Racist Cop Tasers Young Black Male To Death Near Jena N.O.

Read More......

Court ordered a Chief Medical Examiner to Remove Any Reference to a Taser as an Precursor in the Deaths of Three Men

Physicians speak out on bullying tactics of Taser International over its "less than lethal" weapons

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, May 8, 2008

Doctors have condemned as corporate "intimidation" a court decision ordering a chief medical examiner to remove any reference to the use of a taser as an antecedent in the deaths of three men.

Ohio examiner Dr. Lisa Kohler had noted in her autopsy reports that electrical shocks from Tasers were partially to blame for the deaths of individuals in three separate confrontations with police.

Taser International, now notorious for it's stern legal defense having won 68 out of 68 lawsuits, filed and won a civil suit, forcing Kohler to delete all mentions of the weapons and to term the deaths "accidental".

Jeffrey Jentzen, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, an organization that represents the majority of medical examiners in the United States, has warned that the actions of Taser International and the court ruling have set a dangerous precedent:

"Our membership is very concerned about these cases and the reaction of Taser to these cases," he said last night.

"Our membership is looking into the area and although Taser has developed its own opinion, there are certainly opposing opinions as to their involvement in causing sudden death in individuals.

"Our organization feels that it violates the physician's ability to make a medical decision. Ordering a professional physician to change or alter their records is in violation of their right to practice medicine.

"Taser has sued a number of medical examiners for making informed medical opinions in an attempt, I think, to both protect their product and send a threatening message to medical examiners.

"It is dangerously close to intimidation," he said. "They are attempting to send a message to medical examiners that if they elect to make that determination they may face a civil suit."

Dr. Matthew Stanbrook of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) also voiced his concern over the legal ruling, stating that the decision fails to take into account the difficulty of determining an exact cause of death in almost every case.

"If we were required to have at the level of scientific and medical certainty that something was the cause of death, before we were permitted to declare it, most of the people who died in North America would have died of unknown causes," Stanbrook said.

"It is a physician making their best judgment given all the facts available."

Stanbrook has called for an independent review of the stun guns and has intimated that most of the existing research into the effects of the weapon has been carried out by, or at the behest of, Taser International itself.

Steve Tuttle, Taser's vice-president of communications responded to the comments stating:

"Taser International's products have been demonstrated by numerous medical studies to be safe and effective. Taser International therefore aggressively defends our products in all litigation brought against the company with the best legal, scientific and medical expertise available."

Despite Tuttle's claims, many scientists and doctors have raised concerns about possible links between Tasers and potential heart and respiration problems, mental health and an individual’s state of exhaustion or agitation in confrontations with authorities.

Taser International CEO Rick Smith told CBC News in January that medical examiners had to be sure of their facts because if they made what he called a careless opinion, they will be held accountable in court.

However, It is not just physicians that are raising such concerns. Amnesty International has also cited hundreds deaths around the world after Taser use and has called for a full taser suspension while a thorough investigation into the impact of the weapon is conducted.

More recently, a UN Committee said the stun gun "causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture".

Deaths occurring where tasers have been used are now a daily occurrence, yet police and private security forces worldwide continue to be equipped with the weapons.

Recent reports have revealed that police are using the Taser as soon as someone displays a "fighting stance" or simply to get a non-violent suspect to do what they are told, rather than for their intended purpose as the last line of defense before lethal action.

Most recently police in Vancouver have been using the devices on transit fare dodgers.

As we previously reported, The Department of Homeland Security is now looking to evolve the technology in pursuing the introduction of a device known as the Security Bracelet, a wearable tag that would allow authorities to inflict pain compliance on suspects from a distance, while also recommending law enforcement applications and potential use in "crowd control situations".

Many Civil Liberties Associations and police departments across North America have called for a moratorium on the weapons. The stun gun is under particular scrutiny in British Columbia, Canada as part of an ongoing inquiry following the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver's airport in October.

Read More......

Shift Happens Narrated

THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW!!!!!

Read More......

Pastor Wright is RIGHT!

The White Supremacist media has distorted Jeremiah Wright out of context. They racists are accusing their victims of racism!

Viewed from this different context, we see that everything he was talking about WAS TRUE.

His speeches confronted White Supremacy, and it is White Supremacists in the media and in the public who have tried to call Wright a racist in an immoral attempt derail the truth about White Supremacist crimes.

For the past month we have heard a lot about The Reverend Jeremiah Wright. There are endless loopings of the same half a dozen out-of-context sound bites. This is nothing more than a collective gang bang by mindless narcissistic media stars who intentionally dumb down what he said to create a phony scandal for Barak Obama. These tapes were probably unearthed by someone in the Hillary machine, or McCain’s, or one of their sympathisers. So now there is open season on this preacher. What is the substance of these attacks? It is no more substantive than late night TV or stand up comics. Besides the misquotations, the media focused on his style as a black minister.

We have heard endless loops showing how outrageous or bombastic he is. We heard clips of him singing Handel’s “And the Glory of the Lord” and his “God Damn America”. It’s as if the media were shocked!.....SHOCKED!! that there is such a thing as black Full Gospel preaching style, complete with spontaneous responses accompanied by organ improvisation. This genre is famous for using politics and themes of racial oppression for over 100 years. You would think that The Reverends Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson were unknown. Or Al Sharpton.

The Reverend Wright, in an attempt to add some substance to this sound bite circus, spoke at the National Press Club in Washington DC. last week. He was not giving a sermon. He was not “bombastic”. He spoke in a temperate voice and gave a scholarly speech on the black theological tradition in the USA. He talked about the role that “Liberation Theology” played in both the black churches, and in the Yankee Congregationalist, United Church of Christ.

The entire media were glued to this speech. They were not looking for a dispassionate discussion of theology in black churches, or context to his previous statements – that would be too boring – they were looking for another sensationalist sound bite, the more outrageous the better. They got it during the question & answer session after the speech, with confrontational questions which clearly showed the hostile bias of the questioner. The questions assumed that Wright is a kooky conspiracy theorist, and a blaspheming traitor to his country. No one really listened to what he said. In its reporting, the media reduced his comments to platitudes, and the endless references to his speech followed the predictable collective script of the fatuous imbeciles in the media to see who can repeat the same hackneyed phrases to win kudos from their colleagues.

What did he say that was so outrageous? Based on the comments of the lemming pundits, I seriously wondered whether they saw the same speech I did. I listened to the whole thing twice and was hard pressed to find anything that was outrageous or insane. I certainly have my criticism of “Liberation Theology” with its close association with Marxism, especially in Latin America. But this was not the focus of the media. Their focus was on him defiantly defending his “outrageous” remarks. Almost all of those remarks I agreed with.

He was asked if he was patriotic, and said that he served 6 years in the military and that it was more military time than Dick Cheney served. Was this an insane or even false statement?

He said that the US government oppresses people around the world, that it sends Americans, “to die for a lie”. When asked why he blamed the US for 911, he said that the “chickens have come home to roost” in the form of blowback from our policies overseas. Most did not bother to find out that he was quoting Edward Peck, the former ambassador to Iraq, and deputy director of terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Wright added, quoting the Bible’s golden rule, that you can not do terrorism to others and not have it come back to you. This is virtually the same thing for which Dr. Ron Paul got raked over the coals. Questioning the cause of 911 is the modern American Intellectual Inquisition equivalent of heresy. It is double heresy if you equate our government with a terrorist organisation, even though bombing civilians does cause terror. Recognised states don’t do terrorism unless they are Iraq or Iran.

He was asked if he would apologise to the American people for blaming them for 911. He made the distinction, lost on most Americans, between the people and their government. This is total blasphemy in the minds of the orthodox American Establishment. In their thinking the American people and their government are one in the same because of Democracy, and the vaunted electoral process. The idea that the government in this, “the most free and democratic nation on earth - EVER” would have its own corrupt agenda against the best interests of the people is a thoughtcrime. This is odd, since most Americans have no trouble spotting corruption at the state or local level, or complaining of excessive spending and taxation. In the NYC area, we have had three governors (NJ, NY, Conn.) resign in the last ten years for corruption. However, at the federal level, especially when it comes to war, Americans refuse to look at the truly mammoth corruption, distortion, and immorality of their government.

He was asked about his relationship to Reverend Louis Farrakhan. As he explained, this had to do with a statement made by Farrakhan 20 years ago about Israel, a sacred cow in the minds of the establishment. Wright explained his position regarding Israel: that it had a right to exist, that they were the children of God, BUT that they need to reconcile with their enemies; the Israelis need to sit down with the Palestinians and come to a peaceful understanding so that their children “don’t grow up talking about killing each other”. He said that reconciliation, not killing was God’s way. Is that an “insane” or “outrageous” notion? Is it theologically erroneous? The media had a field day with Wright’s comparing Farrakhan to stock broker EF HUTTON. Do media pundits not understand the use of analogies or similes or metaphors in speech? Wright was saying that when Farrakhan talks, the black community listens. Is this a false statement? If so, then why do the media, who are mostly white, bother to cover Farrakhan?

The punditry went berserk over his “conspiracy theory” that the US Government invented AIDS. The Reverend Wright cited the Tuskegee experiment, where the government used blacks to experiment on syphilis. He also pointed out that the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq were sold to Saddam by the US Government back when he was our ally and that he used them on the Iranians with our blessing. He said that, given the history of our government and its use of deception, he believed “it was possible”.

I personally doubt the conspiracy theory that the US Government invented AIDS, but I personally doubt any number of conspiracy theories of my friends, whilst I harbor conspiracy theories of my own with which others disagree. In fact most Americans believe in some form of conspiracy or secret, illegal dealings committed by their government. Why is that? Is this unique to Americans as a culture? I don’t know. We know the US Government has lied to us in the past. We know that the US has used the CIA to topple governments in South America at the behest of the United Fruit Company. We know, in spite of the official, revisionist “spin” that the government knew in advance of the Japanese carrier force prior to Pearl Harbour; and that even in the DC media there was open speculation that war with Japan was imminent. We know that the Navy translated the communiqué of the Japanese to their ambassadors in Washington and that they were instructed “to burn all documents and code machines”. We know the US Government lied about the Tonkin Gulf Incident, and lied about being in Laos and Cambodia. We know the US Government has been a king maker in the Mideast while denying same. None of these revelations ever get admitted at the time; only years later do books by insiders get written telling the truth. Would there be so many conspiracy theories in America if our government were transparent and honest or followed the Constitution? If you Google “conspiracy theory”, why do so many hits deal with the United States? Why doesn’t Switzerland come up except as a movie title? Why not Canada?......or Iceland?

Then there was the “God Damn America” quote. He explained this also, yet the media pretended not to hear. He said “damn” is derived from “condemn”, and that God condemns the actions of the US Government (again NOT the people) for inflicting violence on other nations and that non-violence was consistent with Christian teaching. He asked the questioner if he heard the whole sermon from which that quote was taken. But context or understanding did not figure into the thinking of the questioner. I wonder if there are examples, say in the Old Testament, of God condemning wicked immoral nations?

This electronic tabloid circus unfortunately drags in supposedly high-brow broadsheet press into the mud. This was especially true last week after his National Press Club Speech. One after another, the senior Washington polemicists and bureau chiefs chimed in so they could be counted in the “me too” column. There were the obligatory references to Wright as “crazy” and “lunatic” or “loony” with no attempt to address what he said. But the “intellectual” writers of the papers of record added new buzzwords, to wit: “narcissistic”, “solipsistic”, “divisive” “his fifteen minutes of fame” “revenge on Obama”.

Here we have the Establishment Left, many of whom, tired of the sleazy fraud of the Clintons, want Obama nominated and hope that he’ll beat McCain. Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote,”….Wright went to Washington on Monday not to praise Barak Obama but to bury him…….Feeling dissed by Sen. Obama, Mr. Wright gets revenge on his former follower…... He’s living a narcissist dream. At long last his 15 minutes have arrived.”

They called him divisive but not the mudslingers who brought edited sound bites public and replayed them over and over; sound bites that were part of a long sermon. Why are they dumping on Wright rather than blaming the tabloid media for taking him out of context? Here’s the reason. To quote Mr. Herbert:

“The question that cries out for an answer from Mr. Wright is why – if he is so passionately committed to liberating and empowering blacks – does he seem so insistent on wrecking the campaign of the only African-American ever to have had a legitimate shot at the presidency.”

Read More......

In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood and Bioterrorism

This feature length documentary about medical madness, cloaked in bioterrorism preparedness, will awaken the brain dead. It exposes health officials, directed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for conducting a “War of Terror” that is killing millions of unwitting Americans. This urgent life-saving DVD comes without copyright restrictions. Every viewer is encouraged to reproduce and distribute copies to others. Donations to Tetrahedron Films to cover costs and produce more films like this are greatly appreciated online at www.inlieswetrust.com or by calling toll free 1-888-508-4787. You can screen the film on behalf of local charities. It was produced by award-winning humanitarian, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz (www.DrLenHorowitz.com), a world-renowned authority in public health education, covert intelligence agency operations, and emerging diseases investigations. He is the author of three American bestsellers, including Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? and Healing Codes for the Biological Apocalypse. (Tetrahedron Press; 1-888-508-4787) This monumental film exposes the agents and agencies behind: Hollywood films and the media creating a profitable culture of bioterror; the “War on Terrorism” used to control populations; the most lucrative war in history—the “War on Cancer;” the onslaught of dozens of new immunological diseases and deadly flus; the “War on AIDS” triggered by contaminated vaccines; the anthrax mailings resulting in restricted freedoms, and sales of toxic drugs, deadly vaccines, and more. Documents displayed in film may be viewed online at inlieswetrust.com For over 400 of the top Critically important videos see netctr.com/media -- Much more at the site. Wake up, get involved, Save the Republic - Your kids, grand kids and your life will depend on what you do from now on. Key words: propaganda, war, terrorism, vaccinations, immunizations, cancer, biological warfare, weapons of mass destruction, pharmaceuticals, AIDS, anthrax, healthcare, Hollywood, CIA, CDC, and FDA.

Read More......

Media Mind Control - Two Screens, Two Pills

Read More......

Orwell Rolls In His Grave

"Could a media system, controlled by a few global corporations with the ability to overwhelm all competing ... all » voices, be able to turn lies into truth?..."

This chilling documentary film examines the relationship between the media, corporate America, and government. In a country where the "top 1% control 90% of the wealth", the film argues that the media system is nothing but a "subsidiary of corporate America."

Director: Robert Kane Pappas - Run Time 1 Hour 46 Minutes «

Read More......

The Election Files

The newest dvd from BBC Journalist Greg Palast check out his stories and buy the dvd that brings together his reports on the stolen elections at www.GregPalast.com

Read More......

Nigga Technology

Read More......

THE MILITARIZATION OF OUR POLICE

Read More......

BIG BROTHER STATE

Read More......

DRIVERS LICENSES USED AS DEBIT CARDS

OBM: One day very soon this or smoethine like this will be required.

Read More......

5 Of 9 Jiffy Lubes Caught Over-Charging

We talked about this back in May, but now there's an excellent YouTube compilation of all four of the NBC4 LA's hidden camera investigation into Jiffy Lube.


5 out of 9 places they had their car serviced at scammed them. When confronted, the mechanics say they don't know why they did it and refer NBC to their district manager. When NBC finds the DM, he denies his identity and says he's just a customer. Jiffy Lube corporate confirms in an email that the man was in fact the DM and said they are taking steps to make sure it never happens again.

Moral of the story: learn how to change your own oil.

Read More......

Keith Olbermann Special Comment FISA

Read More......

Getting Duped: How the Media Messes with Your Mind

Statements made in the media can surreptitiously plant distortions in the minds of millions. Learning to recognize two commonly used fallacies can help you separate fact from fiction.

By Yvonne Raley and Robert Talisse

In 2003 nearly half of all Americans falsely assumed that the U.S. government had found solid evidence for a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What is more, almost a quarter of us believed that investigators had all but confirmed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a 2003 report by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, a polling and market research firm. How did the true situation in Iraq become so grossly distorted in American minds?

Many people have attributed such misconceptions to a politically motivated disinformation campaign to engender support for the armed struggle in Iraq. We do not think the deceptions were premeditated, however. Instead they are most likely the result of common types of reasoning errors, which appear frequently in discussions in the news media and which can easily fool an unsuspecting public.

News shows often have an implicit bias that may motivate the portrayal of facts and opinions in misleading ways, even if the information presented is largely accurate. Nevertheless, by becoming familiar with how spokespeople can create false impressions, media consumers can learn to ignore certain claims and thereby avoid getting duped. We have detected two general types of fallacies—one of them well known and the other newly identified—that have permeated discussion of the Iraq War and that are generally ubiquitous in political debates and other discourse.

Spinning Straw into Fool’s Gold
One common method of spinning information is the so-called straw man argument. In this tactic, a person summarizes the opposition’s position inaccurately so as to weaken it and then refutes that inaccurate rendition. In a November 2005 speech, for example, President George W. Bush responded to questions about pulling troops out of Iraq by saying, “We’ve heard some people say, pull them out right now. That’s a huge mistake. It’d be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops, and it sends a bad message to our enemy, and it sends a bad message to the Iraqis.” The statement that unnamed “people” are advocating a troop withdrawal from Iraq “right now” is a straw man, because it exaggerates the opposing viewpoint. Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal. Most proposed that the soldiers be sent home over several months, a more reasonable and persuasive plan that Bush undercut with his straw man.

The straw man is used in countless other contexts as well. In his acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention, for instance, Bill Clinton opined: “… with all respect [to Bob Dole], we do not need to build a bridge to the past. We need to build a bridge to the future.” Dole did discuss restoring the values of an earlier America, but Clinton falsely implied that Dole was only looking backward (whereas Clinton was looking forward). People may use a straw man to discredit theories to which they do not subscribe. Characterizing evolution, for example, as “all random chance” is a straw man argument; it misrepresents a complex theory that only partly rests on the randomness of mutations that may lead to better chances of survival.

Recently, in a 2006 paper co-authored with Scott F. Aikin, one of us (Talisse) documented a twist on the straw man tactic. In what Talisse dubs a weak man argument, a person sets up the opposition’s weakest (or one of its weakest) arguments or proponents for attack, as opposed to misstating a rival’s position as the straw man argument does. In a July 2007 edition of Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly took on a claim by the New York Times that we had lost the war in Iraq by saying that “the New York Times declared defeat in Iraq Sunday on its editorial page, and there’s no question the antiwar movement has momentum.” (The editorial actually said that “some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat,” but let us assume that O’Reilly’s characterization was correct.)

O’Reilly then offered a weak man explanation for the purported defeat: “The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The U.S.A. can’t control that country. No nation could.... Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true.” Although Iraq’s failure to aid in fighting terrorism and corruption could be why we are losing the war, the troubles in Iraq could also stem from a host of logistical reasons, some of which may shed a negative light on the current administration. O’Reilly, however, kept any discussion of these reasons offstage, suppressing the various other possible—and possibly more likely—reasons for “defeat” in Iraq. Meanwhile his claims that the “U.S.A. can’t control that country” and that “no nation could” deflected blame from the U.S. government.

Weak man arguments are pervasive. In a 2005 editorial in Denver’s Rocky Mountain News, conservative writer and activist David Horowitz picked on ethnic studies scholar Ward Churchill, formerly at the University of Colorado at Boulder, whose views he described as “hateful and ignorant.” Horowitz then went on to claim that Churchill’s radical “hate America” convictions “represent” those of a “substantial seg­ment of the academic community.” Thus, he used the example of Churchill (the weak man) to argue that “tenured radicals” have made universities into leftist political institutions and subverted the academic enterprise, thereby failing to acknowledge the presence of more highly regarded and politically mainstream scholars in academia.

Trolling for Truth
Weak man tactics are harder to detect than those of the straw man variety. Because straw man arguments are closely related to an opponent’s true position, a clever listener might be able to spot the truth amid the hyperbole, understatement or other corrupted version of that view. A weak man argument, however, is more opaque because it contains a grain of truth and often bears little similarity to the stronger arguments that should also be presented. Therefore, a listener has to know a lot more about the situation to imagine the information that a speaker or writer has cleverly disregarded.

Nevertheless, an astute consumer of the news can catch many straw man and weak man fallacies by knowing how they work. Another strategy is to always consider a speaker’s or writer’s motivation or agenda and be especially alert for skewed statements of fact in editorials, television opinion shows, and the like. It is also wise to obtain news from more balanced news sources. An alternative approach is to try to construct, in your own mind, the best argument against what you have heard before accepting it as true. Or simply ask yourself: Why should I not believe this?

Read More......

Big Brother (NSA) is Copying Everything on the Internet

Is the NSA copying everything on the internet -... (more)
Added: November 23, 2007
Is the NSA copying everything on the internet - your emails, web traffic, VOIP phone calls? Yep - check out this story:

"AT&T whistleblower: I was forced to connect 'big brother machine'"
Reported by David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Published: Wednesday November 7, 2007

A former technician at AT&T, who alleges that the telecom forwards virtually all of its internet traffic into a "secret room" to facilitate government spying, says the whole operation reminds him of something out of Orwell's 1984.

Appearing on MSNBC's Countdown program, whistleblower Mark Klein told Keith Olbermann that a copy of all internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office -- to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access -- via a cable splitting device.

"My job was to connect circuits into the splitter device which was hard-wired to the secret room," said Klein. "And effectively, the splitter copied the entire data stream of those internet cables into the secret room -- and we're talking about phone conversations, email web browsing, everything that goes across the internet."

Asked by Olbermann how he knew what was being sent along those particular lines, Klein said it was all part of his former job:

"As a technician, I had the engineering wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room," Klein continued. "And so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied and the entire data stream was copied..."

According to Klein, that information included internet activity about Americans.

"We're talking about domestic traffic as well as international traffic," Klein said. " And that's what got me upset to begin with."

Previous Bush administration claims that only international communications were being intercepted aren't accurate, Klein says.

"I know the physical equipment, and I know that statement is not true," he added. "It involves millions of communications, a lot of it domestic communications that they're copying wholesale, sweeping up into that secret room."

When Olbermann asked Klein if being involved in the process reminded him of a scene in the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the former technician said he had another movie in mind.

"Actually, I'm a little older so my thought was George Orwell's 1984 and here I am forced to connect the big brother machine," he said. "And I felt I was in a funny position, but I needed my job, so I didn't want to make a fuss a the time. But after I retired, I thought about it some more." According to ABC News, Klein believes AT&T has similar operations in place in as many as 20 other sites.

He is in Washington to lobby Congress not to pass a proposed telecom immunity bill, which would provide legal immunity to companies who secretly participated in NSA warrantless eavesdropping programs. Some of the nation's largest telecommunications companies are currently facing an array of class-action lawsuits related to the matter.

Read More......

Green Bay Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops

By Sarah Thomsen

If you're ticketed by Green Bay police, you'll get more than a fine. You'll get fingerprinted, too. It's a new way police are cracking down on crime.

If you're caught speeding or playing your music too loud, or other crimes for which you might receive a citation, Green Bay police officers will ask for your drivers license and your finger. You'll be fingerprinted right there on the spot. The fingerprint appears right next to the amount of the fine.

Police say it's meant to protect you -- in case the person they're citing isn't who they claim to be. But not everyone is sold on that explanation.

"What we've seen happen for the last couple of years [is] increasing use of false or fraudulent identification documents," Captain Greg Urban said.

Police say they want to prevent the identity theft problem that Milwaukee has, where 13 percent of all violators give a false name.

But in Green Bay, where police say they only average about five cases in a year, drivers we talked with think the new policy is extreme.

"That's going too far," Ken Scherer from Oconto said. "You look at the ID, that's what they're there for. Either it's you or it's not. I don't think that's a valid excuse."

"I would feel uncomfortable but I would do it," Carol Pilgrim of Green Bay said.

Citizens do have the right to say no. "They could say no and not have to worry about getting arrested," defense attorney Jackson Main said. "On the other hand, I'm like everybody else. When a police officer tells me to do something, I'm going to do it whether I have the right to say no or not."

That's exactly why many drivers are uneasy about the fine print in this fingerprinting policy.

Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.

Read More......

Proposed Congressional bill creates new copyright cops that can seize your home computer

A bipartisan group of Congressmen (and one woman) yesterday introduced a major bill aimed at boosting US intellectual property laws and the penalties that go along with them. While much of the legislation targets industrial counterfeiting and knockoff drugs, it also allows the government to seize people's computers.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP... groan) Act of 2007 has the backing of many of the most powerful politicians on the House Judiciary Committee, including John Conyers (D-MI), Lamar Smith (R-TX), and "Hollywood" Howard Berman (D-CA).

In addition to strengthening both civil and criminal penalties for copyright and trademark infringement, the big development here is the proposed creation of the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER). This is a new executive branch office tasked with coordinating IP enforcement at the national and international level. To do this work internationally, the bill also authorizes US intellectual property officers to be sent to other countries in order to assist with crackdowns there. In addition, the Department of Justice gets additional funding and a new unit to help prosecute IP crimes.

A proposed bill now gives the government the ability to seize personal property, like the home computer, on suspicion of copyright infringement, and also proposes a new copyright police force to enforce existing laws.

GNN: As if the the government needs another excuse to seize personal property, these seizures have nothing to do with protecting national security but they do protect the bottom line for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The RIAA is no stranger to pressuring Congress to pass legislation criminalizing end users. The RIAA has advocated the denial of federal funding to colleges and college students who do not sign up to subscription-based downloading services

The bill, which will have a committee hearing soon, is supposed to kick-start the copyright reform process talked about for so long. But copyright reform means one thing to the PRO IP sponsors and another to the consumer groups that have been advocating for it.

Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, said in a statement, "seizing expensive manufacturing equipment used for large-scale infringement from a commercial pirate may be appropriate. Seizing a family's general-purpose computer in a download case, as this bill would allow, is not appropriate."

In addition, she protests the increase in "already extraordinary copyright damages" and calls for damages to be linked more closely to actual harm suffered by copyright holders.

The Digital Freedom Campaign, backed by the EFF, Public Knowledge, and the Consumer Electronics Association, was more muted in its criticism, instead choosing to praise the legislation for launching a "conversation" about copyright reform. The Digital Freedom Campaign's Maura Corbett said that meaningful copyright reform "must include limits on statutory damages and the codification of the vital principles of fair use," and she hopes that PRO IP "will serve as a catalyst to larger, more meaningful reform."

Fortunately, at least some members of the Judiciary Committee are at least aware that the consumer groups have legitimate points to make. Berman, who chairs the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, announced that his subcommittee would hold a hearing next week on the issue.

"As a cosponsor, I obviously feel very strongly that we must strengthen enforcement efforts to fight piracy and counterfeiting," Berman said. "At the hearing, we will be hearing testimony from both industry experts and from labor and consumer advocates to make sure that in doing so, we don't deny appropriate access to America's intellectual property."

Who is thrilled with the bill? The MPAA, for one. MPAA head Dan Glickman, in a statement praising the new bill, said that "films left costs foreign and domestic distributors, retailers and others $18 billion a year," a significant increase from the $6 billion it allegedly costs the studios.

Read More......

Why Has the U.S. Forest Service Purchased $600,000 Worth of Tasers?

Ann Shibler
JBS
Tuesday December 11, 2007

Already in debt and understaffed, the U.S. Forest Service just spent $600,000 in purchasing handheld Tasers for every member of its Law Enforcement division.

Follow this link to the original source: "Cash Starved Forest Service Spends $600,000 to Buy Tasers"

Near the end of the U.S. Forest Service's fiscal year in September, there was a hurried single-source purchase of 700 Tasers for the Law Enforcement and Investigations division of the U.S. Forest Service. The Tasers are now sitting in storage, as there were no rules governing their use or a required training program yet developed by the USFS.

In fact, there was no public input, or congressional review of the purchase. There wasn't even a written explanation as to why the devices were needed. There was a very brief justification statement that really only described the item for purchase.

Jeff Ruch of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) did request and receive, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), records relating to the amount the Forest Service paid for the devices ($600,001.52 — $857 apiece), and the justification statement, but not any information that described the training that would have to be provided to agency personnel who will use the electronic Tasers. USFS director John Twiss issued a statement: "In the interest of customer service", we can tell you that the Forest Service is currently developing the required training and law enforcement officers will be required to attend prior to the issuance of, or authorization to carry or use, an Electronic Control Device."

OBM: So now, I guess...when your home are property is being threatened by fire and you want to stay to try and save your property using your own water hose your friendly forest fire fighter is authorized to tase you until you leave.

With the devastating forest fires of the past summer, one would think that director Twiss would have more important matters to address than the purchase of what we now know to be lethal weapons. The agency is presently a quarter of a billion dollars in debt and has 200 vacant positions, some lost to budget cuts and more to agents who have been reassigned to other obligations such as border patrol for the Department of Homeland Security. The USFS has over 750,000 million annual visitors and that leaves one officer overseeing approximately 1.5 million visitors and covering 300,000 acres of forest, and even more budget cuts are looming.

PEER, in 2005, released information on director John Twiss, claiming he is the first person without any law enforcement qualifications or credentials to head the USFS — he's a civilian with desk experience and nothing more. In the early 1990s, Congress mandated that the Forest Service law enforcement division be independent of the agency chain-of-command, in order to ensure fair and independent investigations and internal probes. But Twiss signaled that he would see an end to such independency, and according to Ruch would see to it, "that all future Forest Service investigations will be politically vetted."

Lethal Tasers in the hands of untrained federal agents, compounded by the bureaucratic management style of the present director, with the accompanying potential for serious abuse certainly doesn’t bode well for park visitors.

Jeff Ruch of PEER said it best when he opined, "As a result, in addition to the howl of the coyote and the hoot of the owl, the plaintive cry of "Don't tase me, bro!' may soon echo through the forest night."

Read More......

The Persuaders - Front Line Special

Americans are swimming in a sea of messages.
Each year, legions of ad people, copywriters, market researchers, pollsters, consultants, and even linguists—most of whom work for one of six giant companies—spend billions of dollars and millions of man-hours trying to determine how to persuade consumers what to buy, whom to trust, and what to think. Increasingly, these techniques are migrating to the high-stakes arena of politics, shaping policy and influencing how Americans choose their leaders.

In "The Persuaders," FRONTLINE explores how the cultures of marketing and advertising have come to influence not only what Americans buy, but also how they view themselves and the world around them. The 90-minute documentary draws on a range of experts and observers of the advertising/marketing world, to examine how, in the words of one on-camera commentator, "the principal of democracy yields to the practice of demography," as highly customized messages are delivered to a smaller segment of the market.

WATCH ALL PARTS HERE: (windows media player needed)
Part 1 A High Concept Campaign
Part 2 Emotional Branding

Part 3 The Times They Are A-Changin'
Part 4 The Science of Selling
Part 5 Give Us What We Want

Part 6 The "Narrowcasting" Future


Take the 2004 presidential sweepstakes for example. Both the Republicans and the Democrats were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to custom craft their messages. "What politicians do is tailor their message to each demographic group," says Peter Swire, professor of law at Ohio State University and an expert on Internet policy. "That means…Americans will live in different virtual universes. What's wrong with living in different universes? You never confront the other side. You don't have to deal with the uncomfortable facts that go against your worldview….It hardens the partisanship that's been such a feature of recent American politics."

FRONTLINE analyzes the 2004 campaign where, for the first time, the latest techniques in narrowcasting were put into effect. The antithesis of traditional broadcasting, narrowcasting involves crafting and delivering tailored messages to individual voters based on their demographic profiles.

Political marketers are just now discovering new ways to use the techniques that have long been employed by the private sector. FRONTLINE visits Acxiom, the largest data mining company in the world, where vast farms of computers hold detailed information about nearly every adult in America. Data mining, a practice that predicts likely behavior based on factors such as age, income, and shopping habits, has been the gold standard of commercial advertisers. Acxiom promises its clients a better way to target their messages to individual consumers.

"There is an age-old anxiety among advertisers that they are wasting their money, that they cannot know whom they are reaching and with what impact," says Rushkoff, who collaborated with Dretzin and Goodman on FRONTLINE's "The Merchants of Cool," which examined the process by which corporate conglomerates have co-opted teen culture in order to capture the multibillion-dollar adolescent market.

But Rushkoff predicts, "Anxiety is giving way to a confidence that they will soon have access to the core emotional needs of nearly every American shopper and voter."

There is, however, a paradox. While the techniques of the persuaders have become more sophisticated, consumers have never been more resistant to marketing messages. Yet today, advertisements fill up nearly every available inch of the landscape.

"You cannot walk down the street without being bombarded," advertising writer Bob Garfield says. "You go to fill your gas tank and you look at the pump and you're seeing news headlines in advertising. You go into the bathroom and you look in the urinal and you're staring at an ad. You look up at the sky and there's skywriting."

This clutter creates a dilemma for advertisers, Garfield observes. "The advertisers know they need to have more and more advertising to get an ever narrower slice of your attention," he says. "And that means we are going to be ever more inundated. And then of course ever more resistant, requiring ever more advertising, making us ever more resistant and so on."

But clever marketers have found ways of overcoming the clutter conundrum. As television viewers have found ways of avoiding ads by using personal video recorders like Tivo, advertisers have responded by becoming a part of the program through sophisticated product placement. FRONTLINE follows this new trend in advertising known as "branded entertainment." Rather than marketing products around a TV show or other entertainment vehicle, industry insiders predict the future will bring a seamless blend of marketing and entertainment. Producers are already moving in that direction. Take for example a recent Sex and the City story line in which a character becomes a poster-boy for Absolut Vodka. The idea was actually proposed to HBO by Absolut's public relations agency.

Some industry leaders claim that such tactics have evolved in response to consumer preference. But others worry that as advertising becomes more deeply integrated into television, movies, and music, those cultural forms will become ever more homogenous. "The worry is not so much that the actual ads themselves will become ubiquitous," says media critic Mark Crispin Miller. "Rather, it's that advertising desires for itself a background that will not contradict it….The aim here is not so much to find a show that people like and then get your ads on it. The aim here is for the advertisers to create a show that is itself an extended ad."

As consumers grow more cynical toward marketing claims, the persuasion industries are developing and refining techniques to reinforce an emotional attachment between Americans and the brands they buy.

"What consumers want now is an emotional connection—they want to be able to connect with what's behind the brand, what's behind the promise," says Kevin Roberts, CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising. "The brands that can move to that emotional level, that can create loyalty beyond reason, are going to be the brands where premium profits lie."

Douglas Atkin, a partner at advertising agency Merkley + Partners, goes even further, comparing the brand loyalty that companies are trying to create to the passionate zeal once enjoyed only by cultists and religious fanatics.

"I've interviewed people who are brand loyalists of Saturn Car Company," Atkin says, "and they will use the same vocabulary as someone who is a cult member of Hare Krishna. They will say that other car users need to be `saved,' or that they are part of the `Saturn family' with no hint of irony. [They] absolutely and completely believe it."

Although some brands have been more successful than others in making the magic connection to consumers, the techniques the marketers are developing are startling and include the hiring of anthropologists, ethnographers, linguists, and brain researchers to plumb our unconscious desires and urges so as to better influence our decision making.

But there is reason to wonder if these emotional connections are real. Says author Naomi Klein, "When you listen to brand managers talk, you can get quite carried away in this idea that they actually are fulfilling these needs that we have for community and narrative and transcendence. But in the end it is…a laptop and a pair of running shoes. And they might be great, but they're not actually going to fulfill those needs."

Correspondent Rushkoff observes: "We Americans value our freedom of choice—choice in the marketplace of goods, and choice in what has become a marketplace of ideas. When the same persuasion industry is engaged to influence these very different kinds of decision-making, it's easy for our roles as consumers and our roles as citizens to get blurred. By revealing some of the most effective practices of the persuasion business, we may better understand our choices and perhaps make wiser ones."

Read More......