Slashdot Mirror

I guess you've never heard of "civil asset forfeiture", which is quite popular with many law enforcement departments these days. If the police just "feel" that anything you have might somehow be related to drug money, they can (and often do) seize it. Then you have to take them to court and prove it's NOT, often spending more than what what seized. No proof, arrests, or real "due process" is needed from them to keep your stuff. Carrying cash to go buy something? You might be going to buy drugs (even though your record is completely clean and you've never been involved with anything like that before) and now your cash and car is theirs.

References: (this is just a few, there are hundreds if not thousands of these types of abuses every year now)...
nationalreview.com
forbes.com
forbes.com
metrotimes.com
newschannel5.com
onlineathens.com
vox.com
washingtonpost.com

So plainly the notion that money is the absolute determinant in politics is false.

Oh no, the Republican gerrymandering is also a significant factor.

North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia all demonstrate the effectiveness of that manipulation.

Of course, they already lost in Arizona, so it won't be long before the people start taking back the power. Then what will they do?

Maybe if Democrats weren't relentlessly pushing for bigger government and SJW victimhood identity politics they could compete with Republicans.

As the court cases show, it's actually, Republican GERRYMANDERING that is responsible. In states like Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Texas, Wisconsin...all lost cases due to Gerrymandering. All facing new districts.

Oh so did Arizona.

But they chose a relentless drive for power and pushing the culture war over policies Americans actually want. Democrats deliberately pushed "blue dogs" out of the party so progressives could control it to-to-bottom.

Blue Dogs kept losing elections, so they were no longer in the party, not that they were much good in the party, but when you lose an election, you aren't much good in the legislature at all.

Democrats backed Bloomberg on civilian disarmament, backed Soros and Steyer on funding #BlackLivesmatter, insisted a man changing his name magically made him a woman, and then wonder why ordinary Americans no longer vote for them.

66 million votes in 2016. 66 million in 2012. 70 million in 2008. That's for President. Versus 63, 59, and 58 million.

Want to see the breakdown state by state? It's available.

And really, where are Republicans stopping Democrats in such paradisaical deep blue enclaves like Chicago and Detroit?

The Capital of Illinois is Springfield, the Capital of Michigan is Lansing.

Maybe it's because Michigan had Democrats win 2,302,417 votes in 2016, while Republican candidates received 2,283,727, enough to make the makeup of the legislature questionable. Maybe it's because Ilinois is so partisan in its gerrymandering that about half the districts had only one candidate at the general.

And you can see a documentary about the subject..

I don't have any problem seeing why a reduction in the availability of firearms could cause an overall reduction of violence. Take away the guns, and the people who work to prevent violence (cops, etc.) can now do more non-firearm-related enforcement. Whine all you want about your rights. You curtail the freedom of everyone around you until that gun is gone, and theirs is the higher right. We'll get it out of your hands eventually.

When it comes to virtual machines or software licenses, I will defer to your judgement, since you are an expert in that. When it comes to slinging a million transistors onto a slab of silicon, that you would listen to me, since that is what I do for a living.

When it comes to law enforcement, I tend to listen to the people who do it for a living. Too bad the police don't think that gun confiscation is a good idea.

Here is a survey from a police organization (as near as I can tell, without a hidden agenda about guns)... The vast majority of police do not think kindly of harsher gun laws. http://police-praetorian.netdn...

Here is an article from a Detroit news paper about how the police want the citizens to be armed. http://www.metrotimes.com/Blog...

Logically, if you COULD somehow take away ALL guns, we MIGHT be somewhat safer. Might. However, you have to then realize that young, healthy criminals would then feel free to victimize the elderly, since the average octogenarian could not fight back effectively. Women would also make more tempting targets. Without guns, physical skill and strength are vitally important in encounters with thugs.

Here are some things to keep in mind about strict gun laws....

1) Honest citizens will obey the laws, criminals will not.
2) There are a lot more honest citizens than there are criminals.

Thus it follows that taking guns away will affect the honest people a LOT more than it will the criminals.

Chicago has VERY strict gun laws, and yet that does not stop the shootings.

"But wait!" I hear you say. "Chicago gets its guns from other states that have very lax gun laws." OK. I admit that this may the case. So, why don't other states with lax gun laws (where the guns are available in the same town) have violence as bad as Chicago? Please explain that one.

Let's take a closer look at Chicago. The entire city has the SAME gun laws. Yet, somehow, the violence is isolated to certain areas. How can this be, since the gun laws are uniform? Well, economics are not uniform. The level of poverty is MUCH more closely related to the violence level than gun laws. Areas where the income is median or above do not generally have violence problems. This is not a "gun" problem, but a cultural and economic problem. If you have person willing and eager to kill, taking a gun away will just make that person use a knife. They might not be able to kill as many, but they will still manage to find a way to kill. Instead of focusing on making the murderer use a different weapon, why not focus on WHY the person desires to kill, and fix that?

We have a situation where morality is no longer being taught in schools. With record numbers of single-parent families, you have lots of children without the loving influence of a father. Plus, with the decline of acceptance of religious views, you have people being taught that they are nothing but animals. Add to that the new electronic society where people replace friends with computers. When you combine all that with poverty, is it any wonder that some turn to violence?

No they're not. They want limits like every other amendment. It's only your paranoia.

It's not paranoia if they're really trying to do it.

Perhaps your allies haven't gotten the memo but they are trying to eliminate the second amendment, like that quote from a sitting United States Senator.

How about asshole Bruce Perens take on the issue?

Or how about this one from a sitting United States Congressman saying "I sure wish they would" when asked why his party won't come out against the second amendment?

Or what about this editorial from the Detroit Metro Times entitled Ban all guns, now?

The primary difference between them and you is that they're telling the truth about the ultimate goal.

I'll phrase it this way, for the hard of thinking, I adopt an absolutist position in my defense of second amendment rights because my enemies are absolutists about the destruction of those rights.

For example, I don't think that people should carry guns on airplanes. I don't think that people should have guns in courtrooms. That said, I'll oppose any and all effort to codify into law and and all further restrictions upon the types of firearms I may or or from whom I may buy them. They are not the end, they are a means to the end of an absolute prohibition on civilian gun ownership.

LK

Where you there?
So you know this TSA agent did this?
I guess you also don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Frankly I would take this all with a grain of salt. I am no fan of the TSA but this woman that is accusing them is a wack attack.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/15/im_not_having_a.html
http://www2.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=12324

Or look at her Wikipedia entry.
Here is a bit of a history lesson. Attack an unpopular group and you will get attention. The TSA is unpopular and not without reason, however this accusation seems to be a bit over the top. Thing is using insulting words without reason is wrong and adds spin. Did the smurf comment add anything to the summary? Did in add any factual information? Or did it and a slant and insult to the TSA agent?

Would you have had a problem if the summary had said that "A well known nut case that always carries a four day supply of salami is being sued for defamation by a TSA agent". Frankly someone that travels with a four day supply of salami at all times sounds like a nut case to me. Thing is that is inflammatory and biased. The fact that she carries a four day supply of salami is from a statement she made in an interview so it can be considered factual for the most part. The statement that she is a nutcase is just opinion. Calling the TSA agent a "Smurf" is just insulting and should have no part in this summary. Several of this woman's claims are presented in the most graphic and inflammatory way in the summary as well. I wouldn't have put them in the summary because they are just unproven claims and very inflammatory and graphic but they are factual in that is what she is claiming so I can see why they are in the summary.

Yes, corruption so clearly is not a race thing as evidenced by the Hip-Hop mayor in my beloved state. Corruption is clearly color-blind. Maybe rather corruption is monochromatic (GREEN).

"presumabley they're trying the "sue for the world, settle out of court for what they really want" tactic."

It's not that. It's "We never got a dime for this shit when it was popular, but now that we have our own stuff back, we'd like to have our contracts followed, thanks"

They got screwed over by Joel Zuckerman and Arnie Tencer and never saw a dime for "What I like about you" when it was popular. All those Molson and Budweiser commercials? Nothing. Zero, zilch. They had to tour for _7 years_ to finance the lawsuit to recoup _something_, and they eventually won judgments but were unable to collect because Zuckerman and Tencer didn't have any visible assets.

The only important thing they got back was control of the original copyrights, many years after being popular.

Given the history of The Romantics, I'm not surprised they're trying to stick up for themselves.

A history lesson:

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=5363

--
BMO

Currently GoDaddy is charging $6.95 at the moment for new domains, but $6 of that is going to VeriSign. One of these has a government monopoly. The other doesn't and has to price competitively, yet manages to run a profitable business out of it.

The Ripoff is that this cozy deal adds up to $340M a year just for the .com names. A few posters say $6 a year isn't much, so we should stop complaining. Personally I'd rather have that money in my pocket than VeriSigns. If those posters don't think $6 is nothing, I'll gladly bill them an additional $6 per domain name for my "BGLC Internet Oversight Authority". Cough up. (I have to wonder about people who take the time to comment on Slashdot that they they *LIKE* paying VeriSign fees.)

It took years to break the Network Solutions Monopoly. Why did it take so long? Because Network Solutions were owned by SAIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_ International_Corporation run by a Who's Who of retired Government Insiders, who had no problems convincing current Government Insiders to let them introduce a $100 fee right after takeover. http://www.metrotimes.com/news/stories/news/18/21/ LstArk.html

Politicians play this game. They'll frown, bang the desk and promise investigations. After the hearing they'll frown some more and deliver voter-empathic sound bites. It all makes great theater and makes them look great. But once the camera is turned off it's same old, same old. Politicians, who could have the power, could stop pretty much anything tomorrow. They let their buddies milk money out of the public for as long as possible, and transition to the next scam before the heat gets too hot. We smile and take it. If they're lucky the worst that happens is we throw our hands up in the air and say 'Well, watchya going to do anyway?' And it works.

Wilson and Akre's beef with WTVT grew out of their attempts to report on bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance given to cattle. They claimed WTVT refused to allow them to report accurately and attempted to twist the story to favor BGH's manufacturer. Their lawsuit became something of a cause célebrè among foes of genetically altered food. Many liberals were sympathetic to them as well, owing to Murdoch's arch conservatism. The journalists piqued the interest of other journalists, and their conflict with WTVT and Fox was featured in articles and broadcast reports. The fired couple created a Web site and, before long, set up a legal fund -- Citizens Fund for the Right to Know -- and began seeking contributions.

Wilson, who acted as his own attorney, lost his claim against his former employer. But the jury found for Akre and awarded her $425,000. An appellate court then overturned that verdict, which Akre is challenging.

I became aware of Wilson's story when John Sugg, senior editor of the Creative Loafing newsweekly in Atlanta (who had once worked in Tampa) wrote a piece disclosing that Wilson and Akre had purchased a $1.4 million residence on the beach near Jacksonville, Fla., and did so with a down payment in excess of $1 million.

Journalism trade Web sites and message boards picked up the story, and -- after learning that Wilson had worked for WXYZ in Southfield for two years -- so did I.

I went to Channel 7's studio to give Wilson a chance to respond to questions that were being raised about the dispensation of money donated to the legal fund. He and Akre are still soliciting funds on their Web site (www.foxbghsuit.com), saying they had "put our pride aside" to seek assistance and are "hoping to get back on our feet."

Wilson's first comment to me was comforting. "As a guy who makes a living holding people accountable, I'm extremely aware of the need for accountability," he told me. "I think the press is far too frequently not accountable."

He said he and Akre had not used money from the legal fund to purchase the home. He found it odd that I believed the real estate acquisition was newsworthy.

I did what any competent reporter would do and asked him to provide me with an account history on the legal fund. He stonewalled. I told him that if he had done nothing wrong, as he insisted, then a complete accounting of the legal fund would provide some measure of vindication and silence the speculation swirling through the journalism community. I'd report my findings in my column.

Wilson hemmed and hawed, then suggested that he might turn over an account history -- provided I would agree not to write this column if the documents seemed to be in order. I refused. I know of no sane journalist who would make such a pledge. I doubt Wilson would.

Wilson not only refused to provide the account history. He refused to say how much had been donated to the legal fund. He refused to identify anyone who had donated. He even refused to provide a copy of his résumé.

Under Florida law, people and groups asking the public for donations are required to register with the state and provide accounting. Though he has been seeking funds for years, he has not registered. Wilson told me on Nov. 13 that he intended to register "in the next few days." As of 4 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 24, he had not done so. Officials of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services said anyone who solicits contributions -- religious, g

Wilson and Akre's beef with WTVT grew out of their attempts to report on bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance given to cattle. They claimed WTVT refused to allow them to report accurately and attempted to twist the story to favor BGH's manufacturer. Their lawsuit became something of a cause celebre among foes of genetically altered food. Many liberals were sympathetic to them as well, owing to Murdoch's arch conservatism. The journalists piqued the interest of other journalists, and their conflict with WTVT and Fox was featured in articles and broadcast reports. The fired couple created a Web site and, before long, set up a legal fund -- Citizens Fund for the Right to Know -- and began seeking contributions.

Wilson, who acted as his own attorney, lost his claim against his former employer. But the jury found for Akre and awarded her $425,000. An appellate court then overturned that verdict, which Akre is challenging.

I became aware of Wilson's story when John Sugg, senior editor of the Creative Loafing newsweekly in Atlanta (who had once worked in Tampa) wrote a piece disclosing that Wilson and Akre had purchased a $1.4 million residence on the beach near Jacksonville, Fla., and did so with a down payment in excess of $1 million.....

I went to Channel 7's studio to give Wilson a chance to respond to questions that were being raised about the dispensation of money donated to the legal fund. He and Akre are still soliciting funds on their Web site (www.foxbghsuit.com), saying they had "put our pride aside" to seek assistance and are "hoping to get back on our feet."

Wilson's first comment to me was comforting. "As a guy who makes a living holding people accountable, I?m extremely aware of the need for accountability," he told me. "I think the press is far too frequently not accountable."

He said he and Akre had not used money from the legal fund to purchase the home. He found it odd that I believed the real estate acquisition was newsworthy.

I did what any competent reporter would do and asked him to provide me with an account history on the legal fund. He stonewalled. I told him that if he had done nothing wrong, as he insisted, then a complete accounting of the legal fund would provide some measure of vindication and silence the speculation swirling through the journalism community. I'd report my findings in my column.

Wilson hemmed and hawed, then suggested that he might turn over an account history -- provided I would agree not to write this column if the documents seemed to be in order. I refused. I know of no sane journalist who would make such a pledge. I doubt Wilson would.

Wilson not only refused to provide the account history. He refused to say how much had been donated to the legal fund. He refused to identify anyone who had donated. He even refused to provide a copy of his resume.

I encourage reading the rest of it.

There is also useful information

But MTV doesn't like ICP!

Apparently it looks exactly like an innocent tourist video, which proves that it's really a cunning tradecraft terrorist video. Yep.

It's like George Clinton and Kraftwerk stuck in an elevator. - Derrick May


I'm probably not the best qualified, but since nobody else is contributing this:

According to the legend, Detroit Techno started when eclectic radio genius The Electrifying Mojo started playing Kraftwerk in the early 80's. I used to listen to Mojo; he was late night on an urban station, and would play anything from James Brown to Prince to AC/DC, interview the B-52s, and give trippy inspirational sermons to the city's youth.

The story goes, the Belleville Three (Derrick May, Juan Atkins, and Kevin Saunderson (better known as part of Inner City)) heard Mojo and started making their own music, including Clear by Cybertron (Atkins), the 'first' techno record.

By the mid-80's my friends in northwest Detroit were playing house and techno on turntables in their basement. In the late-80's the Music Institute was the epicenter (just ask my cool friends). Since then there's been an explosion of techno and electronica talent in Detroit, most prominently Richie Hawtin (Plastikman) and the more experimental Carl Craig.

Unfortunately, if you had asked most Detroiters in the mid-90's -- apart from the small but loyal group who listened-- they wouldn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't find techno on the radio (Mojo was gone). The DJs were international stars, but they had plenty of privacy at home. In the late 90's, Carl Craig and a promoter put together the Detroit Electronic Music Fest (DEMF). Much to the surprise of many native Detroiters, over a million people came from all over the world to hear it. The vibe (and I don't use that word often) was incredible. It included a truly touching moment when Derrick May stepped on stage and finally got his due from his hometown; he started his set with "The Payback" by James Brown.

Now, most Detroiters are aware, and local popularity has exploded. The city is rich in very interesting music , and the very open-minded scene hasn't been overwhelmed with trendiness.


... Probably more than you wanted to know, but here's a few more links:

History
Techno Rebels, an excellent history (I've heard) in book form, by Dan Sicko.

Someone's thesis that is a history of Techno.

Meta Soul, an interesting site (in design and content) about electronic music, including a Detroit Techno section.


Today
The 313 list, an active list with high signal-to-noise, full of techno geeks.

Record Time, the best place to find the latest from Detroit

The Metro Times, probably the best place for current news on Detroit music (click music at the top left).


You also may not realize how much music originates, even if it's not popularized, in Detroit: Motown, punk (Iggy Pop in the 60's), funk (George Clinton and Bootsy X), and techno.