Marc Perkel Rantz

RIAA sues SCO for Patent Infringement

The Recording Industry of America Association (RIAA) announced today that it is suing Santa Cruz Operations (SCO) for patent infringement. The infringment claim states the SCO is infringing on the RIAA's business model patent based on the idea of suing it's customers.

"We developed this business model of suing customers rather than trying to make a quality product and we are entitled to our intelectual property rights. Any time anyone sues a customer over a bullshit claim for the purpose of shaking them down for an unjust fee is an infringment", states a spokesperson for the RIAA.

In response to the suit, SCO filed a counterclaim stating that it owns a copyright to the copyright symbol and that the RIAA was violating it's copyrights by using the copyright symbol and the word "copyright" on it's product. At a press conference SCO displayed a slide from it's Unix source code with the copyright symbol and the words "All Rights Reserved" and compared it to an identical phrase on the back of CD covers. SCO is demanding a royalty of $700 for everytime anyone uses the copyright symbol or the phrase "All Rights Reserved".

In response to the SCO counterclaim the RIAA asked for an injunction baring the suit on the basis of infringment. "As a user of Linux ourselves we believe this suit is really about suing us as a customer and that should be barred because they are stealing our business model."

An attempt to contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation for their take on these lawsuits was unsucessful. EFF lead attorney Cindy Cohn was hospitalized with a broken rib from laughing to hard and had to be sedated.

Response to a Rush Limbaugh Apologist

The hypocracy of the religious right is amazing.

Jerry Brooks writes for the Washington Dispatch Link

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh recently revealed his addiction to prescription painkillers on his nationally syndicated radio program and also announced that he was seeking immediate treatment to deal with his problem. Limbaugh told his national audience that he’s been dealing with this addiction for several years after failed back surgery in the ‘90s. This startling confession came days after Limbaugh resigned from ESPN’s Sunday morning football pre-game show after comments he made about the NFL and Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb.

Maybe Rush and his dittoheads will now support treating drug addiction rather than jailing them.

I always find it sad to hear of stories like this because addictions are terrible, devastating things and I’ve seen their effects up close and personal. Broken relationships, financial hardships, and even permanent physical damage and psychological damage are just some of the effects I’ve seen in people’s lives because of addiction to various things.

Sound like a bleading heart liberal to me. Do you feel his pain? Oh - but this is a setup paragraph. He didn't mean a word of it. He will now take the opportunity to bash Liberals.

I am in no way, shape, or form condoning Limbaugh’s actions. However, I’m not going to behave like a pack of ravenous wolves like so many left leaning media (Got to get the "media is left" propoganda in there) and critics have. I never liked the idea of kicking someone when they’re down. When you’re dealing with a problem of this magnitude, the last thing you need is a group of accusing fingers pointing out the obvious. Excuse me - You just insulted what Rush does for a living!

The "left" are ravenous wolves? Not hardly! We are just quoting Rush just like you ditto heads do! Rush fans love kicking people when they are down. That what his show is about. To liberals it's like watching a rattlesnake bite itself.

For those who are gleefully accusing Limbaugh of hypocrisy, I think you should keep the following in mind. Your rationale for judging someone’s character is just as flawed as everyone else’s. The liberal left in this country has prided itself on the premise that they’re more compassionate, more tolerant, and able to embrace diversity more readily than anyone else. This form of arrogance is bad enough, but I can name several instances where liberal “compassion” has gone out the window when it comes to conservatives. The same group of people who profess their undying devotion to fairness and kindness are the same folks who spout some of the most vicious, toxic, and mean-spirited rhetoric I’ve ever heard.

Thanks for admitting that the left is more tolerant. That is true. The attacks on Rush from the left are far less than the attacks of Rush's fans. But - pointing out rush's hypocracy - or any hypocracy - is a good thing. Rush always did that - so - do we not honor Rush by following in his footsteps? Do you believe that Rush can dish it out but can't take it? Sir - you insult the great Rush Limbaugh if you believe that!

Hypocrisy, like many other traits, doesn’t discriminate. Conservatives can be just as hypocritical and vicious as liberals. The fact is that no one political or ideological entity really holds the high moral ground on anything.

This is true. Except that Conservatives are generally far more vicoius than liberals. Rush used to call Bill Clinton's 12 year old daughter a dog. Rush has elevated being vicious into a billion dollar business.

The issue of character has come to the forefront especially since the Clinton era. (Got to kick Clinton one more time.) The 1990s certainly had its share of scandals, but what stood out to me was the meteoric rise of character assassinations and assassins. Politics certainly is a blood sport, but the politics of personal destruction has become the sport of choice for liberals today. Demean the accusation by demeaning the accuser by any means necessary. Forget the nature of the evidence; focus on the seriousness of the charge. (Clarence Thomas can tell you about that one)

Yes - politics is a blood sport - and Rush is one of the pioneers that made it that way. Rush made hundreds of millions of dollors by leading Conservatives in moral masturbation sessions where conservatives got a macabre thrill from reveling in the suffering of others. But then - when it's one of your own - out comes the compassion.

I think it’s a shame that good people are being kept out of the political arena because they don’t want to undergo intrusive life exams by unscrupulous political operatives and their allies in the mainstream media. Now more than ever, good people need to step up on all levels and run for office because our nation has an entrenched political class who’ve become intoxicated with money, power, position, and a blind loyalty to agendas that are slowly turning our great nation into a quasi-socialist nightmare that would make the Founding Fathers pop a blood vessel.

When good people come forward it's people like Rush Limbaugh who put them through the ringer.

Nobody I know is 100 percent perfect. By historical accounts, the only person I know of who lived a perfect life died on a cross. (Play the Jesus card) If our culture insists on going down the road of comparative morality as criteria for credibility on issues, then we might as well put the proverbial gun to our head and pull the trigger. Because when it comes to the issue of character, every single human being at one time or another, has horribly flunked the perfection test.

Jesus is a mythical figure who never existed. And conservatives hardly can claim they believe in the Bible because if they did - they wouldn't be involved in moral masturbation with Rush.

I do pray that Rush beats his addiction. I believe there is good that can come out of this situation and I pray that Rush sees that and uses it. As for those who sit in their seats of power awaiting Limbaugh’s demise, I’d take some time and take a look at your own lives and see what flaws you might have before you break out your poison pens (or poison tongues).

Oh this makes me want to cry! Swear to Koresh it does. I pray for Rush too. I hope he recovers not only from is addiction but also repents from his life of hate and distruction. I hope he sees the light and come out regretting his sins against the human race the way Lee Atwater did when he was close to dying of Cancer. When he apologized for what he did to Micheal Dukakis and his family.

As holy scripture tell us, (The Bible card)“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” So, who wants to throw the first rock?

I'm without sin - so I'll cast the first stone. haha - as if this is the first stone! Tell it to the conservative talk show hosts who are filling in for Rush. So - is Rush down for the count? Depends on how you look at it. The way I see it - he's going to at least have to stop bashing drug addicts. Rush's life is now changed. We will see if he learns anything from it.

I would ask the conservatives this question. If the liberals show compassion and forgiveness for Rush - will they start showing compassion and forgiveness for Bill Clinton? Or is this just a one way thing? I remember how Christians (yes - true Christians) were frothing at the mouth at the posibility of Bill and Hillary getting divorced and how disapointed they were when they stuck it out.

So Mr. Jerry Brooks - thanks for the load of bullshit. I'm looking forward to seeing Conservatives give up hate radio and become forgiving and compassionate to the downtrodden as you suggest. Anyone want to place any bets that will happen?

This article by Jerry Brooks is a classic right wing rant because it has all the elements of a right wing story:

• Claims the media is liberal.
  
• It attacks Liberals as ravenous wolves.
  
• Make a dig at Clinton and the 90s.
  
• Plays the Jesus card.
  
• Plays the Bible card.
  
• Plays the Pray card.
  
• Plays the Guilt card.
  
• Asserts that Conservatives are morally superior to Liberals.
  
• Based on hypocracy - the idea of compassion for someone who makes a living from hate.
  
• Contains a lot of moral masturbation.
  
• Accuses Liberals of behavior normal for right ringers.
  
• Highly distorts the facts.
  
• Uses the pretense of false sympathy to launch an attack.
  
• Is based on "us vs. them" mentality.
  
• Main message inflames "liberal left" bigotry.

This is what makes him such a great right wing journalist. Look how make elements he covered in so few words.!

Ashcroft Persecuting Free Speech

Atty. Gen. Ashcroft is pulling out all the stops to prosecute protesters.

It has lain dormant in the darkest recesses of American law for 125 years, but this month Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft introduced critics of the administration to his latest weapon in law enforcement.

In a Miami federal court, the attorney general charged the environmental group Greenpeace under an obscure 1872 law originally intended to end the practice of "sailor-mongering," or the luring of sailors with liquor and prostitutes from their ships. Ashcroft plucked the law from obscurity to punish Greenpeace for boarding a vessel near port in Miami.

Not only is the law being used to prosecute one of the administration's most vocal critics in an unprecedented attack on the 1st Amendment, but it appears to be part of a broader campaign by Ashcroft to protect the nation against free speech, a campaign that has converted environmentalists into "sailor-mongers" and nuns into terrorists.

-- more --

The case against Greenpeace started with a protest in April 2002. The activist group was leading an international effort to stop the illegal importing of mahogany. It believed that a ship, the APL Jade, was engaging in this illegal trade and decided to conduct one of its signature demonstrations to protest the Bush administration's failure to stop the imports.

In clearly marked boats, Greenpeace followed the ship. Two of its members boarded the vessel about eight miles outside the Miami port, carrying a banner that read "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging."

Such protests are common, and the two activists wore Greenpeace jackets, identified themselves as Greenpeace members and allowed themselves to be arrested. They ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and were released. The wood was unloaded and everyone seemed satisfied.

Everyone, that is, except Ashcroft.

Fifteen months after the incident, the Justice Department filed an indictment in Miami against the entire Greenpeace organization under the 1872 law, a law that appears to have been used only twice.

A New York court in 1872 described the law as both "inartistic and obscure." An Oregon court in 1890 described the purpose of the law as preventing "the evil" of "sailor-mongers [who] get on board vessels and by the help of intoxicants, and the use of other means, often savoring of violence, get the crews ashore and leave the vessel without help to manage or care for her."

Of course, there did not appear to be many sailors on the APL Jade being lured out to join Greenpeace. But proceeding against two protesters on trivial misdemeanor charges wasn't enough for the Justice Department. So it decided to treat Greenpeace activists not as protesters but as sailor-mongers.

Greenpeace now could lose its tax-exempt status — a potential death knell for a large public interest organization. A conviction could also force Greenpeace to regularly report its actions to the government. Such a prospect must secretly delight many in the administration who see the group as an ever-present irritant. After all, it was Greenpeace that held the first demonstration at the president's ranch after his inauguration, causing a stir when activists unfurled a banner reading "Bush: the Toxic Texan. Don't Mess With the Earth."

Since that time, Greenpeace has waged a continual campaign against Bush's environmental record. Ashcroft's jihad against free speech, however, is not limited to environmentalists. Consider the case of three Dominican nuns. Last year, Sister Ardeth Platte, 66, Sister Jackie Hudson, 68, and Sister Carol Gilbert, 55, participated in a peaceful demonstration for nuclear disarmament.

As part of the protest, the three nuns cut through a chain-link fence around a Minuteman III missile silo. There is only a light fence because the missile is protected by a 110-ton concrete cap that is designed to withstand a nuclear explosion. The nuns proceeded to paint crosses on the cap and symbolically hit it with hammers. They then knelt, prayed, sang religious songs and waited for arrest. The most the government could allege in terms of damage was $3,000.

However, the Ashcroft Justice Department wanted more than compensation and a common misdemeanor. It charged the nuns with obstructing national defense, which subjected each to a potential 30-year prison term. When the government pushed the court to impose sentences of as much as eight years, the judge refused. However, the judge found, as alleged by the government, that the three nuns had put military personnel "in harm's way." Accordingly, he imposed on them sentences ranging from 2 1/2 years to 3 1/2 years.

The administration has pursued a similar zero-tolerance policy in other cases. It has been accused of using unconstitutional "trap-and-arrest" tactics to suppress protests in Washington, D.C., where hundreds of journalists, bystanders and student protesters were arrested en masse without a warning or an opportunity to disperse. They were then left hog-tied in holding areas for as long as 20 hours, with their hands bound to their ankles.

The Greenpeace case is particularly chilling because of the extraordinary effort to find a law that could be used to pursue the organization. The 1872 law is a legal relic that must have required much archeological digging through law books to find.

It is also notable that other organizations have not faced such attacks. For example, in this same judicial district in Florida, the Cuban American group Democracy Movement organized a protest in which members sailed into a government-designated security zone. Although the members were charged, the organization was not. Similarly, other groups viewed favorably by the administration — such as anti-abortion groups — have not been subject to criminal indictments of their organizations for such protests.

The extraordinary effort made to find and use this obscure law strongly suggests a campaign of selective prosecution — the greatest scourge of the 1st Amendment.

Greenpeace was engaged in a classic protest used by countless organizations, from those of the civil rights movement to anti-abortion groups. It is a way for citizens to express their opposition by literally standing in the path of the government.

None of these organizations contest the right of the government to punish them for trespass or even criminal misdemeanors. Indeed, they view such punishment as a badge of honor.

However, Ashcroft is now seeking symbols of his own: The image of a major environmentalist organization placed on probation or nuns being sent to jail is clearly meant to send a chilling message from the man who once accused his critics of aiding and abetting terrorists.

Unless deterred by Congress or the courts, Ashcroft will continue his campaign to protect Americans from the ravages of free speech. If he succeeds, it will not be sailors but free speech that will be shanghaied in Miami.

Why not go after Bin Laden

Letter to the Editor

The CIA confirmed the voice in the latest Bin Laden tape actually is Bin Laden - so - why aren't we going after him? Bin Laden is in Pakistan - not Iraq. It seems to me that the Bush administration is confused about who and where the enemy is.

-----

Bin Laden at Large Day 769 since 9-11
Bin Laden is Free - Are you?

Bush Strikes Deal to let Bin Laden get away!

Music Swappers to become international felons.

IP Justice Media Release
October 20, 2003
Media contact: Robin Gross, IP Justice Executive Director
+1 415-553-6261 robin@ipjustice.org

FTAA Treaty Chapter on IP '"Threatens Freedom and Free Trade"
IP Justice White Paper Reveals Treaty Would Send P2P File-Sharers to Prison
Sponsors Petition to Delete Intellectual Property Chapter

- International civil liberties group IP Justice published a report today entitled "FTAA: A Threat to Freedom and Free Trade," that analyzes key sections of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Treaty. The FTAA Treaty will govern the lives of 800 million Americans in the Western Hemisphere in 2005.

Similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the FTAA Treaty seeks to bind the 34 democracies in the Western Hemisphere (including the US) to a single trade agreement. It will require all countries to change their domestic laws on a wide range of topics, including intellectual property rights.

The draft intellectual property rights chapter in the FTAA Agreement vastly expands criminal procedures and penalties against intellectual property infringements throughout the Americas. One clause would require countries to send non-commercial infringers such as Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharers to prison. It is estimated that 60 million Americans use file-sharing software in the US alone.

According to the IP Justice report, "unless the second proposed clause to Article 4.1 is deleted from the FTAA Treaty, Internet music swapping will be a felony throughout the Western Hemisphere in 2005."

The proposed agreement forbids consumers from bypassing technical restrictions on their own CDs, DVDs and other property, similar to the controversial US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Even though bills are pending in the US Congress to repeal the DMCA, FTAA proposes to outlaw even more speech and legitimate conduct.

Mislabeled as a "free trade" agreement, the FTAA Agreement would actually make it illegal to bypass trade barriers such as DVD region code restrictions and it would enable price discrimination against consumers in the Americas.

The draft treaty also imposes new definitions for "fair use" and "personal use," curtailing traditional fair use and personal use rights to a single copy and only under limited circumstances. This prevents consumers from backing-up their media collections, using their media in new and innovative ways, and accessing media for educational and non-commercial purposes.

Another clause would require all countries to amend their copyright laws to extend copyright's term to at least 70 years after the life of the author, essentially forcing the new US standard on all other 33 countries in the hemisphere. Although forbidden by the US Constitution, FTAA's copyright section would allow companies to copyright facts and scientific data.

Another provision requires all domain name trademark disputes to be decided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private and unaccountable organization that is ill equipped to determine the limits of freedom of expression rights or the scope of intellectual property rights. Americans would no longer have access to their local public courts to adjudicate rights over their Internet domain names.

"The FTAA Treaty's IP chapter reads like a 'wish list' for RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft lobbyists," said IP Justice Executive Director Robin Gross. "Rather than promote competition and creativity, it is bloated with provisions that create monopolies over information and media devices," stated the intellectual property attorney.

In conjunction with the White Paper, IP Justice published an online petition calling upon the FTAA Trade Ministers to delete the entire chapter on intellectual property rights from the trade agreement. Earlier this year Brazil called for scrapping the chapter on intellectual property rights also.

FTAA Treaty negotiators, including the Office of the US Trade Representative who negotiates on behalf of US government, will meet in Miami from November 16-21, 2003. Debate over the text of the FTAA Treaty will conclude by January 2005 and the treaty is due to take effect by December 2005.

IP Justice White Paper on FTAA IP Chapter:
http://www.ipjustice.org/ftaa/whitepaper.shtml

IP Justice FTAA Educational Campaign:
http://www.ipjustice.org/ftaa

IP Justice's Top 10 Reasons to Delete FTAA's IP Chapter:
http://www.ipjustice.org/ftaa/topten.shtml

IP Justice Petition to Delete FTAA's IP Chapter:
http://www.ipjustice.org/ftaa/petition.shtml

Official FTAA Website:
http://www.ftaa-alca.org

Draft chapter on intellectual property rights in FTAA Agreement:
http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ftaadraft02/eng/draft_e.asp

IP Justice is an international civil liberties organization that promotes balanced intellectual property law. IP Justice defends individual rights to use digital media worldwide and is a registered California non-profit organization. IP Justice was founded in 2002 by Robin D. Gross, who serves as its Executive Director. To learn more about IP Justice, visit the website at http://www.ipjustice.org.

Republicans steal 2 elections in Georgia

From New Zeland Herald

US voting system vulnerable to fraud

19.10.2003
Part 1 of a 4-part investigation by ANDREW GUMBEL of the Independent

INVESTIGATION - Something very odd happened in the mid-term elections in the US state of Georgia last November.

On the eve of the vote, opinion polls showed Roy Barnes, the incumbent Democratic governor, leading by between 9 and 11 points.

In a somewhat closer, keenly watched Senate race, polls indicated that Max Cleland, the popular Democrat up for re-election, was ahead by two to five points against his Republican challenger, Saxby Chambliss.

Those figures were more or less what political experts would have expected in Georgia, a state with a long tradition of electing Democrats to statewide office.

But then the results came in, and all of Georgia appeared to have been turned upside down.

Barnes lost the governorship to the Republican, Sonny Perdue, 46 per cent to 51 per cent, a swing of as much as 16 percentage points from the last opinion polls.

Cleland lost to Chambliss 46 per cent to 53, a last-minute swing of 9 to 12 points.

Red-faced opinion pollsters suddenly had a lot of explaining to do and launched internal investigations.

Political analysts credited the upset, part of a pattern of Republican successes around the country, to a huge personal campaign push by President Bush in the final days of the race.

They also said that Roy Barnes had lost because of a surge of "angry white men" punishing him for eradicating all but a vestige of the old confederate symbol from the state's flag.

But something about these explanations did not make sense, and they have made even less sense over time.

--- more ---

When the Georgia secretary of state's office published its demographic breakdown of the election earlier this year, it turned out there was no surge of angry white men; in fact, the only subgroup showing even a modest increase in turnout was black women.

Their embrace of the confederate cause was about as likely as the alleged support for right-wing demagogue Pat Buchanan by retired liberal Jews - using the notorious "butterfly ballot" - in the 2000 presidential election in Palm Beach County, Florida.

There were also big, puzzling swings in partisan loyalties in different parts of the state.

In 58 counties, the vote was broadly in line with the primary election.

Georgia has an open primary system - meaning anyone can vote for either major party, irrespective of their own affiliation - so that consistency was to be expected.

In 27 counties in Republican-dominated north Georgia, however, Max Cleland unaccountably scored 14 percentage points higher than he had in the primaries.

And in 74 counties in the Democrat-leaning south, Saxby Chambliss garnered a whopping 22 points more for the Republicans than the party as a whole had won less than three months earlier.

Now, weird things like this do occasionally occur in elections, and the figures, on their own, are not proof of anything except statistical anomalies worthy of further study.

But in Georgia there was an extra reason to be suspicious.

Last November, the state became the first in the country to conduct an election entirely with touchscreen voting machines, after lavishing US$54 million ($91 million) on a new system that promised to deliver the securest, most up-to-date, most voter-friendly election in the history of the republic.

The machines, however, turned out to be anything but reliable.

With academic studies showing the Georgia touchscreens to be poorly programmed, full of security holes and prone to tampering, and with thousands of similar machines from different companies being introduced at high speed across the country, computer voting may, in fact, be US democracy's own 21st century nightmare.

In many Georgia counties last November, the machines froze up, causing long delays as technicians tried to reboot them.

In heavily Democratic Fulton County, in downtown Atlanta, 67 memory cards from the voting machines went missing, delaying certification of the results there for 10 days.

In neighbouring DeKalb County, 10 memory cards were unaccounted for; they were later recovered from terminals that had supposedly broken down and been taken out of service.

It is still unclear exactly how results from these missing cards were tabulated, or if they were counted at all.

And we will probably never know, for a highly disturbing reason.

The vote count was not conducted by state elections officials, but by the private company that sold Georgia the voting machines in the first place, under a strict trade-secrecy contract that made it not only difficult but actually illegal -- on pain of stiff criminal penalties -- for the state to touch the equipment or examine the proprietary software to ensure the machines worked properly.

There was not even a paper trail to follow up. The machines were fitted with thermal printing devices that could theoretically provide a written record of voters' choices, but these were not activated. Consequently, recounts were impossible.

Had Diebold Inc, the manufacturer, been asked to review the votes, all it could have done was programme the computers to spit out the same data as before, flawed or not.

Astonishingly, these are the terms under which America's top three computer voting machine manufacturers -- Diebold, Sequoia and Election Systems and Software (ES&S) -- have sold their products to election officials around the country.

Far from questioning the need for rigid trade secrecy and the absence of a paper record, secretaries of state and their technical advisers -- anxious to banish memories of the "hanging chad" fiasco and other associated disasters in the 2000 presidential recount in Florida -- have, for the most part, welcomed the touchscreen voting machines as a technological miracle solution.

Georgia was not the only state last November to see big last-minute swings in voting patterns. There were others in Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois and New Hampshire -- all in races that had been flagged as key partisan battlegrounds, and all eventually won by the Republican Party.

Again, this was widely attributed to the campaigning efforts of President Bush and the demoralisation of a Democratic Party too timid to speak out against the looming war in Iraq.

Strangely, however, the pollsters made no comparable howlers in lower-key races whose outcome was not seriously contested. Another anomaly, perhaps.

What, then, is one to make of the fact that the owners of the three major computer voting machines are all prominent Republican Party donors?

Or of a recent political fund-raising letter written to Ohio Republicans by Walden O'Dell, Diebold's chief executive, in which he said he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" - even as his company was bidding for the contract on the state's new voting machinery?

Alarmed and suspicious, an ad hoc group of Georgia citizens began to look into the background of last November's election to see whether there was any chance the results might have been deliberately or accidentally manipulated.

Their research proved unexpectedly, and disturbingly, fruitful.

First, they wanted to know if the software had undergone adequate oversight.

Under state and federal law, all voting machinery and component parts must be certified before use in an election.

So an Atlanta graphic designer named Denis Wright wrote to the secretary of state's office for a copy of the certification letter.

Clifford Tatum, assistant director of legal affairs for the election division, wrote back: "We have determined that no records exist in the Secretary of State's office regarding a certification letter from the lab certifying the version of software used on Election Day."

Mr Tatum said it was possible the relevant documents were with Gary Powell, an official at the Georgia Technology Authority, so campaigners wrote to him as well.

Mr Powell responded he was "not sure what you mean by the words 'please provide written certification documents'".

"If the machines were not certified, then right there the election was illegal," Mr Wright said.

The secretary of state's office has yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

Wounded US Troops live in Squalor

Letter to the Editor

Sick and wounded US Troops are being held in squalor at Fort Steward GA languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait for months to see doctors. These troops - many who served recently in Iraq live in the sweltering heat with no bathrooms. They have to hobble on crutches through the dirt and mud to a communal bathroom where they have to actually buy their own toilet paper. A fine thank you from the Bush administration to the troops he sent to fight his war.

UPI Article (Moonies)

Google AdSense Sucks - Censorship

Trying to figure out what this really means. Google has canceled my adsense account because trhey don't like the content of my site. While that state that they believe in freedom of expression - clearly they do not. I therefore based on he way I was treated do not recommend Google AdSense to anyone who is a free speech site.

One thing to keep in mind is that Google as well as most of these affiliate programs write the rules in their favor and can change the terms and conditiona at any time. And they do that. The only recourse we have is to drop thier programs and tell them to go fuck themselves and report it on the net to warn others about how I was treated. So - I'm doing that.

When I tried to log into my account they had a new modified agreement that they wanted me to click on before I could see my stats. So - I don't know how much they owe me or if I will get paid. I refused to agree to the new terms.

Here's the letter from Google.

------

Hello Marc,

We've noticed that you're displaying AdWords ads on a site
(www.perkel.com) that violates our program policies.

Our program specialists regularly review AdSense websites for various
criteria, including, but not limited to, site content, clear navigation,
and the site's potential value to the AdSense program and the user
experience.

We've found that many of the ads that would appear on your site would not
be relevant to your site's content. Because these ads wouldn't provide a
valuable experience for your site's users or our advertisers, we believe
AdSense isn't currently appropriate for the website listed above. As a
result, we've disabled this URL.

Google has certain policies in place that we believe will help ensure the
effectiveness of AdWords ads for our publishers as well as our
advertisers. We believe strongly in freedom of expression and therefore
offer broad access to content across the web without censoring results. At
the same time, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when
it comes to the ads we display in our AdWords program and the sites on
which we choose to display them in our AdSense program, as noted in our
respective terms and conditions.

Please feel to reply to this email with any questions. If you manage or
own another site on which you'd like to display AdWords ads, you may reply
to this email and include the URL in the message. We'll be happy to review
this site and consider it for Google AdSense. If the new site complies
with our program policies, we'll approve your application and allow you to
serve ads on that specific site.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

The Google Team

----------------
To access the Google AdSense home page or to log in to your account,
please visit: https://www.google.com/adsense

This is the new contract they want me to agree to. Fat chance!!!!

------

Welcome to Google AdSense. Please review and accept our Terms and Conditions shown below. You'll then be able to paste the AdSense ad code into your web pages and start running AdWords ads on your site within minutes.

Updated - In response to recent feedback regarding the Google AdSense Online Standard Terms and Conditions, we have made clarifications to this agreement in the following sections: Prohibited Uses (section 6), Confidentiality (section 8), Payment (section 12), Publicity (section 13), and Miscellaneous (section 17).

Google AdSenseTM Online Standard Terms and Conditions

PLEASE READ VERY CAREFULLY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THE FAQ BEFORE REGISTERING FOR THE GOOGLE ADSENSE ONLINE PROGRAM. PARTICIPATION IN THE GOOGLE ADSENSE ONLINE PROGRAM INDICATES THAT YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THE FAQ. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OR THE FAQ, PLEASE DO NOT REGISTER FOR THE GOOGLE ADSENSE ONLINE PROGRAM.

Introduction. This agreement ("Agreement") between You and Google Inc. ("Google") consists of these Google AdSense Online Program (the "Program") Standard Terms and Conditions ("Terms and Conditions") and the Program Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQ"). "You" or "Publisher" means any entity identified in an enrollment form submitted by the same or affiliated persons, and/or any agency or network acting on its (or their) behalf, which shall also be bound by the terms of this Agreement.

1.

Program Participation. Participation in the Program is subject to Google prior approval and Google reserves the right to refuse participation to any applicant or participant at any time in its sole discretion. By enrolling in the Program, You represent that You are at least 18 years of age and agree that Google may serve third party and/or Google provided advertisements (collectively, "Ads") and related Google search queries in connection with the Web site(s) that You designate (each a "Site") using Google's content-targeted advertising serving technology. Multiple accounts held by the same individual or entity are subject to immediate termination.
2.

Implementation; Ad Placement. You agree to comply with the technical specifications provided by Google to enable proper display of the Ads in connection with Your Site(s), including without limitation by not modifying the JavaScript or other programming provided to You by Google in any way. Ads shall be grouped by Google and displayed with related Google search queries (where applicable) to end users of the Site(s) as ad units (such groups of Ads and related Google search queries collectively referred to as "Ad Units") in standard formats as specified in the FAQ. You may select a format approved by Google for the display of Ad Units in connection with the Site(s), but You acknowledge and agree that Ads: (a) shall only be displayed in connection with the Site(s), each of which is subject to review and approval by Google in its discretion at any time; and (b) shall be subject to the placement guidelines set forth in the FAQ. In addition, You agree that only one (1) Ad Unit shall be displayed on each Site Web page. You also agree not to display any other text-based or content-targeted advertisement(s) on the same Web page in connection with which an Ad Unit or any Ad is displayed.
3.

Communications Solely With Google. You agree to direct to Google, and not to any advertiser, any communication regarding any Ad(s) displayed in connection with Your Site(s).
4.

Program FAQ. The FAQ contain many important policies and procedures. Google may modify the FAQ and these Terms and Conditions at any time by publishing such modifications on Google's Web site located at www.google.com ("Google Web Site").
5.

Parties' Responsibilities. You are responsible for knowing the contents of the FAQ and these Terms and Conditions. You are solely responsible for the Site(s), including all content and materials, maintenance and operation thereof and proper implementation of Google's technical specifications. Google is not responsible for anything related to Your Site(s) and shall not be obligated to provide notice to You in the event that Ads are not being displayed properly to end users of the Site(s).
6.

Prohibited Uses. You shall not, and shall not authorize or encourage any third party to: (i) generate fraudulent impressions of or fraudulent clicks on any Ad(s), including but not limited to through repeated manual clicks, the use of robots or other automated query tools and/or computer generated search requests, and/or the fraudulent use of other search engine optimization services and/or software; (ii) edit, modify, filter or change the order of the information contained in any Ad and/or Ad Unit, or remove, obscure or minimize any Ad or Ad Unit in any way, except as expressly provided in the FAQ; (iii) frame any Web page accessed by an end user after clicking on any part of a Ad ("Advertiser Page"); (iv) redirect an end user away from the Advertiser Page, provide a version of the Advertiser Page different from the page an end user would access by going directly to the Advertiser Page or intersperse any content between the Ad and the Advertiser Page; (v) display any Ad(s) on any error page, registration or "thank you" page (e.g. a page that thanks a user after he/she has registered with the applicable Web site), on any search results page or in any email, or on any Web page or any Web site that contains any pornographic, hate-related or violent content, or as otherwise specified in the FAQ; or (vi) act in any way that violates any Program policies posted on the Google Web Site, as revised from time to time. Violation of any of the foregoing may result in immediate termination of this Agreement, and may subject You to state and federal penalties and other legal consequences.
7.

Termination; Cancellation. You may cancel the participation of any Site in the Program and/or terminate this Agreement with or without cause at any time by complying with the cancellation procedures set forth in the FAQ. Google may at any time, in its sole discretion, terminate the Program, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate the participation of any Site in the Program for any reason. If Google notifies You of any such termination or cancellation (which notice shall be effective immediately), or notifies You of a breach of this Agreement, You shall remove all JavaScript or similar programming from Your Site(s) within one (1) hour of receipt of notice. In addition, Google reserves the right to terminate without notice any account that has not generated any clicks on Ads (as measured by Google) for a period of two (2) months or more. Upon termination of participation of any Site in the Program or termination of this Agreement for any reason, Sections 3, 7 through 11, 15, 16 and 17 shall survive termination.
8.

Confidentiality. You agree not to disclose Google Confidential Information without Google's prior written consent. "Google Confidential Information" includes without limitation: (a) all Google software, technology, programming, technical specifications, materials, guidelines and documentation relating to the Program; (b) click-through rates or other statistics relating to Site performance in the Program provided to You by Google; and (c) any other information designated in writing by Google as "Confidential" or an equivalent designation. It does not include information that has become publicly known through no breach by You or Google, or information that has been (i) independently developed without access to Google Confidential Information, as evidenced in writing; (ii) rightfully received by You from a third party; or (iii) required to be disclosed by law or by a governmental authority. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit or limit either party's use or disclosure of the U.S. Federal income tax treatment and U.S. Federal income tax structure of any transaction contemplated by this Agreement and all materials of any kind (including opinions or other tax analyses) that are provided to it relating to such tax treatment or tax structure, except where confidentiality is necessary to comply with applicable federal or state securities laws.
9.

No Guarantee. Google makes no guarantee regarding the level of impressions of or clicks on any Ad, the timing of delivery of such impressions and/or clicks, or the amount of any payment to be made to You under this Agreement.
10.

No Warranty. GOOGLE MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WITH RESPECT TO ADVERTISING AND OTHER SERVICES, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS THE WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
11.

Limitations of Liability; Force Majeure. EXCEPT FOR ANY INDEMNIFICATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER, (i) IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY AND (ii) GOOGLE'S AGGREGATE LIABILITY TO PUBLISHER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY CLAIM IS LIMITED TO THE NET AMOUNT PAID BY GOOGLE TO PUBLISHER DURING THE THREE MONTH PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF THE CLAIM. Each party acknowledges that the other party has entered into this Agreement relying on the limitations of liability stated herein and that those limitations are an essential basis of the bargain between the parties. Without limiting the foregoing and except for payment obligations, neither party shall have any liability for any failure or delay resulting from any condition beyond the reasonable control of such party, including but not limited to governmental action or acts of terrorism, earthquake or other acts of God, labor conditions, and power failures.
12.

Payment. You shall receive a payment related to the number of valid clicks on Ads displayed in connection with Your Site(s) as specified in the FAQ. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Google shall not be liable for any payment based on (a) any fraudulent impressions generated by any person, bot, automated program or similar device or for fraudulent clicks similarly generated on any Ads, as reasonably determined by Google; (b) Ads delivered to end users whose browsers have JavaScript disabled; (c) Ads benefiting charitable organizations and other placeholder or transparent Ads that Google may deliver in the event that a Site is improperly configured to comply with Google technical requirements; (d) Google advertisements for its own products and/or services; or (e) impressions co-mingled with a significant number of fraudulent impressions or fraudulent clicks described in (a) above, or as a result of other breach of this Agreement by You for any applicable pay period. Google reserves the right to withhold payment or charge back Your account due to any of the foregoing, any breach of this Agreement by You, or in the event that an advertiser whose Ads are displayed on Your Site(s) defaults on payment for such Ads to Google. The timing and delivery of such payments shall be as stated in the FAQ. To ensure proper payment, You are solely responsible for providing and maintaining accurate contact and payment information associated with Your account. For U.S. taxpayers, this information includes without limitation a valid U.S. tax identification number and a fully-completed Form W-9. For non-U.S. taxpayers, this information includes without limitation either a signed certification that the taxpayer does not have a U.S. presence or a fully-completed Form W-8 or other form, which may require a valid U.S. tax identification number, as required by the U.S. tax authorities. Any bank fees related to returned or cancelled checks due to a contact or payment information error or omission may be deducted from the newly issued payment. You agree to pay all applicable taxes or charges imposed by any government entity in connection with Your participation in the Program. Google may change its pricing and/or payment structure at any time. If You dispute any payment made under the Program, You must notify Google in writing within thirty (30) days of any such payment; failure to so notify Google shall result in the waiver by You of any claim relating to any such disputed payment. Payment shall be calculated solely based on records maintained by Google. No other measurements or statistics of any kind shall be accepted by Google or have any effect under this Agreement. The payments made under this Agreement are for use by You only and may not be transferred or in any manner passed on to any third party unless expressly authorized in writing by Google.
13.

Publicity. You agree that Google may use Your name and logo in presentations, marketing materials, customer lists, financial reports and Web site listings of customers. If You wish to use Google's trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features ("Brand Features"), You may do so, so long as such use is in compliance with this Agreement and in compliance with Google's then current Brand Feature use guidelines, and any content contained or reference therein, which may be found at the following URL: http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html (or such other URL Google may provide from time to time).
14.

Representations and Warranties. You represent and warrant that (a) all of the information provided by You to Google to enroll in the Program is correct and current; and (b) You are the owner of each Site or that You are legally authorized to act on behalf of the owner of such Site(s) for the purposes of this Agreement and the Program; and (c) You have all necessary right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform the acts required of You hereunder. You further represent and warrant that each Site and any material displayed therein: (i) comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations; (ii) do not breach and have not breached any duty toward or rights of any person or entity including, without limitation, rights of intellectual property, publicity or privacy, or rights or duties under consumer protection, product liability, tort, or contract theories; and (iii) are not pornographic, hate-related or otherwise violent in content.
15.

Your Obligation to Indemnify. You agree to indemnify, defend and hold Google, its agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, and applicable third parties (e.g. relevant advertisers, syndication partners, licensors, licensees, consultants and contractors) (collectively "Indemnified Person(s)") harmless from and against any and all third party claims, liability, loss, and expense (including damage awards, settlement amounts, and reasonable legal fees), brought against any Indemnified Person(s), arising out of, related to or which may arise from Your use of the Program, the Site(s), and/or Your breach of any term of this Agreement.
16.

Information Rights. Google may retain and use for its own purposes all information You provide, including but not limited to Site demographics and contact and billing information. Google may share aggregate (i.e., not personally identifiable) information about You with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties. In addition, You grant Google the right to access, index and cache the Site(s), or any portion thereof, including by automated means including Web spiders or crawlers.
17.

Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of California, except for its conflicts of laws principles. Any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be adjudicated in Santa Clara County, California. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any modifications to this Agreement must be made in a writing executed by both parties. The failure to require performance of any provision shall not affect a party's right to require performance at any time thereafter, nor shall a waiver of any breach or default of this Agreement constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach or default or a waiver of the provision itself. If any provision herein is held unenforceable, then such provision will be modified to reflect the parties' intention, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. You may not resell, assign, or transfer any of Your rights hereunder. Any such attempt may result in termination of this Agreement, without liability to Google. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Google may assign this Agreement to any affiliate at any time without notice. The relationship between Google and You is not one of a legal partnership relationship, but is one of independent contractors.

October 16, 2003

By checking this box and clicking on the I Accept button, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Terms and Conditions and the Frequently Asked Questions for participation in Google AdSense. If you do not agree to these Terms and Conditions, you will not be able to participate in this program.

AdSense FAQ

© 2003 Google - AdSense Home - Contact Us

Do Jews Rule the World?

Letter to the Editor

It an interesting question raised recently by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia. Do Jews rule the world? Or - more specifically - does the right wing Israeli government rule the world? Israel has been a militant obstacle to peace and is trying to use economic genocide to drive the Palestinians out of the area and steal their land. And - they are getting away with it. When I look at Israel's new "Berlin Wall" - it sends chills down my spine. Did the Jews learn nothing from the Holocaust?

Just as Tony Blair is Bush's poodle - it seems that Bush is the poodle of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. When Ariel Sharon says frog - Bush says how high. So - I think the President of Malaysia was on target with his remark and it's time the world woke up to the fact that the right wing governments of Israel, the United States, and England are in fact a threat to the peace and prosperity of the planet.

-----

What is control and how do you detect it. For instance - I am raising he question here about Jewish control and you are reading it. What is the first thing that comes to mind? Is this anti-sematism? And why does that come to mind? Well - because you can't say anything critical about the Jews or they play the holocaust card and make you a Nazi. Criticizing Jews is worse than talking sexual politics with militant lesbians. Not every critical remark about Jews is anti-jewish. And - in the long run - supressing critism results in prejudice. The Jewish religion and culture is no better than any other religion or culture except to the extent that they behave as better people. And what the Jews are doing in the Middle East does not reflect any sign of a superior culture.

The reality is - sometimes the Jews really are wrong. Sometimes the Jews really are the bad guys - and the right wing government of Israel really is a threat to peace on the planet and they really are pulling America's strings. This really is happening and we really do need to talk about it without the censorship.

The Jews are not God's chosen people and Israel was not given to the Jews by God. The Jews got Israel out of an act of compassion of the United Nations and they should thank the world community for their gift of land rather than to act like God gave them an entitlement.

Looking for Volunteers to Link to Reality

I'm looking for some volunteers to help spread the word about the Church of Reality on the Internet. I'd like to get as many links to it as possible. In order to do that I need people to go to related sites like lists of religions and suggest the Church of Reality.

Also - if you have a home page or have friends who have pages I'd appreciate a link. The more people link the more we will get noticed. Also - if any of you have pull with DMOZ or other search engines - could use some help there.

I still believe that if everyone in the world heard the name "Church of Reality" and had an idea that it was a church based on believing in what is real - that it would raise the IQ of the planet by 5 points.

You can be part of the process that brings humanity out of mythology and armegeddon and put it on the track of positive evolution. If you want a future brighter than today - then go out and spread the word. Tell people how reality changed your life!

Church of Reality has new Blog

I've started another blog on my Church of Reality site. The new blog can be found at:

http://diary.churchofreality.org

This new blog is going to be mostly a collection of links to news articles about the effect of religion on society. Links to articles where religion has it is likely to lead to wars, Religion is trying to control governments, or other abuses of Religion.

I am looking for a few good editors to gather up these articles and post them to my blog. I'd like some volunteers to take this mission on and make it happen. Anyone interested should email me. marc@perkel.com and I'll set you up.

Posted by marc at 08:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack