one step forward, two steps back

The two biggest policy concerns surrounding online activities are most likely privacy and freedom of speech. Citizens around the world are fighting for their right to privacy and free speech on the net but also counterproductively, fighting to monitor and keep criminals out. So obviously, with these two opposing forces it seems like we're doing an endless dance back and forth. In good news, Standford students are designing a "Do-Not-Track" software for internet browsers. As it stands websites collect information about users which allows them to better advertise and market towards them. This software would stop third party websites from collecting this information, protecting internet users' privacy. Combined with legislation (which is in the works) to force companies to respect the "Do-Not-Track" software, this will be a great step forward in the pursuit of internet privacy.

Unfortunately, freedom of speech on the internet has been taking a hit in the last couple of weeks. As we watch individuals gaining more privacy we see the US government's privacy being violated with the latest WikiLeaks release of US diplomatic cables. Of course, I wholly support WikiLeaks in its quest for transparent international relations (provided that innocent names are redacted). The treatment which WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange are receiving in the international community is one which is sad for the state of freedom of speech on the internet. A year ago President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the freedom of information which the internet provides (in criticism of Chinese censorship) however now, faced with WikiLeaks' latest leak, they are condemning the very idea of freedom of information. Meanwhile, companies, like Amazon and Paypal are dropping their support of WikiLeaks supposedly because of violations of Terms of Services, however as the list grows it becomes reasonable to question what the motivation is and who gave the executive order. Whoever is behind the attacks on WikiLeaks, the outcome is the same, one step back.

On a similar story concerning freedom of speech on the internet, outshined by the stories on the leaked cables, the US government recently seized dozens of internet domains responsible for sale of counterfeit products as well as distribution of pirated material. In the list of websites shut down was bitTorrent's search engine as well as a number of websites which were dedicated to promotion of hip hop music. The law which was passed allowing the US government to take down these websites essentially allows the US government to block any website which hosts copyrighted material, ranging from piratebay, to youtube, even to Facebook and other websites which allow for the storage of information. Again, this appears to be another step back.

Hopefully, these latest developments will result in greater awareness for the cause of freedom of speech and privacy on the internet.

to mars, never to return

In an exciting new development, NASA is planning ahead (probably the only organization in the United States to do so). NASA has begun funding research into a long-term 100-year program dedicated to deep-space projects. Included in this package is a new but simple proposition that few have even considered to make manned missions to Mars more economically viable.

Long has NASA said they would send men to Mars and return them home safely however few have been able to make such a mission economically viable. What some have suggested is to cut out the return trip, with launching off Mars the most economically and technologically difficult part of the undertaking. Now obviously this isn't press-conference worthy news, because of the inherent commotion it would cause but it is an extremely intriguing idea.

Under this concept one or two astronauts would be sent to the red planet on a one-way ticket, knowing they would never return to Earth. Now one immediately thinks, "suicide mission" however under this concept missions would be sent to resupply the astronaut regularily with the ultimate goal of setting up a self-sufficient base. Eventually more manned missions would follow up, expanding the base and human presence on Mars.

It really seems a promising concept. What's more is it would encourage further action in deep-space.Where, in the Apollo program, astronauts landed on the Moon, went home and then the world largely forgot about space for 40 years, one-way missions to Mars would necessitate further missions and interest in deep space. The proposal has also been made to send astronauts to Mars' moons Phobos and Deimos in the same manner.

Instead of the old barbaric way of NASA, building, conquering, abandoning, this program could be the necessary stepping stone to making humans an inter-stellar species. Instead of abandoning the program in a been-there-done-that fashion, they will build, conquer, pioneer, and... build.

Are the hills alive with the sound of music?

This is the opening question. The hills came alive, it was wonderful.

Park 51

Don't you think that the Ground Zero memorial should be a tribute to all humanity, not just America and its stereotypical vision of the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)? It wasn't just Americans that lost their lives, and all those who did represent a much larger picture of injustice in the world. I don't know, guess I'm just an idealist.

Regardless of the fact that dozens of innocent Muslims were killed in 9/11, regardless of the fact that the proposed Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan does not actually contain a mosque and cannot even be seen from Ground Zero, this non-controversy is out of control. It just so happens that in the middle of Ramadan Islamophobia is at a high-point. To this day around 20% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. I fear for the ignorance of some Americans, it just so happens that the festival of Eid, marking the end of Ramadan, falls on September 11th this year. Let's hope that no one mistakes religious celebration for boasting at the "glory" of terror.

Don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole basket. That's all I'm saying.

Robin Hood Hipsters

Lately, there has been a rash of bicycle thefts in my neighbourhood. Living in an upper-class suburb, that means expensive bicycles and pissed off, paranoid neighbours. While the rest of the passersby are buzzing about the problem and complaining, "Somebody should teach them a lesson!" I am laughing at the whole situation because A: What is someone doing with a $2500 bicycle anyway? Honestly everyone else only uses one of their 15 gears, why do you need 30? AND B: The crime duo's Modus Operandi (Celtic... just kidding) is absolutely fantastic.

See, the two will target a house with their garage doors open, they will ride in on their own bicycles, usually one-gear speed-bikes from a by-gone era. They ride in, take the expensive bikes and drop off their antique jewels. In one case they actually left a tandem bicycle (or bicycle-built-for-two) in the place of the more expensive bikes. Now having recently traveled to downtown Toronto (haven of hipsters) to see the Arcade Fire's concert promoting their new album "The Suburbs" (which was a fantastic show by the way) I came to be well acquainted with the idea that one-gear speed-bikes are hip. Thus I have concluded that these felons are stylish in their crime.

If I did not believe that these ne'erdowells were simply trying to make a quick buck and cause trouble, I would dream up some story of how these were Robin Hood Hipsters stealing from the rich, and bringing hipster style to the masses. They steal the (needless) $2500 bicycles pawn them off and purchase, at garage sales, through the internet, etc. old jewel junkers to give to their "victims." Really they are just trying to make everyone a little bit cooler and a little less snobbish.

(The Picture: My own contribution, okay I stole the parts, but I spliced 'em good....ish)

Musics: Arcade Fire - The Suburbs (Music Video)

Blog Update [15.07.10]

New Header! D;
Made in Photoshop CS2!

73h 531f

Self. A word for the elusive but ever-present enigma that is supposedly at the very core of our being. It is difficult, near impossible, to define, and yet few educated citizens of Western civilization would argue against the self's existence (unless they are a fan of Nietzsche). With this seemingly unanimous, universal belief in the concept, it must simply be accepted that the self is necessary and permanent aspect of each individual in society.

However, this is only partially true. Yes, the self is necessary to our capitalist society, creating the necessary competitive drive to keep the gears of our economic machine churning. However, the self is not necessary, and often detrimental to other systems and situations. Think of the French Revolution, it was an enlightened revolution against an absolutist regime. It marked the self-realization of the masses of Bourgeois who came to the conclusion that, as individuals, they were not getting all they could out of their current economic situation, whereas the aristocracy and the clergy were living the high-life. While the result of the revolution could be argued beneficial, it is clear that the concept of self is detrimental to absolutism. In fact, during this time, the sense of self in the Bourgeois proved to be the most destructive and subversive weapon against the Bourbon dynasty.

Also, the self is not a permanent facet of the individual, in fact, the individual and its subsequent self has historically been in flux most recently coming into existence at the end of the Dark Ages, with the advent of philosophy and early capitalism. Before the Renaissance, the masses of serfs were content to be just that, serfs. They did not consider that life could be better for themselves, because the closest thing they had to a sense of self was a sense of role, as an impoverished labourer. This shows a more universal concept which dominated society, not as a collective of individuals, but a single unit, operating as one with smaller parts. The same can be said of the former Soviet Union. With all Marx's talk of self-realization through labour, communism, at least in its impure "dictatorship-by-the-proletariat" form, proved to nearly eliminate the sense of self in labourers.

Let us ponder the state of the self in our technology-driven capitalist society. Some would argue that the self has come and passed, and remains only as an illusion in our society. Marx would claim that as slaves of the "God Money" we confuse our role in our society for our true self. That would make me an unemployed student. More and more when trying to define the self, we run into problems, attaching our roles in our society, our families, our friend groups, etc. to aspects of our self. In doing this we are defining our place in a greater community and in turn defying our individualism and the very concept of the self. Therefore, it must be argued that either, we once had a self and we have once again lost it (to technology?), or that the self never existed except as maybe an illusion.

If we don't have a self, does that make us slaves? Our government gives us freedom, but our state of being, existence, or whatever it boils down to, takes it away. It can be argued that we live in a constant state of slavery, under a fascist regime that ironically gives us absolute freedom. Few among us truly understand their self, and still fewer embrace their freedom. Maybe the only way to be a true individual is to defy all your roles in society.

Disclaimer: Defying your role in society can lead to infidelity, STDs, physical harm, incarceration, suicide-by-cop, etc. This blog does not condone illegal actions in the name of discovering one's "self". Really it is hardly worth it.

Related Blog: Along with self-based and community-based societies comes the idea of isolationism and Unitarianism. This is a good argument for why the latter is a fundamental and necessary part of society: Why Nietzsche Was Wrong.