Slashdot Mirror
Secret Service Seeks Indymedia Logs
sunbird writes "The Justice Department has issued a subpoena seeking IP logs from Calyx, the ISP for nyc.indymedia.org, after individuals posted [1 | 2 | 3] the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of the RNC delegates. The subpoena was issued as part of an ongoing investigation of voter intimidation. As reported earlier in this Slashdot article, the Justice Department tried this before. Calyx, represented by the ACLU, responded, claiming that '[t]he only intimidation taking place here is the Secret Service intimidating people who speak out against the government.' [Full text of the letter available here] Read more: Indymedia.org | NYT"
Is whether the people posting the information are willing to post the same information about themselves.
individuals posted [1 | 2 | 3] the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of the RNC delegates.
What I don't understand is the purpose of this release. People protesting and hacking in the name of the democratic party is only going to piss off the undecided people.
Being a shmuck isn't any less evil even if you think you are doing it for the right reasons.
If I were a moderate and had to choose between the party of McCain and the party of hackers and hippies... I know who I would pick.
Obligate disclosure:
Physician who is a democrat... so my morals are screwie already. (grin)
Having said that I don't understand this on two fronts
1. What possible benefit could the list could be to somebody? I mean it's not like these are potential swing votes. To me it would only give the Republicans political fodder for demonizing us democrats.
2. Why is simply posting it illegal? From the article
*warning* shameless plug to get myself (and yourself) a free ipod follows:
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Secret service logs YOU
^^
What i think is humorous is that rncdelegates.com goes to lengths to hide the contact information only providing a hush mail account, on a seperate linked site no less, when they make this claim as justification for providing home contact information for delegates: "Where is the privacy of citizens when the USA PATRIOT Act is the law of the land? Where is privacy when "Big Brother" in the form of government and corporations worms his way ever further into our lives?" Where's their dncdelegates.com site? I'm all for free political speech and contacting representatives, but isn't this a bit hypocritical and biased?
How about not logging every single thing to begin with. My proxy logs go to /dev/null.
Also, isn't this kinda similar to big brother asking the libraries about the list of books checked out by somebody? The simplest solution was the libraries stopping to keep track of who checked the book out after it was returned.
Free XBox, PS2
Watch as the government makes it mandatory for discussion boards to maintain logs for a much much longer time. And to edit/censor posts in real time to prevent children from pornographic material...after all the children must be secured.
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
It's one thing to publish a known politician's info. They are opening their lives to the public (by definition, they serve the public). But, it's not necessarily right for a delegate's (often a common civilian) husbands/wives/kids to have to suffer harrassment simply as a result of their parent's or spouces political affiliations.
How are they public officials? They aren't agents of the government, they don't hold any sort of public office. They represent a political party, which is a separate entity from the government.
What if it were a Republican-oriented website with information for harrassing Democratic delegates? It'd be splashed all over the NYT before the Secret Service even caught wind of it, and the American Criminal Lawyers' Union wouldn't even touch the case!
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
You can't even peacefully wear a "No Bush" T-Shirt to a political rally now adays without being arrested for trespassing.
Your rights to free speech, and your expectations of privacy are gone now.
Politicians as part of our so called "open" government should have no expectations of privacy. Just who is supposedly representing us.
Our objectives are to: - Supply anti-RNC groups with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit.
Uhh... Reading something like that makes me not want to give the benefit of the doubt. What could any 'anti-RNC' groupie do with that new information that is not unethical or harassing? They don't vote Republican, so the delegate really isn't interested in what they have to say, so that's out.
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
Whatever your stance on publishing these kinds of lists, Indymedia is one of the few remaining grassroots information outlets left on the internet, free from corporate money, sleaziness and lies. It would be a shame to have them shut down, and would really represent the end of the Internet as we knew it.
:-(
Sure, there are Indymedia branches in many countries (mostly European) but if we get our own version of the Patriot act the way we're getting software patents and DMCA and other crappy corporate America anti-freedom laws, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with only CNN and other big-money propaganda machines.
An open question to anyone who thinks that posting the personally identifying information of GOP delegates on a (mostly) radical left-wing website isn't about intimidation, I ask you this:
What do you think it's about when the personally identifying information of physicians who terminate pregnancies is listed on anti-abortion websites?
Note that I'm not arguing against free speech here. Publish whatever directory you want, but it goes both ways.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
to get through ALL the linked documents, in the most semantic sense of the phrase, posting this info about delegates can be considered intimidation. I'm not voting for Bush myself but in this has to swing both ways.
If a rule applies to Republicans, it has to apply to Democrats.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Is publishing their personal information any different than me drafting up a list of "red pinko communists" with your name on it knowing that it will cause you social stigma and may destroy your career and friendhips?
Lets not kid ourselves, nobody is going to use this information to send these men fruitbaskets or singing telegrams.
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
to real protesting? Whatever happened to actually telling the people what's really going on in the shadows and giving the public a REAL reason to vote for or against a cause. Now, we're just terrorists in our own country.
I haven't seen a single political ad that discusses the truth or isn't hyperbole. It's too bad the people of America are too dumb to research politics themselves and not buy into this advertisement bull shit.
How about those who are merely registered Republican voters? Are they too de facto government officials? Where do we draw the line? Poll watchers?
NSA logs YOU.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
It's funny that people cry "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" when they are being investigated for involving themselves in this crap.
I will never understand why people think that because they are "speaking out against the establishment" they should be able to do whatever they want to speak out, and be beyond reproach.
"Hard work never killed anyone." -- Some Dead Guy
Even if you feel they are seriously misguided, if you want to influence them you do it with kindness and respect. Whether they are really being put at some risk by having their names, hotel rooms and phone numbers posted really depends on the random action (Or hopefully lack of action) by some crazy wingnut. Would you want your mother getting a threatening call at 3am? The secret Service has a legitimate concern for their wellfare.
As a protest action it was stupid and arguablly endangering. About as self-indulgent and counter-productive as breaking windows and setting fires at the WTO.
Certainly, it seems to me to be pointlessly cruel. The fact that the perpetrators hide behind anonymity rather than stand up and explain themselves betrays a coward's conscience.
As Gandhi, King and Mandella proved - effective change is possible... RTFM!
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
If I hand out copies of a list of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of "uppity niggers" at a Ku Klux Klan rally, do you think that my actions are purely informational?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If you can tell me a way to investigate avenues of illegitimate funding by only using a name, address, phone number, and hotel room without doing anything illegal I'll be impressed. But you can't. There is nothing productive that can come out of this besides a letter to his home (which will unlikely be read, and won't cause his magic conversion to the other party.)
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
Well, let's see: first of all, you bring up a case that you actually know nothing about (the Florida case that you mentioned) and used the unsupported supposition that DoJ is doing nothing about it as evidence for your case.
Next, you link to the Georgia GOP website, which lists names but does not list addresses or phone numbers, which may not be publicly accessible if, for example, a person's phone number is unlisted.
Then you attach vitriolic labels like "racist" and "classist", which really have nothing to do with the reality of this case, in an attempt to make DoJ seem more "evil" than it really is.
And then somebody mods you interesting? I'd lean more toward funny, myself.
Read some of the coverage. Some things are more simple, like have people blocking hotel entrances, or event locations. Other things get more personal, like groups waiting at places like restraunts or theaters and trying to fight with attendees. Some have gotten worse. One police detective was put in the hospital.
I don't care what party you are with. That's just wrong. Protesting is an important right, but protesting doesnt' mean you can do things like that. Yes, stand and voice your concerns, but getting into fights, or attempting to get in the face of any and every attendee is just a annoying.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Not trying to be funny, but there is some violence inherent in this system.
"Teachers leave us kids alone
What, like in 2000? Yeah, right.
Well, right now you're modded "Insightful", so at least one mod shares your knee-jerk tinfoil-hat mindset. That doesn't mean you have any actual insight, however. It's easy to be cynical. When you're cynical you can just lean back in your chair, lick the orange stuff from your Cheetoes off your fingers, and sneer at everything. Doing something to effect real change is much more difficult.
To the extent that the "major parties" get preferential treatment under US election law, I actually don't disagree with you. However, the fact remains that convention delegates are *not* government officials, are generally *not* public figures, and so retain the same rights of privacy as anyone else. Yourself included, even if you chose to attend a convention as a delegate for some reason.
So, yes, people with that kind of power over the politicians who will spend 60+% of your hard-earned cash every year should be publicly accessible.
You'll find that delegates have relatively little power. At least for the first ballot, they have no choice as to how to cast their votes under the current primary system. Their individual identities are therefore as relevant as those of the Electors who actually vote for the President. At least the Electors' duty is Constitutionally mandated! And seriously, is there any doubt about who they're going to nominate? If there wasn't for the Democrats, where there was more than one candidate in the primary field, how can there be for the Republicans?
Incidentally, tax freedom day this year was April 11, representing rather less than 60% of your income.
And the brethren went away edified.
it's hard to argue that the SC is republican, mostly because they take so many sides of seemingly identical issues. but it's actually not either one - depending on the specific jurisprudential issues at stake in each case, the justices may decide seemingly contradictory things.
so you can put them on record as supporting gay marriage, abortion, secret courts, against gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro-federalism, anti-federalism, etc. it all depends on what case the litigators bring to the Court. if i argue a particular set of issues to the Court, they may decide that my argument is crappy and rule in favor of my opponent, solely because i built a weak case. if i argue a different set of issues that differ only slightly from the previous case, the Court may rule for me.
so what looks like inconsistency is actually the much-vaunted "nuance" that kerry would bring to the white house. whether you think nuance is a good thing for the executive branch, too, is one of ideology.
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Last time I checked, the Republican Party was not a branch of government and delegates to the Republican National Convention were not necessarily members of the government.
Given Indymedia's Michael Moore-esque visits to lunacy, the list was placed up there to do one thing and one thing only, intimidate those Republican delegates. These are private citizens participating in the political process, unlike the hundreds of millions of other people who sit on the asses complaining and they don't deserve to be targeted by potentially violent people (don't even give me that peaceful protest hooey).
This is sickening and deserves no defence unless you think targetting people for their political beliefs, whether left or right, is a great idea. Oh wait, I'm sure there will be people who think it is a great idea.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
"...but he has lately demonstrated that his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to his country."
What the hell is this? Did you ever consider that maybe he thinks his party is the best one for the country? I mean, he's a REPUBLICAN Senator for a reason.
I get the impression McCain is about as impressed with John Kerry as he is with a pile of old dogshit in the road. And while he doesn't like Bush, you don't have to LIKE someone to think they're the better candidate for office. As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.
"I had more respect for him. No longer."
Your respect was probably going to last only as long as McCain ripped on his own party. Somehow, I don't think he's weeping for the loss of your endorsement.
By the way, here's a standards check: do you also respect Zell Miller or Ed Koch or Ron Silver, liberals all, for going against their party because their convictions tell them to?
My money says you're calling them sellouts. I'd be willing to bet "respect" and "conviction" is a one way street for you.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Hello, these aren't the self-appointed managers of the world any more than the DNC delegates were."
Well actually yes they are. They currently have complete control of the U.S. government with the exception of the courts which take longer to stack. They are running the worlds sole remaining superpower, no longer checked by the U.S.S.R, they are running the world's largest military by far, and a big chunk of the world's economy. They have declared a policy of preemptive warfare which means any nation that crosses the U.S. is a now a potential military target, remember "You are either with us or your agaist us". The U.S. has troops in something around a hundred countries now. How much more of an empire do you need.
The Feds and the city of New York both, run by Republican's are arresting people for nothing more than peaceful protest, you can now be stopped on the street or in a subway station and searched without cause. The Republican's, with Democrat collusion, through the Patriot Act have given themselves the right to see what you read at the library, and arrest a Librarian for not keeping this intrusion secret, or to engage in sneak and peak invasions of your home where they will break and enter to get in to your home, rumage through your things and don't have to show you the warrant or tell you they were there.
They've created a no fly list that is preventing people from traveling because they have names resembling a terroris name or alias, and has in fact been used to keep anti war and anti bush activist from flying. They've made numerous attempts to use computers and mergin of private and government databases to trace every recorded aspect of every persons life. The President just signed an executive order starting the merge of the CIA, the NSA, the DIA. The prospects are high the NSA's massive spying power will be applied against American's, so we can now empathize with the rest of the world, and we will no doubt see a spying agency large and more powerful than any the world has ever seen, with all of the checks against abuse abandoned in the name of "safety".
I'm sorry but it is pretty hard to shed a tear over this litte intrusion in to the privacy of the Republican party's top echelon considering the extent to which their leaders are demolishing everyone else's rights and privacy.
"What exactly leads you to believe the republican party has a "platform of racisism"?"
Its not a platform since that entails that it be stated, obvious and public and that is politically impossible in these politically correct times.
But it is an obvious fact under a thin facade. You really don't have to look any further than crowd shots of the the people in the RNC. It is a sea of white faces. There are a few Asians, a few Hispanics, and a very few token blacks but it is obvious to anyone not wearing blinders that it is a party of white people for white people, especially affluent white protestants. My dad is a die hard Republican, more than a little rascist, and he would never dream of supporting the Democrats because to him they are the party of blacks, gays, trial lawyers and labor unions.
The rascist undercurrent in the Republican party was amplified in the mid sixties when LBJ rammed through the Civil Rights Act. When he did it he told Bill Moyers he feared he was giving the South to the Republicans for a long time to come and he was dead right. When LBJ gave blacks their rights back and put an end to segregation most of the segregationist Democrats jumped ship and landed in the waiting arms of the Republican party and its a key reason they have a lock on the South today. The Democrats in the South were the rascist party before the Civil Rights Act. Now its the Republicans though its obviously somewhat muted compared to the '50s and '60s.
You just need to look some of the Republican parties leading Southern luminaries. Halley Barbour, Trent Lott and Bob Barr have all been linked to segragationists and white supremecists.
As you may re
@de_machina
And what's so unfortunate about the pro-gun voting block? I happen to be one of them.
And yes, Hunters are pro Enviroment. The better the enviroment, the better the hunting. You can also argue that (true) hunters are more aware of the enviroment than many of the 'green' party. It takes skill, knowledge, preperation, and effort to successfully stalk wild game, make a clean kill, and prepare the meat.
There's a number of things I disagree with both parties about. I tend to be pro-self reliance, pro-liberty, moderatly green.
I'm for green when it's not economicly crippling, and for providing regulations that encourage companies to still upgrade & improve emissions/pollution, rather than hiding under grandfather clauses.
I don't read AC A human right
There's a certain irony that the people hiding behind anonymous posts which were trying to intimidate convention delagates by publishing their personal details and locations are now claiming indimidation about their mere identities being exposed.
It's just stunningly hypocritical for anyone to claim intimidation by the mere uncovering of their anonymous identity when they've posted the personal details including residence of others encouraging thousands of potential protestors to show up and ahem... 'protest'.
If you go posting information online in a way that clearly invites intimidation of others and worse, excuse me if I don't feel very sympathetic about bleating of intimidation when someone attempts to uncover your anonymity.
It almost takes anonymous posting to a new low, but let's face it, it is pretty tough to reach new depths there.
Let's go through this a line at a time.
.30-.30 Winchester, the round typically chambered in grandpa's old lever-action rifle and used to take more deer than pretty much any other round in the world. So yes, we do fear him and his kind coming to more power than they already have.
Unfortunately, in America, the pro-gun voting block is incredibly strong. A national politician has a difficult time getting elected if the opponent can say he's anti-guns.
Yes, those of us who are in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights (you know, part of that darned Bill of Rights)organize and tend to vote for people who are like-minded. That's democracy for you.
That's why major democrats promote themselves as hunters (Kerry, Ann Richards, etc.)-- to defuse potential FUD that they're going to take away people's weapons.
Yes, politicians like Kerry like to pose with their multi-thousands-of-dollars over & under imported shotguns while trap-shooting at the range. If you didn't know, trap-shooting, while a fun sport, tends to be overrun with what could be termed the aristocratic snobs of the so-called "gun culture." "See, I'll let you keep your $10,000 dollar trap gun. It's just those eeeeeeevil 'assault weapons' I don't like."
And yes, Kerry and Ted Kennedy both voted for a bill (that fortunately failed) which would have outlawed "any centerfire rifle ammunition capable of penetrating a bulletproof vest." What they didn't want to tell you is that is EVERY center-fire rifle cartridge. Including that dastardly
Hunters are not opposed to the Endangered Species Act. Hunters and fishermen appreciate government regulations that provide them with more animals to catch or kill. Check out Ducks Unlimited, for example. The biggest opponents of the ESA are developers and polluters. Both of these groups are very friendly to the GOP when it comes to fundraising.
Not all "gun people" are the same on every subject. Personally I am a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. I have friends I go shooting with who fall all over the political map. Oh, and yes, I'm a big proponent of the ESA.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Bullshit. The Secret Service are requesting the IP addresses of all users of the site. It's called a fishing expedition. Lots of people use nyc.indymedia.org, didn't post the information (not that there's anything legally wrong with the information) and don't want the Secret Service sniffing around their IPs like a mutt after a bitch in heat.
If you take the trouble to read the articles you'll see the FBI tried this shit with indymedia previously after an oh-so-convenient-anonymous-post put up bogus information that the FBI claimed was a "security leak".
Pull the other one.
It sounds like you are a libertarian, not a conservative. Vote appropriately.
Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/
When did "i don't see it that way" become "Absolutely Wrong"?
Regardless of your political affiliation, or your position in the US government, it seems that you should have the right to not be harassed, threatened, or intimidated by anybody.
If you can say with a straight face that the point of this document is NOT for people to intimidate, harass, or threaten members of a political organization, I am listening.
What happened to just being civil. Isn't it possible to say "You know, i don't like some of the policies of this administration" without threatening people, physically assaulting them, harassing them at work/home, and generally being a shithead?"
Were there ever any good ole days of "well, i'm voting for the other guy"?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
What the hell happened to the Secret Service in the last three and a half years?
Firstly, they have been instructing police departments around the country to construct "First Amendment Zones" whereever Bush or other Bushites are speaking. A First Amendment Zone is an out-of-the-way place miles from the President, surrounded by walls and wire, guarded by goons and dogs, and festooned with cameras to record your every visual detail. Show up to protest, and you are unceremoniously shown to the FAZ, where you are identified, processed and allowed to chant at a telephone pole. Presidential supporters are of course bussed in if necessary - happened here in Chicago.
Secondly, the Secret Service is being dispatched, along with the FBI, to investigate even potential protestors in their homes. The "we know who you are" routine.
Thirdly, the SS won't let the press talk to Michael Moore, who is corresponding for USA Today this week.
Secret
Service shuts down Michael Moore interviews. Why is the
Secret Service Engaged in Direct Political Work for Bush? Isn't That
Illegal? 8/31
Here's a sample of what happens when a political party gets its own federal guard:
Seabrook: Yes, I am in the middle of a...you might be able to hear the Secret Service yelling into my mic at the same time. There, there are a bunch of Secret Service that have surrounded Michael Moore's section. There are three or four reporters with him right now, but they are trying to kick all of the reporters and press photographers who are around him out of his area. The convention staff is also here. They're standing here telling us that we have to move from this are...they're obviously disturbed by the fact that Michael Moore is here and want as little public here as possible.
Stachio: Can we hear? Can we hear what's going on? Can you stick a mic in there? I don't know if we can hear.
Seabrook: Yeah...ah...eh...they've sort of moved me away from that area.
Stachio: I don't understand. Who is it? Is it Secret Service?
Seabrook: It's Secret Service which is interesting because the Secret Service of all agencies is the one that remains...is the least involved in the sort of political...political kinds of things, but of course they always cover the candidates and they have to be involved in the convention like this. They claim that what they're doing is for safety reasons, although there is a almost nobody around Michael Moore right now. So a we'll see if I can a...
Secret Service Agent: [crosstalk] thank you very much
Seabrook: Yeah, I'm being herded back in four different ways right now.
***
People, Bush has created his own private extra-constitutional intelligence and police force! The SS must be loaded to the gunwhales with hard-right wing fanatics.
Doesn't this terrify you all?
The Secret Service was created to protect the President. Does "protection" mean reelecting him at all costs?
Why do we even need a Secret Service, anyway? Why are they guarding the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington DC? Can't police guard the President? Is the President so holy and inviolate that we have to shut down entire cities when he arrives? He's a civilian employee, for God's sake, not an emperor! They are welding manhole covers shut in foreign countries to protect him. WHAT? THE? HELL?
Why do I think that this level of political protection will not be deemed necessary by the SS when Kerry assumes the office? Kerry, clean house. Grow a pair, find out the names of the officials who have cultured this monster. and make them be gone.
Neither Kerry nor Bush is as evil and some would make either one to be. It's super hard now to get any kind of real debate going on anything.
The hatred is too much for me, I've gone turtle and am heading for high ground until November before the sheer negativity infects me as it has others.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We need a series of lawsuits against police departments for this practice, on first ammendment grounds, and wrongful arrest. There need to be serious repercussions for police departments that decide to remove people for political reasons.
Of course, proving a political motivation is very difficult. In practice there is almost always something they can charge you with. (like not having a protest permit, disorderly conduct, etc) This is a problem of too many laws, and selective enforcement. The police are effectively able to suppress political views using the legal system. The selective enforcement issue must be solved at a higher level by reducing and clarifying contradictory laws.
All you protestors, carry a videocamera. Make sure to videotape anyone who is arrested or looks like they're going to be, and offer up the footage as evidence.
This is how democracy dies folks...
-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
If any of you want a right to privacy, ever, then you'd better respect their right to privacy, whether you agree with their views or not, and whether you think that you are using this knowledge for some greater good.
Moral relativism is evil, and it is wrong to assume that the ends justify the means. Ever.
These people are not your representatives. The political parties are not the government.
They will decide what the views of the party are, and then you will decide whether to vote for that party. If you don't like it that way, then move to another country.
Howdy All, Looking at what the Republicans are trying to do, keeping their delegates secret, sickens me. I thought they were supposed to represent the people they are delegating. How are the people that they are representing supposed to contact them and let them know what views we want expressed? Well we can't without contact information. What it sounds like is that the terrorists won. By not giving out this information, we have changed our system to compensate for what the terrorists want us to feel... Fear. Guess what, we obviously are fearful. I personally think this is cowardly and that leaders need to step up and become leaders. As a concerned citizen, that sees the system starting to break, we got to start being more responsible, and make a democracy work, and start talking, not hiding. I know that it is hard to risk your families, and your lives at these conventions (and I am personally not sure really how high of a terrorist threat that exists), but someone has too, and you choose to be the leaders, and represent. As the people that are still in school and that you are inspiring (or not), we got to be able to write and let you know our views. We are not electing a dictator that chooses policy for 4 years, the person we elect is supposed to be a president that hears the people and reacts. A president can change his mind. A candidate can change his mind. They are supposed too as they get public opinion, more information about controversal subjects, and become more informed to make a better intelligent decision. But to make an intelligent decision, we got to know who to talk too. Else the system breaks down. Imagine you were a CEO, and had to tell 10 people a message, just to get a message the client representative. I have done this game before (not through ten people, but three), and communication breaks down. The client wants to be able to pick up the phone and talk to the people in charge, or at least the secretary. Guess what delegates, we are the client, and we want to call and contact, and pass our opinions. It is how our system works. I don't want to have my email lost, and I have no clue when I send one, what really happens to it. I imagine most of the public does not know what really happens to it. Maybe someone should do a commercial about how their voice counts? It could make for a nice way to get their votes. Well I hope this lets out some of the frustration I am feeling, and I hope the lists stop becoming "secret". Thanks and Gig'em!
And that word is: FEAR.
The government and media in America has its citizens whipped up into a frothful and delirious state of constant fear. Fear of terrorists. Fear of different ethnicities. Fear of liberals.
A gun is an equalizer for those who feel powerless. A gun makes them feel as though they have power in an environment where they are frightened.
The NRA manipulates their fears for political and financial gain by promoting the notion that there is a campaign afoot to take their guns away. The NRA is the great protector of Americans' only safety blanket.
There are many lessons for Americans to learn from Afghanistan and Iraq. Among these is this: Allowing each household to own a fully automatic AK-47 does not seem to have created an orderly or peaceful society.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
When did "i don't see it that way" become "Absolutely Wrong"?
When "You're either with us or with the terrorists" became your new foundation for diplomacy?
-- Language is a virus from outer space.