Slashdot Mirror
Bioterrorism Charges Brought Against Professor
gnetwerker writes "Wired
and others are reporting about artist Steve Kurtz, professor at Univesity of Buffalo (NY), and member of the
Critical Art Ensemble will face a Grand Jury in two weeks on bioterrorism charges over artwork that used samples of harmless bacteria to make a statement about genetic engineering and food safety. He is charged with BioTerrorism under Section 817 of the PATRIOT Act. Apparently
John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation. There is more info and a
Defense Fund on the CAE Defense Fund Site."
Nice try, but the freaking out will continue unabated. :)
And it's a grand jury, not like he's been formally indicted with anything yet.
The level of conclusion-jumping around here is staggering. I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly.
Frankly, I really should be up to a jury to decide. I mean, He wasn't out spraying crops or anything. He was simply tooling around in his house with "harmless" bacteria and writing crazed manifestos.
Was he "practicing" terrorism? No. But neither were the 9/11 hijackers untill that day.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You do realize that every food crop/animal that man has raised since the dawn of time has been slectively bred to produce higher yields, disease resistance, and/or other physical traits (Dog and Cat breeds look nothing like their ancestors, neither does your baked potato). GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Why no ask John Ashcroft?
or mabey sign a petition?
Why don't we just write him a letter:
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: (202) 307-6777
Phone: (202) 353-1555
Huh? I'm so confused.
He didn't actually use the stuff on other people's crops, or do any of these things that he *could* have done. He advocated doing it.
I mean, there are plenty of organizations in America which advocate doing ridiculous things, none of which are called in to testify on charges of actually doing the things with no concrete evidence. I mean, being a member of a white supremacist group and owning a machine gun doesn't mean you're a murdering psycho and can be thrown away for it, even I'd wager most Americans are strongly against white supremacists and a good deal of them are against high-powered weapon ownership.
Yes, vote the clowns out in November
Help fight continental drift.
Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges?
Since they enacted the Patriot act, and a slew of other "protect the people at all costs" bullshit excuses for more federal programs, police powers and general ickyness.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
The CAE presents its performance arts pieces as satire. But the group's electronic books, with introductions featuring quotes from the likes of Malcolm X ("By any means necessary," is one of the quotes), may have the federal government suspecting that artists connected to the ensemble harbor sinister motives.
One of the ensemble's e-books advocates releasing mutant organisms into the environment to disrupt the work of biotech firms. Another proposes secretly releasing mutated flies into restaurants.
The CAE says this tactic, which it calls "fuzzy biological sabotage," would encourage "those who never would join a movement (to) become unknowing cohorts or willing allies" in the struggle against the biotech industry.
Let's not mention that his "healthy" wife was found dead in their home among all the bio-lab equipment. Just another example of the Man keeping an artist down! He's an artist and an activist - so they shouldn't even investigate the bio-lab in his house, or his views on releasing mutant organisms in the wild! It's his constitutional right!
The slant on this posting is reprehensible. If you want to stand up for this guy, I suggest you take a trip to his house, go inside and take a deep breath.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
I don't know what's been passed around here, but shouldn't they get some evidence of a crime first before they assemble a grand jury? As I understand it, they tested the lab equipment and didn't discover any bacteria or chemicals that warranted a quarantine of the residence, Mr. Kurst, or of the equipment (though obviously the equipment hasn't been returned). Mysterious deaths are suspicious, but one doesn't automatically start up a grand jury because of it.
Besides why is the FBI involved? Suppose instead, that Kurst had rat poison all over the kitchen and his wife died from ingesting rat poison accidentally (eg, it got mixed in with her food by accident). Kurst would be legally responsible for the death of his wife (I gather it would be some sort of manslaughter offense), but it wouldn't be a federal crime.
As others have alreadt pointed out, the police got suspecious when they were in his house investigating a death. So they had every reason in the world to be there, and since the spouse is always the first suspect, he had to get investigated until they were SURE the death was from natural causes. They were doing their job, by the book.
Next we get this paragraph in the story:
"Kurtz created a display of small soy, corn and canola plants growing under large incubating lamps. The exhibit said some of the plants had been treated with a compound that made them vulnerable to herbicide. A nearby computer screen explained that, if successful, the compound would be the newest weapon in the war on advanced agricultural technology."
Sounds like typical "Earth First!" ecoterrorism brewing to me. Combine this with a peek at this asshat's website and a mention of "critical theory" on the toplevel, which anyone who follows politics knows is code for "Marxist" in much the same way that "liberal" has been replaced with "progressive" in modern usage as the old terms become associated with failed policies, ruined economies and mass graves. So is this guy a terrorist? Perhaps not himself.... yet. Does he consort with them? Probably. Does he support their aims? By his own admission, an unqualified yes.
Democrat delenda est
I typed "Anarchist's Cookbook" in Google.
I clicked a chapter. This is what I found:
Unstable Explosives by the Jolly Roger
Mix solid Nitric Iodine with househould ammonia. Wait overnight and then pour off the liquid. You will be left with a muddy substance. Let this dry till it hardens. Now throw it at something!!!!
Read the last sentence. What was your point, exactly?
"Deconstructing and disrupting the growth of genetically modified foods" might be done as a piece of performance art, but it's still vandalism and destuction of somebody else's property.
I have two problems with your statement.
First, you stated your opinion as a fact. You have assumed as facts several premises that are very much in debate. Many (including myself) will argue that much art is also political statement and that the artist being discussed here takes a slightly different view on the subject of what can be property and what should be done with genetic engineering. As such, you might sound more credible if you actually responded to the issues being raised rather than just bleating "terrorist!"
Second, they didn't actually do any of the things you're saying they did, they described some ideas on how to do those things. You're allowed to write a story about robbing a bank and make lots of money, but if you actually rob a bank, you go to federal prison. See the difference? It's subtle, but it's there.
They're still practicing terrorism in that releasing something genetically modified into the environment is likely to cause a scare even if it's found to be harmless later.
RTFA. They haven't done any genetic modifications, nor have they released anything genetically modified into the environment. The equipment that the accused had in his home is for making gels: visualizations of genetic sequences. The most he could do in the way of genetic modification with the equipment he had was to create the equivalent of a bacterial breed by selecting bacterial populations for various conditions.
And, in a worst case, these guys could botch it all up and cause the kind of environmental harm that they're so scared Monsanto will cause.
Get your facts straight, you also have all of the equipment to do exactly the same thing in your home right now. The only thing you can't do that he could with his fancy gear is see what the bacterial genes look like in the mutant strain in the back corner of the fridge.
At least Monsanto does its best to follow the laws... these people seem to have no respect for the law at all.
Monsanto will definitely follow the laws that benefit its bottom line. To assume that Monsanto is therefore completely lawful is an entirely different set of assumptions. I have found that only rarely do companies do what is moral (or legal) when the immoral and illegal are much more profitable. While I have no evidence that that Monsanto learned at the Enron school of business, I'll reserve judgement about whether it "does its best to follow the laws." until I know for certain.
Regards,
Ross
You know, times HAVE changed.
No, they haven't. Not other than to the extend that people are buying into that very line.
Times have NOT changed... this WAS, and IS a free country, where the people do not tolerate the government trampling on their civil liberties and natural rights. IF we begin to allow ourselves to believe that we must change THAT, then the terrorists have won, game over.
Just as it was before, and just as it always will be, life is dangerous. Do it long enough and you die. Every one of us.... And so life in a truly free country may be a little more dangerous than life in a more tightly controlled country. Big deal... we're all gonna die eventually eitherway, and there's a reason that things like:
Live Free or Die!
and
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
are rallying cries in this country. It's better to live, and die, having liberty, freedom, and the "right to the pursuit of happiness" than to live without freedom, IMNSFHO. And in the opinions of a great many Americans who have preceded me.
The truth is, most Americans have more to fear from George W. Bush or John Ashcroft than they do from this professor, or even from Osama Bin Laden.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
But that still leaves an unexplained death. When a married person dies, the spouse is an automatic suspect worthy of at least some investigation since they have the most to possibly gain by the death.
The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is not alarming... if he's charged then we're all going to deserve to see more proof as to why, but so far I see nothing wrong with trying to find out if there's a link to the suspect materials that we just haven't discovered yet.
GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add.
And in a decade or so could possibly wreck the kind of ecological destruction that would normally take millenia as well. Sticking genes from one species into another is not at all the same thing as selectively breeding a single species for desirable traits.
FreeSpeech.org
A corpse in the kitchen with an unknown cause of death and a stack of bacterial cultures ought to be cause for concern for the police and ought to prompt a police investigation. Furthermore, determining whether some genetically engineered bacteria are dangerous or not is far from trivial, so it's not like one can just look at the situation and determine that it is harmless. So, no, I don't think police overreacted in this case. Take away the corpse, and maybe one could say that they overreacted. Even then, dangerous and harmless kinds of experiments are difficult to tell apart, and the question of why this work isn't happening in a lab, with proper documentation and notification, is still valid.
Steven Kurtz sounds like a bit of a nutjob to me. Unless his 'proposal for the release of mutant flies in restaurants' is Johnathan Swift style satire.
Most biotech scientists would support labelling of GM foods. Only the Monsato's of the world oppose this. It's a reasonable, conservative viewpoint. When that doesn't occur, the crazies come out and want to release mutant flies, or do other insane things.
People with these type of radical viewpoints will continue to grow in the U.S., as the government becomes more disconnected from the people.
(eg. Because of congressional gerrymandering something like 80% of U.S. house representatives are in safe districts, and have almost no risk of party loss in an election.)
The consequence of this is that these politicians have less incentive to worry about the concerns of their electorate. Enter the lobbyists to fill this time on their hands.
Why is it that genetic manipulation to make more and better food is bad, but genetic manipulation (with intentional release into the wild) to protest something is good? Why is it that when Monsanto says they've tested the GM crops to be safe, they are disbelieved on general principles, but when some art professors say THEIR GM bacteria are safe, they must know absolutely what they are talking about?
I can't believe I just read that. Maybe this country is going down the tubes after all. I'm very frightened for the future of freedom if political activism and terrorism are now one and the same.
The police generally don't host a grand jury unless they have a reasonable expectation that they'll be able to charge the suspect with a crime. If you're brought before a grand jury, then you should be concerned because that means there's a very good chance that you will be indicted (and hence go to trial) on something.
The Kurtz's were on a budget. Also, a biology professor has a reasonable expectation of getting a lab in his university, but an art professor does not.
So what's going to happen if my girlfriend electrocutes herself with her hair dryer, and the medics find my basement full of oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, and RF/microwave components?
Same idea. Petri dishes and bacteria samples -- even dangerous ones -- are not illegal to own. At least, they weren't, before Ashcroft and his boss came to town.
Your hobby, unless it's birdwatching, may be next.
Aren't GE/GM crops usually engineered not to produce seeds so that if you want to grow more next season you have to go back to Monsanto or whoever and buy more seeds or seedlings? Isn't this the worry about these "Frankenplants", that they'll crossbreed with regular plants on the next farm over and render them sterile as well, thus forcing all the farmers to become Mega-Ag-Corp. customers whether they want to be or not?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Agreed, a terrible summary. From my reading, Kurtz had not been charged at all, under any act, and so far does not have to face a grand jury. From the USA Today article:
"No charges were brought against Kurtz. Earlier this week, however, three of Kurtz's colleagues were subpoenaed to testify in front of a grand jury."
The death of his wife is only relevant because police initially discovered Kurtz's laboratory while they were investigating her death. He is definitely not being accused of murdering her.
(Here's hoping somebody gets the reference....)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
What's next, we shut down any lab that deals with the all deadly "microbes" of doom that aren't officially run by the government? Schools will have their doors beaten down and all the petri dishes will be rounded up and taken away? What the hell? Maybe they could round up all the dirt nearby and make sure to take the terrifying E. coli out of people's guts.
And what's so terrifying about proposals to release mutant flies or demonstration that GM crops have vulnerabilities? Should we silence anybody that has the gall to show us that our tampering with food has the possibility to cause problems? Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with GM foods boosting yield and such, but it'd be a bit like somebody publishing a proof of concept that the internet can be destroyed if somebody had the resources to do so. We don't want potential hazards silenced so we can live in lala land and seal our own fates, do we?
I agree that there should be a list of substances which shouldn't be made, and if the gov't finds somebody doing so then prosecute away. I don't think we should really worry too hard about a few nonpathogenic microbes though. They certainly shouldn't be wasting my tax money on charges of having everyday bacteria. Sure, under extremely rare and odd circumstances they might become hostile, but since these bacteria are everywhere anyway that isn't really the point, is it?
If not now, when?
Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation.
Of course he can tell the difference --
* An artist is a dangerous subversive, who must be arrested to stop the spread of ideas.
* A bio-weapons specialist is a valuable national resource, who must be recruited to work for Homeland Security.
-kgj
-kgj
vote the clowns out in November
We did last election (we got rid of that Clipper Chip and DMCA happy Gore). It didn't help.
I'm starting to think that the government is an organism unto itself, bent on amassing more and and more power over it's subjects (errrr, consumers....errrrr, citizens. Yeah that's it). At this point I don't think it matters who is in office, or in congress. Whoever gets elected will become just as corrupt as everyone else and the cycle will continue. Honestly, we have gone so beyond voting for the lesser of two evils we are now pretty much voting for the evil that most entertains us.
Finkployd
Not only is art a "peaceful purpose" but if his bacteria is not harmful then isn't he also protected under free speech rights? I'm not American but this doesn't seem to fall under that 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' example.
Is the government allowed to confiscate tools used to create and distribute messages? Especially in a case like this where the communication is clearly both physically safe (I assume) and political.
All those lines are already drawn and the effects are mostly for the common good. Misuse (or obviously intending to misuse) explosive gas or propane and you get in trouble. If you let your toilet brew feces until it creates a public health hazard, someone will come make you clean it up, or haul you off to the asylum and clean it up for you.
None of these things are unreasonable. If you run a bio-tech lab, you should be forced to adhere to public safety precautionary standards and regulations.
everything in moderation
I think this is just a symptom of a more general problem - most people don't understand the biology of transgenic food, and ignorance breeds fear and suspicion. There's also the conflation of ideas between transgenic plants and bioterror organisms.
The "conflation" is justified: transgenic methods are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms. Furthermore, even transgenic organisms harmless to human beings, have a significant potential for causing environmental harm (e.g., by creating herbicide-resistant weeds).
That is one of the reasons why any kind of experimentation with transgenic organisms is regulated. In particular, it is necessary to regulate tightly what gets released into the environment. Reputable labs working on improved food crops have to comply with those regulations, and so does everybody else.
it doesn't seem to me like anyone could have much of a case against him.
A lot of work in molecular biology is regulated, so even if he did not intend to create a dangerous organism, he may still have run afoul of health and safety regulations.
I mean really, people have been working microbes and selectively breeding organisms for thousands of years.
Modern industrial processes and practices have essentially supressed the knowledge in the general population of how our foodstuffs, beverages, drugs and other products are produced, and attempt to disguise as completely as possible the materials, and biological processes that are used in their production.
As a result, when sucking back a 6-pack of beer we don't think about the bacteria and biological reactions necessary to make it.
We don't think, when eating cheese, that maybe we're exposing ourselves to potentially fatal biological agents.
When you light up a cigarette, you don't really think about the centuries of genetic engineering that has resulted in the smooth taste of your laramie.
Bacteria is bad because some bacteria will kill us? Is this really the US government's message?
That learning for yourself and practicing the same techniques that are some of the foundations of modern civilisation is somehow wrong?
If its not in a can or a plastic package with pretty branding, it can't be right?
If its not part of a commercial process, it should be banned?
This is a massive over-reaction by the government - A corporation doing exactly the same thing is not in breach of the law.
When Jesus Christ turned water into wine, was he a frickin bio-terrorist?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
The agents asked the gallery director whether she believed Steven Kurtz holds anti-American sentiments
*cough* McCarthyism *cough*...
Who the heck cares what anyone else thinks is the "proper" way to dispose of a worn out flag?
If it's flying on a pole, and symbolizing lots of good things like freedom, and the people who have sacrificed to obtain and protect those things, then by all means, be respectful. Get a little choked up over it if you want, I've been known to.
But when I pull it out of a drawer and notice moths have gotten at it, and it's all mildew stained? It's a peice of cloth. It symbolizes nothing. I'm cutting it up for rags.
And if someone publicly burns an American flag in protest, I'd say they are making a powerful statement about what that flag has come to symbolize for them (something bad). I'd probably even like to know why. I'm certainly not going to suggest they should be prevented from making that statement, thus betraying the very thing that flag represents to me. If it is possible to desecrate the flag, surely it is done by making it a symbol of the opression of free thought and expression.
But that still leaves an unexplained death. When a married person dies, the spouse is an automatic suspect worthy of at least some investigation since they have the most to possibly gain by the death.
Umm, no. An "apparent heart attack" is an explanation.
FYI: Just because someone dies doesn't mean there's a suspect. In fact, a vast majority of the time that is what happens. No suspect. It's pretty sad that I had to point this out.
You get a 99% agreement here. The only quible is that last line(not the sig, more later). It's not just dubya and co., it's all the bought and paid for in our government.
We really need to kick most of them out of office, except they play on joe six packs apathy and ignorance. The dems and the republicans both.
The dems try to stay in power by telling the poor they somehow magically deserve a free ride and hooking them on this free ride like a crack dealer. The republicans trade favors to big bussiness for helping with thier election and by playing on fears of 'them'.
As to your sig. yes! I first ran into the Libertarian party in 92 when G.Bush Sr. was running against Perot and Clinton. The Libertarian party had repeatedly met the ever moving target set for participation in the debates untill they were finally told 'no we won't tell you what the new criterion are unless you meet them'. Perot never met the criterion, he was 'invited'. Most likely because he had enough $$ to make them look bad if they shut him out. I participated in the demonstration at Washintong U. in Missouri that year as much out of protest on the way they were treated as in support of thier ideals.
Those Ideals are simple. Follow the constitution. If it's not in the constitution the feds have no bussiness, or authority, touching it. It even says so, despite someones sig badly mangling the tenth amendment(not picking on him, I get his point, but it's lessened by his scrambling). The ninth amendment also indirectly bears on this.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
</BLOCQUOTE>
Freedom has a price, that price is responsibility, a willingness to deal with uncertantity, and somtimes 'the blood of mmartyrs and tyrants'. Not random searches and siezures, not warrents based on anonymous tips, not a million other <B>bad</B> things that we currently put up with.
Anytime a civilation needs professionals to help the common man figure out what he can and can't do in everyday life because of the complexity and volume of it's laws, it has ceased to be a civilzation and become a beuraucracy. Taxcode should fit in a pamphlet as well.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
You don't think terrorists can take over a small community and hold them at will? (um, if they can take over a plane of 100+ passengers - what makes you think they cannot hold a community hostage?)
Interestingly enough, it's already been proven that terrorists *cannot* take over a plane of 100+ passengers, when the passengers are aware that it's not in their best interests to cooperate.
The passengers on the first two 9/11 planes did not know that the terrorists intended to fly the planes into buildings and kill everyone onboard... in the past, passengers on hijacked planes had almost always been released / rescued eventually, so everyone would have assumed it made sense to cooperate.
On the third plane, once people found out what was going on, we see that the passengers were able to resist and thwart the terrorists plans. Yes, it cost them their lives, but we see that hijackers cannot just take over a plane and do their will, when the passengers know the score.
In fact, I expect there will never be another attempt to hijack a plane and use it in that manner, even again... just because the would be terrorists now know that the passengers on board almost certainly will resist.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
That is one of the reasons why any kind of experimentation with transgenic organisms is regulated. In particular, it is necessary to regulate tightly what gets released into the environment. Reputable labs working on improved food crops have to comply with those regulations, and so does everybody else.
Most regulations only apply to recipients of federal funds or to the food safety. While a few localities may have specific regulations, I am not aware of any general regulation of private genetic experimentation. Saying "transgenic organisms are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms" is a bit like saying "chemistry is one of the primary means of creating explosives," or "machining is one of the primary means of creating automatic weapons." Most uses of these technologies are entirely benign.
Moreover, it seems rather doubtful that transgenic technology is all that important for creation of bioweapons, anyway. Why go to the trouble of trying to create a novel pathogen when there are so many natural ones to work with? The most likely method of creating a bioterror weapon would be to grow a conventional pathogen such as anthrax in the presence of antibiotics to select resistant strains.
I agree with your statement about the Bush Administration: This group has turned me from a centrist/conservative to a screaming liberal in the span of just two years (perhaps with the aid of some college philosophy courses ;), however I strongly disagree with your assessment that "Times have NOT changed... this WAS, and IS a free country"
Over the last 50 years, the rights of the citizens in this country have slowly disappeared. From the "Red Scare" and McCarthyism to the current topic of the Patriot Act, it is undeniable that the last 50 years have shredded the constitution provided us by this nation's founders.
A free country does not allow the government to pass laws that provide for the silent imprisonment and execution of its citizens, citizens who haven't even been convicted of a crime. A free country does not allow its private sector and capitalists to dictate domestic and foreign policy in their favor and to the disadvantage of the majority. A free country does not encourage the widening of gaps between social classes by promoting the elite and trampling and stifling the poor. A free country does not make its will dominate another sovereign country, regardless of their political system and certainly does not invade it without clear justification. A free country allows its citizens to hold its leaders accountable for their actions, actions that have caused the deaths of hundreds of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and countless civilians overseas.
My friend, I have seen a free country, a country where two right-winged political parties do not dominate the political spectrum and national tickets, where peoples rights are preserved and social classes have been all but eliminated, a country where soft-money and corporate sponsorships are not permitted to "buy" elections. The U.S. is no longer a free country and it's high time something is done about it.
Sorry for the rant, but these times have gotten me in a sort of frenzy over the current state of things. Think about it. You don't have to agree, thats freedom, but believe you me, there are many that do and many more that want to see change.
Am I a bioterrorist? I will have collected a dangerous biological material, harvested it in my body, and exposed the public to the substance knowing its potential to cause harm.
You're right, it was hyperbole.
And you're right too that the Sedition Act of 1918 was nasty. But they didn't have much in the way of logs, surveilance cameras, or hell, even tape recorders back then, and what little technology that was at their disposal could never have been turned into a way of keeping tabs on the entire population.
The thing is, the Sedition Act was just a law, but that's doesn't mean it was possible to enforce. Prohibition? Last I checked I have a beer in the fridge. Laws, no matter how good or bad, have to be enforcable for them to do any good.
What's scary about the Patriot Act is that not only is it possible to enforce, but there is ample room for the government to overstep the already extensive bounds its given itself. A government by the people for the people should not depend on secret courts granting waivers from warrants to invade privacy, without any knowledge or opportunity for defense by the citizens accused. The problem with the Patriot Act is as much its tolerance for abuse as what it actually allows.
And one final point... if the time has come that even Bush's defenders are comparing his work to some of the worst bits of American history, isn't that kind of making an argument against him in itself?
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
If you combine the death of his wife, the goals (satirical or not) of the organization this guy is a part of, and the fact that he does all this stuff from a lab in a residential area, it seems pretty clear to me that at least *investigating* would be an extremely appropriate thing to do. It appears that's what happened and the fact that they are leveling charges makes me think something was discovered.
Throwing up a lot of quotes of disbelief by various people associated with the projects does little to discount that the whole situation surrounding this guy is more than a bit strange.
This is far from an invasion of personal rights as some of you knee-jerk types would like to paint it...
The refrigerator water line broke a valve. I just replaced a bad faucet in the kitchen. My sewer line sprung a leak last month. The freshwater line is leaking this month. I've got spare plumbing parts lying all over the house, just trying to keep up with it all.
So I'm into target shooting. Hey, geeks with guns, and all that... Ammo is expensive. Reloading cuts my costs in half. I've got top of the line ammo reloading gear. Liters of black powder. Hell, I've got boxes of fulminate based primers. (They come in lots of 1000 units.)
After the Oklahoma City Bombing back in '95, I began to doubt our various news sources' accuracy/truthfulness. They didn't seem to be sticking too closely to the facts. So I bought some books, old army manuals really, on how to blow shit up. Improvised explosives, and how to use them. Sifted through the news reports for facts that were there. Ignored the obvious rants. And drew my own conclusions.
(FYI: I concluded the second seismic disturbance occurred from lateral displacement of a supporting column in the structure. When it broke, the energy released would have been like a second bomb going off. Neatly accounting for the asymmetrical damage. Thank god Timothy McVeigh was a such an incompetent bomber. Oh, and the feds were almost certainly responsible for burning those Davidians alive. The wind patterns. The holes punched by their tear-gas tank created a chimney effect. The pattern to the holes appears deliberate.)
I've been a long-time critic of airport security. It's just nuts. (I can't take a pair of nail clippers on. What's the rational there? If you don't let me hijack the plane, I'll trim my toenails? Or forcing women to drink their own breast milk?)
On the other hand, even with all the extra post-911 security, its still damn trivial to slip guns/knives/bombs through. Obvious security lapses that just aren't being patched.
I'd like to get them to change. Preferably without getting myself arrested in the process...
I'm just doomed, aren't I? But imagine if they raided Sam Barros' place!
P.S. As long as we're playing gestapo here, I hope you won't be put out about coming down to the station for some hard questioning, not to mention paying for a lawyer, for conspiracy to rape that girl out in Timbuktu. After all, you've got the equipment! We need to investigate...
...Is this really anonymous? If you don't hear back from me, its not...
And tell me, what part of the articles that were linked had ANYTHING to do with the Patriot act? This will get modded as flamebait, but seriously, allowing articles with falsified summaries to make it to the front page is not good AT ALL. It's not good for the slashdot admins because it makes them look careless and it's not good for us readers because we are being subject false information unless we read all of the links ourselves - which we know isn't happening for every article!
JUST SO YOU KNOW: I'M JOKING.... I DON'T REALLY WANT THE FOLLOWING TO HAPPEN....
;-)
Do you know what this means?! Ban chemistry and biology from our schools! Ban physics and math! Ban art! Leave only English and American History. There's no harm in speaking English, and American History can instill patriotism in young Americans!
Oh, yeah: ban PE too; we don't want strong terrorists!
Mod up please.
;)
;) - oppression only works if all people have the *impression* that public dissent is considered insane from a "majority" and may even be outright dangerous.
Try posting your comment not anon and I'd have added you to my friends list for this classic civil liberty embracing post. Thank you anyway.
If you are afraid of what you say and hide your name deliberately "then the _censors_ will have already won"
If you can't criticize "the ruling party" without fearing crippling ridicule from others (even if it's the "Freepers" et al.) or incarceration by the authorities, it's only a matter of time before real dictatorship is established. Just because it shows no swastika it can be fascism anyway.
And in commemoration of "D-Day" tomorrow, I need to say as a German: thank you for the liberation *but* please make sure your nation does never transform into a fascism. The media cartels and its almost obvious manipulations are making me nervous and the military-industrial complex is already elected vice-president. Please, Americans, learn from German history on what NOT to do and when NOT to remain silent. If the totalitarian trend apparent in all branches of the US government continues I think it could soon be worse than we realize yet.
Tell that to the guy who bred the first mule.
Mules don't generally have offspring except for once in a blue moon so they are not likely to get loose and then propogate on their own into an unprepared ecosystem. Find a better example.
I've read about fifty comments here, and no one has expressed any sympathy for the guy who has just lost his wife. She was an artist herself, and they worked together on their projects. I am going to assume he loved her.
Put yourself in his shoes. You lose your wife and you get your life turned upside down, at the same time, by the Justice department?
This reminds me of that Oregon lawyer. He had defended someone suspected of terrorist ties. He had converted to Islam. The FBI said there was a match between him and a fingerprint found at the Madrid bombing. But they were wildly wrong. They were told they were wrong.
What is the point of patting yourself on the back for having a "free Country" if you let paranoia around security make you act like a Police State?Mr Goore was on a campain stop when he made that speech. Don't believe for a minute it was develped by him at all. There is a movment on the "left" to try and discedit bush by any means necessary, including lying cheating and stealing. The only thing huffy and upset was Gore thinking "it's payback for winning against me" .. nothing more.