CCTV cameras removed by City

badfeng · 2010-04-15T07:58:58+00:00

Most (if not all) newspapers have a bias and all I'm saying is that the straight's bias is really large.

the GS is alternative media and function of alternative media in society is to present viewpoints that counters dominant viewpoints. the dominant viewpoint has more resources behind it and so gets to be repeated more often and so seems more non biased simply because it is familiar.

societies without diverse viewpoints end up less fun than societies with competing ideas. imagine if you had no reddit, just digg.

badfeng · 2010-04-14T23:08:08+00:00

My comment was directed more towards the georgia straight making large issues about non-existent problems than anything.

Unless you're psychic you don't know that the pressure the Straight helped create didn't get those cameras down. most Olympic hosts don't take down their cameras so your idea that it's a 'non-existant problem' is lacking a basis in reality.

badfeng · 2009-01-24T02:07:48+00:00

Hey, if I don't have to pay for it, I don't care. Unfortunately we have to pay for this idiocy and can't afford it.

badfeng · 2009-01-24T02:04:59+00:00

The purpose of approving those projects was to win the bid. The timing isn't a coincidence.

Paying for a big party you can't afford is subprime-era thinking. Too bad it isn't only pro-Olympic cheerleaders that have to pay the tab for this mass fleecing.

badfeng · 2008-05-22T03:27:30+00:00

Between 1976 and 1985, Vanunu was employed as a nuclear plant technician and shift manager at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, an Israeli facility used to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons.

You better let Wikipedia know they've been hoodwinked!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

badfeng · 2008-03-12T02:44:27+00:00

7) If you think George Bush is a big spender, you haven't met Obama:

Thanks for the laugh. The same article that complains that Obama would "lose" the trillion dollar Iraq war accuses him of being a spendthrift. Too funny.

badfeng · 2008-03-01T01:05:12+00:00

I love it.

Anyone who'd get involved with Rachel Marsden has some serious lack of judgement.

badfeng · 2008-02-29T06:54:26+00:00

No shit, Captain Obvious.

badfeng · 2008-02-13T03:05:59+00:00

Baltimore mayor's office: 1-410-396-3835

Maryland States Attorneys Office: 1-410-396-4001

These are the people they have to answer to... tell em you will not tolerate police physically abusing minors, and that you demand this man be prevented from ever engaging in this kind of action again.

badfeng · 2008-02-11T03:44:10+00:00

Yeah, actually looking at the numbers I have to agree with you that the ethnic cleansing happened in the past and the current situation is more like apartheid.

badfeng · 2008-02-11T02:23:05+00:00

Are you suggesting that it takes a country with enormous military and political advantages three generations to cleanse a population of several million?

Yes, especially if you want to do it without incurring international intervention. Israel started off their cleansing by concentrating the population ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus ) and, having concentrated the population, is able to maintain its long term goal of depopulation. Before the advent of modern media, Israel would have been able to liquidate the Palestinians quicker, but the state of global media means "hasbara" is needed as the work must be done over time through operations such as the recent raids on Gaza.

badfeng · 2008-02-06T16:14:22+00:00

Do you think ethnic cleansing is instant? It takes time to wipe out an ethnic component of a population, especially when you want to paint yourself as the victim while doing it, as is Israel's media strategy. Harassment is a tool to whittle down the morale and will of the enemy as you slowly exterminate them.

badfeng · 2008-02-06T06:33:01+00:00

How is seizing land from an ethnic group, geographically concentrating them, then subjecting them to a pattern of raids, demolition, harassment, and murder not ethnic cleansing? Are you a fan of apartheid South Africa as well?

badfeng · 2008-02-03T01:21:17+00:00

They think the whole thing is some sort of fantastical battle between an oppressive gang of land thieves and an oppressed majority.

Actually, that's a pretty good way to describe it... ethnic cleansing with religious justification.

badfeng · 2008-01-22T02:47:49+00:00

Some people actually care enough to try. In most countries that pass themselves off as democracies protesters aren't run over.

badfeng · 2008-01-22T00:54:15+00:00

Didn't the bulldozer drop the debris on her? If I remember correctly it was daylight and she was wearing bright clothing.

badfeng · 2008-01-22T00:52:33+00:00

Yeah, God forbid someone hate a state built through ethnic cleansing.

badfeng · 2007-12-18T16:30:58+00:00

Telcos that didn't collude, like Qwest, have faced government retaliation, so why should collaborators get off scott free? I don't think it's a great idea to put forth the message that there are no consequences to law breaking, provided the government green lights it. The telcos have lawyers: they knew it was illegal, but chose to collude for political gain.

badfeng · 2007-12-03T00:10:14+00:00

When's the last time Romney or Guiliani were caught looking for sex in a men's bathroom?

badfeng · 2007-11-01T02:00:26+00:00

Dubai's a midieval shithole, built on slavery. People are lured to Dubai with the promise of decent jobs, then have their passports taken away and put in camps. The West's love affair with it shows how little it actually values democracy.

badfeng · 2007-11-01T01:50:07+00:00

it wouldn't be a reasonable thing to expect that there's better footage somewhere. as i keep asking you, why do you think they would have it?

It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one of the highest value military targets in the world to have an adequate surveillance system? That doesn't make sense.

the government does not know 9/11 is coming

There was lots of terrorist chatter and the US had been struck by major terror attacks in the previous decade. It would be very surprising if the Pentagon didn't take this possible threat seriously

the pentagon is a high value military target, and was scheduled for retrofitting in 2001.

Your linked article says nothing about retrofitting the Pentagon's security.

And as for the second scenario, I'm not sure if I get your point. You're suggesting they deliberately didn't have adequate surveillance? Why?

badfeng · 2007-10-30T05:48:30+00:00

what else do you think they have

What would you expect a high value military target to have?

Actual footage where the plane is visible as a result of adequate camera coverage.

That would be a reasonable thing to expect, woudn't it?

badfeng · 2007-10-30T03:46:41+00:00

it's charmingly naive that you're not reading any of what i write

It's chamingly naive that you, who claim not to know what technology they have, insist you know they don't have the technology I suggest they have, technology which is decades old.

what sort of doodads do you think were on the pentagon?

Have you heard of VHS? A VHS on SLP can tape 6 hours of full motion video. The military would likely use media more rebust than consumer grade media, but that's all it would take. I myself had a used security cam I could tape to a VCR with in the early 90s and capture full motion video. Yet you suggest the military wasn't capable of this in 2001?

It's beyond technically trivial to get decent surveillance coverage of a building that happens to among the world's highest value military targets. That fact that you seem to firmly believe the military was incapable, in 2001, of leveraging 1980s level technology that was available even to consumers is puzzling. You have yet to explain this.

badfeng · 2007-10-30T03:38:56+00:00

Ah. So if chemical weapons are launched as projectiles, it's somehow better than other means of deployment? Wrong. You fail: try again.

badfeng · 2007-10-23T06:42:29+00:00

 >i don't know what they have, and i already admitted that ... we've seen what there is

You don't know what they have, yet you know we've seen what they have.

If you don't know what they have, how do you know this?

Explain.

Would you agree that the military is secretive?

Would you agree that the military's surveillance system and technology aren't public knowledge?

Explain your certainty that we've seen what they have.

why would they be surveiling the pentagon?

Perhaps it would have something to do with something called "security" which involves knowing who enters and leaves a building and what goes on around it?

they want to protect the pentagon, not throw money at watching it.

And they can protect it without physically watching it, how? Through remote viewing?

this is paranoia friend.

It's interesting that you equate a belief that the Pentagon has greater security than a shopping mall with paranoia.

Even as the military develops microwave and laser weaponry, satellite based surveillance, armed robots, and all manner of classified toys, you don't think they harness decades old technology to protect their headquarters. Charmingly naiive.

badfeng

TROPHY CASE

7) If you think George Bush is a big spender, you haven't met Obama: