you've got to be kidding me

It's like I went to sleep, and woke up in some unfathomably hackneyed paranoid dystopia. This movie is completely unbelievable! Someone change the damned channel!

U.S. plans massive invasion of Iraq

    The attack would be a preemptive strike, a source familiar with the plans said. He added that the Armed Forces Staff College had done studies three years ago on U.S. preemptive strike capabilities, which are excellent. "The problem is that they cost a lot of political capital," he said.

    Bush announced several weeks ago that the U.S. reserves the right to strike first under certain circumstances, essentially changing long-standing U.S. Cold War policy.

Hackers 'branded as terrorists'

The Anti-Terrorism Act adds computer hacking to the list of federal terrorism offences, with penalties of up to life imprisonment.

FEMA Preparing for Mass Destruction Attacks on Cities

    FEMA is readying for nuclear, biological and chemical attacks against U.S. cities, including the possibility of multiple attacks with mass destruction weapons.

    The agency has already notified vendors, contractors and consultants that it needs to be prepared to handle the logistics of aiding millions of displaced Americans who will flee from urban areas that may be attacked.

    The agency plans to create emergency, makeshift cities that could house hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who may have to flee their urban homes if their cities are attacked.

Tags: , ,

16 Responses:

  1. bdu says:

    It's like I went to sleep, and woke up in some unfathomably hackneyed paranoid dystopia. This movie is completely unbelievable! Someone change the damned channel!

    You and me both.

    perhaps they've finally perfected the high frequency mass hallucination machine.

  2. bdu says:

    oh, you got the hacker and iraq links sdrawkcab, BTW.

  3. coldacid says:

    I'd say get up here to all these people affected. It may not be much safer (being right next to the USA as it is), but at least it's saner. I don't think I'm going to visit the USA, if only for my personal safety. Hell, I should just move off the damned planet if I want to get away, especially if those murderers in DC have their way.

  4. mcgroarty says:

    I've been bothered by the McCarthyist terrorist witch hunt for a while now. Our government is slowly widening the net with deals like this one.

    I have a feeling that step two is to begin to redefine "terrorist," as has already started to happen with hackers, the first step having been the FBI effectively prioritizing hackers above violent criminals.

    Given that our government has long been for sale to the highest bidder, I fully expect that a number of other things inconvenient to corporations will begin to become "terrorism."

  5. kalischild says:

    First off, the invasion of Iraq is something I've been expecting ever since this shitkicker fuck staged his coup in the first place. Sins of the father and all; This 'First Family' has had an agenda towards the region dating back three generations, as I'm sure you know. And placing hacking uner the umbrella label of terrorism is just more of the corporate protectionism that our current regime is also justly imfamous for. Several countries have tried to justify their internal, and often illegal, attepts at 'housecleaning' by using the same justification, yet our current administration is still spreading it this thickly? The United States of America, setting a bad precedent ince... whenever...

    And FEMA is still the spookiest of the spooks. A titanic budget, the power to subvert local government AND the constitution, and a vague job description. Welcome to the terrordome. Last year when I returned from Burning Man, I was greeted with the news that terrorists had attacked major military and corporate targets on the East Coast. I was struck by the symbolism of the date of the attacks. I wonder what kind of anniversary present the U.S. can expect this year...

    Finding more reasons to be out in the desert this year,
    Indigo.

    • jwz says:

      Finding more reasons to be out in the desert this year,

      I'm a little unclear on how going to raver disneyland fits in?

      • kalischild says:

        I'm a little unclear on how going to raver disneyland fits in?

        Despite the fact that 'Al-Queda' (or whoever) probably doesn't have the resources to attack major military bases, I'm happier not being within spitting distance of Colorado Springs. I guess I was forced to watch "War Games" (Matthew Broderick) too many times by my dad. And with the reported threat of West Coast attacks last year, I'm happy most of my friends will be out of S.F.; I really am weirded out by the timing. I lost a friend in New York, and one is enough.

        raver disneyland

        Yeah, it's lost it's charm, but I still get to harangue people in a way that would get me arrested, out in the world. I take it ya'll are taking a pass this time around. That's ironic: It used to be that all the good people left The City at this time of year, but now it seems more like you get a respite from the 1050 Folsom crowd/Haight street panhandlers instead.

        Ciao,
        Indigo

        • jwz says:

          Yeah, I'm not interested in going this year, mostly because I find the hypocrisy of the burning man organization increasingly impossible to ignore.

          For the record, I really like Disneyland.

          But I also like that Walt doesn't lie to me about "radical self-indulgence".

          • kalischild says:

            Yeah but Walt worked hand-in-hand with the FBI, just like Larry...

            You know what's weird? While I was typing my response, "Kerosene" was playing in the bar here... Spooky.

            I like disneyland too, but I don't really like the average person that attends. Just like BM. And if I tried to get away with what I do in the desert in DL, they'd strap a pair of Mickey Mouse ears to my head and feed me to the animatronic crocodiles.

            Again,
            Indigo

    • jwz says:

      And placing hacking uner the umbrella label of terrorism is just more of the corporate protectionism that our current regime is also justly imfamous for.

      Does "corporate protectionism" adequately explain this nonsense? My impression was that totalitarian states were not very good for business. I mean, it's good for US corps to have the odd oil-rich third world company under their yoke, but those people aren't consumers: they need a healthy base of those at home, and dictatorships tend not to be good with the consumer spending, right? So I think that oil interests explain the war just fine, but I suspect some kind of even more sinister motive for the creeping fascism at home.

      • kalischild says:

        I agree with you on both points, Oil intersts definitely plays a role, and the concept of a sinister motive fits rather well into the past behavior of our fearless leader.

        But war is good for the economy, at least those parts that the president is focused upon. Just think of how much fuel an active military force could consume, in a prolonged conflict, and the boost in military-related corporate stocks. But that's secondary to the question, and hardly news to anyone.

        Totalitarianism is bad for the consumer, but it's good for corporations. Just look at Germany in WWII. And ask yourself: Who would the president rather tax, business and corporate interests, or the middle and lower class?

        I think that "corporate protectionism" could be the byword of our current regime, and that control of the lower classes, and the eradication of any 'criminal class' that threatens corporate health (Hackers being the equivalent, potentially, of a virus to the corporate 'body') will be one of the standards by which it will be defined. Our president declared war on the bill of rights within his first year in office, and I don't see it as a reasonable reaction to a threat, as much as I see the threat as a justification for the implementation of a family's ancient agenda.

        INRI

      • king_mob says:

        Fascism almost by definition -- not in the Orwellian definition of "something the speaker doesn't like," but the classic definition -- is defense of corporate power. Mussolini said that another name for "fascism" was "corporatism." And if there's one thing my paisanos have always understood, it's how to make mad lire through the judicious application of force.

  6. your links are backwards.

    any bets as to when the Reich Ministry for Fatherland Security starts with the armbands and salutes?