Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[brunkb AT ils.unc.edu]

I'm happy to see some activism, I guess the "you all" statement in my last 
message was largely misplaced.  The revelations about vote counting aren't 
very inspiring, but US elections have always been rigged one way or 
another, so whatever.

Addressing Kurt's message:

> I have my own concerns
> about "Big Brother" but there is nothing in this form letter that >makes a
good case for repeal.

I think the misuse of the Act is a good case for repealing it.  It's 
purpose is supposedly to address the threat of terrorism in the US.  Any 
other use represents an abuse.  The Brits are going through this stuff 
right now with CCTV cameras.  The cameras were "sold" to the public for the 
sake of protection against terrorism (an absurd notion, but that is what 
they did).  Now the cameras are being used for every little thing and the 
costs are enormous and not one terrorist has ever been caught by them.  So, 
of course, instead of admitting to a failed policy, it is instead swept 
under the rug (the memory hole?) using the new argument of "well, they are 
good for general crime control."  The mythical infallibility of the state 
reminds me of the mythical infallibility of the Catholic Church during the 
Middle Ages.

Also, very few Congressmen or Senators actually read the Act before voting 
on it, so that is another very good reason to do away with it.  Their job 
is to debate and make informed decisions, not vote out of fear and 
emotional urgency.  They didn't do their only job.  But they voted 
themselves a pay raise for the fourth year in a row.


> Some jackass got nailed for running a meth lab using the act. How is >this
a bad thing?

And lots of "jackasses" got nailed for running stills, brewing beer, and 
smuggling liquor in the 1930s.  The war on drugs is the worst public policy 
this side of the Volsted Act.  Meth labs are just a symptom of a much, much 
bigger ill in this country.  I don't want the PATRIOT Act used to escalate 
the insane policies of prohibition, and I doubt that the case in NC will 
hold up.  If the DA can't get a conviction for the charge of running a meth 
lab (which is illegal, btw), then he must be grasping at straws.  There is 
growing urgency to completely alter these failed policies--Canada is close 
to legalizing pot, for example.  It's about time something new was 
attempted (and by "new" I mean, a return to personal choice and 
responsibility).  It's only the law enforcement and judicial *industry* in 
the US that gains from prohibition who are so dead set against it, due to 
their economic interests.  It's just sad that bad policies have to be 
adhered to so stubbornly for mere "tough on crime" political haymaking.

My personal concern is that the war on terror is a replacement for the war 
on drugs (we've already been assaulted with propaganda trying to tie drug 
use to supporting terrorism).  Drug prohibition could not justify a $500B 
Pentagon budget, as well as FBI, NSA, CIA and other agencies' bloated 
budgets (and despite all of the money already wasted on militarism, America 
suffered the 9/11 attack).  Yet "narco-terrorists" only exist at all 
because of prohibition.  I keep hearing that "the era of big government is 
back."  I keep wondering "did it go anywhere?"


Ben