Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Is Joe Anybody a Marxist?
Mood:  not sure
Now Playing: Tax the Super Rich

I found this article on Portland Indy Media


GM, The NY Times,


and Marxism 101

As Socialists, we are consistently asked to present our ideas in a clearer, easier to understand manner. To achieve this goal, I'll enlist the help of former Governor of Massachusetts and candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, who appeared in the New York Times Op-Ed section on Nov. 19th.

Romney's piece, entitled "Let Detroit Go Broke," laid bare the intent behind the angry rhetoric used by politicians against the proposed bailout for the "Big Three" automakers. Whereas the giant Wall Street banks received over
1 trillion dollars — so far— without barely having to ask, an industry that actually produces something has to beg for a handout. Why the difference?
Romney doesn't mince words, and makes it known that money can't simply be thrown at the Big Three: they have to fix the problems that landed them in this mess. It soon becomes clear that the biggest problem needing fixing is the wages and benefits of the autoworkers.

"First, their [the automakers] huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers."

Conclusions such as these are inescapable within a market economy. Marx gave similar examples long ago to explain how competition between capitalists inevitably forced an attack on the workers, since it is more difficult to cut the costs of raw materials and machines.

To accomplish the destruction of workers' wages, Romney demands new management, too, and says that "the new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end." This has always been a dream of the capitalist: eliminating the hostility of workers towards management, especially when management is hell-bent on destroying workers' standard of living. Unfortunately for shareholders, class conflict is inherent in an economic system that is divided between workers and owners.

The bureaucracy that controls the autoworkers union (UAW) has done its best to dampen this intrinsic conflict. The UAW "leaders" have "cooperated" in drastically lowering workers' wages and benefits, and as recently as last year, pushed through a devastating contract for workers.

But it wasn't enough.

Romney — and the corporate establishment as a whole - are demanding that the Big Three declare bankruptcy so that existing labor contracts can be torn up. Then the real "restructuring" will begin.

The lack of compassion that the ruling class shows for the families that would be affected by such polices shouldn't come as a surprise. An economic system that produces goods for a market — instead of social need — will always produce similar outrages to the conscience.

As the economic crisis deepens, similar attacks on workers will develop. This is foreshadowed by Romney's comment, "Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th." In the same paragraph Romney implies that unions in general are to blame for the sad state of the economy. This is not merely the opinion of one man, but of one social class. Again it should be stated: the current crisis is being used as a justification for an unprecedented assault on the living standards of workers, beginning with the auto industry.

A defeat for the autoworkers in this fight will set a devastating precedent for workers all over the country. It is the absolute duty of every working-class person to stand in solidarity with the autoworkers in their coming struggle. It is likewise in the interest of all who work for wages to oppose the continuing bailout of the Big Banks at taxpayer expense. Taxing the Super Rich is the common sense solution to the problem you'll never hear from a politician's mouth.

homepage: homepage: http://www.workerscompass.org

More on Marxism can be found here

Extra bonus link is the word " proletariat "

Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:09 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 25 November 2008 11:15 PM PST
Monday, 24 November 2008
Uighurs community in USA will take GITMO detainees who are free
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: Guantanamo Bay Prison releasing 17 innocent men


The following article I found on: MotherJones.com

There is a BlipTV video here: http://blip.tv/play/AdvTYIiAJw

On a recent Saturday night, 200 or so members of Washington, DC's Uighur community gathered at the Northern Virginia Community College cultural center to celebrate Nation's Day. The event commemorated the Central Asian ethnic group's creation of the Republic of East Turkistan and declaration of independence from China—twice (once in 1933 and again in 1944).

The Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurz) spent the evening listening to traditional poetry recited by an elderly man in a sequined hat who occasionally burst into patriotic a cappella song, calling on people to throw off the yoke of oppression.

Dark-suited men and women in elegant shiny head wraps clapped along with accordion music and consumed traditional Uighur party food: a whole lamb kebob, which was quickly stripped to the bone by hungry guests and their gaggle of children.

The attendees represented a large chunk of the nation's tiny Uighur community. Yet the festive event was most notable for who wasn't there: 17 Uighur men who have been wrongly detained at Guantanamo Bay for nearly seven years.


Posted by Joe Anybody at 9:44 PM PST
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Wikipedia discription of the words "direct action"
Mood:  mischievious
Now Playing: Direct action and understanding the words and their meaning

A  Z3 Report 


Direct action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action Direct action tactics have been around for as long as conflicts have existed, but the theory of direct action developed primarily in the context of labor struggles. Lenin discussed changes in the aims of Direct action in Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism in 1910.[2]

In his 1920 book, Direct Action, William Mellor placed direct action firmly in the struggle between worker and employer for control "over the economic life of society." Mellor defined direct action "as the use of some form of economic power for securing of ends desired by those who possess that power." Mellor considered direct action a tool of both owners and workers and for this reason he included within his definition lockouts and cartels, as well as strikes and sabotage. However, by this time the American anarchist and feminist Voltairine de Cleyre had already given a strong defense of direct action, linking it with struggles for civil rights:"...the Salvation Army, which was started by a gentleman named Bob Luker was vigorously practising direct action in the maintenance of the freedom of its members to speak, assemble, and pray. Over and over they were arrested, fined, and imprisoned ... till they finally compelled their persecutors to let them alone." (de Cleyre, undated) By the middle of the 20th century, the sphere of direct action had undoubtedly expanded, though the meaning of the term had perhaps contracted. Most campaigns for social change—notably those seeking suffrage, improved working conditions, civil rights, abortion rights, an end to gentrification,and environmental protection—employ at least some types of violent or nonviolent direct action.The anti-nuclear movement used direct action, particularly during the 1980s. Groups opposing the introduction of cruise missiles into the United Kingdom employed tactics such as breaking into and occupying United States air bases, and blocking roads to prevent the movement of military convoys and disrupt military projects. In the U.S., mass protests opposed nuclear energy, weapons, and military intervention throughout the decade, resulting in thousands of arrests. Many groups also set up semi-permanent "peace camps" outside air bases such as Molesworth and Greenham Common, and at the Nevada Test Site.Anti-globalization activists made headlines around the world in 1999, when they forced the Seattle WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 to end early with direct action tactics such as blocking traffic and destroying property.One of the largest direct actions in recent years took place in San Francisco the day after the Iraq War began in 2003. Twenty-thousand people occupied the streets and over 2,000 people were arrested in affinity group actions throughout downtown San Francisco, home to military-related corporations such as Bechtel. (See March 20, 2003 anti-war protest).Direct action has also been used on a smaller scale. Refugee Salim Rambo was saved from being flown from the UK back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo when one person stood up on his flight and refused to sit down. After a two hour delay the man was arrested, but the pilot refused to fly with Rambo on board. Salim Rambo was ultimately released from state custody and remains free today.

Nonviolent direct action

 Nonviolent direct action (NVDA) is any form of direct action that does not rely on violent tactics. Mahatma Gandhi's teachings of Satyagraha (or truth force) have inspired many practitioners of nonviolent direct action, although the use of nonviolence does not always imply an ideological commitment to pacifism. In 1963, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. described the goal of NVDA in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."One major debate is whether destruction of property can be included within the realm of nonviolence. This debate can be illustrated by the response to groups like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which use property destruction and sabotage as direct action tactics. Although these types of actions are often viewed as a form of violence, supporters define violence as harm directed towards living things and not property.In the United States, the term has come to signify civil disobedience, and protest in general, particularly where the organizers are not concerned with preventing violence. In the 1980s, a California direct action protest group called Livermore Action Group called its newspaper Direct Action. The paper ran for 25 issues, and covered hundreds of nonviolent actions around the world. The book Direct Action: An Historical Novel took its name from this paper, and records dozens of actions in the San Francisco Bay Area."Direct Action" has also served as the moniker of at least two groups: the French Action Directe as well as the Canadian group more popularly known as the Squamish Five. Direct Action was also the name of the magazine of the Australian Wobblies. The UK's Solidarity Federation currently publishes a magazine called Direct Action.Until 1990, Australia's Socialist Workers Party published a party paper also named "Direct Action", in honour of the Wobblies' history and because the paper promoted the collective organisation of the oppressed in order to change society.

One of the group's descendants, the Revolutionary Socialist Party,

has again commenced a publication of this name[3].

Politics of Direct action

As a principle, direct action is often advocated by those seeking social change. It is central to autonomism and has been advocated by a variety of marxists and anarchists, including syndicalism, anarcho-communism, insurrectionary anarchism, green anarchism, Marxist Humanists anarcho-primitivist and pacifists. 

Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:50 PM PST
Updated: Sunday, 23 November 2008 2:57 PM PST
Friday, 21 November 2008
What is Network Neutrality
Mood:  chillin'
Now Playing: The Internet should be about ffeeedom - Not coportate control
Topic: MEDIA
 Z3 Readers
This is a fact sheet on the perils of Net Neutrality 
That I found at this link


Frequently Asked Questions
What is this about?
What is Network Neutrality?
Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?
Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?
Isn't the threat to net neutrality just hypothetical?
Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?
What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?
What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality?
What's happening in Congress?
Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?
Who else supports Net Neutrality?
What can I do to help?

What is this about?

When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages -- anytime we choose.

What makes all these assumptions possible is Network Neutrality.

What is Network Neutrality?

Network Neutrality -- or "Net Neutrality" for short -- is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Learn more in Net Neutrality 101.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.

Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?

Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vinton Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And "non-discrimination" provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1930s.

But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.

Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so.

The CEOs of all the largest telecom companies have made clear their intent to build a tiered Internet with faster service for the select few companies willing or able to pay the exorbitant tolls. Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word.

So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like. This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn.

Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?

No. Our opponents would like to paint this debate as a clash of corporate titans. But the real story is the millions of everday people fighting for their Internet freedom.

Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly -- not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.

If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.

Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."

What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?

AT&T and others have funded a massive misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.

Learn how to tell apart the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction.

What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality?

The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.

On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.

The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.

The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.

What's happening in Congress?

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition applauds the recent introduction of the bipartisan “Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008” (HR 5353). Introduced on Feb. 12, 2008 by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), this landmark bill would protect Net Neutrality and spark a much-needed public conversation about the future of the Internet.

The new bill would enshrine Net Neutrality -- the longstanding principle that Internet service providers cannot discriminate against Web sites or services based on their source, ownership or destination -- into the Communications Act. It also requires the Federal Communications Commission to convene at least eight “broadband summits” to collect public input on policies to “promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States.”

Big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have been lobbying furiously to kill Net Neutrality. They want to exploit their gatekeeper power to decide what you can do on the Web.

But Markey and Pickering’s bill deals a blow to the gatekeepers by ensuring that the public -- not phone or cable companies -- control the fate of the Internet.

Contact Congress today. Tell your representative to support the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008” (HR 5353) to make Net Neutrality the law of the land.

Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?

The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party funds our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom.

The coalition is being coordinated by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization focused on media reform and Internet policy issues. Please complete this brief survey if your group would like to join this broad, bipartisan effort to save the Internet.

Who else supports Net Neutrality?

The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, every major Democratic presidential candidate, and FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.

Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St. Petersburg Times and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet.

What can I do to help?

Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition.

Call your members of Congress today and demand that Net Neutrality be protected.

Encourage groups you're part of to sign the "Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007".

Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog.

Tell your friends about this crucial issue before it's too late.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:25 PM PST
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
ACLU petition "Help Stop Torture"
Mood:  amorous
Now Playing: Tell Obama "Thanks & Please Stop The USA Torturing"


Help Stop The Torture

This link will take you to the following petition that is thanking and sending encouragement to Obama, for his remarks on 60 minutes TV show, in regards to closing down GITMO.

The petition link is here: https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=close_gitmo_on_day_one&JServSessionIdr004=ip26osyii3.app26a

The 60 minutes TV show has the Obama clip available and it is 18 minutes long, you can see it on this link here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4608192n 

Here is the petition that is available to be signed (by you)


Dear President-Elect Obama,

I was deeply moved by your recent affirmation that you will close the Guantánamo detention facilities and shut down the military commissions, which have been a stain on America here, at home and abroad.

Nothing would make me prouder than to see you act on your first day in office to restore America's moral leadership in the world.

With one stroke of your pen, you can close Guantánamo Bay prison, shut down military commissions, and ban torture.

The Bush administration created a prison camp at Guantánamo - a place where they claimed the law didn't apply. They detained hundreds of men without charge or trial, authorized torture, and prosecuted some prisoners in military commissions that violate our Constitution and international law.

We can't let the system of injustice George W. Bush put in place stand - not for a single day. I want you to know that I will support your leadership on this vitally important issue in every possible way. And I will stand by you every step of the way to resist those calling for you to “go slow” or “wait for the right time” to act in defense of American freedom.

Please act on day one to make clear that the government you lead will be faithful to the Constitution.

The restoration of American freedom is in your hands. Give us back the America we believe in.

[Your Name]

More ACLU info on Torture here:



 Thanks Joe Anybody

Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:57 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 6:01 PM PST
Hope n Change regarding USA Torture
Mood:  happy
Now Playing: Will Obama allow the same torture that Bush allowed?


After the Torture Era 

By Eugene Robinson


Tuesday, November 18, 2008


"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."

That unequivocal passage from President-elect Barack Obama's first extended interview since the election, broadcast on "60 Minutes" Sunday night, was a big step toward healing the damage that the Bush administration has done not just to our nation's image but to its soul.

Amid the excitement of the election and the urgency of the economic crisis, it has been easy to lose sight of the terrorism-related "issues" that defined George W. Bush's presidency and robbed America of so much honor, stature and goodwill. I put the word issues in quotation marks because torture can never be a matter of debate. Yet the Bush administration sought to numb Americans to what has traditionally been seen as a clear moral and legal imperative: the requirement that individuals taken into custody by our government be treated fairly and humanely.

This doesn't mean handling nihilistic, homicidal "evildoers" with kid gloves. It means being as certain as possible that the people we are holding are, indeed, real or would-be terrorists, not unlucky bystanders; and treating these detainees in accordance with international law, as we would expect detained U.S. personnel to be treated.

At Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib and in a little gulag of secret CIA prisons overseas, the Bush administration failed to live up to these basic responsibilities and thus sullied us all. We will look back on the Bush years and find it incredible, and disgraceful, that individuals were captured in battle or "purchased" from self-interested tribal warlords, whisked to Guantanamo, classified as "enemy combatants" but not accorded the rights that that status should have accorded them, held for years without charges -- and denied the right to prove that they were victims of mistaken identity and never should have been taken into custody.

A new study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, based on interviews with 62 men who were held for an average of three years at Guantanamo before being released without being accused of a crime, found that more than a third said they were turned over to their American captors by warlords for a bounty.

Those who reported physical abuse said most of it occurred at the United States' Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where about half the men were initially held before being taken to Guantanamo. Two-thirds of the former detainees reported suffering psychological problems since their release, and many are now destitute, shunned by their families and villages. None has received any compensation for the ordeal, according to the report, titled "Guantánamo and Its Aftermath."

Years from now, we will be shocked to see those pictures of naked prisoners being humiliated and abused at Abu Ghraib -- and we will be ashamed of a U.S. government that punished low-level troops for their sadism but exonerated the higher-ups who made such sadism possible.

Years from now, we will know the full truth of the clandestine, CIA-run prisons where "high-value" terrorism suspects were interrogated with techniques, including waterboarding, that both civilized norms and international law have long defined as torture.

From what we already know, it's hard to say which is more appalling -- the torture itself or the tortured legal rationalizations that Bush administration lawyers came up with to "justify" making barbarity the official policy of the U.S. government. Obama's clarity on the issues of Guantanamo and torture stands in contrast to his necessary vagueness about how he will deal with the economic crisis.

Torture is wrong today and will still be wrong tomorrow, whereas today's economic panacea can be tomorrow's drop in the bucket. Who would have thought that these "war on terror" issues would be the easy part for the new president? Not that easy, though. More reports like the UC-Berkeley study will come out, but this is not a task that can be left to academic researchers alone.

The new Obama administration has a duty to conduct its own investigation and tell us exactly what was done in our name. Realistically, some facts are going to be redacted. Realistically, some officials who may deserve to face criminal charges will not.

But to restore our national honor and heal our national soul, we at least need to know


Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:08 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 4:11 PM PST
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Undercover cops in Denver instigate trouble (ACLU Report)
Mood:  crushed out
Now Playing: Denver (DNC) 2008 - cops use provocateur

 z3 readers here is where I ... FOUND THIS STINKY STORY:



Undercover police officers posing as protesters staged a fight with a police commander during the Democratic convention, and it was so convincing they were pepper-sprayed by a deputy who wasn't in on the ruse, a civil liberties group says.

The officers pretended to struggle with the Denver police commander so it would look like they were being forcibly removed from a big demonstration and their cover wouldn't be blown, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado said.

The ACLU said it obtained a police report on the incident under a state criminal justice records law.

In a letter to city officials, the ACLU questioned whether the fake confrontation worsened a tense situation with demonstrators and violated police rules.

Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson said he was unaware of the report and couldn't comment.

ACLU staff attorney Taylor Pendergrass asked the city of Denver's independent police monitor to order an investigation. The monitor, Rich Rosenthal, said he received the request and was looking into it.

The incident occurred on Aug. 25, the opening night of the convention. Police arrested 106 people that night, the most of any day during the convention.

Police have said anarchists planned to cause trouble near convention delegates' hotels and downtown businesses and that officers were trying to control the crowd.

A police "Use of Force" report released by the ACLU said, "In order not to be recognized as undercover detectives, some of the detectives put up a struggle with Commander Kroncke." Kroncke's first name wasn't immediately available.

Sheriff's deputies from neighboring Jefferson County were helping Denver police at the scene, and one deputy "thought that Commander Kroncke was being attacked" and sprayed the undercover officers, the report said.

The report said Kroncke was also sprayed. It doesn't say how many officers were involved or how badly anyone was affected by the spray.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 3:49 PM PST
File Sharring and Professor Nesson
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: Professor fights back at song-swapping lawsuits

MSN Tracking Image

Hello Z3 Readers

Todays reading is all about a Harvard Law School professor who is fighting back against the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999

This sucessful professor,  (Nesson) who is the founder of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said in an interview that his goal is to "turn the courts away from allowing themselves to be used like a low-grade collection agency." He also argues that the digital theft law passed in 1999 is unconstitutional.

The full article is here:

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27756456/


Professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits
By Rodrique Ngowi
The Associated Press
 Nov. 16, 2008

BOSTON - The music industry's courtroom campaign against people who share songs online is coming under counterattack.

A Harvard Law School professor has launched a constitutional assault against a federal copyright law at the heart of the industry's aggressive strategy, which has wrung payments from thousands of song-swappers since 2003.

The professor, Charles Nesson, has come to the defense of a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry's lawsuits. By taking on the case, Nesson hopes to challenge the basis for the suit, and all others like it.

Nesson argues that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group — the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA — carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law. He also says the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court.

Nesson, the founder of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said in an interview that his goal is to "turn the courts away from allowing themselves to be used like a low-grade collection agency."

Nesson is best known for defending the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers and for consulting on the case against chemical companies that was depicted in the film "A Civil Action." His challenge against the music labels, made in U.S. District Court in Boston, is one of the most determined attempts to derail the industry's flurry of litigation.

The initiative has generated more than 30,000 complaints against people accused of sharing songs online. Only one case has gone to trial; nearly everyone else settled out of court to avoid damages and limit the attorney fees and legal costs that escalate over time.

Z3 Readers can keep reading this here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27756456/

Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:58 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 18 November 2008 2:59 PM PST
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Trampled While Trying to Enter Final Presidential Debate
Mood:  sad
Now Playing: Vets Trampled by Police at 2008 Debates
United States: ELECTIONS & WAR - 18 Oct 2008

Anti-War Veterans and Supporters Arrested and

Trampled While Trying to Enter

Final Presidential Debate

HEMPSTEAD, NY — Ten members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), a group of military veterans who are calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, were arrested along with at least five civilians outside the final presidential debate at Hofstra University on Wednesday, October 15. The group had been trying to get answers for their questions from the candidates. "Neither of the candidates has shown real support for service members and veterans," said Jason Lemieux, a former Sergeant in the US Marine Corps who served three tours in Iraq, and member of IVAW.

The veterans and their supporters were met by riot police as well as police on horseback. After a tense standoff for five minutes, police used their horses to attack the crowd, knocking over and trampling several — including Army Sergeant Nick Morgan (pictured), who suffered a broken cheekbone. Read Reports by Ben Dean-Kawamura | by Alex Kane | Photo by Bill Perry

The questions IVAW wanted to ask were:
* (To Obama): "As President of the United States of America, are you prepared to back up your own words [about the illegality of the Iraq War] and the U.S. Constitution by supporting service members refusing to participate in what you describe as an illegal occupation?"
* (To McCain): "What promises are you willing to make, as a veteran, as a senator, as a presidential candidate, to the veterans of the United States, to prove that you will ensure the V.A. is fully funded, staffed and capable of preventing troops from suffering as they are now?" Demands in full: IVAW Send Letter to Schieffer, Plan Protest at Hofstra Univ. Debate

MORE COVERAGE: Photos by Jamie Lehane | Video from DN! | Video from IVAW | IVAW Press Release

RELATED: Will YOUR vote count? State's polls lack uniform standards | Anti-War Sentiment Still Strong Six Years After Congressional War Vote

Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:16 PM PST
Friday, 14 November 2008
see you in Hell "racists"
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Hate is on the rise against people of brown color

This makes me sick Z3 Readers

The link I found this is here:



An estimated half-million immigrants are living in the U.S. in defiance of deportation orders. The government has stepped up efforts to catch them, and has made 34,000 arrests in the past year.


The comment page is here:



I posted comment #145 and it is as follows:



joe-anybody wrote:How ignorant (is this a KKK site?) The Native Americans were here 1st and we "screwed them over" and TOOK their land How dare we act so pretentious These are humans these are people with hearts and souls All you who talk crap about "other people" will meet your maker someday and just to let you know "he is not racist nor does he (your maker) keep track of borders. How selfish, cruel and sick allot of you sound and "no doubt are"

Respect your fellow man or get on your "high horses" I dare you and challenge you to "try loving one another" You don't have it in you do you....? I might (inform you while I'm here) with "Hate in your Heart" you cant love your fellow man. Wow! No love... just all selfish crap talk about injustice and mean spirited laws. Don't bother arguing with me about "rules" or "laws" it all boils down to ONE THING...you either have LOVE or ....you have HATE......pick your sides and but be careful we don't see ya in hell ...for there are "no borders in heaven ... But "hell is full of Selfish, I got mine, beat down the poor-man, kind of people.

You make your bed on stolen Native American land ...and justify it by self-made white man law... and then you act as if God told you were better. Everyone of you who are for this insane treatment of fellow humans, should be "rounded up" by the real owners of this dirt you all parked your asses on. This land was stolen and now you point at others who skin is a different color.

Let me also add your opinions are the SAME as the KKK and other racist groups.... you are in league and "in bed" with white supremists... wither you like it or not your ideas both mesh along the SAME principles. They too will agree with you. Cool to be lock step with Racists huh! real true "Americans "Its ok for you will have friends in hell .... its full of people who think, act, and make laws that jail and criminalize others who only want a meaningful life and a chance to live. Justice is coming to people who hate! I cant wait!



Posted by Joe Anybody at 6:59 PM PST
Updated: Saturday, 15 November 2008 4:26 PM PST

Newer | Latest | Older

« November 2008 »
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
You are not logged in. Log in
Ben Waiting for it ? Well Look Here!
Robert Lindsay Blog
Old Blogs Go to Joe's Home Web Site
Media Underground
Joe's 911 Truth Report

Alex Ansary