Posted: 07 Aug 2008 11:46 AM CDT
The grizzly murder, beheading and cannibalism made headlines recently, where a man brutally stabbed another man and the driver stopped the bus, people got off and then trapped the killer in the bus until authorities could arrive. Later is was discovered the assailant has been eating the flesh of the man that he had killed.
Recently a man was murdered and decapitated on a Greyhound bus, it was later discovered the assailant had began eating the man's flesh. PETA is using this killing for an ad campaign and compares the murder to the slaughtering of animals.
This murder kicked off a campaign idea by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known as PETA, in which they compare the murder of the man on the bus, with the slaughtering of animals.
The ad has no image, just text which states, "Manitoba. An innocent young victim's throat is cut . . . His struggles and cries are ignored. The man with the knife shows no emotion . . . The victim is slaughtered and his head cut of . . . His flesh is eaten. It still goes on!
Below those words in smaller print, the ad goes on to say, "Right now, this exact scenario is reality for many. They are sensitive, they value their lives, they see what is happening, they cannot run away, and they often suffer greatly yet are being killed for nothing more than a fleeting taste of their flesh.
This ad was planned to be run in the Portage Daily Graphic, but according to the paper's website, they have refused to run the ad for PETA.
PETA also sent out a press release announcing to major media outlets Canada-wide about its intentions to run the ad. The Daily Graphic staff has been inundated with phone calls from media outlets since the press release was distributed.
In another article, the paper shows that they have received supportive emails and communications hailing their decision not to run the PETA ad.
The PETA website shows the release which explains their comparison of the bus rage beheading and the PETA campaign ad, where they state in their press release about the campaign:
PETA's ad, which refers to the "ignored cries" and "cut-off head" of a victim, is meant to spur people to think about the terror and pain experienced by animals who are raised and killed for food. The group aims to demonstrate that animals--just like humans--are made of flesh, blood, and bone and deserves protection from needless killing. In this day and age, food choices are rich and plentiful, and a vegetarian diet helps prevent premature death from killer diseases like cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and strokes.
According to Lindsay Rajt from PETA, "Like human victims, animals in slaughterhouses experience terror when they are attacked by a knife-wielding assailant. We are challenging everyone who is rightly horrified by this crime to look into their hearts and consider leaving violence off their dinner plates."
Tim McLean was the victim of the killing on the Greyhound bus. He was 22 years old. The alleged killer is Vinci Li, 40 years old and he has been charged with second-degree murder and is expected to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
The Portage Daily Graphic states that Rajt, the spokeswoman for PETA does offer these words for the McLean family, "The crime is horrific. Our hearts go out to Tim's family."
This was offered right before she explained that PETA wanted to use that death for the ads they wanted in that paper.
Posted: 07 Aug 2008 10:45 AM CDT
At 4 minutes and 30 seconds into the video above, Lessig describes the details of a plan supposedly already written up, planned and waiting to be implemented should some cyberterror attack hit the Internet.
Lawrence Lessig, who is a respected law professor for Stanford University told an audience at a tech conference that there was going to be a i-911 event that would spur the implementation of patriot act laws for online, which he calls i-Patriot Act.
Before going into the details, lets look at who Lessig is.
Lessig is not only a law professor at Stanford, he is also a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications. Lessig is the founder of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. He is also a founding member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center.
Lessig spoke at the Fortune's Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, this year and he told the audience "There's going to be an i-9/11 event" which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet."
He also claims that he spoke to the former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke and he found out that the Justice Department was waiting for a cyber terrorism event that would be the catalyst for implemented the "cyber equivalent " of the Patriot Act, to which Lessig nicknamed the i-Patriot Act.
He further claims that the patriot Act, that was implemented 20 days after the 911 attack on the United States, had been sitting in a drawer for 20 years waiting for an attack of that magnitude and that is how it was ready to implemented that soon after the actual attack.
Another statement attributed to Lessig from the conference is as follows:
Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said "of course there is".
Lessig alleges that just as the Patriot Act had been sitting in a drawer for all those years, waiting to be implemented, that the cyber equivalent is also already prepared and waiting for an Internet attack of such a magnitude that it would have to be implemented just as the Patriot Act was.
He also provides examples showing that even without the implementation of the i-Patriot Act, there is already legislation to create an IP czar at the Department of Justice and to enforce intellectual property rights:
Our governments have reams of legislation penned to put clamps on the web as we know it. Legislation such as the PRO-IP Act of 2007: H.R. 4279, that would create an IP czar at the Department of Justice and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007: S. 522, which would create an entire 'Intellectual Property Enforcement Network'. These are just two examples.
He points to examples such as Facebook and what he calls "overarching identification, verification and access systems" that are being implemented, to warn about strict control mechanisms that are being developed and implemented right before our eyes, saying it needs to be spoken about before the Internet becomes "paralyzed beyond repair."
Cyber terrorism is not a new worry, there have been noted attacks already in the news.
On January 18, 2008, Friday, CIA analyst Tom Donahue, at the SANS security trade conference in New Orleans, disclosed recently declassified information about such attacks saying that hackers have, indeed, penetrated power systems in regions outside the U.S. and in some cases causing power outages that affected multiple cities.
Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer for security firm BT Counterpane, warned that the U.S. has no immunity, despite the fact that the recently disclosed attacks happened outside the U.S.and states "There's nothing magical about a system being in the U.S. The same vulnerabilities are everywhere."
One memorable previous cyber attack was in 2002 when a denial of service (DOS) attack hit 13 servers and the top five viewed sites went down temporarily.
That attack flooded the 13 domain-name service root servers around the world with 30-40 times the normal amount of data. Seven of the servers were affected enough to have periods of "zero-reachability," according to Web security firm Matrix NetSystems.
You can see for yourself how the Internet structure works here.
In researching what a worst case scenario would look like I ran across a two page article in Newsweek, written in November of 2003.
One specific quote from that article could be labeled as disturbing. It was made by Paul Vixie, president of the Internet Software Consortium, a nonprofit group that helps maintain the Internet, where he said "I'm terrified if I think too hard about it. This isn't so much a threat to national security as a threat to civilization."
When the experts use the word "terrified", and "threat to civilization" it makes one stop and think.
The Internet is used for just about every portion of our lives, utility companies use it, phone, cable, air control, bus, trains and boats use systems which utilize the Internet, even our basic day to day traffic on the roads are controlled by computers running the stoplights.
Protecting something that has become part of our very infrastructure is important, but is that reason to go overboard to restrict, censor, monitor or track online activities.
Where is the line in the sand?
Is there one?
It might also be considered reasonable by some to ask whether or not implementing a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act would matter much if civilization as we know it (run by computers that no longer function) is in total chaos?
If such a dire scenario were to come, how many people would be worried about jumping on their computer?
Posted: 06 Aug 2008 06:14 PM CDT
Jamiel's Law is named for 17-year-old high school football star Jamiel Shaw II who was murdered on March 2, 2008, three doors from his home while his mother, Anita Shaw served as a Sergeant in the United States Army in Iraq. Jamiel's alleged killer is an illegal alien gang-banger, who had been released from Jail the night before. Had Pedro Espinosa been turned over to ICE, he possibly would not have been in Los Angeles to commit this horrible murder.
Jamiel's Law is an ordinance drafted by Walter Moore, a political opponent of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
The proposed ordinance would require officers to hunt down illegal immigrants who appear to be gang members.
Pedro Espinoza, the 19-year-old suspect in Shaw's death, was released from jail without police questioning his citizenship status on March 1, the day before he allegedly shot Shaw to death, according to reports by MyFOXLA.com.
Recently Mrs. Danielle Bologna lost her husband and two sons, Michael 20, and Matthew 16, when they were driving home from a family barbecue when they had the tragic misfortune of encountering Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien gangbanger who allegedly slaughtered the Bolognas with an AK-47. Had the San Francisco authorities reported Ramos to ICE agents on any number of previous encounters and incarcerations, he would not have been in San Francisco to commit these horrible murders, according to the news release.
The news release states that Mrs. Danielle Bologna, the wife and mother of three slain San Francisco family members, Mr. and Mrs. Jamiel Shaw Sr., whose son's murder in Los Angeles inspired "Jamiel's Law," and TalkRadio 790 KABC morning host, Doug McIntyre will join together to demand LA City Councilman Jack Weiss release "Jamiel's Law" from the Public Safety Committee, which he chairs, for a full council vote.
This press event will take place in front of City Councilman Jack Weiss's West LA office on Thursday, August 7, 9:30-10:30am.
Location address: 822 S. Robertson Boulevard (north of Olympic Boulevard)
Los Angeles, CA 90035
You can find out more about Jamiel's Law here.
Posted: 06 Aug 2008 03:24 PM CDT
It has been reported that Hillary Clinton might be speaking at the Democratic National convention, on it's second day, which will be August 26 and a group of Clinton supporters, Colorado Women Count/Women Vote, have obtained a permit to march in a parade through Denver on that date.
On August 26, 2008, while the Democratic Convention is being held, Hillary Clinton supporters will be marching through Denver to show their support and appreciation for the Clinton campaign.
They will be teaming up with another Clinton supporting groups called 18 Million Voices, who will also be holding a rally at a park, the location of that park has not been determined yet.
Their goal is to show support and appreciation for Hillary Clinton as well as to try to urge the party to add her name in nomination at the convention so that her delegates may cast a vote for her in the first round of voting. That is unlikely to happen since reports came out last week that Clinton will not be requesting, in writing, that her name be added.
It is also being reported that private meeting in Washington last week, Hillary Clinton told her top fundraisers that she has kept her end of her bargain with Barack Obama and raised $500,000 for his campaign, but that she"complained" that Obama had only raised $380,000 to help retire her campaign debt.
One source stated for MSNBC, "She was upset and quite frank about putting her cards on the table. People were surprised she was so candid."
Obama's campaign challenges those figures and claims they have raised half a million dollars for Clinton's campaign debts.
How this news will play out with Clinton supporters still stinging from the way Clinton lost the primary campaign to Obama, people can only speculate about.
The recently formed but already well known PUMAs, who are some of the staunchest Clinton supporters, will be attending the parade and rally and a large majority of them are still refusing to back Obama as of now.
Her words to her top backers may not exactly encourage them to come around to supporting the presumptive democratic candidate any sooner.
Posted: 06 Aug 2008 02:00 PM CDT
This whole piece is posted with permission from Jane Van Ryan who works with American Petroleum Institute and the article is from Energy Tomorrow.
Policymakers are talking a lot about energy and energy policy. What follows are some of the most frequently heard claims and proposals emanating from the campaign trail, along with realities that need to be considered when evaluating these claims.
RHETORIC: Oil Companies are to blame for the high price of gasoline.
REALITY: There are many factors affecting the price of gasoline.
RHETORIC: Oil and natural gas companies are demanding greater access to America's resources even though they own leases on millions of acres of federal lands that are already open to drilling. They would rather sit on these idle leases and make record profits than increase production. If they're not willing to produce on these idle leases, they should hand them over to someone who will.
REALITY: Just because a lease is not producing oil or natural gas doesn't mean it's idle. Companies are actively exploring and developing the majority of their leases, but the entire process takes years and requires many steps, including securing government permits, analyzing seismic data and installing the machinery needed for drilling and production. Many leases prove not to contain enough oil and natural gas to be commercially viable, and companies can't produce oil and natural gas where it does not exist. Over the past five years, American companies have paid billions to obtain federal leases, and if they don't develop leases within a certain period of time, they return them to the federal government, forfeiting all investments.
RHETORIC: We can't just drill our way to energy security – it won't make a difference.
REALITY: At a time when we need all the energy we can find, increasing access to domestic sources of oil and natural gas would enhance our energy security. We have enough oil and natural gas resources to power 65 million cars for 60 years and heat 60 million households for 160 years. But more than 85 percent of coastal waters adjacent to the lower-48 states are off-limits to oil and natural gas exploration.
RHETORIC: Allowing oil companies to drill would ruin the environment on our lands and off our coasts.
REALITY: The industry has researched and developed breakthrough technologies, such as 4D seismic imaging and multi-directional drilling, which have helped reduce the industry's environmental footprint dramatically. For example, today it's possible to develop nearly 80 square miles of area below the surface from a single two-acre site on the surface.
RHETORIC: We need to get off oil and use renewable and alternative energy instead.
REALITY: The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that fossil fuels will continue to meet at least 80 percent of energy demand, both in the United States and globally, through 2030, even with tremendous growth in alternative and renewable sources of energy.
RHETORIC: U.S. oil companies have refused to invest in alternative energy and other clean technologies.
REALITY: The U.S. oil and natural gas industry invested almost $100 billion between 2000 and 2005 in emerging energy technologies, including $12 billion in non-hydrocarbons and $42 billion in greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies from 2000 to 2006.
RHETORIC: Oil companies are making record profits and we should impose a windfall profits tax on them.
REALITY: While company profits are large in dollar terms, the earnings of oil companies aren't much higher than those of the S&P Industrials. In fact, it is only in recent years that they have matched or exceeded those returns. Oil and natural gas industry profits are in line with other manufacturing industries. And there is no credible evidence that raising taxes on them would lower fuel prices.
RHETORIC: It's time to end tax breaks for Big Oil and make these companies pay their fair share in taxes.
REALITY: Oil companies already pay on average almost twice as much in income taxes as other U.S. manufacturing companies – 40.7 percent, as a share of net income before income taxes, compared with 22.1 percent for other industries.
RHETORIC: Oil company executives and other company insiders are profiting at the expense of working class Americans.
REALITY: Tens of millions of Americans, many of them middle-class, own shares of oil company stocks through IRAs and mutual and pension funds, and they benefit from strong company earnings. Only 1.5 percent of industry shares are owned by corporate management.
Posted: 06 Aug 2008 01:32 PM CDT
Women, fair warning, make sure you take a deep breath and remove all breakables because you may laugh yourself into such a fit that you break anything around you.
Seriously, Republican men can be such male chauvinistic PIGS sometimes.
What finally pushed me over the edge was Michelle Malkin's post about the military tribunal at Gitmo. Michelle, please. That is not a suitable topic for a button-cute Republican lady and yet she has already received responses from several male right-wing bloggers that endorse her views without even a gentle hint to her that it would perhaps be best if she would stick to cheerleading and leave the heavy lifting for the men. (Why don't more right wing blogging ladies dress up as cheerleaders, I wonder? Or French maids? But I digress).
When you are done either laughing yourself sick or throwing things at the wall, remember, this guy is "divorced, 45, and look like an older, somewhat fatter Sean Hannity when I take off my glasses" and he is also "looking for a lady who looks like Ann Coulter when we're alone at home but otherwise dresses and behaves like Laura Bush. It goes without saying that I'm looking for a lady who expresses herself in a truly womanly fashion (i.e., rarely)".
A real dream pig huh?
Posted: 06 Aug 2008 12:59 PM CDT
The National Enquirer is a tabloid that has been wrong as often as it has been correct, so naturally when they claimed, in late July, they had discovered a meeting between John Edwards and the woman the Enquirer has claimed to be his mistress, Rielle Hunter, questions ensued about the story, whether it could be confirmed.
In late July the National Enquirer claimed it caught John Edwards visiting his alleged mistress, Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton hotel. The question that followed the story was: Where are the pictures? They have produced photos now.
The National Enquirer also alleges that John Edwards is the father of Rielle Hunter's baby. Both have denied that and when the birth certificate was obtained by reporters it showed no father listed.
Fox News followed up and interviewed a security guard which escorted Edwards out of the hotel bathroom where he took cover from the reporters, and out of the hotel stopping the National Enquirer reporters from hounding him any more.
One of the main themes among questions from people was "where are the photos"?
Today the National Enquirer published photos they allege were taken in the Beverly Hilton hotel, with John Edwards holding his alleged "love child," proving he was there as the National Enquirer first claimed. But because no DNA testing has been conducted, there is no viable proof of whether the child is his or not.
The stunning "spy photo" shows the former presidential contender holding his infant daughter Frances Quinn Hunter at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles – where the ENQUIRER caught him visiting the baby's mother, his mistress Rielle Hunter.
After going to the Beverly Hilton hotel website, to the Guest Rooms and Suites tab, the curtains do appear to be quite similar to the photos provided by the National Enquirer. This does lend credence to their claim Edwards was at the hotel and the photo of him holding the baby shows he was there at the same time as the mother and child.
[Update] I now have added another question to my list: How did they get a picture of him and the baby IN the room?
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|