Moloch88.net

Colorado University 4/20 Celebration

2006-05-03T10:33:00.000-07:00

Every year on 4/20, students and residents gather on Farrand Field at CU Boulder to defy the authorities and smoke marijuana publicly. This year, the University of Boulder Police Department fought back by taking pictures of as many participants as possible. They have a website with photos up, offering an $50 reward to anyone who positively identifies someone who was photographed. Nothing about what the authorities plan to do with the information is posted. Link
-----------------------------------------------------
I think this is a great idea, they may stop one or two but they cant stop them all. I also think who ever snitches on the students should be punched in the face..

The Root Of Evil

2006-04-28T16:31:00.000-07:00

I don’t see what future the world has as long as people keep thinking there is something good about faith. People are being indoctrinated from birth to believe in something, simply because they are told to believe and nobody ever questions it. I think there is something very wrong with this cruel cycle and for the sake of man kind must be stopped. Unfortunately this is but a pipe dream in my head, for there will always be people out there who just believe what they are told to believe. Many people say that science and religion can live together side by side, this is simply not the case. In science there are certain rules that we follow which makes it so great. These rule prove and disprove theories made by people everywhere, religion on the other hand wants to play by theses rules on when its in there favor, but not when we hold there feet to the fire. Unlike religion science does not pretend to know everything there are still deep question about the origins of the universe that have yet to be explained. But just because science cant answer them right know doesn’t mean faith, tradition, and holy texts can. Science can’t disprove the existence of god, but that does not mean god doesn’t exist there are thousands of things we cant disprove . The philosopher Bertrand Russell had an analogy, “Imagine there is a china teapot in orbit around the sun you cannot disprove the existence of the teapot because it is to small to be spotted by are telescope. Nobody but a lunatic would be prepared to believe in the teapot simply because we cannot disprove the existence of it. Maybe we have to be technical or strictly agnostic, but in practice we are all teapot atheist. But know suppose everyone in the village believed in the teapot it was taught in schools, and churches, for years and generations and everyone had faith in the teapot, it was part of there tradition, and there are holy books about the teapot. Then somebody who said they did not believe in the teapot might be regarded as mad”. there are an infinite number of things like the tea pot that we cant disprove; like unicorns and fairies we can’t disprove any of those but we don’t believe in them anymore than now days just like we don’t believe in thor, of zeus, and anminra. We are atheist to all those gods but for some reason based on the geological placement of are families we believe in a certain god because we are told that this god is real but the others are just foolish. Many of today’s problems are only problems because of religion, do you think gay marriages would be a big deal if it wasn’t mentioned in the bible? People at one time believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun also revolved around the earth, and it was believed to be true because the churches said it was so. But then science took hold and we found out that those claims where false, Christianity was wrong about those things imagine what else they are wrong about. I think there will be a time that science will prevail and religion will become the foolish thing to believe in not visa-versa, and that will be a glorious day for humanity. The time has come for people for reason to say enough is enough, religious faith discourages independent thought, its persuasive, and most of all its dangerous.

April fools day is actually the 15th

2006-04-19T12:12:00.000-07:00

April fools day is actually the 15th.

Add that 279 Billion dollars in lost time you mentioned to the Trillions already "lost" in wages paid in. I mean, Stolen!!!

I've also heard that it takes over 140 Billion annually just to run the IRS mob machine: buildings, offices, equipment, vehicles, guns, warehouses, personnel, lawyers, courts, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Here we go:

You MUST understand that there is NO law that requires the average citizen to pay. It couldn't exist!

1) It would be completely "unconstitutional" as a "direct" tax upon the people. Remember 1776? They started killing people over a 1% direct tax. (See Article I, Section 9)

2) It would be in blatant contradiction with the 13th amendment prohibiting "involuntary servitude".

3) It would be "illegal" due to the collection tactics. Look under the definitions of "Robbery", "Extortion" and "Duress"; they all include threats of violence -- forcing you to open your wallet.

4) It IS "immoral" since it is, undeniably, NOT the will of the people. NO ONE wants it! If they did, they wouldn't be spending hundreds of dollars and all those hours just trying to get their money BACK.

But, here's the real kicker, boys and girls:

5) We are a "representative" government ... of / for / by the people. So tell me, WHO ... is being represented by the income tax? I want to know WHO! Where are all these people? WHO out there is protesting, petitioning, screaming and yelling, "crying out" and insisting that they be taxed in their labor?! Taxation WITHOUT Representation. 1776 ... all over again.

Yes, Tax me, Tax me!! More, More!! Make me your slave!! Just let me keep a little of what I have earned this week. Oh thank you, praise you, great government people for your kind grace to let me keep a little something from my many days of toil and sweat. I live to serve you, my lords. Thank you so much for ruling me.

(I'm going to puke now ... twice)

i.e. In order to accurately "represent" the people of the united States, there would have to be a significant "majority" of us out here who are literally "demanding" to be taxed out of our wages!!!

I, just want to hear from .................... ONE!

So what is happening ... is quite clearly a "mafia" style extortion, plain and simple. You pay us, or we will hurt you -- kill you, if necessary, to take your labor from you. They are outright "criminals" -- a mob of arrogant slave masters -- the lowest of slime -- who should be flushed into the sewers at every opportunity.

They are Armed robbers!! Worse, they absolutely know what they are doing! But, why do so few of us resist? FEAR!! That's the sickening part. We are, in fact, victims of the very people we have hired to "protect" us. i.e. They will kill us in order to protect us. It is true: death and taxes DO go together.

I'm getting pretty mad here, so I have to stop writing now...

Josh
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay. -- Milton Friedman

Educational Videos by NORML

2006-03-20T20:12:00.000-08:00

Its been brought to my attention that a lot of American people do not like reading or are not very good at reading, so with that in mind I will start putting more videos and visual material in this web site. But don't worry I will still write from time to time. The following video was produced by National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Enjoy!

House Passes Patriot Act

2006-03-08T10:47:00.000-08:00

Stephen Gordon —

The press is already hailing it as a victory for Bush and the GOP, but I call it a major loss for Americans. The House just passed the new and improved Patriot Act by a super-majority vote.
Bush, forced by filibuster to accept new curbs on law enforcement investigations, is expected to sign the legislation before 16 provisions of the 2001 law expire on Friday.
The vote was 280-138, just two more than needed under special rules that required a two-thirds majority. It marked a political victory for Bush and will allow congressional Republicans facing midterm elections this year to continue touting a tough-on-terror stance. Bush’s approval ratings have suffered in recent months after revelations that he had authorized secret, warrantless wiretapping of Americans.
Prediction: Aside from Ron Paul, the GOP is going to have a very tough time maintaining control of the House of Representatives in 2006. While there may not be a significant difference between the parties, the increased level of gridlock (a good thing — my favorite Gary Nolanism) of one party not having absolute control over all three branches of government will certainly be welcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, we all know Bush will sign the bill. The graphic (courtesy of Flickr) indicates where he can stick his pen, though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government uses the model of manipulation which forces people to think or act in certain ways; by pressure threats of intimidation in order to keep you in the bounds of laws that where bought by the highest bidder and which you had no say in. they do a good job of making you think that they can reach out and crush you when ever they like, but you are more powerful than they are, and they exist to serve you we do not exist to serve them. As such actions outside of the law are not contrary to democracy they are essential to it. Stand up put your fist in the air and don’t take it anymore.

Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Passes Away

2006-03-02T21:51:00.000-08:00

Harry Browne, who was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, is reported by multiple sources to have died yesterday. I just confirmed the general information with Jim Babka of DownSizeDC. DownSizeDC intends to be distributing pertinent information by e-mail and on their website later this evening.
Pending a statement from family or friends, the best (speculative) published source of information about his condition is currently on Wiki:
In June of 2005 an unknown neurological illness confined him to a wheelchair. After spending a considerable amount of time in the hospital, he resumed some of his writing and speaking, though it was uncertain whether he will walk again. He succumbed to illness on 1 March 2006.
Wiki also provides some additional biographical information:
Harry Browne (17 June 1933 - 1 March 2006) was an American free-market Libertarian writer and investment analyst.
He was born in New York City to Bradford and Cecil Margaret Browne and currently resides in Franklin, Tennessee.
Browne was the presidential candidate of the United States Libertarian Party in 1996 and 2000. He was an investment advisor for thirty years and was, immediately prior to his death, Director of Public Policy for the libertarian Downsize DC Foundation.
He came to prominence in 1970 with his first book, How You Can Profit From The Coming Devaluation, which correctly predicted the devaluation of the dollar and subsequent inflation. Browne’s second book was 1973’s How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World, which focused on maximizing personal liberty. This book became an instant classic in libertarian circles. You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis was Browne’s third book and reached #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. He continued to author books and articles on investing through the late 1990s. […]
More recently, Harry Browne had continued working to increase the popularity of libertarian goals to reduce the size and scope of government. In addition to writing and making appearances on behalf of the Downsize DC Foundation, prior to his death he hosted two weekly network radio shows; one on Saturdays dealing with politics, and the other on Sundays dealing with financial topics. Browne also worked with the Free Market News Network, of which he was the President. Via Free Market News, he had his own internet-based television show called This Week In Liberty. He was also working on a book called The War Racket just prior to his death, but had stated that the book was not near completion, with no definite publishing date.
Members of both the Libertarian Party and entire the libertarian movement have lost a great leader and spokesperson for the cause. Harry, you will be missed. We at HoT would like to offer our condolences to Harry’s family and friends.
I last saw him at the 2004 Libertarian Party convention, where my wife and I shared a banquet table with Harry, Pamela and a few other people. While he looked as though he had aged a bit, his wit was sharp and his eyes sparkled with life. In every correspondence we’ve shared since then, that same sparkle was present, motivating me to do more for the cause of liberty.
If Harry Browne was still with us, I think he’d still be trying to motivate each and every one of us to reach our highest potential. I’ll close with one of his quotes which I’ve kept taped to my monitor for years; I think he’d have liked it that way: “The important thing is to concentrate upon what you can do - by yourself, upon your own initiative.”

War On Porn !

2006-03-02T11:43:00.000-08:00

Stephen Gordon —

I’ve suggested it before, and I’ll suggest it again today. In January, articles first started to surface that the Department of Justice wants to seize Google records in order to chase kiddie porn perps. We aren’t just talking about specific information being subpoenaed to find evidence about some specific alleged wrongdoer, but major fishing expeditions of millions upon millions of records.
Today’s news indicates that all the DoJ wants is a “sample of URLs and search queries”:
The Department of Justice (DoJ) has rejected Google’s assertion that a government subpoena for search data threatens the privacy of Internet users.
“The government has not asked Google to produce any information that would personally identify its users,” according to the DoJ’s response filed Friday in a San Jose court.
Yeah, right. The DoJ is going to look at search strings which indicate that someone may be looking up questionable porn and then not obtain a search warrant for more complete records — and I’ve got some beachfront property in Kansas for sale. But the issue goes deeper than this. What the feds want 1) costs a lot of money and 2) jeopardizes trade secrets. Both of these issues are covered by the 5th Amendment:
…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It could be fairly easy to establish a reasonable price for the data requested; the Constitution demands it. What would not be so easy is determine the valuation of Google’s trade secrets. This would be a very hefty bill, to be sure.
Instead of trying to find new ways to enforce a law already determined unconstitutional by the courts, perhaps our nannies in DC might just enter a few search strings into Google themselves.

Homer for President ‘08 Campaign Kicks Off with Good Polling Numbers

2006-03-02T11:41:00.000-08:00

Stephen Gordon —

Before reading this article, state the following sentence out loud:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Guess what? You are better informed than most Americans, according to this source:
Americans apparently know more about “The Simpsons” than they do about the First Amendment.
Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey.
The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.
Joe Madeira, director of exhibitions at the museum, said he was surprised by the results.
The only confusing portion of the linked article is that Madeira was surprised by the results. There’s a national poll of registered voters every four years which consistently confirms the same general results.

Government Makes Things Worse

2006-02-26T13:25:00.000-08:00

by Brad Edmonds

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every government action, there is necessarily an opposite and unintended reaction, though sometimes it can be much more than equal.
In my previous article, I wrote that the interventions of forcible government into human activity serve to distort incentives: Whenever government acts, you and I as a necessary result face circumstances in which we are personally rewarded for behaviors that are not in line with the spirit of the law; nor are these behaviors typically what would be best for human progress.
Today, I treat the same subject from a different direction – by showing that government attempts to solve problems always worsen the problems themselves.
The War on Terrorism
It is obvious to all but the most blindly neoconservative Bush fans that terrorists reliably direct their efforts at occupying governments (and their innocent citizens); that terrorists never seem to aim their weapons at governments that don’t violently interpose themselves in the Middle East (or Ireland or Basque country); and even that terrorists stop terrorizing when the intervention stops. As one example, there hasn’t been a suicide bombing in Beirut – the motherland of suicide bombings – since the foreign occupiers left. And it is obvious by now to all but the Bush administration itself, and a few die-hard Bush worshipers, that our War on Terror has only created more terrorists, and more dedicated ones.
The War on Pollution
The EPA was created by Richard Nixon to help his heavy-industry cronies preserve their personal wealth and the market share of their firms. If private property owners were allowed to sue directly those faraway polluters who soil their private property, there would be far less pollution while (less-) affected property owners would be compensated contractually by polluters. As things stand, due to EPA involvement in the pollution business, coal-fired power plants are allowed to emit far too many pollutants, as the EPA guidelines serve to protect polluters from lawsuits; and new pollution-control technologies are slow to be assimilated, if they are assimilated at all. The use of government zoning and other restrictions at the local level, thanks to the urging of green alarmists with the help of their lapdog media, have resulted in our retaining coal-fired, high-pollutin’ energy plants and consistent rejection of near-zero-emissions nuclear plants. There is definitely far more pollution in the air and water than we’d have in the absence of the EPA.
The War on Drugs: Government got in the drug business, beginning in the 1930s with the popularization of marijuana scares, to prevent certain social ills: long-term addiction, and its behavioral and health problems; and immediate intoxication, with its behavioral and health problems. Since government got into the business, these problems have only worsened. In the 1890s, you could get whatever drugs you wanted from your local pharmacist. Parents would send their children to the druggist for tobacco, alcohol, and cocaine. Few people ever consumed pure cocaine, preferring it considerably weakened, such as in a carbonated beverage. But with the war on drugs, traffickers won’t take the risk of being arrested or killed for anything less than lots of money. Hence, the only cocaine that gets into the US now is the pure stuff – much more retail value for the risk, but also much more highly addictive, with much more damaging short- and long-term effects. The same goes for all other controlled substances that people might want to use in therapy or enjoy recreationally. Because of government involvement, we can’t buy for ourselves safe concentrations of many therapeutic, healing, or simply enjoyable things. (To prevent the emails – if these drugs were legalized, I still wouldn’t use them except on the advice of a doctor who examined me personally and prescribed them.)
So, because of government’s attempt to stop drug use, we have worse problems with addiction, intoxication, behavior, and health than we would have in a free society. But that’s not the end of it – along with the war on drugs, we have gang violence, from the mountains of South America to your neighborhood, just as we did in the 1920s with alcohol prohibition. Additionally, our prisons are packed – we have more people in prison than any other "developed" nation – with nonviolent people who only wanted to have a good time in their own homes, just as we did with alcohol prohibition.
And just as with alcohol prohibition, if drugs were decriminalized, the violence would go away, as would the drag on our economy created by our enormous prison system, as would the problems we have with impure and overly-pure drugs on the market.
There is no way around it – when you begin with centralized, unaccountable violence (taxation in the first place, necessary for government to exist at all), then continue with such violence (compelling an entire population to behave in accordance with legislative dictates), all in the service of controlling the behavior of people who are naturally happiest and most peaceful only when they are free, you will never succeed.
Forcible government will fail in everything it does. It always has and always will. Government cannot provide security; it cannot eradicate poverty or disease; it cannot make people happy or wealthy. It can only destroy wealth, institutions, and beneficial customs, and can do these things only by continually restricting our freedom. Everything it does will have the opposite of the intended effect. These are not coincidental observations nor descriptions of general tendencies. That government will fail, and do harm, is logical necessity based in the nature of mankind, which is itself logical and based on instinctual animal self-preservation. This will never change. What needs to change is everyone’s inculcated belief that government is either necessary or good. Am I proposing that the absence of forcible government would result in a utopia? Of course not; diseases, accidents, and evil people will always be among us. But forcible government, aside from being a priori unjust, is the single largest impediment to human progress in dealing with the inevitable challenges of life. Sooner or later, humanity will come to this realization. I hope it’s soon, and peaceful.
-----------------------------------------------
… the American Colonists under King George III had it pretty good compared to us. They would wonder why we haven't taken up arms and seceded yet. – Lew Goldberg

The average American family head will be forced to do twenty years' labor to pay taxes in his or her lifetime. – James Bovard, Lost Rights

Two Free Staters Arrested!

2006-02-09T21:54:00.000-08:00

Ian Bernard

Yesterday morning, a few Free Staters were protesting eminent domain on “public property” outside a hotel in Manchester, NH. Turns out King George was coming to this hotel that same morning.
Two of the protestors, Russell Kanning and Kat Dillon, were standing with signs nearby a bus stop where people were waiting around. It wasn’t long before a Secret Service agent came along and asked them to move across the street to the “agreed upon” protest area. They asked the SS agent if he was a fascist, told him they had not “agreed” to anything like that, and stayed right where they were.

Shortly thereafter, Manchester police arrived and arrested two of the protestors, charging them with disorderly conduct. When asked, the police mentioned they were “just following orders”. Stop for a moment, and remember where they were at the time of the arrest. They were near a public bus stop. Were the people waiting for the bus ordered across the street? No. Were they arrested for being disorderly? No. Only the two people with signs (One said “Bush, Feds=Fascists”) were arrested. This is all about control.
My favorite part of the story comes from when they were at the police station:

Officer Murby was talking to Russell. He told Russell he would buy him a plane ticket to Iran or Iraq if Russell wanted to renounce his citizenship…Another officer told us if we didn’t like America, we could leave.

Fascist Feds backed up by automaton cops.
The protestors, Kat Dillon and Russell Kanning are two of the best Liberty activists we’ve seen in recent times. (Last year, Russell was arrested after refusing to show ID at Manchester airport. Plus, they are the only Free Staters who have had the courage to refuse to pay property tax.) We need more people like them in the Free State, ASAP. That’s why I’ve become one of the Free State Project’s First 1000.

You can read Kat and Russell’s full account of the arrest in the Keene Free Press. You can listen to Free Talk Live interview Russell in the middle of last night’s show. Don’t forget to visit the NHFree.com forums to keep up with what’s going on in the Free State, it’s exciting!
The Second American Revolution is upon us. Refuse to pay taxes. Resist tyranny. Dissent openly. We must make a stand sooner rather than later, my Liberty loving friends. The longer we wait, the more difficult the fight.

-FTL_Ian
Hammer OF Truth

Police Officer Receives Medal of Valor for Murdering Citizen

2006-02-09T20:52:00.000-08:00

Mike Nelson —

First of all, there are going to be a bunch of Police-murder apologists arguing that Police do not actually “murder” people because their twisted minds have managed to conjure up some sort of demented definition of murder. So let’s just go with the FBI’s definition for the sake of this post:

The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

Now that we have that out of the way, the Minneapolis Police Department have awarded one of it’s criminals police officers, Dan May, a Medal of Valor for murdering Tycel Nelson in 1990. The official police fabrication of the event goes something like this:

May was the first officer on the scene. He pulled out a shotgun and chased a man whom he believed was an armed suspect, who he later identified as Nelson. May has said he lost sight of the suspect momentarily, then spotted Nelson raising a gun at him. He said he fired only after Nelson ignored his order to drop the weapon.

I can already see the apologists blowing their wad by dismissing this as self defense. But there is more to the story (Skinner is Tycel’s mother):

No one else saw the shooting. Skinner later sued, alleging that May shot an unarmed youth who was harmlessly running away from him. Her attorneys were poised to make the most of three undisputed facts: Nelson was shot in the back; the .22-caliber revolver found at the scene bore no traceable fingerprints linking it to him; and May initially described the suspect he was chasing as wearing a brown leather coat, although Nelson was wearing a black-and-white-striped shirt.

And if that doesn’t raise your eyebrows:

A grand jury cleared May of any wrongdoing, but the city paid $250,000 to Nelson’s family to drop the lawsuit.

This should come as no surprise to anyone that pays a dime’s worth of attention to police crimes.
In related news, police attempt to murder an unarmed, respected businessman and doctor for alleged gambling. I wonder how many medals those officers will receive?
Finally, there may be a little justice in the world. Police seem to be so trigger-happy these days that they attmepted to murder one of their own by mistake:

In a case of mistaken identity, police shot and critically wounded an off-duty officer outside a fast-food restaurant early Saturday, authorities said.
Eric Hernandez, 24, was hit three times and was in extremely critical condition, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.
Too funny.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Republicans Favor Big Government Once Again

2006-02-09T20:02:00.000-08:00

Stephen Gordon —
I’m adding the emphasis. From the NY Times:

“This isn’t a cut,” he said of his plan to cut $36 billion over five years out of the Medicare program by changing the formulas that govern its growth. “People call it a cut in Medicare. That’s not a cut. It’s slowing down the rate of growth. It’s the difference between slowing your car down to go the speed limit, or putting your car in reverse.”

Let me see. Republicans control the House. Republicans control the Senate. There’s a Republican in the White House. With all those resources available, the morons can’t even cut spending. Aside from war and torture and domestic spying, WTF are they good for?

What Libertarians Belive In

2006-02-03T14:16:00.000-08:00

The libertarian view of government stems directly from a more general principle, the principle of liberty.

Liberty is the right to live your life in the way you choose, so long as you do not initiate force upon any other individual. This is called by many of us the non-aggression principle. All other rights are derived from this right of self-ownership and self-determination.

Along with liberty comes the personal responsibility to face the consequences of your actions. This respect for individual choices optimizes the incentive for people to succeed and make correct choices, and opens the door to a diversity that only freedom brings.

So we believe that government’s only legitimate role is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and not abrogate these rights. It is right to have laws against murder, assault, rape and theft, but actions that do not intrude on the rights of others should not be restricted.

We must remember what government is: institutionalized force. The power and politics of government makes it arrogant, inefficient, corrupt and dangerous. Because of this inherent nature of government, government programs almost always fail to do what they were supposed to. And expanding government power to do what you think it should ensures that future politicians will use it in ways you think they shouldn’t.

Our view of government’s role and its government’s historical propensity to overstep that role leads libertarians to believe in strict limitations on government, such as in the Bill of Rights.

So what would libertarians do to change America’s government today?

We would cut all taxes drastically, freeing up resources to create jobs and charity much more efficiently and humanely than the government possibly can. We would repeal the Federal Income Tax and get welfare, education, business regulations, Social Security and health care out of the hands of the Federal Government–which has no constitutional authority in these areas–and back into the hands of the states and the people.

We would restore a free market economy of abundance and prosperity. A free market economy for us would mean no corporate welfare or farm subsidies or trade restrictions on Cuba.

Most pollution is caused by the government, so we would make politicians and bureaucrats liable for the damage they do. Pollution caused by private entities should be treated as crimes of trespass, not as regulatory matters that will necessarily lead to corruption and more pollution.

We would restore civil liberties and reduce violent crime by repealing America’s 25,000 gun control laws that infringe on the right to self-defense without doing a thing to disarm violent criminals.

We would also restore civil liberties and reduce violent crime by finally ending America’s insane, draconian, inhumane, and unconstitutional War on Drugs. The Drug War has made America’s drug problem much worse and has led to a terrible wave of violent crime and police state measures. We would release the million non-violent prisoners of this terrible war and declare drug peace.

And we would repeal all other victimless crime laws, and enforce the entire Bill of Rights, a document whose enforcement would eliminate almost all of the government abuses of today. We would bring back the jury to its proper function in justice. This of course would mean that the Patriot Act would have to go.

To combat terrorism, a great threat to our liberty, we would restore America’s foreign policy of nonintervention, peace and free trade. Nonintervention means not tampering with other nations’ elections, and not propping up foreign dictators with tax dollars. Peace means no more bombing of innocent civilians because of the actions of a few belligerents. And free trade means withdrawing our support from the IMF and ending that inhumane and stupid sanction on Iraq.

Our military’s only function should be to defend the United States. Anything more would be contributing to and encouraging terrorism at home and abroad, so we should bring our troops home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out if your a libertarian take this Quiz. if you have any questions about any givin issue noted above email me or leave a comment..

Steve Kubby Watch

2006-01-31T21:48:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Hammer Of Truth

I just got back from Phoenix, and have not had a chance to check out all of the information and updates in the Steve Kubby case. I will state that I did not speak with a single Libertarian there who was not aware of the Kubby arrest. Everyone wanted more news, and all were very concerned. The lastest update I have is from an e-mail Michele sent me yesterday. Here it is:

Unfortunately I missed Steve’s call today because of an interview. No problem, Steve called our Auburn contacts and described the circumstances of his day.
It seems that Placer has moved him from the infirmary to solitary confinement. He has a cell all to himself and he was freezing. Again they are ignoring his pleas for a blanket and have left him to shiver and chatter in a cold cell. Remember, this is in the foothills of the Western Sierra. It is very cold and the cold is a damp cold. I’m afraid he will be looking at getting pneumonia soon if he is not warmed up.
This is exactly the cruel and inhumane treatment I described to Canadian officials, that would happen if Steve were returned to the US. I also told them repeatedly that Steve would be immediately arrested upon his arrival at SFO, which is exactly what happened. Of course the Canadian government officials that judged our case responded to my pleas for protection from this grim future by turning a blind eye, ignoring evidence, and refusing to do the right thing when they could. They cannot see what they have done, for to do so would have to mean that they were wrong and have made a terrible life threatening mistake.
This, of course, is exactly the position that Placer is in. To admit that they are wrong about the life saving properties of cannabis is impossible. Better to test this theory out and see if it can really save a life.
Steve always liked to give us good news. So, the good news about today is that the Marinol is helping to control the rectal bleeding he was experiencing as well as the blood pressure. Of course Marinol does not contain the catacholimes present in the whole plant, and these have been shown by Dr. Guzman of Spain to have the properties of inhibiting a protein necessary for blood vessel development, which results in the cancer tissue being denied nutrients as well as teaching cancer cells to die.
With Marinol, Steve is only partly protected. Because Marinol uses only the THC active portion of the cannabis plant, his tumors are now free to grow again. This type of tumor is particularly apt to grow into the spinal cord, brain and organs.
Now, the bad news is that Placer has not taken his blood pressure since he arrived yesterday. Steve must be on a constant monitor in order to gauge the severity of his medical condition. At any time, his blood pressure can skyrocket. Being freezing cold stresses the body which releases more chemicals which worsens the danger.
This is a game of chicken and Steve doesn’t have much of a chance. He has been stripped of all rights, including his right to the special diet he needs. Steve can have a blood pressure attack from eating a bar of chocolate or eating foods with MSG in them. In addition, most low quality meats, like those served in jails, are full of steroids, which are basically food for Steve’s tumor to eat and then make even more adrenaline chemicals to rack his body. Unless he can eat his very limited diet of tofu, dill, garlic, and hemp oil salad, plus his oatmeal cookies, he is going stimulate the tumor even more to produce adrenaline chemicals.
A human’s right to care for his or her body as he or she choses, should be recognized by governments. What we put into our bodies to heal us and keep us balanced or relieve our pain, is our right. Especially if that person is suffering from a serious and rare type of cancer.
This all brings me to the most disturbing news of the day: Steve asked our friend to relay that Placer deputies have forced/intimidated him into signing a waiver which states that Steve absolves Placer County of any responsibility if he dies in their care, because he has refused to take conventional, alpha and beta blocker blood pressure medication.
The problem with this medication, is that it only protects Steve from a certain level of blood pressure attacks. If Steve’s body decides to raise his blood pressure over the protection of the alpha and beta blockers, then it will be like Mt. Vesuvius erupting and unless he is in a hospital with access to an IV drip, he will not get the blood pressure medication he would need to control the life threatening blood pressures wreaking his body.
Placer County is playing with fire. I pray that they educate themselves on what happens when fire gets out of control.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

Dangers in Patriot Act Reauthorization

2006-01-30T18:57:00.000-08:00

by Paul Craig Roberts

A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.
Go to House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads:

"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ’United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’."
This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."

The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."
The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS).
"A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion. The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"?
You can bet that the Alito/Roberts court will rule that it is whatever the executive branch says.
The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights. We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.
Many naïve Americans will write to me to explain that this new provision in the reauthorization of the "Patriot Act" is necessary to protect the president and other high officials from terrorists or from harm at the hands of angry demonstrators: "No one else will have anything to fear." Some will accuse me of being an alarmist, and others will say that it is unpatriotic to doubt the law’s good intentions.
Americans will write such nonsense despite the fact that the president and foreign dignitaries are already provided superb protection by the Secret Service. The naïve will not comprehend that the president cannot be endangered by demonstrators at SENS at which the president is not present. For many Americans, the light refuses to turn on. In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo?
By Stalin’s time Lenin and Trotsky had eliminated all members of the "oppressor class," but that did not stop Stalin from sending millions of "enemies of the people" to the Gulag.
It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?

Your Papers, Please

2006-01-30T18:48:00.000-08:00

by Manuel Lora

John Gilmore attempted to board an airplane on the 4th of July 2002. When asked to produce and ID, he refused. Apparently, there is a secret law that gives the Federal Government the power to check for IDs. Funny, I don’t remember seeing that in the Constitution; I need to read it again just in case.
Gilmore sued in court. The result is not pleasant, but should not surprise anyone. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ID requirement is not unconstitutional:

"We hold that neither the identification policy nor its application to Gilmore violated Gilmore's constitutional rights, and therefore we deny the petition. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
"He was not threatened with arrest or some other form of punishment; rather he simply was told that unless he complied with the policy, he would not be permitted to board the plane. There was no penalty for noncompliance."

But the Constitution does not say that there should be a TSA either. The right to travel is nothing but the ability of a person to freely engage in a business transaction allowing him to enjoy air travel. Any restriction on this peaceful and legitimate contractual agreement is unethical and incoherent. Not only is this restriction unjustified, it is also unconstitutional.
Until recently, Americans had enjoyed being able to move around the country with little or no interference. Sadly, this is no longer the case. From airports to buses to trains and subways, our movements are carefully watched and controlled. Babies have been added to the no-fly list. And who can forget when Ted Kennedy had his name added to that infamous list? Being a Senator has its perks; he was able to make some phone calls and he was allowed to travel. But tell this to the thousands of people on this list. There is virtually no way to get names removed. All in the name of safety; all for our own good.
So where to we stand? The dirty paws of the Federal Government are turning local police officers into de facto urban guerillas. We have seen stories of secret courts, secret prisons and secret police. There is no longer a need for conspiracy theories: there is a secret government.
And while at home we are forced to endure corporate fascism and creeping socialism over a bed of inflation, overseas our neighbors are offered a one-item menu consisting of military interventionism sautéed with economic protectionism. This is one nasty meal.
In the end, the good old U.S.A. is making peons out of its citizens, and subjects out of everyone else outside its borders. The imperial machinery is a finely tuned mechanism. With enough perseverance, however, it should not be difficult to stop it in its tracks once and for all.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

Fed Statutory Spending Cap Breach

2006-01-30T18:33:00.000-08:00

By Stephen VanDyke

Yesterday the U.S. government passed their $8.18 trillion spending limit on the Treasury’s credit card last week, and it’s starting to catch attention in the blogosphere. The mainstream media is totally asleep at the wheel on this one, which is pretty surprising.
For example, the Washington Post is talking about deficit spending today, but one has to wonder if someone over there forgot to you know… actually check the latest numbers (and they rounded up a tenth of a trillion to $8.2, which only puts them 20 billion dollars off the mark). Still, their article is worthwhile for this quote from Treasury Secretary John Snow:
In the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow notified congressional leaders that the government would reach the statutory debt limit of $8.2 trillion by mid-February, the fourth time in five years the debt limit will have been reached.
“At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations,” Snow warned.
So does this mean Congress won’t be getting a paycheck on Friday? I doubt it, but that would be so fitting.

Copyright Hammer of Truth 2006

Med-Marijuana Activist Arrested in California

2006-01-29T14:43:00.000-08:00

Here is an update on the Steve Kubby Case:

Medical marijuana crusader Steve Kubby was arrested Thursday night at San Francisco Airport after spending years as a fugitive in Canada.
Kubby was arrested on a no-bail warrant and booked into San Mateo County jail, San Francisco police said.
There was an emotional farewell earlier Thursday at Vancouver International Airport as Kubby reluctantly returned to the United States to face a jail sentence.
Michael Acree was on the scene, and reports the following:

Kubby’s flight landed about 8:00. I got to the airport around 7:30. There were perhaps three dozen supporters, with many signs, and half a dozen TV cameras. I didn’t recognize any other Libertarians. Most of the people I spoke with hadn’t met Kubby, and knew little about him; they were activists for the cause of medical marijuana, many of them obviously with a personal interest in the issue. Kubby was traveling with his attorney, Bill McPike; it was evidently their expectation that Kubby would be allowed to remain in McPike’s custody until his hearing in Placerville on Tuesday. Instead, police met the flight at the gate and escorted Kubby downstairs, bypassing the welcoming committee and the TV cameras, and whisked him off to jail. In Redneck City–excuse me, Redwood City–not San Francisco. McPike came out and spoke with reporters and supporters. There is supposedly some sort of hearing in Red wood City this morning at 9:00, but McPike didn’t know anything about it. He is extremely soft-spoken; standing directly behind the reporters he was speaking to, I was unable to hear him at all. I hope his soft-spoken, casual manner carries tremendous power in the courtroom, if Kubby makes it that far.
The attitude of the supporters present struck me as resolutely, and incongruously, optimistic. “There must a law against what they’re doing to him. . . .” Unlimited, unalterable faith in the government to restrain itself, and not do what it wants to do most, which is to punish critics. The last time Kubby was in jail for 4 days, without access to marijuana, he nearly died. His supporters seemed convinced that the government would not allow that to happen, lest Kubby be made a martyr. I personally don’t see the government as that terrified of creating martyrs. It is true that his dying in jail would constitute pretty good proof of his claim that marijuana is what has kept him alive for the last 30 years. But that outcome could be prevented by the simple device of having wardens look the other way while other inmates took care of him, as was done with John Geoghan. I would be at least mildly surprised if Kubby had another 2 weeks to live.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time will tell if Kubby will be the latest American to die in the hands of the drug warriors. In the mean time, I’ve heard reliable rumors that the Kubby family needs a few thousand bucks to handle some of the additional expenses relating to the arrest. Your contributions can be made out to the Kubby Defense Fund.

"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
principles upon which our government was founded."
-- Abraham Lincoln
December, 1840

Future American Lawyers To Be Proud Of.

2006-01-25T13:57:00.000-08:00

Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveilance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him.
To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet.
Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument a new one.
And, as one of the people on the panel said,

"When you're a law student, they tell you if say that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough."

"In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today."
- David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor
Here is more photos from the demonstration:
Photo 1
Photo 2

Medical Marijuana Activist Scheduled to be Deported to the U.S.

2006-01-24T18:52:00.000-08:00

Medical marijuana activist Steve Kubby and his family are scheduled to be deported to the United States unless they receive an emergency stay of a removal order issued by Canadian immigration officials. The Kubbys attended a hearing at a Federal Court of Canada on Monday. No decision was issued prior to press time.
Steve Kubby has served as the national director of the American Medical Marijuana Association and was the Libertarian Party candidate in the 1998 California gubernatorial race. Kubby suffers from a rare form of terminal adrenal cancer that is difficult to treat conventionally but its symptoms can be eased by marijuana. He and his family fled to Canada in 2001 after being convicted in California of drug possession.
The Canadian immigration office has rejected Kubby's plea for refugee status and has ordered him out of the country by January 12. The Canadian immigration office did not accept Kubby's argument that deportation could jeopardize his health. After Kubby leaves Canada he will be detained at the border and sent to a federal facility before being extradited to California, according to Kubby's wife, Michele. He will face three years in state prison for fleeing the country.
American authorities have stated that Kubby will not have access to medical marijuana while in jail. Steve Kubby's wife, Michele, said if Steve is sent to a California jail it will "effectively be a death sentence" for him. Ms. Kubby explained, "They will not allow him to have medical marijuana, and the drugs they would offer him won't control the adrenaline spikes and his blood pressure will shoot out of control and he will probably suffer an aneurysm."
Michele Kubby claims that her husband has been targeted by American authorities as a result of his pro-medical marijuana activism. She stated, "They have been keeping their eye on him for a long time."
In a phone interview with the Auburn Journal, Kubby said that if his request for an emergency stay fails, "I'll probably be talking to you through a cell in Placer County jail if I'm able to speak." Michele Kubby told the Globe and Mail that she remains optimistic about the last-minute appeal. Ms. Kubby further added, "If you never give up, you will never lose hope."
In a phone interview with the Libertarian Party, Michele said that she has been fighting in the Canadian courts and she can't do this alone. She is asking those who are moved by her husband's dire situation to call the following Canadian officials, who can stop the removal order "with a signature."

Here is the contact information:

Joe Volpe, Minister of Immigration, Voice: (613) 954-1064, Fax: (613) 957-2688

Ujjal Dosanjh, Minister of Health, Voice: (613) 995-7052, Fax: (613) 995-2962

Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice, Voice: (613) 992-4621, Fax: (613) 990-7522

Anne McLellan, Minister of Public Safety, Voice: (613) 991-2924, Fax: (613) 952-2240
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me first start by saying that this is a plant that has never hurt anyone ever, and in a country where 400,00 people die prematurely of cigarettes , and 100,00 die prematurely from alcohol. That this herb this plant this weed should be so illegal in this country that since the 1995 “Omnibus Crime Bill”, that if you possess enough of it our government will put you to death. If you don’t think marijuana is still prohibited keep in mind that last year alone 771,682 people where arrested the most ever under any administration, that is one arrest every 30 seconds. Finally the outrage with in an outrage is medical marijuana. In the war on drugs unlike any war in American history, unlike and modern civilized war of the past two centuries, in this war on drugs, they are not stopping on the battle field and letting the red cross on the field. In fact they are shooting directly at the sick and those who are trying to help them, and they are shooting to kill. And to top it off unlike any other issue currently in the political realm public opinion polls are outrageously in favor of medical marijuana and almost every politician promptly objects. Why is it that these people we put in office are not following the rules of the constitution that our for-father before us put in place, why is it that the federal government keeps interfering with states sovereignty like in California’s “Proposition 215” bill which states that one can grow marijuana for medical use. This is not a right of left issue this is an issue about freedom and weather you’re a democrat of republican please support marijuana, because its the right thing to do. I’m tired of people thinking that Libertarians don’t have morals, and that they don’t have values, I beg to differ; Libertarians are the only people with values and morals... --Moloch88

NFL's Buzzkill: No Beer at Giants Stadium

2006-01-15T21:51:00.000-08:00

by Paul Armentano

There was far less "buzz" than usual during the NFL season's final regular season Monday night football game between the New York Jets and the defending Super Bowl champion New England Patriots, and it had little to do with the Jets' dire season record. Rather, the ennui of the tens of thousands of atypically subdued fans in attendance could best be summed up in three words, prominently displayed on makeshift signs throughout ABC's nationwide telecast: "We want beer!"
That's right, beer.
Following a string of violent incidents – including a pair of stabbings – between rowdy football fans during the team's previous games, Giants Stadium officials made the bold move to halt sales of the intoxicant. The rationale for the ban? Jets spokesman Ron Colangelo could not have been more blunt: "It's for the safety of our fans."
Alcohol's long-standing association with aggressive behavior, whether it's among raucous sports fans or late-night bar patrons, is well-publicized and much debated. Yet, a relevant fact that is often overlooked in this public discourse is that an alternative, almost equally consumed intoxicant, is rarely, if ever, linked with violence – marijuana. However, unlike alcohol, marijuana is illegal and not only at Giants Stadium.
Regardless, no credible research has shown cannabis use to be a causal factor in violence, aggression or delinquent behavior, dating back to the U.S. government's "First Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse" in 1972, which concluded, "In short, marijuana is not generally viewed by participants in the criminal justice community as a major contributing influence in the commission of delinquent or criminal acts." (The Commission went on to recommend Congress remove all criminal and civil penalties on the possession of small amounts of the drug, a recommendation that Congress and then-President Richard Nixon promptly ignored.)

A more recent federal review by the Canadian Senate reaffirmed: "Cannabis use does not induce users to commit other forms of crime. Cannabis use does not increase aggressiveness or anti-social behavior." In contrast, research has demonstrated that certain legal drugs, most notably alcohol, do induce aggressive behavior.
"Cannabis differs from alcohol in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior," stated the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its 2002 report recommending the depenalization of marijuana. (Parliament eventually did so in 2004.) "This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence."
British soccer fans recently experienced this lesson first hand after their team's opening loss to Portugal at the Euro 2000 tournament in the Netherlands. According to news reports, the British fans – whose reputation for post-game, alcohol-fueled tirades is known worldwide – took the loss without incident and not a single fan was arrested after the match. The Dutch secret to keeping the peace – a clamp down on alcohol and regulated access to cannabis.
Yet, while alcohol enjoys its status as the unofficial sports drink of the NFL, law enforcement continue to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars annually arresting more than 750,000 Americans for doing nothing more than possessing or smoking small amounts of pot. Perhaps if the situation was reversed, fans in Giants Stadium and throughout the NFL could enjoy their games in peace.

Nothing’s Smoking in New Jersey except Civil Liberties

2006-01-15T21:28:00.000-08:00

The following is from the website Hammer Of Truth

Add New Jersey to the list, 11-strong, of localities that have banned smoking in restaurants and other supposed “public places” that are privately owned. The one exception, this time around, is casinos. Why? Because the casino lobby in New Jersey is strong enough to stop them, and that’s it.

All of this would be bad enough for supporters of smokers’ rights-except that New Jersey went even further. They’ve joined with three other states in raising the age at which one can legally buy cigarettes from 18 to 19.

So we have a new law that not only destroys two civil liberties, but also adds to the confusing mess that is government regulation. You can smoke at 18, you just can’t buy cigarettes. Smoking in public is very very bad for your health and the health of others, except in casinos where apparently it’s not.

Marijuana Arrests For Year 2004: 771,608, Record High; FBI Report Reveals

2005-12-29T18:21:00.000-08:00

The following information is from the website NORML

Pot Smokers Arrested In America At A Rate Of One Every 41 Seconds

Washington, DC: Police arrested an estimated 771,608 persons for marijuana violations in 2004, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The total is the highest ever recorded by the FBI, and comprised 44.2 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.

"These numbers belie the myth that police do not target and arrest minor marijuana offenders," said NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre, who noted that at current rates, a marijuana smoker is arrested every 41 seconds in America. "This effort is a tremendous waste of criminal justice resources that diverts law enforcement personnel away from focusing on serious and violent crime, including the war on terrorism."

Of those charged with marijuana violations, 89 percent - some 684,319 Americans - were charged with possession only. The remaining 87,289 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses - even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. In past years, approximately 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger.

"Present policies have done little if anything to decrease marijuana's availability or dissuade youth from trying it," St. Pierre said, noting that a majority of young people in the U.S. now report that they have easier access to pot than alcohol or tobacco.

The total number of marijuana arrests in the U.S. for 2004 far exceeded the total number of arrests in the U.S. for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Marijuana arrests have more than doubled since 1993.

"Arresting adults who smoke marijuana responsibly needlessly destroys the lives of tens of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens each year," St. Pierre said, adding that over 8 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges in the past decade. During this same time, arrests for cocaine and heroin have declined sharply, indicating that increased enforcement of marijuana laws is being achieved at the expense of enforcing laws against the possession and trafficking of more dangerous drugs.

St. Pierre concluded that "with nearly 17 million citizens arrested on marijuana-related charges since 1965, is now not the time for the state and federal governments to finally consider legally controlling marijuana via taxation? Is not such a public policy preferable to the current one where government arrests an extraordinary amount of citizens for an adult behavior that is not deviant, or, for that matter, dissimilar than consuming products that contain alcohol?"

YEAR MARIJUANA ARRESTS

2004 771,608
2003 755,187
2002 697,082
2001 723,627
2000 734,498
1999 704,812
1998 682,885
1997 695,200
1996 641,642
1995 588,963
1994 499,122
1993 380,689
--------------------------------------------------------
In one hour about 58 people get but in jail for something that harmed nobody and is less harmful than alcohol which a lot of people consume. The only reason marijuana is illegal is because it acts as a means of profit for the state. There is no profit in solving actual crimes like robbery or assault which is why the cops don’t really care, or have no incentive to solve these crimes. If you get your bike stolen they push some paper around and say they'll keep there eye out for it, but they'll never actually do any real police work like finding out who did it. --Moloch88

Parents Unable To Decide For Themselves

2005-12-22T12:27:00.000-08:00

Lead by the likes of Sen. Hillary Clinton, lawmakers are beginning to put the heat on video game retailers, asserting that too many violent and sexually explicit games are getting into the hands of minors despite the rating system.

"What we're talking about is keeping a harmful product like alcohol or porn or cigarettes … from underage children," said Clinton, D-N.Y.

Clinton is helping to lead the charge to pass a new bill that will make it a federal misdemeanor to sell games rated "mature" or higher to anyone under 17. Store managers who sell the games to children may face thousands of dollars in fines and hundreds of hours of community service.
Do Kids Have Access?
Children of some ABC News employees were easily able to buy M-rated games. A retailer sold a game featuring cannibalism to a 14-year-old girl.
Video game retailers say those kinds of incidents are aberrations.
"We think that retailers are doing a good job," said Sean Bersell of the Video Software Dealers Association. "Is there room for improvement? Definitely."
Legislation similar to the proposed federal law has been passed in California, Washington state, Michigan, Illinois, Indianapolis and St. Louis County, Mo. But many of those laws are on hold as courts decide whether they violate the right of free speech.
The video game industry says politics is behind the new effort to clamp down on video game retailers. It claims Democratic senators Clinton and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., are trying to appeal to values voters for rumored 2008 presidential runs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now as one that plays video games, these games are not as harmful as alcohol, and or cigarettes as a matter of fact there not even in the same category . Do these people actually think that playing a game that has cannibalism in it is actually going to make someone become a cannibal?? And this bill will pass because they have that whole protect the family thing, and then the republicans will back it because they don’t want to be seen as anti-family . And it will be a bi-partisan effort to help protect kids from violent video games. Because apparently the government doesn’t think you cant do you jobs as parents, apparently your just incapable of raising your children the way you see fit. You also apparently don’t know what your children should and should not view, and to top it off your opinion on what they view is invalid as well.
I think this is just the beginning, the Democrats will more than likely nominate Hillary as there Pres. candidate and we will see more legislation that takes the responsibility away from the parents and we will rely more and more on the government and developed no responsibility for ourselves.. --Moloch88

Now You Can Ask Me Why

2005-12-05T17:22:00.000-08:00

David Borden, Executive Director, borden@drcnet.org

Two weeks ago in my editorial titled "Tell Me Why," I confessed that after 12 years in the movement I am still uncertain as to how best to make the case for ending drug prohibition (e.g. legalization) during the 10 or 15 seconds that sometimes is all that's available, and I asked for readers suggestions for "sound bites" we can use.
More than 75 Chronicle readers responded to that request. Though not every response qualified as a 15-second sound bite, all of them had some use and intellectual value for thinking about the issue. Apologies go to those whose ideas I am not printing here -- the format does not permit a complete listing -- perhaps we will post a full compendium in the near future. Also, if you did not explicitly give me permission to use your name, I have not done so, unless you are a known public figure in this issue.
One e-mail titled "short and sweet" had a suggestion that indeed fit that bill: "Drug prohibition is a waste of time, resources, and lives. It hurts people who need our help. E-mail me at ___ and I'll tell you more." The advantage of this line, in addition to its shortness, is that it expresses the anti-prohibitionist viewpoint in terms of values that most people share -- not hurting people, especially the people we say we're trying to help, not wasting resources on a system that doesn't work. Something it doesn't do is provide the listener, who might think prohibition is helpful, with our arguments as to why it is not. But it is still pretty good, and giving out the e-mail address is a nice touch.
"It didn't work for alcohol, and it's not working for drugs" -- a succinct expression of an historical analogy that people are likely to understand. From the same reader: "It is a public health issue, not a criminal issue, and we don't lock up fat people." "Using drugs does not make you a criminal -- just ask George Bush." "The war on drugs creates more casualties worldwide than drug usage does." Another reader offered this one on the same idea: "We were smart enough to repeal alcohol prohibition. What's different?"
Another reader offered these among others: "Because legalization allows for regulation and control." "Because the last time somebody shot up the neighborhood in a liquor store turf war was the '30's." "Because I need protection from murderers and rapists
more than I need protection from junkies and stoners."
LEAP's Howard Wooldridge, whose picture with his horse and cross-country traveling companion Misty, said he has used the following throughout the nation with positive effect: "Why do cops want to legalize drugs? To focus on drunk drivers and child molesters, cut crime in half, and stop funding terrorists."
Bob Newland of South Dakota wrote, "There's a lot of evidence that prohibition laws create massive corruption and reduce the effectiveness of programs designed to help people who use harmful substances to excess."
Jay Fleming of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (whose "Cops Say Legalize Drugs -- Ask Me Why" t-shirt inspired this discussion) assured me you get used to this if you wear the t-shirt enough and had some great suggestions: "a 12-year-old can walk into a bar to try and buy alcohol and get thrown out. The same 12-year-old walks up to any drug dealer and get drugs." "The only one controlling the purity of drugs, where drugs are sold, to who, and where the profits go is the drug dealer. If you want to control something, it must be regulated." "There are no gangs fighting over whiskey territories or anything else that's legal. Gangs are fighting over territories covering drugs. Drug prohibition creates a black market with enormous profits that attracts the criminal element and gangs. With marijuana literally worth its weight in gold, as long as people can grow gold in their basement this will not stop."
"jackl" of the blogosphere suggested, "No one would suggest putting millions of alcohol consumers in prisons and their children in foster care as a way of 'protecting kids.'"
Mark Haden of Canada suggested, "All jails have lots of drugs in them. If prohibition does not work when we have individuals guarded and in cages it will not work on our streets," and "The black market [created by prohibition] produces violence, crime, disease, corruption and death and sets up a system that makes drugs widely available and engages our youth."
This one strives to cover a number of the many prohibition-related problems in a breath: "Because it doesn't work! Drugs are as plentiful as ever and almost everything we identify as the 'drug problem' is not inherent in the drugs but is a direct result of prohibition; such as: crime, violence, overflowing prisons, lack of treatment facilities, corruption, third world upheaval, the evisceration of civil rights, destroyed lives..."
Consistency is a prohibition issue: "Why have the presently illicit drugs been selected for prohibition while similar drugs have not?," Australia's Peter Watney wrote.
Then there is the futility and counterproductiveness of it: "Because 60 years of the present policy has made things worse." "Because there are more drug users dying today than when drugs were not prohibited."
A lot of people out there don't buy the freedom or rights argument for drugs, unfortunately (and inconsistently), but that doesn't make it unimportant. If this is the kind of argument you want to make, our readers had some ideas: "It is my mind and body." "Freedom to pursue happiness." "Freedom from incarceration." "Freedom to get into trouble. Freedom *not* to get into trouble." "Under what moral authority does one adult punish another adult for ingesting harmful substances?"
I was not thinking of marijuana-specific arguments when I put this question out, but that is an approach that many advocates take (because of marijuana's relative mildness and safety), and we got some suggestions for it: "Because 800,000 Americans are arrested each year for marijuana, which is clearly non-addictive and less harmful than alcohol." "No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose; it is a natural plant that has been used by humans for thousands of years. Also, it has a number of medicinal properties." Robert Holsinger excerpted from his blog: "Marihuana arrests mess up peoples' lives far more frequently than the herb itself."
More short and sweet ones: "End the drug war, save lives." "Because the fruits of drug prohibition are crime, corruption, violence and death." "90 years and still no light at the end of the tunnel" (Timothy Colgan of Washington state). "When drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs" (Robert Cook). "We've got bigger fish to fry, and better ways to spend our tax dollars" (also Robert Cook). "It just doesn't make sense when you look at the strategy and the results" -- good if you're not sure what someone's beliefs are, according to the author. "Prohibition is an experiment which has failed" (Dave Michon). "Because dealers don't ask for ID!"
"The war on drugs is a failure, it costs billions and has not stopped anyone from getting drugs if they want to. We should stop wasting tax money on a war that cannot be won any more than prohibition could stop drinking."
"Anytime you make something in demand illegal, you merely create a black market. Would you rather the profits go to criminals or farmers and taxes?" "Who do you want to control your children's access to drugs, drugstores or dealers?"
So, I could narrow these down more, but I'm not sure that would be helpful. The fact is that different advocates will feel more comfortable with different arguments, and different arguments will work better with different listeners in different situations. One the other hand, when there eventually is a specific media campaign to take this on, we may need to pick three or so and stick to them if we are to be effective. Let me know which ones are your favorites and how well they seem to work for you. And thanks again to all of you proffered suggestions. This is still a work in progress, but I feel more ready than before to say "now you can ask me why."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free. – Harry Browne (Libertarian Pres. Canadate)

Socialist School System

2005-11-27T18:41:00.000-08:00

It's no secret that the US educational system doesn't do a very good job. Like clockwork, studies show that America's schoolkids lag behind their peers in pretty much every industrialized nation. We hear shocking statistics about the percentage of high-school seniors who can't find the US on an unmarked map of the world or who don't know who Abraham Lincoln was.
Fingers are pointed at various aspects of the schooling system—overcrowded classrooms, lack of funding, teachers who can't pass competency exams in their fields, etc. But these are just secondary problems. Even if they were cleared up, schools would still suck. Why? Because they were designed to.
How can I make such a bold statement? How do I know why America's public school system was designed the way it was (age-segregated, six to eight 50-minute classes in a row announced by Pavlovian bells, emphasis on rote memorization, lorded over by unquestionable authority figures, etc.)? Because the men who designed, funded, and implemented America's formal educational system in the late 1800s and early 1900s wrote about what they were doing.
Almost all of these books, articles, and reports are out of print and hard to obtain. Luckily for us, John Taylor Gatto tracked them down. Gatto was voted the New York City Teacher of the Year three times and the New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991. But he became disillusioned with schools—the way they enforce conformity, the way they kill the natural creativity, inquisitiveness, and love of learning that every little child has at the beginning. So he began to dig into terra incognita, the roots of America's educational system.
In 1888, the Senate Committee on Education was getting jittery about the localized, non-standardized, non-mandatory form of education that was actually teaching children to read at advanced levels, to comprehend history, and, egads, to think for themselves. The committee's report stated, "We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes."
By the turn of the century, America's new educrats were pushing a new form of schooling with a new mission (and it wasn't to teach). The famous philosopher and educator John Dewey wrote in 1897:
Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.
In his 1905 dissertation for Columbia Teachers College, Elwood Cubberly—the future Dean of Education at Stanford—wrote that schools should be factories "in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products...manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry."
The next year, the Rockefeller Education Board—which funded the creation of numerous public schools—issued a statement which read in part:
In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.
At the same time, William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906, wrote:
Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.
In that same book, The Philosophy of Education, Harris also revealed:
The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places.... It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. School should develop the power to withdraw from the external world.
Several years later, President Woodrow Wilson would echo these sentiments in a speech to businessmen:
We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.
Writes Gatto: "Another major architect of standardized testing, H.H. Goddard, said in his book Human Efficiency (1920) that government schooling was about 'the perfect organization of the hive.'"
While President of Harvard from 1933 to 1953, James Bryant Conant wrote that the change to a forced, rigid, potential-destroying educational system had been demanded by "certain industrialists and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process."
In other words, the captains of industry and government explicitly wanted an educational system that would maintain social order by teaching us just enough to get by but not enough so that we could think for ourselves, question the sociopolitical order, or communicate articulately. We were to become good worker-drones, with a razor-thin slice of the population—mainly the children of the captains of industry and government—to rise to the level where they could continue running things.
This was the openly admitted blueprint for the public schooling system, a blueprint which remains unchanged to this day. Although the true reasons behind it aren't often publicly expressed, they're apparently still known within education circles. Clinical psychologist Bruce E. Levine wrote in 2001:
I once consulted with a teacher of an extremely bright eight-year-old boy labeled with oppositional defiant disorder. I suggested that perhaps the boy didn't have a disease, but was just bored. His teacher, a pleasant woman, agreed with me. However, she added, "They told us at the state conference that our job is to get them ready for the work world…that the children have to get used to not being stimulated all the time or they will lose their jobs in the real world."

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

2005-11-24T11:49:00.000-08:00

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.
It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.
The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them
The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.
The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.
In his `History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."
In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.
But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.
Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."
Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.
Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them !

Lying About Lies About Lying

2005-11-18T13:52:00.000-08:00

Lying About Lies About Lying
by Harry Browne

John Gibson is one of the more vocal Bush supporters on Fox-TV News. This past Tuesday his My Word segment was entitled "Everybody Thought There Were WMDs in Iraq."
Here are some excerpts from it:
The Democrats are making huge gains in public opinion on the line "Bush lied."
They have said it so often, many many people have come to believe it.
There is a certain flaw in the logic. The Dems never want to talk about the flaw, but here goes.
If Bush lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq, then he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

If he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, why would he send U.S. troops in to look for WMD and discover – for the world to see – that there weren't any WMD, and he lied?

Not even his opponents really think Bush is that stupid.

The truth is, no jokes, everybody thought there were WMDs – even the French.

Clinton thought so, Teddy Kennedy thought so, John Kerry thought so.

The question is what should have been done about it. . . .
What's going on now is revisionist history. Bush lied, no WMDs. All leading to the inevitable conclusion that all would be perfect in the world if nothing had happened and we were still watching Saddam Hussein run Iraq, steal Oil-for-Food billions, kill his political opponents and plot against his neighbors and us.
Remember, if Bush were going to lie about something, why would he send 150,000 U.S. troops to discover the lie and put it on display before the world and the American voter?
It's nonsense. . . .
Unfortunately, there’s a certain flaw in Mr. Gibson’s logic.
In fact, George Bush lied over and over. He may have believed his lies would somehow turn out to be true. But, nonetheless, he stated as fact assertions that he had no evidence for. He said Hussein had WMD; he didn't say Hussein might have WMD, or that it was his opinion that Hussein had WMD. He said he knew that Hussein had WMD. That was a lie.
As to the dumb Democrats and other world leaders having "believed" that Hussein had WMD, why wouldn't they believe it? After all, they all relied on what the Bush administration said. And with the Bush administration saying it had evidence that Hussein could attack the east coast of the U.S. with unmanned aircraft, why wouldn't they vote to invade Iraq?
As I said, Bush may have been hoping his assertions would turn out to be true – or at least enough of them to justify his brutality.
But, instead, none of them have turned out to be true – not even his argument that the world is a better place because of his invasion.
2,000 Americans are dead. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. Is this bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East? My God! Not one administration official has ever uttered one word of remorse for the Iraqis who have died in George Bush's futile effort to prove himself.
When George Bush says "the defense of freedom is always worth it," to whom is it worth it? Those poor Iraqis who were slaughtered or lost their homes in Fallujah? The innocent women and children who happened to be in the way of the cluster bombs dropped by the U.S. Air Force? Don't those people count as human beings? Or is it only the posturing politicians whose fate is important?
The fact remains that George Bush lied about having evidence of WMDs, mobile laboratories, aluminum tubes, unmanned aircraft that could carry WMDs to America's east coast, ballistic missiles that could threaten the whole Middle East, uranium purchases in Africa, Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and a few other things.
It is time for thoughtful commentators to stop playing lapdog for the Republican Party. Abandoning George Bush doesn't mean climbing in the lap of Al Gore or John Kerry. It simply means starting to think for yourself and not echoing any party line.

Is that such a sacrifice?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, That I am meek and gentle with these butchers! Thou art the ruins of the noblest man That ever lived in the tide of times. Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood! Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,- Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips, To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue- A curse shall light upon the limbs of men; Domestic fury and fierce civil strife Shall cumber all the parts of Italy ; Blood and destruction shall be so in use And dreadful objects so familiar That mothers shall but smile when they behold Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war; All pity choked with custom of fell deeds: And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge, With Ate by his side come hot from hell, Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial."- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

Handgun Ban

2005-11-10T11:32:00.000-08:00

San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city. The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.
Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year compared to 70 in all of 2003.
"The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it," he said. "Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city." The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a "pre-emption law" on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.
"The amazing thing is they are going to turn San Francisco into ground zero for every criminal who wants to profit at their chosen profession," Paredes said. "People are going to be assaulted, people are going to be robbed, people are going to be pushed around by thugs and the police are going to be powerless to do anything about it."
Under the language of the measure, the ban would not apply police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment."
If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns.
Five supervisors on Tuesday submitted the proposed ban directly to the Department of Elections, one more than the minimum needed to get the measure on the ballot without signatures from registered voters. The next election is scheduled for November 2005, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has talked about calling a special election before then.
Besides Daly, the sponsors include Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Matt Gonzalez, the outgoing president of the 11-member Board of Supervisors. Consisting of four Democrats and a Green Party member, the group is nonetheless considered "ideologically diverse" by San Francisco standards, Barnes said.
How many residents would be affected by the ban is unclear, since California does not require residents to register handguns that are kept in a private residence of business. Only 10 people in San Francisco have been issued concealed weapons permits allowing them to carry guns and the city has only three licensed gun dealers, Barnes said.
Washington, D.C. is the only major American city that currently bans handgun possession by private citizens. Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said San Francisco officials are remiss to use the District of Columbia's experience as a model.
"If gun control worked, Washington, D.C. would be the beacon. However, it's the murder capital of the United States," Arulanandam said.
Penalties for violations have not been set, but would be recommended by the mayor in consultation with the police chief, the sheriff and the district attorney, according to language in the measure. Barnes said that since initiative was crafted with input from the city attorney's office and an outside consultant to avoid potential conflicts with state law, the supervisors were confident it would withstand legal scrutiny.
"We'll see when and if it's litigated," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", that is my favorite part of the constitution. Because this backs the rest of the constitution, if this right is infringed then you HAVE NO RIGHTS. These stupid people have no idea what they just did, they have unarmed themselves, now the only people with guns are the criminals and they are not going to turn in there guns because they break the law. Also while there at it lets just ban everything that can hurt someone lets ban; baseball bats, hockey sticks, and also I for one have big hands, I could probably kill someone with my hands lets ban hands as well because people could get hurt.

The Real Question

2005-10-28T15:02:00.000-07:00

I agree with Patrick Henrys quote, “give me liberty or give me death,” John F Kennedy once remarked, “those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable”. As I see more and more cases against the government shatter and fail in the government’s corrupt court system I come closer and closer to believing Mr. Henry’s death part might become necessary. I hope that we can restore liberty of are nations citizens without bloodshed but at the same time I believe that we must be prepared to shed blood to protect are rights. If someone is attacking me I believe I have not only the right but the moral obligation to fight back. With lethal force if necessary . Our government attacks are citizens with lethal weapons everyday, at what point does enough become enough, how many times does are cause need to be crushed by corrupt prosecutors and judges before we take up arms and excise the corruption. How many people have to be killed by the DEA, before we start killing them back….If violence is the only language they understand, at what point do we start talking in there language? If defending ourselves, our families, are property, and are liberty with lethal force becomes are only recourse how do we fight them using violence without becoming them? These are difficult questions and I don’t have the answers and I believe one day soon we may have to make the decision of weather defending are rights or our neighbors rights requires pulling the trigger. The best advise I have gotten this far from studying history is, “Never start a fight. Always finish it.” Well the socialist and the statist have started the fight and are killing the ones we love the most, there robbing our people, there stealing are peoples land. I don’t think I have to quote Pastor Niemoller poem to point out that by the time they come to your door to take your land or your money or your loved ones, it might just be too late. The question we libertarians, and freedom lovers must ask ourselves is do we have what it takes to finish this fight?

--Moloch88--

Wal-Mart Warms to the State

2005-10-28T12:12:00.000-07:00

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

H. Lee Scott, Jr., the CEO of Wal-Mart, surprised many by calling for an increase in the minimum wage. And what accolades were heaped on him! The company was even cast in a new role, from the exploiter of workers to the responsible advocate of pro-worker policies. And how selfless, for who has to pay such higher wages but companies like Wal-Mart? And thus do we see a corporation set aside its business interests on behalf of the long-term interests of society. The whole thing befuddled Wal-Mart haters as much as it disgusted its free-market defenders. Ted Kennedy wouldn't go so far as to praise the company, but he did say that "If the CEO of Wal-Mart can call for an increase in the minimum wage, the Republicans should follow suit on behalf of the millions of working men and women living in poverty." Other lefties just wouldn't believe it. The spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch said that Scott's call for a higher wage floor was "disingenuous and laughable." And yet, let us think this through. Might there be another reason Wal-Mart would advocate a higher minimum wage? Before looking at the evidence, let's do some a priori theorizing based on the history of US corporate regulation. Historians such as Robert Higgs, Butler Shaffer, Dominick Armentano, and Gabriel Kolko have chronicled how the rise of business regulation, including intervention in market wages, was pushed by large companies for one main reason: to impose higher costs on smaller competitors.
This is how child labor legislation, mandated pensions, labor union impositions, health and safety regulations, and the entire panoply of business regimentation came about. It was pushed by big businesses that had already absorbed the costs of these practices into their profit margins so as to burden smaller businesses that did not have these practices. Regulation is thus a violent method of competition.
Think of it this way. Let's say you run a retail coffee shop that sells only "fair trade" coffee, which is expensive to acquire, but for which consumers are willing to pay a high price. All is going swimmingly until a competitor shows up and sells unfair coffee that tastes just as good for half the price. Let's say consumers begin to change their minds about the merit of your "fair trade" coffee and your profits fall. You must make a change to survive. You can compete by offering a wider range of choice. Or you can lobby the local government in the name of "social responsibility" (oh, such high ideals!) to require that all coffee sold in your town be "fair trade." Who does that benefit? Your company. Who does it hurt? Their company. Moving from theory to reality, we find that this is precisely what Wal-Mart is up to. The hint comes from the news stories: "Wal-Mart maintains that it pays above the current $5.15 an hour minimum wage to its employees."
Now, most readers might just look at this as a case of leading by example. Would that everyone were as fair as the wonderful Wal-Mart! But a second look suggests another interpretation, namely that it wants to slam its smaller competition, which will be seriously harmed by having to pay more for labor. The current minimum is $5.15. According to studies, Wal-Mart pays between $8.23 and $9.68 as its national average. That means that the minimum wage could be raised 50% and still not impose higher costs on the company. Wal-Mart itself makes even more elaborate claims on Walmartfacts.com: "The national average for regular hourly Wal-Mart wages is nearly twice the federal minimum wage, and higher in urban areas." If true, the national minimum could be raised by 100% and leave the company unaffected.
So who would it affect if not Wal-Mart? All of its main competition. And the truth is that there are millions of businesses that compete with it every day. Many local stores have attempted to copy Wal-Mart's price-competitive model, but face lower costs and can actually thrive. There are many ways to compete with Wal-Mart. Not all shoppers like sprawling stores. Others like better service with more experts on the floor. Others just hate crowds. But a main way to compete is to hire lower-priced labor. This could mean that your employees are from a "lower" rung on the social ladder, but they too need opportunities. The savings can be reflected in other amenities that Wal-Mart does not offer. There can be non-standardized products otherwise not available. The location might be better. Even prices for goods can be lower. Even similar stores such as K-Mart can pay lower wages and that can make the margin of difference. K-Mart pays over a much wider range, as low as $6.75 an hour. A major competitor is mainstream grocery stores, where workers do indeed start at minimum wage. Target too pays starting employees less than Wal-Mart, if the Target Union can be believed. Now, if Wal-Mart can successfully lobby the government to abolish lower-wage firms, it has taken a huge step toward running out its competition. The effect of requiring other firms to pay wages just as high as theirs is the same as if the company lobbied to force other companies to purchase only in high quantities, to open large stores only, or to stay open 24 hours. By making others do what Wal-Mart does, the company manages to put the squeeze on anyone who would dare vie for its customer base.
Now here is the great irony. The left has long been in a total frenzy about how Wal-Mart saunters into small towns and outcompetes long-established local retailers. Wal-Mart's opponents have whipped themselves into a frenzy about the company's success, claiming that it always comes at a huge social cost. Now, most of this rhetoric is overblown and ignorant. Wal-Mart would not have made any profits or grown as it has without having convinced the consuming public to purchase from the store. Consumers could put the company out of business tomorrow, just by failing to show up to buy. The left's claims of unfair practices would be valid if Wal-Mart did indeed work to impose legal disabilities on its competitors – in effect making it illegal to outcompete the company. And yet that is precisely what raising the minimum wage would do: impose a legal disability on those companies engaged in lower-wage competition with Wal-Mart. So the economically ignorant left advocates raising the minimum wage. Thus has our CEO friend Mr. Scott discovered a viciously devious tactic. He sees a way to drive out the competition by doing precisely what Wal-Mart's biggest critics are advocating! And what will be the result? Wal-Mart's share of the market will go up, and its degree of cartelization over the mass consumer market will increase, not by market means but through government intervention. Then we can expect the left to once again fly into another hysteria about the size and growth of the company – totally oblivious to how they worked to bring it about.
Free-market advocates who have long defended Wal-Mart can only be disgusted at this shift in the company's methods from competing on market grounds to calling for the state to crush its competition. Even more disgusting is how the company can count on the economic ignorance of its critics to help do it. The minimum wage should not be raised but abolished. If free competition and a non-monopolized market are what you favor, you too should favor abolishing the minimum wage. In a purely free market, Wal-Mart would discover that there are indeed limits to growth, and that others are willing and able to learn from its successes.
-------------------------------------------------------
Low-income workers as a group are the major victims of minimum wage legislation. – Keith B. Leffler

Myths About Gun Control

2005-10-23T18:31:00.000-07:00

Myths About Gun Control

By John Stossel
Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.
"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.
Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.
I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."
"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."
Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.
A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you going to rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."
What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"
In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.
Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.
And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.
What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
-------------------------------------------------
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

The Police State Is Closer Than You Think

2005-10-12T15:12:00.000-07:00

Police states are easier to acquire than Americans appreciate.
The hysterical aftermath of September 11 has put into place the main components of a police state. Habeas corpus is the greatest protection Americans have against a police state. Habeas corpus ensures that Americans can only be detained by law. They must be charged with offenses, given access to attorneys, and brought to trial. Habeas corpus prevents the despotic practice of picking up a person and holding him indefinitely.
President Bush claims the power to set aside habeas corpus and to dispense with warrants for arrest and with procedures that guarantee court appearance and trial without undue delay. Today in the US, the executive branch claims the power to arrest a citizen on its own initiative and hold the citizen indefinitely. Thus, Americans are no longer protected from arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention. These new "seize and hold" powers strip the accused of the protective aspects of law and give rein to selectivity and arbitrariness. No warrant is required for arrest, no charges have to be presented before a judge, and no case has to be put before a jury. As the police are unaccountable, whoever is selected for arrest is at the mercy of arbitrariness. The judiciary has to some extent defended habeas corpus against Bush’s attack, but the protection that the principle offers against arbitrary seizure and detention has been breached. Whether courts can fully restore habeas corpus or whether it continues in weakened form or passes by the wayside remains to be determined.
Americans may be unaware of what it means to be stripped of the protection of habeas corpus, or they may think police authorities would never make a mistake or ever use their unbridled power against the innocent. Americans might think that the police state will only use its powers against terrorists or "enemy combatants."
But "terrorist" is an elastic and legally undefined category. When the President of the United States declares: "You are with us or against us," the police may perceive a terrorist in a dissenter from the government’s policies. Political opponents may be regarded as "against us" and thereby fall in the suspect category. Or a police officer may simply have his eye on another man’s attractive wife or wish to settle some old score. An enemy combatant might simply be an American who happens to be in a foreign country when the US invades. In times before our own when people were properly educated, they understood the injustices that caused the English Parliament to pass the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 prohibiting the arbitrary powers that are now being claimed for the executive branch in the US. The PATRIOT Act has given the police autonomous surveillance powers. These powers were not achieved without opposition. Civil libertarians opposed it. Bob Barr, the former US Representative who led the impeachment of President Clinton, fought to limit some of the worst features of the act. But the act still bristles with unconstitutional violations of the rights of citizens, and the newly created powers of government to spy on citizens has brought an end to privacy.
The prohibition against self-incrimination protects the accused from being tortured into confession. The innocent are no more immune to pain than the guilty. As Stalin’s show trials demonstrated, even the most committed leaders of the Bolshevik revolution could be tortured into confessing to be counterrevolutionaries.
The prohibition against torture has been breached by the practice of plea bargaining, which replaces jury trials with negotiated self-incrimination, and by sentencing guidelines, which transfer sentencing discretion from judge to prosecutor. Plea bargaining is a form of psychological torture in which innocent and guilty alike give up their right to jury trial in order to reduce the number and severity of the charges that the prosecutor brings. The prohibition against physical torture, however, held until the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. As video, photographic, and testimonial evidence make clear, the US military has been torturing large numbers of people in its Iraq prisons and in its prison compound at Guantanamo, Cuba. Most of the detainees were people picked up in the equivalent of KGB Stalin-era street sweeps. Having no idea who the detainees are and pressured to produce results, torture was applied to coerce confessions.
Everyone is disturbed about this barbaric and illegal practice except the Bush administration. In an amendment to a $440 billion defense budget bill last Wednesday, the US Senate voted 90 to 9 to ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in US government custody. President Bush responded to the Senate’s will by repeating his earlier threat to veto the bill. Allow me to torture, demands Bush of the Senate, or you will be guilty of delaying the military’s budget during wartime. Bush is threatening the Senate with blame for the deaths of US soldiers who will die because they don’t get their body armor or humvee armor in time.
It will be a short step from torturing detainees abroad to torturing the accused in US jails and prisons. The attorney-client privilege, another great achievement, has been breached by the Lynne Stewart case. As the attorney for a terrorist, Stewart represented her client in ways disapproved by prosecutors. Stewart was indicted, tried, and convicted of providing material support to terrorists. Stewart’s indictment sends a message to attorneys not to represent too dutifully or aggressively clients who are unpopular or demonized. Initially, this category may be limited to terrorists. However, once the attorney-client privilege is breached, any attorney who gets too much in the way of a prosecutor’s case may experience retribution. The intimidation factor can result in an attorney presenting a weak defense. It can even result in attorneys doing as the Benthamite US Department of Justice (sic) desires and helping to convict their client. In the Anglo-American legal tradition, law is a shield of the accused. This is necessary in order to protect the innocent. The accused is innocent until he is proven guilty in an open court. There are no secret tribunals, no torture, and no show trials. Outside the Anglo-American legal tradition, law is a weapon of the state. It may be used with careful restraint, as in Europe today, or it may be used to destroy opponents or rivals as in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
When the protective features of the law are removed, law becomes a weapon. Habeas corpus, due process, the attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, and prohibitions against torture and ex post facto laws are the protective features that shield the accused. These protective features are being removed by zealotry in the "war against terrorism." The damage terrorists can inflict pales in comparison to the loss of the civil liberties that protect us from the arbitrary power of law used as a weapon. The loss of law as Blackstone’s shield of the innocent would be catastrophic. It would mean the end of America as a land of liberty.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! – Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany.

10 Ways To Reclaim Liberty

2005-10-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

10 Ways To Reclaim Liberty:

10. Practice The Golden Rule — no not the one that states, “He who owns the gold makes the rules.” The one that says, “Treat others as you want to be treated.” By practicing this rule, aggression in the world is substantially reduced. Since government is aggressive force, then very few individuals ever ask, beg, request or demand that government do anything for them, thereby allowing individual liberty to flourish.

9. Promote the idea that individuals be allowed to seek their own medical care in their own way. By eliminating Medicare, the cost of health care decreases, making it affordable for more individuals and allows individuals to seek their own solutions to their own medical needs.

8. Promote the idea of individuals seeking their own method of accumulating funds for retirement. By eliminating Social Security, individuals are free to accumulate as much
money as they desire through their own means for their retirement years.

7. Allow true free trade to exist without any barriers. By eliminating trade restrictions, the cost of goods and services to consumers is reduced, resulting in more individuals sharing in the world’s wealth substantially reducing the number of individuals living in poverty.

6. Allow individuals to establish their own business without having to obtain permission from government. By eliminating licensing laws, again the costs to consumers of goods and services is reduced and individuals are taught to be responsible for their own actions.

5. Allow individuals to use their property as they wish without interference from government. By eliminating zoning laws, individuals are encouraged to speak with their neighbors before changing the use of their property, resulting in less litigation and antagonism.

4. Allow individuals to seek the best type of education for their children. By eliminating government from the education equation, individuals are allowed to find the proper type of education for their families, and teachers and administrators are in a better position to design an educational program to fit the needs of individual families without being forced to serve a “one size fits all” program. Since there is less tax to pay, education is more affordable and additional sources of funds become available from which families could tap.

3. Allow individuals to protect their own life and property without fear of incrimination. By allowing individuals to defend themselves without necessary approval from government, there is less need for inspections at airports, less crime and more individual freedom.

2. Allow individuals to decide what money is and how much of it ought to be in circulation. By eliminating the Federal Reserve System, the business cycle is unheard of, inflation is reduced to practically zero and more individuals are able to share in the productive wealth produced by others.

1. And the number one way to reclaim liberty is to allow individuals to keep all of the income they earn and to spend it as they wish. Eliminating the income tax allows for the opportunity for the previous nine activities to take place, especially the golden rule.
Social Security, Medicare, public welfare, public spending, public schooling, income taxation, economic regulation, trade restrictions and central banking were all characteristics of 1938 Germany. As a matter of fact, they are all characteristics of today’s Cuba, North Korea, Iran and other places where individual liberty is rare.

The Party Of Principle

FBI to get veto power over PC software?

2005-10-06T18:59:00.000-07:00

The Federal Communications Commission thinks you have the right to use software on your computer only if the FBI approves.
No, really. In an obscure "policy" document released around 9 p.m. ET last Friday, the FCC announced this remarkable decision.
According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that characterizes today's Internet, "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement." Read the last seven words again.
The FCC didn't offer much in the way of clarification. But the clearest reading of the pronouncement is that some unelected bureaucrats at the commission have decreeed that Americans don't have the right to use software such as Skype or PGPfone if it doesn't support mandatory backdoors for wiretapping. (That interpretation was confirmed by an FCC spokesman on Monday, who asked not to be identified by name. Also, the announcement came at the same time as the FCC posted its wiretapping rules for Internet telephony.)
Nowhere does the commission say how it jibes this official pronouncement with, say, the First Amendment's right to speak freely, not to mention the limited powers granted the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
What's also worth noting is that the FCC's pronunciamento almost tracks the language of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Almost.
But where federal law states that it is the policy of the United States to preserve a free market for Internet services "unfettered by federal or state regulation," the bureaucrats have adroitly interpreted that to mean precisely the opposite of Congress said. Ain't that clever?
Here is the document in pdf form

Public Schools

2005-10-04T14:06:00.000-07:00

To me, one of the most important causes for libertarians is to abolish Public Schools.
The Public Schools train our kids to be statist, worshipers of the state.
The best way to achieve liberty in our lifetime, and make sure we keep it for future generations, is to completely separate government from education -- any government, from any education.
When kids start studying the Declaration of Independence (Not the part court historians that worship Lincoln selectively notice, but the part that says all government is given its power by consent of the governed), The Constitution, and the Articles of Confederations, they will learn why our founders hated paper money, hated taxes, and hated protectionism (at least Madison hated protectionist tariffs). Another thing is the public schools don't teach kids how to read. 70% of people in this country can't read above a 5th grade level, and 50% can't read beyond an 8th grade level -- at least according to an article I read awhile ago about car seat manuals. The article recommended a law to force car seat manual writers to write at a 5th grade level. (They were written at 10th.)
The public schools don't teach kids to think. In fact, they are designed to teach kids not the think. To be sheep. To cause strict separations between the elite classes and the masses.
The goal of the public school, is not to channel a students courage, but to make him incapable of being courageous about anything. As John Taylor Gatto says, "The problem with public education, isn't that it's not working. It's that it is working and it's doing exactly what it's suppose to."
The public schools also tend to teach kids that pleasure and and accumulating things are the ultimate goals. Hedonism and materialism are the gods the public schools teach kids to believe in. With kids addicted to that kind of thinking, it's no wonder kids can't think, read, write, or add. It's not that public schools have digressed. It's that they were designed to do this from the start. He writes, "Now, you needn't have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident."
Add to that the lies the public schools are teaching our kids: That our country is a democracy (It's not, it's a Constitutional Federation based on the rule of law, not on the rule of ; That Lincoln was the great emancipator (He wasn't ); That FDR Saved us from the great depreciation. (Actually Wilson caused it by expanding the money supply, and Roosevelt was the one that made it great.)
It's no wonder the majority of our population is statists and believes it's OK to use government to plunder their neighbors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brothers and Sister, are democracy has been hi-jacked, brothers and sisters, are electoral freedoms in this country are over, so long as they are controled by corporations, brothers and sisters we are not going to allow these streets to be taken over by the democrates or the republicans - Zach De La Rocha (RATM)

New Feature

2005-10-02T21:50:00.000-07:00

I have just added a new feature to this website called "rebel radio", where I showcase the best rebel music out there and each week I will give you a new song and artist. In the future you will be able to stream music from this web site, But for now the link is below and it will also be located in the side bar..

Link

Libertarian 'Serenity'

2005-09-30T13:49:00.000-07:00

Calling all freedom-lovers, libertarians, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists:
Go see this movie, in theaters September 30th!!!
Let me preface this by saying that I have not yet seen the movie. I have no idea whether it is good or not. But that is entirely irrelevant. By purchasing a ticket to see Serenity – regardless of whether the movie turns out to be a masterpiece or a dud – you are exercising your democratic right to vote in the free market for libertarian-themed media. One Dollar, One Vote!
That said, I fully expect good things from this movie. After all, Serenity is based on the most consistently libertarian TV show I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing (Firefly). What other TV show is set post-Civil War and is told from the point of view of a defeated Secessionist war veteran now-turned free-trade smuggler, struggling to retain his freedom and avoid the long arm of Empire? The civilians in the outlying territories protect themselves with guns, the law is localized, the Federal government is looked on with (at best) distrust, and geishas are cast as honorable capitalist professionals.
The fact that the show is set as a sci-fi space-western is entirely inconsequential. Firefly is libertarian through-and-through. If I had to sum up the plot in one sentence, however: it depicts the adventures of a young Han Solo (from Star Wars) after the Empire defeated the secessionists, but with more involved character development, better acting, and crisper dialogue. It is truly addictive
Sadly, but not surprisingly, the show was literally run into the ground by Fox. Fox relegated the show to the Friday 8PM time slot (no-man’s land), showed the episodes out of order (such that they made no sense), and then cancelled the show mid-season.
By voting with our wallets, we as libertarians have the opportunity to show Fox – and other studios – two things. First, that the show Firefly needs to be resurrected, and second, that the market screams for more libertarian-themed and intelligently-crafted media!
What are you waiting for?
Order or rent the DVD of Firefly, and go see Serenity this weekend!
----------------------------------------------------
I will give a complete review after I see this movie in my Movies section..

Take my love.
Take my land.
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don’t care, I’m still free.
You can’t take the sky from me.
Take me out
to the black.
Tell ’em I ain’t coming’ back.
Burn the land and boil the sea.
You can’t take the sky from me.
Have no place
I can be
Since I found Serenity.

~ Theme Ballad of Firefly

NYPD Unplugs Cindy Sheehan

2005-09-21T16:34:00.000-07:00

They can’t stop the antiwar movement, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying. On Monday, September 19 Cindy Sheehan spoke in New York City’s Union Square to a group of supporters and onlookers when police rushed in to break up her speech as it was winding down.

"I was speaking and someone grabbed my backpack and pulled me back pretty roughly," Sheehan told the Associated Press. "I was shoved around."

Police arrested organizer Paul Zulkowitz, who was charged with disorderly conduct as well as for using an unauthorized sound device. For anybody that has been through Union Square in the past few weeks, you’ve probably seen Zulkowitz (aka Zool) who heads up "Camp Casey NYC," a small group of local activists who set up an encampment over a month ago to show their solidarity for Sheehan’s quest to end the Iraq war. Zool’s arrest was most likely a coordinated effort meant to disrupt the ongoing antiwar vigil.
"Since when can't you talk out here in Union Square?" an Upper West Side social worker told the Village Voice following the incident. "I've seen everyone and their mother come out and speak nonsense out here in this park, and for them to shut down Cindy Sheehan is just not right."
There is no question that the New York Police Department overreacted. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve personally shuffled through Union Square where musicians and others were plugged into (unauthorized, I am sure) amplifiers – singing their tunes or spewing their political propaganda. And never once I have I seen a police officer run in and pull the Bob Dylan or Abbie Hoffman wannabe from his microphone. No, there’s a reason why they targeted Cindy Sheehan and not these fellows.
Quashing Cindy is a different issue altogether, and it carries a lot more weight. For starters Sheehan is actually being heard and getting her fair share of media coverage. She is proof that the antiwar movement is gaining speed. And that’s a dangerous predicament for those that support Bush’s dubious war, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is clearly plotting his own trajectory within the Republican establishment. Unplugging Sheehan undoubtedly scored Bloomberg a few brownie points with the Bush cartel – as if jailing 1,8000 protestors during the Republican National Convention wasn’t enough.
Silencing Cindy Sheehan in Union Square should show us all what we are really up against. Over 1,900 US troops have died thus far in Iraq, not to mention countless civilians. And for what? The NYPD and government officials don’t want us to ask that important question, which means we have to be even more vigilant in our efforts to expose Bush’s war for the fraud that it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never deemed it fundamental for the United States ever to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823)

What Noble Cause?

2005-09-19T15:10:00.000-07:00

By Cindy Sheehan

It has been one month, one week, and 4 days since I sat in a ditch in Crawford, Texas. My request was simple: I wanted to speak to the man who has sent over a million of our young people to fight, kill, and die in a country that was absolutely no threat to the United States of America. I wanted to ask him: "What is the Noble Cause that you keep talking about?" Well, we all know now that George Bush never came down the road to talk to me. Thank God! Many people have been saying that I am the "spark," "catalyst," "face" of the anti-war movement, etc. I beg to differ. George Bush and his arrogant advisers are the spark that lit the prairie fire of peace activism that has swept over America and the entire world. If he had met with me that fateful day in August, it would not have been good for him (because I knew he was going to lie and I would have advertised that fact), but it would have had less of an impact on the peace movement if he had. Upon reflection on the events of this past August, I have come up with two reasons why George could not meet with me: He is a coward and there is no Noble Cause. If George had as much courage and integrity in his entire body as Casey had in his pinky, he would have met with me. But, ironically, if George had that much courage and integrity, he never would have preemptively invaded a practically defenseless country. His sycophantic cabinet and hangers-on are also incontrovertible evidence that he is a coward. No one had better disagree with him. How dare a mom from Vacaville, California, have the nerve to contradict the emperor of Prairie Chapel Road?
All of the "Noble Cause" reasons that George has variously given for the invasion and continued illegal occupation of a sovereign nation are also patently false and ridiculous. He has been claiming recently (since he admitted a long time ago that Iraq had no WMDs or links to 9/11) that this occupation of Iraq is spreading "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East. Really? Does he have any idea that the constitution that the Iraqi governing body is working on is based on Sharia and that it undermines the freedoms of women? Does he realize that for over 50 years women had equal rights with men in Iraq? Does George realize (of course he does) that the puppet government the US put in place in Iraq is comprised of the very same people who encouraged the invasion to line their own pockets? What kind of freedom and democracy is this?
If George is so hellbent on freedom and democracy for Iraq, then why doesn't he practice them here in America? Up to 62 percent of Americans believe that what George has done in Iraq is a mistake and we should begin to bring our troops home. Well, George, 62 percent is a clear majority and you should begin to listen to the people who pay your salary. He has also claimed that what we are doing in Iraq is "making America safer." This statement is even easier to disprove than the "freedom and democracy" baloney. To refute this little bit of deception, all we have to do is look at the Gulf states. Ask the people of New Orleans, especially, if they feel safer. By misappropriating all of our personnel and equipment, and pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the sands of Iraq, George has made our country more vulnerable to attack by outside forces. Also, from the cold and callous statements of people like Michael Chertoff and George's own mama, the people of New Orleans seem to be "acceptable" collateral damage to the ruling elite of this country. It is my opinion that the only thing that will make America safer is to get George and his unfeeling and dangerously incompetent supporters out of our White House.
We all now know the reason that we are in Iraq. George told us so from a break he was taking from Crawford in San Diego on the same day that Katrina was hitting the Gulf States: it is for oil. It is so George, Dick, and their evil buddies can extract more money and power from our children's flesh and blood. This is not a Noble Cause. It is a highly ignoble one. We as Americans knew either in the front of our brains, or in the back of our consciousness, that this war was to feed the corporate state. Fifteen brave young Americans have been killed so far this month while our attention has been focused, and rightfully so, on the Gulf states. More than 200 innocent and unfortunate Iraqis have been killed this week alone. How much more blood are we going to allow George, Congress, and the state-connected corporations to spill before we demand an end to this war and an accounting for the lives that have been needlessly ruined? It is also time to stop hemorrhaging money in Iraq. I witnessed the abject poverty and sense of abandonment the less fortunate people of New Orleans were living in even before the levees broke. It is time to start taking care of Americans. How many millions of our tax dollars are we going to allow George, Congress, and the special-interest corporations to misuse and waste in Iraq?
Not one more drop of blood. Not one more life. Not one more penny for killing.
If you love our country and want to see a change for the better, come to DC on the 24th of this month and stand up and be counted for peace. The whole world is counting on you.
---------------------------------------------------------
Once there was a man who said,
“Range me all men of the world in rows.”
And instantly
There was terrific clamour among the people
Against being ranged in rows.
There was a loud quarrel, world-wide.
It endured for ages;
And blood was shed
By those who would not stand in rows,
And by those who pined to stand in rows.
Eventually, the man went to death, weeping.
And those who stayed in bloody scuffle
Knew not the great simplicity.

THE TORTURE OF CHIEF IRON THUNDERHORSE

2005-09-18T14:45:00.000-07:00

On June 7th, 2005, ranking officers of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), at the Polunsky Unit in Livingston, Texas, attacked an elderly and legally blind inmate, Iron Thunderhorse, while he was attempting to go to the chowhall. They knocked the glasses and UV shields from his face and sprayed chemical pepper spray directly in his eyes. They proceeded to spray him all over with the chemical irritant, kicking him and wrenching his crippled arm behind his back.
For weeks, Iron had been denied entry into the chowhall, or any food at all, as the TDCJ was attempting to starve him into complying with an order to submit to a haircut, despite the fact that a federal court had recently upheald that his civil rights were being violated. This was the latest outrage in a struggle that has been going on for almost thirty years.
After being railroaded by the FBI's COINTELPRO program, along with many other dissidents and activists around the country, in the early 70s, Iron went to court to assert his rights as a Native American spiritual practicioner. He got off the bus from jail to prison armed with a court order requiring the TDCJ to respect these rights, including his right to wear long hair. He was met by the warden and a "goon squad" of inmate "building tenders" armed with baseball bats and axe handles. The warden tore up Iron's court order and had his "goons" beat Iron unconscious and then forcibly cut his hair.
Year after year, Iron has suffered repeated beatings and torture, including years in solitary confinement in the sweltering Texas heat. His blindness stems from repeated gassings and being sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray. His body is covered with scars, only a few of which he received as a soldier in Vietnam.
Iron is the hereditary chief of the Quinnipiac Renapi, a branch of the greater Lenape Nation, whose homeland runs along the Quinnipiac River in Connecticut. His people have the dubious distinction of being the first North American tribe to be placed on a reservation by the English settlers at New Haven, in the early 1600s.
Iron's long ordeal began when he stopped at a diner for a cup of coffee on his way home from work, more than thirty years ago. Some of the local Connecticut white boys, who saw him pull up on his classic Indian motorcycle, thought it might be fun to give this long-haired Indian a hair cut.
After years in the rough and tumble Indian boarding schools, his muscles now hardened by long hours of construction work, Iron defended himself well. It was a clear case of self-defense, but the white boys were sons of the local establisment, and so the cops arrested Iron. But this was the least of his problems, as the white boys, enraged by their deserved ass-whipping, began to stalk Iron waiting for a chance to get revenge. It happened one winter night when two of them spotted his car and gave chase. They ran the car off the road, but Iron wasn't in it.
After the highway patrol informed him that his young wife and child had been killed in the resulting "accident," Iron begain drinking heavily. Then he donned his war-paint, got on his motorcycle, and went looking for revenge. He found the boys before the police did, and when they arrived, they arrested Iron for aggravated assault. It was then that the Army stepped in, and Iron was released into the custody of a coloniel recruiting for special service in Vietnam.
Having frequently run away from boarding school, Iron fine-tuned the woodlands skills he had been taught as a child by living off the land in wilderness areas. These skills, coupled with the rage he was going through, made him an ideal candidate for the covert operations he was groomed for at Fort Bragg and other army training schools. Placed under the direction of the CIA, Iron was sent to Vietnam, where he took part in secret operations, as well as elsewhere in S.E. Asia. But eventually, he and his team refused to obey an illegal order, and they were sent back to California and discharged.
Iron gravitated to the American Indian Movement (AIM) and to others standing up to the system, and he became a target of COINTELPRO, the FBIs illegal campaign to infiltrate, entrap, frame-up, assassinate and otherwize suppress activists in the anti-war and other movements for social justice that had emerged in the 60s. Their intent was to lock him up and throw away the key.
Iron went into prison in top physical condition and highly trained in martial arts. Over the years, he fended off several attempts to assassinate him, but now his health is precarious and he is virtually blind. "I suffer from corneal dystrophy and have cataracts and open angle glaucoma, my corneas no longer produce tears," Iron wrote in a complaint over the June 7th attack, explaining the excruciating pain he was in when he was at last taken to the medical unit. "Lt. Lawrence and Sgt. Sheffield refused to allow the duty nurse to conduct a proper PHD exam....Officers refused her admonishment to un-handcuff me due to excruciating pain in [my] shoulder." Iron had a pass, repeatedly renewed by doctors since 1992, prohibiting his being cuffed behind his back due to his crippled arm. This was confiscated after the attack.
"Officers refused to allow the nurse to flush my eyes with water or otherwise decontaminate my person from the pepper spray. The OC pepper spray saturated both eyes, face, head, ear canals, neck, torso, arms, palms, buttocks and thighs. Officers kept saying, 'LET HIM BURN!'"
Iron also suffers from rhinitis and sebhorric dermatitis, both of which are specifically mentioned on the precautions list for use of OC pepper spray. This was known by the officers prior to this premeditated attack, and Iron had reported that he had been repeatedly threatened with this type of assault. It was obvious that an allergic reaction was taking place to the pepper spray, yet Iron was prevented from showering until more than 12 hours later.
This torture is compounded by medical neglect. Iron suffers from high blood preasure, heart arrhythmia, sleep apnea, recurrent shingles and only has one functioning lung. All of these conditions were aggravated by the assault, yet his requests to see a doctor were not only denied, so were his regular prescribed medications for these conditions.
According to his wife, Ruth Thunderhorse: "The warden tells me that Iron's glasses were lost in the property confiscation after the 'assault,' but if they cannot find them, they will get new ones. Anything to keep Iron from his legal work, I assume. Since the warden hemmed and hawed when I asked if Iron had his fan, that probably is not in his possession, either. He also ignored my question as to whether Iron has his magnifier." Meanwhile, Iron's glasses, UV shields and his navigational cane, which were confiscated, have not been replaced, and his typewritter has been confiscated. Basically, the TDCJ is doing all it can to frustrate Iron's efforts to defend his civil rights, including deliberately endangering his health.
President Bush, who was formerly the Governor of Texas, can claim all he wants that, "We do not condone torture," but the facts show otherwise. The torture of Iron Thunderhorse continued throughout his term as governor and it continues today. The federal court had more than enough justification to put Iron in federal protective custody while he is litigating against the TDCJ. The very essence of this case is the suppression of religious freedom for Native Americans here in the USA, the history of which spans the whole history of the US.

Ruth asks for letters of support addressed to Iron. His adddress is:

Iron Thunderhorse, #624391

Polunsky Unit, 3872 FM 350 South,

Livingston, TX 77351.

New London Homeowners Have 90 Days To Leave.

2005-09-16T15:12:00.000-07:00

Despite Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell's suggested moratorium on eminent domain cases in the state, pending the consideration of new legislation restriction property seizures by local governments, the city of New London has issued eviction notices to homeowners who lost their case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Kelo v. the City of New London ruling.
"They have sent us eviction letters and have given us 90 days to vacate," homeowner Michael Cristofaro told WND. "As further insult to injury, they are requiring us to send them $600-a-month rent."
He said the city officials are apparently persuaded the Supreme Court ruling last June is all they need to proceed with their plans to transfer the properties to a private party for development of an office complex.
Cristofaro said he has attempted to contact two members of the city council to see if they are aware of the plans and approve of them.
In the highly controversial Supreme Court decision, the justices ruled 5-4 that the economic development and increased tax revenue resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as "public use" under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.
The city has previously threatened the homeowners with demands for back rent dating to 2000. Officials say that since they won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property for the last five years since they first began condemnation procedures.
In addition, buyout offers were based on the market rate in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble.
The New London Development Corporation, the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, first addressed the rent issue in a June 2004 letter to residents, calling the alleged debt retroactive "use and occupancy" payments.
The Kelo case, named after Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house in New London with her husband, has ignited a national uproar.
One Los Angeles advertising entrepreneur, Logan Darrow Clements, has spearheaded a campaign to have the city of Weare, N.H., condemn Souter's property, a modest 200-year-old farmhouse on eight acres, in retaliation for his vote approving the seizure of homes in connection with the case.
Clements plans to create on Souter's land the "Lost Liberty Hotel," a kind of museum commemorating the lost right to private property in America.
Because the Board of Selectmen of Weare has rejected Clements' request to condemn the property, Darrow hopes to use a ballot initiative to do the job
By Joseph Farah

Who Really Hates Our Freedom ?

2005-09-08T21:54:00.000-07:00

While flipping through some TV channels, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few moments of a smirking politician rambling on about freedom and liberty. What a tragic comedy. The fact politicians still have a market to spew their crap is a testament to the lack of thought of the average viewer of such pretended "news" programs. A few minutes of thought and any literate person of any degree of intelligence would dismiss politicians as con men. However, has any "journalist" on television, radio or in print ever confronted a politician by asking him exactly what he means by freedom? Can you imagine the look on a bureaucrat's face if he was asked to define freedom or liberty? I’m going to demonstrate how easy it is to prove government is incompatible with freedom or the protection of freedom. I’ll define the word freedom. And so I’m not accused of being biased, I’ll use only "legal" definitions: "Liberty; absence of restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 499. Look at the last word, "restraint." Liberty is "Absence of servitude and restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 734. And "free" means: "Without restraint or coercion..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 498. Now let's define what governments do, viz., they govern:
"To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
It's correct to say freedom is "Liberty; [an] absence of" government. If there’s government, there’s "restraint" and therefore, no freedom. By definition, and in practice, government is anti-freedom. Keep in mind any slave had the freedom to do what his master ordered or allowed him to do; he was none the less a slave. I know, statists (with not a shred of evidence of course) will shout government is there for protection and they're the only men and women who can. That’s nonsense, as everyone with even the slightest knowledge of government should already know. There is no duty to protect anyone. And any lawyer claiming otherwise is either lying or was asleep during that part of law school. Like I say; if you doubt me, then sue the police or the "state" for failing to protect you. A team of "state" lawyers will file a motion for a failure to state a claim. Statists argue there has to be political "laws" i.e., "restraint." Fine, then explain exactly how politicians protect freedom. Accepting such nonsense for sake of argument, statists argue themselves right out of business because it cannot be said, with a straight face, that "states" are protecting freedom and liberty because freedom and liberty do not exist when there is "restraint [and] coercion." The "restraint [and] coercion" is another reason there is no duty to protect anyone.
Statists also support the use of violence to provide and pay for a service. Statists believe it's OK to kill people to make them pay for a service that's never provided. If you doubt this, then refuse to pay taxes. A good one to not pay, if you want to demonstrate a politician's intent to kill, is the vehicle license tax. Go ahead and drive around without a tax plate on your car. See what happens when you peacefully continue to drive when the local revenue cutter puts his emergency lights on.
When NORMAL men and women provide services, even the service of protecting freedom, they do not exercise "restraint or coercion" in providing their services to their customers, thereby destroying freedom. They would not only offer their services on a mutually voluntary basis, they would not restrain us of our freedom in order to protect it i.e., they would not take away that which they want to protect. By definition the protection of freedom cannot involve "restraint or coercion". And yet, this describes exactly how men and women doing business as a government operate. They coerce us to pay them for protection they have no obligation or intention of providing and they restrain us in millions of ways; restraint that clearly has nothing to do with protection. These smirking politicians destroy the very freedom they lie about protecting. It reminds me of the law of diminishing returns. Wouldn’t it be accurate that if we’re supposed to be paying government to protect our freedoms, then shouldn’t the cost go down at the same rate our freedoms are destroyed? The less to protect, the lower the cost. Look at the sales pitch these parasites spew: "we must take your freedom away in order to protect it." How do you protect what doesn’t exist? Why is this nonsense accepted? Again, because politicians will have you killed if you don’t. So what "freedom" was this guy talking about? If you’re restraining and coercing, which is what governments do, then you’re certainly not protecting freedom because the "restraint [and] coercion" destroyed it. They "hate us because of our freedom"? What a crock. I’ll tell you who really hates freedom: anyone who uses and advocates the use of restraint and coercion. In other words, anyone, regardless of their "nationality" and, or religious beliefs, who refuses to interact with you on a voluntary basis hates freedom.
Let those smirking politicians spin that.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows liberty decreases." Thomas Jefferson

Impeach Bush Now !!

2005-09-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

The raison d’être of the Bush administration is war in the Middle East in order to protect America from terrorism and to insure America’s oil supply. On both counts the Bush administration has failed catastrophically.
Bush’s single-minded focus on the "war against terrorism" has compounded a natural disaster and turned it into the greatest calamity in American history. The US has lost its largest and most strategic port, thousands of lives, and 80% of one of America’s most historic cities is under water.
If terrorists had achieved this result, it would rank as the greatest terrorist success in history.
Prior to 911, the Federal Emergency Management Agency warned that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA) in order to protect the strategic port, the refineries, and the large population.
However, after 2003 the flow of funds to SELA were diverted to the war in Iraq. During 2004 and 2005 the New Orleans Times-Picayune published nine articles citing New Orleans’ loss of hurricane protection to the war in Iraq.
Every expert and newspapers as distant as Texas saw the New Orleans catastrophe coming. But President Bush and his insane government preferred war in Iraq to protecting Americans at home.
Bush’s war left the Corps of Engineers only 20% of the funding to protect New Orleans from flooding from Lake Pontchartrain. On June 18, 2004, the Corps’ project manager, Al Naomi, told the Times-Picayune: "the levees are sinking. If we don’t get the money to raise them, we can’t stay ahead of the settlement."
Despite the dire warnings delivered by the 2004 hurricane season, the Bush administration made deep budget cuts for flood control and hurricane funding for New Orleans. The US Senate, alarmed at the Bush administration’s insanity, was planning to restore the funding for 2006. But now it is too late. Many multiples of the funding that would have saved the city now have to be spent to rescue it.
Not content with leaving New Orleans unprotected, it took the Bush administration five days to get the remnants of the National Guard not serving in Iraq, along with desperately needed food and water, to devastated New Orleans. This is the slowest emergency response by the US government in modern times. By the time the Bush administration could organize any resources for New Orleans, many more people had died and the city was in total chaos.
Despite the most dismal performance on record, Bush’s Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, said on Thursday that the Bush administration has done a "magnificent job."
The on-the-scene mayor of New Orleans sees it differently: "They’re feeding the people a line of bull, and they are spinning and people are dying."
"They’re thinking small man, and this is a major, major deal."
It is a major deal, one that will affect Americans far beyond New Orleans. According to reports, 25% of our oil and gasoline comes through the New Orleans port and refineries, all out of commission. Needed goods cannot be imported, and exports will plummet, worsening an already disastrous deficit in the balance of trade.
The increased cost of gasoline will soak up consumers’ disposable incomes, with dire effects on consumer spending. US economic growth will be siphoned off into higher energy costs. American lives far from New Orleans will be adversely affected.
The destruction of New Orleans is the responsibility of the most incompetent government in American history and perhaps in all history. Americans are rapidly learning that they were deceived by the superpower hubris. The powerful US military cannot successfully occupy Baghdad or control the road to the airport – and this against an insurgency based in only 20% of the Iraqi population. Bush’s pointless war has left Washington so pressed for money that the federal government abandoned New Orleans to catastrophe.
The Bush administration is damned by its gross incompetence. Bush has squandered the lives and health of thousands of people. He has run through hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars. He has lost America’s reputation and its allies. With barbaric torture and destruction of our civil liberty, he has stripped America of its inherent goodness and morality. And now Bush has lost America’s largest port and 25 percent of its oil supply. Why? Because Bush started a gratuitous war egged on by a claque of crazy neoconservatives who have sacrificed America’s interests to their insane agenda.
The neoconservatives have brought these disasters to all Americans, Democrat and Republican alike. Now they must he held accountable. Bush and his neoconservatives are guilty of criminal negligence and must be prosecuted.
What will it take for Americans to reestablish accountability in their government? Bush has got away with lies and an illegal war of aggression, with outing CIA agents, with war crimes against Iraqi civilians, with the horrors of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture centers, and now with the destruction of New Orleans.
What disaster will next spring from Bush’s incompetence?
by Paul Craig Roberts

The problem with assumptions

2005-09-02T00:19:00.000-07:00

No citizen should be subjected to criminal charges for a crime he might commit. This is a fundamental principle in our society: One does not take blame for what might happen, only for violations of the law that he actually commits.
Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy seems to see things differently.
In an interview with the Daily Herald on Wednesday, he indicated that he believes law enforcement has the authority to assume a violation will be committed, and officers may therefore go straight to writing a citation.
That is what happened Saturday night at an outdoor music concert and dance in Diamond Fork.
The event -- a rave -- was held on private property owned by Trudy Childs. An estimated 300 young adults attended the gathering, which was shut down at 11:30 p.m. by about 90 law enforcement officers in a massive show of force that included helicopters, dogs and assault rifles.
Some plainclothes officers with cell phones had mingled in the crowd and observed illegal drug activity, which has occurred at similar events. That -- combined with law enforcement's allegation that the gathering itself was illegal because proper county permits had not been obtained -- is what triggered the raid. SWAT teams stormed the crowd to make arrests, and many attendees, including the landowner, are now crying foul.
All the facts are not yet in with regard to criminal activity in the crowd. We expect to know more in the coming days. But we do have ample information to evaluate Tracy's claim that Childs had not obtained a necessary permit for the event.The fact is, Childs did not need a permit. Tracy protests that she did need one, but we believe he is wrong. Here's why: A county ordinance specifies exactly the circumstances under which a mass gathering permit must be obtained from the Utah County Commission, and when a permit is not required. No person may host a gathering "of an actual or reasonably anticipated assembly of 250 or more people which continues or can reasonably be expected to continue for 12 or more consecutive hours" unless the host has a license, the ordinance reads. The electronic beats at the rave began thumping at 9 p.m. Saturday. We cannot know exactly how long the party would have gone if police hadn't hammered down. But we do know a few things. We know, for example, that the promoter's agreement with the sound technicians was to end the show at 6:30 a.m. Sunday, as dawn approached. Privately contracted security personnel confirmed that they, too, were scheduled for that time period. So the concert was intended for nine-and-a-half hours, well inside the 12-hour limit. It was a business proposition, and that was the deal. In painting a picture that the gathering violated county public assembly codes, Tracy misrepresents not only the facts in Diamond Fork but distorts the proper role of law enforcement. We hope he understands his limitations as an officer of civil government. Tracy said that authorities reasonably anticipated a crowd of thousands and expected partygoers to linger to 9 a.m. and beyond. "People are up all night partying hard and have a camping area," he said. "If you've been up since 9 o'clock the night before, we are assuming you're not going to jump right up and get out of there, and will exceed the 12-hour period." Read that carefully again, with particular attention to "we are assuming." Tracy is saying that the 12-hour ordinance was violated because law enforcement, not the event host, anticipated the gathering would last more than 12 hours. This is an unjustified and even dangerous view. It is not law enforcement's prerogative to enforce assumptions -- to hand out criminal or civil citations based on what might happen. Accusations must be made on the basis of actual observable acts, not on what a cop thinks will occur in the future. Let's say a highway patrolman with a radar gun in a 60 mph zone clocks a driver at 59 mph. He cannot ticket that driver on the assumption that the car will soon be going much faster. In short, the anticipation of a crowd of 250 for 12 hours as specified in the law must belong to the event host. If the host believes that a gathering will not exceed 12 hours, and he ensures that it does not (as was done in the case of the Diamond Fork rave), he is simply not required to obtain a permit. No citizen of this country is required to impose more law upon himself than is specified by statute. And no county sheriff has a right to impose it, either.
This ordinance is written in the passive voice -- specifying an event "reasonably anticipated ... to continue" for 12 hours. It doesn't say who is to do the anticipating. Apparently Tracy believes it is he himself. But this is an implausible reading of the law. Such an interpretation would make the county sheriff the sole arbiter of which public gatherings require a permit and which do not. Tracy could prohibit anything he wanted, from a political rally to a knit-in or company picnic -- any gathering that is otherwise protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people peaceably to assemble." Typically, in potentially embarrassing situations, law enforcement seems to reach for every thread of support it can find to justify its actions. It appears to us that Sheriff Tracy is reaching in just this way with arguments about permits for Saturday's rave. The organizers did get the required mass-gathering permits for on-site sanitation, and that's apparently all they really needed. We understand that law enforcement is a difficult job. We also understand that some crimes were likely committed at the rave. But officers should not attempt to make their tough job easier by playing fast and loose with statutes, or by spinning the meaning of the law in hopes of achieving a favorable public relations effect.

Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

2005-08-27T23:32:00.000-07:00

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him. “I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”
Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas. Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “motherfucking traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bullshit protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”
White House insiders say Bush is growing increasingly bitter over mounting opposition to his war in Iraq. Polls show a vast majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake and most doubt the President’s honesty.
“Who gives a flying fuck what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamned please. They don’t know shit.”
Bush, whiles setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger to reporters. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go fuck yourself.” His habit of giving people the finger goes back to his days as Texas governor, aides admit, and videos of him doing so before press conferences were widely circulated among TV stations during those days. A recent video showing him shooting the finger to reporters while walking also recently surfaced.
Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.
To see that fear emerges, Dr. Frank says, all one has to do is confront the President. “To actually directly confront him in a clear way, to bring him out, so you would really see the bully, and you would also see the fear,” he says.
Dr. Frank, in his book, speculates that Bush, an alcoholic who brags that he gave up booze without help from groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, may be drinking again.
“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says. “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.” Last year, Capitol Hill Blue learned the White House physician prescribed anti-depressant drugs for the President to control what aides called “violent mood swings.” As Dr. Frank also notes: “In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.’” Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial: “The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he says. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”
© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

ATF Harasses Gun Shows

2005-08-25T21:19:00.000-07:00

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, Also know as ATF), who seem to go out of their way to alienate gun owners with their heavy-handedness, behaved in a shameful manner this last weekend at the Show masters' gun show in Richmond.
I had reports from members of police going to their houses while the
member was waiting for their approval to purchase a gun at the show!
The police asked the spouse and other family members questions about
the purchases and filled in a survey! "Did you know your husband was
going to a gun show today?" "Did you know your husband was going to
buy a gun today?" and many other such questions.
If no one was home at the gun purchaser's house, the police went to
the neighbors! "Did you know that your neighbor was buying a gun
today? How do you feel about him doing so?"
One member, who was carrying a personal gun to sell, was approached
by BATFE and taken to a car while they checked him out. The officer
said in front of Show masters' management, "Did you know you need a
business license to sell a gun at this show? I have seen you at a
lot of shows - are you in the business of selling guns? I think you
are." That's called a fishing expedition and intimidation. In the
end they let the VCDL member go because their fish hooks came up
empty. They had over 17 BATFE agents at that show. Richmond and Henrico had
a large number of officers running to the homes of anyone purchasing
a handgun to ask questions. I guess Mayor Wilder is flush with cash all of a sudden. Too bad he
didn't use that money to put all those cops into the rougher
neighborhoods of Richmond, instead of harassing the decent citizens
who buy guns at a gun show. And, if you are sitting down, the main BATFE agent at the show told
Show masters' management that Richmond was going to be the model for this kind of behavior across the nation!!!

BUT, THERE IS GOOD NEWS.
Steve Elliott, who heads up C&E Gun Shows and is affiliated with
Show masters, along with Annette Gelles, who heads up Show masters,
went to Washington with some lawyers to get this straightened out on
Monday. (BTW, Steve told me that he has spent in excess of $10,000
this year on legal fees fighting this kind of abuse.)
Steve and Annette were told by the BATFE in DC that BATFE would no
longer be sending officers to people's houses who were purchasing a
firearm and that what happened in Richmond should not have happened.
We will be watching carefully to see if BATFE keeps its word or not.
Report any such abuse immediately to VCDL, along with the officer's
name, badge number, and department.

Pat Robertson is officially Psychotic !

2005-08-25T21:14:00.000-07:00

Pat Robertson, one of the most influential Christian evangelists in the United States, has sparked controversy by calling for the assassination of the left-wing leader of Venezuela.
Mr. Robertson, who heads the Christian Coalition and has close links to the White House, said the US should kill President Hugo Chavez because he wanted to turn his Catholic country into "the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism".
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Mr. Robertson said on the Monday night broadcast of his religious program The 700 Club. "We don't need another $200bn war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Venezuela, whose relationship with the US has become increasingly difficult in recent years, described Mr. Robertson's comments as a form of terrorism and called on the White House to condemn them.
Speaking in Caracas, Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel said: "This is a huge hypocrisy to maintain an anti-terrorist line and at the same time have such terrorist statements as these made by Christian preacher Pat Robertson coming from the same country. The ball is in the US court now, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country."
Mr. Chavez, a failed revolutionary who later won power at the ballot boxes, has long been at odds with the US. In 2002 the Bush administration offered support to Mr. Chavez's opponents who briefly overthrew him in a coup. The US also provided money to groups which last year organized a recall vote in a failed effort to dislodge the President.
Mr. Chavez, who beat the recall vote as the result of his support among Venezuela's poor, has often accused the US of trying to assassinate him - echoing the claims of one of his closest allies, Fidel Castro, who he was yesterday visiting in Cuba. The US has admitted that during the Sixties it initiated several operations to kill the Cuban leader.
The relationship between the US and Venezuela is made more complicated by the Latin American country's role as the world's fifth largest exporter of oil. It is wealth from these sales that has enabled Mr. Chavez to invest heavily in social programs and in establishing schools and clinics in the poorer barrios.
The organization headed by Mr. Robertson, a former presidential candidate, claims to have more than two millions members. During the 2000 presidential primaries the support of the Christian Coalition was vital in helping Mr. Bush win the Republican nomination in South Carolina, where he was strongly challenged by Senator John McCain.
A State Department spokesman described Mr. Robertson's comments as "inappropriate" and said they were from a private citizen and did not represent the government's position.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Robertson said that the evangelist had no further comment at this point.
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know much about there bible but I’m sure there’s something about thou shall not kill somewhere in there. I say if he wants him dead then strap up Mr. Roberson and go over there your self, don’t make America or better yet don’t make tax payers pay for hits on foreign leaders..

UT SWAT Assaults Party

2005-08-23T14:48:00.000-07:00

Last night a Utah rave was broken up by the Utah SWAT team the follow ing is the DJ's Account..(the following tactics, and arrests as well as the confiscations where made legal by the RAVE Act of 2002)

"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 pre-sold 700 tickets and they expected up to 3,000 people total. The promoters did an amazing job with the show.. they even made slip mats 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 camouflage 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 att"acked 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 isn’t 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 licensed 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 didn’t 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 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, camouflage-wearing soldiers.... why? Was that really necessary? This needs to be big news across the USA. 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. P.S. - there are more stories of police brutality that I’ll post up later. got to hit the airport soon. can't wait to get the fuck out of this shit hole state."
---------------------------------------------
If you think this is false watch it for yourself the video link is below....
(it is QuickTime format)
Click Here

Vigils To Support Sheehan Protest

2005-08-20T23:35:00.000-07:00

More than 1,000 anti-war vigils have been held around the United States in support of a bereaved mother protesting outside President Bush's Texas ranch.
Protesters held candles, sang hymns and chanted in gatherings across the country in support of Cindy Sheehan.
Ms Sheehan, 48, has become a focus for anti-war sentiment since her protest began in Crawford 10 days ago.
She has vowed to stay put during the president's month-long holiday at his ranch until he agrees to meet her.

“Each one was a valuable human life, each one was an indispensable member of his or her family”
-Cindy Sheehan

Ms Sheehan, whose eldest son, Casey, was killed in action in 2004, wants Mr. Bush to withdraw US troops from Iraq.
The president has so far refused to agree to her request to meet him, although he says he has given her plea for troop withdrawal serious consideration.
White House officials say Ms Sheehan has met the president on a previous occasion, and made her views known then.
She has vowed to stay put during the president's month-long holiday at his ranch until he agrees to meet her.
'Meet with Cindy'
Around 1,600 vigils had been planned by liberal advocacy groups MoveOn.org Political Action, True Majority and Democracy for America.
In Crawford, several hundred people lit candles and gathered around a wooden flag-draped coffin at the camp, situated about a mile from Mr. Bush's ranch, to remember the dead.
"Each one was a valuable human life," Ms Sheehan said, quoted by Reuters news agency. "Each one was an indispensable member of his or her family."
But before the vigil war supporter Gary Qualls drove to the site to remove a cross with the name of his son who died in the war, saying what was happening was "disrespectful".
Several hundred people attended a vigil near the White House in Washington, chanting "meet with Cindy, tell her the truth" and "end the war now".
In Charleston, West Virginia, protesters unrolled a giant banner bearing the names of all Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least one counter-demonstration was organized by pro-war group FreeRepublic.com, prompting a heated exchange with protesters in a Washington park.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4160032.stm

RIAA Hacked Again

2005-08-19T00:34:00.000-07:00

The Recording Industry Association of America may not want people to share digital files, but the organization certainly seems to be in favor of open access to its website.

On Monday, the RIAA site was hacked for the sixth time in six months.
This time, the defacement resulted in bogus press releases on the front door, touting the joys of cheese and interspecies romantic relationships.
The RIAA's role as the music industry's voice against digital piracy makes it an obvious target for those who are angered by what they see as the organization's overly vehement crusade for copyright owners' rights.
Since the RIAA site is such a tempting target, many wonder why the organization hasn't made more of an effort to secure its site. On Monday, access to the site's supposedly private innards was gained in much the same way as it was last August.
Some security experts said in no uncertain terms that the latest defacements indicate the RIAA is clueless about technology. They charge that this ignorance has resulted in the RIAA attempting to combat digital file sharing in ineffective, counter-productive ways.
"It's obvious that they don't get the Web, and they don't get technology, or they'd understand how to protect their own website," said Wall Street systems administrator Anthony Negil.
"The flaws that people are exploiting to access their site are elementary security issues, and there's no excuse for an organization that purports to understand the dark side of the Internet to leave such gaping holes in their own network infrastructure."
In response to the August defacements, the RIAA upgraded its server software. But the software wasn't the problem.
"My opinion is that the people at the RIAA (who are) making the statements about P2P hacking and the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), the executives and legal staff, are completely disconnected from the technical folks who actually run the website," said Robert Ferrell, a systems security specialist.
Ferrell and others predicted that if the RIAA escalates its ant piracy efforts, the organization's site will be completely knocked off the Internet.
"The RIAA honestly has no idea what they're up against. They will be toast the first time they try to shut down a P2P network being used by any serious black hats," Ferrell said.
The last time the RIAA site was hacked, downloadable pirated music was posted. This time, a URL allowing access to the RIAA's system for posting press releases was made publicly accessible, allowing people to post messages that then appeared on the RIAA's official press release page.
The URL was widely circulated on Internet relay chat groups on Monday. People merrily posted bogus press releases and waited for the RIAA's reaction.
Hours later, they were still waiting. The hole stayed open for seven hours.
"Hey, don't you think they should have noticed that press release urging people to have sex with barnyard animals by now?" one chat participant asked, several hours after the bogus press releases first hit the RIAA site.
"It is unfortunate that people who do not agree with our organization's positions want to stifle our First Amendment rights by defacing the content on our website," said Amy Weiss, RIAA spokeswoman. She did not comment on why the RIAA's site has suffered so many security problems over the past few months.
"I believe that the RIAA honestly has no idea what they're up against," Ferrell said. "The RIAA and MPAA are Internet disasters of potentially epic proportions just waiting to happen, and while I don't ordinarily side with defacers and script kiddies, in this case I'll make an exception."
By Michelle Delio
--------------------------------------------------
These people have no idea what the are up against they made themselves the number one site to hack, and if little script kitties are doing this now, just wait till a real computer cracker who really knows what they are doing gets there hand on it. If they keep this up they will no longer have a web site. (Can anyone say D.O.S. because I sure can..)

Man Arrested For Creating Online Game BOT Bully

2005-08-19T00:22:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, there was a brief flurry of interest in the legal question concerning how offline laws fit into online virtual communities. This becomes very tricky, very quickly -- especially with the growing ability to sell virtual goods from these communities for real money. So, what happens when a virtual character steals from another virtual character and sells what they get for real money? The quick answer, some might say, would be that the thief is guilty of real-world theft, and deserves to be punished. However, since the stealing was allowed in the game, isn't it a part of the game? Worse, what if it's a major part of the game and encouraged? Suddenly the lines get very blurry. Over in Japan, someone has now been arrested for creating an automated in-game bully that would hang out in the popular game Lineage II, beat other characters up and steal their goods. Unfortunately, the article doesn't make it clear whether the arrest was for creating the bot... or for the thug-like virtual muggings. Either way, it raises some troubling questions. Even when real money is involved, the virtual world a totally made up world -- where the creators of that world can put in whatever restrictions they want. So, you could make a fairly convincing argument that if the game creators allow it, it's hard to see how it can be breaking the law (especially when players may come from all over the world, where the laws may differ). At worst, it could break the terms of service of the game -- which is why people (including game developers) need to start realizing that their terms of service are basically a constitution for the game and the game developers themselves play the role of the government in a game.
http://www.techdirt.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
//**Opens cans of worms**//

Marc Emery Fund

2005-08-17T00:47:00.000-07:00

I’ve recently received this email form the NORML branch of Missouri, and since I’ve addressed this issue before on this site I thought this would be a nice follow up. (if you have missed the previous post on Marc Emery you can look in the archives or follow this link to learn more.)

The recent attack by the USA and DEA on Marc Emery Direct Seeds, designed to destroy his ability to aid to the marijuana movement, also puts three people's lives at risk. They face extradition to the USA and life sentences for various charges.
We are building an impressive legal team to fight this. But there are many costs involved, and we know that over the next year and beyond this case will influence massive change.
We hope to continue helping our American, Canadian, and international friends who are in distress. We want to continue to fight the Drug War to the very end. But at this time, we need others to support us now.
You can donate by credit card by going to: Legal Defense Online Donations.If you want to contribute to our legal fees, which will add up to over $100,000 in the next year alone, please send a check, money order, or cash to:

BCMP Bookstore Help
307 West Hastings st.
Vancouver, BC
V6B 1H6
Canada
If you wish to support POT-TV. Net, because it receives no other revenue than your donations, please send a check, money order or cash to:

POT-TV Help
307 West Hastings st.
Vancouver, BC
V6B 1H6
Canada
If you wish to support the continued survival of Cannabis Culture Magazine, because it can no longer receive seed company advertising, it needs subscribers, advertising and donations immediately. You can send a check, money order or cash to:

CC Magazine Help
15 - 199 West Hastings st.
Vancouver, BC
V6B 1H4
Canada
People in British Columbia who can use a very lucrative TAX-CREDITIBLE RECEIPT can donate to the BCMP. The BCMP needs to pay for phones, office and our full time organizer and legal team co-coordinator KIRK TOUSAW, who, although called to the bar in both Canada and the United States, is working for food & rent money. He's a lifesaver, and the Party is made vital through your checks, money orders, and cash donations (under $100) to:

BCMP
307 West Hastings st.
Vancouver, BC
V6B 1H6
Canada
If you would like to send a check or money order directly to senior counsel of our legal team, send to:

John Conroy In Trust
2459 Pauline st.
Abbotsford, BC
V2S 3S1
Canada
Please also take the time to watch Marc Emery's public address on Pot-TV.

You can hear from Michelle Rainey, co-accused, in her appearance on the Marijuana News Global Report on Pot-TV.

There is extensive discussion and regular updates by Marc Emery and Kirk Tousaw at our CC Online Extradition Forum at the Cannabis Culture Forums.

Thank you for giving back to an organization that gave so much to the marijuana movement. Now we are in need, and we hope we have support in the world wide cannabis community….

Religious Fanatics Attempting To Debunk Laws Of Gravity

2005-08-17T00:42:00.000-07:00

As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
--------------------------------------------------------
If you want your kid to be taught in this way you more power to you but you need to bring them to a religious school. One of my many pet-peeves is over-religious people, I don’t care so much if you do it in your own house, but the second you try to impose your views on me or make it so I have to listen to your religious garbage, I tend to get upset especially when its in public schools. There is a simple solution to this, and it calls for “ privatization of schools”. What I mean by that is if you want your kids to be taught science based on religion then you bring them to a privately funded school which we have currently, but lets take this thought a bit farther, let privatize ALL schools.

A New Low

2005-08-16T23:15:00.000-07:00

Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.
In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000 .
The hard rains started falling that year, when Matt Dery and his neighbors in Fort Trumbull learned that the city planned to replace their homes with a hotel, a conference center, offices and upscale housing that would complement the adjoining Pfizer Inc. research facility.
The city, citing eminent domain, condemned their homes, told them to move and began leveling surrounding houses. Dery and six of his neighbors fought the takeover, but five years later, on June 23, the downpour of misfortune continued as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city could claim the property for economic development.
Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home and the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother, Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep his land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning for the worst.
And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would be in a position to cash in, especially since they're being forced from their homes. But that's not the case.
The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.
"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low."
And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.
In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenantssome residents' only form of incomewould also have to be paid to the city.
NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.
A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low."
"It seems like it is simply a desperate attempt by a nearly broke organization to try to come up with more funds to perpetuate its own existence," Bullock wrote. He vowed to respond to any lawsuit with another.
With the case nearly closed, the NLDC may soon make good on its promise to sue. Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, says it's not clear who might prevail in a legal battle over rent. "From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," he says.
An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."
That's one way to get out of the rain.

Jonathan O'Connell - July 14, 2005

SWAT Kills Teen Bartender in His Bedroom in Predawn Drug Raid -- Two Ounces of Marijuana Seized

2005-08-12T12:44:00.000-07:00

Two members of a Sunset, Florida, SWAT team shot and killed a 23-year-old bartender after he fled to his bedroom and picked up a pistol as his door came crashing in and masked, armed men flooded into his home during a 6:00am raid last Friday morning. Armed with a search warrant alleging drug activity at the home of Anthony Diotaiuto, police announced their take this week: two ounces of pot, some plastic baggies, and a set of scales.

Police told reporters the day of the shooting they knew Diotaiuto has a license to possess a weapon, so they sent in the SWAT team to lessen the possibility of violence. They did not explain why they thought a surprise attack on the home of an unsuspecting but presumably armed man would produce a nonviolent result -- and it didn't.

According to Sunset Police Lt. Robert Voss as reported in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, the SWAT team knocked on Diotaiuto's door and "announced their presence" before smashing down his door. Voss said police found the victim in his living room and ordered him to "freeze," but he instead fled to his bedroom and "armed himself" with a handgun, whereupon Officers Sean Visners and Andre Bruna unloaded on him. The Broward County medical examiner reported 10 bullet wounds in his head, chest, torso, and limbs.

But next-door neighbor Rudy Strauss told the Sun-Sentinel he and his wife were awake when the raid occurred and heard the crash of Diotauito's door being smashed in, but heard no yelling announcing the presence of police. There were no words spoken outside, he said, adding that he and his wife watched the raid unfold from their window. "I heard this loud bang, and I saw a flash," Strauss said Tuesday. "I never heard them say 'Police.' If somebody were pounding on the door, I would definitely hear that, or if they yelled, 'Police, police!'"

Friends, family members, neighbors and supporters of Diotaiuto reacted angrily and bitterly. ""Nothing adds up," Brian Kickbush, boyfriend of Diotaiuto's mother, Marlene Whittier, said during the visitation at Fred Hunter Funeral Home in nearby Davies. "If they announced themselves, I guess all the neighbors are all liars."

"My son was so frightened by black masks busting his door down in the darkness after he was asleep for one hour," said a distraught Whittier, during a wake held for her only son Tuesday night. "Now what human being in their right mind would not run?"

The anger spilled over into a Sunset city council meeting Tuesday night as at least 15 people wearing black armbands demanded answers and actions. "Sunset Beach police are murderers, cowards, trigger-happy, and more," one friend of Diotaiuto's yelled at stone-faced council members in footage captured by WB39-TV. When one council responded that the council too was upset, he retorted, "If you're that upset, do something about it!"

"Do two ounces of marijuana constitute a death warrant?" Sunrise resident William de Larm, a friend of Diotaiuto's, demanded of the city officials. Police were too aggressive and showed poor judgment, he said, adding that the killing made him "ashamed" to live in Sunset.

Mayor Steve Feren and council members declined to address the charges and complaints about police conduct directly, saying the matter was under investigation. Two investigations are underway, by the department and by the Broward County District Attorney's office.

Friends and family members described Diotaiuto as a hard-working young man who held down two jobs, attended church regularly, and had recently bought the home he was killed in. "They killed an innocent person," said Charlie Steeves, who said he was Diotaiuto's best friend. "He didn't sell drugs. He worked two jobs to buy that house."

Diotaiuto's boss at the Carolina Ale House in Weston, David Arker, said his friend and employee only smoked marijuana "casually," did not sell drugs and was a hard worker.

Diotaiuto's girlfriend, Leslie Kellner, 21, told the Miami Herald he worked a second job as a DJ and had sold his prized sports car to pay for the home he shared with his mother. "If he was a drug dealer, he could have bought his mom a new car, but he couldn't even afford to fix it," said Kellner, 21.
Source-http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/399/swat.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another casualty on the war on drugs……Why must this keep going on... Marijuana or any drug for that matter but especially marijuana should be legalized. Anytime the government put a war on something, I.E; the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on alcohol, they never succeed in enforcing these kind of laws mostly because the people do not want them enforced. All these laws do is create collateral damage. NOBODY should be put in jail, killed, put in prison for putting things in to there body, these so-called crimes are victimless crimes…Everybody should have the right to put or do things to there body without government interference. And I quote New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia; “That being so, the orderly thing to do under our form of government is to abolish a law which cannot be enforced--a law which the people of the country do not want enforced.”
If there is anyone out there ANYONE out there who supports the war on drugs I would love to hear from you my email is Longshot7@gmail.com

Dressed To Kill

2005-08-10T23:45:00.000-07:00

Dressed To Kill

A man with curly black hair and olive complexion set out on his early morning run in the downtown section of a major metropolitan area. Uncertain of the fall weather, he dresses in layers, the last of which is a billowy parka. In a pack strapped to his waist is a music-playing device, with wires running from his pack to earpieces tucked almost invisibly into his ears.
Toward the end of his run he is breathing heavily, his face dripping with sweat. As the music continues to play loudly in his ears, he is singing along with it. Remembering that there is a coffee shop in the nearby transit station, he turns to jog up the stairs into the station, passing police officers on the way. Before entering the shop, the man, slows to a cool-down walk, pacing back and forth to slow his breathing. He continues to listen to the music and repeat the lyrics to himself.
Minutes later, a crowd gathers, as the man lays dead on the pavement, the victim of a single gunshot wound to the head, music still playing into his now blood-filled ears. What happened?
Welcome to USA 2005. No, this is not a new video game. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, following a week of schooling in Israel, decided that they liked what they saw and heard enough to recommend its adoption on America’s streets.
New guidelines issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police authorize a police officer to shoot-to-kill any suspected terrorist by shooting him in the head. "You need to get him dead as soon as possible." Says Miami Police Chief John F. Timoney. (Washington Post.com, August 3, 2005).
How will police identify a terrorist before they put a bullet through his head? The IACP lays down the following terrorist profile: "wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather" (no definition of what constitutes a heavy coat or what is considered warm weather) "carrying a briefcase, duffle bag or backpack with protrusions or visible wires" (make sure it zips neatly shut and get Bluetooth) "might display nervousness" (take a Xanax before leaving your house) "unwillingness to make eye contact" (shyness is now punishable by death) "excessive sweating" (no definition of how much you are permitted to sweat without risking your life) "might mumble prayers" (such as praying that nobody shoots you in the head) or "pacing back and forth in front of a venue" (no definition of what constitutes pacing or what constitutes a venue).
Think this scenario cannot get worse? Think again. While previous use-of-force guidelines required police officers to be faced with an imminent threat before deploying deadly force, the new guidelines eliminate this pesky threshold. "An officer just needs to have a ‘reasonable basis’ to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb" under the new guidelines. (Washington Post.com, August 3, 2005).
This guideline has been adopted by every police agency in the United States.

John M. Peters attorney in Michigan.
http://www.lewrockwell.com
------------------------------------------------
"First they came for the unions, but I didn't
speak up because I wasn't union.
Then they came for the communists, but I didn't speak
up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up
because I was Protestant.
And then they came for me, and there was no one left to
speak up."
- Reverend Martin Niemoller
German Lutheran monk arrested by the Gestapo in 1937

FCC Forces ISP's To Make Backdoors

2005-08-08T15:22:00.000-07:00

Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a release announcing its new rule expanding the reach of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The ruling is a reinterpretation of the scope of CALEA and will force Internet broadband providers and certain voice-over-IP (VoIP) providers to build backdoors into their networks that make it easier for law enforcement to wiretap them.
-------------------------------------------------------
In layman's terms this mean the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) told your ISP (Internet Service Provider) that it must purposely make backdoors in the internet systems, these back doors are often used by people to gain information about you or maybe leach off your internet. But the FCC is using them to put wiretaps on VoIP and to monitor what your are looking at every day you get online from emails to bank accounts. This of course is all unconstitutional, but since congress passed the United States Patriot Act this is all perfectly legal, they need no warrant. They say it’s a means to stop terrorism but until the American public wakes up and starts realizing that there rights are being taken away or violated everyday, we will continue to be conditioned to having are rights taken away and they will be able to do anything….

Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

2005-08-06T00:08:00.000-07:00

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.
-----------------------------------
And I again quote the constitution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This means that there should be Separation of Church and State. Which means you should not be forced by the government to believe in any religion, but last time I checked "Intelligent Design" ( lol I love the wording they used) is in fact a religion, so in turn; its UNCONSTINTUTIONAL!!!

Refuse New York Subway Searches

2005-08-04T01:04:00.000-07:00

In response to the recent London terror attacks, New York police officers are now conducting random searches of bags and packages brought into the subway.
While Flex Your Rights takes no position on the usefulness of these searches for preventing future attacks, we have serious concerns that this unprecedented territorial expansion of police search powers is doing grave damage to people's understanding of their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In addition, as innocent citizens become increasingly accustomed to being searched by the police, politicians and police agencies are empowered to further expand the number of places where all are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Fortunately, this trend is neither inevitable nor irreversible. In fact, the high-profile public nature of these random subway searches provides freedom-loving citizens with easy and low-risk opportunities to "flex" their Fourth Amendment rights by refusing to be searched.
If you're carrying a bag or package into the subway, here's what you need to know and do in order to safely and intelligently "flex" your rights:

When Refusing a Search, Be Cool
If you choose to walk through a random search area and are stopped, you may refuse to be searched. In fact, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has said that you are free to "turn around and leave" any subway system where police are conducting random searches.

So if you are stopped, remain calm and courteous. And don't ever -- under any circumstances -- talk back or raise your voice to the police officer. You have nothing to gain -- and everything to lose -- by escalating the hostility level of the encounter.

Calmly and clearly say "Officer, I do not consent to any searches. I'm going to exit the station." Then immediately exit the station -- and do not return through the same entrance.

Refusal is Not Guilt
The police directive states that individuals who refuse to be searched can leave the subway system, and that such a refusal "shall not constitute probable cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for a forcible stop."

Warning: If you refuse to be searched and attempt to enter the turnstile anyway, you may be arrested.

Shut Your Mouth and Your Wallet
Some media reports state that police are requesting identification and in some cases immigration papers.

You do not have to answer any police questions or give any information -- including your name, ID citizenship or immigration status -- whether or not you consent to a search. But remember, anything you say can be used against you.

Do Not Physically Resist
Again, it is illegal for police to search, detain, or question you just because you refuse a search. But if the police proceed to detain, search, or arrest you despite your wishes -- do not physically resist. You may state clearly but non-confrontationally: "Officer, I am not resisting and I do not consent to any searches."

WARNING: DO NOT RUN!

If you refuse to be searched and run into the station, you could be shot to death! On Friday, an innocent man was shot in the head by police in a London subway station. The man had run away after being approached by an undercover officer.

If you're approached by anyone suspicious in the subway, walk to the nearest uniformed officer for help -- but don't run away.

Report Abuses
If you believe your rights have been violated, don't argue with or threaten police. Again, state clearly but non-confrontationally that you do not consent to what the police are doing. Ask any witnesses for their names and phone numbers.

Write down the officer's name and badge number and everything you remember as soon as possible. Discuss the matter with a lawyer afterwards or file a complaint with the Civilian Complaint Review Board.

Also, you should fill out the NYCLU's bag search survey. They are collecting information on police searches in the mass transit system and intend to use the information to possibly challenge the constitutionality of these random searches.
(http://www.flexyourrights.org/subway/)
--------------------------------------------
/*sigh*//
I shall refer to the bill of rights for this one..
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Most of the people who are for searches I hear them say "What’s 5 min of my day to keep the subway safe?", well that’s fine but if the real issue is to keep the subways safe I challenge them to be consistent, what if these searches where about 20 min interrogations would they be ok still then??
And plus this after all its all just for the illusion of safety....

Rockstar Getting Bullied by Thompson

2005-08-03T12:47:00.000-07:00

Rockstar Games' upcoming game called Bully has drawn the ire of anti-game activist Jack Thompson, but that's hardly surprising. Thompson has been targeting one game after another lately, and now Bully is the latest to come under fire. He believes the game will glorify school violence and will make Take-Two look worse in light of the recent "Hot Coffee" controversy.
Longtime anti video game violence crusader and Florida attorney Jack Thompson has been on a rampage of late. His open letters to the press, the ESA and specific video game publishers have sharply criticized the ESRB, ESA president Doug Lowenstein, the GTA franchise, Electronic Arts and The Sims 2, and more. Now his campaign against the game industry has once again put Rockstar Games and parent company Take-Two Interactive in the spotlight.

In a letter sent to Take-Two CEO Paul Eibeler, as well as GameDAILY BIZ and other press outlets, Thompson implores the publisher not to release its upcoming game Bully, in which players take on the role of a "troublesome schoolboy." According to the developer's description, "you'll stand up to bullies, get picked on by teachers, play pranks on malicious kids, win or lose the girl, and ultimately learn to navigate the obstacles of the fictitious reform school, Bullworth Academy."

"Either you will stop release of this game, or I and others will do our level best to stop it," Jack Thompson on Bully

The "Hot Coffee" has barely had time to cool, but Thompson is immediately turning up the heat on Take-Two. "As you well know, despite your company's public relations spin to the contrary, such virtual reality violence simulators rehearse kids for real violence which is occurring," he said.

"Your company needs either better lawyers or a savvy public relations firm, for the absolutely dumbest thing your company could do right now is release a school violence simulation game, Bully, in the midst of the above corporate messes," continued Thompson, referring to the fact that Take-Two recently paid the Securities and Exchange Commission $8.75 million because of fraudulent accounting practices, and that the company is currently being investigated by the FTC because of the "Hot Coffee" scandal, and is facing two potential class action lawsuits.

"I and others are today calling upon you to STOP the release of Bully. 'Columbine' changed the face of America, but you are about to come out with a game that celebrates, glamorizes, and trains kids to do what Klebold and Harris did. Are you nuts?

"Either you will stop release of this game, or I and others will do our level best to stop it," concluded Thompson.

Protest scheduled
With that in mind, in another related statement Thompson attacked retailers for selling pre-orders for Bully, and he warned that a protest was about to take place in front of Take-Two's NYC headquarters.

"An undercover sting on a Washington, D.C. GameStop video game store yesterday confirmed that an underage child could go into that huge video game store chain, owned by Barnes & Noble, and pre-order with a money deposit the Take-Two/Rockstar game Bully to be released in October 2005 with no questions asked as to age.

"Additionally, a check of Internet web sites today reveals that Wal-Mart, GameStop, ToysRUs, and Amazon.com are all presently pre-selling the game with no questions asked as to age of the buyers. Contrary to common belief, kids well under 18 are able to obtain and/or use credit cards," reads part of the statement.

It goes on to say that with the help of Peaceoholics ("a D.C. organization that promotes safety among young people"), a protest has been organized to take place tomorrow morning (Tuesday, August 2, 2005) in front of Take-Two's corporate headquarters in Manhattan. In what will undoubtedly cause a mainstream media frenzy and will inspire yet more attacks on the video game industry from politicians, national media will be accompanying two busloads of kids from Washington, D.C., according to Thompson.

Interestingly, Thompson also estimates that Take-Two could owe as much as $500 million in a class action suit. "National news coverage of the lawsuit has been wildly inaccurate as to the basis of the lawsuit. The suit, in fact, is solidly grounded in statutory law with a potential judgment of $500 million in favor of the class," he says.

As it stands now, Rockstar's Bully has not yet been rated by the ESRB. Most in the industry, however, do expect it to earn a "Mature" rating. I’ll keep you posted on any new developments.

Drug-tunnel Bust Aided by Controversial Provision of USA Patriot Act

2005-08-01T00:20:00.000-07:00

As drug smugglers carried hundreds of pounds of marijuana through a tunnel from Canada to the U.S. last month, federal officials heard every word and watched nearly every movement with state-of-the-art surveillance.

Investigators were able to surreptitiously install video and audio bugging devices in the tunnel after receiving a judge's approval to search the passage under a controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act.

By obtaining a so-called "sneak-and-peek" warrant, law-enforcement officials were able to enter the tunnel, and bug it, without immediately telling the suspects a warrant had been issued. Regular search warrants require that the subject of a search be notified immediately after it has been conducted.

As Congress prepares to reauthorize some parts of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act this summer, some legislators and civil-rights groups say that power is too broad and want to regulate the ways police can conduct searches. The Senate Judiciary Committee recently introduced a bill that would greatly limit how "sneak-and-peek" actions are conducted.

"I think that the power that the government has under the Patriot Act ... is clearly contrary to the notion underlying the Fourth Amendment," said former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia who leads the Patriot Act reform organization Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances.

Sneak-and-peek "is being used in cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism," Barr said. When police want to search a suspect's property, a judge has to determine there is probable cause before issuing a warrant. After police search the property, they are normally required to leave a notice with explanations of the areas searched and items removed, if any.

Under a sneak-and-peek warrant, also known as a delayed-notice search warrant, a judge authorizes police to search a suspect's property without leaving any trace they were there. Whalley said investigators arrange the timeline of the delay with a judge and most often notify suspects within 30 days.

Doug Whalley, an assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle, said the Patriot Act codified already-existing law, making it difficult to challenge the use of sneak-and-peek warrants in court. Rulings before the act were made on a case-by-case basis, Whalley said, and appeals courts could have ruled the warrants were improperly issued.

But Lisa Graves, senior counsel for legislative strategy for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that under these warrants, police routinely don't tell suspects they have searched their homes until months later. Graves also said the new Patriot Act provisions have been an attempt to give law enforcement a blanket ability to conduct secret searches without being held accountable.

"The Justice Department decided to create a statutory right across the board," Graves said, "to try and create a national right of law enforcement to create secret searches of businesses and homes, secret seizures of evidence."

"Federal prosecutors don't eagerly use these methods of surveillance," countered Whalley. "The process is very labor intensive. If you watch TV, they get a search warrant within 10 minutes. Something like this, where you want to go in and not announce your presence — if we're lucky, the turnaround is two days, and that's fast."

When authorities announced the discovery of the tunnel in mid-July, federal officials said their concern was not only drug smuggling but the possibility it could be used to transport terrorists or smuggle weapons.

But civil-rights advocates say law-enforcement agencies are abusing their power.

"The tunnel has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. ... There's absolutely no reason why the authorities couldn't have availed themselves of the normal ways possible," said Bob Mahler, a Seattle criminal-defense attorney. "They just didn't feel the need to use the normal, constitutionally mandated processes because they had this new tool that was given to them."

The section of the act containing the sneak-and-peek provisions is not up for congressional reauthorization this year, but advocates still want it amended during this series of revisions.

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced last month that the committee unanimously approved a bill to reform parts of the Patriot Act, including more regulation of police searches and sneak and peek.

Under the bill, the government would have to notify the target of a sneak-and-peek warrant within seven days of a search. Week-by-week extensions could be requested, bringing additional judicial oversight.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., co-sponsored a similar but further-reaching bill, the Security and Freedom Ensured, or SAFE, Act.

If passed, it would require added judicial oversight, much like Leahy's bill, and also would limit the grounds for delayed-notice search warrants. They would be allowed in cases when authorities feared there could be destruction of evidence, risk of injury, intimidation of witnesses or that suspects would flee, among other circumstances.

Jack Thompson Is At It Again..

2005-07-31T17:44:00.000-07:00

How do you like your hot coffee? If you're Jack Thompson, you like it scalding game publisher's laps. The Miami attorney and anti-gaming activist has done his share to see that games don't fall into the wrong hands. And lately, those hands have belonged to almost everyone.
Thompson was among those who spearheaded the recent effort to slap an "Adults Only" rating on Rockstar Games' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and he's often been on the forefront of many other gaming issues, several of which have targeted the crime-spree-based GTA franchise. In the past, he's represented defendants who have been the victims of GTA-inspired crimes, including the triple homicide of three police officers by an 18-year-old boy in Alabama.
His beef with San Andreas? Unused code in the game that depicts sexual acts. These mini-games can be unlocked by using game-cheat devices or patches available on the Internet.
Thompson is on a roll...and he's not done yet. His latest goat is a game that doesn't involve guns, carjacking, or prostitutes: He's going after Electronic Arts' The Sims 2.
In a manifesto sent today to press outlets, Thompson focuses on dismantling the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and exposing what he calls the industry's "latest dirty little secret." The secret's out now, and it involves nude Sims.
In the statement, Thompson says, "Sims 2, the latest version of the Sims video game franchise ... contains, according to video game news sites, full frontal nudity, including nipples, penises, labia, and pubic hair."
The Sims 2 is a "life simulator." In the game, players steer their digital beings around their cyber lives. Actions include everything from the spectacular (getting married, having children, receiving promotions at work) to the mundane (cooking micro waved meals, going to the bathroom, mopping the floor). Such activities, as in real life, sometimes require nudity. EA circumvents inappropriateness by "blurring" out the nether regions, almost to a comical sense.
Knowing that the game is popular among all ages, EA has even taken steps to ensure that Sims fans aren't exposed to indecent depictions. In the recent expansion pack, The Sims 2 University, gamers can send their teenage Sims off to college. However, instead of packing the expansion with "eggers" and "reefer," EA chose to use juice and bubble blowers.
Thompson doesn't seem to care. He cites a cheat code that can remove the blur that covers the nether regions. "The nudity placed there by the publisher/maker, Electronic Arts, is accessed by the use of a simple code that removes what is called 'the blur' which obscures the genital areas. In other words, the game was released to the public by the manufacturer knowing that the full frontal nudity was resident on the game and would be accessed by use of a simple code widely provided on the Internet."
It's not just the adults that are liberated from their wardrobes. Sims kids can also be nudified, "much to the delight, one can be sure, of pedophiles around the globe who can rehearse, in virtual reality, for their abuse."
Were this to be true, Thompson would have his smoking gun, and EA would be forced to recall all copies of The Sims 2. However, it's what's under the blur that Thompson's after. And what happens when the blur is lifted? A simple mannequin-esque smooth body, according to EA.
Jeff Brown, vice president of corporate communications at EA, in response to the accusations, told GameSpot, "This is nonsense. We've reviewed 100 percent of the content. There is no content inappropriate for a teen audience. Players never see a nude Sim. If someone with an extreme amount of expertise and time were to remove the pixels, they would see that the Sims have no genitals. They appear like Ken and Barbie."
Thompson doesn't buy it. "The sex and the nudity are in the game. That's the point. The blur is an admission that even the 'Ken and Barbie' features should not be displayed. The blur can be disarmed. This is no different than what is in San Andreas, although worse."
[UPDATE] Thompson this afternoon updated his earlier statement, saying he is aware certain MOD’s only remove "the blur," but adds that "Electronic Arts has done nothing about this." Thompson's new conclusion: EA is "cooperating, gleefully, with the mod community to turn Sims 2 into a porn offering."
The last time we checked, The Sims 2 was rated T for Teen by the ESRB, which means that anyone 13 years of age, with $50 to spend, can purchase the game.
--------------------------------
I just want to kick this Jerk right in the face!! I was going to give a really sarcastic satment or prove eveything he said is false, but I think that what he is saying really proves how stupid he really is..

Scientists Create Unbreakable Code To Stop Hackers

2005-07-31T17:18:00.000-07:00

Australian scientists believe they have developed an unbreakable information code to stop hackers, using a diamond, a kitchen microwave oven and an optical fiber.
Researchers at Melbourne University used the microwave to "fuse" a tiny diamond, just 1/1000th of a millimeter, onto an optical fiber, which could be used to create a single photon beam of light which they say cannot be hacked.
Photons are the smallest known particles of light. Until now, scientists could not produce a single-photon beam, thereby narrowing down the stream of light used to transmit information.
"When it comes to cryptology, it's not so much of a problem to have a coded message intercepted, the problem is getting the key (to decode it)," said university research fellow James Rabeau, who developed the diamond device.
"The single-photon beam makes for an unstealable key."
The security of information depends on the properties of light that is used to transmit data. Laser beams which are used at the moment send billions of photons, making it easy for hackers to steal some of them and break the code, said Rabeau.
The diamond device sends a stream of single photons, so that if the chain of communication is broken, the information becomes corrupted and a hacker immediately exposed to both the sender and the receiver, he said.
Only diamonds are known to create stable single-photon beams at room temperature.
Rabeau and his team have received a $2.5 million innovation grant from the Victoria state government to develop a prototype and commercialize the technology.
--------
First of all no computer is ever hacker proof no matter what people say, but security can make it more difficult for the hacker and if they are inexperienced hacker they'll just give up.
But by posting this story in WORLD news you know have every hacker in the world including myself trying to break it, I give this about 8 months or less to crack...

Microsoft Blocks Pirated Copies From Windows Updates

2005-07-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

"This week, Microsoft started requiring users to verifiy their serial number before using Windows Update. This effort to force users to either buy XP or tell them where you got the illegal copy is called 'Genuine Advantage.' It was cracked within 24 hours."
To get passed this verification paste this text to the address bar and press enter:

javascript:void(window.g_sDisableWGACheck='all')

It turns off the trigger for the key check.

Also an easier way is to;
1. Open IE
2. Click on Tools
3. Click on Internet options
4. Click to the Programs tab
5. Click on the Manage Add-ons button.
6. Select Windows Genuine Advantage
7. Click Disable
8. Done, now you can do Windows updates again.

(I do not advocate the use of pirated software, and the information above is purely for information and or entertainment proposes only...)

Senator Clinton, Burned by "Hot Coffee,"

2005-07-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

Senator Clinton, Burned by "Hot Coffee,"

Proposes Grand Theft of Free Speech

Recently, Rockstar Games got into hot water after people who play its already-controversial game, "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," discovered how to unlock a sexually graphic mini-game known as "Hot Coffee." Rockstar's parent, Take Two Interactive, has admitted to creating the hidden portion, and, under pressure, decided to pull the game off store shelves in anticipation of a "caffeine-free" version to be released this fall. In the meantime, Senator Hillary Clinton has vowed to introduce legislation that would fine retailers for selling minors video games that the industry rates as "mature" or "adults only.

Of course, the Senator's proposed video game censorship bill would violate the First Amendment. While courts have found that some sexual content is "harmful to minors," and that distribution of such material to children can be regulated, courts have also repeatedly held that violent speech, be it in video games or other media, is fully protected by the First Amendment. Courts have also repeatedly found that government enforcement of private ratings schemes (like the MPAA's ratings for films) is plainly unconstitutional. Video games are no different.

Senator Clinton, being a lawyer herself, knows that her proposed bill would immediately be challenged and struck down if ever signed into law -- just like every similar bill that has been passed by city councils and state legislatures, only to be followed by a video game industry lawsuit the next day. In fact, the industry filed its latest sure-to-win First Amendment challenge just this week to fight an Illinois law regulating violent video games.

Unfortunately, it's we the taxpayers who have to bear the cost of defending these politically motivated, certainly unconstitutional laws in court. And as long as politicians can make hay of the supposed "harm" caused to our younger citizens by violent and sexually explicit speech, they will be an annoyingly persistent part of the political landscape. But it's still worth writing your city council members and state and federal legislators. If your representatives have proposed a law like this, tell them that you're tired of time-wasting games -- the political kind.

"Story From http://www.eff.org/"

Are You For Freedom, Or Against It?

2005-07-29T19:34:00.000-07:00

Are you for freedom, or against it?

For a free society, you just need two things. First, of course, you need people who want freedom. And second, those free people need the means to prevent others from taking freedom away -- a working Constitution, some functional system of checks and balances, or just a community spirit that says, "Don't tread on me."

We spend a lot of time debating intricate details of that second ingredient. Perhaps surprisingly, though, it's the first ingredient that's really tricky -- finding people who want freedom.

You think most people, or even most Americans, want freedom? Bosh. Most Americans don't know what freedom is, and if they know it scares the bejeebers out of them.

It's easy to wave Old Glory, or sing along with Lee Greenwood, "Proud to Be an American." Any idiot can do that, and many idiots do. But real freedom is a lot more difficult than waving a flag and singing a song. It requires hard work, long patience, and commitment to genuine principles, traits many of the loudest so-called "patriots" are clueless about.

It isn't easy, after all, to argue that people should be free to do things you'd never do. It takes honest open-mindedness, to let people be free to worship a god you think is silly, free to read books that might warp their minds, free to say what they think, even when you think they're telling lies.

Most people are only comfortable allowing others to make "the right decisions," and they're all too willing to make sure "the wrong decisions" are illegal. It takes a true love of freedom to argue that people should be able to choose things you'd never choose. Free to do things to their own bodies that you'd never do to yours -- free to take drugs you wouldn't take, free to chase an unapproved cancer therapy, free to have sex with any consenting adult they wish, free to decide for themselves whether to bear children, free to simply think for themselves and make their own decisions.

A lot of people are scared silly to think for themselves, and scared even sillier to let you think for yourself.

It takes more principle than they've ever had, to presume that even accused child molesters, killers, and terrorists are innocent until proven guilty, to acknowledge that even the worst accusations could be wrong. It takes enormous restraint and respect for human rights, to insist that even people found guilty of crimes deserve to be treated humanely. If you can agree with that, you're probably more fair-minded than most American judges and juries.

But if you can't agree, then you're just another one of the angry townsfolk, carrying your torch and rope for a lynching. You're one of the millions or billions who fear freedom, and fight against it.

Why not embrace your inner tyrant, and admit that freedom horrifies you? Just say it out loud, and listen to yourself. That's all I ask. You're certainly in the majority, so revel in your hatred of freedom. Next time the subject of politics or religion comes up, let everyone know that you believe freedom shouldn't be allowed. Wear a t-shirt that declares in big letters, "I hate freedom." Or get a bumper sticker that says, "Tell me what to do."

I respectfully argue the opposite position: I love freedom. If you tell me what to do, I'll tell you to go to hell.

Freedom is more than just a word that sounds sweet. To mean something, it has to be truly respected, cherished, and understood, and that's a mighty tall wall to climb. Most people love their walls -- their leaders, their rules and regulations, their cages -- more than they love freedom.

You've built a cage where my freedom used to be, a cage manufactured of laws to keep me from going where I want, doing what I choose, or living my own life. Every needless law, of course, constricts our cages a little more, until there's no longer room to stand up. But the hunchbacked and kink-necked still celebrate "freedom" as if they have it, every Fourth of July.

You can build a cage for me, but I'll never willingly walk into it. I'll die trying to stay out of that cage, and I'll never build a cage for anyone else.

I'd rather be human, and live among other humans, sharing certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are my own choices, not yours. And your choices are yours to make, not mine.

That's freedom. Are you for it, or against it?

Libertarian Party Plug

2005-07-27T10:42:00.000-07:00

Seeing that I am going out of town for the next few days and don’t have time to make my usually post I thought I would make a plug for the libertarian plug..

The Myth of Freedom

If you are like most Americans, you will read the title of this article, and think to yourself, "I am free, it's not a myth it's a fact." I have the disconcerting challenge of proving you wrong, explaining how it got this way, and letting you know what we can do about it.

Think about a typical day. Your alarm clock sounds off, so you wake up and turn on your light. The electricity that operates your alarm clock and light comes from a power company that has no competition. It is prevented from having competition by our government. Lack of competition means you have to pay whatever they charge for electricity. You have lost the freedom to choose what you will pay.

You make yourself a little breakfast. Eggs, toast, and milk. The government has forced you to pay for subsidies that drive the cost of these items up. The subsidies go to prevent farmers from "growing too much." They actually get paid not to produce. You, however, pay at least twice. Subsidies are funded by your tax dollars, and you pay more for the product. The product costs more because there is less of it. Supply, and demand. Not only do you loose the freedom to pay what a product is worth, but you loose the freedom to spend your money as you see fit.

You shower, brush your teeth, get dressed and watch a little television. The government regulates the water you use. The regulation prevents competition. You are forced to pay a fixed price. The Food and Drug Administration approve your toothpaste. You have lost the freedom to choose toothpaste that may be more specified toward your needs. The Federal Communications Commission regulates the television you watch. You have lost the freedom to be entertained and informed in a manner that is appropriate to your personal tastes and needs.

I want to prove my point at the bare minimum, so I will assume that you are single and without children or pets. It's time for work. You walk out the door and get into your car. You car is regulated by a number of government bureaucracies including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Transportation. There are restrictions to mileage per gallons of gas used, safety restraints, and fuel emissions. In this case, your freedoms are again restricted to making personal decisions for yourself. You may need a car that is less costly, and can manage with less safety. While you are driving you are restricted to government-monopolized roads, and face a fine if you do not maintain a speed lower than the posted limit, and higher than the posted minimum.

You arrive to work. For roughly 4 hours, out of an 8 hour day, the money your earning is being used to pay for all of government programs and regulations. You will not be able to use White Out unless you know how to research the dangers in a Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheet book, required by a government bureaucracy known as Occupational Safety & Health Administration or (OSHA). OSHA take your freedom away to do your job as you see fit, instead they implement their own plans and enforce them with expensive fines.

Once your workday ends, you must choose your favorite recreation or leisure. If you smoke and drink, you will pay a sin tax, that is if you are 21 or over. If you are a recreational drug user, you face prison. If you watch a movie it must have some sort of rating. If you frequent a nightclub, you must pay extra for booze, or pay a cover charge, to compensate the club owner for all of the rules and regulations he or she must abide by. If you live here in Delaware, you are not allowed to enjoy a cigarette in any public or privately owned building for public use, even if the business owner does not mind. You cannot gamble, unless the government has authorized it. You cannot have sex for money, without a politician saying so. Maybe you are more of an outdoorsman. Instead of the nightclub, you prefer to hunt. Licensing and registration are necessary to carry a gun. Licensing and registration is necessary to hunt and fish.

Maybe you decide to use your free time to plan a business. You must apply, and pay for a license, and hope for approval. You are forced to pay a minimum wage. You are forced to disclose all of your personal financial information, and the personal financial information of your employees. You have lost the freedom of free enterprise, and the freedom to privacy. In fact, you cannot perform one thing in your life without some sort of government involvement.

How did it get this way? As you were reading the above paragraphs, you were no doubt saying, "Well, we need this kind of regulation," to at least one of the examples. More than likely, you haven't noticed all of the government involvement, because a majority of it is out of sight. You have probably thought that what effects you directly are minimal and barely intrusive, but when you scratch below the surface and see exactly how much it all affects you, it is overwhelming. All of these lost liberties are a direct result in allowing one favorable rule and regulation to pass. Not only does a law or regulation take one freedom away, but also it opens us up to more laws and regulations. Today they are banning smoking, and tomorrow it will be junk food. More laws and regulations follow, because every law and regulation brings a fresh new set of problems. For example, drug prohibition and the War on Drugs were instituted to prevent people from using or selling drugs. Since making drugs illegal did not stamp out the demand for narcotics, the drug sellers where able to make more money off of drugs. Because the drug dealers were making more money, they became more protective of the "turf" in which the peddled their wares. Because they can't have legitimate business fronts, and have no police protection, they sell drugs in the streets, and defend their marketplace with violence. Because violence inherently spreads to innocent bystanders, politicians decide to become tougher on drugs and violence. Because they are tougher on drugs and guns, it further perpetuates the black market value of drugs and guns. Gangs are formed to protect "turf." Addicts steal more to pay for their expensive habits. More government is enforced. This crackdown on drugs and violence does little to prevent drug use and murders, but is very costly to innocent law abiding citizens. Even drug users, who are non-violent, are subject to having their property confiscated and imprisoned. As a matter of fact, more than 50% of all prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. That means that murders, rapists, and child molesters are set free early to compensate for the over population of our prisons. Still, most think that more government is the answer, because the politicians never admit their programs are failing, instead they insist the laws need to be tougher and the Drug War needs more funding. It wasn't this bad before drug prohibition and the War on Drugs, and it will be better after it ends. We should learn; more government never solves our problems, it only makes different problems.

How do we once regain our independence and freedom? First, demand that your senators, and representatives set term limits for themselves. If they fail, vote them out immediately. Second, cut the government back to its constitutional restraints. Get rid of the War on Drugs, farm subsidies, trade regulations, income tax, welfare, social security, government loans, government insurance, TSA, FDA, FCC, ATF, and anything else that violates the constitution. This includes YOUR favorite legislation. You cannot truly regain your freedom without giving back the freedoms of others. Third, make congress read bills before they pass them, and vote out anyone who increases the size of government. Know this; if we do not dramatically cut our government, and cut it now, we will soon see unleashed moral and social decay, a tyrannical police state, and an economic catastrophe. Finally, institute a principled libertarian government. Until we take a stand to regain control of our own lives, freedom will continue to be a myth.

Safe Games Act Passes In Illinois

2005-07-26T00:35:00.000-07:00

Governor Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois has just signed a Safe Games Act, making it illegal to sell games rated M and above to people who are below the age of 18, essentially turning the M rating into AO. The rating's are decided by a non-bias group know as the ESRB. But in making the mature games into adult only the governor is simply ignoring the ESRB and making his own ratings, which in turns makes retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy, And EB Games take the AO games off there shelves. Here's the "Top Lists of Violent and Sexually Explicit Video Games" as taken from the Governor's site:
DOOM 3 <----Have It!!!
GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS <----Have It!!!
HALF LIFE <----Have It (I have both)!!!
HALO 2 <----Have It!!
MORTAL KOMBAT: DECEPTION
RUMBLE ROSE
RESIDENT EVIL: OUTBREAK
PSI-OPS: MINDGATE CONSPIRACY <----Have It!!!
THE GUY GAME
LEISURE SUIT LARRY: MAGNA CUM LAUDE
GUNSLINGER GIRLS
HITMAN: BLOOD MONEY <----Have It!!
MANHUNT
POSTAL 2 <----Have It!!

Libertarians mourn passing of medical marijuana activist

2005-07-25T14:18:00.000-07:00

Libertarians around the US are mourning the passing of
Peter McWilliams, the #1 best selling author
of "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do," "How to
Survive the Loss of a Love," and "The Personal Computer
Book," who died in his Los Angeles home yesterday at the
age of 50.

McWilliams was an outspoken advocate of medical
marijuana. He was diagnosed with AIDS and non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma in March, 1996 and used medical marijuana to
combat the nausea caused by his medical treatments. He
joined the Libertarian Party in 1998 following a
nationally televised speech at the Libertarian National
Convention.

"Peter McWilliams was a true hero who fought and
ultimately gave his life for what he believed in: the
right to heal oneself without government interference,"
declared Libertarian state chair Mark Hinkle.

"His loss opens a gaping hole in the fabric of liberty,
but his memory will live on not only in the hearts of
grateful Libertarians but also in the lives of the
countless patients who will take up the crusade for
health freedom."

McWilliams was arrested in 1998 and charged with
conspiracy to sell marijuana plants that he had been
growing to supply cooperatives that serve other medical
marijuana patients in California. McWilliams was forced
to plead guilty after the federal judge presiding over
the case refused to allow any mention of Proposition 215,
the landmark 1996 California ballot initiative that
legalized medical marijuana.

At the time of his death, McWilliams was awaiting
sentencing on the marijuana charges. His health was
failing after Judge George King ordered McWilliams not to
use medical marijuana. According to sources, McWilliams
was found in his bathroom choked on his vomit.

"The War on Drugs has sadly produced another
casualty," said Hinkle. "Had Peter been allowed to take
medical marijuana, he could have kept his nausea under
control and probably prevented his death. Americans
should be outraged that the government allowed Peter to
die, and Judge King should be held accountable for his
decision -- which amounted to a death sentence for Peter.

"On behalf of all Libertarians, we send our deepest
sympathies to his family and friends. Peter's
exceptional commitment to liberty and freedom was rare,
and he will be sorely missed."

Family Guy Movie Leaked 2 Months Early

2005-07-25T11:55:00.000-07:00

For those of you who can’t wait till September to get a glimpse at just how hilarious Seth MacFarlane’s humor can be when untamed by the brutal censorship of the FCC, Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story has now appeared on a number of torrent tracking websites, and according to sources it’s the real deal. Although when ask many of the pirate’s say that they are going to buy the DVD when it comes out, even though they have it already.
Fox has not yet released any comments on the matter mainly because they probably don’t know about it yet..

Realistic Time Machine? New design could forgo exotic ingredient

2005-07-24T20:12:00.000-07:00

The laws of physics seem to allow time travel, but no one has had much hope of building an actual time machine because it would take such exotic conditions and materials.

Now, physicist Amos Ori of the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa has come up with a potentially more practical time machine design. Unlike most previous proposals, this one requires only normal matter and the vacuum known to exist in space, says Ori.

One type of time travel occurs routinely here and now: our inexorable one-way drift into the future. Einstein's special theory of relativity revealed the possibility of accelerated travel into the future (SN: 12/21&28/02, p. 394: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021221/bob9.asp). Suppose a person spends a year in a rocket that's traveling slightly less than the speed of light. Because motion at such enormous speeds drastically slows the clock for the traveler, that person could return to Earth to find that many years had elapsed at home. In that way, a traveler could leap into the future.

Retreating into the past is another matter, but one that relativity theory also suggests might be possible. The theory shows that gravity curves space-time and slows clocks. That's why time-travel theorists have proposed that regions of space-time might naturally, or by human intervention, be made to curve back onto themselves. Someone moving around such a loop could travel back in time (SN: 4/11/98, p. 231: http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/4_11_98/fob3.htm).

A new version of such a loop is what Ori proposes in the July 8 Physical Review Letters. The loop would form within an empty, donut-shaped region of space-time enveloped by a sphere of normal matter, he says. The distortion of space-time in the central donut would result from other huge nearby masses, perhaps including a black hole, or from interference of gravity waves propagating through the donut. To return to the past, a traveler in a rocket would zip around inside the donut, receding a little further into the past with each orbit, Ori says.

Hot Coffee Mod Explained

2005-07-24T16:19:00.000-07:00

As many of you have heard Rockstar Games has been in hot water over the past few days over a mod hidden inside that game, in this mod that was pulled under the last phase of development was know as "Hot Coffee", in this feature the players could have simulated sex with in the game. The developers of Rockstar games pulled this feature for undisclosed reasons.
The National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF), backed by Hillary Clinton stated that; "America's parents and retailers need to know immediately if the code and pornographic animation are on the disk -- hidden, locked or otherwise. We don't want technical runarounds," said NIMF founder and president Dr. David Walsh. Hillary Clinton suggested that Rockstar games do a massive recall of the games, she has also put pressure and the rating board to change the once mature rating to the highest rating known as AO (Adult Only).
Rockstar Games Lashed back stating, " We cannot be held liable for the hacking and or modding of or games code". Early Saturday Morning the ratings board came back with there decision, and with the combined efforts of lobbying from Mrs. Clinton and the publicity that has came they changed the rating from Mature to Adults Only. Because of this company's like Wall- Mart and Best Buy has pulled they game from there shelves...