Alabama's Department of Homeland Security has an application that allows anyone with a .gov or .edu email address to use the privacy-invading tools the government has implemented to spy on anyone virtually anywhere in the State of Alabama. The 3 minute propaganda video on their website tries to explain how the live video feeds are used for 'keeping our community safer', yet details how the EPA is using Virtual Alabama 'extensively' to watch what you're doing in your yard (2:40), and that it is used for economic development and other non-safety issues (2:05). This program is clearly being used to spy on the citizens of Alabama.
As troubling as it may be that any government employee with an .edu or .gov email can get the software, that's not the main issue. The ruggedness of the screening process for obtaining an account is unknown. The issue is the privacy of Alabama's citizens, which has been ignored. Even if the screening process to be granted an account is extremely stringent, the ability of users to use this data in a malicious way is far too great.
Political opponents can use this to gain a god-like advantage by tracking every move of their opponents and critics without having to leave a computer. The system has been implemented with cameras in both Selma City Schools (January 2010), and Dallas County Schools (June 2010). This creates a risk for children, as well.
Bottom line: The cameras shouldn't be there in the first place. The realtime surveillance of innocent citizens is the kind of thing you'd expect from a tyrant, not from a free State in the United States of America. This program, even according to it's own promotional video, does very little towards it's professed goal of 'keeping our community safer', and goes a very long way to destroying the very rights that make our State and Country great.
Showing posts with label OPINION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OPINION. Show all posts
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Cameras a Bad Choice for Selma
The recent choice of the Selma City Council to approve cameras for use at traffic signals and for surveillance in high crime areas is a bad move for our city. Anecdotal evidence submitted by those who've had bad traffic experiences in our city is not evidence enough to sacrifice the privacy of residents and those who would use our city's streets, avenues and boulevards. Certainly, studies commissioned by the manufacturers of the cameras shouldn't be used as testimony to the usefulness of the cameras they are trying to sell.
Scientific studies done by universities have shown the opposite of what is claimed by proponents of the cameras; traffic-signal cameras DO NOT make streets safer, they CAUSE accidents, and surveillance cameras DO NOT reduce crime, they increase the chances that someone will have their right to privacy violated. Instead of wasting precious city funds on technology that has been proven not to work, the Selma Intelligencer suggests the city use the funds to better train its police force.
Scientific studies done by universities have shown the opposite of what is claimed by proponents of the cameras; traffic-signal cameras DO NOT make streets safer, they CAUSE accidents, and surveillance cameras DO NOT reduce crime, they increase the chances that someone will have their right to privacy violated. Instead of wasting precious city funds on technology that has been proven not to work, the Selma Intelligencer suggests the city use the funds to better train its police force.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
VOTE TODAY - But not in a free election...
If you haven't already, get out to the polls before they close! Don't let the rain stop you!
When you vote, you may notice that you are required to vote on only one ballot. Currently, voters must choos between the Democratic or Republican ballot. So, if you have a candidate on the GOP side you wish to support, and one on the Democratic ticket, you may not do so, by law.
Instituted under the premise of ending the practice of 'cross-over' voting, the two ballot system costs taxpayers both money and freedom of choice. In the opinion of the Selma Intelligencer, NEITHER ballot should be paid for by the taxpayer, nor should primaries be held at public expense. Primaries should be handled by the parties, and open to independent audit.
Political parties are not a part of government, and therefore should not use public funds. If the parties choose to have public elections to select their candidates, they should hire an independent polling firm and open those elections to public audit. In the interest of transparency and fairness, the parties could hire the same firm to handle the election. This firm could be instructed to place all candidates on one ballot to prevent so-called cross-overs by only allowing one selection per office in the election.
Taxpayer funding for the selection of candidates for primaries borders on legalized fraud and promotes an exclusive legal political duopoly. With the fraud rampant in the Democratic and Republican parties, it is highly unlikely that they will ever support any primary election reform. It is the opinion of the Selma Intelligencer, however, that they should.
When you vote, you may notice that you are required to vote on only one ballot. Currently, voters must choos between the Democratic or Republican ballot. So, if you have a candidate on the GOP side you wish to support, and one on the Democratic ticket, you may not do so, by law.
Instituted under the premise of ending the practice of 'cross-over' voting, the two ballot system costs taxpayers both money and freedom of choice. In the opinion of the Selma Intelligencer, NEITHER ballot should be paid for by the taxpayer, nor should primaries be held at public expense. Primaries should be handled by the parties, and open to independent audit.
Political parties are not a part of government, and therefore should not use public funds. If the parties choose to have public elections to select their candidates, they should hire an independent polling firm and open those elections to public audit. In the interest of transparency and fairness, the parties could hire the same firm to handle the election. This firm could be instructed to place all candidates on one ballot to prevent so-called cross-overs by only allowing one selection per office in the election.
Taxpayer funding for the selection of candidates for primaries borders on legalized fraud and promotes an exclusive legal political duopoly. With the fraud rampant in the Democratic and Republican parties, it is highly unlikely that they will ever support any primary election reform. It is the opinion of the Selma Intelligencer, however, that they should.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Big 3 Back in Washington
The Big 3 automakers are back in Washington DC asking for money. Their request could have far-reaching implications. If Congress awards the tens of billions the automakers want, they could use that money to pay thousands of auto industry workers, thus stimulating the American economy.
But do we know for certain that's where the money will go?
Rumors are circulating that American automakers are intending to spend billions in overseas markets. Do we want American taxpayer money supporting the economies of other nations? Before our lawmakers even consider giving out any money, we need assurances that this bailout will be spent to improve the American economy and to create jobs for Americans.
$25 billion is a lot of money. You could start up a whole new auto business for that kind of change.
If we are to invest billions in loans to these companies, we need to see an improved business model. We need to be shown where the Big 3 have gone wrong, and how they intend to change and improve themselves.
How do we know that GM, Chrysler and Ford won't just use this money to buy more million dollar commercials? Have you seen some of these commercials? They have major motion picture production value. There are explosions, special effects and computer generated graphics that no doubt cost a fortune. Wouldn't that money be better spent on R&D?
If GM, Ford and Chrysler are in financial trouble, it's not because the government doesn't give them money, it's because they have a failed business model. If they're not responsible enough to keep the oldest and most respected auto companies in the world profitable, it's doubtful they are capable of managing a multi-billion dollar bailout package.
But do we know for certain that's where the money will go?
Rumors are circulating that American automakers are intending to spend billions in overseas markets. Do we want American taxpayer money supporting the economies of other nations? Before our lawmakers even consider giving out any money, we need assurances that this bailout will be spent to improve the American economy and to create jobs for Americans.
$25 billion is a lot of money. You could start up a whole new auto business for that kind of change.
If we are to invest billions in loans to these companies, we need to see an improved business model. We need to be shown where the Big 3 have gone wrong, and how they intend to change and improve themselves.
How do we know that GM, Chrysler and Ford won't just use this money to buy more million dollar commercials? Have you seen some of these commercials? They have major motion picture production value. There are explosions, special effects and computer generated graphics that no doubt cost a fortune. Wouldn't that money be better spent on R&D?
If GM, Ford and Chrysler are in financial trouble, it's not because the government doesn't give them money, it's because they have a failed business model. If they're not responsible enough to keep the oldest and most respected auto companies in the world profitable, it's doubtful they are capable of managing a multi-billion dollar bailout package.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Why Buy Local?
When shopping, we've always been taught to look for the lowest price. They taught us that in school and our wallets tend to like it, too. We look at quality, as well, but if a lower priced item is of a passable quality, or if quality isn't a big issue, we tend to buy the cheaper item.
Americans have been buying cheaper and cheaper items, lately. Sometimes the cheaper items are of similar if not better quality. Sometimes, we can buy so many for so little, we completely overlook the fact that we are sending a lot of our money out of town.
Most mass-produced items and inexpensive products are produced overseas these days and are of questionable quality. Even if they were of the best quality, however, there would still be a greater issue to consider. Where are we sending our money?
When you buy an item produced locally, a large portion of the cost of that item will remain in your community. You'll most likely see some of that money go back into your pocket at some point. Buying items that aren't manufactured locally will send a portion of the item's price out of your community. Most, if not all, of that money will probably not come back.
There are also issues of morality and ethics. When an item is produced overseas, there is no direct oversight. As consumers, we can't honestly say we know that what we consume has been produced in an ethical way. We have no way of knowing whether or not a child was forced to produce the item. We can't say for certain whether the item was manufactured by workers being paid slave wages or not. If this is occurring, we bear the moral responsibility for creating the demand that causes these human rights violations.
The argument we often make is that we really can't afford NOT to buy the cheaper items. That may be true, now, but it's not a completely sound idea. The fact is that we can't afford to keep sending our money away. If we can't afford to buy locally made products, it's because we've been sending our money away for so long.
No community will ever be self-sufficient. That's not the goal of buying locally. The goal of buying locally is get the greatest quality product while keeping as much money in the community as possible. If we can do this, we won't have to worry as much about ailing stock markets or large corporate failures.
Americans have been buying cheaper and cheaper items, lately. Sometimes the cheaper items are of similar if not better quality. Sometimes, we can buy so many for so little, we completely overlook the fact that we are sending a lot of our money out of town.
Most mass-produced items and inexpensive products are produced overseas these days and are of questionable quality. Even if they were of the best quality, however, there would still be a greater issue to consider. Where are we sending our money?
When you buy an item produced locally, a large portion of the cost of that item will remain in your community. You'll most likely see some of that money go back into your pocket at some point. Buying items that aren't manufactured locally will send a portion of the item's price out of your community. Most, if not all, of that money will probably not come back.
There are also issues of morality and ethics. When an item is produced overseas, there is no direct oversight. As consumers, we can't honestly say we know that what we consume has been produced in an ethical way. We have no way of knowing whether or not a child was forced to produce the item. We can't say for certain whether the item was manufactured by workers being paid slave wages or not. If this is occurring, we bear the moral responsibility for creating the demand that causes these human rights violations.
The argument we often make is that we really can't afford NOT to buy the cheaper items. That may be true, now, but it's not a completely sound idea. The fact is that we can't afford to keep sending our money away. If we can't afford to buy locally made products, it's because we've been sending our money away for so long.
No community will ever be self-sufficient. That's not the goal of buying locally. The goal of buying locally is get the greatest quality product while keeping as much money in the community as possible. If we can do this, we won't have to worry as much about ailing stock markets or large corporate failures.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Report Vote Irregularities
Your vote is the most important tool you have to exercise your freedom. It should be cherished and protected. Voter intimidation, fraud and other improprieties that can alter the true vote count should be reported and eliminated immediately.
If you suspect or witness improper procedures at the polls, call the Alabama voter help-line at 1-800-274-VOTE (8683) to report the problem. There are several ways to report the suspected fraud. The Alabama Secretary of State website lists multiple options.
There is also a national hotline, 1-866-OUR-VOTE, or 1-866-687-8683. To view reports of voting irregularities in realtime, visit the Our Vote website.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Who Wins Tuesday?
Come Wednesday morning, roughly half of the population will be happy, and roughly half will be disappointed. But who really wins? If Barack Obama wins, as polls are projecting, what will change? Will anything really change? If John McCain pulls off the upset, how will he better our nation? Will things get worse?
Who wins, or do we all lose?
After long and careful consideration, The Selma Intelligencer cannot in good conscience endorse either of the frontrunners in the Presidential race. We can, however, give you a rundown of some of the other candidates in the race:
Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party/Independent
Bob Barr, Libertarian Party/Independent
Frank McEnulty, American Independent/Independent
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party/Independent
Ralph Nader, Independent
Probably the most recognizable names are those of Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman, and Ralph Nader, the consumer rights activist who has campaigned for the presidency multiple times. Barr and Nader, while diametrically opposed philosophically, have agreed to a set of complaints against the Democrats and Republicans. Their complaints outline abuses of the democratic process by the two political parties and call for the repeal of institutions such as the Federal Reserve.
Chuck Baldwin, also a former Republican, has been endorsed by many of his former party's conservative core. He has the nod of many pro-life organizations and of the nation's largest pro-2nd Amendment organization, Gun Owners of America. Baldwin is the pastor of a large church in Pensacola, Florida, and is a conservative radio talk show host.
McKinney is a former congresswoman who campaigns on a platform of government reform and calls for an investigation into widespread government corruption. She and Nader are the more liberal of the candidates, yet they both agree with the others in calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve system.
The Selma Intelligencer agrees with all of these candidates in their assessment of the other 2 parties. We believe that the Democrats and Republicans have subverted the will of the people by passing legislation that would impede the progress of anyone running for office unless they join one of those two parties. We believe that investigations should be launched as to whether these same two political parties have conspired to allow their members to profit personally from the monopolization of the political process.
Continuing to play into the 2-party lie is not an option. The 2 parties have become too corrupt. Voting for one to keep the other's candidate out of office is a game played by the power-brokers too often, and we will not continue to perpetrate this myth. We urge you to vote your conscience, not your fears. As John Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
Who wins, or do we all lose?
After long and careful consideration, The Selma Intelligencer cannot in good conscience endorse either of the frontrunners in the Presidential race. We can, however, give you a rundown of some of the other candidates in the race:
Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party/Independent
Bob Barr, Libertarian Party/Independent
Frank McEnulty, American Independent/Independent
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party/Independent
Ralph Nader, Independent
Probably the most recognizable names are those of Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman, and Ralph Nader, the consumer rights activist who has campaigned for the presidency multiple times. Barr and Nader, while diametrically opposed philosophically, have agreed to a set of complaints against the Democrats and Republicans. Their complaints outline abuses of the democratic process by the two political parties and call for the repeal of institutions such as the Federal Reserve.
Chuck Baldwin, also a former Republican, has been endorsed by many of his former party's conservative core. He has the nod of many pro-life organizations and of the nation's largest pro-2nd Amendment organization, Gun Owners of America. Baldwin is the pastor of a large church in Pensacola, Florida, and is a conservative radio talk show host.
McKinney is a former congresswoman who campaigns on a platform of government reform and calls for an investigation into widespread government corruption. She and Nader are the more liberal of the candidates, yet they both agree with the others in calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve system.
The Selma Intelligencer agrees with all of these candidates in their assessment of the other 2 parties. We believe that the Democrats and Republicans have subverted the will of the people by passing legislation that would impede the progress of anyone running for office unless they join one of those two parties. We believe that investigations should be launched as to whether these same two political parties have conspired to allow their members to profit personally from the monopolization of the political process.
Continuing to play into the 2-party lie is not an option. The 2 parties have become too corrupt. Voting for one to keep the other's candidate out of office is a game played by the power-brokers too often, and we will not continue to perpetrate this myth. We urge you to vote your conscience, not your fears. As John Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
Monday, October 27, 2008
McBama/Bilen
In this era of propaganda-laden advertisements for prepackaged, over-processed goods, it should come as no surprise that our politics follow the same formula. With every election cycle becoming more exclusive and filled with propaganda, the choices become more and more limited. The quality of the product drops, as well.
There is no meat in our politics. It's all filler. Just like the breakfast cereals with the same nutritional content as the boxes in which they're packaged, our politicians are hollow fundamentally. The commercials point up nothing but the created issues that mean very little in the way of solutions to the problems they pretend to address. Where's the beef?
There is no meat in our politics. It's all filler. Just like the breakfast cereals with the same nutritional content as the boxes in which they're packaged, our politicians are hollow fundamentally. The commercials point up nothing but the created issues that mean very little in the way of solutions to the problems they pretend to address. Where's the beef?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Welcome to the Intelligencer
We at the Intelligencer look forward to creating a healthy addendum to your daily news and information intake. Our intent is to be as objective and informative as possible. Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
