Microsoft Proves Incompetence Once Again

Many of you are already aware of the SP3 fiasco that started in May when XP SP3 was released to the public for voluntary download. This week Microsoft switched it to a "pushed" update, listing it as a "critical update" to convince people to accept its installation.

The problem is, it is causing more problems than the issues it was supposed to fix, from perpetual reboots in some systems to, as in my case, blocked Internet updates for third party software.

Now, I can live without the MapleStory or Disney's ToonTown (if I have to), but this problem also means I cannot update my LavaSoft Ad Aware or Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus. In some cases, I have learned, Microsoft even caused problems with people updating Windows itself.

Microsoft has for years had problems with its image and the latest fiasco with XP SP3 as well as the equally irritating problems with the Windows Vista update shows exactly why it is having them. Changes to a software packet, or anything else for that matter, are supposed to make things better, not cause such outrageous hardships. Some users have even been forced to take their computers in for complete hard drive blanking and system reloading.

Microsoft needs to wake up!

This whole situation smells more of a corrupt attempt to force people to upgrade to Windows Vista or to sabotage anything that isn't Microsoft-sourced.

If Microsoft doesn't clean up its act (quickly!) it will probably see a wholesale migration to another operating system within the next two years. This irresponsibility they have been showing for years is identical to what gave innovative college students the ability to start a company that ended up topping Big Blue (IBM). I wonder who that could have been ...

Oh, right, it was Bill Gates and his buddies!

The Greatest Key to Success

"I never let schooling interfere with my education"
Mark Twain

I've been studying some of the great social and political movements of the past. By great I mean those that were found significant enough to be kept in our history books and legends. I find myself struck by a profound truth. I shall reveal it in a moment.

People in our society have some funny ideas about the keys to success. Yet I find myself realizing that most of them are lies.

Lie #1 - Education leads to success

Under this lie, it is assumed that one cannot be successful without a college degree. This has manifested itself in our society through the assumption that for most occupations candidates must have at least a bachelors degree to be taken seriously. Evidence that this assumption is a lie can be found by looking to successful men like Bill Gates who dropped out of college to start working in the computer field. We all know what happened with that.

Lie #2 - Great wealth assures success

With rare exception, accumulated wealth seldom survives more than two generations before disappearing into oblivion. Too often the children of wealthy individuals have no appreciation for the wealth responsible for their upper class lifestyle and clearly no ideas on perpetuating it into the future. Instead of absorbing this appreciation and knowledge from their parents, they become spoiled and lazy, guaranteeing their future failure.

Lie #3 - Poverty guarantees failure

Men like Chris Gardner are proof this is a lie. Chris Gardner raised himself from a poor, homeless father to being one of our nation's top, successful stock industry experts. Mr. Gardner is also a living example of the profound truth I have finally come to recognize.

Note that I did not say I discovered the truth, but said I finally recognized the truth. The truth was there all along and used quite effectively by men like Bill Gates and Chris Gardner. This truth has a name.

Allow me to introduce Personal Motivation.

Personal Motivation is a sad, lonely fellow in many cases. Like most of us, people pass by personal motivation everyday, never noticing its there, waiting in the dusty wings of our minds. Personal motivation survives on crusts of dreams and quenches its thirst with our flights of wishful thinking. The personal motivation of most people subsists much like the homeless citizens of our inner city.

People like Bill Gates and Chris Gardner have rescued their personal motivations from the streets and proven how powerful personal motivations can be. From the margins of society, these two men have built personal empires that most of America envies without ever realizing they too can have such success.

We as activists can learn much from men like these. We too have our dreams; dreams of what our world could be like, if only we would address the many problems facing our civilization. The one thing lacking, most of the time, is our own personal motivation.

Too many times we feel our activism is done because we have no choice. To truly have the energy and dedication necessary we must awaken our personal motivation. For me, mine was awakened by the revelation that it is my nieces and nephews who are going to bear the brunt of the issues we have failed to address over the years. I love them dearly and have no desire to leave the world in such a mess, no more than I would leave a gun and ammunition laying around the house when they visit.

My personal motivation is to improve our society not for myself, but for those who come after us. But the truth is, I cannot do it alone. I need the help and mutual assistance of all those who wish to improve our society. I read postings and blog entries every day from people worried about where our society is and where it is going. I say its time to do something about it. We have the technology to fix many of the problems in our world. Those that cannot be fixed by technology will no doubt take greater effort, but we can do it!

All we need is the motivation.

Good Riddance Day

Writer's note: This article originally appeared through my work with Helium (www.helium.com) and I felt it was time to share it with my audience here.

-----------------------------------------------------------

People taking pictures, lists, even fully paid mortgages and publicly shredding the documents in what is quickly becoming an annual tradition.

They call it "Good Riddance Day."

THe Good Riddance Day movement is, for all intents and purposes, a type of reverse New Year's resolution. Instead of developing new, improved selves and habits, we are supposed to let go of past mistakes and bad habits. This year one man's list included giving up his addiction to shoplifting.

It sparked me into thinking about things we as a society need to give up in order to move onward into the future.

We need to give up racism. This is probably one of the biggest wastes of human energy in the United States. From wasted energy committing racism to the wasted energy seeing racists behind every tree, car, and building corner. Both extremes must go. They are useless. No ... they are worse ... they corrupt and distract us. They are not useless, they are malicious. The sooner we say good riddance to them, the better.

We need to give up consumerism. This does not mean to stop shopping for food, clothing, etc. What this means is for us to think about what we are buying. Are we buying something because we need it (like food), because we really wnt it (like a computer), or simply because it is the latest thing (like an 8GB iPod when we already own a 4GB iPod that we only have 2GB of music on)? If we settle for a $12 pair of store-brand pants instead of $50 Levi pants, we free up considerable money that we could save in the bank, invest in mutual funds, or afford other things that we really want, like taking our significant other on dates more frequently (yes, mental and emotional goods are important too).

We need to give up credit use, both personally and nationally. Right now we owe so much as a nation it would take an entire year's income from everyone to pay it off. This is not just an economic issue, but an issue of national security. Some of our biggest creditors are China and Saudi Arabia, two countries who have proven to have less than our best interests at heart.

We need to give up or put off pork-barrel projects until, if and when, we can actually afford them. Our government is one of the most wasteful structures and organizations known to modern man. It needs to be put on an economic diet, for the health and safety of us all.

We need to give up selfishness. Think of those who are less fortunate than you. When you see on of the red meters in places like downtown Denver, Seattle, or whatever town or city you are in that let you donate to the homeless programs of your community, put a dollar or two of change into it. If you see someone who is homeless and they ask you for help getting lunch, take them to McDonald's or Taco Bell and buy them lunch if you are worried about them spending the money on drugs or alcohol. And for God's sake, turn off the TV when your kid asks for help with their homework. Stop being so selfish with your resources like time and money. If you give just a little, you help improve our entire society, and it really doesn't hurt you. In fact, you just might end up feeling good about yourself for a day or two.

We need to give up road rage and recklessness. Is it really worth risking killing yourself or someone else, just to get to work five minutes earlier or to "get back" at someone you think cut you off on the freeway? There is a man sitting in the state pen right now in Colorado who thought that it was. He is serving time for murder for causing a road rage related accident on a freeway in Aurora, Colorado that killed two people.

The list could go on and on. Think about all the things wrong with your community, your state, and our nation. Make a list if you have to. Then shred or burn it. Let all those things go. Then join with your fellow citizens and lets make the necessary changes in our society to make those things relics of the past.

Let's work toward the day when our children ask questions like "what was war" or "what do they mean by pollution?" Together we can make it happen. We just have to let go of the past and say good riddance to it.

Activists Beware

It has become obvious to many of us that there has been a profound shift in the conduct of our government, particularly during the Bush administration. This shift has brought increased pressure and harassment against those of us who are trying to make a positive difference in the world.

This shift has brought violations of free speech, violations of free press, violations of free associations, violations of free trade, violations of free travel, violations of ... well, I think you get the picture ... all in the name of national security. Things that were considered acceptable and normal in a democratic society only a few months ago are now bringing seizures of property by Homeland Security, arrest and disappearances of independent reporters, and a spiraling environment of fear and surveillance by what is rapidly becoming the most oppressive government in the world.

This means the environment for activists like you and I is becoming increasingly dangerous, which is typical in a society on the verge of collapse. The sad thing is, it doesn't have to happen, but can only be prevented if the government backs off from this campaign of terrorism. Yes, I said it, the United States government has, itself, become a force of terrorism in the world, particularly against its own citizens. Those who don't believe me had best start paying attention to what is happening.

Another part of the threat is, it is not just at the national level that this is happening. Local governments are joining in. Just last September (2007), a student at UCLA was tasered for trying to get a straight answer out of John Kerry. And this was after John Kerry told them it was alright, that he was willing to answer the question. Considering that tasers have been proven to be potentially lethal, this act was irresponsible, dangerous, and oppressive to the student's right to participate in an open-to-the-public event.

The Bush administrations invocation of "free speech zones" that isolate officials from any signs of protest against their policies was expanded in March (2008) to force "Free Tibet" protesters away from the path of the Olympic torch. In Denver, in preparation for the Democratic National Convention, the police department already has an area chosen for a "free speech zone" that all but guarantees convention goers won't be "inconvenienced" by hearing anything from the protest groups. They are already spreading word that even passing out protest fliers may (read will) result in arrest for trespassing ... including the otherwise open-to-the-public sidewalks around the convention center.

Censorship has also raised its ugly head, particularly if the subject matter has to do with global warming or anything that might threaten the strangle hold the oil and coal industry have on our economy. James Hansen, a noted and respected scientist with NASA, was the subject of a recently published book, Censored Science by Mark Bowen, that reveals his reports and those of other NASA scientists regarding global warming issues have been officially censored for years. Just this past week (July 2008), we have learned that Vice-President Dick Cheney's office intentionally removed EPA testimony about the health impact of global warming from the congressional record, citing concern over the science involved, a decision made by NON-scientists who have done ZERO research.

Individually, the myriad of events may seem insignificant, but when viewed in the broad spectrum of events, a disturbing and dangerous pattern emerges, screaming, as the title of this post says ...

ACTIVISTS BEWARE

Common Sense on Sex Offenders

This was originally a comment post I wrote on another blog site. I thought the content important enough to revise and post here.

-----------------------------------------------------

It saddens me to see such strife on issues like sex offender residency restriction laws when it seems most involved in the conversation (if you can call it that) seem to have no idea of the reality regarding sex offenders.

According to the Department of Justice, convicted sex offenders are the second least likely to commit a like offense within ten years (less than 8 percent). The least likely are single-incident murderers (less than 5 percent). Under closer scrutiny, reoffense for child molestation is comparable to that of single-incident murderers.

Additionally, those who do reoffend are most frequently those who are under the stress of unemployment, harassment by neighbors, and instability in or lack of adequate housing.

Residency restriction laws also interfere with the application and enforcement of the "Megan's law" provisions each state has by denying the sex offender the ability to establish a reliable residence. Those that do often find malicious neighbors registering a "day care" within the restriction distance of the sex offender's new residency and in short order, a notice for the sex offender to move immediately with a time frame as little as 24 hours in some municipalities.

These facts alone refute the claims that there is no argument against the residency restriction laws. These laws have, in direct violation of constitutional law no less, denied sex offenders not only a place to live but participation in religious activities, educational opportunities, and even significant work opportunities. They essentially, after the sex offender has done his or her time, add the punishment of banishment from society altogether.

Yes, what they did in the past was heinious, but so too are the actions our society is doing to them after the fact. We cannot and must not use their past conduct to justify throwing out everything our nation represents, which is exactly what we are doing with these laws. In our desperate desire to protect our children, we are forgetting who we are.

And lastly, I ask each of you this ... if it was, one day, your own son or daughter who was caught up in a sexually-based offense, would you want them banished forever from society? Check out www.rickyslife.com before you answer that.

AP Bulldog Bites Bloggers!

On Friday, June 13th, 2008, the Associated Press delivered a DMCA takedown demand to the blog "Drudge Retort," claiming seven copyright violations. The violations, upon investigation, are over headlines and short excerpts of 40 to 80 words. Each blog entry included a link to the AP story on the Associated Press website.

The House Wyldstar position on the issue:

The AP needs to wake up to the reality of today's Internet.

The Associated Press over the years has used clips and quotes from other sources, claiming in their defense that such use is covered under the "fair use" doctrine. This is, in our opinion, a correct use of that doctrine. However, the AP is now demanding bloggers stop doing the same thing when it comes to their material. This is hypocrisy at its finest.

One, the bloggers are making fair use of the materials by only using excerpts and linking to the original article for readers to access, if they should so choose. This is no different than article indexes used in public libraries that point people to the correct article in the correct magazine.

Two, the AP is totally ignoring the fact that bloggers using the material in this manner is FREE PUBLICITY for the Associated Press. What business or organization in their right mind would file a complaint over someone else sending customers their way? This is sheer idiocy and definitely beneath the AP's reputation. In a single day the AP has destroyed the credibility it has taken it decades to build.

Many bloggers have responded by calling for a total boycott of the AP unless and until they change their attitude and drop the idiotic DMCA takedown demands it has issued. As a firm advocate for freedom of the press, public discourse of the issues, and preservation of human knowledge and history, I join in this call.

Organizations like the Associated Press need to rethink what they are doing. DMCA demands can be just as easily filed against them in many cases, undermining the usefulness and mission of their organization in the same way that it is undermining the efforts of bloggers to share information and participate in public debate.

Grow up AP!

Building a Supportive Environment

The story is told of a man who came home one day and informed his wife that he had just lost his job. The wife, instead of being upset, smiled and said that it was good, he would now have time to write the book he had talked about. The man was confused and asked how the bills would be paid if he took time off to write his book.

The wife smiled again and informed him that she believed in him. Over the past few years she had tucked away money from each week's pay and had enough to last them a year. Over that year, the book was written and began selling well, enough that the author was able to continue his new career.

"The Scarlet Letter" was the first novel of Nathaniel Hawthorne and is considered one of the all-time classic novels. It raised an unknown man to literary prominence, a recognition that last to this very day.

And it all started with the loving support of Hawthorne's wife.

This is not the only case of success in which such support can be cited as the influencing force. Over the years nearly every Olympic medalist has cited the support of their family and friends as the driving force in their success. I could continue with examples ad nauseum, but you get the picture.

This same rule of support applies to our social, environmental and political movements as well. Our leaders need a level of faithful support to achieve success in their endeavors, just as Hawthorne needed it from his wife.

It is frequently easier to criticize an idea or proposal than to support it, yet if we are going to make any headway in finding solutions to the problems we face today, we must overcome this pattern of criticism.

Case at point:

Governor Ritter of Colorado proposed massive changes for Colorado to position it as a leader in the fight against global warming and environmental destruction. Yet critics have openly condemned the proposals. They did not do so because the changes would have been bad for Colorado. They condemned them because Colorado alone executing the changes would have little impact on the problems.

I have just one thing to say about this:

DUH!

The whole idea was, and remains, for Colorado to become a leader in these issues. By setting the example, Colorado can inspire others to take up the changes, spreading the effects of those changes across the nation and, hopefully, around the world. It is not easy to be a leader. The one who would be leader must take bold stands and push for common sense changes to social policies. When such leadership is presented, we as citizens must show our support.

I am not talking about blind obedience to political figures, but faith that such ideas can work, that we as a community can make a difference. I am talking about faith in ourselves and about taking personal responsibility for solving the crisis that looms before us.

When Ritter took office, I initially had my doubts about him. I am proud to say that at least some of my concerns were washed away when he stepped up with his proposals. I see him today as a leader. As such, he is exactly what Colorado, and our nation, needs.

All he needs is a little support from his friends and family.

I know he has mine.

Clouded Issues

I recently did some reading in the book "Censored Science" and it made me realize one of the fundamental problems we as activists deal with on a daily basis: official censorship of facts.

In "Censored Science" the policy of censoring NASA science reports was discussed. In recent years, scientists preparing reports had to send the documents to a "reviewer" and then modify their reports to the "reviewer's" requirements. Frequently this has meant a "watering down" of critical environmental and scientific information that is vital to our understanding of climate change and global warming.

Let's call this what it is - SCIENTIFIC CENSORSHIP! The "continuing debate" on global warming isn't a debate, it is official censorship by non-scientific personnel that is clouding and corrupting our understanding of how much trouble we are actually in.

Let's see if I can explain this better.

1 - Global CO2 levels are at record highs not just for the past century, but for the past million years or so. We are rapidly reaching 400 parts per million when our "normal" levels are about half that. Methane levels are showing similar trends. Heat being retained in the atmosphere has already increased global temperatures by almost a full degree with expected future increase predictions ranging from a "modest" two-degree to a "catastrophic" six-degree gain.

2 - Arguments that this increase is from "increased" solar activity ignore the fact that solar energy reaching the surface of our planet has decreased in the past half-century by 10 to 20 percent. If solar activity is influencing our overall temperature, it should be going DOWN not UP!

3 - Increased volcanic activity, though still relatively modest, has increased the levels of sulfuric aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Even this modest increase would mask solar energy and decrease global temperatures. It is believed that the "little ice age" (c. 1350-1800) was caused by a series of five major eruptions.

There is more scientific evidence that has been censored or totally ignored that also show just how screwed we are if we don't act immediately, but let us examine the meaning of just these points for the moment.

Decreased solar energy and the reflective nature of increased sulfuric aerosols would indicate that we should be seeing decreased global temperatures, yet our global temperatures are still on the rise. If we are receiving less solar energy into the equation, what happens when (or if) solar output returns to normal or the sulfuric aerosols finally breakdown and allow all of the solar output through? Just how much temperature rise is missing that could hit us in the near future? Have we already passed the tipping point without knowing it?

As I said, there are many more points that I may discuss later, but just this small portion of the global warming equation has me worried. Even more worrisome is the censorship of these issues by our government. How much more are they hiding from us and why are they effectively lying to us in the first place? Do they know we are already screwed and are fearful of getting lynched?

The evidence makes me wonder.

Words as Weapons

Interesting ... I got called a racist for my position on irresponsible government programs and growth. Oh well. Those who truly know me know better.

It did cause me to start thinking how we use words as weapons in our society.

Want to dismiss thought on someone's complaints? Call them a "bi**h" or "a**hole" who just wants to complain. No more thought needed.

Want to ignore someone's points about people taking responsibility for themselves and to quit depending on the Government to fix everything? Let's see ... racist sounds like a good word.

I was also called "afraid of change."

Me?

Hmmm.

I speak out in favor of responsibility. A little old-fashioned I guess.

I speak out in favor of social activism. Hardly someone afraid of change there.

I speak out in favor of protecting human rights. Definitely not afraid of change there.

I speak out against wholesale consumerism and waste. Another change I do not fear.

My entry about Malcolm X speaks for itself.

I am a strong supporter for ideas like those of Ernest Callenbach. Simply cannot be afraid of change there, his ideas would completely overturn our society if instituted all at once.

I'm an advocate for light rail, alternate energy and biofuels. Okay, now I have to laugh at the idea that I am afraid of change.

As an activist author, I am definitely not afraid of change. Since I am an advocate for the empowerment of marginalized citizens (homeless, disabled and minorities) the racist label doesn't fit either.

Sorry, Sheilah, but you are way off base calling me those things. Guess something I said hit a nerve with you.

Good, means I'm doing my job.

The Peace of Islam

Two boys accidently killed in a French car accident with police
Days of violent riots with dozens injured or killed

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

An innocent girl forced into a dark corner and raped
The rapist growls in her ear "Allah is great"

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

A cartoonist draws something critical of Islam and Muhammed
Islamic followers riot and swear a blood oath for his death

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

In the Phillipines, Islamics riot and rape underaged girls
Some pinning them down as others rape them saying "Allah is great"

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

Thousands were murdered when massive skyscrapers came down
Islamic nations cheered and cried "Death to America"

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

Islamics fire mortars and missiles into residential neighborhoods
Then scream for international protection when counter attacked

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

Four American Marines are killed by a suicide bomber in a marketplace
Dozens of unwary Islamic women and children die at the same time

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

An Islamic professor is gunned down in the middle of class
His student, speaks out ... how long will she live

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

A young girl, raped by an Islamic brother, is pregnant
An Islamic court sentences her to death for premarital sex

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

A school teacher is arrested, rioters demand her execution
All for letting her students name a stuffed animal Muhammed

Yet Islam is a religion of peace

What were you saying about Muhammed?

Unhealthy Fantasies and Misunderstandings

Its been a while since my last post. Afraid my occupation as a freelance writer has kept me busy.

Today I want to talk about two issues that, though separate, have become linked in a way I did not anticipate ... those of "unhealthy sexual fantasies" and "inadvertent misunderstandings."

Let me lay out the situation I found myself in.

-------------------------------------------------------------

A few weeks ago, I began research on the issue of what child pornography is. According to Federal law, child pornography is any visual media (photos, videos, etc) that shows or depicts sexual acts (oral, anal, vaginal) with anyone under the age of majority. In some states, this can be interpreted as anyone under a certain age as high as 21 ... technically.

But does this definition go far enough?

Sex offenders, during sexual offense therapy, learn that sexual offenses begin with a fantasy phase. An attractive girl walks down the street or across the room; men fantasize about her. A man views a Playboy magazine and has fantasies. Men view pornographic films and have fantasies. Normally, these fantasies are nothing to worry about, but for a small percentage of men, they can be a real danger.

But during my research I realized that not all materials that trigger such fantasies are visual. Some of these materials are written stories, called erotica.

On Usenet (accessible through Google Groups) there are a number of erotic short story groups, most under the alt.sex.stories category. The groups, typically, are plagued by frequent advertisements for sexually explicit videos, photos and manipulated graphics. But when these are weeded out, there is still a great deal to be concerned about.

Mixed in with the typical hetero/homosexual fantasies about your neighbor's girlfriend/wife, your best friend's girlfriend/wife, etc. are erotic stories about sex with under aged girls (one story I found the victim was under eight years old), violent rape (including a gang rape of a white bride by black men as her new husband was forced to watch), and even snuff-rape where the victim is slain while being raped.

It made me realize how dangerous the written word can be, and this isn't just available online. In many porn shops there are novels about teen sex with peers and adults with names like "Mandy's Slick Panties."

Now my question is this: If all sexual offenses (rape, molestation, etc) start with a fantasy, aren't these stories just as dangerous? And if we are going to prosecute child pornographers and molesters, shouldn't the manufacture of pedo-erotica be included in our actions?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to the misunderstanding part. During my research, I downloaded and printed two examples of these type articles for my research files. Unfortunately, my fiance found them on my desk while I was in the kitchen getting something to eat. Needless to say, she was VERY concerned. The discovery by her of these definitely did not give her the context in which they had been printed and, to put it lightly, did not look good.

My mind goes back to an incident a friend of mine had to deal with when his parents found links to bomb-making information on the Internet. He was astonished by news reports of how easy such information was to find on the web and decided to check it out for himself. Not only did he find information on making pipe bombs, but also information on making plastic explosives and even an atom bomb. This was shortly after the Columbine High School incident and needless to say, his parents pretty much freaked out on him.

My advice is, if you are doing research on ANYTHING sensitive, make sure you don't leave things laying about. You never know what people might think or what kind of consequences it might cause unnecessarily.

The Sharing of Opinions

Today I would like to share a comment I found on the Minnesota Public Radio site.

Wrong path on MySpace

What a scary place signing the new bill into effect regarding the ban of sex offenders. [MPR News: Bill declares MySpace and the like off-limits to sex offenders] There are a couple of issues that come to mind regarding this and other bills that have recently been signed into effect. Who is a "sex offender"? Convictions carry sentences, it is illegal to add to a sentence after it has been fulfilled. Will this bill effect sex offenders already in the system? Why do we need this bill? Who gains from this bill?

People labeled sex offenders are in very large part not child molesters. The word "sex offender" is scary, just like the word "terrorist". Just like the word "terrorist", "sex offender" is thrown around and used without thought. Crimes such as statutory rape are included. This means that a man or a women of 18 years of age that has sex with a girl/boyfriend under that age and is convicted will be considered a sex offender. "Sex offenders are many times registered as such for 10-20 years or more.

Second, any conviction carries a sentence. The sentence is given by either peers or an appointed judge. This sentence is carried out by the convicted person. Here we have a new bill ready to be signed into effect that prohibits rights of people that have fulfilled their debt to society. The bill is a continuation of punishment beyond the prescribed sentence that has been fulfilled.

This can easily be likened to any person convicted of any felony currently. It is currently legal to deny a job to any person that has been convicted of a crime. It is also now almost mandatory for any person to sign a waiver for a background check for any position. This makes finding work for felony convicts impossible. This is another form of unusual punishment beyond the prescribed and fulfilled sentence. Not only does this effect the person but the community and economy as a whole.

Why is this bill going into effect? There is not a jump in rapes, child molestation, child pornography etc. In fact the numbers have been going down consistently for over a decade. Why would it make sense to increase penalties?

Politicians love to make a name for themselves. Generally these people don't care about the consequences of their actions. Really who can argue with "tougher penalties for sex offenders". Before we act, we must take a hard look at what and why we are doing such things. Is this beneficial for anyone. Children, no. Community, no. Sex offender, no. Economy, no. Mrs. Swanson, ahh yes. [MPR News Archive: Swanson joins call for names of sex offenders using MySpace] If parents can't teach their kids what we all learned when we were kids, "don't talk to strangers," we're in for some bigger problems. Can our politician deal with real problems? Maybe bureaucratic waste?

Finally, this one step by itself is not bad. Great, we will have 1 or 2 less sex offenders using their real names on Facebook in Minnesota. LOL. Though, what are the second, third and fourth steps? A complete ban on Internet usage? I don't know of one job available anywhere that doesn't use the Internet for some part of it.

I'm not advocating sexual offenses, not even a little bit, however we should be wary about where we are going.

Geoff Halls
Bloomington, Minn.

Mr. Halls raises several good points.

• Are such bans effectively additional punishments imposed on sex offenders, thus violating our constitutional rule against ex post facto laws?
  
• Does anyone really benefit from these bans?
  
• If they are effectively useless, why waste taxpayers' money and public resources on their enforcement?
  
• Are politicians really interested in the public good or are they just out to make a name for themselves by passing "sounds good" legislation?

Questions like these are fundamental to our activities and policies as a nation.

• Does the policy or law we are thinking about violate the basis of our free and independent society?
  
• Does the policy or law actually address the issue we need to work on?
  
• Could the policy have undesirable consequences that we have not anticipated, perhaps doing more damage to our society than good?
  
• Does the person advocating the policy or law have alterior motives for supporting it that might be clouding their judgement, making their advocacy suspect, and have they considered the previous three questions?

Before we jump on the bandwagon on any policy or legislative idea, we need to answer these questions. Only then can we make reasonable and responsible decisions. Many times we pass laws without thinking about their consequences.

In the past there have been many examples of this.

In the 1910s Federal legislation was passed on the premise of protecting the banking industry and expanding its economic potential. The results? The Great Depression. Enough said.

In the 1930s, responding to The Great Depression, legislation was passed to regulate the investment industry and the fundraising of corporations. The result? It costs companies between 10 and 20 percent of their desired funds just to register their intended stocks and changes nothing about the potential risk of investment in new (or even pre-existing) corporations. It also did nothing to address the actual causes of The Great Depression. The answer? More legislation to help finance small businesses through debt-enslavement agreements.

Again in the 1930s, responding to The Great Depression, the welfare program was started, guaranteeing all citizens (supposedly) the basic necessity of food, medicine, and in some cases shelter. The result? Generations of welfare recipients that have been trapped in dependence upon the government. The answer? More legislation to impose arbitrary limits on all recipients as to how long they can be dependents in their entire lifetime.

Yes, those are examples of old legislation, but they are ones we are still reeling from today. And there are plenty of more recent examples, up to and including our so-called USA Patriot Act which has all but stripped us of any assumption that we have a right to privacy and anonymity in our society.

Can we undo the damage caused by these mistakes? Yes. Will it be easy to do? Hell no. It is never easy to undo damage. There is the cost of eliminating what is causing the damage. There is the cost of repairing the damage done. And there is the cost of replacing the damaging policies or laws with better considered policies or laws.

Can't we just take the time to do it right the first time?

High Stakes Activism - Accepting Risk

Talking with others today, I suddenly realized that my path to activism started significantly before my graduation from high school. I learned certain lessons then that I find applicable to activism in our modern world. Let me explain.

It started early one brisk, autumn morning. My friend (for privacy sake I shall call him Jake) and I were horsing around while waiting for our school bus. A man who lived in the house nearest our bus stop came out and started yelling at us. Needless to say, things got a bit heated.

Jake, by this point becoming quite irrational, told the man "Shut up and leave us alone motherf****r!"

The man growled at him "I ain't no motherf****r"

A thought suddenly crossed my mind. A way I might get these too angry individuals to step back and allow the situation to defuse. The problem was, it could also escalate the entire situation and draw me into the middle of it. In an instant, I made my decision.

"Sure you are, why lie about it?"

The man blinked a moment, then growled "I AIN'T no motherf****r!"

A smile crossed my lips. He had fallen for my trap.

I shifted my expression as if I was about to state a fact. "Oh really? Don't you have kids?"

The man blinked in sudden dismay, confused for the moment. A glance at Jake and I could see he was equally confused. I let silence rule for a few seconds, waiting.

The man's face sudden grimaced, "For the love of Christ"

He leaned against the tree behind him and let out a belly roar of laughter. I looked to Jake, who's face attested to his sudden understanding of what I had said. Unfortunately, he did not have a tree behind him and ended up on his butt in the grass, laughing until he could barely breath.

Once they stopped laughing, I smiled at the man and said "Look, you are obviously upset about our noise, but we don't understand why you are so upset, what's going on?"

The man explained to us that he was a graveyard security guard and was just getting into bed when we started making so much noise. Jake and I apologized and promised we would show him due consideration, now that we knew the circumstances.

Now the question is, how does this apply to activism?

The answer is simple. We are dealing with a lot of highly complex issues. There are usually two sides to an issue with some issues having three or more sides. We get so involved with our advocacy of this solution or that solution or arguing that the other side(s) aren't seeing the whole picture of the issue. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't

The point is, our discussions become debates, debates become arguments, arguments become fighting, and fighting becomes all-out war. As this escalation grows, it becomes more and more difficult to negotiate middle grounds and happy mediums. Often times it takes a risky move to bring people back to the negotiation table. The higher the conflict has escalated, the riskier the move to bring things back into progressive equilibrium.

As activists, we must evaluate the events and situations affecting our issue(s) to see where such risks can, should, or must be taken for the sake of progress. In the game of high-stakes activism, there is no room for wimps. Now ... who's turn is it to shuffle?

God's Criminals

In recent months there have been many examples of Muslims taking offense at the writings of western journalists and the words of western religious and political leaders. In many of these incidents, the words and writings were taken out of context, or worse, were true about a portion of Islamic extremists, but not about Islam in general.

Our conflict is not Christian versus Muslim. It is not the United States against Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. Our conflict is against those who use Islam and, in total honesty, Christianity as excuses by claiming they are doing Allah's/God's work by committing violence, murder, and terrorism. Yes, I said it, Christianity has blood on its hands as well.

I will not go into a discourse of examples standing against either Islam or Christianity. It is unnecessary and a complete waste of time. We both know what crimes I speak of. And they must stop immediately.

If we are to establish peace on Earth, a goal Islam and Christianity both claim to embody by their claims of being peaceful religions, then we must join forces against those who commit heresy and blasphemy in the name of our creator by claiming that their actions are his work. By not fighting against this together, we become accomplices to these very crimes. The blood of innocent victims stains our hands as much as the murder's and terrorist's.

If someone speaks true insults against us (Muslim or Christian), do not prove them right with a violent response, least they use that to justify escalating the incident against us or using our conduct as proof of their idiocy.

If there are Islamic and Christian communities near one another, do not tolerate violence against each other, let the criminals suffer the appropriate consequences for their crimes, regardless of them being Muslim or Christian claimants.

There is no need for us to protect them, just because they claim, blasphemously, to be doing Allah's, or Christ's, work.

The Hidden War

America is dying. It is suffering the death of a thousand cuts.

And it is not alone.

Across the globe human rights are being undermined in the name of globalization and, most insulting, in the name of security.

Since I know best what is happening in the United States, I shall focus my attention there, but as I said, we are not the only ones suffering.

We have for the last few generations verbally rejected the idea of internal passports, we do not (as yet) have gestapo-like forces roaming the streets asking us "Papers, please" but we are not far from it.

Thanks to secret legislation (defined as legislation whose existence and purpose are intentionally hidden or cloaked from public knowledge) the Federal government has in place requirements of computer readable identification for banking, government services, and employment verification, though they have not (as yet) begun to enforce these requirements. A small handful of Congressmen are responsible for this.

What is wrong with it you might ask? It puts us just a few paces from being required to carry internal passports that can be used to monitor everything we do everyday. It isn't hard for them to start requiring RFID chips embedded that can be read from yards away, most likely without us ever knowing.

So far most states have interpreted the legislation in such a way that they have incorporated magnetic strips and barcodes that must be read at close range, making it obvious when they are being examined - or does it?

Without thinking about it we allow employers to link our Social Security Number (SSN) to our identity, using it as our employee ID number. Without thinking about it we allow hospitals to use our SSN as our patient ID number. Without thinking about it we allow banks to link our SSN to our bank account. Without thinking about it we allow schools and colleges to link our SSN to our educational records. Without thinking about it we allow our state governments to link our driver's licenses to our SSN, frequently printing it right on the front of our ID cards.

Lets see, that means with our SSN the government (and hackers by the way) can access our driving records, our educational credentials, our financial records, our health records, and our employment history. Do you want the government having that kind of access to your life???

The Federal government passed the USA Patriot Act. This fact alone seems innocent enough - until you actually examine the powers it grants the Federal government. It too qualifies as secret legislation even though everyone has heard of it. It qualifies because the law that was signed by the President is not what Congress agreed upon. During the debates and negotiations Congress had inserted safeguards seeking to protect the rights of American citizens. The night before the formal vote of Congress the altered legislation was replaced by the original legislation the President wanted. The majority of Congress was never told and to this day have no clue about this. Unwittingly, Congress voted to pass the law before them and it was promptly signed into law by the President.

Among the more insidious measures of the USA Patriot Act is the Federal government having the power to seize bookstore purchase records and library patronage records. Are you sure you have never read anything the government might find questionable?

It also allows the government to perform covert searches of our businesses and homes, seizing anything within them, without warrant or notification. Imagine going to work or school one day and returning to find your house ransacked and your beloved computer missing. The first thought in your mind? One, this violates our constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. There is a reason we have required law enforcement to get search warrants from the courts. They are a safeguard against governmental corruption. This type of search will also cause local law enforcement resources to be wasted when the victim calls police to report a burglary because they do not know it was the government who did it.

Probably the most well known violation is the governments secret domestic surveillance program which, in fact, was either in place well before the USA Patriot Act or was planned for in advance. The government already had the equipment ready to go when the law was passed. Conspiracy theorists have accused the government for years of covert domestic surveillance of telephone and computer communications. The facts about the government's current surveillance program and the speed it was instituted makes me wonder, though I am not ready to throw my hat in with the theorists quite yet.

And telephone and computer communications are not the only thing under surveillance. It is well known that the government has and continues to use covert operatives to monitor any organization (including third political parties) who dare to question or campaign against governmental and corporate misconduct. The SS did not die during World War II, they just changed sides - or so it seems.

Historically, I have never been one to be very political. I was indoctrinated, like most of America, to believe the government was benevolent - protecting our country and our rights as citizens. But I was also raised to keep my eyes open and to think for myself. Unfortunately, the more I see of issues like these, the more it undermines my confidence and belief in the U.S. government.

I have been told by many that my viewpoints about our government and big business will probably end up with me on the no-fly list and subject myself to governmental surveillance and harrassment. They are probably right. I have just one thing to say about that.

"Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn."

When America Sneezes

Disaster was narrowly averted today by swift action of the Federal Reserve and Federal Government.

In the past week, concerns have been expressed over the potential of the United States entering another recession. At first, response was weak. Over the weekend it found reinforcements, causing several major foreign exchanges to plunge in value and causing the New York Stock Exchange to drop almost 500 points in the first hour or two of trading.

It was only after the Federal Reserve dropped a primary interest rate by 3/4 point, the largest such move in years. Additionally the U.S. Federal Government pledged to spend $150 billion to stimulate the economy.

Is this necessarily a good thing? Maybe, but maybe not.

The Federal Government spending to encourage consumer and business spending is hypocritical. Why? Because they are spending our money taken through taxation instead of letting us spend it ourselves. This is, essentially, the point of the broken window fallacy.

In the broken window fallacy, a young boy breaks the window of a baker who, naturally, has to replace the broken pane. His neighbors get to talking about the issue, debating whether the young boy should be punished. On one hand the broken pane creates work. The glazer to make and install the glass is the first beneficiary. The money then passes to the glass supplier for the materials, to the clothier when the glazer buys a new shirt, and to the grocer when the glazer buys food for his family.

This is the way the government thinks. Giving money to welfare for example improves the income for the grocery merchants and maybe the landlords if they are given cash benefits for such.

The other side of the coin is this. The baker has to shell out the money to pay the glazer and thus has less to spend on supplies for his business, clothing for his own family, and even food. This is also the effect that government taxation has on the average citizen.

Government action over the years has not effectively lowered the taxes on the poor, only those who are already well off (of which virtually every politician is before they ever enter politics) and has very little to no effect on overall poverty. Why? Because, in truth, the poor have no more money than they did before. Some of them are just fed a little (and I do mean a little) better.

The problem in our society is not lack of government spending. It is bankers siphoning off profit for themselves by making economic slaves out of everyone else. A slave is forced to labor for the comfort and profit of another. The bible describes this relationship well when it says the debtor is slave of the creditor.

An example of this is overdraft fees. It costs the banks around $2 to process the average overdraft. The bank then charges the consumer $30-50 for covering the overdraft. If they return the item, most of them still charge the fee of $30-50. It is completely up to the arbitrary decision of a faceless banking bureaucrat who is seldom accountable for his/her decision.

Another example is the banks charging higher interest rates the lower the economic level of the borrower, allegedly because of the higher risk indicated by a lower credit rating. The net effect is the bank makes more money on low income citizens per dollar loaned than lending to "more worthy" borrowers.

The government spending programs are also frequently financed by borrowing from these same international bankers, making the government itself slave of its creditors. The fundamental base of economic problems is not consumer unwillingness to spend, it is their inability to spend because they are paying so much of their income in taxes, bank fees, and interest rates.

Word to the wise, think for yourselves. The government, big business, and banking industry stopped being our friends before World War II. Until we wake up to the truth and start working on things ourselves things are only going to get worse.

By the way, I will be returning to more frequent posting starting tomorrow. I had some financial issues and am having my Internet connection restored tomorrow morning.

The Cost of Standing Up

Most people don't consider the effects their actions have on others. As advocates and activists, we have to consider everything. Every idea we generate, every cause we fight for, will have effects far beyond our simple circle.

Take for example Colorado's institution of the CICP (Colorado Indigent Care Program). Initially the program was to be a safety net for those who for one reason or another were indigent, unable to pay for their medical care.

I have been speaking to a young lady who's experience tells another tale.

Recently she broke her arm when she fell while running for a bus. It was a homeless man who helped her up and out of the street to prevent her getting run over. Chalk one up for a marginalized citizen being there for another when needed, first of all.

The problem is this, she was turned away from several facilities because her broken arm was not life threatening, thus in their definition, not an emergency condition.

Excuse me?

They went further by stating the would not treat her without prepayment.

Say what?

That's right, she was turned away because she did not have insurance, cash up front, or a CICP card. Education time, boys and girls.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. (Source: Wikipedia.org)

This law is not abrogated or mitigated by ANY state or subsequent Federal law.

Of course, in at least one case, it doesn't surprise me. University Hospital (one of the above guilty parties) had another incident years ago. A man was working for the hospital and had a heart attack. His supervisor from the hospital came to his INTENSIVE CARE room and informed him he could either take early retirement from the hospital or he would be fired immmediately.

Understand, University Hospital is a part of the University of Colorado educational system. If student nurses and doctors are seeing their instructors and residents making illegal decisions like there is nothing wrong with them, they too are learning to ignore the law. This is not the kind of scenario I would want my niece to learn from, and she wants to be a pediatrician.

God help us if this kind of criminal conduct is allowed to pass unchallenged.

Good Riddance

It sounds like a joke.

People taking pictures, lists, even fully paid mortgages and publicly shredding the documents in what is quickly becoming an annual tradition.

They call it "Good Riddance Day."

The Good Riddance Day movement is, for all intents and purposes, a type of reverse New Year's resolution. Instead of developing new, improved selves and habits, we are supposed to let go of past mistakes and bad habits. This year one man's list included giving up his addiction to shoplifting.

It sparked me into thinking about things we as a society need to give up in order to move onward into the future.

We need to give up racism. This is probably one of the biggest wastes of human energy in the United States. From wasted energy committing racism to the wasted energy seeing racists behind every tree, car, and building corner. Both extremes must go. They are useless. No - they are worse - they corrupt and distract us. They are not useless, they are malicious. The sooner we say good riddance to them, the better.

We need to give up consumerism. This does not mean to stop shopping for food, clothing, etc. What this means is for us to think about what we are buying. Are we buying something because we need it (like food), because we really want it (like a computer), or simply because it is the lastest thing (like an 8GB iPod when we already own a 4GB iPod that we only have 2GB of music on)? If we settle for a $12 pair of store-brand pants instead of $50 Levi pants we free up considerable money that we could save in the bank, invest in mutual funds, or afford other things that we really want, like taking our significant other on dates more frequently (yes, mental and emotional goods are important too).

We need to give up credit use, both personally and nationally. Right now we owe so much as a nation it would take an entire year's income from everyone to pay it off. This is not just an economic issue, but an issue of national security. Some of our biggest creditors are China and Saudi Arabia, two countries who have proven to have less than our best interests at heart.

We need to give up or put off pork-barrel projects until, if and when, we can actually afford them. Our government is one of the most wasteful structures and organizations known to modern man. It needs to be put on an economic diet, for the health and safety of us all.

We need to give up selfishness. Think of those who are less fortunate than you. When you see one of the red meters in places like downtown Denver, Seattle, or whatever town or city you are in that let you donate to the homeless programs of your community, put a dollar or two of change into it. If you see someone who is homeless and they ask for help getting lunch, take them to McDonald's or Taco Bell and buy them lunch if you are worried about them spending the money on drugs or alcohol. And for God's sake, turn off the TV when your kid asks for help with their homework. Stop being so selfish with your resources like time and money. If you give just a little, you help improve our entire society, and it really doesn't hurt you. In fact, you just might end up feeling good about yourself for a day or two.

We need to give up road rage and recklessness. Is it really worth risking killing yourself or someone else, just to get to work five minutes earlier or to "get back" at someone you think cut you off on the freeway? There is a man sitting in the state pen right now in Colorado who thought that it was. He is serving time for murder for causing a road rage related accident on a freeway in Aurora, Colorado that killed two people.

The list could go on and on. Think about all the things wrong with your community, your state, and our nation. Make a list if you have to. Then shred or burn it. Let all those things go. Then join with your fellow citizens and lets make the necessary changes in our society to make those things relics of the past.

Lets work toward the day when our children ask questions like "what was war" or "what do they mean by pollution". Together we can make it happen. We just have to let go of the past and say good riddance to it.