***THE OPINIONS IN THIS BLOG DO NOT REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, OR THE UNITED STATE MARINE CORPS.***

I live in Tacoma Washington. Judson, 22 years of living on this gravity well, spiraling around this nuclear fireball that somehow keeps us warm. Words of description: single, 'out to lunch', Malformed Public duty gland, and a deficiency in moral fiber precluding me from saving Universes. Possibly a dreamer (jury is still out). A bit rude, a bit crude, a bit into myself. Nothing of importance: Don't listen to me, because I am mostly out to lunch, and Mostly harmless.

My Photography Blog if you are interested:

free aplus.net visitor tracker

 

[Shakespeare wrote] a single sentence which describes life as lived by human beings so completely that no writer after him need ever have written another word.”
“Which sentence was that, Mr. Trout?” I asked.
And he said, ” ‘all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.’

Kurt Vonnegut (Timequake)

afuckingmen.

(via makememorticia)

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.

“I agree,” many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal — there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.

Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.

With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

Aaron Swartz

July 2008, Eremo, Italy

(via ernestsewell)

(Source: ernestsewell)

If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.

Stefan Molyneux (via disobey)

The customer can always decline to patronise a business, a product, or a service he dislikes, but with a dysfunctional government you’re stuck till the next election—or long after that, in this era of entrenched and immovable bureaucratic power. A determined individual can escape the reach of even the most ubiquitous business, but the only way to choose a different national government is to flee the country. Yes, corporate power can corrupt government, and government power even more frequently corrupts and warps corporations, but the best way to avoid this mutually destructive influence is to bring about less bureaucratic involvement in the free market, not to insist on more.

Michael Medved (via anarchei)

(Source: asderathos)

There are of course those who do not want us to speak … Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

V, V for Vendetta (via anarchei)

(Source: anarchyagogo)

That is why I go into solitude, so as not to drink out of everybody’s cistern. When I am among the many I live as the many do, and I do not think as I really think; after a time it always seems as though they want to banish me from myself and rob me of my soul.

friedrich nietzsche (via theartofhiding)

It we can learn how to live without politics, without nation-states, without wars, without even the slightest restriction upon any of us, ought we to give up such a pursuit simply because others have chosen to remain locked in chains? One must recognise, I think, that every political system is founded upon the presumed right of some men to forcibly impose their collective will upon those to be ruled. Once one accepts such an arrangement as either desirable or a “necessary evil,” there is simply no way to assure that those given such power will restrain themselves in its exercise. If one acknowledges the right of men to assault women — and the concomitant obligation of women to submit thereto — there is no effective limit upon the attacks to which women must be subjected, other than the appetites of their attackers. One cannot acknowledge the right of some men to exercise force upon others without accepting that those enjoying such powers are the only — and the absolute — judges of the scope of that power. To fail to understand that basic fact is to be ignorant of the inherent nature of all political systems, a nature that has been abundantly demonstrated in every period of history and in every nation on earth.

Butler Shaffer (via anarchei)

(Source: voluntaryist.com)

Many adults are put off when youngsters pose scientific questions. Children ask why the sun is yellow, or what a dream is, or how deep you can dig a hole, or when is the world’s birthday, or why we have toes. Too many teachers and parents answer with irritation or ridicule, or quickly move on to something else. Why adults should pretend to omniscience before a five-year-old, I can’t for the life of me understand. What’s wrong with admitting that you don’t know? Children soon recognize that somehow this kind of question annoys many adults. A few more experiences like this, and another child has been lost to science. There are many better responses. If we have an idea of the answer, we could try to explain. If we don’t, we could go to the encyclopedia or the library. Or we might say to the child: “I don’t know the answer. Maybe no one knows. Maybe when you grow up, you’ll be the first to find out.

Carl Sagan (via anarchei)

(Source: skaterboytae)

Those in power have made it so we have to pay simply to exist on the planet. We have to pay for a place to sleep, and we have to pay for food. If we don’t, people with guns come and force us to pay. That’s violent.

Derrick Jensen, Endgame, Vol. 1: The Problem of Civilization (via anarcho-queer)

I like the way the morning can be stormy and the afternoon clear and sparkly as a jewel in the water. Put your hand in the water to reach for a sea urchin or a sea shell, and the thing desired never quite lies where you had lined it up to be. The same is true of love. In prospect or contemplation, love is where it seems to be. Reach in to lift it out and your hand misses.

Jeanette Winterson, The PowerBook  (via liketheopensea)

(Source: quote-book)

The clamor for gun control is the cry of sheltered utopians believing that evil is a substance as finite as guns, and that getting rid of one will also get rid of the other. But evil isn’t finite and guns are as finite as drugs or moonshine whiskey, which is to say that they are as finite as the human interest in having them is. And unlike whiskey or heroin, the only way to stop a man with a gun is with a gun.

Daniel Greenfield (via anarchei)

(Source: canadafreepress.com)

Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why would we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin (via echo4charlie)