I've recently been re-working a paper I had written for an Organizational Behavior course in University. The case/analysis draws inspiration from the Hell Fire Club of England, and several versions of the club that sprang up in years (and decades) following. This paper includes autobiographical elements from my High School years where I started a group by the same name. Our goals at that time, differed from the original...in part because we didn't have the resources, but a group of 15-17 year olds can come up with some creative solutions. We were a social club more then anything and borrowing from William Golding's, Lord of the Flies, we hosted our parties on a nearby island that would today resemble the TV show Survivor. (This was long before the TV show and I'm still waiting for those residuals)...

 

Cory Doctorow: Salon reviews a fascinating-sounding book called The Wonga Coup, about a gang of rich western thugs who proposed a competition to hire mercenaries and topple the government of Equatorial Guinea and loot its treasuries -- the winner got to …

Source: Western millionaires plotted Equatorial Guinea coup as a game
Originally published on 17/08/2006 11:43 AM by noemail@noemail.org (Cory Doctorow)

Lets say that we have a special interest group or non-profit organization with sufficient funds and motivation to launch it's own series of communication satellites (can be done for $20,000 US a pop), and that these satellites (more then $20,000 but the price is dropping) were capable of providing wireless, unrestricted, internet access anywhere in the world...naturally there are a large number of groups, organizations, businesses, and governments that would do everything in their power to prevent it from happening.

Part of my research leads me to study countries like Iran and North Korea, and their attitude and relationship with the media and internet specifically...in addition to phone and cable companies, organizations like the NSA in the United States, political figures, etc. each with their own agenda and special interest...most with a desire to maintain the status quo..or at least assume some measure of control over it on an on-going basis. I also look to oil and automobile companies and their inter-relationship in keeping the internal-combustion engine alive...in their case for the sake of profit and keeping their share-holders and pension fund holders happy.

On the flip-side: Lets say that you as an individual don't want to complain too loudly as you own stock in a variety of energy companies, including big oil...and like many people you plan to retire someday...so while others whine about the price of gas, you can look at your IRA or RRSP (depending which side of the 49th you live on) and smile. So...how do I reconcile my social conscience (assuming I have one) with my own long term financial needs (assuming I have those) ? I had this debate this morning with a friend who is currently studying law at a Canadian University. She takes a more pragmatic view (as she must)...as single mother with student loans...and must make these choices for herself and presumably for her clients in the near future. It's worth mentioning that we originally met in a first-year philosophy class and after a heated debate that ended with our Professor asking her to leave the room, managed to become and remain friends (she got an A in the course, I got a B). In fairness, she provided the oil company-retirement fund analogy, and with the amount of feedback she's provided I may have to give her a writing credit when the book is published (although she has zero interest in becoming the next John/Jane Grisham).

Feedback and opinions welcomed...

As I watched Clinton's speech in Halifax last week, I was reminded of the stark differences between this former President and the head of the current administration, the self-proclaimed "decider." Clinton, although I question his ethics, is in my mind one of the best leaders the US has had in decades. It remains to be seen how history will remember him and the stains on his legacy, or how future generations will recall Bush and what led him to an unnecessary and (by the letter of the law) illegal war...as if any war could be defined..war is war, period. I have nothing against Bush personally. He has a direct way of communicating that is almost refreshing for a politician. He's clearly a business man at heart, versus the lawyerly Clinton. That he and his family have profited from his position (and his father's, is beside the point). Recalling his re-election, I remember seeing John Kerry as a kept man, while Bush (seemed) more decisive, a man of action (for lack of better term). It's possible that history will remember Bush more kindly than it sees him today (approval ratings in the 33% range). I do not admire the man, and personally believe he to be one of the worst leaders the US has ever known. Clinton however, still has a vision for humanity and unlike his successor, the ability to express it in clear language. It remains to be seen whether his wife will run for higher office, although I believe it would be Gore's to lose...should he run. Rice and Powell may have been tainted by the current administration, and their role in it's many misadventures...Powell to a lesser degree. The American people may see eight years of Republican 'rule' as enough for at least another four years. I won't make any predictions, although if the Democrats win I'll be buying up shares in defence companies...why ? because the market will sell on the news and the share prices will drop...the wars in the middle east have depleted the US military's stockpile and they will need to replenish..afterall, there is still North Korea, Iran and China to keep in check. They may be Democrats, but...