The Unfiltered Cigarette

Weinergate Analysis

2011-06-03T14:24:00.000-07:00

Dan Wolfe's own screenshots show his advance knowledge of "inapporopriate" pic

I don't post all that often, but this week's hubub over a picture of an underwear-covered crotch bulge purportedly sent to a young woman by Rep. Anthony Weiner has inspired me to do some debunking.

First: Much credit is due to Cannonfire for their work in uncovering the gaping security hole (since closed) in yfrog's photo sharing setup.

Also: Much credit to the folks who contributed to this Fark.com thread in which the yfrog exploit was tested and confirmed, and additional evidence as to the behavior of yfrog was gathered. See also, another thread participant's write up of this evidence

Now, the additional evidence:

When a photo is uploaded to yfrog, it is not sent to the assosciated Twitter account immediately. There is a delay of a few minutes between the photo appearing on yfrog, and it being sent to twitter. The way the photo appears on yfrog changes slightly after the tweet hits twitter, meaning that it is possible to place the timing of the yfrog screenshot Mr Wolfe took with some certainty. This was demonstrated with a willing volunteer's twitter/yfrog accounts in the above linked Fark.com thread (the good stuff starts around post #300):

Before the image is tweeted:

After the image is tweeted:

Note that the twitter message with the photo link does not appear on the yfrog page until the message is sent out via twitter.

Compare the above photos with Dan Wolfe's screenshot of Weiner's yfrog page:

See anything missing? The twitter message is not there. This means that Wolfe's screenshot was taken BEFORE the message was ever sent out via twitter. There are two possible explanations for this:

Mr Wolfe just happened to be browsing through Rep. Weiner's yfrog photos and noticed the picture and took a screenshot during the few minutes that the photo was up, or
Wolfe is the person who uploaded the photo using the previously documented yfrog exploit.

I'll let readers decide on the more likely explanation, but someone grabbing a screenshot of the photo BEFORE IT POSTED TO TWITTER is pretty unlikely unless they had some sort of advance knowledge.

This, combined with the previously documented inconsistencies in the photo's EXIF metadata screams right-wing smear attempt, and not-very-well-executed one at that.

Book Review: Land of the Painted Caves

2011-01-20T23:02:00.000-08:00

I have thoroughly enjoyed each installment of Jean M. Auel's Earth's Children series, and The Land of the Painted Caves was no exception. My chief complaint has been having to wait so long for each new installment as the novels follow Ayla and Jondalar on their journeys of growth and self-discovery. The detail with which Auel describes the environment, tools and ways of living bring the settings to life. The downside of the detail is that Painted Caves is a big book (physically), but that is justified because it is also a big book from the point of view of the sweeping, intoxicating story woven by Auel.

Painted Caves picks up where Shelters of Stone left off, with Ayla and Jondalar as new parents to Jonayla, and Ayla struggling to balance time commitments between her new daughter and her duties as an acolyte to the First among those who serve the Mother. Each step along Ayla's journey has highlighted one or more advances in human society and human understanding of the world around us, and Painted Caves is no exception. From the domestication of animals to the discovery of pottery, each step in the process has seemed like a novelization of discovering a new fundamental technology in one of the Civilization games. The upheaval caused by the revelation in Painted Caves has the potential to shatter the largely matriarchal society which has thus far existed among the Others.

My recommendation: Pre-order this book. Put a hold on it now if it is already in your local library's catalog. For the folks who have been waiting with bated breath for the next installment in the Earth's Children series, this book is everything that the previous installments have led Auel's dedicated fans to expect. March 29th can't get here fast enough.

Darrell Issa's priorities

2011-01-18T16:38:00.000-08:00

While his official website still contains a broken contact form, preventing him from receiving communications from his constituents, my Congressman (Darrell Issa) was tweeting about making videos of construction in the hearing room he is taking over. Of course, having a newly-refurbished room to hold hearings in is more important than having the people that elected you be able to contact you.

Where is the code for me to enter???

The giant Cross on Mt. Soledad

2011-01-11T21:15:00.000-08:00

A local Tea Party group in San Diego will be holding a rally to protest the ordered removal of the giant Cross that sits atop Mt. Soledad this coming Saturday (Jan 15, 2010). How can a group which claims to defend the US Constitution have become so turned around? The First Amendment has been interpreted to mean that the Government cannot endorse any religion. That means that religious displays on government property cannot be permitted. It protects everyone from having a religion forced upon them by the government. It protects me from being forced to be Christian just as it protects the Tea Partiers from being forced to follow Sharia law.

The group is painting this as an issue of respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation, but they are determined to run roughshod over the very freedoms that many of those servicemen and women gave their lives protecting. I doubt very much that the Tea Party would rise to the defense of a symbol from another religious tradition if it were atop Mt Soledad instead of a cross. By championing this cause, the Tea Party is once again showing that they are not about defending freedom, but rather that they champion the establishment of a pseudo-theocracy, where only the "right" religion is allowed to be endorsed. The US is not a Christian nation any more than it is an Islamic nation, Jewish nation, or Hindu nation. It is a nation where all are free to believe as they choose. If the Tea Party wants to defend freedoms, it needs to start by defending the freedoms it doesn't like rather than trying to invent a freedom to impose their religious beliefs on others. Of course, living in a free country means that the Tea Party is free to be hypocrites, too.

The Blondes Are Back!

2010-10-11T15:19:00.000-07:00

While taking pictures of the Tea Party event in Oceanside, CA on April 15, 2010 I snapped a photo of these two young ladies:

At the next Oceanside Tea Party (October 10, 2010) they were back with a more polished presentation, having officially become the "Blondes Against Obama":

A little additional checking has revealed they they have set up a website where they pontificate on the socialist takeover of the federal government and also sell T-shirts in both "Blondes Against Obama" and "Brunettes Against Obama" designs. I don't know why they're not including redheads.

Book Review: Power Down by Ben Coes

2010-08-26T13:50:00.000-07:00

This summer, I received an advance copy of Power Down by Ben Coes as part of my local library's summer reading program. While the overall plot line and characters are indeed compelling, the book loses a lot in its inattention to the details which allow the reader to suspend disbelief.

Power Down may actually be the worst book I have read since Dan Brown's Deception Point- the glaring factual errors in the description of certain plot elements should be obvious to anyone who took chemistry in high school, has any familiarity with e-mail beyond using AOL, or has ever lived in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Coes also seems to possess a staggering lack of knowledge as to the operation of the fundamental technologies of the internet, which plays a key role in the tracking down of the CIA mole who assists the terrorist mastermind behind the plot of the book. Would it have been all that hard for Coes or someone at his publisher (St. Martin's Press) to track down someone who actually knows something about this stuff and help him get the details right? By the time I finished the book, I had a splitting headache which I attribute to my brain attempting to escape the torture of Power Down by exiting my skull through my right ear.

Some of the basic problems with the novel are so glaring as to make me question the veracity of Ben Coes' biography on his own website. I find it almost impossible to believe that someone who supposedly worked in the White House under two presidents and in a number of positions within the federal government has the ignorance of law enforcement agencies and jurisdictions within Washington, DC that Ben Coes displays.

Coes compounds the problems of the technical errors which run rampant throughout the novel by choosing incongruous similes to use in descriptions of events throughout the novel.

The basic plot:

Dewey Andreas is a former US Army Ranger and current oil rig boss who survives a terrorist attack on his rig, and goes on a mission to find the person (or persons) behind the attack. He soon learns that the attack he survived is not an isolated incident, but part of a coordinated plot to destroy the essential infrastructure of the United States.

My conclusion:

Not only would I not recommend Power Down to anyone to read, I can't even loan the copy I have to a friend, because by the time I was done reading it, the book was covered in red ink from the pen I used to make corrections and mark the glaring factual errors. After finishing the book, I am in desperate need of two things: A new red pen (as mine is now out of ink), and a Costco-sized bottle of Advil to treat the throbbing headache I have developed as a result of reading this book. After my headache subsides, I'll start looking for the 15 or 20 IQ points I lost in the process of reading Power Down.

Glenn Beck Endorses Socialism

2010-02-21T00:42:00.000-08:00

I was watching Glenn Beck's keynote speech at CPAC (embedded below for your viewing displeasure) and I was shocked to hear this gem at the halfway point:

"I educated myself. I went to the Library where books are free."

Then, Beck followed it up with this statement a few seconds later, hammering it home:

"My education was free, and I'm proud of that."

I had to watch that bit again, because I wasn't sure that I had heard it right. Especially since these "conservatives" were applauding. It's at about 32:40 if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

What kind of true, bootstrappy conservative uses and endorses dirty, commie, socialist things like free public libraries?

So, you tell me. Am I crazy? Or does Glenn Beck approve of Socialism (at least, when he benefits from it)?

We can't afford debt, so let's sell bonds!

2009-11-24T19:42:00.000-08:00

Glenn Beck must be on the verge of a mental breakdown- assuming he was ever sane to begin with, that is. His opening rant today couldn't even manage to stay internally consistent. Although the majority of it seemed to be focused on criticizing the Obama administration's Afghanistan policy (or lack thereof), he also took a brief detour into ranting about the US national debt. Then, not even three minutes later, Beck advocated selling war bonds to finance the continuation of hostilities in Afghanistan. Apparently, Beck doesn't understand that selling bonds is borrowing money. Here's the video- with the two excerpts (it repeats three times to drive home the point):

Beck can't even manage to stay internally consistent for five minutes. Can any of his fans explain to me why people listen to this clown?

Fiction authors tell you the truth?

2009-11-20T17:10:00.000-08:00

Glenn Beck (Alfred Peachous) explained today who he turns to for "the truth," and it should come as a surprise to no one that for him, the ultimate source of truth is fiction authors.

This really explains a lot about Glenn's paranoid, delusional rantings. If the line between truth and fiction is nonexistent, then the more often a lie is repeated, the more true it must become. The blurred line in Beck's mind between truth and fiction should give most of his hardcore fans pause. The inability to separate fantasy from reality is grounds for having someone declared legally insane. Of course, that also explains why there has been no answer to the question of whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Maybe he did it, but has convinced himself that it was just a fantasy.

Glenn Beck gets censored by Fox!

2009-11-19T16:57:00.000-08:00

Poor Glenn! Alfred Peachous (while in character as Glenn Beck) got censored by Fox today, just as he hit his stride in a rant about all the things that one Congressman should fix in Washington. He got through wasteful spending, fat interns, creating jobs in districts that don't exist, hookers, lies, meaningless resolutions, communists in the White House, 2000-page bills that he hasn't read, Treasury Secretaries that don't pay their taxes, and fiscal policies that don't make any sense whatsoever. At that point, Glenn was cut off. Why not ask the Congressman to eliminate rape and murder, Glenn? Even just the rapes and murders which occurred in 1990 would be a good start.

Of course, I can't help Glenn/Alfred with the issue of his understanding fiscal policies, since by his own admission, he doesn't understand the economy. Exactly what the Congressman is going to do about fat interns or prostitution is a little beyond me as well, and since it's the Senate not the House of Representatives which confirms cabinet members, I don't think the Congressman can do much about the Secretary of the Treasury, either. Actually, it appears that Glenn Beck doesn't know much about how the federal government works at all. That raises questions like "What is this man (or character) doing on the air?" and "Why do people listen to this imbecile?" I don't know the answer to those questions, just like I don't know if Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Glenn Beck discredits himself

2009-11-18T17:11:00.000-08:00

Wednesday: Glenn Beck tells the world that Glenn Beck doesn't understand the subject he spent an hour discussing the day before.

I'm really laughing at this right now. Glenn spent his entire show yesterday pissing and moaning about how the Government is destroying the economy. Then today he announces that one of the most frustrating things about his job is "trying to explain the economy to people, and to understand it myself." Apparently, trying to understand the economy for Glenn is like "banging my head against the wall." Trust me, Glenn. That's how I feel about watching your show.

Of course, I'm not sure why anyone would listen to a man who refuses to deny the persistent rumor that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, but in case you needed another reason, there it is.

Hour-Long Infomercial: The new Glenn Beck Show

2009-11-17T18:48:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, I watch Glenn Beck's daily show on Fox ~~News~~ Right-Wing Opinion Channel. I do this in order to be able to criticize and refute the fear-mongering Wharrrgarbl that issues forth from his oral cavity. Actually, "watch" may be a mis-characterization of what I am doing, since I frequently find my self engaged in facepalming or gazing at the ceiling in a silent plea to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Beck didn't actually say whatever inanity I just heard.

Today's show was particularly embarrassing. It was basically an hour-long infomercial shilling for the group that constitutes the majority of Glenn Beck's few remaining advertisers: Companies selling gold. Doom-and-gloom economic predictions have become standard fare on Beck's show of late, including simplistic analysis of monetary policies that would make any freshman economics professor cringe. The point of all of this seems to be that the US Dollar is doomed, globalization is inevitable, and that inflation will erode American purchasing power to almost nothing. This apocalyptic predictions then inevitably segue into commercials where convicted criminal G. Gordon Liddy and others implore the viewers to invest their money in a safe, physical commodity- GOLD!

I guess Beck must need to take a periodic break from his usual fare of comparing healthcare reform to being raped by Roman Polanski, and relentlessly pursuing his witch-hunt of ACORN and SEIU. Or maybe Beck is afraid that what advertisers he has left will follow the lead of so many others and withdraw their sponsorship. Whatever the motivation, Beck has a long way to go if he now has his eyes on being the next Billy Mays or Vince Offer.

Today on Glenn Beck: We're the young girl getting raped

2009-11-16T22:13:00.000-08:00

No, You didn't read that wrong. Glenn Beck today chose to describe health care reform in the terms of Roman Polanski raping a young girl. Watch:

Maybe it's just me, but that analogy seems a little crude, especially given the unanswered questions that have been swirling since the beginning of September regarding Beck's own involvement in the 1990 rape and murder of another young girl. Does Glenn Beck have rape on the brain? Is he really a homicidal pedophile who will offend again and again until someone stops him?

I'm not saying he is. I'm just asking questions. I'm also advising young girls that they might be safer if they skip this year's performance of Glenn Beck's "The Christmas Sweater"

Glenn Beck: On the side of criminals

2009-11-13T14:28:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's Glenn Beck show included an update on Glenn's ACORN witch hunt. Specifically, Glenn is outraged by two things:

That ACORN is suing the government over being stripped of its funding through an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder
That the California Attorney General is investigating the criminal conduct of the "filmmakers" who made hidden-camera videos in ACORN offices

The Bill of Attainder issue is a Constitutional one. The provision prohibiting such bills exists to prevent Congress from becoming judge and jury. If a person or organization commits a crime, they should be tried in a court of law, not the halls of Congress.

Glenn's manufactured outrage at the direction of the California Attorney General's investigation into the tapes would be hilarious if it was not intended to fuel attacks on a group that exists to help those in society who need help the most. Of course, Beck does not address the fact that the ACORN employees called the police to report the suspected criminal activity. To Beck, it is also completely irrelevant that the recording of the private conversation was in violation of California Penal Code section 632(a). Watch the clip from the show below:

For the life of me, I cannot explain why Glenn Beck is outraged that the California Attorney General is investigating a crime instead of a non-crime, unless Beck is actually pro-criminal. Glenn's defense of criminals may also have something to do with his refusal to address the rumor that he was himself involved in the rape and murder of a young girl in 1990.

Glenn Beck according to South Park

2009-11-12T17:41:00.000-08:00

Last night's South Park episode took on right-wing media demagogue Glenn Beck. For folks in the US, the episode is available to watch HERE.

Some obvious parallels to the recent "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990?" saga are present. Cartman gets his start doing the morning announcements, quickly expanding his media empire from audio-only, to video, to writing books. The main target of his attacks is student body president Wendy Testaburger, who is blamed for all manner of ills at the school. The attacks continue and escalate rapidly from maintenance issues at the school to being a drug-addicted slut, to being responsible for a Smurf genocide.

Cartman's grand plan disintegrates when he finds his rhetorical "asking questions" style turned back on him, suggesting that it was his illicit relationship with Smurfette which was actually responsible for the wiping out of the Smurfs, and the untimely death of Smurfette.

The lesson here is the same as the one delivered by the World Intellectual Property Organization last week to Beck in its denial of his complaint against Isaac Eiland-Hall- that employing a rhetorical, accusatory, "just asking questions" style to attack others leaves you open to the same tactics. Will Glenn Beck learn from this South Park episode? Probably not. The upside is that this means that there will be no interruption in the steady stream of idiocy, providing continued LULZ for people who are less impressionable than Butters.

Welcome Back, Glenn!

2009-11-11T15:48:00.000-08:00

Glenn Beck returned to the air today after his recent appendectomy, and I would like to extend him a big Welcome Back! Of course, I was hoping that now that the WIPO complaint he filed has been resolved (Beck lost, in case you didn't hear), he might have something to say about the rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Sadly, it seems that Glenn has passed on yet another opportunity to address these vicious allegations.

The Red Phone is staying on Glenn's desk! Good News! This means that the 1990 Truth Hotline will not have to worry about getting lonely.

Glenn reiterated on today's show that the people must not be afraid to ask questions, but rather must question with boldness. In the spirit of Glenn Beck's own principles, I find myself now asking again (and again, and again, and again ad nauseum...): Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Maybe one of these days there will be an answer from Glenn other than damning silence.

Edit: Fixed WIPO link

The Glenn Beck 1990 story goes big-time

2009-11-10T19:18:00.000-08:00

The story of Isaac Eiland-Hall's WIPO victory over Glenn Beck was all over the interwebs today. Huffington Post, Gawker, Slashdot, NPR, The Register, and even Weekly World News covered the victory at the international arbitration panel.

The site was erroneously reported to be down by some sources, but is still up and operating at http://gb1990.com/ even though Eiland-Hall voluntarily gave the original domain (GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com) to Beck following the decision in the case.

New sites have already popped up, the most amusing of which (in my opinion) is GlennBeckIsNowAPublicLaughingstock.com -consisting of the full WIPO decision. This isn't going away Mr. Beck. The people want to know the truth.

So, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl?

2009-11-09T17:35:00.000-08:00

Now that the WIPO has ruled on GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com, and the First Amendment and Free Speech have emerged unscathed (the First Amendment was wearing its chastity belt), what happens now?

The WIPO decision notwithstanding, the domain owner has given control of the domain to Beck. Now that the domain has been ruled to be protected political speech, the road is clear for ordinary citizens to continue to host blowhards from all points on the political spectrum on their own petards. The site and the movement, however, live on at gb1990.com. Several additional domains also point to the site, and the highlighting of hypocrisy will continue unabated.

Glenn will be returning to the radio and TV tomorrow after his bout with appendicitis. Hopefully, he will take a few minutes to finally address the question of whether Glenn Beck Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in 1990. Now that there is no longer any pending litigation, there is no conceivable reason to avoid the issue. If he continues to remain silent, I think we can only take his continued silence as a tacit admission of guilt. The 1990 truth hotline is waiting.

BREAKING: Glenn Beck loses his WIPO case

2009-11-06T10:59:00.000-08:00

Today Glenn Beck lost in his battle against Free Speech. There are 3 things that must be proven in order to cause a domain name (like GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com) to be transferred to the complaining party. The panel found that Beck has only proven one of the three.

Marc Randazza, the lawyer for the respondent has a post about it in his blog, along with links to the decision.

Free speech issues aside, the finding that Beck only proved one of the three things he needed to earns him a grade of 33/100, which is an "F" any way you look at it.

Glenn Beck has appendicitis

2009-11-06T10:23:00.000-08:00

I would like to take a moment to wish Glenn Beck a speedy recovery from his emergency appendectomy. Maybe after he gets better, he will finally address the questions that have been circulating about his alleged involvement in the 1990 rape and murder of a young girl.

The Onion has a great video lamenting Glenn's "alive" status:

Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck

And Jon Stewart did a great Glenn Beck bit last night on the war over Glenn's internal organs:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The 11/3 Project

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

The 1990 Truth Hotline

2009-10-28T10:42:00.000-07:00

The 1990 Truth Hotline is still silent. Will Glenn ever call and give his side of the story to clear his name? You can monitor the status of the hotline at http://1990truth.org/ Of course, there's always Glenn's take on this tactic and the silence it generates:

Glenn doesn't appear happy about this issue:

And yet, he still won't call. What are you hiding, Mr. Beck?

Has Glenn Beck Denied It?

2009-10-26T09:02:00.000-07:00

You may be wondering, as I am from time to time, if Glenn Beck has yet denied having been involved in the brutal rape and murder (or glennbecking, if you prefer) of a young girl in 1990. Fear not, there is a website dedicating to tracking the status of any denials which Glenn may issue. It can be found at:

http://hasglennbeckdeniedrapingandmurderingayounggirlin1990.com/

Why is Glenn Beck Pro-Censorship?

2009-10-24T13:55:00.000-07:00

This has been bothering me for a while now. Glenn Beck proclaims loudly and vehemently on his show (and through his lawyers in WIPO complaints) that he is vehemently pro-free speech and loves the first amendment. His actions, however, give lie to the claim.

First, filing a UDRP complaint with the WIPO is not a pro-free speech action. If he succeeds, Beck will be establishing the precedent that criticism sites violate copyright- potentially silencing thousands of websites which criticize corporations and individuals for perceived unethical and illegal practices. Despite the claims in his filings that he supports the First Amendment, merely filing the complaint is an anti-first amendment action.

Second, his opposition to Net Neutrality is a decidedly anti-free speech position. Neutrality simply assures that the internet will continue to operate as it always has. Opposing it means that Time Warner could block access to timewarnersucks.com, or that Fox or Mercury Radio Arts (Beck's media company) could pay ISPs to block access to GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. Again, this position is clearly not one of someone who respects the First Amendment.

The conclusion that must be drawn from Glenn Beck's actions is that he is actually pro-censorship. As to why- I can only speculate, but if I were to guess, I'd say that Glenn doesn't want anybody to be able to expose his smarmy and disingenuous tactics.

PS- If I'm wrong, Glenn, please let me know. Email and telephone are fine for contacting me, but I would not recommend sending a carrier pigeon, as my cat would probably eat it.

Glenn Beck wants to be Pedobear

2009-10-22T00:54:00.000-07:00

In the latest round of filings with the WIPO, Glenn Beck and his lawyers take their FAIL to a new level. Beck's Supplemental Filing states in part:

Mr. Beck is an ardent supporter of the First Amendment right to free speech. ...Complainants' action is directed at the wrongful acts of Respondent in his registration of a domain name that completely subsumes the trademark "Glenn Beck" and links that trademark with raping and murdering a child, thus constituting bad faith registration, not protected speech.

While I get that a website named glennbecksucks.com may be less offensive than GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com, both names are clearly not connected with Glenn Beck other than that they are about him. I would argue that the second is actually more valid as a parody site, because it actually uses the same tactics Beck does, whereas the first is simply stating an opinion. With regards to Glenn Beck's ardent support of the First Amendment, that claim is laughable. If he is such an ardent supporter, why has he not agreed to the application of the First Amendment in this case, as was requested a month ago?

Marc Randazza (Isaac Eiland-Hall's lawyer) responds:

The logical pretzel that the Supplemental Filing creates defies any sense of reason. It is so irrational that one must wonder if it is yet another esoteric inside joke – an attempt by Mr. Beck to achieve the same level of memetic success as Pedobear.

Brilliant. Glenn Beck wants to be the new Pedobear. Given that, he may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 after all. Randazza concludes with this:

Glenn Beck is the butt of a viral joke. He may not get the joke, but this does not make the joke likely to confuse or subject the domain name to transfer under the UDRP. Glenn Beck’s failure to understand these basic principles of law does not make the joke any less humorous, and does not make him any less of the butt. The First Amendment protects Respondent’s right to make Glenn Beck the butt, and his hypocritical attempts to squelch legitimate free speech criticism do nothing to portray himself in a more flattering light. Because his arguments do not satisfy Section 4(a) of the Policy, his request should be denied. Because he has attempted to silence a critic by circumventing (and thereby devaluing) the First Amendment -- which he publically (and in this proceeding) claims to love -- he should be deeply ashamed.

Well and eloquently put.

All of the legal documents can be found here

P.S. If Glenn wants to dispute any of the claims made, he can email me, leave a comment, or call the "Glenn Beck 1990 Truth Hotline." If he doesn't then Glenn Beck must really have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, and he must really want to be the next Pedobear. Just like Anita Dunn must have an altar to Mao Tse-Tsung in her bedroom if she doesn't call Beck's "Hotline," right, Glenn?

Hypocrisy or Cognitive Dissonance? You Decide

2009-10-20T20:36:00.000-07:00

Tuesday's Glenn Beck show on Fox News was comedy gold, but that was probably not what Beck was going for. He was aiming to elicit outrage- sowing fear that the Government wants to take away your rights under the guise of "Net Neutrality":

"What are we doing in America? What are we doing to our freedom of speech?"

An excellent question, and one that I hope that Beck is prepared to answer himself. First, it appears that Glenn's understanding of the internet is less than stellar. Net Neutrality simply means that all the ones and zeros flowing through a provider's tubes need to be treated equally. It means that your ISP cannot discriminate against companies which offer competing services. For example: if SBC is my ISP, but I get VoIP service from Vonage, SBC has to let the Vonage data through unimpeded, despite the fact that they have their own VoIP service. Many areas of the US have little or no competition among broadband providers. If those companies use their position as monopolies to force me to buy other products and service from them, that's a bad thing.

Net Neutrality is not censorship. It is not a "Fairness Doctrine" limiting speakers or points of view. Ones and Zeros are not a finite commodity. They can be produced on demand. Transmission capacity (bandwidth) is the finite commodity of the internet. Allowing equal access to it, so that every one or zero has an equal priority is the only fair way to handle it. Net Neutrality ensures and protects free speech, rather than threaten it.

One thing that DOES threaten free speech, is attempts to take away domain names- attacks like the one Glenn Beck himself launched a month and a half ago against Isaac Eiland-Hall. Isaac registered a name for and launched a site critical of Beck- GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. The name is, admittedly, crude- and could be argued to be in poor taste, but one of the tenets of the First Amendment is that taste -or the lack thereof- is not a valid reason for censorship.

"What are we doing in America? What are we doing to our freedom of speech?"

What is Beck doing to our freedom of speech? He is asking an international body (the WIPO) to censor someone else's speech for the simple reason that he does not like it. Net Neutrality is not the threat to the First Amendment, Glenn Beck is.

"[He] didn't call to correct me on that one- that's weird- Oh! It must be true!"

I noticed yesterday that Beck's "White House Hotline" is back, and still silent. Also silent is the "Glenn Beck 1990 Truth Hotline." Since Beck has not called to correct the rumors, it must be true that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, right?

Glenn Beck: It's not cesnorship if I do it

2009-10-19T15:13:00.000-07:00

Today on his show, Glenn Beck called the internet "the last thing that is truly free." Of course, it won't be for long, if Beck has his way. Glenn Beck's ability to maintain cognitive dissonance in his rants against perceived government control of the media, and his own actions in attempting to silence his critics is astounding. In case you missed it, Beck has filed an action with the WIPO requesting that the domain glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com be taken away from the person who registered it. WikiNews today published an interview with Marc Randazza, the lawyer representing the person who started the criticism site, and WikiPedia has a good article on the case.

Glenn Beck can't spell (again)

2009-10-17T00:13:00.000-07:00

Hot on the heels of his now-infamous OLIGARH debacle, Glenn Beck hosted an "Orthamologist" as part a roomful of doctors and medical students on Friday (10/18/09). They were there to give a "second opinion" on "Obamacare." I'm not entirely sure why the medical students were there, other than to fill the room, since they obviously would not know anything about dealing with insurance reimbursements or Medicare, or any of the other things that health care reform is supposed to cover. I did, however, enjoy seeing this gem:

Either Glenn Beck (or his staff, or the producers at Fox News) have once again failed spelling, or they are actually making up new medical specialties. I hope to FSM that is is the former.

Notably absent on Friday's show was Glenn's "White House Hotline". I suppose it's possible that Glenn is ditching the gimmick because he himself has yet to call the "Glenn Beck 1990 Truth Hotline" to correct any misconceptions that people may have about his alleged involvement on the brutal rape and murder of a young girl in 1990. Of course, there is also the more mundane possibility that there simply was not enough room for it. I guess we'll have to see if it makes a miraculous reappearance on Monday.

Will we ever get an answer to the question: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? What about the other questions that have started popping up, like: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young cow in 1990? Now that the specter of bestiality has been raised, I guess all bets are off and we'll just have to wait and see.

Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young cow in 1990?

2009-10-14T17:17:00.000-07:00

Boy, the questions just keep on coming, don't they? A new website has emerged, which asks the question: Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Cow in 1990? From allegations of being a murdering pedophile, we have now gone to questions about bestiality. Is there no end to your baseless depravity, Mr. Beck?

Glenn Beck's "Red Phone"

2009-10-13T15:15:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck unveiled a new gimmick on his TV show, today. He has installed a "Hotline" for the White House to call and refute anything he says that is not true, and in true dramatic fashion, the "Hotline" is- literally- a red phone, manned by a staffer throughout the show.

This is a blatant continuation of Beck's "prove me wrong" tactics- placing the burden of proof on the accused as he infers and announces connections between President Obama and everyone from ACORN and SEIU to Hugo Chavez and Chairman Mao. He constantly checks throughout the show whether or not the phone has rung, even going so far as to have the staffer manning the phone verify that it is working by checking for a dial tone and having someone call the "Hotline" to verify that it is in working order.

Strangely, despite the availability of a phone number for Beck to call to dispute the rumors that he allegedly raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, he has not called to dispute or deny the allegations. By Glenn Beck's own logic, we must then conclude that it is, in fact, true that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Meanwhile, Beck has also so far declined to sign the proposed stipulation to apply the First Amendment in his dispute with Isaac Eiland-Hall over the domain GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. Again, by his silence, we must infer by Beck's own logic that his lack of response means that he does not support First Amendment protections for the speech of others, just for himself.

Mr. Beck, do you support the First Amendment?

2009-10-10T15:12:00.000-07:00

*crickets*

Yep, that's all that has been heard from Glenn Beck's lawyers since September 29th, when Attorney Marc Randazza (who is representing Isaac Eiland-Hall in his dispute with Glenn Beck over the domain GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com) sent to Beck's legal counsel a proposed stipulation requesting that Glenn Beck agree that First Amendment protections be taken into account by the international panel that will be deciding the case for the World Intellectual Property Organization. Never mind the irony of Beck, who has publicly decried internationalism as an erosion of constitutional rights, appealing to an international group to silence his critics, Glenn Beck has so far not agreed that the first amendment should be applied and upheld in this case. I'll repeat the question: Glenn Beck, do you support the first amendment and free speech?

*crickets*

"They don't respond to these questions, which should tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it?" -Glenn Beck, 10/07/2009

Since Beck has remained silent on the issue of whether or not he actually supports free speech, or if instead he is just a whining hypocrite, I do want to post something amusing, so here's Stephen Colbert's latest comments on Beck:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Bend It Like Beck

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Michael Moore

I should also add, Glenn Beck has still not provided an answer to the question: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

Beck's actions speak louder than his words

2009-10-09T15:18:00.000-07:00

Fox News talking head would have you believe that he reveres the US Constitution and the First Amendment. He has decried every mention of a "fairness doctrine" and proposed restrictions on hate speech. Beck's actions, however, tell a much different story. Glenn has said that

"If we're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive... then we're not free to really talk about anything."

Yet when Beck himself comes under fire, he runs crying- not to the US courts which are bound by the Constitution- but to the WIPO, an international panel which is not bound by the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, when asked to agree that constitutional protections of free speech be applied in the case, Beck and his lawyers have not done so. Why is Glenn Beck afraid of free speech? He claims that free speech is our most important right, yet conveniently ignores it when it conflicts with his goals.

He doesn't answer the question, which ought to tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it? Do you hate free speech Glenn Beck? Actions speak louder than words.

Randazza on the radio!

2009-10-08T21:01:00.001-07:00

Marc Randazza, the lawyer representing Isaac Eiland-Hall in his dispute with Glenn Beck over the GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com domain was interviewed today on Ed Brayton's show "Declaring Independence" on WPRR AM 1680 in Grand Rapids, MI. Here is the interview:

Part One:

Part Two:

This may be the only time you get to hear a lawyer get RickRolled on the air!

Hypocricy, thy name is Beck

2009-10-07T15:33:00.000-07:00

I sat down to watch Glenn Beck's show on Fox News Channel today wondering what manner of insane inanities would dribble out of whichever orifice Glenn speaks from. I didn't have to wait very long to hear something good, as I was rewarded with this gem in Beck's opening rant:

"They don't respond to these questions, which should tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it?"

That's an interesting position to take for a person with unanswered questions of his own. Rumors, questions and speculation have been circulating online for over a month now, and we still no answer to the question "Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?" So, I give you Glenn Beck's rhetoric turned back at it's source: He doesn't respond to these questions, which should tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it?
Another segment of Beck's show today focused on the danger of the government regulating the media, both online and broadcast. On this, I agree. Restrictions on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are abhorrent, and detrimental to open and honest public discourse. In Glenn's own words (again from today's show):

"Freedom of speech is the most important right."

"If we're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive... then we're not free to really talk about anything."

Well put, and a position worth upholding, Mr. Beck. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck's actions speak louder than his words. In a blatant display of hypocrisy, Glenn Beck uttered the above words while actively engaged in a legal action (filed with the international World Intellectual Property Organization to skirt any pesky First Amendment issues) to silence a website satirizing his rhetorical style. Actions speak louder than words, don't they? To be fair- the subject matter (the alleged rape and murder of a young girl in 1990) is offensive. Satire must be brutal to make it's point. However- what were Glenn Beck's own words again?

"If we're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive... then we're not free to really talk about anything."

There you have it, folks. Hypocrisy at its worst. So again, I say:
Hypocrisy, thy name is Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck vs. Free Speech, round 2

2009-10-06T16:34:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck is on the record as a believer in free speech and the US Constitution. He makes his living off the very concept. The question, then, that must be asked, is "Why would Glenn Beck appeal to an International UN panel (The WIPO) in an attempt to strip another American of their First Amendment rights?" Clearly Glenn Beck is suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance if he thinks that he enjoys First Amendment protection as a prominent member of the media, while other Americans do not.

Note: The website we are talking about here is: http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com

Accordingly, when lawyer Marc Randazza filed his response to Glenn Beck's WIPO complaint, he also sent a letter to Glenn Beck's lawyers proposing that both parties stipulate to US First-Amendment principles being applied in this case. This makes sense, as both parties are American citizens (at least, I think they are- I have never seen Glenn Beck's birth certificate for verification).

From the letter:

To be candid, we found the fact that Mr. Beck filed this action at all to be most puzzling. Although, it was obvious why he did not file in a U.S. court given the law surrounding nominative fair use of trademarks as fully explained in our Brief. Naturally, a defamation claim as alluded to in Mr. Beck’s complaint would be humiliatingly doomed as well in a U.S. court.

The letter later states:

Accordingly, we found it to be most ironic that Mr. Beck, facing the fact that the U.S. Constitution would stand in his way in a U.S. court, sought to bring this action before an international domain name arbitration panel. On March 30, 2009, he said on his show:
Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level.

The letter then goes on to say:

We are certain that despite our disagreement with Mr. Beck’s legal position, that all parties involved hold equal reverence for the First Amendment. Therefore, I have prepared a proposed stipulation that will ensure that no matter which panelist is assigned to this case, the First Amendment will illuminate these proceedings like rays of light from the Torch of Liberty.

The full text of the proposed stipulation is as follows:

WHEREAS, the parties to this dispute are all U.S. Citizens

WHEREAS, the parties to this dispute desire to ensure that U.S. law and U.S. Constitutional principles are given controlling weight in the above-styled proceeding,

The Parties hereby stipulate to the following measures in this action

1. The Parties hereby stipulate that the U.S. Constitution, including (and especially) the First Amendment thereto should apply to these proceedings and should govern the Panel’s decision in this case.

2. The Parties hereby stipulate that the Panel shall not enter a decision in this case that would be contrary to the protections afforded to American citizens under the First Amendment, regardless of any international principles previously adopted by other UDRP panels or other international bodies.

The full text of the letter and proposed stipulation are here.

One would think that a member of the American media would jump at the opportunity to ensure that this case is decided according to U.S. law and the Constitution, and that the First Amendment is not eroded or curtailed by an international panel. The shocker, then, is that Glenn Beck has not done so. His lawyers have not responded to the proposed stipulation, leading us to conclude that Glenn Beck is just fine with the erosion of the right to free speech, as long as it is not his free speech that is being curtailed.

I should also mention that we still don't have a response from Glenn Beck to the question:
Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

Glenn Beck Raped and murdered the First Amendment in 2009

2009-10-05T14:43:00.000-07:00

Yep, he's escalating. From a young girl in 1990, Glenn Beck has now moved on to an attempt to rape and murder the first amendment to the US Constitution.

Questions about whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 began circulating online over a month ago. To date, his only response to this has been to file a UDRP complaint with the WIPO against the website glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com.

Why would Glenn Beck, a vocal defender of the US constitution and US sovereignty appeal to an international group to silence his critics? The obvious answer is that he and his attorneys know that he stands no chance whatsoever of winning this case in a US court. The implication here is chilling: Free Speech for Glenn, but not for his critics.

From the response to Beck's WIPO filing by Attorney Marc J. Randazza:

However, Mr. Beck’s lawyers are no fools. They are well aware that the
First Amendment will give full protection to the Respondent’s website.
Therefore, we find ourselves mired in a bogus “defamation” claim under
the guise of this UDRP complaint. But, this is not the forum to raise such a
claim. If the “defamation” alluded to in the Complaint were truly believed
to have legal validity, this case would have been brought in a U.S. court.

I highly recommend reading the entire response, as it may go down in history as one of the most amusing legal briefs of all time.

Perhaps the best summary of this I've seen so far comes from here:

Glenn Beck is such a lying sack of Mormon shit, the only way he can avoid being reminded of his own absolute lack of journalistic integrity is to attack the people who point it out in a vein attempt to rescue what’s left of his ego from the bottom of the barrel he scraped it from.

And finally, a shameless bit of self-promotion- This case has prompted me to make my YouTube debut:

In My Opinion: Glenn Beck back in the farcical spot light

2009-10-03T16:03:00.000-07:00

In My Opinion: Glenn Beck back in the farcical spot light

US announces end to "War on Drugs"

2007-04-01T06:23:00.000-07:00

Washington, DC

In a stunning and unprecedented move, several prominent political leaders in the US announced today that the "War on Drugs" was a mistake, and will be introducing legislation to end it.

A bipartisan group of congressional leaders joined President Bush this morning in the Rose Garden to announce an immediate end to the War on Drugs. "Hell, I blew enough [cocaine] in college to support an entire village in Columbia," said Bush. "Half of Capitol Hill smokes Marijuana," stated Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. "It's the largest cash crop in the U.S., but the people making money off of it are the cartels, tongs, and other criminal enterprises. By legalizing and taxing cannabis, we can take some of that money out of their pockets, and put it into the public coffers."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also noted that under the old system, it was easier for minors to obtain illegal drugs than it was for them to obtain cigarettes or alcohol. "Your average street dealer isn't exactly checking IDs," stated the embattled AG, "and CVS and Walgreen's aren't exactly engaging in shooting wars over who gets to sell on a particular street corner." Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Marine Gen. Peter Pace found positives in the new policy. "This will give us a much broader recruiting base," he stated. "The change in policy we are announcing here today means that millions of additional young Americans will be eligible for military service. Hopefully, this will be of great assistance in meeting our recruiting goals."

Some lobbyists and representatives of the defense industry, petroleum and petrochemical industries, and the lumber industry- who asked not to be identified by name- expressed disappointment in the wake of the announcement. "How are we going to sell IR (infrared) cameras to local law enforcement agencies if they're not going to be busting 'grow houses'?" lamented one defense lobbyist. "If we start making stuff like paper, rope, textiles, and biodiesel from hemp, what will happen to the demand for oil and lumber?" asked a petroleum lobbyist.

Perhaps most outraged were representatives of the DEA and other law enforcement agencies. "What are we gonna do?" snapped Karen Tandy, DEA Administrator. "Do they actually expect us to go after people who commit real crimes? I mean, you know- crimes with victims? We're not trained for that."

The policy change is anticipated to produce an increase in Federal tax revenue in the neighborhood of $10 billion annually, while decreasing expenditures by roughly twice that amount, according to Federal budget estimates.

Senate passes NORML's resolution

2007-02-12T06:47:00.000-08:00

From the Daily Colonial

Senate passes NORML's resolution

GW Students set example for rest of US

2007-02-07T00:09:00.000-08:00

At its February 6 meeting, the Student Association Senate of The George Washington University in Washington DC passed a resolution calling on the GW administration to equalize penalties for possession of marijuana in GW Residence Halls with penalties for underage possession of alcohol.

The resolution took an unusual route to the Senate floor. Members of GW's chapter of NORML bypassed the usual methods by which legislation is introduced and collected enough signatures to introduce the resolution by petition. Normally, legislation must be introduced by a senator and is referred to a committee which must approve it prior to its being considered by the entire SA Senate.

A large number of students attended the Senate meeting, voicing pleas to the senators to set aside whatever personal feelings they had and vote in a way that accurately reflects the opinions of the students they represent. In a display of integity rarely found in politicans at any level, the Senate passed the resolution by a vote of 11-7 with one abstention. Of the seven Senators who voted against the resolution, it should be noted that three of them- Andrew Salzman (GSEHD), Michael Gettlin (SB-G), and Bryan Grackin (SB-G) are also permanent employees of the University, which raises ethical questions as to their motivations in opposing the resolution.

The resolution still must be signed by the SA President in order for it to be recognized by the University as the official opinion of the student body.

Perhaps if US citizens made as great an effort to enforce accountability among their elected officials as the members of GW's NORML chapter did, we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq. Forget that "control" of Congress shifted to the Democrats with the last election, because the lobbyists and corporations don't care which puppets the people put in their hands.

Of the 435 House members, almost every single one voted to allocate funds for US military action in Iraq. Why then, was the incumbent not reelected in only 55 races? (note: this is by my count during a scan of the election results on Wikipedia, so I may be slightly off) The argument that we can't have 535 Commanders-In-Chief doesn't hold water. Congress has the power of the purse. If the President chooses to deploy troops without funding, why shouldn't he be held accountable for that decision? Part of the duties of each of the three branches is to act as a check on the others. That responsibility is at least as important as any other function of our elected officials.

By holding the people elected to represent them accountable, these students have set an example for the entire country. Perhaps more important is the fact that the majority of SA Senators were willing to set personal opinions and politics aside and represent the wishes of the people who put them in office. If our elected officials at all levels of government had even half as much integrity as the Student Association Senators at GW, perhaps we wouldn't be wasting Federal tax dollars arresting medical marijuana users in California- freeing up money for things like Medicare, Social Security, Schools, or even (gasp!) paying down the National Debt rather than leaving it for the next generation to worry about.

It's things like this that give me hope for the future of America. Check the minutes from last night's SA Senate meeting when they are published and note how the Senators voted. Then, if you see one or two of them on a ballot in 5 or 10 years, take the integrity that they demonstrated in college into account. I, for one, would be proud to have one these brave young men and women represent me in national elected office someday.

Related Links:

GW SA Senate
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

Past news coverage of GW NORML
GW Hatchet: Group pushes for GW to change marijuana policy (10/27/05)
GW Hatchet: Progressive student groups oppose drug legislation (9/21/06)

Finals Time

2006-05-03T07:20:00.000-07:00

Wow- as colleges around the country prepare for finals, I thought that this was a great method of grading. Kids show up at colleges these days without any kind of rudimentary English skills, problem solving skills, or even the ability to follow simple directions. If they are the future of America, I have a great sense of foreboding about where this country is going. I have seen essays turned in that would have been unacceptable when I was in the 7th grade. So, to all you professors out there, you have my sincere heartfelt apologies, and by all means, do whatever you need to do to slog through the heaping piles of dung that your have turned in as papers.

The medical uses just keep coming

2006-04-29T13:15:00.000-07:00

The Journal of Biological Chemistry has a paper in it's May 5 issue by a team of Japanese scientists that takes a look at the effect of cannabinoids (compunds found in marijuana) on the immune system. They found a mild suppressive effect, which could mean that cannabinoids are effective in treating inflamitory diseases (like arthritis). One thing that was not mentioned, but could be relevant is potential applications for treatment of autoimmune disorders. It's been established that there is a genetic link with autoimmune disorders, and I'm wondering if this might be related to decreased endocannabinoid production. If that's the case, then Marijuana could have potential applications for everything from Diabetes to Chron's Disease. Too bad the federal government won't allow american scientists to study this kind of stuff.

There's absolutely nothing...

2006-04-27T15:46:00.000-07:00

...like blatantly ignoring the will of the voters to get you elected, right? Colorado Attorney General John Suthers seems to think so. "If I saw a poll tomorrow that said 75 percent of Coloradans were in favor of this measure, I'd still be against it," he is quoted as saying in the Colorado Springs Independent. "This is not something that I come to because of my assessment of the political winds. I've been on this side of the debate for decades."

It doesn't really matter what the people want, appearantly. Our elected officials know better, and we need them to protect us from ourselves. Now, the measure in question is a controversial one- decriminalizing marijuana, but what the issue is should be irrelevant. Our elected officials should be held to the same standard as any other worker in any other job. When you show up for work, shelve your personal views and do your job- in this case representing the views of your constituents.

I love it...

2006-04-26T10:21:00.000-07:00

The editors of Scientific American get it... The New York Times gets it... but the FDA? NIDA? ONDCP? They just don't get it. Actually, they probably do get it- they just believe that if they keep repeating the same lies over and over and over, eventually the American people will buy in to them.

Who benefits from the war on drugs?- here's the short list:

The Pharmaceutical Industry

All of the beauraucrats that depend on the "War on Drugs" for their jobs (Read that as the entire staffs of NIDA, ONDCP, DEA, and all of the various and sundry other agencies that participate in the "War on Drugs"

Defense Contractors (Making money selling x-ray scanners for the border checkpoints, FLIR gear for every police/sherriff helicopter in the country, etc, etc)

The prison industry (and yes, it is an industry)

"If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on."

~ Terence Mckenna

I love it when people get it

2006-04-25T05:45:00.000-07:00

Originally published in the UCONN Daily Campus: Editorial: Government must legalize marijuana - Opinions

FDA toes the party line....

2006-04-21T10:45:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, the FDA released a statement reiterating its official position that Marijuana has no medicinal value.

The NY Times had a couple of interesting points in their article covering this, specifically: "The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be 'moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting.'"

Let's face the "ugly" truth: marijuana is less dangerous than almost any other substance humans ingest (including asprin). I understand that a bunch of beauraucrats are just trying to keep their jobs, but doesn't the FDA have a higher duty to the American people to tell the truth? These people need to remember whose tax dollars pay their salaries.

Food For Thought

2006-04-17T13:05:00.000-07:00

This being the week of 4/20, I'll be posting things that I find relevant to our nation's nonsensical prohibition of cannabis. To start off, consider this quote from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can be neither observerd nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of lawbreakers--and then you cash in on guilt. "

-Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged

An alternative view on Global Warming

2006-04-12T14:01:00.000-07:00

Is Global Warming even really happening? If it is, is it a bad thing? Read This and consider that in reality, the jury is still out on many of these issues. Remember that scientific models can't *prove* anything. A guess by a scientist as to what will happen to our climate in the future, no matter how well-credentialed the person is, is still just a guess.

BTW- this applies to lots of things besides global warming. Take, for instance, marijuana prohibition. Marijuana does not cause people to move on to harder drugs. It does not cause brain damage. (in fact, cannabnoids have been shown to have neuroprotective effects, and in some cases to even stimulate neurogenesis). Consider this a wake up call. Repeating a lie over and over does not make it any more true. The government is using your tax dollars to lie to you. Fight back. Be informed. Separate yourself from the herd.

Permanent brain damage? No Kidding

2006-04-06T10:04:00.000-07:00

This guy had a 25 pill-a-day extacy habit. Holy shit!

It's Monday... The stupid continues...

2006-03-20T11:51:00.000-08:00

Why is it that the people on the HelpDesk where I work seem to have the equivalent communications skills of a houseplant? I'm not even going to say my cat; my cat has better communications skills than these folks. The latest example of stupid: "The user claimed that nobody can't print any documents from the Canon Netwok (Canon Image Runner 105)."

Now, I'm not sure what a Canon Netwok is, but I'm pretty sure we don't support it. It sounds like some sort of Network-Connected asian cooking device. As such, I'm not surprised that it doesn't print any documents. Also, I'd be worried if nobody could print to it. Nobody shouldn't be able to print anything. Nobody doesn't have rights to print anything.

Frivolous Lawsuit of the Week

2006-03-19T10:18:00.000-08:00

A company that operates a parenting advice wesite is suing Google, claiming that by dropping its PageRank, Google damaged its business, causing traffic to the site to fall, and thus costing the site ad revenue.

This has got to be the most goddamn retarded thing I have ever heard. Google doesn't have any kind of contract with this company. They are a private company and under no obligation to even index the site, let alone provide a minimum ranking in search results.

This is the kind of crap that is contributing to the downfall of our society. If this doesn't get thrown out at the first hearing, that will be the first sign of the apocalypse.

Gay Marriage

2006-03-18T16:23:00.000-08:00

This is an issue I've given a lot of thought to over the last few years, and I think I've finally got my thoughts on it organized to the point that I can put them coherently.

There are two big items that form the core of my views on this issue. The first, appropriately, is the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This is pretty clear. The second is just a simple observation. Marriage is a religious establishment. "Marriage" as a concept rises out of our religions, going back to the times when religions were the government.

Now then, taking these two ideas and placing them together, I have come to the conclusion that the word "marriage" has no place in any law, anwhere. Period. The government (in the personae of the Judiciary) should not perform marraiges. The only people that should perform marriages are religious officials. Marriage should have no relevance outside of the religious setting.

The problem comes when confronted with the question of how to preserve the benefits to both individuals and society that results from a legal union forming the core of a family unit. Marriage offers many benefits both the the participants and to society as a whole. It provides stability, a means of conserving assets, and a better environment in which to raise children.

All of these benefits could be derived from a civil union. Who a person choses to enter into a civil union with is a personal choice and should be left up to them. The law should have no say in it. If a couple who has been married by a religious official wants to have their marriage recognized as a civil union for legal purposes, then they should have the right to do that. If a couple (of whatever gender combination) wants to avoid the religious implications of marriage, but enter into a civil union for the legal benefits, then they should have the right to do that as well.

The word "marriage" should be stricken from any law on the books anywhere in the US. Let the government recognize and provide benefits for civil unions. Let the churches worry about what constitutes a marriage. If the Catholics say that marriage is between a man and a woman, they have the right to place that restriction on Catholic marriages. If individuals don't like it, they have the choice to not subscribe to that particular religion.

Now the right-wingers won't have to worry about the establishment of marriage being corrupted, and everyone can have their partnerships recognized as equal in the eyes of the law.

After extensive study, I have concluded that the Christian right is neither.

More FUD

2006-03-18T16:11:00.000-08:00

Note: if the term FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) is unfarmiliar to you, see the wikipedia entry.

Ah, the FUDmongers are at it again. This time it's Scientific American with an article implying that a) the recent rise in ocen temeratures (between half a degree and one degree Farenheit) is due to human inflences (as opposed to part of some natural cycle) and b) that this rise is causing an increase in the intensity of tropical storm systems.

Computer models don't prove anything. Correlation does not necessarily mean causality. It might as well be argued that these stronger storms are caused by the decrease in ocean piracy. I realize it's tough to get funding for a study that shows that we don't know how the world around us works because nobody make any money from "I don't know," but I'm sick and tired of this crap being pushed on the general public.

Yet more stupid....

2006-03-16T13:33:00.000-08:00

Another gem from the HelpDesk...

Problem: "The user needs the desktop support setting up 7 computer machines---such as on the Internet."

Huh? What does this mean? I find it difficult to believe that the HD analyst is incapable of providing a better problem description than this.

The unfiltered stupid

2006-03-16T10:25:00.000-08:00

Wow.

Today is half over, and I'm already overwhelmed by the stupidity.

My building manager actually called me at work today to ask me where the nearest branch of BB&T is. Please keep in mind that this is a man in his mid-30s. Has he ever used a phone book? I know he can use the internet, because he manages to download all kinds of crap (viruses, p0rn, etc.). How about using Google? The bank has a website. Did it occur to him to use the branch locator on the wesite? Of course not. Clearly, it requires advanced computer skills to type "BB&T" into Google and click on the first link.

Hold on, the stupid isn't over yet. Check out this problem description provided by our HelpDesk: "The user claimed that the Outlook gives out the error when he hits the send/recieve button."

That's right. The Outlook gives out the error. Of couse, Outlook (It's a proper noun, so no article is required) only ever gives out one error. And I have no need to know exactly what the error message says. Simply knowing that there is an error is enough for me to be able to fix the problem.

Here's another one from the same person on the HelpDesk: "The user needs help with her Outlook Account on her machine---it won't start."

What won't start? Outlook? The machine? I'd assume it was the account except that Outlook doesn't have accounts, it has profiles which are then assosciated with email accounts. It's a good thing the HelpDesk is physically located somewhere else (far enough that I'd have to take a couple of hours to drive there and back), otherwise I'd be tempted to try and beat the stupid out of people.

AHA!

2006-03-15T20:30:00.000-08:00

I've got it figured out now. (see previous post) We need to start with the assumption that pot makes you stupid. Now consider that based on the data from the Greek study, the mean IQs across all 3 study groups (long-term cannabis users, short-term cannabis users, and a "control" group of non-users) were for all intents and purposes identical (slightly above 100, small standard deviation, and the mean of any group is within one SD of the mean of any other group), the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the people that smoke pot started out smarter than the people who don't smoke pot. Maybe they're trying to find a way to relate to (or deal with) the vast numbers of insipid, knuckle-dragging morons that make up the bulk of the population.

This qualifies as news?!?!?

2006-03-15T12:38:00.000-08:00

I have a Google news search set up on my homepage for the term "Marijuana." Most of the time, this just show the top five stories about the biggest grow-op or trafficking busts that occurred recently, but occasionally something a little more interesting shows up. Like Yesterday.

Yesterday, the top story was from CNN. The headline read "Heavy Marijuana Use Linked to Memory and Learning Deficits."

Plausible, but it flies in the face of most recent research on the subject, so I decided to dig. The CNN article was reporting on an article published in the journal Neurology (Published by the American Academy of Neurology). The actual data, however, does not bear out either the author's conclusions or those reported by CNN (among others, I'm just picking on them because they're a big target) that "heavy, long-term frequent cannabis use leads to subtle deficits in specific neuropsychological domains."

In fact, comparison of the results from long-tem users vs. the control group did not result in statistically signifigant differences in measured cognitive ability in 11 of the 14 tests performed. Additionally, there are serious methodological problems with this study:

1) This study involved a grand total of 64 people. 20 "long-term" users, 20 "short-term" users, and a control group of 24- not enough of a sample size to derive any kind of meaningful results.
2) Among the groups, the overall "cannabis users" group is 62.5% Male, while the control group is only 54.2% Male
3) The mean age of the "short term" group was 4 years younger than the control group, while the mean age of the "long-term" group was 4 years older than the control group.
4) The "control group" had more mean years of education than either "users" group in the study.
5) Only the "control group" had members under 21 (the youngest was 17)

So- to summarize: CNN is running a story about a study from which no meaningful conclusions can be drawn. Shame on you, CNN. The American Academy of Neurology published this study despite serious flaws in its methodology and its conclusions not being borne out by the underlying data. Shame on you, AAN. The News Media as a whole picked this up as a story and ran with it. Whatever happenned to responsible journalism? Checking sources? Doing anything more that rewording a press release? I understand that most people are cows, but I'm more likely to punch the guy with the cattle prod than to go along with the herd.