the art of engagement

Watching Your Back

2011-12-22T02:50:00.001-08:00

If you aren't paranoid, you aren't paying attention.

Spies Fail to Escape Spyware in $5 Billion Bazaar for Cyber Arms

Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The intelligence operative sits in a leather club chair, laptop open, one floor below the Hilton Kuala Lumpur’s convention rooms, scanning the airwaves for spies.

In the salons above him, merchants of electronic interception demonstrate their gear to government agents who have descended on the Malaysian capital in early December for the Wiretapper’s Ball, as this surveillance industry trade show is called.

As he tries to detect hacker threats lurking in the wireless networks, the man who helps manage a Southeast Asian country’s Internet security says there’s reason for paranoia. The wares on offer include products that secretly access your Web cam, turn your cell phone into a location-tracking device, recognize your voice, mine your e-mail for anti-government sentiment and listen to supposedly secure Skype calls.

He isn’t alone watching his back at this cyber-arms bazaar, whose real name is ISS World.
Read more at www.businessweek.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1l3tj

"Others" Opt Out?

2011-12-22T02:29:00.001-08:00

It's okay to for chaplains to discriminate if they don't like certain groups. Why would the military think that their metaphorical discrimination chickens wouldn't come home to roost clucking epithets?

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

Army Charges 8 in Wake of Death of a Fellow G.I.

One night in October, an Army private named Danny Chen apparently angered his fellow soldiers by forgetting to turn off the water heater after taking a shower at his outpost in Afghanistan, his family said.

In the relatives’ account, the soldiers pulled Private Chen out of bed and dragged him across the floor; they forced him to crawl on the ground while they pelted him with rocks and taunted him with ethnic slurs. Finally, the family said, they ordered him to do pull-ups with a mouthful of water — while forbidding him from spitting it out.

It was the culmination of what the family called a campaign of hazing against Private Chen, 19, who was born in Chinatown in Manhattan, the son of Chinese immigrants. Hours later, he was found dead in a guard tower, from what a military statement on Wednesday called “an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound” to the head.

On Wednesday, the American military announced that the Army had charged eight soldiers in Private Chen’s battalion in connection with the death.

It was an extraordinary development in a case that has stirred intense reactions in the Asian population in New York and elsewhere and provoked debate over what some experts say is the somewhat ambivalent relationship between the Asian population and the United States military.

The authorities have not publicized much information about the circumstances of the death. Family members said they had gleaned bits of information about the hazing in private briefings with American military officials. But the array of charges announced — the most serious of which were manslaughter and negligent homicide — suggested that military prosecutors believed that the soldiers’ actions drove Private Chen to commit suicide.

Private Chen’s relatives and friends said they welcomed the announcement of the charges, as did Asian-American advocacy groups, which have been pressing the Army to conduct a transparent investigation into the death and to improve the treatment of Asians in the armed forces.

“It’s of some comfort and relief to learn that the Army has taken this seriously,” Private Chen’s mother, Su Zhen Chen, said through an interpreter at a news conference in Chinatown. Private Chen was her only child.
Read more at www.nytimes.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1l3rl

Not So Private Eyes

2011-10-25T13:55:00.001-07:00

Not that government misbehavior relating to freedom of expression and privacy comes as much of a surprise, but looking at the actual numbers can be very sobering.

Amplify’d from www.guardian.co.uk

Google: US law enforcement tried to get videos removed from YouTube

The technology giant's biannual transparency report reveals a 70% rise in takedown requests from US government or police

Google faced down demands from a US law enforcement agency to take down YouTube videos allegedly showing police brutality earlier this year, figures released for the first time show.

The technology giant's biannual transparency report shows that Google refused the demands from the unnamed authority in the first half of this year.

According to the report, Google separately declined orders by other police authorities to remove videos that allegedly defamed law enforcement officials.

The demands formed part of a 70% rise in takedown requests from the US government or police, and were revealed as part of an effort to highlight online censorship around the world.

Figures revealed for the first time show that the US demanded private information about more than 11,000 Google users between January and June this year, almost equal to the number of requests made by 25 other developed countries, including the UK and Russia.
Read more at www.guardian.co.uk

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1fnxh

Lobotomize Demented DeMint

2011-10-19T18:22:00.001-07:00

Poor thing. Not only does it not know how the technology works, not only does it not know what "small government" mean, but it doesn't appear to know what cost-cutting and recession mean either.

At what point do we get off this politically correct kick and stop enabling severely mentally disabled people to serve in congress? It would be one thing if he was in a cage where we could look at him and laugh and throw nuts at him, but he's actually drafting legislation that puts our mothers, sisters and daughters at risk.

It needs to be kicked out of congress immediately, given a series of drug tests and find a real job. Enough with the handouts to these lazy idiots. What else can it do aside from sponge from society and draft legislation that is technologically impossible and unenforceable? On our dime. Flush it. Like the fecal strep that it is.

We shouldn't be considering the merits of his legislation at this point, but rather whether perhaps lobotomies weren't such a bad thing after all. I'll donate the drill.

Amplify’d from thinkprogress.org

GOP Senator Pushes Radical Bill To Restrict Discussion Of Abortion Over The Internet

Instead of focusing on job creation, congressional Republicans have spent their time passing socially conservative legislation like the “Let Women Die” bill that would allow hospitals that receive federal funds to deny women life-saving abortion procedures.

Now Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most die-hard anti-choice lawmakers, has jumped on the bandwagon by sneaking a radical anti-abortion amendment onto a completely unrelated piece of legislation. DeMint’s amendment would ban women and their doctors from discussing abortion over the Internet:

Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman’s health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.

Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said DeMint is essentially mandating “an abortion-only version of Skype.” She points out that a woman with high-risk pregnancy talking to her doctor through video conferencing would have to somehow switch to a separate communications system if abortion came up at all. “It is impractical, ridiculous, and, most importantly, bad for women in rural or remote areas who would not be able to discuss the full set of options with their doctor,” Keenan said.

DeMint’s bill is yet another Republican attempt to circumvent women’s constitutional right to an abortion by essentially outlawing doctors from discussing that option with their patients. These so-called “small government” conservatives have no problem inserting government into private conversations between women and their doctors.
Read more at thinkprogress.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1f5ol

Une Charge De Merde

2011-10-17T13:21:00.001-07:00

Accountability and fascism have never been particularly good bedfellows.

Oh what a brilliant way to inspire trust in French police.

Police officers arresting suspects, taunting protesters and allegedly committing acts of violence against members of ethnic minorities should not be stopped. Just its documentation.

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

Court Orders French Cop-Watching Site Blocked

PARIS — A court here has ruled that French Internet service providers must block access to a Web site that shows pictures and videos of police officers arresting suspects, taunting protesters and allegedly committing acts of violence against members of ethnic minorities.

Law enforcement officials, who had denounced the site as an incitement to violence against the police, welcomed the decision.

The police had said they were particularly concerned about portions of the site showing identifiable photos of police officers, along with personal data — including some cases in which officers are said to express far-right sympathies on social networks.

A report by Amnesty International in 2009 was sharply critical of the French record on police brutality, as well as the authorities’ response. “Allegations of beatings, racial abuse, excessive force and even unlawful killings by French police are rarely investigated effectively and those responsible are seldom brought to justice,” the report said.
Read more at www.nytimes.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1exc3

Teaching Topeka

2011-10-10T22:45:00.001-07:00

Not surprisingly Kansas city officials have literally put a target on the back of women, in their idiotic move to decriminalize domestic violence in the city to save money. I never advocate violence, but the only people deserving of any in Topeka are those on the city council who would vote to do this. A self-defensive, preemptive strike.

Amplify’d from www.forbes.com

Topeka Kansas Considers Decriminalizing Domestic Violence

In Topeka, Kansas city officials are considering a controversial move to decriminalize domestic violence in the city after the Shawnee County government offloaded domestic violence enforcement on to city governments. Cities facing budget cuts and lost revenue are turning to many different cost-cutting measures, but this is perhaps the most extreme. Already, the county government has turned away at least 30 domestic violence cases.

Ironically, the age of austerity may provide an out for people who abuse their wives, girlfriends, and children, but if the federal government gets its way, decriminalized marijuana will become a thing of the past. Apparently putting taxdollars to work locking up pot smokers and hippies is more important than protecting battered women.

As Marie Diamond notes, the social and economic cost of domestic violence is very real. In cold, hard economic terms, studies have estimated that domestic violence has cost the US economy between approximately $6 and $13 billion a year. The cost of prosecuting these cases is only a small sliver of that sum. The community damage extends generations and can be crippling to the well-being of children into adulthood, perpetuating the cycle of violence from one generation to the next.

Most domestic violence cases go unreported. Decriminalizing domestic violence will simply push these cases further into the shadows. Considering that marital rape was legal in almost every state until 1976, perhaps this is simply an illustration of our society slipping backwards, toward the days when men had total domination over the wives. A return to various remnants of a feudalistic society is hardly surprising given the many anti-democratic policies we’ve seen in recent years (everything from torture to assassinating US ciizens to absurd redistricting policies and more.) Still, it is worrisome.
Read more at www.forbes.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1eee6

Cameron's Kerfuffle Containment Strategy

2011-08-11T09:41:00.001-07:00

Because slapping pathetically at technology is always such a clever, productive way to go about stemming violence and addressing social disorder.

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

LONDON — Seeking to reestablish his authority after England’s worst rioting in decades, Prime Minister David Cameron told an emergency session of Parliament on Thursday that the authorities would consider curfews, constraining smartphones and social networking sites, and filling some police functions with soldiers to keep more officers on the street.

Read more at www.nytimes.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1amn1

Torture for Toddlers...

2011-08-07T16:06:00.001-07:00

Graner's lawyer should be waterboarded. It's just like having a swim on a hot day.

Amplify’d from www.firejohnyoo.org

Charles Graner,
the prison guard
from Hell, has been released after
serving 6 1/2 years of his 10 year sentence
for torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Graner's
attorney said piling naked prisoners into pyramids and leading them by a leash
were acceptable methods of prisoner control. He compared this to pyramids made
by cheerleaders at sports events and parents putting tethers on toddlers.
Read more at www.firejohnyoo.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1acpz

Yes, Ghana, Strings Attached

2011-07-26T16:28:00.001-07:00

According to USAID (.usaid.gov) United States "provides assistance in the areas of Democarcy and Governance, Economic Growth, Health, and Education. The majority of the assistance is delivered thrugh multi-year activities managed by implemeting partners who provide expertise in technical assistance,capacity building, training, infrastructure development and commodities delivery. An increasing amount of resources are provided directly to the Government of Ghana for implementation of activites, as a part of using host country system."

Cut it.

"Media discourse across the world is being dictated by the vulgar opinions of homosexuals. Ghana and probably Africa cannot sustain the menace of homosexuals," said general secretary of the People's National Convention (PNC).

So if you're taking our money, what does that make you and Paul Evans Aidoo?

Amplify’d from www.independent.co.uk

Ghana official calls for effort to 'round up' suspected gays

In a new burst of African homophobia, a government minister in Ghana has drawn support after calling on the country's intelligence services to track down and arrest all gays and lesbians.

The call from Paul Evans Aidoo, the minister for the Western Region of Ghana, marks the latest in a series of expressions of officially condoned homophobia across the continent, which has previously been seen in Malawi, Uganda and South Africa.

Joy FM, a popular radio station in the capital Accra, reported earlier this week that Mr Aidoo, a Catholic, said: "All efforts are being made to get rid of these people in society." He called for the Bureau of National Investigations to round up gays and called on landlords and tenants to inform on people they suspect of being homosexual. "Once they have been arrested, they will be brought before the law," he is reported to have said.

The comments from the National Democratic Congress politician come in the feverish run-up to the 2012 elections in the West African country. There has been controversy over the meaning of a clause in the criminal code of Ghana's 1992 constitution which condemns "unnatural carnal knowledge". The constitution guarantees human rights "regardless of race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, religion, creed or gender", but does not mention sexuality.

The move by Mr Aidoo has drawn support from other politicians, including the general secretary of the People's National Convention (PNC) who told Radio Gold on Tuesday: "Homosexuality is abhorrent. Media discourse across the world is being dictated by the vulgar opinions of homosexuals. Ghana and probably Africa cannot sustain the menace of homosexuals."
Read more at www.independent.co.uk

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a19n8o

Certification of DADT Repeal A Huge Step Forward...

2011-07-22T13:29:00.001-07:00

Finally! President Obama, Defense Secretary Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen have certified “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) can now be repealed. There are still many steps ahead. Aside from a 60 day wait before the repeal is set to take effect, there are many loose ends that still require resolution. In the interim, servicemembers are cautioned to remain cautious...

Amplify’d from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

DADT: Celebrate Certification But Remember Our Equality March Is Long

Tanya Domi and Clinton Fein met 20 years ago when acclaimed author Randy Shilts was writing his tour de force book, “Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military,” the 1993 historical account of gays who had served in the military. Domi was a subject of the book and Fein was the digital artist and producer of a companion CD-ROM which contained interviews of some of the veterans depicted in the book. Today, Domi and Fein are thinking of Randy Shilts and his legacy work. Shilts died in 1994 from AIDS.

TANYA: Clinton, while the entire country is seized with the debt ceiling crisis, we can for the moment celebrate today’s decision by the Obama Administration to certify Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), indicating to the Congress that the Department of Defense is ready to accept openly gay soldiers in the military. It is long, long overdue and feels anticlimactic to me, especially in light of the facts. During President Obama’s tenure approximately 700 soldiers have been discharged under DADT and America is a minority among our allies on gay equality in the military. For example, Britain and Canada have had openly gay soldiers serving since the early 1990s. Even Poland’s military has a non-discrimination policy.

When the history books are written about the repeal process, it will be a historical account about America’s intolerance of gays and Obama’s agonizing leadership style. The White House had to be pressured and fortunately GetEQUAL delivered the requisite pain, forcing the Administration’s hand to repeal one year earlier than originally planned.

Whatever happened to American pluck and “can-do”? It seems to have dissipated along with America’s bankrupt politics and treasury. I am ashamed that our country had to be dragged kicking and screaming through an excruciating process, supported by countless empirical studies, before repealing DADT. At its very core, DADT is thoroughly anti-American, particularly with respect to First Amendment rights. Let the record reflect that in the U.S. we do regulate, even censor speech as it relates to sexual orientation.

Let there also be no doubt that the Log Cabin Republican case, subject of a recent flurry of action in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also provided necessary pressure enabling certification today.

The Department of Justice’s request for an emergency injunction last week to reinstate DADT followed the 9th Circuit’s decision on July 6 directing the Pentagon’s to cease enforcement of the policy was a low moment for the community and its relationship with the Obama Administration (more about the enablers and apologists later).

CLINTON: I agree with you – the certification for the repeal is anti-climactic. It took me a while to wrap my head around what was going on with DADT in last week’s development in the Ninth Circuit.

Something had to happen, given the glacial pace of certification of the DADT repeal. As of today, despite the repeal, servicemembers are still being discharged for being gay. Four that we know of since the repeal, but even one, at this point, is one too many. Now that the Pentagon is set to announce certification of the repeal today, there is still an inexplicable 60-day wait before it actually takes effect. Given the way this repeal has been handled to date, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if we see servicemembers discharged for being gay in the next 60 days.

Sergeant 1st Class Leroy Arthur Petry, who was just awarded a Medal of Honor, was deployed eight times with two tours to Iraq and six tours to Afghanistan. We are engaged in three wars (officially). How dare anyone claiming to care about national security think we are in a position to discharge servicemembers for being gay? I’m glad you mentioned the manufactured debt ceiling crisis, because it’s the same fundamental inability to grasp reality that has the likes of John Boehner focused on overturning the repeal of DADT and bringing federal abortion legislation to the floor, when he should be focused on creating jobs – not spending money to eliminate them by trying to fire committed servicemembers we spent a fortune training to begin with.
Read more at thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a199ps

Jailbait James

2011-07-22T01:09:00.001-07:00

Pretty boy, James.

Never mind Julian Assange, this type of journalism is what should warrant jail time. How screwed up are our priorities?

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

Ex-Executives Dispute Testimony of Murdoch Son

LONDON — Two former News International executives publicly contradicted James Murdoch’s testimony to a parliamentary committee, saying Thursday that they told him of evidence in 2008 that suggested that phone hacking at one of the company’s tabloid newspapers was more widespread.

The former executives said they informed Mr. Murdoch at the time that he was authorizing an unusually large secret settlement of a lawsuit brought by a hacking victim.
Read more at www.nytimes.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a195jn

Living Your Values

2011-07-21T14:42:00.001-07:00

Latest pearls of wisdom from my friend Kate Bednarski.

Amplify’d from 5steppingstones.com

Living Our Values

Do you know what your top ten values are? How about the top 10 things you least value?

Each of us has a set of personal values that drives our behavior. These values embody what is important to us, what we would take a stand for, what we would put our time, money and in energy into. Values motivate our behaviors, shape our commitments, and affect our courage, honesty and receptivity. Yet, many of us are not aware of our values, the relative importance of each, and the core beliefs that contribute to our value set. Upon reflection we find that the way we are living, the choices we make and the work we do may not align with our most important values. When this happens, we eventually become unhappy and unfulfilled. Aligning our personal values with those of our work plays an integral part in feeling joyful, fully engaged and fulfilled in our work and life.
Read more at 5steppingstones.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a190fk

2011-07-20T13:47:00.001-07:00

The distinctions between opinions and reports - the line in the sand that differentiates hosts like Rachel Maddow from anchors like Thomas Roberts at MSNBC, or Shepard Smith from Bill'O'Reilly at Fox News - need to be a lot more clearly defined. If there's anything to be learned from Rupert Murdoch's epic meltdown, it's that gossip, propaganda and cheap "exclusives" yielded from the violation of privacy need to be distinguished from news and reporting.

As long as hard-working, courageous, idealistic and responsible journalists and reporters remain willfully ignorant of the corporatization of news, allowing and accepting equal billing with loud-mouthed shills, spitting deliberate provocations in an increasingly divisive substitution of content for discontent, the remaining shreds of nobility in the profession of journalism will be irreparably damaged and news will forever be defined by shallow attempts to generate ratings and revenue, and to push agendas rather than explain th http://amplify.com/u/a18qf7

Annoy.com vs. Rupert Murdoch: Decades of Disgust

2011-07-17T22:39:00.001-07:00

If anyone is wondering just how far the Murdoch’s will go to protect Rebekah Brooks need only look at Judith Regan to see where their loyalties ultimately lie. And if the FBI is wondering where to start to see if News Corporation committed criminal acts this side of the Atlantic, may I suggest starting with a subpoena of Judith Regan and Roger Ailes.

All this time we’ve been railing against Murdoch, it felt like we were swimming upstream alone. Long before Keith Olbermann began his vendetta against Fox News and later Murdoch. But the Internet has a memory, and despite the vulgarity of some of the expression, primed as it was for Annoy.com's mission, below is a compilation of what Annoy.com published. Vindication has taken a long time, but it looks like, finally, it may just have arrived.

Amplify’d from annoy.com

Annoy.com vs. Rupert Murdoch: Decades of Disgust

The biggest irony of all, was that my small company had waged a First Amendment battle, the resolution of which would protect the likes of News Corporation. No one could argue that online transmission of content of the New York Post, and later Fox News could meet the vague definitions of both indecent and annoying.

Almost every month, our disgust for Murdoch and the extent to which he was singlehandedly and irreparably degrading journalism was published on Annoy.com.

There was the song Money Green (based on Candle in the Wind), a posthumous message from the media to Diana about their relentless and deadly pursuit of her, (later turned into a video to point out the veracity of the predictions in the song), in which Murdoch was referred to as a “high class whore” who “paid for photographs, and your life was the price we paid.” The final line: “The carnage will continue, like the poison in the pen. And no one knows the difference now, between The Sun and CNN.

Then there was “If We Had Ethics,” based on the delightful “If I Did It” book deal with OJ Simpson. Judith Regan, a Rupert Murdoch darling who could do no wrong, was fired from News Corporation’s publishing arm, HarperCollins, on December 15, 2006 – supposedly over anti-Semitic comments she’s alleged to have made, in addition to the controversial O.J. Simpson faux confessional, “If I Did It,” which was distasteful enough to cause a collective public apoplexy. Regan was so maligned by virtually everyone (including me) that even the liars at Fox News, another News Corp. subsidiary tarred and feathered her, with none other than the ethically challenged Bill O’Reilly leading the charge.

When the stench of the distaste began emanating from the Murdochs themselves, they did what they do best. They threw Regan under the bus.

Almost a year later, Regan slapped News Corporation with a hundred million dollar lawsuit, accusing the company and HarperCollins of wrongfully dismissing her.

The lawsuit suggested that Regan’s downfall was quite possibly a craftily engineered preemptive strike to discredit her, so that by the time she opened her mouth to reveal the things she now has, no one would pay heed. They badly underestimated her.

According to Wikipedia, Regan “was ordered to lie to federal investigators regarding the controversy over Bernard Kerik, with whom she was having an affair, to protect Rudy Giuliani's bid for president.” According to the New York Times, “The assertion that the News Corporation has sought to protect Mr. Giuliani appears in the opening page of the filing. The document later revisits aspects of the assertion without providing a full account of what is alleged to have occurred or how it might be substantiated in court.”

Turns out, Judith Regan was familiar with New Corporation’s modus operandi. The executive who tried to influence her to lie to federal investigators was Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News. And Regan had proof. She had taped the conversation.

When News Corporation got wind of the recording, it took only two months before they reached a confidential settlement with Regan -- paying her $10.75 million, and in a curt press release, stated “After carefully considering the matter, we accept Ms. Regan’s position that she did not say anything that was anti-Semitic in nature, and further believe that Ms. Regan is not anti-Semitic.”

If anyone is wondering just how far the Murdoch’s will go to protect Rebekah Brooks need only look at Judith Regan to see where their loyalties ultimately lie. And if the FBI is wondering where to start to see if News Corporation committed criminal acts this side of the Atlantic, may I suggest starting with a subpoena of Judith Regan and Roger Ailes.

Our attacks against the disgusting, repulsive dregs of humanity who promoted violence and divisiveness and compromised any shred of the most basic common decency to whore themselves for the News Corporation brand included New York Post’s Andrea Peyser; Steve Dunleavy; Peter Chernin; Megan Turner; Adam Buckman; Murdoch’s wife who no doubt married him for his youthful good looks, Wendi Deng; Dianne Brandi, Vice President of Legal Affairs for Fox News Network; Geraldo Rivera; Oliver North; Daniel Pipes, Bill O’Reilly; Gen Beck; Richard Johnson; Lenn Robbins; and Michael Kelly.

All this time we’ve been railing against Murdoch, it felt like we were swimming upstream alone. Long before Keith Olbermann began his vendetta against Fox News and later Murdoch. But the Internet has a memory, and despite the vulgarity of some of the expression, primed as it was for Annoy.com's mission, below is a compilation of what Annoy.com published. Vindication has taken a long time, but it looks like, finally, it may just have arrived.
Read more at annoy.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a18cgo

The Internet's Landmark First Amendment Cases

2011-07-13T20:43:00.001-07:00

One of my remarkable First Amendment attorneys, Bill Turner, gives an overview of his book, Figures of Speech: First Amendment Heroes and Villains.

I'm incredibly honored. In this Authors@Google Presents talk, Bill spends a considerable amount of time discussing landmark First Amendment cases that set the stage for any Internet law to follow. Renv.ACLU, in which I filed an Amicus brief, and ApolloMedia v. Reno in which I was the plaintiff. He also dicusses Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

In addition, he discusses other important cases and their implications, including Yetta Stromberg (the first time in American history that the court struck down a law on First Amendment grounds) to Ku Klux Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, Earl Caldwell (the journalist who covered the Black Panthers and refused to hand over his notebooks and recordings to the FBI at the behest of J. Edgar Hoover), Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Larry Flint (editor of Hustler magazine).

Bill’s book provides an incredible history of the First Amendment – how “fighting words” or “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and other familiar First Amendment principles came to be. I will definitely be discussing more of Bill’s book, chapter by chapter, in posts to follow.

Introduction"

1 Yetta Stromberg

2 Jehovahs Witnesses

3 Dannie Martin

4 Raymond Procunier and Robert H Schnacke

5 Earl Caldwell

6 Richard Hongisto

7 Clarence Brandenburg

8 Larry Flynt

9 Clinton Fein and the ACLU

Afterword

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com

Authors@Google Presents William Bennett Turner: Figures of Speech

See more at www.youtube.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a17tba

Knesset Delivers Black Eye to Israel

2011-07-13T14:45:00.001-07:00

I’ve been harshly critical of Israel’s policies, not Israel, nor her people, nor her right to exist. Ever. And I’ve felt that Israel was strong enough, and vital enough and committed enough, and democratic enough to handle it, so my expectations have been high.

Amplify’d from www.pointingfingers.com

Knesset Delivers Black Eye to Israel

Is Israel really the only genuine democracy in the Middle East, as it is so often portrayed? Not if the Knesset has anything to do with it.

In a stunning move, Israel’s Knesset voted 47-38 to pass a bill that will make it illegal to support an anti-Israel boycott.

According to Britain’s Telegraph, “Under the terms of the bill it will be a civil offence to back an anti-Israel boycott, be it consumer, academic or cultural; and initiators of a boycott will be subject to litigation. The law also prevents the government doing business with any company that initiates or complies with boycotts.”

What exactly does “back” a boycott mean? Can you criticize it? If there’s a boycott on a performer, do you have to actually go see the performer to prove you aren’t boycotting?

I’ve been harshly critical of Israel’s policies, not Israel, nor her people, nor her right to exist. Ever. And I’ve felt that Israel was strong enough, and vital enough and committed enough, and democratic enough to handle it, so my expectations have been high.

Under this policy, given my art and writing, visiting Israel would constitute a risk for me, although I have yet to determine what the actual punishment would be, or who could sue me for what dmages once the litigation began.

A spokesperson for EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton stated: “The EU recognizes Israel's sovereignty in the legislative process. Furthermore, the EU does not advocate boycotts. However, as part of such fundamental values as free expression and speech that the EU cherishes and shares with Israel, we are concerned about the effect that this legislation may have on the freedom of Israeli citizens and organizations to express non-violent political opinions."
Read more at www.pointingfingers.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a17t0b

Lez Get Real, SHall We?

2011-06-17T15:54:00.001-07:00

Startling revelations that "A Gay Girl in Damascus," a Syrian lesbian blogger named Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari, and "Lez Get Real," founded by Paula Brooks (that helped put Amina on the blogosphere map), turned out to both be straight white Americans -- seemingly unrelated or aware of each other's duplicity -- has some angry acitivits, gay and straight alike, calling for greater regulation of this kind of hoax.

In my conversation with Tanya Domi on The New Civil Rights Movement, we both conclude that speech regulation is not the answer - that discernment is our responsibility, not those creating content authentic enough to fool us.

Amplify’d from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

Lez Get Real, Shall We?

The distance from Damascus to Edinburgh to Ohio totals about 10,000 miles, but for two straight American men pretending to be lesbian bloggers covering different continents around the world, the distance from the truth was immeasurable.

A conversation between Clinton Fein and Tanya Domi.

Clinton: LezGetReal for a second. There are so many layers to this story that I don’t really know where to begin. In a nutshell, a State Department investigation into the sudden disappearance of Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari, a widely read Syrian woman blogging as “A Gay Girl in Damascus” turns out to be a hoax perpetrated by “A Straight Creep in Edinburgh,” Tom MacMaster, who is actually American.

In a half-hearted, non-apologetic apology, MacMaster, a Middle East activist from Georgia USA, claimed that despite leading everyone to believe he was Amina, he was dealing with very real issues and giving voice to things that needed to be spoken about. “I never expected this level of attention. While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground. I do not believe that I have harmed anyone – I feel that I have created an important voice for issues that I feel strongly about. I only hope that people pay as much attention to the people of the Middle East and their struggles in this year of revolutions. The events there are being shaped by the people living them on a daily basis. I have only tried to illuminate them for a western audience.” Seemingly unaware of the extent to which his elaborate hoax was diverting attention away from real issues facing actual Syrians in an increasingly brutal crackdown on protesters.

Then it turns out that the person who helped solve the case because her suspicion was aroused by the IP address of the “A Gay Girl in Damascus” site (although the State Department’s findings would have anyway), was Paula Brooks, the founder of the LezGetReal web site, who helped launch “A Gay Girl in Damascus”. Only, it turns out Paula Brooks is really a 58– year-old retired military veteran and construction worker, Bill Graber. (The picture of him that I used in the graphic for this article was provided to the Washington Post by Graber. but who verified that it’s him?)

Tanya: Clinton, I do not know where to begin on the LGR and the “Gay Girl from Damascus” blog hoaxes. I am filled with such a range of emotions about this hoax — rage, anger, exasperation, shock and some disbelief. I mean, two white heterosexual American men who had the audacity to pose as lesbians. There is such disrespect and mockery in their actions and the presumption that they could pass as “gay girls” and in the course of propagating these blogs, played with women’s hearts and minds.

In the case of “Amina Abdallah”, MacMaster, the man behind the faux Syrian lesbian, has cruelly played all of us to be fools in his sport, with lesbians as his game. Bill Graber, who posed as “Paula Brooks” on LezGetReal blog, as a deaf lesbian mother — what a con! I do agree with feminist psychotherapist Susie Orbach who has called these lesbian personas a “double inversion” — exploiting the ‘illegitimacy’ of the person they were impersonating to give themselves legitimacy”.

Clinton: “We Are All Khaled Said,” one of the social media activism success stories, to a large degree responsible for the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and the blossoming of the Arab Spring in the Middle East said this in response to this whole sordid affair: “I think this hoax is a stab in the back to Online activists and especially to those who need to hide their identity to protect themselves from dictators. I believe that many people’s trust in social activism have been shaken by this hoax.”

I don’t even want to get into the whole pathology of heterosexual men posing as lesbians – yet!

Tanya: Interestingly enough, I am reading Arabist Joseph Massad’s tour de force book titled Desiring Arabs at the moment, in which the author posits that “the Prophet prohibited suhaq, or sapphism, just as the Qu’an prohibited adultery”. Knowing about such prohibitions under Sharia law, for Ammina publicly identifying as “A Gay Girl in Damascus” struck me as so, so audacious — a death wish, if true. And, unlikely, as well. It immediately raised a red flag to me. I was intrigued and decided to watch her alleged kidnapping play out, figuring if this woman really existed, she would most likely be murdered, execution style by zealot religious police.

And let me just add that I have always, always been uncomfortable with the LGR’s tagline: “A gay girl’s guide to the world”. “A gay girl” is not the customary adjective and noun used by lesbians to refer to themselves. Younger women commonly call themselves “queer” and older women like myself call ourselves “lesbian”. But ‘gay girls’? I always thought that tag line was a bit off and odd — sort of discomforting. I fortunately was never pulled into the LGR and it never called out to me.

Clinton: Samya from Muslimah Media Watch wrote a brilliant essay as to why this is damaging to the cause of global online activism and Arab women. And while I agree with her insights, I don’t agree with her conclusions, because with both “A Gay Girl in Damascus” and LezGetReal there were signs. Signs that we chose to ignore. And so I don’t think we get off the hook that easily without looking at what those were and why and how we missed them.

The first time I was exposed to LezGetReal was on Twitter, where we followed each other and briefly communicated. I have no idea who was managing their Twitter account. Although I found the word “lez” to be incongruent with the content, which I thought was sincere and smart actually — David Kato, Uganda, The Family. The same way you were uncomfortable with the LGR’s tagline. I have lots of friends who are lesbians and I have never, not once, heard any of them use the term “lez” to identify themselves. I always thought it was either a kind of derogatory term or one that you would see on porn sites to titillate straight men. Now it kind of makes sense in a way, as does the irony of the “GetReal.” It seems to me now the very name LezGetReal was a taunt – how could we have missed it?
Read more at thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a15g3g

Apples, iClouds and iRony

2011-06-14T16:12:00.001-07:00

Rumor or not, just too delicious to resist: iCloud. Powered by Microsoft.

Amplify’d from gizmodo.com

Is Microsoft Azure Powering Apple’s iCloud?

Kyle Wagner —This is curious: InfiniteApple is saying they've confirmed that iCloud is powered by Microsoft's Azure, at least for the moment.

The folks at InfiniteApple sent files to and from iPhones with iOS 5 beta installed and monitored the traffic. They concluded that iCloud doesn't actually store anything. Instead, it simply "manages links" to content stored elsewhere—in this case, Microsoft's Azure services. iCloud's still in beta, so this may be a temporary solution. Still, how great would it be if the defining feature of Apple's year turns out to be powered by Microsoft? [InfiniteApple via ZDnet]
Read more at gizmodo.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a154qr

Social Media Starbucks

2011-06-14T13:40:00.001-07:00

Wow. Starbucks handled this quickly, and the only way it could have.

Their media response in terms of timing, tone and action is flawless. There is no other way they could have or should have handled this. Companies, take heed. This is how you take on a potential branding crisis.

Amplify’d from www.starbucks.com

Our Dedication to Embrace Diversity

At Starbucks, we pride ourselves on being a great place to work. We are deeply dedicated to our core values – to embrace diversity and treat each other with respect and dignity. We’re committed to providing an inclusive, supportive and safe work environment for everyone. Moreover, we look for ways in which we can honor and celebrate the diversity of our partners as they, too, represent the communities that are home to our stores.

We are disheartened by the allegations reported in an East Coast Starbucks store and are taking immediate measures to investigate and take any steps necessary to make this right. The actions reported do not correspond with our values, who we are as a company or the beliefs we try to instill in our partners.

Starbucks has supported the LGBT community for many years, and we have zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind. We have one of the largest Employer Resource Groups for LGBT employees in the United States helping to raise awareness about issues in the communities in which we live and work. Our benefits program has always offered domestic partner benefits in the United States and Canada, and Starbucks partners actively participate and organize local LGBT events in their communities. We’re also very proud of the 100% score we received on the Corporate Equality Index from the Human Rights Campaign. We will continue to work very closely with this organization and others on topics relevant to the community.
Read more at www.starbucks.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a154f5

Speak Freely, Tracy Morgan

2011-06-12T17:30:00.001-07:00

Another idiot sticks his big foot in his big mouth. As is his right.

Amplify’d from www.redroom.com

Because I'm known as a First Amendment purist and activist, I've received a number of messages and questions regarding Tracy Morgan and the First Amendment. I think it's worth expressing the following.

First and foremost, only a government can censor speech. Organizations such as NBC also enjoy a First Amendment right to express themselves, and as a private corporation can legally choose to deny someone a voice on their media properties if they so choose. And while we refer to it as corporate censorship, it is not really censorship at all in the context of the First Amendment.

Tracy Morgan is protected by the First Amendment. And while some may argue that his diatribe crossed the line into inciting violence, such a shouting fire in a crowded theater, it would not meet the strict standards that are applied that guarantee us our First Amendment protections.

That said, the First Amendment right to freely express oneself does not mean that speech is without consequence. Eminem can sing homophobic and misogynist lyrics, and the targets of his expression can just as loudly and freely berate him, mock him, pity him and boycott him.

Anti-gay organizations can spew their vile hatred under the guise of morality or religion, but it doesn't mean they won't be ripped a new one for it.

Tracy Morgan has the right to say whatever he wants about how he feels about gay people. That does not mean he has the right to be employed by NBC or Tina Fey if he crosses a line that either displeases them or reflects badly on them.

Rush Limbaugh can make as many racist, vile and ugly statements as he likes. It doesn't mean he is protected from it being attributed to a pathalogical, racist, vile, bloated Oycontin addict.

Ann Coulter can say that if she had a gay child she would tell the child he or she was adopted. And we can say that if Ann Coulter told a child she was a mother, the child could, and most likely would, say he or she was adopted.

As public figures shoot their mouths (and themselves in the foot), and laws that tackle hate speech are being crafted in congress, we need to be careful to make sure that context, mood and occasion are incorporated into how expression is assessed and managed as opposed to blanket condemnations of words.

Nigger, faggot and other epithets have an important historical relevance, and the outright ban of those words would be chilling and dangerous. We can't teach why these words hurt and sting without being able to use and reference them.

While it may be really tempting to silence people like Tracy Morgan, Mel Gibson, or Michael Richards, the best way to counter the lies and the hatred they spread is through countering misinformation. That means more, intelligent, constructive expression that neutralizes -- or better nullifies -- the original speech , not less expression.

Tracy Morgan may yet learn the hard way just why the kind of garbage he spews in unacceptable (not to mention unamusing and ignorant). In terms of fans, job opportunities, and goodwill, to name a few. But he still has a First Amendment right to express himself, as do all Americans.

Just because we have free speech does not mean it is without cost.

See more at www.redroom.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a14z6f

The Gay Agenda

2011-06-07T15:47:00.001-07:00

If gay bashing, teen suicide and genuine attempts by politicians and the current slew of presidential candidates to actually amend America’s constitution to explicitly deny rights to homosexuals weren’t clear and present dangers, the notion of a “gay agenda” would be laughable. How strong can a marriage be – a supposedly sanctified institution – if two members of the same sex marrying will destroy it? How learned can a behavior be, if despite your best parenting efforts to instill heterosexuality onto your children, they can be so easily evangelized by radical homosexuals.

Despite the tongue-in-cheek nature of this piece, it can, and likely will, be taken out of context once again, and used destructively by bigots and homophobes with ill intentions.From the other side, I’ll be criticized for irresponsibly kindling the already raging fires by providing fresh fodder, as opposed to just blindly endorsing Obama 17 months before the election.

Concerned Women for America called me an obscene pornographer in one of their polemic press releases, J. Matt Barber, now Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and Associate Dean of Liberty University School of Law called me a noted activist and pornographer. So let me give them what they really want to hear from me. As if they need excuses.

Amplify’d from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

The Gay Agenda

How many of you haven’t heard of the “Gay Agenda” or “Radical Homosexual Agenda”?

Although many claim there isn’t one, here it is, the new, improved radical, homosexual agenda for the next five years. An evil, 50-point roadmap, if you will, towards destroying nuclear families, and reshaping society to the point that if your son isn’t blowing his professor, don’t be planning any graduation ceremonies.

In 2005, I wrote a satire, The Gay Agenda, for Annoy.com. As I predicted in the contextualization, J. Matt Barber, (the gender-confused man of Concerned Women for America) who clearly doesn’t understand satire any more than he does his own unhealthy fascination with homosexuality, had this to say about me in his article “Unmasking the Gay Agenda”: “Such stark examples of homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the ‘gay’ agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled, ‘The Gay Agenda’”. Candid? Really?

Another man who spends his every waking hour thinking of, and every sleeping hour dreaming of, gay sex, is Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth (it used to be Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, but perhaps he didn’t want to be seen stating the blatantly obvious). At least Peter stated I was “spoofing conservative Christians,” yet could “feel” my hate and comforted his followers by letting them know “one day poor Clinton will have to answer to Him, anyway.”

For all the fear-mongering liars, frauds and hypocrites that use religion to marginalize, humiliate, electrocute and murder others, may this new, updated and revised Gay Agenda permeate your worst nightmares. Yes, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Alliance Defense Fund, Christian Coalition, Morality in the Media, National Organization for Marriage and all you other haters, this means you.

Gay men and lesbians should marry one another, and extol each other every tangible and intangible benefit the institution provides. They cannot stop gay marriage as long as gays are marrying. If you are gay and single without a desire to marry, marry a homosexual of the opposite sex anyway, and donate any marriage credits the government may offer to any gay organization seeking to destroy heterosexual norms. Gay couples should marry lesbian couples for the same reasons.

Once benefits are secured, such as green cards, divorce. Wreck the sanctity of the institution by driving up the divorce rates from the current 52% to at least 80%.

Remember 52% of marriages end in divorce, the remaining 48% in death. There’s nothing sanctimonious about that. In fact the institution needs protecting from those under whose charge it currently rests. Demand the institution and then wreck it. They’re onto our evil intentions to destroy the family. They don’t realize how quickly.

BAN DIVORCE. If the institution is so in need of protection, seek a constitutional amendment to ban divorce. One marriage, once. Until passed, stiff incremental tax increases for anyone in second, third or fourth marriages. Beyond four, they’re nullified.

Use petitions and lobbying so that any religious institution granting divorce or marrying people who have already been married are stripped of any tax exemptions.

Until marriage is equal, heterosexuals should be forbidden from wearing wedding rings in public. The blatant flaunting of their sexuality is inappropriate, and we don’t need our children conjuring up penises and vaginas every time they spot a wedding ring. Gay marriage would neutralize that consequence.

Prevent people like Maggie Gallagher of National Organization for Marriage (NOM) from raising tax-exempt fees by speaking in public venues about what she likes sticking in her underused vagina. No one cares, not least of all, our children.

Lesbians are encouraged to become surrogate mothers and gay men are encouraged to donate sperm to any lesbian couples desiring children.

Penetrate the sperm banks to perpetuate the gene. Although the nature vs. nurture debate rages on, ensure that as many vials of semen contain gay genes. We want inventory without having to recruit from their churches.

Whether donating sperm or eggs, insist that heterosexuals be tested for homophobia before qualifying to receive any fertility assistance, regardless of how sad or desperate they may be.

Get a gun and learn how to shoot. It’s just as important to arm bears as it is to bear arms. If you think you’re protected by the Constitution, think again. Seeking a constitutional amendment to ban marriage is just a step. Their next constitutional amendment will be to deny gays guns.

File fraud and slander lawsuits targeted at “Ex Gay” movements or any other organization daring to claim to cure homosexuality, and turn their facilities into Homophobic Deviancy Rehabilitation (HDR) centers.

Certain religious groups have attempted to “straighten” gay children using electricity. If their assertions are correct, children or adults exercising homophobic tendencies can be corrected using electro-therapy – once their organizations have been shut down and property seized.

San Francisco Supervisor Dan White blamed Twinkies for murdering gay Supervisor, Harvey Milk and Mayor, George Moscone. It worked. Now a Catholic doctors’ association in Germany believes it can cure the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians with sugar pills. If you respond violently to such stupidity, blame it on the sugar pills.

Lie about your sexual orientation when giving blood. Screening of blood is either effective or not. If a celibate gay’s blood is more dangerous than that of sexually promiscuous heterosexual, the problem is in the screening process, not the orientation of the donor.
Read more at thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a14qjy

Dangerous Digital Liaisons

2011-06-06T19:08:00.001-07:00

In the context of someone who has engaged in lawsuits that raise questions about, and demand distinctions between, content vs. conduct, can the expression of what is essentially a fantasy using an electronic communications protocol be compared to acting on the fantasy?

This is not as simple or obvious as comical situations where certain teens making abstinence pledges don't count blowjobs or anal sex, (or Bill Clinton for that matter), does typing messages and sending photos of oneself sexually aroused constitute adultery? Sex therapists --even the likes of Doctor Ruth - encourage fantasy in relationships, such as pretending to be with someone else while engaged in sex activity with one's partner. Does an online fling actually constitute adultery?

Obviously intent and boundaries and other factors make it a unique question for couples, but the question is worth asking.

There's no risk of contracting STDs or impregnating anyone, and while no one denies that the behavior obviously consitutes some form of conduct, is it fair or accurate to deem it adulterous?

Amplify’d from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

Weiner: "I Have Made Terrible Mistakes" But I Am Not Resigning

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Monday afternoon stated in a hastily-called press conference that he has made “terrible mistakes.” The embattled Congressman, generally the one leading the charge, was caught defending himself over the past eight days after less-than credible media mogul Andrew Breitbart published a photograph, reportedly of Weiner in his underwear. The Congressman said last week he was unable to unequivocally state it was not him, although the media reports Weiner’s Twitter account, from which the photo was sent, had been hacked.

Weiner said he indeed had tweeted the inappropriate photo accidentally, and had intended it to be a private message to the woman.

Reporters grilled Weiner on his relationship with his wife and repeatedly asked where she is. “She is not here.”

“I never met any of these women, I never had any physical relationship with these women.” Weiner refused to say specifically if he ever had phone sex with any of the women.

Weiner said, “I have made terrible mistakes and I have not been honest with myself or my constituents.”

“I don’t believe I did anything that violates my oath of office.”

“I have engaged in several inappropriate conversations. I have engaged in inappropriate behavior with approximately six women. I’ve done things I deeply regret. I’m deeply sorry. I apologize to my wife as well as our friends and supporters.”

“I was embarrassed, I was humiliated, I was trying to protect my wife, I was trying to protect myself from shame.”

Accusations have been flying all day long, and Andrew Breitbart claims he has a vault-full of photos and Internet messages reportedly from Weiner that paint the Congressman as Washington’s first Internet sexter.

Breitbart had grabbed the microphone at Weiner’s press conference even before the Congressman made his statement to reporters. Breitbart has been at the center of discredited videos that ultimately led to the firing of Shirley Sherrod, and the destruction of ACORN, along with creating a harmful environment for Planned Parenthood.
Read more at thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a14ovh

Most Unpatriotic of Acts

2011-05-26T17:24:00.001-07:00

72 United States senators chose to renew the insidious Patriot Act, one of the Orwellian, Newspeak type acts that could not be more unpatriotic when its provisions are weighed against the principles articulated in the constitution of the United States.

Signed into law by President Bush in the first week following the September 11th attacks, this draconian legislation is what emboldened the Bush administration to scoff at laws – leading to the denial of habeus corpus and the torturing of enemy combatants.

Just because its ugly face is no longer represented by John Ashcroft and George Tenet, doesn’t make it any less unpatriotic.

President Obama’s failure to hold the torturers and their enablers accountable taints his legacy with the same constitutional shredding that characterized President Bush’s.

Amplify’d from www.reuters.com

Congress votes to renew anti-terrorism steps

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress, racing the clock and rejecting demands for additional safeguards of civil liberties, passed a bill Thursday to renew three expiring provisions of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

With the provisions set to expire at midnight Thursday (0400 GMT on Friday), the Republican-led House of Representatives approved the measure, 250-153, just hours after it cleared the Democratic-led Senate, 72-23.

President Barack Obama is traveling in Europe. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said that he was prepared to use "the auto pen to sign" the bill quickly into law.

Democrats and some Republicans favored more protections of civil liberties in the legislation for law-abiding citizens.

But congressional leaders, facing the midnight deadline and possibly short on votes, agreed to a four-year, unaltered extension of the provisions to track suspected terrorists.

The provisions empower law enforcement officials to get court approval to obtain "roving wiretaps" on suspected foreign agents with multiple modes of communications, track noncitizen "lone wolves" suspected of terrorism, and obtain certain business and even library records.

"Although the Patriot Act is not a perfect law, it provides our intelligence and law enforcement communities with crucial tools to keep America safe," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat.

The provisions are key parts of the Patriot Act, which was enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. While backers say the provisions bolster U.S. security, critics say they could be abused and violate the rights of U.S. citizens.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a liberal Democrat, and Republican Senator Rand Paul, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement, together offered steps to bolster oversight of the Patriot Act and increase civil-liberty liberty protections.

Their proposed changes cleared the Judiciary Committee, but Leahy and Paul were unable to bring them up for a vote by the full Senate.

Leahy said, "The extension of the Patriot Act provisions does not include a single improvement or reform, and includes not even a word that recognizes the importance of protecting the civil liberties and constitutional privacy rights of Americans."
Read more at www.reuters.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a13x8l

Swastikas and Sugartits

2011-05-19T17:35:00.001-07:00

Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier's unfortunate diatribe at Cannes, claiming he thought he was Jewish until his mother revealed the truth on her deathbed, then discovered he was a Nazi and sympathized with Hitler was about as good a career move as Michael Richards' racist stand-up routine. Often times the greatest punishment for stupidity is self-inflicted. Costing credibility, friendships and professional relationships.

But was the decision by the Cannes Film Festival's board of directors to declare von Triers "persona non grata" really necessary? Surely a festival celebrating freedom of expression should leave the social response to the intelligence of the audience and any financial reprisals to the hand of the free market.

By all means, offer a repudiation, and distance themselves from the career-suicidal remarks, but to bar von Trier from attending the ceremony and even from entering the festival headquarters, the Palais des Festivals seems like a heavy-handed step too far.

Isn’t it just a little eyebrow-raising that Beaver, starring Mel Gibson received a glowing reception and warm applause, and that Gibson is being treated like royalty, literally basking in Cannes' reception of Beaver and the film director, Jodie Foster's, defense of him - seen enjoying himself sipping (allegedly tea) on Monaco's Prince Albert's yacht?

Seems if you pepper your anti-Semitism with racism, misogyny and homophobia, it dilutes it sufficiently to satisfy the hypocritical board of directors at the Cannes Film Festival.

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

Danish Director Barred From Festival After Making Hitler Jokes

CANNES, France — The Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier has been a fixture at the Cannes Film Festival throughout his career. All but one of his features have had their premieres here, and he won the top prize, the Palme d’Or, in 2000 for “Dancer in the Dark.” But the longstanding relationship came to an abrupt halt on Thursday when the festival’s board of directors declared Mr. von Trier “persona non grata” a day after he joked at a news conference for his latest film, “Melancholia,” that he was a Nazi and sympathized with Hitler.

In its official statement the Cannes Film Festival called itself “an exceptional forum” for artists “to present their works and defend freedom of expression and creation” and said it “profoundly regrets that this forum has been used by Lars von Trier to express comments that are unacceptable, intolerable and contrary to the ideals of humanity and generosity that preside over the very existence of the festival.”

A festival spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that “Melancholia” remained in competition and eligible for the prizes, which will be announced on Sunday. (A jury headed by Robert De Niro will determine those winners.) But he added that Mr. von Trier was barred from attending the ceremony and even from entering the festival headquarters, the Palais des Festivals. No decision has been made about whether the ban would apply to future festivals.

The American publicist for “Melancholia,” which will be released in the United States by Magnolia Pictures, said the Cannes board’s decision will not affect plans to release the film in the fall as scheduled.

A habitual provocateur, Mr. von Trier, 55, has shown time and again that he knows how to get a reaction, not least from the Cannes crowd. When his 1991 film, “Europa,” shared the runner-up Jury Prize, missing out on the Palme d’Or, in his acceptance speech he referred to the jury president Roman Polanski as “the midget.” He has won detractors and defenders in equal measure with provocations like “Dancer in the Dark” and “Dogville.” The last time he was in Cannes, with the explicit 2009 psychodrama “Antichrist,” not only was the film jeered at its press screening, but Mr. von Trier was also booed at his news conference.

All seemed to be going well for a while on Wednesday morning. “Melancholia,” which Mr. von Trier has described as his response to his battle with depression, was met with applause — and just a few boos — at its press screening, and there were no hostile questions at the conference. The trouble began more than half an hour into the conference, as Mr. von Trier spoke about the use of Wagner’s “Tristan und Isolde” in the film, which is about two sisters and the end of the world, describing it as “an important work in the German romantic tradition.” A question followed from a British journalist about what Mr. von Trier had described in a Danish magazine as his interest in the Nazi aesthetic and his German roots, which he discovered as an adult.

Mr. von Trier began his response by alluding to his background. (He has said in interviews that his mother on her deathbed told him that her husband was not Mr. von Trier’s real father and that until then he had believed he was Jewish.) “I really wanted to be a Jew, and then I found out that I was really a Nazi,” he said. Invoking Hitler, he added: “I think I understand the man. He’s not what you would call a good guy. But I understand much about him, I sympathize with him a little bit.”

Mr. von Trier fumbled to clarify his position. “I’m not against Jews, not even Susanne Bier,” he said, referring to the Danish filmmaker who won the best foreign-language Oscar this year for “In a Better World.” He then concluded the monologue with another attempt at a joke. “O.K., I’m a Nazi,” he said, prompting some laughs in the room.

Mr. von Trier’s remarks were circulating on Twitter and blogs within minutes. Later on Wednesday the festival issued a statement condemning his remarks. Mr. von Trier, through his publicists, issued an apology, which read: “If I have hurt someone by the words I said at the press conference I sincerely apologize. I am not anti-Semitic or racially prejudiced in any way, nor am I a Nazi.”
Read more at www.nytimes.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a13fws

Complacency You Can Rely On

2011-05-14T18:27:00.001-07:00

We know the extent to which privacy is racing its way toward becoming an historic concept that human beings once enjoyed. But the quote I found most disturbing in this piece was this:

"He agreed when Angry Birds, Pandora, and other apps asked to track his location. 'I never say no. It’s more annoying than anything when they ask, but I’m used to it now,' said Fitzsimones, now 14."

Yep, the annoyance that comes from being asked over and over again until you really don't know or care anymore is what these companies are relying on. How many of you with iPhones has actually read the 59 page Terms of Use Apple demands you agree to before being able to download some lame-assed app? They pull shit like this and then complain about regulation.

Amplify’d from www.boston.com

With a click or a keystroke, teens shed privacy using apps

But they lack decision skills, specialists warn

WASHINGTON — After Scott Fitzsimones turned 13, he got an iPhone, set up accounts for Facebook and Pandora, and went on an apps downloading spree. At the same time, the new teenager lost many protections over his privacy online.

Tweet 1 person Tweeted this
ShareThis
The games he plays know his location at any given moment through the phone’s GPS technology. He has entered his parents’ credit card number to buy apps, and iTunes has his family’s e-mail address and everyone’s full names. Facebook knows his birth date and the school he attends.

At an age when his parents do not let him go to the mall alone and in an era when he would never open up to a stranger, Fitzsimones, who lives in Phoenix, already has a growing dossier accumulating on the Web.

And while Congress has passed laws to protect the youngest Internet users from sharing much information about themselves, once those children become teens, the same privacy rules no longer apply.

“It’s the Wild West for teens when it comes to privacy online,’’ said Kathryn Montgomery, a privacy advocate and communications professor at American University in Washington.
Read more at www.boston.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a12pkj