Thursday, July 9, 2009

IS THIS CYBER WAR?


What cyber war? Any Possible U.S response limited to jack shit because we dont realy know how much damage could be done.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A lot of people are saying this is cyber war. But if the Internet attack on U.S. Web sites was an assault by North Korea or some other foreign government, what good responses are in America's arsenal?

"The short answer is probably 'Not a heck of a lot,'" says James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Defense and cyber analysts said Thursday that chances are high that very little eventually will be done to whoever orchestrated several days of attacks against Web sites including the White House and Pentagon as well as sites in South Korea. That's largely because the investigation is unlikely to figure out who did it.

But even it's determined that another nation was behind the attacks, the possible responses are hardly warlike: trade sanctions, diplomatic protests or a complaint before the United Nations.

"You could eject an attache, recall your ambassador and throw out their ambassador," Lewis said. That's not possible with North Korea, he noted of a main suspect in the attacks, since Pyongyang doesn't have an embassy in the U.S.

But war? Military action? No one is talking about that. Any punishment needs to fit the crime, analysts said, and this doesn't meet the threshold of an act of war.

"I don't think this kind of attack merits the use of force," said Kristin Lord, national security expert at the Center for a New American Security.

"It's annoying, a little embarrassing, but it's not a big deal," Lewis said, meaning that no major damage was done.

But others think retaliation might be called for, strong enough to send a stiff message, perhaps even a similar dose of the U.S. military's secret offensive cyber capability.

U.S. officials routinely refuse to talk about either computer defenses or computer attacks America might have launched. But U.S. offensive cyber retaliation could range from a passive intrusion such as listening in on a foe's communications to an attack that cripples an enemy's air defense systems to clear the way for a bomber attack.

A counterstrike on an attacker's computer network could be launched, Lewis said, but it would be extremely difficult.

"This is a gray area," said Stewart Baker, who worked on cyber security at the Department of Homeland Security. "But if you know that the North Koreans were doing this, then at a minimum I would have thought you'd be entitled to do the same thing to them to show that you didn't like it."

If the attacks caused harm to anyone "you get more serious, and start thinking and talking about it as an act of war or at least state-sponsored violence," said Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analysts at the Brookings Institution.

Though the recent computer attacks are considered by many cyber experts to be little more than a nuisance to public Web sites, the incident raised anew old criticism that the U.S. government's policies on cyber warfare are shrouded in secrecy, ill-formed and require broad public debate.

"There's a lot of thinking that needs to be done about how to respond to attacks like this and what the threshold is for responding to cyber attacks, with other means, whether they be economic sanctions or even military force," Lord said.

The assault involved more than 100,000 "zombie" computers, used by someone without their owners' knowledge and linked together in a network known as a "botnet." Most of those computers were in South Korea, but others were in Japan, China, the U.S. and possibly other countries.

"If you shoot back at the computers that actually launched the attack, then you're hitting third parties who probably don't even know they were involved," Lewis said.

"And if you go out over the networks to strike back at Pyongyang, how can you be sure you're not accidentally going to also take down Japan at the same time?"

Said Lewis: "You could end up shooting the wrong guy."

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

THE BERLIN(FIRE)WALL......


Posted by kdawson on Tuesday June 16, @01:50PM
from the sun-going-down dept.
censorship
government
Several readers including erlehmann and tmk wrote to inform us about the dawning of Internet censorship in Germany under the usual guise of protecting the children. "This week, the two big political parties ruling Germany in a coalition held the final talks on their proposed Internet censorship scheme. DNS queries for sites on a list will be given fake answers that lead to a page with a stop sign. The list itself is maintained by the German federal police (Bundeskriminalamt). A protest movement has formed over the course of the last several months, and over 130K citizens have signed a petition protesting the law. Despite this, and despite criticism from all sides, the two parties sped up the process for the law to be signed on Thursday, June 18, 2009."
censorship government berlinfirewall bigbrother

Thursday, April 9, 2009


22 YEARS STOLEN FROM MAN, WHO DIES IN PRISON — Twenty-two years ago, Ruby Session listened in disbelief as a Lubbock jury convicted her son, Timothy Cole, of rape. She promised herself that one day she would make sure this injustice was corrected."I always had faith and I just believed that it would one day happen," Session said.That day finally came Tuesday when, after years of efforts by Cole’s family and a relentless group of supporters, state District Judge Charles Baird issued the first posthumous DNA exoneration in Texas history."The evidence is crystal clear that Timothy Cole died in prison an innocent man and I find to 100 percent moral, legal and actual certainty that he did not commit the crime that he was convicted of," Baird said. Cole was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 1986, after Michele Mallin identified him as the man who attacked her near Texas Tech University. Cole had always maintained his innocence. In 1995, Jerry Wayne Johnson, who was serving two consecutive life sentences in prison for sexual assaults in Lubbock, admitted raping Mallin. Authorities ignored his confession until the Innocence Project of Texas took up the case in 2007. DNA tests in 2008 confirmed that Johnson was Mallin’s attacker. Cole died in prison in 1999 at age 38 from complications of asthma. And it's frightening to think that this is the same justice system that puts people on death row.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

THE WORST OF THE BEST



Best Buy, like many other stores, has a public "price matching" policy. But HD Guru reports that according to internal docs, personnel are trained to deny price-matches and even paid bonuses for shutting them down.

This all comes out of a lawsuit that was just granted class action status. Internal documents, plus depositions from past and current Best Buy employees reveal just how evil Best Buy is. A price match is when, say, Circuit City advertised a Sharp HDTV for cheaper than Best Buy, Best Buy's public policy is to match that price.

But Best Buy actually trains employees in New York how to deny legitimate price match requests, and the average Best Buy store denies 100 price matches a week. You even get paid bonuses based on how many price matches you deny!

Here's how it works, according to Phil Britton, a member of Best Buy's Competitive Strategies Group:

What is the first thing we do when a customer comes in to our humble box brandishing a competitor's ad asking for a price match? We attempt to build a case against the price match. (Trust me, I've done it too). Let's walk through the "Refused Price Match Greatest Hits:

"Not same model? Not in stock at the competitor? Do we have free widget with purchase? Is it from a warehouse club (they have membership fees, you know)? Limited Quantities? That competitor is across town? We've got financing! Is it an internet price? It's below cost!….."

If you live in NY state, and you've been screwed by Best Buy's anti-price matching, HD Guru has further info on the attorney to contact so you can take a piece out of Best Buy. What a bunch of scum.

Update: Reader reveals how they scam you on model numbers to avoid price matching:

Example: A few months ago my wife and I were looking at a Frigidaire Washer. The model we were interested was the ATF8000FS. At Best Buy, we found the washer there however it was displayed as the ATF8000FSL. At first I figured "Oh this must be some variation on the original model number, like how manufacturers sometimes add a letter to the end of the model to indicate the product color." Anyways, to make a long story short, this ATF8000FSL was not available from the manufacturer.

The "L" was added on by Best Buy in order for them to skirt around price matching. This is so no one can come to Best Buy and claim to have found a lower price of this product because no one else sells the product under the model number ATF8000FSL. It's ATF8000FS everywhere else. Best Buy will tell people that its simply a different product, so therefore, no price matching. Even on the manufacturer's sticker on the washer, it said ATF8000FS, as it was supposed to. Upon further investigation I could see that Best Buy's internal computers even listed the model as ATF8000FSL. Fucking scum

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

FACEBOOK, THE NEW "FACE" OF THE APOCALYPSE


THE ROMAN Catholic Church has once again revealed how in touch it is with modern times by calling for a ban on Facebook-like social notworking sites.

The Cei (Italian Episcopal Conference) slammed social networks a day after opening a site of its own. Apparently the fear is that people who use social networking sites will turn into individuals who will start to think for themselves.

Archbishop Pompili hit out about what he called "networked individualism" which he said creates people who "terminate links with the surrounding area". We guess the Archbishop thinks that the only people who are supposed to live in such unhealthy isolation and "live in the world but [...] not of it" are monks and nuns.

He warned that relationships formed online were not real. Well, not as real in the same way as such important things like an invisible gods, angels, virgin births and Papal infallibility.

Facebook and its ilk create an "online egocentrism" and are responsible for drying up of real relationships, he said. Although asking a celibate priest about relationships is like asking a vegan about the best type of meat feast pizza to buy.

The chairman of the Cei, Bishop Mariano Crociata said that the Internet varies between "elation and mistrust" and it is time to find a middle way. He didn't say what that middle way was, however banging on the evils of Facebook does not strike us as particularly balanced.

All this is ironic when the church has released its own Vatican social notworking site which is designed to stick its priests a "little closer to the faithful". If the church fears people will become individuals by using social networking sites then surely it is sending its own faithful to hell and sticking demons on its friends list

Saturday, January 24, 2009

CELEBRITY,ADDICTION REHAB. MORE LIKE "IMAGE" REHAB

Usually, I roll my eyes in disgust when I hear about celebs checking into rehab as opposed to facing a court of law when they mess up. In this instance, it's Kelly Osbourne, who's checking in after an alleged altercation with a woman who called her boyfriend stupid for not knowing what earthquakes are. Now, this is a justifiable complaint. Not knowing what an earthquake is, is really stupid.

Since Kelly IS an Osbourne, she deserves the benefit of the doubt: addiction runs in the family, and it's probably better to take control of it while you're young, so you can spend the rest of your twenties sober and bored by everyone you know. However, there should be a ban as of this year for 'rehab' being the response to 'I did something moronic because I have no self control'. Sobriety is a great thing for addicts, but the plethora of celebrities blaming their spoiled behavior on drugs or liquor is belittling to people who are genuinely suffering. Now that rehab is cool, even Intervention is getting shoddier, the drug addicts more questionable: the last few have seemed more addicted to attention than substances.

Jack already went through rehab for a heroin issue. Maybe the Osbournes should reconsider (SHARON) their desperate need at any cost to air their personal lives 24-7. The older daughter who refuse to be on the original Osbournes show is clearly the smart one. Sad, I used to love Sharon Osbourne because when she quit managing The Smashing Pumpkins, she stated, "I had to leave for medical reasons. Billy Corgan was making me sick.'

Friday, January 9, 2009

Powerfull evangelical now knows the hatered he Spewed


Ted Haggard, the powerful U.S. evangelist who fell from grace in 2006 amid a gay sex scandal, returned to the spotlight Friday saying his faith was stronger but he wished people had been more forgiving.

Haggard, 52, was exiled from the New Life mega-church he founded and told by church elders to leave Colorado after admitting "sexual immorality" and buying methamphetamines from a male prostitute.

It was a stunning admission for the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a formidable force among U.S. conservative Christians and a group that had the ear of the White House.

An HBO documentary about Haggard's year in exile, his struggle with his sexuality in the face of his past condemnation of gays, and his attempts to make a living outside the church, will air on the cable TV network on January 29.

Haggard, his wife Gayle and two of his five children appeared on a panel for U.S. television critics Friday to promote the documentary, "The Trials of Ted Haggard." He had previously been barred by evangelical leaders from speaking to the media.

"I don't think it is a flattering piece. I think it is even-handed," Haggard told Reuters in an interview. "It is embarrassing for me for people to see it, but it does answer their questions."

Haggard refers to himself in the documentary as a sinner who deserved the punishment meted out to him. He says he came close to suicide.

"I DESERVED IT"

But he said the year his family spent living in cheap motels or the homes of friends had ultimately strengthened his faith -- although he held out no hope of returning to work as a pastor.

"I can't imagine very many churches inviting me to speak, even though I am a better Christian now and have a better understanding of scriptures than ever," said Haggard, who is back in Colorado working as a life insurance salesman.

"It has strengthened my faith. I do wish others had been more forgiving toward me. But I think those who hate me and judge me had a reason. I deserved it."

Three weeks after church elders told Haggard to leave and ordered him to undergo "spiritual restoration," they announced that after counseling he was "completely heterosexual."

Haggard smiled wryly at the statement, saying he fits into neither the gay nor the evangelical community.

"My therapist says I am a heterosexual with complications. I don't say that because it is more complex. I love my relationship with my wife. I am so much better than before. I am not restless," he said.

"For 30 years, I thought that you could take care of any problem with prayer. Now, a good therapist has helped me understand how the brain works."

During his exile, he told documentary maker Alexandra Pelosi that he continued to "struggle from time to time with same-sex attraction."

"Even though I'm a sinner, even though I'm weak," he told Pelosi, "God's best plan for human beings is for men and women to unite together."

Pelosi, the daughter of U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told Reuters that Haggard asked to change nothing in the documentary.

During his exile, he attended a church in Arizona but sat at the back to avoid being recognized. He applied to work as an online admissions university counselor, and at one time got a job delivering fliers door to door.

"I wish I had resigned my position with the church way earlier than I did, and been more open with my family. But I was afraid," he told journalists. "I now know more about hatred and judgment than ever before, and I know it doesn't help."

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Making His List: Presidential Pardons and Torture


His List:

Tis the season. Santa had his naughty or nice gift list and checked it twice. President Bush is still working on his list-the one granting pardons. And while a Brooklyn developer at the center of a fraud scheme has already been scratched, will those who conceived and implemented this administration's torture policy make the final cut? As a physician who evaluates and cares for torture victims the prospect of such pardons is chilling to say the least. They would be pre-emptive pardons since no one responsible for torturing detainees in U.S. custody with the exception of 'a few bad apples on the night shift at Abu Grhaib' have ever been prosecuted. The pardon may be quite general-covering anyone, including the president himself, who fought the good fight in the war on terror.

Will the President's pardon list include Vice President Cheney who authorized waterboarding and other forms of torture? In a recent interview with the Washington Times, Mr. Cheney said "I felt very good about what we did. I think it was the right thing to do." Ironically, in the same interview, Mr. Cheney described his great admiration for President James Madison who championed our Bill of Rights, including the 8th amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Cheney perhaps wasn't aware that in a message delivered to the nation during the War of 1812 President Madison called torture an "outrage against the laws of honorable war and against the feelings sacred to humanity." George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had similar things to say about torture.

Then there is former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, whose reservations in signing a memo authorizing torture at Guantanamo seemed to focus on why detainees were forced to stand for only 4 hours a day when he was regularly on his feet for 8-10 hours/day. There is, however, a profound physiologic difference between being on your feet for extended periods while active, versus standing in one place, where the blood begins to pool in the legs causing painful swelling. Maybe the person faints. Or clots form which can migrate to the lungs, causing potentially lethal pulmonary emboli.

And of course we should not forget Justice Department Officials including Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo who through Orwellian doublespeak redefined the meaning of torture. By their misguided justifications, it wasn't torture unless it intentionally caused death or organ failure. Thus into our lexicon came terms to sanitize the brutality and harm of our actions. It wasn't kidnapping and denial of due process but instead was "extraordinary rendition" (sounds like a nice tour package). Beatings, sexual humiliations, sleep deprivation and waterboarding weren't torture, they were "enhanced interrogation techniques." Waterboarding sounds more like a sport rather than the terrifying, potentially lethal mock drowning that in reality it is.

From a medical, scientific and health perspective, there is nothing benign about enhanced interrogation techniques. These methods are gruesome dehumanizing and dangerous. They are torture and can cause significant and long lasting physical and psychological pain and harm. Noted one patient I cared for-a journalist from Chad who was subjected to many of these same methods; "As someone who has experienced torture, I know these things are torture."

Another group that could find their names on this pardon list are the psychologists and other health professionals who were complicit in implementing the torture. Psychologists encouraged using abusive methods never proven to elicit accurate information (in fact they came from a Chinese manual describing methods for eliciting false confessions) that had been used to prepare our military to withstand torture. They violated basic principles of medical ethics including 'to do no harm.' In fact, the leadership of the American Psychological Association utilized its own double speak to rationalize the presence of psychologists in interrogations at Guantanamo as providing a protective element. Psychologists there were more likely enablers.

Recently, I coauthored a report by Physicians for Human Rights( PHR) "Broken Laws, Broken Lives'' that documented clear physical and psychological evidence of torture among former Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib detainees. One former Guantanamo detainee I examined described how he was repeatedly beaten, deprived of sleep for weeks on end, subjected to extremes of cold and heat, and forced to be naked and sexually humiliated. He noted how medical personnel looked on as he and other detainees were beaten; how medical personnel monitored his vital signs while he was exposed to the temperature extreme, never calling for the torture to stop; and how he confided in someone who identified himself as a psychologist how lonely he was and how much he missed his family. In his next interrogation, this was what they specifically focused on-which they had not previously done. As he recounted these events to me, he often stared down at the ground. "No sorrow can be compared to my torture in jail. That is the reason for my sadness," he said. After nearly two years, he was released from Guantanamo never having been charged with a crime. In the report's introduction Retired Major General Antonio Taguba, stated:

"A government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. And the healing professions, including physicians and psychologists, became complicit in the willful infliction of harm against those the Hippocratic Oath demands they protect....There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

By condoning and practicing torture, regardless of what we call it, we have made the world a much more dangerous place. We have poured kerosene on the fire that is already a worldwide public health epidemic of torture-documented to occur systematically in over 90 countries. Torture is almost always invoked in the name of national security, whether the victim is a Tibetan monk calling for independence or an African student advocate protesting for democracy. It is no surprise that Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, who methodically and brutally targets and tortures his political opponents, often refers to his captives as "terrorists." Our polices have put innocent civilians living under despot regimes around the world, who dare to speak out for freedom and democracy, at much greater risk.

Unfortunately, my colleagues and I at the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture and at other torture treatment centers throughout the U.S. and worldwide can expect demand for our services to be greater than ever. Last year, wear we cared for nearly 600 men, women and children from over 60 countries. At one point earlier this year we had had a waiting list of over 70 individuals. We see the scars from shackles, the marks from cigarette burns inflicted during interrogations and the wounds and broken bones from brutal beatings. We listen to stories of shame and humiliation from individuals raped or sexually humiliated; of haunting nightmares and memories that will not go away. One patient of mine-a journalist from an African country imprisoned because of criticizing his government still has chronic pain because of the beating he suffered. More than 10 years since her torture and imprisonment she still wakes up after dreams in which she hears the chilling screams of her colleagues being tortured in the adjacent cell.

In reality, torture is not about eliciting information-for which it is woefully ineffective. It is used primarily as a means to destroy an individual's dignity and an entire community's sense of trust and safety. Our program and other treatment centers work to restore trust and dignity to torture survivors and help them rebuild their lives. With appropriate care there is much we can do to help such individuals rebuild their lives. One of my patients who was repeatedly raped after she attended a peaceful demonstration, once told me, "For a long time after what I suffered, I felt so alone. But your program made me again feel part of society." It is essential that we as a society ensure that services are available to torture survivors worldwide, including those tortured while in U.S custody. Unfortunately the economic downturn-another legacy of the Bush administration-has hit torture treatment programs such as ours hard. Private donors and foundations have substantially less to give. We face having to scale back our services-that at a time when demand for them has never been greater.

Regardless of whether President Bush does or does not provide a far reaching pardon to the architects and accomplices of torture during this administration, several things need to happen. First, we need to dispense with the myth-exemplified by the ticking bomb scenario in TV programs like 24 -that torture is an effective means of eliciting accurate information. Clearly, the current administration, many of whom were apparently enamored with 24 forgot that it was a dramatization- a television show- and not the real thing. "Torture works to get someone to say whatever you want them to, but that has nothing to do with the truth," one interrogator with over 20 years experience told me. Noted one of my patients: "I would say anything to stop the torture. Even if what I was saying was not true."

We also need to rid ourselves of the naïve notion that torture is perpetrated by individual monsters-a few bad apples on the night shift. What is clear from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere is that these horrific acts are often done by seemingly ordinary individuals acting within systems that allow and in fact encourage torture. The scary thing is that it's much easier for people to torture than we would like to think. The Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments played out in real life. Take some moral disengagement and combine it with vilification and dehumanization of the detainee. Put that in the context of an administration accountable to no one, perhaps convinced that what they are doing isn't torture and even if it is they can and they will do whatever they want to or think needs to be done. It worked on "24" right? Then add a prolonged period of in-communicado detention-when torture is most likely to occur-that goes on and on. What do you have? A guaranteed recipe for torture.

Restoring our integrity also means accountability. An impartial and comprehensive investigation is essential. If Watergate was about our national conscience, then this is about our international conscience. In both cases the basic truth holds that no one or no branch of our government is above the law. Nothing less than our international stature and credibility are on the line. The ramifications go far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Recently, I testified before the Helsinki Commission of the U.S. Congress about the PHR report. One member of the Commission told me how a Turkish diplomat almost laughed in his face when he brought up concerns about extrajudicial imprisonments in Turkey.

Many high ranking military officials understand the importance of an unequivocal ban on torture. The army field manual cites the "golden rule" in how to treat detainees-namely, if you wouldn't want something to be done to you or one of your fellow soldiers, then you shouldn't do it to a detainee in your custody. Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, who served as the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, clearly articulated the importance of the chain of command with regards to torture. Hutson reflected on how not only orders go down the chain of command but so do attitudes. "In dealing with detainees, the attitude at the top was that they are all just terrorists, beneath contempt and outside the law so they could be treated inhumanely...That attitude dropped like a rock down the chain of command, and we had Abu Ghraib and its progeny. The self-respect of the military and the country was diminished. Our international reputation will be tarnished for generations."

At their essence, human rights, including a ban on torture, are about respecting human dignity. They are guiding principles for how and what governments ought and ought not do. Promoting and practicing fundamental human rights, including an unequivocal ban on torture, is not only the right thing to do from a moral perspective, but ultimately is strategically essential for global security and stability. If the President does issue pardons to those responsible for torture during his administration, it will likely serve as a who's who list in this debacle. And even if given a presidential pardon, they will need to think twice when traveling abroad lest they face charges in another country (remember Pinochet). Regardless, accountability is crucial for restoring our international stature, for making amends to those subjected to our brutality and for protecting those around the world living at risk of torture. We owe ourselves and the rest of the world no less.

More on Guantánamo Bay

Sunday, December 7, 2008

TIME TO ARM THE BEARS



Because they just haven't managed to do enough venal, pointless, stupid shit to make the entire nation quake in fear, the Bush administration has added one more pointless, dangerous, and gratuitously evil act.

WASHINGTON, DC, December 5, 2008 (ENS) - For the first time in 25 years, people will be able to carry loaded, concealed weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges under a new rule approved by the Bush administration today.

The new rule overturns a 25 year old regulation that required guns in parks to be unloaded and placed where they are not easily accessible, such as the truck of a car.

Now, a person can carry firearms concealed and loaded at 388 of the country's 391 national park sites if that individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state where the national park or refuge is located....

The new rule was approved despite concerns raised by every living former director of the National Park Service, several ranger organizations, retired superintendents, and thousands of national park visitors.

This isn't about taking a gun through a park or wildlife refuge en route to somewhere else, a not uncommon occurrence in some places, in the West particularly, where the fastest route from one place to another is through a (formerly) federally protected area. You could already do that, as long as the gun was unloaded and safely stowed someplace that wasn't easily accessible, like the trunk of your car.

No, this is about give one last big ol' wet smooch to the NRA, for no good goddamned reason.

And there were some damned good reasons for the ban, which was enacted in the Reagan administration, That's right, Ronald Reagan knew it was a stupid idea to let armed people into national parks. One reason is that park rangers, like any authority figure, are targets of assault, and have become increasingly so. Consider this report from 2004

WASHINGTON, DC, September 1, 2004 (ENS) - Attacks, threats, harassment against National Park Service rangers and U.S. Park Police officers reached a all-time high in 2003, according to agency records released Tuesday by an association of federal employees, keeper of the country's only database documenting violence against federal resource protection employees. At the same time, "scores" of park law enforcement personnel have been reassigned to desks, rangers say....

"Law enforcement officers in the National Park Service are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents – a rate triple that of the next worst federal agency," said Randall Kendrick, executive director for the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

The National Parks budget has been constantly shrinking and more of the money has been targeted toward fire fighting. That means fewer and fewer rangers and staff having to cope with more and more visitors, along with helping law enforcement. It's in that capacity where rangers have generally been killed. Now they not only have to worry about going into a dangerous law enforcement situation and getting hurt, they have to worry about every interaction with a park visitor who may or may not be carrying.

But while the parks are dangerous places for employees, they're one of the safest places for visitors, at least as far as crime is concerned. Statistically, you have a 1 in 708,333 chance of being a victim of violent crime in a park or refuge. Yes, that's "struck by lightening" territory.

There's also the whole wildlife management aspect of this that's just insane. Now all those yahoos who get their thrills taking potshots at the picture of a cow in cattle crossing signs will have access to real, live targets. Targets that, because they've lived in refuges consider humans just animated parts of their landscape, not predators to be avoided at all costs. The only thing standing between these vulnerable creatures, from chipmunks to bison, and idiots with guns is a $12 pass.

All of which is why 77 percent of Parks and Fish and Wildlife personnel, active and retired, thought that this was a really stupid idea and told the Department of Interior so. There's also the issue that, once again, the Interior "violated the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in failing to adequately examine the foreseeable impacts of the relaxed gun regulation."

I'm not a huge gun fan, but I understand their utility in many situations. I've known women who have concealed permits because they have stalkers, and I'm glad they have the means of protecting themselves. I know and respect lots of hunters (though I have to admit the bow hunters are higher on my list, using a bow and arrow really evens out that playing field).

So this isn't about gun hate. It's about the fact that these people are so wildly committed to their ideology of wrecking that they'll find any excuse to put it in play. "How could we make the country more dangerous, more paranoid, and more damaged?" "Well, we could allow loaded, concealed weapons to be carried in National Parks." "Brilliant!"

Thursday, November 27, 2008

THE LAMEST DUCK


Bush's Last Days:

Brooks Kraft / Corbis for TIME

We have "only one President at a time," Barack Obama said in his debut press conference as President-elect. Normally, that would be a safe assumption — but we're learning not to assume anything as the charcoal-dreary economic winter approaches. By mid-November, with the financial crisis growing worse by the day, it had become obvious that one President was no longer enough (at least not the President we had). So, in the days before Thanksgiving, Obama began to move — if not to take charge outright, then at least to preview what things will be like when he does take over in January. He became a more public presence, taking questions from the press three days in a row. He named his economic team. He promised an enormous stimulus package that would somehow create 2.5 million new jobs, and began to maneuver the new Congress toward having the bill ready for him to sign — in a dramatic ceremony, no doubt — as soon as he assumes office.

That we have slightly more than one President for the moment is mostly a consequence of the extraordinary economic times. Even if George Washington were the incumbent, the markets would want to know what John Adams was planning to do after his Inauguration. And yet this final humiliation seems particularly appropriate for George W. Bush. At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he has become the lamest of all possible ducks. (See TIME's best pictures of Barack Obama.)

It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between. I've been feeling sorry for Bush lately, a feeling partly induced by recent fictional depictions of the President as an amiable lunkhead in Oliver Stone's W. and in Curtis Sittenfeld's terrific novel American Wife. There was a photo in the New York Times that seemed to sum up his current circumstance: Bush in Peru, dressed in an alpaca poncho, standing alone just after the photo op at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, with various Asian leaders departing the stage, none of them making eye contact with him. Bush has that forlorn what-the-hell-happened? expression on his face, the one that has marked his presidency at difficult times. You never want to see the President of the United States looking like that.

So I've been searching for valedictory encomiums. His position on immigration was admirable and courageous; he was right about the Dubai Ports deal and about free trade in general. He spoke well, in the abstract, about the importance of freedom. He is an impeccable classicist when it comes to baseball. And that just about does it for me. I'd add the bracing moment of Bush with the bullhorn in the ruins of the World Trade Center, but that was neutered in my memory by his ridiculous, preening appearance in a flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign. The flight-suit image is one of the two defining moments of the Bush failure. The other is the photo of Bush staring out the window of Air Force One, helplessly viewing the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This is a presidency that has wobbled between those two poles — overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence.(President Bush in the Middle East.)

The latter has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. It is too early to rate the performance of Bush's economic team, but we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast national need for reassurance, the President himself was a cipher. Yes, he's a lame duck with an Antarctic approval rating — but can you imagine Bill Clinton going so gently into the night? There are substantive gestures available to a President that do not involve the use of force or photo ops. For example, Bush could have boosted the public spirit — and the auto industry — by announcing that he was scrapping the entire federal automotive fleet, including the presidential limousine, and replacing it with hybrids made in Detroit. He could have jump-started — and he still could — the Obama plan by releasing funds for a green-jobs program to insulate public buildings. He could start funding the transit projects already approved by Congress.

In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one. Taken from a Time post...

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Who is Xenu?



I'm going to tell you a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Right, then I'll begin.

Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an alien galactic ruler named Xenu. Xenu was in charge of all the planets in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in those days it was called Teegeeack.

Xenu the alien ruler Now Xenu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were overpopulated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan.

Xenu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of propellers).

These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were lowered into the volcanoes. Xenu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed.

The story doesn't end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a "thetan" in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper).

After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called "implanting".

When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.

As for Xenu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xenu is still alive today.

That is the end of the story. And so today everyone is full of these clusters of souls called "body thetans". And if we are to be a free soul then we have to remove all these "body thetans" and pay lots of money to do so. And the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago.

Well what did you think of that story?

What? You thought it was a stupid story?

Well so do we. However, this story is the core belief in the religion known as Scientology.* If people knew about this story then most people would never get involved in it. This story is told to you when you reach one of their secret levels called OT III. After that you are supposed to telepathically communicate with these body thetans to make them go away. You have to pay a lot of money to get to this level and do this (or you have to work very hard for the organisation on extremely low pay for many years).

We are telling you this story as a warning. If you become involved with Scientology then we would like you to do so with your eyes open and fully aware of the sort of material it contains.

OT3 in Hubbard's handwriting
Most of the Scientologists who work in their Dianetics* centres and so called "Churches" of Scientology do not know this story since they are not allowed to hear it until they reach the secret "upper" levels of Scientology. It may take them many years before they reach this level if they ever do. The ones who do know it are forced to keep it a secret and not tell it to those people who are joining Scientology.
Part of the first page of the secret OT III document in L. Ron Hubbard's own handwriting

Now you have read this you know their big secret

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

ETHICS WITHOUT GODS



Introduction
It is hard to believe that even intelligent and educated people could hold such an opinion, but they do! It seems never to have occurred to them that the Greeks and Romans, whose gods and goddesses were something less than paragons of virtue, nevertheless led lives not obviously worse than those of the Baptists of Alabama! Moreover, pagans such as Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius - although their systems are not suitable for us today - managed to produce ethical treatises of great sophistication, a sophistication rarely if ever equaled by Christian moralists.

The answer to the questions posed above is, of course, "Absolutely not!" The behavior of Atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religionists included. Moreover, despite protestations to the contrary, we may assert as a general rule that when religionists practice ethical behavior, it isn't really due to their fear of hell-fire and damnation, nor is it due to their hopes of heaven. Ethical behavior - regardless of who the practitioner may be - results always from the same causes and is regulated by the same forces, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of religious belief. The nature of these causes and forces is the subject of this essay.

Psychobiological Foundations
As human beings, we are social animals. Our sociality is the result of evolution, not choice. Natural selection has equipped us with nervous systems which are peculiarly sensitive to the emotional status of our fellows. Among our kind, emotions are contagious, and it is only the rare psychopathic mutants among us who can be happy in the midst of a sad society. It is in our nature to be happy in the midst of happiness, sad in the midst of sadness. It is in our nature, fortunately, to seek happiness for our fellows at the same time as we seek it for ourselves. Our happiness is greater when it is shared.

Nature also has provided us with nervous systems which are, to a considerable degree, imprintable. To be sure, this phenomenon is not as pronounced or as ineluctable as it is, say, in geese - where a newly hatched gosling can be "imprinted" to a toy train and will follow it to exhaustion, as if it were its mother. Nevertheless, some degree of imprinting is exhibited by humans. The human nervous system appears to retain its capacity for imprinting well into old age, and it is highly likely that the phenomenon known as "love-at-first-sight" is a form of imprinting. Imprinting is a form of attachment behavior, and it helps us to form strong interpersonal bonds. It is a major force which helps us to break through the ego barrier to create "significant others" whom we can love as much as ourselves. These two characteristics of our nervous system - emotional suggestibility and attachment imprintability - although they are the foundation of all altruistic behavior and art, are thoroughly compatible with the selfishness characteristic of all behaviors created by the process of natural selection. That is to say, to a large extent behaviors which satisfy ourselves will be found, simultaneously, to satisfy our fellows, and vice-versa.

This should not surprise us when we consider that among the societies of our nearest primate cousins, the great apes, social behavior is not chaotic, even if gorillas do lack the Ten Commandments! The young chimpanzee does not need an oracle to tell it to honor its mother and to refrain from killing its brothers and sisters. Of course, family squabbles and even murder have been observed in ape societies, but such behaviors are exceptions, not the norm. So too it is in human societies, everywhere and at all times.

The African apes - whose genes are ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent identical to ours - go about their lives as social animals, cooperating in the living of life, entirely without the benefit of clergy and without the commandments of Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy. It is further cheering to learn that sociobiologists have even observed altruistic behavior among troops of baboons. More than once, in troops attacked by leopards, aged, post reproduction-age males have been observed to linger at the rear of the escaping troop and to engage the leopard in what often amounts to a suicidal fight. As the old male delays the leopard's pursuit by sacrificing his very life, the females and young escape and live to fulfill their several destinies. The heroism which we see acted out, from time to time, by our fellow men and women, is far older than their religions. Long before the gods were created by the fear-filled minds of our less courageous ancestors, heroism and acts of self-sacrificing love existed. They did not require a supernatural excuse then, nor do they require one now.

Given the general fact, then, that evolution has equipped us with nervous systems biased in favor of social, rather than antisocial, behaviors, is it not true, nevertheless, that antisocial behavior does exist, and it exists in amounts greater than a reasonable ethicist would find tolerable? Alas, this is true. But it is true largely because we live in worlds far more complex than the Paleolithic world in which our nervous systems originated. To understand the ethical significance of this fact, we must digress a bit and review the evolutionary history of human behavior.

A Digression
Today, heredity can control our behavior in only the most general of ways, it cannot dictate precise behaviors appropriate for infinitely varied circumstances. In our world, heredity needs help.

In the world of a fruit fly, by contrast, the problems to be solved are few in number and highly predictable in nature. Consequently, a fruit fly's brain is largely "hard-wired" by heredity. That is to say, most behaviors result from environmental activation of nerve circuits which are formed automatically by the time of emergence of the adult fly. This is an extreme example of what is called instinctual behavior. Each behavior is coded for by a gene or genes which predispose the nervous system to develop certain types of circuits and not others, and where it is all but impossible to act contrary to the genetically predetermined script.

The world of a mammal - say a fox - is much more complex and unpredictable than that of the fruit fly. Consequently, the fox is born with only a portion of its neuronal circuitry hard-wired. Many of its neurons remain "plastic" throughout life. That is, they may or may not hook up with each other in functional circuits, depending upon environmental circumstances. Learned behavior is behavior which results from activation of these environmentally conditioned circuits. Learning allows the individual mammal to learn - by trial and error - greater numbers of adaptive behaviors than could be transmitted by heredity. A fox would be wall-to-wall genes if all its behaviors were specified genetically.

With the evolution of humans, however, environmental complexity increased out of all proportion to the genetic and neuronal changes distinguishing us from our simian ancestors. This partly was due to the fact that our species evolved in a geologic period of great climatic flux - the Ice Ages - and partly was due to the fact that our behaviors themselves began to change our environment. The changed environment in turn created new problems to be solved. Their solutions further changed the environment, and so on. Thus, the discovery of fire led to the burning of trees and forests, which led to destruction of local water supplies and watersheds, which led to the development of architecture with which to build aqueducts, which led to laws concerning water-rights, which led to international strife, and on and on.

Given such complexity, even the ability to learn new behaviors is, by itself, inadequate. If trial and error were the only means, most people would die of old age before they would succeed in rediscovering fire or reinventing the wheel. As a substitute for instinct and to increase the efficiency of learning, mankind developed culture. The ability to teach - as well as to learn - evolved, and trial-and-error learning became a method of last resort.

By transmission of culture - passing on the sum total of the learned behaviors common to a population - we can do what Darwinian genetic selection would not allow: we can inherit acquired characteristics. The wheel once having been invented, its manufacture and use can be passed down through the generations. Culture can adapt to change much faster than genes can, and this provides for finely tuned responses to environmental disturbances and upheavals. By means of cultural transmission, those behaviors which have proven useful in the past can be taught quickly to the young, so that adaptation to life - say on the Greenland ice cap - can be assured.

Even so, cultural transmission tends to be rigid: it took over one hundred thousand years to advance to chipping both sides of the hand-ax! Cultural mutations, like genetic mutations, tend more often than not to be harmful, and both are resisted - the former by cultural conservatism, the latter by natural selection. But changes do creep in faster than the rate of genetic change, and cultures slowly evolve. Even that cultural dinosaur known as the Catholic Church - despite its claim to be the unchanging repository of truth and "correct" behavior - has changed greatly since its beginning.

Incidentally, it is at this hand-ax stage of behavioral evolution at which most of the religions of today are still stuck. Our inflexible, absolutist moral codes also are fixated at this stage. The Ten Commandments are the moral counterpart of the "here's-how-you-rub-the-sticks-together" phase of technological evolution. If the only type of fire you want is one to heat your cave and cook your clams, the stick-rubbing method suffices. But if you want a fire to propel your jet-plane, some changes have to be made.

So, too, with the transmission of moral behavior. If we are to live lives which are as complex socially as jet-planes are complex technologically, we need something more than the Ten Commandments. We cannot base our moral code upon arbitrary and capricious fiats reported to us by persons claiming to be privy to the intentions of the denizens of Sinai or Olympus. Our ethics can be based neither upon fictions concerning the nature of humankind nor upon fake reports concerning the desires of the deities. Our ethics must be firmly planted in the soil of scientific self-knowledge. They must be improvable and adaptable.

Where then, and with what, shall we begin?

Back to Ethics
Plato showed long ago, in his dialogue Euthyphro, that we cannot depend upon the moral fiats of a deity. Plato asked if the commandments of a god were "good" simply because a god had commanded them or because the god recognized what was good and commanded the action accordingly. If something is good simply because a god has commanded it, anything could be considered good. There would be no way of predicting what in particular the god might desire next, and it would be entirely meaningless to assert that "God is good." Bashing babies with rocks would be just as likely to be "good" as would the principle "Love your enemies." (It would appear that the "goodness" of the god of the Old Testament is entirely of this sort.)

On the other hand, if a god's commandments are based on a knowledge of the inherent goodness of an act, we are faced with the realization that there is a standard of goodness independent of the god and we must admit that he cannot be the source of morality. In our quest for the good, we can bypass the god and go to his source!

Given, then, that gods a priori cannot be the source of ethical principles, we must seek such principles in the world in which we have evolved. We must find the sublime in the mundane. What precept might we adopt?

The principle of "enlightened self-interest" is an excellent first approximation to an ethical principle which is both consistent with what we know of human nature and is relevant to the problems of life in a complex society. Let us examine this principle.

First we must distinguish between "enlightened" and "unenlightened" self-interest. Let's take an extreme example for illustration. Suppose you lived a totally selfish life of immediate gratification of every desire. Suppose that whenever someone else had something you wanted, you took it for yourself.

It wouldn't be long at all before everyone would be up in arms against you, and you would have to spend all your waking hours fending off reprisals. Depending upon how outrageous your activity had been, you might very well lose your life in an orgy of neighborly revenge. The life of total but unenlightened self-interest might be exciting and pleasant as long as it lasts - but it is not likely to last long.

The person who practices "enlightened" self-interest, by contrast, is the person whose behavioral strategy simultaneously maximizes both the intensity and duration of personal gratification. An enlightened strategy will be one which, when practiced over a long span of time, will generate ever greater amounts and varieties of pleasures and satisfactions.

How is this to be done?

It is obvious that more is to be gained by cooperating with others than by acts of isolated egoism. One man with a rock cannot kill a buffalo for dinner. But a group of men or women, with lots of rocks, can drive the beast off a cliff and - even after dividing the meat up among them - will still have more to eat than they would have had without cooperation.

But cooperation is a two-way street. If you cooperate with several others to kill buffaloes, and each time they drive you away from the kill and eat it themselves, you will quickly take your services elsewhere, and you will leave the ingrates to stumble along without the Paleolithic equivalent of a fourth-for-bridge. Cooperation implies reciprocity.

Justice has its roots in the problem of determining fairness and reciprocity in cooperation. If I cooperate with you in tilling your field of corn, how much of the corn is due me at harvest time? When there is justice, cooperation operates at maximal efficiency, and the fruits of cooperation become ever more desirable. Thus, enlightened self-interest entails a desire for justice. With justice and with cooperation, we can have symphonies. Without it, we haven't even a song.

Let us bring this essay back to the point of our departure. Because we have the nervous systems of social animals, we are generally happier in the company of our fellow creatures than alone. Because we are emotionally suggestible, as we practice enlightened self-interest we usually will be wise to choose behaviors which will make others happy and willing to cooperate and accept us - for their happiness will reflect back upon us and intensify our own happiness. On the other hand, actions which harm others and make them unhappy - even if they do not trigger overt retaliation which decreases our happiness - will create an emotional milieu which, because of our suggestibility, will make us less happy.

Because our nervous systems are imprintable, we are able not only to fall in love at first sight, we are able to love objects and ideals as well as people, and we are able to love with variable intensities. Like the gosling attracted to the toy train, we are pulled forward by the desire for love. Unlike the gosling's "love," however, our love is to a considerable extent shapeable by experience and is capable of being educated. A major aim of enlightened self-interest, surely, is to give and receive love, both sexual and nonsexual. As a general - though not absolute - rule, we must choose those behaviors which will be likely to bring us love and acceptance, and we must eschew those behaviors which will not.

Another aim of enlightened self-interest is to seek beauty in all its forms, to preserve and prolong its resonance between the world outside and that within. Beauty and love are but different facets of the same jewel: love is beautiful, and we love beauty.

The experience of love and beauty, however, is a passive function of the mind. How much greater is the joy which comes from creating beauty. How delicious it is to exercise actively our creative powers to engender that which can be loved. Paints and pianos are not necessarily prerequisites for the exercise of creativity: Whenever we transform the raw materials of existence in such a way that we leave them better than they were when we found them, we have been creative.

The task of moral education, then, is not to inculcate by rote great lists of do's and don'ts, but rather to help people to predict the consequences of actions being considered. What are the long-term as well as immediate rewards and draw-backs of the acts? Will an act increase or decrease one's chances of experiencing the hedonic triad of love, beauty, and creativity?

Thus it happens, when the Atheist approaches the problem of finding natural grounds for human morals and establishing a nonsuperstitious basis for behavior, that it appears as though nature has already solved the problem to a great extent. Indeed, it appears as though the problem of establishing a natural, humanistic basis for ethical behavior is not much of a problem at all. It is in our natures to desire love, to seek beauty, and to thrill at the act of creation. The labyrinthine complexity we see when we examine traditional moral codes does not arise of necessity: it is largely the result of vain attempts to accommodate human needs and nature to the whimsical totems and taboos of the demons and deities who emerged with us from our cave-dwellings at the end of the Paleolithic Era - and have haunted our houses ever since.



[top]

Copyright © 2008 American Athiest American Atheists

Sunday, November 16, 2008

A Government Issued LicenseTo Steal

License to Steal

You're driving down the road in a borrowed jalopy, an envelope on the seat next to you lovingly stuffed with hard earned cash to bid on a sporty car you've wanted since you first saw one in a neighbor's driveway at age 10. It's a beautiful day, not a care in the world; until you see the police roadblock. After waiting in the line of lumbering cars, your turn finally comes. The officer politely nods to you as he asks for your DL and proof of insurance. He then adds nonchalantly, perhaps noticing a bumper sticker advertising a local rock radio station or the preponderance of melanin in your skin, "Mind if I have a look in your car?" Next thing you know, you've been patted down, your friend's vehicle is being towed away, all that money confiscated. They found no contraband, you're not wanted, you're not even under arrest, but they take it all anyway. Surprise! Your property has been seized.

Long before "9-11 changed everything," and George Bush declared war on the Bill of Rights, everything had already been changed and the Constitution already a victim. An ancient practice once used to enrich Kings and Warlords was sadly resurrected in the United States: Asset Forfeiture, a government issued license to steal, backed up by a crew armed to the teeth, and divisions of consiglieres and judges all in on the take that would make any old style Mafia Capo look like an amateur. Some reported examples are appalling:

Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway.

Asset Forfeiture comes stamped with the kind of genuine bipartisanship that's suddenly so in season these days. The proponents of the abominations include folks like Sen. Orrin Hatch and Vice-President elect Joe Biden. On the side of civil liberties is also a bipartisan collective including none other than Instapundit:

The drug war has been a massive failure: a waste of money, of lives and of time. It's also been accompanied by extensive inroads on traditional American freedoms: property forfeitures, "no-knock" searches, expanded wiretap authority, and the destruction of financial privacy, to name just a few. These are inroads that have served the agendas of bureaucrats but that haven't done anything to solve the problem that was claimed as their justification. And the drug war's combination of intrusiveness, corruption and ineptitude calls into question the government's ability to carry out the war on terrorism.

The original motive behind asset forfeiture was sincere: deter drug traffickers and other organized crime kingpins by 'hitting them in the pocketbook.' But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, eh? Over the years, public hysteria fanned by ambitious politicians over drug trafficking and crime in general have allowed seizure advocates to enact ever more Draconian methods. The temptation for police departments to pad shrinking budgets with seized assets or for unscrupulous officers to pocket cash and other valuables is simply too great for some to resist.

If the government seizes your property, forget about presumption of innocence and due process. In a perverse twist on the bedrock principles of American justice, even though the owner may not be charged with any wrongdoing, regardless if there is not one iota of admissible evidence, the property can kept and used by the state, or auctioned off to the highest bidder. In civil cases, where large numbers of seizures are ultimately processed, the burden of proof is on the owner. He or she must usually post a large bond just for the opportunity to prove a negative, namely by showing they committed no crime. That in essence, the assets are innocent. The original owner may have the privilege to so defend their interests in the same legal venue that will benefit in the event the state finds against the owner. The loot often ends up in the local coffer, either by direct deposit or by way clever 'cap n trade' systems between local and national legal apparatus erected to evade protocols put in place specifically to eliminate the endless tug of war that flares up among those torn with serving the public interest Vs. serving their own.

Even in instances where the owner is charged with a crime, seizure laws are applied indiscriminately, often excessively, and those trends are on the rise. How are we going to treat seizure going forward? Should a prospective John caught in a misdemeanor prostitution sting, or a suburban housewife whose kid foolishly left a valium in the console, lose their vehicle? Does it serve the public when laws designed to confiscate luxury yachts and million dollar estates owned by international drug czars, are used instead to relieve recreational users possessing minute amounts of a controlled substances of their modest homes and meager life savings?

If someone is charged with a crime, and they are duly convicted in a court of law, then seizing ill gotten gains which are demonstrated to have derived from that same criminal activity is a justifiable endeavor. But just as the 9-11 attacks opened the door to ignoring the Bill of Rights, the War on Drugs and hysteria over crime in general has been used by politicians and law enforcement to assume vast power begging for misuse and abuse.

We can address drug addiction and reduce organized crime. But decades of empirical experience shows we probably won't make any progress by treating addiction as a crime and crime as an excuse for a free shopping spree. We need change, we want change, we voted for change: Now is one of those rare and vanishing opportunities for change to occur. Seize that Washington, and keep your greedy mitts off our stuff.

Scientology's Brainwashing@Labor Camps Horror Stories


 The Impact on Some Scientologists Who Saw the RPF in Operation  RPF=rehabilitation project force, (a form of brainwashing and,or torture)

Three very revealing accounts exist by people who were Scientologists and had brief but disturbing encounters with RPF inmates. Their accounts provide some indications of the cumulative impact the brainwashing and confinement efforts had on the people who experienced them. One account was from former member Joe Cisar, who:

stumbled into the RPF's RPF one time in the tunnels below the Cedars complex in L.A. There w[ere] about a dozen people who apparently had been sleeping in these tiny rooms. (There were a couple of blankets on the floor.) Both men and women [were down there]. A man was cutting a woman's pant leg with a knife while she was wearing the pants, and he had sliced her foot. Blood was running down her ankle onto her foot and was puddling on the floor. She looked up at me and gave me… what I would consider to be an insane smile and said, 'I caused my foot to be in the way of his knife.' Two or three of the people who were crouching and laying about on the floor looked up at me as if it were some kind of wonderful joke. I backed out the way I came in. One of Scientology's big promotion schemes is to tell people that they need to be 'at cause.' These people weren't at cause over anything[. T]hey had degenerated back to the Middle Ages.

That's what I knew about RPF when the Scientology ethics officer told me to report down there for indefinite duty. I told her [that] they could get met down there, but I'd put several of them in the hospital first, and reminded her that I was a Viet Nam veteran. I was one of the few Sea Org members who had managed to hang onto [his or her] car, and I left that night (cisar, 1997: 3).

One wonders what would have happened to Cisar had he not seen the conditions of these inmates prior to his own RPF assignment.

A second glimpse into L.A.'s RPF comes in the story of former member Moira Hutchinson, who did kitchen duty in order to finance her studies at the Cedars complex. Consequently, she saw the RPF inmates come in for meals, about which she wrote:

They would come in to eat after everyone else had left. I found this deeply disturbing. Everyone was dressed in dark blue overalls[. T]hey did not walk['] they shuffled with their heads always bowed low, and no one would utter a word.

I became pretty close with an officer in the ASHO [American Saint Hill Organization] whose husband was on the RPF. I remember her telling me, very excitedly, that she was to be allowed to share her half-hour meal breaks with her husband. When she told me this, she had not seen him for a year (Hutchinson, 1997: 6).

Although brief, this account is in keeping with what others have said about the RPF program. She even claims that, under false circumstances, she was sent to the East Grinstead facility in England and "was kept there for a whole week so that I could complete a program very similar to the RPF where I had to write down all of my transgressions committed against the church and carry out menial physical duties" (Hutchinson, 1997: 2, see 5).

The third dramatic glimpse into RPF life came from Ann Bailey, who was involved in moving Scientology into its newly acquired former hospital (called the Cedars Sinai complex) in the summer of 1978. After the move, which taxed her physical endurance, she found herself assigned to guard the secret, upper level doctrinal (Operating Thetan or OT) documents that were in a room without a door. They were in the former hospital's old morgue, and she sat there for hours amidst the lingering "smell of death and chemicals and dissection" (Bailey, n.d.: 60). Then:

[s]uddenly during the third hours I was aware of shadows in the corridor beyond me. [T]hey were people. Slowly I realized that an entire group of people lived and worked down there. I was so tired [that] it took me time to realize who they were. Then it hit me. [The were t]he Cedars RPF. They lived and worked down in this stinkhole.This was their Org. Then I really found out what had happened to them. Filthy, tired, skeletons appeared before me and started begging to see the OT folders. I thought I looked bad, but I looked beautiful compared to them. They crowded around me pushing and shoving, then the mood turned ugly. They started hitting each other to get into the room behind me. I realized what had happened. They had been totally broken. They were animals, not humans. I saw four of my friends, one a Class Nine OT, fighting to get by me. They were punching each other in the face, pulling hair, kicking. And way down in this cellar no one could hear them, no one cared.

Someone suddenly hit me hard. I realized [that] they were turning their anger on me[. T]hey would beat me up to get the folders. I guess in periods of deep stress we all go a little insane — [s]urvival of the fittest. From somewhere in my tired brain, strength came. I stood up with all my TR's [i.e., Scientology communication drills] as in as they had ever been, [and] all my training on control of groups came back. 'Friends,' I said, 'Believe me, I am your friend. By some strange fate I am not with you on the RPF. But believe me if you don't get out of here right now, I know [that] you will be punished. Go now before it's too late.' And they ran away into the dark. When I sat down I was trembling all over. Because the real intent of my message had been for them to get out of the hospital. Leave Cedars. But I don't think any of them got the message (Bailey, n.d.: 61-62).

She was out of Sea Org in a week.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Parting Gifts(Shots)From The Bush Dictatorship



Bush administration's last-minute assault on federal regulations caps a record of rewarding buddies

Nov. 9, 2008, 9:29PM


Not content to rest on their laurels as members of one of the most anti-environmental and pro-industry administrations in recent U.S. history, Bush-appointed administrators in key agencies are busily rewriting regulations to compound the damage.

On issues ranging from water and air quality to family planning and civil liberties — and before Barack Obama takes office — they are seeking to achieve with the stroke of a bureaucratic pen what they could not get from Congress or the voters. A memo from the White House chief of staff to agency directors set a Nov. 1 deadline for completing major regulation changes that must undergo a 60-day window for comment by members of Congress before taking effect. In order to avoid reversal by the incoming administration, these must be published by Nov. 20. Because of lengthy time requirements for undoing the changes, the American people could be stuck with them for several years to come.

More than 90 such changes are in the works as a holiday season stocking stuffer for favored interest groups. Interior Department officials are pushing for changes that would let federal agencies approve projects that have an impact on threatened species and their habitats without consulting Fish and Wildlife Service scientists as currently required. According to National Wildlife Federation spokesman John Kostyack, "These changes take unbiased, professional wildlife biologists out of the equation and put decisions in the hands of political appointees."

A proposed Justice Department regulation would allow local and state law enforcement to collect and share sensitive information on citizens even when they are not suspected of involvement in criminal activity. The Americans with Disabilities Act would be weakened by permitting state and local governments to make only a fraction of their facilities accessible to the handicapped.

A Department of Health and Human Services rule change would deny federal funds to family planning organizations and clinics that refuse to hire staffers who will not provide birth control to patients upon request. The regulation would also define forms of birth control as abortion, allowing physicians and others a legal basis for declining to provide family planning counseling that includes birth control techniques.

Likewise, the White House is preparing rules changes to eliminate environmental reviews for fishing regulations and allow regional councils dominated by both commercial and sports fishing interests to make those judgments.

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to permit increased emissions from older power plants near national parks and wilderness areas, while watering down prohibitions against discharges of industrial effluent into waterways and curbs on mountain-top coal mining. The Bureau of Land Management is rushing to open millions of acres of wilderness areas in Utah to development, including tracts close to national parks.

That's only a sampling of what amounts to an administration-wide effort to set regulations that will last long after George W. Bush leaves the White House. It's unfortunate that the outgoing president has chosen to continue to the end misguided policies that reward his allies at a steep price to the public.

In order to reverse this government by bureaucratic fiat, the Cabinet members appointed by President-elect Obama must set as a top priority identifying and containing the latest regulatory damage while charting a return to a national commitment to protect the environment, public health and civil liberties. (Taken from the houston chronicle)