I’m continuously appalled by governments and how they approach their citizens in respect to showing that they care about those things we are told so often, we’re so damned lucky to have. You know, those things we call rights, liberties and sometimes freedoms?

Now, I’m not one for lefty, independent media but I’m glad it exists because even though these fools advocate for a powerful and overbearing government, they usually do a good job at effectively utilizing their ideological bias in holding the authoritative state to account. Case in point, this video below from a group called Press For Truth based in Toronto.

I’m really not a fan of this guy’s world view but from where I sit, it’s an incredible demonstration as to why I have trouble thinking of police in a positive light. When police encounter cameras, the reaction is almost always the same. It’s either “please don’t film me” or “stop filming me now or I’ll take your camera!” of course police have the right to ask that some one stop filming them but so long as they’re in a public space, if the person behind the camera keeps rolling, they gotta deal with it. It’s like this in almost any instance these cases go to court and yet police either remain uninformed, wilfully ignorant or decide that a slap on the wrist in the courtroom is worth violating some one’s right to film.

Even though she never follows through, officer Cochrane in this video seems to assert at1:51 that she can just take a guy’s camera until she’s done talking to him and at 1:42, she assaults the guy by moving his camera. If you think that’s overblown, let’s have a chat about being charged with resisting arrest when you voluntarily go limp under the knee of an arresting officer. She forcibly moves the camera again at 2:33 and at 3:12, again makes an impotent threat to turn the camera off.

It’s clear that either these police don’t know the most basic rights of the cameraman or are willing to at least threaten to violate those rights. Either way, there’s no honour in it. Does this piss me off? Yes, yes it really does but this is just the light stuff.

This guy was walking about with a camera to document what he saw as abuses of power either on the part of police directly or on the part of government through their agents on the ground. He was present at the arrest of some one who refused to show ID. This is exceptionally upsetting because it says something terrible of police and government. It says that a government can pass a controversial law by order in council when the legislative body is in session thereby bypassing any debate in the house. It also says to me that thousands of police can be bought to an area, told that temporarily, a constitutional right has been suspended in a certain area and that seemingly without exception, none of them bat a gad danger eye! I’m sorry, these are smart people deserving of a firearm why? This shouldn’t have me seeing red why?

But wait there’s more!

The cameraman walks about some more and is right at cherry beach when he’s asked to produce ID again. The claim that he’s more than three kilometres outside of the “security zone” is truthful. I know because I’ve actually stood in the same spot he was filming. It’s waaaay outside of the security zone. While you can be asked for ID under the sketchy law mentioned above up to five meters outside of the zone (I still have major problems with that of course) the temporary law absolutely didn’t extend three and a half kilometres outside of the zone. The harassment where the cameraman Is followed and then asked for ID again by the same police who had him present ID a block away doesn’t really engender that feeling of admiration and respect so many police seem to think they deserve either.

You know, I understand that people don’t like being filmed. I mean shucks, I had a little bit of a problem with it as an entry level worker in some businesses. Of course, I actually understood the right of the employer to film their own property and the people on it. I also understand the right of others to film me if I’m in public. You know all those news reels with chunky people’s heads cropped out? News organizations could make a really good argument for keepin’ those puffy cheeks of yours in full view so…just saying. But without straying too far, let’s just point out that if I understand these rights as afforded to me as a Canadian citizen, shouldn’t my publicly provided protectors know how those rights work too? I kinda figure they should and why should I respect them if they don’t?

So yeah. I’m kinda pissed. I suppose I could focus on the idiots who destroyed private property during protests in Toronto and why I’m suspicious of police even in that regard but blogging on an iPad takes a little getting used to and overall, I think this is a slightly more important topic. Maybe the rest can be blogged about tomorrow.

It seems that while Canada spends over $1 Billion on security for the coming G8/G20 summit, it’s determined by CSIS as having little to worry about in respect to terrorist attacks or other major instances of violence.

These summits are kind of a quirky deal anyhow.  I understand the value of meeting world leaders face to face and the flexibility in negotiation and discussion that type of meeting affords, but I’m led to wonder why none of these high profile meetings are done via telecommunication.  Here and there you may get an instance of satellite conferences but from the outsider’s perspective, it seems like this is the exception rather than the rule.

An inability to provide a virtual platform for global meetings of significance is horribly disappointing in this day and age.  The president of the United States maintains one of the world’s most advanced communication platforms on a flippin’ jet and yet, it seems that in order to have a two day meeting with every one, leaders can not even just once, stay at home to do it.  It seems to me that perhaps the only thing politicians seem to get done when they meet with each other is a gigantic waste of money each and every time.  But then, that could be the overpowering cynicism talking…wonder why it would be so prevalent.

Have you ever wandered through a bus depot or similar facility and heard classical music pouring into the room?  I first encountered this when I lived in Toronto and found that classical music was played regularly on the Toronto Transit Subway’s Kennedy stop used to transfer to the Scarborough line.  I assumed at the time that it was used to deter youth from hanging around and because I enjoy classical music myself, I didn’t really give it much thought.  The issue has recently been aroused in my mind again however after reading a Post Gazette article about how music in Britain is being used in a malicious manner.

The article above details how a school in Derby, a city of about 230,000, “subjected” some students to classical music as a form of special detention.  Sitting in a small room for two hours at a time, students were made to listen to Mozart and other composers both to relax them and deter them from future misbehaviour.  Students who have undergone the punishment are reported to have developed a deep hatred for classical music and claim that it is unbearable to listen to.

I have to admit that I never thought of the negative effective of using incredible feats of creative genius as a deterrent for particular actions in general society.  As said before, since I enjoy classical music, I never really thought about it passing through public facilities that played it but now I’m left to wonder how much damage is done to classical culture when its used as a negative tool of control.

There are any number of reasons I enjoy classical music.  Through my youth, I saw it as a way to separate myself from my peers in a manner that made me unique and interesting.  I also found it relaxing and inspiring.  From the softest symphony to the most unique concerto to the most stunning kind of violin solo, I could always find the type of expression I wanted from classical music and I was always impressed by the creativity of the composers.  Today my taste is tuned to techno music and more conventional types of composition but I’ve never been unable to appreciate classical pieces.  So for me, I’m left to wonder if after first encountering classical music as a deterrent to loitering around 7 years ago if I missed something in how sinister that was.

I’m glad I appreciate classical music and I would hate for it to be used in such a way that I came to despise it.  Were I to be locked up in a room and made to listen to Mozart for two hours in my earlier youth when I did act out negatively, I would have been robbed of appreciating some of the most interesting instrumental music around and knowing that now, I certainly would resent the effort being made today.  I would feel as though something was robbed from me.

Cultural milestones are milestones because we can get something of value from them.  From classical music, we get incredible expressive outlets and a method of cultural communication that is felt by people in a number of different parts of the world.  Turning that incredible material against people and in turn, devaluing it for them and even making it a negative experience seems like such an incredibly unwise idea.  In actually downright disgusting in my eyes.

It took me 7 years to realize it but classical music may even be a deterrent for some one like me riding the bus.

Listening to this classic song as played by a laser cutting machine.

Laser engraver plays Super Mario theme from Jedediah Smith on Vimeo.

A laser cutter is basically a box with a whole lot o’ cool crammed inside.  Typically used for cutting flat sheet metal or structural and piping materials, a laser cutter is something we probably should have seen being explained to James Kirk but frankly, it was too cool even for Star Trek.  But we’re in the present now and that can be fixed.  so without further ado,

Mr. Scott.  What IS…thisdevice?

Well, it’s certainly not no device to lure green women to yer cabin there cap’n.

Hmm….but it must be…useful for something…yes Mr. Scott?

Aye yes cap’n'!  *gulp*  Not only can she whip out a bonny little tune, but she can also cut sheet metal and other materials with a high intensity laser.  The laser don’t just guide the blades cap’n, the laser actually does the cutting itself.  This way, a computer program can guide the laser in a precise kinda way and cut intricate designs for all kinds of industrial metal manufacturing.

THAT’S INCREDIBLE!  Now what?

I say we drink.  Could you ever refuse to love such a sweet little lass as this?

And so from there is just goes downhill.  Faced with the incredible awesomitude of a laser cutter, Kirk and Scotty just get plastered and crash into a star.  It was the final episode you never saw…or something.  I dunno.

Seriously though, isn’t that thing cool?

I’m absolutely not a fan of Alex Jones but every so often, he manages to strike up something legitimate.  The following video I think is an example of where he’s been wronged and how abusive Google has been with their censorship policies.

Basically, Google wasn’t happy with video material that was critical of U.S. President Obama.  As hyperbolic as I think it is, I’ve watched The Obama Deception and I can’t for the life of me think of it as hate speech.  It’s exceptionally critical of government and is very hyperbolic as it draws amazing conclusions from evidence that is incidental in most cases but attacking a protected group?  Not unless government is a protected group I don’t think.

Google has really disappointed here and the attitude they have taken toward the free flow of information on the web is frightening.  Google started out as an academic tool and the founders of Google even presented a paper in which they objected to advertising dollars monetizing Google saying that it would rob it of it’s credit as an academic tool.  I think perhaps the power and domination of Google has indeed robbed it of impartiality and credibility as it seems to take this odd attitude that Google can build the web according to its own vision.

Like I said, I’m not a fan of Alex Jones but I can’t imagine feeling justified in calling for his material on the Internet being banned, blocked or otherwise censored.  Google understands its influence on the web and to abuse that influence in silencing dissenting viewpoints that the corporation finds objectionable is just simply wrong.