Make copies of these, cut them up into fours, and hand them out in public!
July 29, 2008
THE TOOLS YOU NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT!
Place these posters on telephone poles, restaurant bulletin boards, etc
Make copies of these, cut them up into fours, and hand them out in public!
Make copies of these, cut them up into fours, and hand them out in public!
July 28, 2008
Housing Bailout Bill- WATCH THIS
http://current.com/items/89132048_housing_bailout_bill_another_800_billion_gift_from_the_taxpayer_to_wall_street
July 23, 2008
Why Hippies Suck
"Hippies" suck. Let me tell you why.
I read an article in Rolling Stone about Bonnaroo that was desperately trying to make Bonnaroo look like it was something other than tens of thousands of idiots ruining the local environment by trampling down all erosion stopping plantlife, strewing the landscape with litter, getting intoxicated, and fornicating.
Rolling Stone was trying really hard, beyond the point of it being tenable to make it seem like what these people are doing was something to be emulated.
In truth, these supposedly "green" and "counter-culture" kids spent God-knows how much petrol based fuel to drive to Tennessee from all around the USA, including Colorado, New Jersey, and California, yielding God-knows how many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
And while they were there, they consumed copious amounts of junk yeilding 79 TONS of solid waste. And I don't mean poop, though they probably left plenty of that as well. I mean trash that was strewn about on the ground as litter. Yeah, man, every day is earth day, right?
They also poisoned their bodies and minds as they used the event as an excuse to get wasted with lots of hallucinogenic drugs (which Rolling Stone glamourized, surprise) and thus thoroughly rearranged their neural networks and making them feel "like "everything's connected."
I guess it's how they are able to convince themselves that they're doing anything more than performing a terrible Halloween Costume impression of the 1960s, or that their lifestyle is somehow sustainable or green because they wear tye-dye-- they're hallucinating.
They also acted totally irresponsibly with a large number of rapes and arrests being reported. Since when was rape a part of free love?
F**k hippies. That whole scene is just as much a mainstream culture "counter-culture" release-valve as Hot Topic.
I read an article in Rolling Stone about Bonnaroo that was desperately trying to make Bonnaroo look like it was something other than tens of thousands of idiots ruining the local environment by trampling down all erosion stopping plantlife, strewing the landscape with litter, getting intoxicated, and fornicating.
Rolling Stone was trying really hard, beyond the point of it being tenable to make it seem like what these people are doing was something to be emulated.
In truth, these supposedly "green" and "counter-culture" kids spent God-knows how much petrol based fuel to drive to Tennessee from all around the USA, including Colorado, New Jersey, and California, yielding God-knows how many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
And while they were there, they consumed copious amounts of junk yeilding 79 TONS of solid waste. And I don't mean poop, though they probably left plenty of that as well. I mean trash that was strewn about on the ground as litter. Yeah, man, every day is earth day, right?
They also poisoned their bodies and minds as they used the event as an excuse to get wasted with lots of hallucinogenic drugs (which Rolling Stone glamourized, surprise) and thus thoroughly rearranged their neural networks and making them feel "like "everything's connected."
I guess it's how they are able to convince themselves that they're doing anything more than performing a terrible Halloween Costume impression of the 1960s, or that their lifestyle is somehow sustainable or green because they wear tye-dye-- they're hallucinating.
They also acted totally irresponsibly with a large number of rapes and arrests being reported. Since when was rape a part of free love?
F**k hippies. That whole scene is just as much a mainstream culture "counter-culture" release-valve as Hot Topic.
July 22, 2008
I found out I was wiretapped: Some reflections
Here's the list of people who were illegally wiretapped.
I'm on page six.
Apparently, they were recording my calls?! Or at least one of them. I don't understand why, or how. I have AT&T and haven't ever called outside of the country that I can think of (it's really expensive).
Other friends of mine are also on the list.
I knew that Obama's vote was wrong before I knew I was illegally wiretapped.
But this morning, I called the ACLU to see what my legal rights were now, and because of Obama's vote (and others) for telecom immunity, I now have no legal recourse. I can't do anything about it. Nothing. They broke the law, my privacy was violated, and they're getting away with it.
Now that this affects me personally, and knowing that my right to recourse has been taken from me by Obama, I find it unconscionable to support Obama.
It strikes me as bizzare that friends of mine are saying to me, "Asher, I support your fight here, but I support Obama still. I totally agree with you though, his FISA vote was wrong."
From my perspective, I feel totally violated, and these shows of support for me mingled with shows of support for Obama totally baffle me.
How can people support him? It's like I was robbed, and people are saying, "yeah, it sucks that you were robbed, but you know, that guy who robbed you is cool, so I'm going to hang at his place for a party tonight."
People who are saying they support Obama but also support my fight against the FISA decision are liars. They've turned their backs on me, and everybody else who has had their privacy violated.
I have no faith in the Left-wing/progressive movement anymore. They're all so caught up in the Obama love-fest that they just don't realize what a terrible politician he really is.
The Left Wing is just as guilty of the same starry-eyed fervor that swept Bush into office. They will lie to themselves to fend off the truths that show how he is not what they think he is.
They believe whole heartedly in their candidate, they won't let facts get in the way.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is going to win this next election. We are going to see four more years of a Democratic George W Bush.
The Democratic Party is not an opposition party.
The Voters won't notice that they're being fed the same bull pie from both parties.
And for their lack of observation, they will get what they deserve.
I'm on page six.
Apparently, they were recording my calls?! Or at least one of them. I don't understand why, or how. I have AT&T and haven't ever called outside of the country that I can think of (it's really expensive).
Other friends of mine are also on the list.
I knew that Obama's vote was wrong before I knew I was illegally wiretapped.
But this morning, I called the ACLU to see what my legal rights were now, and because of Obama's vote (and others) for telecom immunity, I now have no legal recourse. I can't do anything about it. Nothing. They broke the law, my privacy was violated, and they're getting away with it.
Now that this affects me personally, and knowing that my right to recourse has been taken from me by Obama, I find it unconscionable to support Obama.
It strikes me as bizzare that friends of mine are saying to me, "Asher, I support your fight here, but I support Obama still. I totally agree with you though, his FISA vote was wrong."
From my perspective, I feel totally violated, and these shows of support for me mingled with shows of support for Obama totally baffle me.
How can people support him? It's like I was robbed, and people are saying, "yeah, it sucks that you were robbed, but you know, that guy who robbed you is cool, so I'm going to hang at his place for a party tonight."
People who are saying they support Obama but also support my fight against the FISA decision are liars. They've turned their backs on me, and everybody else who has had their privacy violated.
I have no faith in the Left-wing/progressive movement anymore. They're all so caught up in the Obama love-fest that they just don't realize what a terrible politician he really is.
The Left Wing is just as guilty of the same starry-eyed fervor that swept Bush into office. They will lie to themselves to fend off the truths that show how he is not what they think he is.
They believe whole heartedly in their candidate, they won't let facts get in the way.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is going to win this next election. We are going to see four more years of a Democratic George W Bush.
The Democratic Party is not an opposition party.
The Voters won't notice that they're being fed the same bull pie from both parties.
And for their lack of observation, they will get what they deserve.
July 16, 2008
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS STARTED-- Sort of
Congressional panel to review Kucinich's call to impeach Bush
But the House committee won't actually consider removing the president from office.
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich's single article of impeachment will get a committee hearing -- but not on removing President Bush from office.
The House on Tuesday voted 238 to 180 to send his impeachment article -- for Bush's reasoning in taking the country to war in Iraq -- to the Judiciary Committee, which buried Kucinich's previous 35-article effort in June.
This time, the panel will open hearings, possibly as soon as next week. But House Democratic leaders said the proceedings would not be about Bush's impeachment, a first step in the Constitution's process of a removing a president from office.
Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review -- possibly televised -- of anything Democrats consider to be Bush's abuse of power. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, is likely to testify. So will several scholars and administration critics, Democrats said.
The hearing is a modest gesture by House Democratic leaders to members like Kucinich who insist that Bush's reasons for going to war meet the standard for impeachment.
Kucinich had said that if his impeachment article was tabled he would simply propose another one. In June, he spent four hours on the House floor reading his longer resolution into the record, only to see it buried in committee.
July 15, 2008
July 12, 2008
Drug-Related "crimes" are absurd-- especially this one
As you may have heard, this week two delinquent teens broke into a house in Auburn, and burglarized the place, as well as discharged an assault firearm within the house.
Here's an account of the events from WMTW
Coy, the victim of the crime, has been charged with-- "aggravated cultivation of plants" (doesn't that sound like an oxymoron?) and what's worse; It's entirely possible, and in sad fact quite likely, that Lawrence Coy, victim of crime, will serve a longer sentence than his aggressors-- who broke into his home, stole from him, and discharged an assault firearm in his house. (I think it bears repeating that the guy who broke into his home were firing a fucking assault rifle in the victim's house.)
When the Lawrence Coy, who was living in that home called the police, the police searched the house, and found that Coy had been growing cannabis in his basement. We don't know if these plants were for personal use (a victimless crime), for medical use (another victimless crime) or sale, and quite frankly it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law.
I don't even use drugs and this outrages me. Not only is this case an outrage, but it raises a series of points about drug laws in general:
1) Prohibition makes no sense as a strategy to combat drug abuse. Prohibition of the 1930s has taught us that making something illegal only drives it into the shadows, makes the contraband more potent (to balance the reward of sale against the risk of being caught), gives rise to powerful criminal organizations, and counter-intuitively, it actually increases consumption. Alcohol consumption was at it's all time high in America during the Prohibition Era.
2) It's a matter of Liberty-- the State currently has no laws preventing a person from spending all their money in strip clubs, from overeating to the point of morbid obesity and death, smoking too many cigarettes to the point of lung cancer or emphysema, or from drinking alcohol to the point of damaging their organs. In fact, people indulge in lewd behaviour, eat fatty foods, smoke, and binge drink, all across the great state of Maine-- without the law interfering. We all recognize that because we live in a free society, that a person has a right to do immoral or lewd things with their own personal affairs as they see fit so long as they do not harm anyone else, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to decide what they want to do with their bodies-- not the responsibility of government.
3) Drug use is not drug abuse. Just as many people use alcohol in moderation with little ill effect, many people use mind-altering drugs in moderation as well, (and if you think that alcohol isn't a mind-altering drug, tell that to a victim of drunk driving), and these people are able to maintain active lives as participating members of society. The only time that drug use becomes an issue for the government to deal with is when it leads to another crime-- and every crime that knee-jerk reactionaries fear come from drug use, be it vehicular manslaughter, robbery, driving to endanger, disturbing the peace, assault, etc, you name it -- there are already laws against all of these things, and should somebody's drug use lead to such criminal behavior, they should prosecuted as criminals for their crimes, not their drug use. If their drug use has started to affect other people's lives, then what you have is drug addiction, which leads to the next point:
4) Drug addiction is a sickness of the mind, and a sickness of the body. Drug addiction is a medical problem, and should be treated as such. Sending people to jail for drug offenses ruins people's lives, and doesn't get them the help and support that they need.
5) We can't afford the Drug War. The United State of America makes up only 4% of the world's population, yet we make up more than HALF of the world's prison population. Land of the free, eh? I don't know what the statistics are for Maine, but on average, a little more than a quarter of the prison population is in on drug related charges alone. This eats up taxpayer money to keep non-violent offenders behind bars, and eats up time and money sending police after non-violent offenders on the streets and in their homes when they could be protecting people from real criminals, like gun-wielding burglars.
Now back to the specific: We have a case where the victim is being punished for reporting a crime. This climate is the same one we see in inner cities where immigration laws are enforced by local police-- the populace learns to fear, hate, and mistrust the police that are supposedly there to serve and protect the peace. Why should a non-violent act, cultivating plants, be treated with a heavier hand by the law than misuse of a firearm, breaking and entering, and theft combined?
This absurdity needs to end, and it is more clear now in this case than ever that the State of Maine should Decriminalize possession, cultivation, and use of cannabis.
If you live in Maine, I urge you to get on http://maine.gov and look up your state senator and congressperson, and write them something like what I wrote above. I sent copies to both my senator and congressman.
Here's an account of the events from WMTW
The tenant, Lawrence Coy, 39, ran to police for help.
After a short chase, police caught both Mohamoud and the juvenile. Police said an assault rifle was found in the getaway car.Mohamoud is being held at the Androscoggin County Jail on $15,000 bail. He is charged with burglary and reckless conduct with a firearm. In addition to those charges, the juvenile faces a additional charge of hindering apprehension.
Police also arrested Coy on suspicion of operating a marijuana-growing operation out of his home.
Coy, the victim of the crime, has been charged with-- "aggravated cultivation of plants" (doesn't that sound like an oxymoron?) and what's worse; It's entirely possible, and in sad fact quite likely, that Lawrence Coy, victim of crime, will serve a longer sentence than his aggressors-- who broke into his home, stole from him, and discharged an assault firearm in his house. (I think it bears repeating that the guy who broke into his home were firing a fucking assault rifle in the victim's house.)
When the Lawrence Coy, who was living in that home called the police, the police searched the house, and found that Coy had been growing cannabis in his basement. We don't know if these plants were for personal use (a victimless crime), for medical use (another victimless crime) or sale, and quite frankly it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law.
I don't even use drugs and this outrages me. Not only is this case an outrage, but it raises a series of points about drug laws in general:
1) Prohibition makes no sense as a strategy to combat drug abuse. Prohibition of the 1930s has taught us that making something illegal only drives it into the shadows, makes the contraband more potent (to balance the reward of sale against the risk of being caught), gives rise to powerful criminal organizations, and counter-intuitively, it actually increases consumption. Alcohol consumption was at it's all time high in America during the Prohibition Era.
2) It's a matter of Liberty-- the State currently has no laws preventing a person from spending all their money in strip clubs, from overeating to the point of morbid obesity and death, smoking too many cigarettes to the point of lung cancer or emphysema, or from drinking alcohol to the point of damaging their organs. In fact, people indulge in lewd behaviour, eat fatty foods, smoke, and binge drink, all across the great state of Maine-- without the law interfering. We all recognize that because we live in a free society, that a person has a right to do immoral or lewd things with their own personal affairs as they see fit so long as they do not harm anyone else, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to decide what they want to do with their bodies-- not the responsibility of government.
3) Drug use is not drug abuse. Just as many people use alcohol in moderation with little ill effect, many people use mind-altering drugs in moderation as well, (and if you think that alcohol isn't a mind-altering drug, tell that to a victim of drunk driving), and these people are able to maintain active lives as participating members of society. The only time that drug use becomes an issue for the government to deal with is when it leads to another crime-- and every crime that knee-jerk reactionaries fear come from drug use, be it vehicular manslaughter, robbery, driving to endanger, disturbing the peace, assault, etc, you name it -- there are already laws against all of these things, and should somebody's drug use lead to such criminal behavior, they should prosecuted as criminals for their crimes, not their drug use. If their drug use has started to affect other people's lives, then what you have is drug addiction, which leads to the next point:
4) Drug addiction is a sickness of the mind, and a sickness of the body. Drug addiction is a medical problem, and should be treated as such. Sending people to jail for drug offenses ruins people's lives, and doesn't get them the help and support that they need.
5) We can't afford the Drug War. The United State of America makes up only 4% of the world's population, yet we make up more than HALF of the world's prison population. Land of the free, eh? I don't know what the statistics are for Maine, but on average, a little more than a quarter of the prison population is in on drug related charges alone. This eats up taxpayer money to keep non-violent offenders behind bars, and eats up time and money sending police after non-violent offenders on the streets and in their homes when they could be protecting people from real criminals, like gun-wielding burglars.
Now back to the specific: We have a case where the victim is being punished for reporting a crime. This climate is the same one we see in inner cities where immigration laws are enforced by local police-- the populace learns to fear, hate, and mistrust the police that are supposedly there to serve and protect the peace. Why should a non-violent act, cultivating plants, be treated with a heavier hand by the law than misuse of a firearm, breaking and entering, and theft combined?
This absurdity needs to end, and it is more clear now in this case than ever that the State of Maine should Decriminalize possession, cultivation, and use of cannabis.
If you live in Maine, I urge you to get on http://maine.gov and look up your state senator and congressperson, and write them something like what I wrote above. I sent copies to both my senator and congressman.
July 11, 2008
July 9, 2008
War Made Easy: The Lies They've Told Us Aren't New
War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits keep spinning us to death
War Made Easy reaches back into the Cultural Amnesia of the USA to expose a 50-year pattern of government deception and media spin that has dragged the United States into one war after another from Vietnam to Iraq.
Narrated by actor and activist Sean Penn, the film exhumes remarkable archival footage of official distortion and exaggeration from LBJ to George W Bush, revealing in stunning detail how the American news media have uncritically disseminated the pro-war messages of successive presidential administrations.
Also, Sen. Wayne Morse (D-OR in the 1960's) is my new favorite Senator.
This is a great film.
Be sure to watch it, and share with your friends.
Did you know...
In WWI, Civilians made up 10% of all casualties.
In WWII, civilians made up 50% of all casualties.
In Vietnam, Civilians made up 70% of all casualties.
In Iraq, Civilians make up 90% of all casualties.
Senate evicerates the 4th amendment
Well, shucks, I wasn't using it anyways.
Yeah, they aren't voting to amend the constitution, they're just voting for an illegal law.
This bill expands executive power to the level of being a Federal Crime. Ironic?
How about this-- it's the Democrats giving it to him.
July 8, 2008
Obama Supporters Protest Against-- Obama?
Unsatisfied, FISA Group Delivers Protest Letter to Obama Headquarters
Last week, Obama supporters created a "Get FISA Right" group using the Obama campaign's web-based social networking application. The group was an unusual addition to the website -- formed as it was by Obama supporters for the purpose of protesting Obama's position on the FISA bill recently passed by the House and currently under consideration by the Senate.
The group became the largest one on the Obama website within days, growing to more than 21,000 members in less than week. The Obama campaign, in response to this unprecedented online gathering, likewise did something unprecedented -- it posted a response to the group on the Obama blog. The campaign also made three policy staffers available to answer questions (live) in the blog comments section for nearly two hours.
Responding to the comment section dialogue, Will Mitchell, a representative of the FISA activist group, today hand delivered a formal letter to Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. The group also published their statement on a handful of blogs Monday and Tuesday.
The response asked Obama both to reconsider his decision to vote for the FISA bill and to ask him to speak on the floor of Congress:
We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a 'More Perfect Union.' The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to those who "may have violated the law" and allowing spying on law-abiding citizens .... We ask you to reconsider your current position on the bill as a whole and strongly oppose a bill about which you said, "I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power."
In your statement you also wrote, "In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited." We agree.
The statement also reminded Obama that they, as strong and fervent Obama supporters, are answering the very call to action that Obama asked them to answer:
We appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion. We represent a large and vocal part of the movement you have nurtured and that has nurtured you during this campaign season, and include many of your most active and ardent supporters. As you have said time and again Senator, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and we are here, working to bring about real change in Washington. We have grown to over 20,000 strong in the space of just a few days.
The statement itself is an example of the online social networking phenomena that the Obama campaign has fostered. The statement was created on a wiki and edited by more than thirty members of the group. It was released only when consensus was reached among the members who volunteered to draft and edit the statement.
In just one week, the group has created the largest group on the Obama website, their own GetFISAright.com website, an online discussion forum, a FISA activist wiki, a very large Facebook group, and many other online projects. The group is also already organizing to continue fighting after the Senate vote on Wednesday, and the group has plans to organize all of their disparate online organizing tools into a coordinated campaign over the long term.
Panel Calls for Redundant War Powers Legislation
If the Panel in question had read the US Constitution, they would know that any declaration of war requires the consent of the congress. What this panel should have recommended is that the President not be allowed to touch the military unless a War Declaration is made by Congress.
This article also ignores the fact that the Democrats could simply stop voting to fund the war. Or, if the president vetoes funding budget for the war because of an attached time-table, let him veto the funding and end the war. They have him in a legislative checkmate, but they refuse to use it.
From
WASHINGTON - Former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war, Congress should be required to say whether it agrees. The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation that would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of emergencies. In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving of the action.
The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future debate on the so-called "war powers" issue. Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional showdown.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedent.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush administration, and Christopher, who served under President Clinton, were to discuss their findings at a news conference Tuesday morning.
The panel has been studying the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III; and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.
This article also ignores the fact that the Democrats could simply stop voting to fund the war. Or, if the president vetoes funding budget for the war because of an attached time-table, let him veto the funding and end the war. They have him in a legislative checkmate, but they refuse to use it.
Panel calls for new war powers legislation
From
WASHINGTON - Former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war, Congress should be required to say whether it agrees. The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation that would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of emergencies. In turn, Congress would have to act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving of the action.
The plan, outlined by Baker and Christopher in an essay published Tuesday in The New York Times, would not necessarily prevent future debate on the so-called "war powers" issue. Instead, it would create a new consultative process between the White House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional showdown.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. They lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, and the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's role as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedent.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush administration, and Christopher, who served under President Clinton, were to discuss their findings at a news conference Tuesday morning.
The panel has been studying the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III; and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state.
July 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I like your ideas, can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Posts
All Comments