Hmmm. I don't want to court controversy on this subject, because I know that the idea that people who have been abused are going to suffer a lifetime of psychological trauma is a truism to the vast majority of people (small though that number might be), who spend the time to think about the subject. It's a "truth" so true that, much like the Earth orbiting the Sun, it doesn't even need to be stated. Except it's not true. A thing is scary when it is out of the ordinary; when one cannot see the purpose; and when one perceives from the surrounding circumstances that one is being given no choice, despite one's misgivings.
Open to abuse: Did being molested as a baby make Rebecca Moran an easier target for sex offenders later in life?
However... If one perceives a person who has been abused as a victim, then one will treat them like a victim, and they will become a victim, because they've been given no other choice. It's the simplest form of indoctrination. My advice to anybody who has been abused is this: perceive yourself to be a victim, if you like, but remember that it is your choice, and the people who have to see you as a victim in order to have somebody to punish (your abuser), are no better than your abuser, because they're perpetuating the abuse, long after it has ceased, and they are no more able to change their behaviour than your abuser was.
Oh, if you need an alternative to being a victim, then I suggest that you don't go for "survivor," either. Start a blog, and call yourself a blogger. Start jogging, and call yourself a runner. The choice is yours - just be wary of those who need you to be a victim.
Showing posts with label Abuse of Trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abuse of Trust. Show all posts
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Spanking children can lead to aggressive behavior: study
Speaking as somebody who had the shite beaten out of him routinely as a child, provided his mother was in a bad enough mood and could fix on something that could be deemed punishable (breathing, being born, not being a supernatural being who could cure her of her insanity, and so on), I found this quite funny.
Spanking children can lead to aggressive behavior: study
I'm wasting my time, aren't I? You fucking monkeys know nothing. What's worse: for a whole series of reasons, you daren't admit it.
Anyway, scan to the last para of the piece linked above. Do you note anything about the non-violent alternatives that are suggested? Yep, that's right: they're all punishments. The human mind in microcosm... Small wonder that, when you see a dispute, your immediate reaction is to take a side (usually the one you perceive to be strongest), and exact some retribution. You've never learnt to do anything else, have you? And you never think to question the methodology you've been shown, even when it clearly doesn't work.
Oh, one final word: passive aggression (including ostracization), whereby one withholds stuff, and otherwise communicates in tiny increments that a person has done something that is considered "wrong" without ever explaining it (even to oneself), is as traumatic psychologically as any beating. Don't kid yourselves: you're supposed to be reliable in a world that is complex in its insanity. Leaving a child guessing as to when you may be calm and helpful and when you may turn into a raving, violent freak is going to cause problems. You know why you're afraid (sorry, angry), but it will not be evident to them.
Addendum:
My world has been defined negatively, for me. That is, I have had to assess, by trial and error, what it is I am permitted to do by looking at what's left over, when I've been punished for the stuff that I may not do. That's why I read Law - I'm going to do anything and everything not expressly forbidden by Law, and the rest of you can go and fuck yourselves.
Spanking children can lead to aggressive behavior: study
I'm wasting my time, aren't I? You fucking monkeys know nothing. What's worse: for a whole series of reasons, you daren't admit it.
Anyway, scan to the last para of the piece linked above. Do you note anything about the non-violent alternatives that are suggested? Yep, that's right: they're all punishments. The human mind in microcosm... Small wonder that, when you see a dispute, your immediate reaction is to take a side (usually the one you perceive to be strongest), and exact some retribution. You've never learnt to do anything else, have you? And you never think to question the methodology you've been shown, even when it clearly doesn't work.
Oh, one final word: passive aggression (including ostracization), whereby one withholds stuff, and otherwise communicates in tiny increments that a person has done something that is considered "wrong" without ever explaining it (even to oneself), is as traumatic psychologically as any beating. Don't kid yourselves: you're supposed to be reliable in a world that is complex in its insanity. Leaving a child guessing as to when you may be calm and helpful and when you may turn into a raving, violent freak is going to cause problems. You know why you're afraid (sorry, angry), but it will not be evident to them.
Addendum:
My world has been defined negatively, for me. That is, I have had to assess, by trial and error, what it is I am permitted to do by looking at what's left over, when I've been punished for the stuff that I may not do. That's why I read Law - I'm going to do anything and everything not expressly forbidden by Law, and the rest of you can go and fuck yourselves.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Pope tries to stem tide of sex abuse allegations
This tickled me, once I'd got over that sense of sad inevitability that seems to accompany me whenever I read of a massive institution, which has lost control of one of its secrets, and is trying to claw the position back...
Pope tries to stem tide of sex abuse allegations
"The Italian daily Corriere della Sera quoted Vatican officials as saying the letter, to be read at Sunday Mass, "will contain not only religious considerations" but also "precise practical indications" on how the officials will "detect and cure this sore, removing it from the Church"."
The problem, then, as quoted by the CdS, is not with the systematic suppression of evidence and the silencing of those abused, but with the abusers, as though it has come as a revelation to the Church's hierarchy that the widespread rape of children has been carried on by its own people. For decades (or more).
Wake up, motherfuckers: it's the cover-up that's going to haunt you to your miserable graves. Because you know what? You've got hundreds, if not thousands, of victims who are going to pursue you for the rest of your naturals. I'd face the fucking music, now, if I were you - the anticipation's always worse than the reality, after all. Put another way: there's nothing to fear, but fear itself.
Pope tries to stem tide of sex abuse allegations
"The Italian daily Corriere della Sera quoted Vatican officials as saying the letter, to be read at Sunday Mass, "will contain not only religious considerations" but also "precise practical indications" on how the officials will "detect and cure this sore, removing it from the Church"."
The problem, then, as quoted by the CdS, is not with the systematic suppression of evidence and the silencing of those abused, but with the abusers, as though it has come as a revelation to the Church's hierarchy that the widespread rape of children has been carried on by its own people. For decades (or more).
Wake up, motherfuckers: it's the cover-up that's going to haunt you to your miserable graves. Because you know what? You've got hundreds, if not thousands, of victims who are going to pursue you for the rest of your naturals. I'd face the fucking music, now, if I were you - the anticipation's always worse than the reality, after all. Put another way: there's nothing to fear, but fear itself.
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Cardinal Sean Brady says sorry over paedophile priest
Now, do you know something? My curiosity's actually been piqued by this:
Cardinal Sean Brady says sorry over paedophile priest
Of course, it's difficult to know who prepared Cardinal Brady's statement/speech, but public expressions of apology are rare from that class of people: "never admit you're wrong - it's a sign of weakness," or something. However, if we take Brady's words at face value, then they appear to express contrition.
It is, though, the response of one of those abused by Smyth after Smyth's conduct first came to light that interested me. Given my massive talents as a prodigiously gifted mediator, I can see that Brady's words have fallen on deaf ears. We have an impasse, then... Mr Madden is apparently massively skeptical of Brady's motives, and is going for blood. Is the Catholic Church likely to grant him that, in the shape of Brady's resignation?.. The plot thins.
There's too much hurt there for a simple apology to suffice, I think. "Simple apologies" are best given at the very point that the damage is caused. Those people damaged (not so much by the abuse, as by the betrayal and cover-up, I would argue), have had to build their lives on that rather shaky foundation - can you imagine how difficult they must find it to trust anybody, having faced censorship, denial and silence, when they turned to the Church to do something about Smyth?
Anyway, let's watch and see... Will Brady, upon reflection, decide to stay put, and is this apology intended to put the matter to bed, once and for all? Was this apology carefully stage managed, and not intended to lead to anything concrete for the abused? Who knows and frankly, who cares? Well, Mr Madden, for one.
Cardinal Sean Brady says sorry over paedophile priest
Of course, it's difficult to know who prepared Cardinal Brady's statement/speech, but public expressions of apology are rare from that class of people: "never admit you're wrong - it's a sign of weakness," or something. However, if we take Brady's words at face value, then they appear to express contrition.
It is, though, the response of one of those abused by Smyth after Smyth's conduct first came to light that interested me. Given my massive talents as a prodigiously gifted mediator, I can see that Brady's words have fallen on deaf ears. We have an impasse, then... Mr Madden is apparently massively skeptical of Brady's motives, and is going for blood. Is the Catholic Church likely to grant him that, in the shape of Brady's resignation?.. The plot thins.
There's too much hurt there for a simple apology to suffice, I think. "Simple apologies" are best given at the very point that the damage is caused. Those people damaged (not so much by the abuse, as by the betrayal and cover-up, I would argue), have had to build their lives on that rather shaky foundation - can you imagine how difficult they must find it to trust anybody, having faced censorship, denial and silence, when they turned to the Church to do something about Smyth?
Anyway, let's watch and see... Will Brady, upon reflection, decide to stay put, and is this apology intended to put the matter to bed, once and for all? Was this apology carefully stage managed, and not intended to lead to anything concrete for the abused? Who knows and frankly, who cares? Well, Mr Madden, for one.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
BBC Radio 4 - File on 4
I hear that the Beeb is busy kicking AZ's arse over the allegations of side effects being downplayed, off-label marketing, etc:
BBC Radio 4 - File on 4: AstraZeneca/Seroquel
It's an old story, but nice to see that it's getting some mainstream coverage. At the end of the day, AZ will not be prosecuted, and it will not change its culture, such that this sort of thing doesn't happen, again - not that I'm suggesting for one moment that AZ is a bunch of sleazy, little fraudsters, or anything. So, that means that the only way to approach the problem appears to be to warn potential patients that AZ and its ilk may very well be completely untrustworthy, and to avoid its products.
Shit sticks, as they say.
BBC Radio 4 - File on 4: AstraZeneca/Seroquel
It's an old story, but nice to see that it's getting some mainstream coverage. At the end of the day, AZ will not be prosecuted, and it will not change its culture, such that this sort of thing doesn't happen, again - not that I'm suggesting for one moment that AZ is a bunch of sleazy, little fraudsters, or anything. So, that means that the only way to approach the problem appears to be to warn potential patients that AZ and its ilk may very well be completely untrustworthy, and to avoid its products.
Shit sticks, as they say.
Monday, 25 January 2010
Union warns teachers not to break up playground fights
I think this game is called "Let's validate the bully," because rarely do schoolyard fights start, in my experience, other than where one of the protagonists is more or less completely certain that they can beat the shit out of the other:
Union warns teachers not to break up playground fights
The local council, in this case, refused to compensate the injured teacher, because it had not been negligent. However, if a child suffers injury, because staff refuse to intervene, then the council most fucking certainly will be negligent, and should duly be strung up by the balls before the civil courts, for deliberately doing nothing to intervene.
Much more to the point: this just smacks of cowardice, and schools should not be surprised to find that parents are unwilling to send their children into an environment, which is potentially dangerous. You want authority, motherfuckers? Then accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Union warns teachers not to break up playground fights
The local council, in this case, refused to compensate the injured teacher, because it had not been negligent. However, if a child suffers injury, because staff refuse to intervene, then the council most fucking certainly will be negligent, and should duly be strung up by the balls before the civil courts, for deliberately doing nothing to intervene.
Much more to the point: this just smacks of cowardice, and schools should not be surprised to find that parents are unwilling to send their children into an environment, which is potentially dangerous. You want authority, motherfuckers? Then accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Friday, 22 January 2010
Shares tumble as Obama takes on banks
I have a confession to make... I read this, and laughed my fucking arse off. For a whole variety of different reasons.
Shares tumble as Obama takes on banks
For some reason, the very mention of "hedge funds" turns me into a pitiless blob of anti-matter. So, I suppose I should mention "funds hedge," just to make myself feel a bit better about it.
Shares tumble as Obama takes on banks
For some reason, the very mention of "hedge funds" turns me into a pitiless blob of anti-matter. So, I suppose I should mention "funds hedge," just to make myself feel a bit better about it.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Open Letter to Governor Gregoire, Washington State, USA
Dear Governor Gregoire,
I have been following the story of Lindsay [redacted] and her Mum, Stephany, on the latter's blog, for about two years, now. Frankly, I'm disheartened, and I really hope that you may be encouraged to look into this matter:
Top 100 state workers - one psychiatrist at Western State Hospital
I will state my position baldly, now: I don't believe that Lindsay has anything wrong with her, although I realize that I risk derision in saying so. I think the initial diagnosis, four-five years ago was incorrect, and I think that the way Lindsay has been treated, ever since, has made it inevitable that she is non-verbal, now.
Now, given that she is non-verbal, can it really make the tiniest scintilla of sense to ban her advocate from meetings? Given that she is not a prisoner, but a patient, and given that being forbidden outside time makes her anxious (explicitly so), why is Lindsay being held indoors? If "fresh air time" is being used as a tool of control, to gain compliance, then Dr Ruiz should have his credentials examined, to my view.
I will say, again: Lindsay is not a prisoner. According to the court that committed her to WSH, she is there for her own protection, because she is at risk of exploitation from society. I don't imagine that the court thought that WSH would seek to exploit her, too.
Dr Ruiz's coercive methods are counterproductive, in my view - he cannot hope to build the necessary trust that would enable him to treat patients. He's certainly no empath.
In summation, I think that this state of affairs is a travesty. Why is Washington State punishing this young woman for being vulnerable, because that is what this seems to amount to? I would urge you to investigate the treatment of patients at WSH, with all urgency, because Lindsay is one of the lucky ones: she's got people who care about her. All over the world.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
I have been following the story of Lindsay [redacted] and her Mum, Stephany, on the latter's blog, for about two years, now. Frankly, I'm disheartened, and I really hope that you may be encouraged to look into this matter:
Top 100 state workers - one psychiatrist at Western State Hospital
I will state my position baldly, now: I don't believe that Lindsay has anything wrong with her, although I realize that I risk derision in saying so. I think the initial diagnosis, four-five years ago was incorrect, and I think that the way Lindsay has been treated, ever since, has made it inevitable that she is non-verbal, now.
Now, given that she is non-verbal, can it really make the tiniest scintilla of sense to ban her advocate from meetings? Given that she is not a prisoner, but a patient, and given that being forbidden outside time makes her anxious (explicitly so), why is Lindsay being held indoors? If "fresh air time" is being used as a tool of control, to gain compliance, then Dr Ruiz should have his credentials examined, to my view.
I will say, again: Lindsay is not a prisoner. According to the court that committed her to WSH, she is there for her own protection, because she is at risk of exploitation from society. I don't imagine that the court thought that WSH would seek to exploit her, too.
Dr Ruiz's coercive methods are counterproductive, in my view - he cannot hope to build the necessary trust that would enable him to treat patients. He's certainly no empath.
In summation, I think that this state of affairs is a travesty. Why is Washington State punishing this young woman for being vulnerable, because that is what this seems to amount to? I would urge you to investigate the treatment of patients at WSH, with all urgency, because Lindsay is one of the lucky ones: she's got people who care about her. All over the world.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
Monday, 4 January 2010
MPs invoke 1689 Bill to avoid prosecution
This'll make you laugh (or not):
MPs invoke 1689 Bill to avoid prosecution
The reportage is a little scant on the detail - the precise wording on which these sleazy little fraudsters (yeah: fucking sue me!), are relying wasn't identified, so I had a quick read:
Bill of Rights 1689
but it was unclear to me what clause of this ancient document the "Sleazy Three" as they shall henceforth be known (if only to me), had spotted that might help them out of their current quandary. Apparently, by some "divers" means, Parliamentary Privilege extends to the act of theft, so watch the fuckers go, from hereon in!
Matt
Addendum:
Fuck me! It's not this, is it?..
"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."
Presumably, the cunts will try to argue that they completed their expenses forms in the debating chamber!
MPs invoke 1689 Bill to avoid prosecution
The reportage is a little scant on the detail - the precise wording on which these sleazy little fraudsters (yeah: fucking sue me!), are relying wasn't identified, so I had a quick read:
Bill of Rights 1689
but it was unclear to me what clause of this ancient document the "Sleazy Three" as they shall henceforth be known (if only to me), had spotted that might help them out of their current quandary. Apparently, by some "divers" means, Parliamentary Privilege extends to the act of theft, so watch the fuckers go, from hereon in!
Matt
Addendum:
Fuck me! It's not this, is it?..
"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."
Presumably, the cunts will try to argue that they completed their expenses forms in the debating chamber!
Friday, 18 December 2009
Witnesses for the prosecution: how Blair is suffering trial by Chilcot
This is a public enquiry, I should point out, and not a criminal case. As such, there is no "prosecution" taking place. Other than in the court of public opinion, that is...
Witnesses for the prosecution: how Blair is suffering trial by Chilcot
I'll sum this up, for you: Blah's a fucking liar and the American administration of Shrub is a bunch of administrative fuckwits, with serious control issues, large guns and small penises.
Matt
Witnesses for the prosecution: how Blair is suffering trial by Chilcot
I'll sum this up, for you: Blah's a fucking liar and the American administration of Shrub is a bunch of administrative fuckwits, with serious control issues, large guns and small penises.
Matt
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Is depression increasing, and what is the best way to treat it?
It seems as though NICE is in the process of making itself about as popular with the pharmaceutical industry as a fart in a spacesuit (again):
Is depression increasing, and what is the best way to treat it?
This business of drugs really only being suited to severe depression, and counselling being the best option, otherwise, is something that NICE has said, before, but it's reiterated it, just now. Incidentally, Alan Johnson, when he was Health Secretary (also in charge of the success of the pharmaceutical industry), promised that, through investment and training, more CBT counsellors would be available on the NHS (the current waitlist, I believe is 3 months for a 6-week course).
Mr Johnson now has another ministry, and I don't recall hearing word of improvements in this area. What's the betting that, were I to ask my useless cunt of a MP, he'd ignore me? I don't know why they bother even pretending to give a shit - lies are just a way of life to these people... "Yes, yes, just fob them off with some announcement, with a delivery date years down the line, and if they haven't forgotten about it by then, somebody else will be in charge, and it won't be my problem." What a bunch of wankers.
Matt
Addendum:
I have just shared an email exchange with Kate Goodridge, Customer Service Centre, Department of Health... She had this to say, amongst other things:
"...the Department of Health is not responsible for the ‘success’ of the pharmaceutical -or any other- industry..."
So that's that settled. She was responding to a couple of emails I wrote to Andrew Burnham, Secretary of State for Health, mostly concerning Eli (Lilly). Kate didn't mention Eli, in her reply. Eli is, of course, a drug pedlar, according to CIA docs.
Is depression increasing, and what is the best way to treat it?
This business of drugs really only being suited to severe depression, and counselling being the best option, otherwise, is something that NICE has said, before, but it's reiterated it, just now. Incidentally, Alan Johnson, when he was Health Secretary (also in charge of the success of the pharmaceutical industry), promised that, through investment and training, more CBT counsellors would be available on the NHS (the current waitlist, I believe is 3 months for a 6-week course).
Mr Johnson now has another ministry, and I don't recall hearing word of improvements in this area. What's the betting that, were I to ask my useless cunt of a MP, he'd ignore me? I don't know why they bother even pretending to give a shit - lies are just a way of life to these people... "Yes, yes, just fob them off with some announcement, with a delivery date years down the line, and if they haven't forgotten about it by then, somebody else will be in charge, and it won't be my problem." What a bunch of wankers.
Matt
Addendum:
I have just shared an email exchange with Kate Goodridge, Customer Service Centre, Department of Health... She had this to say, amongst other things:
"...the Department of Health is not responsible for the ‘success’ of the pharmaceutical -or any other- industry..."
So that's that settled. She was responding to a couple of emails I wrote to Andrew Burnham, Secretary of State for Health, mostly concerning Eli (Lilly). Kate didn't mention Eli, in her reply. Eli is, of course, a drug pedlar, according to CIA docs.
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Megrahi's lawyers to reveal 'evidence of innocence'
This story just keeps on running... In the same way that a festering sore runs, methinks!
Megrahi's lawyers to reveal 'evidence of innocence'
What do I think about this latest development (if I want to be asked interesting questions, then I have to ask them of myself, these days!)? Well on the one hand, I don't actually care that much; after all, none of this impacts me, directly. On the other hand, I do have an interest in the Law, as a general concept...
As one of the commenters observes, we don't have a particularly good record, when it comes to miscarriages of justice - the desire for revenge attaches itself to whomever appears the most likely candidate (I write "desire" - it might just be a habit, who knows?), and Plod the Sod can't necessarily be trusted to be impartial, especially when they're sure that they've got their man. Much like the rest of us, I suppose.
Does it matter whether or not Megrahi is innocent? He's free, after all? I suppose it matters to him. It almost certainly would if he were innocent. But if he is innocent, where does that leave the families of those who died at Lockerbie? Where will they put their hate then?
Oh, what tangled webs we weave... Somebody's lying.
Megrahi's lawyers to reveal 'evidence of innocence'
What do I think about this latest development (if I want to be asked interesting questions, then I have to ask them of myself, these days!)? Well on the one hand, I don't actually care that much; after all, none of this impacts me, directly. On the other hand, I do have an interest in the Law, as a general concept...
As one of the commenters observes, we don't have a particularly good record, when it comes to miscarriages of justice - the desire for revenge attaches itself to whomever appears the most likely candidate (I write "desire" - it might just be a habit, who knows?), and Plod the Sod can't necessarily be trusted to be impartial, especially when they're sure that they've got their man. Much like the rest of us, I suppose.
Does it matter whether or not Megrahi is innocent? He's free, after all? I suppose it matters to him. It almost certainly would if he were innocent. But if he is innocent, where does that leave the families of those who died at Lockerbie? Where will they put their hate then?
Oh, what tangled webs we weave... Somebody's lying.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Series of errors allowed Madoff to keep trading
Oh, God - I'm laughing so fucking hard, I can barely type! I'm sorry, this is schadenfreude.
Series of errors allowed Madoff to keep trading
Now, for those of you who may be unaware, my background is in Law and financial compliance. The first thing that one is told, as a rookie compliance officer (by the people training one, not by one's company!), is that a major risk indicator in any organization is the balance of marketing types vs. others, at the top of the organization. In other words, if an organization is run by marketing people, then the potential for blind eyes to be turned is much greater. Moreover, such an organization is likely to appoint a junior person to the compliance role, because they can be more easily controlled (ie, manipulated and starved of information), and also because it is a measure of how important they regard compliance.
And the SEC has been caught out in just this way, by the look of things. They put people on the case who could be slapped down, if anything was uncovered - hell, one might even think that they were determined not to find anything, even though it was (apparently glaringly), there, presumably because it would have been embarassing. Or, even worse, they were so fucking supine that they feared that if they looked and found nothing, but Madoff chose to be angered by the scrutiny, then there might be repercussions. Cowardice, in other words.
It's all too funny for words. Reminds me of my old place of work. Nobody believed me, either. Or else chose not to believe me, because they were doing nicely out of it. Or else they were only too well aware of what was going on with the megalomaniacs who were running the business, and had chosen to become part of it, rather than object. Also reminds me of the pharmaceutical industry and its non-regulators on both sides of the Pond.
You like putting people in boxes and giving them labels? I will have my revenge, and it will be complete. What's more, I don't care if you hate me for it.
Matt
Series of errors allowed Madoff to keep trading
Now, for those of you who may be unaware, my background is in Law and financial compliance. The first thing that one is told, as a rookie compliance officer (by the people training one, not by one's company!), is that a major risk indicator in any organization is the balance of marketing types vs. others, at the top of the organization. In other words, if an organization is run by marketing people, then the potential for blind eyes to be turned is much greater. Moreover, such an organization is likely to appoint a junior person to the compliance role, because they can be more easily controlled (ie, manipulated and starved of information), and also because it is a measure of how important they regard compliance.
And the SEC has been caught out in just this way, by the look of things. They put people on the case who could be slapped down, if anything was uncovered - hell, one might even think that they were determined not to find anything, even though it was (apparently glaringly), there, presumably because it would have been embarassing. Or, even worse, they were so fucking supine that they feared that if they looked and found nothing, but Madoff chose to be angered by the scrutiny, then there might be repercussions. Cowardice, in other words.
It's all too funny for words. Reminds me of my old place of work. Nobody believed me, either. Or else chose not to believe me, because they were doing nicely out of it. Or else they were only too well aware of what was going on with the megalomaniacs who were running the business, and had chosen to become part of it, rather than object. Also reminds me of the pharmaceutical industry and its non-regulators on both sides of the Pond.
You like putting people in boxes and giving them labels? I will have my revenge, and it will be complete. What's more, I don't care if you hate me for it.
Matt
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
'Terrorist Facebook' – the new weapon against al-Qa'ida
I just love this... No doubt there's a strong rationale behind it, and the technology is foolproof:
'Terrorist Facebook' – the new weapon against al-Qa'ida
but seeing as I'm unlikely to get to discuss this with anybody, I'm left to ponder my misgivings with myself... Let's say, for example, that I'm paranoid. Not just a bit, but a lot. Let's say that everything that I don't have complete control over represents a threat to me and my interests - if I can't be sure that a certain person(s) is doing a certain thing, and that that thing is precisely what (s)he has been told to do, by me, then this is a cause for concern.
Let's say that I am in a position of control and authority. Let's say that my view of control and authority is that I say "jump" and everybody else says "how high?" Let's say that this is what I use as an indicator of who and what is a threat to me: those who don't say "how high?" are very likely plotting something against me, in my world. Are you getting the picture?
Now, apart from being paranoid, this also looks vaguely autistic (according to my understanding of the word, anyway). That is, if things aren't happening in exactly the way that I had envisioned, I get nervous, and seek to exert/reassert control.
OK, so much for that. Now, can you see my dilemna? No? Well, it's this: I think that everything, and I mean everything that I do will have traces of that paranoia and obsession about them. If I write a post, on this blog, it will reek of paranoia. If I have a conversation with somebody, then that's the direction I'll try to steer the conversation. Everything will be about control. And if I were to write, or have written, a computer program to plot the relationships between known and suspected terrorists...
Let's model this. Andrew is a terrorist - don't ask me how we know this, but he is. Now, Andrew regularly has coffee with Brian. We don't know that Brian is a terrorist, but the fact that he's meeting with Andrew suggests this to us. Andrew could have a life outside terrorism, of course, and Brian might be part of that non-terrorist life - so, how can we check that?
All of Brian's other associations (ie, people he knows - Charlie, Dick, Edward, and so on), are not suspected terrorists - they have never had any links with any radical organizations, or anything of that nature. So, Brian's in the clear, right - we've satisfied ourselves that the relationship between Andrew and Brian is merely social? Well, that rather depends upon how paranoid we are. What if it occurs to us that Andrew is in contact with Brian, precisely because of his clean record, as far as the intelligence services are concerned?
Brian might be covertly sympathetic to Andrew's activities, and may be recruiting for Andrew from his own circle of friends and acquaintences. How do we check that?
Hmmm. That's about as far into fantasy land as I'm inclined to go, to be honest. The point I'm trying to make is this: if one's mindset is geared a certain way, then that is the way that one will see the world. If one sees a threat in everything, then one's computer program will do so, too, because it was created by one. It cannot think differently to one, because a computer program has no independent learning capability - it will do what one instructs it to do, and if what one instructs it to do is look for potential threats, then that is precisely what it will do, and it will keep on looking, until it finds one. And nobody is ever off the hook.
I think that it is possible to write a program that can cope with that amount of information. I think it's possible to have a processor that's capable of dealing with that information in a timely manner. However, the success of the operation is dependent upon this, I think: has one accommodated the possibility that what a person is doing is completely innocent? In other words, does the computer/program have the licence to dismiss a certain piece of information, or else shelve it and re-evaluate it in the light of information that might be received in the future?
Alternatively, is the computer/program obliged to ignore innocent actions, as most people do when they've made their minds up? Let's say that 99.99% of what a person does is beyond reproach. But we don't care about that. We dismiss that, and look at the 0.01% that is, at least, dubious; aberrant to our eyes. But the whole of that 0.01% looks threatening, and because we're only looking at that 0.01%, it becomes the universe with respect to that individual, and that individual becomes dangerous in their entirety.
Because it seems to me that a computer doesn't care - it has no concept of master/servant, and it is not afraid of somebody pulling the plug on it. The computer is neutral - so how does one have it tell us that a certain person is dangerous, to us, when it doesn't care one way or the other? One skews its way of thinking. With a program.
Nope, this isn't going to work: it's founded on flawed reasoning and a false premise. The false premise is this: that any human being, no matter how powerful in the human world, has the right to say that they are right and somebody else is wrong, when one only has to view the scene from the opposite perspective to see how fallacious that argument is. You think right and wrong are objectively ascertainable? God help us.
Addendum: Perhaps a better way to phrase my summation is this: I think that there's a risk that we think the computer is infallible, when it's not. If we believe that it's infallible, then even if we perceive that its conclusions are incongruous, we will dismiss our own misgivings and proceed as it has instructed us.
But if the program that it's operating is based on a false premise (our own fear), and it is not required to weigh the positive along with negative, then the results it will arrive at will be flawed. Because, let's face it, at some level everybody, but everybody, is acting against our personal interests.
Dependent upon how microscopic the dubious behaviour is that our computer will pick up on, I think there are two potential scenarios, in extremis. First, the computer will find that everybody is engaged in terrorism, at some level. Second, it will conclude that nobody is. If the program is True, and not skewed in favour of those who have ordered that it be written, then the latter is more likely.
'Terrorist Facebook' – the new weapon against al-Qa'ida
but seeing as I'm unlikely to get to discuss this with anybody, I'm left to ponder my misgivings with myself... Let's say, for example, that I'm paranoid. Not just a bit, but a lot. Let's say that everything that I don't have complete control over represents a threat to me and my interests - if I can't be sure that a certain person(s) is doing a certain thing, and that that thing is precisely what (s)he has been told to do, by me, then this is a cause for concern.
Let's say that I am in a position of control and authority. Let's say that my view of control and authority is that I say "jump" and everybody else says "how high?" Let's say that this is what I use as an indicator of who and what is a threat to me: those who don't say "how high?" are very likely plotting something against me, in my world. Are you getting the picture?
Now, apart from being paranoid, this also looks vaguely autistic (according to my understanding of the word, anyway). That is, if things aren't happening in exactly the way that I had envisioned, I get nervous, and seek to exert/reassert control.
OK, so much for that. Now, can you see my dilemna? No? Well, it's this: I think that everything, and I mean everything that I do will have traces of that paranoia and obsession about them. If I write a post, on this blog, it will reek of paranoia. If I have a conversation with somebody, then that's the direction I'll try to steer the conversation. Everything will be about control. And if I were to write, or have written, a computer program to plot the relationships between known and suspected terrorists...
Let's model this. Andrew is a terrorist - don't ask me how we know this, but he is. Now, Andrew regularly has coffee with Brian. We don't know that Brian is a terrorist, but the fact that he's meeting with Andrew suggests this to us. Andrew could have a life outside terrorism, of course, and Brian might be part of that non-terrorist life - so, how can we check that?
All of Brian's other associations (ie, people he knows - Charlie, Dick, Edward, and so on), are not suspected terrorists - they have never had any links with any radical organizations, or anything of that nature. So, Brian's in the clear, right - we've satisfied ourselves that the relationship between Andrew and Brian is merely social? Well, that rather depends upon how paranoid we are. What if it occurs to us that Andrew is in contact with Brian, precisely because of his clean record, as far as the intelligence services are concerned?
Brian might be covertly sympathetic to Andrew's activities, and may be recruiting for Andrew from his own circle of friends and acquaintences. How do we check that?
Hmmm. That's about as far into fantasy land as I'm inclined to go, to be honest. The point I'm trying to make is this: if one's mindset is geared a certain way, then that is the way that one will see the world. If one sees a threat in everything, then one's computer program will do so, too, because it was created by one. It cannot think differently to one, because a computer program has no independent learning capability - it will do what one instructs it to do, and if what one instructs it to do is look for potential threats, then that is precisely what it will do, and it will keep on looking, until it finds one. And nobody is ever off the hook.
I think that it is possible to write a program that can cope with that amount of information. I think it's possible to have a processor that's capable of dealing with that information in a timely manner. However, the success of the operation is dependent upon this, I think: has one accommodated the possibility that what a person is doing is completely innocent? In other words, does the computer/program have the licence to dismiss a certain piece of information, or else shelve it and re-evaluate it in the light of information that might be received in the future?
Alternatively, is the computer/program obliged to ignore innocent actions, as most people do when they've made their minds up? Let's say that 99.99% of what a person does is beyond reproach. But we don't care about that. We dismiss that, and look at the 0.01% that is, at least, dubious; aberrant to our eyes. But the whole of that 0.01% looks threatening, and because we're only looking at that 0.01%, it becomes the universe with respect to that individual, and that individual becomes dangerous in their entirety.
Because it seems to me that a computer doesn't care - it has no concept of master/servant, and it is not afraid of somebody pulling the plug on it. The computer is neutral - so how does one have it tell us that a certain person is dangerous, to us, when it doesn't care one way or the other? One skews its way of thinking. With a program.
Nope, this isn't going to work: it's founded on flawed reasoning and a false premise. The false premise is this: that any human being, no matter how powerful in the human world, has the right to say that they are right and somebody else is wrong, when one only has to view the scene from the opposite perspective to see how fallacious that argument is. You think right and wrong are objectively ascertainable? God help us.
Addendum: Perhaps a better way to phrase my summation is this: I think that there's a risk that we think the computer is infallible, when it's not. If we believe that it's infallible, then even if we perceive that its conclusions are incongruous, we will dismiss our own misgivings and proceed as it has instructed us.
But if the program that it's operating is based on a false premise (our own fear), and it is not required to weigh the positive along with negative, then the results it will arrive at will be flawed. Because, let's face it, at some level everybody, but everybody, is acting against our personal interests.
Dependent upon how microscopic the dubious behaviour is that our computer will pick up on, I think there are two potential scenarios, in extremis. First, the computer will find that everybody is engaged in terrorism, at some level. Second, it will conclude that nobody is. If the program is True, and not skewed in favour of those who have ordered that it be written, then the latter is more likely.
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Hacker over under pressure Johnson
I'm intrigued by this story for any number of reasons... Apparently, we're in the business of seeking to punish those acknowledged as being among the most vulnerable in society, now:
Johnson under pressure over hacker
We're told that Mr McKinnon committed "serious crimes," and that he caused hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage. I'm not quite sure what these serious crimes are, nor how conducting these crimes could have caused damage that might be assessed as costing that much, but what would I know?
I'm a little confused about all this, to be honest. I had initially thought Mr McKinnon, who has been diagnosed with Aspberger's Syndrome, to be a savant of some kind... How else would he have been able to find his way past all those firewalls, passwords and encryption? And then I heard Mr McKinnon's mother say in an interview that there were no passwords. What does one make of that? Mr McKinnon appears to have made the CIA look like muppets, somehow or other [to self: is the simile really necessary?]. Or did they do it to themselves? Or could a lump of turd cause the CIA to make muppets of themselves? So many unanswered questions...
Anyway, I took the kids to a country park not far from where I live, yesterday. They fell into conversation with a young lad who very proudly said that he had Aspberger's. I don't think I'd have known, if he hadn't told us - he looked and sounded like every other nine year-old, to me. What does one make of that?
In any case, the CIA will get nothing from Mr McKinnon, even supposing they get their conviction and he doesn't kill himself in jail. Because they're too fucking stupid.
Johnson under pressure over hacker
We're told that Mr McKinnon committed "serious crimes," and that he caused hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage. I'm not quite sure what these serious crimes are, nor how conducting these crimes could have caused damage that might be assessed as costing that much, but what would I know?
I'm a little confused about all this, to be honest. I had initially thought Mr McKinnon, who has been diagnosed with Aspberger's Syndrome, to be a savant of some kind... How else would he have been able to find his way past all those firewalls, passwords and encryption? And then I heard Mr McKinnon's mother say in an interview that there were no passwords. What does one make of that? Mr McKinnon appears to have made the CIA look like muppets, somehow or other [to self: is the simile really necessary?]. Or did they do it to themselves? Or could a lump of turd cause the CIA to make muppets of themselves? So many unanswered questions...
Anyway, I took the kids to a country park not far from where I live, yesterday. They fell into conversation with a young lad who very proudly said that he had Aspberger's. I don't think I'd have known, if he hadn't told us - he looked and sounded like every other nine year-old, to me. What does one make of that?
In any case, the CIA will get nothing from Mr McKinnon, even supposing they get their conviction and he doesn't kill himself in jail. Because they're too fucking stupid.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Torture report a "security risk"
Time to LMFAO in that blackly cynical way, again:
Torture report a "security risk"
So, we have this senior judge, a Lord Justice of Appeal, who sees no threat in this document, but the American administration is getting all hot under the collar... Whereupon it becomes a political decision, not a legal one (groans), and a political decision to be made by Miliband, too. Should we read between the lines (ie, speculate)? Yes, fuck it, why not?
These few short paras reveal that torture techniques are widely practised in Guantanamo Bay, and any protests that the US administration might make as to the respect accorded to the Geneva Convention (which we know doesn't apply, because the detainees aren't covered by the Convention, because the US administration said so), amount to irrelevant twaddle, concocted by cowards and liars.
Hillary Clinton is a 97 year-old psychopath.
Now, for what it's worth, I wouldn't accede to the thinly-veiled threat made by Clinton and her "intelligence" officials for one very simple reason. If they find that that type of behaviour is successful, then they will resort to it, time and again, because they're too fucking lazy to find something more productive.
I imagine it was named the CIA as some kind of aspirational thing. You know, kind of like me setting myself the goal of thinking a billion times faster than anybody else, or something.
Torture report a "security risk"
So, we have this senior judge, a Lord Justice of Appeal, who sees no threat in this document, but the American administration is getting all hot under the collar... Whereupon it becomes a political decision, not a legal one (groans), and a political decision to be made by Miliband, too. Should we read between the lines (ie, speculate)? Yes, fuck it, why not?
These few short paras reveal that torture techniques are widely practised in Guantanamo Bay, and any protests that the US administration might make as to the respect accorded to the Geneva Convention (which we know doesn't apply, because the detainees aren't covered by the Convention, because the US administration said so), amount to irrelevant twaddle, concocted by cowards and liars.
Hillary Clinton is a 97 year-old psychopath.
Now, for what it's worth, I wouldn't accede to the thinly-veiled threat made by Clinton and her "intelligence" officials for one very simple reason. If they find that that type of behaviour is successful, then they will resort to it, time and again, because they're too fucking lazy to find something more productive.
I imagine it was named the CIA as some kind of aspirational thing. You know, kind of like me setting myself the goal of thinking a billion times faster than anybody else, or something.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Seven degrees of separation...
You know the theory... Each of us is only seven acquaintances away from everybody else? Even if the most "powerful" people won't speak to the likes of you and I directly, it shouldn't be that difficult to impact them. And quite quickly, too. I think I'll test the theory...
Who needs Gestalt?
Matt
Who needs Gestalt?
Matt
Saturday, 16 May 2009
15th May - Meeting with MHRA - Birmingham
Fidders has met with the MHRA, the UK's drug and devices "regulator":
15th May - Meeting with MHRA - Birmingham
and he's very kindly put my name forward as somebody the MHRA may wish to talk to, when it comes to understanding how it may engage better with the people its supposed to be serving (for the avoidance of any and all possible doubt, I understand this demographic to be the British public, and not the Worshipful Company of Apothecaries). Always supposing that the MHRA is inclined to engage with me, it should know that I view it with roughly the same contempt that it has shown me. Now, run that gauntlet, you cunts.
Matt
15th May - Meeting with MHRA - Birmingham
and he's very kindly put my name forward as somebody the MHRA may wish to talk to, when it comes to understanding how it may engage better with the people its supposed to be serving (for the avoidance of any and all possible doubt, I understand this demographic to be the British public, and not the Worshipful Company of Apothecaries). Always supposing that the MHRA is inclined to engage with me, it should know that I view it with roughly the same contempt that it has shown me. Now, run that gauntlet, you cunts.
Matt
Sunday, 12 April 2009
No 10 aide fired over 'obscene' email smears
I've been laughing my little, white ass off about this. Not, I trust, consequent to an attack of schadenfreude, but simply because the whole thing is so utterly absurd that I don't know where to begin to deconstruct it!
No 10 aide fired over 'obscene' email smears
Let's see, we have this important guy, a senior aide to Texture, thinking that it's appropriate to start malicious rumours, presumably for the purpose of destabilizing the opposition. Now, this may be a pattern of behaviour that Mr McBride follows, routinely, or it may be that he has so little confidence in Labour's competence (or in the electorate's belief in Labour's competence), that he saw the only course as being to attempt to diminish the competition (the Conservatives), even though such a thing pained him greatly, from a moral standpoint. So much for that.
Brown then fires McBride, which he thinks demonstrates his wholehearted opposition to this kind of behaviour, presumably. It doesn't, because he had fuck all to say about Monty Burns et al's treatment of John Buse, which is very similar, to my mind. Probably worse, in fact.
Then, we have this Tory backbencher. Not satisfied with the fact that McBride's stories have been demonstrated to be false, and admitted to be false, nor with the fact that McBride has been dismissed, this, erm, lady, has decided that the only course is to defend her honour in the courts. The civil courts, it should be said, are there to right wrongs between individuals. It seems to me that this particular wrong has already been righted, and with a bit of luck, there being no cause of action, the case will be dismissed.
What a bunch of fuckwits. Small wonder that fuck all ever gets done, when the people who are supposedly the most mature, intelligent and best-suited to lead expend the greater part of their time and energy over this sort of trivia. Meanwhile, when somebody raises a real issue, they're quietly ignored. And then politicians wonder why they're not trusted.
No 10 aide fired over 'obscene' email smears
Let's see, we have this important guy, a senior aide to Texture, thinking that it's appropriate to start malicious rumours, presumably for the purpose of destabilizing the opposition. Now, this may be a pattern of behaviour that Mr McBride follows, routinely, or it may be that he has so little confidence in Labour's competence (or in the electorate's belief in Labour's competence), that he saw the only course as being to attempt to diminish the competition (the Conservatives), even though such a thing pained him greatly, from a moral standpoint. So much for that.
Brown then fires McBride, which he thinks demonstrates his wholehearted opposition to this kind of behaviour, presumably. It doesn't, because he had fuck all to say about Monty Burns et al's treatment of John Buse, which is very similar, to my mind. Probably worse, in fact.
Then, we have this Tory backbencher. Not satisfied with the fact that McBride's stories have been demonstrated to be false, and admitted to be false, nor with the fact that McBride has been dismissed, this, erm, lady, has decided that the only course is to defend her honour in the courts. The civil courts, it should be said, are there to right wrongs between individuals. It seems to me that this particular wrong has already been righted, and with a bit of luck, there being no cause of action, the case will be dismissed.
What a bunch of fuckwits. Small wonder that fuck all ever gets done, when the people who are supposedly the most mature, intelligent and best-suited to lead expend the greater part of their time and energy over this sort of trivia. Meanwhile, when somebody raises a real issue, they're quietly ignored. And then politicians wonder why they're not trusted.
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Psychotherapists in turmoil over plans to start regulation
When I saw this, I couldn't help but chuckle to myself, in that blackly cynical way, which I've perfected, over the years. "Go and find your own solutions," I say, because no fucker else has got any!
Psychotherapists in turmoil over plans to start regulation
Remember this, if you remember nothing else: psychotherapists are trying to repair themselves, first and foremost, just like everybody else on the planet.
Matt
Psychotherapists in turmoil over plans to start regulation
Remember this, if you remember nothing else: psychotherapists are trying to repair themselves, first and foremost, just like everybody else on the planet.
Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
