Thanks to a combination of entrepreneurial energy and benign political neglect.
April 13, 2010 |
One warm, bright winter day in January, I spent a few hours driving around
two neighborhoods in Los Angeles, looking at marijuana stores.
You know, marijuana stores. Where you (well, not necessarily you) can walk
in and, if you can prove a doctor has recommended marijuana to you for
relief of an ailment, walk out with a brown bag full of buds, pot brownies,
or cannabis candy bars. Los Angeles has more than 500 of these stores.
My companions on the drives were two citizen activists who didn’t like
seeing so many marijuana shops and who regularly let the Los Angeles
City Council know of their unhappiness.
Michael Larsen, a 43-year-old family man, is public safety director for the
Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council. He doesn’t like to discuss his day job
in the press, saying it has drawn too many hostile medical marijuana supporters to his work-related websites in the past.
Eagle Rock, a neighborhood in northeast Los Angeles, is visibly aging but remains dignified and distinct, with commercial areas occupied mostly by low-slung, pale old buildings housing storefront doctor’s offices, service businesses such as beauty salons and tax preparers, and independent restaurants and boutiques rather than chain stores. As we cruise a mile or so up and down Eagle Rock, York, and Colorado boulevards, Larsen points out more than 10 pot dispensaries. “Eagle Rock is about being a small community with a small-town feel, and we want to retain that,” he says.
Responding to criticisms he’s received from medical marijuana activists, Larsen insists: “I’m not being uncompassionate. I may be a NIMBY, but I’m fine with that. Eagle Rock is struggling to maintain the character of the neighborhood, for my kids or other people and their kids.” Larsen tells me about the healthy-looking young men who sometimes congregate in parking lots or on streets near dispensaries, smoking pot or blasting music. He points out one such young man entering AEC, a dispensary on Colorado Boulevard, while we are in its parking lot. He tells me about a local woman in her 80s who can’t understand what kind of world she’s living in, where marijuana is sold on her corner.
Larsen also points out some grubby-looking auto repair shops along his neighborhood’s main strip and tells me how the locals managed to curb their profusion through the city’s planning process. He talks about the auto repair shops in much the same way he discusses the pot shops. He does not think either should be completely eliminated, but he believes they constitute a blight on the neighborhood when they are too conspicuous.
Larsen and I pass one marijuana dispensary, the Cornerstone Collective, that I visited the day before. If you didn’t know it was there, you wouldn’t know it was there. It has no pot leaf images, no neon signs announcing “Alternative” or “Herbal,” no commercial signage at all. The owner, Michael Backes, told me with amused pride that a while back, when a runaway car plowed straight through his wall, a local news crew identified the place as a “dentist office,” which is what it looks like from its waiting room. Backes is “doing it right,” Larsen tells me.
My drive through Studio City, in the southeast San Fernando Valley just over the mountains from Hollywood, is similar. Barbara Monahan Burke, a 64-year-old horticulturalist who serves as the neighborhood council’s co-chair for government affairs, doesn’t say anything about increases in crime associated with the marijuana dispensaries (a connection often asserted by public officials), but she does complain about occasional pot smoking in front of them, which can annoy commercial neighbors. “I personally believe in compassionate use of medical marijuana and voted for it,” she says.
Within a couple of miles on Ventura Boulevard, a dozen dispensaries seem to be open for business on this weekday afternoon. (Burke told me in mid-February that by then she was only sure that six of them were still open for business.) “It’s about preservation of communities,” she says. “We want this to be a place where families can live. It’s about, what do the people who live here want our branding to be as Studio City?” That branding, she thinks, should not be linked to green crosses and billboards for Medicann, a medical marijuana doctors’ consulting service, every couple of blocks on her neighborhood’s major commercial strip.
The Wild West of Weed
Newsweek dubbed Los Angeles “the wild West of weed” in October 2009, and that phrase often echoed through the city council’s chamber as it haggled over a long-awaited ordinance regulating the dispensaries. Both the Los Angeles Times and the L.A. Weekly regularly jabbed at the city council for fiddling while marijuana burned, supplied by storefront pot dispensaries that were widely (but inaccurately) said to total 1,000 or more.
On January 26, after years of dithering and months of debate, the city council finally passed an ordinance to regulate medical marijuana shops. In addition to dictating the details of lighting, record keeping, auditing, bank drops, hours of operation, and compensation for owners and employees, the ordinance requires a dramatic reduction in the number of dispensaries. The official limit is 70, but because of exemptions for some pre-existing dispensaries the final number could grow as high as 137. The ordinance allocates the surviving dispensaries among the city’s “planning districts” and requires that they be located more than 1,000 feet from each other and from “sensitive areas” such as parks, schools, churches, and libraries. It also requires patients who obtain marijuana from dispensaries to pick one outlet and stick with it.
The U.S. Army says a surgeon who has publicly refused to follow any further
orders until he sees documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to be
president is being "reassigned" at Walter Reed Army Hospital after
he refused to deploy to Afghanistan as scheduled.
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is the highest-ranking and first active-duty officer
to refuse to obey orders based on President Obama's eligibility.
While there have been reports Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is facing an imminent court-martial, Army spokesman Chuck Dasey told WND today that Lakin is only "under investigation" at this point.
"Lakin reported to the commander, Medical Center Brigade, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, on Monday, 12 April, after failing to report for duty at Fort Campbell, Ky.," a statement sent by Dasey to WND today said.
"Lakin will be assigned to duty at Walter Reed pending investigation."
A spokeswoman for the case, Margaret Calhoun Hemenway, told WND that whatever the "assignment" amounts to, Lakin's access privileges were revoked, his computer was confiscated and he "is not permitted to support his Hippocratic oath … and take care of the troops as a doctor and a surgeon."
On the day he was supposed to have reported for deployment, Lakin was read his rights by Col. Gordon Roberts, his brigade commander, who discussed the situation with him and told him he had the "right to remain silent" because he was about to be charged with "serious crimes."
Hemenway said the message was that "he will shortly be court-martialed for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor."
(Story continues below)
Lakin earlier released a copy of a letter he sent to Obama saying, "the burden of proof must rest with you."
The letter, posted at the Safeguard Our Constitution website, which is assembling support for the officer, describes how Lakin tried through his chain of command and his congressional office to get answers to questions about Obama's eligibility.
Lakin originally announced his position with a video stating he would not follow orders because he was not sure of their legality under Obama, who has concealed personal information that could confirm he meets the constitutional requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."
There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.
"You serve as my commander-in-chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you," Lakin wrote.
"Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as commander-in-chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way," he continued. "I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed."
He had noted that every soldier "learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders." And he noted his orders to deploy include a demand for copies of his birth certificate.
But he said he was troubled by the president's decision to conceal "from public view" records that could easily end questions about Obama's place of birth and "natural born" status.
Lakin concluded: "Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as president and my commander-in-chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders."
The Army earlier informally recommended a mental evaluation and then threatened Lakin with punishment.
"On 30 March 2010, this command became aware of your intentions to refuse to follow deployment orders. Your stated reason for refusal was your belief that the election of the President of the United States is invalid because you believe he is not 'native born' [sic]. This counseling is to inform you that your deployment orders are presumed to be valid and lawful orders issued by competent military authority," said the document from the "counselor," Lt. Col. William D. Judd.
The letter reminded Lakin of his April 12 due date at Fort Campbell, Ky.
"Failure to follow your reassignment and/or deployment orders may result in adverse action including court-martial," the officer was warned.
A statement released by Hemenway noted Lakin is being supported by "hundreds" of people who have donated to his legal defense fund.
WND has reported that the controversy raises the prospect that the government ultimately may not want to pursue a prosecution because a defense attorney could demand in court proof that the orders are issued by an eligible president.
Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. But Lakin is the highest-ranking officer to raise the question.
One of the organizers behind the Safeguard Our Constitution website, serving in emeritus status, is John Hemenway, an attorney who previously fought in the U.S. court system on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who also questioned Obama's eligibility.
Here is the only 'birth certificate store" around! Read about the hunt for Obama's documentation!
The case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson who ruled that the dispute had been "twittered" during the 2008 election campaign.
In that opinion, Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.
"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.
The judge also suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case, and Hemenway responded that process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."
Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.
"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.
WND columnist Vox Day earlier wrote about this very scenario, calling it a "Get out of war" free card.
The comments followed the case of Cook, the reservist who challenged his deployment orders over questions about their legality under Obama.
"Rather than contesting the suit," Day wrote, "the Army took the highly peculiar step of revoking the major's deployment order, suggesting that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander in chief.
"The Pentagon's decision to back down rather than risk exposing Obama's birth records to the public means that every single American soldier, sailor, pilot and Marine now holds a 'get out of war free' card."
Obama's actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution's requirement that the U.S. president be a "natural born citizen" has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
WND has reported on a multitude of cases that have been brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility. Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, and others are from those who question whether the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office.
The issue has prompted a number of state legislatures to work on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. And a similar proposal has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.
The White House has not replied to numerous requests for comment.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
A new effort now asks those in authority regarding the nation's elections to demand the full proof.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
Some of the reaction to Alex Jones’ allegorical You Tube video in which he tortures an
iPad to make a point about how people care more about the suffering of an inanimate
object than they do actual human beings tragically reminds us of just how deeply
retarded, savage, and devoid of humanity many people still are.
Alex cited the outrageous attitude of those that acted as apologists for the shocking
footage of U.S. Apache helicopter pilots gunning down Iraqi journalists and children
and then laughing about it in making the point that the attempted legitimization of
torture was stripping people of their basic empathy and that people now care more about technological gadgets than they do the mass slaughter of a million Iraqis since the 2003 invasion.
To be frank, some of the reaction to the video sank to deeper depths of depravity than we even predicted. We thought people would respond by expressing sympathy for the suffering of the iPad, while they couldn’t care less about children being beaten, tortured and killed, and some did take the line. However, even more shocking were the rantings of people who freely expressed their opinion that Iraqi children should be slaughtered en masse to prevent them becoming terrorists when they grow up.
One user – “polardude20″ – wrote, “I honestly dont care if america tortures a few terrorists, it may not be fair, but its not fair when they hijack planes and use suicide bombers either.”
But little Sajad Salah and his younger sister Duaa Salah were neither hijackers nor suicide bombers, they were children who after seeing their father torn limb from limb by searing gunfire from an Apache for daring to attempt a rescue of Reuters cameramen who were similarly butchered, cowered screaming in a van that was then pelted with gunfire by U.S. troops who chuckled and made excuses for their demonic behavior.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Kill Puppies And Children, But God Forbid, Dont Hurt The iPad 150410banner1
“Us should bomb Iraq because Iraqi are terrorist; that kid in the van may become a terrorist hijacker that kill thousands and millions of America good citizen. So it is common sense to kill one to save millions,” drooled You Tube user “Jinnaraka”.
He or she even went on to ludicrously claim that the puppy thrown off a cliff by U.S. Marines who were later booted out of the Corps deserved its fate because it too could have been a future member of Al-Qaeda.
“That puppy is a terrorist-trained suicidal bomber, looking cute and innocent but in fact is a deadly weapon, so that guy is doing a good favor for us,” he wrote.
But while vehemently proclaiming that puppies and children should be killed in order to keep America safe, the individual couldn’t bring himself to embrace the thought that a real iPad went through the suffering seen in the video.
“And you are fucking faker. this is obviously a fake Ipad. you turn off the Ipad before you make holes on it. Kid will believe you,” he blathered.
So there you have it – butchering defenseless animals and children is not only acceptable, it’s a good thing and should be encouraged.
But God forbid should anyone take an electric drill to a genuine iPad – what kind of sick bastard would do that? Forbid, Don’t Hurt The iPad
You Tube user encourages butchering defenseless animals and kids to defend America, but can’t bring himself to accept that a real iPad was tortured
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, April 16, 2010
Some of the reaction to Alex Jones’ allegorical You Tube video in which he tortures an iPad to make a point about how people care more about the suffering of an inanimate object than they do actual human beings tragically reminds us of just how deeply retarded, savage, and devoid of humanity many people still are.
Alex cited the outrageous attitude of those that acted as apologists for the shocking footage of U.S. Apache helicopter pilots gunning down Iraqi journalists and children and then laughing about it in making the point that the attempted legitimization of torture was stripping people of their basic empathy and that people now care more about technological gadgets than they do the mass slaughter of a million Iraqis since the 2003 invasion.
To be frank, some of the reaction to the video sank to deeper depths of depravity than we even predicted. We thought people would respond by expressing sympathy for the suffering of the iPad, while they couldn’t care less about children being beaten, tortured and killed, and some did take the line. However, even more shocking were the rantings of people who freely expressed their opinion that Iraqi children should be slaughtered en masse to prevent them becoming terrorists when they grow up.
One user – “polardude20″ – wrote, “I honestly dont care if america tortures a few terrorists, it may not be fair, but its not fair when they hijack planes and use suicide bombers either.”
But little Sajad Salah and his younger sister Duaa Salah were neither hijackers nor suicide bombers, they were children who after seeing their father torn limb from limb by searing gunfire from an Apache for daring to attempt a rescue of Reuters cameramen who were similarly butchered, cowered screaming in a van that was then pelted with gunfire by U.S. troops who chuckled and made excuses for their demonic behavior.
“Us should bomb Iraq because Iraqi are terrorist; that kid in the van may become a terrorist hijacker that kill thousands and millions of America good citizen. So it is common sense to kill one to save millions,” drooled You Tube user “Jinnaraka”.
He or she even went on to ludicrously claim that the puppy thrown off a cliff by U.S. Marines who were later booted out of the Corps deserved its fate because it too could have been a future member of Al-Qaeda.
“That puppy is a terrorist-trained suicidal bomber, looking cute and innocent but in fact is a deadly weapon, so that guy is doing a good favor for us,” he wrote.
But while vehemently proclaiming that puppies and children should be killed in order to keep America safe, the individual couldn’t bring himself to embrace the thought that a real iPad went through the suffering seen in the video.
“And you are fucking faker. this is obviously a fake Ipad. you turn off the Ipad before you make holes on it. Kid will believe you,” he blathered.
So there you have it – butchering defenseless animals and children is not only acceptable, it’s a good thing and should be encouraged.
But God forbid should anyone take an electric drill to a genuine iPad – what kind of sick bastard would do that?
The Entertainment Industry's Dystopia of the Future
Commentary by Richard Esguerra
We're not easily shocked by entertainment industry overreaching; unfortunately, it's par for the course. But we were taken aback by the wish list the industry submitted in response to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator's request for comments on the forthcoming "Joint Strategic Plan" for intellectual property enforcement. The comments submitted by various organizations provide a kind of window into how these organizations view both intellectual property and the public interest. For example, EFF and other public interest groups have asked the IPEC to take a balanced approach to intellectual property enforcement, paying close attention to the actual harm caused, the potential unexpected consequences of government intervention, and compelling countervailing priorities.
The joint comment filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and others stands as a sharp contrast, mapping out a vision of the future where Big Media priorities are woven deep into the Internet, law enforcement, and educational institutions.
Consider the following, all taken from the entertainment industry's submission to the IPEC.
"Anti-infringement" software for home computers
There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers...these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware).
In other words, the entertainment industry thinks consumers should voluntarily install software that constantly scans our computers and identifies (and perhaps deletes) files found to be "infringing." It's hard to believe the industry thinks savvy, security-conscious consumers would voluntarily do so. But those who remember the Sony BMG rootkit debacle know that the entertainment industry is all too willing to sacrifice consumers at the altar of copyright enforcement.
Pervasive copyright filtering
Network administrators and providers should be encouraged
to implement those solutions that are available and reasonable
to address infringement on their networks. [This suggestion is
preceded by a list of filtering methods, like protocol filtering,
The entertainment industry loves widespread filtering as a
"solution" to online copyright infringement — in fact, it has
successfully persuaded Congress to push these technologies
on institutions of higher-education.
But this "solution" is full of flaws. First, even the automated
copyright blocking systems fail to protect fair use. Worse,
these techniques are unlikely to make any lasting dent on infringing behavior, but will instead just invite the use of more encryption and private "darknets" (or even just more hand-to-hand sharing of hard drives and burned DVDs). But perhaps the most pernicious effect may be that copyright protection measures can be trojan horses for consumer surveillance. In an age of warrantless wiretapping and national censorship, building more surveillance and inspection technologies into the heart of the Internet is an obviously bad idea. In the words of the Hollywood movie, "if you build it, they will come."
Intimidate and propagandize travelers at the border
Customs authorities should be encouraged to do more to educate the traveling public and entrants into the United States about these issues. In particular, points of entry into the United States are underused venues for educating the public about the threat to our economy (and to public safety) posed by counterfeit and pirate products. Customs forms should be amended to require the disclosure of pirate or counterfeit items being brought into the United States.
Does that iPod in your hand luggage contain copies of songs extracted from friends' CDs? Is your computer storing movies ripped from DVD (handy for conserving battery life on long trips)? Was that book you bought overseas "licensed" for use in the United States? These are the kinds of questions the industry would like you to answer on your customs form when you cross borders or return home from abroad. What is more, this suggestion also raises the specter of something we've heard the entertainment industry suggest before: more searches and seizures of electronic goods at the border. Once border officials are empowered to search every electronic device for "pirated" content, digital privacy will all but disappear, at least for international travelers. From what we've learned about the fight over a de minimis border measures search exclusion in the latest leaked text, ACTA might just try to make this a reality.
Bully countries that have tech-friendly policies
The government should develop a process to identify those online sites that are most significantly engaged in conducting or facilitating the theft of intellectual property. Among other uses, this identification would be valuable in the interagency process that culminates in the annual Special 301 report, listing countries that fail to provide adequate and effective protection to U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Special 301 could provide a focus on those countries where companies engaged in systematic online theft of U.S. copyrighted materials are registered or operated, or where their sites are hosted. Targeting such companies and websites in the Special 301 report would put the countries involved on notice that dealing with such hotbeds of copyright theft will be an important topic of bilateral engagement with the U.S. in the year to come. (As noted above, while many of these sites are located outside the U.S., their ability to distribute pirate content in the U.S. depends on U.S.-based ISP communications facilities and services and U.S.-based server farms operated commercially by U.S.-based companies.)
Some background: the Special 301 process is a particularly unpleasant annual procedure by which the United States Trade Representative (USTR) pressures other countries to adopt tougher intellectual property laws and spend more for IP enforcement. In the Special 301 report, the USTR singles out particular countries for their "bad" intellectual property policies, placing them on a watch list, and threatening trade sanctions for those that deny "adequate and effective protection" for US IP rightsholders or restrict fair and equitable market access for US intellectual property.
Before this year, the US Trade Representative only sought input from the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries for these rankings, resulting in unbalanced assessment criteria. Countries have been listed for failing to sign on to controversial international treaties or for not mirroring certain parts of US law. For example, Chile was named for considering fair use-style exceptions to its copyright law; Canada was listed for requiring that its customs officers have a court order before seizing goods at the border; and Israel was highlighted for refusing to adopt DMCA-style anti-circumvention provisions after legislative debate concluded that anti-circumvention laws would have no effect on copyright infringement.
The creative communities' proposal imagines that the US Trade Representative should become a glorified messenger for Big Media, using its resources to pressure countries that "harbor" websites and Internet services that facilitate copyright infringement. In other words, they believe that the USTR should put US IP rightsholders' interests at the center of its foreign policy, ignoring other foreign policy goals such as regional security, and promoting innovation and competition.
Federal agents working on Hollywood's clock
The planned release of a blockbuster motion picture should be acknowledged as an event that attracts the focused efforts of copyright thieves, who will seek to obtain and distribute pre-release versions and/or to undermine legitimate release by unauthorized distribution through other channels. Enforcement agencies (notably within DOJ and DHS) should plan a similarly focused preventive and responsive strategy. An interagency task force should work with industry to coordinate and make advance plans to try to interdict these most damaging forms of copyright theft, and to react swiftly with enforcement actions where necessary.
This is perhaps the most revealing of the proposals: big Hollywood studios deputizing the FBI and Department of Homeland Security to provide taxpayer-supported muscle for summer blockbuster films. Jokes have been made about SWAT team raids on stereotypical file-sharers in college dorm rooms — but this entertainment industry request to "interdict...and to react swiftly with enforcement actions" brings that joke ridiculously close to reality.
What next?
Of course, these comments are just an entertainment industry wishlist, an exercise in asking for the moon. But they reveal a great deal about the entertainment industry's vision of the 21st century: less privacy (with citizens actively participating in their own surveillance), a less-neutral Internet, and federal agents acting as paid muscle to protect profits of summer blockbusters.
The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator's request for comments on the forthcoming "Joint Strategic Plan" for intellectual property enforcement. The comments submitted by various organizations provide a kind of window into how these organizations view both intellectual property and the public interest. For example, EFF and other public interest groups have asked the IPEC to take a balanced approach to intellectual property enforcement, paying close attention to the actual harm caused, the potential unexpected consequences of government intervention, and compelling countervailing priorities.
The joint comment filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and others stands as a sharp contrast, mapping out a vision of the future where Big Media priorities are woven deep into the Internet, law enforcement, and educational institutions.
Consider the following, all taken from the entertainment industry's submission to the IPEC.
"Anti-infringement" software for home computers
There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers...these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware).
In other words, the entertainment industry thinks consumers should voluntarily install software that constantly scans our computers and identifies (and perhaps deletes) files found to be "infringing." It's hard to believe the industry thinks savvy, security-conscious consumers would voluntarily do so. But those who remember the Sony BMG rootkit debacle know that the entertainment industry is all too willing to sacrifice consumers at the altar of copyright enforcement.
Pervasive copyright filtering
Network administrators and providers should be encouraged to implement those solutions that are available and reasonable to address infringement on their networks. [This suggestion is preceded by a list of filtering methods, like protocol filtering, fingerprint-based filtering, bandwidth throttling, etc.]
The entertainment industry loves widespread filtering as a "solution" to online copyright infringement — in fact, it has successfully persuaded Congress to push these technologies on institutions of higher-education.
But this "solution" is full of flaws. First, even the "best" automated copyright blocking systems fail to protect fair use. Worse, these techniques are unlikely to make any lasting dent on infringing behavior, but will instead just invite the use of more encryption and private "darknets" (or even just more hand-to-hand sharing of hard drives and burned DVDs). But perhaps the most pernicious effect may be that copyright protection measures can be trojan horses for consumer surveillance. In an age of warrantless wiretapping and national censorship, building more surveillance and inspection technologies into the heart of the Internet is an obviously bad idea. In the words of the Hollywood movie, "if you build it, they will come."
Intimidate and propagandize travelers at the border
Customs authorities should be encouraged to do more to educate the traveling public and entrants into the United States about these issues. In particular, points of entry into the United States are underused venues for educating the public about the threat to our economy (and to public safety) posed by counterfeit and pirate products. Customs forms should be amended to require the disclosure of pirate or counterfeit items being brought into the United States.
Does that iPod in your hand luggage contain copies of songs extracted from friends' CDs? Is your computer storing movies ripped from DVD (handy for conserving battery life on long trips)? Was that book you bought overseas "licensed" for use in the United States? These are the kinds of questions the industry would like you to answer on your customs form when you cross borders or return home from abroad. What is more, this suggestion also raises the specter of something we've heard the entertainment industry suggest before: more searches and seizures of electronic goods at the border. Once border officials are empowered to search every electronic device for "pirated" content, digital privacy will all but disappear, at least for international travelers. From what we've learned about the fight over a de minimis border measures search exclusion in the latest leaked text, ACTA might just try to make this a reality.
Bully countries that have tech-friendly policies
The government should develop a process to identify those online sites that are most significantly engaged in conducting or facilitating the theft of intellectual property. Among other uses, this identification would be valuable in the interagency process that culminates in the annual Special 301 report, listing countries that fail to provide adequate and effective protection to U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Special 301 could provide a focus on those countries where companies engaged in systematic online theft of U.S. copyrighted materials are registered or operated, or where their sites are hosted. Targeting such companies and websites in the Special 301 report would put the countries involved on notice that dealing with such hotbeds of copyright theft will be an important topic of bilateral engagement with the U.S. in the year to come. (As noted above, while many of these sites are located outside the U.S., their ability to distribute pirate content in the U.S. depends on U.S.-based ISP communications facilities and services and U.S.-based server farms operated commercially by U.S.-based companies.)
Some background: the Special 301 process is a particularly unpleasant annual procedure by which the United States Trade Representative (USTR) pressures other countries to adopt tougher intellectual property laws and spend more for IP enforcement. In the Special 301 report, the USTR singles out particular countries for their "bad" intellectual property policies, placing them on a watch list, and threatening trade sanctions for those that deny "adequate and effective protection" for US IP rightsholders or restrict fair and equitable market access for US intellectual property.
Before this year, the US Trade Representative only sought input from the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries for these rankings, resulting in unbalanced assessment criteria. Countries have been listed for failing to sign on to controversial international treaties or for not mirroring certain parts of US law. For example, Chile was named for considering fair use-style exceptions to its copyright law; Canada was listed for requiring that its customs officers have a court order before seizing goods at the border; and Israel was highlighted for refusing to adopt DMCA-style anti-circumvention provisions after legislative debate concluded that anti-circumvention laws would have no effect on copyright infringement.
The creative communities' proposal imagines that the US Trade Representative should become a glorified messenger for Big Media, using its resources to pressure countries that "harbor" websites and Internet services that facilitate copyright infringement. In other words, they believe that the USTR should put US IP rightsholders' interests at the center of its foreign policy, ignoring other foreign policy goals such as regional security, and promoting innovation and competition.
Federal agents working on Hollywood's clock
The planned release of a blockbuster motion picture should be acknowledged as an event that attracts the focused efforts of copyright thieves, who will seek to obtain and distribute pre-release versions and/or to undermine legitimate release by unauthorized distribution through other channels. Enforcement agencies (notably within DOJ and DHS) should plan a similarly focused preventive and responsive strategy. An interagency task force should work with industry to coordinate and make advance plans to try to interdict these most damaging forms of copyright theft, and to react swiftly with enforcement actions where necessary.
This is perhaps the most revealing of the proposals: big Hollywood studios deputizing the FBI and Department of Homeland Security to provide taxpayer-supported muscle for summer blockbuster films. Jokes have been made about SWAT team raids on stereotypical file-sharers in college dorm rooms — but this entertainment industry request to "interdict...and to react swiftly with enforcement actions" brings that joke ridiculously close to reality.
What next?
Of course, these comments are just an entertainment industry wishlist, an exercise in asking for the moon. But they reveal a great deal about the entertainment industry's vision of the 21st century: less privacy (with citizens actively participating in their own surveillance), a less-neutral Internet, and federal agents acting as paid muscle to protect profits of summer blockbusters.
Big Content’s dystopian wish-list for the US gov’t: spyware, censorship, physical searches and SWAT teams
School district spied on students at home as they slept: lawsuit
Lawsuit: School administrator 'may be a voyeur' who spied on
kids for personal gratification
A Philadelphia-area school district secretly took "thousands"
of webcam photos of students in their homes and tracked their
Web site visits and parts of online chats through spy software
installed on the students' school-issued laptops, a Pennsylvania
court heard yesterday.
In February, the family of Blake Robbins, a student at Harriton High School in Rosemont, sued the Lower Merion School District after the district admitted to them it had been spying on students via a remote-activated feature on the laptops it issued to all its 2,300 high school pupils.
In a motion filed in court on Thursday, Robbins' lawyers asserted that the school district had taken at least 400 snapshots of 15-year-old Robbins, including some of him sleeping. The motion also stated that "thousands of webcam pictures and screen shots have been taken of numerous other students in their homes," the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
And in a strange twist to the story, the lawyers also suggested that Carol Cafiero, one of two school administrators with access to the spying technology, "may be a voyeur" who spied on students for her personal gratification, as some of the images taken by the laptops may have ended up on her personal computer.
Story continues below...
The motion asks the judge to force Cafiero to turn over her home computer, which she has refused to do so far. Earlier this week, during a deposition, Cafiero pleaded the Fifth Amendment to all questions regarding her involvement in the alleged school spying.
Watching the students at home was like "a little [Lower Merion School District] soap opera," said a staffer in an email obtained by Robbins' lawyers.
"I know, I love it," Cafiero responded in a reply email, as quoted at the Inquirer.
If true, the allegations against Cafiero would realize privacy advocates' worst fears about the school district's monitoring of students at home: That the technology is all too open to abuse by those who would seek to exploit children.
So far, there have been no allegations that the cameras captured any images of nude students, which could fall within the definition of child pornography.
On Thursday, the judge presiding over the case in a federal courtroom in Philadelphia restricted access to the images to the lawyers involved in the case, reports KYW news radio. The school board says it will soon notify the parents of children whose pictures were taken by the spy software, and is working on a way to transfer the photos to the parents, the Inquirer reported Friday.
The latest claims made against the school district contradict what the district itself has said about the use of the cameras. In February, when news of the spy software broke, the school district published a statement saying administrators had activated the monitoring system only 42 times, most of those in order to retrieve lost or stolen laptops.
But the allegations made Thursday suggest "there were 42 instances when they began intensive surveillance on the suspected stolen computers," reports tech blog Slashdot. "This consisted of (among other things) transmitting a picture from the laptop's webcam every 15 minutes. This may have gone on for weeks."
The school district announced in February it was shutting down the spy software, shortly after news of the spy software went public.
Robbins' family launched the lawsuit two months ago after Blake Robbins was called into a vice-principal's office and accused of taking drugs. As evidence, the vice-principal showed a photo of pills in Robbins' bedroom. The Robbins family said the pills were candy, and launched a class-action lawsuit alleging the school district violated Blake's right to privacy.
This week, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who held hearings into the Lower Merion School District's spying activities, introduced legislation limiting the use of surveillance software.
The proposed Surreptitious Video Surveillance Act of 2010 "would update the federal wiretapping statute to create serious criminal and civil penalties for secret, nonconsensual video surveillance inside any temporary or permanent residence, be it your house, your apartment, or your hotel room," reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Ludicrous story of terrorist admitted to be a “fictional character” by U.S. officials
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Monday, April 19th, 2010
Al Qaeda Chief In Iraq: Captured, Killed, Never Actually Existed,
Re Captured, Now Killed Again U.S. and Iraqi officials have today
announced that two “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” leaders have been killed
in an air strike carried out by American troops. A major flaw in the
story that seems to have been overlooked, is that both of the
men have already been reported captured and killed on several
occasions, with U.S. officials also having previously declared one
of them a “fictional character” that was invented by the other!
The Washington Post reports:
The deaths of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of an umbrella group that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq, should disrupt insurgent attacks inside the country, officials said. Their slayings could also provide Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (pictured above) with a decisive political boost at a critical time.
“The death of these terrorists is potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency,” Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq said in a statement. “There is still work to do but this is a significant step forward in ridding Iraq [of] terrorists.”
The two insurgent leaders were said to have been killed on Saturday in a night raid involving Iraqi and American forces.
Reuters reports:
United States military officials confirmed that Iraqi security forces had killed the two men. “The death of these two terrorists is a potentially devastating blow to Al Qaeda in Iraq,” the American command said in a statement.
He (the Iraqi prime minister) said the house was destroyed, and the two bodies were found in a hole in the ground where they had apparently been hiding.
Bizarrely, the Reuters piece quotes the Iraqi prime minister pinpointing the location of the raid as “a house in Thar-Thar, a rural area 50 miles west of Baghdad that is regarded as a hotbed of Qaeda activity”, however, the Washington Post report quotes U.S. officials saying the raid occurred “a few miles southwest of Tikrit”. If you look at a map of Iraq, those two descriptions do not entirely add up, unless you consider “a few miles” to be over 100. Certainly a more specific location could have been given.
However, that is perhaps the least of the problems surrounding this story.
Anyone who reads the news should be feeling a profound sense of déjà vu, because almost a year ago to the day, al-Baghdadi was reported captured by Iraqi security forces. His arrest was confirmed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the same man now purporting that Baghdadi has been killed in a raid.
Al-Baghdadi was the replacement al-CIA-da boogie man for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was also previously reported captured and killed on several occasions, after al-Zarqawi was laid to rest for good by the PR arm of the Pentagon in 2006.
The announcement of al-Baghdadi’s capture year ago, jarred with multiple previous reports over a two years period, detailing his arrest, his death and even questioning his existence altogether.
In March 2007, the Interior Ministry of Iraq claimed that al-Baghdadi had been captured in Baghdad. This was reported by AP and picked up by the likes of CNN, whose report stated that another insurgent had positively confirmed al-Baghdadi’s identity.
The U.S. military denied that al-Baghdadi was in their custody, however, and one day later Iraqi officials retracted their statements regarding his arrest.
Indeed this back and forth announcement of capture and later retraction occurred three times in the space of one week.
Al Qaeda Chief In Iraq: Captured, Killed, Never Actually Existed, Re Captured, Now Killed Again 140410banner4
Then one month later, on May 3, 2007, the Iraqi Interior Ministry announced that al-Baghdadi had been killed by American and Iraqi forces north of Baghdad.
However, in July 2007, the U.S. military declared that al-Baghdadi had never actually existed and was, for all intents and purposes, a myth.
A reportedly high ranking “Al Qaeda in Iraq” detainee identified as Khaled al-Mashhadani, then claimed that al-Baghdadi was a fictional character created to give an Iraqi face to a foreign-run terror group, and that the “Islamic State of Iraq” was a “virtual organisation in cyberspace” created by al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayub al Masri.
The person claiming to be Baghdadi continued to release video and audiotapes attacking U.S. occupation of Iraq, but refused to show his face.
The U.S. military’s claim that Baghdadi is a fictitious character was then challenged in May 2008 after a police chief in Haditha said Baghdadi’s real identity is Hamed Dawood Mohammed Khalil al Zawi. “He was an officer in the security services and was dismissed from the army because of his extremism,” the police chief told al Arabiya television.
A year later, in April 2009, following his latest capture, the Iraqi government displayed a picture of Baghdadi for the first time, adding that they were attempting to glean information from him.
The Al Qaeda-linked group the Islamic State of Iraq denied the government reports that al-Baghdadi had been captured, and according to the SITE Institute, released a “genuine” recording of Baghdadi announcing that he was still at large.
But Iraqi officials then released a video of Baghdadi’s interrogation, in which he claimed responsibility for the bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra in February 2006, and also described how his terrorist group was funded.
However, tapes and messages continued to be released throughout 2009 in the name of Baghdadi, claiming that he had not been captured and spurring on militants in Iraq. Up to the present day in 2010, such messages continued to be reported on by mainstream sources, such as the Associated Press, without any explanation as to how a captured terrorist could be releasing the material.
Now Baghdadi has been reported killed again!
The story becomes even more intriguing given that the second man reported to have been killed and found in a ditch last Saturday was Abu Ayub al Masri – the “creator” of the fictional character of al-Baghdadi.
Al Masri himself was also reported to have been killed in May 2007. He then rose from the dead to be captured in May 2008 in a joint US-Iraqi operation.
Prime Minister al-Maliki’s presumed amnesia over the fact that he already annouced Baghdadi captured less than twelve months ago becomes more suspect when you take into account that he is trying to negotiate support for his State of Law coalition following parliamentary elections in which it emerged only as the second largest bloc.
Presumably the ridiculous loose ends of this soap opera will now be tied off and memory holed – although we cannot put it past al Masri and his imaginary friend to rise from the grave one more time a year down the line, particularly given that the Baghdadi character keeps being resurrected and acknowledged by the Iraqi government, the U.S. military and the mainstream media.
This saga is another example of how a manufactured smoke and mirrors propaganda veils reality. The “war on terror” mantra continues to be propagated as justification to wage permanent occupation and control over the middle east by the global elite.
Already Joe Biden is parading around, announcing the news as a “devastating blow” delivered to Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, al Zarqawi, al Baghdadi and the legions of other al qaeda operatives who have been reportedly captured and killed over and over are used as interchangeable PR tools.
Are or were any of them ever real? Possibly. Was there more than one Baghdadi? Maybe. However those facts matter little now.
Once again 99% of the corporate media will no doubt enthusiastically champion the latest killings as a key victory in the continuing war on terror, and the majority of Americans who even notice will not take a second glance at the ludicrous back story.
level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions
is not organized in a constructive way."
April 19, 2010 |
Noam Chomsky is America’s greatest intellectual. His massive
body of work, which includes nearly 100 books, has for decades
deflated and exposed the lies of the power elite and the myths
they perpetrate. Chomsky has done this despite being blacklisted
by the commercial media, turned into a pariah by the academy
and, by his own admission, being a pedantic and at times slightly
boring speaker. He combines moral autonomy with rigorous scholarship, a remarkable grasp of detail and a searing intellect. He curtly dismisses our two-party system as a mirage orchestrated by the corporate state, excoriates the liberal intelligentsia for being fops and courtiers and describes the drivel of the commercial media as a form of “brainwashing.” And as our nation’s most prescient critic of unregulated capitalism, globalization and the poison of empire, he enters his 81st year warning us that we have little time left to save our anemic democracy.
“It is very similar to late Weimar Germany,” Chomsky told me when I called him at his office in Cambridge, Mass. “The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over.”
“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Chomsky went on. “Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”
“I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime,” Chomsky added. “I am old enough to remember the 1930s. My whole family was unemployed. There were far more desperate conditions than today. But it was hopeful. People had hope. The CIO was organizing. No one wants to say it anymore but the Communist Party was the spearhead for labor and civil rights organizing. Even things like giving my unemployed seamstress aunt a week in the country. It was a life. There is nothing like that now. The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way. It is going off into self-destructive fantasies.”
“I listen to talk radio,” Chomsky said. “I don’t want to hear Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear the people calling in. They are like [suicide pilot] Joe Stack. What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”
