apple juice

This is a must read if you are concerned about free speech and the internet.

Dear Congress, It’s No Longer OK To Not Know How the Internet Works

So it was as proponents of the Hollywood-funded bill curmudgeonly shot down all but two amendments proposed by its opponents, who fought to dramatically alter the document to preserve security and free speech on the net. But the chilling takeaway of this whole debacle was the irrefutable air of anti-intellectualism; that inescapable absurdity that we have members of Congress voting on a technical bill who do not posses any technical knowledge on the subject and do not find it imperative to recognize those who do.

This used to be funny, but now it’s really just terrifying. We’re dealing with legislation that will completely change the face of the internet and free speech for years to come. Yet here we are, still at the mercy of underachieving Congressional know-nothings that have more in common with the slacker students sitting in the back of math class than elected representatives. The fact that some of the people charged with representing us must be dragged kicking and screaming out of their complacency on such matters is no longer endearing — it’s just pathetic and sad.

“Not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content of my character.”

we need to defeat the marriage amendment that will be on the ballot in 2012.

good point from Dave Winer – Relying on Facebook, Google and Twitter – it’s like vegans who wear leather.

another take from the atlantic. 5 Reasons Why ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Won’t Work

I’m not sure you can say it won’t work when you don’t really know what their goals are yet. (I guess that is his first point, but still). I’m interested to see how this develops. There is a group in Minneapolis, appropriately named OccupyMN, ready to hunker down October 7th.

I have to say that I’m a bit disturbed about the recent news about Anwar al-Awlaki being killed in Yemen by our super secret special forces. Certainly bothers me that a U.S. citizen was essentially executed without due process of the law. Actually, executions bother me in general, I don’t really much care who the person is.

But I suppose there is some point at which you implicitly give up your rights as a U.S. citizen, perhaps organizing terrorist operations against the U.S. counts as one of those points.

I also find it interesting that this is one of those situations in the bizarro-world of american politics where briefly and in an insane manner, the left and right sides of the political spectrum turn themselves inside out and get all wound up. Peace-loving democrats cheering on the President for acting decisively? War-mongering Republicans suddenly concerned about flexing our military to take out potential threats? Isn’t this what happened when Clinton sent a few cruise missiles into Yemen during the “wag the dog” incident? Who was he targeting again? Oh yeah, Osama Bin Laden.

Anyway, here’s another perspective from a progressive who is supporting this action. Mostly I agree with these guys, but not so sure on this one….

Telling You What I Think: “

I won’t mention the show. Because these things are often cancelled at the last moment. But I’m going to go on TV this afternoon to debate the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. And I’m on the ‘for’ position. (These things always get radically simplified. But when asked, do I think it was illegal? No. I don’t.) I suspect this will cause a great deal of consternation for some readers of the site. So I thought I’d explain my thinking in advance.

Just to have the key facts on the table, as most of you know, Anwar al-Awlaki, unlike virtually all the other members of al Qaeda targeted by the US, was an American citizen. He was born in New Mexico of Yemeni parents, returned to Yemen when he was seven and then returned to the United States for college. More recently he returned to Yemen and became involved with the al Qaeda affiliate al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

So how is it exactly that a US President can order the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen? I agree. It’s a troubling thought. But I would approach it differently. Is it really possible that a US citizen can be operating abroad as a key leader of an international terrorist group, organizing and inspiring terrorist attacks within the US, and the US has no recourse other than to secure an arrest warrant and arrest him somewhere in the wilds of Yemen? That strikes me as preposterous.

The key in my mind is that al-Awlaki is or was essentially waging war against the United States from abroad.

Now, there’s a great deal we don’t know and probably won’t know. And that leaves open a great opportunity for abuse. There is for instance some controversy over whether al-Awlaki was simply inspiring terrorist attacks or whether he was operationally involved in them. I don’t think a US president should ever be allowed to do this within the United States or anywhere else where arrest is a credible option. I also think that in the case of targeting a US citizen, the President of the United States should need to personally authorize the decision. Someone has to take responsibility and be accountable.

The idea that his US citizenship mandates that he be handled through the US criminal justice system in every case, even the most extreme ones such as this, simply doesn’t make sense to me. So I just can’t credit that argument that targeting him is ‘illegal’.

Just to emphasize the point again, this is a case where there’s a ton we don’t know. So I’m answering the question based on my understanding of what happened. Liable to abuse? Sure. Illegal. I can’t see the argument, either legally or logically.

(Via Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall.)

“Questions to consider:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised ‘Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.’ I yield back the balance of my time.”

(Via Huffington Post - Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks On House Floor (VIDEO)🙂