapped, or a student turning their pockets out.
Up to now we had to put up with Labour telling us that an EU constitution was not a constitution if it was an identical document... but they called it a treaty instead. We could imagine the other parties might have more respect for the democratic process or the truth.
I must admit I was sceptical of Nick Clegg, once he took the same line as Labour over that “treaty” in Lisbon.
But now it seems that coalition is a marvellous excuse to chuck out your principals and firm “watch my lips” promises. You can handily blame it on the other party in the coalition.
So we are treated to a positive Christmas market of pork pie salespersons. Nick Clegg supporting hikes in university fees despite signing some pointless piece of paper that he would oppose them. We see good old Dave Cameron not only back pedalling on his talk of no more giving up sovereignty without a referendum. Now apparently the
But more telling he is making agreements to pool our armed forces with the French - Again with not a hint of consulting the citizenry.
And given that the only really credible (before he got his hands on them) armed forces in Europe are British and the French then that is basically what would comprise a European Defence Force. Well we can see where he is going with that.
So basically - any promises, no matter how apparently firm, that any politician makes in order to get you to vote for them are just not to be believed. They will be dumped for the sake of expediency at the first hurdle. It seems there can be no doubt that the only reason to “Watch their lips” is to be able to spot when they are - lying.... through.... their.... teeth.
The question is: What does that do to the democratic process? How does someone who is not dangerously self destructively naive actually decide who to
When they do get in and utterly fail to do what they promised, even if they do the exact opposite, you have absolutely no comeback - apart from voting for some other collection of proven liars, when it suits them, every 5 years or so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
