Monday, June 23, 2003

haven't written anything in about a month. perhaps because i haven't spoken to anyone in about that much time.

today i did something, setup the computer for the superintendent of the building. i hope he can help me fix the apartment a bit.

but even just going out and fixing thing for free for people would be an improvement over what i'm doing now - nothing...

i also went to the park and read my new linux book a bit. the relaxed environment helped me notice i'm incredibly tense near the throat, center of the chest. and that i have trouble concentrating. i was happier and more attentive when i was setting up the computer for robert.

i keep reading the news as if some great good news would come that would help my situation somehow. of course it doesn't and problably never will.

saturday i went to party with my sister. it has been a very long time since i go anywhere, so it was sort of a change. just clearing up some clothes was tough already. i couldn't find them.

i feel that i can't get excited, happy. but once getting there i did feel better and didn't have to avoid it, or worry about it.

Monday, May 26, 2003

today someone my roommate told me I was a good person, that he can just tell. it woke me up a bit. i've been for days just fiddling with computers.

well it's been a couple of months since i've written anything here. the war started, the war is over. it's messed a bit with my head. i'm more angry at Bush than before. not that I haven't been angry enough about too many things already.

for some reason I thought they wouldn't do it.

i've been talking to neighbors about a shared neighborhood network. i think it's going to work, i'm trying out the meshap system. seems very good and tested.

i should get a little bit of work with that. not that i don't have some already.

i just don't call people. i don't answer the phone. i don't talk to anyone.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

I'm inspired.

I saw the International Criminal Court was inaugurated. Today.

The United States is not a member. It was, but it "unsigned". Bush did. Odd and suspicious.

Well, now he wants to invade Iraq. I'm sure he thinks he will be immune to prosecution there. We shall see, the future will tell.

millions of people demonstrated last month.

voters made their voice heard

blair's resignation is being called

bush is being abandoned by several who used to support him. support is significantly smaller.

another new protest with a few million in DC would do him in, he wouldn't be able to invade.

he would find an excuse and back out

which he may still do, in my opinion

Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, pointed out it could amount to a criminal invasion, and the US could be subject to UN sanctions for it


the Hagues international war crimes tribunal is opening

if you look here, you will see the US has NOT ratified the agreement. why? because he is GUILTY and could be tried there.


unstoppable? we just need a few million people.

and he'll be a war criminal, nothing more. jail companion of Milosevic, Pinochet, Hussein, and others, when they're all ARRESTED

Hello Terrorist. Hi anti-American. Protest today?

After studying the issues, I've discovered everyone is now now potentially "anti American". Or potentially a "terrorist".

Well, great! It's a lot more entertaining than a day job.

Let's have fun. It all means nothing, really.

Let's go to Washington and protest. Dress funny clothes.

Go to Wash DC and say just what you think. In loud funny ways.

I'd like to have a group of people dresses as some way - perhaps a group of "goofy clown terrorist suspect" or "mickey mouse terrorist suspect", "office nerd terrorist suspect", "universally guilty terrorist suspect", "terrorist oops not really", things like that.

On a slightly more serious note - If you're looking for the original meaning of the term "anti-americanism", it's here.

In the 50's Congress defined what 'Anti-Americanism' meant for it, established the HUAC (House on Un-American Activities Committee). They waged ideological war supposedly on "Communists", or "socialists" - but actually - anyone who tried to organize social change in the repressive status quo of the United States.

"The definition of American has been contested all throughout the history of this country, and when the State has been able to assert their meaning, it has always meant blind obedience to those in power, in government. "

That's what it means.

I found it here.

As to the meaning of "terrorist", it's been agreed that, as it is being today used in the media, it's defined to mean you can always arrest your enemy and accuse them of terrorism. Something like "opponents we don't agree with or dislike and can remotely associate with violence".

Numerous studies have been made. There's a little article here.,7792,487098,00.html

Sunday, March 09, 2003

The completely false American news, the Army disinformation campaign, has begun.

"C.I.A. Warning of Terror Risk to American Troops in Iraq", the headline says. "Terrorists based in Iraq are planning attacks against American and allied forces", they begin saying, as they would like Americans to believe.

Tranlation: Iraqi civilians are going to take up arms and defend their country, and try to attack American military bases. Exactly as the French Resistance tried to attack German occupying forces. They will executed and classified as "Al Qaeda" and "terrorists". Exactly as the Germans occupying France did.

Just yesterday there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. They will conveniently materialize, of course, right after the war. In the form of Iraqi civilians, fighting a guerilla war to resist occupation.

Further, they would like us to believe the other disinformation - "Iraq Plotting to Use Garb of the Allies, U.S. Says".

"President Saddam Hussein is seeking uniforms that are 'identical down to the last detail'"

That claim is so unrealistic as to be laughable. The American uniforms and equipment cost a fortune.

"atrocities carried out by Iraqi forces could be blamed on the allies, a senior Defense Department official said today."

This couldn't be, of course, Americans wearing American uniforms, shooting civilians to terrorize them or because they are legitimally defending their country against occupying forces.

Clearly the US Army is planning to kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians, and there will be photographs of this. In preparation, they are beginning to plant the disinformation everywhere, to confuse people at home, who still believe somehow that the Americans are honest and kind, and never kill civilians or wrongly occupy countries.

It remains to be seen if the American population will be fooled.

In the New York times, these articles are written by THOM SHANKER.

Thom has represented the Pentagon's opinion for years. A search of his articles reads as the history of official press releases from the Pentagon.

In other words, his job is to agree to print Pentagon propaganda mostly intact, and sign his name on it as researched news articles.

You can read some of it here.
It's clear the war is not only going to kill civilians, but that the war is ON civilians.

The army knows clearly it is occupying a country by military invasion, and that it is very unwelcome by the entire population, which is armed and dislikes the occupying army.

They have already planted stories in the media claiming Iraq has purchased "identical uniforms" to American soldiers and may be "planning to kill it's own citizens". This is of course nonsense - the people wearing American soldier uniforms and killing American civilians are truly American soldiers, breaking all codes of military and ethical behaviour.

They have also planted a story claiming "C.I.A. has warned that terrorists based in Iraq are planning attacks against American and allied forces". The "terrorists" are Al Qaeda, of course, which will magically materialize in Iraq during the war. Surely they will be "disguised and mixing with innocent Iraqi civilians". They wouldn't be, of course, *actual* Iraqis doing what they should - defending themselves and their country from invasion.

Friday, March 07, 2003

Bush spoke to the people today through the media. Repeating more of the same - Iraq has a bad president.

I don't understand how people will support an attack and invasion of a country over that, while claiming to stand for "democracy", "peace", and "freedom".

In democracy, when you have a bad president, you demand elections. That's what it seems like from what I've read. Invading and replacing a regime by force is the stuff of dictartorships.

Thursday, February 27, 2003

"Human shields", the people that went to Iraq to try to stop the American war against it, have got a nice article about them here.
I don't know about you, but I'm starting to clearly feel that I live under a repressive regime in the US. People are fleeing the country, afraid of the police, paranoid they are being watched, persecuted. All the innocent, educated, hard working honest and trustworthy people are afraid. While the repressive violent people in government feel confident.

Leaving aside the fact that, for many decades, overseas the country has been a particularly murderous one as well, playing key roles in many well docuemented wars and conflicts.
I like this article

It has a lot of information about what Iraq and Hussein are like, what were the crimes, what happened in history there, and what it is now, and how the "case" for war against Iraq has been manufactured.
Well, I was hoping Saddam had a decent brain and would say something smart to help stop the war. No such luck. The guy seems to be about on the same intellectual level as Bush. I guess that's why he's President, like in most countries.

After reading parts of his interview, I lost hope. I wonder what he looked like on TV and what the program was like. I have no TV.

Today the White House campaign is that it will "create peace and democracy" in the Middle East. Enforced with cruise missiles. Right. And I'm the Pope.

Who is he kidding? As if the Middle East's severe problems hadn't been the result of intensive wars, bribes, and coercion from the United States and Europe to begin with.

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

Saddam finally uses the ultimate weapon: the brain.

For all his murderous war crimes and ignorance in defying an army to a war he clearly will lose, today Saddam did something smart: he talked.

The savage murdered talked. No matter what he said, showing his face and pleading a case makes viewers realize something - there are people in Iraq, and they don't exactly want to die.

The transcripts are available here.
Have An Anti War Love Affair - Sex and Orgasms Against War !

Protest the war with radical peace activism - Sex against war!

Seeking partners to make efforts to stop the war with love, sex, and more sex.

(60's are over, no more "make love not war" - now it's "have sex against war". )

We'll have to go to lots of protests. And be alert of reports of war and violence the world over. Go to protests in scandalous outfits and big banners saying "telepathically stop the war with sex - tutors".

We'll get in bed every time the war tensions seem to increase, and try to make love passionately enough to telepathically relax the entire planet. Given that the world is now infested with clones of Washington DC politicos, a bunch of tense strait-edge stiffs in suits, that will make for very, very long nights!

The war in Iraq may yet be averted. Our square and conservative Prez surely won't be pleased.

If tensions do indeed stiffen to the point that violence does indeed explode, we should intensify our antiwar lovemaking activity to attempt to relax it all as quickly as possible.

If war ends - well... unfortunately, there's always several wars raging somewhere in the world, usually involving this country in some capacity. So we'll have to keep up or telepathic international antiwar lovemaking efforts for A LONG TIME.

If we are really good in keeping the war and sexual tensions of the world relaxed, resulting in a permanent end to all war, and there's no threat of turning back - hey, there's good old regular lovemaking. It's been shown to work, for a few million years now.

There's an old Chinese myth that says that, if 10,000 full simultaneous orgasms are simultaneously reached on the planet, a new era for humanity will dawn.

Heck, there's a lot more than 20,000 lovers just in new york - but we need to start coordinating for the exact times. How about 2:30:00 am ??

I hope the US President doesn't get wind of this, or he'll denounce dating agencies as "terrorist infrastructure", arrest everyone with healthy sex lives as "terrorists", and start forced use of chastity belts...

As an informed and concerned world citizen, I cannot allow this madness to continue. I must take responsibility and take action. I must get action.

If there are any young female citizens interested in coordinating efforts to end war and help save the lives of thousand of innocent civilians with maddenging sweaty multiorgasmic nights, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Any other couples interested in coordinating the "10,000 Orgasms Against War" efforts, please contact me to arrange the time.

Documenting and disseminating all Antiwar Lovemaking efforts is encouraged.

Please post and search for such documentation on the net under "antiwar sex".
Bush should be excommunicated.

He's a Christian. Yet he's breaking every vow they are supposed to take. Breaking the Pope's recommendation, no less.

"thou shalt not kill" is apparently pretty imporant for Christians also. Killing to retrieve oil, invading a country that is clearly no threat, in the name of "safety", or rather, lots of money for a few people, is more likely.

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

My proposal is to solve the Iraq crisis with "Windpowered Mass Tranportation".

It would allow us to build cheap transportation systems without using any oil or gasoline at all.

You can pedal a bike 10 times farther simply if there's wind at your back. Which means you won't be sweating if you're only going a few miles, which most of us do.

The article by By Ian Williams,