Some Multi-Media stuff

Well, I went out tonight with our Phriar Phriend, and saw Fahrenheit 9/11...WOW!

Bush is toast.

It is a very powerful film. It leaves no doubt in my mind that Bush not only went into Iraq for the oil, but had planned to do so even before he was elected. The Fundie/Right-Wing/Facist coalition that has taken over the Republican Party are really going to hate this film, as it skewers their puppet and those around him. As many commentators in the US media have said, Colin Powell is not very happy about what has happened, and I am willing to bet that after the election will do a Richard Clark with a tell-all book that nails the coffin on the Bush family. We could see major legal action against Bush & Co, which would be nice. Too bad for all the poor souls who have died in Iraq this couldn't happen sooner.

The film is also very disturbing. It is scary how close the Bush regime has come to getting everything they want. They are as scary, only more so than the PQ in Quebec. Both are just steps away from National Socialism.

But enough depressing and scary stuff...

How many Canadian's here remember the "Hinterland's Who's Who?" short films that were shown on Canadian TV? Well, they are now available on the Net! Go to http://www.hww.ca. You need Quicktime to play them. They seem to work fine under Linux, so they don't use any esoteric Quicktime codecs.

That's it for now. Off to watch some more Inu Yasha!

ttyl

Scary stuff, kids!

In light of F-9/11, here is something you should read. Although this article is long, I think it is really important that you read it...Bruce is one of the planet's formost experts on security, and I have heard nothing but wisdom in his comments over the years. Please take the time and read this article.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4843840.html

Bruce Schneier: Unchecked police and military power is a security threat
Bruce Schneier
June 24, 2004 SCHNEIER0624

As the U.S. Supreme Court decides three legal challenges to the Bush administration's legal maneuverings against terrorism, it is important to keep in mind how critical these cases are to our nation's security. Security is multifaceted; there are many threats from many different directions. It includes the security of people against terrorism, and also the security of people against tyrannical government.

The three challenges are all similar, but vary slightly. In one case, the families of 12 Kuwaiti and two Australian men imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay argue that their detention is an illegal one under U.S. law. In the other two cases, lawyers argue whether U.S. citizens -- one captured in the United States and the other in Afghanistan -- can be detained indefinitely without charge, trial or access to an attorney.

In all these cases, the administration argues that these detentions are lawful, based on the current "war on terrorism." The complainants argue that these people have rights under the U.S. Constitution, rights that cannot be stripped away.

Legal details aside, I see very broad security issues at work here. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to ensure the security of people: American citizens and visitors. Their limitations of governmental power are a security measure. Their enshrinement of human rights is a security measure.

These measures were developed in response to colonial tyranny by Britain, and have been extended in response to abuses of power in our own country. Laws mandating speedy trial by jury, laws prohibiting detention without charge, laws regulating police behavior -- these are all laws that make us more secure. Without them, government and police power remains unchecked.

The case of Jose Padilla is a good illustration. Arrested in Chicago in May 2002, he has never been charged with a crime. John Ashcroft held a press conference accusing him of trying to build a "dirty bomb," but no court has ever seen any evidence to support this accusation. If he's guilty, he deserves punishment; there's no doubt about that. But the way to determine guilt or innocence is by a trial on a specific indictment (charge or accusation of a crime). Without an indictment, there can be no trial, and the prisoner is held in limbo.

Surely none of us wants to live under a government with the right to arrest anyone at any time for any reason, and to hold them without trial indefinitely.

The Bush administration has countered that it cannot try these people in public because that would compromise its methods and intelligence. Our government has made this claim before, and invariably it turned out to be a red herring.

In 1985, retired Naval officer John Walker was caught spying for the Soviet Union; the evidence given by the National Security Agency was enough to convict him without giving away military secrets.

More recently, John Walker Lindh -- the "American Taliban" captured in Afghanistan -- was processed by the justice system, and received a 20-year prison sentence. Even during World War II, German spies captured in the United States were given attorneys and tried in public court.

We need to carry on these principles of fair and open justice, both because it is the right thing to do and because it makes us all more secure.

The United States is admired throughout the world because of our freedoms and our liberties. The very rights that are being discussed within the halls of the Supreme Court are the rights that keep us all safe and secure. The more our fight against terrorism is conducted within the confines of law, the more it gives consideration to the principles of fair and open trial, due process and "innocent until proven guilty," the safer we all are.

Unchecked police and military power is a security threat -- just as important a threat as unchecked terrorism. There is no reason to sacrifice the former to obtain the latter, and there are very good reasons not to.

Bruce Schneier, Minneapolis, is chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. and the author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World."

F 9/11 again.

One of the things that I noticed at the film last night, but forgot until someone on Slashdot.org mentioned it is that that majority of the people I saw were in that 18-30 demographic. In fact, there were a number that I would guess were even younger. It was a very young audience there, more in line with a summer blockbuster than some documentry.

Although it was aimed at the Bush regime, F9/11 will have farther reaching consequences...and judging by the demographics, we might see a wave of liberalism in the US that will rival that of the 1960s.

As I mentioned, Slashdot.org (News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters) is having a huge discussion on F9/11. I am finding many of the people attacking it are just parrotting comments made by rightwing/conservative media commentators, many of whom claim to have not seen the movie.

One of the more interesting attempts to fetter this film is a rightwing group that has complained to the elections commission that F9/11 is a political advertising, and ads for it should not be shown on TV starting a month before the Republican National Convention. In some ways, I hope they win since this will cause even more controversy which will increase the film's exposure as it may be starting to wane by then, but it will mean that in 4 years, the Religious Right will not be able to produce a piece of propaganda and use it to further their political objectives.

Another observation made is how strange it is that Howard Stern is also become very anti-Bush. In fact, a comparision of michaelmoore.com and howardstern.com shows that Stern has more anti-bush content on it's front page than Moore does!

In other news, the Canadian election is tomorrow. I didn't find out what I had to do to vote...so I won't have a say this time. I sincerly hope that the so-called Conservatives do not form the next government. I don't think that the Liberals are any better, ethicly and morally, but at least their general trend is closer to what is best for the country. And I think a Conservative win will greatly hurt Canada.

ttyl

Funny comment on Slashdot.org

"It would seem that by US standards, anything less than Atilla the Hun is "leftist"..."