Democrats want to fine you $250,000 for file sharing
Democrats are not going to help themselves if they back this bill that no Republican (yet) supports: new bill in the House wants to fine file sharers $250,000. The bill, titled "Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act (ACCOPS)", also wants to illegalize giving false information to register a domain, require warnings about the proposed law on P2P software, and order our Department of Justice to share information with foreign governments to aid them in tracking copyright infringers.

I've got a better idea: how about a bill that fines the RIAA $250,000 for every shitty album they put out? Then they'll be forced to release music that people will actually want to buy, thus alleviating their profit problems.

The RIAA's fingerpritns are all over this bill, introduced by Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan. A quick check on Open Secrets tells me that Mr. Conyers has raked in almost $50,000 from the entertainment industry, they are his second largest campaign contributor. The district this man represents is in the middle of Detriot. Outside of Robocop movies, Detriot doesn't strike me as Hollywood East, put yet Mr. Conyers receives thousands in contributions from the entertainment industry. If I wasn't headed out the door, I'd check the records of the bill co-sponsers, all Democrats.

We have a fraudulent president sitting in the Oval Office, lying to the American populace and murdering people halfway around the world, and a recession (even if it was declared over, there's still very high unemployment figures), yet Mr. Conyers thinks we should be concerned about harmless file sharers. Nice priorities, dipshit. People like Mr. Conyers remind me why I don't vote for Democrats.

Newsblast!
Some "academics", and I use that term loosely, have declared that the recession ended in 2001, the same year that it started. Here's my favorite paragraph from the article: "While the determination of the official ending date for the recession is of interest to economic historians, it is likely to bring little comfort to the nation's unemployed, who have seen their ranks swell in recent months."

A Presidential Commission on the Postal Service suggests that Post Offices in small towns be closed because the do not generate enough profit.

The Bush administration has selected ten new Superfund sites to be cleaned up. When criticized by environmentalists for not selecting more toxic waste sites to be cleaned up, the EPA said that there wasn't enough money to add more sites. Of course, we have enough money to send troops to Iraq to die after Bush lies. Maybe with all the cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammo we deployed in Iraq, it will become the next Superfund site!

The number of US combat deaths in Iraq has surpassed the total from the 1991 Gulf War. Of course, this igure does not count the 10,000 US troops who died due to Gulf War Syndrome. As for casualities of innocent Iraqi's, Iraq Body Count has a minimum figure of 6071, maximum of 7780. Makes me feel like waving a flag.

Please ignore, this is another entry that Blogger's software botched that I cannot delete.

Woo hoo! I'm gonna get jiggy wit' myself!

Rhode Island: Screwing the Narragansett Indians since the 1600's [Update at bottom]
A local story has been making some national splash, so I'll comment on it to give site readers from outside Rhode Island a better understanding of what's going on. If you are not familiar with Rhode Island politics, then consider yourself lucky.

The Narragansett Indian Tribe in Rhode Island wants to do what many other tribes in many other states already do: open up a tax free shop that sells smokes. Well, Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri didn't think this was a good idea, so he sent a goon squad of state troopers to the smoke shop and a melee ensued which sent a few tribe members to the hospital.

The Narragansetts have been trying to open a casino in Rhode Island, and who can blame them when you look at the profits that closeby Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have brought in to their respective tribes? Back in the early 90's when we had a Democrat governor, he was cooperating with the tribe to bring a casino to Rhode Island. But since he he lost his reelection bid, we have had nothing but Republican governors who have been opposed to a casino in Rhode Island.

Or, I should say, a casino built by indians. We have a couple of gaming outlets who have just been cleared to add video slots. One, Newport Grand, just dropped Jai Alai games entriely. They started their business by letting pople bet on Jal Alai games that they hosted, but now Jai Alai is gone and all theyhave are video slots. Can somebody please explain to me how they are not a casino?

The Narragansetts were trying to push a bill through the General Assembly to get a ballot initiative to simply ask Rhode Island voters if they wanted a casino. Gov. Carcieri would have vetoed a bill for a simple vote if it came to his desk. Anybody starting to wonder why the tribe is frustrated?

A smaller thing the tribe wanted to open was a smoke shop. The governor also disapproved of this, and the state wanted to set up a police check point for residents leaving the Indian reservation after purchasing smokes so they could be charged Rhode Island's tax, which is $20 per carton in some cases.

Against the wishes of the state, the Narragansett Indians opened up their smoke shop on their tribal land sunday. By monday, it was doing a lot of business, and that's when state troopers raided it. Basically, they sent a bunch of state troopers to tribal lands, and afterthe tribalpolice told the state troopers that they could not enter they did anyway and proceeded to start a lot of fights with tribal members. The state troopers and the governor paint a different picture and blame the melee on the tribe, but in my opinion they are wrong and just trying to save face.

TV stations were there, and the shocking footage has been allover the news. The governor defends the actions of the police saying that they had the right to do this because the tribe was breaking state law. The tribe says that they are a sovereign nation, much like many tribes around the country, and they are not subject to state regulation on their land. The state disagrees with this, because back in the 70's the tribe signed a document, in the process of geting the land for their reservation, which bonded them to Rhode Island law. However, federal law could override this. We will have to find out in court.

Either way, the governor was wrong to send in the goon squad to raid the smoke shop. They had a search warrant, but never showed it to tribe members until after the raid happened and those who were jailed were out on bail. In essence, what happened was that the staties marched in and started fights. Some tribe members also started fights,but as far as I'm concerned, that's not the point, and if the state handled this correctly a melee would have never happened.

What the state troopers should have done is send in a detective and two troopers. Not 10-15 troopers to run onto the land with a dog to bite tribe mebers while they are handcuffed and on the ground. You send a detecive and two troopers. When they are met at the property by a tribal police officer, they say, "Hi, we're from the Rhode Island State Troopers and we have a search warrant (show the warrant). Please let us see the chief." That's it! Instead of having troopers running onto tribal land and pushing people around and not showed anybody their warrant, this could have been done peaceful, without the chief later acknowledging that the, "only thing missing were firehoses."

To add insult to injury (actual injuries, not just using a cliche here), the Providence Journal, our local rag, runs advertisments from a tribe in New York who run a mail order business selling smokes for cheap. So, in this state, we allow out of state tribes to sell cigarettes to state residents, but not an in-state tribe.

This state, particually the Republican governors, have been giving the Narragansett Indians the shaft for years. Not like they haven't been given the shaft for the past few centuries from us white European settlers. The raid that happened monday crossed the line, and I'm hoping that this state will get reamed by the courts for their illegal and unjust actions. They deserve it.

[Update: To be fair, I found out today that State Troopers claimed to have undercover agents in in the smoke shop and they were the ones who served the search warrant. They claim that things started to get violent inside the shop, and that's when the raid started. I'm skeptical to this, because I have only heaqrd one tribe member say that he was issued a warrant, and that was the Chief. He said that he saw the warrant after he was released on bail.
In the interest of full disclousure, I should point out that 1/32 of my lineage is from the Abenaki tribe. I believe representatives from that tribe on are Narragansett lands right now in support of their cause. If they are not there already, then they will probably be there for the rally this thursday night. If I am also at that rally, it will be the first time I have had any contact with my tribe.]

The Last "Ari & I"
Russell Mokhiber is the editor of Corporate Crime Reporter and is part of the press corps at White House Press Conferences. Yesterday being Press Secetary Ari Fleischer's last day on the job, this is the last Ari & I segment. Basically, here's how it goes: Russell asks Ari simple, embarrassing questions about President Bush and Ari dodges them, and Russell never ends up with a clear answer. Ari & I shines light on just how hard it is to get information out of the Bush administration, and how they regard reporters who step out of line. I've included Russell's note at the beginning of the last Ari & I.

Note from Russell Mokhiber: Today was Ari Fleischer's last White House press briefing. He's leaving the White House to start a consulting firm that will advise corporate executives on how to handle the news media. Starting tomorrow, the new White House Press Secretary will be Scott McClellan. I'm hoping to continue to this feature under the headline: "Scottie and me."

Mokhiber: Ari, in the 2002 election campaign, the Republican Party took in $7.2 million from convicted criminals. Is the President okay with his party taking millions of dollars from convicted criminals?

Ari Fleischer: I have no idea what you are referring to -

Mokhiber: I'm referring to, let me tell you -

Ari Fleischer: Obviously, if money is received - both parties from people who are later found out to be people who shouldn't be giving money - then it gets returned.

Mokhiber: These are actually major corporations convicted of crimes. ADM gave $1.7 million, Pfizer $1.1 million, Chevron $875,000. Is the President okay with those companies giving direct contributions to the Republican Party after being convicted of crimes?

Ari Fleischer: Russell, as you know, the Presidential campaign takes no money from corporations.

Mokhiber: I'm talking about the party.

Ari Fleischer: Well, you'll have to address your questions to the party.

Mokhiber: Well, as the titular head of the party, is he okay with the party taking money from convicted criminals?

Ari Fleischer: I don't know what information you have where you can that this corporation is a criminal.

Mokhiber: Convicted - they pled guilty to crimes.

Ari Fleischer: Were the crimes of such a nature that they are no longer in existence?

Mokhiber: ADM pled guilty to one of the most massive antitrust crimes and paid a $100 million fine.

Ari Fleischer: I think you need to address any questions about specific companies with the specifics in mind, and if that company is still doing business and is still in operation, that means it is still in operation with the law, and every case is individual, and the party decides about whether the money needs to be returned or not. But I don't have specifics.

Mokhiber: One follow-up.

Ari Fleischer: Go ahead, Russell.

Mokhiber: One follow up. It's actually a broad philosophical question. Is the President okay with taking money from convicted criminals?

Ari Fleischer: I informed you that the President does not take money from corporations.

Mokhiber: No, I'm talking about - as titular head of the party, is he okay with the party taking money from convicted criminals. For example, in Enron -

Ari Fleischer: I just have to differ with your notion that because a company has been fined -

Mokhiber: No, they pled guilty to crimes. They pled guilty to crimes.

Ari Fleischer: Even so - I don't know what specifics you are referring to - that that company is a convicted criminal.

Mokhiber: If you plead guilty to a crime, you are a criminal.

Ari Fleischer: Does that mean that they need to go out of business?

Mokhiber: I'm asking - should the Republican Party take money from convicted criminals?

Ari Fleischer: You need to address your question to the Republican Party.

Mokhiber: But he's the titular head of the party.

Ari Fleischer: And the titular head of the party refers you to the party.

The Mainstream Media puts an order in for fresh batch of Kneepads
[Updated: new 4th paragraph]
Well, it's happened again, I have started ignoring the news. This isn't a healthy habit to get into, but I can't seem to avoid it. It's not a conscious decision, my mind just gets frustrated when the media parrots the White House and, in essence, lies.

On the same day that there was a blitz of stories about how the CIA took the fall for bad intelligence in Bush's State of the Union speech, I wrote, "Will the real George Tenet please stand up?", a piece which basically proves that the CIA and the White House are lying. I'm not privy to some special information, all the information I used to come to my conclusions were from repudiable public sources. Anybody who pays attention to the news should have been able to come to my conclusions because they are based on fact. (And people who should be paying the most attention to the news are journalists.) For example, if the CIA gets Bush to axe false references to Iraq purchasing uranium from Niger in a 10/7/03 speech in Cincinnati, does that not prove that they had the proper intelligence and could have axed the very same references from his SOTU address? Is this not common sense?

To me, this is something that a literate teenager could put together. But to the mainstream media, appearently this is not common sense. Since saturday, when headlines basically saying "CIA takes the blame" hit newspapers all across America, this story has lost steam and has been falling off the map. Yet again, it looks like the White House has been successful in killing another Bush scandal.

The story is still on the frontpage of my hometown newspaper, Providence Journal. They printed a New York Times article about the press conference held by Ari at the White House. Two things struck me about this article: there was not a single quote from a Democrat about the press conference or the situation, nor did the article mention Ari's "bunch of bull" statement. Nope, none of that. We can't have those pesky Democrats talking in the media, it might tarnish Bush's reputation!

The Republican media has proven once again that their biases come before fair and balanced coverage, and they have pulled the Clinton card once again. "Well, Clinton said Iraq had nuclear weapons and blah blah, I'm a biased asshole baw baw blah, I got kneepads for the next time I meet Bush so I can suck his fat cock, baw baw baw." They want to bring up Clinton? Fine. I don't like the man either, as far as I'm concerned he's killed more people in Iraq then Bush or his father, but that's not the topic of discussion right now. The topic is the fact that Dubya lied and his lies are leading to the deaths of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis. Whenever Clinton lied, he was chastised to no end. Even if the lie meant diddly shit for the rest of the citizens in this country. Yes, to all you Republicans reading this, the fact that Clinton cheated on his wife mean nothing to the lives of other citizens. Was it a lie? Yes. But if you are goingg to hold Clinton to those standards, the standards of chastising him for any lie, then fair is fair and you have to hold Bush to the very same standards. Especially when his lies lead to murder.

That's hardly what Republicans do when Bush lies. Bush doesn't get the Clinton job, Bush gets protection. I listened to Rush Limbaugh yesterday for a couple minutes where he lied for the President, saying that the reports of Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger were not false. This is blatant propaganda and, in my opinion, Rush should be suspended from his radio show for skirting his responsibilities as a radio journalist and lying to the American public. I could care less about the opinions he harbors, but when he blatantly lies about the facts to support his points, he has become irresponsible and dangerous. He should not be allowed on the public airwaves which we own unless he is going to tell the truth.

Other elements of the Republican media have tried to deny that this is even a story. Newsmax, words cannot explain how pathetic they are, has dared to claim that Bush's lies shouldn't even be a story. Or, at least, that's what I get from them after reading this line in the linked column: "So what? The war against Iraq was never waged because of the Niger evidence." Uhm, excuse me, but Bush knew that if played the nuclear card, it would bring more popular support for the war. This is not a non-issue. In this same column, they claim that the media is waging a war against Bush. What gaul! Newsmax has the audacity to tell the meia not to do their jobs. They are actually stupid and pigheaded enough to believe that the media investigating and reporting this story is proff that there is liberal bias in the media.

At this point, I don't know how to articulate this anymore, so let me scream: BUSH LIED!!! HE LIED AS A REASON TO GOTO WAR AND MURDER PEOPLE! HOW THE FUCKITY FLIPPIN FUCK IS THIS NOT A STORY?!@#$!?@#@!?

I don't know how else to say it. The Republican media is so biased that even when Bush is caught in a lie, they will not admit it. These people would try to tell you that 1 + 1 = 3. I mean, I really don't know how else to express it. It's that feeling you get when you are trying to explain to somebody something that is braindead simple to learn, it hardly involes thinking or comprehension, it's just fact an that's that. The sky is blue, water is wet, clouds are fluffy, birds fly.. And BUSH FUCKIN LIES! It's really this simple.

At least I wish it was this simple. Unfortunately, Bush lies, people die, and members of his party will defend it shamelessly. I would how these assholes feel when the goto church on Sundays, knowing that their lies and defense oflies to the American public has killed people.

Writing this, I feel like I am saying what every other blog is saying, but.. It's just frustrating. Pressure has to be applied to the media so they get the facts straight. But, that is also not happening. Only positive thing I can say about this situation is that at least the Democrats are fighting Bush on this, for all the good it will do them. Once the White House tells the media that this story is a "bunch of bull" in defense of Bush, that's pretty much it. The lie suddenly becomes fact and the Democrats look like loonies.

I think I'm going to start a "Mail Order Husband" catalog and put an ad in it. Maybe I can find a wife from abroad to marry me and save me from the stupidity of this country.