Gimme My Share

Just Don't Call Them Chimps

EDIT: Sorry- going through my blogmarks I seen this was already posted a few times, but what the hell, it's fucking true.

Catholics Do It, Why Don't You?

The Catholic Church is asking its members to make a pledge to "encourage the media to portray
what is truthful and good."

The pledge, which was distributed during Sunday services in the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, comes from the
Bishops of the United States and is funded by the Catholic Communication Campaign.

A flier distributed after services titled "Renewing the Mind of the Media" calls for Catholics to sign a pledge to
"exert a positive influence on the media in their role as potential builders of civilization of peace and love... "
Thomas J. Rodi, bishop of the Biloxi Diocese, said the pledge is aimed primarily at the entertainment media,
particularly television and music.

"The whole document focuses more on the entertainment media and how it affects us," he said. "Some of the
programs desensitize our family values and moral values and in some cases may foster violence."
But it also takes into account the news media.

"This document points out the pervasive influence of the media, more than any other profession," he said.
"We recognize the importance of the media. It is not meant as an insult, but to call attention to the great
influence it exerts."
Rodi also pointed out that the Catholic Church is not the only organization calling the media's influence into
accountability.

Among suggestions on the pledge card:
• Discuss news coverage with family and/or friends (is it objectively providing the information you need?)
• Contact local broadcast outlets to submit comments for their license-renewal. "Comment especially on
whether their news is balanced or whether it sensationalizes violent incidents."
• Contact at least one advertiser that sponsors programs which contribute to or do not contribute to building
an authentic peace and ask them to continue or to withdraw their support, respectively.
• Trade one hour a week using media for an hour in prayer for peace.

It also asks Catholics to sign a pledge that reads, "We, the Catholic people of the United States, united in our
families, parishes and dioceses, pledge to encourage media leaders to be objective and truthful in reporting
news and portraying events and thus contribute to building an authentic peace."

Rodi said it is up to each person to decide how much influence they will allow the media to exert on them.
"We can decide to turn the TV off and contact advertisers," he said. "We are not helpless. It is important for
people to take control of their lives."

(Kate Magandy)

Are You An Anti-Ameircan Lone Exteremist?

Living in the Police State of America

Did you realize that you can only have children if your government allows it? Or that evidence that
was obtained illegally can still be used against you? Or that you can be imprisoned for writing your
sexual fantasies in a private journal? These recent decisions by US state courts are some of the most
egregious examples of an encroaching police state.

A man in Wisconsin has been told he cannot have any children until 2004. It seems this exuberant
breeder had fathered nine kids by four women and couldn't keep up the child support. In 1999 a circuit
court judge put him on probation for five years, decreeing that if he had any more children he'd go to the
slammer for eight and a half years. The state's Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

Pause for a moment to let that sink in. The State has declared that one of its citizens is not allowed to
have children. By implication, you're only allowed to reproduce because the State graciously hasn't
stripped you of that right. Actually, becoming a parent is now a “privilege,” rather than a “right.” It's a
privilege that can now be revoked by a judge.

Who's next? Why not forbid anyone who's unemployed or lives below the poverty level from having
kids? And since everyone knows that drug users are unfit parents (why else would DARE tell kids to rat
on their own mothers and fathers?), it's only a matter of time until they, too, are told they'll go to prison
if they have children.

Once the State has granted itself power to take away a right, it can continue revoking that right from
whomever it pleases. The government will always start by taking away a right from one of the most
hated groups in society. Once the precedent is set, it keeps expanding its newfound power so that more
and more people are eligible for the same mistreatment.

Just look at a recent case in Ohio. A 22-year-old man had been found guilty of possessing child
pornography, and as part of his probation a police officer was allowed periodically to search his house.
During one such search, the cop found the man's private journal, in which he had written his fantasies
about three children, aged 10 and 11, being molested and tortured. He's been sentenced to ten years in
prison for those writings.

Bear in mind that the journal did not violate the terms of his probation. That was not why he was
arrested. He was jailed for violating state obscenity laws. All he had done was write fictional scenarios
in a private journal – a diary, if you will – that wasn't intended to be shared with anyone else. The whole
motivation behind the legal concept of “obscenity” – which is completely bogus from the outset – is to
keep certain material out of circulation. When something is ruled obscene, it means that you have no
right to buy it or even see it. Yet, these writings weren't for distribution. They were his private thoughts
written in a diary.

Now that the floodgate has been opened, all of our private writings are fair game. What's in your
diary? What's on your computer? Have you written down any of your sexual fantasies? If so, the
Thought Police want to see them, judge them, make sure that your fantasies aren't “obscene.” (Whose
fantasies aren't obscene?) If you don't voluntarily present your private, written fantasies to the
authorities, perhaps an upset ex-lover will do it for you. What better way to get you thrown into the
slammer than show a judge all those gross things you've written?

But wait a minute. If your journals were stolen, wouldn't that be inadmissible evidence? Not if you're
in Wisconsin. The same state Supreme Court that believes it can order citizens not to have children is
the same one that has ruled that illegally-obtained evidence can be used in trial. The caveat is that this
evidence must be illegally seized in “good faith.” Ah, yes, everyone knows that the police always
operate in good faith and with the best interests of the accused in mind.

The decision results from a no-knock raid on an apartment in which marijuana was seized. The
defendant asked the court to throw out the evidence, since the warrant for the search didn't authorize a
surprise entry. When the court refused, the defendant pled guilty and appealed. The case eventually
ended up in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, who said that the police had enough
evidence to support a no-knock raid. For some reason, though, the cops didn't present this evidence in
the application for the search warrant. That's all right, said the court, as long as you had the evidence
there was no need to go through the pesky process of actually having to present it.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson dissented, excoriating the majority: “The exception betrays
Wisconsin's longstanding commitment to excluding illegally seized evidence from use at trial.” Justice
Possner also raked his colleagues over the coals: “Because the small gain that may come out of this sea
change in our law does not outweigh the potential loss of liberty to our citizens, and because this case
offers a feeble excuse to make such a far-reaching change, I respectfully dissent.... The court resolves
the issues by burying almost 80 years of legal precedent to create a good faith exception to the
exclusionary rule.”

These decisions have set ugly precedents that courts in other states will consider when faced with
similar violations of citizens' rights. All of these cases seem like good candidates for the US Supreme
Court, where perhaps we'll see some real justice. The current Court has issued some good rulings and
some shitty ones. In their past term (2000-1), they struck down the scanning of homes with thermal-
imaging equipment and the use of random checkpoints to search motorists for drugs, [MN is about to
pass a law allowing "safety stops" to check if you are wearing a seatbelt] yet they upheld the
right of police to cuff and arrest people for violating petty laws, such as not wearing a seatbelt, and the
right of religious groups to meet in public schools. As always, they're inconsistent when it comes to civil
liberties, so it's impossible to say which way they'll fly on any of the fascist tactics we've discussed.
Until things are settled, you might want to keep your sexual fantasies in your head, pray the police
don't illegally raid your house in “good faith,” and thank the government for magnanimously allowing
you to have children. That's the price of living in a creeping police state.

(Russ Kick)

Only YOU can wake up your fellow Americans. Having an opinion is NOT enough. Do something TODAY to make a fellow American THINK.

This Weekend's Assignment: Enjoy your freedoms while you can.