Slashdot Mirror

How can a state tell you that you are allowed to violate a federal law?

That's a very long story having to with the USA being the United States of America. It was envisioned that the majority of the governing is done by the states and very little by the Feds. The Feds weren't supposed to interfere in the internal affairs of the states except for specific examples in the the US constitution.

This is one reason the USA has their Electoral College system. The US president is not directly elected by the people, but by the representatives of the states. It is up to each state to decide how to elect their Electoral College representatives. Some use winner-take-all, some use the fraction of the popular vote.

However, using the "interstate commerce" clause of the US constitution, and the cooperation of the courts, the Feds have developed the legal power to override almost any state law by claiming it falls under interstate commerce (which the constitution reserves for the Feds to regulate).

A better question is how a city like San Francisco openly violates Federal law. SF is openly shielding illegal immigrants who commit serious felonies from deportation.

And, what happens if the feds do raid? Would you be able to make an arguable case in court on the premise that the state in which you reside said it is ok to violate the federal law?

Sorry, no. If it falls under Federal jurisdiction, state law doesn't matter. Your only hope is to argue that the Feds don't have jurisdiction.

There is a split-level <--Clinton / Prosperity--> street sign in South Carolina. Clinton and Prosperity are two towns, in opposite directions from this point.

IIRC, I thought somebody told me a long time ago that the authorities had removed it after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 (out of respect for the presidency, I assume), but apparently it is still there. Maybe they put it back up after he left office. I can't find anything online about its removal because the news orgs and blogs weren't on the web in 1992.

Many blogs copy photos from legitimate news sources, that
alone may be suspect but even worse, fail to at least
attribute the source and/or photographer.

A few years ago I wasted my time explaining this issue to
the owner of this site. For a few
days after there was an effort made at giving proper
credits. But I guess it was just too much work. Given
her sites popularity and her own work on TV you would
think she would be more careful.

These folks would be most likely to make a deal.
Free Republic
LGF
Michelle Malkin

A group that would probably receive some sort of funding( and a holder of the previous two )
Pajamas Media

The only problem with these is that one of them's misfired themselves off of Fox. Another has trouble carrying the message outside of their choir. As for freerepublic, their message seems to only reach the loyal and converted.

Since there are so many sites that will do it for free:

Free Republic
LGF
Michelle Malkin
Etc.

the BBC hasn't been a reputable news source to any honest observer for years now. Here's another sample of journalistic malfeasance by BBC news: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=12

Of course, the general attitudes and biases of the News org tends to generally filter out to the rest of the organization as well.

Feel free to peruse some of the articles here; http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ or here; http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26019_Outrage-_BBC_Employs_Hamas_Terrorist&only or here; http://michellemalkin.com/category/bbc/

This Filipino Monkey?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/11/the-iranian-incident-and-the-filipino-monkey/

Islam Will kick your ass and kill you for thinking. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/02/islam-will-kick.html Instead, it is about "power and control".
It is about religion integrated with politics, intimidation, torture, death, rape, child sacrifice, and world domination.

Islam and Democracy are incompatible. Islam and anything else are incompatible. Islam and those who claim "moderation" in Islam are incompatible. When it comes time for the 'moderates', they will have to choose conquest, or death, like the rest of us.

Is Islam a No, it is a amalgamation of political power and religion, a religion of conquest and war.

Has it ties with dictatorships of the past, integrated into its practices to this day? http://tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

Do women have a life at all under Islam? NO!
"UK: Muslim Families Who Use Rape And Violence To Enforce "Honor"" http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003964.html
Family of Muslim Teen invited men to rape her. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/02/family-of-musli.html
Or any of these: 253 posts categorized "The Truth About Islam" http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/the_truth_about_islam/index.html

Or this: "On Islamic Misogyny--Buried Alive?" http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/01/17/on-islamic-misogyny%E2%80%94buried-alive/
and
Michelle Malkin, Islam: http://michellemalkin.com/category/islam/
and
American Thinker: http://www.google.com/search?q=islam+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Famericanthinker.com%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The point is, this is not about censorship, but about world domination, even to the point of destruction of themselves. Seems crazy, and it is to Western values and reasoning. But from birth, they have been taught differently. Oh, I guess there might be some clues here:
"At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war." http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

Believe it. This is about the Last Crusade, World War III, and Armageddon, IF they can find a way to make it so. We had better be aware of the dangers and take the appropriate actions.

The police reports are available.

Regardless of what you think of the source (Michelle Malkin) there are scans of each page of the police report.

Multiple reports say that he was generally calm & quiet - except when other people (especially ones with cameras) were around.

Check some of the other links. Seems that the guy is well known for trying to stir up shit.

the guy jumped the queue and was being aggressive and disorderly PRIOR to asking the question (no video apparently, but above is eyewitness account)

Go back to where ye came from.

Libby was as innocent as OJ.

That you are honestly comparing Sandy Berger to the intentional outing of undercover CIA agents suggests that not only do you give a rat's ass about national security, but that you fail logic at every level.

...that the "private entity" shield is used.

These people take it all the way to the bank.

Since we'd hear not much different than These Echo Chambers. Or is dissent on this 4 year, multi-billion dollar "personal vendetta" safely expressible without the requisite public demonization?

Now if some groups at Yale(as well as the various other right-leaning Ivies)and Halliburton would have a $500,000 per item bake sale to raise money for Iraq, they can kill all the people they want on their (and only their) dime with their own people. I don't know how constitutional that would be, but it's not as if it's beyond them to disregard that "piece of paper".

I believe your shrines are this way.

Yes, yes they will. See the current bruhaha over Bank of America and their giving credit cards to illegal aliens as well as allowing unapproved documents to be used to open accounts.

Even, gasp!, Michelle Malkin is getting into scrum and accusing the Bush administration of ignoring and condoning the actions of Bank of America.

One need only do searches for things like "lawsuit Match.com" to see that (maybe) consumers will be getting the upper hand. Until businesses bribe, er, lobby, Congress to protect them that is.

Don't forget Demonizing Condi.

I agree, from the start this war has been about making money, not protecting America. Personally, I'd suggest that Congress pass bush's war budget less $15 billion dollars. If he wants the rest of the money, he can faithfully execute the fraud and embezzlement laws to reclaim the $15 billion that's gone missing from the past 4 years of budgets. The weak claims that the fraud is taking place in Iraq and therefore not covered by US law fall on deaf ears when the government can have Russian programmers and British gamblers arrested just for passing through the country. Most of the CEOs of these companies are right here in the US. Start with KBR and Custer's Battles, the two most egregious offenders.

It's exactly this lack of vision that has turned Afghanistan back into a Taliban-controlled country and destroyed our success in Iraq.

Before any mods think this is some kind of troll, Afghanistan went back to making Christianity a capital offense less than a year ago. If the goal of the war in Afghanistan was to spend American tax money, it was a success. By any other measure, it was a complete and utter failure. It is still an extremist-controlled Islamic nation, and when they're done with the Christians inside their borders, they're going to be coming after the rest of them, with the guns and bombs that the US gave them and trained them to use.

Yeah, I would have figured it was the other party.

I can give you 5 reasons:

1) Bloggers stopped CBS news from passing off a fake memo impugning the president before the 2004 election. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=1261 5&only

2) Bloggers revealed the prevalence of faked and photoshopped photos being passed off by the AP as genuine.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2239 1_Fauxtography_Updates&only

3) Bloggers like Michelle Malkin regularly make a farce of leftists and underscore their intellectual and moral bankruptcy
http://www.michellemalkin.com/

4) Unlike the Mainstream Media (MSM), bloggers are too numerous and independent for their integrity to be undermined. Unlike the fourth estate, they are not an institution which can be infiltrated and ultimately captured. Gramscian strategy breaks down because it is impossible for the minority who are leftists to control what everyone else is saying and writing.

5) Forcing bloggers to register is only one part of a two pronged assault on open dialogue. The democrats are also attempting to reintroduce the so called "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to undermine conservative talk radio.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2007/01/18/democ rats-seek-to-resurrect-dead-fairness-doctrine/

In general leftists are all for free speech when you're saying what they want to hear. When you disagree with them they're very quick to try and silence you. This is the purpose behind things like campus speech codes and political correctness itself. They want to silence conservatives and libertarians because they've learned from experience that these philosophies are more pursuasive and compelling than their own, especially the more people learn about them. The reason why you don't see Republicans voting for measures like this one is because they have nothing to fear from freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas.

...is to say that somebody has no right to complain about something because they are not complaining about something else.

Hence, people whining about how Larry David's wife complains about people driving hummers, when she rides in personal jets. And other people complaining about how Scott Adams lampoons middle management, while he supposedly "extolls" upper management and corporate crime. And now your post.

If you don't have something meaningful and useful to say, don't say anything at all.

Unfortunately closed minded groups and certain people have a bit of an agenda that isnt simply "find the truth".
The first one may be a clear given, the third one politically motivated but still within the ballpark, but the second one regarding Reuters shows the true colors of who the critics are(and how they slant).

That is, Pajamas Media (the group associated with most of the criticism) has too much of a country club, right-wing, and pro-Israel slant(and does not mind showing it in the case of LGF). It continues on from LGF to Michelle Malkin who seems to get the idea that she is to dish but not take criticism(see all her entries that haven't yet been banned and see the "comments disabled"). This continues on to HotAir, also known as A**ahpundit, where they take on the unofficial policy that is summarized as "We're not responsible for the comments, but existence isnt guaranteed". While these may be the flagrant offenders, others may take parts of that policy; the constant is that they declare themselves holier than the "MSM".

If there's anything to be learned out of that group, it's to seek information that is factual, and has enough proof to make multiple opposing sides agree on the course of events. Otherwise, I'd rather read them, and then take a more serious look at those who allow a more open dialogue to see what pans out. If they're just going to delete and demonize the opposition, they're just speaking to the choir. In cases such as Reuters, I'd rather hear the objection come from someone who at least doesn't rely on hiding behind the "private group" defense to justify their objections to criticism.

Unfortunately, readers and acolytes of these fine echo chambers seem to get it wrong(and not mind it)- just see how fast a legitimate and correct idea gets the user banned. If you object, they hide behind the vanguard of untouchable private entity. Thus, you have the makings of one unified entity that prefers to silence the crowd instead of listening to it. See the cancellation of the Fairness Doctrine as an example of an echo chamber rejecting the crowd.

That explains this Country Club Conservative and her IDF spokesperson equivalent perfectly. Nothing like people who go the extra mile to hear their voice echo, and only their echo.

By stipulating that all fund be distributed in a set period of time, Gates avoids this problem.

We try to make better guesses on whether someone is a mass-murderer, based on past behavior
They ... well I really can't describe it any better than this : http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idartic le=6845

And we also tell them that newspapers lie for political correctness, then don't fix the mess they create :
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006452.htm

Or worse :
http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

Or worse :
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruptio n-of-media.html

And then you read your headline again ... then think 5 seconds on who is more honest
-> the policeman that can get fired when he steps a toe out of line and checks airline passengers
-> or the reporter who is not checked by anyone, a sensationalist, and has a political affiliation

Then you think another 5 seconds.

Anything involving an entity that insists on acting like it's still a department at an exclusive college.
Anything involving an entity that thinks the Midwest is just flyover country with a few ski resorts on the western edge is evil.
Anything involving an entity that thinks freedom is something obtainable by forsaking those of your own country.

Hrm. That'd include a Country Club Conservative who cant take the heat of criticism, the US's self-titled IDF spokesman who does the same, the infamous union busters who need not be glorified with a name, and Google.

Misery does love company.

People are fed up with the angry, hateful, exclusive tone of the Republicans.

Project much?

"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."
-- Howard Dean, Democrat Party chairman

"That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."
-- Markos Zuniga, Daily Kos

"[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
-- Nina Totenberg, PBS

"I hope [Clarence Thomas'] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."
-- Julianne Malveaux, USA Today

"This President is never gonna do the right thing. I think somewhere deep down inside him he takes a lot of joy about losing people, if he thinks they vote Democrat or if he thinks they're poor, or if he thinks they're in a blue state, whatever his reasons are not to rescue those people who are (planning?) for their safety."
-- Randi Rhodes, Air America Radio

Those are just what I was able to dig up in a minute or two of googling. The first one, I didn't even have to look up. You could also just check out the Zombietime archives, or pick up Michelle Malkin's Unhinged for more examples.

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your note. We have reviewed www.michellemalkin.com but cannot include it in Google News at this time. We do not include news-related blogs or other news-related sites that are written and maintained by a single individual. Similarly, we do not include sites that do not have a formal editorial review process. We appreciate your taking the time to contact us and will log your site for consideration should our requirements change.

Regards,
The Google Team

Hi Charles,

Thank you for your note. We reviewed http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog and cannot include it in Google News at this time. We do not include sites that are purely news aggregators, and we were not able to find any stories on your site that were not from outside sources.

We will log your site for consideration should we alter our policy. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards,
The Google Team

Note that the Google News index now searches quite a few blogs (including Power Line, Polipundit, and Wonkette) and includes other sites with, to say the least, serious credibility problems (including hard-core anarchist site Infoshop, and Justin Raimondo's paleocon antisemitic site antiwar.com). In this context, Google's reply to me seems rather odd.

Though I withhold judgement until some confirmation comes.

This picture is worth a few thousand words...

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/hezlove0 02.jpg

That is the UN Flag flying right next to the flag of Hizbollah. Hizbollah personnel and UN personnel frequently share water, phones, and other resources. There's an old saying, that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Try quoting Ben Franklin properly next time.

The omission of those key qualifiers--"essential" and "little"-- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.

These pseudo "civil libertarians" love to quote the venerable Benjamin Franklin (whose 300th birthday we celebrate this year) who said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But they quote him entirely out of context.

First, his statement appears in his "Historical Review of Pennsylvania," published in 1759 (not available on line), a decade and a half before the Revolutionary War broke out. He was warning that state's legislature against putting too much trust in royal governors during the French and Indian War. True, it was often quoted later, but the purpose was to criticize those who sought safety from occupying British armies, not those who cooperated with Patriot measures to secure everyone's liberties by winning the war!

The Continental Congress regularly received quantities of intercepted British and Tory mail. On November 20, 1775, it received some intercepted letters from Cork, Ireland, and appointed a committee made up of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Johnson, Robert Livingston, Edward Rutledge, James Wilson and George Wythe "to select such parts of them as may be proper to publish." The Congress later ordered a thousand copies of the portions selected by the Committee to be printed and distributed. A month later, when another batch of intercepted mail was received, a second committee was appointed to examine it. Based on its report, the Congress resolved that "the contents of the intercepted letters this day read, and the steps which Congress may take in consequence of said intelligence thereby given, be kept secret until further orders."...

Before we go too far, it's worth noting that Franklin was talking about liberty, not privacy. There is a relationship between the two, but I find it strange that no one bothers to quote Franklin when we're talking about the liberty to choose how your children are taught or smoke cigarettes in public. Instead, he's used to protect us from the government trying to find out whether or not we're terrorists.

The truth is, the government must strike a balance between privacy and security. Reduced privacy leads to a certain number of innocent private lives disrupted and reduced security leads to a certain number of successful terror attacks. The NSA data mining effort did not take place in a vacuum: it actually stopped real terror plots.

comedy central censored it. Lots of people have called and asked them about it. I guess you can call them and ask as well if you dont believe both the cnn article and this one. They did it out of fear plain and simple and are saying a much.

It's obvious you need those civics classes as much as anyone else. The actual quote is: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

There seems to be disagreements as to exactly what Benjamin Frankiln said. This website says:

To be clear, since it has been a while since I have written on this matter, security and liberty are both highly desirable goals for which we strive. They are, unfortunately, conflicting. Ben Franklin's dictum, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" is oft misquoted as an absolute ("They who would give up liberty for security, deserve neither liberty or security"); Franklin was, alas, not that simpleminded.

This one says basically what you've got but is more compleat:

As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. Where our security and liberty is concerned, we must remain constantly vigilant and uncompromisingly devoted. - Representative Ron Paul, July 13, 1998 [WorldNetDaily]

And this one says:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Although worded differently they all mean basically the same thing, if you give up essential liberty for temporary safety you will neither get nor deserve either.

No, see, they're willing to hire illegal immigrants over American workers. Know why? You don't have to report them to the IRS. For every legal employee who pays their taxes, the company also has to pay a share of the social security tax. For every illegal immigrant, the foreman hands them a $20 at the end of a 10 hour workday, and if they don't like it, the boss can call the INS for them.

Of course, we've seen the Republican's socialist welfare for corporations in action. Bush went from a high of 1023 companies fined for employing illegals in 1998 to 3 in 2004, so it's not surprising to see the Republicans push for more and more cheap labor, even when we can't employ 100% of our own people.

The real point is that instead of making hay over the executive's increasingly intrusive surveillance of ordinary Americans, the right wing is trying to change the subject to Google's relatively neutral move to enter China on the Communists' terms. Google is in the news as an advocate of privacy (for not turning over a full week of searches) and the right is trying to tarnish their image.

As evidence, note the Mighty Wurlitzer's campaign for divestment led by right-wing PJ Media and friends. Like Roger Simon's "I like to think that if I had any Google stock I'd be divesting it now". Or here. Or Michelle "The case for interning American Muslims" Malkin.

Don't buy the head fake. Google waited a long time to enter the Chinese market. They didn't just do this for the money. Instead, get back to the NSA illegal wiretap scandal, the Hurricane Katrina scandal, the no-room-at-the-inn hotel evictions of Katrina victims, the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Valerie Plame scandal, the prewar Iraq intelligence scandal (still no Phase II report! senior intelligence official reports that the administration commissioned no strategic-level assessments in the run-up to war), the troop-fatality-body-armor scandal, the Iraq reconstruction money scandal... and many other scandals.

This whole thing has been planned and staged by cetain Dainish Imans, with the support of Syria and other governments. These are not spontainious responses to the cartoons which were published back in September. The point of the article were they were originally published, by the way, was to point out self-censorship in western news media.

The Imans behind this appearantly felt the that the original collection of cartoons might not be offensive enough, so they "added" a few of their own, including a bad copy of a man in a pig calling contest (he was made up as a pig).

• Alienated Danish Muslims Sought Help from Arabs
• Editor Reflects on Denmark's Cartoon Jihad

The American news media is pretty much avoiding covering this story in any detail, it's the blogosphere where the coverage is at.

• Taqiyya: Anatomy of the Comic Jihad
• THE PIG SNOUT SWINDLE

First of all, "hate speech" isn't a crime. At least, not yet in the US, that I'm aware of. There are some Universities that have tried to effectively criminalize it through their own disciplinary systems, and there are laws (which I don't support) which makes crimes more severe depending on the political and social leanings of the perpetrator, but nothing that outright prohibts you from saying something 'hateful.' The closest we get are the prohibitions on child pornography, and that's banned not necessarily because of the obscene-ness, but because it's indirectly seen as supporting child abuse. The other main form of prohibited (political) speech is when it directly calls for or incites violence, and before anyone starts, these cartoons weren't even close to any reasonable standard for "inciting violence."

Now, I'm not sure how many people have actually seen the cartoons in question, but I think they're pretty mild -- you can see a lot more offensive things on South Park (who has, incidentally, featured the Prophet, although I've never seen the episode and can't substantiate it).

You can browse them to your heart's content here.

http://skender.be/supportdenmark/MohammedDrawings. jpg
http://www.antibuerokratieteam.de/wp-content/moham med_alle.jpg
http://www.stefan-herre.de/mohammed_karikaturen.jp g
http://www.welt.de/z/photos/index.php/item/karikat uren/
http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands _Posten.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/28.htm
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Jyll ands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg

And some more links (page in Swedish):
http://www.flashback.se/showarticle.php?id=58

The cartoons in question
(not that good, not that funny,
definitly not worth dying for):

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

The Danish papers homepage (English version)
http://www.jp.dk/udland/tema:fid=11328/

The problem that muslims have with the picture is that they potrait
Muhammed which is not allowed according the Koran.

Please note the time between publishing and caos, september -> now.

It is always easier to unite AGAINST something than for...
Dane if I don't and Dane if I do...

Time to strike back in a peaceful way by helping Denmark out by defeating the boycott. Buy Danish. Lego is a Danish company so buy some.

Here is the links to Buy Danish/Denmark products:

• http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004455.htm
• http://buydanish.home.comcast.net/buydanish.htm

The answer is to rape the child in Vermont.

The NY Times is a very biased source. They have a record of intentionally misrepresenting the facts , and that is just one case of many (a truly horrible case, at that). I find it difficult to believe what they print, as it is very obvious that the paper has a very strong bias and is willing to print lies and half-truths in order to promote an agenda. I'm disappointed whenever SlashDot links to that rag.

New news in the scientific community, but very old news in the news community. You can never believe any picture you see in the news media. Here's a recent example: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm . The media (both big and small) have been repeated caught photoshopping their images. One of the great advantages of the blogosphere is that this sort of stuff gets found out very quickly.

First of all, the news the article is relaying is a year old: the reporters witheld the information for a year for security reasons. Note they still released it after only removing "some" of the issues that the security people had with the article. Even the article acknowledges that since then Bush had the Department of Justice look over and revise the program. Second, the original eavesdropping was only on traffic into and out of the country, not on internal traffic. Also, the initial impetus for monitering some of this traffic was a couple of captured terrorist's cell phones and computers. The numbers that they recieved from those and several similar and related captures are the numbers that they've been monitering. Again, they've since limited their criteria even further. For an excellent view of the right-wing's side of the debate check out: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm

Interestingly enough, now the good doctor is saying that he was forced to step down from the position, rather than resigning on his own. And it seems that the police aren't behaving as though they believed his little adventure story, either.

What's going on here? I don't know, but this is getting better and better.....

Oh, and here's a picture of the doc with his black eyes; looks strange to me, but decide for yourself. Also consider that students who saw the doc about six hours later in class reported that they barely noticed facial bruises (one said that he didn't see any at all). The arm bruise looks real enough, but are the eyes a makeup job? The discoloration on the arm spreads out, whereas the discoloration around the eyes stops abruptly. Very strange.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004037.htm He stopped and got out of his car at 6:30 in the morning on a deserted rural road? For all you students, its DARK at 6:30. You'd have to be drunk, dumb or deranges to get out of your car to confront someone who'se been following you like that.