Title 2 Regulation Isn't Net Neutrality... but it IS Warrantless Wiretapping...

Since it's coming around again...

...STOP SPREADING THE DELIBERATE FRAUD THAT TITLE 2 REGULATION IS NET NEUTRALITY...

It isn't. It has literally NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the SELF GOVERNING principle, that all network traffic between service providers and their customers, is the same. Traffic is traffic regardless of the content... except that certain types of latency sensitive traffic can be prioritized, and certain types of low priority non-sensitive traffic can be deprioritized, for network and bandwidth management purposes, and hostile or harmful traffic can be throttled or blocked, to prevent service degradation and the like.

This has, until recently, always been self enforced. Recently, some very large service providers have attempted to double dip, by trying to charge some very large content providers like Netflix, who use up LOT of bandwidth, but are not those ISPs direct customers for their primary data centers etc... That's double dipping, because those ISPs already charge peering interconnect fees, to the ISPs that Netflix already pays for their internet upload capacity.

Again, up until recently, if an ISP tried to treat any other ISP or organizations traffic worse than everyone else, the other ISPs would do the same for that ISPs traffic... thus nobody broke the rules for very long. That is still MOSTLY true MOST of the time... But a couple of the huge mega ISPs are SO big, that you cant do that anymore or you would slow down very large fractions of ALL internet traffic.

Title 2 regulation does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent that from happening.

Title 2 regulation allows for two main things... The FCC can set the rates large ISPs charge each other for interconnect peering, and it REQUIRES ALL TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE COMPANIES (including email and VPN providers according to the Obama admin proposed regs) TO COMPLY WITH WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING AND METADATA COLLECTION, which is the real reason the government wants it.

The FBI cooked up a plan to collude with other federal agencies, and an at the time cooperative and power grabbing democrat controlled FCC, to rebrand warrantless wiretapping, as net neutrality... which actually is, and always has been, something else entirely.

If you believe in phony net neutrality, its probably not your fault... you have been, and continue to be, deliberately defrauded about the issue.

A Simple Question

So... hardcore drug warriors out there... I have a very simple question for you...

Why?

You can't stop people from getting high. It's NOT POSSIBLE.

It literally does not matter how far you go, you cannot stop it.

We can't stop heroin from getting into supermax prisons, where there are no visitors allowed, and everyone is body searched in and out.

I just had a dedicated drug warrior fully sincerely advocate that we completely seal the border, and that every vehicle, container, and person should be fully cavity searched.

When I pointed out that cavity searches didn't stop heroin from getting in to supermax prisons, he said that we need to have full walls on all the borders, and boats to patrol the coastlines to stop smugglers.

You can't stop people from getting high. This is not an issue of sealing the borders.

Even if you actually sealed the borders successfully, then they would just grow it here.

How exactly would you stop that?

It would require constantly patrolling millions of acres of property, searching all greenhouses, and all forests, and all fields of any kind of anything, at least once every 90 days... in the entire country.

Doing so... aside from the massive violations of peoples rights, would require millions of law enforcement officers dedicated to it.

That would cost more than the entire budget of the United State by the way.

Even if you manage to completely eradicate all opium poppies, and all coca plants on the planet, they will just synthesize it in labs... and by labs, I mean, any quiet room with an electrical outlet, or anywhere you can run a generator, or a blow torch.

If you completely ban all substances that people could get high with, you ban thousands of legal products with legitimate and critical uses, including a huge number of critical medications.

You also have to ban all lab equipment, or closely license and track its sale. And all chemicals of all kind... and many kinds of foods. And most kinds of flowers.

And all machine tools, and glass blowing equipment... and blow torches, and pipes and tubes and sand...

And you'll have to dig out and burn out millions and millions of acres of plants.

We have 7,500 miles of border. We have 13,000 miles of coastline.

You can make it a death penalty offense to posses, sell, or use drugs, or get high. Many countries do in fact... and people still get high.

This dedicated drug warrior said that it didn't matter what it took, it didn't matter what it cost... It didn't matter if it wouldn't work at all... That we had to do it anyway.

When I asked why, he said:

"Because to do otherwise would be to surrender"

Then I asked "Surrender what? To who?"

He said "Surrender to the junkies and the dealers"

I asked "Surrender what?"

He refused to answer.

And again I asked "Why"

He refused to answer.

I said "You're advocating a police state, in order to stop people from getting high. Why?"

He refused to answer.

So... I have a very simple question for you...

You cannot possibly stop people who want to get high, from getting high.

You can't make it illegal enough. You can't ban or control enough. It's not possible... you have to know that it isn't possible..

Prohibition PROVED beyond all possibility of doubt that it's impossible.

The last 45 years of the war on drugs have proved beyond all possibility of doubt that it's impossible.

Maximum security prisons prove beyond all possibility of doubt that it's impossible.

But you still think we have to do it... No matter what it takes... No matter the harm it causes... No matter what rights get violated...No matter how much power it gives the state. No matter how much it costs...

Why?

It's a really simple question...

Performance Enhancing? Nope... normalizing... But don't try to tell the DEA that.

There's a funny thing about my life... I'm not sure if this is comic, tragic, ironic or what...

I spent more than 10 years as a serious competitive powerlifter, football player, wrestler, and martial artist, and another few years as a just a hobbyist.

In that entire time, I never did a single "performance enhancing drug"... Never even tempted to do so.

Now I'm a broken down, fat, middle aged cripple... who the DEA looks at like I'm a drug dealer or abuser of "performance enhancing substances"... just to keep from getting fatter, more broken down, and more crippled.

I'm 8 years into the frank symptoms of chronic illness (which turned out to be a weird and rare kind of endocrine cancer, that almost killed me, and basically destroyed my endocrine system. I have been cancer free for almost 2 years now), and  I am now on damn near the exact combination of drugs that "juicers" would traditionally use for such things.

I take more testosterone every week than most steroid abusers would even think of... and I don't cycle it, I take it constantly, deep muscle injection every week.

I take an aromatase inhibitor to keep all that testosterone from converting to estrogens and testosterone antagonists (and giving me all the nasty side effects that not cycling off testosterone injections give you). We're experimenting with that one right now, but we may end up adding an estrogen/estradiol antagonist to the mix on top of the aromatase inhibitor.

By the by... those drugs are normally what they give to breast cancer and ovarian cancer patients. They actually say in the interaction warnings "do not take if you are a man"... unless of course you're a man whose body is producing too much estrogen, or converting too much testosterone into estrogens and testosterone antagonists, and blocking his ability to produce and use testosterone properly. If you're not one of those men, it dramatically increases the effect of testosterone (and other steroid hormones) on your body.

I'm on enough primary thyroid hormone to quite literally kill a normal person... in fact, not just "enough", the amount I take is several times the lethal dosage. It's still may not be enough for me. The doc just increased it today, and will probably increase it again in 6-12 weeks when we sort out the effects of the new meds. Sometimes athletes abuse thyroid hormones for weight loss, increased energy, and to boost other performance enhancing hormones naturally.

For allergies, and for inflammation pursuant to the endocrine issues, I take two different other steroidal medications (a glucocorticoid and a mineralcorticoid), which act as bronchodilators and anti-inflammatories.

To deal with some of the unfun and nasty side effects and after effects of the cancer (to improve metabolic function, energy, mental acuity etc...) I'm also taking enough creatine to put a normal person into kidney failure... For me, it actually makes my kidneys work better.

Because of the aftereffects of the cancer, the endocrine issues, and the side effects of the medications, I'm on megadoses of vitamins and minerals. I mean MEGADOSES.

Between all of those, my growth hormone production and DHEA production should be elevated through the roof... as if I was taking illegal supplementation of HGH. It's not... because my endocrine system is so screwed up.
For my edema (another lovely endocrine side effect, which can be made worse by my meds), I take more diuretics than the most abusive wrestler, gymnast, or bodybuilder. I've lost 24lbs in 24 hours, and 48lbs in 7 days just from the pills.

For musculoskeletal pain and systemic inflammation, I'm on more and stronger anti-inflammatories than any athlete rehabbing after a major injury (I take 1000mg of etodolac twice a day). I also get periodic shots of antiinflammatory medications directly into my knees.

Those let me get out of bed and walk. Without them... I just don't.

Between my normal blood chemistry, the damage the cancer did, and the side effects of medications, I've got polycythemia, and I'm a hyperclotter. I'm basically naturally blood doping.

To counter the aftereffects of the cancer and make the other meds work better (adrenal and pituitary support), I'm on enough stimulant medication (which is also a bronchodilator) to make the DEA look funny at my doctor... until he explains all of the above.

In fact, the DEA looks funny at several of the drugs I'm taking above. My doctors have had to explain to my pharmacists, and both have had to explain to the DEA... no, I'm not a drug dealer or abuser, I'm not a steroid abusing weight lifter... I'm just a guy who needs this stuff to live.

I should be taking actual pain killers too... I've got enough musculoskeletal  damage, neurological damage, and inflammation, that my baseline background pain is pretty substantial.

For those familiar with pain management, I live at about a 3-4 most days, with breakthrough to a 7 on good days, and 6 or 7 with breakthrough to 9 or 10 bad days.

That's with the meds. Without... there are no good days. There's just days I can get out of bed, and days I can't.

I simply refuse to take painkillers. They don't do a damn thing for me unless I take horse tranquilizer doses, and then they knock me out cold... or worse, leave me sami conscious and barely awake, but unable to think, or concentrate, or really actually sleep. Beside, I don't like the other side effects.

I've learned just to live with the pain, and take what pain reduction I can get with my other medications.

And by the way... this is a MASSIVE REDUCTION of the stuff I used to be taking, during the cancer. My primary care physician and my endocrinologist are both alternative and integrative medicine believers who hate drugs, and only prescribe the absolute minimum necessary.

I'm not overmedicated... if I go off of any of them, or all of them, nothing gets better and it all gets worse. We've done differential testing, going off one at a time and seeing the impact then going back on, then varying dosages... I'm definitely not overmedicated.

If anything, there are some other medications that might help me more. We're very slowly adding things in one at a time, so we can test and measure and adjust.

This isn't overmedication...

This is what happens, when your endocrine system completely loses the ability to regulate itself. It's trying to regulate through medication, what the body normally regulates naturally.

It's what I need to live, and be functional.

The worst thing is though... because of DEA actions, regulations, guidelines, and investigations... Several of my medications, that I need to live, and be productive, and actually be ME?

They're constantly short of them, or out of them entirely. Sometimes it's every pharmacy within 30 miles.

They don't stock them, they don't stock the dosages I need, or they don't stock enough to fill my scrips for a month.

I have to get hand written, signed scrips every month, I can't get refills, and I can't get more than a 30 days supply at once. If I'm caught with more than a 30 days supply, I can be charged with unlawful possession, and possession with intent to distribute.

I have to hand carry those scrips to the pharmacies, only for them to tell me that it might be a week, maybe two weeks, before they can fill the scrip; because the DEA production quota for that quarter had been exceeded, or the distributors orders were above the DEAs suspect threshold, or because they had sold out of all they could order for that month without the DEA investigating them, or because one scrip of mine was more than the DEA told that pharmacy they could keep in storage.

We won't even get into what the drugs themselves cost, or what they would cost without the regulatory and compliance burden to deal with these issues.

...And god help me if I actually took the painkillers I should be taking.

All this... because the medications that I need to live and function... are sometimes abused by other people to "enhance their performance".

... and somehow, some people still seem to think that the "drug war" is helping?

"Correcting" the so called "Corrections" system

As of today, it should be clear to everyone in this country, that our system for dealing with criminals (I won't call it a "criminal justice" system since justice has so little to do with it), is utterly broken, beyond any conventional concept of repair.

At this point, again I say, it should be clear we can't just "fix it", we need to start over again, with a different concept.

I have a radical idea.... how about this time we start with an HONEST concept... because right now we are anything but honest about what the real function of the "criminal justice" system is; and that dishonesty is what has made all our efforts to date fail miserably.

Today, although we will never admit this to ourselves publicly, there are three things keeping the "Corrections" system going:

1. It's a jobs program for law enforcement and "corrections" officers, and administrators
   
2. Non-offending people ARE actually safer when offenders are imprisoned (the problem is, what happens when they get out).
   
3. The punitive principle.

We like lots of cops (or at least the IDEA of lots of cops), we want to be "safe", and we feel that people who do bad should be PUNISHED.

That's really what it comes down to though, is punishment.

Punishment isn't SUPPOSED to "help" them. Punishment isn't supposed to "rehabilitate" them.

The very term "department of corrections" is a hypocritical misnomer.

Americans (and to a large extent most other cultures), put people in prison to punish them, not to "fix" them.

"Correctional system", "penitentiary"... All high minded hypocritical myths.

The reason "Sheriff Joe" "Americas Toughest Sherrif" is so popular (despite being the worst sort of self aggrandizing, corrupt, civil rights abusing scum) is because he reassures people that he is "punishing the bad guys"; and THAT is honestly what people want.

Eastern State Penitentiary, the first "modern" penitentiary style prison, was deliberately fashioned to resemble monks cells (which is where we got the name for inmate housing units), in the belief that isolation, contemplation, prayer, and penitence (thus the name), would reform criminals into decent men. It was held up as the new "humane" model. In reality it drove prisoners mad and they killed themselves, and each other, in droves.

So long as we refuse to acknowledge the true purpose behind "custodial sentencing" and pretend it has anything to do with the offender coming out better on the other side, we are stuck with what we've got (And rapidly getting worse).

We have to stop pretending that punishment does anything but feed our base emotions.

We have to stop pretending that the negative prospect of prison is sufficient to deter criminals from committing crimes. Most criminals by nature have a poor appreciation for consequences, poor impulse control, and an inability to make valid risk/reward calculations.

When you put a criminal away, all you are doing is warehousing him where he can't commit that crime anymore. That does serve a valid purpose, but it costs a huge amount of money, and doesn't fix the problem.

The so called "criminal justice" system can no longer serve as a jobs program for law enforcement, lawyers, administrators, and corrections personnel; nor can it simply be warehousing of offenders until we release them to commit their next offense.


So, here it is, really simple; my pie in the sky ideal for how to deal with crime and punishment.

Step 1:  drug addiction, possession, use, and sale, must be decriminalized 

This has to happen for ANYTHING to have any hope of working. That would eliminate something like 80% of the offenses in higher criminal courts, and drastically reduce prison populations (at least 40%, most likely something more like 80%).

Step 2: We must not only stop, but revert the proliferation of felonies

Right now, you can be convicted of a felony in some states, for as little as selling the wrong kind of fish at the wrong time. We have established a ridiculous number of offenses as "high crimes" (what felonies are intended to be); without any real justification or social purpose, except to inflate those whom the state can claim as convictions, claim higher punitive penalties from, or incarcerate for longer periods of time.

Accordingly, all crimes currently classified as felonies must be reclassified as misdemeanors unless they meet one or more of the following conditions:

1. Physical violence sufficient to cause grievous bodily harm, grievous trauma (such as rape and molestation), or substantial risk of loss of life (or more).
   
   
2. Physical or monetary damages equal to or greater than two years income at minimum wage, presuming a 1940 hour work year.
   
   
3. Crimes against basic human rights, including terrorism, tampering with courts, deprivation of rights etc...
   
   
4. Grave harm to the national security of the united states, including espionage and treason.
   
5. Criminal negligence, gross indifference, coercion, conspiracy, or fraud sufficient to cause the above.
   

Step 3: We must completely overhaul our punishment and societal protection model

We must eliminate custodial sentences for non-violent crimes, including felonies, unless those crimes involve:

1. Gross negligence or indifference leading to violent consequences or the loss of life (anything from drunk driving to greater liability issues)
2. Coercion, force or fraud causing damages in excess of five years of minimum wage (because this is effectively slavery for the victim)
3. Special circumstances which are considered "heinous" (more on that later). 

We must restore the element of criminal intent into how crimes are charged and sentenced. If there is no intent, then there can be no intentional crime; only crimes of negligence or indifference, which are generally considered far less severe.

In this regard, any action taken while intoxicated or impaired should be considered qualifying, HOWEVER only if criminal damage or injury to others results.

I believe that people should be allowed to drink, swallow or smoke whatever they want, but if their choices cause impairment which then causes damage or injury to others, they should be punished SEVERELY; and crimes involving impairment should be considered intentional for purposes of determining severity. 

Also for purposes of determining the severity of an offense, coercion or fraud shall be considered equivalent to force (force being defined as violence, or the threat of violence).

All other criminal offenses should be punished by restitution and compensatory and punitive damages to the victim, compensatory and punitive fines to the state, labor for public benefit, public humiliation, and two years of convict status (which can be reduced by order of a judge only after discharge of all obligations).

Further, on discharge of all other obligations, convicts shall be given a term, of "probation" equal to the length of their existing sentence.

The crimes, sentences, and photographs of all those convicted of criminal offenses should be published in all local newspapers, as well as on local and national web sites; and announced on local television.

All convicts should be required to wear a distinctive article (bracelet, necklace, ankle bracelet etc...) which lists their crime and sentence, and which cannot be covered up while in public.

Convicts must wear this article, until such time as their sentence and obligations have been discharged. At any time, the convict should be legally required to disclose their crime and sentence to anyone who asks; unless doing so would cause danger or disruption.

If a convict is able to earn more than a state mandated minimum wage in their private pursuits, they may continue performing them, and pay restitution and fines directly. If not, then they are directed to work for the state, at a competitive wage for such jobs as they perform, while meeting prevailing employment standards for such a position (i.e. if the only job they qualify for is ditch digger, it's the only job they can get; and they still have to compete for it with non-convicts).

If the convict is unable to meet basic standards of work, or is unwilling to work, then they will be reduced to menial forced labor at minimum wage. If they refuse this, they will be incarcerated, as a regular inmate, for the term of their sentence.

Restitution, damages, and fines should of course be directly garnished from the convicts wages; but should be considered pre-tax income deductions for tax purposes. 

All custodial sentences shall have terms of two, five, ten, twenty five years, or life (or death in states that allow it).

Different charged offenses can be combined consecutively to "stack" sentences; but only if those offenses make up separate criminal acts (if one crime involved 8 different chargeable elements with a 2 year sentence for each, then the convict would recieve 8 two year sentences to run concurrently. If he committed the same crime on 8 different occaisons, he could recieve consecutive sentences, for a total of 16 years incarceration)

There is no parole, however sentences can be reduced (more on that later).

Forcible rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual molestation, aggravated kidnapping, intentional premeditated or depraved homicide (what would be first degree murder in most jurisdictions), felony murder if the homicide is heinous by itself, any intentional negligent or depraved indifference crime resulting in mass death or mass grievous injury (mass being defined as multiple victims who were not individually targeted, or multiple victims who were unknown to the criminal and whom they had no individual an personal motive to harm), any crime involving tampering with a court or an election, any crime involving the intentional deprivation of an individuals basic human and civil rights (as enumerated in the declaration of independence, and the constitution), torture, espionage, treason; or any attempt to commit those crimes, or conspiracy to commit those crimes; shall all be considered "heinous crimes".

Heinous crimes should all carry the maximum length of incarceration, and should be eligible for the death penalty in jurisdictions that allow it.

It is important however, that all state and federal laws about the definitions of these crimes must be clarified and harmonized to meet the highest standard of criminal act, and criminal intent (for example, a potentially but not explicitly sexual element to a simple assault - such as public nudity or forced nudity -, would not make it sexual assault. The intent and act must be sexual in nature, and involve sexual contact or acts, or attempted sexual contact or acts. Forcible rape must be limited to actual acts of physical violence, or coercion by threat of violence, resulting in a sexual act).

Oh and yes, I really do believe that voter fraud and election fraud should be punishable by life in prison. So should criminally preventing someone from voting who has the lawful franchise. Any criminal deprivation of rights should be considered as serious as rape or murder. 

In addition to their custodial sentence, of course, all penalties that apply to non-custodial sentences would also apply. Restitution, damages, fines and fees, as well as all other conditions of convicts.


Sentences can be reduced, by a judge, on review of the case, and circumstances. A review will be automatically initiated at the time the convict discharges their restitution, damages, and fines, should they do so before the term of their incarceration is completed. Criminals convicted of heinous crimes however, would not be eligible for early release except for humanitarian reasons.

While serving a custodial sentence and incarcerated, unless disabled and unable to do so, the convict will be required to perform productive labor for at least 8 hours a day, five days a week; for which they will be paid at minimum, a base sum equal to the cost of their incarceration (for which they will be charged). They will also accumulate sick leave benefit, and paid vacation days, equivalent to a government employee of the same grade as whatever productive labor they perform.

If the convict is disabled and unable to perform any work, they will be given the same disability status as any disabled individual; and will receive the equivalent of all federal and state disability payments and benefits, to offset the cost of their incarceration.

The convict is to be given the opportunity to voluntarily learn useful job skills, and perform at a useful job at market rates, which can earn them money to pay their fines and restitution.

If the convict has useful skills which can be applied to work that can be performed within the terms of their incarceration without undue risk, this is to be allowed. 

The convict is also to be offered the opportunity to work overtime, and earn more money; to be used to pay the cost of their incarceration, their fines and restitution; the balance of which should be the inmates to control as they see fit.

This should not imply the inmate has a right to any job other than basic labor paid at a rate sufficient to cover the cost of their incarceration. Only that the opportunity to seek and perform other employment must be allowed.

If a convict refuses to work, or does not meet minimum standards of work, they are to be restricted to solitary confinement without public exercise, visitation, or communication privileges (excepting legal and spiritual council), and reduced to subsistence ration. Additionally, any work day the convict refuses to work, the cost of their incarceration for that day will be added to their obligations.

Some of this may seem ridiculous (vacation days for convicts?) but it serves an important purpose. The convict should understand, they are performing a job, for pay. They benefit from their own labor, and they have to pay for their own upkeep. If they work harder or more or at a better job, they get ahead; just like everyone else.

This kind of normalization is really the only way to produce people who won't reoffend when they get out. Get them useful job and life skills they can transfer to the outside world; and get them in the habit of meeting standards of behavior; you'll see a huge difference.

Any convict caught committing any felony while incarcerated will be subject to immediate extension of their sentence to life in the case of non-violent felonies, or death in the case of violent felonies. Self defense (against ANY crime or attempted crime against them, not just murder) is considered a valid defense against such charges however.

On their release from custody, convicts will be liable to the same penalties and strictures as those who have received non-custodial sentences.

Any further felony committed by any felony convict, whether incarcerated or not, prior to the discharge of any and all obligations (fines, restitution, service or labor), or in the convicts "probation" period will result in an automatic custodial sentence of at least five years; even for offenses that would not normally carry a custodial penalty.

Any violent felony committed prior to the discharge of any and all obligations shall result in an automatic custodial sentence of life in prison, or death.

On the discharge of their fines and restitution, and completion of any service or labor requirements, and any probation period; all convicts shall have all their civil rights restored, including the right to vote, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Private employers may discriminate against convicts, even after their obligations have been discharged, should they choose to do so. The federal, state, and local governments however may NOT discriminate against convicts whose sentences have been discharged however, except for those convicted of Heinous crimes (who should, in general, not be released anyway) or in the case of employment in law enforcement, criminal justice, corrections, national security, or the military. 

Any repeat offense of the same felony, or any violent felony by a convicted felon who has discharged their sentence, shall cause a convict to be considered an incorrigible offender, and subject to an automatic sentence of 25 years, life, or death at a judges discretion (25 years for any crime that would normally rate a sentence less than 25 years. Life for any crime that would normally rate 25 years. Death for any heinous crime, or crime that would normally rate life). As always, this is subject to review and reduction by a judge after the convict has discharged their obligations (excepting heinous crimes).

I call this the "one chance, don't blow it" rule. I believe it is fully justified, because the nature and scope of felonies is being dramatically reduced; the standards for offense are much higher, and the ability of someone to reintegrate into society without re-offending should be much better under this regime.

That's it. Not exactly simple, but a lot less complicated than our current system... and if anything can work, it ought to be this.

The Single Best Statement I've Ever Heard on Terrorism...

... and it's from "The Daily Show"

Seriously, it is exactly and entirely correct in every way. No spin, no apologia, just raw unvarnished... welll... watch the video, you'll see.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mumbai Tragedy

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

I should note however, that there IS a rationale behind such acts; however flawed and vile it is.

A few years back I wrote a piece talking about what terrorism really was, how it worked, and what its goals were; in which I explained this rationale:

"[Terrorism is both] a tactic, and a strategy. In particular it's the tactic of forces that do not have the resources to mount a successful guerilla campaign; and the strategy of forces whose objectives are militarily impossible, but politically possible.

The objective of terrorism is to demoralize the civilan population that supports the controlling authority, and to provoke disproportionate and misdirected response from the controlling authority; which will tend to engender support for the terrorists from the disaffected population, and from outside groups opposed to the controlling authority.

Terrorism isn't about military targets, it's about violent politics and propaganda, and it works in this limited arena only. Terrorists arent trying to win wars, they are trying to gain enough support that they no longer need to be terrorists; or failing that, create enough chaos that the controlling authority collapses or loses control.

Once chaos has trumped control, the terrorists then have a better chance for conducting successful operations given their limited resources, which will allow them to take control."

Of course, it usually doesn't work; and in the mean time, a hell of a lot of innocent people die for no reason.

If this is true, Italy need to be expelled from NATO

Fox News is reporting that Libyan officials claim the socialist government in power in Italy at the time of the 1986 air strikes against Libya, warned Ghudaffi on the day before the strikes, that the U.S. would be attacking them.

Full article here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445450,00.html

The article has several details of the operation wrong, and of course the source is not necessarily the most reliable, so perhaps consideration should be given; however, if this story is true, Italy should be immediately expelled from NATO; the alliance under which this information was shared with them, and through which overflight permission was sought.

Endgame

The endgame is the portion of a game of chess, in which the previously played part of the game has determined a strictly limited set of possibilities, which will inevitably result in the end of the game.

We have reached endgame stage with Islamism. That which has come before, has limited our options; and laid our available moves and possible end states, out before us.

Fran Poretto has a post up today talking about how the so called mid-east peace "process" is a sham, and that there can only be three ends:

1. The current state of low intensity conflict continues forever, or until such time as one of the other two conclusions occurs
   
   
2. Israel is defeated and the Islamists direct all of their energies on the west.
   
   
3. Israel defeats the Islamists utterly (hopefully with aid from the rest of the world, especially the US).

I came to a similar, and more sweeping conclusion some time ago with regards to the general conflict between the western nations and the Islamist nations (or non state actors such as Al Qaeda).

There really seem to only be a few possibilities here:

1. Accept Islamic domination, and convert or become slaves.
   
   
2. Kill or convert them all.
   
   
3. Contain them all until such time as we can convert them, or Islam goes through a radical reformation away from it's toxic values. Any that leave the containment zone without being converted are then killed on sight.
   
   
4. Institute the Bellum Romanorum - Kill 100 of them for every one of us who dies in an attack. Kill 1000 of their children for every one of our children who dies in an attack. Destroy 1 of their cities for every bomb that a Muslim explodes in the west. Destroy ALL of their cities if a single nuclear, biological, or chemical attack is ever conducted. Hold all responsible for the actions of the terrorist groups until such time as they are all rooted out and killed, and an internal reformation occurs.
   
   
5. Give them such a crushing and humiliating military, and cultural, defeat that anytime anyone even suggests militancy they are stoned to death by their own people. Repeat the process until it stops being necessary; due to internal reformation.

The mind, the very soul; recoils from such possibilities.

All but the last of these are morally repugnant; requiring near genocide, a a police state, and a fundamental denial of the human right of freedom of conscience. The last requires sacrifice and war with an indeterminate end.

Each of these possibilities requires every Muslim to either change their beliefs or die. In this there is no option.

Islam must accept western morality and culture as a part of the world, which they have no right to change by force. They may become a proselytizing culture, but they cannot be allowed to use force, violence, or coercion to impose their beliefs or culture on others. If they cannot reform to this state internally, they must be destroyed utterly.

Any who would suggest the proposition "Let's just give them what they want and leave them alone, and we'll live in peace"; you have proven yourself a fool, unworthy to speak by dint of your ignorance, stupidity, willful blindness, or delusion.

I would no more accept your idea than I would the idea that the sun revolves around the earth; because on it's face it is clearly false, and in fact stupidly dangerous.

What they want, is the utter destruction of western culture, followed by the death, conversion, or enslavement of all who followed it; and they will not rest until this is accomplished.

If the Islamists stopped making war on the west, there would be peace. If the west stopped defending itself from Islamists, there would be death and slavery.

Islam, as it exists today is evil and must be utterly destroyed; either from within through reformation, or from without through extermination.

Islam explicitly commands Islamism, which is fundamentally incompatible with all other cultures and societies. Yes, there are many muslims who do not follow the path of Islamism; however it is a fundamental part of their religion which they chose to ignore (and thus are apostate - whom the Islamists also wish to destroy).

Simply, Islam cannot be allowed to exist as it stands today; or there will be unending war, of their making, not ours.

I don't like any of these options; but I don't particularly see any other that don't involve Islamists trying to kill or enslave all westerners - in fact all those who do not follow their particular brand of Islam - 'til the end of time.

There are sometimes brilliant moment in the endgame, where a genius, or an idiot, can change their options; can leap to something not seen by others, or find conclusions and possibilities that no-one anticipated.

Perhaps such a solution can present itself to this conflict. I pray for such things now; but we must prepare ourselves for those conclusions which I have laid out above.

If you do see such an option, tell me; I'll gladly take any other realistic possibility, because I don't like the prospects for those I see thus far.

12 steps to mind rape

The ninth circuit court has recently ruled that you can't force someone to go to a 12 step program against their will, as a condition of their release; because it is in effect forcing someone into religious indoctrination under the color of governmental authority.

For those of you who have been living in a cave since the late 60s, the 12 step idea is that addicts should admit they are out of control and surrender themselves to a higher power, asking that higher power to help them control their addiction through spiritual awakening.

These are the steps:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Though AA (and other 12 step programs) will say they are not religious; they do specifically refer to the "higher power" and "god, as we understand him" etc... Also, it is an explicitly proselytizing philosophy as described in step 12.

Many will even say that the "higher power" can be anything or anyone, and doesn't have to mean god; though given the content of the steps, such an assertion is ridiculous on its face.

I am a catholic man, raised in the church, gone from it for 15 years and returned by choice, because of my faith in god, and my personal experience with christ. I know the power of faith; but I also know that faith comes from within, it cannot be forced on someone. Attempting to do so is both ineffective, and I believe offensive to god (and man).

Further though, this is a greater issue than whether AA is religious or not. This is an issue of self determination and freedom of conscience; and honestly an issue of efficacy as well.

Let's address that efficacy issue first.

You can't coerce someone into any kind of therapy (which is what rehab programs are, as opposed to de-tox) and expect it to be effective.

I come from a family of alcoholics and drug addicts; and the most important things about addicts to understand are:

1. They are ALWAYS an addict, even if they get it under control

2. Their addiction is ALWAYS going to control them, for the rest of their lives. It is only when they are strong enough to fight back that they will be able to maintain control.

3. They have to WANT to maintain control for it to work, and for it to keep working. They have to want it, more than they want their addiction.

That goes for any addiction; be it alcohol, drugs, sex, or self hatred (perhaps the strongest, easiest to acquire, and hardest to kick addiction).

Now, some might make the argument that we have a duty to protect society from these peoples behavior, and that they are better off in treatment than in jail... and to some extent there is a valid point there (assuming we are in fact punishing and preventing BEHAVIOR, not morality), but it presumes that treatment is an effective means of accomplishing this goal.

I wont say that treatment doesn't work. I have friends and family members whose lives have been saved with the help of treatment programs; and I'm convinced without that help, they would be dead. It can work for some, IF THEY ARE READY AND WILLING.

The best estimates (and they are very sketchy estimates indeed; complied by epidemiologists, and addiction psychologists from public patient records and sample interviews) on the success of ALL treatment programs, be they secular, non-secular, inpatient, outpatient, whatever; is about 10% on the first try.

Yes, there is a 90% relapse rate; and I'm not talking about slipping and having a drink or a toke. 90% of addicts who enter a recovery program return to an addict lifestyle for an extended period of time.

It's about 50% on the second try. Generally speaking, if someone collapses back, and then manages the will to go again, they mean it this time; and they do well.

The relapse rate climbs back to about 65% by the third try, and if they haven't got it by then, the numbers fall off dramatically, to the point where someone in their 4th or 5th visit to rehab has nearly a 100% relapse rate.

The funny thing is, these numbers also hold true for people who try to quit on their own without treatment. About 90% fail the first time, 50% the second time, and returns diminish from there.

This isn't to say that treatment is completely ineffective, or no more effective than recovery without treatment. Most addicts don't have the will to do it by themselves, without the support structure of treatment; and even the very strong have weak moments, where that support can help them avoid relapse.

Also, often people come to treatment and succeed in it, after trying and failing on their own several times; because the structure of treatment helped them as above.

That means that though the percentages are the same, the absolute numbers of successful treatment from a program vs self guided, are much higher.

What's most telling though, is that these numbers seem to hold true, no matter what the treatment technique, no matter who's doing the treatment; because treatment isn't about the program, it's about the addict.

Let me say that one more time: success in controlling addiction isn't about the program, it's about the addict.

Now, back to the more important question,the morality of forced treatment.

I will make a blunt and harsh statement here that may offend some: Coercing someone into changing their very thoughts, is one step away from rape; and I mean no hyperbole in that.

If one must successfully complete a treatment program (or in fact any kind of therapy, indoctrination, or "thought modification" program) to remain free; and a part of the program forces you to do, say, or support that which you do not believe in; that is simply wrong. The state should not be in the business of policing thought. We MUST have freedom of conscience, as free people.

That said, if someone is given a sobriety order (which I think is very rarely justified, but that's another argument entirely) and they violate it; back in jail they go. I have no problem with that. That is a behavioral remedy, and requiring people modify their behavior to avoid harming those around them (presuming that is the true purpose, rather than the belief that substance abuse is immoral) is a fundamental part of civilized society.

The remedies of our justice system MUST only be behavioral; once law dictates conscience, we are nothing but slaves. One must hope that through behavioral remedies we can aid people in coming to a less harmful thought pattern and lifestyle, but we cannot force them to think or feel as we wish.

So, I have no problem with a court ordered de-tox, or court ordered and enforced sobriety (including returning them to prison as a penalty) under appropriate circumstances; and if someone VOLUNTARILY wishes to enter treatment to prevent that from happening, I'm all for it. Ordering someone into therapy though, is both ineffective, and a violation of the fundamental human right of freedom of conscience.

We may want people to change, we may even require them to change their behavior, or be punished; but we cant force them to change their thoughts and feelings. It is, at it's core, mind rape; any way you care to justify it.

The government is not your friend - part sixtyquajillion

Due to the fact that I am an idiot, and don't know when to quit working and playing, and rest so I can get better; the cold that our oldest took home from school with her two weeks ago (and everyone else is already recovered from), has in my case metastisized into a lovely sinus and upper respiratory infection (which I am currently, slowly, recovering from).

I'm in the middle of the nastiest case of the crud I've had in over a year. I've been sicker, in that I've had fevers and whatnot, but I havent had this level of chest and sinus congestion in a while; thus why I call it "the crud", as in what is completely filling every breathing passage of my body at least 50% of the time.

I'm staying upright and breathing due to the wonders of modern pharmeceuticals; a combination of Sudafed, and Oxymetazoline. Of course when the oxymetazoline wears off the crud slingshots back worse; but that's livable, so long as I'm taking the REAL Sudafed, or it's generic equivalent.

Let me just note, the new, fake, sudafed works... for about 20 minutes, no matter how much of it you take.

Pseduoephedrine hydrochloride, is the most effective nasal decongestant known to man; and it doesnt cause rebound rhinitis. Phenylephrine hydrochloride, the ingredient manufacturers are substituing for PsE-Hcl, to put it mildly, is not as effective... or even 1/10th as effective for that matter; and it DOES cause rebound rhinitis.

Of course, pseudoephedrine has some nasty side effects, including increases in blood pressure, pulse and respiratory rate, perspiration etc..., as well as vasco dilation to a significant degree.

But that's not why its a "problem"; its a problem, because it's also the primary ingredient in Methamphetamine; and therefore the government has declared war on it...

...declared war, on a nasal decongestant.

The war on some drugs has made getting the actual medications that work, a lovely process where you must give your drivers license to a clerk, where they record and report on your purchases; and in most stores in most states, you can't purchase more than 1 weeks worth of recommended adult dosage at a time.

Of course the so called adult dosage is calculated so that a 90lb woman can take 4 times the recommended dosage four times as frequently as recommended and not hit the LD50. For a 370lb, highly drug tolerant man, the amount required to obtain the desired result is... significantly higher shall we say?

I used to be able to get 90mg pseudoephedrine pills, mail order, in bulk; take 1, and be good for 4 hours. Now, because of the "meth war", the strongest I can get at my local pharmacy is a 24 count box of 30mg each, which don't even make a dent, so I have to take 4 of them. The pharmacy will only sell me 1 box per week, or 3 boxes per month.

I can order them over the internet for a 48ct box of 60mg each, but again, only one box per order, and only one order per week, or three boxes per month.

A federal law, snuck into a terrorism bill, says that I, an adult; may only purchase a maximum of 3.6grams of pseudoephedrine per day; and a maximum of 9 grams per month, or 7 grams if buying by mail order.

So, in order to obtain relief, I take 120mg two or three times a day (yes, it only lasts full effect for about 4 hours, but I can live with that); for 240mg to 360mg a day; and I've been sick for 12 days, with probably another 3 or four days to go. Lets call it 15 days, for a total of 3.6 grams.

So, by federal law, I, as an adult, can purchase one course of treatment for myself in one day; if I can get a retailer to sell it to me.

However, those retailers are paranoid about being persecuted in the drug war, so I can't buy a full course of treatment; the most I can buy in my local pharmacy is actually two or three days worth. So after my two or three days are up, can I go buy more? Nope I have to wait until next weekk to buy another two or three days worth.

If I buy on the internet, I can get a weeks worth, or maybe even two weeks if I limit my dosage.

But what if there's more than one sick person in my house? What if I want to stock up for the winter? what if I want to buy in bulk to save money?

I buy most of my OTC medications in bulk from Costco, because it's a heck of a lot cheaper. I can by as much dextromorphan, or diphenhydramine as I want; in fact I buy it from Costco in 300ct bottles or 50mg each. Both drugs are halucinogenic in large quantities; both drugs are euphoric and stuporific in large quantities, both drugs have a large potential for abuse etc...

So I can buy these "dangerous' drugs, in 300ct bottles; but I can't do the same with the most effective nasal decongestant known to man?

Nope, federal law also says that each individual dosage must be packed in blister packs; because it's more work for someone trying to make meth to pop them out, then to pour out a bottle of mini-thins.

Mini-thins are tiny little 25mg pseudoephedrine pills that used to sell in 120ct bottles for $5-$8 mail order. They were the most popular brand of pseudoephedrine for making meth; because you could buy them by the palletload online, and they had less binders and fillers than any other brand, so you got more of the drug for the bulk of the pills.

They were specifically targeted by congress, and the legislatures of several states; so the manufacturer added guaifenesin to it; which makes it useless for meth (it's a very strong expectorant, and in high does an emetic, that can't be cooked out in the meth manufacturing process. If you took meth made with it, you'd drown in your own bodily fluids, or possibly vomit to death. It's happened a few times). They also repackaged it in 144ct blister packs, for $30 a bottle.

Blister packs are bloody expensive in case you didn't know. It was $8 for 120 pills; now, it's $8 for a 24 count pack of 30mg of pseudoephedrine each, in little individual blisters. Each of those pills now costs 35 cents, vs. 7 cents each.

Also, have you ever tried to get your pills out of a blister pack when you're really really sick? I've been sick enough that I could just barely do it; and I'm a big strong man. What about it you have severe arthritis?

So let's review: I am a grown man, a legal adult, licensed to drive a car, fly a plane, and carry a concealed weapon... I am a parent, trusted to raise my children (well.. that's another rant for another day). I can buy as much alcohol as I can carry away with a forklift. I can go into a home depot and buy enough poisions to kill thousands of people should I so wish...

...but I can't buy enough decongestant to relieve my sinus infection for a week?

...and people actually support this policy?

December 7th, 1941, 0637 HST

The Destroyer, USS Ward, fires on and sinks a Japanese midget submarine just off the waters of pearl harbor, Oahu.

The first official American shots in anger in World War Two have just been fired.