Marx Cafe

Due to last week's absence I'll have to play each record at 2x speed to catch up. Music starts at 10pm. Should be interesting! Seeya there.

3203 Mount Pleasant St. NW

Bob Barker

Is it just me or is anybody else surprised to find out that this guy is still alive? I thought the show was in re-runs, cause his audience always looks like they just stepped out of 1993.

Bob Barker Retiring After 50 Years on TV

By SANDY COHEN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; 4:18 PM

LOS ANGELES -- Bob Barker is heading toward his last showcase, his final "Come on down." The silver-haired daytime-TV icon is retiring in June, he told The Associated Press Tuesday.

"I will be 83 years old on December 12," he said, "and I've decided to retire while I'm still young."

He'll hang up his microphone after 35 years as the host of "The Price Is Right" and 50 years overall in television.

Though he has been considering retirement for "at least 10 years," Barker said he has so much fun doing the show that he hasn't been able to leave.

"I've gone on and on and on to this ancient age because I've enjoyed it," he said. "I've thoroughly enjoyed it and I'm going to miss it."

Reaching dual milestones, 50 years on television and 35 with "Price," made this an "appropriate" time to retire, Barker said. Besides, hosting the daily CBS program _ in which contestants chosen from the crowd "come on down" to compete for "showcases" that include trips, appliances and new cars _ is "demanding physically and mentally," he said.

"I'm just reaching the age where the constant effort to be there and do the show physically is a lot for me," he said. "I might be able to do the show another year, but better (to leave) a year too soon than a year too late."

Leslie Moonves, president and CEO of CBS Corporation, said Barker has left an enduring mark on the network, calling his contribution and loyalty "immeasurable."

"We knew this day would come, but that doesn't make it any easier," Moonves said in a statement. "Bob Barker is a daytime legend, an entertainment icon and one of the most beloved television personalities of our time."

Barker began his national television career in 1956 as the host of "Truth or Consequences." He first appeared on "Price" on Sept. 4, 1972 and has been the face of the show ever since.

A CBS prime-time special celebrating the show's longevity and Barker's five decades on TV was already under way, a network spokesman said.

To kick off his retirement, Barker said he will "sit down for maybe a couple of weeks and find out what it feels like to be bored." Then he plans to spend time working with animal-rights causes, including his own DJ&T Foundation, founded in memory of his late wife, Dorothy Jo, and mother, Matilda.

He said he'd take on a movie role if the right one came along, but filmmakers, take note: "I refuse to do nude scenes. These Hollywood producers want to capitalize on my obvious sexuality, but I don't want to be just another beautiful body."

Freemantle Media, which owns "Price," has been looking for Barker's replacement for "two or three years," Barker said. And he has some advice for whoever takes the job: learn the show's 80 games backwards and forward.

"The games have to be just like riding a bicycle," Barker said. "Then he will be relaxed enough to have fun with the audience, to get the laughs with his contestants and make the show more than just straight games, to make it a lot of fun."

As for his fans, Barker said he "doesn't have the words" to express his gratitude.

"From the bottom of my heart, I thank the television viewers, because they have made it possible for me to earn a living for 50 years doing something that I thoroughly enjoy. They have invited me into their homes daily for a half a century."

But when it comes to saying his final TV goodbye, Barker said he'll do it the same way he does each day on "Price": "Help control the pet population. Have your pets spayed or neutered."

Bad Vodka??

In Russia, the vodka; it drinks you!

Siberia ravaged by bootleg vodka
By Steven Eke
BBC News

Russian homeless people drinking
Russia's thirst for vodka attracts unscrupulous suppliers
Fourteen towns in the Irkutsk region of Siberia have declared a state of emergency, amid a dramatic upsurge in mass poisonings caused by fake vodka.

Almost 900 people in the region are in hospital with liver failure, apparently after drinking industrial solvent.

Officials say there has been an alarming pattern of localised mass poisonings in recent weeks.

Last week, police and local authorities were given three days to ensure no poisons were being sold as vodka.

But this weekend dozens more poisonings were registered.

In several of the worst-affected regions, Russian officials have seized large quantities of hazardous liquids that authorities suspected were to be sold as alcoholic drinks.

They say the most common substances are de-icers, anti-rust treatments and window-cleaning solutions.

Poisoning hotspots

In one of the largest seizures, 600 tons of solvent was seized in the southern Russian city of Voronezh.

It is an indication of the scale of Russia's drink problem that during an average month 3,500 people die after drinking such liquids.

But what has caused most concern among officials is the dramatic upsurge in concentrated poisonings in small towns across the country.

In one of the worst cases, almost 1,000 people were poisoned in just two small towns in the Belgorod region in central Russia.

Critics say the government's decision earlier this year to introduce a new and expensive system of state excise stamps led to the market being flooded with potentially lethal vodka substitutes.

Genuine, certified vodka is now beyond the means of many of Russia's legions of poor.

And Russian doctors point out that most of those suffering liver failure in the spate of poisonings are from disadvantaged sections of society.

President Vladimir Putin has ruled out restrictions on the accessibility of alcohol, but radical solutions are being discussed.

They include the possible re-introduction of a state monopoly on the production of alcohol, or even providing a cheap, but safe, so-called "people's vodka" to avoid mass poisonings.

Michael J. Fox speaks out

Tucker Carlson out of a job??

Ohh.. please, please let this be the honest truth. worst news guy ever. Get Tucker off the air, that Glick guy on CNN needs to go, he's awful as well! From K@C.

If Tucker Carlson is being fired, he doesn't know it yet. But gossip mags are already reporting that the bow-tied MSNBC cutie (well, he is cute in that bow-tied kinda way) has been given the axe.

Carlson says: "It's bullshit. It's total bullshit. I talked to Abrams last night. I've got another year on my contract. That's my comment: Bullshit."

And, maybe it is B.S. because last night he was still MSNBCing it (with Hulk Hogan's family - ergh!).

MARX CAFE TONIGHT!!1

P... to the A.... to the R... to the ...T-Y!!!! Yeah! It's tuesday, so that means I'll be spinning at Marx Cafe from 10-2. Seeya There!

edit: It's too cold outside, I feel sorta sick, and I'm dry broke to boot. no marx tonight. ): I'll be there next week fo shure.

3203 Mount Pleasant St. NW

Stay the course

The Myth of the Bull Elephant

Oh this is too good to pass up. Come to think of it, Clinton didn't damage my 401k either. :ponder:

The Myth of the Bull Elephant
by DarkSyde
Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:52:43 AM PDT

It's become a Republican led mantra lately, too often repeated by a mindless traditional media with the attention span of a toddler gulping down Mountain Dew and suffering from advanced ADD: "The economy is doing great, the stock market is at an ALL TIME high!!!!"

I'm sure those of you reading this who have a vast equity portfolio (All twenty of you) as well as those who've been saddled with brain trauma so severe they cannot do simple math or recall the last decade--basically anyone who still thinks Bush is doing a great job--are thrilled with this recent earth shattering market rally. For the rest of us, here's a short stroll down memory lane with the benefit of a little arithmetic even Jethro Clampett could handle.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was bouncing around 11,000 in the year 2000. Last week's close was 12,002. So, based on those numbers, after swiping trillions of taxpayer dollars -- borrowed from you and your children--and tossing it into the gaping bottomless maw of Wall Street's elite like so much papery green chum, the return on the DJIA during CEO Mastermind George Bush's reign weighs in at a whopping ~ 1.5% a year or so. In between it took a steep dip resembling a certain mountain pass in Tora Bora and has regained just barely enough to rival the interest my credit union pays on a checking account. Goodness gracious, where will we spend it all?

And for you tech investors, the NASDAQ Composite Index hit a high of about 5000 in March of 2000. It ended the week at 2342. Good grief, you'd have done considerably better if you had sealed the cash in a tin can and buried it in your yard for the last six years. Were the NASDAQ COMP a conscious entity in need of immediate medical attention, it might just give up at this point and opt for a mercy killing, lest the poor thing suffer another agonizing botched operation under the inept knife wielding hands of Doc Bush and Nurse Cheney.

Now, it would be irresponsible to the point of deception to attribute market performance solely to a President. But if the GOP is dumb enough to try and play that game, it's perfectly fair to clock the living shit out of them by pointing out that under mean old, 'librul,' tax and spend, philandering Democrat Bill Clinton, the markets turned in healthy double digit gains year after year.

Short version: Clinton didn't exactly hurt my 401-K.

And if the Republican shill du jour is so fucking stupid that they stubbornly press the point, lets just say that for those of us in the Reality Based Community, based on the performance of the market and the economy in Clinton Vs Bush, if they're going to seriously try and extrapolate that dynamic in to the future, the choice this November and beyond could well boil down to being able to afford to send our kids to college while enjoying a reasonably secure retirement in peace and prosperity, or sending our kids off to fight and die in endless, pointless wars on behalf of Halliburton's next quarterly earnings report, while subsisting in grinding poverty.

Elections have do indeed consequences. But don't despair baby boomers, when Bush again works to destroy your social security, and Johnny comes limping home hooray, hooray: burger joints are always hiring retirees, and the war disabled too. ... You want fries with that?

Flavored shotgun pellets

That's pretty nifty, I wonder how it works?

Sometime next year, if all goes well, Brett Holm of Chaska, Minn., will begin selling his Season Shot, an improvement over current shotgun shells because its pellets dissolve on contact in the game meat and, more important, automatically flavor it for cooking. Holm told the Chanhassen (Minn.) Villager newspaper in August that he will initially offer lemon pepper, mesquite, Mexican, and Creole flavors, but, he said, chemists are at work right now to expand the selection. [Chanhassen Villager, 8-3-06]

Thursday mailbox party

Some spam that I found in my inbox, it just might make for a fun time out on the town.

DuPont After Dark: Nightclub and Lounge All Night Tour
Friday, October 20

- FIVE STOPS!
- NO ADDITIONAL COVER CHARGES
- FIVE DIFFERENT STYLES! (Retro, Top 40, Hip Hop, International, House) and a few surprises!
- TONS OF NEW FRIENDS

Tonight, TTD continues its popular "After Dark" program with a nightlife tour of trendy Midtown/Dupont Circle! Get special VIP treatment at some of the city's most popular nightlife spots. No individual cover charges or long lines.

Featuring:

1) CLOUD:
The perfect social location to meet your fellow young professionals. Dc's Trendiest Chic Lounge!!! Plush furniture & VIP Beds. The ultimate lounge experience in D.C.

2) FLY Lounge:
A brand new club! Cruising at 30,000 feet can be a rush. Such is the rush that will be felt by passengers at Fly Lounge. Transporting guests to new realms with non-stop service nightly, Fly Lounge embodies all the elements of the proverbial private escape. Continue your nightlife experience at this exciting new venue!

3) DRAGONFLY:
Continue the night with some martinis, sushi, sake, and a really classy atmosphere! Walk through the frosted glass front and take in the first class atmosphere of this new hot spot!

4) CLUB FIVE:
Located in the heart of Midtown's Golden Triangle, FIVE is a three level club featuring a relaxing open air moonlit lounge and two additional floors of electrifying music with a Full Bass Heavy EAW Avalon Sound System. CLUB FIVE also boasts chic furnishings with an ultra-cool vibe. Enjoy retro and top 40 hits!

5) 1223:
Finish the night at Washington's Premier Champagne and Caviar Club! Dimly Lit with a huge dance floor and a master DJ spinning hip-hop, house, and rock.

Suggested Attire: Certain clubs have dress codes. Dress to Impress. No Hats, T's, Tank Tops, Jerseys, Athletic Wear, Boots or Sneakers.

Directions: Meet at Cloud Nightclub
1 Dupont Cir NW
Washington, D.C.

Cost: $25.00
if you purchase in advance.

For detailed information or to purchase tickets Click Here or call 301 519 8030.

Marx Cafe tonight

Yo! You know what time it is fool!??!

3203 Mount Pleasant St. NW




Music starts ~9pm tonight.

That's what time it is!

Mention Mattb's Thought Zone and get a free drink!

Rant by Bill Maher

This is great stuff.

The Real Menace to American Kids

By Bill Maher

Oct. 13, 2006 | If you think the worst thing Congress doesn't protect young people from is Mark Foley, wake up and smell the burning planet. The ice caps are cracking, the coral reefs are bleaching, and we're losing two species an hour. The birds have bird flu, the cows have mad cow, and our poisoned groundwater has turned spinach into a side dish of mass destruction. Our schools are shooting galleries, our beaches are cancer wards, and under George W. Bush -- for the first time in 45 years -- our country's infant mortality rate actually went up.

Read the labels on your food. It turns out the healthiest thing you can put in your body is Mark Foley's penis. He was probably the first fruit those pages ever came into contact with that wasn't drenched in pesticide.

But that's America for you -- a red herring culture, always scared of the wrong things. The fact is, there are a lot of creepy middle-aged men out there lusting for your kids. They work for MTV, the pharmaceutical industry, McDonald's, Marlboro and K Street. And recently, there's been a rash of strangers making their way onto school campuses and targeting our children for death. They're called military recruiters.

More young Americans were crippled in Iraq last month than in any month in the past three years. And the scandal is that Mark Foley wants to show them a good time before they go? When will our closeted gay congressmen learn? Our boys aren't for pleasure. They're for cannon fodder. They shouldn't be another notch on your bedpost. They should be a comma in Bush's war. If I hear a zipper, it had better be on a body bag.

Why aren't Democrats and the media hammering away every day about who we're supposed to be fighting for over there and what the plan is. Yes, Mark Foley was wrong to ask teenagers how long their penises were -- but at least someone on Capitol Hill was asking questions. We're the predators. Because we have an entire economy built on asking young people what they want, making the cheapest, sleaziest form of it they'll accept, and selling it to them until they choke on it and die.

You know who's grabbing your kids at too young an age? Merck, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, by convincing you they're depressed, hyperactive or suffering from attention-deficit disorder and so they must all get medicated.

The drug dealers hooking your kids aren't in South America, they're in the halls of Congress handing out campaign donations to your congressmen. Mark Foley says he never slept with those kids, and I believe him, because American children are so hopped up on pills I doubt any of them could get it up.

From 1995 to 2002, the number of children prescribed antipsychotic drugs increased by over 400 percent. Either our children are going insane -- which we might look on as a problem -- or, more likely, we have, for profit, created a nation of little junkies. So stop already with the righteous moral indignation about predators -- this whole country is trying to get inside your kid's pants because that's where he keeps the money Daddy gave him to stay out of his hair.

I don't care if Mark Foley had been asking boys to describe their penises because I have some sad news for you: Your kid is so larded out on Cheetos and Yoo-hoo, he can't even see his penis. We live in a country where the ultimate consumer is an obese 16-year-old hooked up at one end to a Big Gulp and at the other to a PlayStation. So many of our kids today are fat drug addicts, it's almost as if Rush Limbaugh had had puppies.

In conclusion, we can pretend that the biggest threat to "our children" is some creep on the Internet, or we can admit it's Mom and Dad. When your son can't find France on a map, or touch his toes with his hands, or understand that the ads on TV are lying -- including the one in which the Marine turns into Lancelot -- then the person fucking him is you.

Arabian drifters

Canadians fight 10 foot tall weed.

Awhh.. To good to pass-up, there's a thousand jokes here I'm sure. Happy Friday the 13th!!

Canada troops battle 10-foot Afghan marijuana plants
POSTED: 5:12 p.m. EDT, October 12, 2006

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of marijuana plants 10 feet tall.

General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices. ... And as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa, Canada.

"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.

Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.

"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those [forests] did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hiller said dryly.

One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."

Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

SAI's first day of trading!!!!

Hells yeah! So I now work for a publicly traded company, strangley it dosen't seem terribly differnt around here after the change... It opened @ $17 and hasn't exactly zoomed towards $50 as everyone around here, myself included, was hoping for. So we shall see! YEAHHHH!!!!

Locking cockpit doors have a fatal flaw

Cockpit doors only work if they are LOCKED! If you don't properly secure the steel reinforced terrorist prevention mechanism, there's nothing to stop someone from commandeering the aircraft, you don't even need box cutters. DUH!

Lone hijacker shows up lack of cockpit defense

By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent
Reuters
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; 12:49 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - How can a single unarmed passenger hijack an international airliner?

With surprising ease, a 27-year-old Turkish man demonstrated on Tuesday by forcing his way into the cockpit of a Boeing 737 and forcing it to divert to Italy.

The bizarre incident showed that the introduction of locked, reinforced cockpit doors -- a much-publicized innovation following the September 11 hijack attacks on America five years ago -- is ineffective unless airline crew follow rigorous drills when opening and closing them.

"One person with no weapons was able to penetrate the entire security system of the airplane. What does it say about our airline security?" said Omer Laviv, an Israeli specialist in aviation security technology.

He said the episode sent a signal to hijackers: "You don't need weapons to hijack an aircraft -- you don't need anything ...This would make life for hijackers very easy."

Mursel Gokalp, pilot of the Turkish Airlines plane, told reporters that hijacker Hakan Ekinci had bluffed that he had three accomplices at the rear of the plane who would detonate plastic explosives unless his demands were met.

"I obeyed because he gave me the impression his friends were there because he was often looking to the back of the plane," the captain said. He added that Ekinci was a burly man who forced his way into the cockpit when a stewardess opened the door to ask the flight crew if they needed anything.

Philip Baum, a consultant who trains flight crews to deal with hijack scenarios, said airlines should have drills in place to protect the cockpit when the door is briefly opened -- something that is unavoidable, especially on longer flights, when the pilots need food or to go to the toilet.

"What we teach is ... you pull one of the galley trolleys across the aisle as an additional barrier before you open the cockpit door, or at the very least you put another crew member there, looking down the aisle," he said.

COMPLACENCY RISK

But analysts say some airlines, in practice, become complacent and tend to neglect the drills.

"Those cockpit doors swing backwards and forwards, (the cabin crew) will share a few words with the pilot and then come back out and lock the door again. In that space of time, anyone can get in there," said Chris Yates, aviation security expert at Jane's information group.

Baum said a potential drawback of the reinforced doors was that an attacker could close them behind him, preventing cabin crew from coming to the pilots' rescue and overpowering him. It was not clear if this was a factor in Tuesday's incident.

"It's all very well having these doors, but if a hijacker gets into the cockpit and closes the door behind him, he's actually sealed in there together with the captain and first officer," Baum said.

In Tuesday's drama, the flight from Tirana to Istanbul, carrying 107 passengers and six crew, landed safely at Brindisi airport in southern Italy, where the hijacker apologized, requested political asylum and was arrested. He turned out to have no weapon or accomplices.

Aviation analysts interviewed by Reuters said airlines have no absolute rules for responding to hijacks -- unlike other emergencies such as engine failure -- because each situation requires a judgment call from the pilot and crew. But the airline staff have to err on the side of caution.

"You can't afford to take any chances whatever with a multi-million-dollar aircraft stuffed full of people at 30-odd thousand feet," Yates said.

"Your prime duty is the safety of everybody on board that aircraft. As such, you just have to get it on the ground."

Drinkers earn more than those who remain sober.

Man, here's the excuse i have been looking for all my life! Although this study seems to tie the observed benifits to social drinking. So I think they are hinting at the fact that sitting alone in my room watching Initial D episodes while consuming a liter bottle of gin isn't going to help my career, rats.

Alcohol use helps boost income: study

Thu Sep 14, 6:44 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - People who consume alcohol earn significantly more at their jobs than non-drinkers, according to a US study that highlighted "social capital" gained from drinking.

The study published in the Journal of Labor Research Thursday concluded that drinkers earn 10 to 14 percent more than teetotalers, and that men who drink socially bring home an additional seven percent in pay.

"Social drinking builds social capital," said Edward Stringham, an economics professor at San Jose State University and co-author of the study with fellow researcher Bethany Peters.

"Social drinkers are out networking, building relationships, and adding contacts to their BlackBerries that result in bigger paychecks."

The authors acknowledged their study, funded by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, contradicted research released in 2000 by the Harvard School of Public Health.

"We created our hypothesis through casual observation and examination of scholarly accounts," the authors said.

"Drinkers typically tend to be more social than abstainers."

The researchers said their empirical survey backed up the theory, and said the most likely explanation is that drinkers have a wider range of social contacts that help provide better job and business opportunities.

"Drinkers may be able to socialize more with clients and co-workers, giving drinkers an advantage in important relationships," the researchers said.

"Drinking may also provide individuals with opportunities to learn people, business, and social skills."

They also said these conclusions provide arguments against policies aimed at curbing alcohol use on university campuses and public venues.

"Not only do anti-alcohol policies reduce drinkers' fun, but they may also decrease earnings," the study said.

"One of the unintended consequences of alcohol restrictions is that they push drinking into private settings. This occurred during the Alcohol Prohibition of 1920-1933 and is happening on college campuses today. By preventing people from drinking in public, anti-alcohol policies eliminate one of the most important aspects of drinking: increased social capital."

The researchers found some differences in the economic effects of drinking among men and women. They concluded that men who drink earn 10 percent more than abstainers and women drinkers earn 14 percent more than non-drinkers.

However, unlike men, who get a seven percent income boost from drinking in bars, women who frequent bars at least once per month do not show higher earnings than women drinkers who do not visit bars.

"Perhaps women increase social capital apart from drinking in bars," the researchers said in an effort to explain the gender gap.

Oppose the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)

This bill seeks to make legitimate protest illegal if it affects the bottom line of the target of said protest. but hold the phone here... When protesting unethical treatment of animals, or unsafe farming practices, the entire goal is to impact the offenders bottom line in an effort to effect change. this is completely unacceptable, please congress don't cave to pressure from industry simply because you know it's going to be a rough election come November and your willing to ram through crappy legislation in the desperate hope of securing a few more votes and campaign contributions.

H.R. 4239 and S. 3880 (as amended)

The Humane Society of the United States has no tolerance for individuals and groups who resort to intimidation, vandalism, or violence supposedly in the name of animal advocacy, and we have spoken out repeatedly against violence in any form. We believe harassment, violence, and other illegal tactics are wholly unacceptable and inconsistent with a core ethic of promoting compassion and respect, and also undermine the credibility and effectiveness of mainstream, law-abiding organizations and individuals. However, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) threatens to sweep up – criminalizing as “terrorism” or otherwise chilling – a broad range of lawful, constitutionally protected, and valuable activity undertaken by citizens and organizations seeking change. Even with changes that have been incorporated into the current version of the legislation, it is still seriously flawed.

The AETA threatens legitimate advocacy. The legislation uses vague, overbroad terms such as “interfering with” which could be interpreted to include legitimate, peaceful conduct. For example, someone who uses the Internet to encourage people not to buy eggs from a company producing eggs with battery cages could be charged with terrorism for causing the company a loss of profits. Likewise, someone who seeks to “interfere with” the cruel treatment of puppies by filming the brutal conditions at a puppy mill, causing lost profits for the company when the film is publicized, could be charged with terrorism. The very risk of being charged as a terrorist will almost certainly have a chilling effect on legitimate activism.

The AETA is not clear. The bill imposes penalties for “economic damage,” including loss of profits. It provides an exemption for “lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.” But this exemption doesn’t explicitly include activities such as whistleblowing and investigations that may well cause loss of profits. And whether an activist’s actions are subject to criminal penalties will depend on whether a public, governmental, or business audience reacts in a lawful way, something out of the activist’s control. Moreover, this exemption doesn’t tie back to the offense, which uses different words than “economic damage,” so a court might disregard the exemption language altogether. (We had requested a clear exception in the offense section: “Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit any damage or loss of property that results from boycotts, protests, demonstrations, investigations, whistleblowing, reporting of animal mistreatment, or from any lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.”)

The AETA is a solution in search of a problem. Under the current federal law, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, which the AETA seeks to amend, there have recently been several successful convictions, yielding sentences of 3-5 years for activities such as running a web site to incite vandalism and violence. (According to the Department of Justice, the national average sentence for a violent assault is 5 years, and sexual assault is 6 years.) Given that, it’s not clear that existing law even needs to be strengthened. Law enforcement agencies already have the tools they need to successfully prosecute and convict people who engage in campaigns of harassment and intimidation.

Passing the AETA reflects misplaced priorities in Congress. It is particularly disheartening to think Congress may rush forward with this ill-advised bill, yet not enact reasonable and long-overdue reform, such as the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (H.R. 817/S. 382). Purportedly, the AETA sponsors want not only to penalize, but also to prevent, extremist conduct that endangers animal enterprises and the people associated with them. When Congress fails to act on modest animal welfare reforms like the animal fighting bill, it makes it more difficult for organizations like The HSUS to make the case to activists that meaningful change is possible working through the system – and that they should pursue legal channels rather than taking matters into their own hands.

MARX CAFE TONIGHT!!

Marx Cafe
3203 Mount Pleasant St. NW

Music starts at 10pm.

be there!!

American democracy in danger! SOS!

very disturbing...

By Bruce Ackerman, BRUCE ACKERMAN is a professor of law and political science at Yale and author of "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism."

September 28, 2006

BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent.

The new bill, if passed, would further entrench presidential power. At the very least, it would encourage the Supreme Court to draw an invidious distinction between citizens and legal residents. There are tens of millions of legal immigrants living among us, and the bill encourages the justices to uphold mass detentions without the semblance of judicial review.

But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorized this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority.

This is no time to play politics with our fundamental freedoms. Even without this massive congressional expansion of the class of enemy combatants, it is by no means clear that the present Supreme Court will protect the Bill of Rights. The Korematsu case — upholding the military detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II — has never been explicitly overruled. It will be tough for the high court to condemn this notorious decision, especially if passions are inflamed by another terrorist incident. But congressional support of presidential power will make it much easier to extend the Korematsu decision to future mass seizures.

Though it may not feel that way, we are living at a moment of relative calm. It would be tragic if the Republican leadership rammed through an election-year measure that would haunt all of us on the morning after the next terrorist attack.