Dress Like We Say or Go To Jail!
ben | 17 September, 2007 12:52
And we seem to march towards a quasi-fascist state by leaps and bounds. It seems that fashion - always a popular whipping boy of those wishing to quash expression of any kind - is under the gun again. Baggy pants are now in the crosshairs, though I should quantify the statement with the disclaimer that most current or proposed laws restricting the wearing of 'baggy pants' focus on pants worn in a way that shows boxers or bare butt. From CNN.com:
Proposals to ban saggy pants are starting to ride up in several places. At the extreme end, wearing pants low enough to show boxers or bare buttocks in one small Louisiana town means six months in jail and a $500 fine.
A crackdown also is being pushed in Atlanta, Georgia. And in Trenton, New Jersey, getting caught with your pants down may soon result in not only a fine, but a city worker assessing where your life is headed.
The real issue, which isn't touched upon in the CNN article, is that such laws would once again put the judgment of who's wearing pants that are 'too baggy' in the hands of the police or general public. Oh yeah, and in America why is the government controlling what clothes I wear???
Posted in Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (1). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Dude! UK's State of Fear
cn | 22 May, 2007 18:26
Okay, so I've been light on the political postings lately, but THIS is scary. If you care at all about government monitoring, Big Brother, 1984, freedom, individuality, personal expression, democracy, etc., etc. From BBC.com:
The UK's first police remote control helicopter has taken off.
Merseyside police are using the "spy drone", fitted with CCTV cameras, mainly for tackling anti-social behaviour and public disorder.
And you've got to visit the link, if only to see the picture of the thing!
BBC story here.
Originally found via boinboing.net.
Posted in Computers/Technology, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
June 18th-24th - PorcFest 2007!
cn | 19 May, 2007 11:28
The Free State Project's 2007 Porcupine Freedom Festival is coming up this June 18th to 24th in Gilford, New Hampshire at Gunstock Mountain Resort (near Laconia, north of Concord). From their website:
PorcFest is about bringing together people that are, in any shape or form, connected to the Free State Project. Whether you are simply curious, whether you are a friend of the FSP, whether you are a signer of the Statement of Intent, whether you are originally from New Hampshire, or whether you are have already moved, PorcFest is the place to meet, talk, plan, and enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Live Free or Die state.
Organized activities will include bus tours, hiking, training, speakers, entertainment, bbqs, and more. It looks like a lot of fun and I love their intent and the process they're using to create political change.
See th Festival homepage here.
Posted in Politics, World Culture/Travel . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Free Land in Alaska!
cn | 16 March, 2007 17:26
Just like in the olden-days when the government gave away land to the homesteaders to encourage America to move west, a town in Alaska is giving away 26 lots of 1,3 acres each on a first-come, first-serve basis. What do you have to do to obtain one of the lots? Says CNN.com:
The 1.3-acre lots will be awarded to the first people who apply for them and submit $500 refundable deposits beginning at 9 a.m. Monday. Each winning applicant must build a house measuring at least 1,000 square feet within two years. Power and phone hookups are now available.
And what's Anderson, AK like?
...no gas station, no grocery store and no traffic lights, but it does have plenty of woodsy land
...
Among the other advantages of Anderson: no property taxes, state income taxes or sales tax, virtually no crime, and no traffic. There are magnificent summers with temperatures as high as 90 degrees and plenty of wide-open space.
But it sure is smack dab in the middle of nowhere. But check out the town's website here to see details of the land giveaway! I'm thinking I might just have to apply...
Posted in General, Business/Finance, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
What to do what to do...
cn | 10 March, 2007 23:01
I've been thinking a lot lately about what's going on in the world and what's going on with people in the world and why things are how they are. I have certain beliefs about liberty and freedom and the general rights of all people that, based on events in the world, are not beliefs that are shared by other people...obviously.
I think there are so many things that influence peoples' moment-to-moment beliefs and decisions that people often are not fully aware of what they are supporting or choosing. As a result, in the moment they hear a public figure speak or read a news article, they are impassioned, they are caught up in the rhetoric of the moment and forget the implications of the action they are about to support or the action or stance that the public figure is taking.
The media and those people who exist in the public eye and have established themselves in positions of power are well aware of their own capacity to sway public opinion and belief and choose to do so in a way that will entrench enough of the general public on their own side and keep the masses at bay, as it were. You see, I believe that if most people fully understood the implications inherent in restricting our rights defined in the Constitution - especially restricting them in the manner in which the government is currently proceeding - people would to a great extent oppose the direction in which our society is moving.
But how will people come to understand what is really going on in the world? How will they come to move beyond the immediate blood and gore of the front page of the newspaper or the meaningless yet emotionally moving speeches of politicians to see the real issues? I have some opinions about this but essentially it all comes down to objectivity and respect for the general public.
It would seem that most politicians have one of two driving beliefs in place:
- the general public is ignorant and even if given all the information they will make poor choices, therefore as I (the politician) must misinform them in order to protect them from themselves.
- the general public is smart, but if I (the politician) give them all the relevant information they will not support me and I will lose my power/money/etc, therefore I must misinform them in order to maintain my position of power.
Not to say that all politicians fall into one of these two camps, but it would seem that a great many wish to present only one side of data or not data at all when presenting their ideas.
The obvious question would be 'How do we change this?' But perhaps a more important question would be: 'Why change it?' or phrased with less brevity: 'Is it even important or necessary to change it?'
I suppose that depends on one’s greatest desires in life – what one sees as important and how far into the future one looks. If all in the world I care about is the material possessions I have at this moment or the idea that I have a job today and will (I believe) have a job tomorrow, then what the goes on in the world does not concern me, so long as I’m continually assured that I can have my stuff and will have my job tomorrow. But let’s say that today I am told by an unassailable source that I can have my job forever – until I die or retire – and can keep everything I have now forever – until I die or give it away – but in exchange for these graces granted by this almighty entity I must subjugate myself and forfeit all my freedoms – those of speech, those of choice, those of religion, those of self-determination – to the whims of this unassailable source. What do I choose? I put forth that we as a culture, as a civilization, are choosing to forfeit ourselves to the unassailable source, a source which at any moment could decide to take what little it grants us, yet we continue down this road unseeing.
What will it take to see? What will it take for us as a culture and nation to step back and look down upon ourselves and ask: ‘Is this how humanity is meant to live? Is this all we can muster?’
Things for us as a society are very good right now but it seems to me that we are at a precarious position and can choose to step to the side of fear and veiled totalitarianism or to the side of freedom. The only catch is that we have to actually do something. And it might mean less TV or fewer Walmarts or more expensive gas. But that could all be gone tomorrow anyway if we choose to continue in the direction we’re headed.
I leave you with this:
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the sick, the so-called incurables, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't mentally ill.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me
- Pastor Martin Niemoller
The poem has a few versions – learn about them here.
Read an adapted modern version here.
Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Moveon.org's Shifty Campaign
cn | 27 February, 2007 12:26
FactCheck.org reports that MoveOn.org's political action group is throwing some republicans into the fire without analyzing the actual stance of those republicans in regards to the issue they are fighting about - escalation in Iraq:
MoveOn.org Political Action began airing ads attacking four Republican senators in their home states, accusing them of favoring escalation of the war in Iraq and saying all are "willing to send tens of thousands more troops to face danger in Iraq." The ads clearly misrepresent the stands of three of the targeted senators, who in fact had publicly expressed strong disapproval of sending additional US troops.
This is just from the summary. The article itself goes into great detail about the actions of Moveon.org (who managed to raise $150,000 to run the ads) and pulled quotes by those that Moveon names.
A couple of the great things about FactCheck.org - they include a bibliography of their sources and they present the data of the issue at hand rather than hypothesis.
Now, why doesn't CNN, BBC, the NY Times, Fox News, etc. provide a bibliography of their sources. I understand the importance of certain sources remaining anonymous, but when they quote a fact or a source actually named in one of their stories, why not provide the reader with a reference to the actual source document or full interview, etc so we can see the context from which the information was pulled? Hmmm...that might mean accountability...
Posted in Ethics, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Define Irony - World Leaders Looking Through Lensecapped Binoculars!
cn | 27 February, 2007 12:13
Recently, Signs of the Times ran a couple of pictures of world leaders looking through binoculars - apparently one of them actually doing it multiple times while responding to the person next to them about what they were looking at. Here's one:
Take a look at the post here. The descriptions of the events surrounding the photos are quite amusing...Sign of the Times does acknowledge that it can't confirm whether the photos are doctored at all, but one assumes certain credibility, being they come from the BBC and AP, which may not be the best policy....
Posted in Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Quote of the Day!
cn | 18 February, 2007 01:31
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Your State's Lobbyist to Legislators Ratio
cn | 16 February, 2007 23:16
The Center for Public Integrity recently published a list of the ratio of lobbyists to legislators in each state. No real surprises on the list with this year's 'winner' with the highest ratio being.....New York! With twenty lobbyists to every one legislator (4264 lobbyists to 212 legislators). And the state with the lowest? Again, no surprise here - New Hampshire with only slightly more than 1/2 lobbyist per legislator.
New Hampshire, incidentally, is home to the Free State Project whose newsletter I originally found this information in.
Posted in Philosophy, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Liberty Forum Next Weekend in New Hampshire
cn | 16 February, 2007 22:27The Free State Project is hosting its annual Liberty Forum in Concord, NH from Thursday, Feb. 22nd to Sunday Feb. 25th with keynote speaker John Stossel. Read all about it here.
Posted in Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Nashville Mayor Stands Up for True American Values
cn | 14 February, 2007 10:58
The Nashville, TN Metro Council passed (23-14) a bill that would require all government communication to be in English - which to me basically amounts to a vote for exclusion. Not only are open immigration and willing assistance to those who can not easily communicate with English-speakers a great boost for the growth and prosperity of our country, but it also exemplifies what I believe the true core values that the foundation of our country was built on: acceptance, equality, and humanity. Lucky for the side of freedom, the Nashville mayor took a similar stand (from cnn.com):
Even supporters acknowledged that the bill to make English the official language of Nashville was mostly a symbolic slap at illegal immigration.
But even that was too much for Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell. He vetoed the measure, saying it was unconstitutional, unnecessary and mean-spirited.
...Purcell said his legal staff had advised him the measure violated the U.S. and state constitutions, and likely legal challenges would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend -- "for no good reason."
..."If this ordinance becomes law, Nashville will become a less safe, less friendly and less successful city," Purcell said. "And as mayor, I cannot allow that to happen."
The first section of the above quote speaks quite volumes for the mindset of what I would consider, more or less, the status quo of government practice - creating an exclusionary bill that would be little more than "a symbolic slap at illegal immigration".
If the media and the government took a big-picture look at not only the implications of closing down immigration, but of what it means - what values we are upholding - by passing and promoting measures such as this, I believe it would create a much more tolerant, safe, and productive mindset with the general public. As it stands, even productive, intelligent, and resourceful people from Canada and Mexico have an extraordinarily hard time working in the United States and, as history shows, nearly all of the greatest contributors to our growth and prosperity in modern history have come from other countries, or their parents have, or their parents' parents have.
If we attract the motivated, the intelligent, the excluded from other countries around the world, we will grow and prosper because those people will create opportunities for all of us. If we shun those same people, it will likely lead only to decline.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Philosophy, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Quote of the Day - February 12th, 2007
cn | 12 February, 2007 12:52
It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
source: http://www.worldofquotes.com/
Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Quote of the Day - February 11th, 2007
cn | 11 February, 2007 12:50
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
-source: http://www.worldofquotes.com/
Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
New York Police State
cn | 09 February, 2007 20:55
Walk, jog or bicycle across a New York street with an iPod plugged in your ears and you could get slapped with a $100 ticket under a new law proposed by a legislator from Brooklyn.State Sen. Carl Kruger's bill would also outlaw the use of cell phones, Blackberries, video games or other electronic devices when crossing the street. (from wired.com)
He cited the death of a 21-year-old man who was listening to music when he stepped off a curb and was hit by a bus in Brooklyn in September, and the death of a 23-year-old iPod listener last month.
Does anyone else have images of robotic, thoughtless, emotionless entities marching numbly to and from work, and passively floating through their lives? That will be us if issues such as the above grow and gain power.
And will taking our iPods away somehow cause us to be more careful or pay more attention?
Posted in Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Offend Someone in the UK? Go to Jail!
cn | 08 February, 2007 20:39
In the UK, police are demanding the power to suppress, arrest, or otherwise restrict anyone doing anything that they deem offensive (from guardianUnlimited.com)...
Police are to demand new powers to arrest protesters for causing offence through the words they chant and the slogans on their placards and even headbands.
Though the numerous justifications quoted in the article seem to totally disregard the concept of free speech, the tone of the article itself, rather than maintaining an objective voice, seems to be whole-heartedly supporting the idea of more restrictions of speech on the masses:
As well as the absence of a law banning the burning of a flag, there is no law banning the burning of a religious text.
The police want powers to tackle a "grey area" in the array of public order laws. At present, causing offence by itself is not a criminal offence.
All in all, I found the article quite interesting in that British officials seem to be openly pursuing a path of suppression AND the media, at least the above-quoted media outlet, fails to point out the clear dangers of such restrictions, not to mention the seemingly obvious issue of the ambiguity of a law that would give discretion to the police on the ground...
Originally found via ReasonOnline.
Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink