You work very hard. Don’t try to think as well.
Rants
Rants and musings about the two forbidden topics of conversation.
Glenn Beck doesn’t understand the Internet… (if he does, then he’s making a big deal about this simply so he can have something to yap about)
First, watch the following video:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002008/
Just a point of order before I get too far into this; throughout this post, I’ll use the terms “warning banner”, “warning message”, “logon banner”, “network banner” and “privacy statement” interchangeably… they all refer to just about the same thing and serve the same purpose.
Now if you are to take Beck at his word, this is scary shit right? Wrong. First of all, don’t take beck at his word [ever], he’ll give you brain herpes. Here’s the deal, that disclaimer that he’s taking such a big issue with? Yeah, it’s a pretty standard warning message actually. Take the U.S. Army’s website for example (warning, you’ll have to confirm a security certificate exception); one of the “scary issues” that Beck has with the warning on the cars.gov website is that it’s too broad (never mind the fact that it has to be… we’ll get to that in a second). If you read the security warning on the Army’s site, it too is broad and so is their terms of service. Moreover, all this bullshit about “America, do not try this at home.” is just silly fucking nonsense, meant only to scare people who do not know any better. This security message that Beck is all up in arms about is what is known as a “warning banner”. Warning banners are common on just about all corporate and government computers that are accessible from the Internet (…and have been common for a looooong time). Even some private computers, such as someone who runs a web, e-mail, ftp, etc. server from their home for personal use will have warning banners. In addition to those, it’s also common to see similar, broadly worded messages at the bottom of some e-mails (pursuant to the “e-mail” policy of some organizations). Their purpose is to cast a wide legal net so that in the event that someone abuses the system in question, legal action can be taken. The basic purpose of any warning banner should be to make the following point: If you attempt to circumvent the security measures employed by this system, succeed in doing so, and/or abuse this system in any way, legal action will be taken against you. Not to belabor the point, but here’s what the DOJ has to say about warning banners:
Network banners are electronic messages that provide notice of legal rights to users of computer networks. From a legal standpoint, banners have four primary functions. First, banners may be used to generate consent to real-time monitoring under Title III. Second, banners may be used to generate consent to the retrieval of stored files and records pursuant to ECPA. Third, in the case of government networks, banners may eliminate any Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” that government employees or other users might otherwise retain in their use of the government’s network under O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987). Fourth, in the case of a non-government network, banners may establish a system administrator’s “common authority” to consent to a law enforcement search pursuant to United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).
If my name were Glenn Beck, I’d be throwing a tantrum upon reading eliminate any Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” … and I wouldn’t read the rest before running to the camera with a story about how the Communist-terrorist Obama administration wants to eliminate our Fourth Amendment rights (never mind the fact that the referenced DOJ website was in existence well before Obama took office)… but I digress.
Warning banners, such as the one Beck is holding up as an example of “scary shit that the Obama administration is doing” shouldn’t frighten anyone except for those who plan on doing exactly what the warning message tells them not to do. Warning banners are passive security measures; they need to be broad in order to apply to any/all possible cases of abuse. They don’t actually make the computer/network/website/etc. more secure (with the exception of causing would-be “crackers” to think twice before trying anything). Their real power comes from the fact that they can be used in court to show that the defendant had been warned in advance and knew full and well they were doing something that they shouldn’t have been doing.
In regard to this particular warning banner, I went to the cars.gov website to see what I could find out about it… it turns out, that the only way you’ll ever see the message that Beck is ranting about is if you are a car dealer participating in the CARS program. Given the potential for fraud on behalf of unscrupulous car dealers, I’d say that the strong wording of the warning banner/privacy message (whichever you choose to call it) is entirely appropriate. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens looking for information about the CARS program only consent to have their IP address tracked (which is something that all webservers do by default anyway).
This is just another example of fearmongering on behalf of a fanatic who cannot reconcile his world-view with reality.
### Update! Here’s some more information about this from Daily Kos, enjoy.
How Ironic
Along the same paradoxical lines as “saddlebacking”, comes this bit of news from Oklahoma:
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins delivered a lecture on the illusion of intentional purpose in nature on March 6 at McCasland Field House. Earlier that week, Rep. Todd Thomsen, R-Ada, authored two resolutions apropos of Dawkins’ lecture.
These resolutions opposed Dawkins’ invitation to speak because of his “intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking,” and condemned the University of Oklahoma for engaging in “one-sided indoctrination” in service of the “unproven and unpopular” theory of evolution.
Intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking? How is this not the pot calling the kettle black? And since when is evolution “unproven and unpopular”? Maybe he’s just limiting the scope of this statement to Oklahoma… who knows. Last I checked, evolution was a scientific fact that only seems to be unpopular with people who are either uneducated or those whose minds are closed to logic and reason. On second thought; there’s an awful lot of people like that… maybe Rep. Thomsen has a point.
What I find to be so ironic about this (aside from what I’ve already said) is that the “religious” “right” is always yammering on about how they’re “protecting” America and our Constitutional values—even free speech (especially free speech). Any time someone files a complaint about, oh, I don’t know, things like a 2.6 ton granite monument to the 10 commandments being displayed in a government building; or other overtly religious symbols/displays on public (and thereby secular) property; they are always sure to decry it as an infringement on their right to free speech. But when the tables are turned, they’re always the first to try to suppress someone else’s right to free speech if it’s speech that they don’t approve of… do they not realize the hypocrisy in this? … It’s a rhetorical question, everyone already knows the answer.
So much for being “pro life”
I know I’m a day late on this one but as always I’d like to say a few things. First of all, my condolences to the family of Dr. George Tiller. He was shot on Sunday morning—in the lobby of his church, while serving as an usher. Police have arrested the suspect and have yet to release his name. The motive seems to be pretty clear though; Tiller ran an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas. His clinic has been the subject of attacks in the past; it was bombed in 1985 and Tiller himself was wounded in 1993 when a member of the anti-choice movement shot him in both arms. It is worth noting that Tiller’s clinic is one of only a few clinics in the nation that performed late-term abortions, or abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy.
This comes on the heels of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a supporter of women’s rights, to the Supreme Court. I can’t help but wonder if all the right-wing hate talk surrounding the Sotomayor nomination that has been flooding the airwaves last week was the final straw that pushed Tiller’s assailant to commit such a brazen act. In a church lobby no less.
Sadly, this isn’t an isolated incident. As I’ve said before, Tiller was attacked at least twice in the past, but he’s just one statistic:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/
There’s a couple of pages of statistics detailing violence against abortion clinics and their employees. I think that it’s safe to say that these attacks originate from the fringes of the conservative, so-called “pro-life” movement—I don’t think that the majority of conservatives condone violence (at least not overtly) against abortion clinics or their employees, but comments like these (from twitter) sure make me wonder:
http://carnalnation.com/content/7628/3/tweets-hate-crazy-right-twitters-about-murder-dr-tiller
Ignorant cowards.
It doesn’t take much thought to see the irony here: a member of the so-called “pro-life” (read: anti-choice) movement murdering an abortionist. Make no mistake, this IS a case of religiously motivated violence… this IS religious extremism.
I want to make it clear that I’m completely opposed to late-term abortions except in rare instances where the life of the mother is at stake. Other than that, I’m pro-choice, but not because I *like* abortions or because I’m evil or immoral, or whatever else the anti-choice movement would say about me. Having a child is a huge commitment, and it’s a decision that should not be taken lightly. This is also a decision that males should just stay the fuck out of (for the most part). Our contribution to baby-making is fairly simple; we’re not the ones whose bodies go through massive, sometimes life-threatening changes in order to bring a child to term. Ironically, it’s usually the male in the relationship who can’t commit and pushes the female to get an abortion… and if she refuses? But I digress…
Legal abortions are a necessary alternative to illegal, often fatal, “back alley” abortions. I’ve brought up this point with anti-choicers, and their response is usually arrogant and condescending: “Well she shouldn’t have been having sex outside of marriage anyway” or something along that line. This seems to serve a dual purpose; it opens the door a little for some good old-fashioned proselytizing while reinforcing the idea that only “bad” people have abortions. I’ve long suspected that anti-choicers see pregnancy as both a blessing and a punishment—a blessing between married couples, and punishment for non-married couples. Many religious people whom I’ve spoken to on this subject, even view birth control methods (the pill, condoms, etc.) with the same contempt that many others reserve only for abortion. It just seems to me that the anti-choice movement is obsessed with controlling every aspect of everyone else’s sexual and reproductive decisions. And when they aren’t spewing forth religious rhetoric to justify their stance, they claim to be defending the unborn—a position that they clearly haven’t thought out too well because it begs the question, “Does every egg or sperm cell count as potential child?” I ask this question in response to the question “When does life begin?”
For any anti-choicers who have gotten this far into this post, brace yourselves because we might be in agreement on something: I believe that life begins either before conception or the moment of. I believe this, because as I write, millions and millions of cells in my body are going about their daily lives, carrying out critical, life supporting tasks, while being completely unaware that I exist… yet they are alive nonetheless. Expanding on this point, some might wonder how I could be pro-choice. I’d say that I’m pro-choice by default; I’m pro-choice because the alternatives are much worse. If a woman doesn’t want to carry a child to term then she shouldn’t have to (regardless of her reasons), and there should be a safe, legal way to handle this. Then at what point should we say that abortion is no longer an option? I think that once the fetus has measurable brainwave activity (around 25 weeks into the pregnancy) the mother should have made up her mind (in my opinion she’s had enough time by this point) and abortion should not be an option… hence, my opposition to late-term abortions. We could be here all day talking about options that do not include abortion, but they all miss the point: history has shown us that if a woman does not wish to carry a child to term, she will find a way to end the pregnancy; usually at great risk to herself. As for the religious justification for being anti-choice? Mind your own damn business. Not everyone believes as you do; the United States is a secular nation, not a nation that panders to any particular religious point of view (although sometimes I wonder)… get over it.
This brings back memories…
I’ve already spoken at length about my experience with religious fanaticism while I served in the Army; and then I saw the following on reddit this morning:
For me, this conjures memories of many a Battle Update Brief; opened with a prayer, closed with a prayer, and full of questionable religious content (e.g. slides such as these) in between. Many of these briefs focused on how we were going to deal with the Islamic fundamentalists who were resisting the Iraq occupation… I often wondered whether I was the only one who realized the irony.
The Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
I’m surprised that Faux “News” hasn’t given this much coverage at all. Here’s what Lou Dobbs had to say about it:
And here’s a copy of the treaty.
Now my two cents…
I’m always wary of any legislation that removes rights or places restrictions because in my opinion, once you start along the path of taking rights away from the populace, there’s really no limit to the number of rights that could be potentially taken away. The people making the rules seem to believe that the rules somehow do not apply to them, or, they view the rights that they’re crusading against with such contempt that they have convinced themselves that only “bad” people would complain about them being taken away. I hate to frame this in such simplistic terms, but this probably fits the mentality of the majority of people who would push a “prohibitionist” agenda. With respect to gun rights; I have a particular problem with people who crusade against gun ownership—in all it’s forms, while not realizing that it was private gun ownership on behalf of the colonists who fought for the freedom of this nation, that has given them the right to bitch about guns. These very same people also ignore the fact that private gun ownership is first and foremost a matter of self defense—not recreational activity. Highlighting this point is the following line in the text of the SIFTA treaty:
RECOGNIZING that states have developed different cultural and historical uses for firearms, and that the purpose of enhancing international cooperation to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties;
If they actually understood the reason the Second Amendment exists, then the words “self defense” or something to that effect, would appear in this paragraph. But they do not. Instead, we’re left with the ambiguous statement: “and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties;”
The Second Amendment exists because our forefathers realized that as time goes on, the probability that the government would stop serving the people and serve only itself, approaches one. They also realized that should this ever happen, the people should have the right to rise up and replace the government with one that better suits them—which is exactly what just took place a few years before the Second Amendment was conceived. The prohibitionists also like to argue that such a rebellion would likely not be successful. This completely misses the point. During the Revolutionary War, the greatest military force at the time (the British) were defeated by a rag-tag force of under-gunned and outnumbered farmers. But the revolutionaries had one thing on their side: they were fed up with the oppression that they were experiencing at the hands of their current government, and they were willing to die fighting against it.
The prohibitionists always like to point out crime statistics as a reason for banning weapons. This is a flawed approach, because it’s obvious that if you are going to commit a crime then you don’t care much about the law. If alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs has taught us anything, it’s that you can’t outlaw something and expect it to just go away. You also can’t make the law-abiding population safe by taking away their ability to defend themselves… and aside from the impractical concerns involved with the police force protecting every single citizen; it’s not really the job of the police to defend you from criminals anyway.
Their definitions are all wrong too. For instance, “assault weapons” … what an ambiguous term! Damn near anything can be used as a weapon to assault someone with. Ignoring this, the anti-gun crowd has effectively defined “assault weapons” to include weapons that are only cosmetically similar to military style weapons. To me, this is just ignorant fear.
I’ll end this rant with a plea; if you feel the same way that I do, please contact your Representatives and/or Senators to express your opposition.
