integer on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:13:41 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] (no subject) |
>Declan, Ronda: Mark Stahlman - pardon ma!z = ur pop.pop teor!e = ultra lo.tek + !nkomezt!bl = zugezt!e du = konzult 01 publ!k l!brar! + edukat zelv +? = bkom!ng 01 obeze pop kultr bagatela != ekuat 01 !ntel!gensz. = ronda@ais.org > !ntel!gent dzn u. = declan@wired.com = az !ntel!gent az u ov korsz. aftr all he = 01 lo.tekk male zerf juzt l!ke u. am!t!ez.nn. eusocial.com -> superb source for male fascist antibodies. pre.konssept!Øn meeTz ver!f1kat!Øn. - Netochka Nezvanova f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST @www.eusocial.com 17.hzV.tRL.478 e | | +---------- | | < \\----------------+ | n2t | > e >C'mon now . . . you're killin' me . . . > >What amazes me is that anyone could think that the "government" and the >"market" are really separate at all . . . in any instrumental way when it >comes to "strategic" technologies . . . like the Internet. > >All of this endless thrashing of "Taste Better" vs. "Less Filling" on nettime >is getting truly hilarious. > >It was November 1998 when it became the official posture of the United States >"government" that the FOUR "battlegrounds" were AIR, GROUND, SEA and >CYBERSPACE . . . and this was after a 30+ year "Revolution in Military >Affairs" which has totally recast what was described in 1959 by Eisenhower as >the "Military Industrial Complex" . . . just at the moment that Daniel Bell >was introducing the term "Post-Industrial" at the Salzburg Seminar in >Austria, informing the informed that the "industrial" was no longer driving >things. Military or otherwise. > >Doesn't anyone read their Toffler? Or, their Boulding? "War and Anti-War." ><g> > >It's long been the "Military Information Complex" and the intimate >association between "government" and the "market" (when it comes to >"strategic" technologies, like the Internet) is the principle reason for the >existence of the "Dulles Corridor" . . . not that incredible engineering >school at Georgetown. (And, why was General Al "I'm in Control Here" Haig on >the board of AOL for all those years . . . anyway?) > >Who do you think brought the suit against Microsoft? The "market"? The DoJ? > The FCC? Or, the Pentagon? > >Those technologies which are essential to the "national interest" are ALWAYS >under the control of the "government" . . . whose job it is to safeguard the >"national interest." Today, that means the Internet. (Pay attention to Dave >Farber when he speaks about "security matters" . . . or, if you prefer, stay >confused . . .) > >When DoJ Anti-Trust head Joel Klein admonished the Supreme Court (as quoted >on page A1 of today's NYTimes) that the Microsoft case was directly a concern >of the "national interest," he wasn't speaking about market-share in the >browser "market," fer crissakes. When Janet Reno used the term "revolution" >FIVE times in her speech launching the Microsoft suit, she wasn't speaking >about a song by the Beatles, fer double-crissakes. > >The "government" IS the "market" -- as prime-customer, as standard-setter, as >"classified-briefer," as revolving-door employer, as research-granter and as >HAMMER-when-you-ignore-them -- in all cases of technologies which are >considered "strategic" and in the "national interest." > >Like super-computers. Or, lasers. Or, space. Or, energy. Or, the Internet. > >Face it . . . or it will one day be in your face . . . just ask Bill Gates . >. . > >Best, > >Mark Stahlman _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold