Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:57:01 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:28 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:53:04 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:

Once a state religion is mandated,...

There's already a de facto state religion in the US: Antismokerism.
If you really look at it, it has all of the symptoms of any other
cult.

Tell me, Rich, if you're walking down the street or sitting on the
grass in a park or lying on the beach, and you finish a smoke, what do
you do with the butt?

Stub it out and if there isn't a waste can near, put it in my pocket,
and toss it in the trash later.

Not _all_ smokers are inconsiderate slobs, thank you very much.

Have you ever been in an elevator and some woman drenched in that
cologne that smells like vomit steps on?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:58:46 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:30:00 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

Hasn't anybody yet tried to find a middle ground? Oh- can't do that! You'd
have to admit that your enemy has the same right to life that you have.

Well, obviously, if they're our enemy, then they don't.

"We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy's side of

the front is always propaganda and what is said on our side of the front
is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for
peace."
-- Walter Lippmann

--
Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:54:49 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:57:01 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:28 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:53:04 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:

Once a state religion is mandated,...

There's already a de facto state religion in the US: Antismokerism.
If you really look at it, it has all of the symptoms of any other
cult.

Tell me, Rich, if you're walking down the street or sitting on the
grass in a park or lying on the beach, and you finish a smoke, what do
you do with the butt?

Stub it out and if there isn't a waste can near, put it in my pocket,
and toss it in the trash later.

Thank you. You are very much in the minority.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:58:10 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:58:46 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:30:00 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

Hasn't anybody yet tried to find a middle ground? Oh- can't do that! You'd
have to admit that your enemy has the same right to life that you have.

Well, obviously, if they're our enemy, then they don't.

"We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy's side of
the front is always propaganda and what is said on our side of the front
is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for
peace."
-- Walter Lippmann

I don't think the Nazis said that. They said they were fighting for
Aryan supremacy.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<c8oc71dkt1ck196k2cnv8f9rq6g4letnm7@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:48:42 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

[snip]

In the US, you can be jailed for selling either if the sale is known
to be for the purpose of administering the drug to a person.

Sure; would you have it otherwise?

There will always be
another one along in a minute. (Of course, the drug itself isn't
illegal; it's possession of it which is illegal.


Agreed, you don't see a lot of vials of cocaine serving prison terms.


This sort of qualtitative argument is common. The reality is in the
numbers. If we allow anyone to manufacture/synthesize/sell any drug
they wish to, what effect does it have on public health? Do we want all
the wimpy schoolboys to shoot steroids to make themselves more manly
(or for the girls, more "toned")?

Of course not. First, only the very stupid ones would do that.

There are many such. Do we provide them the means to damage themselves
just because they're dumb? Is the the New Eugenics?

No, it's realism. in practice, we can't stop them, even by throwing
gigabucks at drug control.

[snip]

Legalize crack cocaine

There wouldn't be any need for crack if cocaine were legalised, as it
was in England till about 1910. It was made illegal, too, on highly
spurious grounds.

and give away free AIDS drugs?

Pardon? What do you mean?


Crack and crank are major causes of AIDS.

No, AIDS is transmitted by sharing body fluid (not only sexual fluid)
with an infected person. Drugs are somewhat contributive, in promoting
carelessness, but that very much includes alcohol.

[snip]

Well, if everyone were as nice and as smart as you are, we'd hardly
need laws at all.

Of course. I'm glad that you realise that. (;-)

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<srmc7199e7onqkrfmvu9jdckh52igct3nu@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:22:28 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 13:53:04 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:

Once a state religion is mandated,...

There's already a de facto state religion in the US: Antismokerism.
If you really look at it, it has all of the symptoms of any other
cult.


Tell me, Rich, if you're walking down the street or sitting on the
grass in a park or lying on the beach, and you finish a smoke, what do
you do with the butt?

Sacrifice it to Ceres, of course. What do you do?

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote (in
<pan.2005.05.02.18.49.27.174202@doubleclick.net&gt about 'Court
authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:04:10 -0700, John Larkin wrote:


Who will protect us from the protectors?

A while back, someone suggested 'the Internet'. Maybe.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Bob Monsen]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Bob Monsen wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Joe wrote:


"Winfield Hill" <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote
in message news:d4s38r0248b@drn.newsguy.com...


Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged to 3,464 last year,
according to the Justice Department. Taking law enforcement at
its word without question, judges rubber-stamped approvals on
every single request they received. Be careful, watch out. And
remember, email is next.


--
Thanks,
- Win

Let's see .... 3464 wire taps ... less than 0.1% of the population.
Not bad.


Its less then 0.0014% of the population of the US!

Same deal for this err grand "problem" of terrorism. A recent quote
put the deaths at 1900. Well about 0.5% of the population die of old
age a year, so at over 1,000,000, most extra deaths that people
complain about, are in the noise floor


Of course. More people die of starvation in a single day than die of
terrorism in a year. The entire terrorism argument is a convienient
rationalization for armed globalization. The terrorists are generally
pissed off about globalization, so it's ironic that their attacks can
be used to mobilize western populations against them.


I don't agree that it is about armed globalisation, this don't actually
say anything. My view is that the whole terrorism thing is simply to get
people elected, i.e votes. To be elected you need to have some agenda.
The west is so rich now, that there is not a lot of causes that one can
tell the voters that they can do better then the other party at. Since
there are so few agendas, they are simply invented. The other classic
example of an invented vote getting agenda is the "war on drugs". Its
abundantly clear to any but a fool, that people commit crimes to pay for
drugs, which are highly priced because they are illegal.

Yes, I'll agree with that. However, getting elected is rarely the end in
itself. It's simply the means to fulfilling one's real agenda. In the
case of this infestation of neocons we have in the US, their foreign
policy agenda really is agressive globalization. They believe it'll
change the world for the better. I have no crystal ball, so I can't
comment on what will happen. However, I can note that violent dictators
throughout history have had the same agenda, which is to make everybody
like them, to export their culture, and thus their influence. The
problem isn't so much with the end; we in the west all agree that in the
end, more trade, better communication, and a level playing field for
business is a good thing. It's with the fact that they believe they
don't have to answer for the means with which they persue that end. It's
this idealism that leads to piles of burnt bodies, and less
communication, and more anger, and more hate. Economies are far more
efficient when everybody likes everybody else. Hate is a tax on the
efficient use of resources. This is the part they always seem to miss.

Terrorism is a non event.

Well, 9/11 wasn't a non-event. Also, the US's *response* to terrorism
isn't a non-event.

I don't remember the last time I want to the
pub, and had to leave because of a bomb. The issue is that mass
communication makes minor issues known worldwide to everyone. This gives
the illusion that it is in abundance. Its actually based on the rouge
meme copying idea.

I agree with that. People hear about a kid getting kidnapped in
Colorado, and immediately, you see no kids on the street for a week.

If all drugs were legal, just imagine what a vacuum there would be in
Candidates campaign manifestos.

Politicians *have* to have something to base their campaigns on, so they
just make something up. Its that simple really.

I don't really think it's that simple. The politicians aren't picking
the issues; they are doing polling, focus groups, and phone interviews
to determine what folks care about. Thus, the issues they come up with
directly reflect the issues that coalitions of people care about. They
need to find issues they can make people believe they can affect.

Whether they can affect these issues is really unimportant, at least
until the next election cycle. In fact, there is evidence that the more
effective a president is at 'fixing' his issues, the less likely he is
to get reelected; he has 'done his job', and thus the base that got him
elected moves on to other issues. Dick Morris, the guy who got Clinton
elected for his second term (and is now a conservative comentator for
the FOX network,) pointed out that this is why Bush would win
reelection; he was incompetent. He had messed up the response to 9/11 so
badly that he still had a job to do.

I think Karl Rove, the political genius behind the bushies, knows this.
Thus, the bushies focus on losing issues that people are pissed off
about; gay marrage; prayer in school; abortion rights. Then, when they
lose, they can blame it on those 'liberal elite', and get elected to
fight on. They start indeterminate wars that will keep people thinking
about foreign policy through the next election cycle. They bankrupt the
government with tax cuts, and then try to 'fix it' with changes to
social security which will never fly.

I can't really think of a single thing this administration has succeeded
at, except cutting taxes, destroying all environmental controls on
business, and starting protracted wars in the mideast. By looking at
what an administration succeeds at, you can determine their real agenda.
Karl doesn't care about the Christians and their 'lets live on
mainstreet USA' fantasy agenda. He cares about his buddies in the texas
oil business. Look at the profits of energy companies in the US,
particularly the texas energy producers.

---
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote (in <pan.2005.05.02.18.53.03.655337@example.net&gt about 'Court
authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Ah, yes. Education: The process of inserting abstract thoughts into
concrete heads. ;-)

That may not be a misquote, but I prefer 'discrete' to 'abstract'. Not
everyone, by a long whiteboard marker, **wants** an academic education.
(I don't care what they are *suited* to, if they don't want it, they
shouldn't have it.)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote (in <pan.2005.05.02.18.55.32.181454@example.net&gt about 'Court
authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Have you ever been in an elevator and some woman drenched in that
cologne that smells like vomit steps on?

Some people have anomalous smell sense. I don't suppose it smells like
vomit to her.

I can't stand the smell of 'Imperial Leather' soap (affectionately known
as 'Old Army Boots'. To me, it smells much worse!

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 19:54:09 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
c8oc71dkt1ck196k2cnv8f9rq6g4letnm7@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:
On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:48:42 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

[snip]

In the US, you can be jailed for selling either if the sale is known
to be for the purpose of administering the drug to a person.


Sure; would you have it otherwise?

Not me! How about you?

There will always be
another one along in a minute. (Of course, the drug itself isn't
illegal; it's possession of it which is illegal.


Agreed, you don't see a lot of vials of cocaine serving prison terms.


This sort of qualtitative argument is common. The reality is in the
numbers. If we allow anyone to manufacture/synthesize/sell any drug
they wish to, what effect does it have on public health? Do we want all
the wimpy schoolboys to shoot steroids to make themselves more manly
(or for the girls, more "toned")?

Of course not. First, only the very stupid ones would do that.

There are many such. Do we provide them the means to damage themselves
just because they're dumb? Is the the New Eugenics?

No, it's realism. in practice, we can't stop them, even by throwing
gigabucks at drug control.

Draw a graph. X-axis is how much money we spend supressing illegal
drugs. Y-axis is how much harm is done to the users of those drugs.
Are you arguing that the curve is flat, or even slopes upward?

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result. As
currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

John

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in
4kgc71hkujucc7k4esbdf0pcf0kbt7grcp@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Naaaah! Just let 'em take anything they want. Help clean-up the
gene pool ;-)

I don't think that's necessarily a joke. Consider what removing the
illegality would do to organized crime, and what the funds released
from drug law enforcement could do for world-wide health.

Drugs (alcohol, tobacco and coffee) that are not illegal aren't half
as fascinating as the illegal ones. Prohibition showed the futility of
legal sanctions against drug use.

Does the state have any right to prevent people damaging themselves
with drugs by putting them in prison so that other people can damage
them (and where they can often still get the drugs), while the
distributors of the drugs amass large fortunes? Does it make ANY SORT
of sense? What would an intelligent alien or computer make of it? We
may find out in about 20 years!

Yes. I find the argument of, well marijuana is harmful, so it should be
illegal, completely bogus. Its got f'all do do with state what someone
chooses to do with their own bodies.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 07:59:24 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:53:01 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

The other classic
example of an invented vote getting agenda is the "war on drugs".
Its abundantly clear to any but a fool, that people commit crimes
to pay for drugs, which are highly priced because they are illegal.


Certain drugs should remain illegal. If methamphetimines were more
easily available, lots of damage would result, probably a lot worse
than the considerable harm that cigarettes and alcohol already do.

And it's only a matter of time until somebody synthesizes a new drug
that's wonderful, irrestible, and even more dangerous.

John


Naaaah! Just let 'em take anything they want. Help clean-up the gene
pool ;-)

That's exactly my view;-)


Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net>
wrote (in <wqCdnRSaMIAZ5-vfRVn-pg@comcast.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

I don't really think it's that simple. The politicians aren't picking
the issues; they are doing polling, focus groups, and phone interviews
to determine what folks care about. Thus, the issues they come up with
directly reflect the issues that coalitions of people care about. They
need to find issues they can make people believe they can affect.

But by doing that, they are reacting, not LEADING. This is ALL WRONG.
The party managements have been taken over by statisticians
(psephologists, already!) geeks and wimps. Think about the most
successful politicians throughout history, good and bad. Did they have
any truck with polling, focus groups and interviews?

One of the most 'successful', for sufficiently immoral definitions of
'successful', was Adolf. He didn't have millions of oil money,
influential friends, etc. He saw a country on its knees and brought it
to a world power, within a knife-edge of world dominance to an extent
that not even the US has (yet?) achieved.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:53:01 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


The other classic
example of an invented vote getting agenda is the "war on drugs". Its
abundantly clear to any but a fool, that people commit crimes to pay for
drugs, which are highly priced because they are illegal.



Certain drugs should remain illegal. If methamphetimines were more
easily available, lots of damage would result, probably a lot worse
than the considerable harm that cigarettes and alcohol already do.

Why stop there? ban driving a car, eating too much fat food, doing too
little exercise

If I was making millions on drugs I'd make sure to spend some on
politicians to make sure it was was never legalized because that
would totally ruin the profit.

The massive amount of illegal money has the potential to corrupt pretty
much everything.

And it's only a matter of time until somebody synthesizes a new drug
that's wonderful, irrestible, and even more dangerous.

John

so designed fat food that taste too good is bad too? If someone wants to
ruin or kill themself there not much you can do about it.

-Lasse

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<87vc71pqbf1dutjprdkvmri0bpfieg2dhf@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result. As
currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

Add theatres, Christmas, long hair and coloured clothes, and you can be
the New Cromwell.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 12:05:15 -0700, the renowned John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:58:10 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:58:46 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:30:00 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

Hasn't anybody yet tried to find a middle ground? Oh- can't do that! You'd
have to admit that your enemy has the same right to life that you have.

Well, obviously, if they're our enemy, then they don't.

"We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy's side of
the front is always propaganda and what is said on our side of the front
is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for
peace."
-- Walter Lippmann


I don't think the Nazis said that. They said they were fighting for
Aryan supremacy.

John

No, they said they were fighting to right great wrongs and that they
were the victims of the treachery of foreigners. Read the speeches
Hitler made when he was in power.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
<fduc719sevc1tl325k49c463d73v69f0b2@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

I don't think the Nazis said that. They said they were fighting for
Aryan supremacy.

'Propaganda' is Latin ('those things which are fit to be disseminated')
and was invented by the RC Church. Dr. Goebbels embraced it early in his
career. If he didn't say something like the Walter Lippman quote, he
probably intended to.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:29:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Yes. I find the argument of, well marijuana is harmful, so it should be
illegal, completely bogus. Its got f'all do do with state what someone
chooses to do with their own bodies.

Fine, so long as the state does not facilitate the harm, and does not
pay any resulting medical expenses.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 20:43:19 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote (in
87vc71pqbf1dutjprdkvmri0bpfieg2dhf@4ax.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

I suspect that if certain drugs were freely and cheaply available,
great social harm and lots of personal misery would result. As
currently result from cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television,
hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography.

Add theatres, Christmas, long hair and coloured clothes, and you can be
the New Cromwell.

Now that you mention it, theatres do result in a lot of personal
misery. Opera, especially.

John