Blaming Islam for some extremist crackpot with brain damage makes as much sense as blaming Christianity for McVey, Roeder, and so forth.

I am a U.S. military veteran, and I am extremely outraged at what Hasan did.

But the problem is extremism. And one of my Facebook friends has been posting things like "Nuke 'em!".

Oh really? So someone is calling for us to vaporize cities because some religion is prevalent there, which figured into some extremist crackpot's brain damage. As an American citizen, and as a military veteran, I am very embarrassed that there are countrymen who think this way.

I pray for the victims, as well as their families. I also pray for anyone experiencing the backlash of hatred I've already been seeing in less-responsible venues. And I thank God that we live in a constitutional secular democratic republic, with cooler heads at the helm than those screaming hate on facebook pages, blogs, and what-have-you.

Thanks, had to get that off my chest.

Kate Williams posted this entry yesterday:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/the-politics-of-twitter/

I wrote a response, which continues to sit with the status, "Your comment is awaiting moderation."

Well, whatever. Here is my response:

###

Seems that some folks still hold on to the idea that it is up to these so-called "journalists" to arbeit what is newsworthy, and what is crap.

Unfortunately, most of what passes for "news" in the U.S. Fourth Estate is, indeed, crap.

When will news organizations go back to "real journalism", where bald-faced lies are challenged in stories?

Because there is a political party that has learned that they can tell the most outrageous lies, and have them reported w/out challenge.

There is another political party that has learned that _they_, therefore, need to report the fact of those lies, thus revealing these outrageous truths -- often with extreme ridicule, shaming the liars.

If news organizations returned to the criticism and integrity of their grandfather's journalism, they might (might!) survive the U.S.'s Great Exodus from newspapers, 24-hour news channels, and the like. But until then, the current trend will continue.

For some numbers to back up what I'm saying, consider this Pew Research survey:

http://people-press.org/report/543/

Today, in Our United States, more people get their news via the Internet than newspapers. And when it comes to the "national conversation" that folks sometimes mention: this is happening in near-realtime...and it is happening on Twitter, as well as certain irc forums. There, people test their ideas -- and if they seem sound, the ideas get written about in articles...and not just blog articles.

But in a nutshell: If legacy media doesn't change, it is doomed:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/vallor/2009/09/legacy-media-is-doomed.php

Thanks for reading,

@vallor

oh, and just a few #ff : @JC_Christian @lizzwinstead @anamariecox @charyl @owillis @thehill @senatus @thinkprogress @tpmmedia @glenngreenwald @stopbeck @shutfoxdown @theRealBuzz @GottaLaff @Shoq @davewiner @ThePlumLineGS ...for more, http://twitter.com/vallor/following

###

http://tinyurl.com/washpoststeno


Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com takes the Washington Post to task for a particularly aggregious bit of State propaganda -- indeed, the WaPo could be said to be acting "unAmerican" for ignoring their reponsibilities to the U.S. 4th estate.

In the "told ya so" department, Pew Research reports that we Americans largely think media is full of crap.

http://people-press.org/report/543/

Another point on the curve,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Last weekend, I uploaded a video to Youtube, as part of a discussion I had been having regarding cat attacks in popular culture.

This excerpt is the cat attack scene from 20th Century Fox's "The Legend of Hell House".  Youtube's systems identified this as 3rd-party content, and disabled the video.

I underwent the dispute process, identifying my use of this content as Fair Use under 17 USC.  The video became re-enabled, and I was able to continue with my discussion, referring to this scene in the collection of content I was referencing for my scholarly discussion.

Today, I just checked, and the video is again disabled, despite the lawful Fair Use of the content.  The copyright notice on the video can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/copynotice?video_id=I3o5_cDSKM4

But in a nutshell, they say:  "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content".

Nobody ever disputed Fox's copyright on the content.  The issue is that Youtube (apparently) requires Fox's consent to use content -- even when the content is used under 17 USC's Fair Use provisions.

Please note that 17 USC does not require the copyright owner's consent for Fair Use.  I also haven't seen a DMCA complaint, so this isn't a DMCA matter, but a Youtube-doesn't-allow-Fair-Use matter.

In a nutshell:  Youtube (and Google) are Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

And as a Google shareholder, I have to wonder how many other people Google/Youtube has been wrong about in this manner.

Youtube:  You are Wrong.  Your Fair Use policy is seriously flawed.  Please fix it.

And if there is a DMCA complaint regarding this content, I need to see that, too, so that I can respond to it, potentially following up with California anti-SLAP action for any potential flawsuit served-up by Fox.

To save time in the event of an (unseen so far) DMCA complaint, I relate the following:

1) The URL for the content is at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3o5_cDSKM4

2) I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which your address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who provided any supposed notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

3) I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake, to wit:  The material was used under 17 USC Copyright Law's "Fair Use" provision, which DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONSENT OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.

4) This notice -- which isn't even required at this stage -- is being sent to copyright@youtube.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBSrEFmAZu3xY3i6L1AQHbZAP+OFA1+XnM5p2BYuN0ARC0ebQh5ISa3TTo XbPXCFrHkELfqZMGrXI19kTrJFWas1Zyhrge/H0Ol6tr0k/kjwyjD/r6oIGR3UYt 6XzUPULScPMZhNeYDX/VKwrnqVUoUl+sLE+EeGclcgxpNo7mjGJhb4Tq2d1raCSV PJPr6eiHAXI= =ya2C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

If legacy media doesn't change, it is doomed.

No, I'm not talking about the constant media circus on 24-hour "news"
channels -- we already know that they aren't sustainable in the face of
actual many-to-many communications on the Net.  Nor is it about the
"troll-for-$$" business model of "talk" radio, as well as less savory web
sites.

No, I'm talking about the traditional outlet for "respectable news" -- newspapers.

I don't know if you've noticed, but newspapers aren't doing so well
nowadays.  From where I'm sitting, it looks to me that there are a couple of
reasons for this:

1) Newspapers in these United States have shackled themselves to a
for-profit motive.  Because indeed, the very bottom line with newspapers is
to maximize ROI.

2) Newspapers are run, and largely staffed, by people who grew up in a
United States where they were the arbiters of what constituted "news" -- a model that has been eroding for over 18 years.

Eighteen (18) years ago, I was lucky enough to end up working at a community
college, one of three in California to be connected to the Internet.  I
started with access to an HP Unix system, running a vital command-line tool
called "rn".  Short for "(r)ead (n)ews", this was my client to connect to the Usenet,
which remains the world's largest distributed "bulletin board
system".  Today, people have relatively easy access to much of the Usenet (but
not all of it) through "Google Groups".  And I daresay that many savvy
Internet old-timers still use the Usenet, albeit in a much more limited role.

You see, the Usenet's golden age was in pre-web days, as well as during the rise
of the world-wide web on the Internet.  Imminent Death of the Usenet was
predicted when AOL connected its customers to Usenet, lowering the barrier
to entry for participating in the discussions (and flamewars) therein.  But
other dens of literate ladies and gentlemen, such as The Well, already
offered access to the Usenet... including many forward-looking newspaper
reporters.

What were the nature of these discussions?  If we ignore the constant
flamewars, a lot of these discussions were "news" (in the old sense of the
word) in particular niches, divided by subject matter into "newsgroups".
But most importantly to this discussion:  newsgroup traffic included
discussion of mainstream media articles, _in forums not under control of the
original publisher_.  These were not only easier to participate in than
"Letters to the Editor", but it was a many-to-many discussion, where pretty
much anybody who wanted to could contribute their ideas.

This was the dawn of the loosely-organized group we now call "Netroots."

Today, such discussions have largely moved to web forums.  And there are a
lot of folks working for newspapers that still don't get this:  because, if
you observe what they are up to, a lot of it has to do with setting up their
own web pages, their own forums...and pretending that they still have a
monopoly on "news".

There's an old saw that goes, "the Net interprets censorship as damage, and
routes around it." This was handily illustrated recently, when #CNNFail and
#MSMFail were a trending topics on Twitter -- Iran had just had an
election with a controversial outcome, and the mainstream media ignored it,
at least until the outcry on Twitter made it impossible for U.S mainstream
media to ignore the event.

Meanwhile, there's a kind of mini-culture war going on in newsrooms (and
with them) of any newspapers that are still alive in the U.S.  market: for
more on this, I recommend reading Ms.  Chen's blog at
http://savethemedia.com .  But in quick summary, those newsrooms that clamor
loudest about "responsible journalism" are those that would prefer to keep
their own monopoly on news, acting as arbiters of what is vouchsafed worthy
of the American public.

I'll conclude with the same observation I made a couple of weeks ago, in my
FB article "R.I.P.  Legacy Media": the question today isn't whether or not
We the People will be welcomed into the "discussion" controlled by these
legacy newsapapers -- but whether or not these doomed entities will be
allowed into the conversation being had by We the People.

That's still my story, and I'm sticking with it.

A Point-by-point refutation of Mr. Mackey's points in his article, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare":

Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

"High deductibles" are part of the problem, John. The higher the deductible, the more the patient pays out-of-pocket, i.e., that is uncovered.
We can keep raising deductibles... or we can contain costs by removing the insurance middlemen all together, at least for those who want to opt-out of the gouge-the-patient model.

Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

This sounds fine as far as it goes, but would do nothing to contain costs brought about by gouging of patients.

Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

While increasing competition, it isn't clear how this is supposed to rein in the gouging of patients. Indeed, it may, in some states, remove consumer protections designed to keep costs reined-in. I think the burden is on Mackey to explain what laws he would do away with, and if the laws he would do away with would include those that keep insurance rates down.

Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

Mr. Mackey's suggestions is laughable. One of the reasons for health care reform in the U.S. is to cover more people who have been denied coverage. Mr. Mackey's suggestion would further lower coverage...and as someone who has paid out-of-pocket for two hospitalizations, I think Mr. Mackey's suggestion betrays the fact that he's making this up as he goes along.

Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Has no one explained to Mackey that this isn't even a drop in the bucket of health care costs? Further, this would remove umpteen-dollars amount of recourse for folks suffering from illness from iatrogenic causes...illnesses that are almost always preventable.

For instance, a very dear friend of mine -- a diabetic -- died a few years ago due to a newly-prescribed medication causing a diabetic episode. He went to the hospital, caught an infection, was shipped down to a SF hospital, where he caught another infection...and died. If Mr. Mackey's misguided ideas about "tort 'reform'" were to be enacted, these sorts of occurances would happen even more often than they do now. Verdict: absolute tommyrot, and a red herring.

Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

I agree with this, though by itself, it won't do anything to stop the price-gouging.

Enact Medicare reform.

Since Medicare has, as a percentage, administrative costs that are far, far below those found in "'private' industry", I'd have to say this is another red herring.

Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Mr. Mackey doesn't seem to understand that it is already very easy to donate to such programs...again, this is more distraction that does nothing to rein-in price gouging (and in fact, would encourage more of same).

Mr. Mackey's ideas are out-of-touch with reality, and do nothing to help the millions in this country without health insurance. The so-called quote "free market" unquote has already had plenty of opportunity to cover these folks...and it has failed. Putting blind faith in "Supply-Side Jesus" seems to be a popular pasttime with GOPers, but they cannot articulate why we should agree with their "leave it to the market" attitude. If it hasn't solved the problem by now, it's not going to solve the problem.

Indeed, not only does there need to be a public option, but at this stage, I think we really need RICO investigations into the industry. I say this as someone who has lost tens of thousands of dollars into our medical system, most of which has gone to inefficient administrative overhead -- something that Mr. Mackey's ideas would do nothing to fix.

This all ignores the fact that privatized medical care makes about as much sense as privatized fire services, i.e., nil.

So let's take the gloves off, and no more Mr. Nice Guy: We need a public option now, and we need RICO investigations to unravel the hidden trusts, price fixing/gouging, and other "gotchas" that pervade the industry.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

My note posted to the White House's wall on Facebook:

Pardon me, folks -- but why did these, ahem, "misinformed gentlemen" from West Virginia think this was the appropriate way to address this issue?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

And by the way, I already see this as another pile of... mismanaged regulation that would only compliment the extreme favoritism shown by the FCC during the Bush years...from which, I might add, you have yet to change.

How about talking to the people who built this highly successful "Internet" invention? And no, that isn't multi-billion dollar telecomm companies, it's us little David's trying to compete against FCC favoritism towards the telecom Goliaths.

Instead, Rockefeller tried to end-run the process -- shame on him.

And I thought we could talk about more than one issue at a time? We can talk about HCR _and_ regulatory reform for telecommunications! How about it?

I raise my glass in honor of the death of Robert Novak. He never compromised on his positions (except in those pesky instances where it was convenient for him to do so).

I think I echo everyone's sentiments that he will most undefinitely be missed, and he is (no doubt) the recipent of his final reward.

If you're Catholic, you might pray for his soul in Purgatory. (You might. I won't -- I'm not even sure he ended up there.)

BTW, I still remember fondly Novak reacting to Carville's dig by throwing that tantrum on CNN. That's the spirit the GOP truly needs! Nevermind doing the _right_ thing, just as long as you can internally justify payola...and throw a tantrum when called on it. A true example of Republican leadership right there!

Cheers!

 -Scott

Watching the so-called "tea party movement" melt down used to get my political dander up...but now, it's so ridiculous, that i wonder if it isn't a plan by Glenn Beck, Fox News, etc. to destroy the GOP.  It really is starting to look that way.

Currently, Glenn Beck is under alleged "socialist and marxist attacks".  But wait a moment -- isn't he being "selected out of the economy" through the same so-called libertarian free market principles that he espouses so much?

Of course he is.

But it gets better:  I have a friend who is a staunch objectivist, who does label himself "libertarian", and is also an atheist.  He just posted this link onto his facebook page:

http://www.keepglennbeck.com

Which is some slap-dash website in Tennessee, apparently put up at the spur of the moment to "counter" the call to get Beck off the air.

Alas, the gentleman missed an opportunity to show he could criticize some of Glenn Beck's followers.  Because, link on that page, you will find this video:

http://tinyurl.com/brannonhowse

...which is simply another amusing example of bibul-thumpin' red-baiting, with the added twist that the guy is calling for revolution in the U.S to establish a Christian state.

So I guess Democracy is perfectly fine by these yahoos, except when they loose -- then the vacuumheads like this one "Brannon Howse" start oozing evangelical extremism, red baiting and race baiting.

But I think we are seeing this desperate talk from this vociferous minority because that's all they have left.

Please consider:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295624/posts

...in which we find one Jim Robertson advocating the drafting of a document & the execution of a bloodless coup.

Let's cut the crap for a second.

Rational folks paying attention to these right-wing groups are shaking their heads at their hubris, wondering how anybody could take them seriously.

But the fact is:  they take themselves seriously, and they purposely surround themselves with the apparatus and media to whip each other into a frenzy, manifesting an irresponsible self-contained delusion.

The likes of Glenn Beck -- hell, all of Fox News -- as well as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and yes, this Jim Robertson -- perpetuate the illusion.  And I don't know how much of it is circular references, and how much lies, but I do know this:  there are people out there whose political ideas feed off this type of fevor, enough that they might (say) shoot up the Nat'l Holocaust Museum, or gun down political opponents in their own churches.

Often those of this "coup ilk" will express some kind of non-violence directive.  This is a good thing -- but is it enough?  Such caveats are often postscripts to the wacked-out epistles they foist upon their hapless victims -- personally, I think they need to both prefix _and_ suffix their screeds with calls to non-violence.

Now, regarding the situation of Mr. Robertson & his epistle to his faithful:  As much as I disagree with what he has to say, I think he has the right to say it.  (I would call it irresponsible in the manner he has done so, but he still has the right to be irresponsible.)  Indeed, his call for a demonstration, on the face of it, is very much one of the rights we guarantee under our U.S. Constitution.  The matter of choking the workings of DC doesn't sound constitutional to me, though -- but I'm trying to point out that not all of what the guy says is wrong.
 
But then, we enter a whole new gray area:  what can we say to him to convince him that a rabble -- no matter how large, and how peaceful --  does not have the authority to repeal amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

I'm not just splitting hairs.  When I joined the military, I swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or _domestic_.  So when someone starts feeling his oats, "pinning the hubris meter", and talking about millions of people ignoring our U.S. Constitution, I start to wonder what that could mean.

No, it doesn't worry me sick -- but I do feel a twinge of concern that if folks were to try to undermine U.S. government, people could get hurt -- especially if any calls to non-violent protest appear after pages of screed making grandiose statements against our U.S. Constitution:  which is the very foundation of our government.

But having said all that, I have no idea how to address this.  But I do advocate that someone in disagreement with their positions open some kind of dialogue with them.

Because, even if it proves to be fruitless, at least we tried.  I'd do it, but I really don't know how to handle that kind of talk, except through parody and ridicule...and I'm not sure that will help at this stage.

Take care.  Please.

Quoting David Kurtz:

Former CIA counter-terrorism expert and bin Laden tracker Michael Scheuer seems to have become unhinged, telling Glenn Beck last night: "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/only_bin_laden_can_save_us.php

Crooks & Liars has the more lengthy excerpt:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-scheuer-fox-americas-only-ho

Ladies and gentlemen:

Word cannot express how OUTRAGED I am at these people.

I am a strong, strong proponent of Free Speech and the First Amendment -- but death threats are not protected speech.  Let us remember that first.

With that in mind, what of this "Michael Scheuer" dirtbag?  Clearly -- in his co-hubris with noted #teaparty terrorist Glenn Beck -- the man crossed a line.

Arguably, he may have even called for a terrorist attack on the United States.  He says it is "the only chance we have."

And, when Scheuer crossed that line, it was up to Glenn Beck to defend the reputation of his network by saying "whoa, you have gone too far."

Instead, Glenn Beck was in nodding agreement with this scumbag's scum, and thus, is a scumbag himself.

These "men" are an affront to any United States citizen.  This "Scheuer" claims to have been in the CIA, and indeed, Glenn Beck worked very hard to "put him in the White House", by saying he had attended White House briefings.  Scheuer corrected him, and said he had worked with senior folks in the CIA ... and apparently never did do what Glenn Beck was trying to puff him up as.

Thus, Glenn Beck was over-the-top LYING about Scheuer's stature, and worked hard to puff the guy up, making it seem like he was more important that he was.

And I'm pointing this out because I have friends who swear by Glenn Beck.  But as a United States Military Veteran -- and even more important, as a United States Citizen -- I am deeply, deeply offended by this behavior by these two dirtbags.

Both have crossed the line.  And while we may argue that what they said _might_ be protected by the First Amendment, that does not give them immunity from justiable outrage and condemnation.

These cretins are lower than pond scum under a snake's belly.  And while I was raised a Christian, I find it difficult to imagine any apology that would repair the damage that these men have done -- not only to (what might be left of ) Fox's reputation, but to the security of the United States.

In the service, I was cleared to handle material up to, and including, Top Secret -- material that, if compromised, would result in exceptionally grave damage to the United States national security.  So I think I would know something that damaged our U.S. national security if i saw it -- in both a common sense manner, as well as a legal and adjudical manner.

These utterances -- and Glenn's absolute failure to act as any reasonable
person would act -- do not approach that level of "exceptionally grave damage".  But I can articulate that these worms have, in fact, damaged our U.S. national security, and deserve the utmost censure, condemnation, outrage, and (yes) ridicule.

I'm not talking about the blogosphere's reaction -- I have no doubt that the
coming storm will make it Very Clear to the employers of these morons that
they are, at best, outrageously irresponsible.  Hopefully Fox (and whoever
else is involved) will denounce these evil men, and FIRE GLENN BECK.

But I'm talking about more than that:  These statement by these "men" are
damaging, seditious, and evil, and deserve the strongest condemnation by any
legislative body that hears such absolute pornographic filth from Mickey the Sheep -Shearer.

And not only is this sort of speech from these idiots the kind of stupidity we've come to expect from the #teaparty terrorists, but the offensive and outragous statements also have the disadvantage of being LIES.

"this is our only chance!" the Sheep-Shearer says.  These FILTHY LIES are completely devoid of any of the imagination of intelligent and knowledgeble men -- men such as those who attended Harvard.  But what does the Shearer say on that topic?  He derides people who have graduated Harvard, in a very "Bushonian" manner -- I was surprised he didn't brag about his "D average" at his local remedial vocational training facility.

And if I hear any of this "this is bi-partisan, he worked for the Feds under
Clinton, too!", then we will also know that these people must think We,
the United States Citizens, are also idiots .  This psychological projection from
the like of Glenn Beck, Michael Sheuer, and the rest of these unAmerican
assholes is palpable, un-self-aware, and laborously unyielding to the
sensibilities of our brave and noble U.S. Citizens.

Yes, brave.  Because no U.S. citizen of any common sense, or possessing any
semblance of a spine, will give any credence to these adolescent, uneducated morons, with their demagoguery and (attempts at) fear-mongering.

Because We the People do, in fact, possess the requisite Bravery to stand firm for the First Amendment -- and all our Cherished Freedoms -- even in the face of such destructive speech from these obviously dangerous individuals.  These worms that call themselves "men" can never take that essential Spirit and Bravery of the American people away from us -- we laugh at the Sheep-Shearer and his nodding accomplice...and we mock them.

I could rant much more, but there will be plenty of others speaking out in
outrage.

Conclusion:  Glenn Beck of Fox News, and Michael Sheep-Shearer of
Donkey's Ass, both have already lost all semblance of any reputation, and it
is impossible to imagine these cretins every saying anything of any repute,
or deserving any notice.

THEY ARE FIRED.

Bombs should be outlawed. Period.

Seriously: Do we really want to be dropping ordinance on people, with so much collateral damage resulting therefrom?

And then there are our cherished ideals about all human beings being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Unless, of course, said human beings happen to be too close to some target that "we" think is politically expedient to blow up.

To quote a wise man: ENOUGH. In the modern world, no one needs to bomb anybody, period, full stop.

One hundred years from now, Humanity will look back at our bomb-happy governments, and conclude that this was one of the most barbarous chapters in human history: a time when we though bombs were okay.

And to you who think this is a radical idea: Is it? Is it any more radical that the barbaric idea of "acceptable collateral damage"? Really? How about you take a good, hard look at exactly why you think it's okay for your government to drop bombs on people...and then, look closer, at the excuses they use to do so.

We -- you, me, anyone of "We the People", who theoretically are the ultimate authority for our governments' actions -- think it is okay to bomb things at the drop of a hat. Any excuse is good for bomb-dropping, just as long as the people affected are people we don't like...or people that happen to be in the same neighborhood as people we don't like.

Well hell -- they're not Americans, right? Who cares if we blow a city block to smithereens? After all, anybody in the general area of anybody we don't like is, most likely, going to be subject to whatever government we don't approve of, and therefore deserves to be killed or horribly maimed.

I think people tolerate this murderous behavior by our government because "that's the way it's always been". We the People think we can't do anything about it...which is exactly what the chickenhawks want you to think. We demonize "the enemy", so we don't have to consider the ramifications of "acceptable" collateral damage from bombs.

"It is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation." -General William Tecumseh Sherman

Do you want the U.S. to be a true leader in this world? How about we outlaw bombs? Do we in the U.S. have the courage to get along without bombing people?

-Scott

"The Revolution Will NOT Be Twittered"  Proclaims this Mr. Tom Watson on Techpresident.com.  "Mock on." he writes.

To the question, "what can do?", his answer: "So far, just hit the refresh button."

   http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/revolution-will-not-be-twittered

"We need to calm down." he writes.

No.  There is a time for "calming down", and there is a time when we, as human beings, need to express our solidarity with anybody struggling with a theocracy.  In the case of Iran, we have 70% of its population under the age of 25, and I'd daresay that the overwhelming impetus for their vision of change is that the _actually can_ have that vision, thanks to what they know from outside their state-run media.

And there is an operative term for that -- coined back in the early 90's -- when we who built the Internet here in the United States were struggling with a "status quo" that was concerned about the Net, even to the point of delaying deployment of connections, in some cases.

That term is "Guerilla Networking".  And I find it ironic that it can be applied to a class of people who are, now, almost in a "guerilla mode".

In 1991, information passed via IRC helped "get the word out" to the rest of the world about the coup that spelled the downfall of the USSR.  This was "social networking" before the term had been coined.  Mr. Watson says that all we can do with this uncensored flow of information is "hit reload".

"Bah", I say to that.  Though Mr. Watson claims to have written a book on social networking, his pronouncements about "Mock On" smack of a kind of hubris, spurred on by his possible feelings of "not invented here".  Bah!

There is plenty we can do.  We can speak out, inspiring our brother and sister human beings to realize their rights that all civilized peoples recognize, and to envision a better Iran than they have been suffering through under its crushing theocracy.  We can read the reports, and entreat our elected representatives to deny the legitimacy of the oppressive theocracy.

And I would even go so far as to ask you: whither the state whose legitimacy is denied by the Free World?

Further, I am a fierce advocate for secular government, as I think it is the only way to ensure equal rights for people of every creed.  Breaking free from the fetters of an oppressive theocracy might not be ultimately fueled by this "Guerilla Networking," but it absolutely plays an important role, if only to know that there _can_ be a different government:  one with the courage to allow her people to be Free.

And it is precisely because of the spread of our ideas of Freedom and Democracy that these oppressive regimes struggle to shut off the flow of information.  So when Mr. Watson tells us that all we can do is "hit reload", he has (perhaps unwittingly) played right into the hands of the oppressive regime.

We regard these ideas of Free Speech as being fundamental to our freedoms -- because, where would Freedom be without a vibrant and efficacious 4th Estate?  And once we have considered that idea, is it any stretch at all to understand the condemnation the U.S. media received, when it failed to properly cover the events in Iran?

"Mock on" he says, and to that I would agree:  Mock the ideas of Mr. Watson, because as much of an authority he might end up being, he has set himself down at the wrong side of history.  Hopefully he will realize that, and take this criticism for exactly what it is:  a call for people to speak their mind, and not "hit reload".

I'll close by offering a link to my personal home page, within which I collect various quotes regarding Free Speech and self-determination.  One reads:

"Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter." Milton, Areopagetica

http://sonic.net/scott/

May God Bless Everyone,

 -Scott

Hello,

I sometimes assume folks know my background, know from which experiences I have developed my opinions, and know what brought me into the realm of political discourse.  But maybe I should restate that information in a concise form...if folks find this repetitive, I apologize.

I was a "geek" before it was "cool" to be a geek.  I graduated Montgomery High School here in Santa Rosa in 1985, after having been very active in the school's computer club and in the computer lab...including making security patches to the software that connected the Apple ][+ computers to a Corvus networked hard drive.

After about a year of school and work, I enlisted in the United States Coast Guard, attended boot camp at Cape May, New Jersey (I-124) during the winter of 1986-87, where I caught pneumonia, which held me back a week, graduating with K-124.

After a year of seamanship at Coast Guard Station Neah Bay, Washington State, I was accepted at Radioman "A" School in Petaluma, California, after which I was assigned to a 378' high-endurance cutter, USCGC Morgenthau. Besides qualifying as a Communications Watch Officer, I also held various collateral duties, including:  Damage Control Petty Officer (DCPO), Automated Data Processing Security Petty Officer (ADPSPO), Ship's systems manager, and editor of the ship's newspaper.

In 1989, we of the crew of Morgenthau crossdecked onto the newly-renovated 378' high-endurance cutter Munro, where I served for the rest of my active duty until April, 1991.

Being very motivated to go back to school, I attended Santa Rosa Junior College, and ended up a student worker in their Computing Services department, which about that time had gotten the campus connected to the California State University Network (CSUNet), then part of what was to become the Internet.  This led to taking a classified position at the school as a "PC/Network Technician", helping to administer and build-out the growing campus network.

In 1992, I became interested in the possibilities of running Unix on 386-class computers, from which came a student project:  building a Linux system, and connecting it to the campus network.  This then became a Unix host, from which students could use the Internet.  From this, we in Computing Services gained the knowledge and experience to operate increasingly-reliable 386-hosted Unix systems and in 1994, I co-founded a company with my best friend and business partner, Dane Jasper.

Circumstances in 1995 led me to resign at SRJC, and go to work full-time for our business, "Sonoma Interconnect", which was later to become "Sonic.net".  It was here that I worked harder than I'd ever worked in my life (which even exceeded the 96-hour work weeks we Radiomen endured while underway on the high-endurance cutters) and in 1998, this pace took a toll on my health.  After a similar "burn out" in 2000, I stepped back a bit from the frenetic pace, and focussed on a mode of semi-retirement, as well as other personal interests.

In 2004, it became clear to me that our 4th Estate here in the United States was sorely lacking, and I began a kind of online activism, calling for reform.  This included participation in online forums, such as Internet Relay Chat channels, from which we've hammered out a lot of political points (and even made progress in some discussions, the results of which have been blogged elsewhere).  Folks that have participated in those discussions have included Americans from many walks of life, Israeli's, Lebanese, Egyptians, Moroccans, Pakistani, and even one student from West Iran.

In short:  When I hear the extremists in our country talk about "real Americans" (in an exclusive way), I have to laugh:  It takes no courage to call people we agree with "Real Americans"; the real test of courage is being brave enough to uphold our most Cherished American Ideals, including defending the right of  people we don't agree with to have their say, as well as being tolerant of other religions and peoples.

Having said all that:  I am a huge stickler for logic and facts, over bluster and lies.  I have a friend who says I use my lists of logical fallacies, cognitive distortions, and so forth like Hong Kong Fooey's "Big Book of Kung Fu"...but however that may be regarded, it is relatively easy for a skeptic who is armed with logic, facts, and integrity to deflate the ill-formed arguments of the extremists and poultroons of this world.  (Easy, yes...but often tedious.)

If I learned anything from my father -- a "Real American", if there ever was one -- it is this:  a person's integrity is their most important possession, and this integrity includes admitting when we are wrong.  As human beings, that is one of the strongest tests of our courage; and our elected officials, as well as our press here in the United States needs to be reminded of that.

Thank you for reading my introduction! :)

 -Scott Doty