Friday, August 31, 2007

Taxing the Super Rich

Private-equity billionaires—the new Masters of the Universe—often pay far lower rates than the rest of us. But Washington is trying to change that. Get ready for a fight.

July 23, 2007 issue - In Wall Street's pecking order the partners in private-equity firms are the true aristocrats. With their English tailored suits, country estates and oriental rugs, they have a taste for the trappings of gentry (even their secretaries, it seems, have English accents). Global in reach, able to marshal billions to buy big companies, they float above the grasping traders and get-rich-quick hedge-fund operators. Private-equity partners are not just in it for the money (though the successful ones make tons of it), but for the power to reshape whole industries. Unlike corporate CEOs, who are shackled by the short-term focus of shareholders, private-equity managers can swoop in and transform a troubled industry to create efficiency and growth. Private-equity managers see themselves as the new industrial statesmen, throwbacks to the age of J. P. Morgan a century ago, when an unregulated Wall Street was in many ways more powerful than Washington.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement

There is a catch to all this public-spirited, high-policy grandeur, however. The very rich in America pay taxes at a lower rate than most working people, and, due to a wrinkle in the tax code, private-equity partners enjoy some of the lowest tax rates of all. At a Hillary Clinton fund-raiser in New York last month, Warren Buffett, no stranger to wealth, told an audience filled with bankers and real-estate developers the system was, in effect, rigged. "This is what Congress in its wisdom did: the 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter." Buffett (who is a director of NEWSWEEK's parent, The Washington Post Company) offered a million dollars to any fellow magnate who could prove he had higher tax rates than his secretary.

It Can’t Happen Here

Source: Ron Paul
December 20, 2004

In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police state?

The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer- always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don’t understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.

Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a “conforming” ID to deal with any federal agency– including TSA at the airport.

Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority- all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.

Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?

Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain– anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.

After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.

It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.

Those who believe a police state can’t happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.

The Rip-off in Iraq: You Will Not Believe How Low the War Profiteers Have Gone

By Matt Taibbi

How is it done? How do you screw the taxpayer for millions, get away with it and then ride off into the sunset with one middle finger extended, the other wrapped around a chilled martini? Ask Earnest O. Robbins -- he knows all about being a successful contractor in Iraq.

You start off as a well-connected bureaucrat: in this case, as an Air Force civil engineer, a post from which Robbins was responsible for overseeing 70,000 servicemen and contractors, with an annual budget of $8 billion. You serve with distinction for thirty-four years, becoming such a military all-star that the Air Force frequently sends you to the Hill to testify before Congress -- until one day in the summer of 2003, when you retire to take a job as an executive for Parsons, a private construction company looking to do work in Iraq.

Now you can finally move out of your dull government housing on Bolling Air Force Base and get your wife that dream home you've been promising her all these years. The place on Park Street in Dunn Loring, Virginia, looks pretty good -- four bedrooms, fireplace, garage, 2,900 square feet, a nice starter home in a high-end neighborhood full of spooks, think-tankers and ex-apparatchiks moved on to the nest-egg phase of their faceless careers. On October 20th, 2003, you close the deal for $775,000 and start living that private-sector good life.

A few months later, in March 2004, your company magically wins a contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to design and build the Baghdad Police College, a facility that's supposed to house and train at least 4,000 police recruits. But two years and $72 million later, you deliver not a functioning police academy but one of the great engineering clusterfucks of all time, a practically useless pile of rubble so badly constructed that its walls and ceilings are literally caked in shit and piss, a result of subpar plumbing in the upper floors.

You've done such a terrible job, in fact, that when auditors from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction visit the college in the summer of 2006, their report sounds like something out of one of the Saw movies: "We witnessed a light fixture so full of diluted urine and feces that it would not operate," they write, adding that "the urine was so pervasive that it had permanently stained the ceiling tiles" and that "during our visit, a substance dripped from the ceiling onto an assessment team member's shirt." The final report helpfully includes a photo of a sloppy brown splotch on the outstretched arm of the unlucky auditor.

When Congress gets wind of the fiasco, a few members on the House Oversight Committee demand a hearing. To placate them, your company decides to send you to the Hill -- after all, you're a former Air Force major general who used to oversee this kind of contracting operation for the government. So you take your twenty-minute ride in from the suburbs, sit down before the learned gentlemen of the committee and promptly get asked by an irritatingly eager Maryland congressman named Chris Van Hollen how you managed to spend $72 million on a pile of shit.

You blink. Fuck if you know. "I have some conjecture, but that's all it would be" is your deadpan answer.

The room twitters in amazement. It's hard not to applaud the balls of a man who walks into Congress short $72 million in taxpayer money and offers to guess where it all might have gone.

Next thing you know, the congressman is asking you about your company's compensation. Touchy subject -- you've got a "cost-plus" contract, which means you're guaranteed a base-line profit of three percent of your total costs on the deal. The more you spend, the more you make -- and you certainly spent a hell of a lot. But before this milk-faced congressman can even think about suggesting that you give these millions back, you've got to cut him off. "So you won't voluntarily look at this," Van Hollen is mumbling, "and say, given what has happened in this project … "

"No, sir, I will not," you snap.

"… 'We will return the profits.' …"

"No, sir, I will not," you repeat.

Your testimony over, you wait out the rest of the hearing, go home, take a bath in one of your four bathrooms, jump into bed with the little woman… . A year later, Iraq is still in flames, and your president's administration is safely focused on reclaiming $485 million in aid money from a bunch of toothless black survivors of Hurricane Katrina. But the house you bought for $775K is now assessed at $929,974, and you're sure as hell not giving it back to anyone.

"Yeah, I don't know what I expected him to say," Van Hollen says now about the way Robbins responded to being asked to give the money back. "It just shows the contempt they have for us, for the taxpayer, for everything."

Operation Iraqi Freedom, it turns out, was never a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It was an invasion of the federal budget, and no occupying force in history has ever been this efficient. George W. Bush's war in the Mesopotamian desert was an experiment of sorts, a crude first take at his vision of a fully privatized American government. In Iraq the lines between essential government services and for-profit enterprises have been blurred to the point of absurdity -- to the point where wounded soldiers have to pay retail prices for fresh underwear, where modern-day chattel are imported from the Third World at slave wages to peel the potatoes we once assigned to grunts in KP, where private companies are guaranteed huge profits no matter how badly they fuck things up.

And just maybe, reviewing this appalling history of invoicing orgies and million-dollar boondoggles, it's not so far-fetched to think that this is the way someone up there would like things run all over -- not just in Iraq but in Iowa, too, with the state police working for Corrections Corporation of America, and DHL with the contract to deliver every Christmas card. And why not? What the Bush administration has created in Iraq is a sort of paradise of perverted capitalism, where revenues are forcibly extracted from the customer by the state, and obscene profits are handed out not by the market but by an unaccountable government bureaucracy. This is the triumphant culmination of two centuries of flawed white-people thinking, a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profiteering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure -- American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole.

It was an awful idea, perhaps the worst America has ever tried on foreign soil. But if you were in on it, it was great work while it lasted. Since time immemorial, the distribution of government largesse had followed a staid, paper-laden procedure in which the federal government would post the details of a contract in periodicals like Commerce Business Daily or, more recently, on the FedBizOpps Web site. Competitive bids were solicited and contracts were awarded in accordance with the labyrinthine print of the U.S. Code, a straightforward system that worked well enough before the Bush years that, as one lawyer puts it, you could "count the number of cases of criminal fraud on the fingers of one hand."

There were exceptions to the rule, of course -- emergencies that required immediate awards, contracts where there was only one available source of materials or labor, classified deals that involved national security. What no one knew at the beginning of the war was that the Bush administration had essentially decided to treat the entire Iraqi theater as an exception to the rules. All you had to do was get to Iraq and the game was on.

But getting there wasn't easy. To travel to Iraq, would-be contractors needed permission from the Bush administration, which was far from blind in its appraisal of applicants. In a much-ballyhooed example of favoritism, the White House originally installed a clown named Jim O'Beirne at the relevant evaluation desk in the Department of Defense. O'Beirne proved to be a classic Bush villain, a moron's moron who judged applicants not on their Arabic skills or their relevant expertise but on their Republican bona fides; he sent a twenty-four-year-old who had never worked in finance to manage the reopening of the Iraqi stock exchange, and appointed a recent graduate of an evangelical university for home-schooled kids who had no accounting experience to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget. James K. Haveman, who had served as Michigan's community-health director under a GOP governor, was put in charge of rehabilitating Iraq's health-care system and decided that what this war-ravaged, malnourished, sanitation-deficient country most urgently needed was … an anti-smoking campaign.

Town-selectmen types like Haveman weren't the only people who got passes to enter Iraq in the first few years. The administration also greenlighted brash, modern-day forty-niners like Scott Custer and Mike Battles, a pair of ex-Army officers and bottom-rank Republican pols (Battles had run for Congress in Rhode Island and had been a Fox News commentator) who had decided to form a security company called Custer Battles and make it big in Iraq. "Battles knew some people from his congressional run, and that's how they got there," says Alan Grayson, an attorney who led a whistle-blower lawsuit against the pair for defrauding the government.

Before coming to Iraq, Custer Battles hadn't done even a million dollars in business. The company's own Web site brags that Battles had to borrow cab fare from Jordan to Iraq and arrived in Baghdad with less than $500 in his pocket. But he had good timing, arriving just as a security contract for Baghdad International Airport was being "put up" for bid. The company site raves that Custer spent "three sleepless nights" penning an offer that impressed the CPA enough to hand the partners $2 million in cash, which Battles promptly stuffed into a duffel bag and drove to deposit in a Lebanese bank.

Custer Battles had lucked into a sort of Willy Wonka's paradise for contractors, where a small pool of Republican-friendly businessmen would basically hang around the Green Zone waiting for a contracting agency to come up with a work order. In the early days of the war, the idea of "competition" was a farce, with deals handed out so quickly that there was no possibility of making rational or fairly priced estimates. According to those familiar with the process, contracting agencies would request phony "bids" from several contractors, even though the winner had been picked in advance. "The losers would play ball because they knew that eventually it would be their turn to be the winner," says Grayson.

To make such deals legal, someone in the military would simply sign a piece of paper invoking an exception. "I know one guy whose business was buying weapons on the black market for contractors," says Pratap Chatterjee, a writer who has spent months in the Mideast researching a forthcoming book on Iraq contracts. "It's illegal -- but he got military people to sign papers allowing him to do it."

The system not only had the advantage of eliminating red tape in a war zone, it also encouraged the "entrepreneurship" of patriots like Custer and Battles, who went from bumming cab fare to doing $100 million in government contracts practically overnight. And what business they did! The bid that Custer claimed to have spent "three sleepless nights" putting together was later described by Col. Richard Ballard, then the inspector general of the Army, as looking "like something that you and I would write over a bottle of vodka, complete with all the spelling and syntax errors and annexes to be filled in later." The two simply "presented it the next day and then got awarded about a $15 million contract."

The deal charged Custer Battles with the responsibility to perform airport security for civilian flights. But there were never any civilian flights into Baghdad's airport during the life of their contract, so the CPA gave them a job managing an airport checkpoint, which they failed miserably. They were also given scads of money to buy expensive X-ray equipment and set up an advanced canine bomb-sniffing system, but they never bought the equipment. As for the dog, Ballard reported, "I eventually saw one dog. The dog did not appear to be a certified, trained dog." When the dog was brought to the checkpoint, he added, it would lie down and "refuse to sniff the vehicles" -- as outstanding a metaphor for U.S. contractor performance in Iraq as has yet been produced.

Like most contractors, Custer Battles was on a cost-plus arrangement, which means its profits were guaranteed to rise with its spending. But according to testimony by officials and former employees, the partners also charged the government millions by making out phony invoices to shell companies they controlled. In another stroke of genius, they found a bunch of abandoned Iraqi Airways forklifts on airport property, repainted them to disguise the company markings and billed them to U.S. taxpayers as new equipment. Every time they scratched their asses, they earned; there was so much money around for contractors, officials literally used $100,000 wads of cash as toys. "Yes -- $100 bills in plastic wrap," Frank Willis, a former CPA official, acknowledged in Senate testimony about Custer Battles. "We played football with the plastic-wrapped bricks for a little while."

The Custer Battles show only ended when the pair left a spreadsheet behind after a meeting with CPA officials -- a spreadsheet that scrupulously detailed the pair's phony invoicing. "It was the worst case of fraud I've ever seen, hands down," says Grayson. "But it's also got to be the first instance in history of a defendant leaving behind a spreadsheet full of evidence of the crime."

But even being the clumsiest war profiteers of all time was not enough to bring swift justice upon the heads of Mr. Custer and Mr. Battles -- and this is where the story of America's reconstruction effort gets really interesting. The Bush administration not only refused to prosecute the pair -- it actually tried to stop a lawsuit filed against the contractors by whistle-blowers hoping to recover the stolen money. The administration argued that Custer Battles could not be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. government because the CPA was not part of the U.S. government. When the lawsuit went forward despite the administration's objections, Custer and Battles mounted a defense that recalled Nuremberg and Lt. Calley, arguing that they could not be guilty of theft since it was done with the government's approval.

The jury disagreed, finding Custer Battles guilty of ripping off taxpayers. But the verdict was set aside by T.S. Ellis III, a federal judge who cited the administration's "the CPA is not us" argument. The very fact that private contractors, aided by the government itself, could evade conviction for what even Ellis, a Reagan-appointed judge, called "significant" evidence of fraud, says everything you need to know about the true nature of the war we are fighting in Iraq. Is it really possible to bilk American taxpayers for repainted forklifts stolen from Iraqi Airways and claim that you were just following orders? It is, when your commander in chief is George W. Bush.

There isn't a brazen, two-bit, purse-snatching money caper you can think of that didn't happen at least 10,000 times with your tax dollars in Iraq. At the very outset of the occupation, when L. Paul Bremer was installed as head of the CPA, one of his first brilliant ideas for managing the country was to have $12 billion in cash flown into Baghdad on huge wooden pallets and stored in palaces and government buildings. To pay contractors, he'd have agents go to the various stashes -- a pile of $200 million in one of Saddam's former palaces was watched by a single soldier, who left the key to the vault in a backpack on his desk when he went out to lunch -- withdraw the money, then crisscross the country to pay the bills. When desperate auditors later tried to trace the paths of the money, one agent could account for only $6,306,836 of some $23 million he'd withdrawn. Bremer's office "acknowledged not having any supporting documentation" for $25 million given to a different agent. A ministry that claimed to have paid 8,206 guards was able to document payouts to only 602. An agent who was told by auditors that he still owed $1,878,870 magically produced exactly that amount, which, as the auditors dryly noted, "suggests that the agent had a reserve of cash."

In short, some $8.8 billion of the $12 billion proved impossible to find. "Who in their right mind would send 360 tons of cash into a war zone?" asked Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. "But that's exactly what our government did."

Because contractors were paid on cost-plus arrangements, they had a powerful incentive to spend to the hilt. The undisputed master of milking the system is KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary so ubiquitous in Iraq that soldiers even encounter its customer-survey sheets in outhouses. The company has been exposed by whistle-blowers in numerous Senate hearings for everything from double-charging taxpayers for $617,000 worth of sodas to overcharging the government 600 percent for fuel shipments. When things went wrong, KBR simply scrapped expensive gear: The company dumped 50,000 pounds of nails in the desert because they were too short, and left the Army no choice but to set fire to a supply truck that had a flat tire. "They did not have the proper wrench to change the tire," an Iraq vet named Richard Murphy told investigators, "so the decision was made to torch the truck."

In perhaps the ultimate example of military capitalism, KBR reportedly ran convoys of empty trucks back and forth across the insurgent-laden desert, pointlessly risking the lives of soldiers and drivers so the company could charge the taxpayer for its phantom deliveries. Truckers for KBR, knowing full well that the trips were bullshit, derisively referred to their cargo as "sailboat fuel."

In Fallujah, where the company was paid based on how many soldiers used the base rec center, KBR supervisors ordered employees to juke the head count by taking an hourly tally of every soldier in the facility. "They were counting the same soldier five, six, seven times," says Linda Warren, a former postal worker who was employed by KBR in Fallujah. "I was even directed to count every empty bottle of water left behind in the facility as though they were troops who had been there."

Yet for all the money KBR charged taxpayers for the rec center, it didn't provide much in the way of services to the soldiers engaged in the heaviest fighting of the war. When Warren ordered a karaoke machine, the company gave her a cardboard box stuffed with jumbled-up electronic components. "We had to borrow laptops from the troops to set up a music night," says Warren, who had a son serving in Fallujah at the time. "These boys needed R&R more than anything, but the company wouldn't spend a dime." (KBR refused requests for an interview, but has denied that it inflated troop counts or committed other wrongdoing in Iraq.)

One of the most dependable methods for burning taxpayer funds was simply to do nothing. After securing a contract in Iraq, companies would mobilize their teams, rush them into the war zone and then wait, citing the security situation or delayed paperwork -- all the while charging the government for housing, meals and other expenses. Last year, a government audit of twelve major contracts awarded to KBR, Parsons and other companies found that idle time often accounted for more than half of a contract's total costs. In one deal awarded to KBR, the company's "indirect" administrative costs were $52.7 million, and its direct costs -- the costs associated with the actual job -- were only $13.4 million.

Companies jacked up the costs even higher by hiring out layers of subcontractors to do their work for them. In some cases, each subcontractor had its own cost-plus arrangement. "We called those 'cascading contracts,' " says Rep. Van Hollen. "Each subcontractor piles on a lot of costs, and eventually they would snowball into a huge payout. It was a green light for waste."

In March 2004, Parsons -- the firm represented by Earnest O. Robbins -- was given nearly $1 million to build a fire station in Ainkawa, a small Christian community in one of the safest parts of Iraq. Parsons subcontracted the design to a British company called TPS Consult and the construction to a California firm called Innovative Technical Solutions Inc. ITSI, in turn, hired an Iraqi outfit called Zozik to do the actual labor.

A year and a half later, government auditors visited the site and found that the fire station was less than half finished. What little had been built was marred by serious design flaws, including concrete columns so shoddily constructed that they were riddled with holes that looked like "honeycombing." But getting the fuck-ups fixed proved problematic. The auditors "made a request that was sent to the Army Corps, which delivered it to Parsons, who then asked ITSI, which asked TPS Consult to check on the work done by Zozik," writes Chatterjee, who describes the mess in his forthcoming book, Baghdad Bonanza. The multiple layers of subcontractors made it almost impossible to resolve the issue -- and every day the delays dragged on meant more money for the companies.

Sometimes the government simply handed out money to companies it made up out of thin air. In 2006, the Army Corps of Engineers found itself unable to award contracts by the September deadline imposed by Congress, meaning it would have to "de-obligate" the money and return it to the government. Rather than suffer that awful fate, the corps obligated $362 million -- spread out over ninety-six different contracts -- to "Dummy Vendor." In their report on the mess, auditors noted that money to nobody "does not constitute proper obligations."

But even obligating money to no one was better than what sometimes happened in Iraq: handing out U.S. funds to the enemy. Since the beginning of the war, rumors have abounded about contractors paying protection money to insurgents to avoid attacks. No less an authority than Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, claimed that such payoffs are a "significant source" of income for Al Qaeda. Moreover, when things go missing in Iraq -- like bricks of $100 bills, or weapons, or trucks -- it is a fair assumption that some of the wayward booty ends up in the wrong hands. In July, a federal audit found that 190,000 weapons are missing in Iraq -- nearly one out of every three arms supplied by the United States. "These weapons almost certainly ended up on the black market, where they are repurchased by insurgents," says Chatterjee.

For all the creative ways that contractors came up with to waste, mismanage and steal public money in Iraq, the standard remained good old-fashioned fucking up. Take the case of the Basra Children's Hospital, a much-ballyhooed "do-gooder" project championed by Laura Bush and Condi Rice. This was exactly the sort of grandstanding, self-serving, indulgent and ultimately useless project that tended to get the go-ahead under reconstruction. Like the expensive telephone-based disease-notification database approved for use in hospitals without telephones, or the natural-gas-powered electricity turbines greenlighted for installation in a country without ready sources of natural gas, the Basra Children's Hospital was a state-of-the-art medical facility set to be built in a town without safe drinking water. "Why build a hospital for kids, when the kids have no clean water?" said Rep. Jim Kolbe, a Republican from Arizona.

Bechtel was given $50 million to build the hospital -- but a year later, with the price tag soaring to $169 million, the company was pulled off the project without a single bed being ready for use. The government was unfazed: Bechtel, explained USAID spokesman David Snider, was "under a 'term contract,' which means their job is over when their money ends."

Their job is over when their money ends. When I call Snider to clarify this amazing statement, he declines to discuss the matter further. But if you look over the history of the Iraqi reconstruction effort, you will find versions of this excuse everywhere. When Custer Battles was caught delivering broken trucks to the Army, a military official says the company told him, "We were only told we had to deliver the trucks. The contract doesn't say they had to work."

Such excuses speak to a monstrous vacuum of patriotism; it would be hard to imagine contractors being so blithely disinterested in results during World War II, where every wasted dollar might mean another American boy dead from gangrene in the Ardennes. But the rampant waste of money and resources also suggests a widespread contempt for the ostensible "purpose" of our presence in Iraq. Asked to cast a vote for the war effort, contractors responded by swiping everything they could get their hands on -- and the administration's acquiescence in their thievery suggests that it, too, saw making a buck as the true mission of the war. Two witnesses scheduled to testify before Congress against Custer Battles ultimately declined not only because they had received death threats but because they, too, were contractors and feared that they would be shut out of future government deals. To repeat: Witnesses were afraid to testify in an effort to recover government funds because they feared reprisal from the government.

The Bush administration's lack of interest in recovering stolen funds is one of the great scandals of the war. The White House has failed to litigate a single case against a contractor under the False Claims Act and has not sued anybody for breach of contract. It even declined to join in a lawsuit filed by whistle-blowers who are accusing KBR of improper invoicing in Fallujah. "For all the Bush administration claims to do in the war against terrorism," Grayson said in congressional testimony, "it is a no-show in the war against war profiteers." In nearly five years of some of the worst graft and looting in American history, the administration has recovered less than $6 million.

What's more, when anyone in the government tried to question what contractors were up to with taxpayer money, they were immediately blackballed and treated like an enemy. Take the case of Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, an outspoken and energetic woman of sixty-three who served as the chief procurement executive for the Army Corps of Engineers. In her position, Greenhouse was responsible for signing off on sole-source contracts -- those awarded without competitive bids and thus most prone to corruption. Long before Iraq, she had begun to notice favoritism in the awarding of contracts to KBR, which was careful to recruit executives who had served in the military. "That was why I joined the corps: to stop this kind of clubby contracting," she says.

A few weeks before the Iraq War started, Greenhouse was asked to sign off on the contract to restore Iraqi oil. The deal, she noticed, was suspicious on a number of fronts. For one thing, the company that had designed the project, KBR, was the same company that was being awarded the contract -- a highly unusual and improper situation. For another, the corps wanted to award a massive "emergency" contract to KBR with no competition for up to five years, which Greenhouse thought was crazy. Who ever heard of a five-year emergency? After auditing the deal, the Pentagon found that KBR had overcharged the government $61 million for fuel. "The abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR," Greenhouse testified before the Senate, "represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."

And how did her superiors in the Pentagon respond to the wrongdoing highlighted by their own chief procurement officer? First they gave KBR a waiver for the overbilling, blaming the problem on an Iraqi subcontractor. Then they dealt with Greenhouse by demoting her and cutting her salary, citing a negative performance review. The retaliation sent a clear message to any would-be whistle-blowers. "It puts a chill on you," Greenhouse says. "People are scared stiff."

They were scared stiff in Iraq, too, and for good reason. When civilian employees complained about looting or other improprieties, contractors sometimes threatened to throw them outside the gates of their bases -- a life-threatening situation for any American. Robert Isakson, a former FBI agent who worked for Custer Battles, says that when he refused to go along with one scam involving a dummy company in Lebanon, he was detained by company security guards, who seized his ID badge and barred him from the base in Baghdad. He eventually had to make a hazardous, Papillon-esque journey across hostile Iraq to Jordan just to survive. (Custer Battles denies the charge.)

James Garrison, who worked at a KBR ice plant in Al Asad, recalls an incident when Indian employees threatened to go on strike: "They pulled a bus up, got them in there and said, 'We'll ship you outside the front gate if you want to go on strike.' " Not surprisingly, the workers changed their mind about a work stoppage.

You know the old adage: You don't pay a hooker to spend the night, you pay her to leave in the morning. That maxim also applies to civilian workers in Iraq. A soldier is a citizen with rights, a man to be treated with honor and respect as a protector of us all; if one loses a limb, you've got to take care of him, in theory for his whole life. But a mercenary is just another piece of equipment you can bill to the taxpayer: If one is hurt on the job, you can just throw it away and buy another one. Today there are more civilians working for private contractors in Iraq than there are troops on the ground. The totality of the thievery in Iraq is such that even the honor of patriotic service has been stolen -- we've replaced soldiers and heroes with disposable commodities, men we expected to give us a big bang for a buck and to never call us again.

Russell Skoug, who worked as a refrigeration technician for a contractor called Wolfpack, found that out the hard way. These days Skoug is back home in Diboll, Texas, and he doesn't move around much; he considers it a big accomplishment if he can make it to his mailbox and back once a day. "I'm doing a lot if I can do that much," he says, laughing a little.

A year ago, on September 11th, Skoug was working for Wolfpack at a base in Heet, Iraq. It was a convoy day -- trucks braved the trip in and out of the base every third day -- and Skoug had a generator he needed to fix. So he agreed to make a run to Al Asad. "If I would've realized that it was September 11th, I never would've went out," he says. It would turn out to be the last run he would ever make in Iraq.

An Air Force vet, Skoug had come to Iraq as a civilian to repair refrigeration units and air conditioners for a KBR subcontractor called LSI. But when he arrived, he discovered that LSI had hired him to fix Humvees. "I didn't know jack-squat about Humvees," he says. "I could maybe change the oil, that was it." (Asked about Skoug's additional assignment, KBR boasted: "Part of the reason for our success is our ability to employ individuals with multiple capabilities.")

Working with him on his crew were two other refrigeration technicians, neither of whom knew anything about fixing Humvees. Since Skoug and most of his co-workers had worked for KBR in Afghanistan, they were familiar with cost-plus contracting. The buzz around the base was that cost-plus was the reason LSI was hiring air-conditioning guys to work on unfamiliar military equipment at a cost to the taxpayer of $80,000 a year. "They was doing the same thing as KBR: just filling the body count," says Skoug.

Thanks to low troop levels, all the military repair guys had been pressed into service to fight the war, so Skoug was forced to sit in the military storeroom on the base and study vehicle manuals that, as a civilian, he wasn't allowed to check out of the building. That was how America fought terrorism in Iraq: It hired civilian air-conditioning techs to fix Humvees using the instruction manual while the real Humvee repairmen, earning a third of what the helpless civilians were paid, drove around in circles outside the wire waiting to get blown up by insurgents.

After much pleading and cajoling, Skoug managed to convince LSI to let him repair some refrigeration units. But it turned out that the company didn't have any tools for the job. "They gave me a screwdriver and a Leatherman, and that's it," he recalls. "We didn't even have freon gauges." When Skoug managed to scrounge and cannibalize parts to get the job done, he impressed the executives at Wolfpack enough to hire him away from LSI for $10,000 a month. The job required Skoug, who had been given no formal security training, to travel regularly on dangerous convoys between bases. Wolfpack issued him an armored vehicle, a Yugoslav-made AK-47 and a handgun, and wished him luck.

For nearly a year, Skoug did the job, trying at each stop to overcome the hostility that many troops felt for civilian contractors who surfed the Internet and played pool and watched movies all day for big dollars while soldiers carrying seventy-pound packs of gear labored in huts with broken air conditioning the civilian techs couldn't be bothered to repair. "They'd have the easiest thing to fix, and they wouldn't do it," Skoug says. "They'd write that they'd fixed it or that they just needed a part and then just leave it." At Haditha Dam, Skoug witnessed a near-brawl after some Marines, trying to get some sleep after returning from patrol, couldn't get a group of "KBR dudes" to turn down the television in a common area late at night.

Toward the end of Skoug's stay, insurgent activity in his area increased to the point where the soldiers leading his convoys would often drive only at night and without lights. Skoug and his co-workers asked Wolfpack to provide them with night-vision goggles that cost as little as $1,000 a pair, but the company refused. "Their attitude was, we don't need 'em and we're not buying 'em," says Thomas Lane, a Wolfpack employee who served as Skoug's security man on the night of September 11th.

On that evening, the soldiers leading the convoy refused to let Skoug drive his own vehicle back to Heet without night-vision goggles. So a soldier took Skoug's car, and Skoug was forced to be a passenger in a military vehicle. "We start out the front gate, and I find out that the truck that I was in was the frickin' lead truck," he recalls. "And I'm going, 'Oh, great.' "

The bomb went off about a half-hour later, ripping through the truck floor and destroying four inches of Skoug's left femur. "The windshield looked like there was a film on it," he says. "I find out later it was a film -- it was blood and meat and stuff all over the windshield on the inside." Skoug was loaded into the back of a Humvee, his legs hanging out, and evacuated to an Army hospital in Germany before being airlifted back to the States.

When Skoug arrived, it was his wife, Linda, who had to handle all his affairs. She was the one who arranged for an air ambulance to take him to Houston, where she had persuaded an orthopedic hospital to admit him as a patient. She had to do this because almost right from the start, Wolfpack washed its hands of Russell Skoug. The insurance policy he had been given turned out to be useless -- the company denied all coverage, beginning with a $72,597 bill for his stay in the German hospital. Despite assurances from Wolfpack chief Mark Atwood that he would cover all Skoug's expenses, neither he nor the insurance company would pay for the $16,000 trip in the air ambulance. Nobody paid for the operations Skoug had in Houston -- as many as three a day, every day for a month. And nobody paid for his subsequent rehab stint in another Houston hospital -- despite the fact that military law requires every company contracting with the government to fully insure all of its employees in the war zone.

Now that he's out, sitting at home on his couch with only partial use of his left hand and left leg, Skoug has a stack of unpaid medical bills almost three inches tall. As he speaks, he keeps fidgeting. He apologizes, explaining that he can't sit still for very long. Why? Because Skoug can no longer afford pain medication. "I take ibuprofen sometimes," he says, "but basically I just grin and bear it."

And here's where this story turns into something perfectly symbolic of everything that the war in Iraq stands for, a window into the soul of for-profit contractors who not only left behind a breathtaking legacy of fraud, waste and corruption but, through their calculating, greed-fueled hijacking of this generation's broadest and most far-reaching foreign-policy initiative, pushed America into previously unknown realms of moral insanity. When I contact Mark Atwood and ask him to explain how he could watch one of his best employees get blown up and crippled for life, and then cut him loose with debts totaling well over half a million dollars, Atwood, safe in his office in Kuwait City and contentedly suckling at the taxpayer teat, decides that answering this one question is just too much to ask of poor old him.

"Right now," Atwood says, "I just want some peace."

When Linda Skoug petitioned Atwood for help, he refused, pointing out that he had kept his now-useless employee on the payroll for four whole months before firing him. "After I have put forth to help you all out," he wrote in an e-mail, "you are going to get on me for your husband not having insurance." He even implied that Skoug had brought the accident upon himself by allowing the Army to place him at the head of the convoy: "He was not even suppose [sic] to be in the lead vehicle to begin with."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the story of the Iraq War in a nutshell. In the history of balls, the world has never seen anything like the private contractors George W. Bush summoned to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Collectively, they are the final, polished result of 231 years of natural selection in the crucible of American capitalism: a bureaucrat class capable of stealing the same dollar twice -- once from the taxpayer and once from a veteran in a wheelchair.

The explanations that contractors offer for all the missing dollars, all the myriad ways they looted the treasury and screwed guys like Russell Skoug, rank among the most diabolical, shameless, tongue-twisting bullshit in history. Going back over the various congressional hearings and trying to decipher the corporate responses to the mountains of thefts and fuck-ups is a thrilling intellectual journey, not unlike tackling the Pharaonic hieroglyphs or the mating chatter of colobus monkeys. Standing before Congress, contractors and the officials who are supposed to monitor them say things like "As long as we have the undefinitized contract issue that we have ... we will continue to see the same kinds of sustension rates" (translation: We can't get back any of the fucking money) and "The need for to-fitnessization was viewed as voluntary, and that was inaccurate as the general counsel to the Army observed in a June opinion" (translation: The contractor wasn't aware that he was required to keep costs down) and "If we don't know where we're trying to go and don't have measures, then we won't know how much longer it's going to take us to get there" (translation: There never was a plan in place, other than to let contractors rip off every dollar they could).

According to the most reliable estimates, we have doled out more than $500 billion for the war, as well as $44 billion for the Iraqi reconstruction effort. And what did America's contractors give us for that money? They built big steaming shit piles, set brand-new trucks on fire, drove back and forth across the desert for no reason at all and dumped bags of nails in ditches. For the most part, nobody at home cared, because war on some level is always a waste. But what happened in Iraq went beyond inefficiency, beyond fraud even. This was about the business of government being corrupted by the profit motive to such an extraordinary degree that now we all have to wonder how we will ever be able to depend on the state to do its job in the future. If catastrophic failure is worth billions, where's the incentive to deliver success? There's no profit in patriotism, no cost-plus angle on common decency. Sixty years after America liberated Europe, those are just words, and words don't pay the bills.

Colo. school bans tag on its playground

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - An elementary school has banned tag on its playground after some children complained they were harassed or chased against their will.

"It causes a lot of conflict on the playground," said Cindy Fesgen, assistant principal of the Discovery Canyon Campus school.

Running games are still allowed as long as students don't chase each other, she said.

Fesgen said two parents complained to her about the ban but most parents and children didn't object.

In 2005, two elementary schools in the nearby Falcon School District did away with tag and similar games in favor of alternatives with less physical contact. School officials said the move encouraged more students to play games and helped reduce playground squabbles.

Truscott acquitted of 48-year-old murder conviction

By Jonathan Spicer

TORONTO (Reuters) - A Canadian man who was sentenced to hang for murder nearly 50 years ago was acquitted on Tuesday by an appeal court, which described the original sentence as a miscarriage of justice.

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Steven Truscott's 1959 conviction in the rape and murder of a 12-year-old classmate in small-town southwestern Ontario. He was 14 at the time, and became Canada's youngest death-row inmate.

"The court unanimously holds that the conviction of Mr. Truscott was a miscarriage of justice, and must be quashed," it said. "We are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result."

Truscott's sentence for the murder of Lynne Harper was later commuted to life in prison, and he was quietly released after 10 years behind bars.

He always insisted he was innocent.

"I never in my wildest dreams expected, in my lifetime, for this to come true," the soft-spoken Truscott told reporters in Toronto after the ruling. "As far as I'm concerned, I'm cleared."

Truscott had become a cause celebre for champions of the wrongly convicted, particularly after he emerged from seclusion in 2000 and spoke out about the case. That sparked a new public campaign that prompted the government to reopen the issue.

Then-Justice Minister Irwin Cotler conceded in 2004 that Truscott was likely wrongfully convicted and referred the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The court began hearings last year, and Truscott's lawyers introduced expert witnesses, fresh forensic evidence, and older evidence not available to defense lawyers either at the original trial or at a Supreme Court review seven years later.

Truscott's defense team had hoped the court would also declare Truscott innocent. But legal commentators widely held this to be unlikely.

Harper's body was discovered in a woods near the small southwestern Ontario town of Clinton. She had been raped and strangled.

Police suspicion immediately fell on Truscott, who said he gave Harper a ride on his bicycle shortly before she disappeared, two days before her partly clothed body was found in a wooded grove.

He said he saw her get into a car after he dropped her off at the highway.

He was charged within days, and found guilty in a trial that lasted two weeks.

A Supreme Court review in 1966 upheld the original verdict, but the case bubbled back into the public eye in 2000, when a CBC television documentary presented new information that key evidence had been bypassed in the original trial.

Pot Growers Are New Target in "War on Terror"

By Scott Thill, AlterNet

Last time we checked in on the bizarro nexus between cannabis and terrorism, it was none other than actor/director Tommy Chong who was feeling the Bush administration's post-9/11 wrath. In fact, the stoner icon, whose fabled act was concurrently resuscitated for Fox's drugged and confused comedy hit That 70s Show, was being slapped by John Ashcroft with a nine-month prison bid, a $20,000 fine and over $100,000 in seized assets for selling bongs. The terrorism connection? He was sentenced on Sept. 11, 2003. And if you think that's a specious connection, it's only gotten worse since. In fact, over the last few years, "terrorist" has become an epithet for all seasons.

In 2003, Iraq occupation architect Richard Perle slapped investigative journalist Seymour Hersh with the term, saying, "Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly." As if filing a story about the doomed occupation of a sovereign state in the pages of the New Yorker was the same thing as flying a 747 into the World Trade Center.

In 2004, Secretary of Education Rod Paige called the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union, "a terrorist organization" because of what Paige defined as the "obstructionist scare tactics" used by its lobbyists. Because we all know it's every educator's dream to buck the systemby blowing themselves up in front of their students.

And just this month, the Bush administration decided to employ the term to legally target the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a sovereign nation's standing army numbering in the hundreds of thousands. When you want a war that badly, you'll pretty much do or say anything to get it.

So how does the Bush administration get away with crying terrorist at every opportunity? Say hello to the Military Commissions Act. Thanks to this 2006 piece of legislation, terrorism has become the basis of American foreign and domestic policy. Yes, the term has become equivalent to everything from ideologically driven violence to petty theft, and can be used to incarcerate, exterminate or character assassinate anything in sight.

It's no wonder then that federal officials are now revisiting their previously failed effort to link terrorism to cannabis, the only real cash cow in the government's so-called War on Drugs. Only difference is, this time, they don't have Tommy Chong as a scapegoat.

Unable or unwilling to solve the nation's crippling meth addiction or its hypocritical dependency on prescribed narcotics like oxycontin, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) recently rang the terrorism alarm to nail pot growers in Redding's Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California. Along the way, ONDCP "czar" John Walters showed off not only the Bush administration's love of twisted terminology but also its subcultural savvy by coining a memorable phrase of his own.

"We have kind of a reefer blindness," Walters explained during a Redding press conference on the ONDCP's Operation Alesia, a cannabis-eradication program coordinated by the California National Guard's Counterdrug Taskforce and the Shasta County Sheriff's Office. Walters followed that clever turn of phrase with the reliable terrorist designation to describe the armed growers cultivating cannabis in Shasta County. "These people are armed; they're dangerous. [They're] violent criminal terrorists." He even went so far to argue that the "terrorists" growing weed in Shasta County, as the Redding Record Searchlight reported, "wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties."

Except there seem to be a couple major problems with Walters' characterizations. For one, Walters declined to explain during the press conference what Operation Alesia's specific goals were. More importantly, he didn't offer up any concrete names of the terrorists or their ideological objectives. What legalization advocates and law enforcement authorities alike were left with was yet another hazy strategy based on loose terminology whose only purpose it seems is to confiscate as much pot as possible from Shasta County's public lands.

A noble pursuit to be sure, but counterterrorism? Hardly.

Especially when rural Shasta County's biggest problem is meth, not marijuana, addiction. Further, Walters' coded terminology, when unmasked, is not employed to raise awareness of al Qaeda's grand cannabis cultivation strategy to destabilize the American government, but rather to inflame regional biases against, you guessed it, Mexicans. Especially the undocumented variety, who are "the other terrorists" Walters mentioned looking to get into the country and, what again? I asked Mike Odle, public affairs and communications officer for Shasta-Trinity National Forest's Northern California Coordination Center to elaborate on what was behind the increase in cultivated cannabis on Shasta's public lands.

"Most of the increase can be attributed to the proliferation of foreign Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs), mostly Mexican in origin, which operate in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and throughout California and much of the United States," Odle explained to me by email. "Frequently using illegal aliens residing outside the United States, or recently smuggled across the [sic] boarder, these Mexican criminal groups establish, maintain and protect an increasing number of clandestine operations."

Yet, predictably, Odle couldn't explain what made them terrorists.

"Some DTOs have been linked by law enforcement and investigations to terrorist organizations and pose a substantial and increasing threat to national security," he added in a subsequent email. "Our primary concern here on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is the safety of our forest visitors and agency employees and the negative impacts marijuana has on the environment and natural resources, no matter what name is given to the DTOs that are illegally growing marijuana on America's public lands."

No matter what name is given? Easy enough if you're the one doing the naming. If you're the one being flippantly tagged a terrorist? Not so much.

Plus, there are enough holes in the argument to plant your own cannabis seeds. To start with, cannabis may be many things, but it is far from an environmental negative. It has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years, can grow in almost any climate, and is a naturally occurring dioecious perennial. (In other words, it's not fossil fuel.) Further, Odle's claim that safety is Shasta's first concern is understandable, but he offered no examples of violent activity by any of the area growers to legitimize the ONDCP's inflammatory language. Sure, the fact that "some" DTOs have been linked to terrorist organizations is educational, but as with everything the ONDCP touches, specifics are elusive and generalizations are everywhere.

I pressed Odle for further clarification on the terrorism question. But instead of al Qaeda, all I got was more obfuscation. And more Mexicans.

"Do [sic] to ongoing investigations, I am limited in what I can share," Odle explained in another email. "When we do the investigations we try to get up as far as we can into the food chain. We work closely with the DEA, FBI, ICE and other law enforcement agencies that have the capabilities to identify who these folks are and what links they may or may not have."

Fair enough. It's out of his hands. Any concrete local examples?

"I can [sic] site an example in a case we are now finished investigating. The Forest Service was heavily involved with the eradication of marijuana gardens associated with the Magana drug cartel. The Magana drug cartel operation and investigation occurred throughout National Forests in California, Utah and Arkansas, with direct ties to Mexico. Investigators in the Magana case said cartel leaders brought in illegal workers from the Mexican states of Michoacan and Jalisco."

In short, terrorism isn't the real problem here, it's illegal immigration. Not convinced? When you get a chance, search Google for "Magana drug cartel" and let me know if you can find anything. Even better, try the ONDCP, and let me know if anything unrelated to cocaine shows up. Even if you give Walters, Odle and other so-called counterterrorism experts their due on the Magana drug cartel or other so-called terrorist organizations who the ONDCP cannot actually name (making sure to look up the definition of "cartel" in the process, if you want to be exhaustive about it), what you end up with are cannabis traffickers and cultivators operating illegally on public lands using undocumented immigrants.

Illegal activity? Fine. Terrorism? Are you high?

The Bush administration's hypocritical bait-and-switch between terrorism and immigration is clumsy for certain, but it is especially glaring in light of a recent Washington Times article criticizing none other than President Bush himself. According to the piece, a "2006 audit showed federal, state and local governments are among the biggest employers of the half-million persons in the U.S. illegally using 'non-work' Social Security numbers -- numbers issued legally, but with specific instructions that the holders are not authorized to work in the U.S." And that charge was leveled by Iowa Republican and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee Rep. Steve King, in a politically conservative publication founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, cult leader of the Unification Church.

Even the Moonies think that Bush needs to start throwing what the president's own drug czar would call terrorists out of his own White House, before he starts worrying about anyone else. After all, according to the audit, his own government is a much worse offender than the ragged Magana cartel growing cannabis in the forests of Redding.

By the time the ONDCP's talking points touched on other byproducts of commercially cultivated cannabis terrorism -- "fire violations, unsanitary conditions, littering, smoking, building unauthorized structures, unauthorized camping and cutting trees without a permit to name a few," in Odle's words -- I began to more fully understand the power of language. By capitalizing on a nationally manufactured fear and simply merging words into each other, the Bush administration has created from its hyperreal imagination a living policy that can have real-world ramifications for those trampled beneath its fluid terminology.

The good news is that the Democrats in Congress are at least trying to make up for their heinous complicity in the Military Commissions Act, whose passage helped enable this linguistic nightmare in the first place. As recently as July 2007, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Henry Waxman wrote Walters asking why American taxpayers have been footing the bill for ONDCP officials to travel around the country with Republican candidates stumping for election at the behest of Karl Rove. Striking hard at Bush administration politicization of the ONDCP is a good start, but stopping their ability to label anyone anything they want would go much farther to restoring sensible policy, on drugs and everything else, for the rest of our new millennium.

We're going to need help soon, if the recent white papers on drug abuse from the ONDCP are any indication. Because they've enlisted God for help in beating back the devil weed, as their fact sheet "Marijuana and Kids: Faith" explains: "Religion and religiosity repeatedly correlate with lower teen and adult marijuana and substance use rates and buffer the impact of life stress which can lead to marijuana and substance use. ... Other studies show that teens who don't view faith as important are up to four times more likely to use marijuana."

In other words, smoke up, heretical terrorist! You're not only fueling al Qaeda's mass murder by purchasing weed cultivated by illegal Mexicans in the rural public lands of the world, but you're also turning your back on God in the process. As well as replacing the Bush administration's real world with your selfish virtual reality in which cannabis is a relatively harmless, naturally occurring plant that can chill you out as much as it can fill you out. A massive, multiplayer simulation where pot is a viable medicinal alternative to synthesized painkillers like oxycontin, which ease your agony by killing you off altogether.

According to the Bush administration and its politicized ONDCP, you need to unplug from that moonbat matrix and start praying. Fast. Or else.

Gay marriage goes way back

Historian says men wed as early as 600 years ago in medieval Europe


Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”

For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.

But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."

The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out.

"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”

Adolescence is obsolete

Towns are passing curfews to keep them off the street. Parents are shelling out for gadgets to spy on them. Teens are subject to twice as many restrictions as prison inmates. But psychologist Robert Epstein says we are wasting a huge human resource: Let them choose when to leave school, work and vote – it's the birth of the new adult.
It's an unfamiliar sight: Kids under 15 running businesses, chairing town council meetings and scolding each other for not living up to their responsibilities – not to mention cleaning outhouses and hauling drinking water.

But on Kid Nation, a reality show that makes its debut next month, 40 young people have just 40 days to build a society – with no adults to curb what the show describes as “the urge to break every rule they've ever known”

– in an Old West ghost town in the New Mexico desert.

All of which suggests yet another stunt on the part of television executives hoping for a Lord of the Flies-style shocker. Except that Kid Nation also amounts to a test case for a radical theory about child development – and taps into an emerging debate about the role of the teenager.

Yet this proposal appears even as teens' rights are being curtailed. Towns such as Thompson, Man., are passing curfews to keep them off the streets at night, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is fighting to keep them away from alcohol for five years after they get behind the wheel and parents are stocking up on hot new products such as the SnoopStick to spy on their Web surfing.

Dr. Epstein's book – The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen – challenges this drive to postpone the rights and obligations of adulthood. He suggests that we have lost track of what it means to be an adult – and underestimate just want it takes to become one.

Why is the former editor of Psychology Today making such extreme claims? In a series of in-depth discussions about his work, Dr. Epstein concedes that teens appear to need reining in – more money is spent on psychoactive drugs for young people in the U.S., he says, than all other prescription medicines combined.

But these troubled teens are Frankensteins of our own making, he insists. There is a correlation between the myriad regulations and restrictions that adolescents face (surveys show they are subjected to twice as many limitations as incarcerated prisoners in the United States) and problem behaviour.

And the more we keep teens from adult activities, the more we keep them from interaction with other adults – inadvertently sealing them in a peer-dominated MySpace bubble, a constant feedback loop with other teenagers.

“We've trapped all of our young people in this idiotic world of teen culture,” he says. “All their models are imbeciles – you don't have to look far to find exemplars that support the belief that teens are incompetent and irresponsible. But none of this tells you what teen competence is. It goes beyond what you see. It's about what's possible.”

In fact, with the help of other experts in adult development, Dr. Epstein and his colleague Diane Dumas developed a test to measure 14 skill sets that distinguish adults from non-adults – and on questions covering everything from knowledge of sex to citizenship to math proficiency, differences between teen and adult scores were negligible.

On questions that measure romantic maturity, for example, the mean score for adults were 8.32 out of 10 and 7.95 for teens. The overall mean scores for adults was 116.7 compared with 114.2 for teens – even though there were double the number of college graduates in the adult sample group as there are in American society.

“There's nothing magical that happens at 16 or 81,” he says. “If you're not skillful in at least most of these areas, people either behind your back or to your face are going to say you're immature. Which, it turns out, many adults are.”

Dr. Epstein says the explanation is simple Darwinian logic.

At a basic level, all the species needs to survive is more offspring – and for children to be cared for until they can have still more offspring. Throughout most of history, parenthood started right after puberty. By the age of 22 or thereabouts, adults' evolutionary purpose would have been fulfilled.

This, it turns, out is just when a number of functions start to decline. Brain size tops out at about 14 and while intelligence, memory and reaction time are on the upswing during the teen years, they start to nosedive in the early 20s.

“In the early or mid-teens, we are either at our peak or very close to our peak.”


THE BIRTH OF THE TEEN Not that we see evidence of this today. It's telling that the creators of Kid Nation had to turn back the clock to the era of the Wild West to imagine a world in which children and teenagers might tackle grown-up chores and responsibilities.

While many of us think of girls in poodle skirts and saddle shoes as a benchmark for North American teen culture, a distinct stage between childhood and adulthood was not born in the 1950s, but far earlier – at a time in the late 1800s when industrialization was replacing the frontier.

Before then, many young people worked alongside their parents as soon as they were able and, shortly after puberty, boys would leave home to pursue an apprenticeship. By 1900, more than two million kids 10 to 15 years old were working full-time in the U.S.

But some adults worried that wages for older workers were under threat. An influx of immigrants also led to fears about what would happen to children who couldn't find jobs. Soon, labour unions were fighting to end child labour and what Dr. Epstein calls “bluebloods” were campaigning to control idleness and encourage socialization through education.

“Labour laws and education laws were put into place by all kinds of different people,” he says. “None of them had the best interests of teenagers in mind.”

Still, the emerging field of adolescent psychology seemed to support the idea of reining in this new teenager.

In his landmark 1904 book Adolescence, genetic psychologist G. Stanley Hall suggested that the teen years were a time of natural turmoil. Drawing on a theory popular among German scientists of the 19th century that all creatures relive the stages of evolution during their lives – that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – Dr. Hall saw adolescence as the midpoint between a “savage” and “tribal” past and a civilized future.

The science underpinning his theories has since been repudiated. But Dr. Epstein suggests that a new science has simply taken its place. He points to studies of the “teen brain” that try to prove there are biological underpinnings to adolescent angst and laziness – research he calls a “scientific fraud.”

“These assertions that teens are irresponsible and incompetent because they have a defective brain or an undeveloped brain – it's the zeitgeist,” he says. Some of these studies may find correlations between age and laziness, but do not necessarily show cause and effect. “The teen brain is, at best, a reflection of teen problems, not their cause.”

Marshall Korenblum is a professor at the University of Toronto and the chief psychiatrist at Hincks-Dellcrest, a children's mental-health centre. He agrees with Dr. Epstein's characterization of adolescence as a relatively modern invention, one that, in effect, ghettoizes youth.

But he takes exception with “the notion that there is no difference between the teen and the adult brain.” Recent studies suggest that the teen brain is very different, he says, specifically in the pre-frontal cortex, which is in charge of such things as planning and impulse control. “It would be a mistake to give teenagers more rights and responsibilities,” he says. “The brain continues to mature into the 20s.”

Dr. Epstein responds by listing off young people who didn't need to wait until their 20s to flex mental muscle.

William Blake wrote important poetry at 12. Blaise Pascal proved mathematical theorems at 16. Then there are modern-day wunderkinds such as computer scientist Erik Demaine. He says home schooling and early interaction with adults were key to his finishing college at the age of 14. At 20, he was the youngest professor to be hired by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“It's fortunate for me that I got to learn so much so early because it's a lot easier to learn things when you're young,” he told Psychology Today. “Other than that, age is an arbitrary number.”

Adult abilities are not restricted to career go-getters, either, Dr. Epstein says. Young people are also capable of forging deep and complex emotional relationships with others. Take Mary and Paul Onesi, who were feted in 1995 as the longest married couple in the U.S. They were married in 1917, when he was 21 and she was 13.

If Dr. Epstein gets his way, North America could unlock scores of success stories like these.


THE AGELESS SOCIETY

It hadn't occurred to Yvonne O'Hara to offer her teen boys beer with dinner.

She didn't much care that the 12-year-old and 15-year-old weren't of legal drinking age. The well-behaved boys had simply never asked to try alcohol. But when her sister offered them beer or wine with dinner one weekend at the cottage, she let them make their own decision – and the Toronto mother noticed the psychological effect.

Her younger son drank half a glass of beer. “I could tell he liked that we trusted in him that he was mature enough to handle it,” she says. Now, she's a firm believer in lowering the drinking age in order to normalize the practice.

But how to assess a young person's maturity before they take up risky adult activities?

All we have to do, Dr. Epstein says, is set up a system of competency tests. Just as driving tests are administered today, tests to vote, marry and give sexual consent could be developed by experts and administered by governments.

Some tests would be fairly basic. “We'd like lots of people to vote,” he says. Others would set the bar much higher. “We don't want people to be able to take drugs or make medical decisions unless they're really know what they're doing. We might set the mark for the abortion decision quite high.”

Critics say the system would be an unwieldy, bureaucratic mess, but Dr. Epstein says society already requires licences and permits not only as safety measures but as incentives for those who desire certain rights and responsibilities.

“If someone wants to be an electrician, they have to take a test that was developed by a panel of relevant experts. They want to be a plumber, a physician, a lawyer – it's pretty darn simple. There are hundreds of precedents.”

And when should testing start? As the parent of four, Dr. Epstein says puberty may be a realistic minimum age to take any competency test, but he is reluctant to set a firm limit of any kind.

“If you're 8 and you happen to be the Dalai Lama and you pass the test, then we should admit you to adult society. He was negotiating on behalf of Tibet at 15.”

Still, given the ongoing criticism of IQ testing – Stephen Murdoch's book IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea is the latest jab – maybe the last thing we need is a new battery of tests. What if subtle socio-economic factors biased results? And what about nuances of maturity not easily measured in yes/no questionnaires?

Dr. Epstein insists that such tests would be works in progress. And that unlike IQ, these tests would not measure fixed qualities but fluid skills and knowledge.

Someone can learn that love and sex are not the same thing; someone can learn that drinking alcohol and taking drugs at the same time is extremely risky.

“Traits are unchangeable,” he says, “but competencies are trainable.”

So, let's imagine for a moment what happens when scores of competent young people actually pass tests allowing them to vote, drink, own property and work at meaningful jobs instead of attending high school (which Dr. Epstein characterizes as more like a prison than a place of true learning).

It would be what Dr. Epstein calls an ageless society. “In some ways, it will look like society used to look,” he says. “There was a time when it was very common for a 12-year-old to go into a bar. If the 12-year-old behaved irresponsibly, the 12-year-old would be treated harshly – just like a 30-year-old.”

We might end up with a return to an apprenticeship system, albeit more high-tech than earlier versions. Other young people might start their own businesses. And for those who want to keep studying, home-schooling and personalized training could become mainstream options.

In some ways, the impact of a more integrated society would be less jarring than we might fear. The computer age, for example, means that 16-year-olds would not necessarily have to share water-cooler time with 40-year-olds in an ageless workplace.

“The computer creates a certain anonymity. You can work with someone and not know they're 13. Age is less visible, with complex interactions often occurring at a distance.”

On the other hand, teens with strong raw abilities just might run rings around many adults – which could create a certain amount of turmoil.

“Some people will be overrun. But it was the same issue when we allowed women in the workplace.”

And benefits, Dr. Epstein says, outweigh such costs. Not only are teens winners, but so are families, since an ageless society would end “the adversarial relationship that exists with parents and young offspring” – they might even contribute financially to the household. The economy would also get a boost from an influx of new talent, not dissimilar to a wave of eager new immigrants.

“We're bringing extremely energetic people into the economy. Tens of millions of extremely bright, energetic young people who learn quickly who have been excluded from the economy for a century. Would some people lose their jobs? Yes. But the economy would thrive.”

In the same way that forcing a 60-year-old to retire before he or she is ready robs society of a valuable resource, Dr. Epstein says, preventing a teen from starting an adult life when he or she is ready is ultimately a loss to people of all ages.

“We benefit by throwing away age or any other arbitrary characteristic such as gender or race and instead at least move in the direction of looking at competency. I don't see how we could possibly lose out by that.”

All of which would seem to bode well for those 40 young people in the middle of that New Mexico ghost town.

Although one child suffered grease burns while cooking and another accidentally drank bleach – and this week state officials launched an investigation into possible abuse of labour laws – Kid Nation producer Tom Forman said that, over all, young people on his show proved wise beyond their years.

“As a parent out there, I was floored every day watching these kids get up, light a pioneer-era wood-burning stove, cook a breakfast for 40, do their own dishes, head to the water pump, get water, bring it back,” he said at a press conference last month in Los Angeles.

As for more complex issues – like questions producers posed on religion or pollution? “Sometimes it stumped them, and I think that they did worse than adults today do. Sometimes they nailed it and, in a couple of minutes, would solve the problem that adults can't seem to solve.”



The death of the teenager?

Towns are passing curfews to keep them off the street. Parents are shelling out for gadgets to spy on them. Teens are subject to twice as many restrictions as prison inmates.

But U.S. psychologist Robert Epstein says we are wasting a huge human resource: Let them choose when to leave school, work and vote – it's the birth of the new adult.

Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente recently sparked a vigorous discussion when she described a new book in which Dr. Epstein argues that not only should young people have the same rights as adults – from voting and signing contracts to smoking and drinking – but that the designation of teenager should be abolished entirely.

In Saturday's Globe, writer Tralee Pearce examined the changing roles of young people in society in her article Adolescence is obsolete

Dr. Epstein was online earlier today to take your questions and to offer his insight into these issues.

Robert Epstein is the author of The Case Against Adolescence and is Director Emeritus, Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.

Virginia Galt, Globe and Mail: Good afternoon, Dr. Epstein, and thanks so much for joining us today to talk about the way we treat our teenagers. It promises to be a lively discussion.

You argue that extended adolescence is bad for everyone. Yet, as parents, educators and employers, we can't seem to let go.

In Canada, more than 40 per cent of adults under the age of 29 still live with their parents. As a matter of course, universities now accommodate anxious Moms and Dads at orientation sessions.

And, even when these young adults graduate and find employment, they are often relegated to "intern" status, although many are better educated than their bosses. In your view, how much harm are we doing by not letting them, from the time they are teenagers, assume more responsibility and get on with their lives?

Dr. Robert Epstein: The harm for our young people, our families, and our society at large is enormous. At one level, we're simply wasting valuable human resources: millions of talented, energetic, creative young people who are making little or no contribution to society.

There are also mental health consequences: When we restrict young people and hold them back, many get angry or depressed. In the U.S., we have 5.5 million teens in counselling now, and we're spending more money on psychoactive drugs for teens than on all other prescription drugs combined.

We also have 2 million attempted suicides each year by teens. Infantilizing teens and isolating them from adults also causes enormous family conflict: 20 conflicts per month, on average. That's a lot of pain.

Philosopher King, Ottawa: Not to be rude, but when I was a teenager I thought and did a lot of stuff that was dangerous, stupid and potentially disasterous. In the end I suspect it was only the continuous messaging from around me as what the boundaries ought to be (even if I ignored them) that kept me from doing even crazier things.

While I accept that freedom of choice and the learning of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in society is incredibly important, the simple fact is that teenagers don't understand repurcussions very well.

As such, giving them the right to get credit cards, loans or the like is simply allowing them to be victimized by a system whose only mantra is 'what the market will bear' which I translate as them being allowed to take advantage of inexperienced youth.

I myself took on a credit card in university and ended up very much in debt because I didn't understand the ramifications. So, how do you propose to protect the young when you seem to desire setting the world loose on them?

Dr. Epstein: My guess is that your irresponsible behavior was guided mainly by the absurd rules, values, and role models of teen culture.

If you had truly been allowed to enter the adult world - to own property, to compete against adults head-to-head, to sign contracts, etc. - you would have done a better job. Of course, many adults also behave irresponsibly, so I could be wrong!

Maggie Crow, Canada: Motivated people will take initiative and take on responsibility at any age. If teenagers want to be involved in something they will be - take politics for example.

The teenagers that want to be voting are probably involved in student government, or volunteering for political parties, or are part of advocate groups.

Laws don't need to be changed in the hopes that the mediocre will become exceptional. The way to foster growth and maturity in adolescence is to show teenagers the opportunities that exist within their reach, and to help them become the best leaders in their own world.

Dr. Epstein: The problem, Maggie, is that they have almost no meaningful opportunities within their reach.

According to survey research I've conducted in the U.S., American teens are subjected to more than 10 times as many restrictions as are mainstream adults, to twice as many restrictions as are active-duty military personnel, and even to twice as many restrictions as are incarcerated felons.

They have virtually no incentive to pay attention to the adult world because they can't vote, they have limited property and privacy rights, they can't sign contracts or start businesses, and they're forced to attend school even if they have no interest in learning the completely arbitrary material they're supposed to learn there.

Give young people some real opportunities and incentives to join the adult world, and they'll do it by the millions. And yes, you're right, the most exceptional teens will lead the way.

Ari Up, Ottawa: At 18, my great-grandparents got married and hopped on a boat from England to Canada. As far as I know, they never returned home. They established a home and business in small-town Saskatchewan, and started a family that grew to 5 kids within a decade. The whole family thrived.

At 17, my grandfather was told it was time for him and his younger brother to leave the family farm in Ireland. They headed for Canada and fended for themselves during the Depression. It was rough, but he did fine.

Are teens today inherently less capable than they were in previous generations, or have we just lowered expectations to the point where they're incapable of demonstrating this kind of competence?

Dr. Epstein: Great question. I show unequivocally in my new book - based on my own research and extensive research done by other scientists - that today's teens are every bit as capable as teens of old.

We've just lowered our expectations, treating teens as we treat young children and trapping them in the completely absurd world of teen culture.

They learn virtually everything they know from each other -- the very last people on earth from whom they should be learning.

They need to be learning from the people they will soon become: adults. And yes, they need more meaningful responsibility in their lives - not more "freedom," but more responsibility.

They have way too much freedom as it is - the freedom to spend frivolously, the freedom to be disrespectful, the freedom to waste time, and so on.

Thumb Sucker, Toronto: Dr. Epstein, this to me is all very depressing.

Why does everybody need to squeeze every last ounce of productivity out of their lives? We are moving so close to a society where you are judged purely by how much money you make and how many hours you can put in at work during a week that it seems no one is smelling the clichéd roses along the road to death.

Who cares if a teenager can work in an office just as well as an adult? They have plenty of time to do that when they are an adult; no need to go back to the ways of the industrial revolution.

Dr. Epstein: I agree completely, which is why I spend a great deal of time relaxing!

But this is a matter of options: Many young people would like the opportunity to start a business, own property, compete against adults, make their own medical decisions, live on their own, drink alcohol (responsibly) - or even to retire to a desert island!

But over the last century, society has come to restrict all young people - based simply on age, and no matter how motivated or competent they may be - so that they have virtually no meaningful options whatsoever. . .

The key is to allow young people to enter the adult world as soon as they are ready.

James Cyr, Balmertown, Ont.: Most teenagers, in their transition from childhood to adulthood, are looking for answers to fundamental questions of life.

In other words, they are seeking some philosophy to live by --a comprehensive view of life. What are they offered today?

Rap music that advocates volence and disrespect; movies that offer nothing but either immorality or ammorality; mysticism as an alternative to reason and consumerism-materialism as a be-all-end-all. Rationality and reason is discouraged; objectivity is replaced with cynicism and the false dichotomy of the practical versus the moral.

Further to his point, how possible do you think it would be to reverse the huge hold popular culture has over us? How many man-as-boy movies do we need to see anyway?

Dr. Epstein: They're offered this kind of nonsense because we have trapped them in the idiotic world of teen culture.

We treat them like children and completely isolate them from the adults.

D.V., Canada: As a 'high-achiever' teenager myself, I can relate to much of what you write, and myself find age to be an arbitrary number.

Do you think that current teens are in agreement with your ideas?

How much time do you believe it would take to fully remove the concept of 'teenager' from our society's vocabulary?

Dr. Epstein: Because teens are infantilized and so completely isolated from the adult world, many are not aware of their own potential.

They just feel frustrated, but they don't fully understand where that frustration is coming from.

Unfortunately, the forces of infantization - mainly greedy companies, but also misinformed parents and policy makers - are so strong that it's going to be long time, I fear, before we abolish adolescence.

Diane Agate, Lincoln, Canada: These ideas are wonderful. But how do we as a community begin to initiate changes, especially for teens who are living dangerously, by substance abuse and running away?

How do we reach out and begin? Perhaps we just let them fend for themselves and learn from their mistakes?

Dr. Epstein: I think the teens who are in the most trouble would be the first to enter the adult world, given real opportunities to do so.

In many cases, they're the ones who "grew up" first - but then were quickly frustrated by the prison bars that surround them.

We need to start the ball rolling to end infantilization, allow teens to enter the adult world (when they can demonstrate readiness), and rescue them from the idiotic world of teen culture.

More home schooling will help, and so will giving meaningful responsibilities. But fundamentally, we need to educate the public and to begin the process of legislative reform.

T Dot, Canada: The only truth I have come to accept after 30 years in education is that the current education system fails many students: the structural model, the curriculum components, and measurements of success conspire against young minds, inducing boredom and alienation, instead of stimulating and engaging them.

However, nothing will change without the participation of larger social forces, specifically the economic forces.

Yes, legislation would be needed and policies amended, but the real impetus should come from the business world in terms of taking responsibility for the development of a skilled labour force. Now there is a significant disconnect and a culture of blame.

In comparison to many other developed nations, Canadian budgets for R & D fall short, and in the long run we will suffer for it.

Instead of expecting highly refined and specific skills to walk in the doorway with new hires, all organizations should have training and internship programs in partnership with educational institution.

Practical application and problem solving demand on-the- spot learning; motivation determines accomplishment, which in terms drives self- esteem (yes - the real thing). Students would have to become accountable in real world terms - to themselves and to others.

Dr. Epstein: I agree completely and recently published a long article in Education Week spelling out my views.

Our current education system was modelled after the factories of the industrial revolution, with young people placed on assembly lines - as if they are all the same, like widgets - and all ready to learn and be molded in preparation for a lifetime of labour. What nonsense!

The assembly line is fine for cars but not for people. The main thing we teach young people in school is to hate learning.

Effective education - as you and all other teachers know - must be personalized and individualized, because people have different learning styles and learn at different rates.

Will Decker, Norman, Oklahoma: I've heard it said that boys with loving fathers do not join gangs. What do loving fathers do? Do they not establish boundaries within the context of love?

I wonder if Dr. Epstein has witnessed how lost teens are as they relate to each other by themselves. Maybe it is how we go about setting rules, where they come from that needs to be examined . . .

We've got a lot to do but, dear Dr. Epstein, leaving teens on their own seems wrong to me.

Dr. Epstein: Thanks, Will, for your question. First of all, past puberty, young human males are not "boys." They're young men, and many of them are extremely capable - in some cases far superior to adults.

A loving father doesn't necessarily assure that a young man won't enter a gang. Gangs themselves are paramilitary organizations, highly organized emulations of adult military organizations, complete with ranks, emblems, uniforms, codes of honor, territories, and weapons.

I've never suggested that we "leave teens on their own," but to treat all teens as young incompetent children is a serious mistake.

We need to let young people enter adult society, one by one, as soon as they can show us that they're competent do so in one or more areas.

They're very different, one from another - just as adults are - and to toss them all away based merely on their age is just plain wrong, and also quite harmful for young people, families, and society at large.

Virginia Galt, Globe and Mail: Thanks so much for joining us today and taking questions from the readers of globeandmail.com.

Your discussion has stirred up a lot of interest. Do you have any closing thoughts?

Dr. Epstein: When I started the research that is reported in my new book, The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen, I had very different views than I have now.

I thought that teens were inherently irresponsible and incompetent, and that we hold them back from the adult world for their own good.

I learned that I was wrong - that the systems we have in place that restrict teens and isolate them from adults are remnants of the industrial revolution . . . that no longer make any sense, and do great damage to our young people and our families.

I learned that teen turmoil is not necessary - that it doesn't exist in more than 100 cultures around the world and that it is entirely a creation of our society.

If you're intrigued by my ideas, I hope you'll take a careful look at the book. If you look closely at the evidence, I believe you'll become as persuaded as I have become.





Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal

Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal

JOEL SALATIN / Acres v.33, n.9, Sept 2003 1sep03

Everything I want to do is illegal. As if a highly bureaucratic regulatory system was not already in place, 9/11 fueled renewed acceleration to eliminate freedom from the countryside. Every time a letter arrives in the mail from a federal or state agriculture department my heart jumps like I just got sent to the principal’s office.

And it doesn’t stop with agriculture bureaucrats. It includes all sorts of government agencies, from zoning, to taxing, to food inspectors. These agencies are the ultimate extension of a disconnected, Greco-Roman, Western, egocentric, compartmentalized, reductionist, fragmented, linear thought process.

ON-FARM PROCESSING

I want to dress my beef and pork on the farm where I’ve coddled and raised it. But zoning laws prohibit slaughterhouses on agricultural land. For crying out loud, what makes more holistic sense than to put abattoirs where the animals are? But no, in the wisdom of Western disconnected thinking, abattoirs are massive centralized facilities visited daily by a steady stream of tractor trailers and illegal alien workers.

But what about dressing a couple of animals a year in the backyard? How can that be compared to a ConAgra or Tyson facility? In the eyes of the government, the two are one and the same. Every T-bone steak has to be wrapped in a half-million dollar facility so that it can be sold to your neighbor. The fact that I can do it on my own farm more cleanly, more responsibly, more humanely, more efficiently, and in a more environmentally friendly manner doesn’t matter to the government agents who walk around with big badges on their jackets and wheelbarrow-sized regulations tucked under their arms.

OK, so I take my animals and load them onto a trailer for the first time in their life to send them up the already clogged interstate to the abattoir to await their appointed hour with a shed full of animals of dubious extraction. They are dressed by people wearing long coats with deep pockets with whom I cannot even communicate. The carcasses hang in a cooler alongside others that were not similarly cared for in life. After the animals are processed, I return to the facility hoping to retrieve my meat.

When I return home to sell these delectable packages, the county zoning ordinance says that this is a manufactured product because it exited the farm and was reimported as a value-added product, thereby throwing our farm into the Wal-Mart category, another prohibition in agricultural areas. Just so you understand this, remember that an on-farm abattoir was illegal, so I took the animals to a legal abattoir, but now the selling of said products in an on-farm store is illegal.

Our whole culture suffers from an industrial food system that has made every part disconnected from the rest. Smelly and dirty farms are supposed to be in one place, away from people, who snuggle smugly in their cul-de-sacs and have not a clue about the out-of-sight-out-of-mind atrocities being committed to their dinner before it arrives in microwaveable, four-color-labeled, plastic packaging. Industrial abattoirs need to be located in a not-in-my-backyard place to sequester noxious odors and sights. Finally, the retail store must be located in a commercial district surrounded by lots of pavement, handicapped access, public toilets and whatever else must be required to get food to people.

The notion that animals can be raised, processed, packaged, and sold in a model that offends neither our eyes nor noses cannot even register on the average bureaucrat’s radar screen — or, more importantly, on the radar of the average consumer advocacy organization. Besides, all these single-use megalithic structures are good for the gross domestic product. Anything else is illegal.

ON-FARM SEMINARS & ‘AGRITAINMENT’

In the disconnected mind of modem America, a farm is a production unit for commodities — nothing more and nothing less. Because our land is zoned as agricultural, we cannot charge school kids for a tour of the farm because that puts us in the category of "Theme Park." Anyone paying for infotainment creates "Farmadisney," a strict no-no in agricultural zones.

Farms are not supposed to be places of enjoyment or learning. They are commodity production units dotting the landscape, just as factories are manufacturing units and office complexes are service units. In the government’s mind, integrating farm production with recreation and meaningful education creates a warped sense of agriculture.

The very notion of encouraging people to visit farms is blasphemous to an official credo that views even sparrows, starlings and flies as disease threats to immunocompromised plants and animals. Visitors entering USDA-blessed production unit farms must run through a gauntlet of toxic sanitation dips and don moonsuits in order to keep their germs to themselves. Indeed, people are viewed as hazardous foreign bodies at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

Farmers who actually encourage folks to come to their farms threaten the health and welfare of their fecal concentration camp production unit neighbors, and therefore must be prohibited from bringing these invasive germ-dispensing humans onto their landscape. In the industrial agribusiness paradigm, farms must be protected from people, not to mention free-range poultry.

The notion that animals and plants can be raised in such a way that their enhanced immune system protects them from kindergarteners’ germs, and that the animals actually thrive when marinated in human attention, never enters the minds of government officials dedicated to protecting precarious production units.

COLLABORATIVE MARKETING

I have several neighbors who produce high-quality food or crafts that complement our own meat and poultry. Dried flower arrangements from one artisan, pickles from another, wine from another, and first-class vegetables from another. These are just for starters.

Our community is blessed with all sorts of creative artisans who offer products that we would love to stock in our on-farm retail venue. Doesn’t it make sense to encourage these customers driving out from the city to be able to go to one farm to do their rural browsing/ purchasing rather than drive all over the countryside? Furthermore, many of these artisans have neither the desire nor time to deal with patrons one-on-one. A collaborative venue is the most win-win, reasonable idea imaginable — except to government agents.

As soon as our farm offers a single item — just one — that is not produced here, we have become a Wal-Mart. Period. That means a business license, which isbasically another layer of taxes on our gross sales. The business license requires a commercial entrance, which on our country road is almost impossible to acquire due to sight-distance requirements and width regulations. Of course, zoning prohibits businesses in our agricultural zones. Remember, people are supposed to be kept away from agricultural areas — people bring diseases.

Even if we could comply with all of the above requirements, a retail outlet carries with it a host of additional regulations. We must provide designated handicapped parking, government-approved toilet facilities (our four household bathrooms in the two homes located 50 feet away from the retail building do not count) — and it can’t be a composting toilet. We must offer x-number of parking spaces. Folks, it just goes on and on, ad nauseum, and all for simply trying to help a neighbor sell her potatoes or extra pumpkins at Thanksgiving. I thought this was the home of the free. In most countries of the world, anyone can sell any of this stuff anywhere, and the hungering hordes are glad to get it, but in the great U.S. of A we’re too sophisticated to allow such bioregional commerce.

EMPLOYING LOCAL YOUNGSTERS & INTERNS

Any power tool — including a cordless screwdriver — cannot be operated by people under the age of 18. We have lots of requests from folks wanting to come as interns, but what do we call them? The government has no category for interns or neighbor young people who just want to learn and help out.

We’d love to employ all the neighboring young people. To our child-awning and worshiping culture, the only appropriate child activity is recreation, sitting in a desk, or watching TV. That’s it. That’s the extent of what children are good for. Anything else is abusive and risky.

Then we wonder why these kids grow up unmotivated and bored with life. Our local newspaper is full of articles and letters to the editor lamenting the lack of things for young people to do. Let me suggest a few things: digging postholes and building a fence, weeding the garden, planting some tomatoes, splitting some wood, feeding the chickens, washing eggs, pruning grapevines, milking the cow, building a compost pile, growing some earthworms.

These are all things that would be wonderfully meaningful work experience for the youth of our community, but you can’t simply employ people anymore. A host of government regulatory paperwork surrounds every "could you come over and help us . . . ?" By the time an employer complies with every Occupational Safety & Health Administration requirement, posts every government bulletin requirement, with-holds taxes, and shoulders Unemployment Compensation burdens and medical and child safety regulations — he or she can’t hire anybody legally or profitably.

The government has no pigeonhole for this: "I’m a 17-year-old home-schooler, and I want to learn how to farm. Could I come and have you mentor me for a year?"

What is this relationship? A student? An employee? If I pay a stipend, the government says he’s an employee. If I don’t pay, the Fair Labor Standards board says it’s slavery, which is illegal. Doesn’t matter that the young person is here of his own volition and is happy to live in a tee-pee. Housing must be permitted and up to code. Enough already. What happened to the home of the free?

BUILD A HOUSE THE WAY I WANT

You would think that if I cut the trees, mill the logs into lumber, and build the house on my own farm, I could make it however I wanted to. Think again. It’s illegal to build a house less than 900 square feet. Period. Doesn’t matter if I’m a hermit or the father of 20. The government agents have decreed, in their egocentric wisdom, that no human can live in anything less than 900 square feet.

Our son got married last year and wanted to build a small cottage on the farm, which he now oversees for the most part. Our new saying is, "He runs the farm, and I just run around." The plan was to do what Mom and Dad did for Teresa and I — trade houses when children come. That way our empty nest downsizes, and the young people can upsize in the main family farmhouse. Sounds reasonable and environmentally sensitive to me. But no, his little honeymoon cottage — or our retirement shack — had to be a 900-square-foot Taj Mahal. A state-of-the-art accredited composting toilet to avoid the need for a septic system and sewer leach field was denied.

When the hillside leach field would not meet agronomic standards and we had to install it in the floodplain, I asked the health department bureaucrat why. He said that essentially the only approvable leach fields now are alongside creeks and streams, because they are the only sites that offer dark-enough colored soils. Sounds like real environmental steward-ship, doesn’t it?

Look, if I want to build a yurt of rabbit skins and go to the bathroom in a compost pile, why is it any of the government’s business? Bureaucrats bend over back-wards to accredit, tax credit, and offer money to people wanting to build pig city-factories or bigger airports. But let a guy go to his woods, cut down some trees, and build himself a home, and a plethora of regulatory tyrants descend on the project to complicate, obfuscate, irritate, frustrate, and virtually terminate. I think it’s time to eradicate some of these laws and the piranhas who administer them.

OPTING OUT OF THE SYSTEM

I don’t ask for a dime of government money. I don’t ask for government accreditation. I don’t want to register my animals with a global positioning tattoo. I don’t want to tell officials the names of my constituents. And I sure as the dickens don’t intend to hand over my firearms. I can’t even use the "U" word.

On every side, our paternalistic culture is tightening the noose around those of us who just want to opt out of the system — and it is the freedom to opt out that differentiates tyrannical and free societies.

How a culture deals with its misfits reveals its strength. The stronger a culture, the less it fears the radical fringe. The more paranoid and precarious a culture, the less tolerance it offers.

When faith in our freedom gives way to fear of our freedom, then silencing the minority view becomes the operative protocol. The Native Americans silenced after Little Big Horn simply wanted to

worship in their beloved Black Hills, use traditional medicinal herbs to cure diseases, educate their children in the ways of their ancestors, and live in portable homes rather than log cabins. By that time these people represented absolutely no threat to the continued Westernization and domination of the North American continent by people who educated, vocated, medicated, worshiped, and habitated differently.

But coexistence was out of the question. Just like the forces that succeeded in making it illegal for me to use the "O" word, the Western success at Wounded Knee quashed the little guy. What does the Organic Trade Association have to fear from me using the "O" word? If society really wants government certification, my little market share will continue to deteriorate into oblivion. If, however, the certification effort represents a same-old, same-old power grab by the elitists to exterminate the fringe play-ers, it is merely another example of fear replacing faith.

Faith in what? Faith in diversity. Faith in each other. Faith in people’s ability to self-educate, thereby making informed decisions. Faith in seekers to find answers. Faith in marketplace dynamics to reward integrity and not cheating. Faith in Creation to heal. Faith in healthy plants and animals to withstand epizootics. Faith in earthworms to increase fertility. Faith in communities to function efficiently and honorably without centralized beltway interference. Faith in Acres U.S.A. to arrive every month with a cornucopia of insight and information.

Our culture’s current fear of bioterrorism shows the glaring weakness of a centralized, immunodeficient food system. This weakness leads to fear. Demanding from on high that we irradiate all food, register every cow with government agencies, and hire more inspectors does not show strength. It shows fear.

Indeed, official policy views all these minority production and marketing systems that have been shown faithful over the centuries to be instead things that threaten everyone and everything. As a teepee dwelling, herb healing, home educating, people loving, compost building retail farmer, I represent the real answers, but real answers must be eradicated by those who seek to build their power and fortunes on a lie — the lie being that genetic integrity can be maintained when corporate scientists begin splicing DNA. The lie that, as Charles Walters says, toxic rescue chemistry is better than a balanced biological bath. The lie that farms are disease-prone, unfriendly, inhumane places and should be zoned away from people.

Those of us who would aspire to opt out — both consumers and producers — must pray for enough cleverness to circumvent the system until the system cannot sustain itself. Cycles happen. Because things are this way today does not mean they will be this way next year. Hurrah for that.

Often, the greatest escapes occur at the moment the noose becomes tightest. I’m feeling the rope, and it’s not very loose. Society seems bound and determined to hang me for everything I want to do. But there’s power in truth. And for sure, surprises are in store that may make

society shake its collective head and begin to question some seemingly unalterable doctrines. Doctrines like the righteousness of the bureaucrat. The sanctity of government research. The protection of the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The helpfulness of the USDA.

When that day comes, you and I can graciously offer our society honest food, honest ecology, honest stewardship. May the day come quickly.


Joel Salatin raises grass-fed beef, pastured poultry, rabbits and more on a model diversified farmstead, Polyface Farm, in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. He is the author of Salad Bar Beef, Pastured Poultry Profits, You Can Farm, and Family Friendly Farming, available from Acres U.S.A. for $30 each, plus shipping and handling. To order, call 1-800-355-5313 or visit our website.

Acres U.S.A. is the national journal of sustainable agriculture, standing virtually alone with a real track record — over 30 years of continuous publication. Each issue is packed full of information ecoconsultants regularly charge top dollar for. You’ll be kept up-to-date on all of the news that affects agriculture — regulations, discoveries, research updates, organic certification issues, and more.

To subscribe, call
1-800-355-5313
(toll-free in the U.S. & Canada)
512-892-4400 • fax 512-892-4448
P.O. Box 91299 • Austin, TX 78709
info@acresusa.com
Or subscribe online at:
www.acresusa.com

Pastor had sex with daughters

A fundamentalist church pastor had sex with two of his teenage daughters to educate them on how to be good wives, a South Australian court has heard.

The 54-year-old man, who cannot be named, was today sentenced in the SA District Court to eight and a half years jail after pleading guilty to seven counts each of incest and unlawful sexual intercourse.

The court heard that the man had sex with his daughters for nearly a decade from 1991 when they were aged 13 and 15 at the family property.

The sex took place at various locations including in a shearer's shed, a paddock, on the back of a ute and, on one occasion, at the girls' grandparents house.

The man told the court the sex was not about fulfilling his desires but about teaching his daughters how to behave for their husbands when they eventually married, as dictated in scripture.

In sentencing, Judge David Lovell said the misrepresentation of scripture used to justify the abuse of the girls "defied belief", and that he had "hypocritically betrayed" his religion and principles.

"You said the acts were about learning about sex rather than engaging in the acts of sex," Judge Lovell said.

"I do not accept that.

"You treated your daughters as your property ... using them to satisfy and gratify your sexual urges."

Judge Lovell gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as his wife and the church remained supportive.

The man will be eligible for parole in four years.

JPL Scientists Sue Federal Government and Caltech for NASA's Background Checks

By Kristen Philipkoski

Over his four decades at the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Dennis Byrnes worked on the Apollo 7 spacecraft, set the Galileo probe on a course to Jupiter and received a NASA Exceptional Engineering Achievement Award.

But because Byrnes won't let federal investigators snoop into intimate details of his personal life, he could lose his job.

Byrnes is one of 28 Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) senior scientists and engineers who today sued NASA, the Department of Commerce and CalTech over background checks required of all federal employees by the Department of Homeland Security.

"We're talking about the best and brightest scientists in the world. We're talking about jet propulsion, the Mars probe, the lunar landing, Galileo, the comet landing project," said Dan Stormer of Hadsell & Stormer, the civil rights law firm representing the scientists. "And they're being asked to give up their constitutional rights in order to keep their jobs."

At issue is Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12, issued in 2004 but only recently implemented by NASA. It requires all federal employees to sign a broad privacy waiver before being approved for government work.

Though the JPL scientists are technically government contractors rather than federal employees, they're still expected to comply.

The waiver (scroll down) allows investigators to look at workers' employment, financial and medical histories. They can also question friends and colleagues about the workers' psychological health, political background and sexual proclivities.

This is legally acceptable for people in classified or highly sensitive positions, said Stormer, but none of the 28 scientists -- many of whom have been at JPL for decades -- fit that bill.

Byrnes and his colleagues have until October 27 to sign the waivers. If they don't, they'll be fired unless the court grants them an injuction against the deadline. The injunction request alleges that the government's demands violate the scientists' constitutional right to privacy.

Hearings are scheduled for September 24 at the US District Court in Los Angeles.

Beyond the legal issues, the scientists say that the background checks will discourage researchers from working for NASA and are irrelevant their jobs.

"I can fly a spacecraft to any planet in the galaxy, and I'm being judged by people who don't have a clue as to my technical qualifications whether I'm suitable for government service," said Byrnes.

He continued, "It's already an extremely rigorous process when the labs hire someone. We check your degrees, whether you worked where you said you did. All that is normal and fine. This is something else. This is McCarthyism."

When asked for comment, NASA spokesman David Mould said, "We've been given a directive that applies to all employees, and we're carrying it out."

Supporting GrandCentral's Project CARE



For homeless people and others in need, not having a stable phone number can be crippling: you need one to follow up on medical appointments, keep in touch with friends and loved ones, and hear back from prospective employers.

When we acquired GrandCentral Communications last month, we were pleased to embrace their Project CARE initiative, which provides a permanent local phone number and unlimited voicemail service to people who need a way to stay connected.

GrandCentral has been operating Project CARE ("Communications and Respect for Everybody") since April 2006, and with the help of more than 20 community outreach partners has provided more than 5,000 phone numbers and served close to 100,000 voicemail messages to homeless and needy people in the Bay Area. Someone calling a number from Project CARE will have the same experience as someone calling a standard phone number, and voicemail messages can be stored as long as they're needed.

A big part of Project CARE has been GrandCentral's participation in San Francisco's Project Homeless Connect events. Every other month, these gatherings bring service providers like GrandCentral together with volunteers at an all-day fair to provide services to the homeless. In fact, there's an event today, starting at 8:30 AM (PDT) at Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. If you're in San Francisco, please stop by our booth or even volunteer.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Viacom Accuses Guy Of Copyright Infringement For Showing Video Of Viacom Infringing On His Copyright

Ben S. was the first of many folks to submit to us this incredible story of Viacom's latest ridiculous claim of copyright infringement. As you're most likely aware by this point, Viacom is in the middle of a nasty $2 billion lawsuit with Google over what it alleges are videos that infringe on Viacom's copyright appearing on YouTube. Of course, in making those claims, Viacom has been known to be a bit too aggressive in taking down videos -- including some that clearly did not violate Viacom's copyright. This latest case, however, may be the most ridiculous.


VH1 is a Viacom property that has a popular TV show called "Web Junk 2.0." It basically just takes the more popular/funny/stupid clips that show up on YouTube every week and shows them on TV along with some goofy commentary from the show's host. I'd always wondered if Viacom compensated the owners of those videos -- especially given the company's position about YouTube. It turns out that neither Viacom nor VH1 compensate the video owners, or even ask their permission. It just assumes that it can use them. Most turn out to be perfectly happy (not surprisingly) to get this sort of free publicity. One guy thought it was so cool that he recorded the clip of Web Junk that featured his own video and posted that on YouTube so he could blog about it. And, in an incredibly ironic move, Viacom sent a takedown notice to YouTube forcing it offline. Just to make it clear: Viacom used this guy's work without permission and put it on TV. The guy then takes Viacom's video of his video and puts it online... and Viacom freaks out claiming copyright infringement. Effectively, Viacom is claiming that it's infringement of Viacom's copyright to display an example of Viacom infringing on copyright.

"But her profile said she was 18" == jail cell, judge rules

By Jacqui Cheng

Be careful when hooking up with other "adults" online—even if they say they're 18, you'll be the one in hot water if they turn out to be 14 instead. That's the opinion of a federal judge in Ohio, who dismissed a suit last week against SexSearch.com, a web site that hosts personals ads by people who are looking for sex. The plaintiff, who went by John Doe due to the very personal nature of the suit, accused the site and its owners of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of warranty, but Judge Jack Zouhary ruled that the site and its alleged transgressions were protected under the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

It all goes back to 2005, when Doe became a paying member of SexSearch.com in order to find... well, you know. He eventually met another paying member on the site, a woman who is named in the court documents as Jane Roe. Roe had completed her profile on the site with a recent and authentic picture, a birth date that indicated that she was over 18, and a statement that she was looking for someone "who could last for a long time." The two eventually decided to meet, with Doe going over to Roe's abode in November of 2005 to engage in... well, you know.

Things were all well and good, and the two had even lost contact after a short period of time. Until one night a month later, that is, when Doe found his house surrounded by police—it turned out that Roe was merely 14. Doe was arrested and charged with three separate accounts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and he currently faces up to 15 years in prison as well as a lifetime registration as a sexual offender. Doe was publicly named for engaging in sexual relations with a minor, which he said ruined his reputation as a law-abiding citizen and caused him to lose his job. All in all, Doe's case sounds like the worst nightmare of almost anyone who has searched for a "casual" relationship with someone online.

Doe's complaint places blame for the entire series of events on the shoulders of SexSearch.com, which he says misrepresented itself by displaying the phrase "all persons within this site are 18+." Since SexSearch.com also reserved the right to modify member profiles that it believed to be misleading or underage, Doe said that it was negligent and deceptive since it allowed Roe's profile and photo to remain on the site. Basically, if the site had discovered Roe's real age and subsequently prevented her from posting on the site, none of this would have ever happened.

While that may be true, Judge Zouhary didn't feel that that Doe should have placed that much trust in the site. In his 29-page ruling, the judge wrote that there was nothing deceptive about the site's warning language stating that all persons were over 18. "Plaintiff was not an unsuspecting customer," wrote Zouhary in his opinion. "He was aware the SexSearch membership registration process did not include an age-verification procedure. As noted above, Plaintiff specifically agreed to Terms and Conditions which stated that SexSearch did not guarantee or verify any information provided by users of the website, and nothing outside of the Terms and Conditions creates warranties."

Ultimately, Zouhary said, SexSearch.com was protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that "interactive computer services" cannot be held responsible for publishing information provided to them by members. Judge Zouhary also cited a 2007 lawsuit involving MySpace, which asserted that MySpace should be held responsible for minors participating in communications with adults—another case dismissed as a result of section 230. Since Doe never attempted to argue that the site had modified Roe's profile, Zouhary said that the service was otherwise protected by section 230.

Zouhary ruled that even without the section 230 protections, Doe's case was not a strong one. He wrote that Doe had plenty of opportunity to verify Roe's age when he met her in person at what we all presume to be her parents' house, but failed to do so. "Plaintiff employed a double-barreled shotgun approach to this case, but failed to hit a claim upon which relief may be granted," reads the opinion. Unfortunately for John Doe, it looks like 14 will get him 15 in the slammer.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Arrested for asking a question.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

California homeless program is cut

Schwarzenegger kills a $55-million initiative that helps the mentally ill, then signs the budget. Counties and cities can fund it, an aide says.

By Scott Gold, Lee Romney and Evan Halper

SACRAMENTO -- Making good on a promise to trim the state budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger eliminated a $55-million program Friday that advocates say has helped thousands of mentally ill homeless people break the costly cycle of hospitalization, jails and street life.

The program was one of many high-profile initiatives left in the ashes of the Legislature's bitter budget dispute, which stalled Sacramento for much of the last two months.

The impasse lifted Tuesday after Senate Republicans ended their blockade. They won few concessions, except a promise from the governor to veto $700 million from the general fund in an effort to address the state's operating deficit.

Schwarzenegger delivered Friday, citing the state's need for a "prudent reserve," then signing the $145.5-billion budget -- more than seven weeks past the state's July 1 deadline.

Among the cuts: $1.3 million to track hospital efforts to eliminate infections, which kill more than 7,000 Californians a year; $30 million for state parks; and $6 million to compel drug manufacturers to discount medicines for lower-income people.

Schwarzenegger ordered state health officials to find more than $6 million in other parts of the budget to keep the drug program alive, but the cuts will delay the website the state was going to set up to tell consumers which discounts were available.

He also struck a $17.4-million plan to protect seniors.

The overhaul of the state's conservatorship system was approved last year after an investigation in The Times that detailed how a system intended to protect seniors was plagued with fraud and abuse.

At the time, top Schwarzenegger officials said the overhaul demonstrated his determination to protect the elderly. Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), who championed the reform effort, said the money was "critical to preventing horrendous abuses of our most frail and vulnerable seniors."

None of the cuts elicited a more virulent outcry than the elimination of the program for the homeless mentally ill.

The program had been on the chopping block all summer. Advocates, including the architects of California's effort to overhaul its troubled mental health system, had staged a furious lobbying effort to stave off the cut.

But in justifying it, Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said local governments should step in instead. "We believe if these programs are a priority to counties, they have resources available to them to provide funding," he said.

Counties across the state, however, are facing the slow erosion of their traditional mental health budgets; state Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who created the just-eliminated program in 1999, called the cut "unconscionable."

He noted that despite the allegedly strapped conditions of the state, legislators managed to preserve a tax break for some purchasers of yachts, planes and recreational vehicles -- a measure that could cost the state as much as $45 million.

"A $45-million tax break for yacht owners stays in the budget," Steinberg said. "And a nationally recognized, incredibly effective program to end homelessness for those living with mental illness gets thrown under the bus."

The program served as the blueprint for Proposition 63, the 1% "millionaires' tax" established to overhaul the mental health system. It is known as Integrated Services for Homeless Adults with Serious Mental Illness or "AB 2034," after the bill that created it.

Built to expand services beyond traditional outpatient care, the program incorporates job training, housing assistance, even, at times, grocery-buying skills and dental care Schwarzenegger praised the program three years ago for creating "significant savings at the local level."

It has served 13,000 people since November 1999. There are about 4,700 participants today. Among those enrolled as of January, there were 81% fewer days of incarceration, 65% fewer days of psychiatric hospitalization and 76% fewer days of homelessness compared with their pre-enrollment days.

Rusty Selix, executive director of the California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies -- like Steinberg, a Proposition 63 coauthor -- said the cost of incarceration can be six times higher than the cost of enrolling someone in the mental health program.

"Rehabilitation costs money. But it's worth it," said Adrienne Sheff, director of adult services at the San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center in Van Nuys. Los Angeles County receives nearly a third of the state funds through AB 2034 and serves 1,700 people.

"Clients getting jobs and housing -- I would rather see that for my tax dollar than I would want to see them roaming the streets," she said. "Once you harness their survivor skills, we have found that we can do wonders."

Several lawmakers at the center of the budget dispute did not return phone calls or could not be reached. They included Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine -- a yacht owner who pushed to ease the tax burden on owners of yachts, planes and RVs.

An Ackerman spokesman said the senator was unavailable. In a statement, Ackerman said California was still facing a large budget deficit next year. The state, he said, must "start addressing next year's problem today."

Advocates have pledged to sue the state over the cut to the mental health program.

The voter-approved Proposition 63 forbade the state from dropping below its 2004 funding commitments to mental health. That provision was intended to prevent the state from cutting with one hand while funding with the other -- a pattern that would neutralize an effort that advocates hope will mark a landmark turn in mental health.

A lawsuit probably would say the state violated that measure by slashing the program.

Proposition 63 also bars counties from using the new money to backfill old programs, meaning they can't respond to the cut by using Proposition 63 money instead. Yet in pushing for the cut, the administration has suggested that Proposition 63 -- which is generating hundreds of millions of dollars -- could cushion the blow. Palmer, the Department of Finance spokesman, said Friday that counties could use many funding sources, including Proposition 63, to provide similar services.

County mental health directors have contended that such a move would place them in violation of the ballot measure.

Department of Finance Director Mike Genest denied that the administration was trying to use Proposition 63 to fund existing programs. "The primary reason for doing this is to save money," he said.

If the cut lands the state in court, the battle could take years. Across the state, those who used to be homeless are already feeling the pinch.

Paul Culp, 46, a college graduate overwhelmed by untreated bipolar disorder, was living under a Tehama County bridge when he was enrolled in the homeless mentally ill program. Two years later, he has been reunited with his children and is supporting himself.

"This program saved me from dying," he said. "I had that to fall back on and now I don't. Things seem to be going well, but it just takes one crisis to change that."

Alabama Sex Toy Law - No Vibrators Allowed

In Alabama, guns are sold everywhere, but sex toys are banned. Now the state law banning the sale of vibrators may go before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case will garner a lot of attention.

Gita M. Smith

In Alabama, you can sell guns on any street corner but you can't sell sex toys.

That's right. Alabama is a vibrator-free state!

Well, technically you can go across state lines and buy sex toys in Georgia and Tennessee and carry them home. But the Alabama Legislature, in its infinite wisdom and in the spirit of protecting citizens from moral turpitude, a while back banned the sale of sex toys (or "marital aids" as some lawmakers coyly call them).

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a gleam of interest in this controversial state law, which has been challenged in Alabama courts by adult toy retailer Sherri Williams. She has been fighting the law for nearly 10 years.

Williams has been in district court three times on this issue and has won twice. But both times her victories were struck down by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. She filed a petition to the Supremes and has hired well-known First Amendment rights attorney Paul Cambria. Also joining in the appeal petition with Williams are the Free Speech Coalition and the First Amendment Lawyers Association.

(At the very least, this case seems to be a restraint-of-trade case as much as anything else, since the devices are sold in all the neighboring states. You'd think she would win on that, alone.)

Anyway, the Supremes have informed the state of Alabama that it must file an answering brief with the High Court, which is an indication that the case might be taken up in the next session. If so, I would like to be a fly on the wall when oral arguments are heard.

SCALLIA: You say that the sale of the Twizzler-Twister should be banned?
ALABAMA GUY: Yes,Your Honor.
ALITO: And the Buzzer-Master?
ALABAMA GUY: Yes, that too.
THOMAS: What about the coke can with the fake pubic hair?
ALABAMA GUY: That one doesn't vibrate, so that one's okay.
THOMAS: Whew! Thank goodness.

But seriously folks, I am hoping that y'all have stopped snickering at the Victorian attitudes of our fine Alabama lawmakers because I want to talk for a minute about sexual attitudes in the Land O' Cotton.

There is, and always has been, a strong strain of paternalism among lawmakers down here. And that paternalistic attitude makes them believe that they are the keepers of the Moral Keys. Us wee folk need protecting from sexual pleasures derived from plastic thingies made in China.

The same lawmakers also have protected Alabamians from the glittering vice dens called casinos, the dangerous Mega-Ball lotteries and betting parlors. All for our own good.

They do, however, let us have SOME fun. We have fireworks stores at every interstate exit. We can buy all manner of guns easily and openly as long as we are of legal age. And we can shoot off the aforementioned fireworks and guns pretty much wherever and whenever we want.

In other words we are free to blow ourselves up at will.
We just can't blow up a dolly with big red lips and openings in her lifelike vinyl self.

Forgotten man

Steve Tucker served a 10-year prison sentence for selling light bulbs. Is America's drug war worth it?

BY SCOTT HENRY


A LIFE ON THE MEND: When Steve Tucker emerged from prison a year ago, he was a 50-year-old man starting over from scratch, as reflected by his modestly furnished apartment.

A year has passed since Steve Tucker made his unheralded return to Atlanta.

His one-bedroom flat, tucked into a sprawling Sandy Springs apartment complex, is furnished sparsely: a recliner, TV, computer and a small, picnic-style table that serves as both dining hutch and desk. The stark white static of the walls is interrupted only by three small, web-like dream catchers tacked to the Sheetrock.

It's the sort of Spartan minimalism one might expect of someone who, until recently, had to content himself with staring at bare cinderblock.

"Watch out, you're talking to a notorious ex-con." Wrapped in a sharp Middle Georgia twang, Tucker's voice betrays a suppressed smile. The slight, balding, 50-year-old Atlantan is hardly an intimidating figure.

But he's only half-kidding. Nearly a decade ago, he was sent to prison as a result of a once-infamous federal drug case that sparked national outrage for its rough interpretation of justice.

In the spring of 1994, the Tucker family received lengthy prison sentences -- 10 years for Steve, 16 years for his older brother Gary, and 10 years for his brother's wife, Joanne -- without possibility of parole, for the curiously worded federal crime of "conspiracy to manufacture marijuana."

Yet federal prosecutors never charged them with buying, selling, growing, transporting, smoking or even possessing marijuana. An 18-month DEA investigation had failed to turn up direct evidence connecting the Tuckers to even a single joint.

Instead, they were locked away for selling the lamps, fertilizer and gardening hardware from the small hydroponic supply shop Gary operated on Buford Highway that enabled their customers to grow pot.

In the mid-'90s, the Tucker case became a cause celebre among libertarian activists and other advocates of marijuana legalization. It served as an oft-cited, cautionary example of the runaway powers of the federal government and the worst excesses of the War on Drugs.

And yet, in the long years since, the Tucker case has faded from the radar. No TV cameras or microphones awaited Steve Tucker when he finally shed his prison uniform and came home.

His mother would rather it remain that way. "I'm just scared to death of the federal government," she says. At the same time, Doris Gore realizes her son has an important story to tell.

And he's determined to tell it. As he reads weekly accounts of federal agents in California arresting licensed medical-marijuana growers, he's convinced he must speak out.

"The feds don't like it when you buck them, but I'll be damned if they break me," Tucker says. "What kind of American would I be if I just kept my mouth shut?"

Steve Tucker's nightmare began with the American dream.

The funny thing is, the dream initially belonged to his older brother Gary, a balding Vietnam veteran with a house in the suburbs and a comfortable marriage. For nearly two decades, he and Steve had worked side-by-side, installing commercial fire-control systems for a Buckhead company. But by the fall of 1987, Gary was 40 and he yearned to be his own boss.

Gary's choice of businesses was pioneering: a store devoted to hydroponics, the technique of growing plants without soil or sunlight, using only powerful lamps, chemical nutrients and a self-contained irrigation system. It was, Gary decided after some research, the "wave of the future."

Whose future, however, was the question. While hydroponics is highly effective at boosting vegetable growth, the systems are so costly as to be of practical use only to orchid breeders. And, of course, to marijuana growers, who are lured by the promise of high yields that could be produced in basements and attics, away from the prying eyes of authorities.

Gary wasn't naive. He knew his customer base would include few deep-pocketed tomato enthusiasts. But just as Wal-Mart doesn't ask if the handgun ammunition it sells will be used for target practice or hold-ups, the Tuckers decided it was best to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"Look, we weren't stupid," Steve says with a weary smile. "We figured a percentage of our customers were growing pot. But we had store rules that if anyone asked us about marijuana, we'd ask them to leave. What someone was planning to do with fertilizer or grow lights wasn't our concern. Most of the stuff we were selling, you could buy at Home Depot. We had a legitimate business."

To finance the start-up, Gary mortgaged his home in Gwinnett and, in the spring of 1988, his business opened in a small shopping center on the edge of Norcross. It was the first hydroponics store in Georgia.

The name Gary chose for his store -- Southern Lights And Hydroponics -- was a nod to a successful Mid-Atlantic chain called Northern Lights, which itself was named after a particularly potent strain of Alaskan weed.

Steve, who had begun making child-support payments after his 10-year marriage ended in divorce, kept his regular job, but helped out weekends in his brother's store. Joanne, who worked for an insurance company, kept her husband's books.

To compensate for hydroponics' somewhat questionable image, Gary wouldn't allow High Times, rolling papers or Mr. Natural posters to be sold in the store. Any product or packaging that arrived bearing the familiar hemp-leaf silhouette would promptly be shipped back. Adding to Southern Lights' air of respectability, the brothers were invited to install working hydroponic exhibits for the agriculture departments of Gwinnett Tech and a local high school.

That's not to say the Tucker brothers didn't enjoy a joint now and again. Gary had first smoked during his tour in Vietnam and Steve would get arrested in 1991 for growing his own stash at home. For that offense, he would serve six months in a county work-release program.

"Getting busted was just my dumb luck," Steve explains. "I used to smoke pot, but I wasn't dealing. I never claimed to be 100-percent innocent, but I never conspired with anybody to do anything illegal."

What the Tuckers didn't know while they were busy preparing to launch Southern Lights was that, in Washington, the DEA was grappling with how to go after the booming number of marijuana growers who were taking their crops indoors to avoid aerial detection.

A veteran agent had hit on the answer while flipping through an issue of High Times: Cut the burgeoning industry's supply lines by focusing the agency's attack on stores selling grow lights and hydroponic gear, dozens of which advertised in the pages of head-shop magazines.

Over the next two years, the DEA subpoenaed UPS shipping records for stores across the country. Agents went undercover to browse through hydroponic shops, follow up leads on pot farms and casually ask everyone with long hair where one could buy seeds.

The agency's aggressiveness showed how far the pendulum had swung since the heyday of the marijuana-reform movement, a decade earlier. At the close of the '70s, 11 states -- following the advice of the American Medical Association and even then-President Jimmy Carter -- had decriminalized simple possession. In 1981, the first bill to legalize medical-marijuana use was introduced in Congress. Its lead sponsor was a young, conservative Georgia lawmaker named Newt Gingrich.

Under Ronald Reagan, however, the tide swiftly turned. Even while the CIA was secretly helping Nicaraguan Contras smuggle vast amounts of cocaine into the president's home state of California, the administration was cracking down on domestic pot smokers, pushing for "zero tolerance" drug laws and scolding Americans to "Just Say No." By the end of the '80s, even socially progressive Oregon had again outlawed weed.

One month after the first President Bush pledged to escalate the War on Drugs in a Sept. 5, 1989, speech televised from the Oval Office, Operation Green Merchant went public. More than 200 indoor growing operations and 30 indoor-gardening shops and mail-order houses found themselves overrun with DEA agents.

One high-profile businessman caught in that first wave of busts was Tom Alexander, the owner of a small hydroponics store in Oregon and publisher of Sinsemilla Tips, considered by some marijuana advocates to be the thinking-man's High Times.

The DEA seized an estimated $55,000 in inventory from his store, but Alexander soon discovered it would be even more costly to fight the action in court. A few months later, he was forced to shutter his magazine as well.

Alexander had been financially ruined without ever being charged with a crime. It was an approach the feds would repeat with indoor-gardening stores from coast to coast, including all six locations of Northern Lights.

So perhaps Gary Tucker shouldn't have been surprised one day in the early weeks of 1992 when DEA Special Agent Kevin McLaughlin dropped by Southern Lights with an offer its owner wasn't expected to refuse. The feds would be much obliged, McLaughlin explained, if he'd let them install hidden cameras in the store so they could snoop on his customers. If he didn't, no effort would be spared in shutting down his 4-year-old business.

The conversation lasted probably all of five minutes, but its outcome would set into motion forces the Tuckers could scarcely imagine.

Gary would later tell his family that when he told McLaughlin to get lost, the agent "said they'd get him somehow," recalls his mother, Doris Gore.

Still disgusted by the idea of being pressured into being a government spy, Steve has never second-guessed his brother's response. "This isn't Nazi Germany," he says.

Sometime in late spring 1992, Gary Tucker realized his shop was being watched by a man sitting at a desk in an empty storefront across the street. Every time a car pulled into the Southern Lights parking lot, the mystery man would scribble something into a pad. From that point on, events unfolded quickly.

In May, Mike and Andrea Williams, customers who had become friends of Gary and Joanne, were busted by the DEA. The couple used a hydroponic system to grow marijuana for Mike, who was terminally ill and smoked to combat the pain and nausea.

One evening in July, the DEA's McLaughlin, accompanied by partner Mark Hadaway, paid a visit to Jorene Deakle, who worked with Gary as Southern Lights' store manager, and accused her and her husband of growing pot in their home.

Deakle testified two years later at the Tuckers' sentencing hearing that the agents had threatened to file charges and seize her house unless she agreed to spy on her employer for them. She said she was frightened into giving them names of Southern Lights customers she thought might be growing weed.

But the agents wouldn't let up, she testified, until she came with them to point out a house where she knew marijuana was being grown. As they were driving, Deakle told the judge, she picked a house at random so they finally would leave her alone.

The terrified Deakle called the agents several times a week to feed them tidbits of information; the investigation gained momentum. Agents followed customers home, pawed through their garbage, subpoenaed their utility bills and trained sophisticated infrared-imaging devices on their houses to look for concentrated heat sources.

Then the busts began in earnest, as one green thumb after another was caught red-handed. Don Switlick, a convicted drug trafficker, was found growing 114 plants with hydroponic equipment purchased at Southern Lights. Agents discovered a grow room in the Dawsonville home of Thomas Fordham, a high-school friend of Gary's. And, in September, Chuck Rothermel, who ran a car-customizing shop, was busted for a large crop of immature plants hidden in a nondescript warehouse he was renting in Forsyth County.

Of course, not every raid paid off. In one case, agents searched a startled family's home, only to discover that the husband was using the incriminating high-watt lamps in his tropical aquarium. In another, the suspect had never heard of the store; he'd been identified through his car, which his girlfriend had borrowed for the day.

Suffering from what Steve describes as a "nervous breakdown," Deakle mysteriously quit her job. The Tuckers would later find out she had also broken off contact with the DEA.

By October, Gary had adopted what could only be called an unusual business strategy, warning everyone who came into his store that they were being watched by federal agents. "We felt it was our obligation," Steve explains.

Gary even complained to the newspaper -- somewhat naively, in retrospect -- that the DEA was harassing customers buying legal products in an effort to drive him out of business.

McLaughlin responded by dropping by the store on occasion to remind the Tuckers of his promise to shut them down, Steve says. "He was always real cocky," he recalls. "Once, Joanne put him down, so he told her he'd killed her dog, just to upset her."

Their mother begged Gary to quit the hydroponics trade. "I wanted them to get rid of that store, but Gary said they weren't doing anything illegal," Doris Gore recalls. "He was adamant about keeping it open because he said it wasn't his business what other people did with the equipment he sold."

In December, Gary and Joanne went out to dinner and drinks with a friend, Mark Holmes, who kept steering the rambling, margarita-fueled conversation back to the subject of recreational marijuana use -- in large part because he was wearing a wire.

The DEA raided the Tuckers' home and store the following spring, carrying away boxes of business records, address books, photographs and various bric-a-brac. Southern Lights was padlocked, its entire inventory seized, and the agency began forfeiture proceedings against the couple's house, bank accounts, their new truck and a boat.

On June 18, 1993, nearly two years after Operation Green Merchant had arrived in Georgia, Gary, Steve and Joanne were arrested on federal drug conspiracy charges.

The Southern Lights investigation had uncovered, all told, more than 100 small, hemp-growing operations across north Georgia, and resulted in at least 30 arrests. Which meant at least 30 potential prosecution witnesses, who had already claimed many of the available drug-defense attorneys in Atlanta by the time the Tuckers went shopping for legal counsel.

Meeting by chance at a community gathering, Gary and Joanne were introduced to Nancy Lord, a trial lawyer and outspoken Libertarian activist who had been that party's 1992 vice-presidential candidate.

With only one major drug case on her resume, Lord had just moved to Atlanta to practice under the tutelage of prominent defense attorney Tony Axam. Lord and Axam signed on to separately represent Joanne and Gary, respectively. An acquaintance of Lord's was hired for Steve.

From the beginning, Lord was passionate about her assignment, appearing at press conferences and local forums to protest the Big Brother tactics of the federal drug war and attack the flimsiness of the government's case against the Tucker family.

Certainly, to the layperson, it would have appeared weak. Despite 18 months of constant surveillance, boxes of confiscated documents, dozens of confidential informants and the DEA's own terrified mole managing the store, the agency had failed to come up with any physical evidence linking Gary to his customers' crops.

No marijuana -- growing or dime-bagged -- was found in Southern Lights, Gary's house or Steve's apartment. No paper trail of drug deals. No incriminating messages. No videotaped handoffs of suspicious packages. No blurry photos of Gary inspecting a customer's harvest. No secretly recorded advice on the finer points of cultivating Maui Wowie.

After a $1 million investigation, the only tangible exhibits the feds had to show the jury were a set of precision scales that could have been used to weigh leafy contraband, and an old pipe that Gary and Joanne readily acknowledged they had used for smoking pot.

The government's sole weapon seemed to be a lengthy list of freshly indicted, former Southern Lights customers desperate to prove themselves useful enough on the witness stand for prosecutors to let them off lightly.

The Tuckers and Lord, however, failed to fully appreciate that federal conspiracy law is far less concerned with what you did than with what you knew.

"Conspiracy law has been the darling of federal prosecutors since the 1930s, because you don't need direct evidence to score a conviction," explains Axam, now recognized as one of Georgia's top death-penalty lawyers. "The reason they use it is because they may have no hard, physical evidence, but with conspiracy, they can bring in hearsay, rumor, innuendo."

Indeed, it's tough to imagine how anyone gets acquitted, considering the standard description of conspiracy law given to federal juries: "The fact that a defendant's acts appear not to be illegal when viewed in isolation does not bar his conviction. An act innocent in nature and of no danger to the victim or society suffices if it furthers the criminal venture."

Lord, who now specializes in patent law and FDA drug approval at her solo practice outside Las Vegas, admits she underestimated the far-reaching power of conspiracy law. "I was shocked that this little evidence could send someone up for 10 years," she says.

Still, why were prosecutors willing to let admitted pot-growers and convicted drug dealers off easy so they could nail a tax-paying businessman who hadn't been caught with any grass?

Doris Gore is convinced there was an element of vengeance in the DEA's pursuit of her sons because they had refused to roll over, to name names, to cop a plea. "They hated Gary because he wouldn't do what they said," she says.

She may be on to something. During the trial, Garfield Hammonds, then the Southeast's top DEA official, announced to the press that Gary was no mere entrepreneur: "He's a bum, he's a parasite, he's a master of deceit, he's a marijuana czar." Hammonds, who now sits on the state Board of Pardons and Parole, didn't return a CL phone call.

It didn't help that Joanne had followed Lord's lead in publicly baiting her accusers whenever the chance arose. "My husband is a political POW," she told one reporter. "We're fighting a political war, not a drug war."

Steve Tucker still believes he and Joanne were charged primarily as added leverage against Gary. When they wouldn't give him up, the government simply steamrolled over them as well.

Axam, who's since represented such high-profile defendants as Ray Lewis and Jamil Al-Amin, won't discuss the particulars of the Tuckers' defense, but he recalls vividly the feds' take-no-prisoners determination.

"The government had a clear policy that it didn't want hydroponics stores in business," he says. "If it looks long and hard enough at any industry it doesn't like, it can find those connections."

Scheduled to begin in federal court in November 1993, United States v. Gary Tucker et al got off to a spectacularly inauspicious start.

On the morning of jury selection, activists with the Fully Informed Jury Association -- a radical libertarian group that believes juries should be empowered to dismiss charges and reject unjust laws -- were handing out flyers to everyone entering the Russell Federal Building, effectively disqualifying an entire day's jury pool for the Northern District of Georgia.

When Chief Judge William O'Kelly, who was to preside over the trial, was told Lord had been seen outside exchanging pleasantries with one of the activists, he was livid. Their courtroom relationship went downhill from there.

Resuming the first week of January 1994, the trial lasted four days. Assistant U.S. Attorney James Harper oversaw a parade of a dozen or so nervous plea-bargain witnesses, some of whom testified that Gary, and to a lesser extent, Steve and Joanne, had given them hemp-growing tips. Several claimed Gary had bought pot from them or traded hydroponic equipment for high-end herb. One said he'd glimpsed a freezer crammed with weed in the couple's garage. Another said Gary offered to look after his buds while he was out of town. A couple said Gary had privately confirmed that the vast majority of his customers were breaking the law.

The defense, spearheaded by Lord, scored too few points to overcome the damage. One witness didn't believe the Tuckers had done anything illegal. Another recalled bragging about his hemp garden, only to have Gary tell him to get rid of it. Several acknowledged hoping their testimony would spare them prison time.

One former Southern Lights customer, a 66-year-old ex-con we'll call "Bob" (who spoke to CL on condition he not be named), now says DEA agents tried to coax him into claiming the Tuckers were growing pot at their house, but stopped short of asking him to lie.

"'You help us and we'll help you,' is how they put it," he explains.

When asked to wear a wire into the store, Bob agreed -- then fled the state rather than aid an investigation he believed was intent on "railroading" the business owners.

Even though he eventually testified after police tracked him down, Bob received a four-year sentence, rather than the 18-month stretch he'd initially been offered.

"I disappointed [prosecutors] because I didn't say what they wanted me to," he says. "To my knowledge, the Tuckers didn't do anything other than sell chemicals and lights -- except for indulging."

Steve's own years behind bars have taught him not to be shocked at what someone might say on the witness stand.

"I was in prison with people who'd swear their own mother was Hitler if it would help them," he says, shaking his head. "I'll never have another close friend. I'll never be able to trust anyone that way, now that I've seen what people will do to protect their freedom."

While he concedes that he can't speak for his brother's actions, Steve insists he never offered growing advice or swapped weed with customers -- although he shared a joint on occasion.

Plain-spoken to the point of abrasive, Nancy Lord continued to criticize the DEA, pointedly suggesting that witnesses had been coerced to lie.

When the judge warned her at one point that Agent McLaughlin wasn't the one on trial, she shot back: "He should be." O'Kelly fumed that he was citing her for contempt. "If I go to jail, I go to jail," she shrugged.

"Nancy had some balls," Steve recalls, laughing. "She stood up to that judge."

But Lord now reflects that her confrontational style didn't serve her clients well, a point made painfully clear when O'Kelly told her he believed Joanne likely would have been acquitted if she'd been defended in a more professional manner.

"My problem was, I was too angry," Lord says. "I wanted to make a political statement -- to argue against the drug war -- and I thought the jury would go along with me. Now, I'd probably urge the Tuckers to re-examine taking a plea agreement."

The trial's low point came when Joanne took the stand in her own defense. The same woman who'd given tough-talking speeches defending her family and denouncing government scare tactics suddenly sounded uncertain and evasive when confronted by prosecutors.

"Joanne fell apart on the stand," Lord says. "It really was sad to watch."

Despite widespread criticism of the nation's ongoing War on Drugs, there's at least one battle Uncle Sam has convincingly won, depending on your definition of victory.

First taking effect in 1989, mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines -- combined with the elimination of federal parole -- ensure that even the most casual, recreational drug-user can be kept off his subdivision streets for many long years while paying his debt to society -- and there's not a damn thing any bleeding-heart federal judge can do about it.

Supposedly intended to iron out the sentencing inconsistencies between various district courts, mandatory minimums instead have only magnified the racial disparity of the prison population. More than 43 percent of all U.S. prison inmates are black males, and blacks outnumber whites in prison by a margin of more than 5-to-4, according to Department of Justice statistics released in July.

Bruce Harvey, Georgia's leading drug defense attorney, considers mandatory-minimum sentencing to be part of a collection of immoral federal laws whose combined impact is "nothing more than political genocide on a whole group of people -- and it's getting worse."

Because a federal drug offender's punishment now is effectively determined by the charges rather than a judge's experienced sense of justice, sentencing power lies in the hands of prosecutor, where it's frequently wielded to compel a defendant to make some agent's job easier.

Before the trial began, says Steve: "I was offered 24 months instead of 10 years if I'd testify against Gary. When I said no, they asked me to testify against Joanne. I mean, my brother or my brother's wife, what's the difference?"

Even after the jury had returned guilty verdicts against all three Tuckers, the prosecutors offered Steve one last deal: Give up the names of any pot-growers who had escaped their dragnet and get off with only two years.

"I figure I'm a man, I make my own decisions, and I'm not going to tear someone else down to spare myself some time," he says. "I said, 'I'll do my 10 years.'"

The way the Tuckers arrived at that sentencing threshold, however, involved a stunning use of statutory sleight-of-hand.

When the DEA would bust a pot farm, each plant -- from the tiniest seedling up to mature bushes in full flower -- would count as one kilo of hemp. Then the agents would break out the calculators: Assume an annual yield of five crops, multiply by the projected time the suspect had been growing, add in the number of actual plants confiscated, convert to kilos and voila!, all equaling one serious prison sentence.

In the Southern Lights case, for instance, one customer was caught growing 80 actual plants, which, after a run-in with the DEA's conversion chart, had blossomed into an "estimated" 1,200 plants, speaking of manufacturing marijuana.

The Tuckers had been charged in relation to 1,000 kilos -- exactly the amount needed to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years -- which consisted mostly of theoretical weed. Gary received an additional six years for masterminding the criminal enterprise.

"To this day, we don't know whose plants we were charged with," Steve says. Not that it mattered. Whoever they belonged to, there were plenty where those came from.

As Agent McLaughlin explained to the judge: "I stopped computing at 16,000 plants."

The one bright spot in the trial seemed to be the jury's decision to deny the federal forfeiture of Gary and Joanne's house, presumably because of the absence of evidence that it was paid for with drug money.

Nancy Lord says the government's final dirty trick came when the DEA agreed to drop its claim to the property -- only to have the home seized by the state.

Steve and Gary's introduction to Club Fed was a temporary stay -- mingling with some of the same guys who'd snitched on them -- at the minimum-security prison camp next to the notorious Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.

"What you see in the movies about prisons is pretty much true about the Atlanta Pen," Steve says.

After a few months, they were transferred to Alabama, a trip Steve recalls with disbelief: "When I left the Atlanta Prison Camp, they gave me $75 and a set of street clothes. I took a cab, a bus and another cab, and reported to my new prison. If they could trust me to do that, obviously, I'm not the kind of guy who needs to be in prison."

Even as they settled into the cell they shared at Talladega Federal Correctional Institute, Gary and Steve's convictions were being condemned in newsletters and described in magazine articles, discussed at political forums and featured in a CNN special.

The family was the subject of a chapter in the 1998 book Shattered Lives: Portraits From America's Drug War. Co-author Mikki Norris of El Cerrito, Calif., says the Tuckers' case was one of the more disturbing she studied.

"It made me very paranoid to think that you could be convicted of completing a drug transaction without even knowing it," she says.

As the months and then years wore on, the media furor eventually died down and the brothers fell into the mind-numbing routine of prison life. To keep busy, Steve edited the inmate-produced newspaper, "Prose and Cons," and counted out his time: 54 days off each year automatically for good behavior, a year off for completing a voluntary drug-rehab course.

"You work, you eat, you read -- prison's a lot like a small town," he says. "I read over 600 novels, mostly psycho-thrillers, and I wrote a few, too."

But it wasn't all dull. In October 1995, much of the federal inmate population was following the progress of a congressional bill to reduce the penalties for crack possession -- retroactively, for many already serving time.

One morning, news came that the bill had failed; a foreboding silence fell over the prison the rest of the day, Steve recalls. That evening, he says, word spread throughout the cafeteria that a California prison was rioting in protest of the vote in Washington. A few minutes later, the whole place erupted.

"We feared for our lives that night," Steve says. "The inmates tore that prison to hell. It was really harrowing."

Later, they found out the rumor about the California prison had been a hoax. Instead, it was the Talladega riot -- which caused $3 million in damages and left several buildings burned -- that had touched off at least three similar episodes in other states.

That same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission downgraded the conversion weight for a marijuana plant from 1 kilo to 100 grams. Gary petitioned to have his sentence reduced accordingly, but Steve didn't file his own request out of concern it might somehow hurt his brother's chances.

Finally, in 1998, Judge O'Kelly reduced Gary's sentence to 10 years. In the end, it didn't make any difference.

Last December, five days after Steve was released from the halfway house where he'd spent the last few months of his sentence, Gary died of cancer at Emory Hospital.

He had been sick for a nearly a year, but prison officials refused to take his illness seriously until it was too late, his mother says.

"They'd give him an aspirin and send him back to his cell until he'd pass out and then they'd take him to the hospital," Gore says.

Steve was able to see Gary toward the end, but Joanne -- who'd been transferred from a Connecticut woman's prison to a Macon halfway house -- wasn't allowed to visit her husband the week before he died.

The diagnosis was non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer closely associated with exposure to Agent Orange, the deadly herbicide used in Vietnam. It would seem Gary's government had succeeded in killing him after all.

Even though his prison sentence has been served and he's returned to his old job, Steve Tucker wouldn't call himself a free man. Not when he has to call in every morning for the next four years so a recorded message can tell him whether he's been randomly selected to pee in a cup that day. Not since he had to give up his lifelong pastime of hunting because he can never again hold a gun. Not after he's seen politicians get elected on the promise to pass more draconian drug laws, and knowing he's forever lost his right to vote.

For the first time in nearly a decade, Steve brought his son and daughter, in their mid-teens, to spend Thanksgiving with his mother in Cochran, a half-hour south of Macon. He was required to seek written approval from his probation officer weeks in advance of the visit.

"When I got out, I had to learn my way around Atlanta again, but I went back to work like I'd never left; there was no adjustment problem," he says. "The hardest part is the probation, because you have to get permission to do just about everything."

In prison, Steve met guys who told him they had violated their probation on purpose because another 16 months in the big house was better than three more years of having people always looking over your shoulder, waiting for you to fuck up.

The thing about federal prison that made the biggest impression on Steve was how many inmates were much like himself: small-time, non-violent offenders serving big-time sentences for reasons that made little sense.

"Even if I was guilty, 10 years seems excessive when there were bank robbers who were in there for two or three years, and I got 10 years for selling light bulbs," he says, his voice rising as if framing a question.

"This drug war forced two little kids to grow up without their dad and my ex-wife to go without child-support for eight years, and for what?" he continues. "I'm not saying I'm above the law, but I know in my heart I'm not the type of person who needed to be in prison."

And yet, once there, the outrageousness of his circumstances blended into a background of statistics: He simply became another of the anonymous drug offenders who make up 57 percent of all federal inmates.

If anything, the War on Drugs has only built momentum through the political backing of such powerful interest groups as prison guard unions; the billion-dollar drug-testing industry; private prison construction and management companies; and, of course, the DEA, which commands a $1.8-billion budget and has, in the past 30 years, more than tripled the number of special agents on its payroll.

Over the last decade, drug convictions have accounted for more than 80 percent of the growth of the federal prison population, so it's hardly surprising that, as the drug war swirled outside, amassing new victims, Steve Tucker was essentially forgotten.

His sister-in-law, Joanne, now remarried and relocated, wants to forget as well. Declining to be interviewed, she explains: "Digging up something from 10 years ago isn't going to help anything now."

Trying to piece together a ruined life takes time, but there's a freedom that comes with starting over, and Steve is hoping to write his own second act.

He's looking for a literary agent to publish one of the novels he wrote in prison, a mystery set in a town modeled loosely on Cochran. As they say, you write what you know.

"People ask me if I'm going to write about everything I've been through, but I don't think so," he says wistfully. "Who wants to read about some guy who got busted for pot?"

Beer runners’ flour trail a recipe for trouble

Pair arrested after marking a powdery path through IKEA parking lot

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Two people who sprinkled flour in a parking lot to mark a trail for their offbeat running club inadvertently caused a bioterrorism scare and now face a felony charge.

The sprinkled powder forced hundreds to evacuate an IKEA furniture store Thursday.

New Haven ophthalmologist Daniel Salchow, 36, and his sister, Dorothee, 31, who is visiting from Hamburg, Germany, were both charged with first-degree breach of peace, a felony.

The siblings set off the scare while organizing a run for a local chapter of the Hash House Harriers, a worldwide group that bills itself as a “drinking club with a running problem.”

“Hares” are given the task of marking a trail to direct runners, throwing in some dead ends and forks as challenges. On Thursday, the Salchows decided to route runners through the massive IKEA parking lot.

Police fielded a call just before 5 p.m. that someone was sprinkling powder on the ground. The store was evacuated and remained closed the rest of the night. The incident prompted a massive response from police in New Haven and surrounding towns.

Flouring the road from coast to coast
Daniel Salchow biked back to IKEA when he heard there was a problem and told officers the powder was just harmless flour, which he said he and his sister have sprinkled everywhere from New York to California without incident.

“Not in my wildest dreams did I ever anticipate anything like that,” he said.

Mayoral spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said the city plans to seek restitution from the Salchows, who are due in court Sept. 14.

“You see powder connected by arrows and chalk, you never know,” she said. “It could be a terrorist, it could be something more serious. We’re thankful it wasn’t, but there were a lot of resources that went into figuring that out.”

Terror Suspect List Yields Few Arrests

By Ellen Nakashima

The government's terrorist screening database flagged Americans and foreigners as suspected terrorists almost 20,000 times last year. But only a small fraction of those questioned were arrested or denied entry into the United States, raising concerns among critics about privacy and the list's effectiveness.

A range of state, local and federal agencies as well as U.S. embassies overseas rely on the database to pinpoint terrorism suspects, who can be identified at borders or even during routine traffic stops. The database consolidates a dozen government watch lists, as well as a growing amount of information from various sources, including airline passenger data. The government said it was planning to expand the data-sharing to private-sector groups with a "substantial bearing on homeland security," though officials would not be more specific.

Few specifics are known about how the system operates, how many people are detained or turned back from borders, or the criteria used to identify suspects. The government will not discuss cases, nor will it confirm whether an individual's name is on its list.

Slightly more than half of the 20,000 encounters last year were logged by Customs and Border Protection officers, who turned back or handed over to authorities 550 people, most of them foreigners, Customs officials said. FBI and other officials said that they could not provide data on the number of people arrested or denied entry for the other half of the database hits. FBI officials indicated that the number of arrests was small.

The government says the database is a powerful tool for identifying and tracking suspected terrorists and for sharing intelligence, and that its purpose is not necessarily to make arrests. But the new details about the numbers, disclosed in an FBI budget document and in interviews, raise questions about the database's effectiveness and its impact on privacy, critics said. They argued that the number of hits relative to arrests was alarmingly high and indicated that the threshold for including someone on a watch list was too low, potentially violating thousands of Americans' civil liberties when they are stopped.

David Sobel, senior counsel with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy organization, said the numbers "suggest a staggeringly high rate of false positives with respect to the identification of supposed terrorists." He added that "this really confirms the long-standing fear that this list is inaccurate and ultimately ineffective as an anti-terrorism tool."

Jayson P. Ahern, deputy commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said focusing on arrests misses "a much larger universe" of suspicious U.S. citizens.

"There are many potentially dangerous individuals who fly beneath the radar of enforceable actions and who are every bit as sinister as those we intercept," he said.

The database is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, a joint operation between the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Rick Kopel, the TSC's deputy director, called it "one of the best things the government has been able to accomplish since 9/11."

The government said private-sector entities with a "substantial bearing on homeland security" could also gain access to the data, which is kept for 99 years, according to a notice in the Federal Register this week.

The watch list includes information from the Transportation Security Administration's air passenger "no-fly" list, the State Department's Consular Lookout and Support System list and the FBI's Violent Gang and Terrorist Organizations File.

To be included in the database, a person must be "a known or suspected terrorist such as those who finance terrorist activities, are known members of a terrorist organizations, terrorist operatives, or someone that provides material support to a terrorist or terrorist organization," said Michelle Petrovich, a spokesman for the Terrorist Screening Center. According to the Justice Department's inspector general, the database contained at least 235,000 records as of last fall.

Using the database, U.S. and international authorities prevented "numerous attempts" at entry into the United States by an Egyptian citizen, Omar Ahmed Ali, who went on in 2005 to commit a suicide bombing in Qatar that killed one British citizen and injured 12, Petrovich said.

Many U.S. citizens are stopped, questioned and, if no arrest warrant is pending, released. They are not told their watch-list status. To do so, the government says, could tip off suspects that they are likely to be questioned or detained.

Some travelers who are repeatedly stopped can only speculate that they are on the watch list.

Abe Dabdoub, 39, and his wife, both U.S. citizens, live in a Cleveland suburb. He said he has been detained 21 times at Michigan's border with Canada since last August. Dabdoub, who works for an electronics manufacturing company, said he has even begun to keep a spreadsheet. The first four times, he said, he was handcuffed. Once, his wife had to plead with the agents not to handcuff him in front of their 5- and 7-year-old boys, he said. The agents know him so well by now that they call him by his first name. Every time he asks them why he is being stopped, Customs officers tell him, "We can't tell you, for national security reasons," he said.

Customs officials declined to comment on his case.

Agencies nominate names to the list based on rigorous, classified criteria, Kopel said. The TSC has created a redress unit that ensures that watch-list and source information is accurate, officials said. Since 2005, the unit has resolved more than 90 percent of the several hundred complaints it has received, including by deleting names or adjusting data.

Each watch-list hit is a "positive encounter" -- what the government says is a conclusive match against the database -- by a customs officer or other official with an American or foreigner. U.S. citizens, if there is no arrest warrant, cannot be denied entry. About half of the encounters take place at land borders, airports or seaports. Other travelers are flagged at consular offices or by state and local police.

The number of hits has surged since the second half of fiscal 2004, when the database was created. That year, the FBI reported 5,396 encounters, with some people having multiple encounters. In 2005, 15,730 hits were logged. Next year, the FBI projects 22,400 hits.

FBI officials said the rising numbers result from wider information-sharing among international, federal, state and local authorities.

"A lot of times it's not to our advantage to make an arrest," FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said. "We don't want the subject to know what we know. It doesn't mean we're not paying attention. On the contrary, it shows that we're being very proactive in trying to identify threats."

But Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, said growing use of this database magnifies the consequences of errors that are entered into it.

"There needs to be a reliable way to correct bad information and protect the innocent," he said.

The government's system casts too broad a net, and its definition of who should be watch-listed is too broad, said Harvey Grossman, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which has filed a class-action lawsuit against the government on behalf of 10 Muslim Americans who allege they were detained and mistreated after being placed on a watch list without grounds. People with only distant casual contact with a suspect might be listed, he said. "What you eventually get is a worthless list of people."

In rare cases, citizens have discovered they are on the watch list.

Francisco "Kiko" Martinez, a Colorado lawyer and civil-rights activist, said he was detained twice in recent years by police officers who pulled him over on traffic stops and held him in one case more than three hours, and in another, in handcuffs. Through legal proceedings, Martinez obtained police reports that revealed his watch-list status.

"A driver's license check revealed [Martinez] as a possible individual having ties with terrorism," a state trooper wrote after a 2004 stop near Chicago, according to one report.

Last year, Martinez sued the federal government, claiming that he was unlawfully detained and that he was included on a watch list as a result of his political activities.

Last month, he won a $106,500 settlement from federal, state and tribal authorities. Though the settlement did not address any of the underlying constitutional claims, Martinez asserted that it "shows that I shouldn't have been on this terrorism watch list in the first place" and that "the government is misusing this so-called war against terrorism to target its domestic political opponents."

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the department declined to comment on the case.

Jim McMahon, chief of staff for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents 18,000 state and local police agencies across the country, said the database helps police officers "make a better judgment" about whether to detain a person. One of the 9/11 hijackers, Ziad Samir Jarrah, was ticketed for going 95 miles per hour on Interstate 95 in Maryland two days before the attacks, he said. "Today, chances are he would have been on the list," he said.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Moving the homeless out of shelters, into homes

A new approach is being heralded not only as more successful in fighting chronic homelessness, but more cost effective.


Two weeks ago, Moises and Jennifer Cedano expected to spend the next four to six months in a homeless shelter while they saved enough money for a deposit to rent an apartment.

Today they watch two of their three children, Timothy and Francisco, jump with joy on a new bed in a new apartment.

They rented the place with help from the city's Department of Homeless Services, which decided that in the long run, it will be less expensive to help the family get stabilized in their own apartment than to have them cycle into the shelter system.

The Cedanos' experience is a reflection of a fundamental transformation in thinking about homelessness and the new model's success in combating what was once thought to be an intractable social problem.

New focus for urban homelessness

From New York to Dallas to Seattle, cities across the country are focusing not just on emergency shelter, but on getting the homeless homes. As a result, they're seeing reductions in the numbers of chronically homeless people on their streets and in their shelters. The movement, known as Housing First, has had the most success in moving the chronically homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicted into housing complexes with social services, like counseling. That's proved to be more effective and less expensive than leaving people on the streets or in shelters. Now, the concept is being expanded and adapted to help the growing number of potentially homeless families like the Cedanos, giving them short-term help in getting back on their feet and, where possible, long-term help with rent subsidies.

"There's a paradigm shift occurring," says Dennis Culhane, a homelessness expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "The successes ... achieved among chronically homeless adults have led people to understand that that same paradigm shift can apply to all homeless families."

Chronic homelessness first gained widespread attention in the United States in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A major cause of its increased frequency was the de-institutionalization movement designed to get the mentally ill out of institutions and into community settings. For a variety of reasons, including lack of funding, many people ended up homeless instead. During the 1990s, a second wave of homeless people appeared in shelters: families who couldn't afford the skyrocketing cost of housing. And the homeless population ticked steadily upward.

Initially, shelters focused on helping people with psychiatric needs and drug addictions first, and worried about getting them homes afterward. With families, too, social service workers focused on job training and other help before placing them in homes.

Management vs. prevention

Homeless experts began to question that approach when they realized they were managing the homeless problem, not solving it. That's when they pioneered the Housing First concept, targeting the toughest homeless cases, the mentally ill and drug addicts who cycled through homeless shelters, emergency rooms, detox centers, and psychiatric hospitals. Professor Culhane's studies in the 1990s found this population accounted for about 10 percent of the people in shelters – but used more than 50 percent of the resources Moving these people into apartments with rent subsidies and support services was not only more humane, but more cost effective.

"It was a less expensive response than having these people being out on the street or in long-term shelter," says Philip Mangano, executive director of the Unites States Interagency Council on Homelessness. "That's because this is a population that randomly ricochets into very expensive primary and behavioral health systems costing between $30,000 and $150,000 per person per year."

Providing supportive housing, on the other hand, costs between $13,000 and $25,000 a year, says Mr. Mangano.

A study of one supportive-housing initiative in Boston released earlier this month by the Urban Institute found that the average client ended up in the hospital 102 times in the two years before getting into supportive housing. That dropped to seven days in the two years after getting into a home, saving the state $20,000 just in hospital costs. "Solving this problem turns out to be less expensive than managing it," says Mangano.

Almost 300 communities across the the country have now committed to 10-year plans to end homelessness. The federal government, under Mangano's leadership, is also asking for a record a $4.4 billion dollars in 2008 to spur the development of more supportive-housing complexes.

That success in dealing with the chronically homeless has prompted New York and other cities to experiment with similar philosophies for family homelessness. The city is taking a three-pronged approach: prevention, trying to help people with crises before they lose their homes, with an array of services from cash to pay-back rent to counseling and legal services to intervene with landlords; a short-term subsidy program to help families stabilize financially; and a diversion program that's designed to prevent families like the Cedanos from ending up in the homeless system in the first place.

The Cedanos' path to 'housing first'

The Cedanos had been living with Jennifer's mother. When she moved out of state, the family couldn't afford their own apartment, so they applied for shelter. Because Moises works – he's an electrician's assistant – social workers at the homeless intake center diverted him to the city's HomeBase program. The $12 million dollar program, founded in 2004, provides intensive case-work services and flexible financial assistance. The Cedanos' primary problem was that they couldn't afford a deposit on an apartment large enough for them with three children and a fourth on the way. So CAMBA, the nonprofit that provides HomeBase services for the city in Brooklyn's Bushwick neighborhood, found the family an apartment, paid their deposit, and is helping them get a Section 8 voucher, which will give them a long-term rent subsidy. It's also going to help pay for training so that Mr. Cedano can become certified as a licensed electrician – a step up from his current job.

"This is a community-based effort to help people remain in their homes," says Robert Hess, commissioner of New York's Department of Homeless Services. "That's some of the best 'housing first' you can do."

Currently, New York has HomeBase programs in the six communities that had the highest percentage of people coming into the shelter system. While the number of people entering shelters around the city dropped 7 percent overall since 2004, the HomeBase communities saw a drop of 12 percent. Next year, Mr. Hess hopes to expand the program citywide. The budget will jump to $20 million by 2010.

A difficult question of greatest need

While critics applaud efforts to reduce chronic homelessness, there's also concern the focus on prevention and diversion takes resources away from families that are already homeless. Patrick Markee, senior. policy analyst at the Coalition for the Homeless, notes that while homelessness of chronic adults is down as much as 13 percent in the city, the number of homeless families is at a record high, with as many as 9,000 families in shelters on a given night. He points out that as the Bush administration is spending more on some homeless services, it's cutting funds to develop more affordable housing. He also believes the city should focus on providing long-term rent subsidies.

"Families that leave shelter and have either Section 8 vouchers or move into public housing have the very lowest rates of return to shelter," he says.

While the Cedanos wait for an answer on their Section 8 application, HomeBase will help pay their rent.

"We have that kind of flexibility that a lot of other organizations don't," says Melissa Mowery, CAMBA's HomeBase director.

The Cedanos are still shocked they didn't end up in shelter. "But I had faith ... everything would work out," says Moises. He's hoping that all of his kids, including the one on the way, will grow up in this apartment.


Friday, August 24, 2007

Boy in court for throwing sausage

LONDON (Reuters) - A 12-year-old British boy appeared in court Wednesday charged with assault for throwing a sausage at a pensioner, police said.

The boy's mother described the decision to charge her son as "an absolute joke," although police said they had no choice.

The youth, who can't be named, was arrested after a 74-year-old man reported him to police for throwing a stone in Manchester, northern England.

The object turned out to be a cocktail sausage.

"Charging was the only option because the boy had previously been issued with three reprimands on separate occasions," a Greater Manchester Police spokeswoman said.

Police and prosecutors have launched a joint review of the case after a judge at Manchester Youth Court reportedly urged them to reconsider.

"If he has done what was suggested it is very bad behavior," District Judge Tim Devas was reported as saying in the Manchester Evening News. "But is it in the public interest to prosecute a 12-year-old boy who threw a sausage?"

The boy's mother said her son was worried he might be sent to prison.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Student Suspended For Drawing Gun

A 13-year-old student who drew a picture of a gun on his homework at Payne Junior High School in Queen Creek was initially suspended for at least five days, but his father was able to slash it to three days.The Mosteller family moved to Chandler from Colorado Springs only four weeks ago, but it's not the kind of greeting Paula Mosteller said she was expecting.Her 13-year-old son was suspended from school because he drew a picture of a gun on homework."My son is a very good boy," Mosteller said.


"He doesn't get into trouble. There was nothing on the paper that would signify that it was a threat of any form," she said.The principal at Payne Junior High School kept the actual drawing.The picture was enough to get him suspended, initially, for five days."He was just basically doodling and not thinking a lot about it," Mosteller said.CBS 5 News tried to get more details from the Chandler Unified School District but were told, "Federal privacy law forbids the school or district from discussing student discipline.""We're not advocates for guns," Mosteller said.

"We don't have guns in our home. We don't promote the use of guns. My son was just basically doodling on a piece of paper," she said.After the father went to the school and talked to the principal, the suspension was trimmed to three days.

CBS 5 News investigated the rules students must follow while at school. There's nothing in a portion of the student handbook that addresses conduct to indicate the drawing of a weapon poses threat.There is a rule that says students should not engage in "Threatening an educational institution by interference with or disruption of the school."

<and if there was?>

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Sometimes it just works out alright anyway...

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Hear ye, hear ye, MP3...

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's top lawyer decided on Thursday that no action would be taken against a Muslim woman accused of listening to an MP3 music player under her hijab while on jury duty.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was thrown off the jury considering a murder trial when one of her fellow jurors reported seeing headphone wires coming out of her headscarf.

Attorney General Baroness Patricia Scotland had "carefully" considered the case and decided not to press criminal charges, saying it would be too difficult to prove if the woman was guilty, a spokeswoman for her office said.

"(She) has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving beyond reasonable doubt any alleged contempt of court," the spokeswoman said.

The suspected incident had occurred during a trial in June at London's Blackfriars Court of a man accused of bludgeoning his wife to death.

The case was briefly halted while the woman, who could have been jailed if found guilty of contempt, was discharged from the jury and arrested.

The Crown Prosecution Service said there had been contempt cases where people had taken pictures using mobile phones in court, but it was believed to be the first of its kind involving a juror suspected of listening to music.

Police Blotter: MySpace profile becomes part of rape conviction

Man charged with statutory rape wants to use as evidence victim's MySpace.com page that falsely claimed she was 18 years old.

What: Ohio man charged with statutory rape says he thought a 13-year-old girl was actually 18. He notes that her MySpace.com page falsely said she was.

When: Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth District, rules on August 13.

Outcome: Court says the MySpace page was correctly excluded as evidence and upholds his conviction.

What happened, according to court records and other documents:
On June 21, 2005, two young teenage girls decided to spend the night at the home of Billy L. Gaskins, a Brunswick, Ohio, man who lived in the same apartment complex.

Gaskins was friendly with the family of one of the girls, referred to in court documents by the abbreviation KR, who was 14 years old at the time. KR's parents gave their permission for the two girls and their son to sleep over.

The girls, KR and CM, and KR's brother, JW, who was 9 or 10 years old, went over to Gaskins' apartment around midnight. The girls voluntarily entered Gaskins' bedroom soon afterward, either while he was taking a shower or when he was done. CM was 13 years old and is not related to KR.

That much is undisputed. The stories diverge over what happened next.

The girls say Gaskins was drinking beer and smoking marijuana, and began to massage their backs. CM says he undressed her and raped her. KR backs up her story.

The girls returned to the apartment of KR's family soon afterward but didn't say anything at the time. KR told her mother that she had a headache, and the two girls went to bed. They saw Gaskins in a nearby pool a day or two afterward but didn't speak to him.

Gaskins was arrested after the girls reported the incident a few days later, and a police test showed semen in CM's pajama pants that turned out to be Gaskins'.

For his part, Gaskins denied the charges. He said CM told him that her birth date was August 18, 1987, making her 18 years old at the time (though he later testified that she had told him that her birth date was June 19, 1987). He also testified that CM looked older than KR, who also had claimed to be 18, and that CM had initiated manual foreplay. He said that explains the semen and claims that no intercourse took place.

CM denied that she ever told Gaskins that she was 18 years old.

Gaskins was indicted on July 7, 2005, and charged with rape and unlawful sexual conduct with CM, and unlawful sexual conduct with KR. He was acquitted of the KR charge but convicted of the CM charges and sentenced to 5 years in prison. (Note that this is a shorter prison sentence than some people have received for merely downloading child pornography.)

What makes this case relevant to Police Blotter is that Gaskins insists that he believed CM was 18 years old. He wanted to show the jury CM's public MySpace profile, which claimed that she was 18 and said she had been in a sexual relationship with an adult.

The trial judge refused to admit the MySpace profile as evidence, and the appeals court agreed. On Monday, the Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth District, upheld Gaskins' conviction and sentence.

Excerpt from Ohio Court of Appeals' opinion:
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that CM held herself out as an 18-year-old on a Web site. We disagree.

It is well-established in Ohio that "the admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court." An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's ruling as to the admissibility of evidence, absent an abuse of discretion and a showing of material prejudice by the opposing party.

At trial, appellant sought to introduce evidence that CM held herself out as an 18-year-old on the Web site MySpace and further that she held herself out as having been in a sexual relationship with an adult. The record reflects the following exchange regarding this evidence:

Appellant's counsel: "I would have liked to question (CM) with respect to (MySpace.com), eliciting testimony about (CM) having a site on (MySpace.com), that she held herself out as being significantly older than she is, perhaps 18 or older, and she would have held herself out as having been in a sexual relationship with someone who is an adult.

"I would offer that, and would like it admitted in order to show that (CM) was holding herself out to the world, including my client, as someone older than she is."

Court: "But you have no evidence he saw this?"

Appellant's counsel: "That is correct."

Court: "You don't know if it was done before the date of the assault?"

Appellant's counsel: "That is correct, Your Honor."

The trial court later reiterated its position on this evidence, stating, "The problem is not what she looked like in February (2006) or October. The problem is what she looked like on June 23rd. That is the relevance, that is the relevant thing. In other words, the state of Ohio is arguing that he was reckless, that either he knew the age of the victims, the alleged victims, or he was reckless with regard to their age. So therefore, what becomes relevant is how they looked around June 23rd, not how they looked in October, not how they looked in February, not how they looked in December, but how they looked around June of 2005."

Here, the trial court permitted introduction of the photographs that were posted on the MySpace Web site. Further, the trial court permitted Appellant's friend, Ms. Harris, to testify regarding the photographs and whether they accurately depicted what CM looked like at the end of June 2005. The court merely prohibited questioning regarding the Web site. Appellant's counsel agreed that he had no proof that appellant ever saw the Web site.

More importantly, neither party disputed that this Web site was created after the incident in question. Whether CM represented herself as 18 years old after the incident occurred is not relevant. This case centers around appellant's belief regarding CM's age at the time of the incident. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's exclusion of this evidence.

Smile … Or Else

'Behavior Detection Officers’ are now watching passengers’ facial expressions for signs of danger.

It’s a new level of absurdity for America.

By Patti Davis

Aug. 16, 2007 - It was bound to happen. Now even a frown or grimace can get you into trouble with The Man.

Specially trained security personnel” will be watching passengers for “micro-expressions” that will reveal treacherous agendas and insidious intentions at airports around the country. These agents, who may literally hold your fate in their hands have been given a lofty, Orwellian name: "Behavior Detection Officers."

Did anyone ever doubt that George Orwell’s prophecies in “1984” would arrive? In that novel, he wrote, “You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

In the study of “micro-expressions”—yes, it is actually a field of study and there are some who are arrogant enough to call it a science—it has been decided that when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. These experts have determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception.

Let’s see, fear and disgust in an airport? I’m frightened and disgusted weeks before I have to show up at an airport. In fact, I’ve pretty much sworn off the whole idea of going anywhere by airplane. It’s bad enough that I might be trapped in a crowded plane with no food or water and nonworking toilets for hours; now there are security agents interpreting our facial expressions. The face police, in place at more than a dozen U.S. airports already, aren’t identified as such. But the watcher could be at curbside baggage, the ticket counter or near the metal detectors and X-ray machines. The Transportation Security Administration hopes to have as many as 500 Behavior Detection Officers on the job by the end of 2008.

But what about the woman who is getting on a plane to see a dying relative? Or the man who is traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist in a last bid for extending his life? What about the guy who just had a fight with his spouse and now worries that a plane crash would mean their last words were in anger? We’ve all had the experience of having a bad day, being in a rotten mood—especially at the airport, which has become a modern-day chamber or horrors. On those days, doesn’t it seem like everyone we meet looks sour and unpleasant? The opposite is also true. When we’re happy and joyful, we look at others and see happiness in them. Or even if we don’t, we look at them kindly and with compassion. It’s human nature to look at others through the lens of our own reality.

Here’s where it gets really absurd. Apparently, these Behavior Detection Officers work in pairs. One scenario is that an officer might move in to “help” a passenger retrieve their belongings after they’ve been screened. And then the officer will ask where the passenger is headed. If the passenger’s reaction sets off alarm bells in the officer’s well-trained mind, another officer will move in and detain them. Let’s be really clear here. If a stranger moved in on me like that, I’d tell that person to go to hell, throw in a few other expletives for good measure and probably give them the finger as I stomped off. Of course, I wouldn’t be stomping very far.

So while TSA employees are confiscating our scissors and water bottles, they’re going to secretly be staring at us, looking for some telltale sign of terrorist intent in a grimace, a sigh, a crinkled nose? Who knows what? In the end, the Behavior Detection Officers are the ones who are really acting suspicious. Which is the truth of the matter anyway.

Gone in a ZIP: researchers erase long-term memories with chemicals

By John Timmer

It might be time to forget a lot of what you remember about memory. Although transient memories are largely the product of chemical processes in the neurons of the brain, it has been thought that the long-term consolidation of memories involves permanent changes. Proposals for this long-term storage include prion-like alterations in protein structures and rewiring of the connections among brain cells. But a study appearing in today's issue of Science suggests that memories remain a transient chemical property of the brain even weeks after they're formed.

A lot of work had shown that a protein called protein kinase M zeta (PKMζ) was involved in the consolidation of a subset of memories. The authors of the new article decided to see if memories of aversive tastes were among them. They introduced rats to a new taste (saccharine) and then injected them with a nausea-inducing salt. Normally, the rats remember the taste and avoid anything with saccharine in it. Injections of a PKMζ inhibitor called ZIP into the brain's cortex a few days after, while memory consolidation might still be in progress, blocked the formation of long-term memories. The rats would happily drink saccharine-laced water, despite the earlier bout of nausea.

This was all pretty consistent with past results. But then the authors performed an experiment that I can only assume was expected to act as a control: they injected ZIP at one week and at 25 days. The surprising result was that these later injections worked just as well as the earlier one had. By 25 days, a memory is generally considered as permanent as they get, yet a dose of ZIP in the cortex erased the averse association from the rats' minds. Testing for several weeks afterwards suggested that, once gone, these memories never come back.

The team went on to perform a set of experiments that, depending on your perspective, are either fascinating or disturbing. Some rats were put through two rounds of aversion training, followed a week later by a test that showed they found saccharine repellent. One day later, a single injection of ZIP eliminated the aversion. One dose of ZIP could also eliminate aversion from two different chemicals, memorized two days apart.

It's hard to tell what the limits of ZIP-mediated memory erasure are, given that the test subjects are rats. There were some things it did not affect, though. Rats are normally hesitant about unfamiliar tastes, a hesitancy that goes away with familiarity. Hitting the cortex with ZIP was unable to eliminate this sense of familiarity.

It's pretty hard to square these results with any general models of memory consolidation that involve permanent structural changes in the brain. Structural changes may still play a role—it's technically possible that different areas of the brain store memories in a different manner—but it's not clear why the brain would need more than one way of approaching the same problem.

Before you get excited about the idea of wiping every past rejection out of your mind, please remember that the procedure involves jabbing needles into your cortex, and there's absolutely no way to control the process. You're just as likely to lose your aversion to stepping off the curb and into rush-hour traffic.

Back-to-School Supplies: Books, Pens, Body Armor

Companies Sell Students on Bulletproof Backpacks and Stab-Resistant Uniforms


Parents shopping for school supplies probably haven't thought to include body armor on their lists, but after recent school shootings including April's Virginia Tech massacre, two companies are marketing armored backpacks and uniforms.

"Back in '99 following the Columbine shootings, me and my buddy Joe Curran — both of us are parents of two children — wondered if there was anything out there in the world to protect children in school if there was a shooting," Mike Pelonzi, co-inventor of My Child's Pack, a bulletproof backpack, told ABCNEWS.com.

Pelonzi said the bags would have been effective in defending users from the sorts of weapons used in 97 percent of school shootings since 1999. The bags sell for $175.

Pelonzi said he was a firearms safety instructor and Curran is a former member of the military.

It was still too early to know how many bags they had sold, he said, but their Web site received more than 12,000 hits in its first two days.

YouTube Demo

In a homemade commercial posted on YouTube, a young girl demonstrates how the backpack can be held in front of the body to fend off a shot. The bags are also seen being shot at with various firearms.

Across the Atlantic, the British company Bladerunner responded to a number of stabbing attacks on schoolchildren by lining the blazers of students' uniforms with Kevlar.

"Just in the last week I have heard from parents that problems with school violence are increasing. Some parents have been saying they have to instruct their children to go to school without money, or without their mobile phones. Kids have to take off their school ties so they're not attacked," Barry Samms, the company's founder, told ABCNEWS.com from the United Kingdom.

Bladerunner, he said, initially began lining hooded sweatshirts with Kevlar and started applying the process to school uniforms after it was approached by several parents.

The stab-resistant blazers sell for $230.

But school safety experts aren't convinced that sending kids to school with body armor is the best way to protect them.

"There is a huge difference between feeling safer and actually being safer," said Kenneth Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services. "Ideas like bulletproof backpacks and arming teachers are not the answer."

Furthermore, because weapons are so often concealed in bags, many schools are curbing the use of backpacks in classrooms and hallways. In many high-risk inner-city schools students are required to carry see-through backpacks.

Real or Imagined Safety?

"Even if kids carried backpacks all day, they wouldn't have them when sitting at lunch or in class. … You could propose having Kevlar helmets and flak jackets. It's still not going to give parents the guarantee that their children will be safe," he said.

The best way to protect students, Trump said, is to train children and teachers to recognize potentially dangerous people and situations.

But according to Pelonzi, the bulletproof backpack inventor, teaching kids about safety and providing them with anti-ballistics gear aren't mutually exclusive.

"We're not playing on people's fears. We teach our children about all sorts of dangers. We have fire drills and teach them not to talk to strangers, and to stop, drop and roll," he said.

"This is just another level of safety. We want our children to be safe and happy."

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

US Pirate Party seeks legitimacy, starts in Utah

By Jacqui Cheng

It's a common sentiment among tech-savvy audiences that the current copyright and patent system in the US is "broken" to some degree. And while some politicians have put issues like patent and copyright reform at the top of their lists, there aren't many political parties out there that make it one of their sole issues. That's where the US "Pirate Party" hopes to step in; the group is now hoping to establish itself as an officially-acknowledged political body in the state of Utah.

Established in 2006, the US arm of the international "pirate party movement" says that it believes the government should encourage creativity and freedom instead of smothering it. According to the group's web site, "Creativity has come to a standstill in this country for those who wish to work within, and benefit from, the confines of the law." The Pirate Party cites current copyright and patent laws as the reason for this, and "that our law not only allows this, but enables this, is a travesty and a crime against innovators everywhere."

However, contrary to what the party's name implies, the US Pirate Party does not condone piracy. "We've chosen to adopt the Pirate name so as to pay homage to the creative artists of the past, or as they would now be known, Pirates, thieves, and copyright infringers," reads the web site.

The group has now begun to accept statements of support in order to establish itself as a viable political party in Utah. Apparently known for its "strong history" of political diversity and technological progress, Pirate Party spokesperson Andrew Norton says that Utah seems to be the ideal state to register in. The group needs 2,000 signatures from registered voters before next February in order to establish itself as a political party. Doing so will allow the Pirate Party to place candidates on the state's primary ballot under the party's name—otherwise, they must list the individuals as unaffiliated or write-in candidates.

"Voters in Utah are now one step closer to being able to voice their opinions on the key issues our party stands for," Norton said in a statement. But there's a big gap between being "established in Utah" and "viable political force"—and that's not even taking into account the extremely narrow scope of the party's supported issues. The two-party system in the US is extremely entrenched, and even the strongest independent forces are still working hard to make a significant dent in the US government. Even if the group succeeds in getting established in Utah, the Swedish Pirate Party's failed efforts to gain a parliamentary seat foreshadow the steep uphill battle that the group will face in coming years.

John and Ken Talk To Pedophile Jack McClellan In-Studio

Professed Pedophile Blogger John McClelland

Pedophilia and politics: 'Lolita' stirs up old debate

By Sonny Inbaraj

DARWIN - ''How did they ever make a film of 'Lolita'?'' That line on movie posters was used to promote thecontroversial Vladimir Nabakov classic, shot by the late StanleyKubrick in 1962 and starring James Mason.

Now there's a new ''Lolita'' - complete with the old debate.

The French version of a story of a man falling in love with his14-year-old stepdaughter has been shown in 19 countries, includingBritain, Russia and Germany and now is on its way to Australianscreens - two years later. Only Prime Minister John Howard standsin its way.

The censors, after taking two weeks to assess the movie,classified it as ''R'' and described it as ''serious artisticwork."

''Lolita'' is scheduled to be screened in Australia from April 15 butHoward thinks otherwise. He says he will appeal the CensorshipBoard's decision to release the film and has labelled ''Lolita'' asa depiction of pedophilia.

Film critics say that move harks back to the '70s when classicslike ''The Wild Bunch'' and ''Bonnie and Clyde'' were viciously cutand others like Charles Larson's ''The Night of the Hunter'' werebanned altogether.

The irony is that the prime minister and other governmentpoliticians who are calling for a ban on ''Lolita'' haven't seen thefilm. And now there is danger that politicians are acting ascensors in the country.

South Australian Liberal MP Trish Draper described ''Lolita'' as''sick and bizarre,'' and is leading the call for Howard to ban themovie.

''What happens is that it'smainstreaming pedophilia and that sort of activity becomesacceptable,'' she told ABC TV.

''I hope pedophilia is never acceptable and I hope thatpedophiles are held in contempt for what they are doing tochildren,'' she said.

But here lies the irony. When questioned by the ABC whether shehad seen ''Lolita'', Draper replied no.

These new political pressures worry John Dickey, the man whoheld the job of chief censor for 10 years. ''I think it would bewiser for people to have a look at how the film deals with thesubject rather than just taking the topic itself and saying youcan't do anything about that,'' said Dickey.

Surprisingly, federal Attorney-General Daryl Williamssupported the censorship board's classification of ''Lolita''.

While supporting the right of critics to have the decisionreviewed, Williams said he had great faith in the office. ''Theyhave experience in classifying films that I don't have."

Williams told ABC radio that criticisms of the film ''mighthave greater validity if they're made after having seen thefilm."

The censorship board's director, Kathryn Paterson, told TheAge newspaper that the ''R'' classification followed consultation with apanel of experts from the Australian Institute of Criminology andthe New South Wales Child Protection Enforcement Agency, anacademic researcher and a clinical practitioner specializing inchild sexual abuse.

A spokesman for the attorney-general's office said once thecensorship board had made made its decision, anyone who feltaggrieved could ask their state or territory attorneys-general topass their complaint on to the federal attorney-general.

David Stratton, the renowned Australian movie critic, sees greatdangers if politicians are allowed to overturn censorship boarddecisions.

''I think this would be almost unprecedented and very worryingfor our democracy. The censorship board is supposed to be separatefrom the government, yet there is interference. I wouldn't havethought the government would attempt to overthrow its own agencyof censorship,'' he pointed out.

''Most Australians would not want to be going back to the timewhen the government was clamping down on what we can see or hearor read. 'Lolita' is a tragic story and itcertainly wouldn't encourage anyone to be a pedophile. It'sactually quite a cautionary tale."

The opposition Labor legal spokesman Robert McClelland warnedthat politicians should be careful about making knee-jerkreactions. ''At the end of the day all the ill-informed hype willonly promote the film that presumably they don't want Australiansto see,'' he said.

"Convert Or Die" Game Sent To Troops In Iraq w/Pentagon Blessing

Courtesy of the US Pentagon, troops in Iraq can now unwind after a hard day's urban warfare and play a video game in which they command a Christian fundamentalist army waging urban warfare in America ! On the streets of New York City ! How cool is that?

Left Behind Firing Squad

The "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game, is set in a "post apocalyptic" New York that looks almost exactly like New York City after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and lets players simulate commanding a paramilitary Christian army that seeks to convert Jews, mainline Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, and everyone else in New York City to fundamentalist Christianity. All who resist will be killed.

Now, with the blessing and endorsement of the Pentagon, a Christian ministry with apocalyptic fundamentalist beliefs that is planning a series of tours it calls a 'military crusade' to entertain US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will also be distributing the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" 'Convert or Die' religious warfare video game....To US troops.

What?

Let me repeat:

The United States Pentagon has endorsed sending a Christian supremacist religious warfare video game to United States troops in Iraq, a predominantly Muslim nation.


Osama Bin Laden himself could hardly hardly have hatched a better plot to incite widespread war between Christianity and Islam, and the Pentagon's endorsement of "Operation Straight Up" and that ministry's plan to bring the bigoted, hateful religious ideology inherent to Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" book series to American troops in the front lines casts into question the basic competence, not to mention the sanity, of every Pentagon official involved in the decision to endorse such mind boggling idiocy.

Once again:

"Left Behind: Eternal Forces", a game depicting fundamentalist Christians religious warfare will be distributed to US troops.

Courtesy of the PENTAGON.

Now, American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will be able to unwind by playing out a sanitized version of what in reality may the most savage type of war humans wage.

If war is hell, religious war is hell with vengeance. On the smoking battlefields of the religious wars that erupted in Europe in the wake of the Catholic/Protestant rift, victorious armies would entertain themselves by making small incision in the sides of wounded enemy soldiers and pulling their intestines out to wind those around sticks and so extract the entire intestinal tracts, very, very slowly. In Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" series, God does that to unbelievers; God pulls their guts out.

That's religious war.

In writing about the game, Jonathan Hutson, Chip Berlet, Frederick Clarkson, and other Talk To Action contributors were writing on how the game was being marketed to teenagers, and the prospect that the game would, little more than a year later, be on the way to US troops in Iraq would have seemed to us to be almost beyond imagination.

Now. visualize the hands of a clocks whirring round and round... they stop. It is now August 8, 2007, and the United States Pentagon has endorsed an Evangelical Christian organization that calls its planned, upcoming Iraq entertainment tour a "crusade", advocates apocalyptic theology, and distributes the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game to the troops so that, exhausted after long hours guarding tense checkpoints or fighting block to block to root out Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers in Baghdad and elsewhere can relax by playing a video game, set on meticulously rendered New York City streets, in which fundamentalist Christians engage in simulated urban religious warfare.

Judge greenlights RIAA to dig into man's past, employer

By Eric Bangeman

A federal judge granted the record labels a big victory in a file-sharing fishing expedition, approving the RIAA's request to subpoena the defendant's employer, wife, and brother. In a ruling issued late last month, Judge P. Kevin Castel also ordered defendant Yuri Shutovsky to provide the names and addresses of every person who had used his PC in the three years prior to the lawsuit being filed.

Shutovsky was sued by the record labels after the RIAA's investigative arm, Media Sentry, discovered a computer sharing music on KaZaA using an IP address Verizon said was assigned to Shutovsky at the time. Shutovsky has denied engaging in copyright infringement, saying that he was in Russia at the time the alleged infringement took place—and has offered to provide copies of his passport to prove it.

According to a list of discovery disputes (PDF) dug up by the Recording Industry vs. The People, there have been a number of points of contention between the two parties. One of the main issues is whether the hard drive turned over to the RIAA's computer forensics experts is the one that was actually used in the PC Media Sentry flagged for file sharing. The plaintiffs said that the drive lacks any of the Verizon software used to connect to the telecom's DSL service, as well as a list of usernames and passwords from Deutsche Bank, Shutovsky's employer, some of which were used as late as January 2006.

Shutovsky said that he bought the PC from Deutsche Bank in 2004 and that it has remained in his apartment ever since. In an attempt to reconcile the positions of the plaintiffs and defendant, Judge Castel approved a subpoena to Deutsche Bank, requiring them to turn over all information regarding PCs the company sold to or used by Shutovsky, any evidence of P2P usage on those computers, and records of his business travel during 2005. In addition, Shutovsky must turn over all hard drives in his possession so that the RIAA's investigators can check them for evidence of infringement, too.

In addition, Shutovsky is directed to provide the names and addresses of all people who have used his PC in the three years prior to his being sued. According to his response to the RIAA's requests, those who may have used the computer include his wife, an unspecified list of "short-term house guests," and eight other people who live in Russia, Ukraine, or the UK. The RIAA says that it would like to contact the Shutovsky's houseguests to see if it would be "reasonable" to take depositions.

The machinations that the RIAA and defendants are going through to determine who, exactly, was using the computer with the IP address 162.83.177.207 at 2:59 PM on August 17, 2005, demonstrate the weakness inherent in the RIAA's methodology. Assuming that Verizon's log files are accurate and that Shutovsky's assertion that any one of a dozen people may have been used the PC in question over the past three years, it's going to be almost impossible to determine who was logged in to KaZaA at that fateful moment.

The RIAA's position is that, regardless of who was using the PC at the time, Yuri Shutovsky is responsible for whatever copyright infringement may have occurred by virtue of his paying for broadband from Verizon. The labels call that secondary infringement, and it's a position that at least one judge has said doesn't hold water.

Judge Castel has extended discovery in the case to run through November 30, 2007. There will be a pre-motion conference letter regarding Shutovsky's motion for summary judgment due in mid-December, with the next court proceeding delayed into January 2008—if a settlement cannot be reached by that time. To that end, counsel for both parties will have to meet face to face by September 24.

Bad bosses get promoted, not punished?

By Rachel Breitman

NEW YORK (Reuters) - How do people get ahead in the workplace? One way seems to be by making their subordinates miserable, according to a study released Friday.

In the study to be presented at a conference on management this weekend, almost two-thirds of the 240 participants in an online survey said the local workplace tyrant was either never censured or was promoted for domineering ways.

"The fact that 64.2 percent of the respondents indicated that either nothing at all or something positive happened to the bad leader is rather remarkable -- remarkably disturbing," wrote the study's authors, Anthony Don Erickson, Ben Shaw and Zha Agabe of Bond University in Australia.

Despite their success in the office, spiteful supervisors can cause serious malaise for their subordinates, the study suggested, citing nightmares, insomnia, depression and exhaustion as symptoms of serving a brutal boss.

The authors advocated immediate intervention by industry chiefs to stop fledgling office authoritarians from rising up the ranks.

"As with any sort of cancer, the best alternative to prevention is early detection," they wrote.

They faulted senior managers for not recognizing the signs of workplace strife wrought by bad bosses. "The leaders above them who did nothing, who rewarded and promoted bad leaders ... represent an additional problem."


DoD Inspector General Finds Misconduct by Pentagon Generals Participating in “Christian Embassy” Promo Video:

At last, truth to power. As Mark Twain so presciently said, “A lie goes half-way around the world before truth gets its boots on.” The Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s (MRFF’s) (http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org) long diligence in requesting investigation has now resulted in the US Department of Defense Inspector General’s determination of misconduct on the part of high-ranking Pentagon personnel. For four years, MRFF Founder Mikey Weinstein has worked to ensure the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which all Americans are entitled.

In response to the DoD Inspector General’s Report (http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/christian_embassy_report.pdf), the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Founder and President Mikey Weinstein released the following statement:

“This U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General’s (DoD/IG) report confirms the intentional dismantling of the Constitutionally mandated wall separating church and state by some of the highest ranking officials in the Bush Administration and the U.S. military. Embarrassingly feeble excuses proffered by senior U.S. Army and Air Force generals and other senior officers reveal long and deep collusion with a fundamentalist, religious missionary organization, the ‘Christian Embassy’. That these senior Pentagon officials control the world’s largest nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal should eviscerate the American public's trust and confidence in their military and civilian leadership. The shocking allowance of unrestricted Pentagon access to fundamentalist Christian missionaries through the official ‘badging’ process is an outrageous national security breach of the highest order. Therefore, MRFF now demands immediate Congressional oversight hearings on this breach. Inexplicably, the DoD/IG failed to fault Secretary of the Army (and former Acting Secretary of the Air Force) Preston M.(‘Pete’) Geren, even though his role in the ‘Christian Embassy’ video clearly led the way for other senior officers’ participation. MRFF intends to file expeditiously a comprehensive Federal lawsuit that will rapaciously pursue legal remedies to the multitude of horrific Constitutional violations this DoD/IG report reveals.”

The 46-page report dated July 20, 2007 found that:

  1. Pentagon Chaplain Colonel Ralph G. Benson obtained limited approval for the non-profit, non-Federal religious organization “Christian Embassy” to film in the Pentagon by mischaracterizing the purpose and proponent of their new, fundraising video. He had stated that the video was to document the Pentagon’s own ministry rather than that of a non-Federal entity, when it was actually intended to attract new supporters.
  2. Benson thus provided “Christian Embassy” a selective benefit, including permission to film and unescorted access to Pentagon areas and personnel that other organizations would not have received.
  3. Seven high-ranking military officers, including major generals and brigadier generals were filmed in interviews with “Christian Embassy” during the duty day with rank clearly displayed in official and often identifiable Pentagon locations.
  4. None of the officers had sought or received approval to participate in official capacity or uniform.
  5. The officers’ remarks conferred approval of and support to “Christian Embassy”, and some officers’ remarks implied that they spoke for a group of senior military leaders.
  6. The officers defended their actions by asserting that “Christian Embassy” had become a “quasi-Federal entity”, since the Department of Defense had endorsed the organization to General Officers for over twenty five years. “Christian Embassy” is in fact affiliated with Campus Crusade for Christ, a worldwide evangelical missionary organization.
  7. Chaplain Benson defended his actions by asserting a First Amendment Establishment Clause right in connection with his professional status.
  8. Mr. Robert Varney, Executive Director of “Christian Embassy”, testified that the new video was used for his organization’s fundraising; indeed the new video covered exclusively the non-Federal organization, but did not mention the Pentagon’s ministry.
  9. The new, 2004 video updated “Christian Embassy’s” prior promo video of 2001 and included endorsements of the organization and its “services” from supporters working on Capitol Hill, other Federal agencies and embassies, wholly unconnected with the Pentagon’s ministry.
  10. The non-DoD speakers on the video included six congressmen, two ambassadors, two ambassadors’ wives, as well as the Under Secretary of Benefits for Veterans’ Affairs and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who acknowledged in the video “Christian Embassy’s” international and federal-governmental evangelical outreach.
  11. The report concluded that Major Generals Peter Sutton and John Catton, Brigadier Generals Vincent Brooks and Robert Caslen “improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform”. It recommends that the Air Force and the Army “consider appropriate corrective action…”.
  12. The report also concluded that the Pentagon Chaplain’s office authorized contractor badge status to 34 religiously affiliated volunteers, including “Christian Embassy” employees. Further, it noted that the Inspector General’s office is “unconvinced” that these passes were properly authorized and “suggests that a contractor badge is not appropriate for these individuals”.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation prompted this investigation into the “Christian Embassy” video project in 2006 by demanding that the US Department of Defense Inspector General’s office investigate this travesty. The demand was reported on in the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000883_pf.html
And the full text was reported on Slate.com, http://www.slate.com/id/2155453/. This controversy was also discussed in the December 2006 issue of Harpers Magazine, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/12/0081322. The "Christian Embassy" video can be viewed at
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/Media_video/christian-embassy/index.html.
Americans have been unaware until now that their tax dollars have been used by the Pentagon for over twenty five years to further religious proselytizing.


ABOUT MIKEY WEINSTEIN


Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein is Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org). He is an attorney and businessman who spent over three years as a White House counsel in the Reagan White House. He was formerly General Counsel for H. Ross Perot and Perot Systems Corporation. An Honor Graduate from the USAF Academy, he served on active duty in the USAF as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) for ten years. He lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Report Details Evangelism at Highest Levels of US Military

By Jason Leopold
A report released publicly on Thursday by the Defense Department's (DOD) inspector general has found high-ranking Army and Air Force personnel violated long-standing military regulations when they participated in a promotional video for an evangelical Christian organization while in uniform and on active duty.
The report recommended Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, Army Brig. Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, and a colonel and lieutenant colonel whose names were redacted in the inspector general's report, "improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform" and the men should be disciplined for misconduct. Caslen was formerly the deputy director for political-military affairs for the war on terrorism, directorate for strategic plans and policy, joint staff. He now oversees the cadets at the Military Academy at West Point. Caslen told DOD investigators he agreed to appear in the video upon learning other senior Pentagon officials had been interviewed for the promotional video.
The inspector general's report recommended the "Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Army take appropriate corrective action with respect to the military officers concerned."
The officers did not return phone calls or emails to respond to the report's findings.
The 47-page report was also highly critical of Pentagon Chaplain Col. Ralph G. Benson, whom the inspector general's report accused of knowingly misleading the DOD when he requested permission from DOD officials to film a video inside the Pentagon claiming he was interested in gathering information about the Pentagon's "own ministry." In fact, the report says, Benson was determined to use the video to "attract new supporters" to the Christian Embassy, an evangelical organization that evangelizes members of the military and politicians in Washington, DC via daily Bible studies and outreach events. The group holds prayer breakfasts on Wednesdays in the Pentagons executive dining room, according to the organization's web site. Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, founded the Christian Embassy 30 years ago.
Over the past few years, the military has set its sights on prosecuting Iraq war veterans who have completed active duty, soured on the war and participated in antiwar protests while wearing their uniforms. Recently, the US Marine Corps prosecuted Cpl. Adam Kokesh and Marine Sgt. Liam Madden, both of whom were photographed marching in an antiwar protest while wearing their uniforms in what the Marine Corps says was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Military prosecutors vigorously sought to have both men dishonorably discharged. However, it appears unlikely the military will apply the same standard to the Air Force and Army officers who the inspector general said violated the same code of conduct Kokesh and Madden were found to have broken, according to the disciplinary recommendations of the report.
The Army generals who appeared in the video appeared to be speaking on behalf of the military, but they did not obtain prior permission to appear in the video. They defended their actions, according to the inspector general's report, saying the "Christian Embassy had become a 'quasi-Federal entity', since the DOD had endorsed the organization to General Officers for over 25 years."
"The non-DoD speakers on the video included six Congressmen, two ambassadors, two ambassadors' wives, as well as the Under Secretary of benefits for Veterans' Affairs and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who acknowledged "Christian Embassy's" international and federal-governmental evangelical Christian training," the report added, although the identity of those individuals are unknown at this time.
The report also concluded a film crew was not escorted or monitored during production of the video inside the Pentagon, and the Pentagon chaplain's office gave at least 34 "religiously affiliated volunteers" unrestricted access to the Pentagon that allowed the individuals to move freely throughout the facility. The so-called "contractor badges" were unauthorized, the report says.
In response, the inspector general urged the administrative assistant to the Secretary of the Army and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency "initiate inquiries into the manner and appropriateness of issuance of contractor badges to volunteer personnel."
The inspector general launched an investigation last year after receiving a letter from Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit government watchdog group that aims to enforce the separation of church and state within the US military. Weinstein's group discovered the video on the Christian Embassy web site. Weinstein drafted a letter to the inspector general alleging misconduct by the officers, citing the military's strict policy that prohibits military personnel from appearing in uniform and participating in "speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration ... which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted."
Weinstein said the military brass who participated in the video "were clearly identified by their positions within the Defense Department, however, the video did not include any disclaimers indicating that the views expressed were not those of the Defense of Department."
The former White House attorney under Ronald Reagan, and the author of the book "With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military", said he is still "dissecting" the inspector general's report, but "clearly this is a gigantic victory for our foundation."
"The report confirms the total destruction of the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating supernatural and natural, metaphysical and physical, spiritual and temporal, church and state at the highest levels of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind; our honorable and noble United States military," Weinstein said in an interview. "The embarrassingly pedestrian excuses feebly offered by senior US Army and US Air Force generals and other senior officers are pathetic and not worthy of those that might have been offered by a first-grader. The fact that these senior Pentagon officials control our country's nuclear arsenal should shake the very foundation of the American public's trust in our country's current leadership."
Weinstein said perhaps the most egregious aspect of the inspector general's report is the findings that non-military personnel were given "badges" to roam freely throughout the Pentagon calling it a "shocking national security breach of the highest order." He called for Congressional oversight hearings into the matter.
"The rise of evangelical Christianity inside the military went on steroids after 9/11 under this administration and this White House," Weinstein said in an interview. "This administration has turned the entire Department of Defense into its own personal faith-based initiative. "
In the video, which is posted on militaryreligiousfreedom.org, Major General Catton talks about how his faith in God and the Christian Embassy helped him land a powerful position as a "director on the joint staff."
"As I meet the people that come into my directorate I tell them right up front who Jack Catton is, and I start with the fact that I'm an old-fashioned American, and my first priority is my faith in God, then my family and then country," Catton says. "I share my faith because it describes who I am."
Army Secretary Pete Geren, the former acting secretary of the Air Force who oversaw the Air Force's response in 2005 to claims evangelical Christians were pressuring cadets at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, also appeared in the video praising the Christian Embassy.
The Christian Embassy "has been a rock that I can rely on, been an organization that helped me in my walk with Christ, and I'm just thankful for the service they give," Geren says.
The inspector general investigated Geren's participation in the video, but determined he did not act improperly. Geren testified he was unaware the video would be used for fundraising purposes or to attract new members. He was identified in the video as "Honorable Pete Geren Presidential Appointee."
The report said Geren, who was also a special assistant to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has had a long-standing relationship with the Christian Embassy organization.
"According to his testimony, Mr. Geren first became involved with Christian Embassy while he was a member of the US Congress, attending Bible study and fellowship activities arranged by Christian Embassy on Capitol Hill," the inspector general's report states. "He said that he continued his relationship with Christian Embassy when he began work for DOD in the Pentagon, attending the Senior Executive Fellowship and Bible Study."
Robert Varney, executive director of the Christian Embassy, testified the video was used to raise money for his organization.

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Officers' role in Christian video probed By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer

By RICHARD LARDNER

WASHINGTON - The Army and Air Force are considering disciplinary action against seven officers — including four generals — who violated ethics rules by assisting a Christian group in the production of a fundraising video.

The Pentagon inspector general found the officers were interviewed in uniform and "in official and often identifiable Pentagon locations," according to a 45-page report.

They made comments that "conferred approval of and support" to the evangelical group, Christian Embassy, "and the remarks of some officers implied they spoke for a group of senior military leaders rather than just for themselves," the report stated.

None of the Army and Air Force officers involved asked for or received approval from their superiors to participate in the interview in an official capacity or in uniform, according to the inspector general's report, which was released last week.

The report recommended that senior military leaders consider "appropriate corrective action" against the officers.

Lt. Col. Linda Haseloff, an Air Force spokeswoman, said Monday the service is still studying the report "and no additional information can be provided at this time."

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said the report is being reviewed by legal staff and no decisions would be made until they are done.

According to the group's Web site, Christian Embassy is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization that "seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement."

Christian Embassy holds prayer meetings each Wednesday morning at the Pentagon.

The inspector general's report reveals a "long and deep collusion with a fundamentalist, religious missionary organization," Michael Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said in a statement.

Weinstein wants Congress to hold oversight hearings over the Defense Department's failure to separate "church and state."

Among the officers cited in the report are Army Brig. Gens. Vincent Brooks, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and Robert Caslen, commandant of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy.

Air Force Maj. Gens. Peter Sutton and John Catton also appeared in the video.

Sutton, who has retired, and Caslen "accepted full responsibility for their actions and committed to be more alert to ethical issues in the future," according to the report.

Brooks told investigators he believed he did not violate any rules. Due to Christian Embassy's long tenure of working with Pentagon employees, Brooks said he saw the group "as a sanctioned or endorsed activity."

Catton's response was similar. Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity," he told investigators, and he believed he was taking part in a program approved by the Defense Department.

Catton is director of requirements at Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Va.
Retired Army Col. Ralph Benson, former Pentagon chaplain, was criticized for allowing Christian Embassy to film inside the Pentagon. Benson, the report said, misrepresented "the purpose and proponent of the video."

The names of the other two officers were redacted from the report.

Cleared of any impropriety was Army Secretary Pete Geren and an unnamed civilian Army employee. Investigators said while Geren and the employee "provided personal endorsements of Christian Embassy, they did so without verbal or visual references to position, title or DOD."

<True enough, how are they supposed to know that it's not officially sanctioned when it occours every day on official government (not to mention security based) property? On the other hand, what kind of government representative doesn't understand one of the most basic fundamentals of the constitution?>

Saturday, August 04, 2007

An Artist and His Sub Surrender in Brooklyn

An Artist and His Sub Surrender in Brooklyn

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Duke Riley was detained Friday after his Revolutionary-replica vessel neared the Queen Mary 2. More Photos >

Published: August 4, 2007

At slack tide off Red Hook, Brooklyn, there are usually lots of things floating in the water, most of which you would not want to touch without the help of a good hazmat suit. But just after sunrise yesterday, something truly strange was bobbing there in the shallows near Pier 41: a submarine fashioned almost completely from wood, and inside it a man with an obsession.

Video

More Video »

The man, Duke Riley, a heavily tattooed Brooklyn artist whose waterborne performance projects around New York have frequently landed him in trouble with the authorities, spent the last five months building the vessel as a rough replica of what is believed to have been America’s first submarine, an oak sphere called the Turtle, said to have seen action in New York Harbor during the Revolutionary War.

Mr. Riley’s plan was also military, in a sense — though mostly metaphorical, given that he is an artist. He wanted to float north in the Buttermilk Channel to stage an incursion against the Queen Mary 2, which had just docked in Red Hook, the mission objective mostly just to get close enough to the ship to videotape himself against its immensity for a coming gallery show.

But when his sub was stopped by a New York City police boat around 10 a.m., the outcome was not metaphorical at all: Mr. Riley, 35, and two friends who had helped tow him were taken into custody by a phalanx of law enforcement officials, and their excursion briefly raised fears that a terrorist attack might have been under way.

The flurry of attention that followed, on television and untold numbers of urban blogs, was the kind of publicity that most artists would pay good money for.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly issued a statement later calling the incident “marine mischief” — the “creative craft of three adventuresome individuals” — and saying nothing suspicious had been recovered “other than the vessel itself.” He played down the possibility that the cruise ship could have been endangered had the intent been more malicious than artful, suggesting that the sub had been detected in plenty of time.

Mr. Kelly said a New York police detective assigned to the department’s intelligence division who was aboard the Queen Mary 2 yesterday morning first spotted what looked like a hobby-shop submarine towed by a flimsy rubber raft manned by Mr. Riley’s two friends. He called the department’s harbor patrol, which dispatched three boats to the scene along with a helicopter, joined later by the Coast Guard and a hazardous-materials truck.

Still, Mr. Riley, who emerged from his rusty hatch without the tall-boy can of beer he had taken into his vessel when it launched about 9:15, managed to make it to within about 200 feet of the bow of the ship, at a time when officials say harbor security is a critical factor in guarding against terrorism. From a nearby pier, several of his friends and his art dealers shouted congratulations through a chain-link fence.

But the police impounded the sub, and the Coast Guard issued Mr. Riley a citation for violating the ship’s 100-yard security zone. The police issued two more, for unsafe boating. (Mr. Riley had no means of propulsion and was relying mainly on the kindness of the tide to take him toward his objective.)

In an interview at Pier 41 on Thursday afternoon, after Mr. Riley called a reporter to alert him to the planned excursion, the artist said he first became interested in building the submarine after reading about the Turtle in history books. (By some accounts, the original submarine’s attempt to attach an explosive to the bottom of a British warship failed, but the device detonated near the ship and caused the British to move their vessels. Other accounts say the sub never even launched.)

Mr. Riley built his eight-foot-tall submersible not from oak but from cheap plywood, coated with fiberglass and topped off with portholes and a hatch bought from a marine salvage company. Pumps in the bottom allowed him to add water for ballast or remove it.

On Thursday evening, he and the two friends, Jesse Bushnell and Mike Cushing, scrambled around in the murky Red Hook water — avoiding the occasional condom or dead rat — to make sure that the sub, called the Acorn, was seaworthy and would submerge. (It never did so completely.) They had loaded several thousand pounds of lead into the bottom and were adding rocks to further lower the moss-coated vessel, which resembled something out of Jules Verne by way of Huck Finn, manned by cast members from “Jackass.”

“We start arguing with each other and saying, ‘Hey, you’re doing that wrong,’ ” said Mr. Bushnell, who owns a bicycle shop in Providence, R.I. “And then we realize there is no right way to do this.” He added grumpily, “I’ve basically been wading around in this water for three days in my underwear.”

Mr. Riley’s last big artwork was an illegal makeshift tavern built last summer on a spit of land near Rockaway Inlet in Queens that in the early 1900s was a kind of Wild West territory, with saloons and prizefights. That project was also brought to a premature end by the police, who arrived at night with guard dogs and scattered most of Mr. Riley’s friends. With the submarine, which he launched on a short-lived test run to the Queen Mary 2 in July, Mr. Riley said he accepted early on that the real performance would probably end with an arrest. Or with him sinking.

“I’m not really a very technical kind of guy,” he said, sitting shirtless on the pier Thursday with various green things still clinging to his arms from the water. “I just guessed a lot on this.” Asked how he planned to get back to shore after the tide carried him out to the cruise ship, he grinned. “I haven’t really thought about that yet,” he said.

Yesterday afternoon, as he, Mr. Bushnell and Mr. Cushing were being taken into custody, still dripping wet, Mr. Riley’s dealers, Alberto Magnan and Dara Metz, said they planned to display the submarine in a show soon at their Chelsea gallery. And to post Mr. Riley’s bail, if needed.

As they spoke, a beefy police officer standing on the bow of a harbor patrol boat laughed and, pointing at the wooden submarine below him, said: “What are we going to do with this thing? It looks like the Turtle!”

> They stole his boat. <

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Courts Turn Against Abusive Clickwrap Contracts

by Jennifer Granick

Do you, Jennifer Granick, by the act of opening this box of software, agree to the terms and conditions set forth on the 62-page legal document enclosed in this box and also available on our website, so help you God?

Since 1996, the answer has been, "Yes, I do, whether I want to or not." That's when the influential appeals court Judge Frank H. Easterbrook ruled that an end-user licensing agreement, or EULA, stopped one Matthew Zeidenberg from copying and reselling a telephone directory he'd purchased on CD. At its simplest, the court ruled, contract law binds parties to make good on their mutual promises. So if a customer manifests her agreement to a sales proposal by opening a box and failing to return the product -- after she's had the opportunity to see what the vendor expects she will and won't do -- then she is legally required to keep her word, no matter how onerous the contract's demands.

In the past month, however, two new court rulings suggest that judges are developing a more sophisticated sense of how corporations conduct online and technology transactions with their customers.

The EULAs or terms-of-service agreements are long and legalistic, the deals are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and the terms are often oppressive and one-sided. As a result, the legal hegemony of the EULA is cracking. This is a good development for consumers, who would otherwise be saddled by oppressive terms they have neither the legal sophistication to understand nor the bargaining power to avoid, and for the public interest, which suffers when customers are forced to waive rights that capitalist democracies rely on for innovation and accountability.

In Gatton v. T-Mobile (.pdf), the California Court of Appeal struck down a provision in the mobile phone company's EULA requiring consumers to go through arbitration to challenge termination fees or the practice of selling locked handsets that can't switch carriers with the customer. The court held that both the way customers entered into the EULA contract, and the arbitration terms of that contract, were unconscionable, and therefore the provision would not be enforced.

The reasons the court gave for holding the EULA procedurally unconscionable apply to most EULAs. Even though the arbitration term was fully disclosed to consumers, the contract was one of "adhesion": an agreement imposed and drafted by the party with superior bargaining strength, which gave the consumer only the opportunity to accept or reject the contract, not to freely negotiate it. As a result, the customer's unequal bargaining power results in an absence of meaningful choice. The fact that the customers could choose a different carrier may mitigate, but not cure, the procedural unconscionability.

Next, the court ruled that the substance of the arbitration term, which denied consumers the right to bring a class action, was unconscionable because that form of litigation is often the only means of stopping and punishing corporate wrongdoing. Even though there was only some procedural unconscionability, when weighed on a sliding scale with the substantive harm to consumers, the court refused to dismiss the class action.

Gatton is an important case because it recognizes that every clickwrap, shrink-wrap, browsewrap and box-wrap contract has an element of procedural unconscionability that requires the court to consider whether the challenged term of the contract is overly harsh or one-sided. This opens up the content of contracts to legal supervision, which is great in a situation where the customer hasn't really been able to bargain, negotiate or otherwise exercise market power.

The federal courts seem to be following suit. In Douglas v. U.S. District Court (Talk America) (.pdf), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that a service provider may not change contract terms by posting those changes on its website without notification to the customer. In this case, the plaintiff sought to invalidate an arbitration provision like the one in Gatton and a provision stating that New York law would apply to the agreement, because the terms were added to the service agreement after the customer had signed up. The court held that the customer could not be bound to new terms, even by continuing to use the service, if he is not given notification that the terms have changed.

The 9th Circuit noted, as the Gatton court did, that under California law, the mere fact of market choice was not enough to save an adhesion contract. The Douglas court also confirmed that class-action waivers were substantively unconscionable under California law.

The Douglas court refused to apply New York law, even though the contract said so, because that was one of the new terms for which the plaintiff hadn't received notice. However, even though New York law appears to be less consumer-friendly than California law, there's reason to believe that even in New York, the legal system is growing more skeptical of EULAs than Judge Easterbrook was back in 1996. Earlier this year, the New York attorney general's office successfully sued security company Blue Coat Systems over the company’s use of EULAs that tried to prevent consumers from testing and criticizing Blue Coat products. The company settled the suit by agreeing not to enforce this anti-benchmarking provision and by paying a fine. The attorney general's office won despite New York's stricter rules about unconscionability and even though some consumers were notified of these terms before they purchased Blue Coat products.

Together, these cases show that courts are beginning to understand that modern contracting practices are a far cry from the arms-length negotiations between equals that traditional contract law imagines. Modern customers are at a real disadvantage against the bargaining power of technology corporations, some of which have shown no restraint at trying to limit consumer remedies, or even product testing and review. Gatton and Douglas show courts are moving away from applying a simplistic theory of contract formation toward developing legal rules that are more attuned with the modern marketplace and balance of power. This is a welcome development, and one which could protect consumer interests and the public interest by developing rules and limitations on the otherwise extremely useful practice of mass-market contracting.

It's Curious, George: Even Cartoons Aren't Safe From Censors

By Randy Dotinga

Start with a space capsule. Throw in Curious George along with bananas and donuts, the inquisitive monkey's favorite foods. And then make everything weightless so he has to chase after his lunch, tumbling along the way.

The perfect script for the cute PBS children's show, right? Not according to animation censors, who anticipated some hot fruit-on-baked-good action.

It might seem surprising at a time when a Family Guy episode can include scenes like "Prom Night Dumpster Baby." But children's cartoons are a different story. As Craig Miller and a panel of other animated-show writers revealed at Comic-Con International last weekend, censors go out of their way -- and some might say out of their minds -- to protect little kids.

And it's not just the standards-and-practices departments that act as watchdogs.

"We get notes from studios, from networks, from educational consultants, from advertisers," Miller said. "One show I worked on, there was a list of 47 people who got shown every word a writer wrote -- the outlines, the first draft and second draft -- and had the opportunity to give their comments on what should be changed."

Miller, who couldn't recall the name of the show, sarcastically called it a "wonderful creative experience."

"What's entertaining is what points to human foibles and flaws, and (the censor's) job is to take that out of it," said animation writer Andrew Nichols, during a panel on censorship in animation. Nichols has written for titles including The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius and Casper's Scare School. He said he was told just last week to not use the words "heck" or "darn."

Other troublesome words for censors include "furnace," "vacation," "envy" and "remove" because they're supposedly too complicated for kids to understand, Nichols said.

Miller, meanwhile, once wrote the script for a show called Pocket Dragon Adventures and was told not to use the word "beseech" in a scene with a knight because it's somehow "blasphemous." Miller took it out.

While writers for adult animation shows often have more freedom, even they can run into trouble at times.

Censors would sometimes balk at certain Futurama scenes, recalled Patric Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West and a writer on the show.

But the promotions department often had the last word. "Whenever we would fight with them to get it in, that would be what (promotions would) put in the ad," said Verrone.

It's not clear how networks decide what to omit in adult cartoons. It may be a matter of who complains the loudest.

The writers pointed to two episodes of The Simpsons which received many complaints. One featured a reference to Bart having Tourette syndrome which was excised after it aired, so the reference didn't appear in repeats or DVDs. The show also took out a mild reference to the Catholic Church.

"The point is they caved," Verrone said.

For now, the writers seem resigned to following the rules and the edicts of "creative executives," who "are generally not either," Miller said.