Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Update: New Info on Blogetery Takedown Raises More Questions

Update: New Info on Blogetery Takedown Raises More Questions

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The news that the government pressured Burst.net to take down 73,000 websites still hasn’t made much of a mark in the mainstream media, but it is starting to get coverage in the tech media and new details are emerging which raise even more questions.

Contrary to early reports the target of the government action may not have been piracy or file sharing, though those issues may have been the subject of a separate investigation. It is now clear tht the agency behind the takedown of Blogetery.com was not the office of the Intellectual Property Czar and that the Digital Millenium Copyright Law may not have been involved. The new story is that the target was an online magazine called Inspire which has connections to al-Qaeda and was designed as a terrorist recruiting and training tool. Specific concerns included the presence of bomb making information and some sort of terrorist “hit list.”

The FBI’s role in this was apparently only to request user information about several sites from the ISP under a provision of the criminal code which does not require a warrant. Burst.net then overreacted and assumed that the FBI would want to seize the entire server and shut down all of the Blogetery.com sites in response.

However, based on statements from the operator of Blogetery.com he has still not been informed of what type of material was on the target sites or been contacted by the FBI or any other law enforcement group and Burst.net will not divulge the reasons why his service was shut down.

While some basic facts have come out, many aspects of this story still appear to be mostly speculation with key information still withheld by the parties involved.  Many questions remain about the nature of any crimes involved and the rights of users in such a situation.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    That straw’s looking mighty thin, Dave.

  • zingzing

    thank you, dave.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz Alan Kurtz

    Dave, the link you provide in your first paragraph to coverage in the tech media belies your conclusion that “Reports on this story still appear to be mostly speculation with no real information forthcoming from any of the parties involved.”

    To the contrary, the CNET article repeatedly quotes Burst.net’s chief technology officer, Joe Marr, who does indeed provide real information from one of the parties involved: (1) FBI agents informed Burst.net executives that links to al-Qaeda materials were found on Blogetery’s servers; (2) a Burst.net employee erred in telling the media that the FBI ordered it to terminate Blogetery’s service, something Burst.net did on its own; (3) the FBI has never ordered Burst.net to stop service to any site it hosts without a court order; (4) the vast majority of Burst.net’s communication with the federal government has involved agents serving warrants related to terrorist or child porn investigations; (5) the FBI sent Burst.net a Voluntary Emergency Disclosure of Information request stating the terrorist material, which presented a threat to American lives, was found on Blogetery; (6) Burst.net terminated Blogetery’s service because bomb-making tips and a hit list are an obvious and absolute violation of its terms of service.”

    Dave, I can understand why your first article on this topic factually missed the mark. You wrote it when there was nothing but uninformed speculation ricocheting around the net. Now, however, there is considerably more background available. For you to continue claiming, as do in this piece, that there’s “no real information forthcoming from any of the parties involved” is just plain dishonest.

  • http://marksaleski.com Mark Saleski

    @alankurtz…of course! what would you expect? the reality of the situation doesn’t align with dave’s narrative, so a little “adjustment” is in order.

    but no matter, it’s being promoted on the bc front page so all is well. page hits is page hits.

    and the tyranny keyword is a nice touch. you may still have a future writing copy for fox news.

  • zingzing

    i hope all those that declared this the beginning of fascism in america would be kind enough to be honest about the situation and toss a little “i was wrong” into the ring. but you know what, they won’t. just cowardly blowhards that let paranoia and fear run their lives. it’s pathetic and stupid. let’s see if there’s one brave american, willing to admit he/she was wrong. is there? i fucking doubt it.

    dave nalle
    kenn jacobine
    elvira black
    cannonshop
    christine
    ruvy
    joanne huspek
    ronald acker
    archie

    …are you cowardly blowhards, crippled with paranoia and fear, or were you simply wrong?

    i’ll wait.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Alan, the things you bring up in your comment are addressed in various degrees of specificity in this article. I provided the link to make the rest of the details more easily available. NewsFlash articles are limited to 300 words and I didn’t want to just repeat the CNET article because I thought it was important to also point out some of the ambiguities in the info which is out there.

    I’ll remember never to update an outdated article again. Clearly it doesn’t pay.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    Zing, why would anyone apologize? The government still behaves outrageously day in and day out.

    Dave

  • Jordan Richardson

    Anyone would apologize if they had a little integrity, Dave. This wasn’t a broad scope post about the evils of government; it was a specific “news” story that was dead wrong and only served a purpose in advancing your agenda.

    If you had integrity, you’d apologize.

  • zingzing

    dave: “Zing, why would anyone apologize? The government still behaves outrageously day in and day out.”

    #1, because you were wrong. and i didn’t say apologize. i said admit you were wrong. and if you had any real integrity and humanity, you’d admit to it. otherwise, you just look like a liar.

    #2, because this has become a pattern. you (the right wing in general) say “look! this government is [racist/fascist/evil] because of [x/y/z]!” and then those things are proven wrong again and again and again. the death panels? the birthers? the bowing before saudi/chinese leaders? this? acorn? sherrod?

    this shit has been going on for too long. you’re paranoid wack-jobs. it’s time to admit you’re wrong. or it’s time to admit that you’re just stirring up bullshit in order to incriminate this administration. you’ve come up with nothing but easily disproved nonsense since obama took the presidency.

    it’s like watching a toddler flail about thinking it’s world is over because it’s pacifier is in the dirt. it’s disgusting. stop it. every time you do it, you just lose more credibility. and integrity.

    you just make yourself look like a fool when you do this shit, so cut it out. find something real.

  • zingzing

    and that goes for all of the right wing, especially those who comment here, who i named in #5. you are cowards and fools.

  • zingzing

    and 4 hours later, i still wait for a single rightwinger to admit they came to the wrong conclusion.

    pathetic. you people really need to look in the mirror and ask why it is that you believe the bullshit you believe.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “I’ll remember never to update an outdated article again.”

    And yet you haven’t done that really, have you? I mean, not really. I just went to that article and see no correction, update, or link to this article so a person would know the information there was wrong and incomplete. No, there it sits for anyone to take at face value as they stumble across it.

    Sure, you made an attempt here to straighten the record, but why did you not submit to digg or post on your facebook page like you did with the original piece? That’s rhetorical. I know you don’t like the facts getting in the way of your agenda.

    It is very odd that you are willing to inflict so much damage upon yourself in an effort to take down your enemies.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    EB, there’s a link to the previous article in the first paragraph of this article where it specifically says that the previous article was based on information which quickly became out of date.

    I realize it’s fun to bash on me, but you might want to read the article you’re responding to, because these demands for an apology (for what I have no idea) look ridiculous in combination with not having actually read this article.

    You also all seem not to grasp that at the time the first article was written it was reporting the facts, such as they were, at the time it was written and subsequently more information was revealed. The first article was not wrong, it just became dated.

    And EB, who are these “enemies” I’m trying to take down here? The FBI? Burst.net? Your reasoning here is extremely peculiar.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Dave, I saw that this article links back to the previous one, but that has nothing to do with my comment. My point was the previous article doesn’t link here. How would anyone reading the first article know the information there is “outdated”?

    As of last night, you certainly made no effort to promote this one in the same manner as the previous, and you still haven’t dugg it, so spare the coy routine.

    And I never asked for an apology, so who is it that responding without reading?

    “who are these “enemies” I’m trying to take down here?”

    From what I’ve read, it’s the federal government.

    “I don’t think, LB, you’re very much concerned about Dave inflicting damage to himself.”

    Not “very much”, no. I mean I’m certainly not losing sleep over it but I do find it interesting that Dave is some times his own worst enemy here.

  • Baronius

    Whatever, Zing. The entire right wing doesn’t have to apologize to you for anything, because a lot of us didn’t buy into the original story. Dave did the right thing by writing a follow-up article. As for updating the old article, I’ve never seen that done on BC and I don’t know if they even have the software for it. Maybe you owe *us* an apology. (I can’t think of why you would, but it sounds confrontational, so I’m going with it.)

  • zingzing

    baronius, the right wing has proven time and time again that it is quite willing to distort the news for its own purposes. i’m (and i’m sure i’m not the only one) getting quite sickened by this happening time after time after time. it’s ridiculous and shows the level of political discourse in this country is being shit upon by the right wing. you (general) just lie and then, when proven wrong, forget about it.

    that said, i never asked for a single apology (how many times do i have to say that? read, people… it’s getting to be another one of your flaws…), i asked for a single one of those right wingers who jumped on this story as “definitive proof” of fascism in this country to just admit they were wrong. then i listed specific names. see yourself on there, baronius? nope. so don’t “whatever” me.

    those people on that list are pathetic.

    and i thanked dave for his follow up. yet he, nor anyone else after the news was revealed, backpedalled at all on their cries of “fascism!” or “trouncing of the first amendment!” or whatever. they just shrugged and slunk off, like cowards. it’s hard to admit it when you’re wrong, i know, but the right is getting so out of practice with it (and so good at being slimy), that i doubt they even remember how.

  • zingzing

    dave: “The first article was not wrong, it just became dated.”

    no dave, it’s wrong. very wrong. wrong facts, wrong conclusions, wrong everything. there’s nothing right about it.

  • zingzing

    and baronius, yes, articles can be updated. it’s a blog, not rocket science. ever seen an editor (like dave…) add in links or move pictures or fix text after the article has already seen initial publication? well, then, you can update. so don’t give me that.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And this article is still wrong in that it claims that the government “pressured” Burst.net to take down Blogetery.

    What actually seems happened was that the FBI requested information, and Burst.net overreacted. Any “pressure” exerted is therefore entirely a matter of perception (whether it be Burst.net’s or Dave’s).

  • Ruvy

    Why are you whining, zingzing? I stated that it was my opinion that your country was sliding towards a dictatorship under a fascist system of governance. I rely on people with considerably more authority and expertise than you possess (like trends forecaster Gerald Celente, for one) to state with authority that the system of government that you have now is fascism.

    Perhaps it would do you well to read up on what fascism really is instead of assuming that you know. Most folks don’t know and use the name to mean evil.

  • zingzing

    but ruvy, your opinion of my country is completely slanted. and if i’m living under fascism, the definition of which i am well aware, that comes as a surprise to me. your gerald celente seems to be rather confused and would probably state that most nations are living under fascism if he thinks this nation is.

  • Ruvy

    Celente may be confused, zing, but he is a trends forecaster who has called a whole load of events with prescient accuracy. In a different age, he would have been burnt at the stake as a wizard.

    I don’t like Celente. He is an arrogant, self-promoting publicity hound who has no use for Israel. But my mere dislike of some of his opinions or his character cannot prejudice me with respect to his successful record. When the man is right, he is right, and he has been right more times than I care to consider.

    If anyone is confused, zing, it is you. Fascism is not a system that automatically is a dictatorship. It is not a racial system of persecution. It is an economic system by which government and business merge together in their operations – which is precisely what you saw develop in Sept. 2008 under Bush, and deepen under the reign of Obama. However, it has the tendency to evolve into a dictatorship, and where there is sufficient racism, then the racism develops persecutorial tendencies.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, did i say that fascism is a dictatorship with racial persecution? nope. i know perfectly well what defines fascism. and i’ve read up on its history. it’s quite an assumption to assume that the person your talking to doesn’t know what you’re talking about. i can’t count how many times people have pointed that out in the last 20 years of my life. it’s ridiculous.

    does it strike you as strange that those gov’t takeovers of various corporations are very, very temporary? i know what you’ll say to that, but i firmly believe that these are not designed as, nor will the end up being, permanent takeovers. if you want to believe something else, we’ll just see who is right and who is wrong in the end.

    as for trends forecasting, there are obviously two ways you can look at it. i can clean the floor, and as i’m doing so, can forecast that it will eventually be clean. i can also clean the floor, and as i’m doing so, forecast that it will be clean, but will eventually become dirty again. i think you celente may have left off a certain possible inevitability in his assumptions.

  • Baronius

    Alan – We used to have a regular around here who would recite a list of every slight against him, real or imagined. There were plenty of both. It gets uninteresting pretty quickly. It also fans the flames. It’s like telling little kids that they can have anything to eat except the special dessert in the fridge. They’ll rip the door off the refrigerator within a minute.

    The best revenge is living well, or online, writing well.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Right on, Zing. You do righteous indignation better than anyone else on here, and eloquently too. The immediate overreaction your comments received from several rightists only serves to validate you.

  • http://blogcritics.org Eric Olsen

    sadly, due to all the personal attacks this comment thread will have to be edited. I think the best we can do is a third article on the subject, bringing the most current information to light. Whatever happened happened, we have no need to spin it

  • John Wilson

    Zing is right.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, I saw that this article links back to the previous one, but that has nothing to do with my comment. My point was the previous article doesn’t link here. How would anyone reading the first article know the information there is “outdated”?

    Good point. I’ll correct it.

    As of last night, you certainly made no effort to promote this one in the same manner as the previous, and you still haven’t dugg it, so spare the coy routine.

    Think about it, EB. Clearly the facts on this issue are not yet all in evidence and it’s likely this article will end up needing further revision down the road too. Surely you think it was a mistake to promote the first article, so why would you want me to promote this one?

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Eric, I fully intend to do a third article, but I think we need to wait because it’s quite clear that this issue has not finished playing out.

    My mistake, I guess, for trying to bring out a breaking story on BC. Apparently people would rather not hear about things as they happen with the limitations you have when stories first break and the info comes from limited sources.

    But IMO the behavior of commenters here has been incredibly immature, naive and abusive.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    dave: “The first article was not wrong, it just became dated.”

    no dave, it’s wrong. very wrong. wrong facts, wrong conclusions, wrong everything. there’s nothing right about it.

    Zing, at the time the original article was written it was taken from the only facts in the only sources there were on the story and there are links to those sources. The same is true of this article.

    Sure, it subsequently turned out to be based on misinformation, but you can hardly blame me for that. Plus this isn’t even a partisan issue, so you can’t use your usual excuse of bias. You’re just being cranky and have unrealistic expectations.

    If you want to hear about things when they happen and before the MSM picks up on them you have to be mature enough to assume a bit of risk that the facts might change, and of course the conclusions might change along with them.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave: “Good point. I’ll correct it.”

    really? if so, good on you.

    “But IMO the behavior of commenters here has been incredibly immature, naive and abusive.”

    dave, the original article was a travesty. this article was certainly better, but you certainly were never abused in any way you didn’t deserve. it’s naive to think that you’d get away with what you did on that first article. it’s not just that you got the facts wrong (which is understandable), but it’s the conclusions (and editorializing) you jumped to (which were inexcusable in a “news” article). you should know better.

  • zingzing

    dave: “Sure, it subsequently turned out to be based on misinformation, but you can hardly blame me for that.”

    as i just said, that’s not the worst part of it. it’s the conclusions and editorializing.

    “Plus this isn’t even a partisan issue, so you can’t use your usual excuse of bias.”

    by insinuating (well, that’s the wrong word) that the obama admin was attacking our 1st amendment rights, which he clearly wasn’t, you made it partisan and biased. you ARE biased, dave. i am as well. you know it.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, do you really want me to write an article on all the areas in which the Obama administration is attacking first amendment rights? So far I’ve held off because it’s been so well covered, but if you insist…

  • zingzing

    dave, if it’s not just the usual right wing rhetoric, go for it. keep the facts straight. it would, however, be nice if you’d admit you got this one wrong.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    IMO the behavior of commenters here has been incredibly immature, naive and abusive.

    If you had enough self-awareness to include yourself in that criticism, you’d earn more respect here. It’s your own comments, more than the articles themselves [except for the ludicrous title of the first one], that are at issue.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’ll second that.

    However, I would urge you to remove “no foreigners” disclaimer from your bio. Couldn’t we do that?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t believe everyone ganging up on Dave here. Sure, he’s motivated by an agenda, but who isn’t? Besides, Dave hasn’t been on BC comment threads for quite some time now. Which leads me to believe that some posters have a personal vendetta against him, for past sins. And the impression that’s being created that the liberal-thinking bunch is incapable of ever being wrong. Really?

    Can’t we just let it go and start from scratch?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    dave, can you explain the logic of creating a “newsflash” based upon something you heard on the news without actually doing any research or work of your own?

    Your article was just repeating stuff you heard elsewhere and wasn’t fit to be called news; refried news would have been appropriate.

    You can huff and puff all you want but it is pretty obvious that you only wrote the original article because it suited your blatant prejudices.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    So Chris, all of our newsflashes are now supposed to be based on original investigative journalism? I’ll keep that in mind.

    Look at the original article. It links to every single source on this subject which was available at the time and summarizes the information. That’s the essence of what a newsflash is supposed to be.

    Lisa or Eric can correct me if I’m wrong on that.

    Dave

  • Cannonshop

    #36 You really expect different, Roger? Seriously now? You’re one of the FEW Liberals on the site who don’t spend as much or more time grinding ideological axes as I do, and one of an even smaller number that don’t obsess over the past with regards to commenters here.

    So far as I can tell, certain members hold a grudge more convincingly than myself-a feat that is, IMHO, truly a feat, given my intemperate nature and tendency to bottle things up in real life until it gives me indigestion and odd heart-murmurs (not to mention a truly stunning insomnia problem).

    Dave posted a NEWS item, then, he posted a RETRACTION and certain persons are raking him over the coals for BOTH…not out of an interest in superior writing or factual accuracy, but out of a manifest need to try (and I say try, because it’s all it is) to do him some kind of, what, injury? to express their hatreds, maybe? Or maybe just to draw attention to themselves and admiration from those they consider their peers.

    Whatever motive it may be, it’s still achingly pathetic.

  • Mark

    Dave, had you started your piece with a phrase like, “it has been reported that…”, you wouldn’t have come across as such a gullible one out to produce a ‘spinflash.’

    Hopefully, Lisa and Eric will impress upon you that while getting it fast is important for newsflashes, getting it right is, too. imo, your editor should have asked some pertinent questions and sent you back to the drawing board.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop: “Dave posted a NEWS item, then, he posted a RETRACTION and certain persons are raking him over the coals for BOTH…not out of an interest in superior writing or factual accuracy, but out of a manifest need to try (and I say try, because it’s all it is) to do him some kind of, what, injury?”

    pathetic, cannonshop? it was an opinion piece masquerading as news, this doesn’t retract any of the opinions of that piece, and yes, we are hoping for factual accuracy. dave has done this stuff before and it has become a pattern.

    here is what dave lead YOU to believe, although i doubt you really believed it, as it’s far too silly: “ing, they didn’t go after those, because those sites you list (megaupload, rapidshare, mediafire, etc.) aren’t involved in criticizing the Regime. If you control the language, information sources, even their distribution, you not only control the debate, but you have the potential to weaken ideas by eliminating the language used to describe them, or changing its meaning by limiting and marginalizing (or eliminating) dissent.”

    funny shit, eh? it was an “achingly pathetic” understanding of the facts and an “achingly pathetic” bit of spin and editorializing that led to you to say that.

    will you admit it? or are you going to leave a trail of slime as you slink off?

  • Cannonshop

    Zing, given that I DO pay attention to legislation, and from that, draw my own understructural conclusions…

    I’m not going to say more than this: being wrong in one specific, narrow instance doesn’t mean being wrong across the board. It is my belief, that the modern Democrat Party shares more in terms of inclination with Stalinist or Fascist behaviour, than they do with the Democrats of FDR’s day, and more than that, they are further along the path to a society of serfdom than the Republican leaders are-and I despise the Republican Leadership for their totalitarian urges.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop: “being wrong in one specific, narrow instance doesn’t mean being wrong across the board.”

    if that’s as close as i’ll get, then i’ll take it.

  • Les Slater

    I see a pattern here. If Dave believes something, it must be false, and Dave claiming it… further proves its fallacy. It’s sort of like the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Very dangerous.

    I believe Cannonshop in 42 presents a more balanced perspective.

    But partisanship doesn’t help at all here. Many point the Bush’s as culprits, totally ignoring Clinton. This attack on democratic rights escalated sharply under Clinton and has not let up since. The Obama administration continues these attacks.

  • Les Slater

    One of the most disturbing comments that I read on the previous article was by Alan in his number 6:

    “But of course that still leaves many other law enforcement agencies that might have an interest in shutting down Blogetery.”

    Anybody notice how many cops there are these days? All sorts of agencies, including private, have police authority. The above statement implied the right of cops, in general, an abstraction, might have the right to close down an information source. How numb have we become?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the partisanship I’m displaying in these articles is. There’s nothing bout Obama or the Democratic party in either of them. All I can figure out is that there’s now something wrong with being partisan to the bill of rights and objecting to government agencies and laws like the DMCA trampling all over them.

    For the record, the DMCA which was the target of my first article, based I might add on speculation in an article on CNET not my original ideas, was passed by a REPUBLICAN Congress, not by Democrats. And the FBI which turns out to be the actual culprit is a nonpartisan agency and again was exercising anti-terorism powers given to it by a REPUBLICAN congress.

    The only reference in either article to democrats was a discussion in the comments of the possible involvement of one of the Obama Czars, again something which originated in that first CNET article which broke this story.

    And if I’m partisan for objecting to infringements on our 1st and 4th amendment rights which are clearly going on in this case, then I can live with that and those of you who think being concerned about that know where you can stick your attitude.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Hopefully, Lisa and Eric will impress upon you that while getting it fast is important for newsflashes, getting it right is, too. imo, your editor should have asked some pertinent questions and sent you back to the drawing board.

    Again, Mark – since you seem to be unable to grasp this – at the time I wrote the original article THERE WERE NO OTHER FACTS. The editor would have had only the sources I linked to in that article to refer to, just as I did, and as it turned out that original article which broke the story had highly speculative explanations of why the takedown happened.

    This second article was written after the original source issued their update and I was able to dig to find more new information, again pretty scanty but quite different.

    Now I’m writing a third article which goes into some more detail, but the core facts remain basically the same as in this article.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave, #46 is blatantly insincere. nice, try though.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz Alan Kurtz

    Les Slater (#45), you take out of context and quote my comment from another thread, “But of course that still leaves many other law enforcement agencies that might have an interest in shutting down Blogetery.” Then you misinterpret what I wrote. “The above statement implied,” you claim, “the right of cops, in general, an abstraction, might have the right to close down an information source.” That’s gourmet gunk goulash and you know it. I implied no such thing.

    I said other law enforcement agencies might have an interest in shutting down Blogetery. I said nothing about their right to do so.

    Les, however low your opinion might be of me, I am nevertheless a writer. I choose my words carefully. If I’d wanted to say what you infer, I would’ve stated it directly, not couched it in implication for you to willfully misconstrue.

    If you think this comment implies contempt towards you, let me say it explicitly: I do hold you in contempt. You self-righteously call for others to serve the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth, while at the same you twist the facts to suit your own grubby ideological purposes. It stinks, Les.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz Alan Kurtz

    Make that “at the same time you twist”

  • Les Slater

    Hey Alan,

    I don’t have a low opinion of you at all. I did not mean my 45 to be an attack on you. I said that statement was disturbing and to me it is. I did not say it was false and I don’t see anything sinister in you saying it.

    The fact that nobody else commented on it was the most disturbing thing about it. My contention is the truth of your statement is taken for granted. And I believe it is true.

    My concern is that we have accepted this police force, quite often without being particularly conscious of it. This pervasive police presence is a real problem.

    My ending, ‘How numb have we become?’ was directed at ‘we’, not ‘you’.

    Les

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dave often shows a split personality and allows himself to be far more obnoxious in the comments section than in his articles. Then someone reacts to the comments, and he says, “but my article is NOT partisan.” And so it goes.

    But your comments, Dave, are often breathtakingly narrow, blithely unfair, and very, very ideological, if not “partisan.”

  • Mark

    So, Dave, are you saying that any claim on any blog (particularly one like the Liberty Blog) is good enough to serve as the basis of a BC Newsflash?

    enigmax at torrentfreak had the good sense to qualify his report (on which all the other sources that you used were based) with “it appears that”. You could easily have hedged your bet and avoided the hoopla.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Our of curiosity, what is Liberty Blog?

    Dave

  • Cannonshop

    #44, good point, but it goes back further than even Clinton. This constant war against freedom has been going on as long as there’s been a United States of America. Telling cases are the Sedition Act of 1917, the HUAC hearings, the “Department of Information” In the 1940s and so on…

    but it’s definitely gotten worse since 1993 or so, though we can go back to Bush 1 and even the Reagan era (Omnibus Crime bill of 1988, which legalized sale of “Seizured” materials without a conviction first.)

    Post 1994 it’s just gotten more specific, and more directly political. The passage of the USA PATRIOT ACT and then reaffirmation of said writ of imperium should scare the hell out of anyone, Liberal or Conservative, Libertarian or Moderate (and thrill the Neofascists out there, along with the NeoStalinists…)

    Naturally, though, it’s getting through that Partisan blinder people have up-as long as ‘their guy’ is in charge, they don’t have a problem. (I know this, I used to argue with Republicans about this shit… statist bastards come in all shapes, colours and sizes.)

  • Les Slater

    Of course the greatest attack on democratic rights in this country was the terror that accompanied the institution of Jim Crow in the aftermath of the defeat or Radical Reconstruction. This terror was the base of the Democratic Party for many decades.

  • Les Slater

    Should be, ‘…defeat OF Radical Reconstruction.’

  • Mark

    The Liberty Blog…your source, Dave.

  • Les Slater

    “Our automatic software filters have blocked your comment, either because of something within the comment, or because of who we believe you are.”

    It was a short and simple statement about a certain population relocation during WWII by the Roosevelt administration.

  • Les Slater

    Is the word ‘internment’ banned here?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Yep, the word “internment” sure is banned. It’s almost like they’re running an internment camp for the word “interment.” Damn internment camps.

  • Les Slater

    Is the phrase Japanese Internment allowed?

  • Les Slater

    Editors, is there a log of what of mine was blocked on my first attempt at 59? Can this particular block be explained?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Les,

    It is usually a word that would relate to spam. A word, or series of letters that is used as a drug name, etc. Sometimes the banned item is in a URL one is trying to link to.

    I usually use a process of elimination to find out what the banned portion is.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Japanese internment, Hungarian internment, French internment, Polish internment, Canadian internment, and Muppet internment are all allowed.

    Honestly, sometimes that just happens. Could be a glitch. I’ve had my comments fall victim to that from time to time.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    muppet internment lol

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    no one is safe

  • Jordan Richardson

    It ain’t easy being green.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Les, I’ve had a look and can’t see anything of yours caught in the spam traps, otherwise I would have been happy to restore it.

    Cindy and Jordan are right: sometimes Akismet just blocks things for no readily apparent reason.

    At one point, the word ‘socialist’ even got blocked because it contains the name of a certain erectile dysfunction drug!

    The software is able to learn, and it’s a lot better than it used to be, but some of what it decides to zap is still baffling.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Concerning your #49, Alan, let me assure you that in none of my communications with Les have I ever detected even the slightest trace of an attempt to twist my words. And we continue to have many ideological disagreements.

  • Mark

    Come on, Dreadful. You know as well as I that Obama’s administration did it.

    Repeat after me: Akismet is my friend…Akismet is good

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Aside from the technical issues, let my go on record as saying that Alan, Mark, Cindy, Les – fuck me, because I don’t count – are paragons of integrity.

    Compare this now with the likes of El Bicho, Clavos, Lisa, Jordan and many other posters. Their lukewarm liberalism is sickening. It’s for the story books,

    I have more respect for Archie – Arch Conservative – than any of you. At least, he speaks his mind. The rest of you speak in tongues.

    Fuck lukewarm liberalism, of which Jordan is the main exponent on these unenlightened pages. I’m certain it makes him feel good about himself and the work he’s doing. Repose in your glory, Jordan. I’m sorry for you if that’s all you’ve got to show for yourself, writing music and DVD reviews while the world is on fire

    Watch the Rome burning while clinging to your lukewarm political philosophy.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Testing:

    Obama is a big green spinachey poo poo.

    Nope. The Administration seems fine with that…

  • zingzing

    clavos as a liberal… now that’s a storybook…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, I include him in the bunch for parsimony’s sake. Actually, he is a closet liberal, in spite of protestations. Just as he’s a closet intellectual, for whatever it’s worth.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    In the traditional sense of the word, Clavos is a liberal. So’s Dave, and Doug and a few of our other righties.

  • zingzing

    jesus, doc.

  • John Wilson

    #42 cannonshop, astonishingly, says: “It is my belief, that the modern Democrat Party shares more in terms of inclination with Stalinist or Fascist behaviour, than they do with the Democrats of FDR’s day, and more than that, they are further along the path to a society of serfdom than the Republican leaders are-…”

    They look too irresolute and wimpy, to me, to be much of a threat to anyone or advance any principle.

    The republicans seem to be politically resourceful and effective, at least, though their goals seem ignoble, i.e., just to further enrich the rich and powerful.

  • Les Slater

    “…writing music and DVD reviews…”

    It might be fun to write in the ‘politics’ section of BC, but I’m willing to bet that the culture sections have more to contribute to society.

  • zingzing

    one must remember that culture is what makes life worth living (well, that and sex), while politics is just one of the many things that gets in the way of that. politics is necessary, but if one spends their entire life worrying about politics, what’s the bloody point?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Flat point, zingo, the kind one’s likely to encounter in student papers. Besides, culture and politics are indistinquishable anymore. They both evolve from one another, in the capitalist society at least. We may speak of the “capitalist culture,” you little piggy you, if you like.

    Dreadful, I didn’t mince words. What I should have said perhaps is that Clavos is a closet case, period.

  • zingzing

    they intermingle and one affects the other, roger, but to say they are “indistinguishable” isn’t quite true. that’s as mushy as a married couple saying they’re “one person.” it’s just not true. or it’s a point made with too much force and not enough honesty.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, revel in culture then – that’s all I’ve got to say.

  • zingzing

    i will, thanks.

  • Clavos

    As usual, Doc has it right…

  • Les Slater

    Political activity requires the understanding of the temperment of the population, particularly the working class.

    Culture plays a big role in that temperment. To ignor culture only isolates you.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    So you’re denying you’re a closet case?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Missing the point, Les. Our culture is determined by our political ideology and the the capitalist system at work. That’s the problem, and that’s precisely what I was alluding to.

    In thinking our culture as somehow independent, we’re being tone-deaf.

  • Les Slater

    Culture is PRIMARILY determined by the dominant ideology which is in turn determined by the economic base. But this does not preclude cultural reflections of rebelliousness of those oppressed or even deep concerns of those oppressed. Even though it is ‘just’ a reflection, culture and beliefs have been quite important in the struggles throughout history.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not here to score points, Les; was only correcting you possibly misreading my original comment. Anyway, that’s not how zing had meant it; and my remark should be read as being limited to that context and that context only.

    Besides, BC is not a forum for making a dissertation, so please forgive me if I don’t bite.

  • Les Slater

    My original point was that we shouldn’t dismiss those writing music and DVD reviews. In about 5 minutes I’m about to start watching ‘Angels & Demons’. I’m sure it will enrich my politcal perspectives.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t thing zing will ever accuse of that. Life and people come before politics.

    Even if it doesn’t enrich you, enjoy it nonetheless.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Roger, you’re commenting on the internet. Get over yourself.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Lay off, Jordan. My comments to Les were comments to a friend. If he’s got any problem with my remarks, he’ll email me personally.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Lay off? Roger, you purposely called me out specifically about “merely” writing music reviews while “the Rome” burns. Or did you forget already?

    You just can’t leave me alone, can you? Me and my lukewarmness must be your ideal body temperature, champ.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And for future reference, if you have any problem with my style of posting, take it up with the management. I don’t take kindly to you reprimanding me. It’s not your job though you apparently think it is.

    And I don’t want your advice either.

    Capiche!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I haven’t called you out, Jordan. You are hallucinating. My conversation was with zing and zing only. You really have an inflated opinion of yourself to even think you were on my mind.

    Get a grip, Jordan. I am not your enemy, but you’re surely working hard on turning me into one.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Have a relaxing evening. I’m watching a movie, so I won’t be responding tonight.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Roger #72:

    Fuck lukewarm liberalism, of which Jordan is the main exponent on these unenlightened pages. I’m certain it makes him feel good about himself and the work he’s doing. Repose in your glory, Jordan. I’m sorry for you if that’s all you’ve got to show for yourself, writing music and DVD reviews while the world is on fire

    That’s a pretty good hallucination.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Forgot about that comment already, Jordan. It was said in the heat of the moment, but I was responding to some of the attacks on my person. I thought it would be deleted by Eric along with some of the other comments (not just mine) which in fact were. I apologize.

    PS: I thought you were responding to today’s conversation with zing and Les. You’re comment came right after that, and I had no reason to assume it referenced anything other than that.

    Again, I apologize for having shown such a bad form. The comment does not reflect my thinking as regards the contributions you guys make, even if the subject matter isn’t politics. (BTW, now I see why Les made the connection that he did; I meant to ask him about it. Now I understand.)