If a big-label band comes out with a new album, send them a nice email something along the lines of “Dear zoophiliac coprophages, I would have bought[album Y], but because of your intense fuckwittery, I’ve decided to spend the money on something local instead. [Local label X] appreciates your trade.” And if there is anything you really can’t do without, shoplifting is always an option. The record execs could lose even more hair as their sales figures keep plummeting through the floor, local music scenes would flourish, global warming would reverse itself, war would cease, the hungry would be fed, and there’d be rainbows and unicorns everyday.

As for the Blackwater argument, I can only echo what was said above by Matthew and C&B, private, for-profit forces have no role in an occupation, surely history has taught us that lesson, folks. Simply stating that the “market forces” have made it necessary for private industry to infiltrate our military efforts does not excuse the immorality of that situation. Let’s fix it the fucker instead of making excuses for it.

I agree about the fishing entirely. But I also agree that it could easily become sinister, depending on the behaviour of the larger media companies. If they get really vindictive, as the RIAA proves they might, then I can’t see the ISPs doing anything but caving. I just depends, I guess, on the presence of viable alternatives.

(In what was nearly a worrying coincidence I just read that Spicer had also set up an anti-piracy consultancy, but then realised it meant real, high seas type piracy, arrrr, not file sharing)

Back to the original point, it sounds to me like a fishing expedition. Send out enough letters and you will scare enough people into not downloading. But little chance of anyone actually being prosecuted. I think the TV Licensing folks do the same thing, and it really annoys me.

What bothers me most about Blackwater is not just the lack of legal accountability, although this suggests that is in the process of being fixed, which is a good thing.

There is also a massive issue of political and financial slipperiness that this inevitably entails. The abuse of private contractors has been one of the most luctrative opportunities for government officials and their cronies to fill their pockets, either through blatantly non-competitive bidding situations, or through a combination of spurious contracts and very slack auditing. Basically this amounts to no more than flagrant corruption on a massive scale, in much the same way that the energy companies and the like of Halliburton have been manoevered into a position to stuff sacks of gold into the coffers of the chiefs and their cronies by following the slash & burn of Western diplomacy into ruined countries and basically buying them up lock, stock and barrel. This applies to the IMF’s ruinous “liberalisation and reform” policies as much as it does to invasion in the guise of liberation.

It is also basically robbing the state of the countries that sponsor it, in much the same way that the Russians did when they broke up the Soviet Union, albeit with less arrogant contempt. But only just.

It also allows for a near-total lack of political accountability. A politician can say that ‘We are bringing our boys home’ and in a literal sense be speaking the truth, but actually it could be a complete lie. ‘Oh we only have X number of troops over there’ or ‘No we are not engaged in military activities in that nation’ or ‘Our troops are only engaged in peace-keeping roles’ are all statements that can now be superficially true and yet at the same time grossly dishonest.

Given Clinton’s dodging around what the term ‘sexual relations’ was supposed to mean, I think we should be concerned. Ultimately it puts another layer, maybe even several, of obfuscation inbetween the people carrying out contentious actions and the people to whom they should be accountable. This is basically a government role, and should be carried out by the government so that we have at least a superficial hope of being able to make our voices heard on the matter. Adding a private company not only introduces several new strata of management to be richly compensated, it puts another half dozen mattresses in between our sound sleep and the pea that might, and fucking well should, disturb it.

I have to take exception to your interweb media-driven gnashing at Blackwater & their like. Blackwater have some 10,000+ people on the ground in Iraq (BW liaise with the DoD on a frequent basis & is itself based in North Carolina, just below Virginia – home of the National Intelligence & defence network), & there have only ever been a handful of unfortunate incidents where some of their earlier employees (for that is what they are, ultimately, employees, not soldiers, or mercs) thought they were in a fucking Rambo movie & went all hoo-hah! on the natives’ ass. This was a result of poor vetting of an unrelated group of knucklecunts living out some fantasy wank off at the fatal expense of people who be wearin’ a turban, yee-haw.

The incidents described in the links provided were actually all dealt with in the full face of the US judicial system, far from not being subject to their Homeland’s laws (it’s hardly surprising most of the outcomes were never fully or accurately reported). & they weren’t only just ‘dealt’ with, they were delat with very harshly indeed. As a result Blackwater have seriously cleaned up their act from the slightly agog ineptness of the early Keystone Thugs days & have since done a lot to rescue their public image, so it’s rare to find such incidents reported anywhere but on their own website these days.

They’re not mercs, they’re private hire security. Now, as a Brit, you might (let’s be honest, will) balk at the idea that these guys wandering around armed to the teeth, at the behest of USA or UK or non-indigenous etc business interests, are ‘merely’ hired security. But you are applying your logical thought process to a situation you are viewing out of context. It’s entirely in context that security personnel (private or State-sponsored) carry weapons in America. They are entirely , legally entitled to. Whether this is right or wrong isn’t our argument until we become a citizen & can challenge the constitution. These security ops are perfectly legal in the US &, according to geography restrictions & job requirement, will tool up accordingly. Transfer this to a war zone, where weapon ownership restrictions are somewhat relaxed, where the personnel are being paid by a private concern to act as security detail to their personnel or heavy equipment or whatever, & it is entirely understandable (given the climate).

It’s not a justification for the lapse in clarity a small handful of these guys have experienced (ending in deaths, injuries, murder, etc.), but at the same time it isn’t fair to paint everyone under the company logo with the same shade. All the soldiers in Iraq aren’t all out photographing Iraqi’s with broom handles rammed up their arseholes, or in Jesus Christ poses, so it would be unfair to tar them all with the ridiculous doings of 15 dipshits.

Finally, & I know you’ll be ready to pounce with a ‘but why are they there in the first place, rather than get a proper job guarding a night club or a dock side lock up, the money-greedy child killers!?’, the reasons for them being there is opportunist. It’s greed. It’s purely financial. The risks are phenomenal, but the money makes it worth it. That, however, doesn’t make them mercenaries.

I know a lot of British ex-soldiers, spat out by the British military system, short-changed on their payments/pensions, who jump at the chance to make themselves semi-permanently financially secure with ‘one more tour’. So they sign up, swap camo for logo, & dodge IEDs & bullets for 6-12 months, depending on their nerve & the aim of the insurgents.

Most of them just a want a quiet, comfortable life & so, conversely, risk everything to attain it. Some risk & lose far more by acting out deranged little boyhood erection scenarios & squeeze off a few shots at the locals to remind them the difference between doung a deer & doing a man. Happily, these fuckwits are dealt with, through the proper procedures, with the full brunt of the law. They are the exception to a normally very strictly maintained rule.