Let us Africans do the talking

I found an article via Linkfilter, authored by an African who takes issue with the recent Live 8 concerts.

"We have nothing against those who this month, in a stadium, a street, a park, in Berlin, London, Moscow, Philadelphia, gathered crowds and played guitar and talked about global poverty and aid for Africa. But we are troubled to think that they are so misguided about what Africa's real problem is, and dismayed by their willingness to propose solutions on our behalf.

We Africans know what the problem is, and no one else should speak in our name. Africa has men of letters and science, great thinkers and stifled geniuses who at the risk of torture rise up to declare the truth and demand liberty.

Don't insult Africa, this continent so rich yet so badly led. Instead, insult its leaders, who have ruined everything. Our anger is all the greater because despite all the presidents for life, despite all the evidence of genocide, we didn't hear anyone at Live 8 raise a cry for democracy in Africa."

I tend to agree with that. It's been pretty obvious for decades what the problems have been, but we usually only hear about the drouts, famines, plagues and civil wars of just a few of that huge continents countries. Never mind the devastation left behind after the colonial era, that left ruined social, economic and political infrastructures in its' wake, the problem today is freedom. They don't have any, and won't, as long as more powerful countries continue to support their corrupt leaders. Sending them a little food isn't going to solve anything.

"But the truth is that it was not for us, for Africa, that the musicians at Live 8 were singing; it was to amuse the crowds and to clear their own consciences, and whether they realized it or not, to reinforce dictatorships.

They still believe us to be like children that they must save, as if we don't realize ourselves what the source of our problems is."

The Official Yesterday USA Home Page

I have a life-long passion for Old-Time Radio shows, and have a vast collection on cassette, LPs, MP3s, and RealAudio. Sometimes I listen to them all day. One of my sources for streaming them on the internet is Yesterday USA. I'm listening to a mystery right now.

Privacy-Security

Eric Howes' Privacy & Security Page is an all-time favorite site of mine. It contains links to a wealth of information on computer security and privacy, that I've had bookmarked for years.

Sensational Trials

I wrote this for myself, back on June 17th, not really planning to publish it, but since I've got this blog now, why not.

I just managed to successfully avoid yet another story about the Michael Jackson verdict, and I once again find myself in the same state of mind as I was after the OJ trial; "Who gives a fuck!!". Just like all the other high profile celebrity trials of the past, I find it amazing that so many people get worked up over shit that doesn't affect them. They get all excited over the outcome of these high profile cases as if these things (ie; unpopular verdicts) happen all the time. As if the results of these cases are indicitive of a new/growing problem with the justice system. History shows this is nothing new, nothing's really changed. For this, I blame the public, as well as the media, in that order. The public, because of their obsession with celebrity, and their misunderstanding of why our system is the way it is. Our system, though far from perfect, is among the best around, precisly because the accused have so many rights. They have those rights BECAUSE the system is not perfect. Those who created it knew that it wasn't, and wouldn't be perfect. They also knew that they did not want what they had previously been subjected too; no rights at all for the accused. Being accused does not make you guilty. At the time, they had a choice to make, and they chose a system where it would be better to let the guilty go free, in favor of convicting the innocent. We the people, favored that system, because we knew that if we didn't MAKE the state present the best possible arguement for convictions, then all they would have to do is SAY that a person is guilty, and that's that. That kind of behavior is not what Americans used to want, and that's why we have a system that allows defendants to have rights, and those with the means, to get the best possible defense. It makes the government actually work to get a conviction, rather than just locking someone away because they, or some angry mob, says so. Gossip and suspicion, are not evidence.

Thanks to the creators of this system, people falsly accused, at least have a chance at preventing an injustice. If you want to know what life would be like without those "rights", just listen to the people around you. Listen to how they jump to conclusions about people and events, especially when you know they don't have all the facts, or have some pre-existing bias. When they just hear the accusation, they make the snap judgement that that person is guilty. It's that old saying; "where there's smoke, there's fire". Well, it may be true that there's a fire, but the smoke sometimes makes things unclear and distorted, and it's only with proper investigation, and the publics' right to fair treatment by it's government, that forces the "firefighters" to seek out the facts, instead of just relying on inuendo, circumstantial evidence that could point in several directions, manufactured evidence, or, just because they, or some angry mob, say so.

People need to remember that the government, any government, is essentually lazy, and wants to do as little as possible to achieve it's goals. They need to make the state work it's ass off for a conviction, and even then, they need to remember that there just isn't always enough evidence to convict the guilty. People are now in the habit of blaming the judges and jurys of "letting scum go free", without ever setting foot in those coutrooms to hear for themselves exactly what the evidence is, and how it's presented. They hear only what's being spoon-fed to them through press conferences via a media that is almost always biased in favor of whatever the state says. How much does the media influence your opinions on how effective (or not) the sytem is working? At a guess, I'd say 100%, unless you're personally involved, or at least place yourself in the court room for the duration of the trial. When people blame jurys for letting people off, they are also forgetting that the jurors do not always hear what we hear from the media, like all the "he said, she said" crap that's inadmissable as evidence. "We", the non jurors, are at the mercy of the medias' interpretation of what THEY consider is important, "sensational news". The media is not interested in "truth and justice", only ratings. I repeat, ratings. It's in their best interest to stir things up any way they can, for ratings, so that after bringing in all their "experts", "consultants", and "coutroom advisers", who are discussing "what ifs", and "maybes", that by the end of a trial, if the person is aquitted, everyones' pissed because they've been conditioned to expect a conviction. Convicted by what's commonly referred to as the court of public opinion. A manipulated opinion.

The bottom line is that the creators of this system knew all this, and wanted to protect us all from not only an omnipotent state machine, but also from mob rule, which is even more dangerous than a uncaring government. So, in my opinion, the problems with the justice system, is the publics' perception of it, fueled by emotional reactions to media presentation and manipulation. That's what needs to be changed, not judges, not jurys, not removals of defendants rights, and not new laws.

Personally, I don't give a damn about Michael Jackson, OJ, Martha Stewart, Robert Blake, or any other high profile cases. They don't matter, they don't count. They are only the tiniest examples, and can't possibly reflect the actual status of the state of the system. My growing concern lies in the possibility that cases like these may lead to an erosion of defendants (our) rights, to the point where all that's required for convictions, are enough people "saying" someone is guilty. In that world, it will be necessary to kiss everyones ass, lest you piss them off enough to accuse you of something. At that point, you'll wish you had those rights back!

And just to be clear on all this, I'm only referring above, to "defendants' rights", not the rights of convicted prisoners. That's an entirely different can-o-worms, I'll save for another time ;)