Looking around the Tokyo blogscape, I can’t help but notice that I’m probably the only one using pMachine for my blog. Just about everyone else is using Movable Type. That’s a pretty powerful endorsement! 
Having looked over both, I can see that Movable Type is probably quite a bit better in some areas, but I’m not at all unhappy with pMachine. I briefly thought about setting up a separate MT blog, but what would I use it for? (I don’t have time to keep two blogs!)

The title of today’s entry comes from Scott Mason, a fellow expat technophile. He wrote me earlier today to ask if I had seen this interview with John Perry Barlow, one of the founders of the EFF (and, incidentally, a lyricist for the Grateful Dead). I hadn’t seen it, so I was very glad Scott brought it to my attention. 
Anyway, we were discussing the implications of DRM and what it holds in store for the rights of everyday people. At one point in our discussion, I observed that rights that are ordinarily good things—like the freedom of speech and copyrights—are more and more regularly being used by corporations as tools to control the public. (More on this idea in a future entry.) 
Scott replied with the following:

It’s just the further consolidation and congealing of the Matrix into our world. Most people have seen the movie and fail to draw the connection to real life. It’s like the theme of the movie were really “What’s the best place to hide an elephant?”

Although I’m afraid this excerpt doesn’t do justice to many of the more serious things we discussed, it is worth noting that good science fiction is not simply entertainment; often it is a thinly veiled metaphor, warning people of what could be.
In a related conversation,  John De Hoog and I have been discussing DRM on the Democrats Abroad-Japan mailing list. I suggested that the DAJ reach out to geeks in an effort to tap into a source of potential activism. Although most geeks don’t really care for politics, they are usually pretty passionate about technology. Where politics and technology intersect (as they often do these days), I think there is plenty of room for geeks to wade into the morass. Who knows, they could just save us all from the evils of digital tyranny.
John seems to think that geeks might shun the Democratic party simply because Democrats seem to be siding with the mega-corps on most of the major issues. To some extent, I think this cannot be helped, but I’m sure it is a situation that can be improved.
For one thing, the corporations are not entirely wrong. They have a right to protect their work. In that sense, it is natural to side with them on many issues. (The fact that corporations do a lot of lobbying also helps a bit, I imagine.) But the corporations tend to go too far, and the legislators need to be aware of the implications of giving corporations everything they ask for—because they’re asking for everything!
I’m sure a few hard core geeks would be helpful in shaping the Democratic party’s policies about technology. The EFF does a lot of good work, but it cannot be expected to shape policy on its own. The Democrats need geeks—and vice versa! After all, if Democrats are not going to fight for the rights of the little guy, who will? Likewise, if geeks are not going to help the Democrats make sensible laws, who will? Microsoft?
If you happen to go see Tom Cruise’s new movie, Minority Report, please bear in mind that it depicts how society could become (though it will probably be vast databases, not “pre-cogs,” making the arrest decisions). We’re not talking about hiding elephants here, we’re trying to wake people up to the reality that a Matrix of sorts is closing in around them, here and now, in 2003. I, for one, would like to see the Democrats position themselves as the more tech-savvy party in our government—and then govern accordingly. 
Will it happen, or am I about to be arrested for crimes that I have not yet committed (or even crimes that are not yet crimes)?

In this recent Salon article (subscription or ad tolerance required), “Old Europe” and a large and important segment of the U.N. Security Council seem to be lining up around the notion that the Bush administration has not made the case that war with Iraq is justified. According to recent polls, a majority of Americans also agree with this view. 
Here’s an excerpt:

At least six members of the 15-member Security Council have adopted the position that the American administration still hasn’t made a good case for attacking Iraq and that the inspectors need to be granted substantially more time. Russia and China, also permanent veto-bearing nations, subscribe to that view.

Here’s another good one:

Anatol Lieven has put it most bluntly: America, that elder daughter of the Enlightenment, has become “a menace to itself and to the rest of the world.”

 
And a follow-up question from yours truly: If cabinet-level officers in other governments are forced to resign after calling Bush “a moron” or comparing him to Hitler (which, in this blogger’s opinion, is quite an apt comparison), why doesn’t Rumsfeld have to resign for his remarks about France and Germany?

In this Washington Post article, E.J. Dionne Jr. makes the point that I’ve been trying to get across to anyone who will listen for quite some time now: Bush is not smart enough—and far too partisan!—to be president. 
Not only doesn’t he grasp the implications of his “with me or against me” policy, but he cuts down those who do support him if they are not from his party. 
Thanks to John De Hoog for calling my attention to the article. 

I see from a handful of articles at Wired that the money I spent on an ACLU membership last year is paying off. Good!
Seeing news like this assuages some of my concerns that anti-terrorist measures were about to demolish civil liberties in the United States. I applaud the efforts of Senators Wyden, Feingold, and Daschle in bringing these important issues to the Senate’s attention. 
These articles also called my attention to another very worthwhile organization that I have been neglecting for too long (an oversight that I will soon rectify by joining), the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Last year, I contributed about $300 to various political organizations—the first time I have ever made such an investment in politics. If I keep seeing positive results like these, the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and MoveOn.org will continue to enjoy my full support.
After all, $300 is a small price to pay for freedom from government tyranny.