The Only Good Government is No Government

Court upholds ban on medical marijuana | Health | Reuters

2007-03-15T11:26:00.000-04:00

Court upholds ban on medical marijuana | Health | Reuters

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California woman with an inoperable brain tumor may not smoke marijuana to ease her pain even though California voters have approved its medicinal use, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

In a much-watched test case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found there is no fundamental right to marijuana for medical purposes. The ruling agreed with a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The split three-judge opinion from Judge Harry Pregerson expressed sympathy for some arguments by plaintiff Angel Raich, 41, an Oakland resident whose doctor testified she could die if she stopped smoking pot. But the ruling backed the 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act barring marijuana.

So even though the citizenry of this country are more tolerant of marijuana and want it legalized, the government refuses to listen. Some "consent of the governed".

Websites Shut Down by the Government

2007-03-10T21:13:00.001-05:00

This page attempts to convey the chilling effect that responses to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have had on information availability on the Internet as well as some sense of the effect on people trying to provide this information.

read more | digg story

Dumbing-Down of America

2007-03-10T21:08:00.001-05:00

Test scores for high school students have been falling now for 40 years. In 1984, the Reagan administration issued "A Nation at Risk," documenting the deterioration of American public education. More trillions of dollars were thrown at the problem. And if one judged by the asserted toughening up of courses and rising grades of seniors....

read more | digg story

New York may ban iPods while crossing street - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

2007-02-08T18:01:00.000-05:00

New York may ban iPods while crossing street - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

NEW YORK - New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine.

New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed “watch out” to no avail.

Kruger says he will introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets such as Blackberry devices and video games while crossing the street...

Honestly, don't these bureaucrats have anything better to do with their time?

wcbstv.com - High Schoolers Buzzing Over In-School Alcohol Test

2007-01-31T11:07:00.000-05:00

wcbstv.com - High Schoolers Buzzing Over In-School Alcohol Test

PEQUANNOCK TOWNSHIP, N.J. Most high schoolers are used to taking all sorts of examinations in school, but a new test has parents and students alike buzzing about in controversy. School-administered alcohol tests have hit the hallways, but not everyone is trusting the results.

It's called the best test ever for finding "booze clues," and one of the first districts in the nation to get it is Pequannock Township in Morris County, New Jersey. High School Senior Chris Voulcz told CBS 2 he could be asked for a urine sample at any time.

"I have nothing to hide so I'd volunteer it for myself," Voulcz said.

Like the vast majority of his peers, Voulcz is automatically enrolled because he parks on campus and he's participates in a school activity, soccer. The test is the EtG urine test and scientists say it's more sensitive and telling than a Breathalyzer and other tests because it checks for ethyl glucuronide, which stays in your system for 80 hours.

"Anytime you have any sort of alcohol it's going to pick it up," Pequannock Schools Superintendent Dr. Larrie Reynolds said.

But not all students are as open to the test as Voulcz and believe it takes away from students' privacy.

"I don't think the school should be poking around into what you are doing on weekends and out of school," one student, who asked to remain anonymous, said.

The one who dares speak out against this invasion is so afraid of retribution by the school authorities, he dares not give his name.

What a sorry country we live in where those who truly believe in freedom and rights are scared silent.

As for the issue itself, this goes way over the line. What students do off campus is their own business, not the school's.

This is also a huge violation because a student's body and bodily fluids are their own property. No one has the right to walk up to someone else and demand that they submit urine samples and allow their car to be searched. I don't care if the students are parking on school property; their cars and bodies are still their own.

I really hope the ACLU sues over this.

McCain Bill Is Lethal Injection For Internet Freedom

2006-12-28T14:56:00.000-05:00

McCain Bill Is Lethal Injection For Internet Freedom

McCain Bill Is Lethal Injection For Internet Freedom
Exploits fear of sexual predators and basic misunderstanding of Internet to attack blogs critical of the warmongering agenda he fronts for

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, December 15, 2006

Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards, effectively nixing the open exchange of ideas on the Internet, providing a lethal injection for unrestrained opinion, and acting as the latest attack tool to chill freedom of speech on the world wide web.

McCain's proposal, called the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act," encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.

Comment boards for specific articles are extremely popular and also notoriously hard to moderate. Popular articles often receive comments that run into the thousands over the course of time. In many cases, individuals hostile to the writer's argument deliberately leave obscene comments and images simply to sully the reputation of the website owners. Therefore under the terms of this bill, right-wing extremists from a website like Free Republic could effectively terminate a liberal leaning website like Raw Story by the act of posting a single photograph of a naked child. This precedent could be the kiss of death for blogs as we know them and its reverberations would negatively impact the entire Internet.

Under the banner of saving the children from sexual predators, McCain is obviously on a mission to stamp out the influence of the burgeoning blogosphere and its increasing hostility to the warmongering agenda that he fronts for.

"This constitutionally dubious proposal is being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts," warns Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

McCain has publicly expressed his distaste for blogs in the past and this is why any protestation that he is simply aiming to "protect the children" with this legislation falls on deaf ears.

In a May 2006 speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, McCain attacked the blogosphere as a refuge of those only infatuated with self-expression. He was trying to minimize the importance of the last true outpost of freedom of speech, the Internet, and portray it as nothing more than a swap shop for egos and hyperbole.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 5 months free at Prison Planet.tv when you sign up for our Christmas Special! TV shows, conference footage, field reports, protest clips, in studio camera and audio interviews, books, every Alex Jones film, dozens of other documentaries! Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if the blogosphere is nothing more than a bulletin board for self-important know it alls, what possible threat could that be to young children? Where is the evidence that kids are being victimized by people who post comments on blogs?

There is no evidence but that doesn't really matter when you consider that a sizable portion of Congress critters who will be voting on this legislation if it comes to pass, don't even know what the Internet itself is (it's not a big truck), never mind how it's used. And then a sizable majority of the remaining House members probably hate the blogosphere as much as McCain, because it has replaced the lapdog mainstream media in acting as the 4th estate in muckraker reporting, anti-war protest, and holding public officials to task.

In reality, sexual predators have always confined their grooming to live chat rooms, or in the case of Republican pervert Mark Foley, instant messaging and PDA's. Pedophiles are never going to leave a record of their sordid advances on message boards because in most cases, their IP address and location can be obtained immediately from the server log. And as reported by C Net, "Studies by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children show the online sexual solicitation of minors has dropped in the past five years, despite the growth of social-networking services."

McCain's proposed bill is just another step in greasing the skids for Internet 2, a tightly controlled, regulated and privileged world wide web where government approval will be required just to run a blog.

In recent months, a chorus of propaganda intended to demonize the Internet and lead it down this path has spewed forth from numerous establishment organs.

- The White House's own recently de-classified strategy for "winning the war on terror" targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting ground for terrorists and threatens to "diminish" their influence.

- The Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.

- In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills." Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

- In an interview with Fox News last month, Bush senior slammed Internet bloggers for creating an "adversarial and ugly climate."

- A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web - and their argument is supported by the U.S. government.

- The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down "terrorists" who use the Internet to spread propaganda.

Guess who won't be getting my vote in 08. Honestly, don't these asshats have anything better to do than try and control every little thing people say and do. And of course it's "for the chyyyyyyyylllldrrrruuuuuuunnnnnnn!!!!!11111!!!".

Sorry, but when it comes down to it, if I have to choose between protecting my rights and protecting children, I'll choose my own rights every time.

GovTrack: H.R. 5295: Text of Legislation

2006-12-04T13:47:00.000-05:00

GovTrack: H.R. 5295: Text of Legislation

AN ACT
To protect students and teachers.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 2
2 This Act may be cited as the ``Student and Teacher
3 Safety Act of 2006''.
4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
5 Congress finds the following:
6 (1) The United States Department of Edu-
7 cation's National Center for Education Statistics re-
8 ported in the 2005 Indicators of School Crime and
9 Safety that in 2003 seventeen percent of students in
10 grades 9-12 reported they carried a weapon. Six per-
11 cent reported having carried a weapon on school
12 grounds.
13 (2) The same survey reported that 29 percent
14 of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone
15 offered, sold, or gave them an illegal drug on school
16 property within the last 12 months.
17 (3) The United States Constitution's Fourth
18 Amendment guarantees ``the right of the people to
19 be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and ef-
20 fects, against unreasonable searches and seizures''.
21 (4) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the
22 Fourth Amendment's application to students in pub-
23 lic schools in New Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court
24 held that searches of students by school officials do
25 not require warrants issued by judges showing prob-

HR 5295 EH 3
1 able cause. The Court will ordinarily hold that such
2 a search is permissible if--
3 (A) there are reasonable grounds for sus-
4 pecting the search will reveal evidence that the
5 student violated the law or school rules; and
6 (B) the measures used to conduct the
7 search are reasonably related to the search's ob-
8 jectives, without being excessively intrusive in
9 light of the student's age, sex, and nature of
10 the offense.
11 (5) The Supreme Court held in Board of Edu-
12 cation of Independent Sch. Dist. 92 of Pottawatomie
13 County vs. Earls (2002) that random drug testing
14 of students who were participating in extracurricular
15 activities was reasonable and did not violate the
16 Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that such
17 search policies effectively serve the School Districts
18 interest in protecting its students' health and safety.
19 SEC. 3. SEARCHES BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.--Each local educational agency
21 shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the
22 agency policies that ensure that a search described in sub-
23 section (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.
24 (b) SEARCHES COVERED.--A search referred to in
25 subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school

HR 5295 EH 4
1 official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on pro-
2 fessional experience and judgment, of any minor student
3 on the grounds of any public school, if the search is con-
4 ducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school
5 property and students remain free from the threat of all
6 weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The
7 measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably
8 related to the search's objectives, without being excessively
9 intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature
10 of the offense.
11 SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND
12 TEACHERS.
13 (a) IN GENERAL.--A local educational agency that
14 fails to comply with section 3 shall not, during the period
15 of noncompliance, receive any Safe and Drug Free School
16 funds after fiscal year 2008.
17 (b) DEFINITION.--In this section, the term ``Safe and
18 Drug Free School funds'' includes any funds under Part
19 A of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education
20 Act of 1965.
Passed the House of Representatives September 19,
2006.
Attest:

Clerk.
HR 5295 EH
109TH CONGRESS H. R. 5295
2D SESSION AN ACT
To protect students and teachers.

Beware of legislation designed to protect! That word is used to justify so many tyrannical rules. It "protects" children, it "protects" safety, etc. This has nothing to do with protecting students and teachers and everything to do with stripping high school students of their few remaining rights and liberties.

Parents, if you love or respect your children at all, get in contact with your representatives and express your outrage at this bill. If that fails, take your kids out of school.

Senate approves electronic ID card bill | Tech News on ZDNet

2006-10-28T15:26:00.000-04:00

Senate approves electronic ID card bill | Tech News on ZDNet

Last-minute attempts by online activists to halt an electronic ID card failed Tuesday when the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to impose a sweeping set of identification requirements on Americans.

The so-called Real ID Act now heads to President Bush, who is expected to sign the bill into law this month. Its backers, including the Bush administration, say it's needed to stop illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers' licenses.

If the act's mandates take effect in May 2008, as expected, Americans will be required to obtain federally approved ID cards with "machine readable technology" that abides by Department of Homeland Security specifications. Anyone without such an ID card will be effectively prohibited from traveling by air or Amtrak, opening a bank account, or entering federal buildings.

Sounds like the Mark of the Beast to me.

BBC NEWS | Business | New system will 'block' gambling

2006-10-03T00:38:00.000-04:00

BBC NEWS | Business | New system will 'block' gambling

The US government is tipped to propose a system to identify and stop payment to gambling sites, say specialists.

The news comes after the US Congress passed a bill cracking down on internet gambling, sending shares in UK gambling sites plummeting on Monday.

By Monday close, Partygaming shares fell 58%, 888 Holdings tumbled by 26%, and Sportingbet shares fell 64%.

Some UK firms are looking at stopping bet-taking from US customers if the bill is signed into law.

It is expected that US President George W Bush could sign the bill into law within the next two weeks...

Because I'm too stupid to make my own choices about my own money. I need to be "protected".

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise

2006-07-27T17:55:00.000-04:00

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise

Taking your medicine at the point of a gun

By Jack Phillips

The state of Virginia is threatening Abraham Cherrix, a 16-year-old, with torture — chemotherapy — that he doesn’t want and that his parents do not want for him. His oncologist insists that this is what he needs, despite the fact that a previous series of chemotherapy treatments which supposedly “got it all” actually didn’t. What they did do was leave him so debilitated that his father had to carry him out of the hospital after treatment. He says, “I studied. I did research. I came to the conclusion that chemotherapy was not the route I wanted to take.” Another round at higher doses “would kill me.”

Nevertheless the Virginia Social Services Department, on the complaint of his attending physician, dragged his parents into court, where Judge Jesse E. Demps issued a temporary order finding his parents neglectful for not forcing their child to take more chemotherapy. They now share custody with the Accomack County Department of Social Services. Medical expenses involved with cancer treatments are substantial. Adding legal expenses on top of them is obscene. This family is now in debt to the tune of $100,000!

The Department of Social Services is willing and able to bankrupt this family to satisfy their physician. Furthermore, that department intends to appeal the case to a higher court if they lose, to insure that this family goes deeper into debt. Do we really need this kind of social service? And do we really want physicians to be able to call in the troops to enforce their orders against our judgment of what is best for our children? This case indicates that the mantra, “Doctors know best,” which might have been true in the past, may no longer be valid. Whatever happened to “FIRST, DO NO HARM!”

Unfortunately, there are abused children who need protection, and it is necessary to have something like Social Services to provide this. However, reports that about 100,000 of our children are disappearing without a trace yearly indicates that Social Services is not doing its job. Nevertheless, they find time to harass good people who are trying to do what they think best for their children — for example, the family of Katie Wernecke in Texas, who was forced to live with foster parents and have her immune system disabled with chemotherapy before the court would allow her parents to provide her with immune-system-enhancing vitamin C infusions. A recent Canadian Journal of Medicine reported several cases of cancer cured with vitamin C infusions, which works by reinforcing the immune system so that the body can heal itself as it was designed to do. Disabling Katie’s immune system with chemotherapy before vitamin C infusions was irrational.

These bureaucrats are very aggressive; one of my acquaintances almost lost custody of his six children in Connecticut while driving home through that state because five of them refused to talk to strangers (Social Services personnel) while he was in a hospital making sure that one of them was not seriously ill.

Our servants in Washington, D.C. and in statehouses across the country have woven a cocoon of laws around us to empower their minions, and government employment keeps increasing. There is no constituency for saving money in our government, but there are incentives for spending more. Borrowing money from foreigners to have it misspent by Social Services departments makes no sense. It seems to me that our “servants” need to be informed that this has to stop. At the very least, we need to have freedom of choice in medical care. Getting medical care at the point of a gun is not acceptable. This freedom of choice would have been part of our Constitution if George Washington’s surgeon general had had his way.

There are informed people in this country who believe that chemotherapy is barbaric and that oncologists are jackals among men. While chemotherapy does kill cancer cells, collateral damage to healthy cells and the immune system is substantial. Many successful treatments for cancer have been developed over the years which are far kinder and gentler, but they have been suppressed by the medical establishment. For example, low-dose, whole-body radiation treatments, successfully tested at Harvard Medical School in 1975 and again in 1977, cured non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In more recent times, Dr. Sakamoto ran a similar test in Japan, and about 84 percent of his patients were living 13 years after the treatment. When he himself was diagnosed with colon cancer, after surgery, he gave himself two courses of these treatments and recovered fully with no metasteses. I wonder how many physicians willingly undergo chemotherapy.

After Christopher Bird published his book about Gaston Naessen’s cancer research, and persecution and trial in Canada, many American physicians called him for his suggestions on cancer treatments. According to his notes, he asked why they didn’t want to use the approved therapies that they gave patients on themselves or their loved ones, and they answered that they didn’t work.

We have wasted billions of dollars and years of effort on cancer research with little to show for it. It seems to me that people need to start insisting that they get something more from their government than increasing debt and harassment. Let your representatives know what you think. Your vote is a powerful weapon if used properly. But remember Joseph Stalin’s dictum: “It is not who votes, but who counts the votes that counts.”

The Abraham Cherrix Defense Fund is administered by the R.B.C. Centura Bank at 2422 Princess Anne Road in Virginia Beach, VA 23456, for those who might wish to contribute.

Well said, Mr. Phillips. It's time for We the People to put our collective foot down and tell these jackals in the government to back off and leave families alone.

Judge Orders Teen to Cancer Treatment - Forbes.com

2006-07-22T18:08:00.000-04:00

Judge Orders Teen to Cancer Treatment - Forbes.com

A judge ruled Friday that a 16-year-old boy fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors deem necessary, the family's attorney said.

The judge also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said.

Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered, Stepanovich said.

The parents were devastated by the new order and planned to appeal, the lawyer said.

So this young man, who in two years will be considered adult enough vote isn't adult enough to know what's best for his own body? What the hell is wrong with these government people? Who gave them the authority to tell families what to do, and people what to do with their own lives? Where do they get off playing God with this young man's health and family life? So what if he's a "minor"? He's old enough to drive a car, for fuck's sake! A century ago, he would've been a man and had a family of his own. This is just too much.

Gary Leupp: "Just a Goddamned Piee of Paper"

2006-07-14T20:13:00.000-04:00

Gary Leupp: "Just a Goddamned Piee of Paper"

Doug Thompson, publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, says he's talked to three people present last month when Republican Congressional leaders met with President Bush in the Oval Office to talk about renewing the Patriot Act. That act, passed by legislators who hadn't read it, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (when most people were shell-shocked and lawmakers in particular disinclined to use their brains), has of course been criticized as containing unconstitutional elements. All three GOP politicians quote their president as saying: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"...

So our Commander in Chief shows his true colors! Those words are treason!

Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins - Los Angeles Times

2006-07-12T17:14:00.000-04:00

Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins - Los Angeles Times

Out-of-the-mainstream beliefs about gay marriage and supposedly sexist doctrines are gutting old-line faiths.
By Charlotte Allen, CHARLOTTE ALLEN is Catholicism editor for Beliefnet and the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus."
July 9, 2006

The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.

Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.

ADVERTISEMENT
Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.

It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. (The latter may be a good idea, but it is hard to see how it falls under the theological purview of a Christian denomination.)

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.

You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God's name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests.

When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

It doesn't help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.

Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians. The less endowed Presbyterian Church USA is in deeper trouble. Just before its general assembly in Birmingham, it announced that it would eliminate 75 jobs to meet a $9.15-million budget cut at its headquarters, the third such round of job cuts in four years.

The Episcopalians have smells, bells, needlework cushions and colorfully garbed, Catholic-looking bishops as draws, but who, under the present circumstances, wants to become a Presbyterian?

Still, it must be galling to Episcopal liberals that many of the parishes and dioceses (including that of San Joaquin, Calif.) that want to pull out of the Episcopal Church USA are growing instead of shrinking, have live people in the pews who pay for the upkeep of their churches and don't have to rely on dead rich people. The 21-year-old Christ Church Episcopal in Plano, Texas, for example, is one of the largest Episcopal churches in the country. Its 2,200 worshipers on any given Sunday are about equal to the number of active Episcopalians in Jefferts Schori's entire Nevada diocese.

It's no surprise that Christ Church, like the other dissident parishes, preaches a very conservative theology. Its break from the national church came after Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Communion, proposed a two-tier membership in which the Episcopal Church USA and other churches that decline to adhere to traditional biblical standards would have "associate" status in the communion. The dissidents hope to retain full communication with Canterbury by establishing oversight by non-U.S. Anglican bishops.

As for the rest of the Episcopalians, the phrase "deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind. A number of liberal Episcopal websites are devoted these days to dissing Peter Akinola, outspoken primate of the Anglican diocese of Nigeria, who, like the vast majority of the world's 77 million Anglicans reported by the Anglican Communion, believes that "homosexual practice" is "incompatible with Scripture" (those words are from the communion's 1998 resolution at the Lambeth conference of bishops). Akinola might have the numbers on his side, but he is now the Voldemort — no, make that the Karl Rove — of the U.S. Episcopal world. Other liberals fume over a feeble last-minute resolution in Columbus calling for "restraint" in consecrating bishops whose lifestyle might offend "the wider church" — a resolution immediately ignored when a second openly cohabitating gay man was nominated for bishop of Newark.

So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program — ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth — or die. Sure.

Any church that denies the divinity of Christ and calls God Sophia is no church I'll associate with.

Google Watch : When Google Becomes Pay to Play

2006-06-12T20:08:00.000-04:00

Google Watch : When Google Becomes Pay to Play

Imagine paying to use Google search.

The notion is deservedly absurd right now. But that landmark day may come, and it may be traced to present-day legislative and legal wrangling over how neutral the Internet is to be.

The ongoing net neutrality fight, in U.S. courts, the Senate and Congress, is over whether companies that own the networks delivering Internet access have any say as to what goes over the pipes. To a large degree, they really don't.

Should the likes of AT&T and Verizon Communications have their way, any network owner would be able to, say, create a kind of commuter lane to guarantee a speedy delivery to customers.

That would mean a new expense for the likes of Google, Yahoo, AOL and other Internet firms, which will surely pay up in order to remain competitive.

Eventually, the expense could become so burdensome, the folks in Mountain View, Calif., and elsewhere would be forced to pass on some, or all, of it to customers.

There are a lot of factors at work that could steer the future in any number of different directions, so there's no guarantee anyone will ever have to pay to use Google.

Yet there's an argument to be made that a day could come when the Google bill goes in the mail, or you'll be Googling per hour at wireless Internet hot spots, and cable operators add $5-a-month unlimited Googling to their steeply discounted quintuple play of services.

Just what would it be like to subscribe to Google? Given Google's ethos, it's a safe bet the experience will be painless, and have a certain Quakerish-look to it.

The biggest unknown in all this involves how much network owners would charge the likes of Google, so the degree of possible financial burden is a mystery.

For argument's sake, say Google has to pay Comcast a penny a search. That translates to a fee, just to Comcast, of about $5 million a month. There are a dozen or so major Internet providers in the United States alone, and scores, if not hundreds, worldwide.

So the price of a speedy Internet delivery in the United States for Google and Yahoo, the two major search engines, would amount to an annual fee in the hundreds of millions of dollars. That's a burden, even for these two revenue machines.

History provides examples of the same present-day forces at Google's heels shifting other technology industries from being largely free to coming with strings attached.

One such industry is Internet telephony. In the wake of each courtroom and legislative loss, many providers were forced to have customers foot the bill to meet the expenses of abiding by new rules and regulations.

posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 8:25 PM by Ben Charny

If Google becomes pay-to-play, I walk.

U.S. Wants Companies to Keep Web Usage Records - New York Times

2006-06-02T17:20:00.000-04:00

U.S. Wants Companies to Keep Web Usage Records - New York Times

New York Times
Washington

* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region
* Business
* Technology
* Science
* Health
* Sports
* Opinion
* Arts
* Style
* Travel
* Jobs
* Real Estate
* Autos

* Education
* Washington

U.S. Wants Companies to Keep Web Usage Records

*
E-Mail
* Print
* Reprints
* Save

Article Tools Sponsored By
By SAUL HANSELL and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 2, 2006

The Justice Department is asking Internet companies to keep records on the Web-surfing activities of their customers to aid law enforcement, and may propose legislation to force them to do so.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Video: U.S. Wants Web Data Saved
Video: U.S. Wants Web Data Saved

The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a meeting in Washington last Friday where they offered a general proposal on record-keeping to a group of senior executives from Internet companies, said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the department. The meeting included representatives from America Online, Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast.

The attorney general has appointed a task force of department officials to explore the issue, and that group is holding another meeting with a broader group of Internet executives today, Mr. Roehrkasse said. The department also met yesterday with a group of privacy experts.

The Justice Department is not asking the Internet companies to give it data about users, but rather to retain information that could be subpoenaed through existing laws and procedures, Mr. Roehrkasse said.

While initial proposals were vague, executives from companies that attended the meeting said they gathered that the department was interested in records that would allow them to identify which individuals visited certain Web sites and possibly conducted searches using certain terms.

It also wants the Internet companies to retain records about whom their users exchange e-mail with, but not the contents of e-mail messages, the executives said. The executives spoke on the condition that they not be identified because they did not want to offend the Justice Department.

The proposal and the initial meeting were first reported by USA Today and CNet News.com.

The department proposed that the records be retained for as long as two years. Most Internet companies discard such records after a few weeks or months.In its current proposal, the department appears to be trying to determine whether Internet companies will voluntarily agree to keep certain information or if it will need to seek legislation to require them to do so.

The request comes as the government has been trying to extend its power to review electronic communications in several ways. The New York Times reported in December that the National Security Agency had gained access to phone and e-mail traffic with the cooperation of telecommunications companies, and USA Today reported last month that the agency had collected telephone calling records. The Justice Department has subpoenaed information on Internet search patterns — but not the searches of individuals — as it tries to defend a law meant to protect children from pornography.

In a speech in April, Mr. Gonzales said that investigations into child pornography had been hampered because Internet companies had not always kept records that would help prosecutors identify people who traded in illegal images.

"The investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers," Mr. Gonzales said in remarks at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Va. "This evidence will be available for us to use only if the providers retain the records for a reasonable amount of time," he said.

An executive of one Internet provider that was represented at the first meeting said Mr. Gonzales began the discussion by showing slides of child pornography from the Internet. But later, one participant asked Mr. Mueller why he was interested in the Internet records. The executive said Mr. Mueller's reply was, "We want this for terrorism."

At the meeting with privacy experts yesterday, Justice Department officials focused on wanting to retain the records for use in child pornography and terrorism investigations. But they also talked of their value in investigating other crimes like intellectual property theft and fraud, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, who attended the session.

"It was clear that they would go beyond kiddie porn and terrorism and use it for general law enforcement," Mr. Rotenberg said.

Kate Dean, the executive director of the United States Internet Service Provider Association, a trade group, said: "When they said they were talking about child pornography, we spent a lot of time developing proposals for what could be done. Now they are talking about a whole different ball of wax."

At the meeting with privacy groups, officials sought to assuage concerns that the retention of the records could compromise the privacy of Americans. But Mr. Rotenberg said he left with lingering concerns.

"This is a sharp departure from current practice," he said. "Data retention is an open-ended obligation to retain all information on all customers for all purposes, and from a traditional Fourth Amendment perspective, that really turns things upside down."

Executives of several Internet companies that participated in the first meeting said the department's initial proposals seemed expensive and unwieldy.

At the meeting scheduled for today with executives of Internet access companies, Justice Department officials plan to go into more detail about what types of records they would like to see retained and for how long, said a Justice Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It will be much more nuts-and-bolts discussions," he said, adding that the department would stop short of offering formal proposals.

So this is what it comes down to. They want to de-gut the Fourth Amendment to "protect the chiiiiillldddryyuunnnnn". Fuck the children! My right to privacy is more important!

Congress targets social network sites | CNET News.com

2006-05-27T18:10:00.000-04:00

Congress targets social network sites | CNET News.com

MySpace and other social-networking sites like LiveJournal.com and Facebook are the potential targets for a proposed federal law that would effectively require most schools and libraries to render those Web sites inaccessible to minors, an age group that includes some of the category's most ardent users.

High Impact
What's new:

A proposed federal law would effectively require schools and libraries to render social networking sites inaccessible to minors.
Bottom line:

Law would likely affect more than just social networking sites. Blogger.com, AOL and Yahoo's instant messaging features might be included in proposal's definition.
advertisement
"When children leave the home and go to school or the public library and have access to social-networking sites, we have reason to be concerned," Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, told CNET News.com in an interview.

Fitzpatrick and fellow Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, on Wednesday endorsed new legislation (click here for PDF) that would cordon off access to commercial Web sites that let users create public "Web pages or profiles" and also offer a discussion board, chat room, or e-mail service.

That's a broad category that covers far more than social-networking sites such as Friendster and Google's Orkut.com. It would also sweep in a wide range of interactive Web sites and services, including Blogger.com, AOL and Yahoo's instant-messaging features, and Microsoft's Xbox 360, which permits in-game chat.

Fitzpatrick's bill, called the Deleting Online Predators Act, or DOPA, is part of a new, poll-driven effort by Republicans to address topics that they view as important to suburban voters. Republican pollster John McLaughlin polled 22 suburban districts and presented his research at a retreat earlier this year. Rep. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, is co-sponsoring the measure.

The group, which is calling itself the "Suburban Caucus," convened a press conference on Wednesday to announce new legislation it hopes will rally conservative supporters--and prevent the Democrats from retaking the House of Representatives during the November mid-term election.
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick

For its part, MySpace has taken steps in recent weeks to assuage concerns among parents and politicians (Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly also took aim at MySpace this week). It has assigned about 100 employees, about one-third of its workforce, to deal with security and customer care, and hired Hemanshu (Hemu) Nigam, a former Justice Department prosecutor as chief security officer last month.

"We have been working collaboratively on security and safety issues with an array of government agencies, law enforcement and educational groups, nonprofits and leading child safety organizations," said Rick Lane, vice president for government affairs at MySpace owner News Corp. "We've also met with several state and federal legislators and are working with them to address their concerns. We hope this healthy dialogue will continue."

Fitzpatrick, who represents a suburban district outside Philadelphia, acknowledged that MySpace "is working" on this. Still, he said, children are "unattended on the Internet through the course of the day" when they're at libraries and schools.

"My bill is both timely and needed and will be very well-accepted, certainly by the constituents I represent," Fitzpatrick said.

Backers of the proposal argue that it's necessary to protect children. Hastert said on Wednesday that it "would put filters in schools and libraries so that kids can be protected... We've all heard stories of children on some of these social Web sites meeting up with dangerous predators. This legislation adds another layer of protection.

To curb teenage access to interactive Web sites, Republicans chose to target libraries and schools by expanding a federal law called the Children's Internet Protection Act.

That law, signed by President Clinton in December 2000, requires schools and libraries that receive federal funding to block access to off-color materials. Librarians challenged it in federal court on First Amendment grounds, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law by a 6-3 vote in June 2003.

DOPA would add an additional requirement. It says that libraries, elementary and secondary schools must prohibit "access to a commercial social-networking Web site or chat room through which minors" may access sexual material or be "subject to" sexual advances. Those may be made available to an adult or a minor with adult supervision "for educational purposes."

Lynne Bradley, director of the American Library Association's office of government relations, said she was still reviewing the legislation. She added that: "We're as protective of kids as any other protection in this whole field, but we do know there are legitimate uses (of social-networking sites)."

"ALA is always in favor of having quality and detailed education on how best to use the Internet and these other digital tools and the best user is an informed user that knows the risks, how to avoid them, and knows how to keep him or herself safe," Bradley said.

According to the Federal Communications Commission, there have been 25,707 agreements to provide federal funding to school districts or individual schools, and 3,902 agreements to libraries or library systems. The ALA estimates that as many as two-thirds of libraries receive federal funding and would be affected by DOPA.

DOPA would also require the Federal Trade Commission to set up a Web site about the "potential dangers posed by the use of the Internet by children" and order the Federal Communications Commission to create a committee and publish a list of Web sites "that have been known to allow sexual predators" access to minors' personal information.

Rosa Aronson, director of advocacy for the National Association of Secondary School Principals also said her organization did not currently have a position on DOPA.

"We are grappling with the tension between promoting our normal policy, which is to promote local control for schools, and on the other end of the spectrum, there is the issue of protection of students," Aronson said.

Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the free-market Progress & Freedom Foundation, was not as reticent. "This is the next major battlefield in the ongoing Internet censorship wars: social- networking Web sites," he said.

"Many in government will want to play the role of cyber traffic cop here, just as they have for other types of speech on the Internet," Thierer said, adding that it will "chill legitimate forms of speech or expression online."
In other news:

* Keeping computers under control
* Vonage future looks troubled
* Microsoft rethinks PC rating tool
* News.com Extra: Women gain prominence in game world
* Video: Whacking to a new Mac app

Laws restricting Web sites tend to be challenged in the courts. The ALA, for instance, sued to overturn the Communications Decency Act in 1996 and the library-filtering requirement a few years later.

But DOPA seems to have been written to benefit from the high court's 2003 ruling that library filtering was permissible. Bob Corn-Revere, a partner at the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine who has argued before the Supreme Court, said the eventual fate of DOPA may depend on whether it's implemented narrowly or broadly.

Even so, Corn-Revere said, "treating MySpace sites like poison seems like an extreme overreaction."

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.

These guys are seriously fucked in the head. Why is everything always about "protecting the children"? And since when the hell were high schoolers children? Most users are over 14 and sure as hell aren't little kids who need to be babied and led around by the hand.

Seems like these thugs are never satisified. I'm surprised they haven't made a move to ban teens from having any online presence at all (including email addresses and IM handles) and only allow them to access it for homework research.

ARTICLE: Teen refuses court-ordered test to check cancer status (The Virginian-Pilot - HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com)

2006-05-27T14:29:00.000-04:00

ARTICLE: Teen refuses court-ordered test to check cancer status (The Virginian-Pilot - HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com)

NORFOLK - Fifteen-year-old Abraham Starchild Cherrix never intended to challenge the medical establishment when he refused chemotherapy earlier this year.

He simply believed the treatment was poisoning him, rather than saving him from Hodgkin's disease. What he wanted was a more natural approach, which he sought through an alternative treatment clinic in Tijuana, Mexico.

That decision has led to a courtroom battle, accusations of parental neglect and the possibility of being removed from his Chincoteague home...

Good for this young man! He's not just listening to the Man's bullshit. He's standing up for his beliefs and his rights. We need more like him.

ABC News: House OKs Oil Drilling in Alaska Refuge

2006-05-25T16:27:00.000-04:00

ABC News: House OKs Oil Drilling in Alaska Refuge

WASHINGTON May 25, 2006 (AP)— Citing the public outcry over $3-a-gallon gasoline and America's heavy reliance on foreign oil, the House on Thursday voted to open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, knowing the prospects for Senate approval were slim.

Drilling proponents argued that the refuge on Alaska's North Slope would provide 1 million barrels a day of additional domestic oil at peak production and reduce the need for imports...

Way to go morons! The answer is to get off oil altogether, not fucking drill for it in our national parks! Cars that run on diesel can easily be converted to run on cooking oil. But oh no, the oil companies have their vested interest and will squash any attempt to get off oil. Why? Because vegetable/cooking oil is free. If everyone fueled their cars with that, it'd put the oil companies out of business and the politicians like Bush would lose their biggest financial supporters.

CNN.com - Court frees runaway teen witness - May 23, 2006

2006-05-24T15:11:00.000-04:00

CNN.com - Court frees runaway teen witness - May 23, 2006

AKRON, Ohio (AP) -- An appeals court ordered the release of a 14-year-old girl who had been jailed for 12 days after she ran away to avoid testifying against the man accused of molesting her.

The state's 9th District Court of Appeals ruled Monday that she should not have been held without a hearing or placed in an adult jail. She was released after the ruling...

I'm proud of her. She's standing up for youth rights.

Mexico's Fox backs down on drug law - Yahoo! News

2006-05-03T22:59:00.000-04:00

Mexico's Fox backs down on drug law - Yahoo! News

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - In a surprise reversal, Mexican President
Vicente Fox will not sign widely criticized narcotics legislation to decriminalize the possession of small quantities of marijuana, cocaine and heroin, his office said on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The president's office said the law, which also toughened sentences for dealing and holding larger amounts of the intoxicants, would be sent back to Congress for revision.

"In our country the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, crimes," the office said in a statement.

Fox's decision was unexpected, given that the legislation was initially designed by his office and introduced by his party. This week, his spokesman praised the law and insisted the president would quickly sign it, despite rumblings of discontent from Washington.

The legislation, passed by Congress last week, shocked Mexico's northern neighbor, which counts on its support in a war against gangs that move massive quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines through Mexico to U.S. consumers.

It was also criticized by authorities in Mexican tourist towns who worried about a flood of hard-partying U.S. thrill seekers attracted by the new, lenient rules.

I smell a dirty play by the US government in this. It's not in their interests to have a neighboring country allowing drugs. They've also been on Canada's ass for leaning toward the decriminalization of marijuana.

Shame on you Senor Fox, for caving in to the authoritarian American government!

FDA speaks out against marijuana legalization�|�Reuters.com

2006-04-21T15:16:00.000-04:00

FDA speaks out against marijuana legalization�|�Reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will publish a statement on Friday criticizing state measures to legalize the medical use of marijuana, calling them attempts to bypass scientific review.

The agency said it was posting the statement in response to requests from lawmakers and others, but advocates for legalizing marijuana said the FDA was making an unusual and inappropriate foray into politics.

"In response to inquiries, including from Congress, we are clarifying our position on the science," said FDA spokeswoman Susan Bro in an interview.

"The FDA continues to support medical researchers whose intention is to undertake rigorous, peer-reviewed investigations and well-controlled clinical trials, in line with the FDA's drug approval process," she added in an e-mail.

But Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said he was puzzled by the FDA's decision. "It's fascinating that they are making what strikes me as essentially a political move here," said Mirken in an interview.

"There are plenty of herbal products that people use ... that are not FDA-approved. It really sounds to me like the FDA is inappropriately intruding itself into a political process and I have to say I find it very sad."

The issue of the medical use of marijuana has been long contested on the state and federal level. Some patients with diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma say only the herb provides relief, and sometimes their doctors agree.

But the federal government maintains that FDA-approved drugs, including a synthetic form of the active ingredient in marijuana, are adequate for these patients. The Drug Enforcement Administration and prosecutors say the medical marijuana movement is a thinly disguised effort to allow for recreational use of the illegal drug...

Of course the FDA doesn't want it legalized. They'd miss that rush of adrenaline that comes from kicking down cancer patients' doors and arresting them at gunpoint.

Massachusetts to require health insurance

2006-04-13T14:34:00.000-04:00

Massachusetts to require health insurance

BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney signed a groundbreaking measure Wednesday that makes Massachusetts the first state to mandate universal health care.

Supported by Democrats and Republicans in the state Legislature, the law requires residents to buy health insurance by July 1, 2007, just as drivers must have automobile coverage.

It aims to help low-income families buy private health insurance with subsidies and penalizes those who don't get coverage. It will help extend coverage to about 500,000 people in the state who lack health insurance, or about one in 13 residents.

The law has thrust the state to the forefront of a national debate over how to extend coverage to the millions of Americans without it. It's also a potential political coup for Romney as he weighs a possible run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

"Massachusetts is leading the way with health insurance for everyone, without a government takeover and without raising taxes," Romney said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who attended the signing ceremony, praised Romney for giving the state "just what the doctor ordered."

HOW IT WORKS: The program is to be financed largely with millions that the state now spends on uncompensated medical care for poor people.

It will cost about $1.3 billion in public and private funding a year, but only $125 million will be new state money. The rest will come from some new funds and a relocation of existing money, including $650 million in federal funds, $320 million from insurance companies and hospitals and $50 million from penalties on businesses that don't provide insurance.

# People who don't have health insurance will have to buy it by mid-2007 or forfeit their individual state tax exemptions. Those who don't buy it after the second year would have to pay fines equal to half the cost of an affordable plan.

# Private insurance companies, working with state officials, will develop low-cost plans that people can buy on a pretax basis through a new state-run insurance exchange. The price isn't set, but state officials hope it will be about $200 a month.

# The legislation increases payments to hospitals and doctors and expands coverage for poor children through Medicaid.

# People who earn more than 300% of federal poverty levels -- $28,700 for a single person and about $60,000 for a family of four -- get no financial help.

# Companies with more than 10 workers that don't offer health insurance must pay the state $295 for each employee.

Romney used his line-item veto power to strike eight portions of the bill, including the $295 fee. Officials said some employers might consider it cheaper to pay the fee than to insure workers.

But legislative leaders said they would override any changes. Business and hospital leaders also criticized the veto.

SKEPTICISM: Critics say the new law lacks adequate funding and cost controls.

"We will look back at this new legislation as a well-motivated but naive, underfunded political approach," said Dr. Alan Sager, a codirector of the Health Reform Program at Boston University's school of public health.

It remains unclear how much help some people will get from the program, and people who get no public assistance could have difficulty buying policies.

"If consumers are forced to pay for a policy that's not affordable, there's going to be another Boston Tea Party," said Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a consumer watchdog group in Santa Monica, Calif.

IN CALIFORNIA: A measure introduced Wednesday in California's state Assembly would require businesses to cover 75% of health-care costs for employees or pay as much as 7% of their annual payroll to subsidize universal health care.

People who don't have insurance would face a civil fine under the bill, proposed by Joe Nation, a Democrat from Marin County.

His plan would cap deductibles, require premium rates to vary only based on geography and age and forbid insurers from restricting coverage for preexisting conditions.

I thought universal health care was supposed to be free. If they force people to buy it, that defeats the whole purpose. Other countries like Canada and in many EU countries give it to people at no cost to them.

Forcing people to pay for their own health insurance is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use

2006-03-06T02:00:00.000-05:00

EFF: DeepLinks

RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use
February 15, 2006

It is no secret that the entertainment oligopolists are not happy about space-shifting and format-shifting. But surely ripping your own CDs to your own iPod passes muster, right? In fact, didn't they admit as much in front of the Supreme Court during the MGM v. Grokster argument last year?

Apparently not.

As part of the on-going DMCA rule-making proceedings, the RIAA and other copyright industry associations submitted a filing that included this gem as part of their argument that space-shifting and format-shifting do not count as noninfringing uses, even when you are talking about making copies of your own CDs:

"Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use."

For those who may not remember, here's what Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year:

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."

If I understand what the RIAA is saying, "perfectly lawful" means "lawful until we change our mind." So your ability to continue to make copies of your own CDs on your own iPod is entirely a matter of their sufferance. What about all the indie label CDs? Do you have to ask each of them for permission before ripping your CDs? And what about all the major label artists who control their own copyrights? Do we all need to ask them, as well?

P.S.: The same filing also had this to say: "Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use...."

Posted by Fred von Lohmann at 08:40 AM | Permalink | Technorati

Well, there you have it folks. The RIAA are now showing their true colors. They said what they knew the public wanted to hear last year to shut everyone up. Now that things have quieted down, they're striking the war path again. They won't be happy till every bit of digital media on our computers is read-only so we can't do as we please with it.

Slave Labor: Made in the U.S.A. (Excerpt) : LA IMC

2006-02-07T17:29:00.000-05:00

Slave Labor: Made in the U.S.A. (Excerpt) : LA IMC

Slave Labor: Made in the U.S.A. (Excerpt)
by William Norman Grigg
February 6, 2006

Under the influence of disgraced super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay became an apologist for slave labor camps — on American soil.Deep in a humid tropical island jungle, in poorly ventilated buildings ringed with barbed wire and patrolled by armed guards, impoverished Asian women — most of them Chinese — toil for 80 hours a week making brand-name apparel for export to the United States.

The female garment workers were lured to the labor camps, which are run by members of the Chinese Communist Party, with promises of wages extravagant by their standards, up to 60 percent of what their counterparts in the U.S. earn. But before they were hired, the women had to sign “shadow contracts” that effectively made them slaves to the company. Their activities are strictly regimented, and since they depend on the company store for most of their necessities, what they earn is recycled back into company hands. Furthermore, most of the workers had to borrow huge sums of money, at extortionate rates of interest, to pay, up front, the human traffickers responsible for transporting them to the island.

As is the case wherever the Chinese Communist Party claims jurisdiction, the female garment workers are subject to the regime’s repulsive one-child policy. They are forbidden to marry or have boyfriends. Those who become pregnant are forced to have their children aborted.

Despite being produced from Chinese fabric by Chinese laborers who labor under Chinese law, the designer clothing that emerges from those island factories is labeled “Made in the USA.” This is actually a case of truth in labeling, since these Chinese labor camps were established on Saipan, a territorial possession of the United States. Thanks to the efforts of super-lobbyist and confessed felon Jack Abramoff, this squalid arrangement has enjoyed political protection from, and been effusively praised by, many “conservative” Republican politicians, including disgraced former House GOP leader Tom DeLay...

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Made in the USA", doesn't it?

Lansing State Journal: Video gets teens on probation in trouble

2006-01-30T18:14:00.000-05:00

Lansing State Journal: Video gets teens on probation in trouble

Video gets teens on probation in trouble
Drunken promgoers mock judge on Web despite his warning

Associated Press

TROY - A judge who sentenced three teens to probation for being drunk at their high school prom had them jailed after he saw them drinking and ridiculing him on a Web site one of them created.

"I told them, 'If you think this gives me any pleasure, you're wrong,' " Oakland County District Judge Michael Martone said after sentencing the last of the girls, Amanda Senopole, to 10 days in jail last week.

"You know, it's just a crying shame. I work my butt off trying to help kids like this, trying to figure out what works. And then they do things like this."
Advertisement

Senopole and eight other Troy Athens High School students were caught drinking at their prom last May. They were arraigned before Martone on misdemeanor charges of being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Initial probation

Martone, who had appeared at Athens High days before the prom to warn graduating seniors against drinking, sentenced the students to probation, fines, court costs, community service and alcohol-education classes. As a condition of their probation, he ordered them not to drink and to avoid places where alcohol is served or consumed.

Several months later, Martone was looking on the Internet for a news release on one of the many alcohol prevention programs he has promoted during his 13 years on the bench. He entered his name into a search engine and came to a site belonging to Mary Meerschaert, one of the Athens students he had sentenced.

His computer screen showed Meerschaert, Senopole and some of the other students who had appeared before him in court - making obscene gestures, chugging shots of liqueur, posing with beer cans stacked nearly to the ceiling and vomiting into toilets.

The Web site's headline included an abbreviated obscenity directed toward the judge.

Meerschaert, now enrolled at Michigan State University, had used a digital camera to create an Internet photo gallery with students appearing passed out and couples playing a drinking game among its more than 400 images. Many of the picture captions were profane and directed at Martone.

Drinking at MSU

The gallery also showed Senopole, Meerschaert's roommate, and another co-defendant in the prom incident, Rachel Stesney - enrolled at the University of Detroit Mercy - drinking at parties at Michigan State.

"They made a mockery of the legal system," Martone told the Detroit Free Press. "I had to do something."

The judge showed the Web site to police and probation officers. It became legal evidence for charging the three women with contempt of court "for disobeying my direct order not to consume alcohol," Martone said.

Meerschaert and Stesney appeared before Martone on Dec. 23. Meerschaert admitted that her Web site uses profanity aimed at Martone, and that she had a drinking problem.

Holiday jail time

He sentenced her to 30 days in the Oakland County Jail, then sentenced Stesney to 15 days. They shared a cell during Christmas and New Year's Day.

Senopole appeared before Martone last week, telling him: "I have a new roommate now. She doesn't drink."

She also said she earned a 3.6 grade-point average in the fall at Michigan State, and pledged she would introduce her dormitory to an alcohol education program.

Martone doubled Senopole's hours of community service, to 100, but gave her less jail time than Meerschaert and Stesney - 10 days - and let her serve them one at a time, on weekends, "so it doesn't interrupt your studies."

Of the nine students who drank before the prom, two others also have served jail time for later alcohol infractions.

Parental reaction to the new sentences has been mixed, with Senopole's father, Tom, calling the judge "a fair man."

Their mistake was in putting a video of what they did online. His mistake is being an ageist asshat who enforces an unfair and unconstitutional age restriction.

SI.com - NFL - Pa. student humiliated over Broncos jersey - Tuesday January 24, 2006 12:30AM

2006-01-24T17:23:00.000-05:00

SI.com - NFL - Pa. student humiliated over Broncos jersey - Tuesday January 24, 2006 12:30AM

BEAVER FALLS, Pa. (AP) -- A 17-year-old high school student said he was humiliated when a teacher made him sit on the floor during a midterm exam in his ethnicity class -- for wearing a Denver Broncos jersey.

The teacher, John Kelly, forced Joshua Vannoy to sit on the floor and take the test Friday -- two days before the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Broncos 34-17 in the AFC championship game. Kelly also made other students throw crumpled up paper at Vannoy, whom he called a "stinking Denver fan," Vannoy told The Associated Press on Monday...

Shit-can that teacher...

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail | Perspectives | CNET News.com

2006-01-23T14:33:00.000-05:00

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail | Perspectives | CNET News.com

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
A law meant to annoy?
FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained
A practical guide to the new federal law that aims to outlaw certain types of annoying Web sites and e-mail.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.

Hopefully this doesn't hold up against civil liberties lawsuits. What an atrocious abuse of people's rights to free speech.

Forgot What You Searched For? Google Didn't

2006-01-21T16:52:00.000-05:00

Forgot What You Searched For? Google Didn't

The Justice Department may have done us all a big favor by issuing subpoenas to Internet search engines to find out what people are researching online.

Not because that data could help shield children from online porn, which was the government's stated goal in demanding data from Google and three other search firms.

Google refused to turn over search data, partly to avoid creating the perception that it would hand over more personal records if asked.
Google refused to turn over search data, partly to avoid creating the perception that it would hand over more personal records if asked. (By Clay Mclachlan -- Reuters)
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* Sachin's
* Sachin's
* ROLLED STONE

Full List of Blogs (16 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Rather, the request -- and Google's refusal to fork over its search data -- is putting a helpful public spotlight on the vast amount of personal information being stored, parsed and who knows what else by the Web services we increasingly rely on to manage our lives...

Think the stuff you search for in Google is private? Guess again folks! It's all saved on their servers. In the future, we can look forward to the feds crowbarring their way into our "private" Net lives.

The only thing I can suggest is the use of an anonymizing proxy.

Organic Consumers Association - Educating for Health, Justice, and Sustainability

2006-01-16T18:10:00.000-05:00

Organic Consumers Association - Educating for Health, Justice, and Sustainability

ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

NOTE: This alert is now closed. Public comment period to the EPA expired on December 12, 2005. Sign up on our email list here, and we will keep you posted on this issue. Thanks for your involvement.

Monday, January 16, 2006

EXPIRED ALERT TEXT: Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children, without exception. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, is ridden with exceptions where chemical studies may be performed on children in certain situations like the following:

1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns, may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

Send a letter to EPA here!

OCA's focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Read the full EPA proposed rule here: PDF --- HTML):

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

Sounds like what Mengele did to Jewish children during the Holocaust.

Homeland Security Opens Private Mail

2006-01-06T20:10:00.000-05:00

MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.

But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.

Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“I had no idea (Homeland Security) would open personal letters,” Goodman told MSNBC.com in a phone interview. “That’s why I alerted the media. I thought it should be known publicly that this is going on,” he said. Goodman originally showed the letter to his own local newspaper, the Kansas-based Lawrence Journal-World.

“I was shocked and there was a certain degree of disbelief in the beginning,” Goodman said when he noticed the letter had been tampered with, adding that he felt his privacy had been invaded. “I think I must be under some kind of surveillance.”

Goodman is no stranger to mail snooping; as an officer during World War II he was responsible for reading all outgoing mail of the men in his command and censoring any passages that might provide clues as to his unit’s position. “But we didn’t do it as clumsily as they’ve done it, I can tell you that,” Goodman noted, with no small amount of irony in his voice. “Isn’t it funny that this doesn’t appear to be any kind of surreptitious effort here,” he said.

The letter comes from a retired Filipino history professor; Goodman declined to identify her. And although the Philippines is on the U.S. government’s radar screen as a potential spawning ground for Muslim-related terrorism, Goodman said his friend is a devout Catholic and not given to supporting such causes.

Click for related content

* Live Vote: Should U.S. be allowed to open private mail?
* Analysts: Bush spying rationale legally shaky
* Read more stories by Brock N. Meeks

A spokesman for the Customs and Border Protection division said he couldn’t speak directly to Goodman’s case but acknowledged that the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it’s deemed necessary.

“All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,” says the CBP Web site. That includes personal correspondence. “All mail means ‘all mail,’” said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.

“This process isn’t something we’re trying to hide,” Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency’s Web site. “We’ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,” Mohan said.

However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, “obviously it’s a security-related criteria.”

Mohan also declined to say how often or in what volume CBP might be opening mail. “All I can really say is that Customs and Border Protection does undertake [opening mail] when it is determined to be necessary,” he said.

Look at all the privacy we get in this country! Haven't these fuckers ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?

Homeowner Shoots Alleged Intruders, Kills 2 - ClickonDetroit.com - MSNBC.com

2006-01-06T19:52:00.000-05:00

Homeowner Shoots Alleged Intruders, Kills 2 - ClickonDetroit.com - MSNBC.com

Homeowner Shoots Alleged Intruders, Kills 2

Prosecutors will decide if the shootings of three men suspected of breaking into a Detroit home were crimes or self-defense. A homeowner shot and killed two of three men who allegedly tried to break into his east side home Thursday.

Police say three men, two adults and one juvenile, were breaking into multiple homes in the area. When they arrived at a home on Somerset, the homeowner was in the house and armed.

Investigators believe the man shot all three. Two of the men tried to get away in a car, but didn't get far before they died, Local 4 reported.

The 15-year-old teen stumbled away from the home and is in critical condition in St. John Hospital, according to Local 4.

Police are continuing the investigation.

Double tap, central mass! Neutralize the evil! That's the power of an armed citizen defending their own home! Don't wait for the cops to come. Just take out the trash!

CBS 11 - Dallas / Fort Worth's Source for Breaking News, Weather, and Sports: Family Debates Hospital’s Action in Woman’s Death

2005-12-29T23:36:00.000-05:00

CBS 11 - Family Debates Hospital’s Action in Woman’s Death

(CBS 11 News) "It was against our will to unplug her. We never wanted that.”

Daniel Salvi and his family surrounded his sister’s bedside Monday at Baylor Regional Medical Center in Plano and watched doctors take the 27-year-old off life support.

"It didn't take long — 15 to 16 minutes,” Tirhas Habtegiris’ brother recalled.

Habtegiris had abdominal cancer that spread to her lungs. Eventually, she was on a ventilator and her cousin took care of her.

The family said doctors told them they would have to remove her from life support in 10 days.

When the family disagreed, the hospital's Clinical Ethics Committee met and decided to take Habtegiris off the ventilator.

The hospital declined an on-camera interview, but in a statement said they "contacted 12 facilities including hospitals, long term acute care facilities and nursing homes, all of whom declined to accept the patient.”

Salvi believes this would not have happened if his sister had health insurance.

"If you don't have money in this country, you're nothing. You're not a human being."

But a Dallas attorney who worked on the law said money has nothing to do with it and only clinical matters are considered.

Dr. Allan Shulkin, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at another Dallas hospital, supports the law.

"Sometimes applying technology when there is no other opportunity for recovery is wrong not because it’s expensive, but because it prolong suffering," he said.

Salvi said his sister wanted to die in her mother's arms.

A hospital spokesperson the facility offered to hire an immigration attorney free of charge to help bring the woman's mother from East Africa.

Relatives, however, said the East African process was too lengthy.

(CBS 11 News)

I see, under Bush's "compassionate conservatism", doctors are allowed to kill those without insurance. God help our corporatist culture of death!

CBSNews.com: Blog - Corey Maye: "An Interesting Test of the Power of the Blogosphere"

2005-12-23T19:22:00.000-05:00

CBSNews.com: Blog

While the fate of Stanley “Tookie” Williams drew plenty of attention in the in the mainstream media, many in the blogosphere – on the right and the left (Battlepanda has assembled a list of them, conveniently organized by political ideology) – have been lamenting the lack of similar attention to the death penalty case of Cory Maye. Maye is on death row for killing a police officer. Radley Balko of the libertarian blog The Agitator was first to blog about Maye, and those who have followed seem to agree that Maye is the victim of overzealous police and racial bias and doesn’t deserve the death penalty.

Balko offers a detailed summary of his findings in the case and sums it up as such:

Cops mistakenly break down the door of a sleeping man, late at night, as part of drug raid. Turns out, the man wasn't named in the warrant, and wasn't a suspect. The man, frigthened [sic] for himself and his 18-month old daughter, fires at an intruder who jumps into his bedroom after the door's been kicked in. Turns out that the man, who is black, has killed the white son of the town's police chief. He's later convicted and sentenced to death by a white jury. The man has no criminal record, and police rather tellingly changed their story about drugs (rather, traces of drugs) in his possession at the time of the raid.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit says the case “sounds like a total miscarriage of justice”:

If the facts are as [Balko] reports, this guy never should have been charged -- and he should have had a lawsuit (though those, unreasonably, are usually losers) against the police for breaking down the wrong door. The cop who was shot was the police chief's son. And there's a racial angle, too.

Obsidian Wings, who notes that “I don't have any moral qualms about the death penalty as a concept,” adds:

If it is true that Maye was mistakenly thought to be a drug dealer and he reacted as many innocent citizens might to an intruder, he ought not be executed. Maye is not the kind of killer that I have in mind when I argue in defense of the death penalty.

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly’s Political Animal, who is “not opposed to the death penalty qua death penalty” writes:

Regardless of whether or not there's more here than meets the eye, there's not much doubt that Maye doesn't deserve to die. It's yet another example of how capriciously the death penalty is applied in the United States, and Maye's case is an almost perfect demonstration of the intersection of race, lousy representation, and likely police misconduct that are so often the hallmarks of capital cases.

The Volokh Conspiracy chides the mainstream media:

The MSM hasn't paid any attention to this story, but it should. And I hope the Mississippi Supreme Court will be paying lots of attention, too.

And amid much talk of the influence of bloggers and citizen journalism, Mark Kleiman at Huffington Post chimes in about what this latest crusade might reveal:

This case is an interesting test of the power of the blogosphere. Though the apparent injustice is two years old, it seems to have attracted exactly zero attention in the mainstream media, at least according to a Google News search for "Cory Maye."

Black guy protects his home from white police chief's son and is setenced to death for it. Am I pissed? Yes. Am I surprised? No.

A Few Carry-On Items Come Off the No-Fly List - Los Angeles Times

2005-12-03T11:28:00.000-05:00

A Few Carry-On Items Come Off the No-Fly List - Los Angeles Times

A Few Carry-On Items Come Off the No-Fly List
# Airplane passengers will be allowed to pack small scissors and tools, but random screening will be stepped up.

By Ryan G. Murphy Times Staff Writer, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Transportation Security Administration said Friday that it would allow airplane passengers to carry such previously restricted items as small scissors and tools, but that it would expand random security screenings in an effort to increase protection of airplanes and passengers against onboard bombs.

The agency said the changes would let it focus "on more serious threats." Several legislators, flight attendants and families of the victims of the Sept. 11 hijackings said that allowing sharp objects on airplanes might lead to terrorist attacks.

ADVERTISEMENT
"While changes to the prohibited-item list may attract the most attention, they are not the most important piece," said TSA Administrator Kip Hawley.

He said that after evaluating potential threats and vulnerabilities, the agency decided to focus more "on higher threat areas, like explosives."

Under the new plan, randomly selected passengers would undergo body searches, and their carry-on items would be given more thorough examination.

The agency said that the new screening could include checks for explosives in shoes, the use of hand-held metal detectors to check individual passengers for weapons, and pat-down searches.

The now-standard screening at security checkpoints will continue for all passengers and the items they carry on board.

No longer prohibited from airplanes will be: scissors of less than 4 inches and such tools as screwdrivers, wrenches and pliers measuring less than 7 inches because, an agency spokeswoman said, "those size items are easiest identified by the screener." She said that agency policy prohibited her from being identified by name when expanding on the director's remarks.

Brian Sullivan, a retired Federal Aviation Administration special agent, expressed skepticism about the new plan. He said that locked cockpit doors might be opened by someone with a sharp object.

The transportation agency, he said, "may be acting prematurely, focusing all of their attention on bombs."

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a telephone interview that the agency was trying to save money, but the result would be less security.

"They should be providing additional funding for screening for bombs on planes," he said.

Hawley said at a news conference that from March through September of this year, airport screeners found more than 9.5 million prohibited items in carry-on bags.

"We are opening a lot of bags to take away objects that do not pose a great risk," he said. Hawley said that small scissors and tools account for about 25% of the prohibited items found in passenger carry-on bags.

Airline attendants and families of the Sept. 11 victims criticized the decision.

"This seems like a step backward in aviation and it hasn't been thought out," said Corey Caldwell, representative for the Assn. of Flight Attendants.

"This seems to be a staffing issue in TSA. They want to develop more resources to search for explosive devices but in order to do that, they shouldn't have to sacrifice another portion of security."

I have a better idea. How about we, the flying public, be the ones making the decisions about what is carried on and whether or not we should be searched?

Herald.com | 11/28/2005 | Cops unveil plan to stop terrorists

2005-12-01T21:34:00.000-05:00

Herald.com | 11/28/2005 | Cops unveil plan to stop terrorists

Posted on Mon, Nov. 28, 2005

R E L A T E D C O N T E N T
ON THE LOOKOUT: Miami police officers Mayree Morin and Bobby Navarro with the city's new Homeland Security rapid-response emergency vehicle.
NURI VALLBONA/HERALD STAFF
ON THE LOOKOUT: Miami police officers Mayree Morin and Bobby Navarro with the city's new Homeland Security rapid-response emergency vehicle.
M O R E N E W S F R O M topix.net
• Activism
• Terrorism

MIAMI

Cops unveil plan to stop terrorists

Miami police will announce today their plans to prevent a potential terrorist attack.

BY DAVID OVALLE

dovalle@herald.com

Miami police will announce today the creation of an initiative aimed at protecting malls, business districts and other so-called ''soft targets'' from possible terrorist attacks.

Dubbed ''Miami Shield,'' the initiative calls for small groups of uniformed and plainclothes officers to patrol potential target zones at random times, hopefully thwarting terrorists who rely on routines to coordinate attacks.

''We want the terrorists to know we're out there,'' said Miami Deputy Chief Frank Fernandez.

The program also calls for a healthy dose of community relations, teaching business people to spot would-be terrorists and balancing what often can be perceived as heavy-handed police tactics.

''The idea is to strike a good medium, so people feel comfortable,'' said Officer Bobby Navarro, the department's specialist on weapons of mass destruction.

The department will outline the program at a news conference today. Here's how they envision it working: A small group of police officers, perhaps as many as five, will patrol potential ''soft targets'' such as Bayside Marketplace, a Metrorail station or the business district along Brickell Avenue.

The term, soft target, generally refers to civilian targets. One example: the suicide bombings that struck London's public transportation system in July.

The Miami officers will talk to business owners, handing out counter-terrorism brochures and business cards with a police e-mail -- homelandsecurity@miami-police.org -- where people can report suspicious activity.

At the same time, small groups of plainclothes officers will conduct surveillance on possible targets elsewhere.

The random approach -- officers may spend five hours, or 15 minutes, at a target -- is designed to throw off terrorists who may be studying security patterns.

''If they know we're going to have policemen [on] random buses, it's a lot harder for them to feel comfortable taking devices on the buses,'' Navarro said.

The task of thwarting terrorists can be tricky for local police departments.

In New York City, the police department has been lauded for honing its anti-terrorism efforts, but it also has been criticized by civil libertarians for its techniques.

For example, after the London bombings, the New York Police Department began searching riders' bags on the city's subway system.

Critics blasted the police, saying it was intrusive and useless.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing five subway riders, sued the department, saying the searches ran against the Constitution's safeguard against ``unreasonable searches and seizures.''

Fernandez, the deputy chief, said Miami Shield would be an effective, non-intrusive way to safeguard against terrorists.

''We don't want to do it to the point where we violate the right of freedom of movement and freedom of expression,'' Fernandez said.

Look at the last line. Doesn't that idiot realize that making people show ID when no crime has been committed is limiting freedom of movement? Doesn't he fucking know the Fourth Amendment? I hope the ACLU or some libertarian group gets this law abolished and fast.

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | The leak that revealed Bush's deep obsession with al-Jazeera

2005-11-26T23:25:00.000-05:00

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | The leak that revealed Bush's deep obsession with al-Jazeera

The leak that revealed Bush's deep obsession with al-Jazeera

The US president planned to bomb the Qatar-based channel - that was the remarkable claim made in a top-secret memo. Why is the world's most powerful man so worried about a TV station?

Jamie Doward, Antony Barnett, Peter Beaumont, David Rose and Mark Townsend
Sunday November 27, 2005
The Observer

It was an ambush. As Britain woke up yesterday morning to snowstorms and arctic temperatures, the Attorney General was preparing to be questioned on Radio Four's Today programme over government plans to scrap jury trials in complex fraud cases.

Instead, as the interview with John Humphrys ground to an end shortly after 8.30am, the urbane Lord Goldsmith found himself explaining why he had warned national newspapers not to reveal the contents of a top secret memo detailing a lengthy conversation between the Prime Minister and President George Bush over the direction of the war in Iraq...

At least the Chimp had enough brains not to go through with it. Still, he wanted to bomb a TV station that does nothing more than express an opinion he disagrees with. If this doesn't prove that the guy's a nut, nothing will.

KRISTV.COM - Corpus Christi, TX - Katie Wernecke leaves M.D. Anderson with parents

2005-11-04T10:53:00.000-05:00

KRISTV.COM - Corpus Christi, TX - Katie Wernecke leaves M.D. Anderson with parents
"HOUSTON - After a bitter court battle that lasted nearly five months, 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke of Agua Dulce is back with her parents. Katie walked out of M.D. Anderson with her parents and walked away from her conventional cancer treatment."

A happy ending, yes. Still this leaves many troubling questions: Who has the final authority over the treatment of a young person, the family, the state or even the youngster themselves? As we move more and more into the nanny state culture, I believe things like this will happen with greater frequency. Parents will lose their children for refusing to put them on Ritalin at the schools' orders, for refusing to send defiant teens away to bootcamps, etc. All in all, this isn't a good country to raise kids in anymore.

HoustonChronicle.com - Judge orders sick teen returned to parents

2005-11-01T10:47:00.000-05:00

HoustonChronicle.com - Judge orders sick teen returned to parents

CORPUS CHRISTI — A 13-year-old girl with cancer who was put into foster care after her parents refused to allow radiation treatment will be reunited with her family, a judge ruled today.
ADVERTISEMENT

Faced with her deteriorating health, state district Judge Jack Hunter said Katie Wernecke would be better off with her family in Agua Dolce, near Corpus Christi, than in the custody of the Houston foster parents she was assigned by Child Protective Services...

At long last, a judge with some humanity in his heart. Props to Hunter for making the right decision and a hearty "Fuck you. You lose" to CPS.

High court postpones decision on Wernecke

2005-10-26T09:54:00.000-04:00

High court postpones decision

The Texas Supreme Court postponed a decision on whether to return 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke to her parents, stating the newly appointed judge first must have an opportunity to examine the case.

The ruling, issued Monday, gave McKinney attorney James Pikl, who is representing Edward and Michele Wernecke, until Nov. 23 to pursue or dismiss an appeal filed Oct. 6. The appeal requests all of Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis' rulings, including her removal from her parents, be reversed because the Werneckes never were found to be medically negligent...

If they were never found medically negligent, where's the justification for kidnapping their ill teenage daughter?! I personally hope the family takes her to Arkansas and refuses to go back to Texas!

Judge Lewis Steps Down

2005-10-14T11:24:00.000-04:00

Lewis Leaves Case

Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis stepped aside Thursday in the case of 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke.

With that decision, Katie's case will be assigned to a new judge as she begins a long-delayed course of chemotherapy to treat her Hodgkin's disease.

Lewis has been at the center of the high-profile case since this summer, when he ordered Katie into the care of state officials. Her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, had resisted traditional forms of medical treatment for her cancer and had been accused of medical neglect...

About the hell time. Hopefully this new judge's pockets aren't being lined by Pfizer and the pharmaceuticals. It's time that Katie's rights were considered, instead of the rights of these huge corporations to experiment on "minors".

Texas Supreme Court allows Edward Wernecke to visit Katie

2005-10-08T12:31:00.000-04:00

Court allows visits

The Texas Supreme Court stepped in on behalf of cancer patient Katie Wernecke's family Friday by issuing an order allowing Edward Wernecke supervised contact with his daughter.

Before the court's decision, only Katie's mother Michelle was allowed to see her daughter on the condition that she not discourage Katie from accepting prescribed cancer treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.

The court's order maintains neither parent will have access to Katie if it is determined they are persuading her to avoid treatment. All contact must be scheduled ahead of time and in cooperation with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

The order states that a department representative must be present by telephone or in person during all contact with Katie.

Officials with the Nueces County Attorney's office said late Friday night it was too soon to comment on the development.

Edward Wernecke said he was grateful for the small victory.

"It's a small step forward and a very important step," he said. "A child should not have to go through this."

The order also overrules Judge Carl Lewis' order in juvenile court that Michelle Wernecke's contact with Katie be terminated if she doesn't encourage Katie to comply with treatment plans in writing.

Edward Wernecke, whose wife Michelle was out of state because of a family illness, said Friday he had already tried to schedule a time to contact his daughter, whom he has not spoken with in 30 days.

"I just want to tell her I love her and how much I missed her," he said.

Aaron Reed, spokesman for Child Protective Services, said the court's order didn't change much, as far as the state's position that Katie must receive appropriate treatment.

"This doesn't at all change our plans for Katie," Reed said. "For her to receive the treatment, her medical team says it's necessary to get her better so she can go back home."

Wernecke family attorneys could not be reached for comment late Friday.

Katie has been in Child Protective Services custody since June 4, after her parents refused radiation treatments for her cancer. She was diagnosed in January with the cancer and underwent six rounds of chemotherapy at Driscoll Children's Hospital.

Katie has been at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where doctors recommended she undergo high-dose chemotherapy followed by radiation.

A small step in the right direction. Still this family's lives have been utterly ruined by the state government. They've learned a bitter lesson: the government owns you from cradle to grave.

MSN Money - 3 prison stocks poised to break out

2005-10-06T15:21:00.000-04:00

MSN Money - 3 prison stocks poised to break out

Company Focus
3 prison stocks poised to break out
advertisement
Thanks in part to overcrowding, governments are turning to private companies to build and manage prisons. Here's how to pick the right time to buy into the trend.

By Michael Brush

In what might be a revealing commentary on our country's state of affairs, the nation's private prison companies look like solid investments for the next several years.

The three big prison companies -- Corrections Corp. of America (CXW, news, msgs), The Geo Group (GGI, news, msgs) and even the troubled Cornell Cos. (CRN, news, msgs) -- have decent growth prospects for the following reasons.

* Increased border patrols. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, signed by the president in December, calls for stepped up border patrols to improve domestic security. This makes it likely that more illegal immigrants will be caught. Lawmakers estimate that by 2010 the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will need another 40,000 prison "beds," as they say in the business.

* Governments are hard up for cash. "Because of tight budgets, there has not been a lot of new prison construction," says Irving Lingo, Corrections Corp. of America's finance chief. Instead, state and federal prison systems turn to private companies that build and manage prisons. In the 2005 federal budget, for example, Congress cut prison construction spending by 48%, says Patrick Swindle, an analyst who covers the sector for the brokerage Avondale Partners. Government prison systems turn to the private sector in part because costs are 10% to 15% lower.
Start investing with $100.
Explore our
new ETF center.

* Government prisons are overcrowded and the prison population will keep growing. "Federal prisons are at 33% overcapacity, and more than half the states are at overcapacity," says Swindle. "There is a scarcity of beds, and companies in the private prison space are being asked to meet the demand."

Demand should pick up over the next decade for a simple demographic reason. The children of baby boomers, the so-called echo boom, are about to enter the 18- to 24-year old age group -- the years when people commit the most crimes. The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates it will have a 36,000 bed shortfall by 2010, partly due to this trend.

The big-fish theory
These numbers may not seem like much. But it's a big deal for the tiny private prison sector, which houses only around 7% of the 2.1 million people in prison in the United States.

To see why, let's take a closer look at some numbers. The two federal agencies, ICE and FBP, will need 76,000 new prison slots over the next five years. That alone is more than the number of beds now run by the biggest private prison company, Corrections Corp., which houses about 70,000 inmates. And it doesn't even include increases in demand expected at the state level.

So what does this mean in layman's terms? It means that the federal government stands to profit from the incarceration of poor and middleclass Americans. Oh friends, the writing's on the wall! Take your children and your pets. Flee this country while the borders are still open! They won't be happy till we're all incarcerated or under some kind of government restrictions.

Katie takes chemo she had rejected

2005-10-05T10:50:00.000-04:00

Katie accepts chemo

Katie Wernecke no longer is refusing chemotherapy to treat her cancer, her father said Tuesday.

Edward Wernecke said his wife, Michele, visited Katie in Houston on Monday and said she is accepting the treatment she previously resisted by pulling catheters from her arm and disobeying doctors' orders. The treatment is expected to last more than four months...

OK, the tyrants win. She's accepting the damn chemo eventhough it'll sterilize her and may not work. So what happens now? Katie is in compliance. Does that mean she'll be allowed to go home, or will Lewis keep her in CPS care permanently. If she is allowed to go home, will CPS finally leave this family alone or continue to torment them with visits from social workers for the next six years?

Woman Ticketed For Sitting On Park Bench With No Kids

2005-09-29T11:21:00.000-04:00

Woman ticketed

Woman Ticketed For Sitting On Park Bench With No Kids
Ticket Could Bring $1,000 Fine, 90 Days In Jail

POSTED: 9:06 am EDT September 28, 2005

NEW YORK -- It's an only in New York story. A woman was given a ticket for sitting on a park bench because she doesn't have children...

Only in New York State or California could something like this happen. It's funny because I always thought public parks were just that, public.

Wernecke: Katie is making her own choices

2005-09-22T08:47:00.000-04:00

Wernecke: Katie is making her own choices

State hopes order limiting contactwith her parents will sway actions

By kathryn garcia Caller-Times
September 22, 2005

With the recent order limiting contact between 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke and her parents, state officials hope they can persuade Katie to stop resisting the treatment that could save her life.

Katie's custody will be determined at a permanency hearing scheduled for November, at which time Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis, or another judge, could decide to terminate the Wernecke's parental rights, said Child Protective Services spokesman Aaron Reed.

"At that point, we'll have to make a decision as to what the child's plan is either for reunification with her parents or termination of parental rights or continued custody," Reed said.

Katie's father, Edward Wernecke, said she is making her own decisions about treatment and that he is worried he would lose custody of his daughter and never see her again.

While recovering from open-heart surgery Tuesday, Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis signed an order preventing Katie's father from any communication with his daughter and limiting contact with Katie's mother, Michele Wernecke, to only supervised visits.

"I am convinced now that they are actively preventing the treatment from occurring through their contact with their daughter," Lewis said during an emergency hearing he called Monday after visiting Katie at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

As of Wednesday morning, Katie had continued to resist a prescribed treatment of high-dose chemotherapy followed by radiation to treat Katie's Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, Reed said. Katie had been trying to pull catheters from her arms, disobeying doctor's orders and refusing to bathe.

"My fear is that she continues to refuse treatment, that at some point the judge will decide that there's literally nothing we can do, and she'll go home to her parents, and she very well could die," Reed said.

Katie has been in state custody since June 4 after her parents refused radiation treatments for her disease. Katie's doctors recommend she undergo high-dose chemotherapy followed by radiation therapy, which should kill the tumor. The treatment also will weaken her immune system, requiring her to remain in isolation for several weeks. When Katie was first diagnosed with cancer, she had a 90 percent chance of survival. Now her chances have reduced considerably, Reed said.

Edward said he and his wife are heartbroken and are not encouraging Katie to resist the treatment. Katie's cell phone and computer have been taken away, Edward said.

"This is Katie's choice, not mine and not Michele's," Edward said in a previous interview.

I honestly think Katie will end up committing suicide just to end this torture.

Judge may keep parents away from Katie Wernecke

2005-09-20T08:41:00.000-04:00

Judge may bar contact between parents and daughter

Judge may keep parents from Katie

Pressure too much for a 13-year-old to bear, Lewis says

By kathryn garcia Caller-Times
September 20, 2005

Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis, at an emergency hearing on Monday, threatened to bar the parents of teenage cancer victim Katie Wernecke from all contact with her.

Lewis called the hearing after visiting the 13-year-old's hospital bedside Friday at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The hearing was recessed after Lewis suddenly became ill and was not rescheduled as of late Monday. "After having met with her, I believe that it is in the child's best interest to issue orders to limit and perhaps prohibit access to her parents," Lewis said. "I am convinced now that they are actively preventing the treatment from occurring through their contact with their daughter, and it's more pressure than a 13-year-old can bear."

Katie has been refusing the prescribed treatment of high-dose chemotherapy followed by radiation to treat her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, said her lawyer Linda Schauer, who added she doesn't think Katie will agree to treatment even if she is cut off from contact with her parents.

Katie's caseworker Stella Klein has said Katie has dodged treatment by attempting to pull catheters from her body, refusing to bathe and not following doctor's orders.

During his visit to Houston, Lewis said he encouraged Katie to receive the treatment. Lewis did not elaborate on Katie's response but said she wanted a guarantee that the treatment would be successful. Lewis said he told her that "when it comes to human life there is no guarantee..."

How will keeping this young woman who desperately wants to go home away from her parents convince her to get this treatment? If anything, it'll make her more defiant and perhaps suicidal. Only people who work for the government would think that being cruel to someone is the way to get them to cooperate! I call for the dismissal of Judge Lewis from the bench! He's incompetent and malicious!

Refugees prevented from leaving New Orleans

2005-09-11T15:03:00.000-04:00

Refugees prevented from leaving New Orleans

What we did on our vacation
Posted by Teresa at 08:20 PM * 194 comments

Warning: I’m about to link to a page that has a little “sfsocialists” logo in the upper left corner. If that makes you twitch, skip this post. You’ll be doing yourself a disservice, though. The piece is descriptive. What the authors are writing about is what happened to them during the time they were stuck in the city after the storm passed.

The authors, Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky, were attending a paramedics’ conference in New Orleans, staying in the French Quarter, when the hurricane hit. Afterward, they were in the same situation as other survivors in the city: no food, no water, no transportation, and no help from the outside world:

On Day 2, there were approximately 500 of us left in the hotels in the French Quarter. We were a mix of foreign tourists, conference attendees like ourselves, and locals who had checked into hotels for safety and shelter from Katrina. Some of us had cell phone contact with family and friends outside of New Orleans. We were repeatedly told that all sorts of resources including the National Guard and scores of buses were pouring into the city. The buses and the other resources must have been invisible because none of us had seen them.

We decided we had to save ourselves. So we pooled our money and came up with $25,000 to have ten buses come and take us out of the city. Those who did not have the requisite $45.00 for a ticket were subsidized by those who did have extra money. We waited for 48 hours for the buses, spending the last 12 hours standing outside, sharing the limited water, food, and clothes we had. We created a priority boarding area for the sick, elderly, and newborn babies. We waited late into the night for the “imminent” arrival of the buses. The buses never arrived. We later learned that the minute they arrived at the city limits, they were commandeered by the military.

By day 4 our hotels had run out of fuel and water. Sanitation was dangerously abysmal. As the desperation and despair increased, street crime as well as water levels began to rise. The hotels turned us out and locked their doors, telling us that the “officials” told us to report to the convention center to wait for more buses. As we entered the center of the city, we finally encountered the National Guard.

The Guards told us we would not be allowed into the Superdome as the city’s primary shelter had been descended into a humanitarian and health hellhole. The guards further told us that the city’s only other shelter, the Convention Center, was also descending into chaos and squalor and that the police were not allowing anyone else in. Quite naturally, we asked, “If we can’t go to the only two shelters in the city, what was our alternative?” The guards told us that that was our problem, and no they did not have extra water to give to us. This would be the start of our numerous encounters with callous and hostile “law enforcement”.

We walked to the police command center at Harrah’s on Canal Street and were told the same thing, that we were on our own, and no they did not have water to give us. We now numbered several hundred. We held a mass meeting to decide a course of action. We agreed to camp outside the police command post. We would be plainly visible to the media and would constitute a highly visible embarrassment to the city officials. The police told us that we could not stay. Regardless, we began to settle in and set up camp. In short order, the police commander came across the street to address our group. He told us he had a solution: we should walk to the Pontchartrain Expressway and cross the greater New Orleans Bridge where the police had buses lined up to take us out of the city. The crowed cheered and began to move. We called everyone back and explained to the commander that there had been lots of misinformation and wrong information and was he sure that there were buses waiting for us. The commander turned to the crowd and stated emphatically, “I swear to you that the buses are there.”

We organized ourselves and the 200 of us set off for the bridge with great excitement and hope. As we marched pasted the convention center, many locals saw our determined and optimistic group and asked where we were headed. We told them about the great news. Families immediately grabbed their few belongings and quickly our numbers doubled and then doubled again. Babies in strollers now joined us, people using crutches, elderly clasping walkers and others people in wheelchairs. We marched the 2-3 miles to the freeway and up the steep incline to the Bridge. It now began to pour down rain, but it did not dampen our enthusiasm...

All I can say is unfuckingbelievable. Prevented from leaving a disaster. First the government wants to prevent those who want to leave from doing so, now they're throwing out those who wish to stay. I give up! This government is fucked beyond help!!!!

New Orleans police confiscate firearms

2005-09-11T14:36:00.000-04:00

Firearms confiscation

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.

Police officers looking for survivors today in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans.

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons...

Typical! They'll confiscate legally owned weapons from the poor, common folk, but not the weapons of security people for private companies. Nevermind that there's such a thing as the Second Amendment! God forbid that people's rights ever be respected!

The coming FCC crackdown on cable TV

2005-09-06T11:47:00.000-04:00

FCC Crackdown

A 2003 episode of the short-lived Fox comedy "Keen Eddie" features a woman described as a "filthy slut" who is hired to "extract" semen from a prize thoroughbred. "That's not natural," the prostitute protests. "Think of it as science," says the man offering to pay. Though the episode featured no actual extraction -- off-camera the woman lifts her shirt and the horse suddenly drops dead -- some Americans complained, finding the scene inappropriate for prime-time television.

The Federal Communications Commission disagreed. In the majority opinion, the commission decided the sequence was not intended to "pander, shock, or titillate." The decision, however, was not unanimous. Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, whom President Bush has since appointed FCC chairman, thought Fox stations should be fined. "Despite my colleagues' assurance that there appeared to be a safe distance between the prostitute and the horse, I remain uncomfortable," Martin wrote at the time.

Though Martin lost the battle over horse extraction, he is now poised to win the broader indecency war. During the long hot summer in Washington, he has been quietly meeting with religious activists and industry leaders to organize a push for new standards for broadcast, cable and satellite television. At the same time, Martin's allies in the Senate have been considering new laws that could increase broadcast indecency fines, break up cable TV offerings to allow parents to cut off racy channels, and -- most controversially -- give the FCC the power to fine basic cable programs, like MTV's "Real World" and Comedy Central's "Daily Show," for crude and lewd content...

That's right folks. If these people get their way, there won't be anymore HBO shows like The Sopranos or Carnivale. These fuckers want to control everything we see and hear. Don't be surprised if they set their sights on satellite radio next and then the greatest prize of all, the Internet!

Pray for Katie

2005-09-06T10:54:00.000-04:00

Pray for Katie

Katie Wernecke's family is hoping that Katie will be allowed to attend today's hearing. She's 13, not three. She has the right to attend the hearing and have her wishes heard. Everyone's voice in this case has been heard except Katie's.

Superdome of Shame

2005-09-05T20:02:00.000-04:00

Superdome of Shame

The frail elderly, many grasping walkers and others in wheelchairs seemed to be near collapse. They, along with hundreds of small children needing water and rest-room relief, were forced to wait as long as four hours to get to safety. It was often repeated during the video reports that the last time the Superdome was used as a hurricane shelter, a few of the temporary occupants removed some furniture. But this time, they had a large security force on hand, so that was NOT going to happen again, no-siree-bob.

During coverage by Geraldo Rivera Sunday night, FOX NEWS' video cameras zoomed inside the foyer deck of the Superdome and viewers could see a national guard person going through a powder compact from of a woman's purse that was way too small to hold a liquor bottle or a gun. It was obvious that they were looking for drugs in warrantless searches. They instructed all the refugees far back in the seemingly endless lines to have their prescription-pill bottles out when approaching the security checkpoint and also a photo ID to prove that they belonged with the prescription.

There were THOUSANDS of poor, mostly black citizens of the lower Louisiana area, many of them little children and sickly elderly, being forced to stand for hours while the government violated their civil rights with forced searches that were patently unconstitutional, unjust and unreasonable under the dire circumstances. "Don't want to be searched? That's okay...now turn around, go outside and die!" Big choice.

Can you imagine New Orleans' wealthy elite meekly submitting to such microscopic searches of their persons and property for drugs? Heads would roll. But poor people who had no money to escape the deadly storm's onslaught had no choice. They had nowhere else to go to save their children's and parents' lives. They were humiliated just for trying to survive. Their grandfathers and grandmothers suffered as slaves on Southern plantations decades ago, while today, they suffer as slaves to the state, the state that cancels their human rights and dignity in the name of "protecting" them.

Did you see that, America? Nothing has changed in the South. Poor people of are still being herded and treated as criminals because of the color of their skin. The Sheriff and Louisiana National Guard knows the profile of likely drug users: black people and anyone associating with them; they were searched just as if they were entering a state penitentiary visiting a death-row prisoner. Maybe the refugees would have fared better if they had had season tickets in their hands.

Think about it. They can allow in 30,000 screaming fans with fifty-dollar bills and costly NFL tickets in their hands in a few minutes, but poor black people fleeing for their lives, four hours. Four HOURS!

None of the news people I saw on the major cable and broadcast networks noticed this outrage. Apparently, they are still "embedded" with the government and couldn't possibly risk dislodging their heads long enough to report the truth right before their eyes.

We let morons take away our rights to person and property at the airports, all for the false "protection" they promised us and can't possibly deliver, so now we see them doing it to helpless citizens even when the citizens' lives are in danger. "First, we gotta check you for weapons and drugs...pull your dress up, lift up your arms...." – let those old people collapse and those kids soil themselves – "This is FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY."

God forbid that anyone have a hip flask to calm their nerves during a traumatic life-and-death experience. Someone else might actually toke up or take a non-prescription pill! And a few might take their right to keep and bear arms seriously, when everyone knows that only government employees deserve self-protection, not their citizen "bosses." The constitution doesn't apply when the government thinks it can make you safer by judging you, disarming you, and denuding you of your rights.

Who gave the order to make all these exhausted, miserable poor people wait for hours while they were searched so illicitly? Under what actual law did they search these refugees for anything whatsoever on their person? Do they search football game fans this thoroughly and for this long? Suuuuuure they do....

Could all this form a mass tort against the State of Louisiana? Maybe. Some of the Superdome refugees must be hopping mad.

Let's face it. If you're poor in America, you're a "suspect," maybe. If you're poor and black in America, you're a "criminal," definitely. Even if your life is in peril, no excuses. Your rights don't count as long as any badge or weekend warrior in BDU's says they don't.

This is the real story of the Louisiana Superdome. Hurricane Katrina can certainly destroy the environs of the Louisiana and her neighboring states, but that can all be rebuilt. What will never be rebuilt is the dignity of the poorest citizens of that region, since the government acted with a greater destructive force than a hurricane. The lamp of freedom has been blown out by force-five bureaucrats, their sycophants and their head-embedded media enablers who will insure that it will never get re-ignited. For our own good, of course.

Heads should roll in Louisiana, for all those whose civil rights were violated on Sunday, August 28, 2005, outside the Louisiana Superdome of Shame.

First-hand account of the raid

2005-08-26T15:09:00.000-04:00

source

"Last night, I was booked to play an event about an hour outside of Salt Lake City, Utah. The hype behind this show was huge, they presold 700 tickets and they expected up to 3,000 people total. The promoters did an amazing job with the show.. they even made slipmats with the flyers on them to promote in local shops.

So, we got to the show around 11:15 or so and it was really cool. It was all outdoors, in a valley surrounded by huge mountains. They had an amazing light show flashing on to a mountain behind the site, the sound was booming, the crowd was about 1500 people thick and everything just seemed too good to be true really. Well...

At about 11:30 or so, I was standing behind the stage talking with someone when I noticed a helicopter pulling over one of the mountain tops. I jokingly said "Oh look, here comes big brother" to the person I was with. I wasn't far off.

The helicopter dipped lower and lower and started shining its lights on the crowd. I was kind of in awe and just sat and watched this thing circle us for a minute. As I looked back towards the crowd I saw a guy dressed in camoflauge walking by, toting an assault rifle. At this point, everyone was fully aware of what was going on . A few "troops" rushed the stage and cut the sound off and started yelling that everyone "get the fuck out of here or go to jail". This is where it got really sticky.

No one resisted. That's for sure. They had police dogs raiding the crowd of people and I saw a dog signal out a guy who obviously had some drugs on him. The soldiers attacked the guy (4 of them on 1), and kicked him a few times in the ribs and had their knees in his back and sides. As they were cuffing him, there was about 1000 kids trying to leave in the backdrop, peacefully. Next thing I know, A can of fucking TEAR GAS is launched into the crowd. People are running and screaming at this point. Girls are crying, guys are cussing... bad scene.

Now, this is all I saw with my own eyes, but I heard plenty of other accounts of the night. Now this isnt gossip I heard from some candy raver, these are instances cited straight out of the promoters mouth..

- One of the promoters friends (a very small female) was attacked by one of the police dogs. As she struggled to get away from it, the police tackled her. 3 grown men proceeded to KICK HER IN THE STOMACH.

- The police confiscated 3 video tapes in total. People were trying to document what was happening out there. The police saw one guy filming and ran after him, tackled him and his camera fell, and luckily.. his friend grabbed it and ran and got away. priceless footage. That's not all though. Out of 1,500 people, there's sure to be more footage.

- The police were rounding up the staff of the party and the main promoter went up to them with the permit for the show and said "here, I have the permit." The police then said, "no you don't" and ripped the permit out of his hand. Then, they put an assault rifle to his forehead and said "get the fuck out of here right now."

Now.. let's get the facts straight here.

This event was 100% legal. They had every permit the city told them they needed. They had a 2 MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy for the event. They had liscenced security guards at the gates confiscating any alcohol or drugs found upon entry (yes, they searched every car on the way in). Oh, I suppose I should mention that they arrested all the security guards for possession.

Oh another interesting fact.. the police did not have a warrant. The owner of the land already has a lawsuit against the city for something similar. A few months ago, she rented her land for a party and the police raided that as well. And catch this, the police forced her to LEAVE HER OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. That's right. They didnt arrest her, but made her leave her own property!!!

Don't get it twisted, this is all going down in probably THE most conservative state in the USA. And this is scary.. a gross violation of our civil liberties. The police wanted this party shut down, so they made it happen. Even though everything about this event was legal. The promoters spent over $ 20,000 on this show and did everything they had to to make it legit, only to have it taken away from them by a group of radical neo-con's with an agenda.

This was one of the scariest things I have ever witnessed in person. I can't even begin to describe how surreal it was. Helicopters, assault rifles, tear gas, camoflauge-wearing soldiers.... why? Was that really necessary?

This needs to be big news across the USofA. At least in our music scene (edm as a whole)... this could happen to any of us at any time. When we're losing the right to gather peacefully, we're also letting the police set a standard of what we can get away with. And I think that's BULLSHIT!

The system fucked up last night... They broke up a party that was 100% legal and they physically hurt a lot of people there at the same time. The promoters already have 6 lawsuits ready to file with their lawyers and the ACLU is already involved.

I'm sure some pictures (and hopefully some video) will surface soon. I'll make sure to post them up here on 404, so you can see the Police State of America at work. "

Naturally I was skeptical that the US army would raid a rave, but then I saw the footage that the eyewitness was confident would surface. The video corroborates the story and shows the spotlights from the helicopters, the heavily armed soliders breaking up the event, threatening concert goers, and tackling people to the ground.

Curious to see what this was all about, I payed the ACLU website a visit to see if they had any record of cases involving law enforcement targeting legal rave events and even going so far as to try and ban soothers and light sticks from electronic music events, revealing yet another dangerous flaw in US drug policy.

The National Guard was not sent out to Spanish Fork, Utah because the crowd was violent or the event was illegal. They were there to intimidate the electronic music crowd, using authoritarian tactics in the "War on drugs" that is already causing a massive backlash against authorities from electronic music enthusiasts across the United States. Utah law enforcement and the other authorities engaged in profiling electronic music events as being rife with MDMA (colloquially referred to as X or Ecstacy), raiding legal events, and harassing event goers will soon find that these tactics will quickly fail and accomplish the reverse of their intent.

If this behavior by law enforcement in the United States continues, raves will go back underground where they started. Illegal events where proliferation of MDMA will increase exponentially and overdose victims will not be able to get the medical attention they need in a timely fashion if at all.

I have seen and been told about how legal raves are run here in Canada at indoor venues like hockey arenas; there are local police officers on hand, event security do random drug searches, and EMS is standing by to treat people for exhaustion or MDMA abuse related problems including dehydration. In the UK, event staff will frequently hand out strips to test the quality of the MDMA event goers purchase if they do to minimize the health risk. US authorities have mountains of expertise and experience to refer to from UK authorities who were the first to deal with the trend and the drug related issues when it first surfaced, and yet they seem to be completely ignoring it. When I was in high school and Irish man who was a former MDMA addict and raver came to speak to us about raves (which were just coming into vogue in North America at the time) and his experiences. Not once did he advocate authoritarian police measures in dealing with the issue. Event organizers here have lauded the police for their cooperation in keeping raves legal and safe for everyone. You will not get that sentiment in Utah, because it seems that a handful of drug arrests (or simply the potential for them) outweigh education and community building.

Raving Mad: Police State Crackdown on Youth Culture

2005-08-26T13:31:00.000-04:00

Salt Lake Tribune article

About 60 people were arrested Saturday night when police officers busted an illegal rave in Spanish Fork Canyon.
Those arrested were cited on a variety of charges including the possession of illegal narcotics, weapons violations, DUI, illegal consumption of alcohol by a minor, disorderly conduct, assaulting a police officer and drug distribution.
The youngest of those cited was 15 years old, said Utah County Sheriff's Sgt. Dan Gilbert.
Police in Utah County have monitored several raves this summer and have grown increasingly concerned about their legality and
Related Articles
# Ravers say cops were too rough making bust
safety, Gilbert said. When detectives got word that another party was planned for Saturday, they set to work to make sure they got their point across that such activity was not welcome in their area.
"The Sheriff's Office will investigate and look into and find an illegal mass gathering going on, we will take the appropriate action to stop the party at that time," Gilbert said.
Investigators learned that no permit had been requested for a mass gathering which requires a bond and Utah County Commission approval for groups larger than 250, said Gilbert. Police learned around noon Saturday that the rave would be held in the
Diamond Fork area of Spanish Fork Canyon and assembled about 90 officers from several agencies to enforce crowd control.
Undercover officers filtered into the party when the doors opened about 9 p.m. By 11:30 p.m. police confirmed that more than 250 people were in attendance and stormed the party. During their two hours at the DJ-driven dance party, undercover officers had observed a multitude of illegal activities including the sale and consumption of drugs such as cocaine, ecstacy, alcohol, methamphetamine and marijuana.
"The sale of drugs at these parties is so prevalent that at this particular rave party, drugs were offered to local off-duty emergency medical service personnel who were contracted to be there," Gilbert said.
A 17-year-old West Jordan girl overdosed on ecstasy, police said. Most of the participants were between 15 and 30 years old and were from Spanish Fork, Springville, Provo, Payson, as well as Davis and Salt Lake counties, Gilbert said. Two security guards hired by the promotor were arrested for the possession of cocaine and ecstasy and Spanish Fork police made two DUI arrests as partyers drove out of the canyon, he said.
Most of the 400 or so ravers left peacefully.
But others were detained if they had been seen doing something illegal or showed visible signs of impairment, said Gilbert.
In a sweep of the area after the crowd had been controlled, which one raver said was executed with unnecessary force, police found a plethora of drugs and drug paraphernalia scattered on the ground, Gilbert said.
Brett George told Fox News 13 that officers stormed the party and treated attendees unfairly, including beating one man that was trying to film the bust with a video camera.
Police want parents of teenagers to know the dangers of illegal, clandestine rave parties. Gilbert said that in addition to heavy drug use, raves attract sexual assaults, violence, theft and promote unsafe driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
mwestley@sltrib.com

Damn intolerant police state bullshit. Why do the old always feel it necessary to stamp out the fun and culture of the young?

Video footage of the raid: WMV file
MOV file

Other sources:

First-hand reports
Another video in MOV format

Violence Sparks Creative Thinking on Curfew

2005-08-25T09:31:00.000-04:00

Article Source

Violence Sparks Creative Thinking on Curfew

Long Beach opens a detention center and boosts staffing on a van to round up violators.

By Laurie Kaye, Times Staff Writer

After 19 shootings in one week, Long Beach officials put some bite into their curfew law by opening up a center last month to detain youths found by police in public places between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Since July 25, instead of being taken to the police station downtown, minors loitering on the streets have been placed by police into patrol cars or a van driven by two officers designated for picking up curfew violators. Each youth is given a citation and driven to a community recreation center in Silverado Park to wait in a classroom-like setting for a parent or guardian.

ADVERTISEMENT
In the first week, 124 youths were taken to the center. About 85% were male, and most were ages 13 to 15, said Det. Stephen Stough of the Long Beach Police Department's Youth Services Division. He has volunteered to work overtime at the center.

"We had an extremely violent week … with a lot of shootings," said Police Cmdr. Jeff Johnson, noting that about a third of those shootings involved a minor, either as victim or suspect, and that most occurred during curfew hours. Many involved gangs.

"We need to think about getting kids off of the street," Johnson said.

In response, the city started a task force, assigning two officers to work overtime driving the van and three to staff the center. Most officers are drawn from youth detective services, Johnson said.

So far, Long Beach police say parents have been supportive of the curfew law. According to Stough, about 75% of the time parents are happy to see that their children are safe and off the streets, especially in light of the recent shootings.

But there are critics.

The American Civil Liberties Union has long argued that youth curfews violate the constitutional right to free movement and criminalize everyday and non-intrusive activities like standing on the street or walking the dog, unnecessarily turning law-abiding youths into criminals at 10 p.m.

"Curfews violate rights of young people who are citizens of this country," said Alex Koroknay-Palicz, executive director of the National Youth Rights Assn., a Maryland-based nonprofit organization. He says that curfews stereotype youth and that there is no conclusive evidence that curfews reduce crime rates.

In Long Beach, however, the early signs are good: Gang enforcement Lt. Gary Morrison says that shootings have dropped about 60% since the curfew center opened and that last week there were only five. He believes that increased enforcement efforts — along with the curfew crackdown — have led to the decrease.

"Curfew enforcement was part of the puzzle," Morrison said.

Under the city's decade-old curfew law, police typically issue about 1,000 citations a year, Johnson said. In July, 300 citations were handed out, which he said was higher than usual, although the numbers always rise a bit when schools are out.

The city considered creating the shelter 10 years ago but didn't have enough officers to staff it, Johnson said. He said he was finally able to get money to open the facility by using the political pressure the shootings engendered and working in conjunction with the community center to cut costs.

The curfew center allows police to increase their efforts and keep youths separate from criminal offenders. According to Johnson, police previously faced enforcement challenges, because curfew violators could not be arrested or held behind bars with more serious suspects while waiting for someone to pick them up.

Youths would sometimes have to await parents for hours. Police occasionally were forced to contact the county Department of Children and Family Services to take custody of a minor until parents arrived.

The Police Department is working with crime prevention units, Neighborhood Watch and the city Community Relations Division to get the message out. The city is also posting signs in entertainment districts to notify youths and their parents that the curfew will be enforced.

"We are telling our officers to cite any juveniles that are out during those times" the curfew is in effect, said Officer Greg Schirmer, public information officer for the Police Department. Exceptions are made for minors who are accompanied by a parent, are running an errand under the direction of a parent, are involved in employment activities or emergencies, or are attending official school, religious or other recreational events.

Once a youth is charged, he or she must appear before a judge to determine the penalty, which may include a fine, community service or probation, police said.

Curfew laws have been around for decades and reached their height in the 1990s, according to the youth rights group. Many cities across the Southland have curfew laws.

The ordinances are generally enforced at the discretion of the police officer, and most cities use the laws to deal with minors loitering after dark. Few engage in any type of curfew sweeps.

Many cities focus on entertainment districts on weekend nights. In Lakewood, patrolled by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, officials pay special attention to the mall and movie theaters, using film attendance projections to determine the number of deputies needed to enforce curfew and asking theaters to start shows before 10 p.m., Lakewood Lt. Mark Weldon said.

Minors are usually already subject to curfews by parents and are often aware of city curfews. In Huntington Beach, for example, the curfew is widely known and police issue only about five citations a month, Lt. Craig Junginger said.

Hermosa Beach primarily warns youths and rarely issues citations, police spokesman Paul Wolcott said. Redondo Beach stepped up enforcement a year ago after encountering fights and gang activity at a local mall, City Prosecutor Alan Honeycutt said. In Santa Ana, police strongly enforce curfews along Bristol Street, with its bars and restaurants.

Times staff writer Lomi Kriel in Costa Mesa contributed to this report.

Yeah. Real creative. If they really wanted to be creative, they'd arrest the violent criminals and leave the teens alone.

A Business Built on the Troubles of Teenagers

2005-08-18T10:41:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/business/17teen.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=all

The New York Times
August 17, 2005
By LOUISE STORY

Mary Ann Davies has spent more than $100,000 in the last year to send her 16-year-old daughter to one private counseling and educational program after another. She has just signed up to go further into debt, committing herself to spend another $100,000 over the next two years for a boarding school in New York that she hopes will help her daughter overcome a drug problem.

"We're saving this life," said Ms. Davies, who works in advertising in Richmond, Va. "You can't put a price on that."

More and more parents of troubled teenagers are following the same course and sending their children to special programs - no matter the cost. At the same time, the number of programs available has soared. They differ from the tough boot camps and the long-term psychiatric stays that were the main options a couple of decades ago. The new "feel good" programs combine therapy and education, often in an outdoor setting, at an average cost of $5,000 a month.

Those numbers have drawn the attention of some big money investors, who see a growing need for the kind of services these programs provide. Although there have been allegations of abuse within the industry, and those have garnered most of the media attention on the schools, officials at several companies said almost all the incidents had been at a handful of less reputable programs.

At the same time, the influx of money from investors seeking a high return on equity is worrying some traditionalists in the field, who are concerned that the bottom line may take precedence over students' needs. So far, they said, the schools are able to charge enough to make solid profits while keeping most customers satisfied.

"If you've got a child with problems, this is your most precious asset, and I don't think any parent would ever cut corners if they thought there was a way to help their child through the problem they're experiencing," said Joseph Kenary, the president of the corporate finance business at CapitalSource Finance, a lender to the Aspen Education Group, based in Cerritos, Calif., and one of the more prominent providers of programs for troubled teenagers. If the programs are "run well, if they're full, they generate a pretty attractive return on a cash-on-cash basis."

No one tracks the industry's enrollment, revenues or claims of success or failure, in part because the programs fall through the regulatory cracks and in part because the industry is still so fragmented. But financial analysts and educational consultants estimated that the number of teenagers attending such programs had quadrupled since 1995, to as many as 100,000 this year. They estimate that annual revenues now total at least $1 billion.

Venture capital firms like Warburg Pincus and the Sprout Group, a division of Credit Suisse First Boston, have found it a promising business opportunity.

Two of the larger private companies, Aspen and Three Springs, based in Huntsville, Ala., have been buying up smaller programs and founding new ones. Universal Health Services, a public company that primarily owns hundreds of hospitals, has expanded into teenage behavioral programs.

John L. Santa, a co-owner of Montana Academy, a school based in Marion, Mont., that he co-founded in 1996, and president of the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, said he had been approached several times by companies looking to buy the school. But he decided not to sell, even though he said he believed that most large companies had been doing a good job so far.

"You're caring for individual kids," Dr. Santa said. "You're not making widgets. There's a fear as you move into a more corporate structure, you will lose some of what we do."

In contrast with companies focusing on general education - like Bright Horizons Family Solutions, the day care provider, and Edison Schools, the charter school company - the behavioral programs are dealing with a population that presents a higher risk.

"These kids are difficult," said Andrew E. Kaplan, a partner at Quad Ventures, a private equity firm that has been looking to invest in the field for about four years. "If something bad happens at one, it may be something that's completely out of your control. You may have done everything right, and still something happens."

Officials at the programs acknowledge that their type of therapy does not work for all teenagers. Even parents who were happy with the programs said they were not sure whether their teenager had simply matured or had changed because of the experience.

The teenagers who attend these programs have often been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder or other behavioral problems and are taking medications. Some have used drugs or have been sexually abused. Many have been in trouble at school or in minor trouble with the law. Others have run away from home or stolen from their parents.

The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs lists 140 schools and programs, about 100 more than it listed in 1999. But educational consultants, who advise parents on these programs, say the total number of programs available is now closer to 300.

Since 1990, Lon Woodbury, an educational consultant who has published a newsletter on the industry for 15 years, said he had noticed an increase of 20 to 30 percent in the number of help programs for teenagers. In June, he wrote a column saying that there was still "plenty of room" for new programs.

"All indications are that the market is still growing," he wrote. "The consensus is that increasing numbers of children are in trouble and are not growing up very well."

It is not clear, however, if more teenagers have problems than a generation ago or if more parents are sending their teenagers away for help. Educational consultants said there seemed to be less of a stigma about seeking therapy today.

Perhaps most important, more parents have the disposable income or the equity in their homes to pay the typical price of $400 a day for an outdoor program. While most parents have to pay the bills themselves, some also receive help from their school district or insurance company.

The field began to commercialize in the mid-1990's. In 1998, the Sprout Group and Frazier Healthcare Ventures of Seattle bought the majority of Aspen, a company with a handful of programs at that time but with major plans to expand. In 2002, Warburg Pincus invested $15 million in Aspen; around the same time, the company received at least $48 million in loans from CapitalSource and Caltius Mezzanine, two companies that specialize in lending to small and midsize companies.

Investors are particularly drawn to the field because it is almost entirely supported by individual payments rather than being dependent on public financing. "I've been in the private equity business for 15 years, and I don't like to invest in companies where, with one strike of a pen, you can wipe out your business," said Nader J. Naini, a general partner with Frazier Healthcare and also the chairman of Aspen's board.

Since Frazier invested in Aspen, Mr. Naini said he had been approached several times by other groups wanting to buy the company. Frazier is in no hurry to sell its share, though, he said, because he expects continued growth.

Aspen and similar companies may go public at some point, company officials said. If Aspen went public, it would have to open its books to investors, allowing them to see its profit margins and operating costs. The company has 31 programs in 11 states, up from 6 programs in 1998. Aspen has recently expanded into the obesity market, offering schools and camps for overweight teenagers.

Industry analysts estimate that the companies typically generate profit margins of 10 to 20 percent.

Kirsten Edwards, an equity research analyst at ThinkEquity Partners, a research and investment banking firm in San Francisco, said larger companies were more efficient because they could spread the cost of their curriculums, marketing and overhead as they expand.

Universal Health Services, the hospital management company, acquired 12 properties from Charter Behavioral Health Systems for $105 million in 2000. That acquisition included the Provo Canyon School in Utah, which has been around since the 1970's as a help center for teens.

The company is set to take over several therapeutic schools that were run by CEDU Education, the earliest large company in therapeutic teenage help and a branch of Brown Schools, now bankrupt. Brown, which was based in North Palm Beach, Fla., went bankrupt in March largely because of lingering legal costs from lawsuits filed by several former students, said a spokesman for McCown De Leeuw, the private equity firm that owned Brown. Universal Health's bid of $13.35 million for the properties has been accepted by the bankruptcy judge, and the sale is expected to close at the end of the month, said George L. Miller, a partner at Miller Coffey Tate in Philadelphia and the bankruptcy trustee for Brown.

Another private company, Three Springs, has seized on the market growth in the last five years, adding six new programs. Three Springs now has 25 programs, and may continue to expand.

"What we are trying to do is build a continuum," said Sharon Laney, the company's chief operating officer. "If the kid does not fit this model, we have another."

Many teenager help programs were founded by counselors and therapists wanting to start their own businesses or by people who have had troubled teenagers in their lives. Some parents of graduates of these programs - among them Joel J. Horowitz, chairman of the board and the former chief executive at Tommy Hilfiger - have been so impressed by the schools that they have started foundations to help finance the programs for those who have trouble affording them.

A new reality television show on ABC this summer, "Brat Camp," which shows a wilderness program in action, could spur even greater interest by giving more parents insights into the programs.

Ms. Davies, the Richmond mother, said she wished she had found her daughter's new school in New York sooner. The other programs her daughter attended, she said, were not the right matches - and they cost a lot of money.

For now, Ms. Davies said, she is focusing on her hopes that her daughter will have a breakthrough and realize that she needs to change. But she said she was also wondering how she and her husband would meet all the bills. Already, they have dipped into their home equity.

"We're going have to reconcile this at some point, and it's going to be tough," she said. "I don't think we have a choice."

Your teen watch too much TV or spend too much time online? We have a camp for that!

Your teen dress in a way you don't like? We have a camp for that!

Your teen listen to music you don't approve of? We have a camp for that!

Your teen overweight, ugly and unpopular? You guessed it; we have a camp for that!

President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health

2005-08-13T20:43:00.000-04:00

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020429-2.html

President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
Executive Order

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve America's mental health service delivery system for individuals with serious mental illness and children with serious emotional disturbances, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. There is hereby established the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (Commission).

Sec. 2. Membership. (a) The Commission's membership shall be composed of:

(i) Not more than fifteen members appointed by the President, including providers, payers, administrators, and consumers of mental health services and family members of consumers; and

(ii) Not more than seven ex officio members, four of whom shall be designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the remaining three of whom shall be designated -- one each -- by the Secretaries of the Departments of Labor, Education, and Veterans Affairs.

(b) The President shall designate a Chair from among the fifteen members of the Commission appointed by the President.

Sec. 3. Mission. The mission of the Commission shall be to conduct a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system, including public and private sector providers, and to advise the President on methods of improving the system. The Commission's goal shall be to recommend improvements to enable adults with serious mental illness and children with serious emotional disturbances to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities. In carrying out its mission, the Commission shall, at a minimum:

(a) Review the current quality and effectiveness of public and private providers and Federal, State, and local government involvement in the delivery of services to individuals with serious mental illnesses and children with serious emotional disturbances, and identify unmet needs and barriers to services.

(b) Identify innovative mental health treatments, services, and technologies that are demonstrably effective and can be widely replicated in different settings.

(c) Formulate policy options that could be implemented by public and private providers, and Federal, State, and local governments to integrate the use of effective treatments and services, improve coordination among service providers, and improve community integration for adults with serious mental illnesses and children with serious emotional disturbances.

Sec. 4. Principles. In conducting its mission, the Commission shall adhere to the following principles:

(a) The Commission shall focus on the desired outcomes of mental health care, which are to attain each individual's maximum level of employment, self-care, interpersonal relationships, and community participation;

(b) The Commission shall focus on community-level models of care that efficiently coordinate the multiple health and human service providers and public and private payers involved in mental health treatment and delivery of services;

(c) The Commission shall focus on those policies that maximize the utility of existing resources by increasing cost effectiveness and reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulatory barriers;

(d) The Commission shall consider how mental health research findings can be used most effectively to influence the delivery of services; and

(e) The Commission shall follow the principles of Federalism, and ensure that its recommendations promote innovation, flexibility, and accountability at all levels of government and respect the constitutional role of the States and Indian tribes.

Sec. 5. Administration. (a) The Department of Health and Human Services, to the extent permitted by law, shall provide funding and administrative support for the Commission.

(b) To the extent funds are available and as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707), members of the Commission appointed from among private citizens of the United States may be allowed travel expenses while engaged in the work of the Commission, including per diem in lieu of subsistence. All members of the Commission who are officers or employees of the United States shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for their services as officers or employees of the United States.

(c) The Commission shall have a staff headed by an Executive Director, who shall be selected by the President. To the extent permitted by law, office space, analytical support, and additional staff support for the Commission shall be provided by executive branch departments and agencies.

(d) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, may apply to the Commission, any functions of the President under that Act, except for those in section 6 of that Act, shall be performed by the Department of Health and Human Services, in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Administrator of General Services.

Sec. 6. Reports. The Commission shall submit reports to the President as follows:

(a) Interim Report. Within 6 months from the date of this order, an interim report shall describe the extent of unmet needs and barriers to care within the mental health system and provide examples of community-based care models with success in coordination of services and providing desired outcomes.

(b) Final Report. The final report will set forth the Commission's recommendations, in accordance with its mission as stated in section 3 of this order. The submission date shall be determined by the Chair in consultation with the President.

Sec. 7. Termination. The Commission shall terminate 1 year from the date of this order, unless extended by the President prior to that date.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 29, 2002.

There you have it folks, straight from the horses's (or in this case, ass') mouth. In layman's terms this means that all public school students will be screened for mental health problems and if they're found to have any problems, they will be prescribed mandatory drugs made by you guessed it, the pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. Parents who object to this may find CPS breathing down their necks, charging them with neglect. It's happened before in New York State where state officials threatened to take children from parents who didn't make them take Ritalin after the schools, not doctors, but the schools diagnosed them with ADD.

So here we are allowing the government and schools, not even doctors anymore to diagnose children as mentally/emotionally unstable. If parents don't go along with it, they lose their children to the state.

Parents I implore you, take your children out of government schools if you love them. Educate them at home. Don't let them get swallowed up in this machine!

Wisconsin to Ban Birth Control from College Campuses

2005-08-06T20:43:00.000-04:00

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/07/27/64850

College campuses have emerged as the latest battlefield in the nation’s war on women’s reproductive rights. Wisconsin has passed a bill entitled UW Birth Control Ban-AB 343. This bill prohibits University of Wisconsin campuses from prescribing, dispensing and advertising all forms of birth control and emergency contraceptives. Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, introduced this bill based on the belief that “dispensing birth control and emergency contraceptives leads to promiscuity.” In reality, full access to all birth control options — including emergency contraceptives — has no effect on the level of women’s promiscuity. Instead, birth control and emergency contraceptives help prevent more than 35,000 unintended births and 800,000 abortions each year.

The bill denies thousands of women essential health-care services and reproductive choices and affects their lives and futures in many ways. With this bill, rape victims will no longer be able to turn to campus health services to obtain emergency contraceptives to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, or receive postrape counseling and education — adding even more stress to a traumatic event. Students who want birth-control prescriptions, emergency contraceptives or even information about preventive birth control are forced to seek out these services at off-campus clinics. This poses a problem not only for students who attend rural Wisconsin university campuses and might not have a clinic nearby but also for many students who attend urban campuses but do not have access to transportation, money, insurance or time to travel to an off-campus clinic. By removing the convenience of having these services on campus, students are less likely to seek out preventive birth control, which could lead to more unintended pregnancies and abortions. Emergency contraceptives are especially vulnerable to this bill because they must be taken within 72 hours to effectively prevent pregnancy, thus, adding even more pressure for students to find a way off-campus to receive the prescription.

Any rollback of women’s reproductive rights is inexcusable, but the bill is especially disturbing because it is directed at college campuses and targets a population in which there tends to be a high concurrency of sexual assaults and unplanned sexual encounters. During a time in their lives when they need full access to all birth control options the most, this bill denies women access to any options at all. College is also a time when students are transforming into young adults and are taking control of their lives and futures. Denying women full reproductive services and choices sends the message that women cannot be trusted to make decisions that affect their bodies, their lives and their futures.

In passing this bill, Wisconsin has the distinct honor of becoming the first state in the nation to limit college students’ access to full birth control options. Minnesotans should be concerned about what this bill means for their future. Not only does the bill affect the 13,000 Minnesotans who attend college in Wisconsin, but it also sets a dangerous precedent for similar bills to be introduced on college campuses across the nation in the future. Currently, University of Minnesota students have access to full reproductive services at their on-campus clinics, including emergency contraceptives, pregnancy counseling, access to birth-control prescriptions and more. However, Minnesota, as Wisconsin’s nearest neighbor, might be the next stop in the introduction of college campus birth-control-ban bills.

Women’s organizations are fighting back. The National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others have announced their opposition to college campus birth-control bans. In addition, the Minnesota chapter of the National Organization for Women has launched its Birth-Control NOW! campaign, focusing on stopping the gradual rollback of women’s reproductive rights. A recent victory for the organization was when Walgreens amended its Pharmacist Refusal Clause. This clause stated that if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription, usually birth control or emergency contraceptives, on the basis of his or her “moral beliefs,” the customer was sent to another store to get her prescription filled. The amended policy places this burden back on Walgreens, making the company deliver the prescription from another store to the store the customer is at, or the customer’s house, in a timely manner. This insures that women are able to receive their prescription without undue burden or distress. Actions such as NOW’s campaign and others provide some light in the dark, uphill battle for the preservation of women’s reproductive rights.

Above all, Minnesotans should train a watchful eye on the development of Wisconsin’s bill because, one semester, a similar bill might end up at the University of Minnesota’s doorstep — stripping students of the essential reproductive-rights services they now take for granted.

Kristina Shaw is vice president for the National Organization for Women, Minnesota Chapter. Please send comments to letters@mndaily.com

What the hell do these morons hope to accomplish by doing this?

Brat Camp

2005-08-03T10:59:00.000-04:00

Brat Camp

Brat Camp is a reality show on ABC which is produced and directed by Arnold Shapiro who did the first (and IMO only real good) season of Big Brother. Brat Camp is about seven "troubled" teens who are seized from their homes, handcuffed and blindfolded and taken to the SageWalk wilderness camp Oregon in the middle of the night. Initially they're told they'll only be there a week, but this a lie. They are there for 40 days minimum.

When they arrive there, their property is taken away from them and searched, reminiscent of concentrate camp inmates during the Holocaust. The teens are put through a torturous montain hike in a blizzard and are made to learn how to build a campfire. Some of the kids suffer from asthma, but this is not attended to. They are told to "suck it up".

None of these teens deserves to be treated this way. Yes some of them have done some shocking things, like pulling a knife on a family member, but they need counseling and understanding, not torture.

If this were to be done to people over 18, it'd be a rights violation. Because they're under 18, they can be sent to this place against their will, have their property taken from them and then be kept there for as long as their parents want? What a load of shit! When is slavery going to be outlawed in this country?

What do you want to be that many of these kids will recidivate when they get back home? Some will and this is because wildnerness retreats like this do nothing for a teen with emotional problems. If anything they just make them worse because these teens' trust in their families has been violated. Now many of them will seeth with rage against their parents. Stuff like this damages teens' relationships with their families rather than helps them.

Denver Pitbull Ban Draws Dog Lovers' Ire

2005-07-28T09:27:00.000-04:00

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/07/06/denver_pit_bull_ban_draws_dog_lovers_ire/

DENVER -- Within the last month, more than 200 pit bulls have been plucked from the municipal animal shelter and euthanized as the city cracks down on the sometimes-dangerous breed. That has sparked a petition drive to overturn the pit bull ban and fueled a sort of canine underground railroad in which dog lovers secretly ferry the outlawed animals out of town...

What an outrage! How dare a city think it has the right to tell people that they have to give up their dogs. Yes I know pits can be viscious, but many of these dogs have done no wrong. This legislation bans an entire breed, regardless of the animal's individual behavior or history.

Also the way it's enforced is akin to naziism. The animal control agents are like the gestapo, climbing into peoples backyards while they're at work and the dog is in the backyard. The dog is taken and many never see their pet again. I hope dog owners and lovers everywhere flood the city council with angry phone calls and hate mail. I hope there are protests or even riots in Downtown Denver. Make those city councilmen afraid to sleep at night.

NY to Search Subway Riders

2005-07-22T08:38:00.000-04:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ny22jul22,1,5653623.story?coll=la-headlines-world

NEW YORK — New York City officials announced Thursday that police would begin randomly inspecting backpacks and other packages today on its subway system.

The searches will rotate through the 468 stations of the system, which carries more than 4.5 million passengers on an average weekday.

ADVERTISEMENT
"We just live in a world where, sadly, these kinds of security measures are necessary," Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference with Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

Bloomberg said there was no "credible intelligence" of a specific threat.

Kelly said officers would inspect bags either before passengers go through turnstiles or after they have entered the subway platform. If passengers refuse to submit to such searches, he added, they will be asked to leave the station.

Kelly acknowledged the checks could focus on only a small percentage of people using the system. Police are still developing the new security plan, and the searches might be extended to buses, he said.

Nice to know we live in a police state where we'll be searched and hassled on plane, train and bus alike now. The environmentalists want people to use public transportation to save gas, but if using this transportation involves daily searches and patdowns I don't think most people will go for it. No, people will begin using their cars more and more since that seems to be the only way to travel without getting a patdown courtesy of Big Brother.

Consumer group calls for warning labels on pop

2005-07-13T20:24:00.000-04:00

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/07/13/pop-labels050713.html

Pop cans should carry warnings to alert people that drinking too much can make them fat, a U.S. consumer group said Wednesday.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest called for warnings like those on cigarettes, saying overindulging in non-diet soft drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay...

What's next? Age restrictions preventing those under 16 or even 18 from getting pop? Banning pop from being sold at movie theaters and fast food restaurants? Where does this shit end and good sense begin?

Pot ID Program Shelved

2005-07-09T12:51:00.000-04:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-pot9jul09,1,5339588.story?coll=la-news-state

# Verification system for medicinal users is put on hold after U.S. Supreme Court ruling creates concerns about possible prosecutions.

By Rong-Gong Lin II, Times Staff Writer

California health officials Friday suspended a pilot program that issues photo identification to medical marijuana users out of concern that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling could make the state and ID holders targets for federal prosecution.

The action comes a month after the nation's high court ruled that the federal government could seize and destroy marijuana being used as medicine, regardless of state laws such as California's Proposition 215 that allow the drug's use by patients who have received a doctor's permission...

I think it's ashame that they're stopping the program. If they cave in, that means the federal bullies win and the people lose. The people of the state voted to legalize marijuana for medicinal use and the federal government has shown nothing but contempt for that decision. Does the rule of the people no longer govern? Has it been replaced by absolutism?

Painkiller Warnings Rekindle Debate Over Medical Marijuana

2005-07-08T19:11:00.000-04:00

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=14066875

The months of recalls and warnings surrounding popular prescription painkillers have done more than frighten consumers, batter drug makers' bottom lines and raise questions about the procedures and criteria by which the Food and Drug Administration approves medications.

The fact that so many legal drugs pose serious health risks is also reigniting a debate over the medicinal value of other substances — illegal drugs, particularly marijuana — and what critics believe is the government's continuing resistance to studying their possible benefits...

Great article on how the pharmaceutical industry is paying the government to suppress research on the benefits of medical MJ.

Whom to Contact About Freeing Katie Wernecke

2005-07-07T17:49:00.000-04:00

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz
U. S. House of Representatives
2470 Rayburn Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Governor Rick Perry
Office of the Governor
P O Box 12428
Austin, TX 78711-2428

Senator John Cornyn
U. S. Senate
517 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Kay Hutchison
U. S. Senate
284 Senate Russell Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

President of Senate
& Lt Governor David Dewhurst
Capitol Station
P O Box 12068
Austin, TX 78711

Senator John Whitmire
Dean of Senate
Capitol Office
P O Box 12068
Austin, TX 78711

State Speaker of House
The Honorable Tom Craddick
Texas House of Representatives
P O Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768

Gregg Abbott, Attorney Gerneral
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548

Call the office of the Texas Attorney General and ask to speak to Gregg Abbott at: (512) 463-2100. Email Greg Abbott at greg.abbott@oag.state.tx.us and let him know how sick you are of the injustice that Katie and her family are suffering.

As Smoking Bans Grow, Some Say, 'Butt Out'

2005-07-03T13:38:00.000-04:00

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/story?id=887492&page=1

Business Owners Say Sales Suffer From Ever-Tighter New Restrictions
Smoking Ban

Smoking bans are catching on across the country, but not without some resistance from business owners. (AP Graphics)
By ADRIENNE MAND LEWIN

July 1, 2005 — It was a cleanup day at a park in San Francisco's Pacific Heights that prompted Michela Alioto-Pier to seek the nation's most expansive smoking ban to date.

Alioto-Pier, a supervisor for the city and county of San Francisco, saw "cigarette butts all over the place" and decided to look at the issue of outdoor smoking more closely.

Great article on business owners' crusade against smoking bans, which are popping up nationwide (even in Michigan!).

Gun owners should worry about the property rights ruling

2005-06-30T18:25:00.000-04:00

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200506\COM20050628a.html

By Larry Pratt
CNSNews.com Commentary
June 28, 2005

The recent 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court legislating away property rights in the United States should give pause to all gun owners, as well as all Americans.

The plain language of the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain to the taking of private property for public purposes. "Public purposes" has been understood for more than 200 years to consist of roads, government buildings and similar public uses. This is still the general understanding by all but a handful of folks in black dresses.

The idea that the owner of a higher tax-yielding use should be able to get the government to grab another owner's property and give it to the user that pays higher taxes is quite simply a theft. In one afternoon, the Supreme Court has done away with private property in the U.S.

Do gun owners think they will remain immune from such tyrants? Already, at various times, six of the nine justices have said that U.S. law should conform to foreign law -- especially European law and UN treaties. How long until our gun laws are made to conform to say, England''s, where they have an almost total gun ban?

If the U.S. Constitution is no longer a protection against government, disarmament and tyranny are simply details to be worked out.

Gun owners have been telling the country for years that the courts are out of control and view the Constitution with contempt. Judges have told me to my face that my constitutional arguments could not prevail because court rulings went counter to what I had shown to be the clear meaning of the Constitution. Judges believe that they are above the law!

Maybe many Americans figured that, well, "that is just those gun nuts squealing." And, hey, even if the Constitution does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, what's the matter with some gun control, right? I mean, who cares if judges today tend to twist the true meaning of the Second Amendment? Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And now that the gander is being sauteed, we gun owners are hearing a lot of honking.

OK, enough of that. Let's not prolong the "I told you so" moment. The important thing now is to determine what must be done.

Remember the Democrat cry that went up when Tom DeLay complained about the judges in this country, and how they should be held to account for their actions? Could it be that this Court decision has now changed people's attitudes and convinced a majority of Americans to support the impeachment of judges?

Has the latest outrage finally brought a majority to the point that they support Congress' role in exercising the Article III powers of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction of a whole bunch of subjects from the federal courts? And, most immediately, has the majority come to the point where we are ready to see states do what our forefathers did when the feds got out of control?

During the presidency of John Adams, the Sedition Act went on the books. It was a kind of McCain-Feingold campaign act, only less subtle. It said that a newspaper writer would go to jail for criticizing a federal official. Virginia and Kentucky issued stinging rebukes to the backers of this legislation in 1798 and threatened to nullify the law within the borders of their states if Congress did not repeal the unconstitutional ban on free speech.

Later, some 22 states passed laws nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act following the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision which upheld it. It became impossible for federal marshals to apprehend and return escaped slaves in the north to their southern masters, in spite of federal law.

To save our gun rights, indeed, to save all of our freedoms, the time has come to bring the courts back under control.

States need to study the history of nullification. Congress needs to do its part to rein in the judges. In the words of the defenders of freedom on Flight 93, "Let's roll."

(Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby based in Springfield, Va.)

If we the people would exercise our Second Amendemnt rights, we could make the corporate pigs and their government lackies think twice before taking our homes.

Supreme Court rules that P2P networks are responsible for piracy

2005-06-29T20:05:00.000-04:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375955/

The free ride for Internet music and movie downloaders may be over. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled companies that make software which enable free music and movie trading can be held liable for users' illegal activities — if encouraging theft was their intent.

In a unanimous ruling against file swapping services Grokster Ltd. and Streamcast Inc., the court rejected warnings from consumer groups that expanding liability might stunt the growth of new technologies such as Apple's iPod. It was a huge victory for the entertainment industry, which blames illegal file sharing for billions of dollars in lost revenue.

The decision reverses a lower court ruling that the software makers couldn't be sued for user activity over which they had no direct control. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

File-sharing services are responsible for illegal activity they encourage, Justice David Souter said.

“We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,” Souter wrote for the court.

FREE VIDEO
Launch

• Ruling's impact
Former Grokster CEO Wayne Rosso talks to CNBC about the Supreme Court decision

CNBC
The entertainment industry claims that as much as 90 percent of songs and movies downloaded on the file-sharing networks is done so illegally. Monday’s ruling gives the industry an alternative to the more costly and cumbersome route of going after millions of alleged file-swappers individually.

Hundreds of lawsuits could be filed against similar file-sharing services, former Grokster CEO Wayne Ross told CNBC on Monday. Rosso, now CEO of for-pay service Matchbox, said his firm will announce new licensing deals with the recording industry this week. A slew of other announcements from for-pay file swapping services were expected in response to the ruling.

Two lower courts previously sided with Grokster without holding a trial. They each based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that Sony Corp. could not be sued over consumers who used its VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.

The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for “substantial” legal purposes, such as giving away free songs or free software. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they did not maintain central servers pointing users to copyright material.

RELATED STORIES

* VOTE: What will ruling's impact be?
* 'Legit' file-sharing services growing

But in Monday’s ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining how the software was marketed and whether companies took easily available steps to cut down on illegal use.

Film and music industry supporters cheered the decision as a victory for copyright holders.

"I think the court hit the nail on the head here in focusing on Grokster's wrongful intent," said intellectual property lawyer Christopher S. Ruhland, who until recently represented Disney. "If you intentionally help someone else steal, you ought to be held responsible for that. The message this ruling sends is if your business plan is to make money through copyright infringement, you better change your business plan."

But defenders of file-swapping software said the ruling would immediately stifle innovation.

"This is a very dangerous decision for technology and innovation, and it's probably a big victory for lawyers," said Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communication Industry Association. Page One of a three-page article.

So what does this really do? All the sites have to do is post disclaimers warning people not to pirate. Nothing will really change. And if stuff does change, they'll just move overseas where they're not subject to draconian USA laws.

Eminent Domain is a betrayal

2005-06-29T20:02:00.000-04:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-062305scotus_lat,0,6924206.story?coll=la-home-headlines

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court gave local governments broad power today to bulldoze homes and other private property to make way for business development, a ruling that could encourage more city-backed plans to replace small stores with big-box retailers.

The 5-4 ruling upheld a plan by officials in a coastal Connecticut town to condemn nine homes of longtime residents that would be replaced with an office complex and a marina.

The public trust has been betrayed by the Supreme Court. They have ruled that local governments may use eminent domain to seize homes and land from people on behalf of developers.

Eminent domain was only supposed to be used for public works such as schools and parks. This ruling hass opened the door for home seizures across the nation. No one will be safe now, as all the developers have to do is convince cities and counties that their projects will bring in jobs and tax revenues.

The Supreme Court said that local governments are more fit to make that judgement than judges. But did this same court not say that states do not have the right to legalize medical marijuana? Woe to you lawyers! You burden people with heavy burdens that you yourselves will not carry!

Supreme Court rules that users of medical marijuana are subject to federal prosecution

2005-06-29T19:54:00.000-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 7:36 AM EDT (1136 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.

The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.

"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.

At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of "patient pot."

The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.

The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity."

The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.

Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.

California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's approval to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for "medical needs."

Users include television host Montel Williams, who uses it to ease pain from multiple sclerosis.

Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of drugs deemed by the government to be narcotics.

"It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all drugs legalized," said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation.

In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal government invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to combating illegal drug possession."

Marijuana users, in their defense, argued, "Since September 11, 2001, Defendants [DEA] have terrorized more than 35 Californians because of medical cannabis." In that state, the issue has become a hot political issue this election year.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.

Sad, yes. Surprising, no.

Pray for Katie Wernecke

2005-06-16T20:32:00.000-04:00

The Wernecke family has set up a blog called Pray for Katie, detailing their struggle to regain custody of their daughter who was ruthlessly torn from them by CPS officials claiming to act "in her best interest" after doctors said she needed radiation treatment for her Hodgkin's Disease, which went against her and her family's wishes.

Now the parents have agreed to go along with the treatment, but the state won't let her go home. I have the feeling they may not see her again before her 18th birthday. I think they're doing this to make an example of the Werneckes and discourage other families from questioning doctors and state officials.

Here's the state DFPS contact page. Drop them a line and let them know how you feel about the way they're treating the Werneckes. I already did. Here is the "honorable" Judge Carl Lewis' email address, clewis@nueces.esc2.net.

Why public schools should be shut down

2004-08-24T20:42:00.000-04:00

http://www.m4radio.com/main/messageboard/191.html

Parents are laughing at the intolerance of the zero tolerance rules that have been instituted in so many public schools. Laughing, that is, unless it is their own sons who are victimized by policies that seem to lack common sense. It's a serious matter when a good child is expelled from school, suspended or sent to a detention facility to take classes with real delinquents. Here are some recent examples of how the zero tolerance hatchet is wielded in public schools.

A first-grader at Struthers Elementary School in Youngstown, Ohio, was suspended for 10 days for taking home a plastic knife from the school cafeteria in his book bag. The 6-year-old wasn't threatening anyone; he just wanted to show his mother he had learned how to spread butter on his bread.

A third-grader at O'Rourke Elementary School in Mobile, Ala., was given a five-day suspension for violating the substance abuse policy after classmates reported that he took a "purple pill." His offense was taking a multivitamin with his lunch.

At LaSalle Middle School in Greeley, Colo., three 13-year-old boys were given one-year suspensions because one of the students brought to school a key chain with a 2 1/2-inch laser pointer. The school called it a "firearm facsimile" and sent one of the boys, a good student who had never before been in trouble, to an alternative program where he is taking classes with young criminals and juvenile delinquents in "anger management," "conflict resolution" and gangs.

Four kindergartners at Wilson Elementary School in Sayreville, N.J., were suspended for three days for playing a make-believe game of cops and robbers during recess, using their fingers as guns. This case is now before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

When seven fourth-grade boys, who had never before been in trouble, at Dry Creek Elementary School in Colorado were discovered pointing "finger guns" at each other while playing a game of soldiers and aliens during recess, the principal found them in violation of the school's zero tolerance policy. After quizzing them about whether their parents owned guns, she required them to serve a one-week detention during lunchtime, sitting in the hall where they were teased and taunted by other students.

An 8-year-old at South Elementary school in Jonesboro, Ark., was punished with detention for pointing a chicken strip at another student in the cafeteria while saying "pow, pow, pow."

A 7-year-old at the Edgewood Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, was banished for 11 days to an "alternative school" for troubled students when he was caught bringing a pocketknife to school. For three days, he was the only first-grader at the facility among older students guilty of serious offenses.

A 12-year-old at Magoffin Middle School in El Paso, Texas, stuck out his tongue at a girl who had declined his invitation to be his girlfriend. School administrators called this sexual harassment and suspended him for three days.

When the Fred A. Anderson Elementary School in Bayboro, N.C., held a Camouflage Day, a 9-year-old proudly came in his new duck-hunting outfit.

His joy was smashed when the teacher discovered an empty shotgun shell in his pocket left over from a weekend outing with his father, and punished the straight-A student with a five-day suspension.

In Hurst, Texas, a 16-year-old honor student was expelled from high school after a security guard found a butter knife in the bed of his pickup truck parked on school grounds. The knife apparently fell out of a box of household items he and his father had transported the previous day from his grandmother's home to a local Goodwill store. School officials claimed that the butter knife was a danger to other students and placed him in a disciplinary alternative school for five days.

Two 8-year-old boys who pointed paper guns at classmates in Irvington, N.J., were charged with "making terrorist threats." A judge ultimately dismissed their case, but the incident may remain on court records until the boys are 18.

In a North Carolina preschool called Kids Gym Schoolhouse, the state evaluator deducted five points from its high rating because plastic soldiers were found in the play area. The toys were said to "reflect stereotyping and violence and can be potentially dangerous if children use them to act out violent themes."

Zero tolerance is not protecting us from terrorists or criminals. It is making good children disrespect school authorities. Almost all zero tolerance rulings punish boys. Boys are also the victims of the current fad to eliminate recess and build new schools without playgrounds. It is beginning to look as though these fads cannot be mere stupidity. By banning the games that boys like to play and preventing them from running off their excess energy during recess, this nonsense might be part of a feminist agenda to try to make little boys behave like little girls.

Public schools are evil. They violate students' most fundamental human rights. They all need to be shut down. When I read about shit like this, it makes my blood boil.

Libertarian book about eminent domain

2004-08-19T20:46:00.000-04:00

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/seiler1.html

Your home and business are not safe. Government can grab them at any time using anti-property redevelopment laws, paying you a pittance. Government then can give your property to a private company to develop as a mall or theme park. That’s the frightening story told in Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain, Steven Greenhut’s new book. LRC readers are familiar with his writing on this site, some of it on eminent domain...

Get this book! It supports property rights.

2004-08-13T20:56:00.000-04:00

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/opinion/34013.php

The use of protest as an instrument of change has been a fundamental of American life since Colonial times.

From Vietnam to the civil-rights movement to women's suffrage, we have always respected protest as a form of articulation and protected the rights of the people to express their grievances in a civil manner.

It's ironic, then, that in the same city that was host to one of the most famous protests of all time - the Boston Tea Party - our government has finally gone wrong.

I had the privilege of attending the Democratic National Convention in Boston - an event that was intended for discussion and debate of serious issues.

The inevitable protesters and demonstrators, it seems, would be welcome at such an event, to express their views and add to the debate. But they were not...

How can the government bar the media from speaking to protestors? Can't they still interview away from the whole area? This shit's gotten out of hand. People need to take this shit up to the Supreme Court. They need to sue to restore the 1st Amendment. I don't see how anything else, short of a shooting revolution will force the beaurocrats to respect our right to protest when and where ever we please.

Downloading laws: The Induce Act

2004-08-13T20:50:00.000-04:00

http://www.reason.com/links/links081104.shtml

A few short years ago, technology enthusiasts used to claim that technology moves too fast for the law to hold it back. Those predictions turn out to be overly optimistic. In fact, lawmakers trying to put a stop to one evil are likely to create dozens more with legislation about a field they don't fully understand. Vague language designed to catch potential technological workarounds can put a stop to innovation in completely unrelated areas...

Two old phogies who probably don't even know how to turn on a computer want to tell me what to do with mine. A note to Leahy and Hatch: FUCK YOU!!!!!!

Wisconsin firearms owners terrorized by cops

2004-07-30T20:58:00.000-04:00

Wisconsin gun owners terrorized by cops

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/

Oshkosh police say 'Sorry' for trampling citizens' rights in door-to-door gun confiscations.

Oshkosh, Wis. -- In what appears to be an admission of wrong-doing by the Oshkosh Police Department, Fox 11 WLUK (Green Bay) has reported that area resident Terry Wesner was offered an apology by the department.

Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

Residents reported returning home from area shelters -- where they were herded by police -- to find their guns gone.

Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

"However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found," said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there's no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic."

Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the department's "Guilty-until-proven-innocent" posture towards citizens.

In what appears to be a blatant knee jerk abuse of police power, the department unleashed the dogs — literally — when the Special Weapons and Tactics Unit (SWAT) showed up with its K-9 Unit to begin house-to-house searches.

According to media reports, the suspect fled on foot into the neighborhood, and has not been apprehended.

Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes, (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their firearms taken by police.

Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked.

"That’s what makes me so mad," said resident Terry Wesner in an Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004). "They had no reason [to remove firearms] without a warrant. . .I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns." [Emphasis Added]

In a subsequent report, another resident, who worked the late night weekend shift, reported he came home to find a scene that looked like his home had been burglarized — he said personal belongings were thrown about — and his gun safe was empty.

"They didn’t even leave a note, telling me what was going on," the man said on camera.

An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting a search in her home in the early morning hours.

"Did the fact that this poor senior citizen happened to live in the immediate area of the crime warrant "Reasonable Suspicion" or "Probable Cause" that she could have committed this heinous act?" asked Graff.

"Is Grandma taking pot shots out her kitchen window? Is she hiding something in the cookie jar?" He said.

In the same Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004) Oshkosh Police Captain Jay Puestohl was reported to have, "declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms…"

"If officers were acting honorably and respecting property owners' rights, why not say so? Why not be upfront? Why the secrecy?" Graff said.

One resident in the neighborhood may have found himself the subject of the investigation simply by refusing to consent to a search (entirely within his rights) according to the news report.

The Oshkosh Northwestern story quoted one neighbor — who suspected homeowners who exercised their right to refuse consent to the heavy-handed searches, were presumed guilty by police — as saying:

". . .[T]hey’ve been downright rude to us. . .You don’t treat so-called civilians this way." [Emphasis Added]

The news story goes on to say that Captain Puestohl ". . .declined to say whether officers pursued the warrant because the residents refused a consent search."

This hysteria-driven Oshkosh neighborhood gun grab could establish a nightmarish precedent for a wide-open abuse of police power to be unleashed upon Badger State gun owners said WGO.

The silence from other gun rights groups on this issue is deafening.

"The institutional gun lobby is just as scared as the poor people in that Oshkosh neighborhood," Graff said. "They might be thinking, 'If I speak out, will my guns be next?'"

Wesner, one of the brave gun owners to speak out against the rash of gun confiscations that occurred after the shooting, said police confiscated his guns after entering his home without a search warrant.

He reported in a Thursday, July 22 television interview with WLUK-FOX 11, "They [the police] are not going to come in my home again [without a warrant]."

That same report stated that the police "acknowledged a lack of proper procedure [in not obtaining a warrant]."

Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. said the most effective response for gun owners is to join and contribute to the organization's bold, no-compromise educational crusade.

7-17-2004

TYRANNY ALERT!

OSHKOSH POLICE CONDUCT DOOR TO DOOR GUN CONFISCATIONS

Shooting of Oshkosh police officer results in knee jerk neighborhood gun grab

Oshkosh, Wis. -- Following the shooting of an Oshkosh police officer Saturday night, area residents were forced from their homes, their lawful firearms being confiscated by police.

The Oshkosh Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactics Unit responded to the area, with a K-9 police dog in pursuit of the perpetrator who was reported to have fled on foot.

Citizens' guns were seized through searches of area homes. The police promised to return the firearms after forensic tests proved they were not involved in the crime. The injured officer's name was withheld, but media reports indicate his condition is not life-threatening.

"The message is: Hand over your guns, now!" said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "This is a blatant case of guilty-until-proven-innocent and an abuse of police power."

Still, residents in the area are furious about the home invasions by police and what they see as theft of their property. Although early reports are unclear, they indicate a search warrant was issued for two homes, yet additional home owners also had firearms confiscated.

"We want the perpetrator of this crime caught and brought to justice just like everyone else," said Graff. "But that doesn't mean the police should trample citizens' 4th amendment protections, steal lawful private property and enter the home without reasonable suspicion or warrant."

One homeowner in the area said his guns were taken by police, guns that hadn't left his gun safe since last hunting season. Another victim of the police searches -- an elderly women -- reported waking up to officers' searching her home in the early morning hours.

The Oshkosh Northwestern reported, "Residents were not being allowed to return to their homes by press time."

This is a damn outrage! These people's second and fourth amendment rights were violated just because a cop was shot in the arm! They were forced out of their homes, their doors were broken down and their guns taken! Even anti-gun people should be outraged at the thought of someone's home being broken into. What does it take to get people angry at cops and government nowadays?

Medical privacy vs public safety

2004-07-13T21:18:00.000-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/13/beer.drinkers.license.ap/index.html

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A man who told his doctors that he drinks more than a six-pack of beer per day is now fighting to get his driver's license back because the physicians apparently reported him to the state.

Keith Emerich, 44, said Tuesday that he disclosed his drinking habit in February to doctors who were treating him at a hospital for an irregular heartbeat...

Read the article and judge for yourself whether or not PennDOT was in the right.

America is not a free country

2004-07-01T21:21:00.000-04:00

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/newman/newman9.html

Independence Day is upon us. This July 4 we celebrate the 228th anniversary of our independence from Britain and our birth as a free nation. We watch fireworks, go to barbecues, go camping (at tax-funded state and national parks), go to baseball games (in tax-funded stadiums) and hear endless talk about how goldurned wonderful it is that we live in a free country.

Or do we live in a free country?...

Great article juxtaposing a truly free republic with the nanny/police state this nation has become.

Anti-piracy bill targets technology

2004-06-20T21:30:00.000-04:00

http://news.com.com/Antipiracy+bill+targets+technology/2100-1028_3-5238140.html?part=rss&tag=5238140&subj=news.1028.20

A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes.

The proposal, called the Induce Act, says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a prohibition that would effectively ban file-swapping networks like Kazaa and Morpheus. In the draft bill seen by CNET News.com, inducement is defined as "aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures" and can be punished with civil fines and, in some circumstances, lengthy prison terms.

This is scary stuff. If this gets passed, lots of things we have now could be outlawed. VCRs, DVD and CD burners, and even computers themselves! After all, computers can be used for illegal things. But so can anything else be used that way.

Strapped: Unbuckling seatbelt laws

2004-05-27T21:33:00.000-04:00

http://www.reason.com/hod/tb052704.shtml

Who's the bigger threat to your safety, a murderer or someone who attempts suicide? The answer is obvious, and we'd certainly jeer any mayor who suggested lowering a city's death toll by cracking down on suicides. Yet something strange happens when death comes to the highway. Politicians lock arms with law enforcement, and come up with campaigns like "Click It or Ticket," which began Monday and aims to reduce highway fatalities through stricter seat belt law enforcement. Suddenly, the murder-suicide distinction vanishes, and it's perfectly acceptable to reduce deaths by punishing those who put only themselves at risk...

People shouldn't be punished for making bad choices as long as what they do doesn't affect anyone else.

The war on property

2004-05-26T21:44:00.000-04:00

http://www.free-market.net/cgi/redir.cgi?http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/antunez/antunez5.html

Americans who tune in to TV news daily are treated to a unhealthy dose of war, with scenes that include tanks rolling down an Iraqi street or helicopter gunships firing at the “enemy.” Most citizens of the United States view war as something that happens someplace else and to someone else. With the exception of Pearl Harbor , that’s usually been the case. Yet there is War being waged within our borders, a stealth and insidious war that goes unnoticed by most Americans until they find themselves engulfed, entangled and tormented by it.

Property ownership is the backbone of any free and capitalist society (The American Dream). Laws that properly define and defend property rights are essential to any society that claims to be liberated. The United States prides itself on the reputation of being a free and capitalistic society, but with each passing day, the rights of property owners violated and the laws governing property rights grow ever more intrusive. This creates an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and plain old tyranny in many communities of this once “free country.”

Most municipalities in our country have Code Enforcement Boards or Nuisance Abatement Boards. These boards are comprised of individuals who are appointed by elected officials (Mayor, or Commissioners). The function of these boards is to enforce ordinances and statutes by imposing fines on the “violators,” forcing them to make improvements, or in some cases condemning their property...

If we lose our property rights, what's next. Aside from gun rights, property rights are the cornerstone of American freedom.

Wired News: One file swapper, one lawsuit

2004-03-09T18:21:00.000-05:00

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62576,00.html

A federal judge ruled on Friday that the music industry cannot sue over 200 alleged file sharers in one swoop and that the companies must sue each defendant individually.

The Recording Industry Association of America grouped 203 so-called "John Doe" defendants -- "John Doe" because their identities are not yet known -- into one lawsuit when it sued them in federal court in Philadelphia last month. All of those sued use Comcast as their Internet service provider.

Since a federal court barred the RIAA from using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to subpoena names of suspected copyright infringers in December, the recording industry has resorted to the "John Doe" method. The RIAA now must identify alleged file swappers by their Internet Protocol addresses, but does not know the individuals' names.

On Friday, Judge Clarence Newcomer authorized a subpoena in the case of John Doe No. 1, because the RIAA had submitted a detailed case against the individual. But the judge ordered the music industry to file separate suits against the remaining 202 alleged infringers.

Each of the lawsuits will be doled out to judges in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the RIAA will have to make separate requests to seek the identity of each alleged file sharer.

"We're glad the judge has recognized that the RIAA was trying to skirt around the regular rules for lawsuits by grouping over 200 individuals as a gang of file sharers," said Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "We think each individual who is being sued has a right to have their own trial and have their own privacy interests evaluated independently of anyone else who's being sued."

Schultz said that the order ensures that the judges assess the strength of the RIAA's case for each person.

The music trade group must pay court fees for each of these cases. Filing each lawsuit will cost $150 in court fees, for a total of over $30,000, according to the EFF.

The RIAA would not say what it plans to do.

"We are weighing our options," said RIAA spokeswoman Amanda Collins. She declined to elaborate.

One intellectual property attorney agreed with the judge's orders.

"It's not enough to say that each act of the defendant was an act of copyright infringement," said Scott Hervey, an attorney with Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Sproul. "That doesn't give the recording industry the right to sue them all as one big clump."

"I think the judge's ruling was procedurally correct."

Michigan may jump on the nanny state bandwagen

2004-03-09T18:12:00.000-05:00

http://www.lsj.com/news/capitol/040309_unhealthy_1a-4a.html

Email this story to a friend | Printable Version
Published March 09, 2004
Residents may pay for unhealthy ways
Proposed state taxes target lifestyle choices; it isn't government's role to legislate values, critics say

ROD SANFORD/Lansing State Journal

Proactive steps: Jackson National Life Insurance Co. employees Holly Belen (left) and Jean Brown power walk through the long hallways Wednesday in the building in Alaiedon Township as part of the company's Wellness Program.
Advertisement

Michigan proposals

Here's what Michigan officials are proposing:

# Got milk? State Sen. Virg Bernero, D-Lansing, last month abandoned efforts to ban soda from public schools. Instead, he has proposed a new bill requiring an equal ratio of milk and pop machines in public schools.

# Cigarette tax: Gov. Jennifer Granholm is hoping a higher cigarette tax will force more people to quit smoking. She has proposed raising the state's cigarette tax 75 cents to $2 per pack.

# Public education: Michigan Surgeon General Kimberlydawn Wisdom plans to launch a Healthy Lifestyles initiative in April to educate the public on healthy living. The awareness campaign will focus on people know what they can do to stay fit.

Online

# www.medc.michigan.org/
news/major
By Stacey Range
Lansing State Journal

Lifestyle police won't be scouring the contents of your refrigerator or forcing you to do sit-ups, but state officials are looking at new taxes, laws and regulations to change your bad habits.

Armed with a new study linking Michigan's lethargic economy to residents' unhealthy lifestyles, officials are pondering ways to promote healthy behavior and penalize the unhealthy.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm already is trying to raise the cigarette tax in hopes of forcing more smokers to quit.

Officials also are looking at what other states have done to encourage healthy living.

A few examples:

# California has banned junk food in vending machines on elementary and middle school campuses.

# Some Arkansas schools are testing students' body mass indexes to track their growth.

# Louisiana is offering stomach-stapling surgery to some state employees to see if it reduces health care costs.

Some critics say government should stay away from legislating personal choices, such as what people eat. But supporters say they must address a growing public health problem - one that's raising health care costs and apparently keeping some businesses from locating or expanding in Michigan because too many folks here smoke, are overweight and don't exercise enough.

"We need to help people become healthier," said state Rep. Barb Vander Veen, R-Allendale, who is considering introducing a bill to make exercise equipment and gym memberships tax deductible.

Adding to the push is a study released last month showing a connection between health and job creation. According to the study, Michigan has the highest rate of death from coronary heart disease, ranks second for obesity and diabetes, and is sixth for smoking when compared to 17 other industrial states. The study, commissioned by the Michigan Economic Development Corp., was conducted by Altarum, a nonprofit research institute in Ann Arbor.

Health problems caused by physical inactivity cost the state an estimated $8.9 billion a year. Smoking-related health problems cost $6 billion a year.

Granholm said the state must help residents get healthier in order to have a healthy economy.

"To be an attractive place for new business and to protect our citizens, we must take steps to reduce these long-term health care costs," she said.

But that scares Michigan Chamber of Commerce Vice President Rich Studley. "You have to wonder where this is all headed. It looks as though the lifestyle police are starting to take over."

Taxing food, soda

So far, officials are working on four initiatives: raising the state cigarette tax 75 cents to $2 per pack; a public awareness campaign on health issues; requiring an equal ratio of milk and soda pop vending machines in public schools; and creating a tax on pop.

State Sen. Virg Bernero, D-Lansing, is behind the latter two. Long an advocate of banning soda sales in public schools, Bernero abandoned that last month in favor of a new bill requiring schools to have one milk machine for every soda machine.

He also has proposed a 4 percent sales tax on pop with proceeds used to encourage good health and exercise in schools.

"Our children's health is in a calamity, and as adults, we need to take responsibility," Bernero said.

Launa Cook of Lansing doesn't think government should interfere. "Government has no place in dictating people's choice about their lifestyles. People who want to smoke a cigarette or drink alcohol or eat junk food should be able to."

The Michigan Republican Party criticized Democrat Granholm for using the report in her push to increase the state cigarette tax.

"She's obviously trying to legislate her personal values through taxation," party spokesman Jeff Stormo said. "She doesn't like smokers, so she's taxing them. How is she going to tax fat people?"

Michigan could be headed toward a junk food tax or "Twinkie tax" as some call it, Bernero said.

Rising numbers of obese people could push the issue. "Men's Fitness" magazine in January named Detroit the nation's fattest city. The city moved from No. 3 to bump Houston from the top spot due to a spike in TV viewing, a worsening commute time and a lack of gyms.

"The time may come when really fattening products need to be taxed," Bernero said. "We know obesity contributes to health care costs, so why not?"

Healthy workers

In addition to educating residents on how to get healthy, the state is planning a public awareness campaign in April aimed at informing companies how to lower health care costs by helping employees get fit.

Officials will be looking at efforts such as the Wellness Program at Jackson National Life Insurance Co. Officials there created the program 18 months ago.

"We realized that if we could help our employees get healthy, it would lower our health care costs," said Steve Hrapkiewicz, senior vice president of human resources.

The company, with about 1,200 workers, now offers a variety of on-site classes, including Weight Watchers at Work and low-impact yoga, and provides soothing chair massages a few times a week.

Business analyst Wendy Burns said she's benefited.

"I am a lot healthier now," she said after a two-mile power walk inside company headquarters at Interstate 96 and Okemos Road in Alaiedon Township.

Burns, 39, said she spends every lunch hour walking and has become a lifetime member of Weight Watchers.

"I would do it for a while and then quit," she said. "But since they brought it here, I've been with it for two years now."

Hrapkiewicz said it's too early to tell how much the Wellness Program has lowered the company's health care costs. But he said he's seen a change in employee health and morale.

"The feedback has been so positive," he said. "We have healthy, happy employees now."

Contact Stacey Range at 377-1157 or srange@lsj.com.

What I eat is my business, not the state's!

Government: Crude dude, get outta my life!

2004-02-02T18:09:00.000-05:00

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/seese/seese3.html

Hey government--I was born here and told I was free and for many years, it seemed like I was. And it wasn't a special privilege for me, it was for Americans, native-born and legally naturalized.

Now you have an agency to butt into everything I do, say, type, eat, and you don't want me blowing smoke from big stogies to pollute and air--never mind that I'm allergic to diesel exhaust to the point of having to avoid driving behind buses or get too sick to stay at the wheel. Diesels are fine, they pollute the air for a good cause or something, but did you take note of my breakfast this morning? Fried eggs, bacon and pancakes with several cups of coffee. (And lest my delicate lady readers really think I light up big stogies, no, in fact I can't stand the smell of cigar smoke but I'll fight for the right of cigar smokers to smoke them and I don't like the way Clinton used them for non-smoking.) And I like the smell of some aromatic pipe smoke. That used to be the sign of a pensive, intellectual fella, not a whack public enemy.

The problem with Americans is that they believe too much of what the media publishes to give a good cause to hide a very bad one, and that is control. Sneaky laws and regulations have been passed as to what you can do with your land, and it wouldn't take a lot of media propaganda for non-landowners to begin to hate land owners as an enemy of the state and hence, "the people." Haven't you noticed that Communist nations are always labeled "the People's Republic of Quagazan" or something like that? They're always peoples' republics and the people are the most dispensable, disposable commodity in such states.

But to continue my rant.

Now, to my dear goofball sanctimonious "Christian" friends, who add all sorts of crud to the Bible that the writers didn't write, you were so happy when Prohibition came in . . . but you didn't exactly like the Mafia and violence that came with it. Now I wasn't around in those days but my parents were, and I heard all about Prohibition! It was a control flop and had to be rescinded. Now, goodie-two-shoes hypocrites who think you don't sin every day in word, thought and deed, hear this: it isn't going to be too difficult for the government and the special interest groups promoting the one-world religion to get the human mindset targeting Christians as enemies of the state. Of course, a lot of you already belong to mega churches and liberal churches that doubt the Bible anyway, you merely want a fire insurance policy and you'll be the first in line to go along with the "tolerant" new world religion and push the Lord Jesus Christ back into the manger. For you . . . there IS a place. Lots of smoke there, too, I understand.

Now for the rest of you BB brains who think we need a nanny state to take away freedom of choice and protect us from ourselves rather than teaching the irreversible laws of cause and effect, hear this: you've put up with required seatbelts, required helmets, illegal taxes for wild government spending, state control of children rather than parental control, government determination of what constitutes "education" when we all knew what education was 40-50 years ago, so how much more are you going to put up with? When do you say "freedom was better even if some people didn't have sense enough to make the right decisions?" You won't? You love government control? You are about to have the greatest time of your life enjoying government control, surveillance, lack of privacy, "hate" crimes (like all crime isn't hate?) and the thought police. When things happen to your neighbor, he deserved it. When they come for YOU, ohmygawd, you have your rights. Haha. Tell it to the magistrate in charge. Mumble it on the way to your cell as they drag you away. There are already reported cases of judges refusing to hear the constitutional grounds of a targeted individual's defense. More are on the way.

It so happens that the English-speaking world that gave us the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the United States, a constitutional monarchy in England and the commonwealth, have become so socialized now they don't even know they're socialist countries. A few do, and New Zealand, according to one of my netfriends, is now one of the most repressive governments on earth, with Canada and the United States following in a dead heat for second.

With the other English-speaking countries, however, the people seemed to know for what they were opting. In the US, it's just stupidity that allows the mind control without the people ever giving a thought to the consequences of taking freedom from others, whether it be the use of their land, the planting or removing of trees, the horrid conditions in government-funded schools and the warped curricula being taught from revisionist books on America's proud history of productivity and individual ingenuity.

Our founders, for the most part, felt that the least government was the best government, and the 10th amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to ensure limits on what the federal government could do. Our founders knew that the farther removed from government the people became, the more skullduggery could be wrought by the government without the people's informed consent or even knowledge. Our leaders were to be public servants, not a privileged class of professional politicians who lived on perks you and I will never even imagine in our lifetimes.

Someone emailed me the other day, asking if I still lived in the United States. Apparently this person thought that to write what I do, I must have taken refuge in another nation, and perhaps it will come to that, but globalism has a stranglehold everywhere. So does debauchery. I read the other day that the Swedes are now enjoying more sex with animals. That is just plain sick!

Any nation that tolerates organizations like NAMBLA, teaches homosexuality to children who should be learning history, math, science and spelling, has a moral cancer and it's spreading rapidly.

But the government dictates all this tolerance that tears down morality and the concept of the family unit. They set the standards for what shall be taught. They provided the framework and incentive for the "zero tolerance" that gets children suspended from school for a one-inch plastic toy gun. When the public at large is so confused over right and wrong, it's no problem to target any group for a hate campaign while promoting anti-hate laws to target other groups for protesting. Confusing? Of course. Mixed messages are a tool of globalism.

Government, you are a crude, rude dude with no respect for the people and no limits on your ambitions for power. Just move aside and get out of my life. Don't go inspecting my bacon and eggs, my bagels with cream cheese, or my fried shrimp. I might get angry enough to go buy a seven-inch cigar and light it up at the next Sierra Club meeting I can find.

Or in the state capitol elevator.

Search for illegal aliens alienates town

2004-01-30T17:57:00.000-05:00

http://www.pressherald.com/news/nemitz/040130aliens.shtml

Their boss insists that they're not trying to act like jerks. It's just that the border patrol agents who descended on Portland last weekend are new to Maine and, this being the dead of winter and all, they apparently can't help themselves.

"A lot of our agents are just off the southern (U.S.) border and there's a different atmosphere down there," said Monte J. Bennett, assistant chief patrol agent for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in Houlton. "There are a lot more numbers down there. Things are more aggressive."

In other words, if you're an immigrant in Maine these days, you'd best double-check your papers before you go anywhere and learn to say "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" to anyone in a black uniform and boots. And oh yes, try not to look suspicious.

"My business is down 80 percent since Saturday," lamented Juan Gonzalez, owner of La Bodega Latina Grocery Store on Congress Street. "Customers call me on the phone saying, 'Is it clear? Can we come down?' People are really afraid."

According to bureau spokesman Bennett, what happened Saturday in Portland was a typical "transportation sweep" in which federal agents - many recently transferred here as part of a south-to-north shift in homeland security forces - visited Portland's airport, train and bus stations in search of illegal aliens.

They netted 10 people whose papers failed to pass muster. At the same time, they left Portland's hard-won reputation as an immigrant-friendly city in tatters.

Nasir Ahmed was behind the counter at Amei Halaal Market on St. John Street when agents walked in and told everyone, employees and customers alike, to get out their passports and green cards. Ahmed said some patrons eating lunch in the Somali market bolted out the back door - not because they were undocumented, but because they were scared to death.

"How would you feel if you went to McDonald's and got asked for ID while you were eating your food? That's what happened here," Ahmed asked. "Now, less people come in. We lost a lot of customers."

Mohammed Barre, who was in the store at the time, said much of the anxiety could have been avoided if the agents had clearly identified themselves (several eyewitnesses said they didn't) and, before coming through the door, had taken the chips off their shoulders.

"Unfriendly," Barre replied when asked to describe the agents' demeanor. "Very unfriendly."

Bennett insisted that the operation targeted only Portland's "transportation hubs," not its immigrant enclaves. He added, however, that the agents will investigate anything "that needs investigating."

Would two stores with foreign names, frequented by people with dark skin, each a block or two from the Vermont Transit bus station "need investigating"?

"Based solely on that, no," Bennett replied. "They go more by people's mannerisms."

Thus, we are asked to believe, it was a citywide outbreak of "mannerisms" that attracted agents to Amei Halaal Market, La Bodega Latina and even the Preble Street Resource Center, where director Mark Swann has vowed that the next time agents show up, they'll be asked for a search warrant.

(Lest we all think the agents' attitudes began and ended with immigrants, consider my daughter's welcome Saturday upon arriving in Portland by bus from Boston: After she gave a border agent her license, he demanded her passport. She correctly told him that U.S. citizens don't need passports for interstate travel. "Let me give you a word of advice," he replied tersely. "You need to learn to watch your mouth.")

Where all this tension goes from here is anyone's guess.

Meetings are already being held among Portland's immigrant elders and leaders. And the Latino Health and Community Service has called off its Feb. 14 health fair because, director John Connors explained, "I'm not going to put up posters telling these guys we're going to have a bunch of minorities and immigrants showing up at a particular time and place."

Bennett calls such fears unfounded. If confronted by a federal agent, he said, all anyone has to do is "be friendly, be straightforward and answer their questions."

And above all, watch your mannerisms.

Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at: bnemitz@pressherald.com

This country's becoming more like a police state every day. This is why all citizens should exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Bill would cancel ban on gun used in self-defense

2004-01-30T17:51:00.000-05:00

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-bill29.html

Arguing that a Wilmette man had a right to shoot an intruder in his home -- regardless of a local ban on handguns -- a state representative is proposing legislation that would override such bans when guns are used in self-defense.

People in Illinois should be able to defend their person and their property, said Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion), who filed the legislation this week.

"This affirmative defense would allow them to do that," he said.

Bradley said authorities are wrong in prosecuting Hale DeMar for violating Wilmette's handgun ban and for failing to renew an Illinois firearm owner's identification card. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, Bradley said.

DeMar made headlines when he shot a burglar. The Cook County state's attorney's office declined to charge DeMar for the shooting after determining he acted in self-defense. But he was charged with the other violations.

In a letter published in Chicago newspapers, an unrepentant DeMar said he served his "civic duty" when he shot the burglar.

"What is one to do when a criminal proceeds, undeterred by a 90-pound German shepherd, a security alarm system and a property lit up like an outdoor stadium?" he wrote.

Bradley agreed, saying "law-abiding" citizens should not be prosecuted if they use a gun in self-defense.

But Chris Boyster of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence disputed Bradley's contention, saying DeMar did not have the right under the ordinance to keep a handgun in his house.

"He was not a law-abiding citizen," Boyster said. "He had a handgun, there was a handgun ban, he broke the law."

AP

That's funny, I thought the Constitution was the law.

Free Hunter

2004-01-07T17:48:00.000-05:00

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/01/07/hunter.htm

January 7, 2004

Dear News Journal and Mr. Kent:

Thank you for your accurate article on Jeff (Hunter) Jordan It is refreshing to see honest reporting and stories that do not assume guilt or promote the "states" agenda.

I find it appalling that Ohio troopers felt justified in jailing a man, seizing his possessions, infringing on his privacy, and attempting to damaging his excellent reputation - because he was in possession of a gun. I find it very disappointing that a simple speeding violation could escalate to a federal case for simply exercising one's constitutional right. Aren't Ohio State Patrolmen sworn to "uphold" the constitution?

Hopefully this case will awaken people to the danger of unconstitutional laws such as the USA PATRIOT ACT and other legislation that gives law "enforcement" agencies carte blanche to abuse the rights of US Citizens as long as they claim that the citizen was believed to be involved in "terrorism" or whatever the scare term of the week is.

Considering that the US Constitution and the Ohio Constitution both give citizens the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection, I hope that the State Police will be found guilty of false arrest and severely penalized. I also hope that the officers responsible will be punished and relieved from duty. At the very least, they should be required to pass a refresher course on the constitution and their oath of office. Thank you again for being a beacon for liberty in a sea of deception.

Fran Tully
State Chair
Libertarian Party of Utah
801-949-3570

Eyes on the road, not on the screen

2004-01-04T17:42:00.000-05:00

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/new_laws/story/8021182p-8957372c.html

New laws / 2004: Eyes on the road -- not on the screen
As of Thursday, state law bars watching TV while driving.
By Alexa H. Bluth -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Monday, December 29, 2003
If you are considering installing a video screen on your dashboard to watch your favorite morning show or catch a flick to break up the monotony of your commute, think again.

Beginning Thursday, a new state law will tighten restrictions on drivers who watch video and television screens while operating their vehicles.

With the explosion of high-tech gadgets and gizmos for vehicles, California lawmakers have overhauled an existing law to attempt to limit at least some distractions for drivers.

"You can drive your car, watch a movie, use your cell phone and play on a computer all at once," said Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes, D-Fresno, the bill's author. "The more distractions, the more accidents that occur."

The new measure, AB 301, tweaks a California law to reflect the rapid technological advances available to drivers.

The new bill bars drivers from operating televisions and video screens in their line of vision while the vehicle is moving but allows the use of mapping and some other devices.

"They don't want people out there driving and watching television, and they want to provide exceptions for law-abiding citizens who want to use their technology," said California Highway Patrol Officer Steve Kinoshita, who works in the agency's legislative unit.

One of the key changes in the law is to clarify that drivers can use dealer-installed and other navigational devices, such as Global Positioning Systems.

"I still wouldn't recommended driving and constantly looking at your GPS device," Kinoshita said. "My suggestion for added safety would be to exit the freeway and find a safe spot and figure out where you want to go."

Also allowed under the new law are visual displays that help drivers of large vehicles maneuver, screens with a device that locks it in the "off" position when the car is moving and screens in law enforcement and safety vehicles and school buses.

The new law also "shifts the burden of compliance from vehicle dealers and accessory retailers to the driver," Kinoshita said.

The penalty for violating the law will be an infraction or, in other words, a ticket, he said. Officials hope it will serve as a deterrent to "a dangerous behavior," Kinoshita said.

According to the bill, inattention was cited as a factor in 6,807 collisions in 2001 in the state, including 48 deaths.

Measures to ban the use of certain cellular phones by drivers and to create a violation for certain types of inattentive driving have failed in California.

For one national chain, Audio Express, video screens in vehicles have risen to about 20 percent of sales in the past two years from about 1.5 percent, said Eric Stauffacher, California regional manager.

Drivers primarily install screens that are visible to back-seat passengers to entertain children on road trips, he said.

But other drivers want screens on their dashboard or even on the steering wheel. And some of the nation's rich-and-famous trendsetters are purchasing souped-up vehicles full of video screens, including in the front seat.

"Realistically, it's a cool factor to have it up front," Stauffacher said. "Especially for younger guys, it's just because it's cool and is the latest thing for their car."

The most screens Stauffacher has installed in a vehicle in the Sacramento area is six, in a Ford Excursion. The sport-utility vehicle had screens in its visor, dash and one on each of four headrests, he said.

He said the company installs screens that are visible to the driver, but the screens are installed so they do not function when the car is in drive gear.

"We still sell it; they just can't watch it while driving," he said.

Stauffacher has a video screen in the center of his own dash, near the stereo and other controls. He said he can use it to play video games, watch movies or watch television when the car is not moving.

He also said though the installers inform customers about the law, he suspects some drivers go home and tinker with the system so they can watch it while driving.

"If they have any basic knowledge of installation, they can do it themselves," he said. "And that's what they are doing."

Our eroding liberties

2003-11-13T17:38:00.000-05:00

Our Eroding Liberties

by Doug Hagin
11 November 2003

Brooklyn video-store owner Marty Arno was assessed a $6,000 fine for having an ashtray in his store and for failing to post "No Smoking" signs in his store.

Just how asinine and over the top has the anti-smoking movement become in our nation? Exactly how much of our freedom is being trampled under foot by the inane anti-smoking legislation being forced down our throats by power hungry politicians? How long will it be until there are no more private property or business rights thanks to the anti-smoking zealots?

Before you answer or even seriously ponder these questions, consider the recent $6,000 fine levied by New York City’s health inspector against a business owner. The crime for which the owner of a Brooklyn video-store was assessed such a massive fine? Daring to have an ashtray in his store. And for failing to post “No Smoking” signs in his store and for failing to post his company’s official nonsmoking policy.

Never mind the fact that Marty Arno, the owner of the store, has only one employee, who only works part-time. Never mind that no government agency has any Constitutional right to impose such petty laws on a business owner. Never mind all of these facts. The city of New York has decided it can micro-manage private businesses and impose punitive fines for those who dare to step out of line.

Yes, thanks to the city's new Anti-smoking laws, this business owner is seeing his wallet devastated and his rights to run his business destroyed. All those who have cheered these inane, un-American laws should rethink their opinions now.

As anyone vaguely familiar with the Founding Fathers and the constitution would know, no law robbing us of our personal sovereignty will serve to protect us. It will instead surely enslave us. Whether or not a business owner chooses to allow smoking in his or her place of business is none of the government's concern. They are free to set their own standards, just as all of us are free to choose to patronize that business or not.

Sure, we were told these laws were being drafted to protect us, from the evils of tobacco. Once more a classic case of Liberalism taking away our rights and seeking to remake America from a Constitutional Republic into a nanny state! It is impossible to trade freedoms for security or safety. The Founders knew this truth. They knew the God who created us all endowed us with Liberties no government had the authority to wrest from us.

Imagine the sheer audacity and arrogance of any government agency that thinks it has the power to outlaw ashtrays! And further to extort $6,000 for possession of an ashtray! What’s next? Police storming into businesses looking for not only smokers but for cigarette butts and ashtrays? Perhaps charging business owners for possessing lighters and matches?

Perhaps the geniuses of the political left will seek to establish ashtray control laws nationwide in an effort to save us from the enemy they think is our biggest concern, ourselves. Yes this sounds ridiculous, but then again consider an ashtray being outlawed.

This, my friends, is where Liberalism always, always leads, to more control of our personal rights, decisions and lives. Think for a moment of how much freedom has been usurped from do-gooders intent on saving us from ourselves.

Seat-belt laws, helmet laws, laws against cell phones in cars, laws outlawing children having BB guns, laws, laws and more laws. All directed against our God-given liberties and us. Laws seeking to take our control of our lives and give it over to elitist politicians.

Consider the extremes that so-called zero-tolerance policies in schools have sunk to. This disaster was sold to us as a get-tough approach to kids bringing weapons and drugs to school. These new rules would protect our kids we were told. Instead look what has happened. Children suspended, or even expelled for having Midol, Excedrin, and water pistols, playing Cops and Robbers, or even drawing pictures of soldiers.

Think of our tax laws. Every year they become more punitive and confiscatory. Gas taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, taxes on your phone bill, taxes on your property, taxes on top of taxes. And many of these taxes amount to no more than legalized theft. The government taking money from your pocket and then giving it to other Americans. They have forgotten whose money it is. Just as they obviously have forgotten what the constitution says.

Is this the America you want to live in? To raise your family in? An America where the politicians we trust with our votes do their best to strip away the very liberty they ought to be protecting? An America where success is punished? Where the spirit which gave birth to this great country, the spirit of individualism, is discouraged?

It is very simple my friends. God gave us all liberty; the United States Constitution recognizes this truth and protects these liberties. The Liberals in this nation do not believe in God or the Constitution, their action make this very clear. The question is whom will we follow? God and the Constitution, or the Liberal Elites?

Ski resort wants private land

2003-11-10T17:36:00.000-05:00

Ski resort wants private land

A man's home is his castle? Not in 21st century America. Nope. Now your home is yours only if some giant corporation doesn't want it. And if they do want it, you're fucked. If they can't get you to sell, they'll go to the city or even state government and can get your land condemned so it's pulled right out from under your feet and sold to them for their private gain. Doesn't matter if the land's been in your family for generations. We are one nation under the dollar with tyranny, and justice for none.

Kid busted over blog

2003-11-10T17:22:00.000-05:00

Kid busted over blog

This kinda shit really pisses me off. Juhl wrote some not-so-nice stuff, true. But it was in his blog in the privacy of his own home. He didn't do it on a school site, nor use a school computer to do it. Why are they punishing this guy? Just to send a message I think. I think doing shit like this is part of a nationwide effort by schools to homogenize kids. Shit like closed campus lunch, school uniforms, drug searches and busting kids for what they do off campus is to teach them that the schools, not they themselves, own them. And after they leave school, the government owns them 'til the day they die. Time for a revolution! Time to fight back!

Go to The National Youth Rights Association and read there, post on their board. Libertarian Rock is another great site, so is ASFAR.

A Further Inquiry and into the History and Usage of the F-Word

2003-08-08T17:19:00.000-04:00

http://www.co-freedom.com/2003/08/fword.html

A Further Inquiry into the History and Usage of the F-Word
by Ari Armstrong, August 7, 2003

A few scattered points didn't make my August 1 opinion piece in the Rocky Mountain News (reproduced below). To read Eric Vanatta's excellent legal document about the "f-word," see www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/fword1.html.

* Even though some reports claimed the student in question reach a plea agreement, actually it was a "deferred prosecution," according to Vanatta, which means the matter will not be prosecuted if the student completes 16 hours of community service and stays out of trouble.

* Could it be that the student who smoked in the bathroom and called his vice principal names would have a better time doing something other than sitting in boring classes all day? Children do not always wish to be confined to the activities we assign them.

* Most schools in the U.S. are run by the government. It seems that some people are losing the ability to distinguish between civil society and the government. For some, the solution to every problem is a political one, and the response to any conflict is to bring in the armed police of the state.

* I think we're witnessing the tragedy of false rebellion. That is, some students rebel against the sometimes stifling, mind-numbing routine of the government-run schools, but their rebellion is just another form of silliness. Instead of taking charge of their education, they resort to smoking, calling their principals names, wearing goofy clothes, etc., and they imagine their rebellion elevates them from the pettiness around them. That it doesn't leads to feelings of alienation.

* On August 1, Paul Ouranda sent in the following letter:

Hi Ari -

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your article in the Rocky Mountain News. I had one dissenting thought about it.

Wouldn't the fellow who stood up in a theater and shouted, "FUCK!!!" be escorted out because he was interfering with the enjoyment of services paid for by the other customers? I'm no lawyer, but that would seem to me to be the legally justifiable reason for taking that action.
I think Ouranda's comments are compatible with what I previously wrote. The theater owner wants to provide an environment suitable for watching films or plays, which precludes obnoxious, loud behavior. Paying customers have an expectation that the theater owner will maintain order, and so, yes, yelling in a theater interferes with the property rights of both the theater owner and the patrons.

People need to grow the fuck up. It's just a word. It has no power to hurt.

The in-'F'-able quality of language

2003-08-08T17:01:00.000-04:00
Speakout: The in-'F'-able quality of language
Rocky Mountain News
By Ari Armstrong, Special to the News
August 1, 2003

Bob Tschirki can relax. No, students are not now permitted to run through the halls yelling "F--- you!" Neither the Ramones nor Motley Crue now rule Colorado's schools, nor do the "numerous other mainstream and well-respected artists [who] have used the family of 'F' words in their music performances," as Colorado Public Defender Eric Vanatta mentions in a legal document.

All the hoopla started when Vanatta filed a motion July 1 with the Larimer County District Court titled, "Motion to Dismiss: The Constitutionality of F---, 'F---er' and 'F---ing F---'." Vanatta was serving as defense attorney for a Fort Collins student, who, when confronted by a vice principal for smokin' in the boy's room, proceeded to call the principal some nasty names.

The student was suspended from school, a move Vanatta calls "entirely legal and appropriate." Vanatta was defending the student against a criminal charge - "Interference with staff, faculty, or students of educational institutions" - a Class 3 misdemeanor that carries with it a penalty that ranges from a $50 fine to a six-month stint in jail and a $750 fine.

Which brings us back to the comments of Tschirki, executive director for the Colorado Association of School Executives. In a July 29 statement, Tschirki says his organization "takes exception" to Vanatta's motion.

Quite sensibly, Tschirki argues that "public schools have the legal right and responsibility to set high standards for behavior and enforce them with strong disciplinary policies." And, in his motion, Vanatta agrees. But Vanatta doesn't think it should be a crime to call people names. He writes, "The prosecution is attempting to hold a juvenile criminally responsible for the age-old tradition of name-calling." It is in this context that Vanatta argues, "F--- is an entirely legal word that may be uttered in public places so long as the manner in which it is uttered will not cause a violent reaction." He cites several court decisions to back up his claim.

The whole incident resulted from a triple failing of common sense.

First, the principal decided to call in the police for a relatively minor disciplinary problem. Second, instead of laughing in the principal's face, as the police officer should have done, he or she chose to proceed with the nonsense of the criminal charge. Third, instead of filing the charge in the wastebasket where it belonged, a Larimer County prosecutor decided to press on.

This case was custom made for the comedians. But the most hilarious aspect of it is that it's all funded by taxpayers! Yes, Colorado taxpayers forked over their hard-earned dollars to at least three public officials - all to provide a history lesson and constitutional defense of the "F" word. Taxpayers are the ones getting . . . well, you know.

I certainly don't fault Vanatta, who met his duty with scholarly wit.

Indeed, his clever document is the only part of these government "services" for which I would have voluntarily paid. And despite the seeming triviality of the case, Vanatta's motion raises some very basic issues.

The student originally was charged with disorderly conduct. The charge was changed, for reasons unknown to Vanatta, to "Interference with staff etc." Is it really necessary to have all these redundant statutes?

In his book Drug War Addiction (which I helped edit), San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters tells of finding Colorado's single-volume statute book from the late 1800s. Today the statutes fill many volumes and no regular citizen can hope to comprehend them. Masters believes "the number of laws itself" contributes to our problems. He notes we aren't really safer now, though "lawlessness is commonplace, even in vogue."

Another matter is the inherent tensions of any government-run enterprise. Vanatta invokes the theory of "a clear and present danger" to explain why yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is outlawed but yelling the other "F" word isn't. But his account is not convincing.

After all, if I stood up and shouted "F---!" in a theater, I would expect to be escorted out and cuffed if I resisted. The real distinction is that theaters are privately owned, whereas government-run schools are not.

I asked Vanatta why, if the "F" word is protected speech, a student may be suspended from a government-run school for saying it. Obviously, students may not be suspended for saying other things the administration may not like. Vanatta had no ready answer. That's not surprising, given the ambiguities of government ownership.

But Vanatta's lesson in the birds and bees of politics is already a classic.

Ari Armstrong edits www.FreeColorado.com.

Fucking fuckers! Fuck's my favorite word and fuck anyone who thinks they can fucking tell me not to say it!