Still on Privacy and Security
Diplomacy and international politics is a cat and mouse game where people are shaking hands and smiling for the cameras while inside them they are both muttering, “stupid ass, rat bastard”. An example is the recent “revelation” that the US was spying on EU diplomats. Every leader in the EU was aghast and shocked, until a new revelation came to the surface that the French were also in the game. Bottom line? Every country is into it. It is part of what defines national interest. It is the reason I fail to be drawn into the bandwagon hailing Snowden as a hero. To me, he is just another jackass and traitor. How can leaking of your country’s secret be in the interest of your country? It is understandable that unchecked powers will be abused, and it will not be in the interest of the people. But I think asking us to conduct our intelligence in the full glare of the public, in the name of transparency, is plain stupid. It is not intelligence.
The terrorists, and everyone that stands to be at a disadvantage from efficient intelligence gathering cannot afford to sit back and watch while they are boxed into a corner and unable to carry out their nefarious activities. They need to fight back, but not by stating their real intentions. All they need to is pretend to be on the side of the people and claim to be fighting for the preservation of people’s rights. That makes them look like saints while at the same time achieving their overall goals. For instance, who stands to benefit when phone calls and emails cannot be monitored? It is not the regular Joe, who sends love notes to his girl friend. What will the intelligence community do to him even if they read his emails and saw he sent love notes to his girlfriend? He has not broken any law, and therefore has nothing to worry about.
The bottom line in this argument is, if you are not doing something wrong, why worry about who is reading your mail or listening to your phone calls? This quest for unbridled “privacy” amounts to asking for license to commit evil first, then look for who to blame it on later.
And on Syria…
We have been hearing of the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the past few days, and how the world is thinking of starting a war in that country. I think it is a bad idea. The mistakes of Iraq must not be repeated in Syria. We all believed there were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq until after Saddam Hussein was deposed and we found nothing. We succeeded in getting rid of Hussein, but had no plan for what happens after that. The events in Iraq dragged the world into a war that only recently ended, but still with ethnic conflagration arising every now and then. Iraq will never be the same again.
Syria is not Iraq, and must not be allowed to go the same route. We think Bashir al Assad is bad for the people and therefore must be removed, but who takes over once Assad leaves? What is life going to be like for the ordinary Syrian after Assad leaves? Can we rely on this ragtag army of so called rebels to form any meaningful government? The only thing that unites them at the moment is their desire to get Assad out of the way. While Assad may not be a saint, and definitely responsible for some of the evils chasing after him right now, the world would do better by being futuristic in their approach to Syria and the decisions they make on that behalf. It is not enough to remove Assad. Removing Assad must not be seen as an end because it is not. It will signify the beginning of another era, but what kind of era will that be?
It was reported that Assad used chemical weapons against his people, with all sorts of unconfirmed video evidence to support it. But it does not make sense. Why would he do that when he knows he has UN observers in town and at short notice to witness it? He may be an inept leader, but certainly not a fool.
The question that many are not asking is, who really benefits if chemical weapons are used? Since the international community has said it will be crossing a red line if Assad uses chemical weapons, what stops the opposition from using it and blaming it on Assad, since they want global sympathy on their side? I have heard commentators say the opposition is not capable of it because they lack the resources. Really? How can anyone tell what resources they have? If all they need to do to get more weapons from the US, and global support is to paint Assad as the monster responsible for mass killing of his people with chemical weapons, why would they not do it and pretend like they did not even know what is so called?
I am not an Assad fan, but in this present matter of chemical weapon use, I am of the opinion that he did not do it. It will amount to suicide on his part and I don’t think he is that foolish.
Honda Commercials
I don’t know where you live at, but in my neck of woods, Honda, (Yes, the car maker) has been running some commercials lately. They start with a door bell buzz and an agent comes to say what someone has recently tweeted. They proceed to say what the current Honda promo can do to turn the tweet around. Sound efficient? What I will say is, Honda is lucky they make good products, otherwise they’d be in trouble if they relied on their commercials to sell their products. These commercials suck. I flip the channel every time one of their commercials is about to play. A good commercial gets the message across in a way that makes you want to listen to them again and again. So far, these Honda commercials fail in this regard.
