"DON WHITE our most respected Peace Activist!

"Don White was one of the most concerned, humanly sensitive teachers I have ever met. Whenever there would be stifling, divisionary, elitist, distracting petty impass squabbles; he would very patiently and most matter of fact objectively, orient the group to address the task at hand.

Dan did not meet POPITO, pictured above.

He did not have the time to care for a `periquito.'

Basta Ya! USA!

Out of Iraq!

Out of Afghanistan!

Stop War against Iran!

Free the Cuban 5, Now!

Presente!

Don White

Presente!

Presente!

We have lost one of the most loved and

respected people in the peace movement.

Plans are underway for a memorial celebrating Don White's incredible life.

If you are in Panama or visit Panama, and you met Dan White: Write me of your experiences at josefponce@yahoo.com or

if in Panama, call me: (507) 6599-5679.

Look forward to publishing on this blog and submitting to http://thepanamanews.com/

Making your personal computer safe

Making your personal computer safe
Security Adviser Roger A. Grimes »
July 11, 2008 Comments: (6) 15 votes

TAGS: Internet Security
I frequently give talks on the state of today's malware. In a nutshell, it is highly sophisticated, criminal-motivated, and out to steal your money. Despite the nearly universal use of anti-malware programs, tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of home PCs are compromised by one of these crimeware programs. Most home users are oblivious to their home PC's exploited state. Some consultants think it is simply an end-user training problem; that only inexperienced home computer users are at greatest risk. But I beg to differ. The average IT worker, even the average IT computer security worker, really has no idea whether their home PC is compromised or not. It's a problem for "experts" as well.

If you're not sure whether or not your home PC is compromised, should you be checking your bank balance online, buying movie tickets, or conducting other e-commerce transactions? Not really. So, what's a home user supposed to do?

First, if you're not sure whether your home computer is compromised, assume it is and start over. Back up your data, format the drive, and reinstall the operating system and needed programs. I know this is a huge pain, but without this step you can't be assured that your system is clean to begin with. Make sure to back up your Internet browser's favorites, personal photos, documents, and so forth. A trick I like to use is to search for all files that have changed in the last few months. You'll find hundreds to thousands of changed files, most of which you don't need to back up, but I usually find at least a few that I would have otherwise missed.

Make a list of all needed applications so you can reinstall them. In Windows, reviewing Add/Remove Programs under Control Panel is a place to start, but then also search your menu structure and hard directories to make sure you get everything. Make a list of all used and needed passwords. It's terrible to find out that you have forgotten some password used long ago because you told your software to use it automatically, and now you can't re-enter it when needed.

Smart people have all their computer's drivers (network card, video, printer, and such) saved on external media before they begin the restoration process so that they aren't hunting for critical drivers after the install begins. It's hard to download needed drivers when your network card is not functioning.

Install and/or configure your PC's host-based firewall to prevent unauthorized remote connections, if this is not already done by default (it is in Windows XP SP2 and later versions of Windows), although an OEM computer may disable or substitute the built-in Windows Firewall.
After reinstalling the operating system, run the vendor's auto-update process and install all needed patches and updates. Then reinstall your applications and do the same. This step is critical.

Make sure all your applications, even your browser add-ons (Flash, Adobe Acrobat, QuickTime, and others) are installed and updated. Turn on the OS's and application's auto-update features so that they stay updated.

Make sure any supplied passwords are not simple to guess. They should be at least 10 characters long, and you can add "complex" characters if you like. Your PC passwords should not be the same as any password you use on the Web. Make sure your administrator or root password is the strongest of all your passwords.

Create a non-admin user account to use for your daily business, and only use your admin account when needed. If you share your PC with your children, don't give them an admin account or password. If you must give your children an admin account ... give up, your PC will never be uninfected . Really, spend $400 and buy them their own PC. With few small exceptions, kids are way too eager to install everything they can, and a lot of the stuff they install is malware in disguise. If your kid doesn't ever get you infected, make sure you put them on the MIS path in college. They'll go far.

Install anti-malware software (anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-phishing). Anti-malware is far from perfect, but life without it is even worse. Which one should you choose? Personally, I say use any from the top 10 vendors. There are good products outside the top 10, but I don't know much about them, and a really good product would eventually move itself to the top 10.

Finally, back up your data on a regular basis and store it somewhere, password-protected or encrypted, outside your home. That way if something happens to your PC and home, your data is safe.

As laborious as this is, you'll usually find a much faster PC, and you know it is clean and uninfected. When you think about it, should you be computing any other way?
Posted by Roger Grimes on July 11, 2008 03:00 AM

New Weapons, new wars against populations....

Eric, check out this article. Worth posting! Home Article Archives Listen to Alex Jones Contact TruthNews 'Invisible Wars' of the Future: E-Bombs, Laser Guns and Acoustic Weapons Nezavisimaya Gazeta / Global Research July 8, 2008 This important article on new weapons systems was originally published in Russian in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, translated by Guerman Grachev for Pravda.ru Speaking at the Moscow Institute of Foreign Relations on September 1st, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "An arms race is entering its new stage. There is a threat of new weaponry looming on the horizon." What exactly did he mean by saying that? From hypothesis to reality The pace of continuous progress made by science and technology keeps growing faster. Scientists and military analysts point out the emergence of fundamentally new types of weapons including those of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the new future. In the late 1990s, the then Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev sounded a note of warning as he spoke about "the use of new physical principles for building weaponry with new applications in both strategic and tactical levels, is yet another qualitative leap in the change and development of ways and methods of warfare." Hostilities between thousands of armed men involved in physical annihilation of one another in the battlefield may be rendered obsolete by the latest developments in science and technology. The existing types of weapons may be superseded by devices capable of causing latent damage to the human body by disrupting its viability and immune system. As a result, the human body will either completely destroyed or immobilized for a long time. The results of the use of certain hypothetical types of WMD may be felt in the long run, perhaps years or decades following the exposure to the effects of the above. The effects of certain types of new weapons can be used selectively, and thus an attacker will be able to steadfastly decimate an opponent's personnel while effectively reducing the number of its own casualties. The above circumstance creates more incentives for developing new types of weapons. Geophysical weapons Geophysical weapons are essentially based on the manipulation of processes that occur in the earth's crust, and its liquid and gaseous mantle, for military purposes. An atmospheric layer lying at an altitude of 10 to 60 kilometers is of special importance for this kind of warfare. Shortly after the end of World War II, the U.S. Department of Defense sampled lightning, earthquake, and hurricane manipulation studies in Project Skyfire, Project Prime Argus, and Project Stormfury. Information with regard to the results of those projects is scarce. However, there are reports of an experiment carried out by the U.S. military in 1961 when more than 350 thousand 2-cm metal needles were deployed into the atmosphere. The needles in the sky caused a dramatic change in the heat balance of the atmosphere. Scientists believe the needles may have caused an earthquake in Alaska. Besides, they are believed to have caused the sliding of a part pf Chile's coastline into the ocean. The rainmaking technology was taken for a few test tides in Vietnam. The U.S. military dispersed silver iodide in the rain clouds during the Vietnam War to cause floods, disrupt dams, and obstruct the movements of enemy troops, especially the movements of heavy military equipment. There is a forest of 24-meter antennas installed in Gakuna, close to Anchorage, Alaska. The official name of the project is the High Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP). According to a number of experts, the facility has the ability of destabilizing entire national economies through climatic manipulations without the knowledge of the enemy at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war. The HAARP program is a U.S. Air Force, Navy, and University of Alaska funded investigation to "understand, simulate and control ionospheric processes that might alter the performance of communications and surveillance systems" as well as weather systems and those which can modify human behavior. The so-called "ozone weapon" is one of the types of the geophysical weaponry which is an assortment of means designed for damaging the ozone layer over an enemy. The damage can be done by using rockets loaded with Freon. The explosion of such rockets in the ozone layer will produce several "windows" in it, and thus create conditions for ultraviolet rays of the sun to penetrate Earth's surface. The ultraviolet rays are highly detrimental to the cell structure of live organisms, especially to their hereditary systems. As a result, the incidence of cancer will go up dramatically. Depleting ozone will bring about lower mean temperatures and increase humidity, which is especially dangerous for the areas of unsustainable agriculture. EMP weapons Radio frequency weapon has been recently referred to as one of the most technically feasible weapons of mass destruction. The weapon causes damage to man and a variety of objects by means of powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The electromagnetic pulse effect was first observed during the early testing of high altitude airburst nuclear weapons. However, it did n take long for scientists to find out that the EMP effect could be produced by other munitions of non-nuclear origin. The Soviet Academician Andrei Sakharov came up with a design of non-nuclear "electromagnetic bomb" in the 1950s. His design employed the use of a solenoid's magnetic field compressed by the explosion of chemical explosive to produce a powerful EMP effect. In Russia, a team of scientists headed by Academician Vladimir Fortov at the Institute of Thermal Properties of Extreme Conditions played an important role in the study of the EMP weapon and methods of protection against it. The study puts special emphasis on means of destruction of electric or electronic equipment, which actually forms the infrastructure of many countries. Though specialists do not regard the EMP weapons as lethal, they categorize them as strategic, which can be used for crushing an opponent's information and transmission nodes. As demonstrated in the Desert Storm air campaign in 1991, Tomohawk cruise missiles with electromagnetic warheads can be effectively used for inhibiting the functions of an opponent's vital processing infrastructure. All electronic devices of an entire TV center in Baghdad were incapacitated by a single E-bomb dropped by the U.S. Air Force at the beginning of the second campaign in 2003. Russia has successfully built and tested a number of flux compression generators over the last few years. The generators can be used as a prototype for building an electromagnetic gun capable of firing at a range of several hundred meters. The present-day technology base already enables a number of countries to design and build electromagnetic munitions of several modifications. Laser weapons Laser or quantum generator is a device that produces a narrow powerful beam of light by exciting atoms. The laser beam can seriously damage a variety of objects by heating the materials of the latter to high temperatures, disrupting the functions of sensitive components of military equipment, blinding personnel temporarily or permanently, and causing thermal burns of the skin. Continuous improvements of the laser weapons will, without doubt, secure their greater use for killing an enemy's personnel and disabling its equipment. There are reports about a laser-beam rifle developed in the U.S. for several years. The rifle is designed for killing enemy soldiers at a range up to 1.5 km. Specialists have good reasons to assert that the laser weapons will play an important role in the development of a large-scale antimissile defense network in the U.S. In 1996, the U.S. started developing an airborne laser gun designed for destroying enemy missiles during ascent stage. A powerful laser device will be mounted on board the Boeing 747, which will be out on patrol at an altitude of 10-12 km in order to acquire a target within seconds and shoot it down by emitting a laser beam. The Pentagon intends to form a squadron of seven aircraft by 2008. Martin-Boeing-TRW, one of the leading military contractors, was awarded a contract in February of 2000 to develop a space-based laser gun to be used for missile interception. The initial testing is slated for 2012. The project is expected to be completed by 2020. Acoustic weapons The harmful effects of acoustic weapons apply to three frequency bands i.e. infrasound (below 20 Hz); the audible range frequencies (from 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz); and ultrasound (above 20 kilohertz). The classification is in line with the action of sound impact on the human body. The low-frequency sounds can significantly increase the audible range, pain threshold and other negative impacts on the human body. Infrasound oscillations can induce anxiety or a panic attack in humans. Some scientists believe that man is unlikely to survive the effects of powerful emission causing a sudden disruption of the functions of certain organs including the cardiovascular system. Over the last few years, the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) in Pacatini , New Jersey, has been actively engaged in several projects related to the so-called "non-lethal" weapons. In conjunction with the Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA) of Huntingdon, California, ARDEC and Los Alamos laboratories are busy developing a high power, very low frequency acoustic beam weapons. They are also looking into methods of projecting non-penetrating high frequency acoustic bullets. ARDEC scientists are also looking into methods of using pulsed chemical lasers. This class of lasers could project a hot, high pressure plasma in the air in front of a target surface, creating a blast wave that will result in variable but controlled effects on materiel and personnel. The infrasound emitters are designed in Britain. The emitters are reported to be capable of impairing a person's hearing, and cause resonance of his internal organs, which may disrupt the heart activity and result in death. According to American specialist Janet Morris, research director of the U.S. Global Strategy Council, the Russians have been engaged in the development of acoustic weapons too, and the "results are quite impressive." Morris says that during her trip to Russia she saw an operational device that can form a10 Hz infrasound pulse the "size of a baseball," which is said to be capable of causing serious damage to personnel positioned hundreds of meters away from the weapon. In the meantime, there is no convergence of opinions on the harmful effects caused by acoustic weapons. Sphere: Related Content Home Article Archives Listen to Alex Jones Contact TruthNews 'Invisible Wars' of the Future: E-Bombs, Laser Guns and Acoustic Weapons Nezavisimaya Gazeta / Global Research July 8, 2008 This important article on new weapons systems was originally publisehd in Russian in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, translated by Guerman Grachev for Pravda.ru Speaking at the Moscow Institute of Foreign Relations on September 1st, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "An arms race is entering its new stage. There is a threat of new weaponry looming on the horizon." What exactly did he mean by saying that? From hypothesis to reality The pace of continuous progress made by science and technology keeps growing faster. Scientists and military analysts point out the emergence of fundamentally new types of weapons including those of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the new future. In the late 1990s, the then Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev sounded a note of warning as he spoke about "the use of new physical principles for building weaponry with new applications in both strategic and tactical levels, is yet another qualitative leap in the change and development of ways and methods of warfare." Hostilities between thousands of armed men involved in physical annihilation of one another in the battlefield may be rendered obsolete by the latest developments in science and technology. The existing types of weapons may be superseded by devices capable of causing latent damage to the human body by disrupting its viability and immune system. As a result, the human body will either completely destroyed or immobilized for a long time. The results of the use of certain hypothetical types of WMD may be felt in the long run, perhaps years or decades following the exposure to the effects of the above. The effects of certain types of new weapons can be used selectively, and thus an attacker will be able to steadfastly decimate an opponent's personnel while effectively reducing the number of its own casualties. The above circumstance creates more incentives for developing new types of weapons. Geophysical weapons Geophysical weapons are essentially based on the manipulation of processes that occur in the earth's crust, and its liquid and gaseous mantle, for military purposes. An atmospheric layer lying at an altitude of 10 to 60 kilometers is of special importance for this kind of warfare. Shortly after the end of World War II, the U.S. Department of Defense sampled lightning, earthquake, and hurricane manipulation studies in Project Skyfire, Project Prime Argus, and Project Stormfury. Information with regard to the results of those projects is scarce. However, there are reports of an experiment carried out by the U.S. military in 1961 when more than 350 thousand 2-cm metal needles were deployed into the atmosphere. The needles in the sky caused a dramatic change in the heat balance of the atmosphere. Scientists believe the needles may have caused an earthquake in Alaska. Besides, they are believed to have caused the sliding of a part of Chile's coastline into the ocean. The rainmaking technology was taken for a few test tides in Vietnam. The U.S. military dispersed silver iodide in the rain clouds during the Vietnam War to cause floods, disrupt dams, and obstruct the movements of enemy troops, especially the movements of heavy military equipment. There is a forest of 24-meter antennas installed in Gakuna, close to Anchorage, Alaska. The official name of the project is the High Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP). According to a number of experts, the facility has the ability of destabilizing entire national economies through climatic manipulations without the knowledge of the enemy at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war. The HAARP program is a U.S. Air Force, Navy, and University of Alaska funded investigation to "understand, simulate and control ionospheric processes that might alter the performance of communications and surveillance systems" as well as weather systems and those which can modify human behavior. The so-called "ozone weapon" is one of the types of the geophysical weaponry which is an assortment of means designed for damaging the ozone layer over an enemy. The damage can be done by using rockets loaded with Freon. The explosion of such rockets in the ozone layer will produce several "windows" in it, and thus create conditions for ultraviolet rays of the sun to penetrate Earth's surface. The ultraviolet rays are highly detrimental to the cell structure of live organisms, especially to their hereditary systems. As a result, the incidence of cancer will go up dramatically. Depleting ozone will bring about lower mean temperatures and increase humidity, which is especially dangerous for the areas of unsustainable agriculture. EMP weapons Radio frequency weapon has been recently referred to as one of the most technically feasible weapons of mass destruction. The weapon causes damage to man and a variety of objects by means of powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The electromagnetic pulse effect was first observed during the early testing of high altitude airburst nuclear weapons. However, it did not take long for scientists to find out that the EMP effect could be produced by other munitions of non-nuclear origin. The Soviet Academician Andrei Sakharov came up with a design of non-nuclear "electromagnetic bomb" in the 1950s. His design employed the use of a solenoid's magnetic field compressed by the explosion of chemical explosive to produce a powerful EMP effect. In Russia, a team of scientists headed by Academician Vladimir Fortov at the Institute of Thermal Properties of Extreme Conditions played an important role in the study of the EMP weapon and methods of protection against it. The study puts special emphasis on means of destruction of electric or electronic equipment, which actually forms the infrastructure of many countries. Though specialists do not regard the EMP weapons as lethal, they categorize them as strategic, which can be used for crushing an opponent's information and transmission nodes. As demonstrated in the Desert Storm air campaign in 1991, Tomohawk cruise missiles with electromagnetic warheads can be effectively used for inhibiting the functions of an opponent's vital processing infrastructure. All electronic devices of an entire TV center in Baghdad were incapacitated by a single E-bomb dropped by the U.S. Air Force at the beginning of the second campaign in 2003. Russia has successfully built and tested a number of flux compression generators over the last few years. The generators can be used as a prototype for building an electromagnetic gun capable of firing at a range of several hundred meters. The present-day technology base already enables a number of countries to design and build electromagnetic munitions of several modifications. Laser weapons Laser or quantum generator is a device that produces a narrow powerful beam of light by exciting atoms. The laser beam can seriously damage a variety of objects by heating the materials of the latter to high temperatures, disrupting the functions of sensitive components of military equipment, blinding personnel temporarily or permanently, and causing thermal burns of the skin. Continuous improvements of the laser weapons will, without doubt, secure their greater use for killing an enemy's personnel and disabling its equipment. There are reports about a laser-beam rifle developed in the U.S. for several years. The rifle is designed for killing enemy soldiers at a range up to 1.5 km. Specialists have good reasons to assert that the laser weapons will play an important role in the development of a large-scale antimissile defense network in the U.S. In 1996, the U.S. started developing an airborne laser gun designed for destroying enemy missiles during ascent stage. A powerful laser device will be mounted on board the Boeing 747, which will be out on patrol at an altitude of 10-12 km in order to acquire a target within seconds and shoot it down by emitting a laser beam. The Pentagon intends to form a squadron of seven aircraft by 2008. Martin-Boeing-TRW, one of the leading military contractors, was awarded a contract in February of 2000 to develop a space-based laser gun to be used for missile interception. The initial testing is slated for 2012. The project is expected to be completed by 2020. Acoustic weapons The harmful effects of acoustic weapons apply to three frequency bands i.e. infrasound (below 20 Hz); the audible range frequencies (from 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz); and ultrasound (above 20 kilohertz). The classification is in line with the action of sound impact on the human body. The low-frequency sounds can significantly increase the audible range, pain threshold and other negative impacts on the human body. Infrasound oscillations can induce anxiety or a panic attack in humans. Some scientists believe that man is unlikely to survive the effects of powerful emission causing a sudden disruption of the functions of certain organs including the cardiovascular system. Over the last few years, the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) in Pacatini , New Jersey, has been actively engaged in several projects related to the so-called "non-lethal" weapons. In conjunction with the Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA) of Huntington, California, ARDEC and Los Alamos laboratories are busy developing a high power, very low frequency acoustic beam weapons. They are also looking into methods of projecting non-penetrating high frequency acoustic bullets. ARDEC scientists are also looking into methods of using pulsed chemical lasers. This class of lasers could project a hot, high pressure plasma in the air in front of a target surface, creating a blast wave that will result in variable but controlled effects on materiel and personnel. The infrasound emitters are designed in Britain. The emitters are reported to be capable of impairing a person's hearing, and cause resonance of his internal organs, which may disrupt the heart activity and result in death. According to American specialist Janet Morris, research director of the U.S. Global Strategy Council, the Russians have been engaged in the development of acoustic weapons too, and the "results are quite impressive." Morris says that during her trip to Russia she saw an operational device that can form at 10 Hz infrasound pulse the "size of a baseball," which is said to be capable of causing serious damage to personnel positioned hundreds of meters away from the weapon. In the meantime, there is no convergence of opinions on the harmful effects caused by acoustic weapons. Sphere: Related Content

Entrevista con Javier Smaldone sobre Bill Gates, Microsoft y el movimiento de software libre

Javier Smaldone

por Salvador López Arnal (Para Kaos en la Red) [03.07.2008 10:40] - 181 lecturas - 0 comentarios




Entrevista con Javier Smaldone sobre el señor Bill Gates, la multinacional Microsoft y el movimiento del software libre.


Javier Smaldone es un joven programador argentino. Vive, desde su nacimiento hace 34 años, en la ciudad argentina de Río Cuarto, donde se desempeña como programador y consultor informático, especializándose en la implementación de soluciones basadas en programas libres. Uno de sus principales pasatiempos es la difusión del modelo propuesto por el "software libre", en contraposición con el modelo dominante y extendido, basado en la venta de licencias de uso y la restricción al acceso del código fuente de los programas.

*

En un artículo titulado "¿Microsoft? No, gracias" hablaba usted de los mitos que envuelven la figura de Bill Gates. ¿Nos puede señalar brevemente algunas de las mitificaciones que rodean la figura del fundador de Microsoft?

Existe la creencia popular (reforzada por los medios masivos de comunicación) de que Bill Gates es uno de los principales actores en la evolución de la Informática. Nada más lejos de la verdad: si bien es cierto que la empresa Microsoft ha liderado desde su inicio el mercado de software para computadoras personales, sus aportes técnicos (y, en particular, los de Gates) han sido prácticamente nulos. De hecho, puede argumentarse que dicha empresa ha retrasado la evolución de la Informática en este nivel.

¿Bill Gates ha realizo aportaciones importantes como científico en el ámbito de la informática?

Absolutamente ninguna. La única contribución conocida de Bill Gates es el desarrollo, junto con Paul Allen, de un intérprete BASIC para microcomputadoras en 1975. Un programa de ese tipo es desarrollado por cualquier alumno de un curso universitario de compiladores.

Hablemos ahora de la empresa. ¿Quiénes la fundaron? ¿Con qué medios? ¿Con qué objetivos?

Microsoft fue fundada por Bill Gates y Paul Allen en el año 1976 como una empresa productora de Software. Su primer contrato fue obtenido con la empresa MITS, fabricante de microcomputadoras, para que esta última distribuyera un intérprete del lenguaje BASIC antes citado.

Usted ha escrito que el primer gran acierto de Microsoft, determinante de su éxito, fue la venta del MS-DOS a la empresa IBM. ¿Qué era el MS-DOS? ¿Microsoft fue creadora de ese sistema operativo? ¿Por qué lo adquirió IBM?

Efectivamente. El primer hito en la vida de Microsoft fue el contrato firmado con IBM para la distribución del sistema operativo MS-DOS, bajo el nombre PC-DOS, en el año 1981. Este producto, anteriormente llamado Q-DOS, fue adquirido por Microsoft a la empresa Seattle Computer Products por 50.000 dólares. Años después, esta última demandó a Microsoft (y obtuvo una indemnización de 1 millón de dólares) por haber ocultado su contrato con IBM en el momento de la adquisición.

El hecho clave es que IBM no compró el MS-DOS a Microsoft, sino que le ofreció un contrato de redistribución (permitiendo a esta última mantener los derechos sobre el mismo). El porqué de semejante decisión, para nada conveniente por parte de IBM y que fue determinante en el futuro de Microsoft, es un misterio. Hay quienes la explican por la relación laboral existente entre la madre de Gates y el CEO de IBM John Opel, que por aquellos tiempos eran directivos de la empresa United Way.

Windows ha sido el producto estrella de Microsoft hasta la fecha. ¿Qué novedades introdujo realmente este sistema operativo?

Windows, lanzado en 1985 pero que no fue estable hasta 1990, fue el primer entorno gráfico de amplia difusión en computadoras compatibles con la IBM-PC. Desde el punto de vista técnico, lejos estuvo de introducir alguna novedad, ya que existian otros entornos similares de mucha mayor calidad. Un claro ejemplo es el provisto por la empresa Apple desde fines de los '70.

¿Y por qué cree usted que triunfó Windows frente al sistema ofrecido por Apple? ¿Por publicidad, por suerte, por astucia empresarial?

Quizás, pero evidentemente no por sus virtudes técnicas. Esta es una de las claves del modelo de distribución de software privativo: no prima la calidad sino la habilidad comercial del proveedor.

En cuanto a Internet, ¿fue Microsoft una empresa pionera en este ámbito?

No lo fue. Microsoft proveyó funciones para el acceso a Internet en sus sistemas operativos en el año 1993, en tanto que Internet comenzó a desarrollarse en la década del 70.

¿Qué opinión le merece, desde un punto de vista técnico, el navegador Internet Explorer?

El historial de errores y problemas relacionados con Internet Explorer (que tampoco fue un desarrollo de Microsoft, sino que fue adquirido a otra empresa y rebautizado) es profuso. Sin embargo, debo aclarar que en los últimos años ha mejorado sensiblemente. Personalmente prefiero el navegador Mozilla Firefox, que es libre y se ejecuta en varias plataformas diferentes.

¿Por qué esta preferencia? ¿Por qué es código libre únicamente o por alguna razón más?

De los navegadores disponibles para el sistema operativo que utlizo, Debian GNU/Linux, es el que más me agrada. Además, siempre estoy dispuesto a sacrificar alguna funcionalidad por el hecho de utilizar programas libres; por eso lo prefiero a cualquier navegador privativo si bien todavía (cada vez menos) tengo problemas para acceder a algún sitio dependiente de Internet Explorer.

¿En qué consistió "The Microsoft Network"? ¿Por qué fracasó?

Fue un intento de Microsoft de crear una red paralela a Internet, controlada y administrada por Microsoft. Una idea tan descabellada estaba destinada al fracaso desde su nacimiento.

Los protocolos, estándares y normas de la Internet están documentadas mediante las llamadas RFCs (Request For Comments). ¿Cuántas hay hasta la fecha? ¿Cuántas han sido elaboradas por trabajadores de Microsoft?

A la fecha -junio de 2008- existen más de 5000 RFCs. En el momento en que escribí el artículo sobre Microsoft había 3454 y se me ocurrió la idea de buscar en cuántas de ellas aparecían como autores empleados de Microsoft. Encontré solamente 8, de las cuales 7 están referidas exclusivamente a productos de la empresa. Otro hecho curioso, y que muestra claramente la ausencia de Microsoft en la evolución de Internet, es que la primera data del año 1997.

También usted ha afirmado que Microsoft provocó, en muchos aspectos, un atraso tecnológico considerable.¿Por qué? ¿En qué ámbitos?

Desde lo técnico, el mayor atraso ha consistido en poner trabas a la evolución de la tecnología. Para esto ha recurrido a diversas tácticas, como la deformación intencional de protocolos de comunicaciones y formatos de almacenamiento, la eliminación de la competencia (junto con sus productos). El lector quizás recuerde el capítulo de la serie "Los Simpson" en el que Bill Gates "compra" el producto de Homero para luego destruirlo a martillazos. Es un muy buen resumen de las políticas de Microsoft en este sentido.

Quizás el daño más grave se haya ocurrido a nivel cultural por lo que llamo "el mundo cerrado de Microsoft". Si uno consulta la bibliografía producida por esta empresa, encontrará muy pocas referencias a textos o documentos de ciencias de la computación o relacionados con tecnologías fuera de su control. Esto lleva a que aquellos profesionales formados con los productos de Microsoft (y sus textos) desconozcan cuestiones fundamentales e históricas. Esto limita drásticamente su posibilidad de acceder a otras tecnologías.

Otro daño, del cual Microsoft no es el único culpable, es la instauración de un modelo de licenciamiento de software leonino. Es lamentable que la mayoría de usuarios de computadoras se vean envueltos diariamente en una maraña de licencias, códigos de activación, cracks, generadores de códigos de activación, etc. Lo más grave es que muchos asumen esta situación como natural.

¿Por qué no triunfaron en su momento versiones de Unix para sistemas 386 o el OS/2 de la empresa IBM?

No lo sé. Quizás por malas políticas comerciales y de distribución. Este es otro claro ejemplo de que en el mundo del software privativo él éxito de un programa no es determinado por sus virtudes técnicas.

También usted ha señalado que detrás de cada producto exitoso de Microsoft hay un par de historias oscuras en donde aparecen recurrentemente las palabras "juicio", "robo", "espionaje", "copia". ¿Qué ha querido apuntar con ello?

Lo dicho. La historia de Microsoft (desde la adquisición de Q-DOS y su negociación con IBM) está plagada de actitudes comerciales reprochables, siendo en algunos casos francamente ilegales. Prueba de esto son las numerosas condenas judiciales que ha sufrido en varios países, por ejemplo, la multa de la Unión Europea en el año 2004 por casi 500 millones de euros por prácticas anticompetitivas en abuso de su posición de monopolio.

Así, en general, ¿qué opinión le merece la calidad de los productos Microsoft?

En general, bastante pobre. En el pasado existieron puntos notables, productos de realmente buena calidad, pero amén de ser casos aislados, en los últimos años los problemas se han hecho cada vez más evidentes. El aumento del tiempo entre la publicación de nuevas versiones, la mala calidad de las versiones iniciales de nuevos productos (Windows XP y Windows Vista son ejemplos notables) y la creciente insatisfacción de sus usuarios, denotan claramente un desmejoramiento en la calidad de sus programas.

Desde su punto de vista, ¿por qué en ocasiones los programadores de Microsoft cometen errores tan básicos como el que usted señala al hablar de su primitiva hoja de cálculo? ¿Son torpes? ¿Sufren mucha presión?

No puedo decir que los programadores de Microsoft sean torpes (aunque muchos errores denotan una gran falta de cuidado, cuando menos). El problema, en mi opinión, es que la empresa no prioriza la calidad de sus productos. Muy por delante de esta, se encuentran cuestiones comerciales, de mercadeo y de competencia.

Hay una anécdota que roza lo gracioso, relatada por uno de los programadores que tuvo que implementar el menú de "apagar el sistema" de Windows Vista. En ella, este pobre programador cuenta las desventuras por las que tuvo que atravesar por nada menos que un año (cuando no debería haber llevado más de una semana), para terminar con una implementación que deja bastante que desear.

La llamada "Ley de Conway", de 1968, reza que "cualquier componente de software refleja la estructura organizacional que lo produjo". Este, me parece, es el caso de Microsoft.

Se suele afirmar que Microsoft practica la competencia desleal. ¿Por qué?

Microsoft ha sido denunciada y condenada en varios tribunales de distintos países del mundo por este tipo de prácticas, como es el caso ya comentado de la multa de la Unión Europea. En otros casos, ha logrado evitar la condena mediante acuerdos extra-judiciales.

Usted también ha señalado que una táctica bastante utilizada por Microsoft para lograr el dominio del mercado es la conocida con el nombre de "Embrace and Extend" (adherir y extender). ¿En qué consiste? ¿Podría darnos algunos ejemplos?

Dicha táctica consiste en adherir a un protocolo o formato estándar para luego extenderlo con agregados que van más allá de su especificación pública. De esta manera se logra que distintos componentes de un sistema interactúen de maneras no previstas originalmente.

Puede observarse esta práctica, por ejemplo, en la implementación del lenguaje Java (desarrollado originalmente por la empresa Sun, cuya especificación es pública). Microsoft modificó la especificación de Java de manera que las aplicaciones desarrolladas con sus herramientas, solo pudieran ejecutarse sobre el sistema operativo Windows. Esto significó una violación de la licencia de Java y devino en demandas legales de Sun.

El objetivo de esta artimaña es lograr que el usuario no pueda elegir libremente entre productos que implementen estándares públicos.

¿Cuáles han sido las finalidades básicas de los formatos en los que se almacena la información y que han sido utilizados históricamente por Microsoft?

Cuando el formato en el que se almacena la información no puede ser implementado por terceros (debido a trabas técnicas o legales), esta queda cautiva del autor del programa que la manipula.

Este es el caso, por ejemplo, del formato .DOC de Microsoft (utilizado por Microsoft Word). Dicho formato no está documentado públicamente, por lo cual nadie puede implementar un programa que lea la totalidad de la información correctamente. Esto significa, ni más ni menos, que la información que un usuario produzca usando Microsoft Word, solamente será accesible utilizando productos de Microsoft.

Afortunadamente, muchas personas se avocan a la realización de "ingeniería inversa" para intentar descifrar estos formatos. Se trata de una tarea muy ardua, que consiste en deducir las características del formato a través de la realización de reiteradas pruebas almacenando información con el programa que lo implementa. Cabe aclarar que este tipo de técnica está prohibida por ley en varios países del mundo.

Recientemente se ha dado un caso notable: por primera vez en la historia de la informática se ha aprobado en el comité ISO un estándar para el almacenamiento de información de ofimática (documentos de texto, planillas de cálculo, etc.), el formato "ODF". La respuesta de Microsoft el impulso de otro formato, llamado "OOXML". Este último fue aprobado por ISO en un proceso altamente irregular, que está siendo revisado actualmente por la denuncia de los comités de estandarización de varios países.

"Altamente irregular" dice usted. ¿Dónde estarían las irregularidades más importantes?

Luego de la votación en ISO, comités de varios países denunciaron que sus representantes votaron a favor de la estandarización, cuando su mandato era votar por la negativa. Finalmente, Brasil, India, Sudáfrica y Venezuela presentaron una apelación y el proceso se encuentra bajo revisión.

Por otra parte, ¿qué interés tiene Microsoft en impulsar ese nuevo formato que usted cita? ¿Qué tiene en contra del ODF?

La existencia de un formato estándar (actualmente no soportado por los productos de Microsoft), abriría el mercado de software de oficina de una forma sin precedentes. Cada usuario (persona, organización, empresa o gobierno) podría utilizar cualquier programa que lo implemente, e intercambiar información con otros sin importar su elección. Esto es contrario a los intereses de Microsoft, que prefiere tener a los usuarios cautivos de sus formatos (.doc, .xls, etc.) y obligados a utilizar sus programas. Ante la estandarización de ODF su reacción fue proponer el OOXML, que tiene algunos puntos oscuros (tanto técnicos como legales) que permitirían luego a Microsoft manipularlo a su antojo.

¿Cómo ejerce Microsoft su presión sobre los fabricantes de hardware para computadoras personales?

Siendo Microsoft el principal proveedor de software para computadoras personales, se encuentra en una situación en la cual los fabricantes de hardware dependen de él para la provisión en sus equipos de productos como Windows y Microsoft Office. La presión de Microsoft se ejerce de distintas formas: a través de los costos de las licencias de uso, del soporte técnico ofrecido al fabricante y de la certificación de controladores de dispositivos (drivers). Difícilmente un proveedor de hardware pueda darse el lujo de lanzar un producto sin el logo de "Microsoft Windows" en él, aunque afortunadamente esta situación está cambiando.

¿Podría darnos algún ejemplo de esos cambios?

Por ejemplo. Hasta hace poco tiempo era imposible comprar una computadora portátil (notebook) sin tener que adquirir una licencia de alguna versión de Windows (y quizás Office, Works o algún otro producto de Microsoft). Recientemente, fabricantes como Dell han comenzado a ofrecer algunos modelos de sus portátiles con GNU/Linux preinstalado.

¿Microsoft ha recurrido a técnicas "vaporware", esto es, ha anunciados productos que realmente no existían? Podría darnos algún ejemplo si es el caso.

Así como Microsoft ofreció a IBM un sistema operativo del que no disponía (y que luego adquirió por un precio irrisorio), a través de su historia siempre ha anunciado productos inexistentes. Luego, muchas veces ha logrado desarrollarlos (o comprarlos), pero muchas otras ha fallado estrepitosamente. Otras veces, se ha prometido la inclusión de funciones y características que a la postre existieron.

Un ejemplo reciente es el de Windows Vista. Vista fue anunciado en el año 2001, con la promesa de su publicación en el 2003 y la inclusión de varias características novedosas. Entre estas se contaba un nuevo sistema de archivos, WinFS, realmente innovador. Finalmente, Vista fue lanzado en el 2007 sin incluir WinFS, que a la fecha no ha sido terminado, ni muchas otras funciones prometidas.

¿Por qué cree usted que se adorna la figura de Bill Gates con los aromas de la filantropía? ¿Qué opinión le merecen las actividades de la Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

En muchos casos, las "donaciones" realizadas por Gates son totalmente funcionales a los objetivos de Microsoft: Al donar licencias el monto se calcula en base a su valor de mercado (y no al costo que representa para Microsoft, que es nulo) en tanto que esto no hace más que promover el uso de sus herramientas, aumentando la penetración de la empresa en el mercado y la dependencia de sus usuarios.

Usted es firme partidario del software libre. ¿Por qué? ¿Es una cuestión ética, ideológica, técnica?

Un poco de cada una.

El software es, para la mayoría de las personas, una herramienta para procesar información. Para otras, los programadores como yo, también es información: información acerca de cómo hacer cosas. El movimiento del software libre impulsa la libre circulación de la información de utilidad práctica, que incluye al software. Esto nada dice acerca de la posibilidad de lucrar con dicha información, ya que es lícito que quien dedica su tiempo y esfuerzo a la elaboración de la misma pueda esperar un rédito económico a cambio.

Por otra parte, soy un convencido de que la libre distribución del software (el código fuente y el permiso del autor para su análisis, modificación y redistribución) permite el desarrollo de mejor software. Es decir, no me quedo en las cuestiones éticas o filosóficas, sino que uso software libre porque me permite maximizar mis habilidades como programador. Utilizo herramientas más robustas, que no obstaculizan mi trabajo (ni el de mis clientes o usuarios) y que, fundamentalmente, me permiten profundizar tanto como quiera en ellas para ampliar mi conocimiento y adaptarlas a mis necesidades.

Los partidarios del software libre, ¿comparten una determinada ideología? ¿Se definen políticamente?

Algunos usuarios de software libre se definen políticamente, en tanto que otros no. De los que lo hacen, algunos coinciden en su ideología, en tanto que otros se ubican en veredas opuestas. Algunas personas (como Richard Stallman) resaltan como principal valor del software libre su contenido ético. Otros (como Eric Raymond) anteponen las virtudes técnicas del modelo, dejando de lado las cuestiones políticas y filosóficas.

¿Y usted es un stallmiano o un raymondiano?

Tengo tanto coincidencias como discrepancias con ambos, pero me encuentro más cercano a las ideas de Stallman.

¿Se puede afirmar, con fundamento, que los productos del software libre son siempre mejores que los productos lanzados por empresas como Microsoft?

No necesariamente, pero sí posiblemente. Por un lado, existe la prueba empírica de gran cantidad de programas libres que evolucionaron desde proyectos minúsculos hasta convertirse en líderes en su área de aplicación. También existen análisis que muestran las ventajas del modelo de desarrollo del software libre desde un punto de vista "darwiniano", en el que el software se desarrolla según un proceso evolutivo guiado tanto por sus desarrolladores como por sus usuarios.

En el mundo del software libre los programas crecen, mutan o mueren según el interés de sus usuarios. Esto no ocurre en el modelo tradicional (privativo): en él prevalecen cuestiones comerciales antes que técnicas, primando los intereses de la empresa productora al de los usuarios.

Hay software libre bueno, mediocre y malo. También hay software privativo en las tres categorías. Sin embargo, el modelo propuesto por el software libre facilita el mejoramiento del software.

¿Y por qué si productos de Microsoft son tan defectuosos tienen tanto éxito?

Pensemos en una persona que toma contacto por primera vez con una computadora. ¿Qué sistema operativo utilizara? Muy probablemente alguna versión de Windows. ¿Por qué? Seguramente porque "venía instalado" (por el vendedor de hardware, o por un amigo que le instaló una copia ilegal). Luego podríamos preguntarnos ¿qué procesador de textos, planilla de cálculo y navegador web usará? Muy probablemente, los de Microsoft. ¿Tiene alguna influencia en esto la calidad técnica de dichos programas? Difícilmente.

Otras veces, el factor determinante para la utilización de determinado software es la necesidad de interactuar con otras personas. Alguien que necesita acceder a planillas de cálculo generadas con Microsoft Excel, seguramente usará este mismo programa. Una persona que desee acceder a un sistema a través de la web y se encuentra con la obligación de usar Internet Explorer, seguramente utilizará éste navegador. (En ambos casos, dará por sentado que tiene que usar Windows.)

Afortunadamente, aunque de forma lenta, esto está cambiando. Los fabricantes de hardware comienzan a incluir software libre en sus equipos, como una manera de rebajar costos de licencias o de aprovechar mejor las capacidades del hardware. Y no es inusual, por ejemplo, que un amigo recomiende al usuario novel la utilización de Firefox en vez de Internet Explorer para navegar por la web.

Los estados y las empresas también están comenzando a valorar la posibilidad de no depender de un proveedor de software en particular (ni trasladar dicha dependencia a sus usuarios).

¿A qué Estados se refiere? ¿Microsoft acepta normalmente este cambio de perspectiva?

Distintas áreas gubernamentales de países como Brasil, Venezuela, Francia, Alemania, Holanda e incluso los EE.UU. utilizan software libre, con mayor o menor grado de exclusividad. La reacción de Microsoft cuando un Estado comienza a evaluar la posibilidad de independizarse del software privativo es iniciar campañas de "FUD" ("Fear, uncertainty, and doubt", "Miedo, incertidumbre y duda"), generalmente acompañadas de "convenientes" donaciones y convenios.

¿Qué opinión le merece la figura de Richard Stallman? ¿No ejerce un papel demasiado principal en el movimiento?

Valoro el inmenso aporte de Richard Stallman tanto en lo técnico como en lo ideológico. Además, me resulta una persona muy agradable (a quien tuve la suerte de conocer personalmente en una de sus visitas a la Argentina) y me divierto terriblemente con sus conferencias (y sus ocurrencias). Es una persona con opiniones muy firmes y fuertes en varias cuestiones, y por lo tanto despierta odios y amores en igual medida.

No es beneficioso para ningún movimiento (ideológico, político, ni tampoco técnico) centrarse en la figura de una persona. Aunque muchos asocian el software libre con Richard Stallman, esto no es así: el movimiento del software libre está formado por millones de usuarios, programadores y documentadores (e incluso empresas) a lo largo de todo el mundo.

¿Qué es el movimiento del software libre? ¿Un movimiento científico-técnico con arista normativa? ¿Una parte más del movimiento alterglobalizador?

Es difícil para mí responder a esta pregunta. En el mundo del software libre participa una multitud de personas con ideologías e intereses disímiles. Algunos están vinculados por cuestiones técnicas y otros por cuestiones políticas.

La Free Software Foundation, liderada por Stallman, propone incluir las cuestiones políticas en la discusión sobre el software libre. La OpenSource Initiative, liderada por Eric Raymond (que no utiliza el término "software libre", usando en cambio "open source"), plantea la discusión en términos estrictamente técnicos. En el medio, muchas personas que no integran ni una de la otra, participan disfrutando e impulsando el software libre.

¿Y cuáles son las diferencias entre el open source y el free software?

Estrictamente hablando, ambos términos se refieren a condiciones que debe cumplir la licencia de un programa. Desde este punto de vista definen prácticamente lo mismo, por lo que podríamos decir que "software libre" (free software) y "código abierto" (open source) son sinónimos. La Free Software Foundation propone el uso del término "software libre" para resaltar lo que para ellos es la característica más importante: su libertad. La OpenSource Initiative propone la utilización de "código abierto" como una forma de presentarlo de manera más agradable a las empresas y el mundo comercial, desprovisto de implicancias políticas.

¿Usted cree realmente que Microsoft representa una seria amenaza para el desarrollo de la informática y, peor aún, para el libre desenvolvimiento en el mundo del futuro, cada vez más ligado a las tecnologías de la información? ¿No estamos exagerando? Dice usted: "debemos tomar consciencia de que no se trata solamente de una cuestión técnica, sino que hay mucho más en juego". ¿Qué es lo que está en juego?

El software es el medio de expresión de la era digital, como antes lo fueron el lápiz, el papel, la imprenta. Si alguien controla de alguna manera el acceso al software o lo que éste nos permite hacer, controlará nuestra capacidad de generar cultura y de relacionarnos. Esto es, ni más ni menos, lo que está en juego.

Y el peligro no se limita a Microsoft. Esta empresa ha liderado la llamada "industria informática" en los últimos años, pero aún si perdiera parte de su poder, su lugar podría ser ocupado por cualquier otra.

¿Quiere añadir algo más?

Lo que ocurre con el software no es más que una instancia de una tendencia mucho más general. Un sistema de patentes cada vez más abarcativo y extemporáneo, los "derechos de autor" sirviendo a un fin opuesto al de su concepción y la criminalización del intercambio de información entre personas, forman parte del intento de equiparar al conocimiento con los bienes materiales a fin de posibilitar su privatización.

Finalmente, quisiera agradecer a los editores de rebelion.org por interesarse en este tema tan crucial (y no siempre bien atendido por los medios de comunicación) y por permitirme hacer llegar estas ideas al lector.




Artículos de Salvador López Arnal en Kaos en la Red >>

Welcome home, soldier. Now shut up.

There are two kinds of courage in war
- physical courage and moral courage.

Physical courage is very common on the battlefield. Men and women on both sides risk their lives, place their own bodies in harm’s way.

Moral courage, however, is quite rare. According to Chris Hedges, the brilliant New York Times war correspondent who survived wars in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans, “I rarely saw moral courage. Moral courage is harder. It requires the bearer to walk away from the warm embrace of comradeship and denounce the myth of war as a fraud, to name it as an enterprise of death and immorality, to condemn himself, and those around him, as killers. It requires the bearer to become an outcast. There are times when taking a moral stance, perhaps the highest form of patriotism, means facing down the community, even the nation.”

More and more U.S. soldiers and Marines, at great cost to their own careers and reputations, are speaking publicly about U.S. atrocities in Iraq, even about the cowardice of their own commanders, who send youth into atrocity-producing situations only to hide from the consequences of their own orders.

In 2007, two brilliant war memoirs - ROAD FROM AR RAMADI by Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, and THE SUTRAS OF ABU GHRAIB by Army Reservist Aidan Delgado - appeared in print. In March 2008, at the Winter Soldier investigation just outside Washington D.C., hard-core U.S. Iraqi veterans, some shaking at the podium, some in tears, unburdened their souls. Jon Michael Turner described the horrific incident in which, on April 28, 2008, he shot an Iraqi boy in front of his father. His commanding officer congratulated him for “the kill.” To a stunned audience, Turner presented a photo of the boy’s skull, and said: “I am sorry for the hate and destruction I have inflicted on innocent people.”

The Winter Soldier investigation was followed by the publication of COLLATERAL DAMAGE: AMERICA’S WAR AGAINST IRAQI CIVILIANS, by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian. Based on hundreds of hours of taped interviews with Iraqi combat veterans, this pioneering work on the catastrophe in Iraq includes the largest number of eyewitness accounts from U.S. military personnel on record.

The Courage to Resist
We cannot understand the psychological and moral significance of military resistance unless we recognize the social forces that stifle conscience and human individuality in military life. Gwen Dyer, historian of war, writes that ordinarily, “Men will kill under compulsion. Men will do almost anything if they know it is expected of them and they are under strong social pressure to comply.” “Only exceptional people resist atrocity,” writes psychiatrist Robert Lifton.

How much easier it is to surrender to the will of superiors, to merge into the anonymity of the group. It takes uncommon courage to resist military powers of intimidation, peer pressure, and the atmosphere of racism and hate that drives all imperial wars.

Silencing the Witnesses to War
War crimes are collective in nature. Especially in wars based on fraud, soldiers are expected to lie - to their country, to their community, even to themselves. The silencing process begins on the battlefield in the presence of officers, power-holders who seek to nullify the perceptions and personal experience of troops under their command.

In his war memoir, Aidan Delgado describes attempts of his commanders to suppress the truth about Abu Ghraib. First his captain says the Army has nothing to hide, Abu Ghraib is just a rumor. But then the captain continues: “We don’t need to air our dirty laundry in public. If you have photos that you’re not supposed to have, get rid of them. Don’t talk about this to anyone, don’t write about it to anyone back home.” In the U.S. military, the truth is seditious.

Two years ago, Marine Sergeant Jimmy Massey published his riveting autobiography (written with Natasha Saulnier) in France and Spain. How the Marine Corps - through indoctrination and intimidation - transforms a homeboy from the Smoky Mountains of North Carolina into a professional killer who murders “innocent people for his government” is the subject of Massey’s unsettling, impassioned, Jar-head raunchy, and ultimately uplifting memoir, COWBOYS FROM HELL. (No U.S. publisher has picked up the book. A Marine who speaks truth to power is not without honor save in his own country.) In Chapter 18, Jimmy describes a seemingly minor encounter with his captain. Here Massey gives us a look into the process of human denial in its early phase.

Massey has just participated in a checkpoint massacre of civilians. His sense of decency, his sanity, is still in tact. Like any normal human being, he is distraught. The carnage of the war, the imbalance of power between the biggest war machine in history and a suffering people devoid of tanks and air power - the sheer injustice of it all - begins to take its toll on Massey’s conscience.
In the wake of the horrific events of the day, his captain is cool. He walks up to Massey and asks; “Are you doing all right, Staff Sergeant?” Massey responds: “No, sir. I am not doing O.K. Today was a bad day. We killed a lot of innocent civilians.”

Fully of aware of the civilian carnage, his captain asserts: “No, today was a good day.”
Relatives wailing, cars destroyed, blood all over the ground, Marines celebrating, civilians dead, and “it was good day”!

The Massey incident goes beyond the mendacity of military life. It concerns the control, the dehumanization of the psyches of our troops.

As one Vietnam veteran put it years ago: “They kept fucking with my mind.”

In 1994 Jonathan Shay, staff psychiatrist in the Department of Veterans Affairs, published a pioneering work on post traumatic stress – Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. According to Shay, who recorded volumes of testimony from Vietnam veterans, commanders routinely try to efface the perceptions and the normal feelings of compassion among American troops. Military necessity, including the ever-present need for political propaganda, determines what is perceived, and how it is perceived, in war.

It was an extremely common experience in Vietnam, Shay writes, to be told by military superiors dealing with crime and trauma: “You didn’t experience it, it never happened, and you don’t know what you know.” And it was fairly common for traumatized soldiers to say to reporters: “It didn’t happen. And besides, they had it coming.” Shay recorded the testimony of one veteran who, in great anger, describes the pressures to alter his perceptions of collective murder.

“Daylight came, and we found out we killed a lot of fishermen and kids...You said to the team, ‘Don’t worry about it. Everything’s fucking fine.’ Because that’s what we were getting from upstairs. The fucking colonel says, ‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll take care of it. We got body count.’ They’d be handing out fucking medals for killing civilians. So in your mind you’re saying, ‘Ah, fuck it, they’re just gooks.’ I was sick over it, after this happened. I actually puked my guts out...But see, it’s all explained to you by captains and colonels and majors. ‘Fuck it, they was suspects anyways. You guys did a great job. Erase it. It’s yesterday’s fucking news.’”

Willful Ignorance at Home
The collective process of denial on the battlefield eventually extends to the homeland. Returning soldiers, to be sure, are often honored, but only so long as they remain silent about the realities, the pathos, the absurd evils of war. Willful public ignorance is a source of pain for veterans.

Ernest Hemingway’s brilliant short story, Soldier’s Home, published in 1925 after World War I, gives us insight into the reluctance of civilians to address the psychic needs of soldiers back from war.

The simply told story is about a young man named Krebs who returns to his home in Oklahoma. At first Krebs does not want to talk about the war. But soon he feels the need to speak - to his family, his neighbors and friends. But as Hemingway tells us, “Nobody wanted to hear about it.” His town did not want to learn about atrocities, and “Krebs found that to be listened to at all he had to lie.”

There’s the rub. His ability to assimilate into civilian life depended on his willingness to fabricate stories about the war. Soldiers are not only expected to lie on behalf of the military during the course of war, they are also expected to participate in homecoming rituals that preserve the civilian fantasy of war’s nobility.

In Hemingway’s story, the pressure to lie is so powerful, Krebs begins to manufacture stories about his experiences in battle - just to get along, just be able to lead a normal life.
Repression, however, is a major cause of mental illness and loneliness. Krebs morale deteriorates. He sleeps late in bed. He loses interest in work. He withdraws into himself.
That’s all Hemingway tells us. It’s a quietly told story, all the more powerful for its understatement.

There is a connection between Hemingway’s war-informed fiction and real life. As Shay notes, there is a tension between a soldier’s need to communalize shame and grief and the unwillingness of civilians to listen to troops whom they sent into battle.

One Vietnam veteran told the following story:
“I had just come back from Vietnam and my first wife’s parents gave a dinner for me and my parents and her brothers and their wives. And after dinner we were all sitting in the living room and her father said: ‘So, tell us what it was like.’ And I started to tell them, and I told them. And do you know that within five minutes the room was empty. They were all gone, except my wife. After that I didn’t tell anybody what I had seen in Vietnam.”

Welcome home, soldier. Now shut up.
Notwithstanding clichés and pieties about support for troops, those who promote war are often the least likely to share the burdens and memories of war when soldiers return. When Ron Kovic, who was paralyzed from the chest down during the war in Vietnam, steered his wheelchair down the aisle of the Republican National Convention in 1972, the delegates spat on him and cheered for Nixon - “Four more years.”

W.D. Erhart, Vietnam veteran and author of Passing Time, never forgot the horrific episodes of his tour in Vietnam. In his first autobiography, he tells a friend about his speech at a Rotary Club. “I even put on a coat and tie and went to the Rotary Club. The Rotary Club, for chrissake. I laid it all out for ‘em. I told ‘em about search and destroy missions, harassment and interdiction fire, winning hearts and minds, all that stuff...Was I ever sharp that day.
“Now listen. You won’t believe this. I got done and nobody said a word. No applause. Nothing. Then this skinny old fart shaped like a cold chisel gets up and says he’s a retired colonel, and he thinks we should keep on pounding those little yellow bastards until they do what we say or we kill ‘em all, and he tells me I can’t be a real veteran because a real veteran wouldn’t go around badmouthing the good old U.S. of A., and the whole place erupts in thunderous applause.”

Welcome home, soldier. Now shut up.
Today Georgia Stillwell is a mother of a 21-year-old Iraqi war veteran. Her son is now homeless, unemployed, and despondent. Early one morning he drove his car over an embankment. She says that her son is a mere physical shell of himself. “My son’s spirit and soul must still be wandering the streets of Iraq.” It is not simply what happened in Iraq, but how veterans are treated at home when they seek to unburden their souls, that reinforces post-traumatic stress. On the night he drove the car off the road, he was crying, talking about the war. “His friends tell me he talks about the war. They describe it as ‘crazy talk.’ He wants the blood of the Iraqis he killed off his hands.”

“Each generation,” writes Chris Hedges, “discovers its own disillusionment, often at a terrible price. And the war in Iraq has begun to produce legions of the lost and the damned.” For our morally courageous veterans - for all of us, really, who seek forgiveness - only the truth can heal.

BlackCommentator.com Guest Commentator, Paul Rockwell, is a writer living in the Bay Area. He is also a columnist for In Motion Magazine. Click here to reach Mr. Rockwell.


Home


Any BlackCommentator.com article may be re-printed so long as it is re-printed in its entirety and full credit given to the author and www.BlackCommentator.com. If the re-print is on the Internet we additionally request a link back to the original piece on our Website.
Your comments are always welcome.
eMail re-print notice
If you send us an eMail message we may publish all or part of it, unless you tell us it is not for publication. You may also request that we withhold your name.
Thank you very much for your readership.

What will happen in the Arctic this summer 2008?

Thin Ice: The Arctic Meltdown Explained
By Andrea Thompson, Senior Writer

posted: 27 June 2008 05:32 pm ET

If the North Pole becomes ice-free this summer — the odds for that are 50-50, one scientist says — that doesn't mean that the whole Arctic region will become an open ocean.

Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado told The Independent, a London-based newspaper, "I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out."

The article, posted on the newspaper's Web site Friday, generated some confusion as to what would actually happen at the North Pole, and in the Arctic Ocean as a whole, as the summer melt season gears up in the next few weeks.

In a telephone interview with LiveScience, Serreze explained that a melt-out at the North Pole wouldn't mean that all Arctic ice would melt. Rather, the thin, newly-formed ice around 90 degrees latitude could melt away for a few days. Such an event would be significant, he said, because any holes that have appeared in the ice at the North Pole up until now have been a result of winds pushing the sea ice around and creating cracks, not the melt-related processes that have taken hold in the Arctic in recent years.

Usually, the North Pole is covered with thick, perennial ice that forms over several years. But during last summer's record melt, which opened up the fabled Northwest Passage, a substantial amount of older ice melted. (Typically only the thinner, first-year ice melts in the summer, while the thick, perennial ice survives.) Average sea ice extent at the end of the summer was 1.65 million square miles (4.28 million square kilometers), almost 30 percent lower than the previous record low.

As winter cooled the Arctic waters, ice re-formed over the ocean, as it usually does. But this newly formed ice is thinner, first-year ice, more susceptible to melting once summer comes around again.

As it happened, wind patterns and ocean currents over the last few months moved that newly formed ice smack over the North Pole, setting up the situation where at least a temporarily ice-free North Pole could form.

"It's this symbolic thing, I think," Serreze told LiveScience. "This is where Santa Claus lives ... it kind of hits you in the stomach."

The North Pole isn't the only part of the Arctic Ocean covered with this newly-formed ice — a substantial part of the region is capped by this thin frozen veneer. That "we're going to lose a bunch of ice," is more or less certain, Serraze said, but just where that melt will occur is "a roll of the dice."

One factor affecting where and how much ice will melt this summer is the somewhat higher ice extent that re-froze this winter. (While the winter extent was higher this year than last year, it was still about 390,000 square miles (1 million kilometers) smaller than average — that's equal to an area about the size of Texas and New Mexico combined.

Sea ice forms not by spreading out along the surface of the ocean, but rather as water just below the ice freezes onto the underside of the ice. This means that more ice probably also means slightly thicker ice, said Josefino Comiso of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, which helps monitor sea ice coverage. Thicker ice is more likely to survive the summer and become second-year ice, becoming thicker still in the winter.

The North Pole is also cooler than lower Arctic latitudes, meaning North Pole ice could better resist melting. Even if it does, there's still the possibility that winds could move the ice around so that a hole that formed at a lower latitude could be pushed over the North Pole, making it ice-free, Serreze said.

It's these weather patterns that scientists will be watching in the coming weeks to get a better sense of what will happen in the Arctic this summer. Serreze says that a warm spring season has put melting about on par with where it was at this point last year.

But other scientists say this summer's melt is unlikely to be as spectacular as last year's.

"We may not see a record minimum at all," said Tharston Markus, also of Goddard.

Scientists are monitoring the sea ice extent daily and say that after the main melt occurs over the next few weeks, they'll have a better idea of what the minimum extent, which typically occurs in mid-September, might be. For now though, all they can do is watch and wait.


Video: Melting Sea Ice Seen From Orbit
http://www.livescience.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=080404-sea-ice
Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
North vs. South Poles: 10 Wild Differences

http://www.wearechange.org/whoischange.html..compatible con ideario Bolivariano?

Who Is Change

We Are Change is a citizens based grassroots peace and social justice movement working to reveal the truth behind the events of September 11th, as well as the lies of the government and corporate elite who remain suspect in this crime.

In addition, we are here to aid the sick and dying first responders through fundraising and social outreach programs in order to promote awareness of those who suffer from physical, emotional, and psychological traumas they received in the aftermath of 9-11.

We also seek to meet other local citizens who are interested in educating the public while engaging in peaceful demonstration about the pertinent issues that are affecting our lives each and every day.

Furthermore, We Are Change is a nonpartisan independent media organization comprised of patriot journalists working to hold those engaging in activities that do not represent the wishes of “We the People” - by asking the hard questions that the controlled mainstream media refuses to do.

We Are Change has arisen from the remnants of our republic to fill the vacancy left by those who swore to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution against all enemies – foreign and domestic. We seek to expose the fraud of the left/right paradigm and reveal that the world truly functions on a top/down hierarchy that threatens to destroy free society as we know it.

We Are Change works to educate, motivate, and activate those striving to uncover the truth behind the private banking cartel of the military industrial complex that is directing the majority of U.S. policy, and that is actively seeking to eliminate national sovereignty and replace it with a "one world order." We will also continue to move in a direction that reconnects “We the People” to our nations founding principles laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

We Are Change also seek an uncompromising and independent investigation into the crimes of 9-11, with subpoena power granted to obtain a long-overdue resolution for the survivors and families of the deceased. We reject the official explanation of the events leading up to, during and after the attacks of September 11th, 2001 as well as the fear-based politics and state mandated propaganda being disseminated by the Corporate Media which has facilitated the cover-up of 9-11.

As we establish citizens groups throughout the country and world, we wish to inspire a community of truth-seekers and peacemakers through creative campaigns with a commitment of nonviolence. We Are Change is not so much a group but an idea, an idea that “We the People" are the vehicles of these "ideas" and of the freedoms, liberties, and truths we are seeking all across the globe.

An idea that captures the spirits of our forefathers who just desired freedom; that together, as residents of this planet, we grow like a snowball of truth and justice rolling down a mountain of tyranny growing bigger and stronger, recognizing the beauty in our differences and the diverseness of each other, but at the same time strengthening our cause because we learn and grow from each others individuality. Then as we learn to come together, that as one, you, me, him, her, us…will realize that WE ARE CHANGE.

Code of Conduct
We Are Change is a peaceful organization that does not discriminate in any way. We are tolerant of all regardless of racial, religious, ethnic or sexual orientation. We denounce any individual or group that would speak in our name and that would not adhere to these precepts. Anyone violating these principles will be asked by the group to leave permanently as a destructive individual working against the goals that We Are Change is striving to achieve. As a nation in crisis and a realization that time is not on our side, there will be no tolerance for anything other than an effort to preserve national sovereignty and to seek truth and justice for all through non-violent policies based on open government, public awareness, compassion, kindness and a commitment to Constitutional law.

We Are Change recognizes all members have inalienable rights as sovereign individuals written in the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights and that such rights shall be honored at all times

No provocation of violence will be tolerated under any circumstances
Racial, sexual, religious, age or discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated
No group member shall use language in public that will inflame others to violent action
No group member shall destroy the property, tangible or intangible, of others, public or private.
All members will treat each other with respect at all times

Weekly Meetings
Weekly meetings should be held to discuss and debate any issue pertaining to the group as well as projects and upcoming events

Only cordial and polite debate about topics shall be discussed and all members with reframe from using profanity to ensure civil discussion is engaged

All expenditures will be presented to the group with statements presented on the first meeting of every month detailing expenses and money accrued

Reimbursements for expenses will only be fulfilled if approved by group
Any persons intoxicated or disrupting will be asked to leave by a majority vote of the group

Street Actions
During street actions, a single engagement of people asking questions will be honored no ganging up on anyone asking questions or seeking information
Yelling or screaming at members of the public will not be tolerated

Cointelpro will not be tolerated
If anyone is thought to be engaging in such activities a camera shall immediately be put on them, exposing that they are acting as an agent provocateur and an individual not connecting to We Are Change in any way
Respect towards FDNY and NYPD
Derogatory comments disseminated towards NYPD, FDNY or any law enforcement of any kind will not be tolerated
We Are Change is a bottom to top organization where all members shall be treated as equals
All group members shall strive to set an example for those around them, especially those younger, so they will know how to behave in confrontational situations
All members will take responsibility for their own actions and accept the consequences of their actions
We Are Change is tolerant of all political viewpoints and does not endorse and particular political group
Any persons with a history of any actions that violates the aforementioned policies will be expelled from the organization by a majority vote of the group

All footage shot by cameras purchased through We Are Change funds shall be considered property of We Are Change and not of the individual shooting the footage
We Are Change does not condone the use of the name without consent of the group

<http://www.wearechange.org >>

Code of Conduct
© 2008 WEARECHANGE.ORG
HOME ACTIONS FORUM WHO IS CHANGE? GET EDUCATED