November 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SPECIAL TIMES EDITION BLANKETS U.S. CITIES, PROCLAIMS END TO WAR

• PDF: http://www.nytimes-se.com/pdf
• For video updates: http://www.nytimes-se.com/video
• Contact: mailto:writers@nytimes-se.com

Early this morning, commuters nationwide were delighted to find out that while they were sleeping, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had come to an end.

If, that is, they happened to read a “special edition” of today’s New York Times.

In an elaborate operation six months in the planning, 1.2 million papers were printed at six different presses and driven to prearranged pickup locations, where thousands of volunteers stood ready to pass them out on the street.

Articles in the paper announce dozens of new initiatives including the establishment of national health care, the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for C.E.O.s, and, of course, the end of the war.

The paper, an exact replica of The New York Times, includes International, National, New York, and Business sections, as well as editorials, corrections, and a number of advertisements, including a recall notice for all cars that run on gasoline. There is also a timeline describing the gains brought about by eight months of progressive support and pressure, culminating in President Obama’s “Yes we REALLY can” speech. (The paper is post-dated July 4, 2009.)

“It’s all about how at this point, we need to push harder than ever,” said Bertha Suttner, one of the newspaper’s writers. “We’ve got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do. After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start imagining heaven.”

Not all readers reacted favorably. “The thing I disagree with is how they did it,” said Stuart Carlyle, who received a paper in Grand Central Station while commuting to his Wall Street brokerage. “I’m all for freedom of speech, but they should have started their own paper.”

Is Ms. Suttner claiming Carter wasn’t hell? What about LBJ?  I’m not so sure I can be “all for freedom of speech” for individuals who have no desire to extend me freedom of speech (pretty sure they support campaign regulation), or freedom of association (CEO pay, lobbying), or freedom from aggression by the majority (mandatory national healthcare.) The Yes Men are state socialists / anti-big business. They aren’t concerned with individual freedoms. They don’t bother reading history. They likely have little understanding of economics or how these plans of theirs would work in theory or practice. They have an incredibly shallow view of the world and it’s problems, ignore human tendency, and prescribe solutions equally as shallow and ignorant. Their proposed solutions however are far worse then the existing problems.

The one thing I hope comes from acts like this is that the participants get so worked up that when Obama fails to deliver their faith in their all powerful god Government will be diminished. Unlikely, but possible. Maybe if more bridges are built between the anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-socialists these state socialist types can be more easily convinced.

UPDATE:

Since their servers aren’t very responsive here are the PDFs: Without spreads | With spreads

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10012612-83.html

LAS VEGAS–A federal judge on Saturday granted the state of Massachusetts’ request for an injunction preventing three MIT students from giving a presentation about hacking smartcards used in the Boston subway system.

The undergraduate students were scheduled to give a presentation Sunday afternoon at the Defcon hacker conference here that they had said would describe “several attacks to completely break the CharlieCard,” an RFID card that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority uses on the Boston T subway line. They also planned to release card-hacking software they had created.

The best part is

..what looked like a black and white faxed copy of the entire presentation was entered as evidence in publicly available court records available on the Web on Saturday, meaning any attempt to limit its distribution further will encounter an additional hurdle.

http://www.nbc10.com/

For most people, making a mistake on the job is tough enough. But imagine the whole world finding out about it and then judging you on the Internet.

That’s happening to many police officers across the country.Efforts are under way to give people a chance to voice opinions about neighborhood officers.

But there’s concern as to whether it’s free speech or just an opportunity for some to take cheap shots at police, which could get somebody hurt.

From the front lines of fighting crime, to the tougher times of losing a fellow officer, police find themselves under the microscope of scrutiny. But that magnifying glass may be getting bigger.”There’s no avenue for citizens to get feedback on officers. It’s kind of a secrecy out there for officers,” Gino Sesto, of ratemycop.com, said.But Sesto, a Los Angeles resident, said he’s now exposing much of that so-called secrecy.Sesto created and owns ratemycop.com, a Web site designed to allow anyone at any time to post comments about police anonymously.

This isn’t an brand new concept. Years ago, RateMyTeacher.com was released. Intrigued, I gave it a shot and weighed in on a few teachers from my past, praising the ones that did well and criticizing the ones that operated poorly. After college, I discovered RateMyProfessor.com and did much of the same.

There’s RateMDs.com that allows patients to rate and read about their doctors and dentists and LawyerRatingz.com that provides a “scorecard” to help consumers find the best lawyers. You don’t have to look far after that site to find The Ratingz Network, a site where you can anonoymously post, rate, and review places and services in your community: mechanics, realtors, vets and salons. If you can’t find your town or service, you can create it and talk about it.

So with the ability to critique all these other social service professions, why should the police force get a pass? What makes them immune to public opinion? Our tax dollars contribute to their salaries. They are public servants after all. Of course there is truth to the argument that not all cops are “pigs”, not all doctors are “quacks”, and not all chiropractors are “ambulance chasers”, but creating a forum to reveal those that abuse their position is a powerful tool for the public.

These websites are not the solution, they aren’t going to solve all the world’s problems, but they are a start. They provide opportunities to assist society and move public service forward, and maybe in some cases provide a pressure for change. Whether you agree or disagree with the forums, these websites provide information good, bad, or indifferent. Without instigating the topic, there is not dialogue. And what we need now is uncensored conversation.