Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘democracy’ Category

At least The Flagstaff police seem to have been pretty laid back about it.

At 3 p.m. on March 28, 40 people dressed in black and red arrived with a shopping cart blaring music in tow at Flagstaff’s Heritage Square and began swinging cushions at each other. The feathers and fluff flew, but the mass of people also collided with the cops.

Part protest, part pillow fight, the event aimed to raise awareness of and protest the arrest of the “Republican National Convention Eight” (the RNC8).

The RNC8 protested the criminalization of dissent in Minneapolis and St. Paul during the 2008 Republican National Convention.

They were charged under the Minnesota PATRIOT act in response to their political organizing. They all face up to seven-and-a-half years in prison under the terrorism enhancement charge, which allows for a possible 50 percent increase in the maximum penalty. The legal expenses for those involved with the RNC8 are estimated to be $250,000.

The last time such charges were brought under Minnesota law was in 1918, when Matt Moilen and others organized labor unions for the International Workers of the World, also known as “the Wobblies.”
[. . .]
Aaron Levy, a second-year English graduate student at NAU donning a cat-ear cap, stood atop one of the Square’s benches and gave a speech through a megaphone.

“When we come to the pillow fight today, we want to show the world there is a better way to do things,” Levy shouted into his bullhorn. “You don’t need guns, you don’t need Tasers, you don’t need handcuffs, you don’t need politicians and we don’t need anybody but ourselves to operate in a world of peace and justice.”

The crowd cheered, and the cops crossed their arms.
[. . .]
The cops took Levy aside and began to question him about the complaints they received.

“You just gonna leave that out there?” Officer Condon pointed to the chalk.

“It will just kinda take care of itself,” Levy said.

“Nobody wrote anything vulgar or anything?” Condon asked.

“No sir. It’s just peace, love,” Levy said.

The cops let Levy go, and the group began to clean up the mess with borrowed brooms and bare hands.

Troy Farah and Matt Roberto, “Protestors ‘resist state terrorism’ with pillows“, JackCentral (NAU online news), April 2, 2009

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Below is an announcement from XM Satellite Radio. There’s no word on whether they will provide third party coverage, but it would certainly seem so since 24/7 commercial-free is an awful lot of airtime to fill (and it’s going to get very boring, very quickly, if it covers only the two major parties):

XM Radio logoXM Satellite Radio announced it will launch a new radio channel dedicated to the 2008 presidential election, marking the first time that a national radio channel has been devoted to a presidential campaign. The 24-hour, commercial-free channel, created in association with C-SPAN and other media outlets, will be called “POTUS ‘08.” The channel’s name (pronounced POH-tus) is the acronym used by government insiders for the President of the United States.

From their website, here’s a rundown of what to expect from POTUS when it goes live in September:

THE MISSION

  • Provide unbiased and commercial-free coverage of the 2008 presidential election.
  • Create a destination for voters to get politically neutral information about the election process and unprecedented access to the candidates.
  • Provide a pipeline to the candidates and their campaigns to communicate without filter to the American people.
  • Provide information from beyond the traditional media to include new media sources.
  • Provide perspective on the election process from a historical and current view.
  • Maintain the highest standards of professional integrity and neutrality.

FREE TO AIR
Created as a public service, POTUS ‘08 will be broadcast free to all XM radio receivers. Whether you are a paid subscriber or not, you can still listen to all the presidential coverage.

Read Full Post »

I wrote:

Dear Editor,

I am writing in support of Jason Gatties For Pokagon Tribal Council.

Jason stands for both individual and tribal sovereignty.

He believes that a truly free people can not take money and services from an occupying state and retain its independence and dignity at the same time.

He believes the flow of information, much like the people themselves, ought to be free.

He believes real qualifications, not titles, should matter most.

Virgil Vogel wrote in 1974 in a documentary history of the American Indian:
Montaigne, Rousseau, and Jefferson paid tribute to the Indian capacity to organize human affairs in a libertarian manner. The Iroquois developed a system of confederated government which, according to Benjamin Franklin, served as an example for his Albany Plan of Union, and eventually for the Articles of the Confederation.

Visit http//www.votegatties.org to learn more.

-paul

Could I get you guys to write a “LTE” on my behalf? We are coming up on 1 month until the election and the more LTE’s I can get published, the better. I’m in a unique situation in that our tribe members are basically spread out over a 10 county/ 2 state area, which makes your typical style of campaigning tough. Thats why I’m hoping LTE’s will reach those I’m unable to visit or those who are unable to check out my campaign site.

The LTE info can be found at http://www.mujaji.net/pokagon/involved.html

Pick any of the publications listed. It would be a great help to me and I would return the favor 10 fold in the future.

Jason Gatties

Read Full Post »

Since I gave Michelle a hat tip earlier, might as well make it a pair. (It’s easier to get away with staring with my hat tipped low). Something is making me think of Michelle and pairs today. Not sure what that is. Wait, don’t tell me, I almost got it figured out….damn, I forgot again. What was it, I wonder? Anyway. A wolf, a sheep, and a wolf in sheep’s clothing went in the polling booth….did I mention voting was mandatory in the USSR?

Read Full Post »

GavelJury nullification is a process by which a criminal jury determines that a law is unconscienable, either morally or as it applies to a specific case, and therefore is to be ignored despite the guilt of the defendant. The US Supreme Court has determined that juries do have the power to nullify, but they also determined that juries need not be informed of this power. As a result, very few jurors have any idea that they can ignore the law, if they feel the case before them warrants that action.

Historical examples of jury nullification are abundant. Early in our nation’s history, jurors were regularly informed of this power. Positive examples of jury nullification include cases involving the Fugitive Slave laws, and of course, Prohibition. Negative examples include the refusal of some juries in the south to find white supremacists guilty of murdering African-Americans or civil rights workers, despite substantial evidence of guilt.

Judges worry that informing juries of this power will result in juror anarchy, with jurors deciding cases based on their sympathies rather than on the facts of the case; some argue that this is what happened in the OJ Simpson trial of the early 90s. Another judicial concern is that jury nullification will result in an increase in the number of hung juries, or that jurors will be overwhelmed if they are expected to interpret not only the facts, but the fairness of the law as well. An ongoing concern is that, once found not guilty by a jury, a defendant is protected from ever being tried again on that charge under the Double Jeopardy Clause; so if jurors nullify, guilty defendants will go free. The current conventional wisdom is therefore to not only not inform jurors of their nullification powers, but to specifically instruct jurors that they are to determine the facts, not the law, and that they must follow the law exactly as it is presented to them by the court. (more…)

Read Full Post »

In this week’s “radio address,” Steve Kubby explains why it’s a bad idea for Libertarians to support those other parties:

I’ve heard from a number of you that you’re not supporting the Libertarian Party or its presidential candidate in 2008. That, instead, you’re giving your money and support to a candidate for another party’s presidential nomination.

I’m referring, of course, to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas — a sitting member of the US House of Representatives, and the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential candidate.

Friends — you’re making a mistake.

I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul. He’s a fine man and a fine libertarian. But he’s affiliated himself with a party of big government … the party that brought us the war on Iraq. The party brought us “extraordinary rendition.” The party that can’t find habeas corpus in the Constitution. The party that, over the last six years, has grown government faster than at any time since the end of WWII.

If a candidate for the Nazi Party’s presidential nomination asked for your support, you’d laugh at him or turn away in disgust. You’d do so even if he said that he wasn’t one of “those Nazis” who wanted to herd all the Jews, homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses into gas chambers. You wouldn’t just walk away from that candidate, you’d run away. And you’d be right — because even if that candidate isn’t one of “those Nazis,” his party itself stands for things that you can’t support.

When you support a candidate, you support that candidate’s party. And as fine a man as Ron Paul is, his party is simply not worthy of your support. He may be a libertarian, but his party is not libertarian and it’s not going to become libertarian, no matter how much money you throw at it.

Tune in for more:

Read Full Post »

Honestly, I don’t know whether to laugh, or to feel bad that this guy hasn’t received appropriate psychiatric care. Or both.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: