For 90 minutes, through one and a half salted margaritas, John Young has been eyeballing me, speaking softly, fidgeting with the digital recorder I've placed in front of him. He's heard all the questions I am asking before, and he answers them carefully and pleasantly. Then he tells me why he's here.

Very interesting article... I'm not a cryptome reader, though i've happened across it on occasion. I certainly don't agree with Young's politics or attitude, but i nonetheless admire his dedication.

Radar Online : Inside Cryptome, the website the CIA doesn't want you to see

For tens of thousands of members of the National Guard and reserves who are called up to serve in Iraq, returning home safely may be the beginning -- not the end -- of their worst nightmare. Reservists lucky enough to make it home often find their civilian jobs gone and face unsympathetic employers and a government that has restricted access to civilian job-loss reports rather than prosecuting offending employers.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects members of the guard and reserves from job loss, demotion, loss of seniority and loss of benefits when they are called to active duty.

The act is supposed to protect reservists' civilian jobs for up to five years of military service. But the government has made it difficult for veterans to enforce their legal rights. Service members who return to find their civilian jobs gone also find that the burden is on them to prove that their jobs were taken away as a result of their military service and that there is no other reason that they could have been fired.

This onerous burden of proof discourages many from filing formal complaints.

What a travesty. This makes me even angrier than the war itself does.

Meanwhile, every time I go to the movies, the pre-film "entertainment" includes a lengthy National Guard ad, with all it's patriotic noise. No wonder they have to work to recruit, if the administration not only conducts unpopular wars, but doesn't even bother to do right by those who fight it.

Atrocious.

Amy R. Gershkoff - Saving Soldiers' Jobs - washingtonpost.com

BARNSTABLE, Massachusetts (AP) -- A Cape Cod man who claimed he was homophobic, racist and a habitual liar to avoid jury duty earned an angry rebuke from a judge on Monday, who referred the case to prosecutors for possible charges.
art.gavel.jpg

Daniel Ellis' excuses to try to get out of jury duty didn't sit well with the judge.

"In 32 years of service in courtrooms, as a prosecutor, as a defense attorney and now as a judge, I have quite frankly never confronted such a brazen situation of an individual attempting to avoid juror service," Barnstable Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson told Daniel Ellis, according to a preliminary court transcript of the exchange.

Ellis, of Falmouth, had been called to court with about 60 other potential jurors for possible service on a 23-member grand jury.

On a questionnaire that all potential jurors fill out, Ellis wrote that he didn't like homosexuals and blacks. He then echoed those sentiments in an interview with Nickerson.

"You say on your form that you're not a fan of homosexuals," Nickerson said.

"That I'm a racist," Ellis interrupted.

"I'm frequently found to be a liar, too. I can't really help it," Ellis added.

"I'm sorry?" Nickerson said.

"I said I'm frequently found to be a liar," Ellis replied.

"So, are you lying to me now?" Nickerson asked.

"Well, I don't know. I might be," was the response.

Ellis then admitted he really didn't want to serve on a jury.

"I have the distinct impression that you're intentionally trying to avoid jury service," Nickerson said.

"That's true," Ellis answered.

Nickerson ordered Ellis taken into custody. He was released later Monday morning.

Ellis could face perjury and other charges.

I sure hate people.

Jury duty excuse: I'm a racist, homophobic liar - CNN.com

The NRA insisted that it was not a "gun control" bill because it does not disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm. The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them."

Well, it's kind of a baby step, but at least it's something I guess. Having the support of the NRA is probably important... I look forward to seeing the bill itself, and how it does in the Senate...

-k

House Passes Federal Gun Control Bill

FYI FWIW

[Jebus, what did Boeing do to jump from 15 to 2 in one year?

I also note KBR (Halliburton subsidiary, yes?) on the list for the first time? Then, so is Deloitte, so something was screwy in 2006 methinks.

My company, SAIC, slipped 2 places, but I'm here, doing my part, such as it is. -k]

Top 100 Federal Prime Contractors -- 2007

terratogen wrote:
I agree with his description of the problem, but not his solution. I think reputation of the news agency might be preferable to any sort of official regulation which would be more dangerous than doing nothing at all.

I agree that government regulation of content is problematic and likely untenable.

However, as i say in my response, the free market nature of the media, of News as a business has permitted, not through any fault in the system, but nonetheless by the nature of the system, News to become entertainment. And it is this News as Entertainment issue that Blair is responding to. I do not mean to oversimplify, because this is only one aspect of a much more complicated problem, but it's absolutely a factor.

Clearly it is necessary for people to *want* measured, reasonable and intelligent discourse. They don't right now, or, anyway, not in sufficient numbers for the market to respond. In this sense, "reputation" fails because the criteria people are using (e.g. emotional impact, reinforcement of existing opinions, a distrust of intellectualism in favor of blue-collar populism) have no relationship to the ones Blair (and I) believe should be applied.

So do we ignore the problem, until we get a critical mass big enough for the market to take notice? Is the market necessarily the mechanism we want to determine the nature of our media? Are there better models, or ways that regulation could help? Regulation does not have to be of content, but what of the business arrangements for media companies. This is very much NOT a free market solution, and is thus unpopular in the US, but we can still consider it. I'm not saying i have a solution, but I'm not sure none exists either.

RE: Full text of Blair's speech on politics and media | Uk News | News | Telegraph

The first amendment is under serious attack following an incident that took place at the GOP presidential debates up here in New Hampshire. Matt Lepacek a member of the activist/alternative media group We Are Change was arrested for simply attempting to question Rudy Giuliani about different issues including the fact that he previously lied to the We Are Change group about his involvement in the events of 9/11. This event shows that we no longer have freedom of speech or freedom of press in this country.

I want more info. This is quite outrageous if true.

Reporter Arrested For Asking Tough Questions

WASHINGTON -- In a victory for TV networks but a setback for efforts to shield children from coarse language, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday that broadcasters cannot be penalized for expletives that are considered impromptu.

The three-judge panel in New York repudiated the Federal Communications Commission's recent crackdown on broadcast indecency, calling its efforts "arbitrary and capricious."

Fuckin' A! Good news.

[ Agreed. This has always seemed like a market issue to me. You don't like the tone or content on a particular network? Vote with your pocketbook and your voice. Don't watch it. Don't let your kids watch it. Teach your kids that Nicole Ritchie (or, substitute your own celeb) is a spoiled, classless moron and that imitating her is a sure fire way to also look like an imbecile with no sense of decorum or grace.

I view government regulation as necessary in a number of places, but this just isn't one of them.

I will admit that the structure of TV distribution makes market solutions harder than in other industries. I can just not go to McDonalds, but with TV, such a boycott means a lot less since I have to have the channel unless I cancel all of them. Neilsen is an inadequate mechanism for analysis of this sort of issue. A la carte purchasing would help a LOT. -k]

Judges toss FCC rule on cursing | Chicago Tribune

Commenting on the incident, Baltimore County police spokesman Bill Toohey told the Sun: "It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world."

Ok, so, I'm missing the connection... can someone help me out?

You try to pay a bill, with legal tender, and Best Buys (stupid employees) think that they are fake, and this has what? to do with 9/11 and terrorism?

Where is the logic in this statement, and where is the law suit?

[ That's the default answer anytime anyone overreacts, of course. It's got fuckall to do with terrorism and everyone knows it, but now there's a believable bogey-man on which every indiscretion can be blamed. It's fucking bullshit. -k]

WorldNetDaily: Man arrested, cuffed after using $2 bills

Maco wrote:
If any Republican wins (I hope not...), looks like it better be McCain based on that. Based on other stuff, I've no idea. I'm not going to vote for a Republican, and I'm not going to bother picking one out to vote against before primaries.

I'm with you. I wanted to discuss the abortion questions, and since the site won't let me recommend a story twice, or reply twice to the same post, I guess I'll do it here...

And I think that's the thing we've got to really look at here, is, what are we doing? We talk about abortion, but abortion is a procedure. This is a life that we're talking about. And it's a terrible situation where there's a rape that's involved or incest.

But it nonetheless remains that this is a child that we're talking about doing this to, of ending the life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that's what takes place? And I don't think so, and I think we can explain it when we look at it for what it is: a beautiful child of a loving God, that we ought to protect in all circumstances in all places, here in the womb, somebody that's struggling in poverty, a family that's struggling. We should work and look at all life, be pro-life and whole-life for everybody.

I want some pro-lifers who share the aforementioned mindset to square that opinion with the universal Republican tenet of personal responsibility and a federal government that provides little to no entitlement programs.

I hear the above over and over again, and I've never once heard a mainstream candidate discuss the social and financial burden that child represents, and what the country's going to do about that. If someone has, I'd love a link or transcript.

Instead, it's all about protecting the life of the child and in other places about dismantling social programs in order to reduce taxes. How is it protecting a child to ensure that it must come to term in an environment that hasn't put into place a support structure to pay for it's existence?

You want to blame the kids who got drunk and got pregnant and say "Well, that was your fault... deal with the repurcussions." well, that's bad enough, but I'll call it ok for now. But in the case of a rape? You say the woman must come to term, then I say -- well, of course, I actually say that's bullshit and oppose it, but for the sake of this experiment, let's say -- that *AT LEAST* the government has a responsibility to ensure that funds exist for pre-natal care, child support for a woman who's raising this kid she didn't ask for or want, counseling services, daycare, medical benefits where necessary, educational stipends, etc. etc.

You *can* *not* force someone to do something against their will, due to an act that not only wasn't their fault, but in which they were a victim of a violent crime, and then cut them loose with regards to the costs inherent in that. I still don't consider such a situation morally sound, but even from the standpoint that abortion is murder I can't imagine less than what I've described could be considered an acceptable situation. "It's up to the community" is a bullshit non-response I've heard -- we all know just how open and supportive most people are when they don't have to be.

For once I'd like to see someone express a consistent support for "life" when they take a pro-life stand. As it is, they're not pro-life at all, just anti-abortion, and there is a WORLD of difference.

RE: Republican Presidential Candiates on Torture