Slashdot Mirror

Last time I checked, noone in the united states is prevented from legally acquiring any information they desire... you can get government records, money trails, electronic information, anything.

Oh yeah? Well how about the government's attempts to stop this happening: in this report you can see how John Ashcrofy has been trying to undermine the FOIA. Choice quotes, one from the reporter:

" In a memo that slipped beneath the political radar, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom of Information Act requests made by American citizens."

and a quote from Ashcroft's memo, which memo is the subject of the article:

"When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records."

I have no idea of the political leanings of the supporters of the proposed taxes being discussed in this thread, but my bet is they are less likely to be Republicans. As a tax, I would suspect that Republicans would generally be against it. As a means of supporting artists that may have non-family values, I would suspect that Republicans would generally be against it. And given the entertainment industry's general love of Clinton & Democrats, I would suspect that Republicans would generaly be against it.

Too quote a short Wired article on donations: "Artists and execs in the movie and music businesses tend to lean Democratic when it comes time to donate to political parties." A longer article also seems to confirm the Democrat's greater penchant for anti-piracy legislation. Otherwise, I agree that Republican's often stick up for business and are not the best privacy advocates in the world.

What I do know is that businesses put up with a lot of crap in the form of well-intentioned, but deleterious regulations that destroy jobs and drive up prices. An artist's subsidy tax on computer equipment and services for businesses would be an example. Having been through the startup process myself and had friends who started businesses I have seen or experienced a range of dumb regulations that only serve to make it hard to start and run a new business. Most of the crap targets businesses only, so consumers, employees, and the average voter seldom see all the fees, forms, and bureaucratic B.S. perpetrated by Federal, state, and local authorities.

Consumers think that businesses should pay their "fair share of taxes" and that is a understandable, if shortsighted view. In reality, no business pays any taxes, they simply pass them on to the customer or to the shareholder. Yet the taxes are frustrating because they make a business less competative and dealing with the paperwork serves no business purpose.

But, I could be wrong on all this. After all, I am a moron.

#11: U.S. Implicated in Taliban Massacre

Yes, we did kill a lot of them. Fortunately, there was no conspiracy there. WAIT! Because we funded the enemy of our soviet enemy when they were our enemy, that must mean the Taliban was, is and will always be our freind. Get married so you can find out about how friendships change over the years.

1. The code is proprietary. We are being asked to trust a private company--who might have political biases of their own--to count our votes accurately, but they will not allow us to see exactly how they do it.
   
2. The companies are actively fighting against a paper receipt, so if something goes wrong (mechanical or software problems) there will be no way to count the votes.
   

Wal-Mart Wages Don't Support Wal-Mart Workers, Stan Cox, AlterNet, June 10, 2003

Yup. They save money on their suppliers. But never would they think to do so on their employees, no ... Workforce is the most expensive part of a business; no reason to expect they wouldn't try to trim the edges there.

Lately, kind sir, I have been quite perturbed by certain events that have been proliferating in our society. Was it not so long ago, that in more civilized times, children respected and obeyed their parents, under the threat of a firm thrashing if their impudence and audacity got out of hand? But oh, kind father, the trials that parents today must suffer! Not just the other day, whist I was dining upon a fresh garden salad, my daughter, of not even 6 years old, insisted upon uprooting most unrest in requesting I purchase for her a milky-way bar! I quickly remarked to the impudent creature that one of our many servants would be more than willing to carriage her to the local general store; but no! she insisted that I -personally- drive the buggy to make the purchase! Oh wise man of God, what is a poor woman to do in these hard times! Before you can open your Moses-lovin' mouth Pastor, I have proposed a final solution to the problem of "youthful indiscretion"- Prison Labor!

Before you bring up cries of protest from your liberalism-saturated mind, hear me out! Our disrespectful children will learn the true meaning of honor and sacrifice while they're hard at work pounding license plates and assembling adding machines! Honestly, what better way is there to whip our children into shape? Scare them with threats of the boogey-man? Psh-haw! Just look at the wondrous effects prison labor had on the Dell kid! Not only will prison labor harden our children into obedient automatons, it will show them the reality they will have to face if they follow their current paths and become criminals!

Thank you for your attention kind Minister, and God-Bless!

• http://warblogging.com/
• http://agonist.org/
• http://www.alternet.org/
• http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/static_index.neo

Independent Media Center is amazing in it that anyone can submit a story. This is much more likely to be read on the local versions; there are dozens of locals Centers, spread around the globe. IndyMedia has proved to be an important organizing tool for progressive groups in third world countries.

AlterNet, on the other hand, is more of a news analysis site, where the headlines of the day are tackled from different angles and where you can find information that the mainstream media "forgot" to report.

The importance of sites like these is that they allow you to see a different side of an issue. In a world controlled by the right-wing corporate media machine, this can be seen as a very good thing©.

The problem is that the various frequencies that are used by NPR around the country are not bought and sold like the rest of the FM spectrum

On the surface that would seem correct. But the reality is much different. Why is this spectrum different? It exists to serve the public, not corporate, interest.

There are two areas of concern (in reality excuses). The main "primary" transmitter and all the thousands of "secondary" translators in use.

To say that a 10-100 watt LPFM station would "interfere" with a 100,000 watt primary station is laughably ridiculous at best. That would leave the "translators".

The purpose of translator stations was to fill in gaps in coverage for the existing transmitting signal, not to EXTEND coverage of a single station across large regions They originate no programming. That is why they exist under a "secondary" purpose, not as a "primary" station.

The problem is that the various frequencies that are used by NPR around the country are not bought and sold like the rest of the FM spectrum.

This has nothing to do with it. What gives NPR the right to transmit over the whole nation?? You are absolutely right when you said "This is the frequency range between 88 and 92MHz and are reserved for non-commercial use." What makes NPR so "special" that they need to have every frequency in the "non-commercial use" spectrum?? What makes them so "special" that they need to have coverage over large geographical areas that commercial stations don't have??" What makes them so special that they have to have a "monopoly" on public radio???

This also begs the question if NPR is really "non-commercial." Have you listened to NPR recently?? They are filled with station breaks giving acknowledgements to corporations that "sponsor" programs that predominantly contain promotional announcements. I really can't tell the difference between what they broadcast and a regular advertisement on a "commercial" radio station. At least alot of the religous stations don't have that nonsense.

Maybe NPR needs to be kicked out of the "non-commercial" section of the spectrum and let them compete honestly with regular broadcasting corporations. Oh wait, NPR's "corporation for public broadcasting" isn't really a corporation. I see.

Does NPR really serve the public interest?? According to this link, not really. Not only by not representing a variety of viewpoints, but also by hoarding translator frequencies that they really don't need. They seem to be representing increasingly commercial interests. There are others who are noticing this also. NPR has even tried putting a bandaid on it. As can be seen, NPR takes out the "community" in "community radio".

After NPR goes dark from drives like the unpledge, those that love it can pick it up on satellite radio. NPR is not an irreplaceable resource. There are thousands of people ready to put up LPFM transmitters in its place that are really non-commercial.

I know that there are alot of of people who listen on NPR on slashdot, but it is time to realize that NPR no longer represents community interests. Sure their programming is fun and interesting to listen to at times. But the same could be said of any

The problem is that the various frequencies that are used by NPR around the country are not bought and sold like the rest of the FM spectrum

On the surface that would seem correct. But the reality is much different. Why is this spectrum different? It exists to serve the public, not corporate, interest.

There are two areas of concern (in reality excuses). The main "primary" transmitter and all the thousands of "secondary" translators in use.

To say that a 10-100 watt LPFM station would "interfere" with a 100,000 watt primary station is laughably ridiculous at best. That would leave the "translators".

The purpose of translator stations was to fill in gaps in coverage for the existing transmitting signal, not to EXTEND coverage of a single station across large regions They originate no programming. That is why they exist under a "secondary" purpose, not as a "primary" station.

The problem is that the various frequencies that are used by NPR around the country are not bought and sold like the rest of the FM spectrum.

This has nothing to do with it. What gives NPR the right to transmit over the whole nation?? You are absolutely right when you said "This is the frequency range between 88 and 92MHz and are reserved for non-commercial use." What makes NPR so "special" that they need to have every frequency in the "non-commercial use" spectrum?? What makes them so "special" that they need to have coverage over large geographical areas that commercial stations don't have??" What makes them so special that they have to have a "monopoly" on public radio???

This also begs the question if NPR is really "non-commercial." Have you listened to NPR recently?? They are filled with station breaks giving acknowledgements to corporations that "sponsor" programs that predominantly contain promotional announcements. I really can't tell the difference between what they broadcast and a regular advertisement on a "commercial" radio station. At least alot of the religous stations don't have that nonsense.

Maybe NPR needs to be kicked out of the "non-commercial" section of the spectrum and let them compete honestly with regular broadcasting corporations. Oh wait, NPR's "corporation for public broadcasting" isn't really a corporation. I see.

Does NPR really serve the public interest?? According to this link, not really. Not only by not representing a variety of viewpoints, but also by hoarding translator frequencies that they really don't need. They seem to be representing increasingly commercial interests. There are others who are noticing this also. NPR has even tried putting a bandaid on it. As can be seen, NPR takes out the "community" in "community radio".

After NPR goes dark from drives like the unpledge, those that love it can pick it up on satellite radio. NPR is not an irreplaceable resource. There are thousands of people ready to put up LPFM transmitters in its place that are really non-commercial.

I know that there are alot of of people who listen on NPR on slashdot, but it is time to realize that NPR no longer represents community interests. Sure their programming is fun and interesting to listen to at times. But the same could be said of any

The other secret of their success is not paying their staff a living wage.

I found this gem on alternet:

All races of voters make errors on paper ballots. But in white counties like Leon (Tallahassee), if you make a stray mark or other error, the vote machine rejects your ballot, and you get another ballot to vote again. But in black counties like Gadsden, you make a mistake and the machine quietly accepts and voids your ballot.

Why, wouldn't you know it, IAAIPL (I am an IP lawyer)! Sadly, yes, this is enforceable. "Sniff" is too broad a term to trademark, but "sniffer" is certainly not. Check findlaw.com's take on trademark dilution. NAI believes these's peoples' use of the term "sniffer" dialates their trademark.

However, I think in this case they've gone too far. There's a C&D letter they also sent to the Children's Television Workshop after the Sesame Street producers gave Snuffleupagus HIV last year as part of a bid to raise kids' awareness of AIDS. Apparently NAI didn't want their trademark associated with wherever Snuffleupagus was keeping his "sniffer"

That, defying the UN, breaking the geneva convention, creating one of the most ludicrous tax plans ever (and subsequently heavily damaging the economy), and oh yeah lying to the American people...

Remember how pissed off everyone got when Clinton lied about his PERSONAL BUSINESS? Bush should be impeached, the hundreds dead because of his actions would thank whoever called for such action.

I'd rather have a hedgemony of a capitalistic democracy than one of a dictatorship.

I think that the point was more that he didn't want a hegemony at all. Americans tend to consider only two options: you dominate others or others dominate you. Most don't seem to understand that it is very hard to dominate someone with enough nuclear bombs to destroy the entire earth. The probable outcome of a strong China is not a communist dictatorship, but a balance of power. Whether that will result in a better world is debatable, but the US certainly seems to need to be kept in check.

Guantanamo hit the news because it is an exception in the US.

I wouldn't be very happy if I was that exception. Besides, when does something stop being an exception? When hundreds of people are held without trial? When legal residents are deported for misdemeanors committed a decade ago? When a law is passed by congress that allows you to be held indefinately without trial? Does it need to get worse before you get worried?

I don't understand your complacency. Do you think you can still stop your government from turning into a dictatorship when things like Guantanamo stop appearing in the news?

... can be found here. Check it out.

Also check out this piece about minimum wage...

I think it's time to reconsider the validity of spending billions on disaster after disaster when so much needs to be taken care of at home.

Ok, let me get this straight. You list some of NASA's failures and ignore all of its successes, and conclude from that analysis that NASA is a big waste of time and money? Hmm...

NASA's budget is 14 GigaUSD per year. Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut is 35 GigaUSD per year. If your true interest is taking care of problems at home like war and famine, you should be attacking the Bush administration, not NASA.

But everybody that know's joe also know's that he's one of those, watchyacallem's, eh, christians. You know, the born again kind. And so everybody smiles and nods when joe tells them that the movie sucks, then they go and rent it. It's the same reason kids do drugs.

Wal-mart isn't a company about absorbing huge losses.

Not overall, but you bet they can lose money on DVD rental in the short term if the prize in monopolization of the market in the long term. That the risk Netflix takes by being n business. What will you do when Netflix is out of business, Wal-Mart is the only place to get Anime (except for the anime that isn't "wholesome" enough for them to carry), but their title selection sucks, which it can because they don't have any competition anymore.

Caveat: I like Netflix but I don't know anything about how they treat their employees. Maybe Netflix is a worse place to work than Wal-Mart. In NYC, where I live there are mostly two kinds of video-stores: crappy ones and Blockbuster, and Blockbuster is crappy. So renting from a mom-and-pop video store is ot an option.

although sam walton isn't around anymore to make sure they stick to his philosphies anymore, the company is still held by his family. yeah, wal-mart is huge, but how did they get that way? by actually meeting the needs of the communities they serve.

Sam Walton's philosophy. Here are a few high notes of that philosophy (from alternet.org):

• The average worker makes $15,000/year, working full time.
• In a world that is increasingly about unreliable part-time work, a whopping 70% of Wal-Marts employees work full-time. How do that do it? By defining full-time to mean 28 hrs a week!.
• Employee turnover is over 50%/year with some stores hitting 100% -- having to replace every worker every year. Sounds like a great place with a great philosophy!
• When meat cutters in Texas got sick of how they were treated at Wal-Mart and voted to unionize, Wal-Mart closed all of its meat-cutting departments
• It's "We buy American Campaign" is a sham. They are the world's largest importer of Chinese made goods. Their low prices are thanks to impoverished Chinese people working 16 hour days for $0.13/hr.

There is more to life than selling the most. And while it isn't Wal-Mart's job to make people happy, it is our job to protect ourselves and realize that places like Wal-Mart sell crap, no one that works there knows anything about what they sell, and working there is crap. When you spend money at your local Wal-Mart, you are basically exporting money from your town. They only part of that money that gets put back into your community is the chump change that passes for wages.

A healthy family with a roof over its head could supply virtually all of its other basic monthly needs with one stop at a Wal-Mart Supercenter like the one here in Salina, Kansas. To me, that raised a question: Can a family whose breadwinner works at Wal-Mart afford to supply its minimum needs by shopping there? ... The bottom line: They would need an absolute minimum of $1,136 per month to cover housing, food, transportation, health care and miscellaneous expenses. Despite our best efforts, we exceeded our cashier's monthly income by $120.

the government implicitly recognizes the insufficiency of Wal-Mart wages. Our cashier's family would be eligible for an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) of $4,140 in 2002. That would close the gap between the cashier's wage and bare survival, and provide enough additional income to lift the family just above the poverty line.

A healthy family with a roof over its head could supply virtually all of its other basic monthly needs with one stop at a Wal-Mart Supercenter like the one here in Salina, Kansas. To me, that raised a question: Can a family whose breadwinner works at Wal-Mart afford to supply its minimum needs by shopping there? ... The bottom line: They would need an absolute minimum of $1,136 per month to cover housing, food, transportation, health care and miscellaneous expenses. Despite our best efforts, we exceeded our cashier's monthly income by $120.

the government implicitly recognizes the insufficiency of Wal-Mart wages. Our cashier's family would be eligible for an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) of $4,140 in 2002. That would close the gap between the cashier's wage and bare survival, and provide enough additional income to lift the family just above the poverty line.

They are anti-porn like you. The following is what they stand for, from a quote from the article linked to above. You obviously stand for the same things.

Someday, I hope you wind up working in the kind of outsourcing operation described below. You like great companies? So go to the Third World and admire WalMart from the bottom up.

"The work is literally sickening, since thereâ(TM)s no health and safety enforcement. Workers have constant headaches and nausea from paint-dust hanging in the air; the indoor temperature tops 100 degrees; protective clothing is a joke; repetitive stress disorders are rampant; and thereâ(TM)s no training on the health hazards of handling the plastics, glue, paint thinners, and other solvents in which these workers are immersed every day."

Wanna read? Look here, here, and here..

I know they're from the same web site but Google will find you more examples.

Wanna read? Look here, here, and here..

I know they're from the same web site but Google will find you more examples.

Wanna read? Look here, here, and here..

I know they're from the same web site but Google will find you more examples.

Most interesting is that while AOL Time Warner would prefer not to undo decades of sound legal and policy conclusions, they never miss an opportunity to grow their media empire ...

Paul T. Cappacio, general counsel of AOL Time Warner, told the New York Times that the rules were "an anachronism" and were "not remotely necessary to protect competition."

strange times.

If anyone can get the ball rolling on RFID it is Wally World. They have lots of experience putting pressure on manufacturers and distributors. They will just tell the distributors NO RFID=No Wal-Mart. They have so much buying power they can always find someone to sell cheaper, or in this case someone cooperate w/ the RFID rollout. Check out this AlterNet article about Wal-Mart's questionable business and employment practices. It is titled How Wal-Mart is Remaking our World: Bullying people from your town to China

>Corporations don't have rights, people do

Quite right, and Corporations are people. You can thank the Supreme Court, and a terrible interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Have a look for yourself

This is the very decision that has torn any sembalance of government for the people out and replaced it with capitalism. IF you folks want to address the REAL problems with America, you should start there.

Check this out: Says it all. Follow the money.

In fact it is much worse. The current US-Administration is practicing "Selective Intelligence - Donald Rumsfeld Has His Own Special Sources. Are They Reliable?".

It follows logically from Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception which is based on three rules: Deception, Power of Religion and Aggressive Nationalism:

"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy...

Karl Popper has written "The Open Society And Its Enemies" about ideologies of this type in the 1940-ies. He had national socialism and communism in mind, but he seems to be pretty modern again.

And for every study linking THC to stopping cancer there is a study refuting that.

Bullshit. Here are the studies I know of.

Here's a study.

Here's another study.

And another.

And then of course there is Dr. Guzman's work itself.

Now you show us the studies that refuse these.

UCLA says smoking weed leads to lung cancer and that THC supresses anti-tumor immune responses.

Thanks for the link. Were you perhaps referring to this study? The study that was funded by the federal government, i.e., the study where if they don't report what the federal government wants to hear they'll lose their funding? Well that was put to rest by a research at Johns Hopkins Medical School who concluded in effect that no such risk exists. UCLA was doing bogus science. Indeed, if you read their report carefully, you'll note that cancer was never caused by the THC; that they simply thought it would occur based on the higher concentrations of certainl chemicals marijuana smoke shares with tobacco smoke, forgetting the whole time that a marijuana user inhales far, far less smoke than the average tobacco smoker.

Of course they had to say something though. Remember that this came out shortly after Dr. Guzman's work in Madrid.

Criminalizing IV drugs spreads AIDS? Is that like criminalizing cats spreads mice?

No, not at all. According to the logic put forth by our drug policy, heroin is a menace because once addicted the user loses the ability to choose (nevermind the fact that tobacco and alcohol are more addictive than heroin according to the NIDA.) So if these addicts have no choice but to use drugs, the only people with the opportunity to make a choice as to whether they transmit deadly diseases or not are those who stand in the way of these addicts using their drugs safely.

In other words, we know they're going to use heroin, and they want to use heroin safely, but we won't let them. We would rather see them spread deadly diseases than let them use clean syringes.

Like I said. Barbaric.

The fact is that the majority of AIDS/HIV transmission comes from sex and from infected mothers giving birth, not drugs.

The fact is that most people die of natural causes, so it's OK for us to kill? Your logic is rephrehsible.

These "indisputable" facts are easily disputed. There is zero evidence that THC would be a magic cure for the hundreds of cancers.

I've just given you four links that say otherwise.

And there is no way that anyone can blame the US for the 6 million cancer deaths world-wide.

It's our drug policy. And thanks to our economic and military might, we've seen to it that this policy is exported throughout the world. Get put on our list of "uncooperative" nations and watch your economy go into the shithole. Stand accused of aiding or abetting drug traffickers and watch our military kill hundreds if not thousands of your citizens.

And by the way, the figure is closer to 300,000,000. From cancer alone that is. Or at least, that is the number of lives that at best we've recklessly endangered. 30 years * 10,000,000 @ year = 300,000,000.

If it's so indisputable, then the Ministries/Departments/Directorates of Health of the other 200+ nation-states on Earth and the World Health Organization are equally guilty.

Do you read the news at all? We were voted out of the U.N. Committee on Narcotics last year! The world is chomping at the bit to institu

Dr. Dill argued, however, that if voting machines were really secure, then voters would be able to see the insides of their "proprietary" technology. "If someone really has a tamper-resistant machine, they should tell you enough about how the machine works so you can assure yourself that the machine works," he said. "We don't know what the weaknesses are. We don't know who the people are that control that stuff."

Mr. Terwilliger said that Sequoia was willing to share its source code, provided viewers sign nondisclosure agreements.

552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:

(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public--

(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;

(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;

(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;

(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general
applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and

(E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.

Tablizer writes:
"Okay, how about, "covers at least 2/3 of its expenses". The idea is to differentiate between people who do stuff for fun and/or hobby and those trying to make mula."

Alternet.org doesn't charge anything, how can they turn a profit? Indymedia.org doesn't charge anything either.

Besides, what gives you the impression that only sites that turn a profit are sources of good information? Are you aware that information websites that are commecial in nature are a relative new-comer on the net and almost unheard of if you pare them down to only the profitable or almost-profitable? Are you aware that most sites that charge for information are not going to get indexed (because you have to pay for that info) so their inclusion in Google's results is a non-sequiter because googlebot is polite and does not index sites the owner does not wish for them to index?

"If you don't like my definition, how about your own, btw."

This is sort of like a theist challenging an atheist to come up with their own definition of god if the atheist does not like the ones proffered. Or like asking what hair color "bald" is. You're asking me to defend a position I don't think is defensible because what is "useful" and "un-useful" information does not share a common boundary with "not-blogs" and "blogs." You've tried to draw the line at profitability which I think is almost the exact opposite of what you'd want.

Go ahead -- try and use Google but only clicking on hits that come from domains you have a good reason to suspect turn a profit.

I asked:
"What defines a blog, anyway? "

Tablizer replied:
"How about: If it turns a profit, it is no longer a blog."

Well, there goes CNN.com, Alternet.org, Fair.org, ACLU.org, Kuro5hin, IMDB, the MIT Tech Review and everything on the BBC website.

On the other hand we'll now get authoratative hits from Amazon, Buy.com and Microsoft.

Woot!

Read this story about Feeling The Boot Heel Of The Patriot Act

Cheers,
W00t

Having a system where everybody is a criminal and anybody can be arrested whenever the government want to is scary beyond imagination.

You have the right to a steaming hot bowl of shut your face!

I think cause right now is definitely needed but under the wonderful DSEA (Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 aka the worst idea ever) I'm pretty sure there will be no such thing as priviledged information anymore, especially on the Internet. As there are actually incentives for ISPs to screw their customers... scary thought, if this actually makes it to Congress...I'm scared as we speak. Alternet has a good write up here "Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!" "Raised to dizzy heights of power, the king sits in his majesty - but let him beware his downfall!" "FORTUNA IMPERATRIX MUNDI" -Carl Orff

My attempt at Israel-perl-code humor pales in significance to such a statement.

What's the point of having Excellent Karma, if one does not put it on the line?

Remember Rachel Corrie.

Michael.

Get Ready for PATRIOT II

Matt Welch, AlterNet
April 1, 2003
Viewed on April 8, 2003

The "fog of war" obscures more than just news from the battlefield. It also provides cover for radical domestic legislation, especially ill-considered liberty-for-security swaps, which have been historically popular at the onset of major conflicts.

The last time allied bombs fell over a foreign capital, the Bush Administration rammed through the USA PATRIOT Act, a clever acronym for maximum with-us-or-against-us leverage (the full name is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism").

Remarkably, this 342-page law was written, passed (by a 98-1 vote in the U.S. Senate) and signed into law within seven weeks of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. As a result, the government gained new power to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on its own citizens without judicial review, conduct secret searches, snoop on the reading habits of library users, and so General John Ashcroft wants to finish the job. On Jan. 10, 2003, he sent around a draft of PATRIOT II; this time, called "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." The more than 100 new provisions, Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo told the Village Voice recently, "will be filling in the holes" of PATRIOT I, "refining things that will enable us to do our job."

Though Ashcroft and his mouthpieces have issued repeated denials that the draft represents anything like a finished proposal, the Voice reported that: "Corallo confirmed ... that such measures were coming soon."

You can read the entire 87-page draft here. Constitutional watchdog Nat Hentoff has called it "the most radical government plan in our history to remove from Americans their liberties under the Bill of Rights." Some of DSEA's more draconian provisions:

Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But -- and read this carefully from the new bill -- 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)

Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War."

The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic

sorry to get on my soapbox, and I know I've already said this here, but I want to know if anybody else has noticed this.

Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

1) C&C: Intro starts with player flipping through TV channels on cable and then seeing a building blow up with a voice over about the Nod Terrorist Organisation.

War Against Terror: Begins with 24 hour coverage of the 9-11 attack.

2) C&C: Immediately after the intro you hear two conflicting voices and are forced to choose a side.

War Against Terror: "Let those who harbor terrorists know they and the terrorists themselves are our enemies, without distinction. America has the will and the resources to defeat you. We are a determined and rich nation with clever and resourceful people. We will also need and we demand the assistance of every government in the world to help us. Whoever does is our friend and whoever does not will be considered to be our enemy."

3) C&C: involves grey troops fighting in tall snowbound mountains, or sand coloured troops fighting in the deserts.

War Against Terror: Footage of Afghanistan mountain campaign, and desert footage of south-central iraq.

4) C&C: American side has one General Shepard who guides you through the missions, until he disappears for a while because the UN hates him.

War Against Terror: The CNN has Gen. Don Shepherd to guide you through the hunt for Bin Laden. Until the USA goes for unilateral action with its coalition of the willing and the world hates us.

5) C&C: All this bloodshed for a rare natural resource which promises untold power to whoever controls it.

War Against Terror: hmmm. you're right. Self Defense.

6) C&C: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Kane.

War Against Terror: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Osama.

7) C&C: New weapons every successful mission.

War Against Terror: MOAB. Stryker. SA80-A2.

8) C&C: We will use cleansing Nuclear Fire.

War Against Terror: Oh no. Just find the silver crate and get the hell out of there.

9) C&C: the sequel, red alert, has Kane controlling Stalin.

War Against Terror: "As a young man, Saddam Hussein admired Hitler's system of government. Stalin and his totalitarian model became Saddam's exemplars. Saddam tailored his system along Nazi and Stalinist lines, though it had a number of new features as well. In keeping with Nazi ideals, Iraq's Ba'th system had four main pillars: totalitarian ideology, single-party rule, a command economy (nominally socialist), and firm control over the media and the army."

10) more to come. remember: there are at least two endings, to promote better replay value.

Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

1) C&C: Intro starts with player flipping through TV channels on cable and then seeing a building blow up with a voice over about the Nod Terrorist Organisation.

War Against Terror: Begins with 24 hour coverage of the 9-11 attack.

2) C&C: Immediately after the intro you hear two conflicting voices and are forced to choose a side.

War Against Terror: "Let those who harbor terrorists know they and the terrorists themselves are our enemies, without distinction. America has the will and the resources to defeat you. We are a determined and rich nation with clever and resourceful people. We will also need and we demand the assistance of every government in the world to help us. Whoever does is our friend and whoever does not will be considered to be our enemy."

3) C&C: involves grey troops fighting in tall snowbound mountains, or sand coloured troops fighting in the deserts.

War Against Terror: Footage of Afghanistan mountain campaign, and desert footage of south-central iraq.

4) C&C: American side has one General Shepard who guides you through the missions, until he disappears for a while because the UN hates him.

War Against Terror: The CNN has Gen. Don Shepherd to guide you through the hunt for Bin Laden. Until the USA goes for unilateral action with it's coalition of the willing and the UN hates us.

5) C&C: All this bloodshed for a rare natural resource which promises untold power to whoever controls it.

War Against Terror: hmmm. you're right. Self Defense.

6) C&C: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Kane.

War Against Terror: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Osama.

7) C&C: New weapons every successful mission.

War Against Terror: MOAB. Stryker. SA80-A2.

8) C&C: We will use cleansing Nuclear Fire.

War Against Terror: Oh no. Just find the silver crate and get the hell out of there.

9) C&C: the sequel, red alert, has Kane controlling Stalin.

War Against Terror: "As a young man, Saddam Hussein admired Hitler's system of government. Stalin and his totalitarian model became Saddam's exemplars. Saddam tailored his system along Nazi and Stalinist lines, though it had a number of new features as well. In keeping with Nazi ideals, Iraq's Ba'th system had four main pillars: totalitarian ideology, single-party rule, a command economy (nominally socialist), and firm control over the media and the army."

10) more to come. remember: there are at least two endings, to promote better replay value.

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy

http://www.alternet.org

I am completely against the current war on Iraq. To my mind, by attacking Iraq without there being any hint of aggression against America, and without a shred of evidence to support it's claim that Saddam Hussein is constructing weapons of mass destruction, I think the US has violated any claim they may have had about this being a "just" war. see Jimmy Carter's opinion on what constitutes a just war.

I am not arguing against those who claim that Saddam Hussein is a "bad" man. But there are lots of despotic rulers in the world, and I think the current US policy of pre-emption is morally wrong, and sets a very dangerous precedent. The US is encouraging other despotic regimes to acquire nuclear capabilities in order to fend off a US preemptive strike, and guaranteeing that terrorism will be the only perceived way to fight superior US firepower.
The US has shown clear contempt for other countries in the world, by rejecting the Kyoto protocol accords, by subverting the International Criminal Court, and by acting unilaterally against Iraq. The US has vetoed UN resolutions against Israel 41 times (putting in doubt President Bush's claim that he wants to restore the land to the Iraqi people).
I don't believe this war is legal, although I doubt anyone will be prosecuted.
The world is extremely skeptical about this essentially unilateral war.

...And occasionally British Columbia... And of course, you know you should fear those canucks.

Here's what they are up against, according to the OCA: The province boasts 15,000 to 25,000 marijuana grow operations employing (at six persons per grow) between 90,000 and 150,000 people. The agency estimated the annual wholesale value of the pot crop at $4 billion. At $2,000 per pound, that is about two million pounds of BC bud each year, much of it headed south. The agency estimated that as much as 95 percent of the crop is exported to the ravenous U.S. market.

Try this on and see if it's not about oil. I'm convinced now.

And what's this talk about keeping the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields? Are you talking about conquest and empire-building? Some do want that -- Dick Cheney is a signer, for example -- but the first Gulf War was a war for liberation. Bush Sr. was a believer of noblesse oblige, not a megalomaniac.

You, sir, are a troll.

After WWII and continuing today, the UN mandates the teaching of the Nazi era to all German school children

This is untrue. After the war, the Allies did in fact educate the public about Nazi crimes, but in modern times, the Germans do it all by themselves. The UN has neither the legal competence to enact nor the means to enforce any such legislation.

The only examples of blatant propaganda that come even close to [American media] are Stalinst-era Soviet broadcasts and the works of Goebels in Nazi Germany.

This, too, is evidently untrue. Be it in print media, on the Internet or on TV, the government line is not only criticized regularly, but often derided. Even entire cities publicly oppose the war. The mere comparison is a disgrace and an insult to those who suffered under and helped owerthrow totalitarian systems.

Plus, I invoke Godwin's Law. Go home.

Salon isn't that liberal or progressive. They claimed/tried to be progressive, even eclectic, which the Utne Reader has always done so much better, both print & online www.utne.com FREE. Salon painted MIT Prof Noam Chomsky as a lunatic or the anti-Christ because he describes US foreign & domestic policy as it is, and in plain language, so you don't need degrees in history, politics, or economics to understand. He's universally reviled by right wing conservatives because he tells the truth and backs it up with evidence (footnotes in his books are quite numerous). Even mentioning his name is taboo for commercial broadcast media (really!), for reasons you can infer. Salon's persistent attacks on Chomsky show they are run by nuts. The attacks are full of so much shit it becomes humorous when you start counting, except for the fact that a lot of people actually believe it, because it's on Salon. Therefore it is tragic.

The Utne Reader is the Anti-Reader's Digest--including extreme positions in every direction (not "both" sides which assumes only 2 sides exist), it is eclectic, & the selections aren't sanitized crap for retired people who miss the good old days. I use Chomsky & Utne as examples because I'm an authority on them.

Salon simply wasted a ton of money, had plenty of "liberal" stories, but are right wing (a la Rush Limbaugh*) on a few of the more esoteric (important) topics. They do that particularly on topics of which most readers have little prior knowledge (or depth of understanding), therefore don't notice the profound bias (and reversal from "being liberal"). The Chomsky attacks are just one example. Chomsky's not interested in fame, fortune, or power, just truth & justice.
I cite them because they were so viciously construed that they simply could NOT be an accident, or a difference of opinion. The managers of Salon are greedy turds, the liquid kind. You can't polish a turd. You have to wait, then use spray paint.

Omission is the predominant error (tactic) of the generally conservative media in America. They constantly call themselves & each other liberal, but if they really were liberal, why would they do that? They're too conservative to ever even mention proportional representation (USA is strictly geographic representation.) It's called Public Relations, an industry which is far bigger (even per capita) in the USA, than any other country. One book, co-authored by Prof Chomsky, studied the "liberal bias theory" and concluded that most media, especially broadcast, are very conservative (the First Amendment does not apply unless you OWN a broadcast license). Inclusion of the occasional naked breast or being less conservative that the prez on a couple of issues, or allowing Howard Stern & Love Line on the radio does NOT make it liberal. All the porn in the world does not make a medium liberal. The only consistently "liberal & progressive" programs are Alternative Radio www.AlternativeRadio.org & www.NewDimensions.org, found on most public radio stations. PBS (TV) has a few programs that are often or usually progressive &/or liberal, but not consistently (I may be wrong--haven't done a comprehensive evaluation for 2 years now). Any progressive/liberal news outlet would at least occasionally remind us that 32,000 people starve to death each day, 60,000 die from bad water, plus 74 species go extinct. And while >20% of US adults are functional illiterates, millions are homeless, etc, we need a whole fucking war to stop Hussein (erh, I mean distract Americans from their obesity) while a single missile would get rid of him, most of his chiefs, and maybe a thousand civilians. We spent a fortune (most of it borrowed from our children by Reagan) on GPS satellites so we can hit any particular window or door, anywhere on the planet, and now we can't use them? Have a nice day (sucker).

I get Canadian TV news, which makes US TV news look like Mickey mouse with a suit & tie. They actually deal with real news every day (what a concept!). They have less weather, sports, what the president "said", etc. thereby more time for actual news. The FCC banned all cable TV companies from adding Canadian channels a few years ago unless they pay 5 percent of their GROSS income as a "fee". So much for diversity. Freedom of speech is not right to hear or watch. 200 channels of shit is not progress. A free alternative to Salon is www.alternet.org

* Rush (the fat rat bastard) Limbaugh's main demographic is undereducated, underemployed 20-40 year old white males, who appreciate placing the blame on women, affirmative actions, "the" government, etc., as long as it's not them.

Beware of republicans posing as humans. Party Naked in the church of your Choice. If god wanted you to be naked she'd make you born that way. Self-indulgence is not a virtue. Pollution is not a theory. Recycling is not a fad. It's not cool to be fat, stupid, & arrogant.

And the reason the cockpit doors weren't closed & locked, as the FAA repeatedly recommended: "that would be an unnecessary financial burden on the industry" (in other words, FAA recommendations can't conflict with short term profits, & market forces will solve almost everything).

"Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today." --NY Times book review/