Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.
Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!
Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
y'all be goin' on vacation? see, the thing is, if you 'bout to be up out this biatch, check it. beep delta. we be flyin' all over this bitch. let me astk you somethin'. you fend to raise up 'n get your travel on? from the interior to da exterior, you've got to get your posterior in one of deese big ass planes. shit dog! you laying the cut straight sittin' on yo ass, and gettin' your drink on and your snack on, while we floss and fly this mo' fo all over this bitch. east coast. west coast. it don't matter. ni'a, we'll get you to yo ho 'n back, lickitty splits, no shit. then you be back at yo crib, chillin' with a flat splif, thinkin' we were some crazy ass angel. hell. these fat, round, thick ass vessels run up in the sky so deep, it be cryin'. yeah. you thought it was rain. so bring a towel, cuz at delta, it's laid out like that. call one of deese fly ass delta coochies, and make all dem punk-ass coworkers o' yours catch the vapors as you be off and up out. you going? we fly you there. you been? we done already flew up in there. we got you covered like a jimmy hat. at delta, we loves us some flyin', and it be showin' like a muthafucka.
FROM THE DESK OF Dorothy Gale Auntie Em: Hate you. Hate Kansas. Taking the dog. Dorothy
Causes of the September eleventh attacks:
Besides the obvious answer of "19 evil people with boxcutters and knowledge of how to fly a plane", this list tries to investigate the immediate causal links that lead to these acts in an attempt to illuminate some theory behind predicting terrorism.
Voters fault - We control the government through whom we elect. If we had cared about airline security, which we didn't, even after Lockerbie incident and that Egyptian copilot guy crashing the plane into the sea, then we would've voted in people who would've passed legislation or appointed people who would have enforced more security.
FAA's fault - The FAA has the authority to force airlines to conform to standards. The FAA knew about airline security, but at the insistence that the airlines were making little profit and even losing money, they were reluctant to force too many requirements on struggling airlines. The FAA knew about previous hijackings, and perhaps had the intelligence from Manila, but still did nothing, or only set voluntary requirements.
Airlines fault - The airlines may have known about voluntary requirements or had ideas or suggestions about security, but didn't follow them. The ignorant practice of only paying attention to the bottom line (profit) that nearly all corporations cling to, leads to the reasoning "if its not required, it costs money, and there's no clear profit to made from it, don't do it". The airlines and airports could have provided more security in the air travel process, but didn't want to invest the money it would have taken to create more security, when there was no perceived threat and there was no regulatory requirement.
Executives fault - Either Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II, take your pick, were in recent years in charge of the executive branch and had control over policy and appointments. Others in the executive branch are responsible too. The executive could have required stronger security policy at airports, and even could have subsidized such systems with government money, thus creating incentive for airlines to do it because they wouldn't lose so much money as if they had to pay for all the improvements themselves. The executive is supposed to be the "care takers" of the people, and think about the issues the average voter doesn't think about and manage the services that only the government can/will offer.
Congress' fault - Although the congress can be viewed as simply the extension of the voters will, to an extent they are also trustees of the people and are "care takers" like the executive branch. Congress failed in the same ways as the executive in terms of planning and funding security and instead were spending their time (and today spend their time) bickering about meaningless details of various bills and what riders to add, instead of thoughtfully considering more important topics and responsibilities of government.
CIA's and FBI's fault - A member of Al Qaeda was arrested in Manila, Philippines in the early nineties. His seized computer held plans for various plots to destroy airplanes and the world trade center. The plans for destroying airplanes involved small plastic explosives and the plans for destroying the world trade center as they in fact were was yet unformulated but the roots of what happened can clearly be seen in the obtained records from Manila. The person captured in Manila I believe went on to be one of the planners of the van bomb attacks on the world trade center. The computer and other evidence were referred to the CIA by the Manila authorities, which in turn gave it to their analysts. The analysts didn't consider it a high priority and shelved the information. They should have taken it seriously after the van bomb attacks on the world trade center and started going over possible scenarios implied by the captured documents, but didn't. This was the major intelligence failure, having information about a related plot and not going through all the alternatives and possible scenarios to accomplish the same goal of destruction. The analysis provided no warnings, and thus we were all caught with our pants down. The FBI also may have had this information but their analysts didn't make the connection between various people entering the country and attending flight schools and the captured documents. The relevant conclusion is that US agencies had for nearly a decade enough intelligence to consider flying planes into tall buildings as a possible scenario, and even if their analysts did arrive at that possibility, they shelved it instead of causing a policy or regulation change from it.
The second fact they knew about was Al Qaeda. They knew it existed and what its goals were yet weren't as aggressive as they could have been to dismantle it. Planting operatives to disrupt and destroy the organization in those early years would have had a chance of success, but to my knowledge no such effort was made.
US foreign policy's fault - Whether Israel is justified or not in their existence as a state, there is a perception in the middle east that the United States not only supports a Zionist state but that our support is so strong that we are in fact part of the Zionist entity. To many who sympathize with the plight of dislocated Palestinians, and others who consider the Israeli state Muslim holy land, the Israeli state and its US backing are affronts to their religious values and in a more secular sense can be seen as an injustice in that people were pushed out of their homes and that the region is now in a perpetual state of conflict whereas before the creation of the Israeli state there was less conflict. Among Arabs, Muslims, and many in the east, the Israeli presence is an invasion and the US strongly supports and pays for or provides for that invasion. Thus we have earned ourselves a very bad reputation with these people, and they truly don't like us. George Washington warned future leaders to stay out of "foreign entanglements", and the backing of Israel is clearly a foreign entanglement, which has gotten us some big problems in return.
Second, in an unintended effect of the perhaps ill implemented fight to stop the spread of soviet imperialism, we gave guns and training to various opposition groups in Afghanistan, among them the Taliban. There is no way we could have known that things would unfold as they did, but perhaps in the future we should be more prudent in who we back and why. Sure, opposing communism in central Asia or central America may have seemed like a good idea on paper, but once again all this foreign meddling got us in a lot more trouble than we planned on. Plans and strategies created from theories on paper tend to always encounter some kind of alteration in real life. Perhaps we should have simply let things unfold as they would and let the regimes collapse. Ultimately, at the end of the eighties, the Soviet Union collapsed, the largest of all the communist world powers. Wouldn't this same fate have transpired in a communist Afghanistan or Nicaragua? But in our thick skulled attempt to rid the world of communism forcefully instead of letting it collapse on its own, we created a state that would eventually be the base of operations for our first adversary of the new threat in the twenty-first century, terrorism.
Religious radicals in the US - It doesn't help that various religious (mostly Christian radicals) radicals in the US condemn US society and policy for the same reasons the Islamic radicals do. I can't point to a direct effect on this event, but it certainly doesn't look very good to have people in the US saying our moral debauchery caused the events, just as the Islamic radicals claim.
Other causes we can't easily control:
Religious radicalism - There are many causes for renewed Islamic radicalism in central Asia and the Middle East. I won't get into them now, but this was a contributing factor to the success of recruiting people and having resources and places to train people.
Poverty that the US isn't responsible for - Although some could argue that US foreign and economic policy are responsible for poverty in some parts of the world, we won't focus on that. There are parts of the world that are naturally poor because of a lack of various resources, or because of poor governments or development. The US is in no way responsible for the acts of chance that certain countries have crappy climates or no natural resources to sell. It's also not our fault that your government is run by a dictator and you have no free open economy. However, it is known that not only does poverty breed religious radicalism; it breeds discontent and anger against the rich countries. This "have-nots" discontent combined with religious radicalism leads to more religious radicalism and compounds the problem of the widespread hatred for the "opulent" west and our "lax morals".
Chaotic state of technology - Technology can't be easily controlled; so one person in a plane can kill thousands by simply moving a wheel and a few levers around. We build machines and have knowledge that when used properly leads to greater convenience and mostly peace for many people. But the problem is it's too easy for someone to make a bomb, fly a plane, or release and send in the mail some deadly virus. The ease of use of technology makes it useable and practical, but also makes it usable for purposes of destruction and killing.
A critique of Phil Zimmerman and PGP
There are two initial critiques of the haphazard distribution of a functional and simple to use version of RSA or any strong encryption. Assume the use of the terms PGP, strong encryption, and encryption are interchangeable unless otherwise specified. I will argue against Phil Zimmerman's position that free and open distribution of easy to use strong encryption is good and beneficial in the long run for humanity. I will also reflect on the futility of trying to restrict the use of strong encryption. Then questions of encryption policy will be discussed.
Zimmerman argues for PGP along two lines. First that strong encryption is a tool for freedom fighters, humanitarian groups, and other groups that face repression of and punishment for their speech. Second that because strong encryption already exists, it will inevitably fall into the wrong hands, so why not enable everyone else to have it also?
Zimmerman's belief that only valid groups will use strong cryptography is false. Furthermore this discussion brings in the question of what makes a group valid? This will finally show that the use of strong encryption ultimately leads to lawbreakers becoming more brazen as they use strong cryptography because they know their communications will be secure thus eliminating some key evidence needed to prosecute various parts of the apparatus.
Zimmerman maintains that strong encryption is good because it is a tool for groups that need security for their communications because the government under which they live, which they may be fighting, wants to monitor, punish, and ultimately halt their communications. Such groups would be freedom fighters fighting "a really horrible government" , human rights groups documenting atrocities, and groups who may be politically oppressed or closely monitored such as leftist groups were in the United States in the early Cold War period or followers of Falun Gong in China. The prospect that not so good groups such as the right-wing paramilitary forces of Columbia or al Qaeda cells abroad may use strong cryptography is very great. The use of computers by terrorist groups is well documented. One such example by al Qaeda is in planning a bombing: "A computer used by top al-Qaeda chiefs contains a report of a scouting mission" . Furthermore the terrorists used some kind of security mechanisms, showing they are aware and eager to use all such resources: "The computer...has finally had its secrets cracked after high-tech computer programs broke through its complex password protection system." . Besides evidence of its use, we can assume that any suspect groups who need their communications to be secret will use strong encryption. Why does this matter? Because if their communications are intercepted or their equipment is seized, law enforcement may not be able to break the security of the messages, and vital information that could save lives would be lost.
The problem with praising free and open encryption's use by "good" groups is that the definition of "good" is relative. Phil Zimmerman may think that Burmese rebels are "good":
The resistance groups in Burma are using it. Burma has a really horrible government, and there's resistance groups using PGP in jungle training camps. They're being trained to use it on portable computers. Then they are taking them to other jungle training camps and teaching them. 
But what if we replace "The resistance groups in Burma are" with "Hamas is", replace "Burma" with "Israel", and "jungle" with "desert"? If we pretend that is what Zimmerman said, then suddenly some may find his remarks very offensive and not a very good support of easily available strong encryption. The key is that Hamas believes they themselves are as justified as the Burmese rebels believe themselves to be. There is no international arbiter of justice; as Kenneth Waltz would say political groups exist in a "self-help" system. So Zimmerman's opinions are just that. His opinions won't help the Burmese rebels or Hamas obtain what they believe is justice. However both will try, and one of the tools they will use is strong encryption. So although Zimmerman's intentions may be good, he cannot guarantee that only "just" groups will use his software, because groups cannot be easily categorized as "just" and "unjust". What we do know about organizations is that they behave similarly in an anarchic world - to preserve and propagate themselves and their goals.
Because all organizations have an interest in security, "good" and "bad" organizations will develop an understanding of what encryption can provide. If your keys (basically passwords) are managed properly, then encryption can secure your immediate communications and your records of past communications. If someone in a group, whether an Amnesty International observer in Algeria or a mobster in Philadelphia, decides to secure their communications then theoretically for the next few hundred years or so the information will be out of the reach of prosecutors. Let us explore the mobster example. Imagine a criminal emails his associates to discuss the next hit, or some fraudulent scheme. This email may implicate many people well enough to send them to prison, such as the godfather, hit men, business associates who are aware of the crimes, etc. If this email is strongly encrypted, all this evidence is lost. It can be assumed that as strong encryption is used more and more by shady groups of all kinds, they will develop protocols and procedures for keeping as much communication as secret as possible for the purpose of cutting ties and prosecutable relationships. So the availability of easy to get and easy to use strong encryption software will lead to illegal organizations using the software to make themselves more resilient to arrests and less susceptible to prosecution. It will also make it extremely hard to get reliable information about terrorist activities, as the only source of information then becomes interrogation, which we know can be defeated with discipline and devotion to one's cause.
All groups whether good or bad will use encryption to hide their communications. Zimmerman cannot even clearly point to a universal standard of good or bad, so he knows all groups, whether humanitarian or terrorist will use strong encryption. Groups that learn to incorporate encryption into their procedures will as a result learn to use encryption to make their group's future plans unknowable, their relations unaccountable, and individual members harder to prosecute.
Zimmerman's argument that freedom of encryption will provide a powerful deterrent to government oppression is incorrect. Encryption does not provide a meaningful service to citizens. It has only lead to criminals and terrorists having easier access to the technology - citizens of any countries rarely use it.
Zimmerman argues along similar lines of the following argument. If only the government is allowed to have guns, then the government can oppress the people. Furthermore criminals will get guns from elsewhere or on the black market, and then they will be able to harass the people and attack the government. Therefore allow the people to have guns as well to defend themselves against government oppression and criminal harassment. This argument works for material things that affect material safety. Examples would be guns among citizens, nuclear weapons between superpowers, and walking in groups at night in unfamiliar places. The basic argument is that one-to-one material deterrents are valid and successful. If you can deter someone with a gun, a nuclear weapon, or group from attacking you, then you have successfully provided material safety. Furthermore the means for protecting yourself are material objects.
Information is not a material object. People assume privacy; they do not assume their information is at risk. Encryption is a non-substantive thing; it is mathematical and therefore confined to the mind. Who does the use or possession of encryption deter? According to Zimmerman:
Advances in technology will not permit the maintenance of the status quo, as far as privacy is concerned. The status quo is unstable. If we do nothing, new technologies will give the government new automatic surveillance capabilities that Stalin could never have dreamed of. The only way to hold the line on privacy in the information age is strong cryptography. 
Zimmerman believes strong encryption will deter the government from trying to get information. This is false because the government will still try and succeed, using other methods. An example is this. Imagine a thief who wishes to come into your home in a so-called "home invasion" and take your possessions of value. If you have a shotgun under your bed, you can do something about it. However if the government wants information about you or wants to prosecute you, they will succeed because they have domestic jurisdiction. So what if you slow them down by encrypting your email, you still haven't stopped them from talking to your neighbors, wiretapping your phone, opening your mail, seizing your handwritten notes such as journals, using listening devices to record your speech in your home and elsewhere, et cetera? The widespread use of strong encryption does not lead to less government investigation or legal harassment. The government has de jure right to gather information in whatever way a judge has provided warrant to do. One example is the FBI's development of a key logging system called Magic Lantern to get passwords . The FBI used a "keystroke logging device on the computer of Nicodemo S. Scarfo Jr., hoping to record a password for a file encrypted with PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) software" . So the FBI will not be deterred from getting your secrets if they want them. Other projects like Tempest , Echelon , and Carnivore  guarantee the government's ability to capture communications. This same principle applies to all other governments, valid or not. Using encryption does not in any way legally or functionally prevent a government from investigating or harassing its citizens.
The ill effect of Zimmerman's belief that strong encryption software is necessary to healthy domestic political freedom is that the technology "blows across the border like dandelion seeds blowing in the wind" . I personally do not believe strong encryption would have been put into use by criminals and terrorists had easy to use and easy to get products not been released. Yes the information is available - books and papers on strong encryption are available online, at libraries, at universities, and at bookstores all over the world and have been for decades. But it is one thing for a quiet mathematician to read about encryption; it is far more damaging to release an implementation of the theory into the wild. Had PGP and similar software never been released, I doubt anyone but researchers and national security ministries would have been interested in strong encryption. Militaries, governments, and corporations have always (at least as far back as ancient Rome) used cryptography to hide their intentions should their message bearers be captured. The important point here is that Governments and corporations can afford to hire mathematicians and computer specialists to create, implement, and manage cryptographic solutions. Small terrorist cells certainly don't have the money to hire these people, and I doubt that the mafia or terrorists would ever think to even try to get a hold of cryptography if it had stayed an academic curiosity only put into practice by foreign ministers communicating with their ambassadors or businessmen sending sensitive messages.
I have seen the reports validating this argument, but do not currently have a reference, so I will appeal to your common sense and experience. Who do you know that doesn't work at a university and isn't a computer specialist that regularly uses encryption technology to encrypt their emails, instant message conversations, and personal files on their computer? Excluding computer specialists, I know none. I doubt there are very many people out there using encryption who aren't also privacy or civil liberties buffs and who don't work in a computer related field. My point is that common people don't care about PGP or encryption. It just isn't important and taking the time to learn about it and use would be non-productive. The meaning of this argument is that even though Zimmerman may think encryption provides privacy from the government, no one cares. Nearly no one in his target audience uses his software. However it seems that many outside his target audience were enabled by Zimmerman to make their illegal operations more secure.
Zimmerman's belief that encryption will help citizens keep their government at bay is false. The government will not be deterred from trying to gather information just because one avenue of data is not available. Encryption was probably not even on the radar screens of anyone except government, corporations, and researchers until the public release of strong encryption software in the early 1990s. Few citizens use strong encryption to protect their communications, but criminals seem to have taken to it handily.
Trying to restrict the flow of information once it has become public or widespread seems to never work, and in fact possibly encourages the spread even more. Currently books, papers, and software about encryption are all freely available to people all over the world. Zimmerman argues that this is a good thing. One thing is for sure; the methods are mathematical and sometimes simple. Many encryption schemes can be thought up by amateurs that will provide valid security. And even if all the books and records of encryption in the world were burned, it would still be possible to redevelop the technology from nothing. Not even advanced mathematics would be necessary, although it would help. Trying to control or restrict cryptography software is a fantasy. It can only be fought with advancements in cryptanalysis, but even then there is a known time limitation unless technology or mathematics advances rapidly. One hope lies in key problems - many pieces of software are careless with their keys and should the system be compromised in another way the keys can be salvaged. On the whole strong encryption software is widespread and will remain so.
A question of policy arises. I concede strong encryption now cannot be stopped. But perhaps we can learn from our past actions. Why are books explaining strong cryptography sold in bookstores and available online for free? Why is computer cryptography taught at universities and some community colleges? Why were mathematicians allowed to develop a technology that inevitably would lead to a more chaotic world? These questions boil down to the value the world society places on absolute academic freedom. In the west information is held to be sacred, as can be seen in the "freedom of speech" clauses in many nation's constitutions. But most of those constitutions were drafted in a different time, when science was not so advanced that it's development seriously endangered human survival as a whole. Perhaps today with a more knowledgeable perspective we must review what types of speech should be protected, not just what types are protected by the current legal framework.
Zimmerman and other's free implementations of cryptography have done little to improve the lives of common citizens, but have done much to improve and secure the operations of oppressed or clandestine groups. The problems lies in the fact that the New York mafia could be considered oppressed by the FBI and that al Qaeda believes they are oppressed by America. So although supposed "good" oppressed groups like humanitarians and activists have benefited, society at large has been adversely affected by the increased capabilities of supposed "bad" groups. Encryption is just a tool, neither good nor evil, but it has gravitated towards those who would use it for the latter.
 "Interview with author of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy)". Russell D. Hoffman. http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hightech/philspgp.htm
 "Why I Wrote PGP". Phil Zimmerman.
 "Al-Qaeda computer details shoe bomber scouting mission". Hugh Dougherty. http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/Weekly2002/01.15.2002/UnitedStates5.htm
 "Judge OKs FBI Keyboard Sniffing". Declan McCullagh. http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,49455,00.html
 "Federal judge okays keyboard stroke capture". George A. Chidi. http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/01/04/020104hncapture.xml
 "NSA/CSS REG 90-6" (TEMPEST FOIA Request). NSA.
 "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Echelon". ACLU.
 "The Carnivore FOIA Litigation". Electronic Privacy Information Center.
I personally support free and open strong encryption software and information, I just wrote this article because it is clear there are some adverse affects to encryption use that must be considered.
What you're in mensa? What you're going to die and end up as dust in the ground? I don't think being in mensa is really going to matter then. What there are millions of people just like you? What being in mensa doesn't decide how much money you make, how "good" of a person you are, or how happy you are. So then what's the point? Where's the strategic advantage to taking the time to randomly take an IQ test? Does it make you feel good? Does it help you believe you are better than other people or somehow a unique individual among thousands of exTREMELY similar and likeminded individuals all around you?
Oh yeah, and do you enjoy getting a newsletter in the mail reaffirming your self image that you are smarter than most people and paying the needless dues? You do like it! That's what I thought.
The fact that every fucking time some school bus of jew children get blown up the towelheads and heebs call off the peace talks shows they really don't want peace. They like fighting, it's a stable state. Furthermore, neither one of them wants to "give up" anything, because they both think they are exclusively entitled to the same shit and a peace agreement would permanently give certain objects to a particular party. I mean that's all the fucking dome on the rock and the fucking temple of jewdom are - objects. It all comes back to materialism and these people wanting to own these special "things" whose value supercedes in their minds the value of their own lives or peace of being. Just watch these peace talks that are going on now, they will fail just like all the rest, and each side will blame it on some more than likely ordered attack on the other side where some civialian gets killed by the "barborous" other side.
You know fuck catagories. Either music sucks or it's cool. There are people out there who buy music based on if it's in a catgory or not. They walk into the record store and say "Is there any new emo?" or "Is there any new house?". I don't even know what emo or house is for fucks sake. I don't even fucking care! Who gives a fuck about a catagory. Some music critic could reluctantly label some album as part of a catagory, but it could still be a piece of shit. And guess what the fact that it was a piece of shit and not that it was part of some catagory would matter. So who gives a fuck? I mean nine inch nails has shit that doesn't stay within some kind of easily definable box. Zep, also has been called many different genres over the years. But guess what you could be some thick glasses wearing scruffy haired old sweater wearing trance listening fag and make some shit, and guess what your stupid fucking "catagory" isn't gonna save you. You can be all like "yeah I made a new album, it's really hitting some chill new shit on the trance scene". Hey guess what fuckface? Does your album suck? Oh I see it does! SO YOUR FUCKING CATAGORY DIDN'T MATTER DID IT YOU TRENDY POSER FACEFUCK WHO WILL END UP AS AN ACCOUNT BUDGET SUPERVISOR AT SOME NO FACE ACCOUNTING FIRM IN THE BEAUTIFUL MIDDLE AMERICA SUBURBS OF PLAIN COUNTRY! HAHAHAHAHAH FUCK YOURSELF YOU FUCKBRAINED POSER SHITBAG! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah I decided I will use this fag-fuck journal until I get my site up, which may be never. Who will probably read this? NO ONE. WHO GIVES A FUCK. We'll see how long this lasts...