edjog Photo
Smack X Photo
H5N1 Photo
Hosted by Putfile.com

 Search: 
 
For words, meanings or references.
Hosted by Putfile.com
fuckin tunes on then...

Hosted by Putfile.com

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

URGENT: They've kidnapped Pinochet
WE NEED YOUR COLLABORATION [translation from Chilean Spanish]

AN HOUR AGO A GROUP OF DELINQUENTS (taking advantage of a negligence of the Security Forces), KIDNAPPED GENERAL (R) AUGUSTO PINOCHET! They have demanded $100 million for his liberation and warned that, if their requirements are not met within 24 hours, they will sprinkle him with fuel and set fire to him...

We are organizing a collection, appealing to your humanity to donate what you can...

Currently we have managed to amass:
7,800 liters of PETROL...
2,231 liters of PARAFFIN...
1,986 phosphorus boxes...
126 blowtorches and
231,985 lighters...
even so... we fear that it is not sufficient for the task, all donations, however small, are welcome... otherwise the unthinkable, he may be left alive...!!!
(thanks The GuNNer for the joke) jajajaja! xD

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Rally the troops!

So DLA's, in the comments of my last post Michael the tubthumper drew attention to the plight of Rosemarie Jackowski, an American journalist in her 60's who has not only been convicted of "Disorderly Conduct with Intent to Harass and Annoy" for peacefully demonstrating against the war in Iraq (she joined with others to halt traffic so that drivers would see their placards; her case is under appeal), but is also a litigant against the corrupt State of Vermont after being almost killed in a traffic accident involving a state owned truck, whilst on the way to visit her 89 year old sick mother. The State's Attourney's office have been giving her a rough ride and it has taken about 6 years to get her case heard. Check it.

I'll urge you all to go there, read the article, consider just how disorderly, harassing or annoying this unarmed woman in her 60's (pictured above) can actually be, what relevance to the fact that she was run into by a logging truck her political stance, her divorce 35 years ago or her brutal rape 40 years ago have, and email Dick Sears, Chairman of the State Judiciary Committee and Gaye Symington, Speaker of the State House, to let them know that the eyes of the world are watching. I've also emailed Ms. Jackowski herself to let her know that she is heard: it seemed the proper thing to do; i'll bet she must feel very out on a limb right now. If you are a US citizen, you can also contact Governor of Vermont, Jim Douglas, through his website. In case anyone is stuck for what to write, here is what i said:

Dear [Dick Sears/Gaye Symington/Jim Douglas],

the treatment of Ms. Rosemarie Jackowski by the State of Vermont is a calumny against The Constitution of the USA.

Be in no doubt that the whole world knows of this and similar hypocrisy. Do you find it at all surprising then to find US foreign policy the subject of open derision?

Quite apart from the morality of the issues relating to Ms. Jackowski and others like her, I'll ask you to consider this: with a $650 billion Trade Deficit, the US cannot afford much more war. If you want to promote US interests abroad, you will have to address the culture of institutionalised corruption at home, sooner or later.

Why not start now? Be bold. Be a true patriot. We're watching.

[insert your name]
UPDATE (while i was typing this): Ms. Jackowski replied to my email thus:
"Great letter. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I need all the help I can get.
rosemarie"
So there we are, she needs our support. Do it. Do it now.

UPDATE (04:05 2006/02/01 GMT): so Rosemarie emailed to say we can keep up with whatagwaan at Mickey Z's where she is a contributor. It's now in the TEXT LINKS also.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Remiss of me.

DLA's, you know i try to bring you the best the net has to offer, but i must confess to having failed in one area. The website in question first came to my attention a couple of years ago, when we all had a good laugh about it @uni, and has since been updated a bit.

I'll ask you to understand that, without my constant vigilance, i am prone to becoming a mentalist and this is precisely what happened for a couple of years. Standard quality of service having been resumed and after a timely reminder from Guerrillasinthemidst (who also goes into the blogroll) however, the situation is rectified:


It'll go into the links also, as soon as i finish here. Let us hope that they have internet access in heaven, so when The Chimp finally goes to the great tyre-swing in the sky, St. Peter will have all the amunition he needs to tell him to fuck right off.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Pots, kettles and "a daughter of a whore".

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Blims & snippets new stylee...





So yeah DLA's, it seems to be the thing to have an alternate post style for tiny segments that don't need much or any additional waffle. This will be mine.

UPDATE (03:12 2006/01/30 GMT): Oh for the love of beating old ladies with a stick! It's fucked in Internet Excrementer again! It's the tiny bit of the Alien Abduction image that sticks out at the side, i think (which i actually thought was rather stylish: not quite symmetrical; interesting). Fucking Microshit! BTW, new link: "Stop IE". TBH, i'm really not sure that i can actually be arsed to sort it out again. There are limits. I've got to be able to have some pride.

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

The fucking Holy Market... again!

So DLA's, the Disillusioned kid points up more of Dubya's dick-headery:
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
This whilst addressing the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, check it. Orwellian certainly, but i'm no longer surprised by the neo-cons contempt for the possibility of accountability.

What never ceases to amaze me though is how he gets away with spouting such utterly transparent bollocks. This time he even refered to how it's done: education. As if his meaning of indoctrination wasn't plain enough, he then told us clearly how it will be reinforced: "faith groups" "educating" poor Americans about home ownership. Now, i'm not a great bible scholar, so i'll admit i might have missed it, but then again, i'm sure that someone would have pointed it out by now, but i don't recall any mention of home ownership in fucking scripture, nor the righteous proselytising said in any attempt by Caeser to diffuse public unrest by extending a vested interest in the status quo. In fact, i'm fairly certain that Jesus was reported to have taken rather the opposite view, with his "Render unto Caeser" and "Camel to pass through the eye of a needle" quotes: give the government precisely its due but keep your hearts and minds fixed firmly on God.

No, it's the religion of The Holy Market again: it worked for Thatcher, why not give some ground in the US. After all, the amount of wealth redistribution we are talking about is actually miniscule in comparison to what's at stake should civil unrest topple the neo-con agenda.

Bush also refered to the method by which this indoctrination of the young will be more jealously guarded. Those schools which do not teach children to adequately "read, write, add and subtract" will have their federal funding removed. That surely begs the question, 'By whose reckoning?' The academic performance of American children is already subnormal by European standards and that after, here in the UK at least, a general dumbing down of the required syllabus. You just know that the real demarcation will be over attitudes toward primarily The Holy Market, and also Sex Education, Abortion and "Creationism", eh?

The symmetrical beauty of this particular foray into mendacity though comes at the end. After a rousing call to support Homeland Security through the economic security of being stuck in a low paid job for fear of losing one's investment in the meanest structure which can be built and still bear the appellation "home", thus allowing the continued crusade to convert heathens to the righteousness of The Holy Market worldwide, the witless chimp then explains how this will be done. Deregulation to stimulate growth and competition in the market? It get's a slight mention near the very end. Tax-breaks to directly stimulate supply? Nary a word of it. No, it seems that The Holy Market has been so efficient that Federal Grants will be all that's required for first-time buyers and the poor. In the face of this blatant hypocrisy, did anyone throw their screwed up pamphlets at him, even boo or heckle? No. The benighted fools applauded!

For any US readers, a couple more points:
  1. Margaret Thatcher's policies of house-market deregulation and increasing home ownership led to a short-term boom in the UK domestic economy which proved unsustainable, being as it was, based on credit. It also lead to an increased Trade Deficit. This was fuelled by home "ownership" allowing consumers to further extend, what was for many, the unrealistic credit of a mortgage. When the bubble burst, many people were left with debts which were not able to be covered by the suddenly depressed value of the property they were secured against: "negative equity" we call it.
  2. In Britain, even a multi-story structure made from wood is called a 'shed'. Even to the poor, a 'trailer' is a temporary dwelling used for holidays, unless the owner is a Gypsy, in which case the potential mobility is its salient feature.
If you're going to sell yourselves out, at least do it for something worthwhile.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Shoutbox!

So DLA's, we have a new tool: The ShoutBox! This is for those of you who want to say something that doesn't seem to go with the threads of discussion, or just to say hello/plug your site, and can be found under the site polls. It's a NeoWORX [title link] creation and is on free trial for 14 days, at which time it will revert to a "free version" which will not have all the same features of customisablity. It looks ok for now i think, because i've been able to adjust it's colours and fonts to match DLA, but whether it stays or even just gets moved somewhere less obtrusive will depend on how much use it gets and just what kind of pumpkin it turns into at midnight!

I'm also going to add a link to an online translator, underneath it, to facilitate the bigging up of starlike international chests!

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Blogging, blogs, whatever: i just need the link!

Don't bother reading: this is just to get my google ads back a sec while i get the url for advertisers to bid to place targetted ads here. So, keywords? Well, what have we? Telescopes. Soft toilet tissue. Organic vegetable dyes. Curtains, funerals, rabbit hutches, dog breeders. Garden sheds, lawnmowers, grass seed. Moss killer, Kate Moss, modelling agencies. Cameras. Tripods, 35mm film, digital data storage. Magazines, life style, no style, no brain, brain surgeon. Beluga caviar. Rotten fish, rotten bastards, Johnny Rotten. Sex Pistols, gun clubs, gay clubs. That'll do it surely? Come 'ed lads?

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Qu'est-ce que c'est, cet 'Overwhelming'?

So, it has reached through my haze of ostentation that some people have found this blog a bit 'overwhelming'; hence this attempt to underween, if you follow. For sure, there's a lot of stuff around the sides of my usual waffle, but hey: this is my browser homepage so it's got plenty of the stuff i'm into. It occured to me also that the waffle itself might be something of a problem, because i have a tendency to juxtapose some fairly abstruse language with street vernacular. Some of this is purely for the love of words, but mainly because my vocabulary is a de autodidactic product of intense reading whilst also living, if not actually on the street the whole time, then close by. I try to aim for my precise meaning concisely with what i have at my disposal. One word can save a sentence. Of couse, i think it's funny sometimes too.

So i've added a Dictionary/Thesaurus/Reference search box to the table above, to compliment Urban Dictionary. It has to be said that the 'go-behind' ads from Dictionary.com can be a pain in the arse, but it streams much faster than Wiktionary (in the TEXT LINKS also) and unlike said, if you mispell a search term, it comes back with alternatives. I find this last well cool.

My spelling is actually appalling, without reference. I put this down to the fact that i had the rudiments of reading before i went to school aged 4, but once there had to learn 'ita', the 'initial teaching alphabet', which was confusing enough, but then i had to miss a bit of school aged 7, when my class mates where presumably getting whatever coaching was deemed necessary to help them with the transition to correct english spelling, because i needed a tendon graft in my right hand and also my Grandfather died. It was all made worse because i was already fairly ambivalent about 'handedness' and had to switch to my left, which i had been forced to abandon the almost equal use of (apparently it was essential that i make up my mind; the sharp application of a ruler to the hand in question being the prefered method of mediation between 'the realities' and my neuronal pathways), so it was all a bit retrograde and rebellion inspiring.

Of course, the icing on the cake was, when the cast came off and, after extensive physiotherapy, i could start to gingerly use my right hand again, the left was no longer de rigueur. I had also to 'relearn' what i'd been made to pretend to forget, as if i hadn't been reading my parents newspaper for the last 2.5 years. Looking back, i can't imagine what i could have thought, other than what i did: that it was all a, perhaps not pointless, but punctiliously challenged, waste of mine and everybody else's time and energy. As i was realising is the case with almost all human activity. I'm sure i was a difficult kid.

Oh yeah, check out the "OR PORNOLIZE IT!" link in the "DESTROY THIS BLOG!" (left sidebar) section! But not if your easily offended by foul language. It's pretty funny stuff mind.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

My bloody MP speaks! My god, it's ali-ive!

This relates to my ongoing attempts to get my MP to do something useful against the UK Government's complicity in Uzbek torture [title link].

Dear Mr [edjog]

Thank you for your e-mail of 14 January.

I believe that the United Kingdom Government have been less than forthcoming on the question of extraordinary rendition and all the issues which it raises. That said they have been at length to point out that they are against the use of torture and would certainly not accept within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction evidence that was obtained by that method.

I will certainly ask the Government to comment further on the additional information you have provided but in matters such as this, where it is difficult to obtain personally corroborated alternative evidence, it very much leaves the Government in the driving seat when it comes to dealing with the types of issue which have been raised forcefully in the House of Commons about this whole subject.

To that end I know, having talked to one of the members of the All Party Group on Extraordinary Rendition, that they are doing their best in the terms of the information available to Backbench Members of Parliament on this matter to probe the Government further.

Yours sincerely

The Rt Hon [name supplied on request] MP
Well, it's not good, really, is it? He manages to side-step a number of issues i raised in the email, pleads helplessness and asks for patience. It's something of a fault of mine, i'll admit, but patience is not one of my foremost virtues, nor is tolerance in the face of well paid claims of ineffectuality. I'd be prepared to bet my left bollock that there are people in Uzbek cells right now whose patience and tolerance are in even shorter supply when considering the continued "probing" they have in store.

I'm possibly getting somewhere though, as he agrees that the UK Govt. "have been less than forthcoming". Lying out of their arse, i'd say, but that's "potty-mouthed" me. That he repeats the Foreign & Commonwealth Office position in the opening paragraph however, fills me with suspicion. Certainly, the FCO would not accept "evidence" within their "jurisdiction", as it would be illegal to do so under the UN Charter Against Terrorism. This does not seem to be preventing them from accepting the self same information for "operational purposes" though; which is the heart of the [aaarrrggghhh can't swear anymore, i promised!] issue.

Uncharacteristically, i'm not going to bombard him with more correspondance yet, or take him to task over his perpetuation of this casuistry: i'm trying to get him to do something and coating him off is not likely to produce results at this stage i feel. Obviously, i'll not rule irritating and embarrassing him over this issue out, at some future point, if he doesn't get with the sodding programme; but for now, i'll wait and see what he has to say about my later email of 18 Jan 06. I'm not done with UK Criminal Law either. For sure, they can get away with it under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism & Conspiracy) Act 1998, but i reckon there must be some law somewhere that makes those provisions illegal in themselves, precedes or overrides them.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Wow! ClustrMaps is cool!

So i've got a reader in either Iran, United Arab Emirates or Oman! I wouldn't have thought there was anyone interested in anarchist viewpoints over there, going by the media. Fucking go on my son!

It's difficult to tell from the ClustrMaps representation [title link] because the dot looks to be right in the middle of The Straits of Hormuz. Ay, maybe it's the CIA, by satelite phone or something? Considering my last post! Well, if it is and you come back lads, i hope your fucking boat sinks.

And someone in what appears to be The Dominican Republic. Excellent!

All welcome, come back and tell us whatagwaan?

UPDATE (09:44 2006/01/26 GMT): So, a large dot in the Sydney area, either Jo has been busy with DLA or the word is heard, plus Perth and someone around the border between Northern Territories & Southern Australia, possibly Kulgera: g'day!

Shout outs also go to: Sibu, Sarawak Province Malaysia | Pocheon or Seoul South Korea | Kyoto, Shiga or Fukui Province Japan [these last 2: it's difficult to tell from the dots]. I did start looking for online translators to say hello to you lot in your native languages, but i got nowhere quickly enough with Korean/Hangul, so i ended up thinking that if you're reading this page, you must understand English; so yeah, hey, cool, what's happening? Don't be offended if you're one of my European or American/Mexican visitors, but i hope you'll understand that from where i'm sitting, these other places just seem more exotic.

So, i'll probably not bother to come back to this subject, unless i get a hit from somewhere well off my beaten track, like Congo DRC, Paraguay or Bhutan, but i've put a link to Windows [ptuh!] Live-Local powered by Virtual Earth beta in the text links for anybody interested.

UPDATE (11:27 2006/01/26 GMT): Ha! The cyber-skills of the mighty edjog prevail!
Helo, apa khabar?
Hosted by Putfile.com
Hosted by Putfile.com
No Arabic or Farsi? No mate, give's a chance!

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

That much?

I am 17% American
You're as American as Key Lime Tofu Pie
Otherwise known as un-American!
You belong in Cairo or Paris...
Get out fast - before you end up in Gitmo!

So it seemed like a laugh at the time... I think i probably only scored that high because there were questions i had to answer falsly due to a lack of choices relevant to my life/attitudes. Quite what the picture is supposed to imply, i cannot imagine: i am a scantily clad young woman with an innapropriate taste in hats? Un-Americans like such women? I cannot afford clothes? She's waiting for me in Cairo or Paris? Er... hang on a minute... maybe i'll just get my coat!

UPDATE (03:24 06/01/25 GMT): is that Dubya's dog about to go down on her?

Technorati Tag:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Guido Fawkes is a spineless shitbag

So, i wasn't going to link to this post, because i made something of a dick of myself in the comments, but the story goes on.

BACKGROUND:
Guido Fawkes is a blogger who has claimed to have been instrumental in the "outing" of Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat MP who has been rumbled in a scandal involving male prostitution. Whatever, i say: it's none of our business who he fucks or how much he pays for the service. I'll add though that considering the shameful prejudice in action against Charles Kennedy (the Lib Dem ex-leader) and his drinking, i have little sympathy for Oaten's being forced out of the race to succeed him. Attempting to avoid the issue of whipping up prejudice for which he was being taken to task, Fawkes scorned those who were not "in the gutter", claiming a spurious superiority to those perceived as 'intellectual'.

So, i had mistakenly castigated Justin @ ChickenYoghurt [title link] for this comment:
"Ah Guido, we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at Mark Oaten's arse."
I'll confess to having gotten bored and skim read the comments, so not realised it had been made by Justin, who was certainly implying that Fawkes was the one fixated upon Oaten's arse. He was understandibly irritated and held me to account, adding that i should take anything i had to say further to it's source; for which dick-headedness i apologised and took his suggestion as the proper thing to do. At Guido Fawkes' blog, i opined thus:
At 7:35 AM, edjog said...

Guido Fawkes, you're a nasty little proselytiser of prejudice and your wit is substandard to boot (oh how i wish i could be bothered). Far from "in the gutter" as you claim, you are the gutter's raison d'etre: the small walleted in pursuit of the small minded.

Get to fuck.
To which came the following replies:
At 9:17 AM, Guido Fawkes said...

Edjog,

I see you have more hair than brains. Bothered.

At 12:02 PM, Lagwolf said...

Edjog...wow impressive...did you need help writing out that little paragraph? Is it painful to pick your knuckles off the floor long enough to type?
To which patently absurd denigration of my intellect, i replied thusly:
Booyaka!
It seems the shitbag Fawkes cannot stand to be refuted by evidence of my intelligence combined with wit, or the thought that someone far more acquainted with "the gutter" than he could lead him into such a simple trap, because my last comment has been deleted. What a spineless tosser!

Nod: Chicken Yoghurt: Oaten

UPDATE (02:25 06/01/25 GMT): so Guy Fawkes emailed me to whine!
From: Guy Fawkes
Date: 2006/01/24 Tue PM 09:18:31 GMT
To: edjog
Subject: Re: [Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy] 1/24/2006 09:13:52 PM

You seem to be under some delusion that this is not my private property, from which I will exclude and delete you. It is not a commons.

Goodnight.

On 1/24/06, edjog wrote:
Deleted twice? A comprehensive and witty, but non-vulger, one word rebuttal and my previous gloating over it's deletion both gone? Wow! Your humiliation must be intense. Good. Delete away... the truth is out there, as you well know!

--
Posted by edjog to Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy at 1/24/2006 09:13:52 PM
--
Guido Fawkes Esq.
So not only spineless and lacking wit, but a pompous prick to boot (needing the latter applied to the anus, sharpish). A fact i was sure to point out to him in my reply, as i'm certain you can all imagine.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Doctrine of Shite.

What do we call a system of beliefs which has millions of adherents, it's own meta-language, proscribed behaviour, ritual, seeks to spread it's influence at the expense of other belief structures, often causing war, and maintains it's tenets in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Religion, right?
  1. I am the The Holy Market, who bringeth thee out of bondage. No form of interaction shalt thou haveth outside me. Nor Virtuous shalt thou considereth anything not for Sale, neither anything which Falsely preventeth Holy Sale.
  2. Thou shalt associateth not the name of The Holy Market with disaster: for The Holy Market shalt holdeth him guilty who denigrateth Its Holy Name.
  3. Observeth the Sabbath day, to keepeth it Holy, as The Holy Market commandeth thee. Six days shalt most of thee Labour, and do all Work thine; but the seventh day a Sabbath is to The Holy Market whenst must thou spendeth thy Surplus in Worship of The Holy Market.
  4. Honoreth thy Father and thy Mother, as The Holy Market commandeth thee; that thy Business may be Profitable and thy Righteousness prolonged in Children thine.
  5. Thou shalt not Murder thy Customers.
  6. Neither shalt thou Adultery committeth; an Abomination it is the Holy Commerce of Marriage to undermineth.
  7. Stealing shalt thou not be caught at.
  8. Nor discovered in False Witness without Holy Profit shalt thou be.
  9. Neither shalt thou ceaseth thy Neighbour's Estate to coveteth.
  10. In all things shalt thou planeth, plotteth, schemeth and, failing these Holy Trinity Three, worketh the Goods of the World to Own, in accordance with The Holy Market.
Why doesn't free market economics fucking work? Because, in a pursuit of profitability, there is no incentive to plan strategically. Investment in infrastructure and research which will be necessary to the progress of a nation in 15/25/50 years costs money now, but shows no return, now. Which is why, whilst we have the cash economy we presently do, it is essential for Government to remain apart from the processes of the market, so that it can mandate spending in those areas business is not equipped to deal with: strategic considerations.

Hopelessly inefficient? Quite possibly. But the alternative is not to make adequate provision for the future at all. Do we imagine that countries in Asia which are developing modern communications infrastructure are waiting around for market forces to cobble together existing systems with small scale new developments? Obviously not. They are installing state of the art systems countrywide, with built in expandability.

What are we in the UK doing? Hanging onto the coat-tails of a desperate US economy which is doomed by it's inability to see beyond oil, which is only going to get more expensive and require more war to secure. Instead of spending billions on infrastructure (and lets have it fucking right, Britain is not a massive place, comprehensive modern information systems infrastructure would be a lot cheaper here than many places) which could be the backbone of a new, post oil, high tech industrial model, the UK Govt. proposes spending billions on the infrastructure of control. Why would it need such control? If we were moving into a prosperous new era, we would be happy.

No. They want it because they know full well that the world is heading for fucking disaster and civil unrest will be the inevitable result. We'll blindly follow the US down its garden path and when the oil runs out, because their corporate elite will have made off with the personal wealth (just like Enron) we'll be even more fucked than them. A victim of the short-sightedness of

The Holy Market.

UPDATE (09:11 06/01/24 GMT): check this (broadband needed) It's from the website of equinox housing co-op. Nod: Existential Angst So, i've messed with 'the commandments' a tad to make my point slightly clearer.

UPDATE (14:02 06/01/27 GMT): Part two! Nod: Michael the tubthumper.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Crime & Identity

NO2ID - Stop ID cards and the database stateI don't usually go into much detail about offences I committed whilst in active addiction, for a number of reasons which are beyond the scope of this post but, with the UK Government's headlong rush toward ID Cards seemingly based in much part around the notion that such a scheme will reduce crime, it seems appropriate. I've been prosecuted for what I'm about to talk about anyway: paid my debt to society and no longer commit crime. You don't think a self-confessed law-breaker has anything relevant to say about this issue? Fine: bury your head in the sand; it's your taxes paying for the scheme.

The first and most important thing to consider is just what sort of crime are we talking about?

The most emotive would surely be Terrorism. As many have commented before however, a police officer knowing a person's identity would not stop that person from perpetrating a terrorist attack if s/he was unknown to the police beforehand. If they were known, suspected of being a danger to the public, they would be under surveillance/detention anyway.

There is a common link between all offences which involve the concealment of one's own, or adoption of another's, identity and that is bare-faced lying. To be fair, it's not as simple a matter as that makes it sound: it's an art which has to be honed and also requires a good deal of charm to carry off. Take for instance the training of actors/actresses, it is a skill-set to subsume your own personality and portray another convincingly in its stead; it takes tuition, repetition and dedication to learn. But be under no illusion, in either case: a skill-set is what it is; not a moral deficiency which automatically conveys the ability. Fortunately for those who would practice deception outside a legitimate acting profession, there are many societal norms which can be taken advantage of to make discovery less likely.

The most heavily relied upon is that, in normal circumstances, for one person to imply that another is lying is just plain rude. People have a natural tendency to want to be accepted, a disinclination to upset their fellows, hence rudeness is not only shied away from, but also expects an outraged reaction. It is a relatively simple matter therefore to imagine a little back-story to an assumed identity and, if one's artifice is questioned, to act as if one is wounded by the very idea that one may be disingenuous; which puts the onus of apology on the questioner, who may well then be particularly helpful in recompense.

Before I go into the second point though, consider this scenario:

It's a few years ago. You have recently purchased your first VCR. A work colleague, who has also got one recently, hearing of your acquisition, asks the favour that you record their favourite TV programme whilst they are away next week. For the purpose, they provide you with a video cassette. Now, you are not that technically minded, you don't have to be: whatever technology your job entails the use of has been designed so that, after a fairly simple demonstration of its operation, you can perform the tasks required. Let's assume that, unlike the vast bulk of humanity, you have actually read enough of the instructions to know how to operate the VCR. It's all very complicated though, so rather than try to set the timer, because after all, you don't want to be seen to be a dummy, turning up without the requested recording, you decide to just be there in person and manually press 'Record'.

But it doesn't work. You try again. Still no joy. You take the cassette out, shake it, realise that this tells you precisely nothing and put it back, once more pressing 'Record'. Maybe you need to press 'Play' and 'Record' at the same time, like old music tape cassette machines. Nothing doing. You know the machine works, because you've recorded a few things for yourself already. What are you thinking at this point?

a) The machine has actually broken down since the last time you used it?
b) The cassette is broken?
c) There is some aspect of the operation of the VCR which you do not understand?
d) The person was lying about the usability of the cassette for some nefarious purpose?
e) Any combination of the above.

Let's imagine that (d) was not such an outrageous proposition; perhaps that colleague is the 'office joker', or maybe might maliciously try to undermine your position at work. Would you try to phone them to tell them what you thought? No. Having considered that it was possible for something to be faulty, you might think to try a cassette of your own. But you don't want to record over what you have saved for your own viewing. You've got to make a decision now. The programme in question has been running a couple of minutes already.

Whatever you think you may have decided, I think you'll agree that if you wanted to appear helpful to that colleague, or in the eyes of your boss, you would have been more likely to have tried recording over your own cassette, taking a personal loss rather than seem rude or incompetent. At any stage however, not familiar with the full working of the technology, would you have thought to look at the back of the cassette to see if the tabs which prevent accidental recording over something saved were intact? Of course not.

How is this relevant to ID Cards? In this simple way: nobody who uses the card readers will know how the technology actually works. If a criminal wishes to carry another's ID Card and get away with it, all they have to do is look vaguely similar to the tiny photograph and damage the chip so that the biometric data cannot be read, without leaving any obvious marks of tampering. As long as they don't behave in any way suspiciously, it will be assumed that the card or machine is broken or that the operator has made a mistake. In the presence of other forms of ID, the criminal will be accepted as any other member of the public frustrated by temperamental technology would be. Off the top of my head, I'd suspect that connecting the thing into an electric circuit, including a bulb as a load to use up the energy, would be enough to scramble the contents without leaving any marks from a short circuit. There are likely many other ways, including magnetic flux and extreme temperature.

Remember: whatever can be engineered can be reverse-engineered. Perhaps you have the prejudice that criminals would not be intelligent enough to do such a thing? Disabuse yourself of it. I'll give you a few examples:

Within two months of the introduction of car stereos that required an identifying PIN number to be punched in before operation, it was widely known, amongst my criminal associates, that placing such a machine into a deep freezer for a couple of days would make the chip reset to its factory default, thus overcoming this barrier to its resale;

Within weeks of certain luxury cars arrival on Britain's streets, it was known that a hard kick to the bumper would trigger a collision safety device: unlocking all the doors with the central locking mechanism. Yes, the alarm would go off, but one could quickly jump in, pop the bonnet and use a small pick, of the type normally used for knocking holes in roofing slates, to skewer a hole through the alarm mechanism, shutting it off;

Once silent alarms which alerted the police to a potential break in via the phoneline became more common, it became standard practice to use a small hatchet to knock the metal covering from a telegraph pole and chop through the thick cable, thus disabling any such system, before breaking into particularly business premises;

When magnetic stripe cash machine cards were first introduced, one could use a Betamax video recorder to read the stripe and thus decode the PIN number;

Attempts to 'lock' mobile phone handsets can be overcome by connecting them to a small computer which resets the phone's chips to the factory settings.

Thirdly: information of this kind gets widely disseminated and quickly because, whilst the most hard-nosed capitalism is common in criminal circles, the very nature of criminality requires close bonds of trust amongst practitioners. Don't be fooled by the media portrayal and the old saw, "no honour amongst thieves", certainly when pushed to it by extreme circumstances, like anybody else, criminals will think only of their own welfare and betray their cohorts, but generally this is not true. My mates and I stuck together, probably because we had nobody else. The currency of this trust is the gift economy of information. Whatever one can trade for better standing, one does.

I used the knowledge of much of the above to gain goods and services by deception, fraudulently using other people's credit cards. I would simply imagine myself into somebody's shoes who had a perfect right to expect those goods and services, behaving accordingly. Even when I was very ill from the amount of heroin I was taking. It's not surprising. I'd get a good scrub-up, some freshly laundered clothes from a charity shop, and present myself as anybody else would. Drug addict criminals are dirty, shifty looking people aren't they? Whereas somebody who is clean and tidy but looks ill probably is ill, maybe with something terrible like AIDS or cancer, to be pitied and helped. Occasionally, something would go wrong. At such times, on the rare occasion that a vendor was suspicious, I would feign utter indignation, snatch the card back, and, with the appearance of high dudgeon, either present them with another card (if I had a person's wallet), or leave quickly. There were also times when it was possible to take a shop assistant into confidence and pay them to just go through with the transaction.

I also used this and other knowledge, of how the criminal justice system works, to conceal my identity from the police on more than one occasion. One time I was so off my head on drugs that in giving another person's details, I had not considered that that person's date of birth would have made me a fair bit older than I was and I looked young for my age anyway. So I was arrested. Despite an investigation, including reference to Special Branch, and the fact that I was a wanted fugitive, plus my being remanded in prison for a few days, I got away with it for long enough to be released. Eventually this perversion of the course of public justice was found out, but not for several months and it was only that I had pressing personal reasons to remain in the same city that I was actually arrested anyway. If I had ran, I suspect I could have remained at large for at least another year, as I had already been a fugitive for 11 months at that stage. This was achieved partly by interfering with how my fingerprints could be sampled, in the police station, not beforehand.

Now, I'll grant you that if a working ID Card was required for every financial transaction or encounter with the police to go smoothly, there would be difficulties for criminals. But it would not stop criminality. If one could not purchase things with money fraudulently, there would be other ways sought, such as suborning a shop assistant with the offer of drugs, sex or a variety of goods and services to turn a blind eye to direct theft (which is already a lot more common than many people might think). This is the fourth point however. Experience shows that any technology will have bugs, whether they be caused by some fault in design, manufacture or usage. Is anyone seriously expecting that the British public will accept being arrested and held in custody until such time as reliable witnesses can be sought, found and testify as to their identity, with the high probability that the problem was a technological bug? The idea is absolutely preposterous. Despite Bush & Blair's posturing over the matter, The War On Terror isn't actually a war. We're not about to be invaded by ravening hordes of Al Qaida stormtroopers over the channel.

The only crime which this will make next to impossible is benefit fraud. Are we really to believe that benefit fraud costs this country anything like the staggering amount the scheme's implementation would cost? That it's worth the risks of the system being open to abuse by overzealous or corrupt policing, deliberate suppression of dissent, or targeted corporate advertising to make benefit fraud very difficult? It seems a bit over the top.

I've talked about the simple methods of subverting technological usage for criminal purposes, my fifth point is that some criminals are highly intelligent and with considerable understanding of the way digital data systems and encryption work. As we know, it is already possible to clone bank and credit cards. You may believe that the complexity of the system would prevail over any such attempts, but consider this: the complexity we are talking about is deemed suitable by those working for a government sponsored development team now. Who knows what even the very near future may bring in the private sector? It is eminently possible to take an example of a system and reverse engineer it privately. That is exactly how the IBM compatible PC market boomed, which 4/5 of you are using to read this page. Compatible, not made or licensed by IBM. Some guys took the chip and ran inputs into it and recorded the outputs and from that deduced what must be happening inside and then wrote their own machine code to imitate it, thus not infringing copyright, and gaining the ability to mass produce the chips and sell them much cheaper than IBM were prepared to consider. Once the system was hacked, it would only need a bare-faced liar to use the results with absolute impunity.

But this would only be a few individuals, not the vast bulk of criminality. Possibly, although I don't doubt that the information would get about, probably even spawning an underground market for technology with which to do the deed, without the requisite understanding to actually hack the system: which brings me to my last point. If we start to rely on a seemingly all powerful tool instead of what might be called "good honest coppering", people will become dependent on it and lazy in other areas. One only has to look at statistics on obesity and fitness to realise that our dependence on various means of transport has led to walking/cycling etc. becoming a much less favoured practice. What if the large donations from oil-rich individuals throughout the Gulf States to Al Qaida, which we hear about, were used to pay somebody to hack the system and produce fake ID Cards? The system was not able to stop me, in the usually terminal stage of addiction, from running rings round it and I was very ill, physically and mentally, because it relied on technology which it deemed infallible. How on earth would it deal with a well motivated terrorist with the means at his/her disposal to immediately counteract suspicion?

It is the nature of humanity to be lazy. Many people are just not very bright. It is the nature of criminality to exploit the niches such laziness, ignorance or incompetence engender. Even if we accepted the Orwellian nightmare of the harshest application such a scheme might allow, it would not stop criminality.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Crime & Punishment

What, has edjog been reading Dostoevsky? Not for 20 years and while i'd recommend it as an important text: be prepared for a long wade; it's a bit impenetrable, possibly because of the translation. This is in response to the on going poll about what you'd like to see more of, i.e. philosophy. I've wandered into a few logical inconsistencies here, but i'll stand by the bulk of it.

I originally posted this in the forum "Infinite Directions" in a thread entitled "Is ultimate fantasy immoral?" [title link] @ BetterHumans.com. The subject is whether it would be right to allow acts which we deem morally unacceptible in real life to take place in a Virtual Reality game, as we currently do with killing in video games. I've mirrored the original post "Off The Main Page" also. The discussion goes on a fair wander and, as i recall, without going back and reading all of it, nobody really get's into the original question, which the author Cemiess, elaborates on:
I've long believed that if someone thinks something, no matter how horrible it is, then they aren't being immoral unless they act up that thought.
Which reminded me of a post "A few words before we go: Finders Weepers". But i got dragged into the wider debate thus:

"I was only thinking of the criminals. If they commit extremely serious and violent crimes, the penality they'll have to pay is to have their memories extensively edited, in addition to removal of addictions or other forms of organically caused mental illness. They would be forced to assume totally new identities, including altering of all biometrics. Lesser crimes wouldn't rate this obviously."
~ Mr. Farlops
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... Yes, clearly deviants are easily recognised and their behaviour is the result of a simple defect. They are the ones wearing the black hats who don't behave as i do. [/class="also sarcasm;"]

I'm guessing you've never been in a situation where a serious breach of the law seemed like the lesser of the evils available as options?

Now before anybody wades in, i'm not for one moment attempting to justify murder/rape/child molestation, because clearly these are all heinous acts which we would all be the better for seeing the less of. However, nothing to do with human behaviour is ever simple. Nobody wakes up one morning, having been a perfectly well adjusted person the day before, and thinks, "Today, for no reason, i'll become a murderer/rapist/child molester. That sounds like a laugh!" There may well be a genetic predisposition to these behaviours, however, by and large, terrible behaviours spring out of terrible environments.

The reason for this is simple: empathy. If our environment is safe, we engage with its other inhabitants emotionally and whilst occaisional destructive thoughts/feelings may enter our heads (and who doesn't get frustrated to the point of fantasy violence occaisionally), the reason we don't act on them is not because it's against the law (otherwise murder would be as common as illegal drug taking), but rather because we have some intimation of how terrible it would feel for the victim/s or surviving loved ones.

If our environment is unsafe, the opposite is true: we do not empathise with anyone, we become all about self, therefore the same level of inhibition is not present. This is surely part of our survival instinct. The answer is not to attempt to stigmatise 'deviants' and change them, but rather change the environment. After all, as CP rightly points out, who knows when these traits might be very necessary. The planet has undergone radical change before and, no doubt, will again. This is quite apart from any hostile environments we may end up colonising off Earth.

This is without considering the fallability of criminal justice systems, malicious prosecution for personal gain or simple governmental oppression.
"I believe that two versions of these programs should be available to the public. One version should be available to the general population and the other to prisoners."
~
FISH OUT OF WATER
Personally, i'm hoping we'll have come up with something better than prisons. I don't know what, because i certainly wouldn't advocate any kind of memory edit, but some kind of supervised re-integration with society, maybe. Possibly even with temporary restrictions on access to some parts of society. After all, rights are a privilege with which come responsibilities. I see nothing wrong with their temporary suspension, until such times as a person has been taught the ability to respond to their environment, rather than react to their feelings about it.

The trouble with prison is that it does not do this, but rather abrogates rights almost totally, which actually further increases a convict's alienation from society, thus making it that much less likely that they will ever be integrated.
"the pain and such will remain in the victims if they aren't assured the criminal is punished. It's a natural thing." ~ CP
It may well be natural to seek revenge however, i'd suggest that it is equally as dysfunctional as committing crime. It is a pandering to a feeling of outrage. In a Judeo-Christian moral framework, we may well identify with that feeling more readily than we do with the feelings that led upto a crime, however this does not change the fact that it is simply a feeling, the strength of which may have outlived its original purpose, which was surely also survival related.

The victims of this unhelpfull feeling could also be helped to re-integrate, without the necessity of a further moral outrage being perpetrated (in the mistaken belief that this would somehow assuage it). That seems to be one of the functions of law, to temper outrage, because if people were to go around seeking revenge biblical stylee, it'd be an eye for an eye until we were all blind.
"Vile deeds like poison weeds bloom well in prison air, it is only what is good in man, that wastes and withers there."
~ Oscar Wilde
The Ballad of Reading Gaol
Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900)
The discussion went on for a bit before:
"I was merely stating a possibility for future punishment of certain kinds of crime--complete personality and body alteration. Functionally this is the same thing as capital punishment; the old person is killed.

And yes, I am fully aware of the possibility for abuse of this potential.

Obviously governments can use these technologies, as they emerge, to silence dissidents, political prisoners, revolutionaries and so on. The situation could rapidly degenerate to a point were we have the perfect police state where people's brains have been rendered physically incapable of thinking subversive thoughts.

I assure you I'd hate to see such a society come into being. I quite agree there are unjust laws and unjust societies and we should all work to change them."
~ Mr. Farlops
Good man yourself! I'd ask you to consider this though:

Quite apart from the morality of capital punishment, given your experience of human nature and knowledge of history, which do you think we would likely be at more risk from, if such technology were available while government per se exists;

that in a safe environment with universal provision of high quality education, health care, food, sanitation and shelter, crime would be a significant problem or;

our rulers would seek to maintain a position somehow demonstrably better off than us 'ordinary people', possibly even going as far as reserving for themselves and cronies the right to remain unedited, and use said to stifle dissent?

There was more until:
"Punishment discourages a repeat of the same aggressive behavior by individuals."
~ CP
No, it does not. Behaviour in individuals which is aggressive enough to constitute a crime is a result of an inability to respond to feelings rationally or the result of a pathological problem which precludes them in the first place. A person who has this inability can no more control their reaction than a person who has the ability can control their empathic response. This is why it takes intensive training, including elements of controlled brutalisation, to make average young persons into soldiers and why, despite that training, many are still emotionally crippled by the experience of killing their fellow human beings.

This is also why many of us who are like that become drug addicts and/or alcoholics. We must self-medicate, because otherwise we would go mental, conflicted between intolerable feelings and our limited sense of empathy. However even after self medication, the unresolved feelings are still simmering away under the surface. The next time something occurs which threatens to release them, maybe we'll be ok by taking still stronger drugs or more, maybe we'll freak right out and mess somebody up really badly.

In a subject with a personality disorder of this kind, the fear of potential punishment may actually make us worse, by adding that much more stress to an already explosive potential. In somebody who is really far gone, totally divorced from empathy, it may lead to the murder of a witness/police officer.

At best, punishment deters those who are rational enough to appreciate the full consequences of their actions. It's telling that you use the word "discourage", CP, because, even in a controlled environment such as a boxing ring, doing violence to another whilst in full possession of one's faculties takes considerable courage: more than your average person comes equipped with, unless they are subject to tremendous emotional stress, or have been brutalised in some way prior, which tends to remove the inhibition. One gets used to it. But the truth is that if a person is concerned about punishment enough to deter them from aggression, they more than likely haven't the nuts to do anything anyway. How many times have you heard,
"Oh whatever... You're just not worth it!"
When you know full well that what the person actually meant was,
"I daren't face the potential consequences of continuing this argument because i'm afraid I'll get hurt or punished if you attack me and what's more, I daren't attack you for the same reasons."
I have to tell you, i was a hardcore lunatic but the first time i went to deliberately inflict serious injury on somebody, i puked my guts up afterwards, despite being off my head on drugs and i never got used to being shot at. The fear of the consequences of not doing it though outweighed the fear of getting hurt. Getting caught never entered into it at all.
"Or, if the next time I'm in your neck of the woods I might drop by, clobber you repeatedly with a baseball bat, take whatever of value you have and rape any females there. It would be wrong to do anything in return, right?"
~ CP
In fairness mate, i wouldn't if i were you: i'm a reformed character but i'm as liable to severe emotional triggers as the next person, but i'm also experienced. This succinctly makes the point though, because you almost certainly wouldn't. Not because of anything i might do to you, nor because it's illegal, because you know it's wrong.

Why is it wrong? Because you know you wouldn't like it if i did it to you and yours first and you have enough connection with reality and your feelings to take that twinge of fear at the thought that somebody could (which immediately grows, becoming a complex mix of emotions, as the realisation sinks in) and transfer it onto me. Having instantaneously realised that i would have a similar but worse experience should you proceed, you don't. You may even feel shame for thinking it.

But why, if it's wrong to do it, to deliberately cause suffering, is it not wrong to deliberately cause suffering to the perpetrator? You know it is. Put yourself in that person's shoes for a second, how would you feel if you flipped your lid and thus did terrible things, but had now calmed down, were once more as rational as you get, remorseful even, and then somebody comes along and fucks you over good stylee? If it happened at the time, it would be all part of the same experience, it would seem right. After the fact, with the callous brutality of the law, being made to suffer for something you did whilst you were out of control would do nothing but engender resentment in you.

This is why it's just not on to have mass gun ownership in a civilised society. Because with a gun, you don't have to be completely mental or brave or even under that much stress to kill somebody. All you have to be is unable, or temporarily unwilling, to empathise with your victim's loved ones and pull the trigger. You don't necessarily even have to watch.

However, that is not to say that that person is any less sick. Nor that should somebody do what you have suggested that my reaction to it would be any less sick. Because, lets have it right, fucked in the head is fucked in the head, whichever way you look at it. The trauma would have made me mentally ill. However, whose responsibility is it? Without trying to assign culpability, who is able to respond to the fact that we clearly have some sick people, on both sides of the altercation, when this kind of outrage goes on in our community? Who isn't? Only those who are so sick themselves that they cannot, or will not, empathise with those involved. The only question that remains is what to do about it.

Now, according to John Bradshaw a leading behavioural therapist and researcher, in the US %85 of people are emotionally dysfunctional to a degree which he considers impacts negatively on their lives. He says that in Europe and elsewhere it may be as high as %90, because of an increased social stigma attached to seeking therapy. If you've read him, you'll know he's got a powerful argument, if you haven't, his CV stands as proof that he's not an idiot who would wildly speculate without solid evidence.

Emotional dysfunctionality leads to a sense of isolation, because to some degree dysfunctional interactions with others are dishonest, to protect ourselves from a feared assault on our self esteem. Dishonesty takes effort and breeds shame. Lazyness and shame make us withdraw from the situation; actually, emotionally or both. Isolation is painful because we are naturally social beings. We don't like pain. If something hurts but we are unable to properly examine our own part in the situation for fear of damaging our self esteem (and if we feel ashamed, this is more likely), we look for other causes. The most ready to hand, as it were, is the person/s who we associated with the pain of isolation from in the first place. This becomes a resentment. Resentments inhibit our communication further and we're into a vicious circle which deepens and multiplies them. Our ability to empathise has been curtailed, because we are now all about protecting our very survival from despair by focussing on that which we hate and long for at the same time. Others. If we are focussed entirely outside ourselves, we do not acknowledge or internalise the feelings associated with potential harm to another so there is no transference to them. We never imagine what they feel like with any attendant emotional depth. We are now able to contemplate harm without empathy, we are in fact 'cold hearted'.

Now surely we are not surprised then when our societies are filled with hate, callous disregard, self congratulatory ostentation (the sign of hollow victory), arrogance (the poor man's defence), needless aggression, greed, unhappiness and despair. Yes, in fairness there's a lot of sickness about and actually, unless we start trying to heal some of it, will anyone be left who is able to respond to the tragedies of life?

There'll be those who read this who think yeah, yeah, that's right, yeah... er... hang on a minute! I'm not having that. If you do wrong, you should be punished! Fair do's, tell me where my argumant falls down and let's get into it.

And then:
So you're saying that responding with force to illegal violence doesn't deter the latter but if someone did that to you you'd respond with violence and that would deter someone from trying it again.

I see. ~ CP
No, CP. I'm saying that responding to illegal aggression with force is perfectly understandable, however that it is still the result of one's equilibrium being disrupted by the original act and is unhelpful in terms of resolving the situation, except where it immediately prevents further harm.

As i stated, it would only deter a person from similar acts who was able to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions and that person would be highly unlikely to have the courage to do violence anyway, except in circumstances where they were emotionally traumatised, like defending themselves/loved ones.

Nor am i saying that we should do nothing about it, before anybody embarks on the 'if it's not black, it must be white' train of thought. Rather, i'm saying that in a civilised society, the humane response to sickness is an attempt at healing. Once both parties' problems have been unravelled to the point where they have a grasp of what those problems are and how they can proceed without being unhinged by them, some form of restitution by the offender to the victim is very likely to be a useful part of a final resolution.

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

We have a clear opinion emerging!

Bush on the matAs you can see from the title link or the 'view' button on the poll, >> a favourite is pulling ahead! I have to say, i'm trying my best to accomodate you, but for now, << this will have to suffice.

Not that i'll be ignoring the other options. It seems that somebody would rather see less foul language, but some want more. I'm going to try a compromise: from now on the profane content of a post's title should give some indication of how much of the same to expect in its body. Nobody should take this to mean that a dignified title will preclude the odd 'bollocks' or such popping up [like that one], but merely less than of late, and also that if there's a lot at the top, there'll be plenty more beneath.

(illustration: Peter Scanlan)

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Well, it had to happen...

So i've got a ClustrMap too! I had resisted the temptation because i found this really cool french site services page that offered a much cooler looking map, but they weren't taking new submissions until they'd got more bandwidth. But i've lost the url somehow and can't find any reference to it in search engines or remember the site i saw it on first.

Any suggestions on that would be cool. I've also added some directions on the site polls, because you can vote on the 2nd one more than once if you want and select a few things at once. In fact any suggestions are always welcome; even the lewd or abusive ones. Actually, i haven't had a proper ding-dong with anyone here yet. Need more extensive readership! Hard to imagine i know, but there must be someone out there who thinks they can take on the mighty edjog? That'll get someone's goat surely? Actually, maybe i just need some sleep: i just had a right go @ jarndyce!

I did briefly consider leaving my url on some of the wingnut sites i occaisionally visit, in the spirit of "Know thine enemy", but i don't want any brainless trolls on here. Still my Technorati number has dropped by another 200K-ish to 309,219 so with that in mind:

Technorati Tags:

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Most Bizarre Fiction Strangely Truthful >>

Check it out DLA's! Over there, >> the new bit at the top of the right sidebar, >> the Mechanical Contrivium trivia search engine. >>

Amongst topics i would urge you to investigate are:

George W Bush

Michelle Malkin

my cock or simply: cock

Come back and tell me of your own adventures!

Nod: Michael the tubthumper

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Tony Blair is also a hypocritical cunt!

Justin @ Chicken Yoghurt: The Smoking Gun has unearthed, from a "credible source", that

TONY BLAIR IS A LIAR

You possibly already know, but check away, i have unearthed that

TONY BLAIR IS A

TWO-FACED CUNT

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

I could not have said it any better...

cunt

Nod: Micheal the tubthumper [title link]

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Channel 4 Political Awards - 2006

So the search for the most inspiring political figure of 2005 @C4 has been shortlisted to six nominees [title link]. Who to vote for, eh?

Bob Geldof: who, as the frontman for Live8, and despite raging cynicism surrounding his efforts, once more brought the plight of millions of suffering Africans onto the world stage, thus wringing concrete promises out of those wankers at the G8? (or phone 09011 27 27 05 - alt. text AWARD GELDOF to 83188)

George Galloway: who, as an MP for Respect - The Unity Coalition, and despite a concerted media campaign to discredit him, handed a US Senate Committee it's arse as a hat, thereby guaranteeing a continued platform from which to criticise war and US led oligarchic hegemony? (or phone 09011 27 27 04 - alt. text AWARD GALLOWAY to 83188)

Shami Chakrabarti: who, as director of Liberty, has often quietly, but nonetheless tirelessly, cogently and passionately campaigned against the erosion of our civil liberties, often in the face of what amounts to nothing less than fucking hysteria, roundly demolishing arguments designed to whip up more of the same? (or phone 09011 27 27 03 - alt. text AWARD CHAKRABARTI to 83188)

You could, of course, choose to vote for Tony Blair, David Cameron or Jamie Oliver, but in fairness, if you want to do so, you can fuck off and find the links yourself. Not that i've got anything apart from the meat-eating against Jamie you understand (i'm so used to people doing that these days that i hardly ever forget myself and mistakenly warn them that they are about to put something dead in their mouths), but he's just not really in the same league, is he?

Surprisingly for me, i'll not go on, i'll just leave you with this:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
~ Henry Louis Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Shit! ...SHIT, SHIT, SHIT!!

So, this relates to my allegation that the UK Govt. is guilty of a Criminal Conspiracy to Torture [title link]. A nod goes to D-Notice for ferreting out the latest law which supercedes the Crimianl Law Act 1977 which is the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. The later Act does indeed clarify the issue of jurisdiction:
Section 5.-(1) 1A.

(6) In the application of this Part of this Act to an agreement in the case of which each of the above conditions is satisfied, a reference to an offence is to be read as a reference to what would be the offence in question but for the fact that it is not an offence triable in England and Wales.
All of the other conditions having been met, the title of this post was to have been "Hoist on your own petard" [a lovely phrase which means, in yonks old english, 'blown up by your own bomb', in case you were wondering, and which i have been wanting to get in here ever since, "The nadir of base perfidy!"]. Sadly, it'll have to wait. Instead, i have to report, DLA's, that this bunch of hypocritical, dishonest and downright double dealing dastards [like that?], who had the audacity to attempt to lecture us about "respect" and the need to remove the fear of crime from modern British society, have reserved to themselves and their agents licence to engage in Criminal Conspiracy on behalf of The Crown. I'm not fucking around for one moment:
Section 5.-(1)

(14) Nothing in this section-

(b) imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.
So there you have it: the absolute sine qua non of showing their bare arse to the concepts of law and democracy. We can do it, but if we even suspect that you might be upto something in a similar, but necessarily less far reaching and, in this particular case, much less despicable, vein; we want the right to summarily punish you, without proper due process of law.

Just fuck off, innit?

JUST FUCK RIGHT OFF! AND DIE.

UPDATE (04:51 06/01/18 GMT): I'm not done with this. I've emailed my MP to ask him to ask how the government expect to be taken seriously over their "respect" bullshit and also to find out the history of the Bill so we can find out which scumbags voted for it. An edited version of my email can be found "Off The Main Page" and, as before, i'll urge you to do the same. You can find your MP's contact details here.

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Devil's Kitchen: Bloody Devil Awards

DLA gets a Bloody Devil Award! << There it is, in all it's graphiti-ed splendour. To Devil's Kitchen, the mighty edjog says,
"I thank you sir, by fuck!"
The instigating invective was from "What the fuckin'ell do you think you're upto Tony & Co?" and i reproduce it here in the spirit of waving a massive knob around:
"In my name? In my fucking name? You disgusting cringeworthy shitbags: not in my bastard name you don't. I've done some fucked up shit in my time, but you lot are proper fucking scum. Oh aye, you need them fucking steel gates and armed police alright, and the way you're going it won't be to protect you from terrorists either. You horrible bastards: you honestly make my fucking stomach turn."
Devil's Kitchen had this to say:
"Definitely a good few gratuitous insults there, and we are happy to include our government under the definition of "objects of public derision" so that qualifies nicely; good work!"
DLA's, i have to tell you, i meant every fucking word of it and it was only the fact that you'd have got bored of reading it that stopped me there; the slimey little excuse peddling cunts.

Nods: Great Britain, not little England: Brighton Regency Loony [my fellow awardee and now in the blogroll]

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.

Theorists aside: as defined by UK Law, it must be a fucking Conspiracy!

So this relates to "I'm not arsing about here..." [title link]

Right, so get this:

Person A is an otherwise law abiding citizen, with money to invest in business.

Person B runs several successful businesses in many countries and is known for agressive investment tactics and managing a portfolio which contains high risk/high return enterprises.

Person C is suspected of dealing drugs and murder in his own country, indeed is an infamous gangster with an international reputation.

A meets B, with whom he has made substantial investments before and who tells him about an investment opportunity including C, in C's country. They plan to open a large casino.

"But C's a crook," we might expect A to say, to which we would not be surprised if B replied, "Don't worry about it, you won't have to meet with him, I'll do that. Besides, this will be in Uzbekistan, no one will know and even if they do, what can they do about it?"

So they proceed. Several business rivals of the newly formed cartel suddenly disappear and evidence emerges that C has had them murdered, but the casino is built and shows a return on A's investment. C however is not satisfied with his share of the proceeds and continues his gangster activities. Corruption being what it is, he buys and intimidates his way out of any local investigation.

At this point we may imagine that A is getting cold feet, but B assures him everything is fine, B himself has used some of the funds of the company to buy off the most serious investigation and there is plenty more money to be made he assures A. Some investigation reveals that B has made large investments in ancilliary services to the casino and other associated businesses in the area and is thus financially slightly over-extended, so it is important to him to keep A's investment in place, because he cannot afford to buy A out and nobody else would want anything to do with the place due to C's involvement. A decides that, since he has a number of other investments with companies in which B is a major shareholder, he can't afford to take the risk that B might have to rationalise his position, especially since B would likely blame A and shut down those operations in which A had large investments first. So he leaves his investment where it is.

At this point, the US Drug Enforcement Agency take an interest in C's activities and he is all but kidnapped and arraigned before a US Court for his part in supplying drugs to the USA. The whole sorry business comes out into the open. Now tell me, if you were A, you'd know damn well you were going to jail, wouldn't you?

The question is not:
"Does the UK Govts. position relating to US policy and Uzbek torture constitute a Criminal Conspiracy?"
But rather, if Tony Blair & Jack Straw manage to slime their way out this:
What the fuck is wrong with our ability to have the clear intention of international and domestic criminal law applied?

BlogRankers.com ~ Vote or Comment on this Blog @BlogRankers.com.