Do you know your legal rights as a blogger?

Sometimes in our zeal to report an event or speak our mind on a given subject we might use photographs or quote other journalists words without thinking about how doing so could bring unwanted or unexpected legal action against us.

Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a legal guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom of speech.

The guide cautions that it is not a substitute for, nor does it constitute, legal advice. It is merely a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.

EFF is a small, grassroots legal advocacy nonprofit supported by member contributions. They provide pro bono (free) legal assistance in cases where they believe they can help shape the law. They have a relatively small number of very hard-working attorneys, so they do not have the resources to defend everyone who asks, no matter how deserving. If they cannot assist you, they will make every effort to put you in touch with attorneys who can. If you're in trouble, you can contact them at information@eff.org.

It is comforting to know that someone is still looking out for the little guy.

Be Aware-Feds Will Snoop Through Your Files

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that customs officers can take whatever it wants from your laptop, digital camera and cell phone when you come across the border into the U.S. Courts have also ruled that an international airport is the equivalent of a border.

The unanimous decision of three appellate judges compares electronic equipment to luggage and states that a "piece of property simply does not implicate the same dignity and privacy concerns as highly intrusive searches of the person," therefore whatever customs agents find during their search, ostensibly for the purpose of finding evidence of possible terrorist ties and illegal contraband, can be used to build a criminal case against the owner.

What brought the issue to the attention of the courts was the discovery of apparent child pornography images on Michael Timothy Arnold’s laptop as he attempted to pass through customs at Los Angeles International Airport in July 2005 from the Philippines. Customs officials contend that the search was routine and therefore not subject to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. He was later arrested for possession of the images which were brought up in the resulting court case. Defense lawyers said the images were inadmissible citing probable cause issues and the ruling was later appealed and overturned.

In the original court case, U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the Central District of California, ruled that government officials must have reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to search someone's laptop at U.S. borders and denied suit against the defendant. This case was the first within the area of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to address whether searching a person's laptop is more than routine and therefore subject to the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v. Arnold, No. 2:05-cr-00772 (C.D. Calif.).

Common sense should tell you that if you have anything you don’t want the feds to see, such as sensitive or confidential company related data, that you should probably store it one of the many online storage services available, search: online storage.

The bottom line here is that every federal inspector is just itching to be the one to ‘catch’ the next terrorist mastermind. They perform their job suspecting everyone and the courts say they don’t need probable cause. If they can weed out the perverts in the process so much the better. There isn’t much hope for the stupid ones anyway.

Sure, you don’t have to give up your password but the feds will not be denied.

The case was brought to the attention of Electronic Frontier Foundation a ‘civil liberties group who defends your rights in the digital world’.

Does Al Sharpton Encourage or Prevent Civil Disobedience

It’s pretty easy to empathize with Reverend Al Sharpton’s reason for wanting “to plan the day that we will close this city down” following the acquittal of three police officers involved in the 2006 shooting that claimed 23-year-old Sean Bell’s life and injured two friends on his wedding day.

We have witnessed police officers seemingly ‘get away with murder’ for many years as the result of what is apparently a carte blanche attitude towards police by our criminal justice system.

There is an underlying message here that says if police are to be held criminally negligent in any officer involved shooting, then the future safety of all police officers will be in jeopardy. This understanding is accepted as factual by the police and the court system. They believe that policemen who think twice about using their weapons are providing their suspect with enough time to shoot first. Therefore they are trained to shoot first and question later. And they are trained to shoot to kill. This leads to inevitable situations where innocent victims are shot to death.

Here we have a situation where a group of men, members of a bachelor party, celebrating one of its members good fortune of marrying the woman of his dreams. As these parties do it lasted well into the night with much celebratory drinking. Undercover police officers were at the same nightclub where this party took place due to a history of past rowdiness. They saw in this group of men a possibility that trouble could arise, based on what only they would know.

When the group left the club, undercover officers decided to follow them. Out in the street as the Bell party was getting into their car the plain clothes officers drew their weapons (again, why, only they would know) and according to witnesses did not identify themselves as police officers. From Sean Bell’s point of view they were under threat of car-jacking or robbery so naturally his first thought was to get out of there quickly, as I am sure any rational thinking individual would do.

The police immediately used the euphemism ‘vehicle as a deadly weapon’ scenario and assumed that they were about to be run over. So without any further thought one policeman opened fire. In any similar situation when one officer begins shooting they all begin shooting. It is sort of a crowd mentality. One officer even reloaded and continued firing. This is the one point that makes this scene particularly disgusting and barbaric.

All cops will justify using their weapons by saying they thought they were under attack. No cop is going to admit that they did not identify themselves. All cops will stand up for each other even when they know they are in the wrong.

The history that is mounting in the courts, that police officers do not receive criminal charges for killing someone, sets the stage for every police officer to feel complete immunity for using their weapons. Therefore they feel completely justified to shoot first and ask questions later.

Police officers who, even accidentally, shoot an unarmed, non-guilty person should not be bolstered into believing they will never be punished. Mistakes are made, certainly, but this lack of punishment, this air of complete immunity has created the idea that policemen are above the law and the public is getting fed up with it.

The media also has a hand to play in this. We read initial accounts of an officer-involved shooting reported by a media system that quite often tells a partial story, and gets the facts wrong, in the their own self-interest in publishing the story first. Follow-up reports that would more thoroughly clarify actual events are rare or buried because it is ‘old news’. A mis-informed public runs with what they first hear as fact and incorporates those ‘facts’ into opinions already compiled about the police and when the inevitable news from the courtroom is acquittal then people feel justified in their outrage all over again.

If the case involves a person of color (read black) Reverend Al Sharpton is on the scene ready to rally all outraged citizens with the kind of “massive civil disobedience” once led by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. seemingly unfazed of the hatred he is fomenting in bystanders yelling “kill the police”.

I am not going to comment on whether peaceful or non-peaceful protests will do anything more than vent frustration at a system everyone knows will never change. But to see the Reverend Al Sharpton suddenly appear as the mouthpiece for every miscarriage of justice against a black that garners national coverage just seems to me to be in his own self-interest. Perhaps I am reading this wrong. Maybe if he did not show up at these demonstrations, maybe if he did not focus the energy of the demonstrators into a march after these abortions of justice, perhaps an unruly mob would turn violent. Maybe he is the one calming factor necessary in these situations.

Limbaugh has lost his “Excellence”

Rush Limbaugh would resort to unethical, illegal means to ensure ‘his’ party wins the presidential election. Is anyone surprised that this egotistical, ‘holier-than-thou’ hypocrite would add riot inciter to his growing list of unethical behaviors?

It isn’t enough for him to be a proud member of a society that values fair elections in order to place the most popular person in the presidential office. He wants to stoop to the level of a Robert Mugabe and ‘force’ the election in his favor. Of course, he supported George W. Bush who stole the election by using the U.S. Supreme Court. So his level of what is ethically acceptable is already well documented.

Rush Limbaugh’s past actions and statements placed himself squarely in the midst of the lowest dregs of right wing radio talk show hosts. And his latest comments is further proof that he belongs there.

Here is his original statement:

"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.

Then, when faced with opposition to this comment he changes his tone expecting us to believe that what he originally said was a misinterpretation, merely a ‘dream of his’. In other words he ‘mis-spoke’. Now where did we witness this attempt at a cover up before? Oh Yeah, Hillary ‘mis-spoke’ when she said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia.

"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."

Is he actually saying that crime in this country is only committed by Democrats? What an utter ass this guy is.

He calls his grand plan “Operation Chaos” which would make the people on the far left look bad. Correct me if I am wrong but this operation is reminiscent of the plan that someone else had in mind back in the late 60’s. His plan was to start a riot by killing whites and make it appear that blacks were behind it and then he would come in and save the day. That someone was Charles Manson.

Rush Limbaugh has made many hypocritical statements that define him as an unethical, immoral hack, completely lacking integrity. Statements such as “Hillary Clinton supporters are feminists who had all had multiple abortions that had been married two or three times”, when he himself has been married three times and has NO children he has no right to cast dispersions onto someone else, yet this is Rush Limbaugh’s modus operendi. And let’s not forget that he was caught with illegally obtained Viagra prescriptions while at the same time ranting against medical marijuana users. He demands jail time for all minorities who break the law yet he did not do any jail time for his law-breaking activity.

He claims to be the leader in excellence in broadcasting yet he backpedals when confronted with inciting riots. Doesn’t sound very excellent to me.

The dictionary defines Excellence this way: the fact or state of excelling; superiority; eminence. I don’t see this definition applied to Rush Limbaugh in any way.

Rush, you really ought to re-evaluate what you consider “excellence in broadcasting”.

Federal Government Double Standard in Tax Collection

We have laws that force individuals to pay child support and alimony.

We have wage garnishment that force the collection of back taxes from individuals.

According to the Government Accountability Office we also have more than 60,000 federal contractors who owe $7.7 billion in back taxes. This is part of $300 billion in taxes that go unpaid every year. Privacy rules have created a dysfunctional system within our government that allows tax evaders to stay in business and even profit from government offices inability and unwillingness to communicate among themselves.

Money is routinely awarded to government contractors, is paid out in farm subsidies, is loaned to small-businesses, without ever checking to see if these recipients owe back taxes. And a lot of them do owe back taxes.

Yet the credit history of every private individual applying for a loan for much smaller amounts than these just mentioned, is subjected to every investigation possible and if back taxes are due then the loan is denied.

The defense Department paid more than $1 million to a company that owes nearly $10 million.

A Justice Department security-guard contractor owed $400,000 in taxes and didn't file tax returns.

This double standard and dysfunction among offices linked together under the same government is maddening. Laws come down hard on the nickel and dime stuff that the everyday worker owes but if you can somehow get into the million-dollar-and-above neighborhood you have a much better chance of getting away without paying your fair share.

These companies and businesses should be publicly named so everyone knows who is dumping their burden onto our backs.

The U.S. government is financed on the backs of the everyday middle class worker struggling to make ends meet while the government allows businesses to get away without paying their share.

This is outrageous.

Latest Threat to World Security: Food

We have all seen the pictures, the emaciated hunger-ravaged bodies, the hopeless empty-eyed death-stare of small children struggling to stay alive. We have heard the urgent pleas for us to help in some small way. Some of us do help. We send money to church sponsored relief agencies and we organize food drives. Last year, the U.S. delivered an estimated $2.1 billion in food aid, yet we seem to see more hunger every year.

This year, the Bush administration reduced emergency food aid. In March, the U.S. Agency for International Development said that a 41% surge in prices for wheat, corn, rice and other cereals over the past six months has generated a $120 million budget shortfall that will force the agency to reduce emergency operations. Isn’t it funny how the simple wording of a phrase can help take the sting out of not helping. They use phrases like ‘emergency operations’ and ‘budget shortfall’. 15 million children die of starvation every year. That calculates to a daily death toll of over 40,000 children due to the lack of a simple bowl of rice. Our federal government considers an emergency as some periodic calamity. Since death by starvation occurs every day, this does not constitute an ‘emergency’.

Our federal government spends trillions of dollars to build weapons and killing machines to fund wars yet can’t find it in their hearts to increase budgetary spending to nurture lives.

For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years.

The assets of the world's three richest men are more than the combined GNP of all the least developed countries on the planet.

Relief organizations have always struggled to keep pace with world hunger numbers. The U.N.’s World Food Program is the world’s largest distributor of food aid and it is the most important barrier between hungry people and starvation. Its purchasing power has been slashed by the rising cost of grain. Merely to distribute the same amount of food as last year, the WFP needs an additional $700m.

Malnutrition is implicated in more than half of all child deaths worldwide - a proportion unmatched by any infectious disease since the Black Death.

Roughly a billion people (one sixth of the world population) get by on a $1 a day. The cost of their food has increased 20% to 50% (in some places, it has risen higher) within the past year. Families are cutting back on meat so they can afford vegetables. Others are cutting back on vegetables so they can afford rice. Those who can only afford rice are facing disaster. These numbers and images come to us from Africa. It is the first place we think of when we are reminded of starvation and malnutrition. These maladies have been a part of the African human landscape for hundreds of years.

But hunger is not found only in Africa. It has become a part of everyday life across Asia, Europe, Central America, South America, and even North America.

In Haiti, at least five people have died in riots over 50% price hikes for rice, beans and fruit since last year. They ousted their Prime Minister because they felt he wasn’t doing enough to keep prices down. Rioters tore through three cities in the West African nation of Burkina Faso last month, burning government buildings and looting stores. Days later in Cameroon, a taxi drivers' strike over fuel prices mutated into a massive protest about food prices, leaving around 20 people dead. Similar protests exploded in Senegal and Mauritania late last year. And Indian protesters burned hundreds of food-ration stores in West Bengal last October, accusing the owners of selling government-subsidized food on the lucrative black market.

The steep rise in the price of basic foodstuffs has sparked demonstrations and riots in Egypt. Similar unrest has erupted in Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Mozambique and Senegal. An additional six countries with "widespread lack of access" to food include Eritrea, Liberia, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and North Korea. This is a clear indication of the coming threat to the world’s political and social stability.

America is beginning to feel the pinch at warehouse chain grocery stores that stack goods to the ceiling and sell it cheap. Sam’s Club, a division of WalMart, has begun limiting the amount of bulk rice it will sell to one customer. Seattle-based CostCo Wholesale Corp. is seeing higher-than-usual demand for staple foods such as rice and flour as consumers appear to be stocking up. USA Rice Federation says there is no rice shortage in the U.S.

What triggered food price increases that led to the food riots of 2008?

One reason is the increase in meat consumption which is diverting grains away from poor people and into livestock. Another reason is the spike in oil prices, which, just days ago reached $118 per barrel, has pushed up fertilizer and pesticide prices, as well as the cost of trucking food from farms to local markets and shipping it abroad. Climate change has seriously disrupted harvests by freak weather, including prolonged droughts in Australia and southern Africa, floods in West Africa, and this past winter's deep frost in China and record-breaking warmth in northern Europe. The push to produce biofuels as an alternative to hydrocarbons is further straining food supplies, especially in the U.S., where generous subsidies for ethanol have lured thousands of farmers away from growing crops for food.

Easing any one of these four factors could greatly reduce the pressure on our food supply and help heal our environment.

Meat Production = Environmental Destruction

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

(Photo credit: NY Times Gary Kazanjian)

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people.

An estimated 30% of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat and is subsidized by the federal government — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat. About two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption. Reducing the amount of meat in our diets by just 20% would have an immediate effect on the amount of grain available to more people throughout starving nations.

All very good reasons to cut down on the amount of meat we eat. It would help the environment as well as help feed more people. But it has become a big business where, once again, making money is more important than the survival of nameless faceless people.

Oil Prices

Quite simply, if we cut back on our fuel consumption then prices will fall. It is simple economics of supply and demand. We need to produce a more efficient internal combustion engine that does not use as much fuel. The current version is extremely inefficient. Physics has proven that less than 1% of the energy generated from burning gasoline actually moves the car forward and 90% is lost between the fuel tank and the wheels. Switching to biofuels will not improve this efficiency.

We can cut back on consumption in many ways, i.e., getting better gas mileage, improving your driving habits, making less frequent trips by consolidating them, carpooling, using mass transit. There are many websites that list a variety of ways to keep your vehicle in good running order. Search “tips to conserve fuel”.

Biofuel and Ethanol Production

We need to find alternatives to using food crops for these fossil fuel alternatives. We simply cannot produce enough corn to satisfy our driving habits. The small increase in energy gained from the processing of corn and sugar cellulosic biomass to create biofuel and ethanol simply does not warrant the related increased use of fertilizer and pollution runoff.

Weather and Climate

Not much we can do about this except to grow our crops in a climate-controlled environment. I don’t see that happening except on a very small scale. The concept of vertical farming is gaining popularity where food can be grown in cities to cut down on both the cost of transportation and the carbon foot print created by shipping food large distances. It also increases the availability of fresh food to our tables. Growing food in what amounts to climate controlled areas will help prevent crop loss due to drought and flooding.

The main problem with growing food in arid parts of the world is of course the lack of access to water. This results in a lot of potential farm land going unused. Therefore, nearly one billion people rely on the grain that rich nations send them. What they really need is to break out of this dependency cycle. Currently, it is easier to just send money or food but as we have seen this is not a reliable solution. I believe that a system of self-sustaining vertical farms is the answer. Through educational programs and financial assistance they can grow their own food and break this reliance on foreign aid once and for all.

With the way in which is higher food prices are affecting rich nations, we cannot be counted on for continued food aid. We have to feed ourselves first. Food reserves have reached their lowest point in 30 years according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Meanwhile, the global supply of wheat is lower than it's been in about 50 years — just five weeks' worth of world consumption is on hand, according to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization.

The food crisis is largely ignored in rich countries because fewer people starve there. But that is changing and will likely get worse if food riots begin to threaten the survival of governments. In many poor countries, the protests have been fueled by pent-up anger against authoritarian or corrupt officials, some of whom have earned fortunes from oil and minerals while locals are struggling to buy food.

America’s struggle with malnutrition comes to us in a different form. Rather than not getting enough food we tend to over-eat. We eat between meals, we consume copious amounts of sugary sodas and fruit juices, we eat out more than ever before and restaurants are serving much heftier portions than they did in the past, and we eat far too much red meat. Obesity, which affects millions of American’s of all ages, has risen at an epidemic rate during the past 20 years and has become the most common nutritional disorder in the developed world according to Dr. Jennifer Zebrack, Assistant Professor of Medicine (General Internal Medicine) at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

The next time you order meat from your favorite restaurant, replace the adulterated and exaggerated image of the perfect sandwich that advertisers would have us believe we will get with the images at the beginning of this post and think how many children would have survived if they had received the grain that went to artificially fatten up the animal you are about to eat.

Next time you stomp down on the accelerator of your car, sucking down a larger-than-necessary amount of gasoline, to get to nowhere faster, think of how much further you could have driven on the gas you could have saved had you gradually accelerated instead.

Each one of us has the responsibility to others whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Let us consciously begin thinking outside our comforts and do something so that others may live.

As always, please leave your comments.

Sources:

Our End to World Hunger

TIME Magazine

Inter Press Service

The Economist

America’s Second Harvest, The Nation’s Food Bank Network

New York Times

The State of Texas is Wrong

A community that works together for a common goal, supporting each other through times of need, sharing in each others joys and triumphs. Sounds pretty wonderful doesn’t it? Wouldn’t you want to live in a community with these principles?

Children raised to believe that God is their heavenly father, that people should be held to a moral law, that you support every member of the community, that crime is condemned and punished by a higher authority than man. Who among you would not want to be a part of this community?

Far too many families these days stay away from church. Their children are not being taught the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. They are not taught to love thy neighbor. They are taught that trust is for fools and will only result in you being ripped off or exposed to personal injury.

Children in the FLDS community, as in other religious based communities, are being protected from the ugliness and sin that has so pervaded our world. Is this so wrong?

The main point that so many people object to with the FLDS sect is that one man can have more than one wife. And, of course, if you believe it happens, that girls are forced to marry older men.

Many stories we read from women who have “escaped” this lifestyle are told from the perspective of their own experiences based squarely in their own agenda. They use the word escape, which denotes imprisonment, and yet they entered these marriages voluntarily and stayed for some time. Marriages fall apart everyday. Wives leave their husbands for a variety of reasons. Did they say they were actually abused? No. But they leave us with the impression that abuse was a common occurrence. It is easy for us to believe abuse was common because we don’t subscribe to plural marriages and believe that it can only exist if a woman is forced into it. And choosing to believe this only satisfies our understanding of it. We only listen to stories from those who want to break away and we easily believe their version because our culture has been indoctrinated by mass media to expect only the juicy gossip, the more gory and demeaning the better. And allowing the assumption of abuse as the basis for these women’s escape helps them garner our sympathy. It is human nature to try to gain sympathy from others to help rationalize their actions as justifiable.

The wording of this statement: “young girls forced to marry older men”, is being tossed about by the Texas authorities as one justification for their raid because Texas law says it is illegal for any man over the age of 19 to have sex with a woman under the age of 16. It’s a good and proper law. Personally, as the father of four daughters I think the age of consent for the girl should be 18, but, that’s just me.

This picture of girls being forced into marriage is simply not true. Many women involved in these polygamist marriages deny that they were arranged or forced. They also say women are free to leave the faith if they want to.

It is true that they are raised to believe that it is acceptable for one man to have many wives. Is this brainwashing? Isn’t it brainwashing for the rest of us to be forced to believe that a man should only have one wife? Is it brainwashing to be taught to obey your parents? Is it brainwashing to be raised to believe in only one God? What about being raised to believe in “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

The state sees another point of contention, a closed community that does not need the state.

After the raid on this sect, the state of Texas must maintain that there was imminent danger towards these children in order to justify their actions in taking these children away from their mothers. They have to say they are acting in the best interest of the children because that pulls hardest at the public’s sense of justice. They entered this community based on a tip that has not been verified, has not been corroborated, and has not been substantiated. The caller has not come forward to get the help she supposedly claims she needs. So, naturally, the assumption is that the call was never placed.

Those of you who believe Texas authorities rightfully removed these children from their homes have the right to your belief. I am sure you are convinced that the FLDS followers were duped into a life of immorality which in your world is considered abuse and you base your belief solely on the fact that they don’t subscribe to the same beliefs as you.

We allow authorities too much leeway in the interpretation of what constitutes abuse. When they can come into a community, remove children from their homes, based on the idea that ‘in the future’ another fifteen year old will be ‘forced’ to marry an older man for the purpose of producing children then we have given the authorities too much power.

The FLDS community is not a criminal enterprise. They do not prey on members outside of their community, nor do they prey on each other, they do not ask for handouts from state welfare or anyone else. They are self-sufficient. They don’t need the outside world.

Texas rangers did not need to come riding in on their white horses to clean up a lawless town.

Many of you reading this may have formed the opinion that I must be a polygamist member or sympathizer with my own agenda for painting law enforcement as the bad guys here. Well, I confess, I do have an agenda:

I don’t believe law enforcement has the right to tear families apart without valid verifiable evidence.

I believe a law abiding community of like-minded adults has the right to raise their children as they see fit, if that excludes the state then so be it.

I do not believe in plural marriages, I am not a polygamist, I am not a member of the LDS church. I am Baptist, I believe in God and Jesus and the apostils.

I believe every child should be exposed to religious instruction for the purpose of learning morals.

I believe every child should be taught ethics.

I believe in the basic right of every human being to live his/her live in any way they see fit until they begin encroaching on the rights and livelihood of their fellow man.

I believe the state of Texas is out of line in this case and that they are justifying their actions based on simple religious prejudice.

That phone call or phone calls cannot be proven to have ever taken place. Texas is ripping these families apart based on their “faith” that future crimes will take place.

This is not my ideal of legal justice.

Personal Freedoms and Lead-lined Helmets

Thinking could be hazardous to your personal freedom. The federal government is investing millions of dollars in neurotechnology to learn how to detect and decode brain activity. Whether or not our tax dollar is well spent on this endeavor is moot because the private sector is doing it too. and it is going to continue with or without our approval.

Those security cameras we see popping up everywhere from shopping center parking lots to schools to downtown public areas are turning into something more than simple video surveillance. Integrated with computer software that can analyze streaming video, brain monitoring devices will soon give security guards and police the ability to be instantly notified of any activity that is considered suspicious according user defined parameters.

Computer scientists are constantly striving to breach the next level of sophistication in any application and security is no exception. Providing police with the ability to detect a person who is particularly nervous, in possession if guilty knowledge or to detect a person thinking “Only one hour before the bomb explodes” could lead to either a more secure living environment where everyone feels vastly more secure or it could be the next evolutionary step towards realizing George Orwell’s Big Brother prediction.

Either way, we need to address the ethical and legal issues that this developing technology will present to our personal safety and civil liberties while our thoughts are still considered our own.

As the experts argue about the scientific limitations of remote brain detection, science fiction is becoming reality. In 2002, the Electronic Privacy Information Center reported that NASA was developing brain monitoring devices for airports and was seeking to use noninvasive sensors in passenger gates to collect the electronic signals emitted by passengers' brains. That same year, scientists at the University of Sussex in England adapted the same technology to detect heart rates at distances of up to 1 meter, or a little more than three feet, to remotely detect changes in the brain. Clearly the question is when, not if, these issues will be resolved.

Another remote brain-activity detector uses light beamed through the skull to measure changes in oxygen levels in the brain. Put enough faith in the accuracy of these advanced abilities coupled with the heightened paranoia that stems from the current atmosphere of terrorist activity and it is easy to see how any nervous person could be mistaken for a terrorist suspect.

Scientist are working toward understanding the relationship between mental states such as perception and intention. We already know that different EEG frequencies are associated with fear, anger, joy and sorrow and scientists can tell from brain images in the lab whether a test subject was envisioning a tool such as a hammer or a screwdriver or a dwelling, and to predict whether the subject intended to add or subtract numbers. Now they are conducting studies on decoding visual imagery in the brain to more accurately predict persons intentions.

It is not far fetched to believe that when you are scanned by one of those many security cameras, police will now have justification to interrogate you and then arrest you for intent based on their interpretation of your brain waves.

Each incident of violence, such as the student shootings last year at Virginia Tech or more recently at Northern Illinois University, persuades police and the general public that the pursuit of this technology is worthwhile. But there will always be the fear that the police will abuse the technology and that likelihood is not far fetched either.

This government has proven the lengths it will go to, legal or otherwise, in its pursuit of ferreting out any links to suspected terrorist activity. Is it unlikely that this technology will be used to control the masses?

A dangerous environment of increased paranoia toward police and individuals is taking shape. Perhaps the people with the tin-foil hats had it right all along.

I suppose it is human nature to want to improve upon any system we can devise. But is reaching into our minds and intercepting our thoughts really for the common good?

Parents! Wake Up!

Eight teens face life imprisonment for the kidnapping and brutal beating of a fellow teen. If you have convinced yourself that your teen is not capable of such heinous acts then pat yourself on the back for being one of the very few perfect parents and just turn away. But if you believe that the parents of every one of the suspects in this case, whose ages range from 14 to 18, felt the same way, then read on.

Teen fight clubs are springing up all across the country. In such unlikely places as ‘respectable’ middle class neighborhoods.

In this latest shocker from the burbs, a 16-year-old girl was hospitalized with blurred vision, partial hearing loss, and a swollen face. The perpetrators of this barbaric act, which were kind enough to put the whole scene on tape for the police to use as evidence against them, complained later at the police station that they were not going to make it to cheerleader practice that night. Can’t you just feel how torn up they were about what they had done to their 16-year-old classmate who was at that very moment being treated in the hospital?

Why did these little monsters mercilessly beat and verbally abuse their classmate? Because she posted some derogatory remarks about them on the internet. They cooked up a plan to not only ‘get even’ with her, but they were going to gain some kind of notoriety that only their tiny minds could fathom by posting the tape on YouTube. This is another sickening trend that parents need to be on the lookout for. Staging fights to post on YouTube.

Let’s see if I have this straight. They were upset that their reputation was smeared by whatever she posted so they decided to show the world what they are really about. They ambushed and ganged up on one girl and beat her for 30 minutes severely enough to hospitalize her. I don’t know what kind of reputation they were trying to protect before this, but, now they have a real reputation, and a criminal record, for kidnapping and assault. I am willing to bet that whatever damage this girl did to their reputation seems pretty petty now.

This incident is not isolated. Video taping staged fights is the latest trend in depraved behavior among teenagers for the purpose of posting them on web sites such as YouTube. Some fights end in coma or death but all are a violent form of ‘entertainment’ that pits girl on girl, boy on boy, girl on boy, gay on gay, etc. A search for "girl fight" on YouTube gets thousands of results, and a suggestion to also try "girl fight at school, boy girl fight" and other search terms. There's at least one Web site devoted exclusively to videos of girls fighting.

Police are attempting to shut down the practice. Parents are the first line of defense in preventing this type of behavior and need to step up and take responsibility.

This is part of a devastating rise in teen violence that manifests itself in our nations schools. Chicago Public Schools have become so alarmed at the rise in violence in their city involving school age kids that they are making a special effort to protect their students to and from school.

Is this teen-on-teen violence a reaction to the violence that is so much a part of life in America? Have we really become so immune to seeing violence on TV, at the movies, and in the media that we don’t even see how it is affecting our children? Are they simply displaying what they have been taught?

Such nationally over-reported violence at Columbine High School, Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech, kids bringing guns to school, Amish school children massacred, teens beating up homeless, have to be taking a toll on all of us.

In an attempt to curb this trend, our children need to be taught that violence is not the answer and it certainly is not to be considered a form of entertainment.

What do parents typically do when they see their kids exhibiting violent behavior? Do they physically punish the child which only reinforces in the child that violence is an acceptable response? Or do they talk to the child in an attempt to focus the child’s anger into something more constructive?

How do they handle a child that seems to always be angry or uncontrollable? Do they search for a doctor who will give them a magic pill to ‘fix’ the problem which only reinforces in the child that pills are made to make you feel better?

A tendency towards violence is occurring in children as young as 4-6 years of age, sometimes younger. Violent youth often share a pattern of feelings that support their aggressive behavior. Some factors of youth violence listed here are taken from the website Dr. Spock reviewed by Robert Needlman, M.D., F.A.A.P.:

A loss of empathy

Violent children often don't even recognize (much less feel) the suffering of others. Empathy develops early in infancy. Most nine-month-old infants register concern if they see their parents crying, for example. Children who have been emotionally traumatized learn to protect themselves from further emotional damage by shutting off their own feelings along with any empathic feelings they might have for others.

Distorted thinking

Violent children come to believe that overpowering another person is a mark of strength and worth, and that violence is a legitimate way to resolve conflict. Popular media support this idea, with wrestlers who pound their opponents without mercy and so-called action heroes who slaughter foes by the truckload. For good or bad, the government unwittingly encourages the idea that "might makes right" when it engages in shows of strength celebrating the Army and police. Violent children needn't look far for evidence that force is what really counts.

Self-esteem

For some children, aggression toward other children may be a powerful source of self-esteem, particularly if they lack other confirmation of their human worth. In many cases, the problem is not lack of self-esteem so much as lack of self-esteem related to positive, peaceful accomplishments.

A ‘me against the world’ attitude

Children who become violent have often learned to see the world as a cold and hostile place. They develop a habit of thought that attributes hostile intentions to others. This attitude leaves them little choice but to fight virtually all the time. If, for example, another child bumps up against them in the hallway at school, they immediately take offense, certain that they were attacked. They cannot imagine that perhaps the bumping was just clumsiness on the other child's part or an attempt to tease that really wasn't hostile.

Always the victim

Even while they are the aggressors, violent individuals almost always think of themselves as victims--of unfair teachers, of other bullies, of prejudice--and believe that their violent acts are therefore totally justified.

Never safe

The aggressive child sees the world as an unsafe place in which there are only victims and victimizers, so he (unconsciously) chooses to be one of the latter. The power and delight he takes in hurting others, in combination with his already numbed emotions, can make for a lethal mixture.

We have a crisis on our hands that requires some serious attitude adjustment concerning how to handle angry children. Anger management needs to play a more important role in raising children. Since we can’t seem to keep children away from televisions sets, either because it is a ready made sitter or because it has become the center of home life, we need to occasionally interview them to see how this exposure to violence is affecting them.

We know the early indicators of violence are feelings of anger, sadness and isolation. Most people experience one or some of these at some time throughout their lives but when do we take them as real sign posts that this particular child could commit some form of violence? The easy answer is to look for a history. And then try to talk it out with the child.

We have a long history of showing our children that there is a ‘magic pill’ that will solve all of our problems. And the pharmaceutical companies are making a killing off of us. Literally. For those of you who believe that medication is the answer, consider therapy as well. But first the parent needs to talk with their child in an effort to identify and resolve what may be the root cause of the child’s anger and if they do not see results soon, then take the child to a specialist, please don’t let the angry child loose on an unsuspecting public.

Most of all, parents need to impress upon their children that violence does not solve anything. They need to learn ways of channeling their anger into more productive outlets. Keeping the lines of communication open is the best means of keeping your finger on the pulse and recognizing when a violent outburst is a cry for help or simply a cry of frustration.

Theft runs rampant in U.S. government

Government employees steal when they think they won’t be caught. Gasp. Can anyone truthfully say they are shocked by this revelation?

A Government Accountability Office audit has uncovered rampant abuse of government issued purchase cards (credit cards, debit cards). The audit also found that government agencies could not account for nearly $2 million worth of items, which included computer servers, laptop computers, iPods and digital cameras. Nearly half of transactions made during the audit period were improper, and the audit condemned the government-wide "rate of failure" as "unacceptably high."

Hell, as a taxpayer, I condemn this abuse to be theft and submit that all abusers should do jail time like the common thieves they are.

There is a continuous outcry against corporate fraud, against abuse of power, against fiscal abuse, against moral transgressions, and the list goes on and on. Yet when many, I repeat, many of these same people who complain are given the responsibility of a credit card to make valid, necessary, job-related purchases the temptation to abuse this trust becomes too great.

I am sure each individual can come up with some justification for using my money to pay for Internet dating services, iPods, expensive clothing, a $13,500 dinner, lingerie to be worn during jungle training in Ecuador, gambling debts, mortgage payments, and gasoline purchases. But you know what? Their feeble reasoning is not good enough.

I am sure they will each tell you they felt guilty about doing it, at first. But then it became too easy to continue and too hard to stop.

You may ask why this free access to funds was given so freely in the first place? To streamline federal purchasing. To make things easier for paper pushers. Limits were of course imposed but no one enforces them. This abuse has become endemic to government employees who consider this money free for the taking. It involves Postal service employees, Department of Defense employees, State Department employees, local government employees, etc. Our public servants. People we are forced to trust to keep our government services operating smoothly and efficiently, for us.

In a society where the typical household does not have the discipline to maintain a savings plan and goes through life living on credit that has resulted in the largest credit deficit in history, this idea of giving credit cards to individuals was an extremely stupid idea.

Even in categories that are considered job appropriate the purchases far exceeded maximum allowances. The purchaser totally disregarded the maximum through some flawed and bogus reasoning process familiar to thieves everywhere and the person or office charged with scrutinizing and authorizing or disallowing the purchases bought into it. It has become so universally accepted that this money does not come out of their pockets that spending it has become second nature without any regard to price or necessity. I have news for you jerks the money does come out of your pocket, and mine. It comes out of every taxpayers pocket. It is a major reason taxes keep going up every year.

This amounts to blatant theft and as a taxpayer, I am mad as hell. There are many taxpayers losing their homes, struggling to make ends meet, working two jobs to feed and clothe their children, caring for their aging parents because they can’t afford proper healthcare and these degenerates justify spending my money on porn sites, expensive clothing and dining out. This is the lowest level that public servants can reach and heads should roll over this and I am willing to bet that only token punishment will ever be handed out. The money is gone. We taxpayers still pay the bills. The problem will never end. How can we ever look at any government employee and not think how much of my money have you stolen today?

I am ashamed and disgusted to be a part of a society that offers these adults as the best examples of our public servants.

Protest China not the Athletes

Celebrations leading up to the Summer Olympic games have become the focal point of pent up animosity towards China. People understand that the Olympic games is a venue for the world’s greatest non-professional athletes to show off their abilities and to perhaps ‘bring home the gold’ for their respective countries. These events are eagerly anticipated by millions the world over. But the fact that so much protest is taking place this year shows the high level of disgust towards a regime that places so little regard for human rights.

The world’s citizens are fed up with people being treated as slaves to do the bidding of their nations leaders and they are taking any opportunity to voice their position. We cannot idly stand by and watch as voices are silenced because they don’t agree with national policy.

What does it say about us as a world community that the Olympic torch, a symbol of world unity and harmony, has to be protected by hundreds of police in riot gear to prevent overzealous protesters from dousing its flame? What has traditionally been a journey of celebration has been reduced to flash points of protest resulting in the arrests of those intent on showing the world their disgust towards China’s policies.

Those of us living in a civilized, relatively free world do not deny that China’s treatment of their fellow citizens is deplorable. And they should be brought to account for their actions against humanity in a world court. But, this journey of celebration is held for those athletes who have struggled and sacrificed to participate in and to achieve the greatness that their abilities deserve. To muddy the Olympic celebration and all it represents for the purposes of furthering your own agenda just denigrates their memory. Even if it is for the overall good of humanity.

Protest! Protest in any way you see fit except to extinguish this flame. These athletes deserve better than this.

That being said, I think the Olympics should be allowed to be held as scheduled but I believe the athletes should boycott them. This is a clearer and more pointed protest to both the Chinese government and the Olympic Committee for asking the world to temporarily ignore China’s record.

The protest is of course against holding any kind of celebration of human achievement within the borders of a country that denies basic human rights and freedoms to its people. The hypocrisy is just too much to accept. It is unforgivable that the Olympic Committee and China would ask a conscientious world to do this.

Denying these athletes their chance, possibly their only chance or last chance, to participate in this time honored tradition is not up to us. Allow them the right to make their own personal choice and respect their decision.

The Chinese government should bear the brunt of our protests not the athletes.

Hillary should be muzzled

Another lie, excuse me, ‘mis-speak’. Hillary is showing us that she is accustomed to s t r e t c h i n g the truth to gain attention and/or votes.

This time her ‘mis-adventure’ brings discredit on a hospital in Athens, Ohio by saying the hospital refused health care to an uninsured pregnant woman and this refusal resulted in the death of her baby and then herself. All because the woman could not come up with a $100 fee. In fact, the woman was insured. In fact, the woman was never refused treatment.

Sounds like just the ‘poster patient’ Hillary needs to push her health care package. So what if her lie disparages the hospital, so what if ‘mis-speaking’ will cause irreparable damage to the hospitals reputation, as long as she can gain a few points toward getting what she wants.

Hmmm. I wonder what other lies she has told or will tell in order to get her way.

This pathological need to lie shows a proclivity to manipulation and coercion which identifies a need to control. In her choice of stories to lie about, those whose facts can so easily be verified and therefore discredited by the news media shows a level of irrationality. All of you Hillary backers better be paying attention.

Prepare yourselves to have to sort through her stories and double check everything this woman says from now on. That sounds like an awful lot of extra work that we should not have to do concerning a president of the United States. Actually, reflecting back on the lies the last few presidents have told, it sounds like just what this country seems to want.

The mounting lies this woman is telling indicates that she is feeling the intense pressure of this presidential candidacy. The fact that she believed, and then repeated, this story without verifying the facts from the hospital itself is very discouraging. Can she be so easily misled?

Doesn’t she realize yet that the news media and millions of internet users will verify everything she says and that her reputation as a liar has caught up with her?

The Democratic party needs to distance itself from this type of politician quickly. The American people deserve better than this type of politician. If a candidate has to resort to lies then he/she has no faith in the truth. Do we really need another George W Bush?

Iraq is learning lessons from a major player

Blackwater USA’s contract will be renewed. No big surprise here. We Americans knew it would be because we have learned how the U.S. government operates. Iraqi’s have more than likely learned that lesson too after five years of fighting alongside us. The renewal of this contract under suspicion of several incidents instigated by Blackwater should prove to the Iraqi’s once and for all that the U.S. government cannot be trusted.

Innocent Iraqi’s were murdered on September 16 by Blackwater guards when they did not get out of the way fast enough for Blackwater’s liking. Blackwater acted without regard for human life and property knowing full well they had 100% backing of the U.S. government and complete immunity from prosecution from the Iraqi government.

The Iraq police completed their investigation within two weeks. The FBI is still dragging its feet on their sham investigation, as is standard operating procedure. Another lesson the Iraqi people are learning from us, drag the investigation out until the uproar dies down, the citizens forget about it and the outcome no longer matters.

Blackwater attacked a vehicle they say was firing upon them yet no weapons were found in the burned out car. This lesson is directly out of George W. Bush’s play book. Lets not forget, he attacked this country saying they had weapons of mass destruction yet no weapons have ever been found. Another standard operating procedure that the Iraqi’s must surely be learning from us.

The State Department has installed ‘new rules’ concerning how the U.S. military coordinates with and supervises contractors such as Blackwater. Another lesson Iraq will soon learn. Tell the public that the situation is under control and reassure the public that incidents like this will never happen again. Democracy on the march.

Oh, another lesson, make sure the media is fed only positive information by a ‘trustworthy’ government spokesperson so the public can feel at ease in the knowledge that everything is being ‘taken care of’. Be sure to do it without promising anything.

‘We will get what we want, no matter the cost’. This has become the calling card of the U.S. government. It has been thus for many years. Allowing U.S. citizens to voice their opinion is nothing more than a tool in a game called democracy. Our opinions and protestations don’t mean anything to the U.S. government. Investigations are nothing more than a tool to ‘prove’ that they care. This government always gets what it wants. The final lesson the Iraqi government will learn in order to be just like us.

Congress Gives Free Money to Big Oil

Oil companies receive hand outs!?!? Is this an April Fools joke?

Nearly $18 billion in tax breaks is given to the most profitable corporations in history. What a country.

This is almost as bad as 50% of the federal government discretionary spending goes to the military.

This is free money!

This is outrageous!

Congress brought top executives from five of the biggest oil companies -- Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips – before them to ask why big oil does not want Congress to take these breaks away. First of all, why is Congressing asking why? Let me get this straight. Congress wants to know why big oil does not want free money taken away from them. This must be a sham. A ‘get tough’ show for the American people. I can see it now, after the TV cameras are turned off, after the reporters have gone away, congress and big oil are slapping each other on the backs and laughing it up about how they pulled another one over on the American public.

Here’s a quick laugh, "Imposing punitive taxes on American companies will discourage the investments needed to safeguard our energy security," said Stephen Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp. Mr. Simon views paying his fair share of taxes punitive. He feels big oil is being unfairly singled out. Since when does an American corporation, or any corporation, feel discouraged from investing in its own future? And to use America’s ‘energy security’ as the reason they should continue receiving the largest tax break in history is shameless.

That $18 billion needs to go to other more pressing needs, such as, oh I don’t know, thinking right off the top of my head, education, health care, social security, infrastructure repair. Now these are investments needed to safeguard our security.

Trust me, big oil will find a way to make profits without free money from taxpayers.

Let’s kick them off of the welfare train and start investing in the taxpayers.