[Noisebridge-discuss] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.

[rachel lyra hospodar]

On Apr 5, 2012 4:02 PM, "Matt Joyce" <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>
> For the record, I do believe in a democratically elected
> representative nation working.  I also believe that what we have in
> the US today is not a democracy by any definition of the word.
> Electoral reform is absolutely something I believe is necessary for
> the continued success of our nation.

Your previous message talked extensively about our elected representatives
as the people who make the overarching decisions regarding how many guns we
have and where they are pointed. Your tone seemed to imply that this gave
you some comfort. I agree that it is, more or less, the case that elected
officials are the ones making these types of military decisions.

>
> But I also believe that is outside the scope of the concerns here.

This is another point on which we disagree, then. Because the 'elected
officials' sure seem to be bought & paid for by corporate interests.  If
the ole boys' club that bought our Congress is the group making the
decisions for our military, I do believe it is relevant to the way I, as a
citizen, relate to the military.

When they bought Congress, when corporate 'speech' took office, they also
took control of our military.

So no, I don't think broader concerns about the fundamental problems with
the 'representative' part of our democracy can be extricated from specific
concerns about where the guns are pointed, and who is telling kids what to
do with their time.

R.

>
> -Matt
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
> <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Matt,
> >
> > Thanks for this response, it makes some things about your opinions
clearer
> > to me. I have cc'd the list because my goal in making a public stand on
this
> > issue is to have a public conversation about it.
> >
> > I certainly agree with you that many people within the military have the
> > best of intentions. I believe the people within the military who make
> > decisions are a sub-group that is far more likely than the average
member of
> > the military to have motivations that are suspect. Additionally, the
general
> > strategic approach of that body towards conflict is, in my opinion,
> > fundamentally flawed. Therefore, everything they are interested in
doing is
> > also suspect.
> >
> > One final point of fundamental disagreement between us - about having
all
> > that explodey stuff under ultimate command of elected representatives.
This
> > doesn't give me the same kind of warm fuzzy that you seem to get. I
don't
> > trust our elected officials, and do not find their morals or decisions
seem
> > to really align with my own.
> >
> > So, the bigger picture discussion is where we need to stay for the
moment.
> >
> > Martin has listed a bunch of government agencies that I would be
comfortable
> > working under. Everyone is entitled to their own set of compromises,
and I
> > don't judge where the line 'should' be drawn.  I personally believe that
> > framing is very important, and specifically would not work on a project
with
> > people whose goals I did not like *even if* most other variables were
ideal.
> > Lots of people optimize for different variables in choosing their work
- job
> > location, pay rate, benefits, what kind of video game system is in the
break
> > room...  I choose to live the change I would like to see in the world,
and
> > often take a more difficult path because I think it is more
appropriate.  It
> > is because of this that I believe projects should be framed and
executed in
> > a manner consistent with their goals. You know, authenticity?
> >
> > If you want to keep discussing this with me that is great but please
keep it
> > on-list, and please try to frame your opinions as facts a little less
often.
> > It makes me twitch, and obscures some actual facts - like, you are ok
with
> > the war machine, and I am not. You view it as a necessary evil
compromise
> > solution that we are stuck with, yes? I view it as a symbiosis gone
horribly
> > malignant that we open-source hackers, breaking ground on the true
forefront
> > of technology development systems, can exert an incredible amount of
> > influence over.
> >
> > I certainly intend to fucking try.
> >
> > R.
> >
> > On Apr 4, 2012 4:03 PM, "Matt Joyce" <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Taking this off list to avoid flooding.
> >>
> >> To a point I do believe that.  Let me explain.
> >>
> >> I believe that ultimately decisions of choosing how to use the
> >> military resides in the hands of elected leaders.  This is the case on
> >> paper by the way.  DARPA simply provides more and better options.
> >> General Sherman believed in total war, and his methods have cut a
> >> bloody swathe through history solely because of the efficacy of his
> >> methodology in ending conflict.  But all of his actions were approved
> >> by a chain of command ultimately signed off by the Commander in Chief
> >> who was at the time Abraham Lincoln.  The south was defeated and never
> >> rose again.  As with any statement of work the military needs to be
> >> able to actually achieve their goals which means sometimes you need to
> >> leave them some room to maneuver.   And yes that can result in some
> >> very creative loopholes which one can fly some seriously nasty stuff
> >> through.  But no system is perfect.  It's just a question of does it
> >> work enough?
> >>
> >> If congress declares a state of war.  The military will focus entirely
> >> on ending that state of war in the most efficient way they can think
> >> of.  There is no morality in that equation.  No ethics.  That is set
> >> and governed by elected leadership.  And I don't hate that.  There is
> >> a certain simple functionality in it.  I am not sure a better system
> >> exists.  I would argue most of the complaints that people have
> >> regarding the military stem from the basic misunderstanding that they
> >> see themselves as a means to an end defined by well ... our elected
> >> leaders.  And their conscience is congress.  As the old saying goes...
> >> "Ours is not to reason why, ours is to do or die."  That mentality is
> >> a fundamental mechanism of the US military.  And detachment from
> >> morality and ethics is a necessity of anyone whose job includes
> >> shooting other people.
> >>
> >> Is that whole system a fundamental evil?  It's certainly not a good
> >> thing.  I don't like that it exists.  But I am pretty sure for now at
> >> least it has to through no fault of our own.  And that does make me
> >> very sad.
> >>
> >> Is any of this a moral justification?  Or is it just a way to shirk
> >> responsibility?  I don't think so.  Each person in the military still
> >> has to live with the consequences of their own actions.  And no doubt
> >> that is very difficult for them in each their own way.
> >>
> >> I don't know if that answers the question.  But yes that is my
> >> understanding of the mechanisms in place.  Obviously war is an
> >> unhealthy thing for anyone, and when someones job consists of
> >> suspending their ethics even a code of conduct becomes easy to
> >> rationalize away.  I think it's important we do take that stuff into
> >> account.  But at the end of the day the buck does stop with elected
> >> leadership.  Most folks in the military don't want to be shot.  Or to
> >> shoot other people.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of
> >> people even in the military do not wake up thinking about how terrific
> >> it would be to kill someone today.  And everything I do follows from
> >> that.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>    matt
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
> >> <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Matt, your earlier message included the following text. You may wish
to
> >> > steer this conversation towards the specific (individual questions or
> >> > concerns about tactics), but I believe that the broader questions are
> >> > important. Tell me, do you truly believe what is stated below? If
so, I
> >> > cannot have a nitty gritty discussion with you about
tactics...because
> >> > our
> >> > base level assumptions do not match.
> >> >
> >> > R.
> >> >
> >> > You wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> > And I want to remind you. DARPA isn't in the business of killing
people.
> >> > It's in the business of engineering peace where there is none. War
and
> >> > chaos
> >> > do not achieve the objectives of DARPA or the US military. Their
goal is
> >> > to
> >> > END conflict.
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > On Apr 4, 2012 3:20 PM, "Matt Joyce" <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> We are hackers.... so I am going to model this posting in the way of
> >> >> psuedo python.
> >> >>
> >> >> Developers of Make have decided to introduce a new module called
DARPA.
> >> >>
> >> >> try:
> >> >>    import DARPA from USGOV
> >> >> fail:
> >> >>    import DIYClassic
> >> >>
> >> >> Fair enough.
> >> >>
> >> >> Open Source Community Leader Mitch Altman has concerns about how
DARPA
> >> >> as a module operates and whether or not we should be using it in our
> >> >> software.  He has decided that he no longer wishes to collaborate
with
> >> >> Make as a result.  He needed to let the community know this for a
> >> >> variety of reasons.  This of courses starts a firestorm of debate.
> >> >>
> >> >> So lets look at DARPA as a module.
> >> >>
> >> >> We know it has a collection of methods... some of which are really
> >> >> sweet.  It has several methods for calling get_money from grants.
> >> >> However many of these are as GNU would say tainted.  However in
spite
> >> >> of these several methods have been used to great success in the
past.
> >> >>
> >> >> Project Internet, Grand Challenge, and a few others have been raised
> >> >> as examples.
> >> >>
> >> >> So I guess the question I have is.. can we build either a default
deny
> >> >> or default allow list of methods that DARPA provides that work for
our
> >> >> open source projects?  Are they portable?  Is there a friendly
> >> >> community contact involved in a two way discussion about future
> >> >> development and participation.
> >> >>
> >> >> These are just my questions.  I think there are probably many more
to
> >> >> ask.  It seems to me what is at question here is whether we can set
a
> >> >> community standard for interfacing with DARPA?  If we can, do we
> >> >> benefit from it?  Is there a better alternative?  Can we write a
> >> >> hackerspace enhancement proposal for this.  And do we want to adopt
it
> >> >> if we can?
> >> >>
> >> >> I mean lets not lose our heads here.  This is an important
discussion
> >> >> with some serious stakes.  We need to focus on defining what the
> >> >> issues are we want addressed.  Figuring out how and if we can get
> >> >> answers on addressing them.  Then deciding if we should.
> >> >>
> >> >> In short lets line up our issues and knock them down.  If at the end
> >> >> of that there's an issue that remains then so be it.
> >> >>
> >> >> This discussion is turning unproductive.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Matt
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Corey McGuire <coreyfro at coreyfro.com
>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Noone is saying this doesn't happen.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What we are saying is, here is a chance to take the positive
aspects
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > all
> >> >> > of humanity and roll them in to one event.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For example.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am a Co-Parent.  I have an active role in my child's life.  So
does
> >> >> > his
> >> >> > mother.  We may not approve of each other's methods for raising
our,
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > indeed, we may have, each, committed wrongs (I am only using this
as
> >> >> > illustration, likenesses to people living or dead is purely
> >> >> > coincidental).
> >> >> >  To use these wrongs as a reason for pushing the other parent out
of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > child's life, however, is a GREATER wrong...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...because, regardless of a few wrongs, there is no shortage of
good
> >> >> > that,
> >> >> > in our case, each parent provides.  Were we separate our child
from
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > parent over a few wrongs, the child would not be exposed to the
good
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > parent...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...BUT NOT ONLY THAT...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...because these children are intelligent beings, each with the
> >> >> > ability
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > measure right and wrong...to not have both parents represented,
then
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > child only has ONE model to base their entire world view from.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you, Rachel Lyra Hospodar and Mitch Rodrick (just a guess)
> >> >> > Altman, want
> >> >> > to be dead beat parents and under represent yourselves in the
> >> >> > cultural
> >> >> > exchange that is maker fair just because you don't like that the
> >> >> > other
> >> >> > parents *cough*DARPA*cough* have let the other kid watch a
"Nightmare
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > Elm
> >> >> > street" marathon?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then...guess who wins?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
> >> >> > <rachelyra at gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you think our government only indulges its hobby of killing
brown
> >> >> >> people in other countries, you are mistaken. If you think it only
> >> >> >> kills
> >> >> >> brown people who are on the wrong side of the military, you are
> >> >> >> mistaken.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you think there is no difference between using existing
> >> >> >> technology,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> seeking to steer the way new technology is produced, I think that
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> very mistaken.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you think I'm obligated to volunteer for a large and already
> >> >> >> successful
> >> >> >> project regardless of how it is run, you are sadly mistaken.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I do think that maker faire is a valuable source of hacker
lifeblood
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> our community. I hope those of you that feel comfortable with the
> >> >> >> direction
> >> >> >> that things are headed are willing to step up to the plate and
> >> >> >> contribute to
> >> >> >> a noisebridge presence. I have helped a lot in years past with
the
> >> >> >> noisebridge offerings but am glad to have a little more energy to
> >> >> >> focus
> >> >> >> elsewhere.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> R.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Apr 4, 2012 11:22 AM, "VonGuard" <vonguard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I agree Martin.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I think it's rather silly to stay out of Maker Faire for the
> >> >> >>> reasons
> >> >> >>> stated. Anyone boycotting because of this funding should really
> >> >> >>> stop
> >> >> >>> using
> >> >> >>> computers, and never use any technology out of MIT or CMU.
ARPANET,
> >> >> >>> which
> >> >> >>> became the Internet, was a military funded project. And MIT and
CMU
> >> >> >>> both
> >> >> >>> take huge amounts of DARPA money. Remember the self-driving car
> >> >> >>> challenge?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Frankly, I'm happy our tax dollars are coming back to us in some
> >> >> >>> way,
> >> >> >>> no
> >> >> >>> matter how they get there. It's better than the government
spending
> >> >> >>> it
> >> >> >>> on
> >> >> >>> its favorite overseas pass-time: killing brown people.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Martin Bogomolni
> >> >> >>> <martinbogo at gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> The -message- is important though.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> A recruiter is legally bound, by the contract they have signed
> >> >> >>>> with
> >> >> >>>> the US armed forces, to identify and attempt to recruit as many
> >> >> >>>> qualified people as they can through a number of enticements
into
> >> >> >>>> the
> >> >> >>>> US armed forces.  This is their primary job.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> A DARPA STEM grant comes with a couple strings attached (it
must
> >> >> >>>> be
> >> >> >>>> spent for the purpose the grant was applied for, namely
> >> >> >>>> Science/Tech/Engineering/Math education) but it does not commit
> >> >> >>>> anyone
> >> >> >>>> who accepts that grant to the purpose of recruiting, or to
perform
> >> >> >>>> a
> >> >> >>>> research task for the US armed forces.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> The thinking that goes into a Military Recruiter is: "Send out
our
> >> >> >>>> most charismatic, and experienced soldiers to go find people
who
> >> >> >>>> will
> >> >> >>>> be useful to the military and recruit them."
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> The thinking that goes into the STEM education fund is :
"Support
> >> >> >>>> science, technology, engineering and math in schools and get
> >> >> >>>> people
> >> >> >>>> interested in science.  The more people get interested in these
> >> >> >>>> subjects, the higher quality pool of people we will have in
the US
> >> >> >>>> in
> >> >> >>>> the future to draw on."
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I'm not going to scoff at DARPA money, especially since it
doesn't
> >> >> >>>> require or _directly_ encourage people to join the military.
I
> >> >> >>>> would
> >> >> >>>> honestly be more delighted if this money came from an education
> >> >> >>>> initiative outside of the military, but because it doesn't tie
the
> >> >> >>>> carrot on the stick directly to military service, I also don't
> >> >> >>>> have a
> >> >> >>>> problem with it.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> IMHOI it's taking millions of dollars away from projects that
> >> >> >>>> might
> >> >> >>>> directly be used to hurt people, and beating it into plowshares
> >> >> >>>> through education.   I feel this kind of thing should be
> >> >> >>>> ///encouraged///.    If it comes down to it, I'd rather that
every
> >> >> >>>> agency in the government that could spend money on education
and
> >> >> >>>> making participation in science and technology do so.
Certainly,
> >> >> >>>> many do (from the CDC in disease prevention and education to
the
> >> >> >>>> FDA,
> >> >> >>>> from Welfare offering job training to the NSF directly funding
> >> >> >>>> science).
> >>
> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> >> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> >> >>>>
https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> >> >>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> >> >>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> >> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> >> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler -
> >> >> > Albert
> >> >> > Einstein
> >> >> > Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo Da Vinci
> >> >> > Perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but
when
> >> >> > there
> >> >> > is nothing left to take away - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> >> >> > Keep It Simple Stupid - Kelly Johnson
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> >> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> >> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> >> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20120405/b022fefe/attachment.html>