Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
You are currently browsing the archives for the Politics category.
5
Jan
2010
Rette deine Freiheit
At the moment in Germany, there is fierce opposition growing against plans by the CDU to implement internet censorship under the guise of attacking the spread of child pornography. A movement championed by the German Piratenpartei has dubbed ex-minister for family affairs Ursula von der Leyen “Zensursula”, a portmandeau of Zensur (Censor) and Ursula, and is referring to the CDU’s plans as Stasi 2.0, a nod to the brutal secret police which operated in former East Germany.
Not only is there to be a secret list of blocked websites, such as exists in Australia, but the government is pushing for more data to be collected from citizens and retained for a long period of time.
A video which caught my attention a while back was entitled Du bist Terrorist (You are a terrorist). With soft ambient music playing, and deceptively pleasantly designed imagery, the two-minute video parodies the Du bist Deutschland ad-campaign with a soft, reassuring voice informing you of what the German government has in store for you, in terms of heavier and more invasive surveillance — because You are a terrorist.
Earlier this week I found that the same people had created a new video in the same vein, entitled Rette deine Freiheit (Save your freedom). The video focuses much more on the coming internet censorship in Germany than just data retention and physical surveillance.
Since there was no English translation available, I decided to translate it and re-upload to Youtube. The result is below:
The translation is by no means perfect, but at least it’s something. There were a few tricky problems with it:
- Einfach wegschauen: Literally “simply look away”, the video describes this as the method tried-and-tested by members of families with a history of domestic abuse. I was going to translate it as “simply look the other way” in its first instance, since this is the closest phrase in English that pertains to such a situation. However, this doesn’t exactly capture the double-meaning employed in the video, since it implies wilful ignorance which isn’t quite applicable to what the government is doing, so I decided to settle on “simply block it out”. I’m not sure I’m happy with this, however. Suggestions?
- In the sentence, “In Prävention, Therapie und Personal investiert hätte dies vielen Opfern helfen können: Reinste Verschwendung”, the meaning that is sarcastically implied is that the money that could be invested in preventative measures, therapy and personelle is much better spent on building an internet block. I don’t think I captured this very well.
In any event, there’s likely to be an official translation soon (I just saw an “Englisch (bald verfügbar)” notice at the top of the official page now — perhaps my emailing asking for a transcript of the video got them in a rush) and these issues will cease to be.
One last thing — if you are interested in learning more about the situation in Germany regarding internet freedom and the child pornography scare, I’d not only urge you to visit the links above, but also this shocking, but morbidly fascinating account of one techie’s work in the murkiest of subcultures. Thankfully, he doesn’t go into detail about actual child abuse, but instead details exactly how child pornography rings work, using the internet and computers.
Put simply, it proves what anyone with a clue already knows: current proposals for internet censorship will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on paedophiles and child pornographers and will only serve to infringe the rights of normal, law-abiding internet users.
Thanks to Áine and Patricia for help with one or two minor parts of the translation.
17
Oct
2009
Don’t hold your breath for tolerance.
In the past week, Stephen Gately, former member of Irish boy-band Boyzone, died. Jan Moir of the Daily Mail wrote an incredibly repulsive article on the subject and Charlie Brooker responded indignantly.
Meanwhile, a Ugandan minister of parliament has proposed legislation to enforce a penalty of death for the “offence of aggravated homosexuality.”
Well then.
30
Sep
2009
An anecdote
A few weeks ago, I was asked to act as a proxy and present a paper on language evolution at a conference on artificial intelligence and life taking place in Budapest. The presentation went well, considering I’d only had a week or so to read up on what is an enormous subject I’d never studied before.
Later on, in the evening, I had been walking about the town, looking for a suitable place to have dinner when I came across an Irish pub which I decided to have a few drinks in later that night, after having eaten. A match was on that night between Manchester Utd and Besiktas for which they had the projector screen out and all. Upon entering, I attempted to take a seat at the bar, since I had absolutely no interest in the match, only to be chaperoned to the pub audience and told I must be seated with everyone else, in front of the projector screen.
It quickly became apparant that I was the only Irishman in the building: the staff were all Hungarian, there was a group of Americans closest to the screen, then directly in front of me a group of about four Englishmen, and to my left a group of about eight Turks, men and women, who were occasionally chatting to three Danes seated beside them, having dinner. Those Turks immediately to my left were rather friendly and chatty, and after a while we had exchanged pleasantries and stories explaining why and how we had wound up in an Irish pub in Budapest of all places.
One hour and many beers later, and not a goal had been scored. I grew more and more impatient, and the Turks (for whom this game seemed to mean an awful lot) grew more and more raucous. Then, out of nowhere, a shot on-target rebounded off the goal-posts. As it seems, the drink had affected my prior apathy towards the whole event, and I let an annoyed roar of “JESUS!” out of me. One of the Turks turned to me and said with a smile, “Don’t you mean Mohammad?” I responded, “Ah yeah, he’s pretty good too, just don’t draw any funny pictures of him, ye?”
The Danes exploded in laughter.
The Turks went completely silent, staring straight ahead at the projector screen.
22
Sep
2009
The inane ramblings of non-talent Lily Allen
Lily Allen has set up a blog for musicians opposed to peer-to-peer filesharing to contribute their thoughts to. I only made it through her most recent blog post tonight, but if that’s anything to go by, we’re in for some more quality stream-of-unconsciousness ramblings from her in the future:
Apparently there are a lot of younger people at the record labels who do understand digital and want to come up with new ways everyone can get to music, but everytime they try something new it fails to win through against the ‘free’ stuff available unlawfully from file-sharing. So the fact there’s nothing in place to stop file-sharing is actually preventing the industry develop new ways of getting music to people, as well as harming new artists. I ‘d also like to stress that the music business is not just made up of artists and record company execs,. ALOT of people seem to think that the record labels are to blame for this whole thing because they have been overcharging the consumer for too long, while this may be partly true, i wouldn’t want to be seen as supporting file sharing, even if it does mean reaching a bigger audience and earning money from ticket sales . People are losing their jobs as a result of illegal downloads. In the same way that all those people lost their jobs at car factories last year, because people stopped buying cars. The music industry is now facing destruction because people have stopped buying music. For every car sold in the UK , a small piece of that profit will go to the designers of the cars, there are thousands ands thousands of other people working in the motor industry that need to be paid too. If we stop paying for a product, the industry supporting that product falls apart, as we have seen over the past few years. i hope that made sense….
Sounds like a presentation a 15-year-old would make for an Economics class in high school. Instead of even paying a single thought to the incredible exposure peer-to-peer sharing has given emerging and underground artists in countries they would never have dreamed to have reached, she assails this practice as being the final nail in the coffin for such musicians.
Same story as always, then… But told by an incredibly inarticulate girl who produces utterly shit pop music and will no doubt further embarrass herself on the blog in the future. Stay tuned, innit?
(Speaking of the which, first person to code a Text-To-Mockney-Speech utility for the sole purpose of reciting the garbage on this blog wins a grand prize. Get working.)
Update: thanks to Hugh, I came across this post on Torrentfreak, which tells us that:
The debut post on the blog includes a criticism of 50 Cent, who just a couple of weeks ago had the temerity to suggest that piracy and file-sharing are all part of marketing music.
However, aside from the critique of Fiddy, the rest of the blog post – put there by Lilly herself – is someone else’s work. Arrr mateys, Long John Allen lifted the entire post from another site – Techdirt.com – effectively pirating the work of the one and only Mike Masnick.
“I think it’s wonderful that Lilly Allen found so much value in our Techdirt post that she decided to copy — or should I say ‘pirate’? — the entire post,” Mike told TorrentFreak on hearing the shocking news.
“The fact that she is trying to claim that such copying is bad, while doing it herself suggests something of a double standard, unfortunately. Also, for someone so concerned about the impact of ‘piracy’ I’m quite surprised that she neither credited nor linked to our post. Apparently, what she says and how she acts are somewhat different. Still, Lilly, glad we could help you make a point… even if it wasn’t the one you thought you were making,” Mike added.
1
Sep
2009
Ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia to be fined for speaking their own language
Daniel Tencer has posted his English translation of an article in Gazeta Wyborcza from Warsaw, Poland, which describes a new law which imposes a fine of five to ten thousand euros for publicly speaking Hungarian in Slovakia:
Ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia are planning to protest today in the city of Dunajska Streda against a law they say violates their basic human rights. Under a penalty of five to ten thousand Euros, as of today it will be a crime in Slovakia to use the Hungarian language in public places.
As the Hungarian weekly Heti Világgazdaság states, every Hungarian doctor in Slovakia will from now on be required to speak Slovakian with their patients, even ethnically Hungarian patients, even if neither party wishes it so.
[Explanatory note: There are 550,000 ethnic Hungarians living in Slovakia. They are there because after the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed in World War I, the Allied Powers drew the borders of Hungary in such a way as to marginalize the Hungarian nation. A full 3.3 million Hungarians were left out of Hungary, and have been living as minorities in Slovakia, Romania, etc. for the past ninety years.]
The protest marks the culmination of several nightmarish weeks in Hungarian-Slovak relations, during which time the Slovak government refused entry to the Hungarian prime minister, and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences declared the new Slovak language law a violation of fundamental human rights.
It’s always a thorny issue when governments get involved in mandating and prescribing the use of language in their respective societies, but it’s surprised me that such an incredibly racist law brought in in Eastern Europe has gone almost completely unnoticed in the news media — especially when one considers the background to the Hungarians’ presence in Slovakia.
Edit: Ah. Literally minutes after I clicked “Publish” (I didn’t know my blog was that closely watched! ;) ), a story about this appeared in the third most prominant position on the BBC News website.
1
Jul
2009
How Dysfunction Helps the GOP
Thanks to John for bringing this to my attention – an op-ed journal in the Wall Street Journal entitled “How Dysfunction Helps the GOP: The party says its own mistakes prove Government can’t work.”
It begins:
‘Remember the $400 hammer? How ’bout that $600 toilet seat?” asks a Conservatives for Patients’ Rights TV commercial criticizing President Barack Obama’s health-care plan. “Seems when Congress gets involved, things just cost more.”
As it happens, I do remember the incident of the $436 hammer, the one that made headlines back in 1984. And while it may “seem” in hazy retrospect as though it showed how “things just cost more” once those silly liberals in Congress get started, what the hammer episode actually illustrated was a very different sort of ripoff. The institution that paid so very much for that hammer was President Ronald Reagan’s Pentagon. A private-sector contractor was the party that was pleased to take the Pentagon’s money. And it was a liberal Democrat in the House of Representatives, also known as “Congress,” who publicized the pricey hardware to the skies.
And ends with these thoughts:
A government that works, some conservatives fear, is dangerous stuff. It gives people ideas. Universal health care isn’t just a bad idea for their buddies in the insurance business; it’s a gateway drug to broader state involvement in the economy and hence a possible doomsday scenario for conservatism itself. As two fellows of the Ethics and Public Policy Center fretted in the Weekly Standard in May, “health care is the key to public enmeshment in ballooning welfare states, and passage of ObamaCare would deal a heavy blow to the conservative enterprise in American politics.”
On the other hand, government fails constantly when conservatives run it because making it work would be, for many of those conservatives, to traduce the very laws of nature. Besides, as we can now see, bungling Katrina recovery or Pentagon procurement pays conservatives huge dividends. It gives them potent ammunition to use when the liberals have returned and are proposing another one of their grand schemes to reform health care.
Well-written, concise and to-the-point – definitely worth reading.
15
Jun
2009
American Department of Defence brands protest as “low level terrorism”
Anti-terrorism training materials currently being used by the Department of Defense (DoD) teach its personnel that free expression in the form of public protests should be regarded as “low level terrorism.” ACLU attorneys are calling the approach “an egregious insult to constitutional values” and have sent a letter to the Department of Defense demanding that the offending materials be changed and that the DoD send corrective information to all DoD employees who received the erroneous training.
“DoD employees cannot fully protect our nation and its values unless they understand that a core American value is the constitutional right to criticize our government through protest activities,” said ACLU of Northern California attorney Ann Brick. “It is fundamentally wrong to equate activism with terrorism.”
Among the multiple-choice questions included in its Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course, the DoD asks the following: “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?” To answer correctly, the examinee must select “protests.”
“Teaching employees that dissent on issues of public concern is something to be feared, rather than respected, is a dangerously counterproductive use of scarce security resources, making us less safe and less democratic,” said Michael German, ACLU National Security Policy Counsel and former FBI Special Agent.
5
Jun
2009
This is what Obama is up against
Max Blumenthal writes: On the eve of President Barack Obama’s address to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt, I stepped out onto the streets of Jerusalem with my friend Joseph Dana to interview young Israelis and American Jews about their reaction to the speech. We encountered rowdy groups of beer sodden twenty-somethings, many from the United States, and all eager to vent their visceral, even violent hatred of Barack Obama and his policies towards Israel. Usually I offer a brief commentary on my video reports, but this one requires no comment at all. Quite simply, it contains some of the most shocking footage I have ever filmed. Watch it and see if you agree. (This video was removed from the Huffington Post on the grounds that it had “no news value” and “did not move the conversation forward.”)
Joseph Dana, one of the co-creators of the video above, has written the following to explain why he and Max Blumenthal made the video, and what he thinks it shows:
It’s about entitlement, stupid.
Max and I went on to the streets of Jerusalem at ten o’clock on a Wednesday to ascertain the feelings of the young population about Obama’s upcoming speech in Cairo. As is often the case, the streets of central Jerusalem were not filled with native Israelis but American Jews. Doubtlessly anyone who has visited Jerusalem has encountered the droves of American Jewish kids that are sent to Israel to study for a period of time from Teaneck or Westchester. We asked people a simple question, “What do you think of Obama and Israel?” Most of the people that we talked to were dual American Israeli citizens. The answers in this video reflect the education and worrisome perspectives that many American Jews harbor towards Israeli politics. The sense of entitlement that the American Jewish community has when it comes to Israeli policy is on full raw display in the words of these young adults.
Based on our interviews these people were from high socio economic backgrounds and had developed thoughts about current Israeli politics. The question is why more journalists are not covering this story. All you have to do is walk the streets of Jerusalem and you will find dozens of people that harbor the same beliefs. As a resident of Jerusalem, I can say that the people represented in this video are not members of a fringe group or simply drunk college kids. These people reflect the sentiments shared by many people in this country and this city. These people and their families are the core of the opposition to meaningful peace between Israel and her neighbors. This is what Obama is up against.
1
Jun
2009
The assassination of George Tiller
Yesterday, an abortionist in Wichita, Kansas, Dr. George Tiller was shot dead outside the Reformation Lutheran Church in the city. The BBC has a good op-ed piece on violence in the abortion debate:
While many pro-life organisations have come out and condemned the killing on Sunday, the fact remains that violence and intimidation have remained a constant thread in the history of the modern-day movement.
According to data gathered by the National Abortion Federation, a pro-choice group, there had been at least nine killings in anti-abortion protests, 17 attempted murders and 400 death threats.
Bombings and arson attempts of abortion facilities also happen on a regular basis with cases often reaching double figures every year.
The most famous was probably the Christmas Day bombings which targeted three clinics in 1984 with the perpetrators dubbing them a “birthday gift for Jesus”.
More reading material of a distinctly more repulsive nature is available in this blog post on Carnal Nation, in which the author has used Twitter for its only sensible purpose: mining public opinion. Gathered there is a collection of “tweets” from a fringe-group of pro-life nutjobs who, ironically, celebrated the assassination.
They would seem to be also supporters of the death penalty, which would make one doubt the creedence of their claim that they believe every life really is sacred. Or perhaps their flawed logic is simply the product of having been brought up to believe fundamentalist dogma, and they see no logical contradiction.
In any event, here are some of the tweets:
No need to pray for George Tiller. We know he went straight to hell!!!!!
Tiller the Baby Killer is finally dead….God took care of what needed to be done….
the killing of tiller the baby killer was JUSTICE, not murder.
All very Christian and forgiving, don’t you think? It’s worth noting that the overwhelming majority of tweets from both sides of the abortion debate expressed horror at the assassination of Dr. Tiller. Indeed, the last tweet linked above seems to be from a particularly screwy individual, who also appears to be a proud racist.
So, these people aren’t in the mainstream, but the Internet acts as a veritable megaphone for their idiocy. The effects on their lives is predictable, as “the stupid, bigoted comments people used to make at the water cooler now get preserved for future employers to find using Google.”
But what effect does this have on the rest of us? Comment and phenomena like this will always be sought out to satisfy a kind of morbid curiosity many of us might have. Is there the chance this will result in it becoming more acceptable and popular?
31
May
2009
Satire als Rhetorik
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen haben eine neue Werbung für die kommende Europawahl produziert, die wahrscheinlich ziemlich kontrovers wird. Schau mal:
Wie finden Sie das? Haben sie den Nagel auf den Kopf getroffen oder haben sie nur eine krasse, opportunistische Werbung gemacht?
