Through me to the city of Dolent
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Holden Caulfield's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Thursday, May 24th, 2012 | | 3:56 pm |
| | Friday, May 18th, 2012 | | 2:05 pm |
News to me
So, protests are going on in Chicago over the NATO summit. This is how one article described the situtation: An estimated 2,500 people, including hundreds of nurses, protested peacefully in a downtown Chicago plaza under the watchful eye of police Friday, chanting mostly about economic issues that have little to do with the summit of the NATO military alliance starting this weekend. Yeah, because Warfare and the military is certainly not affecting the economy. | | Thursday, May 17th, 2012 | | 10:37 am |
I'm an IT guy
I'm posting this here because I can't think of another spot. I fixed a printer issue I was having on our network printer server. Essentially, no one at the office was able to print. So, I used a remote desktop connection to hook in to our print server. Once connected, I went to printers and low-and-behold, none of our usual network printers appeared to be installed. The Dell printer monitor couldn't connect to the printers either. I restarted the printers themselves, that did nothing. Next I tried to add a new printer, and I received an error about the print spooler not being active. Print Spooler is a service in windows that allocates all of the print jobs into memory, and dolls them to the printer one at a time. Down at the start menu, I typed in "Services" to bring up the local windows services, I scrolled through the long list and found "print spooler". I opened that service and found it stopped. So I started it. It stopped again. Every time I restarted the service, it died after a few moments. Also, every time I started the service, the printer in the back of my office would warm up and crap out a couple documents before the Printer Spooler would deactivate again. I played with the Printer Spooler service under the "recovery" tab and set the service to continually restart it self if it failed. What happened then is that the same documents would print out over and over again, it didn't fix anything. In the past, I had simply restarted the network printer server by going to Start Menu > Restart (it's a virtual server, meaning it's not on a rack somewhere), but this was not fixing it either. I figured there was a print job that was causing problems, but when I went to the control panel > devices and printers > "See what's printing", the devices would be grayed out if the Print Spooler was stopped, and if the spooler was started the current jobs would show for just a moment and then it would crash. I wanted to clear all of those jobs, but I couldn't use the "See what's printing" application. Back on my virtual network print server, I located the temporary folder that contains print jobs, the directory is C:\windows\system32\spool\printers - there was about 35 jobs stacked up in there as *.tmp files. I deleted them all. The printer was then fixed. | | Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 | | 8:46 pm |
| | Monday, May 7th, 2012 | | 2:00 pm |
Whitney v California
[This is slightly abridged] The right of free speech, the right to teach, and the right of assembly are, of course, fundamental rights. These may not be denied or abridged. But, although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they are not, in their nature, absolute. Their exercise is subject to restriction if the particular restriction proposed is required in order to protect the State from destruction or from serious injury, political, economic, or moral. That the necessity which is essential to a valid restriction does not exist unless speech would produce, or is intended to produce, a clear and imminent danger of some substantive evil which the State constitutionally may seek to prevent has been settled. .... Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger, it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it. Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. A police measure may be unconstitutional merely because the remedy, although effective as means of protection, is unduly harsh or oppressive. Thus, a State might, in the exercise of its police power, make any trespass upon the land of another a crime, regardless of the results or of the intent or purpose of the trespasser. It might, also, punish an attempt, a conspiracy, or an incitement to commit the trespass. But it is hardly conceivable that this Court would hold constitutional a statute which punished as a felony the mere voluntary assembly with a society formed to teach that pedestrians had the moral right to cross unenclosed, unposted, wastelands and to advocate their doing so, even if there was imminent danger that advocacy would lead to a trespass. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly. [More to it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0274_0357_ZC.html ] | | 1:44 pm |
Justice Louis D. Brandeis Quotes
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. - We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both. - The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retribution. ---I still need to verify these. I have no idea if any are accurate. | | 1:06 pm |
Did you know?
According to Fareed Zakaria, who I think is a pretty reliable source concerning these matters: Some 30,000 people, for example, are now employed exclusively to listen in on phone conversations and other communications within the United States. Wow. HOW DO YOU FUCKS LIKE READING MY JOURNAL? I HOPE YOU ALL BURN IN HELL. | | Friday, May 4th, 2012 | | 12:21 pm |
Violence & The State
I have a deep underlying fear that the awesome force of the American government will someday be turned against The People of America. I shouldn't really say " someday" as it appears we have already reached that point, it happened long ago at a point unknown. I am concerned that it's going to get worse and worse, and in proportion to the terror that the government brings will be a rebellious (but small) contingent of young Americans who stand up to that force. As a response to the rebellion, the violence will become worse, and hence ad infinitum we will see the level of violence spiral out of control. Unfortunately for all concerned, the ability of the government to bring force upon individuals is insurmountable. Only through an insurrection of the devices and controls that bring force will peace be possible, and until then, the slaughter will not stop until free people submit to slavery. The brutality brought upon the rebellious in this country will be unprecedented. This article on Syrian troops massacring students provides a modest example of what true government oppression looks like. It will be much worse in this country. It will involve our friends and families in the most ungodly brutality imaginable, it will know no ends. | | Monday, April 30th, 2012 | | 2:05 pm |
| | Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 | | 2:14 pm |
| | Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 | | 3:57 pm |
My generation
According to Harvard: -By a margin of more than 4-1, Millennials believe U.S. is headed in wrong direction. Only twelve percent (12%) of young Americans believe things are "headed in the right direction" with fifty-two percent (52%) saying things are "off on the wrong track," a more pessimistic view than identified in February 2011 IOP polling (20 percent: "right direction," 39 percent: "wrong track"). Importantly, less than one-third (32%) of 18-29 year-olds approve of the way that President Obama is handling the economy, a ten percentage point drop since February IOP polling (42%). This data was collected during Fall last year. | | 11:28 am |
Senator Frank Church on the NSA, 1975.
I've been trying to track down the original quote by Frank Church, this is the best I've got so far: "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. Telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return." | | Friday, April 20th, 2012 | | 9:57 am |
Greenwald: Liberty Vs. Physical Security
Yesterday I posted two videos to check out. Both were very good, though Glenn Greenwald’s may have changed my perception about this world. He very accurately described the troubling mindset of citizens who actively support the increasingly totalitarian measures that our government enacts. The deep problem is people sacrificing liberty for personal, physical security: Liberty Vs. Physical Security. Further, he explains how this argument was previously settled in the American tradition with Patrick Henry’s quote, “Give me Liberty or give me death.” And further, how the forefathers of our constitution were quiet aware of sacrificing Physical Security for Liberty, and that this was ultimately codified and settled in the 4th Amendment to the constitution. As this Amendment prevents even the Police – our guardians of physical security – from violating our personal Liberty of doing whatever we want in our own homes, even in the case of immediate danger to our (or others) physical security. Anyone with the slightest inclination of sacrificing Liberty to achieve modest Physical Security could not, for any reason, support the 4th Amendment. This is perfectly true. I now see that this call for Personal Security above the respect for Liberty is a root tenant of authoritarian philosophy. Greenwald also explain how this mentality can be overcome: those who have embraced the idea of sacrificing liberty for personally security simply need to come to terms with the reality that ultimate physical security can never be achieved, it is only a far reaching conceptual fantasy. Essentially, if someone comes to understand that Safety Risks from Terrorists/Subversives/Criminals existed long before 9/11, and will continue to exist forever in the human experience, than one ultimately has to concede that pursuing Ultimate Physical Security is a pointless exercise. Another issue: many people are completely fine with sacrificing the Liberty of others (i.e. if only Muslims are screened at airports), because there is a primordial human instinct to desire a 2nd class of people to which the individual may be distinguished. That is to say, “I am OK with Muslims losing their rights, because I am not Muslim, but more so: I truly find satisfaction knowing that I am better than Muslims.” One method to challenge this is to identify a strongly-held viewpoint or philosophy that they personally subscribe to, and that is conjointly held by a minority of people in their given area, and apply that same totalitarian amoral reasoning to their distinguished class, “I am OK with Gun Owners losing their rights, because I am not a Gun Owner, and I truly find satisfaction knowing that I am better than Gun Owners.” I had not realized the underlying principal desire of humans to have a second class of exploitable people within our society, as I personally do not believe I feel that way, yet I can clearly see a number of people who do feel this way. Through this reasoning they support racism, nationalism, and prejudice feelings towards anyone “different” in order to satisfy an egotistical want to be “better than those people.” It is so common place…and unfortunately, I see it is as a desire of our ego, not a byproduct of our society. This speech was hosted in Canada, and Greenwald –for the first time I’m aware of- provided some examples of his principled criticisms of the United States and how they have permeated through all Western Countries (specifically English-speaking). Greenwald attacks the Military Industrial Complex, and how that is affecting the international communities. He explains that the growing industry no longer requires justification for its actions: the Complex is automatically justified to do whatever it desires without pretext. Greenwald points to the F-35, which I’ve also written about, and he explains that in all criticisms of this Trillion Dollar Airplane there is one central criticism missing, and it is the most powerful criticism: that this aircraft is fundamentally is not needed for any purpose what so ever. I hardly touched on this point in my writing, instead focusing on the astronomical costs and the plausible “trade off” of economic/social gains. Greenwald’s point is entirely true, and it is worth focusing on. I have doubts that it will be easily communicated to others, as there is a culture of fear that allows justification for anything that could plausibly aid the Physical Security of our nation and people. I can imagine the disgruntled authoritarian now, “We need the F-35 to hold off the Chinese and Iranians.” It seem, then, that the method of impugning the necessity is to prove that it too will not provide, nor make steps towards, the idolized Physical Security that it is meant to create. Tempering the argument towards Physical Security is the fear of immediate impending doom: that right around the corner is yet another Terrorist Attack, yet another Drug Dealer, yet another Criminal. I’m not sure how to sedate these irrational fears, it seems to be a cornerstone of our entertainment culture. We do not yet have a mechanism of countering the constant fear mongering….though, this might keep me busy throughout the summer. Also interesting, is to look at the Libertarian flip of this desire towards Physical Security, as the opposite of this calls for dangerous things to be allowed, and to acknowledge and accept that allowing Liberty within our society means that occasionally people will hurt themselves or others. Blood is simply the price to pay for Liberty….Or as Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” I found this video deeply inspiring. I’m eager to get back to work, making this country better. I feel like I’ve been reloaded with new types of intellectual ammunition that make my mind stronger than ever. Summertime is going to be amazing. Also – the Julian Assange video is well worth watching, his interview of Hezbollah’s leader was fascinating, and Assange truly could change the course of the world with this. In the interview, he provokes the leader of Hezbollah to consider brokering a peace deal in Syria between the rebels and other fractions. No one else on the international level is doing this. God Bless Julian Assange. | | Thursday, April 19th, 2012 | | 3:19 pm |
| | 11:44 am |
| | Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 | | 3:37 pm |
| | Monday, April 16th, 2012 | | 2:20 pm |
| | Thursday, April 12th, 2012 | | 1:20 pm |
Just face it
My roommate and I take the same bus route downtown, today we rode together. He's taking an interesting class at PSU about privacy in the digital age, and he told me he's reading a book called " Constitution 3.0" "What is it about?" I asked. "Well," he explained, "I guess it's about how technology is going to affect our constitutional rights, and some of the problems we're going to run into." "Interesting," I replied, "but in this country, we really don't observe the constitution at all. I mean, we regularly abandon the constitutional at whim, I can't imagine that's going to change in the immediate future." "Yeah..." "I wonder if the book is going to address that, or if it's just going to look at constitutional issues from a blindly academic point of view, where we pretend that the constitution is still valid." I then went on to say, like the snobby dick that I am, that the constitution is violated every day without regard, and that it's not just limited to foreign policy, "It's like the first amendment, free speech is regulated by Copyright laws." Well, reading the reviews on Amazon.com, this book is clearly not going to address the blatant unconstitutionality of the government we're dealing with. Even if the book proposes solutions (and as far as I can tell, the authors speculate on a couple emerging technologies and explain the concerns, offering up plausible solutions to non-existent issues), the citizens of this society have no means to institute good policies, and the government sure as shit won't. So, I guess I'm left with the question: does this shit even matter? I just imagine either the complete radicalization of anyone paying attention, or the acceptance of this real interpretation of what’s actually happening in our country: We should have free speech on the internet, except:
WHEN: you're considered or deemed to be a terrorist by a top-secret anonymous government official without trial, judicial oversight, or notification - then you can be assassinated by the government for exercising free speech on the internet.
OR: if you make accurate online statements critical of US policies, you can be jailed for life, or have all of your personal and electronic belongings searched every time you enter the country, in accordance with a 95 year old totalitarian law.
OR: if your statements are too controversial of government or private entities, or they support undesirables, the government or private entities may use blunt leverage to pressure the online host to remove your content, alternatively, the government or private entities may pressure the financial institutions that support you or your content host.
OR: your statements include information deemed to be "classified" by the government, or embarrassing to the government, then it shall be censored by government hackers.
OR: if you are a political activist, you may make statements freely, however will be used against you, out of context, in a court of law at a later point.
AND: all "exercising" of "free speech" will be monitored by the National Security Agency for purposes that will not be disclosed to you. We just need to face it: this government has no regard for the law, our legislators only draft new laws to profits the oligarchy that controls us or solidifies the State's control of us, and with no political candidates even addressing or considering this corruption, there is simply no end in sight. When we posture about imagining a government controlled by laws, then we’re only living in a fantasy land – and that fantasy, it’s called “College.” It's where Liberals are made, and socialist ideas are fostered. It's where you can fix corruption in government by writing a law that says that the government must now obey the law. It's a big fantasy. | | Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 | | 2:43 pm |
| | Monday, April 9th, 2012 | | 10:35 am |
|
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
the_pathogen's journal
