Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[cubic-dog]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bgt wrote:

> > On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 00:20, bgt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 10:48, cubic-dog wrote:
> > > > in force, because, we finally get slave, indentured servants who
> > > > will either take the 90 cents and hour or be deported. 
> > > 
> > > This kind of rhetoric is extremely irritating.  If they can
> > > be deported, they are neither slaves or indentured servants. 
> 
> ... Anyway... "be productive or be deported" does not constitute

I don't think I said that, you put it in quotes, implying I did.
It's an okay paraphrase though, so we'll take it like that.

More like I said, without regard to what you DEALT for, the is
no impetus on the "man" to pay what was agreed to. If you don't
like it, you will be deported. This does a nice job of creating
a new, even lower class. It substantially lowers the bar for
wage negotiation. The US Department of Labor has already published
guides for business outlining how to avoid paying overtime. 
http://www.thetip.org/art_689_icle.html
This new work of the Bush, just really helps cap the issue.

The ditch diggers in question, were -as a group- being paid
(I asked) $500 to put in that run of conduit. As there 
were six of them, and it took a couple of days, well, do the
math. 

Much cheaper than renting a ditchwitch and operator.

They had done this before, and would do it again. Some runs go
better than others, and I'll be some days they might actually
make as much as a 7/11 clerk. But not many.

What happens when the "man" arbitrarily decides to stiff them
from their payment? 

Will the labor department come to mitigate? Or will immigration
come to deport? 

What's more likely under the proposed "guest worker" rule? 

> slavery, and neither does the fact that someone is willing to work
> for substantially less than you.  In fact, it is only Free people
> who can sell their product (including their own labor) for whatever
> they want (and, obviously, that someone will pay). 

Who can sell their labour for whatever they want? 
I am only aware of folks who can sell their labour for what
the market will bear. 
As long as they only want the status quo, well, then that's
fine. 

When the market will only bear 90p, 
Well, making the note on the townhouse is gonna be kinda
tricky, ain't it? 

> --bgt

Re: Quartering soldiers

[cubic-dog]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bgt wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 12:48, Tim May wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
> > 
> > > At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote:
> > >> "But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI
> > >> comes to me and says "We are putting a Carnivore computer in your
> > >> place," how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of
> > >> the Third?"
> > >>
> > The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government 
> > knocks on one's door and says "Here is something you must put inside 
> > your house."
> 
> For this to make sense, we have to interpret Soldier to mean not
> just agents of the armed forces (military), it has to mean 
> law-enforcement as well. 

Indeed. 

I've never heard of the third interpreted this way.
Doesn't mean much, just never heard it.

Anyone have a reference? 

Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[cubic-dog]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tim May wrote:

> On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:51 AM, Tyler Durden wrote:
> > I'll tell you a story.
> >
> > Back in the late 1980s I taught at a notorious HS in Bedford 
> >snip
>snip
>
> Second, we are fast-moving toward a society and economy where only 
> those who _wanted_ to study math and science by the time they were in 
> high school will have anything more than a menial, makework job. Now 
> whether they go the full course and get a college degree or advanced 
> degree is not so much the point as it is that they were intrinsically 
> interested.

Shoot, Sign me UP for that menial, makework job.

For the first time in YEARS, I finally saw ditchdiggers at work,
Guess it's finally cheaper again to use "guest workers" than to
rent a ditchwitch. The equipment rental houses aren't too happy
about that I'll bet. So much for the information super-hiway.
The "guest workers" were pulling conduit for fiber through
the muck. 

Mom always said I was going to be a ditch digger, I was cool
with that. Turns out, that it made more sense to build equipment
that did a much better job at ditching in less time than manual
ditching. Nearly half a century later, I ended up a network 
administrator. Kinda like digging ditches, but not as healthy.

Now, thanks to the Best and Brightest, The elite, and the fundamental
masters of the universe, where all folks get what they deserve,
Good honest, hard labor, that was so hard to find, -because it
makes so much more sense to take that "can-do" redneck tool-spinning
attitude and put it to work building equipment rather than wasting
it on the task better served by equipment- is now back, and back 
in force, because, we finally get slave, indentured servants who
will either take the 90 cents and hour or be deported. 

For a short while, it was almost possible to earn a living wage
doing real work. Oh well, that's all over now. 

As for math and physics, 
I like to say I "audited Feyman's freshman physics lecture series" because
I bought the CDs and listend to them alot, but without a good functional
understanding of physics and math, you are not as able to do good,
productive physical work, be that swamping, or ditch digging. On the other
hand, I have always thought that someone who can sink a 16d nail in 3 
swings of a hammer is a damned site more useful in a *society* than yet
still another chip designer. 

We got to the fucking moon without chip designers, and what have we
done since? nothing worth remembering. 

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?

[cubic-dog]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote:

> I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything 
> Michael Moore said in "Bowling for Columbine" is wrong too?

Not wrong exactly, just completely biased, wrong headed, 
snuffling at the ass of anti-gun Hollywood so it would be 
hailed in the "film" world as a great work. 

Moore says guns are bad. So fucking what. What could Moore
say that would be a suprise? The film is a blow-job for the anti-gun 
crowd. Nothing more. 

Moore makes me laugh, because he does have his moments. I really enjoyed
Rodger and me. He got a little mean sometimes, but so what? But
BfC was a worthless piece of garbage all in all. I'm not a big
fan of The Omega Man either. But that crap Moore pulled at
Hestons house was inexcuseble. He should have had the shit beat 
out of him for that. 

Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)

[cubic-dog]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
>  The cost for politicians mandating such a policy
> would be equally high: they would be out of office and facing criminal
> charges themselves.

No, I think they would be dead. At first opportunity. 
Or at least, I like to think so. 

Re: (No Subject)

[cubic-dog]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:47:27AM +0100, edo wrote:
> > > With the USA
> > > becoming the world's most totalitarian state in disguise... 
> > 
> > That's a pretty silly thing to say.
> > Sure you don't want to educate yourself on those other states in the
> > world?
> 
> It's not silly at all: look again.  He said "becoming".  


Agreed.

I recall watching the events unfold in Tienamin Square all those years
ago on TV, and I thought to myself at the time, within 20 years,
China will be the last free place on earth.

Clocks ticking, and for once, I might have actually been right.

Now that the US has no "other" to compare it self to, it is
free to lock it all down with the best totalitarian system
in history. 

There are TRENDS, you see, and the TREND is toward total government
domination of all aspects of life. This is the trend, and there is
not only no signs of any reversal in the trend, it's building momentum
like crazy, down-hill train on greased rails. 

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19

[cubic-dog]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:

> SNIP 
> In "austin powers", they make the spy sound sixties by 
> depicting him as expecting the victory of the Soviet Union, and 
> perhaps rather favoring that outcome.   If they had him quote 
> Ayn Rand, he would not have sounded sixties.
> 
> When the mass media want to cash in on nostalgia for the 
> sixties and early seventies, it is the young commies they 
> remember.

That's because the sixties commies sold out as quickly
as they could when they were no longer threatened with
compulsory military service. 
The sixties commies are the worst of the "how much
is enough" crowd out there whipping slave kids harder
to make more nikes and gap clothing.

The folks doing the heinlen/randian ranting haven't sold
out yet.

Re: e voting

[cubic-dog]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:

> Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today that as
> of 2006, all electronic voting machines in California must be able to
> produce a paper printout that voters can check to make sure their votes
> are properly recorded.

Great!
Now when I sell my vote, I can produce this reciept for payment!
What a perfect system!

Umm, weren't voter "receipts" outlawed some time back
because of this exact issue? 

Re: AT&T Patents Trusted Intermediaries, Sues PayPal

[cubic-dog]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, R. A. Hettinga wrote:

> "PayPal and eBay have infringed AT&T's U.S. patent that covers transactions
> in which a trusted intermediary securely processes payments over a
> communications system such as the Internet."
> 
> 
> I wonder what American Express, VISA (and Plus), MasterCard (and Cirrus),
> Diner's Club, NASDAQ, Autex, Telerate, and even Quotron -- not to mention
> CRESTCo, DTC, and SWIFT -- would have had to say about *that*?

They won't say anything. They won't have to.
Paypal and eBay are both dangerously close to
being an underground economy. One is able
to transact business without that transaction
being tracked by Visa/mc et al. 

Just like the new banking moves are aimed at 
getting rid of "check cashing stores", these
legal manuevers are aimed at getting rid of
any kind of non-controlled commerce. 

Since the end of all of this is supposed to
be a cashless society and an "end to violence"
I wonder when john q public will realize that
one can trade goods for crack and no money
need change hands, hence these pushes are
more likely to cause even worse crime, rather
than less. 

Re: Political Hyprocrisy in action.

[cubic-dog]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Neil Johnson wrote:

> I'm surprised no one has commented on Al Gore's speech 
> (http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech2.html) where he talks about all the evil 
> things that the Bush administration has done to  to undermine our civil 
> liberties.
> 
> Got two words for ya Al:  Clipper Chip

Two more,

Janet Reno

And another two

Louis Freeh

It just goes on and on.

Gore is just jealous.
All the totalitarian ambitions dreamed
of by the Clinton/Gore/Reno/ dynasty are 
being realized by the Bush/Cheney/Ascroft/
regime.

Re: Panther's FileVault can damage data

[cubic-dog]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, petard wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:55:08AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> > It's astounding to me that that Apple failed to do basic QC on its 
> > major new release.
> > 
> > The problem with the Firewire 800 drives using the Oxford 922 chips is 
> > inexcusable. Did Apple never bother to run the new version of OS X with 
> > drives made by vendors other than Apple? (I'm assuming here the 
> > Firewire 800 problem is not present in Apple drives, about which I am 
> > not 100% convinced.)
> >
> Which Apple drives? Is there such a thing as an Apple firewire drive, and
> if so does it use the Oxford 922 bridge chipset? This is the closest product
> I am aware of:
> http://www.apple.com/ipod/
> 
> It's firewire 400 and most assuredly does not use a 922 chip.
> 
> If software companies were responsible for bugs in hardware that they do not
> manufacture, MS would be in much more trouble than it is already. 
> 
> petard

Re: Needed a WiFi "FidoNet"

[Cubic Dog]

Steve Schear wrote:
It would seems that the means may soon be at hand for using WiFi, or 
WiFi-like, equipment to create ad hoc, meshed, non-commercial networks. 
The means are at hand, have been at hand for quite a few years
in the form of packet radio, and now of course, as you say, wi-fi.
Folks an I used to pipedream about a xtra-net or hyper-net that was
completely non-commercial, completely censor-free shadow internet
running on top of the internet. The idea being to tunnel IPv6 over
IPv4 over packet radio and the occasional "real" internet where
wireless networks can't span. Running a distributed hack of
named and a shared trust base of nic records. This would use
the unallocated IP space. In order to host a node you had
to relay for all all nodes. In order to participate, you
had to actually be familiar with and utilise netiquette.
Not a big deal, Linux and FreeBSD make it all completely
possible. But like many utopian visions, not too likely.

Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists

[cubic-dog]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, jet wrote:

> At 16:18 -0500 2003/02/12, cubic-dog wrote:
> >
> >The NRA is openly hostile towards the "embarrasing 2nd Amendment".
> >The NRA is mostly all about allowing the weathly wingshooters to
> >be the last to fall. The rest of us, like the armed citizens, get
> >bartered off everytime gun control bill comes to a vote.
> 
> Sadly, there doesn't seem to be any RKBA organization without some 
>sort of right-wing, religious, or loonie ties.  

How true.

Aaron Zelmans JPFO is pretty loonie, but at least he
is actually going after issues. It's pretty whacked
out, but have a peek at http://www.jpfo.org

Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists

[cubic-dog]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bill Frantz wrote:

> At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote:
> >But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even
> >on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being
> >right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the
> >like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a
> >reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.)
> 
> I thought Ashcroft was on record as stating that the second amendment
> confered an individual right to own arms.  Are his actions are not in
> accord with his words?

His words are pretty much without meaning. All gun laws are
unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately, and
all those who have fallen victim to the legal system as a result
of the enforcement of these laws should be granted restitution.

It is possible that there could be a gun law that would be
constitutional, but no such laws currently exist. 

Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists

[cubic-dog]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Mike Rosing wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tim May wrote:
> 
> > And so on. He talks the talk, but he and his buddies in HomeSec are
> > establishing a national police force, "states rights" be damned.
> 
> He's proof that you can fool just about everyone simultaneously -
> the NRA supports him inspite of his lack of  of commitment to
> the 2nd.

The NRA is openly hostile towards the "embarrasing 2nd Amendment". 
The NRA is mostly all about allowing the weathly wingshooters to
be the last to fall. The rest of us, like the armed citizens, get
bartered off everytime gun control bill comes to a vote. 

RE: The Statism Meme

[cubic-dog]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Blanc wrote:
> 
> > A sad, disturbing prospect to contemplate.  Someone on another list
> > remarked that it might become necessary for those in Europe to do some
> > internet-type rescuing of the American people.  H.
> snip
> 
> Don't count on EU, we're just as fucked, albeit with a slight delay.

Whilst watching the horrors of Tiananmen Square all those years ago,
I pontificated at the time that in 20 years, China will be the
last free place on earth. 

That was just a knee-jerk know nothing remark, however, with
6 more years to go, I just wonder. 

Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries

[cubic-dog]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, John Kelsey wrote:

> At 09:15 AM 12/13/02 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
> ...
> [Discussion of the lack of pro-freedom candidates.]
> 
> >There are more choices than that.  It just takes a while for the
> >masses to figure that out.  When there are no choices, then we
> >can fight with weapons.  For now, words are sufficient.
> 
> The thing that's being missed here is that, if elections can be won by 
> running on a pro-freedom slate, politicians will be found to do that.  Note 
> that guns are still legal in the US, despite the fact that armed private 
> citizens are apparently *very* unpopular with the decisionmaking elite in 
> the US.  (This makes sense, too.  My risks of being shot by anyone are 
> quite low, as I live in a middle-class neighborhood and take reasonable 
> precautions.  But if you're a politician or public figure, you're much more 
> likely to be a target, and much more likely to be able to hire an off-duty 
> cop or other carefully-screened person to carry a gun and defend you.)  


When was the last time in these here Untied Status 
that a political figure was shot for political reasons?

While it is certainly arguable that there have been
plenty of inter-party assasinations, and despite the vehement
protestations to the contrary, it "appears" that 
the empirical evidence suggests that JFK died as
a result of political power plays. McKinley was killed
by a whack job at the behest of William Hearst (some
liberty taken there with the facts) Garfield was
also shot by a serious whacko. Lincoln alone seems
to stand as the only political marytr. 

When the likes of Diane Feinstein and that ilk whimper
and cringe at the thought of an armed populace
and arm themselves while depriving their constituents
of their given rights while retaining those rights
for themselves, (Feinstein has a concealed carry
permit, but will not grant one) One must question 
exactly what these "leaders" have in mind. 

History has shown them (the powerful) as being
in no danger from the general population, and
whack jobs don't follow the rules. 

Political assasination by populists in this
country? Hardly. Political kidnapping? Nope.

Even on a local level, when has a corrupt 
lethally violent power crazed venal sherrif
or top level cop (they certainly exist and
have existed) ever really been in fear of
a public uprising? When has such an uprising
ever happened? 

The coal field wars of West Virginia back in
the 20s started to look like this, and
were crushed by the US military. The Bonus
Army incident is still rather controversial
as to what exactly happened. 

If any political figure is worried about
being assasinated by their constituents,
I'd really like to hear why. Where are the
teeth to these threats? 

Re: sleep deprivation was Re: Torture done correctly is a terminal process

[cubic-dog]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Steve Mynott wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Adam Shostack wrote:
> 
> > The Russians reputedly used sensory deprivation as a means of
> > convincing western spies to talk.  24 to 48 hours in a tank broke
> > nearly anyone.
> 
> Noone has mentioned sleep deprivation which is supposed to be extremely 
> effective, although with the potential for permanent  psychological and 
> physical harm if continued for days.


I read an article in Pop Sci (of all places) back in the 60s to the effect
of sleep deprivation as being completely effective. 

*IF* you had the time. Brutality and drugs can break
a person in a matter of hours to days at the outside. 
SD can take weeks, or longer. Though the report thought
that results gained by SD were more reliable. 

Re: Torture done correctly is a terminal process

[cubic-dog]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

> At 07:40 PM 11/24/02 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> >Bullshit. I (and several others) built a tank nearly ten years ago.
> >No big deal. Note that psychoactives (at least if you have any
> experience
> >with them) don't modify the experience a great deal either. Certainly
> not
> >to upset anyone this much, this fast.
> >
> >The biggest threat is wrinkled skin and bacterial infections.
> >
> >You've been watching way too many movies, you won't morph into a
> proto-ape
> >or glow like lave either ;)
> 
> You were using the wrong psychoactives then.
> 
Indeed.

Don't think I turned into an ape, but for
about 30hrs (reconstructed) I'm not
sure what I was. 

PS, anything less than a full cycle in a tank
(16 hrs at least) is a bad place from whence to 
judge. 

There were tanks and tanks. I used the one
at LSU back in the seventies. It was completely
illegal. The tank was properly ventilated,
completely mechanically isolated (not easy
to accomplish), anechoic and of course dark 
to the point there was no visible light, even 
to to the meters. 

There was some energy being devoted to the 
concept that folks could set up shop
with these things, kinda like gyms. Go
to the strip mall and reboot yer head
in a hour kinda deal. Didn't really take
off.

I fasted for a day before entering the tank, 
I dosed with 300 mikes of LSD, cooked in
the LSU labs by buddy chem students in
100 mike doses taken an hour apart, last
dose before stepping in. I was already
peaking badly when they shut the door. 

It was a bd weekend, I'll tell ya. 

Had a friend, aquaintence really, who did the tank at Ga Tech.
Yes, there was one. Done on the original
Doc John Lilly concept of full imersion with
a free flow full face mask with a blacked
out face plate. He stayed in for about
22 hours, had a hard time talking coherently
about it.

He was our inspiration to do our 
set of experiments. I bailed on the
project after my time in. 

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[cubic-dog]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Kevin Elliott wrote:

> At 14:06 -0700  on  11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
> >>  The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency
> >>  to shoot officers which was considered very bad "form".  I believe it
> >>  was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what
> >>  amounted to war crimes.  But again, very poor rate of fire kept them
> >>  from replacing the smoothbore.
> >
> >This probably stemmed from the aristocratic culture of the times?
> 
> It's probably partly historical as well (meaning there used to be a 
> good reason).  Think about a large conscript army, basically 
> completely undisciplined by todays standard.  Very poor 
> communication, so the officer core on site has nearly complete 
> autonomy.  Killing a large piece of that officer core could very well 
> remove any constraints on the soldiers behavior.  Next thing you know 
> the orderly army has turned into a marauding barbarian horde.  That's 
> not good for either side.
>

I always thought this was hype generated by the Officer cadre to
cover their butts.
Discipline was dolled out by the NCOs, not officers. Killing the
officers might piss off a few, but certainly not all, esp in a
conscript unit. The NCOs are in charge, the Officers have the 
agenda. Kill the officer, kill the agenda. 

RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. W ho's ne

[cubic-dog]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Kevin Elliott wrote:
> My original point was about the more general topic of unit tactics 
> during the revolution.  Disciplined formation fighting and volley 
> fire is THE way to win large scale musket engagements.  Any other way 
> gets you clubbed to death by weight of fire.  A pet peeve of mine is 
> the implicit assumption that seems to have been nailed into out 
> public school children (including me) that the british tactics in the 
> revolutionary war basically boiled down to "they were stupid idiots". 
> A more careful reading of history shows this to be simply untrue.

I had a problem with this line since probably about 4th grade. 
Now, I grew up in the day when it was okay to go run around
in the woods divided up into teams of yanks and krauts and reenact
our various uncles recollections of the Battle of the Bulge, some
of us using using captured Mausers or uncle Bill's Springfield sans
bolts as our toys. The rich kids had Johnny Eagle toy guns and
some others Mattel. 

That aside, we'd go out and "re-enact" and come home and ask questions
of our warrior fathers and friends warroir fathers and get corrected
a lot. Our Dad's Uncles and such told us about smoothbore, some of
us got to shoot them. Compared with our .22s at summer camp, you couldn't
hit crap with these things. We were told that to use cover and concealment 
and pick off the enemy was just fine, but in order to Win The Day, you 
had to go toe to toe with him on the battlefield and beat him down. That 
in essence, what we were being taught in school was crap.

What do kids today do? How do they learn to war? 

Re: On alliances and enemies.

[cubic-dog]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Jim Choate wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, cubic-dog wrote:
> 
> > I don't see Stalin/Hitler, I see;
> > 
> > Standard Oil/
> > Department of Transporation/
> > Interstate Commerce Commission)
> > General Motors/
> > Ford/
> > and so forth.
> 
> It's worth noting that the first two wouldn't have had near the impact
> they did if not for the help from entities like the later.

I think it's fair to say without cooperation on
behalf of all the players, none of them would have
been in the posistions of power and influence
that they were. (some still are)

> You draw a false distinction.
> 

How so? 

Re: Pizza with a credit card

[cubic-dog]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> Buying Trouble
> 
> In which the Village Voice discusses the use of commercial databases 
> including supermarket discount cards in hunting terrorists.
> 
> One useful piece of advice:
> 
> Don't but pizza with a credit card:
> SNIP
> 
> Course all those terrorists buying their pizzas with cash get away clean.


I've wondered for years how much longer this
will be allowed. Cash is still viable. Not
as viable as it was 10, or even 5 years ago.
I am still able to travel with only cash, buy
a pizza with only cash, or other food, still
buy groceries without having to produce mein
ausweiss (why I stopped shopping at CostCo
years back). But it is all getting stickier.

Re: Another restriction on technology - cell and cordless scanning now a felony

[cubic-dog]

How is this legal? 

How is it legal to outlaw reception of radio 
transmissions under the FCC act of 1934? 

I have never understood this. I keep expecting at
some point, someone will somehow come up with a 
good reason to take a monitoring claim to the
US supreme court and get all these laws tossed
aside. But I guess I am expecting too much.

For all of it's faults, the fcc act of '34 
established in law that the air waves are
public property, that broadcasters operate
under license and don't own jack shit, and
that broadcasters must act in "the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity."

Even during war time in the 40's it was
established that anyone could "monitor" 
as the air waves are public property. However,
it was further established that one could
not act upon reception of certain broadcasts
with malicious intent and blah blah blah.

How in the hell have all these anti-monitoring
laws gotten passed? Do any of our lawmakers 
have any clue how the law works at all? 

This is sickening. 

*WE THE PEOPLE* own the airwaves. PERIOD.

Sony doesn't own them, Verizon doesn't own
them, for heavens sake, CNN certainly doesn't
own them, and as far as sat tv goes, neither
does the Playboy channel. 

WE own them. 

Re: Why we must stay silent no longer

[cubic-dog]

The overall message isn't all that bad, 
but the body of the document is so replete
with errors, misrepresentations and 
misconveyance as to be unreadable.

I almost gave up on it at the line, 
"More than 75 per cent of Americans 
would boycott stores selling goods 
produced in sweatshops."

This isn't even remotely based in reality.
Who ever came up with this number, assuming
it was sincere, is seriously deluded.

There are plenty of other inaccuracies that
would have better been left unstated. 

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Anonymous wrote:

> The death of democracy is at hand.
> 
> http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/hertz.htm