Scanlyze

The Online Journal of Insight, Satire, Desire, Wit and Observation

The United States fetishizes gun Violence

The United States fetishizes gun Violence

I think it is very facile to attack guns for gun violence. That model fails to account for societies like Switzerland or Finland with high gun ownership but little gun violence.

What separates the United States is the degree to which it fetishizes gun violence. The stock character of the Western hero has morphed into the hard nosed cop and now into the faceless futuristic enforcer but the plot is the same: a lone man, using violence to right wrongs in society, then conveniently riding off into the sunset. “Hiyo, Silver, away!”

American Exceptionalism is the modern version of Manifest Destiny and White Man’s Burden. All are pinioned on the Idea that American Ideas are the Best, so much Better, in fact, that extreme violence and skullduggery are justified in their lofty pursuit of a greater good only America the Beautiful can provide.

Well, where’s the beef? Where are the benefits this benevolent violence are supposed to provide? Stable governments, democracy, prosperity, pluralism, tolerance, human rights, rule of law, all that?

Shall we ask Afghanistan? Or Libya? Or Yemen? Or Somalia? Or Iraq?

How’s that workin’ for ya USA? Is that the right model for Syria? Really?

I think it is very facile to attack guns for gun violence. That model fails to account for societies like Switzerland or Finland with high gun ownership but little gun violence.

What separates the United States is the degree to which it fetishizes gun violence. The stock character of the Western hero has morphed into the hard nosed cop and now into the faceless futuristic enforcer but the plot is the same: a lone man, using violence to right wrongs in society, then conveniently riding off into the sunset. “Hiyo, Silver, away!”

American Exceptionalism is the modern version of Manifest Destiny and White Man’s Burden. All are pinioned on the Idea that American Ideas are the Best, so much Better, in fact, that extreme violence and skullduggery are justified in their lofty pursuit of a greater good only America the Beautiful can provide.

Well, where’s the beef? Where are the benefits this benevolent violence are supposed to provide? Stable governments, democracy, prosperity, pluralism, tolerance, human rights, rule of law, all that?

Shall we ask Afghanistan? Or Libya? Or Yemen? Or Somalia? Or Iraq?

How’s that workin’ for ya USA? Is that the right model for Syria? Really?

Copyright © 2015 Henry Edward Hardy

30 October, 2015 Posted by | Afghanistan, anthropology, foreign policy, gun, Iraq, Libya, media, nonviolence, policy, scanlyze, Somalia, Syria, United States, violence, Where's the beef? | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Comments on ‘Net Neutrality’

I sent the below to some friends when asked to join a letter advocating “Network neutrality”:

I am generally opposed to any federal or state regulation of what internet service providers can do vis a vis routing and BGP, packet prioritization etc. I do think that telcos should continue to function as common carriers, and that all commercial ISP’s should be required to reveal their packet prioritization and bandwidth clamping as part of consumer protection regulation, rather than being allowed to use the “up to 1.5 megabytes per second fast” kind of formulation in advertising.

There is no capital-I “Internet”. And there has not been since the NSF backbone shut down April 30, 1995. There is merely a loose association of networks who have agreed to share traffic over RFC-documented protocols. Each of the networks is entirely autonomous and self-governing.

It is the autonomous, voluntary, and self-governing aspects of the internet which are most important to preserve, not “net neutrality”. Internet freedom means that we allow other people to do things on their network which we personally don’t like (and may not allow on our network).

“We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code”

–Dave Clark, “An Input/Output Architecture for Virtual Memory Computer Systems”, Ph.D. dissertation, Project MAC Technical Report 117, January 1974

Networks belong to the people who own them. There is no reason that I, as a person who owns a network, should have to pay for additional bandwidth charges to say, backhaul traffic for AT&T or Google over my network if they are not clients of mine, or that I should route their packets over my net at all if I don’t want to. Nor should I have to give a non-subscriber equal priority on my network as say, medical imaging facilities for a customer.

“Net neutrality” is a shibboleth; I think we should avoid using the term and talk instead about “common carrier” status for the telcos and large ISP’s and voice carriers.

Links to previous stuff I have posted on my blog regarding “net neutrality”: https://scanlyze.wordpress.com/?s=net+neutrality

I am posting the above comment also to my blog, https://scanlyze.wordpress.com/

–HH.

Autonomous System (wikipedia)

Copyright © 2009 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

29 December, 2009 Posted by | anarchy, common carrier, computer networks, Dave Clark, internet, Net, neutrality, policy | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Comcast versus the Net

The following is written in response to: Comcast: We’re Delaying, Not Blocking, BitTorrent Traffic on the Bits blog at nytimes.com.

The allegation made against Comcast by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and reported by the Associated Press is that Comcast have allegedly been inserting forged reset (RST) packets into the datastream. This is not analogous to delaying a call. It is more analogous to the company disconnecting a call in mid-sentence because they have been listening in and classifying the type of conversation and don’t like what is being discussed or think it is likely a waste of time.

This is unethical if it is being done and also goes against the Internet technical documents, the RFC’s. Further there are several potential legal issues including potential violations of the:

* Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC § 2510.

* General Prohibition Against Traces and Traps 18 USC § 3121.

* The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

* The Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 551.

* State statutes such as Michigan statue Fraudulent Access to Computers, Computer Systems, and Computer Networks, MCL 795.791.

Whatever Comcast routing and Quality of Service provisions are in effect should be fully spelled out and transparent to regulators, internet technical experts and the general public so that citizens can make an informed choice about whether they want their internet unsurveilled, uncensored and uninterrupted… or whether they want Internet which is “Comcastic”.

See Comcastic?!? Not So Much…
Comcast and BitTorrent; a Complicated Relationship
Technorati posts tagged comcast bittorrent

See also An Open Letter to Rich Sheridan regarding the proposed insertion of spam by the Wireless Washtenaw Project
Seven Questions on ‘Net Neutrality’ for Ann Arbor City Councilman Ron Suarez

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

23 October, 2007 Posted by | 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 USC § 2510, 18 USC § 3121, 47 U.S.C. § 551, allegations, Bits, BitTorrent, cable TV, Comcast, Comcastic, common carrier, computer networks, Computer Systems, EFF, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Electronic Frontier Foundation, forged, fraudulent access, General Prohibition Against Traces and Traps, internet, law, MCL 795.791, media, Net, net neutrality, network, New York Times, packet, policy, politics, privacy, regulation, reset, RFC, RST, scanlyze, surveillance, TCP/IP, The Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984, The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act | 1 Comment

Seven Questions on ‘Net Neutrality’ for Ann Arbor City Councilman Ron Suarez

Ann Arbor City Councilman Ron Suarez has been getting some good press for his putative support for ‘net neutrality’ — see Michigan City Councilman Fights for Net Neutrality. Ron has opened up his public blog for discussion of this issue.

I have some more questions arising from Cable Bill Threatens Community Access and Leaves Out Net Neutrality on RonSuarez.com:

Ron,

1) Could you please explain what the term ‘network neutrality’ means to you?

2) Are you for or against ‘network neutrality’ as you have defined it?

3) You said, Net Neutrality, besides helping non-profits and others who may never make a fortune, also helps innovators like the You Tube founders to leverage their creativity to make a fortune. Isn’t this the “American Dream?”

How would “net neutrality” help non-profits and “others who may never make a fortune”?

Do you think internet routing currently is “neutral” or “non-neutral”?

And I would say that “liberty and justice for all” is my ideal of the American Dream. “Make a fortune” is the opposite of that as far as I can see.

4) You said, There are countless web sites that I use, which would have never stayed afloat or even gotten started in the world that Comcast and AT&T would like to have.

Could you name such a site and explain how they would never have never stayed afloat or started and what would have made this difference?

And, how do you think “the world Comcast and AT&T would like to have” is different from how the “world” is now?

5) Please explain why it would be helpful or beneficial to replace the system of IETF committees and RFC’s with legislation? What penalties and means of enforcing compliance would you propose? What organization or body would oversee this? How would this be funded? How would or should it be imposed and enforced on the entire internet outside the US?

6) Please explain how Quality of Service routing would be accomplished under “net neutrality”?

see: INDEX RFC : QOS

7) Please explain why it should be illegal for a service provider to give priority to, for instance, data traffic from a trauma center which is a customer of that provider vrs. spam traffic from non-customers?

see also: Robert Kahn speaks out against ‘Net Neutrality’
Hands off my Router! Bad Government! — No to ‘Net Neutrality’!

Copyright © Henry Edward Hardy 2007

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

14 February, 2007 Posted by | Ann Arbor, AT&T, cable commission, city council, Comcast, government, IETF, internet, Michigan, net neutrality, policy, QoS, Quality of Service, questions, RFC, Ron Suarez, routing | 2 Comments