------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daedalus Rising To: All Subject: 1984 Date: Thu Aug 04 08:24:30 CDT 1994 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: -1 1984: alive or dead in our modern culture? This is a base to discuss 1984, and how we may be slowly heading in that direction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: War on Drugs - Part XIV Date: Thu Jan 04 14:15:23 CST 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: unavailable -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tucson Citizen, Friday, December 29, 1995, page 6A Some praise, others criticize the high-tech war on drugs By JOHN LARRABEE Gannett News Service. Someday soon, travelers landing at a major airport could be made to pass their hands under an electronic sensor that detects small particles of heroin and cocaine. A crack addict convicted of burglary could be sentenced to wear an electronic bracelet that alerts probation officers if drugs are detected in his sweat. And a tanker truck cruising toward a border check point could be scanned by a camera that snaps X-ray type pictures of the cargo before the driver even slows down. Such high-tech surveillance could become commonplace by the end of the century. The developments worry privacy advocates, who fear the war on drug users and dealers is driving government into increasingly sophisticated snooping on citizens. Drug agents say the technology is necessary to keep up with modern smugglers. A five-year effort by the federal Counter drug Technology Assessment Center will help put a new generation of sleuthing gear into the hands of law enforce from sonar devices that inspect sealed drums to drug-test kits that can be carried in squad cars. White House drug czar Lee Brown said the technology is needed and is nothing to worry about: "I don't see how there's even an issue with civil liberties here. It's about our kids. We're using new technology to deal with those who are exporting poison to our children. Others aren't so thrilled. "The priority is more on monitoring the law-abiding population than keeping track of the people the police already know are dealing drugs," said Robert Ellis Smith, editor of the Privacy Journal. "It's a vision of America that's quite different from mine." To many, one of the hottest new gizmos is also one of the most troubling. Using new computer technology, the "facial recognition system" lets police photograph crowds and check digitized faces against a database of suspects. Immigration officers in El Paso, Texas, already use a new surveillance, camera to photograph suspects and identify the by their name if their face is in a database of 10,000 people. The system supposedly also can identify suspicious travelers as they disembark from planes or to scan rock concert crowds to see if any faces match a database of drug dealers. But defense lawyers question whether the equipment will live up to the hype, and whether matching a digitized face to a person in a crowd is "probable cause" for police to search or arrest someone. "We're a nation of Forrest Gumps for letting them get away with this," said John Henry Hingson III, former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. But Arvid Larson, a consultant to the drug czar, expects police to win court challenges. "The new technology usually prevails, but sometimes it takes years. DNA evidence is still challenged, and we went through 30 or 40 years of fingerprint issues." Hingson, an Oregon City, Ore., defense lawyer, said the equipment is a threat to civil liberties. "The real casualty of the war on drugs could be the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans. What they're doing by unveiling, these stealthy, smart weapons is instill in people a fear and suspicion of the government, and that's really stupid." But to Brown, who steps down as drug czar in January, the technology will make police more respectful of civil liberties, not less, because it's "less intrusive. Surveillance technology that can isolate a criminal's voice in a crowded, noisy room protects the rights of others." Private business also is interested in the technology. "If these (cameras) go up in malls or retail stores, they could collect data on people for marketing purposes," said David Banisar of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "They'll know you've been in the store and what you bought, and they'll use that to determine what sort to advertising to hit you with." -------------------- Drug control projects ease detection Gannett News Service WASHINGTON - Since 1990, the Office of Na- tional Drug control Policy has launched more than 50 research projects. Spending will double from $8 million in 1995 to $16 million in 1996. Among the projects: * New electronic sensors that detect trace amounts of heroin and cocaine on hands and sur- faces. The Surfaced-Enhanced Raman Spectrom- eter will scan palms, documents and luggage at air- ports and border crossings. * U.S. Customs is testing a machine that X-rays trucks near the San Diego border. The trucks are pulled by chain-for eight minutes through the ma- chine. SAIC, a San Diego company, has developed a machine that uses gamma rays to detect contra- band in moving trucks on the interstate. The gam- ma ray machine - like a sophisticated X-ray ma- chine - is not yet in use by law enforcement. * Computers soon will keep tabs on money-laun- laundering operations. The volume of money transfers - u ix.~iv~ r7 several million a day - makes it difficult for law en- forcement agents to track drug profits. Computers soon will be able to alert investigators to suspicious patterns, such as regular transfers of cash overseas. * The Naval Research Laboratory has developed inexpensive ways to test hair, saliva, or sweat to de- termine if a person has been using drugs. Highway patrol officers will soon be using "swipes" - test tis- sues that can be wiped across a sweaty brow - on motorists suspected of driving under the influence of drugs. * New, ultratiny surveillance and recording equipment will make it easier to spy on drug deal- ers. A new tape recorder can fit inside a working ballpoint pen; the pen can be casually left behind or given to a drug suspect to carry around. But the small size is just part of it. A new battery lets the bug work for months, rather than weeks. And the new equipment can run by remote control. ... He who would exchange Liberty for security deserves neither! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMOYgFkI2iNoAEnINAQH3zwP/TWQ5qE1C8+F+EkiUSwlZNPWnHSU8nfcF 9P9aow23uLg7LSuIRUV17l4EDmZmUEjh4O4FBxH/J4E+BaYZx8EnkSXrdGJY4vPm jlA07SKjw51wTAMOU/Jx1IPEGkcM24r0ncZ4WwSorueKPMXLFAPipXxpBVN98kC3 PGwK4TlfS/0= =qXbx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Four-star savior Date: Tue Jan 23 13:49:36 CST 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: unavailable It seems that Mr. Clinton is playing with the idea of promoting a four-star general to the position of "Drug Czar"; a man who apparently knows how to `take action' and stop the flow of drugs into this country. So do y'all think this is a great idea, to have a general be in charge of something like this? Seems a bit Orwellian to me ... using the military to make the country "safe". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Tue Jan 23 16:17:41 CST 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: 3 DR> So do y'all think this is a great idea, to have a general be in charge of DR> something like this? DR> DR> Seems a bit Orwellian to me ... using the military to make the country DR> "safe". I saw it on the State of the Union speech tonight. It dependes on which direction he is planning to go. If the palnis to REALLY stop importation of drugs into the country, now they can send an aircraft carrier into biscayne bay and set mines along the Mexican border. But Clinton talked about giving kids "something to say yes to." Maybe he meant military service in Biscayne Bay. I don't think it really matters who is drug czar, because the real solutions are local, in law enforcement, treatment programs, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Sat Jan 27 04:26:02 CST 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: 4 DR> So do y'all think this is a great idea, to have a general be in charge of DR> something like this? F> I saw it on the State of the Union speech tonight. It dependes on F> which direction he is planning to go. The only way I would see a General as Drug Czar as positive is if the general used his position to say something like, "The drug war, like Vietnam, can't be won." Because it can't be. Prohibition failed, and the drug war is failing. While I don't know what the answer is, locking more people up in jail for 10 years for smoking a marijuana cigarette isn't the answer. And I don't think that promoting a general to head this "drug war" will do any good. Military men are too used to giving orders and having them happen ... not to the real world of covilians, where things go wrong because the people have an annoying little tendency to think for themselves. F> in Biscayne Bay. I don't think it really matters who is drug czar, because F> the real solutions are local, in law enforcement, treatment programs, etc. I think it does, at least in the sense that it sends the wrong message ... reinforcing the war/general/military archetype. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Sat Jan 27 09:42:27 CST 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: 5 F> in Biscayne Bay. I don't think it really matters who is drug czar, because F> the real solutions are local, in law enforcement, treatment programs, etc. DR> DR> I think it does, at least in the sense that it sends the wrong message ... DR> reinforcing the war/general/military archetype. Yeah, if you are really concerned about the message. But our society is so screwed up that most people wouldn't recognize a clear signal if they saw one. For example, kids spend hours and hours watching cartoon heroes killing "invaders", otherwis known as foreigners. Is this a message to them about how to behave when the first aliens really do land on earth? DR> The only way I would see a General as Drug Czar as positive is if the gene DR> used his position to say something like, "The drug war, like Vietnam, can't DR> won." DR> Some retired generals might very well say that. Especially those who are veterans of Vietnam, which this one is. DR> Because it can't be. Prohibition failed, and the drug war is failing. Whil DR> don't know what the answer is, locking more people up in jail for 10 years It appears that the only solution. at least for the short term, is to legalize it and sell it in a cntrolled way, like alcohol and cigarettes. Of course, we are having problems managing that too. What is the "drug problem," anyway? Are more people really being killed by crazed junkies than by drunk drivers. drunk men murdering their wives, and by lung cancer? I don't think so. Are more people killing themselves by accidental overdoses than by driving drunk? I don't think so. Or is the "drug problem" really that no corporation has figured out how to manufacture and profit on them for personal use. If I were the drug czar, I would tell people to quit whining about a nonexistent problem, let drug offenders out of jail to make room for rapists, save a lot of enforcement money for treatment programs and lifestyle improvement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Sun Jan 28 09:45:16 CST 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: 6 DR> I think it does, at least in the sense that it sends the wrong message ... DR> reinforcing the war/general/military archetype. F> Yeah, if you are really concerned about the message. Yes, to the extent that it's already common, overpowering stereotype. Why reinforce it if there's no need? Personally, I think Clinton just wants to curry favor with the military. F> It appears that the only solution. at least for the short term, is F> legalize it and sell it in a cntrolled way, like alcohol and cigarettes. I don't think there is a solution, in the sense of everything working out in the end. Right now, the best thing to do is just stop putting people in jail for *personal use and transportation of drugs. That's the first step, and even that's a big one. I dont think there are many people prepared to look farther than that in the country now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Sun Jan 28 17:59:23 CST 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: 7 DR> I think it does, at least in the sense that it sends the wrong message ... DR> reinforcing the war/general/military archetype. DR> DR> Personally, I think Clinton just wants to curry favor with the military. DR> That appears rather obvious, considering the number of photo-ops he has done with the Legion and touring military bases. He finally learned how to salute. DR> I don't think there is a solution, in the sense of everything working out DR> the end. Right now, the best thing to do is just stop putting people in jai I repeat that I think that the best solution is to stop spending money to arrest and convict users and put the money toward prevention and treatment. Just as it is with alcohol, gambling, and other compulsions, there will always be some who get lost, but I think this is a more sane way to deal with it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CAPTAIN TEEBO To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Four-star savior Date: Mon Jan 29 15:37:46 CST 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: unavailable DR> It seems that Mr. Clinton is playing with the idea of promoting a DR> four-star general to the position of "Drug Czar"; a man who apparently DR> knows how to `take action' and stop the flow of drugs into this DR> country. I still don't quite understand if it's a big joke or not to be calling a state official a Drug Czar. "Bennie, you let me down. I don't like it when people let me down, I trusted you Bennie. Now we gotta teach you a lesson." *teebo ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Fri Feb 02 11:54:34 CST 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: 9 CT> I still don't quite understand if it's a big joke or not to be calling a CT> state official a Drug Czar. Public education has obviously destroyed your sense of irony. :) The drug war is really quite funny. Here we are, 100 years after our nation's last drug crisis (remember, 7-Up used to be exactly what the name says it is). We're doing the exact opposite to "solve" it this time ... we're making war against the drug, and all we're doing is increasing the price. At this high price, many people are willing to kill for the drugs and the right to sell the drugs. 100 years ago, we put addicts on prescription and pushed education. 20 years later, there was no drug problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CAPTAIN TEEBO To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Tue Feb 06 09:22:45 CST 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: unavailable DR> Public education has obviously destroyed your sense of irony. :) Not to mention a once quite florishing imagination.. Kind of like those tests on people to determine their brainwave paterns when there older as opposed to when there younger. When there older, the brain activity has significantly decreased. There is a tie in with a "before school / after school" relationship, I'm surprised more people havn't noticed it. DR> The drug war is really quite funny. Haha Weird Al funny, or Haha I'm the only one that knows were getting screwed kind of funny? :) DR> 100 years ago, we put addicts on prescription and pushed education. DR> 20 years later, there was no drug problem. While I agree making drugs legal would be a good thing to do, your theory wouldn't hold up very well if you were arguing with a smart anti-drug activist (okay, so they're rare.) There were alot more conditions that went along with that as well, like population, television, "patriotism", blah blah blah. *teebo ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Tue Feb 06 14:11:45 CST 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: 11 DR> Public education has obviously destroyed your sense of irony. :) CT> Not to mention a once quite florishing imagination.. Kind of like those t CT> on people to determine their brainwave paterns when there older as opposed CT> when there younger. Unfortunately, the first thing you lose in a beuracracy is spontineity and creativity. But on the plus side, you often gain mediocrity. It's too bad we don't have a decent public transportation system in the Twin Cities (as opposed to miles upon miles of public highways). Real school choice would be there if kids could get to the school they want easily. I was fortunate enough to find a decent school 5 miles away from me wehn I went back for my diploma, but if it wasn't for Route 11 I wouldn't have been able to go ... and might be working at Taco Bell now instead of going to college. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Tue Feb 06 14:17:52 CST 1996 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: 11 Shit, forgot the second part. Sorry, didn't mean to swear. I'm trying to cur down, Mr. NSA agent. I promise. DR> 100 years ago, we put addicts on prescription and pushed education. DR> 20 years later, there was no drug problem. CT> While I agree making drugs legal would be a good thing to do, your theory CT> wouldn't hold up very well if you were arguing with a smart anti-drug activ CT> (okay, so they're rare.) There were alot more conditions that went along w CT> that as well, like population, television, "patriotism", blah blah blah. The times were different, but the basic problem remains the same. When you interdict a fraction of the drugs coming into the country, you raise the price. When you raise the price, you make it more profitable for people to get involved in the drug trade ... and more importantly, you make it profitable for those drug sellers to be active recruiters and "create" more addicts (ie: Want a free sample, kid?). Since we can't interdict all the drugs, we just end up raising the price. In fact, the threat posed by the cops is marginal enough that it's good for business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ZWEITER HOYF To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Tue Feb 06 18:09:58 CST 1996 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 13 DR> When you interdict a fraction of the drugs coming into the country, you ra DR> the price. When you raise the price, you make it more profitable for people DR> get involved in the drug trade ... and more importantly, you make it DR> profitable for those drug sellers to be active recruiters and "create" more DR> addicts (ie: Want a free sample, kid?). I think it was "Live and Let Die" and the villain was played by James Earl Jones (Bond buffs help me here.) Jones' character had a plan to destroy all the poppy plants in the world except his own, offer free heroin long enough to addict million of people in the world and then raise the price higher than it had ever been, causing mass chaos and creating immense wealth for himself. The drug trade is capitalism (as is the mafia) at its highest, where nothing matters more than money, not even life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Zweiter Hoyf Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Wed Feb 07 11:40:00 CST 1996 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: 14 ZH> The drug trade is capitalism (as is the mafia) at its highest, where ZH> nothing matters more than money, not even life. But hey, at least building prisons is a growth industry not likely to die off anytime soon. In California, the prison guard associations were the ones pushing the hardest for anti-crime legislation like "Three Strikes you're out". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CAPTAIN TEEBO To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Fri Feb 09 16:14:20 CST 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: unavailable DR> When you interdict a fraction of the drugs coming into the country, DR> you raise the price. When you raise the price, you make it more DR> profitable for people to get involved in the drug trade ... and more DR> importantly, you make it profitable for those drug sellers to be active DR> recruiters and "create" more addicts (ie: Want a free sample, kid?). But you don't understand!! When you give people drugs, they go craaazy!!! We'll have people running naked through the streets killing each other!! Is that what you REALLY want!? My God man! *teebo (Acting Teacher of Official Drug Education) I want my own country, damnit. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: Four-star savior Date: Sun Feb 11 03:36:41 CST 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: 16 CT> But you don't understand!! When you give people drugs, they go craaazy!!! And when you take the drugs away, they go crazier :) CT> We'll have people running naked through the streets killing each other!! CT> Is that what you REALLY want!? My God man! One word: pay-per-view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: All Subject: Communications Decency Act Date: Thu Feb 15 22:11:31 CST 1996 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: unavailable The court ruled on the ACLU's restraining order yesterday agreeing that there may be issues of free speech. They have stayed the sections of the law that apply to text, bot not those that pertain to obscenity. So for the time being we can go back to telling the congress to go to hell, but can't upload pictures of nudies. I am not clear how this affects discussion of abortion, since that has been defined in at least one court as "obscene." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: Chinese Internet Policy Date: Wed Feb 21 06:20:37 CST 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: unavailable The Wall Street Journal Thursday, February 15, 1996 CHINA TELLS INTERNET USERS TO REGISTER WITH POLICE BEIJING (AP) - CHINA ordered all users of the Internet and other international computer networks to register with the police, as part of an effort to tighten control over information. The order came in a circular issued by the Ministry of Public Security, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency Xinhua didn't give a date by which current users must register but said new users and those switching or terminating services must inform police within 30 days. It was unclear how foreigners would be affected. The rules haven't been published in detail, but previous Xinhua reports warned network users not to harm national security, reveal state secrets or disseminate pornography. China embarked on a broad crackdown on Internet users and other sources of information potentially harmful to government interests in December. The Ministry of Post Telecommunications was made the sole provider of channels connecting Chinese computer users with international networks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: Chinese Internet Policy Date: Wed Feb 21 14:35:08 CST 1996 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 19 MD> China embarked on a broad crackdown on Internet users and other MD> sources of information potentially harmful to government interests MD> in December. MD> Ha, so! A Chinese CDA. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Froggy Subject: Re: Chinese Internet Policy Date: Thu Feb 22 10:13:27 CST 1996 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: 20 MD> China embarked on a broad crackdown on Internet users and other MD> sources of information potentially harmful to government interests MD> in December. MD> F> Ha, so! A Chinese CDA. :) Yeah they dont sign like :) they sign like <:-) :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: All Subject: FDA Date: Thu Feb 29 14:12:25 CST 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: unavailable There was a new announcement from the raud and eceit dministration today. They have ordered that folic acid be put into all enriched wheat, grain, and pasta products. They have decided that it prevents birth defects. It doesn't. Deficiciency of it CAUSES birth defects, like spinal bifida, cleft palate, and other notochord deformities. This is an important distinction because folic acid is one of the few vitamins that can cause problems if taken in excess. It can cause an imbalance, and hence, deficiencies, in other B vitamins, including vitamin B6, causing seizures and immune system dysfunction. It is hostile to dilantin, and possibly to other anticonvulsant drugs, so that people who are already controlling seizures may suddenly start having seizures when all this folic acid is suddenly added to their diets. Of course pregnant women need folic acid. When I was pregnant 25 years ago, I took 3o mg/day in addition to eating a diet with spinach, brocolli, and other natural B vitamin sources. I *also* checked my anticonvulsant levels monthly to be sure that they were not dropping. I have not heard a single word about this in the common press or from the FDA. But by adding a synthetic vitamin to the common diet, they are adding it to the diets of EVERYONE, whether they need it or not. The primary result of this is that there is no emphasis to insure that supplies of fresh produce be made available to people, as it should be. Americans can continue to eat an expensive, nutritionally deplete diet, while they are reassured by Big Brother that our needs are being watched over. Oh, this is the same agency that *won't* approve AIDs drugs because they may be dangerous, and DID rerelease Thalidomide. With friends like this, who needs enemies? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: FDA Date: Fri Mar 01 18:56:43 CST 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: 22 F> There was a new announcement from the raud and eceit F> dministration today. They have ordered that folic acid be put into all F> enriched wheat, grain, and pasta products. They have decided that it preven If memory serves, ABC News did a piece on this tonight and took the time to honor one of the people who have been advocating government action to help prevent birth defects for quite some time. Needless to say, it wa sa positive piece that didn't bother to present another side of the story. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: FDA Date: Sat Mar 02 01:23:05 CST 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: 23 F> There was a new announcement from the raud and eceit F> dministration today. They have ordered that folic acid be put into all F> enriched wheat, grain, and pasta products. They have decided that it preven DR> DR> If memory serves, ABC News did a piece on this tonight and took the time t DR> honor one of the people who have been advocating government action to help DR> prevent birth defects for quite some time. Needless to say, it wa sa positi DR> piece that didn't bother to present another side of the story. This is one of the problems. Much gets past the FDA because they are abysmally uneducated in these areas. I would not be surprised if they do not KNOW that folic acid is antagonistic to dilantin. There is no question that folic acid deficiency does cause tragic birth defects. An example is the children that *Operation Smile* has been flying maxillofacial surgeons down to correct severe palate (notochord) defects. Not entirely by coincidence, the mothers' diets are woefully deficient in folic acid because they live high above the frost line where no green veggies grow. In addition, their diet focuses around corn, which is deficient in folic acid. They should get it in beans, which are also a feature of that diet, but for some reason they aren't. Also, there may be a genetic inability to use folic acid, ot a greater than average need for it. The FDA is doing what it will not allow others to do -- tossing EVERYONE, whether they need this supplement or not, into it. It would make more sense to analyze the diets of pregnant women and supplememt accordingly. If they did this in those South American areas they would find out immediately that this particular group needs folic acid and vitamin A. Most Americans already get enough folic acid, but need vitamin A and vitamin C. I have been studying these areas foe almost 30 years, and there are others that know a great deal more about it than I do. None of them work for the FDA, and most of them are under attack by the FDA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TBOB To: All Subject: China and info Date: Fri Mar 22 19:00:54 CST 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: unavailable Joe Stalin would have said: we ain't less tolerant than youse guys, we just have more respect for ideas. (What he actually said was that poets could easily be arrested in Russia, not in the US, because Americans didn't appreciate the power of poetry.) Hanging Joe was no one's dummy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Tbob Subject: Re: China and info Date: Fri Mar 22 23:20:47 CST 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: 25 T> for ideas. (What he actually said was that poets could easily be T> arrested in Russia, not in the US, because Americans didn't T> appreciate the power of poetry.) Hanging Joe was no one's dummy. Keep your head down. Tbob. You never know when they may catch on. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: Graduation Searches Date: Wed Jun 12 09:53:58 CDT 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: unavailable 06-10-96 ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU! *CA District Calls Off Graduation Searches* MERCED, CA -- A high school senior who believed school officials should not conduct pat-down searches of graduates before graduation ceremonies won his point recently -- with help from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Merced Sun Star reported last week. In response to a two-page letter sent last Thursday by the ACLU to Merced High School on behalf of 18-year-old Mike Clawson, Superintendent Bill Tilley said the district agreed to discontinue any plans to search seniors or to have them empty their pockets as they enter the football stadium for graduation ceremonies. "As I am sure you are aware, both the United States and California Constitutions protect students from unreasonable searches and seizures," wrote Ann Brick, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. The Superintendent told the paper that the search idea centered around small groups of students who bring items such as beachballs, firecrackers and "inflatable" condoms to graduation ceremonies. "We try very hard to keep graduation a nice respectable process," he told the paper. "Frankly, we're not going to make a big deal of this, but I will tell you that if there are violations and we find them, we will act with dispatch." The student, Mike Clawson, told the paper that when the students were informed last week that they would be subject to search, he decided to contact the ACLU. He said his actions stem from a strong belief in civil liberties. "I don't want this to turn into a 'neener-neener-neener' kind of thing -- especially now that I've won," Clawson told the Merced Sun Star. "I just look at it like this: There should be some control and there should be some rules, but I don't think they can be achieved by making everyone feel like a criminal." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: Teen Curfews Date: Wed Jun 12 09:54:18 CDT 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: unavailable 06-10-96 ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU! *Survey Casts Doubt on Effectiveness of Teen Curfews* WASHINGTON -- Curfew laws for teens are widely used, enjoy enormous popularity and have reduced juvenile crime in certain cities, according to recent claims, The Los Angeles Times reports. But despite those successes, surveys of the nation's big cities have found that most curfew laws are not strictly enforced and that their impact in most cities has been modest at best. And some officials question the wisdom of having police officers spend time picking up otherwise law-abiding 16-year-olds and transporting them to station houses. In December, the U.S. Conference of Mayors surveyed 387 cities and found that just over one-third characterized curfew laws as "very effective." Many conceded that they did not have the personnel to enforce the measures. "This is the hot topic now, so a lot of police departments are hauling kids in to prove they are doing the job," said John Pionke, who compiled the survey. "But the history of these laws is [that] police are soon pushed in another direction and they back off enforcing the curfews." The Los Angeles Times reported that nearly three-fourths of cities of more than 100,000 population have curfew laws on their books. Some of the more stringent laws enact daytime curfews for teens 18 and under, and impose fines of up to $500 for repeat offenders. Lawyers for the ACLU continue to fight the curfews as unconstitutional, arguing that they punish law-abiding teenagers more than true criminals. "We don't think the government can make it a crime to sit on the curb and talk to your friends or walk your dog at night," said Art Spitzer, an ACLU lawyer who challenged the curfew in the District of Columbia. "We could probably reduce the number of rapes if we made it illegal for women to go out by themselves to jog but that's not the way we make laws in this country," he said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Newspeak Date: Wed Jun 19 03:45:30 CDT 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: unavailable [*********PNEWS CONFERENCES************] From: "K. Hatfield-Grytting" American Newspeak Stories of the Week The Arms Race Against Ourselves When the Cold war ended, the U.S. defense industry was faced with the challenge of how to keep alive the spiral of arms spending. The ingenuity of their solution is spelled out in a study released this week called "Welfare for Weapons Dealers" by William Hartung of the World Policy Institute. Hartung reports the Pentagon's subsidies to arms merchants last year in the form of loan guarantees, foreign aid and a government sales staff of 6,395, reached $7.6 billion. All this to support arms sales of $12 billion means "the biggest payers are the U.S. taxpayers, not Saudi Arabia or Taiwan." But being arms merchants to the world creates a dilemma. As Hartung notes, "The last five times the U.S. has sent troops into conflict situations -- in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia -- they faced forces that had gained access to U.S. weaponry." This fuels pressure to develop better weapons than -- U.S. weapons. Its perfect. The cycle is complete. In perfect Pogo fashion, "We've met the enemy and he is us." (ST 6/16) Strange Coincidences Last summer Rep. John Boehner (Ohio) chair of the House Republican Conference went down on the House floor with envelopes from generous tobacco companies and passed out the contributions. Two weeks later, reports Joel Connelly of the Seattle P-I, the House voted to retain multimillion dollar subsidies for the tobacco industry. However, the two events were not related. "Boehners office says it was a coincidence of timing, that handing out the checks and the later vote were not connected." Just a coincidence, like lightning and thunder or Madonna and sex. But Boehner has learned an important lesson. He says he will no longer "do it there on the House floor." Way to get the point John. How about "Why don't we do it in the road?" next time. (SPI 6/10) The Lets Get Those Welfare Mothers Dept. Last December the CEOs of 91 companies sent a letter to Pres. Clinton and the Congress calling for a balanced budget and indirectly, for cuts in social spending. In turn, Ralph Nader sent a letter to each executive asking just which piece of corporate welfare they'd be willing to forgo to achieve fiscal stability. Five months later he is still waiting for a response. Meanwhile the Corporate Welfare Project, which has located $167 billion in aid to dependent corporations for 1995 alone, was kind enough to point out some possible contributions from the Gang of 91. Among the signers, Kodak received $37 million in export sales tax credits, Union Carbide received $200 million in overseas insurance and Chevron had taxes on $4 billion deferred. But of course that's not wasteful "fat". (Try out Charlottes Web at "http://www.emf.net/%7ecr/corp-welfare.html"). Keeping the FBI Busy The controversy over the White Houses use of FBI files has helped to answer a question on many of our minds -- just what does the agency really do. The answer according to James Dempsey, deputy director of the Center for National Security Studies, is that it keeps files. In fact, Dempsey estimates that over the past 80 years, the FBI has had files on approximately 75 million people. Thats quite a record. We can only wonder if, like the old McDonald's, they posted neon signs saying "43 million people served." And were not talking one page reports. The FBI included everything including "derogatory information" (or for you nonprofessionals, rumors or innuendos). The "d.i." as it was known in the trade was gathered from friends, neighbors, co-workers, ex-wives etc. and included , said one White House aide, "miscellaneous bad things." And 75 million files worth of it. (ST 6/16) Automation Hits Advertising Jingles If you thought Muzak was bad, just wait. Advertiser John Giaier has been at work automating the production of advertising jingles. At his agency he's able to crank out a new radio or TV ad in a day using songwriting software that takes notes and chords from hit pop songs and blends them into a 60 second tune. The snippets of music are small enough to avoid plagiarism suits, but large enough to "sound familiar." This gives Giaier's agency a competitive edge over rivals, who still rely on "creatives" to come up with masterpieces like "You deserve a break today," because Giaier is using "statistically proven material" (can the Top 40 be wrong?). He justifies his approach saying " Anything you write musically has been written before." Let us hope, a la Amadeus, that his blender does not put in "too many notes." (WSJ 6/11) American Newspeak is posted weekly. Surgeon Generals Warning: Too much exposure to doublethink can be hazardous to your remaining mental health so take these stories in small dosages. Wayne Grytting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Nanny-Cams Date: Sun Jul 14 14:20:01 CDT 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: unavailable 07-08-96 ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU Big Teddy is Watching You: Nanny-Cams on the Rise WASHINGTON -- Alarmed by tales of neglectful and abusive child care workers and lured by the falling prices of surveillance equipment, a growing number of working parents have resorted to secretly videotaping their babysitters, the Washington Post reports. Some parents hire private investigators to put tiny cameras in vases, lamps, clocks and stuffed animals. Others purchase or rent the equipment from manufacturers or stores. The surveillance usually takes place without the nanny's knowledge. Sales and installations of the "nannycams," as they've been dubbed, are increasing steadily, several companies said. For example, Interprobe, based in Fairfax, Virginia, installs about 25 to 30 nanny-surveillance systems a month, compared with about 5 systems a month in 1990, according to a company spokesman. Generally, federal law makes it illegal to tap a telephone or bug a room without someone's permission, but there is no prohibition on videotaping without sound in one's home, several legal experts said. Nevertheless, spying on a professional child-care worker is demeaning and unethical, Lewis Maltby, a lawyers who heads an American Civil Liberties Union task force on civil liberties in the workplace, told the Post. "Even when it is legal, it is morally wrong to photograph people behind their backs," said Maltby, who spoke on the issue at a nanny association last month. It's unfortunate, Maltby added, that so many people treat their domestic employees "in a way they would never tolerate being treated themselves." The practice is troubling to nannies and to the organizations that represent them. "Families need to know what's going on in their home. And there are a lot of different ways to go about doing that," says Wendy Sachs, president of the 700-member International Nanny Association. "But if you're trusting someone with your children, then there's got to be a certain level of respect." Her association accepts the practice of videotaping as long as the nanny knows about it, she said. But most investigators advise parents not to tell the nannies because it will make the surveillance less effective. A nanny who knows she is being watched, for example, could spend more time in a room that has no camera. But when parents even think about installing spy equipment, it should be a warning to them that they've hired the wrong person, said Jacqueline Clark, owner of A Choice Nanny, a Maryland service that has placed more than 10,000 nannies in its 13 years in business. "If the families are having to put a camera in because they don't trust the nanny, they should not have the nanny there," Clark said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Balancing are Freedoms Date: Thu Aug 22 18:02:28 CDT 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: unavailable [*********PNEWS CONFERENCES************] IDEAS Fighting Terrorism Revives an Old Battle How can we balance our heritage as a free and open society against the need to protect ourselves from our enemies? IDEAS Fighting Terrorism Revives an Old Battle How can we balance our heritage as a free and open society against the need to protect ourselves from our enemies? Mark Pomerantz. Mark Pomerantz, formerly an Assistant District Attorney in the Southern District of New York, is a criminal defense attorney with Rogers and Wells THE TERRIBLE IMAGES that emerged from Oklahoma City three weeks ago - the fireman carrying a bloodied toddler, a mother screaming for her child, the disemboweled federal building - shook Americans to the core. These images made many people question some basic assumptions: Just how safe are we from terrorists? How could Americans inflict such bloody mayhem on their own? And are domestic terrorists more dangerous than the imported variety? If the unwritten rules governing our lives had suddenly changed, many people wondered whether it was time to change the written rules as well. One question loomed: Do the Federal Bureau of Investigation and our other law enforcement agencies need additional powers to combat these changed realities? Keenly aware of the nation's pressing need for some prompt and reassuring answers, the President, quickly announced the "Clinton Administration Counterterrorism Initiative." His proposal has reignited an age-old American debate: how to balance our heritage as a free and open society against the need to protect ourselves from our enemies. The urgency of this debate - and the shocking event itself - have fanned the flames of political rhetoric. "Doves" on this issue say that the President's proposed measures which include reinterpreting the guidelines for investigating extremist groups, involving the military in domestic crime fighting, allowing the FBI new powers to eavesdrop on Americans, and giving federal agents access to credit information, hotel, and common carrier records, amount to a trampling of traditional freedoms and will move America closer to a police state. The "hawks," on the other hand, fault President Clinton for not going even farther. They claim the FBI has been hamstrung in investigating domestic terrorism, and propose rewriting the Attorney General's guidelines for opening domestic security investigations: They would do away entirely with the threshold requirement that federal agents have information that "reasonably indicates" that political groups may be contemplating violent and criminal acts. This debate is hardly new. Judges balance the conflicting interests of law enforcement and personal liberty every day. Indeed, the same discussion has taken place in installments ever since the founding of the Republic: The Constitution itself was an effort to strike a balance between public freedom and public safety in a calamitous and uncertain age. To be sure, that balance must be recalibrated at times, if only because modern technology allows evil men to do more harm and escape more quickly than they could have 200 years ago. What is called for, however, is fine tuning, not a wholesale repudiation of constitutional values. The Oklahoma City bombing was a national tragedy, but guns and drugs take more lives each day on American streets. The rules we lay down for the investigation and apprehension of the bombers should not depart radically from the rules that law and the Constitution impose for dealing with other criminals. Measured against traditional law and values, the "hawks" and the "doves" have both got it wrong, and the President has got it just about right. Most of the legal changes he has proposed are neither weak-kneed nor inconsistent with Constitutional rights and a free and open society. Consider his proposal to give federal agents easier access to consumer credit reports, records of hotel and motel operators, and information from bus companies, airlines, and other common carriers. Permitting the FBI to comb these records for leads in domestic security cases is hardly opening the door to "big brother" government; this information is already available to federal agents, as well as state and local authorities, in routine criminal cases. And criminal defendants can obtain this information if they need it for their defense. The proposed change in the law simply allows FBI agents to get this data without first going through the red tape of having a prosecutor write out a subpoena. This is not a massive incursion on civil liberties. The same is true for President Clinton's proposal regarding pen registers and "trap and trace" devices. Pen registers record the outgoing numbers dialed by a telephone user, and a "trap and trace" is essentially a sophisticated form of "caller ID," which allows law enforcement to determine the telephone numbers of those making calls into a particular line. The courts already allow these devices in routine criminal cases - without a warrant supported by a showing of probable cause. Since these devices do not involve the clandestine monitoring of conversations, the courts reason correctly that they do not represent significant intrusions into personal privacy. Indeed, the telephone company already allows many private users to see the telephone numbers of their callers, and it captures this information for billing purposes. Civil libertarians also need not wring their hands over the President's proposal to permit the military to participate in investigations that involve weapons of mass destruction. Such a change to the Posse Comitatus Act would not have any substantive impact on the legal rights of persons being investigated for criminal conduct, except to change the color of the uniform worn by those involved in their pursuit. The FBI's abilities to track down mad bombers are formidable, but should terrorists get their hands on chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, I would be reassured to know that the United States Army was "on the case" as well. The "doves" do have a point regarding the President's plan to change the laws regarding electronic eavesdropping so that bugs and wiretaps could be used to gather evidence of any federal felony. This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with fighting domestic terrorism, since the crimes that terrorists commit, such as the unlawful use of explosives, weapons offenses and extortion, are already on the list of crimes that may be investigated through electronic surveillance. The administration is using the fear of terrorism to expand the use of bugging, an authority the FBI has long coveted. This is wholly inappropriate. As for the "hawks," their call to permit federal agents to open domestic security investigations without any suspicion of planned violent or criminal activity is a mistake. Under existing guidelines, the FBI cannot investigate an extremist political group merely because it spouts inflammatory rhetoric. There must be some basis to suspect that illegal conduct is being considered. The Clinton administration has wisely resisted making any changes to the existing guidelines. However, this past week, Louis Freeh, the FBI director, testified that the guidelines would be "reinterpreted" to permit agents to open investigations of any group that advocated violence or force to achieve political or social objectives. If this "reinterpretation" means that any expression of extremist views warrants an investigation, then Freeh should rethink his position: It would come perilously close to regulating free speech. If he means only to clarify that the FBI may act before blood flows in the streets, then his "reinterpretation" is a good one. Interestingly, the Constitution is essentially silent on this issue. The Bill of Rights delineates how the police may carry out their investigations, but it says nothing about when those investigations may be commenced. By default, the Constitution permits authorities to begin an investigation for any legitimate reason - and even for no reason - and comes into play only at the point when the police intrude on personal freedoms, such as by making an arrest or searching one's home. The "hawks" argue that political adversaries are free to investigate each other. The Jewish Defense League, for instance, needs no one's authority or permission to monitor the activities of the American Nazi Party. Why shouldn't the FBI be able to do at least as much as the JDL can do? Why should it be forced to wait until there is some "reasonable indication" that violence or criminal conduct is afoot? There are several good answers, some practical and some rooted in traditional American notions of limited government. On a practical level, requiring some threshold indication of violent or criminal activity prevents law enforcement agents from beginning investigations for improper political purposes. This was the genesis of Attorney General Edward Levi's guidelines: They were established after the public learned about the FBI's notorious Counter-Intelligence Program (Cointelpro) in the '60s and '70s when agents infiltrated civil rights and antiwar groups and kept dossiers on members. Cointelpro's activities included harassing groups and planting false information about members in order to discredit them and their political agendas. Also on a practical level, requiring some indication of anticipated violent or criminal conduct before opening a terrorism investigation is not a particularly heavy burden. It should not prevent the government from scrutinizing groups that threaten to commit terrorist activity. The FBI was already investigating the people responsible for the World Trade Center bombing; it had gathered significant evidence regarding the illegal acts of members of the Branch Davidian sect. Should it turn out that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of an organized right-wing militia, we will undoubtedly learn that such groups already had come under FBI investigation. This is as it should be. While all of us have the right of free speech, threats to commit public mayhem are serious matters. Extremists may have the right to preach violence, but the FBI should have the concomitant right to determine if such groups practice what they preach. On a less practical but perhaps more important level, the existing guidelines keep government from gratuitiously probing the affairs of its citizens. This also is as it should be. Our system rests ultimately on the precept of limited government; the government exists only to serve its people. When law enforcement oversteps this function, and begins to investigate its people without some factual basis, public trust in government suffers. We have already paid a high price for the loss of public trust that was the by-product of Watergate and the Vietnam war. At its extreme, mistrust of government begets hatred of government. And hatred of government, sadly, begets the kind of warped, crazy view of the world that took so many innocent lives in Oklahoma City. Pomerantz, Mark, IDEAS Fighting Terrorism Revives an Old Battle How can we balance our heritage as a free and open society against the need to protect ourselves from our enemies?., Newsday, 05-07-1995, pp A40. Extracts from the above article posted in compliance with the FAIR USE DOCTRINE for educational purposes. NOT for commercial use. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ PNEWS CONFERENCES provide views with an emphasis on justice, humanitarian positions and TRUTH. To subscribe to PNEWS-L [1500+ subscribers], send request to: "SUBSCRIBE PNEWS-L " @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ To subscribe to PAIN-L, all aspects of chronic pain; physical & political, HEALTH & health-politics, [775+ subscribers] send: "SUBSCRIBE PAIN-L " to: . @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Nominations are now being accepted for FLAMING ASSHOLISM'S HALL-OF-SHAME: [Vote or nominate your favorite ASSHOLE] http://www.applicom.com/pnews/ ************************************************************************** "Of course fascists should have free speech. But first cut out their tongues." [Harvey "Joe six-pack" Rossetti] @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The "REAL" world is full of "real pain," not "PC" bullshit. -HR- ************************************** DON'T LET THE BASTARDS GRIND YOU DOWN! I NEVER DO! ... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: speech Date: Tue Sep 10 11:36:24 CDT 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: unavailable I was wondering what all of you thought about certain age limits to read / view certain material? For example, what age do you think it's appropriate for someone to listen to violent drug-promoting music? What about watching movies about the subject? Would just reading a book about the same thing be just as restricted, or more / less so? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: speech Date: Tue Sep 10 18:32:01 CDT 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: 32 BT> I was wondering what all of you thought about certain age limits to read / BT> view certain material? For example, what age do you think it's appropriate BT> for someone to listen to violent drug-promoting music? What about watching BT> movies about the subject? Would just reading a book about the same thing b BT> just as restricted, or more / less so? BT> I think that everyone will be exposed to these things eventually, no matter what. Therefore, the challenge is, not to try to block people from seeing it, which may, in fact, be unconstitutional, but to give people the tools they need to critically judge and emotionally deal with such material. I think that there is a very real difference between "just" reading a book, and in the total-immersion kind of experience you get with music and film. There is more emotional impact and more desentization to the horror of violence, etc. with the total-immersion media. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: speech Date: Wed Sep 11 11:27:15 CDT 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: 33 F> matter what. Therefore, the challenge is, not to try to block people from F> seeing it, which may, in fact, be unconstitutional, but to give people the F> tools they need to critically judge and emotionally deal with such material. But doesn't age play a certain factor in this? You can tell kids that there aren't monsters under the bed, you can let them look under the bed, and they will agree that there aren't monsters under the bed - but that doesn't mean that they still wont be scared ... aren't there somethings where time is the best tool to have in light of all the others? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: speech Date: Wed Sep 11 13:55:59 CDT 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: 34 BT> But doesn't age play a certain factor in this? You can tell kids that ther BT> aren't monsters under the bed, you can let them look under the bed, and the BT> will agree that there aren't monsters under the bed - but that doesn't mean BT> that they still wont be scared ... aren't there somethings where time is th BT> best tool to have in light of all the others? BT> Yes, but that age varies with the individual child and is best set by his parents, or the adult closest to him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: speech Date: Thu Sep 12 09:49:11 CDT 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: 35 F> Yes, but that age varies with the individual child and is best set F> his parents, or the adult closest to him. That's a good point - one that I wish more people (especially parents) would come to recognise. What do you think of law-enforced age limits, like movies, drinking, etc.? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: speech Date: Thu Sep 12 10:36:03 CDT 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: 36 BT> That's a good point - one that I wish more people (especially parents) woul BT> come to recognise. What do you think of law-enforced age limits, like movi BT> drinking, etc.? BT> NO!! Except, possibly of the kind that alert the responsible adults what is in the work. Like, prihibition, most of there "legal" age limits do not work anyway. For proof, go to a PG17 movie on date night and see how many people under 17 are there to see the movie. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Froggy Subject: Re: speech Date: Thu Sep 12 11:12:44 CDT 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: 37 F> what is in the work. Like, prihibition, most of there "legal" age limits do F> not work anyway. For proof, go to a PG17 movie on date night and see how ma F> people under 17 are there to see the movie. This makes me want to bring up the thought that.. What is worse.. Killing or swearing? i think that the television public is more slanted to swearing?! ..ok think about this.. walk up to someone.. what is worse? "FUCK YOU" or <> yo dead.?? (hehe sp lyrics.. Bang bang yo dead) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfox Subject: Re: speech Date: Thu Sep 12 12:36:30 CDT 1996 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: 38 S> i think that the television public is more slanted to swearing?! ..ok think S> about this.. walk up to someone.. what is worse? "FUCK YOU" or <> yo S> dead.?? S> Depends on the swearing. Where I came from, the kind of sweating that insults or directly attacks someone is bad action. You might say "F*** you," but if you call someone a MF or and SOB, you are slandering his mother and you might well get shot. I also wonder about the equal treatment of sex and violence in movies and videos. Inever wanted my kids to see graphic sex, the real deal, in film, but neither did I want them to see the real deal of murder and battery. Current practice seems to be allowing the latter to be sshown repeatedly, and the evidence is that it is harming kids and a primary reason for the increase in violence. I think that brutal violence should not be shown, especially in material intended for kids, like cartoos. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LITTLE NIRO To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: speech Date: Thu Sep 12 15:34:01 CDT 1996 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: 36 BT> That's a good point - one that I wish more people (especially parents) woul BT> come to recognise. What do you think of law-enforced age limits, like movi BT> drinking, etc.? I don't think movies should be limited but alcohol is an easy sell. I can and do get it all the time. I can also get about any sorta drugs you want. There isn't much you can't find in school. It's a sad fact buts it's where we're heading. At least i am. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Froggy Subject: Re: speech Date: Fri Sep 13 11:55:23 CDT 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: 39 F> in violence. I think that brutal violence should not be shown, especially i F> material intended for kids, like cartoos. EG._Road_runner. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfox Subject: Re: speech Date: Fri Sep 13 15:33:48 CDT 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: 41 F> in violence. I think that brutal violence should not be shown, especially i F> material intended for kids, like cartoos. S> S> EG._Road_runner. True, but even it may not be as bad as some. It has a coyote chasing and attempting to kill a bird, which is natural. Although ACME isn't. What worries me more is all the cartoons that show human-humanoid characters chronically at war and in distrust of each other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Froggy Subject: Re: speech Date: Sat Sep 14 09:00:15 CDT 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: 42 F> True, but even it may not be as bad as some. It has a coyote chasi F> and attempting to kill a bird, which is natural. Although ACME isn't. What F> worries me more is all the cartoons that show human-humanoid characters F> chronically at war and in distrust of each other. I am using my parrents keyboard now. so.. i got spavebar. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfox Subject: Re: speech Date: Sat Sep 14 11:43:35 CDT 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: 43 F> and attempting to kill a bird, which is natural. Although ACME isn't. What F> worries me more is all the cartoons that show human-humanoid characters F> chronically at war and in distrust of each other. S> S> I am using my parrents keyboard now. so.. i got spavebar. Maybe you should install an ACME cat expeller in your computer. :) Actually, this is a problem, because since you run your BBS, the computer is on all the time and the cat will always go there because it is warm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: speech Date: Sat Sep 14 17:40:06 CDT 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: 32 BT> I was wondering what all of you thought about certain age limits to read / BT> view certain material? For example, what age do you think it's appropriate BT> for someone to listen to violent drug-promoting music? The big question in any discussion of "age limits" or "censorship" is, who decides? Who decides whether a work is simply violent, artisticly violent, or violence with a strong anti-violence message? BT> What about watching BT> movies about the subject? Would just reading a book about the same thing b BT> just as restricted, or more / less so? A very good question, one that seldom gets addressed. We have movie ratings from the MPAA because movies are easy to rate. Movies also tend to be studio productions; there aren't many movies made in your neighbor's garage, nor is moviemaking a widespread hobby. Compsing music, writing stories and creating visual art are often individual productions, though. Therefore, these mediums lend themselves to personal expression much more than a movie would - which would mean, to me, that they should be even more protected and less subject to censorship than a movie would be. But in the end, the decision should rest with the individual: parents and everyone else. The attempt to place blame on the media for creating violent images and music is really missing the point; and that point, to me, is that we as citizens have almost no control over our own public media and resources. It's a push for money and ad revenue, pandering to the lowest common denominator. That's the real culprit, not the lack of a ratings system or government censor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: speech Date: Sat Sep 14 17:43:17 CDT 1996 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: 33 F> There is more emotional impact and more desentization to the horror of F> violence, etc. with the total-immersion media. True, which only shows the power of cinema and video. This power can be used for good or evil, the mundane or the divine. A movie like _Rambo_ can make human life (particularly asian life) seem shallow and crass. An _Apocolypse Now_, on the other hand, can show the madness of war in a way that no book ever could. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LITTLE NIRO To: Starfox Subject: Re: speech Date: Sat Sep 14 19:13:35 CDT 1996 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: 43 S> I am using my parrents keyboard now. so.. i got spavebar. But you don't have backspace. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Little Niro Subject: Re: speech Date: Sun Sep 15 10:30:30 CDT 1996 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: 47 S> I am using my parrents keyboard now. so.. i got spavebar. LN> But you don't have backspace. Nah, he just forgot to spellcheck it. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Little Niro Subject: Re: speech Date: Fri Sep 20 11:51:29 CDT 1996 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: 47 S> I am using my parrents keyboard now. so.. i got spavebar. LN> But you don't have backspace. No, i am just lazy as hell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: nsa.net Date: Sun Oct 13 16:04:42 CDT 1996 Message number: 50 Reply to message number: unavailable Subject: BoS: NSA is monitoring key internet routers - Puzzle Palace Author The National Security Administration is Poised to Control the Internet The oppressive atmosphere of Orwell's 1984 arises from the omnipresence of Big Brother, the symbol of the government's concern for the individual. Big Brother controls the language, outlawing words he dislikes and creating new words for his favorite concepts. He can see and hear nearly everything - public or private. Thus he enforces a rigid code of speech and action that erodes the potential for resistance and reduces the need for force. As Noam Chomsky says, propaganda is to democracy what violence is to totalitarianism. Control thoughts, and you can easily control behavior. U.S. history affords a prime example in the era named after Senator Joseph McCarthy, though he had many supporters in his attack on freedom of thought and speech. Perhaps his most powerful friend was J. Edgar Hoover, who fed him material from FBI files (some of it true) which he used to attack individuals for their supposed political leanings. By the time of Watergate, the CIA had become at least as notorious as the FBI, due largely to its assassinations of foreign leaders and support for military coups around the world. Now its the 90's. A computer revolution seems to be happening and with it a dramatic increase in people using the Internet, as well as people watching what the people use it for. Ever heard of the NSA? This could very well be the NSA decade for the Internet. Conspiracy, power struggles and survellience of the citizenry may be what is remembered about the NSA during this period of time. I used to think democracy meant people keeping a watchful eye on its government, not its government keeping a watchful eye on its people. Today we can now see comparisons being drawn between the FBI of the 50s and the CIA of the 60s, the obvious government corruption in the 70s, Reagan in the 80s (sorry - that was just incompetence), and the emerging role of the NSA in the 90s. Is NSA Sniffing the Internet? Do they have the jurisdiction? Lets take a look back and see what they are all about and make an educated hypothesis. Budgetary authority for the National Security Agency (NSA) apparently comes from the Central Intelligence Act of 1949. This act provides the basis for the secret spending program known as the black budget by allowing any arm of the government to transfer money to the CIA "without regard to any provisions of the law," and allowing the CIA to spend its funds as it sees fit, with no need to account for them. Congress passed the C.I.A. Act despite the fact that only the ranking members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees knew anything about its contents; the remaining members of Congress were told that open discussion, or even clear explanation, of the bill would be counterproductive. There were complaints about the secrecy; but in the end the bill passed the House by a vote of 348-4, and the Senate by a majority voice vote. Hmmmm, it seems several legislative disasters have occurred by landslides. Anyone remember the Telecommunication Attack of 1996? The NSA's estimated $10 billion annual allocation (as of 1990) is funded entirely through the black budget. Thus Congress appropriates funds for the NSA not only without information on the agency's plans, but without even a clear idea of the amount it appropriates; and it receives no accounting of the uses to which the funds were put. This naturally precludes any debate about the direction or management of such agencies, effectively avoiding public oversight while spending public funds. Weiner notes the analogy to "Taxation without representation." In any respect, it seems to be unconstitutional - a major point that has failed to stop them. "The NSA has also spent a great deal of time and money spying on American citizens. For 21 years after its inception it tracked every telegram and telex in and out of the United States, and monitored the telephone conversations of the politically suspect." (Weiner, Blank Check) Due to its unique ability to monitor communications within the U.S. without a warrant, which the FBI and CIA cannot legally do, NSA becomes the center of attempts to spy on U.S. citizens. Nominally this involves only communications in which at least one terminal is outside the U.S., but in practice target lists have often grown to include communications between U.S. citizens within the country. And political considerations have sometimes become important. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that in the NSA's Charter they claim to be unable to spy on US citizens. Apparently, the real charter is as elusive as what they do with taxpayer money. The Huston Plan, formally known as "Domestic Intelligence Gathering Plan: Analysis and Strategy," was submitted in July 1970 to President Nixon. The goal of the plan was to relax some restrictions on intelligence gathering, apparently those of NSCID No. 6. Some parts of the intelligence community felt that these relaxations would assist their efforts. Like most intelligence agencies, the NSA uses words such as "interrupt" and "target" in a technical sense with a precise but often classified definition. This specialized language makes it difficult to legislate or oversee the activities involved. For instance, in NSA terms a conversation that is captured, decoded if necessary, and distributed to the requesting agency is not considered to be the product of eavesdropping unless one of the parties to the conversation is explicitly targeted. However, the NSA does not depend on semantic defences; it can also produce some legal arguments for exempting itself from normal requirements. How convenient. For those who feel your lives are too flawless to be affected, or for those of you who actually vote Republican or Democrat thinking the change will come from within (nice try), and for the lowest common denominator - dittoheads, this is not a good thing. Complete control over a secret agency with at least 60,000 direct employees, a $10 billion budget, direct command of some military units, and the ability to read all communications would be an enormous weapon with which to maintain tyranny were it to arise. A President with a Napoleonic or Stalinistic delusion would find the perfect tool for the constant supervision of the individual by the state in the NSA; not unlike scenarios depicted in novels such as Orwell's 1984. ==================================== 1) NSA Homepage http://www.nsa.gov:8080/ 2) NSA Can Break PGP Encryption http://www.quadralay.com/www/Crypt/NSA/break-pgp.html 3) Houston Chronicle Interview http://www.quadralay.com/www/Crypt/NSA/letter.html 4) Original Charter of the National Security Agency http://www.quadralay.com/www/Crypt/NSA/charter.html 5) CFP'92 - Who Holds the Keys? http://www.cpsr.org/dox/conferences/cfp92/denning.html ==================================== Americans would not have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, or in our case email, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny. There would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is, and would continue to be, within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology ... I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return... So, is the NSA 'sniffing' on the Internet? Does their reputation seem worthy of our trust and respect? Lets take a look at some of their recent plans for Internet communication. Then you can decide for yourself if you want to watch the magic act....the "now you see it....now you don't" act starring Freedom, of course. Puzzle Palace co-author Wayne Madsen, in an article written for the June 1995 issue of Computer Fraud & Security Bulletin (Elsevier Advanced Technology Publications), wrote that "according to well-placed sources within the Federal Government and the Internet service provider industry, the National Security Agency (NSA) is actively sniffing several key Internet router and gateway hosts." Madsen says the NSA concentrates its surveillance on destination and origination hosts, as well as "sniffing" for specific key words and phrases. He claims his sources have confirmed that the NSA has contracted with an unnamed private company to develop the software needed to capture Internet data of interest to the agency. According to Madsen, the NSA monitors traffic primarily at two Internet routers controlled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), one in College Park, MD (dubbed "Fix East") and another at NASA Ames Research Center in Sunnyvale, CA ("Fix West"). Other NSA Internet sniffers, he said, operate at busy routers known as Mae East (an East Coast hub), Mae West (a West Coast hub), CIX reportedly based in San Jose), and SWAB (a northern Virginia router operated by Bell Atlantic). Madsen continues on to say the NSA may also be monitoring traffic at network access points (NAPs), the large Internet gateways operated by regional and long-distance service providers. The NAPs allegedly under surveillance are in Pennsauken, NJ (operated by Sprint), Chicago (run by AmeriTech and Bell Communications Research), and San Francisco (Pacific Bell). Madsen claims the NSA has deals with Microsoft, Lotus, and Netscape to prevent anonymous email. "One senior Federal Government source has reported that NSA has been particularly successful in convincing key members of the US software industry to cooperate with it in producing software that makes Internet messages easier for NSA to intercept, and if they are encrypted, to decode," Madsen wrote. "A knowledgeable government source claims that the NSA has concluded agreements with Microsoft, Lotus and Netscape to permit the introduction of the means to prevent the anonymity of Internet electronic mail, the use of cryptographic key-escrow, as well as software industry acceptance of the NSA-developed Digital Signature Standard (DSS)." Similarly, according to reports in several trade magazines, the Defense Messaging System (DMS) developed by the Pentagon is nearly ready for implementation, but prospective users are threatening to shun the universal e-mail platform unless Pentagon officials eliminate cumbersome security procedures designed by the NSA. (continued) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: nsa.net part II Date: Sun Oct 13 16:05:31 CDT 1996 Message number: 51 Reply to message number: unavailable Similarly, according to reports in several trade magazines, the Defense Messaging System (DMS) developed by the Pentagon is nearly ready for implementation, but prospective users are threatening to shun the universal e-mail platform unless Pentagon officials eliminate cumbersome security procedures designed by the NSA. DOD designed DMS a decade ago to replace the aging AUTODIN message system and to serve as the armed services' global e-mail infrastructure. Officials familiar with DMS' security features, which rely on the National Security Agency's Fortezza encryption card, said the system's slowness is likely to alienate users who send mostly unclassified messages over commercial e-mail systems. Users of wireless systems are also complaining about the high overhead. The DMS adopted the Fortezza card and is expected to implement over 450,000 cards in the next few years. Inside sources note that the NSA is using the DMS as a justification for paying companies such as Microsoft and Netscape to adopt the Fortezza card as a standard for their products. NSA has pushed agencies such as the CIA, NASA, IRS and the Federal Reserve to adopt Fortezza without success. Cost is also a major factor. Fortezza's PCMCIA cards cost nearly $100 each and all computers must be equipped with a card reader that costs an additional $150. (Would you like to have to buy a modem or pre-assembled computer system that would make it easier for the NSA to monitor your communications? Not me!) Is the NSA really snooping on the Net? If they are, would that violate the agency's charter, which specifically prohibits it from spying within the US? "Well, Net traffic is routed from God knows where to God knows where around the world," says George Washington University Professor Lance Hoffman, a professor of Communications and Telecommunications Systems Policy at George Washington University. "So if the NSA is doing this, they could say they are not violating their charter not to spy in the US. That's the thing. Intelligent routers send stuff any which way." What can be done? - you say. There is a solution. Encryption. Next issue will discuss trap doors and your right to encryption as strong as you can make it. ==================================== 6) The Agency That Came in from the Cold http://www.ams.org/committee/profession/shaker.html 7) The Codex Surveillance & Privacy Page http://www.thecodex.com/ 8) Profiles of the U.S. Intelligence Community http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/usintel.txt 9) Intelligence and CounterIntelligence http://www.kimsoft.com/kim-spy.htm 10) The National Security Administration http://hops.cs.jhu.edu/~arvi/nsa.html *** proteios@indirect.com PLEASE send us any other relevant URLs you may find *** ==================================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NorthStar is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Internet Users Consortium a fiercely independent Grass Roots organization founded by Martin Thompson and Kenneth Koldys, Jr, to inform and coordinate Internet Users concerning political and government actions against the complete self-actualization of the Internet and our Constitutional Rights in Cyberspace. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Past issues of NorthStar are archived at the NorthStar Archive http://www.iuc.org/www/proteios/northstar.html on the Internet Users Consortium WWW site ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***Please feel free to distribute NorthStar to as many people and relevant forums as possible. That is one way to inform, educate and take action. All we ask is that you keep NorthStar intact. It is concise for that very reason. ***If you wish to submit an article to NorthStar, please send your article to proteios@iuc.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: Prison conditions Date: Sat Feb 01 18:27:52 CST 1997 Message number: 52 Reply to message number: unavailable From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Bernie S. attacked in prison To: dc-stuff@merde.dis.org Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 14:55:47 -0400 (EDT) X-forward-loop: dc-stuff Content-Length: 9160 COMPUTER HACKER SEVERELY BEATEN AFTER CRITICIZING PRISON CONDITIONS TARGET OF CAMPAIGN BY U.S. SECRET SERVICE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE A convicted hacker, in prison for nothing more than possession of electronic parts easily obtainable at any Radio Shack, has been savagely beaten after being transferred to a maximum security prison as punishment for speaking out publicly about prison conditions. Ed Cummings, recently published in Wired and Internet Underground, as well as a correspondent for WBAI-FM in New York and 2600 Magazine, has been the focus of an increasingly ugly campaign of harrassment and terror from the authorities. At the time of this writing, Cummings is locked in the infectious diseases ward at Lehigh County prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania, unable to obtain the proper medical treatment for the severe injuries he has suffered. The Ed Cummings case has been widely publicized in the computer hacker community over the past 18 months. In March of 1995, in what can only be described as a bizarre application of justice, Cummings (whose pen name is "Bernie S.") was targetted and imprisoned by the United States Secret Service for mere possession of technology that could be used to make free phone calls. Although the prosecution agreed there was no unauthorized access, no victims, no fraud, and no costs associated with the case, Cummings was imprisoned under a little known attachment to the Digital Telephony bill allowing individuals to be charged in this fashion. Cummings was portrayed by the Secret Service as a potential terrorist because of some of the books found in his library. A year and a half later, Cummings is still in prison, despite the fact that he became eligible for parole three months ago. But things have now taken a sudden violent turn for the worse. As apparent retribution for Cummings' continued outspokenness against the daily harrassment and numerous injustices that he has faced, he was transferred on Friday to Lehigh County Prison, a dangerous maximum security facility. Being placed in this facility was in direct opposition to his sentencing order. The reason given by the prison: "protective custody". A day later, Cummings was nearly killed by a dangerous inmate for not getting off the phone fast enough. By the time the prison guards stopped the attack, Cummings had been kicked in the face so many times that he lost his front teeth and had his jaw shattered. His arm, which he tried to use to shield his face, was also severely injured. It is expected that his mouth will be wired shut for up to three months. Effectively, Cummings has now been silenced at last. >From the start of this ordeal, Cummings has always maintained his composure and confidence that one day the injustice of his imprisonment will be realized. He was a weekly contributor to a radio talk show in New York where he not only updated listeners on his experiences, but answered their questions about technology. People from as far away as Bosnia and China wrote to him, having heard about his story over the Internet. Now we are left to piece these events together and to find those responsible for what are now criminal actions against him. We are demanding answers to these questions: Why was Cummings transferred for no apparent reason from a minimum security facility to a very dangerous prison? Why has he been removed from the hospital immediately after surgery and placed in the infectious diseases ward of the very same prison, receiving barely any desperately needed medical attention? Why was virtually every moment of Cummings' prison stay a continuous episode of harrassment, where he was severely punished for such crimes as receiving a fax (without his knowledge) or having too much reading material? Why did the Secret Service do everything in their power to ruin Ed Cummings' life? Had these events occurred elsewhere in the world, we would be quick to condemn them as barbaric and obscene. The fact that such things are taking place in our own back yards should not blind us to the fact that they are just as unacceptable. Lehigh County Prison will be the site of several protest actions as will the Philadelphia office of the United States Secret Service. For more information on this, email protest@2600.com or call our office at (516) 751-2600. More information on this case can be found on the following web site: http://www.2600.com. 9/4/96 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: DARE circa 1984 Date: Sun Feb 02 10:20:20 CST 1997 Message number: 53 Reply to message number: unavailable DARE Scare: Turning Children Into Informants? WP 1/29/94 9:00 PM By James Bovard DRUG ABUSE Resistance Education (DARE) is currently being taught by police officers to more than 5 million children in more than 250,000 classrooms each year. The brainchild of former Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates, the DARE program is directed mostly at fifth and sixth graders, though its activities can span kindergarten through 12th grade. Gates made headlines in 1989 with his suggestion that drug users be taken out and shot, and his brand of philosophical moderation permeates the DARE approach to drug abuse. On its face, DARE seems unobjectionable. It seeks to maximize youngsters' hostility to drugs by teaching them perils of drugs and reinforcing the message with DARE frisbees, DARE wristwatches ad some hope"). Students are also able to win or purchase DARE pencils, erasers, workbooks and certificates of achievement. But along with the anti-drug paraphernalia may come a more ominous effect: children informing on their drug-using parents. The program was created partly as a result of Gates's frustrations with police sting operations in the schools. Until the late 1980s, Los Angeles police officers routinely went undercover as high school students in order to implore real students to buy drugs from them. In 1987, the American Civil Liberties Union complained, "When other adults try to get young people involved with drugs, we call it contributing to the delinquency of a minor. When the LAPD does it, we call it the school-buy program." Finding young people who would buy drugs proved quite easy. Unfortunately, it had little effect on drug use by students. As Gates told the Los Angeles Times last September, "We kept buying more and more. It was appalling, depressing. I finally said: `This is crazy. We've got to do something.' " The result was DARE. Winning the trust of youngsters is an essential feature of DARE. Policemen sit and talk with children during lunch hour and play games with them during recess. The federal Bureau of Justice Assistance noted in a 1988 report that DARE "students have an opportunity to become acquainted with the (police) officer as a trusted friend who is interested in their happiness and welfare. Students occasionally tell the officer about problems such as abuse, neglect, alcoholic parents, or relatives who use drugs." One of the first lessons found in DARE teaching materials stresses the "Three R's": "Recognize, Resist and Report." The official DARE Officer's Guide for Grades K-4 contains a worksheet that instructs children to "Circle the names of the people you could tell if . . . a friend finds some pills"; the "Police" are listed along with "Mother or Father," "Teacher"or "Friend." The next exercise instructs children to check boxes for whom they should inform if they "are asked to keep a secret" - the police are again listed as an option. Roberta Silverman, a spokeswoman for national DARE headquarters in Los Angeles, rejects the idea that DARE teaches or encourages informing. "When students begin the DARE program they are specifically advised not talk about their parents or friends. We are very clear that when DARE instructors are in the classroom, they are there as teachers, not law enforcement officers." Silverman says that the DARE Officer's Guide for Grades K-4 is not part of the DARE core curriculum. "It lays the groundwork for what the officers do later. It's more like generic safety instruction, teaching kids about personal safety. The part about keeping a secret is to get kids talking about molestation. It has nothing to do with drugs or with getting them to turn their parents in." Silverman also says that "any time a child makes a disclosure (of parental drug use) to an officer, the DARE officer would be required like any other teacher to report that to the proper authorities or agencies." Not surprisingly, children sometimes confide the names of people they suspect are illegally using drugs. A mother and father in Caroline County, Md., were jailed for 30 days after their daughter informed a police DARE instructor that her parents had marijuana plants in their home, according to a story in The Washington Post in January 1993. The Wall Street Journal reported in 1992 that "In two recent cases in Boston, children who had tipped police stepped out of their homes carrying DARE diplomas as police arrived to arrest their parents." In 1991, 10-year-old Joaquin Herrera of Englewood, Colo., phoned 911, announced, "I'm a DARE kid" and summoned police to his house to discover a couple of ounces of marijuana hidden in a bookshelf, according to the Rocky Mountain News. The boy sat outside his parents' home in a police patrol car while the police searched the home and arrested the parents. The policeman assigned to the boy's school commended the boy's action. Police and DARE officials keep no statistics on how many drug busts result from the program. And DARE officials say that reports of kids informing on their parents cannot fairly be attributed to DARE. "I think to focus on these few incidents is to do a disservice to people who are at the forefront of prevention efforts in this country," DARE's Silverman said. "There are 25 million kids who have been exposed to DARE and a handful of cases of informing that may or may not be related to DARE at all." Nine-year-old Darrin Davis of Douglasville, Ga., called 911 after he found a small amount of speed hidden in his parent's bedroom because, as he told the Dallas Morning News, "At school, they told us that if we ever see drugs, call 911 because people who use drugs need help . . . . I thought the police would come get the drugs and tell them that drugs are wrong. They never said they would arrest them. . . . But in court, I heard them tell the judge that I wanted my mom and dad arrested. That is a lie. I did not tell them that." The arrest wrecked his parents' lives, said the Dallas newspaper; both parents lost their jobs, a bank threatened to foreclose on their homes and his father was kept in jail for three months. Silverman says that the details of the case prove how murky such cases are. While Darrin Davis had been in a DARE program, she says that he did not report his parents to the DARE officer and that there was evidence that the parents were also involved in drug trafficking, thus putting their child at risk. "It's making a mountain out of a molehill," she says. Whatever DARE's effect on families, its record at discouraging drug use is the subject of some controversy. A study financed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse on the effect of DARE on Kentucky students between 1987 and 1992 reported "no statistically significant differences between experimental groups and control groups in the percentage of new users of . . . cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, alcohol and marijuana." More recently, the National Institute of Justice hired Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to survey and evaluate all the published research on DARE, and RTI's preliminary conclusions were largely negative. The RTI's evaluation concluded that only eight published studies of DARE's effectiveness were statistically valid. Susan Ennett, one of the lead researchers on the RTI project, concluded that these eight studies found that DARE's effects on drug use by children ranged from "limited to nonexistent." DARE says that other experts have criticized the methodology of the RTI study and notes that it has not yet completed the peer review process. DARE claims that of 23 studies of DARE, 20 found the program effective in shaping anti-drug attitudes and behavior. At a March 1993 conference about drug education at the University of California at San Diego, social science researchers agreed that after 10 years of operation there is little evidence that DARE actually reduces drug use among the young. William Hanson, one of the early advisers to DARE and currently a professor at Wake Forest University, said, "I think the program should be entirely scrapped and redeveloped anew." Many Americans, numbed by politicians' harsh rhetoric regarding drug use, may feel that policemen should be able to use any means available to detect drug users. Many DARE instructors have the best of intentions. But is that an excuse for government programs that endanger the bonds between children and parents? James Bovard is the author of the forthcoming book, "Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty" (St. Martin's Press). Copyright 1994 The Washington Post can Liberty" (St. Martin's Press). Copyright 1994 The Washington Post ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: The meter lady... Date: Tue Feb 25 16:17:08 CST 1997 Message number: 54 Reply to message number: unavailable Cincinnati convicts grandmother for feeding meters 15 cents Copyright =A9 1997 The Associated Press=20 CINCINNATI (Feb 6, 1997 6:30 p.m. EST) -- Sylvia Stayton was just trying to spare strangers a ticket when she plunked a dime and a nickel into two overdue parking meters. For what she considered to be a random act of kindness, she got handcuffed and arrested, and Thursday, she was convicted of a misdemeanor for interfering with an officer trying to ticket overdue cars. "I tried to do what I thought was the right thing," the 63-year-old grandmother of 10 said as she left court. She faces up to 90 days in jail and a $750 fine when she is sentenced later this month for obstructing official business. Jurors acquitted her of misdemeanor disorderly conduct. She had faced up to four months in jail if convicted on both counts. "She was doing a good deed," her lawyer, David Scacchetti, told the municipal court jury in closing arguments. "Sylvia Stayton should be congratulated for her act, not punished." After the verdict, the lawyer said he would consult with Mrs. Stayton about an appeal. Officer Ed Johnson, a 16-year patrol officer, testified Wednesday that he was about to write two tickets Oct. 24 when Mrs. Stayton put coins into the meters. He said he had warned the woman that she was breaking an obscure ordinance against putting coins into expired meters. He said she became loud and difficult and refused to identify herself after being arrested. Mrs. Stayton took the stand and disputed the officer's testimony, saying she didn't mean to stop Johnson from writing the tickets, and was "floored" when Johnson grabbed her arm and put handcuffs on her. "I said, 'I can't believe you're arresting me for putting money in parking meters,"' she said. "He said, 'You're going to jail."' Her brief stay behind bars turned Mrs. Stayton into something of a folk hero. She received $350 from people donating to her "legal abuse fund." And a church group that has been anonymously feeding parking meters for years printed up T-shirts that read: "Sylvia Stayton ... guilty of kindness." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: The meter lady... Date: Tue Feb 25 20:08:49 CST 1997 Message number: 55 Reply to message number: 54 BT> For what she considered to be a random act of kindness, she got BT> handcuffed and arrested, and Thursday, she was convicted of a BT> misdemeanor for interfering with an officer trying to ticket overdue BT> cars. BT> BT> She faces up to 90 days in jail and a $750 fine when she is sentenced BT> later this month for obstructing official business. BT> BT> "I said, 'I can't believe you're arresting me for putting money in BT> parking meters,"' she said. "He said, 'You're going to jail."' BT> BT> years printed up T-shirts that read: "Sylvia Stayton ... guilty of BT> kindness." I can't believe how ridiculous our country has become. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Fri Feb 28 13:19:23 CST 1997 Message number: 56 Reply to message number: unavailable Sure you've heard about the manipulative "police state", 1984, the Illuminati playland.. But when can we say that we're actually in the midst of the Orwellian all seeing eye of Big Brother? Are we there right now, with various facets of the government spying on citizens illegally, forced taxation, cameras on street corners of the inner city, and a biased law system? Did we reach the era decades ago, perhaps when computers were popularized in use, or even before that? Or is it to come in the future, when we are all tracked and cataloged with microchips implanted in our bodies for health and law-enforcement reasons (which actually bear striking resembelences to the present..)? What's your take on the situation? Voice your thoughts, your here to provoke and learn - make the best of it.. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Fri Feb 28 14:31:36 CST 1997 Message number: 57 Reply to message number: 56 BT> Sure you've heard about the manipulative "police state", 1984, the BT> Illuminati playland.. But when can we say that we're actually in the midst BT> of the Orwellian all seeing eye of Big Brother? Are we there right now, wi BT> What's your take on the situation? Voice your thoughts, your here to BT> provoke and learn - make the best of it.. BT> Nah, never. Our benevolent government doesn't do things like that. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some history to rew --- er . . write. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Mon Mar 03 05:10:06 CST 1997 Message number: 58 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo : BT> Or is it to come in the future, when we are all tracked and cataloged BT> with microchips implanted in our bodies for health and law-enforcement BT> reasons (which actually bear striking resembelences to the present..)? Orwell wrote of Oceania in such a vivid and disturbing way, I doubt that such a world will ever arise. Neither, I think, will the world ever see some sort of technological dictatorship. Too many people have too much of a vested interest in the world as it is (or similar to the way it is now). Far more likely, I think, is the Blade Runner/Gibson/Cyberpunk style of future, where technology is used by various decentralized, competing power groups. Too much work sitting beside me to rant further, but here's a question to ponder ... is it moe likely to see a 1984-ish technological/fascist state arise in England, or Bosnia? ... The worst thing about censorship is . ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Mon Mar 03 05:54:05 CST 1997 Message number: 59 Reply to message number: 58 DR> Too much work sitting beside me to rant further, but here's a question DR> to ponder ... is it moe likely to see a 1984-ish technological/fascist DR> state arise in England, or Bosnia? DR> Bosnia. Great Britain is too "civilized and tied down by culture and tradition to be that brave. Bosnia, on the other hand, has a population of disaffected but very bright computer hacks who are angry and looking for governmental changes, if possible, ones that include them. For the past few years, many of them have been writing the viruses that torment worldwide PCs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Wed Mar 05 14:30:28 CST 1997 Message number: 60 Reply to message number: 58 DR> Too much work sitting beside me to rant further, but here's a question DR> to ponder ... is it moe likely to see a 1984-ish technological/fascist DR> state arise in England, or Bosnia? Interesting. I'd say Bosnia, being in a more chaotic state is more open to some group grabbing power and instituting a technological state. England has more of the money/capital resources necessary to fund such a state, but I think their political process would prevent them from developing one before outside influence (I'm thinking the U.S. or one of the European Nations) would nip it in the bud. I think we pay less attention to Bosnia, and a small group could grab power and the entire government before we would react, and to avoid international incedent we would back out. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Wed Mar 05 14:56:46 CST 1997 Message number: 61 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : Fr> culture and tradition to be that brave. Bosnia, on the other hand, has Fr> a population of disaffected but very bright computer hacks who are Fr> angry and looking for governmental changes, if possible, ones that Fr> include them. For the past few years, many of them have been writing Fr> the viruses that torment worldwide PCs. I'll be sure to say "hi" for you, there's a chance that I might end up heading over there next January. As for England being too cultured to turn fascist, you might be right; but through the centuries, it's often been said that democracy leads right to dictatorship. And I think there's at least some truth to that ... ... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Wed Mar 05 23:29:24 CST 1997 Message number: 62 Reply to message number: 61 DR> I'll be sure to say "hi" for you, there's a chance that I might end up DR> heading over there next January. DR> Whaaaaat??? Well, take along your software. DR> As for England being too cultured to turn fascist, you might be right; DR> but through the centuries, it's often been said that democracy leads DR> right to dictatorship. And I think there's at least some truth to that ... DR> That's the point. It is close to facist now and the people like it that way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Thu Mar 06 11:15:47 CST 1997 Message number: 63 Reply to message number: 62 DR> I'll be sure to say "hi" for you, there's a chance that I might end up DR> heading over there next January. DR> F> Whaaaaat??? Well, take along your software. Yep, my advisor (Nick Hayes) is taking a classload of students over there next January, and I was thinking about going along. It would be interesting, to say the least. DR> As for England being too cultured to turn fascist, you might be right; DR> but through the centuries, it's often been said that democracy leads DR> right to dictatorship. And I think there's at least some truth to that ... DR> F> That's the point. It is close to facist now and the people like it F> that way. How is England "close to fascist"? I'd say it's relatively free, at least by world standards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Thu Mar 06 13:14:56 CST 1997 Message number: 64 Reply to message number: 63 DR> I'll be sure to say "hi" for you, there's a chance that I might end up DR> heading over there next January. DR> Yep, my advisor (Nick Hayes) is taking a classload of students over there DR> next January, and I was thinking about going along. It would be interesting DR> to say the least. DR> Well, in that case, I would go too. Say hi to Nick for me. F> That's the point. It is close to facist now and the people like it F> that way. DR> DR> How is England "close to fascist"? I'd say it's relatively free, at least DR> world standards. It is "free," but its people are tied up by tradition that basically keeps them in line. They are great supporters of heraldry, monarchy, provincialism, etc., which provides pretty strict limits of where the lines are drawn. Britishers who disagree come here and make commercials. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: BIG TEEBO Subject: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Thu Mar 06 19:21:41 CST 1997 Message number: 65 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to All <=- BT> What's your take on the situation? Voice your thoughts, your here BT> to provoke and learn - make the best of it.. Hmmm.... Why do you what us to voice are thoughts? [THINKING MODE] tick! tock! tick! tock! "Cookies taste good!" tick! tock! tick! tock! [IMAGINATION MODE] KNOCK! KNOCK! BANG! BOOM! CRASH! POLICE: "Your under arrest for thought crimes!" SANDMAN: "What? What the fuck?!" POLICE: "Put your hands on your head and don't move!" SANDMAN: "There's nothing incriminating here! Ha HA Hee Ho!" [ Big Teebo walks in with all bbs records of past posts] SANDMAN: [THINKING] "I'm dead..." POLICE: " Hey! He's thinking again!" Click! Bang! [Sandman falls to floor dead] [REALITY MODE] 1984 exists today and perhaps your part of it. ... It's really too bad that you can't reboot organic systems. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: BIG TEEBO Subject: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Thu Mar 06 19:21:42 CST 1997 Message number: 66 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to All <=- BT> Sure you've heard about the manipulative "police state", 1984, BT> the Illuminati playland.. But when can we say that we're actually in BT> the midst of the Orwellian all seeing eye of Big Brother? Are we there BT> right now, with various facets of the government spying on citizens BT> illegally, forced taxation, cameras on street corners of the inner BT> city, and a biased law system? Did we reach the era decades ago, BT> perhaps when computers were popularized in use, or even before that? BT> Or is it to come in the future, when we are all tracked and cataloged BT> with microchips implanted in our bodies for health and law-enforcement BT> reasons (which actually bear striking resembelences to the present..)? The closest that we came to a 1984 scenario was in the 50's during the Blacklist and communist witch hunts. There was even talk of putting those on the left into internment camps. The fact is today we live in a free society. Probadly the most free society that has ever existed. It's not perfect but it is the best of all worlds. Of course the erosion of liberty and freedom is constant, but there exist those who will always repair the damage and keep freedom strong. There seems to be many hurdles to a 1984 scenario being put in place. 1. Freedom: The American people love freedom & freedom is now part of the fabric that makes up American. Even the most ardent conservative who wants to ban abortion and contraceptives, censor speech, and force religion on society still desire their own personal freedoms to the point of hypocrisy. 2. Multiculturalism: We live in a society, a nation that is formed by people of different religions, skin colors, sexes, nationalities, languages, cultures, backgrounds, and everything else under the sun. We are not a mono-culture and a monoculture would be critical to a 1984 police state. 3. State of the Nation: Crime has gone up! Violence is everywhere! The youth are running wild! Are society is crumbling! I say bullshit!!!! Crime has decreased. Violent crimes have decreased. The youth aren't turning into demons and cracking their elders heads open and feasting on the goo inside. Overall we are in good shape. Were not perfect and we never will be, but things are not that bad. Preception and reality are important. The preception is that we are in horrible shape, but in reality we not that bad off. As long as the reality is good there will be no use for a police state. NOTE: All three of these "hurdles" are targets of the so called Religious Right. I wonder why? ... "Yield to temptation, it may not pass your way again." - L. Long ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Thu Mar 06 19:21:44 CST 1997 Message number: 67 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Big Teebo <=- DR> Too much work sitting beside me to rant further, but here's a DR> question to ponder ... is it moe likely to see a 1984-ish DR> technological/fascist state arise in England, or Bosnia? England. They are very close to a monoculture, censorship is allowed, and their culture is orderly, prime, and proper. Still it is not very likely to ever happen. In Bosnia a land war has just been fought. The Bosnians fielded a makeshift army of doctors, artists, musicians, public employees, students, & persons from every section of life. They were and still are a multicultural state. Freedom is sweet. freedom is sweeter when won in battle. Freedom tastes the best after you lose it and then get it back. No it will never happen. ... Lawyers: the larval form of politicians. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Thu Mar 06 19:21:45 CST 1997 Message number: 68 Reply to message number: unavailable As I stated in my previous post I believe that there exist to many hurdles for a 1984 police state to be put in place in America. Some of these hurdles are the Freedom, multiculturalism, and the reality of the State of the Nation. Interestingly enough the Religious Right's agenda involves the destruction of all three of these hurdles. Freedom: These fundies oppose reproductive rights, free speech, and religious freedoms. Basically they oppose any freedoms that currently exists otherthan those which help promote their conservative agenda. Multiculturalism: These fundies desire a Christian Nation where everybody is white & right. They hate multiculturalism. Last week Pat Robertson was promoting a video that claims the America is a Christian Nation founded by God to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. Very frightening. An AMerica founded by a supernatural beast to convert the world into a mono-white-christian culture. Can you say "War"? State of the Nation: Were slouching towards Gomorrah! Are culture is like a sewer! Were not as good as we were in the 50's when the republicans held all 3 branches of government. Last year Pat Robertson (during a fundraiser) played scenarios of mobs of criminals moving like weather storms (with television reports to boot!). In one scenario a family of Christians are watching the news reports of a criminal mob heading in their direction. The son is racing home on his bike just ahead of the mob. Little Billy did not make it so mom, dad, and little Sally go into the basement where daddy opens up the gun locker and grabs a M-16 (none of them commie weapons here). The sounds of the mob are outside. The power is cut. The lights go off. Daddy goes up stairs. All is quiet outside. Dad goes to the screen door and pulls the drapes open. The mob is there with faces pressed against the windows. This mob is very diverse with black, white, young, and old. One mob member looks like a 10 year old white boy with a anger look on his face. Gunshots are heard by mom and Sally and eventually the basement door opens and some twisted looking white dude asks "Well what have we here?". Cut to sissy-boy Robertson to beg for money. These goofs are exploiting preceptions not the reality of are world. Sadly when we start basing policy on the preceptions of a decline in American, because people aren't voting republican or giving money, time, or blood to the fundy churches, we start down the path of a police state in a attempt to go back to some magical time in are past that never really existed. The agenda of the religious right seems to evolve constantly. Their agenda is not moving towards a 1984 scenario, but towards something similar to a movie (a book that I haven't read) that I once saw called "A Handmaids tales"(?). In this story the US has become a theocracy, a Christian Nation. This Nation is at war and God is on there side. It is a police state where religion is the key to power. It is also about a world where most females have lost the ability to produce children and about the hypocrisy of this twisted society. This is where the RR has us headed. The RR should be treated like vampires. Freedom is the sunlight. Reality is the garlic. Diversity/multiculturalism/tolerance is the cross & wooden stakes. Kill! Kill! Kill! My little pretties! ... Person + delusion = psychosis. People + delusion = religion. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Sandman Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Fri Mar 07 07:10:17 CST 1997 Message number: 69 Reply to message number: 68 S> These goofs are exploiting preceptions not the S> reality of are world. Perception is reality. If we're all afraid of crime, then crime is everywhere. If we're all afraid of multiculturalism, then horribly destructive ideas and people are everywhere. These fears are paths to power. Republicans ride crime, immorality and taxandspendliberals into power. Democrats ride children, economic insecurity and social security into power. What's the difference? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Fri Mar 07 17:54:15 CST 1997 Message number: 70 Reply to message number: 58 DR> to ponder ... is it moe likely to see a 1984-ish technological/fascist DR> state arise in England, or Bosnia? I'd believe England for several reasons.. For one, the technology and city structure is more omnipresent - it would be something of a little noticed adjustment on most cosmetic levels for the majority of the people. Bosnia is a country in constant turmoil and various states of war making the people impossible to subdue. There's a good chance that more profit can be made from Bosnia being in their current state then owning their "mind and body" so to speak.. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Sandman Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Sat Mar 08 05:31:58 CST 1997 Message number: 71 Reply to message number: 68 S> Diversity/multiculturalism/tolerance is the cross & wooden stakes. there's a little irony on using the cross against the RR. n'est-ce pas? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Sat Mar 08 08:38:25 CST 1997 Message number: 72 Reply to message number: 71 S> Diversity/multiculturalism/tolerance is the cross & wooden stakes. S> S> there's a little irony on using the cross against the RR. n'est-ce pas? I never could figure out why the Ku Klux Klan considered burning crosses a good sign. Then one of them explained on a talk show that it is "purifying." Oh, OK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THE INVISIBLE MAN To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Sun Mar 09 13:50:28 CST 1997 Message number: 73 Reply to message number: 70 BT> I'd believe England for several reasons.. For one, the technology and city BT> structure is more omnipresent - it would be something of a little noticed BT> adjustment on most cosmetic levels for the majority of the people. Bosnia BT> a country in constant turmoil and various states of war making the people Just as a question (to determine my opinion), does England still have the House of Lords and the House of Commons, or is that gone now? They still like the wigs though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: The Invisible Man Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Sun Mar 09 14:58:21 CST 1997 Message number: 74 Reply to message number: 73 TI> Just as a question (to determine my opinion), does England still have t TI> House of Lords and the House of Commons, or is that gone now? They still li TI> the wigs though. They still have both. They are really pretty similar to our Congress with Senators and Representatives. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: The Invisible Man Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Mon Mar 10 06:10:34 CST 1997 Message number: 75 Reply to message number: 73 TI> Just as a question (to determine my opinion), does England still have t TI> House of Lords and the House of Commons, or is that gone now? They still li TI> the wigs though. Yes, but the House of Lords is mainly cosmetic, with the real power residing in the House of Commons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Mon Mar 10 12:41:12 CST 1997 Message number: 76 Reply to message number: 75 TI> Just as a question (to determine my opinion), does England still have t TI> House of Lords and the House of Commons, or is that gone now? They still li TI> the wigs though. DR> DR> Yes, but the House of Lords is mainly cosmetic, with the real power residi DR> in the House of Commons. As well as the more animated and interesting sessions. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Mon Mar 10 13:53:33 CST 1997 Message number: 77 Reply to message number: 72 F> I never could figure out why the Ku Klux Klan considered burning F> crosses a good sign. Then one of them explained on a talk show that it is F> "purifying." Oh, OK. Hmm. Why that makes ever so much sense, well, not really. Purifying what... the evil residing withing them... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Mon Mar 10 13:54:39 CST 1997 Message number: 78 Reply to message number: 76 DR> Yes, but the House of Lords is mainly cosmetic, with the real power residi DR> in the House of Commons. F> F> As well as the more animated and interesting sessions. :) They're fun to watch on cable, great entertainment to sit and watch Parliament with a group of friends on Saturday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Mon Mar 10 18:08:11 CST 1997 Message number: 79 Reply to message number: 77 F> I never could figure out why the Ku Klux Klan considered burning F> crosses a good sign. Then one of them explained on a talk show that it is F> "purifying." Oh, OK. S> S> Hmm. Why that makes ever so much sense, well, not really. Purifying what... S> the evil residing withing them... That would be nice, but they have been burning crosses for at least 100 years, and are still pretty evil. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Wed Mar 12 20:47:08 CST 1997 Message number: 80 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Sandman <=- S> These goofs are exploiting preceptions not the S> reality of are world. DR> Perception is reality. DR> If we're all afraid of crime, then crime is everywhere. If we're all DR> afraid of multiculturalism, then horribly destructive ideas and people DR> are everywhere. If crime actually isn't everywhere then perception is not reality. But if we perceive that crime is everywhere we become more open to reducing individual freedom in order to fight a crime problem that really does not exist. DR> These fears are paths to power. DR> Republicans ride crime, immorality and taxandspendliberals into DR> power. Democrats ride children, economic insecurity and social DR> security into power. DR> What's the difference? Answers and solutions to these perceptions are the difference. The Republicans solutions involve policies that could create a society far more conducive 1984 police state. ... Meaningless gods cannot grant what they do not have. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Thu Mar 13 15:05:47 CST 1997 Message number: 81 Reply to message number: 79 F> That would be nice, but they have been burning crosses for at least F> 100 years, and are still pretty evil. It's pretty funny how much pure concentrated evil can be within people claiming to be working for God. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Sandman Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Sat Mar 15 05:55:59 CST 1997 Message number: 82 Reply to message number: 80 S> DR> These fears are paths to power. S> DR> Republicans ride crime, immorality and taxandspendliberals into S> DR> power. Democrats ride children, economic insecurity and social S> DR> security into power. S> DR> What's the difference? S> Answers and solutions to these perceptions are the difference. S> The Republicans solutions involve policies that could create a S> society far more conducive 1984 police state. Ah, but you were criticizing the right's methods. Since liberals use similar methods towards a different goal, isn't this hypcritical? S> DR> Perception is reality. S> DR> If we're all afraid of crime, then crime is everywhere. If we're all S> DR> afraid of multiculturalism, then horribly destructive ideas and people S> DR> are everywhere. S> If crime actually isn't everywhere then perception is not reality. S> But if we perceive that crime is everywhere we become more open to S> reducing individual freedom in order to fight a crime problem that S> really does not exist. No matter what the statistics are, there will be some crime happening somewhere. If one is open to the idea that "crime is everywhere", then even a teeny tiny bit of evidence will convince them that they are right. In that sense, perception is reality. We believe what we want to believe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THE INVISIBLE MAN To: Froggy Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Fri Mar 21 14:16:22 CST 1997 Message number: 83 Reply to message number: 74 TI> Just as a question (to determine my opinion), does England still have t TI> House of Lords and the House of Commons, or is that gone now? They still li TI> the wigs though. F> F> They still have both. They are really pretty similar to our Congre F> with Senators and Representatives. But are the people in the House of Lords elected officials now? That was my main question, kind of an important part :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: The Invisible Man Subject: Re: 1984 -> 1950? Date: Fri Mar 21 21:50:41 CST 1997 Message number: 84 Reply to message number: 83 TI> But are the people in the House of Lords elected officials now? That wa TI> my main question, kind of an important part :) I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. I thought that most of the Lords seats were hereditary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Handmaidens Tale? Date: Sun Mar 23 18:10:23 CST 1997 Message number: 85 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Sandman <=- S> Answers and solutions to these perceptions are the difference. S> The Republicans solutions involve policies that could create a S> society far more conducive 1984 police state. DR> DR> Ah, but you were criticizing the right's methods. Since liberals use DR> similar methods towards a different goal, isn't this hypcritical? Not when the goals are different. And remember this was about a 1984 police state. IMO the methods, goals, and results of liberal idealogy is not conducive to a police state. The goals, methods, and results of conservative idealogy is conducive of a 1984 police state. As for liberal methods being similar to conservative methods causing liberals to be hypocritical. Of course liberals are hypocrites. So are conservatives. Hypocrisy seems to be a part of humanity. I believe that the raging Cajun James Carville who put it best. "Were right, they're wrong." DR> No matter what the statistics are, there will be some crime happening DR> somewhere. If one is open to the idea that "crime is everywhere", then DR> even a teeny tiny bit of evidence will convince them that they are DR> right. DR> In that sense, perception is reality. We believe what we want to DR> believe. And as I stated previously conservatives will use these false perceptions to put in place policies conducive to a police state. Liberal will use false perceptions as well to further their agenda. An agenda that is not conducive to a police state. ... Blue Wave - World Tour - 1997 ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]