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
Free Speech? Not if we don't like what you have to say
cn | 23 April, 2007 15:20
Why is it that so many people believe that a statement they don't like must be silenced rather than listened to and evaluated? It seems a religious group recently interrupted a comedian's show because they didn't like something about what he was saying...so they poured water all over his handwritten notes:
I am performing the show to a packed house, when suddenly the lights start coming up in the house as a flood of people start walking down the aisles -- they looked like a flock of birds who'd been startled, the way they all moved so quickly, and at the same moment... it was shocking, to see them surging down the aisles. The show halted as they fled, and at this moment a member of their group strode up to the table, stood looking down on me and poured water all over the outline, drenching everything in a kind of anti-baptism.
There's a video of the event at the site, here. My guess is that the perpetrators of the act live in great fear of the lord that they claim to be 'benevolent' and thus don't understand why the rest of us (comedian included) don't have such fear, and since we don't, they decide it's their purpose to create the fear themselves. But that's just a guess...
Posted in Ethics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Factoid for March 1st
cn | 01 March, 2007 13:45
In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is illegal to have sex with a truck driver inside a toll booth.source: http://hookedonfacts.com
Posted in Speeding Towards a Police State, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Coulple nabs cop, charged with stalking!
cn | 19 February, 2007 18:35
Well, it seems that if you wish to keep tabs on the police, you'd better be prepared to defend yourself. In this land of 'freedom' it can be quite dangerous to stand up to what you believe to be corruption in any part of the government, let alone the men with guns. A couple in Georgia found this out when they set up a radar detector on their property and recorded a cop speeding past their house at 17mph over the speed limit (from the Daily Tribune News):
Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1,200 mounting three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their home, which is at the bottom of a hill. They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son.
The Sipples allegedly caught Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone speeding up to 17 mph over the speed limit. Perrone alerted Bartow authorities, who in turn visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking.
The thing is, too many people believe the police are the final upholders of what's good and right and allow the police to be the final word in all things without standing up for - and often without even knowing - what their rights are...which can be a major problem when those supposedly upholding our rights (the police) don't know what they are either...
originally found via boingboing.net
Posted in Legal, Speeding Towards a Police State . 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
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
January 30th 1972 - Bloody Sunday, Northern Ireland
cn | 01 February, 2007 00:51
On Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland thirteen civilians were shot dead by a squad of British paratroopers during a civil rights march.
The website Sign of the Times ran a story on it yesterday:
Under direct orders to "get some kills", the British soldiers opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, killing thirteen including six children. Five of the dead had been shot in the back. One demonstrator was shot twice in the back as he lay wounded on the ground. Another was shot at close range in the face. There was also evidence to suggest that some soldiers had used modified "dum dum" bullets that create a larger wound with greater blood loss and trauma.
All the dead were unarmed members of the civilian community.
The article makes some bold predictions about an inquiry by the British government due out some time this year. However, whether the inquiry finds the British troops responsible for what many call a massacre might be irrelevant as, conveniently, 35 years have past and the incident is but a distant memory to so much of the world.
I think the article closes with a very applicable, if somewhat jaded outlook:
Like so many similar events before it, Bloody Sunday had the potential to literally change the world: to open the eyes of normal human beings to the truth about the nature of certain individuals that we have come to call our leaders. Sadly, that potential is unlikely to ever be realised, chiefly due to the fact that the same 'leaders' control the extent and nature of the information that reaches the public mind.
The masses of normal humanity therefore find themselves caught in a trap of their own design. Imprisoned by their own refusal to believe, against all evidence, that their political leaders would ever consciously do anything to harm them, they thus provide these same leaders with unlimited scope to pursue their criminal and duplicitous agenda.
Posted in Politics, World Culture/Travel, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Random Fact for January 26th
cn | 27 January, 2007 00:40
The IRS employees tax manual has instructions for collecting taxes after a nuclear war.
source: http://hookedonfacts.comThat's just super. So if we're all trying to survive post-nuclear holocaust brought about by our own government, they're still going to come knocking on our doors to take our money to support them...does that make sense? Do you want to pay for the continuance of the government that brings about nuclear war?
Posted in Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
UK Citizens Not Too Concerned About Civil Liberties
cn | 24 January, 2007 17:46
An article at Homeland Stupidity looks at the overwhelming willingness of Britons to give up their civil liberties for greater security:
A recent study of social attitudes in Britain has discovered that support for civil liberties is on the wane, with the majority of the population seeing infringements on their rights as a reasonable price for apparent security.
The British Social Attitudes Survey, released every year since 1983, reports that the vast majority of British citizens support compulsory, biometric identity cards, are in favour of detentions of terrorist subjects without charge, and support the tagging and wire-tapping of terrorist suspects without charge.
Now, I have all kinds of problems with this attitude, but I guess what I find most disconcerting is that the people surveyed really believe, or at least want to believe to such an extent that they do believe, that they are somehow safer if the government is constantly and endlessly watching them. Will they consider themselves safer when they can no longer criticize the government in any way so long as there are no terrorist attacks. They may be safer from terrorists in that moment, but is that a world in which you want to live?
Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
January 24th - a freakin' great quote by James Madison
cn | 24 January, 2007 17:41
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.
— James Madison
How timely is that?
Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Congress Trying to Silence Grassroots Movements in America?
cn | 21 January, 2007 23:06
Mark Fitzgibbons of GrassrootsFreedoms.com accuses Congress of attempting to track and, as he accuses, silence grassroots movements in the US...
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.'
Now, the government can justify this in any way they want, but when it comes down to it, is it right for the government to track any and all major efforts to organize political movemnts? It seems to me to be a conflict of interests and another step towards authoritarianism. I haven't found this reported in any major media outlets yet and holds major First Amendment Rights implications.
There's a piece at hillnews.com about the bill as well citing former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith:
“It’s a disaster, generally, the notion that the government should be checking up on attempts by citizens to communicate with citizens,” Smith said. He argued that lawmakers are seeking the identity of firms paying for constituent calls for purposes of retaliation: “Can you think of any other reason that members of Congress need to know who’s running grassroots ads in their district?”
However, the piece at hillnews.com finishes with this:
As for the [Free Speech C]oalition’s rhetorical combat with Public Citizen, MacCleery characterized the specter of a lawsuit against grassroots rules as an attempt to generate a false opposition to reform.
“It’s almost like they’re flacks,” she added, “like they’re good at creating the appearance of controversy where none exists.”
Both sides have good points, yet when it comes to passing laws with such potentially sweeping effects to one's ability to critique or even oppose the government, we must proceed cautiously and the media must be diligent in its reporting. Otherwise, we as a nation will only move one unimpeded step closer to a police state.
You can also read a very right-leaning report here. However, I would not call the report balanced in any way, shape, or form, but certainly gives a perspective not covered in the other sources, yet in agreement with the final statement - that this is a dangerous bill.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Nothing Like a Taser to Control the Masses...
cn | 18 January, 2007 15:11At a Saginaw, Michigan City Council meeting this week a man was Tasered when:
he resisted efforts to remove him from a Saginaw, Mich., City Council meeting. He said he had to stand up for his right to wear his Los Angeles Dodgers baseball cap, despite a rule banning hats for men inside.
Posted in Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
We Don't Have Secret Laws in America...Do We?
ben | 16 January, 2007 20:15
It seems that the Supreme Court of the United States of America doesn't think it is a right for Americans to know the actual laws they are forced to follow (or face the punishment), There are laws in place. Many of them we know. Others we can go look up or find someone to look up for us. However, there are apparently some laws which we have know right to know the specifics of, but are in essence forced to follow.
Enter John Gilmore...[text from Homeland Stupidity]:
In 2002, John Gilmore attempted twice to board an airplane without showing government-issued identification and was denied boarding both times. Officials repeatedly refused to show him a law or regulation which required him to show ID, claiming it was sensitive security information, and he went to court.
Now this somewhat baffles me. With the government's penchant for blacking out documentation released to the public, I would think they could come up with enough blackout to leave Mr. Gilmore with at least part of a document that would say something similar to, "Airplane travelers [BLACKOUT BLACKOUT BLACKOUT] must present [BLACKOUT] government issued ID [BLACKOUT BLACKOUT BLACKOUT] to board an airplane." Don't you think?
As it turns out, Homeland Stupidity points out that:
Copies of the security directive in question have been leaked and have been available on the Internet for years. It does not require passengers to show identification, but does require that anyone who does not show identification go through secondary screening and requires special handling procedures for their checked baggage.
Without the actual text of the directive, we can only assume that it is in fact perfectly legitimate to board a plane without an ID so long as you can pass the screenings.
In fact, someone who I know very well has done just such a thing. He lost his license a day or so before his flight home for Christmas a few years back (post- 9/11). He called the airline and the airline told him that it was okay, but he should show up to the airport extra early because he would most definitely be searched, etc. He showed up early. He was searched. His baggage was searched. He boarded the plane without an ID and made it home for Christmas.
Given my friend's experience and that of Mr Gilmore it would seem that Mr. Gilmore might have been denied boarding either for a reason other than not having an ID (ie: he challenged the authority figure, who decided to not let him board - which brings up an issue of power usurping the law, among others) or the person/people that did not allow him to board are ignorant of the actual laws and regulations they are tasked to uphold. Both of these seem to me to be very serious issues.
Michael Hapmton, the writer of the Homeland Stupidity piece, closes aptly:
Gilmore calls secret law “an abomination” and says that it violates his right to due process. But now, with the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear this case, Americans can be subject to secret laws. Didn’t think that sort of thing could happen here? It can now.
Oh, and as the Ninth Circuit said in its decision, “the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.” You don’t have the right to travel either, according to these people.
The noose tightens.
The final statement of the Ninth Circuit might seem innocuous at first, but leave opens the question of further restrictions, and even, to me, seems to suggest that we are granted the privilege of being able to travel by the good graces of the government. Which in a sense is true. We can't pay to fly on the space shuttle, but we can if we go to Russia. Does that make Russia a freer country than the U.S.? In some sense, perhaps.
27BSroke6 wrote about the Gilmore issue as well:
According to a statement by the Identity Project, which Gilmore heads and funds, " We must insist that our elected representatives control the TSA, and hold it accountable for its actions by, first, demanding that it make public this and any other laws it promulgates to bind the public."
Posted in Legal, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink