Columbia Missourian – Chomsky lecture to be simulcast at MU
And Again
Chomsky lecture to be simulcast at MU – Feb 22
// February 28th, 2006Despite lack of student participants, MU’s Facebook Task Force forges on – Feb 17
// February 28th, 2006Columbia Missourian – Despite lack of student participants, MU’s Facebook Task Force forges on
I missed this one, so it seems.
S.D. OKs ban on most abortions
// February 25th, 2006S.D. OKs ban on most abortions -MSNBC.com
South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.
Mo. House bill filed to legalize medicinal marijuana
// February 24th, 2006Watch this cop get pimpslapped by a journalist with a clue.
Retired Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper and undercover narcotics officer Ed Moses said Wednesday that some groups, such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, want legalization of medical marijuana to act as a foothold in making marijuana legal.
“There is no scientific merit to sucking in toxic fumes and calling it medicine,” Moses said.
Doctors are authorized to prescribe other potentially harmful drugs — including opium, cocaine and methamphetamine — to patients for medical reasons, according to current Missouri law. Marijuana is not a recognized pharmaceutical drug.
Mo. House bill filed to legalize medicinal marijuana
Supremes OK Ayahuasca
// February 24th, 2006The UVD church, based in Brazil, won their court case! This is fucking phenomenal!!!
Basically, it allows ayahuasca to be drank for religious purposes. Since one of the main components of ayahuasca is DMT, it has been illegal for the UVD church to practice their ceremonies in the United States.
But now, under the rights of religious freedom, it can be taken by UVD church memebers … Thanks Supreme Court!
Stop AOL’s email scheme
// February 22nd, 2006Upon first hearing of AOL’s “email tax,” I hadn’t thought much of it. But then I thought about all of you. =) If this tax were implemented, it would keep people like me from sharing my thoughts while hardly hindering companies at all. Effectually, it would serve to subsidize the rich in the market of ideas. That’s not what any of us want, is it? Please sign the petition.
The very existence of online civic participation and the free Internet as we know it are under attack by America Online.
AOL recently announced what amounts to an "email tax." Under this pay-to-send system, large emailers willing to pay an "email tax" can bypass spam filters and get guaranteed access to people’s inboxes—with their messages having a preferential high-priority designation.1
Charities, small businesses, civic organizing groups, and even families with mailing lists will inevitably be left with inferior Internet service unless they are willing to pay the "email tax" to AOL. We need to stop AOL immediately so other email hosts know that following AOL’s lead would be a mistake.
Can you sign this emergency petition to America Online and forward it to your friends?
Sign here: http://civic.moveon.org/emailtax/?id=6934-6723131-J_dHsxDeLVXGgIrF3hVdgw&t=2
Petition statement: "AOL, don’t auction off preferential access to people’s inboxes to giant emailers, while leaving people’s friends, families, and favorite causes wondering if their emails are being delivered at all. The Internet is a force for democracy and economic innovation only because it is open to all Internet users equally—we must not let it become an unlevel playing field."
Sign here: http://civic.moveon.org/emailtax/?id=6934-6723131-J_dHsxDeLVXGgIrF3hVdgw&t=3
AOL is one of the biggest email hosts in the world—if we stop them from unleashing this threat to the Internet, others will know not to try it. Everyone who signs this petition will be sent information on how to contact AOL directly, as well as future steps that can be taken until AOL drops its new "email tax" policy.
AOL’s proposed pay-to-send system is the first step down the slippery slope toward dividing the Internet into two classes of users—those who get preferential treatment and those who are left behind.
AOL pretends nothing would change for senders who don’t pay, but that’s not reality. The moment AOL switches to a world where giant emailers pay for preferential treatment, AOL faces this internal choice: spend money to keep spam filters up-to-date so legitimate email isn’t identified as spam, or make money by neglecting their spam filters and pushing more senders to pay for guaranteed delivery. Which do you think they’ll choose?
If AOL has its way, the big loser will be regular email users—whose email from friends, family, and favorite causes will increasingly go undelivered and disappear into the black hole of a neglected spam filter. Another loser will be democracy and economic innovation on the Internet—where small ideas become big ideas specifically because regular people can spread ideas freely on a level playing field.
If an "email tax" existed when MoveOn began, we never would have gotten off the ground—indeed, AOL’s proposal will hurt every membership group, regardless of political affiliation. That’s why groups all across the political spectrum are joining together with charities, non-profits, small businesses, labor unions, and Internet watchdog groups in opposition to AOL’s "email tax."
The president of the Association for Cancer Online Resources (ACOR) points out the real-world urgency of this issue:
In essence, this is going to block every AOL subscriber suffering from any form of cancer from receiving potentially life-saving information they may not be able to get from any other source, simply because a non-profit like ACOR—which serves more than 55,000 cancer patients and caregivers every day—cannot afford to pay the fee.1
Can you sign this emergency petition to America Online and forward it to your friends?
http://civic.moveon.org/emailtax/?id=6934-6723131-J_dHsxDeLVXGgIrF3hVdgw&t=4
Thank you for all you do.
–Eli Pariser, Noah T. Winer, Adam Green, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006
P.S. The Electronic Frontier Foundation summed up the "email tax" issue beautifully.
Email being basically free isn’t a bug. It’s a feature that has driven the digital revolution. It allows groups to scale up from a dozen friends to a hundred people who love knitting to half-a-million concerned citizens without a major bankroll…
Once a pay-to-speak system like this gets going, it will be increasing difficult for people who don’t pay to get their mail through. The system has no way to distinguish between ordinary mail and bulk mail, spam and non-spam, personal and commercial mail. It just gives preference to people who pay…3
Sources:
1. "Postage is due for companies sending e-mail," New York Times, February 4, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1453
2. "AOL’s New Email Certification Program: Good Mail or Goodfellas?" L-Soft Release, February 2, 2006
http://www.lsoft.com/news/aol-goodmail.asp
3. "AOL, Yahoo and Goodmail: Taxing Your Email for Fun and Profit," Electronic Frontier Foundation, February 8, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1454
—— End of Forwarded Message
City Council revises pot ordinance
// February 21st, 2006Columbia Missourian – City Council revises pot ordinance
I gave the following speech at the City Council meeting last night, and was interviewed afterward, but did not make it into the article. Ah well…
“All the errors which a man is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem is good.”
I’ve heard tell of officers gathering signatures in their off time over the last year. When law enforcers act willfully against the expressed intention of voters, I sense an affront to the very concept of Democracy. I respectfully voiced these concerns on the CPOA message board, and received only ad hominem attacks in response. Soon after, the message board was taken down altogether. I’d like to formally encourage the CPOA to put this discussion forum back up, and more generally remind them that if freedom of speech doesn’t apply to ideas of which they disapprove, it doesn’t apply at all.
I’ve approached this council with a purpose. I respectfully request that we henceforth consider this as settled law. Any further alterations should be put forth to the voters, and these efforts should be citizen-driven.
“I wish to be a subject, not an object; to be moved by reason, by conscious purposes which are my own, not by causes which affect me, as it were, from outside.”
I thank you for your time, and your consideration in this regard.
Russia Warns U.S. Against Striking Iran
// February 18th, 2006By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Associated Press WriterMOSCOW
Russia’s top military chief on Thursday warned the United States against launching a military strike against Iran and a top diplomat voiced hope that close cooperation with China could help resolve the Tehran nuclear crisis.
With tension mounting over Iran’s nuclear programs, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia’s general staff, warned the United States against attacking Iran.
“A military scenario can’t be ruled out,” Baluyevsky was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.
He said that while Iran’s military potential cannot compare to the United States’, “it is hard to predict how the Muslim world will respond to the use of force against Iran.”
“This may stir the whole world, and it is crucial to prevent anything like that,” Baluyevsky was quoted as saying.
Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alekseyev, meanwhile, said that cooperation with China could help push Iran toward accepting Moscow’s offer to host Iran’s uranium enrichment program.
The Russian proposal has become a centerpiece of international efforts to defuse tensions over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
“We are counting on the continuation of close contacts with our Chinese colleagues and other interested countries,” Alekseyev was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. He added, however, that the Iranian nuclear issue recently had become “sharper,” and “it is too early to assess the effectiveness of our joint steps to resolve it.”
Iran’s ambassador to Moscow said Thursday that Tehran hoped Russia would be able to help resolve the international crisis surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.
“Taking into account the good relations between Russia and Iran, I hope that together we can overcome this crisis which has arisen recently,” Gholamreza Ansari said at a meeting with Russian lawmakers.
Ansari confirmed that a delegation is expected to travel to Moscow on Monday to discuss the proposal. He would not say who will lead it, but the Interfax news agency quoted Vyacheslav Moshkalo, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Tehran, as saying that the team will be headed by Javad Vaeidi, Iran’s deputy nuclear negotiator.
Konstantin Kosachev, the head of Russian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said after his discussions with the ambassador that he was satisfied that the Iranians would be coming in good faith.
“Iran understands the seriousness of the situation and is ready to continue discussions between experts to reach a compromise on the Russian proposal,” he said. He said he had received assurances that “the delegation is getting ready for talks and will have all the necessary authority for conducting negotiations.”
Kosachev also sharply criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks in which he called for Israel’s destruction and questioned whether the Holocaust occurred.
“Such statements don’t help strengthen Iran’s international prestige,” he said with Ansari standing at his side.
A Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the strong international consensus developed so far, including Russia, “is probably the strongest instrument we have going right now in trying to influence Iranian behavior.”
Moscow is deeply concerned about the current Iranian regime’s prospects for acquiring nuclear weapons, not only because Russia is geographically located close to Iran, but also because of the impact that could have on other Middle East players’ nuclear aspirations, including Saudi Arabia’s, the diplomat said.
The diplomat also noted that by aspiring to a central role in resolving the Iran crisis, Russia wanted to show that it could use the contacts it has built up over the years – including direct communications with the Iranians – to advance the concerns of the international community.