Category Archives: BuzzWords! Pop & Politics

more on censorship

no, i won’t be quiet or play nice.

Here are a few screen shots from an editorial facebook censorship in which my blog/artwork were featured!

  oddee.com2 facebook censor banner ifx

oddee.com1 facebook censorship




facebook censorship ifx



AND FURTHERMORE! I would like to thank for featuring my blog in their article (and facebook for being douchbags) because i just looked at my blogs view count statistics and the day put up the article i had a record breaking “most views on a single day” surge looking at my blog. 😀 - highest view count dec2012



PS Update… the plot to the story of my battle with facebook on censorship starts to get heated! Dec 27 2012… two weeks later the high hit counts continue! i’ve been averaging  almost 200 new views a day sense this article was posted! thanks again i also wanted to add a LINK to the original post which oddee had linked. this post has been getting a lot of attention and the comments are getting bloody!!!

this could also be a good time to note that this image is still on my facebook. when i took the screen shot of the image with facebook’s TOS bullshit i immediately re-upload the screen shot of the image with facebook lovely framing  job!

censorship on facebook - image is still here

Ahhhh…., all this fuss over my cock! i love it! rotmfflmao!!&&^$$@U

Also posted in Brag Board & Pull Sheets, Micro-Blogging, Personal Ramblings, Photography, Social Commentary | 2 Comments

Vote For GEORGE!!!

i admit-, this years have remained willfully ignorant of “politics”. A lawful and dignified sounding synonymy for “ideology”; which unfortunately is not the studio of idiots, but a ideal far more constitutional.

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies, or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a “received consciousness” or product of socialization).”

soon love soon, we will see the patterns of centuries rise and fall

i found myself tonight having a tragic encounter with a television. There was a documentary about Ptown!(R). There were a few ol’ grey haired queers talking about the “wild west style” days which founded the quaint village. All 400 of them alike were jobless, penniless, drunkard, artists, castaways that welcomed the like of communist and homosexuals to survive together by freely sharing what they could salvage from the waste of the established army base! Then it hits me, like a ton of lard, how disappointingly true it is that the illness from the mundane bengiality of mcdonals, gap, and walmart has been loading itself into jet planes too hyper-voimt its idiotic patriots onto the sidewalks and of every dying amerkian dream. i found myself suffering thru the sad story of the death of the radical historical landmark.

its just a little bit of history repeating

One of the elders speaking on the documentary, with weary eyes, stared into the camera and stated; “when the rich move in, the poor move out.” simple as that, huh?

i needed some george carlin to cheer me up!

Also posted in Personal Ramblings, Poetry, Social Commentary | Leave a comment

So I Can Share The Beauty…

Deep inside this Snowy Mountain Vista….

… is another world of Magic!


Also posted in Brag Board & Pull Sheets, Crafts, Design, Humor, Micro-Blogging, Personal Ramblings, Philosophy, Photography, Photography/Design, Poetry, Shop, Social Commentary, Song of the Moment | Leave a comment

On The Set Of True Blood

i made this 🙂

Also posted in Brag Board & Pull Sheets, Personal Ramblings | Leave a comment

Have the riots started yet??

You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead!
**clears throat**
told you so…
and i’ll let you in on another secret…
its only just begun!
Also posted in Micro-Blogging, Social Commentary, Song of the Moment | Leave a comment

Breaking my vow of silence

in the wake of the nyc wall street protests that “may or may not be happening”, im hearing (via facebook because i dont watch tv or read tv approved news on the internet) that there is a wave of cities “organizing” there own “protests” throughout the country.

soo… i looked it up. my local protest in portland, or is “scheduled” for thrusday oct 6th at waterfront park at noon. (im sure the bums, rats, seagulls and nighttime entertainment district are really interested in what you have to say)

im wondering about the social “etiquette” in this situation??? should i go over to the facebook and “RSVP” to be tear-gassed and beaten down by the riot police?? or should i just come out and say….

are you fucking people serious??? an organized event where we are safe from persecution, within our civil rights, IS NOT A FUCKING PROTEST!; its a bunch of “monkeys” making noise!!! i think of it in the same light as going to the county fair. monkey see monkey do. everyone’s going to show up, hold up there signs/flags, do some mating calls and then go home to eat dinner in front of the tv to check out the turn out. really???

as a wise ol’ sage sang to me… “as long as you play their game girl you’re never going to win.”

correct me if im wrong, isn’t it our civil rights that are being shit on? are you protesting to take them back? (or are you upset in your salary cut and fact that now you can afford a beamer?) i ask because im trying to make sense of how “behaving” within our suppressed civil rights is going break the oppression that could reclaim them??

who do think is going to listen if you’re playing by the rules? the suites in high rises will look down at the park, giggle at the gathering of angry unemployed people standing around anxiously at the waters edge as they go to their next investment meeting….. i can see the headline now…. “poster board and markers on sale at wal-mart!” dont you need some of this??

if you want to make a difference ….. oh fuck, there i go again sounding like one of you…. nevermind, nix all that… just listen to this song…

Also posted in Personal Ramblings, Philosophy, Social Commentary, Song of the Moment | Leave a comment

Queer Thoughts

Tonight John Cameron Mitchell, writer, director and star of Hedwig and the Angry Inch (among others) is going to be in town on tour with his Mattachine Dance Party which is “promoting ethical homosexual culture everywhere”. Before the the event he and his fellow artisans are doing a meet-n-greet at the local Queer Center. It sounds if its going to be a press conference style of meet-n-greet so I spent a few moments scratching my head to come with something to say/ask other than, “Oh My Gawd! I love you and your movie!” (which I really do, I have an image from Hedwig tattooed on me. 😉

My thoughts and question being….

In that past few generations of queer history we’ve come through the most server persecution during WWII into an era of hiding for the fear of being involuntarily jailed or institutionalized which ultimately lead to Stonewall and our own cultural liberation during the 70s that then was tested by the AIDS epidemic through the 80s which brings us to today’s 20-something generation who watched the gradual politically corrected acceptance of the now GlBT, lady gaga and logo media crazed public imagine of what gay culture can be.

With the evidence of how media outlets project an often one-sided image while also considering the consequences of any cultures ignorance to its own history: Do we really feel we’ve made any progress by stepping into line with the masses??

If this diatribe is too long to spit out at this event I’ve also edited a short version:

In the past century Queer culture has been through a roller coaster ride of ups and downs landing us in today’s politically corrected acceptance of logo and lady gaga media sensations. With the evidence of how media outlets project an often one-sided image while also considering the consequences of any cultures ignorance to its own history: Do we really feel we’ve made any progress by stepping into line with the masses??

This is not just a question for Hedwig. Please comment! I want to know your opinion as well!!!

Also posted in Personal Ramblings, Social Commentary | 1 Comment

amerika is #1!

We’re #1 — Ten Depressing Ways America Is Exceptional
America is exceptional in the advantages we’ve had over other nations, not what we’ve done with those advantages.
April 20, 2011 |

Recent research contradicts the fundamental tenet of American exceptionalism. A Brookings Institution report comparing economic mobility in the United States and other countries concludes, “…“Starting at the bottom of the earnings ladder is more of a handicap in the United States than it is in other countries.”

For Republican presidential candidates the phrase American Exceptionalism has taken on almost talismanic qualities. Newt Gingrich’s new book is titled, A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters. “American the Exceptional” is the title of a chapter in Sarah Palin’s book America by Heart.

And woe be to those who take issue with the phrase. 2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee declares, “To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.” 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney insists, “The reorientation away from a celebration of American exceptionalism is misguided and bankrupt.”

What is this American exceptionalism Republicans so venerate? After interviewing many Republican leaders, Washington Post Reporter Karen Tumulty concludes it is the belief that America “is inherently superior to the world’s other nations”. It is a widely held belief. Indeed, most Americans believe our superiority is not only inherent but divinely ordained. A survey by the Public Religious Research Institute and the Brookings Institution found that 58 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “God has granted America a special role in human history.”

Let me make it clear at the outset. I too believe in American exceptionalism, although I don’t think God has anything to do with it. But I suspect my perspective will find little favor among Republicans in general and Tea Party members in particular. For I believe that America is exceptional in the advantages we’ve had over other nations, not what we’ve done with those advantages.

Indeed, to me there are two American exceptionalisms. One is the exceptionally favorable circumstances the United States found itself in at its founding and over its first 200 years. The second is the exceptional way in which we have squandered those advantages, in the process creating a value system singularly antagonistic to the changes needed when those advantages disappeared.

Americans did not become rich because of our rugged individualism or entrepreneurial drive or technical inventiveness. We were born rich. Ann Richards’ famous description of George Bush Sr. as an individual is equally applicable to the United States as a whole, “He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.”

When asked to identify the single most important difference between the Old and New World, renowned historian Henry Steele Commager responded, in the New World your baby survived. The New World had an abundance of cheap land which meant the New World, unlike the Old World, was largely populated by self-reliant property owners. Coupled with a moderate climate and rich soil, immigrants could grow all the food needed for their families, livestock and horses. There was plenty of clean water and sufficient free or low cost wood to build and heat one’s house.

The fact that Americans could choose to live on a farm also gave them significant bargaining power with employers. As a result wages in the New World were much higher than in the Old World.

The United States also benefited enormously from tens of millions of immigrants who, through a Darwinian-like process of natural selection, were among the most driven and entrepreneurial and hardy of their native countries. And on the dark side of the immigration picture, we also benefited immensely from millions of involuntary immigrants who provided an army of unpaid labor for southern plantations.

American exceptionalism must also include our unique advantage in having two oceans separating us from potential enemies. After 1815, no foreign troops ever again set foot on American soil. Indeed, America has benefited mightily from foreign wars. Arguably, the conflict between France and England had more to do with our winning independence than our own military efforts. In the first half of the 19th century, European wars led political leaders to peacefully sell huge quantities of land to the United States for a pittance (e.g. the Louisiana purchase of 1803 doubled the size of our infant nation).

A century later foreign wars again dramatically benefited the United States. “In the twentieth century the American economy was twice left undamaged and indeed enriched by war while its potential competitors were transformed into pensioner”, notes historian Godfrey Hodgson. After World War I the United States became the world’s creditor. After World War II Europe and Japan lay in ashes while the United States accounted for a full 40 percent of the world’s economy.

The list of exceptional advantages must also include our vast reserves of fossil fuels and iron ore. For our first 200 years we were self-sufficient in oil. Today we still export coal and are largely self-sufficient in natural gas.

Making a Sow’s Ear Out of a Silk Purse: The Culture Born of American Exceptionalism

Americans became the richest people on earth not because we were endowed with inherently superior national traits nor because we are God’s chosen people, nor because we have an elegant and compact Constitution and a noble sounding Declaration of Independence. We became rich because we were exceptionally lucky.

But the myth that we became richer than other countries because of our blessedness encouraged us to develop a truly exceptionalist culture, one that has left us singularly unequipped to prosper when our luck changed, when inexpensive land and energy proved exhaustible, when the best and the brightest in the world began staying at home rather than emigrating to our shores, when wars began to burden us and enrich our economic competitors.

The central tenet of that culture is a celebration of the “me” and an aversion to the “we”. When Harris pollsters asked US citizens aged 18 and older what it means to be an American the answers surprised no one. Nearly 60 percent used the word freedom. The second most common word was patriotism. Only 4 percent mentioned the word community.

To American exceptionalists freedom means being able to do what you want unencumbered by obligations to your fellow citizens. It is a definition of freedom the rest of the world finds bewildering. Can it be, they ask, that the quintessential expression of American freedom is low or no taxes and the right to carry a loaded gun into a bar? To which a growing number of Americans, if recent elections were any indication, would respond, “You’re damn right it is.”

Strikingly, Americans are not exceptional in our attitudes toward government. In a survey of 27 countries, two thirds of the respondents on both sides of the Atlantic answered yes to the following question, “Does the government control too much of your daily life? Is it usually inefficient and wasteful?”

What makes us exceptional is our response to the next question. “It is the responsibility of the government to reduce the difference in income”. Less than a third of Americans agreed while in 26 other countries more than two thirds did.

Citizens in other countries are as critical of their governments as we are. But unlike us they do not criticize the importance of government itself or the fundamental role it plays in boosting the general welfare. They do not like to pay taxes, but they understand the necessity of taxes not only in building a public infrastructure but also in building a personal security infrastructure.

Far more than other peoples, Americans believe that skill and hard work are the keys to success and wealth is a measure of how hard you work or how skilled you are. Which leads us to believe that people should have the right to amass as much wealth as they can and view a graduated income tax as a punitive penalty on success and a sturdy social safety net an invitation to slothfulness, reduced productivity and an overall slowdown in economic growth.

The expression, “The Nanny State” is singularly American. The expression “We’re all in this together”, while rhetorically still extant in the United States, less and less describes the values that motivate our policies.

In contrast, Europeans believe luck and circumstance are more important than hard work and skill and a sturdy social safety net is needed to help those who are unlucky. Acting on this principle, they have designed most of their social benefits to be universal, as have Canada and Japan, unlike here where residents have to prostrate themselves before bureaucrats to validate their penury before they are grudgingly doled out ever-smaller and temporary amounts of assistance.

One consequence of universality is that even while they complain about taxes, Europeans can point to many aspects of their lives where they directly and personally benefit from taxes (e.g. universal health insurance). Americans cannot.

For many Americans even means tested benefits are unwelcome. The term “welfare” is a pejorative a handout given to undeserving people who will use it in unworthy ways. Ronald Reagan’s lethal phrase “welfare Queen” accurately captured that mindset.

The new influence of Tea Party conservatives has taken this anti-social attitude a step further best reflected in the speeches of Representative Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee and made concrete in his recent budget. Ryan believes that helping the poor represents a “collectivist” philosophy. His heroine is Ayn Rand, the God of libertarians. He requires his staffers to read Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged and calls Rand “the reason I got involved in public service.”

Jonathan Chait sums up Rand’s moral philosophy, “The core of the Randian worldview, as absorbed by the modern GOP, is a belief that the natural market distribution of income is inherently moral, and the central struggle of politics is to free the successful from having the fruits of their superiority redistributed by looters and moochers.”

For Ayn Rand charity is not only unwelcome; it is evil.

“Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others…The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime.

That value system is made explicit in Paul Ryan’s much publicized budget which would slash taxes on the rich by almost $3 trillion while cutting spending on the needy by almost that much.”

The United States is also exceptional among industrialized nations not only in having by far the world’s most unequal income distribution but in believing that this inequality benefits us all, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

The data is crystal clear. Since 1980, the income share of the upper 1 percent of Americans has doubled. The share going to the top 0.1 percent, those earning more than $1.2 million a year, has quadrupled. Meanwhile the average worker’s wages have declined. In 2004 a full-time worker’s wage was 11 percent lower than in 1973, adjusting for inflation, even though productivity had risen 78 percent between 1973 and 2004

In the last decade, while the top 1 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise, on average, by more than a quarter of a million dollars each, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined.

To Republicans, inequality is unimportant because of another aspect of American exceptionalism, the unparalleled opportunity in the United States for those with ambition and grit to move up the economic ladder. They insist, and most of us firmly believe, that America is still the land of opportunity, that the probability of a rags to riches saga is much higher here than abroad.

But recent data contradicts that fundamental tenet of American exceptionalism. A Brookings Institution report comparing economic mobility in the United States and other countries concludes, “…”Starting at the bottom of the earnings ladder is more of a handicap in the United States than it is in other countries.” And more broadly notes, “there is growing evidence of less intergenerational economic mobility in the United States than in many other rich industrialized countries.”

Another hobbling fundamental tenet of American exceptionalism is that we have nothing to learn from other countries. Why mess with God’s perfection? Back in the late 1980s I went to producers at Minneota’s public television station, TPT and proposed a show tentatively entitled, “What We Can Learn From Others”. They wondered what in the world I was smoking.

This sense of uniqueness has most clearly been reflected in our debates on national health care reform. In 1994 both the United States and Taiwan engaged in national debates about how their health care systems might be improved. To come up with the answers, Taiwan’s leaders visited about a dozen other countries to gain insights about the wide variety of existing national health system structures and used these insights to tailor a system adapted to their own needs. US leaders visited no other countries. The debate rarely even mentioned other countries except dismissively and usually inaccurately (e.g. Canadians cannot choose their own doctors). This occurred despite the overwhelming evidence that the US medical system is the most expensive, the least accessible and by many measures, one of the least well-performing of any in the industrialized world.

The 2009 debate over health reform took place as the United States economy collapsed, unemployment soared and foreclosures mushroomed. Yet there was virtually no discussion about the relationship of health care and personal financial adversity. A study by Steffie Woolhandler and colleagues at the Harvard Medical School done in 2007 revealed a remarkable statistic: 62 percent of US bankruptcies were a result of medical expenses. Equally damning, 75 percent of the people with a medically related bankruptcy had health insurance.

How does this woeful statistic compare to other countries? It is impossible to say because in other countries such a statistic would be a sign of gross irresponsibility and perhaps a societal breakdown. On Frontline, Washington Post veteran reporter T.R. Reid examined health systems around the world. In the process he interviewed the President of the Swiss Federation. Switzerland had dramatically changed its own health system in 1994 through a national referendum.

Reid: How many people in Switzerland go bankrupt because of medical bills?

Swiss President Pascal Couchepin: Nobody. It doesn’t happen. It would be a huge scandal if it happens.

Conservatives proudly point to the Declaration of Independence as the foundational source of their guiding principles. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But American exceptionalism has bred a culture and value system that have in turn embraced policies that have made the pursuit of happiness exceedingly difficult.

More and more Americans are desperately trying to hold on. In an astonishing reversal of the first 200 years of American history when we were seen as perhaps the most optimistic of all peoples, we have become one of the most personally insecure.

To make up for the decline in wages, Americans are working longer hours and taking on more debt just to make ends meet. Today Americans are at work 4-10 weeks longer than their counterparts in Europe. Forty million Americans lack health insurance and tens of millions more have health insurance with limited coverage.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, at the founding of the American Republic a key difference between the Old World and the New World was that in the New World a baby survived. Today, the numbers paint a different picture. The proportion of infants that survive in the United States is one of the lowest in the industrialized world.

At the founding of the nation, access to low cost land transformed the United States into the first large nation in history populated principally by property owners. Since late 2007. however, there have been more than 7 million foreclosures in the United States and some predict another 2 million in 2011.

America has been and continues to be exceptional. At first we were exceptional because of circumstances that conferred on us enormous advantages over other nations. Today we are exceptional because of our culture, a culture born of our unusually fortunate history and now perhaps the single biggest handicap to our collective survival and prosperity in the less favorable circumstances of the 21st century.

Also posted in Social Commentary | Leave a comment


a simple quote (from article about and a simple thought….

“Pte Manning is awaiting trial on charges that while serving as a US army intelligence analyst in Iraq he leaked 720,000 secret US documents.”

why is our government keeping secrets from us?? we endorsed the system, we created this monster, we continue to pay for the system that repeats to fuck up the ass with “patriotic” BULLSHIT!!! and what do you have to show for it? a pile of bills? (if youre lucky). but nobody seem to care, nobody want do anything about it.

ya know what? forget i said anything go back watch american idol you amerikan idiot.

(riots in the streets of la)

Also posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment*

in the pursuit of a new, more convenient novelty photo book publisher i was putting a bit of research into Ritz Camera/Wolfe Photo (and who knows how many other stores they’ve bought out?). i was semi excited that they can print them in 1 Hour* (* why cant you ever find the * at the end of advert?) so im on the website signing up for an account to investage the abiltiy to produce and print my book thur them and i decided to take a look at the Terms and Conditions of Use* (also named UMLA or End User Agreement in the software world) while skimming the 20ish page document i read these two statements (luckily near the top)…...


(a) Users of the Service, whether or not Members, may not use the Service to store, share or transmit Prohibited Content. Generally, Prohibited Content includes Submitted Content or other material that believes:

  • misrepresent(s) your or any third party’s identity, affiliation or connection with a person or entity;
  • imply(ies) or state(s) that we endorse or are in any way associated with Submitted Content;
  • contain(s) any false, misleading, deceptive, sexually suggestive, abusive or harassing content;
  • promote(s) hatred, racism, bigotry, physical violence or emotional abuse against any individual or group;
  • is unlawful, threatening, defamatory, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contain(s) offensive content;
  • contain(s) photographs or words containing or depicting objectionable subject matter, including but not limited to photos depicting or containing the following: excessive violence, nudity, obscenity, sexual explicitness, and harassing content; or
  • contain(s) any information or computer code that is intended to, or is likely to, damage, interfere with, alter, intercept or expropriate any data or system, such as Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancelbots and other unauthorized computer programming routines.

(b) has the sole discretion to determine whether Submitted Content is Prohibited Content, and all Submitted Content shall be subject to review and examination from time to time. may delete, move, and edit any Submitted Content for any reason, at any time, without notice.



By posting, storing or transmitting Submitted Content on or via the Site, you thereby grant and the Site Host a worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, publicly perform and display, distribute, syndicate and otherwise use such Submitted Content in connection with providing the Service to you (“Submitted Content License”). By posting, storing or transmitting Submitted Content on or via the Site, you represent and warrant that: (i) you own all right, title and interest in and to such Submitted Content or have the necessary approvals and permissions to grant the Submitted Content License described above; (ii) such Submitted Content, and the exercise by and the Site Host of our rights under the Submitted Content License does not violate applicable law or the intellectual property rights of others, including, but not limited to, patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, publicity, privacy and contract rights; and (iii) such Submitted Content does not contain software viruses, spiders, spybots, commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings, any form of spam, or any other content that is prohibited under these Terms of Use. For the avoidance of doubt, you hereby acknowledge and agree that any breach of the foregoing representations and warranties by you shall be deemed a violation of these Terms of Use to which your indemnification obligations shall apply as provided below under the Section titled “INDEMNITY.”

I guess this means i cant use ritz to print my “family friendly” artwork cause its not suitable for them to steal my work and use it in their own advertizements and likely selling stock photos or your grubby children to geddy images. oh well.

*subject to change in anyway to fuck you over at any point

Leave a comment

haha, wtf?!?

see the post before this from 3 days ago, before the earthquake in japan happened. than look at this image and the date on it is today!

Severing the heart then I’m leaving your corpse behind
Not dead but soon to be, though.
I won’t be the one who killed you
I’ll just leave that up to you

I’m not gonna be here to revive you
I’m not gonna be here to revive you
I’m not gonna be here to revive you
I’m gonna be the one to say…

I told you so
I told you so
I told you so
I told you so
I told you so
I told you so
I told you so
I told you so
I told you so
I told you

Leave a comment

the hell of being physic

Too remember our past is see our future.


Also posted in Social Commentary | Leave a comment

Did you hear about the neighbors?

fresh from The Death, Disease, and Destruction Show!!!

so this is what my parents woke up too this morning. the same middle of now where house that theyve lived in for 40 years, that i grew up in, our door looks (thru the shrubs) into the front door of this house. i went to school with the brothers involved. not sure what this has to do with anything? i guess the news is more exciting when its closer to home. my mother is always freaking out and worried about me living in “cities” cause the news is always talking about “shootings/stabbings”. also told her no to worry cause i didnt buy my drugs from gangs 🙂 thou im pretty sure theres no gangs selling crack in hope valley. LOL. so ummm? yeah! stay tuned for the next installment of The Death, Disease, and Destruction show! whatever.

Also posted in Personal Ramblings, Social Commentary | Leave a comment

Silly Political Games

WooHoo! Go GaGa!! DADT is history!! So now we can parade the front-lines waving our banner all over the place with mud on our face and we wont be a disgrace? The issues of bigotry and discrimination all just vanished with the passing of that bill? There will be no more queer teenage suicides? And no more christians telling me at mid-night mass that I will burn in hell?

AWESOME!!! The world feels better already. Now I can get a job at wal-mart with insurance benefits that will cover the cost of medical experimentation to help cure my AIDS? Does it really keep getting better?

I can barely contain myself! Whats next… the legalization of marriage? Maybe now they’ll let my tranny-lover and i get married and have our honeymoon on the tropical paradise known as Guam? Oh wow, imagine that!

Hey, while we’re on a roll lets eat this decadent fudge wedding cake too, lets put queer-polygamy on the civil rights ballot too!!! Surly the mormons wont disagreed. We can have our lil love houses of all us sick in the head GlBTQQCY families out there! It will be like the 60s but respectable. I’m so excited, thank you america for letting me know that everything is going to be okay.

Oh look, the TV has Ellen and Opera doing a show together! Lets watch and go back to sleep. 😀

Also posted in Personal Ramblings, Social Commentary | Leave a comment

its happening, whos laughing now?

so, its starts… salute the NWO.

This is an image from (click and see for yourself) , where i download my music, movies, ebooks, video games, etc from.

the website has been seized by our wal-mart, oil company, and (most importantly) TV/Media financed and dictated government! this is just the beginning. this bitter old queen has been watching the NWO gain speed for a while now. you’re fucked if you think I’m still crazy.

The NWO is not a myth, it’s here, it’s happening. Welcome to the machine!

PS: They’re watching you. ;P ( here’s another lil article for you to dismiss)…………..

You have no secrets

Privacy? No way. Government, business and even the kid next door know what you’re up to.
Headbone connects to the headphones
Headphones connect to the iPhone
iPhone connected to the Internet
Connected to the Google
Connected to the government.

—M.I.A., “The Message”

You are being watched.

Your Facebook friends are watching you. So are their Facebook friends, and total strangers. The guys who run Facebook, too. Your keystrokes are being logged. Your mouse-clicks are being monitored and digested. Your behavioral patterns are being analyzed, monetized: what you buy on Amazon, who you follow on Twitter, where you say you eat on Yelp, your most shameful Google searches.

The photos you post on Flickr are encoded with little bits of geospatial metadata that pinpoint where they were taken and can reveal where you live. Your smartphone—jam-packed with apps coded by who-knows-who and potentially loaded with spyware—is a pocket homing beacon, trackable by satellite. There are trucks with cameras on their roofs, trundling past your apartment, duly noting your unsecured Wi-Fi signal.

Wal-Mart is putting radio frequency identification (RFID) tags in your underwear.

You can barely remember all the different passwords to the ever-proliferating number of websites to which you’ve entrusted personal photos and videos, likes and dislikes, credit-card info and your Social Security number. Then there are the photos of you that other people have posted without your knowledge, or the things they may have written about you on blogs or message boards—things that have a good chance of remaining online and searchable for perpetuity.

And that’s to say nothing of the vast and classified surveillance apparatus—“so large, so unwieldy, and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it, or exactly how many agencies do the same work,” according to the Washington Post—that could (who knows?!) be silently taking note of the e-mails you’ve sent and the phone calls you’ve made.

Facebook, keeping tabs on its 500 million members—who share 30 billion bits of information each month yet are mostly ignorant of its privacy policy, which is longer than the United States Constitution—looks like a Class of 1984 high-school yearbook by comparison.

Public is the new private

Over just the past decade or so, the Web has turned things upside down. As Danah Boyd said, speaking in the spring at SXSW in Austin, we’ve seen “an inversion of defaults when it comes to what’s public and what’s private.”

Time was, what you said and did was “private by default, public through effort,” said Boyd, a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. That’s all changed: “Conversation is public by default, private through effort. You actually have to think about making something private because, by default, it is going to be accessible to a much broader audience . . . And, needless to say, people make a lot of mistakes learning this.”

To a degree unheard of even five years ago, we live our lives mediated by Firefox browsers and Droid screens. And that means—whether it’s ostensibly protected sensitive data (financial and medical data), ostensibly inconsequential personal data (Flickr photos, YouTube channels, Twitter feeds), or ostensibly de-personalized behavioral data (browsing patterns, search queries, HTTP cookies)—our lives are nowhere near as private as we might presume them to be.

“Precisely because the tech advances have come in so many places, it’s really quite hard to pick any one particular spot that’s the biggest problem,” says Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “They all converge. Because we have a giant personal information superhighway, where all of our information travels around both the government and the business sector, what gets picked up in one place is being transferred to another place. So it all ends up, not necessarily in a central basket, but in a lot of different baskets—where it can always be accessed.”

“Data collection is becoming ubiquitous,” says Jules Polonetsky, co-chair and director of the Future of Privacy Forum, and former chief privacy officer at AOL. “It’s not science fiction anymore to think there are lots of databases that have everything we’ve done: every search we’ve cheapest cialis prices done, every website we’ve visited.”

It might be comforting to think that our online identities are just anonymous strings of ones and zeros, but that’s just not true anymore. So what we used to loosely define as “privacy”—an admittedly amorphous concept—is changing fast. And only recently do consumers, voters, politicians, and the media seem to be grasping that fact.

Before, “we had privacy from obscurity,” says David Ardia, another fellow at the Berkman Center, and the director and founder of the Citizen Media Law Project. Now, almost everything worth knowing about almost anyone is online.

“That means it’s searchable, and it’s available forever. And I don’t think we’ve caught up to that change in the way we structure our lives and the way we understand privacy.”

‘They want to know more about us’

To begin with, privacy is a problematic notion.

“It’s a very misunderstood concept from a constitutional point of view,” says civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate. “There are some parts of the Constitution, and of the Bill of Rights in particular, that are quite specific about it. And there are others that are quite general and amorphous.”

While the First Amendment is very explicit, for instance (“Congress shall make no law…”), the Fourth Amendment (“unreasonable searches and seizures”…“probable cause”) leaves a lot more wiggle room. It’s “seemingly intentionally vague,” says Silverglate—as if “left for the particular era and particular culture to define.” The result is a wording that suggests people are entitled to a reasonable degree of privacy—but just what it is differs in any given environment.

Obviously, the Framers “didn’t envision the Internet or telephones, but they obviously understood that this was an area that was going to be evolving, and they couldn’t define it.”

And so we find ourselves, at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, still trying to figure all this out.

The problem, says Silverglate, “is that the pace of technological change is proceeding so quickly that the courts, which were always a little bit behind in the development of technology, are now being left in the dust.”

Indeed, says Tien, “technology has advanced and the law has not.” Moreover, “Privacy is not easy to define. It means different things to different people.” But above all else, he says, the most acute threat nowadays is that both the government and the private sector have such vested interests in chipping away at whatever privacy actually is.

“You and I might view the information that we give off online, that we don’t want others to capture, as a negative thing like pollution in the air,” says Tien. But “for government and industry, it’s a nutrient. It’s something they can feed on. They want to know more about us.”

No such agency

“A hidden world, growing beyond control,” wrote Dana Priest and William Arkin in their Washington Post special report, “Top Secret America” —describing “some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies [working] on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security, and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States. An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.”

If you don’t think a goodly number of those folks are listening in to the occasional Skype conversation, you haven’t been paying attention these past 10 months.

“I’m worried about a number of phenomena,” says Silverglate. “First, because of the increasing number of searches being done by the terror warriors—the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and God knows who else—the chaos in the federal investigative establishment is unbelievable. If you think they can’t get the mail delivered on time, just think about the wiretaps and the electronic surveillance.”

It’s enough to make the most intrusive data-mining operation seem tame by comparison. After all, says Silverglate, a corporation “can spy on you but they can’t arrest you.” And when they do spy on you, it’s “because they want to sell you something, not kill you.”

Don’t (just) worry about the government

The problem comes when governments start strong-arming those companies into doing their bidding. Consider the controversy surrounding AT&T’s cooperation with the NSA (National Security Agency), without the knowledge of its customers, on a “massive program of illegal dragnet surveillance of domestic communications” (as the Electronic Frontier Foundation charged) back in 2006. “AT&T just allowed them access to the control room,” marvels Silverglate.

The Feds, in other words, “enlist the brilliance and expertise of companies like Google for the purposes of snooping on its citizens.”

It’s a job at which Google has allegedly acquitted itself quite well in recent months.

In May, news broke that the omnipresent (and sometimes seemingly omnipotent) corporation had been vacuuming up data about citizens’ Wi-Fi networks and what sorts of content was being accessed thereon. Like in a B-movie stakeout, it was all monitored from inside a van—those camera-equipped Street View trucks that patrol the world’s cul-de-sacs and capture images of sword-and-sorcery LARPers, “horse boy,” and, well, your front door.

Google insists that the data sweeps were “unintentional” and that at any rate, were only viewed a very limited number of times, by mistake. You’re not the only one who’s dubious. Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine whether Google’s privacy breach broke the law. Galaxy Internet Services, an ISP based in Newton, Massachusetts, has brought suit. And Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is heading a multi-state investigation.

In June, Representative John Conyers of Michigan requested that Google CEO Eric Schmidt enlighten him as to just how those cars came to intercept that Wi-Fi info. In his letter, Conyers got out the virtual police tape, asking that Google “retain the data collected by its Street View cars, as well as any records related to the collection of such data, until such time as review of this matter is complete.”

It was about this time that Conyers sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s twerpy bazillionaire of a CEO, inquiring whether the site shared user data “without the knowledge of the account holders.”

But however much kerfuffle there was about Facebook’s Orwellian Beacon program or its labyrinthine privacy settings , no matter how sinister David Fincher’s movie The Social Network makes Zuckerberg’s enterprise seem, when it comes to privacy, Facebook is probably the least of your problems.

Sure, it’s bad. “The interplay between the multiple options is so complex” on Facebook, says Polonetsky. “Your location. What apps you use. Your friends’ apps. Different segments of your profile. Your contact information. It’s this incredibly complicated maze. Even I gotta sit sometimes and think before I answer a question.”

But too few people realize that this stuff is everywhere these days.

“You go to a site and there’s a lot going on!” says Polonetsky. “A lot of different data being collected. Regular cookies. Flash cookies. Behavioral retargeting. Analytics. There’s data being sent to an ad exchange. There might be an affiliate program because they’re selling ads not on a click basis, but on a commission basis. There’s 20 or 30 places your browser may go when you visit a site, and then [there’s] all the different things you have to do if you want to turn that off. Your cookie settings. Your Adobe Flash player settings. You could spend hours just disabling the data transmission that happens.”

Anonymous Rex

The omniscient eye of corporate-abetted Big Brother may get the blockbuster treatment in the Post. But oftentimes privacy intrusions grow much closer to home—and are much more damaging.

“We used to think of the threat as ‘us against them,’” says Tien. “Now, because of the Internet and ubiquitous portable devices, there’s a much more lateral threat as well.” After all, “kids can ruin each other’s privacy without really even trying. They think they’re just in a Facebook squabble, but there are a lot of other people who have access to that data. So there’s both a Big Brother problem and a Little Brother problem. And that Little Brother problem has gotten worse.”

Who is Little Brother? He’s all those people you know, sort-of-know, or wish you didn’t know: creepy, barely remembered high-school classmates; Machiavellian coworkers; your angry ex. But mostly you really don’t know who Little Brother is, because Little Brother is anonymous. He or she is part of a sea of nameless faces: the anonymity-emboldened tough guy on a message board, or an auteur posting a sadistic video on YouTube, or an obsessive Twitter-stalker, or, sometimes, a malicious suburban mom hiding behind a hoax identity while taunting a teenager to suicide.

Inexorably, we seem to be drawn to a battle between two conflicting notions—and the winner of that battle may determine what kind of Internet we end up with. The voices advocating for increased privacy protections argue that our actions online should remain invisible—unless we give our express consent to be watched and tracked. But some of the most powerful voices on the Web are beginning to suggest that you should be held responsible for your online actions: that your anonymity on the Web is dangerous.

Speaking at the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe a couple of months ago, Google’s Schmidt opined that the rise of user-driven technology—and the dangers posed by those who would misuse it—required a new approach. “The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity,” he said. “In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it.”

And Schmidt is right. The same governments that are investigating Google’s breaches of their citizens’ privacy are also demanding that their citizens be accountable for their online identities in ways that must make the world’s totalitarian regimes smile. That’s the paradox: Any measure that would allow Google to track the sources of a Chinese hacker attack would also enable the Chinese government to track its own dissidents.

Even on our shores, a look at recent government action on privacy shows how confused the issue has become.

On the one hand, US lawmakers and the nation’s top consumer-protection agency are so spooked by online marketing practices that they are threatening legislation if the industry doesn’t begin to self-regulate. By doing so, they’re affirming the public’s right to retain its anonymity.

Earlier this year, the FTC began floating the idea of a no-track list, which would prevent advertisers from gathering information from a user’s online behavior much as the federal Do Not Call list restricts the practices of telemarketers. The ability of marketers to track you has shifted so quickly, and the information they can glean is so frighteningly accurate, that in July, Congress hauled a who’s-who of the Interwebs, including representatives from Google, Facebook, Apple, and AT&T, in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, threatening to push bills through both the House and the Senate if the industry didn’t start explaining to consumers what information is being collected and how it’s being used.

After the Senate hearings, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry announced that he would draft legislation (to complement bills already introduced in the House) that would give people more control over how their information is collected and distributed online.

“Take the single example of a cancer survivor who uses a social network to connect with other cancer survivors and share her story,” said Kerry in a statement. “That story is not meant for her employer or everyone she e-mails, or marketers of medical products promising herbal cures. Misapplied and poorly distributed, this information could lead to a lost job opportunity or higher insurance rates. Even distributed without malice this information could pigeonhole her identity as a cancer survivor, which may not be how she wants to face the world.”

Deciding who gets that information “should be her right,” Kerry continues. “Whether or not she acts to protect its distribution, private firms should start with the premise that they should treat her and her information with respect. The fact that no law limits the collection of this information or its distribution is a problem that threatens an individual’s sense of self.”

That very month, however, the Obama administration tried to make it easier for the FBI to obtain records of “online transactions,” including a list of who you’ve e-mailed and what Web sites you’ve visited, without a warrant. Around the same time, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that the White House has circulated a draft of its plan for securing identity online, which calls for individuals to “voluntarily request a smart identity card from her home state” to “authenticate herself for a variety of online services” including “securely accessing her personal laptop computer, anonymously posting blog entries, and logging onto Internet e-mail services using a pseudonym.”

The proposal, called the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, sounded alarming to some critics.

“If I’m posting on a blog, reading, browsing, who needs to know who I am? Why is it so important that my identity be verified and authenticated?” says Tien. “We have a tendency to say, ‘Well, gee, there are all these problems so we need to know people’s identity.’ But identity isn’t security. You don’t automatically know what to do about someone just because you know who they are.”

Contested concepts

At any rate, even a raft of new laws and legal precedents can’t be the only answer. Beyond legal remedies, there has to be a cultural component.

“Much of our sense of privacy in the world isn’t guaranteed by law,” says Tien. “It’s guaranteed by people acting within traditional bounds.” Unfortunately, “technology screws this up. It accelerates social change in ways where people aren’t sure what the norms are.”

Justin Silverman, a law student who blogs for Suffolk Media Law and the Citizen Media Law Project, says he suspects that ultimately people’s sensibilities will adapt as folks get “more comfortable with information online” and a lot these issues will “solve themselves.” In the meantime, he says, “the market will take care of some things.”

Indeed, even as they’ve helped create some of these issues, technology and the private sector have huge roles to play. People are starting to demand it. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that “companies with ideas on how to protect personal information”—firms such as Abine and TRUSTe—“are a new favorite of venture capitalists.”

A lot of Internet companies, according to Polonetsky, are simply saying, “I’ve had enough of this. I have some pretty big plans to do some pretty good things with technology, and I don’t want to be called a bad guy. I’m ready to have the practices that seem to be of grave concern taken off the table so I can roll things out.”

Even as the technology evolves, and legislators and courts and corporations slowly smarten up, and society gets more Web-savvy, some of this stuff will always be with us.

Tien mentions a phrase he likes from philosophy: essentially contested concept. That’s an idea that pretty much everybody recognizes and agrees exists in theory—“justice,” say—but on which there’s little concurrence about just what it is and how to achieve it.

“Privacy is essentially contested,” says Tien. “We want to protect our privacy, but there are grand incentives to know more about us. Combine this problem of competing incentives with the problem of how hard a problem it is to solve and how every era changes the technology: Even if the problem gets solved for the telephone it didn’t get solved for e-mail and it didn’t get solved for social networking. It’s always going to be work.”—Mike Miliard

Also posted in Social Commentary | Leave a comment