|
Sunday, 3 September 2006
experimental vehicle lanes
What the US needs to do is set aside some experimental vehicle lanes and provide tax breaks and grant money for individual americans to build their own personal transportation. This would have the effect of breaking the deadlock the major automakers have on design/development. It would encourage the kind of "cottage invention industry" that occured at the turn of the last century in many fields including automotive. But such a bold move doesnt stand a chance if we put 500 pound experimental vehicles on the same roadway with 10,000 pound Urban assault vehicles, er SUV's. Next, tax em all for road maintanance by the pound. If you wear em out you fix em
Posted by springbrooke
at 6:26 AM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 3 September 2006 6:33 AM PDT
Monday, 21 August 2006
http://www.evrsoft.com/fastsubmit/
Posted by springbrooke
at 11:42 PM PDT
Updated: Monday, 21 August 2006 11:44 PM PDT
Wednesday, 26 July 2006
911 part 1
Mood:
 on fire
<embed src="http://www.gofish.com:80/player/goFishVideoPlayer.swf?f=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gofish.com%3a80%2fgetGFX.gfp%3fgfid%3d30-1035702%26getAd%3dfalse%26blog%3dtrue&blog=true&autoPlay=false&ct=true" quality="high" width="344" height="290" name="goFishVideoPlayer" wmode="transparent" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" ></embed>
Posted by springbrooke
at 2:06 AM PDT
911 part 2
Mood:
on fire
<embed src="http://www.gofish.com:80/player/goFishVideoPlayer.swf?f=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gofish.com%3a80%2fgetGFX.gfp%3fgfid%3d30-1035705%26getAd%3dfalse%26blog%3dtrue&blog=true&autoPlay=false&ct=true" quality="high" width="344" height="290" name="goFishVideoPlayer" wmode="transparent" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" ></embed>
Posted by springbrooke
at 2:04 AM PDT
911 Part 3
Mood:
on fire
<embed src="http://www.gofish.com:80/player/goFishVideoPlayer.swf?f=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gofish.com%3a80%2fgetGFX.gfp%3fgfid%3d30-1035706%26getAd%3dfalse%26blog%3dtrue&blog=true&autoPlay=false&ct=true" quality="high" width="344" height="290" name="goFishVideoPlayer" wmode="transparent" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" ></embed>
Posted by springbrooke
at 2:00 AM PDT
Updated: Wednesday, 26 July 2006 2:01 AM PDT
Friday, 21 July 2006
Catholic Clergy Sexual Abuse Crisis
Open letter to the Catholic Church, all other religious organizations, citizens and Governments of the world, parents and victims of sexual abuse. I am writing this letter with the intent to resolve and heal all parties to the structured, ritualized and pervasive practice of inappropriate sexualization and initiation of our children.
To that end, I propose and urge adoption of the following steps in that process:
1. All current exploitative actions and conventions that allow these actions are to be stopped. All unsupervised interaction between clergy (or authority figures) and children is to be stopped permanently. All clergy not in compliance with their vows based on peer and community evaluation are to have their credentials suspended pending investigation and exoneration of any unresolved charges. Any clergy that is exonerated from charges of abusive action shall be permitted to apply for reeducation. Any clergy member unwilling to accept the requirements of their status shall resign. Clergy members found to not be in compliance will be suspended from their positions and prosecuted.
2. Abusers are often abused as children. Therefore, enforcement of current criminal law and penalties are to be suspended pending a complete evaluation of the efficacy of punishment for what appears to an almost "universal" situation, in an effort to avoid punishing victims. We have been punishing the previously abused, guaranteeing that the cycle will be perpetuated, in the penal system if no where else.
3. A new and accurate "community standard" of sexual conduct is to be established and made a part of the new social contract. New guidelines based on realistic anthropological and behavioral data shall be adopted to change our actions and attitudes relative to the sexualization of children and other unprotected individuals. The new guidelines shall not include current standards of criminalization and will include a compassionate humane therapeutic response for victims
I am an abuse survivor....I am not in opposition or contradiction to the position of "catch and punish" the perpetrators of acts of sexualizing children. We are entitled to "an eye for an eye". Criminal "Injustice", however, does not provide any benefit to the abused. It is not primarily the prisoner who is harmed by the acts of sexual brutality routinely employed by staff and other inmates; it is all of us who now have "peace officers" who use sexual abuse as reward and punishment. So when an otherwise law-abiding citizen is jailed for a traffic offense or a victimless crime, it can (and has) become a death sentence.
And after the term is served and our perpetrator (if he survives, now infected with virulent diseases that make his sexual attention lethal) is released, complete with the knowledge that his style of crime is "the law of the land". He has received no therapy, he has not had any testing or evaluation, and he has "paid for his crimes" and learned how to indulge his pathology without coming to the attention of authorities.
I am not speaking about "caring" for abusers as much as I am urging all survivors and others to respond in a way that will STOP the opportunity, the occurrence and finally the results of inappropriate sexual initiation. How can we do that without caring, for the abuser as well as the abused.
If your sources are dusty, you had best renew your quest. Abused children almost ALWAYS act out their abuse and guess what, you get to (have to) play both parts. Where do you think sex abusers come from? We live what we experience; we are capable of little else...
Posted by springbrooke
at 7:39 AM PDT
Updated: Saturday, 22 July 2006 6:20 AM PDT
Monday, 29 May 2006
Life After the Oil Crash
Mood:
 sad
Now Playing: Deal With Reality or Reality Will Deal With You
Topic: Energy
"What Can I do to Prepare?"
What you can or will do to prepare for this situation will depend on your age, health, marital status, geographic location, financial situation and other factors too numerous to mention. The best advice I can offer that applies to the widest number of people is to do the following to the best of your ability:
1. Relocate to an area as least vulnerable to these issues as possible.
2. Reallocate your financial assets so that you are as best positioned to handle these issues as you can realistically hope to be.
3. Relocalize your lifestyle as much as possible so that you are as least dependent on far-flung, petroleum-powered transportation and distribution networks as possible.
3. Strengthen your body so that you are as least dependent on our petroleum-dependent system of health care as possible.
4. Solidify any skills and/or social networks you have that might prove valuable in light of these changes.
5. If you're in shock and what to interact with others about these issues, check out "Running on Empty 3". Understand that being in shock is pretty much "par-for-the course" when it comes to learning about these issues. Trust me when I say it subsides after a while.
6. If you want to discuss personal preparation with others, check out "Running on Empty 2" and the Planning for the Future Forum on PeakOil.com
7. If you feel the need to tell friends or family, be forewarned that most people don't take too kindly to this information. Your best bet, in my opinion, is either send them an email with a link to this site and some of the other excellent Peak Oil websites or give them a copy of the documentary End of Suburbia. Note: I sell End of Suburbia on this site so I do stand to profit from my recommendation. I am, however, far from the only person who recommends the film as a tool for introducing others to Peak Oil.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
Posted by springbrooke
at 12:48 AM PDT
Wednesday, 22 February 2006
Posted by springbrooke
at 1:18 PM PST
Thursday, 12 January 2006
Cost of Bush's War
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
Posted by springbrooke
at 4:46 PM PST
Sunday, 16 October 2005
Marijuana Prohibition has Failed
Topic: War on Drugs (and kids)
Three Nobel Laureates, American Enterprise Institute,
others call for a new approach
Six recent reports -- from the American Enterprise Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, The Sentencing Project, a Harvard University economics professor, and the U.S. Department of Justice -- point out the failures and steep costs of marijuana prohibition and call for a new approach.
Ending Marijuana Prohibition Would Save $10-14 Billion Annually ... Report Endorsed by Milton Friedman and More Than 500 Economists
In "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition" (released June 2, 2005), Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University, estimates that replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year.
More than 500 distinguished economists -- led by Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Milton Friedman and two additional Nobel Laureates -- endorsed the report and signed an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition," adding, "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods."
Using data from a variety of federal and state government sources, Miron concludes:
Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of legal regulation would save approximately $7.7 billion in government expenditures on prohibition enforcement -- $2.4 billion at the federal level and $5.3 billion at the state and local levels.
Revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2.4 billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.
The full report and its full list of endorsers are available here.
Citizens Against Government Waste: Government Anti-Drug Programs Don't Work
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP's) expensive drug control programs have failed to produce any meaningful results after 17 years, finds a May 12, 2005, report from Citizens Against Government Waste, a national organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
"Up in Smoke: ONDCP's Wasted Efforts in the War on Drugs" shows how ONDCP wastes millions of dollars annually on media advertising and combating state-level legislation. The report's findings include:
ONDCP "has morphed into a federal wasteland, throwing taxpayer money toward numerous high-priced drug control programs that have failed to show results ... Instead of curbing America’s drug problem, ONDCP has wasted $4.2 billion since fiscal 1997 on media advertising, fighting state legislation, and deficient anti-drug trafficking programs."
Since Arizona and California passed medical marijuana laws in November 1996, ONDCP began campaigning against state medical marijuana ballot initiatives, which is "an infringement upon states' rights, a blatant misuse of tax dollars, and in contravention of ONDCP’s original mission. The White House’s drug office should use its resources to root out major drug operations in the U.S. instead of creating propaganda-filled news videos and flying across the country on the taxpayers' dime."
"ONDCP burns through tax dollars by funding wasteful and unnecessary projects. Partly to thwart state efforts to regulate marijuana, the drug czar created a $2 billion national anti-drug campaign, produced expensive propaganda ads that failed to reduce drug use among America’s youth, and in the process, violated federal law. Furthermore, the office wastes federal resources by opposing any legalization of marijuana, including medicinal use, which has nothing to do with the war on drugs."
The full report is available here.
War on Drugs has Become War on Low-Level Marijuana Users
During the 1990s, the “war on drugs” was transformed to a “war on marijuana,” with law enforcement officials shifting their focus to arresting increasing numbers of low-level marijuana offenders, finds a Sentencing Project report released on May 3, 2005.
"The War on Marijuana: The Transformation of the War on Drugs in the 1990s" finds that between 1990 and 2002, 82% of the national increase in drug arrests were for marijuana offenses, and nearly all of this increase was arrests for possession. Marijuana arrests now constitute 45% of the 1.5 million drug arrests annually.
As a result, significant policing resources have been dedicated to low-level offenses, with only 6% of marijuana arrests resulting in a felony conviction. One-quarter of people in prison for a marijuana offense are low-level offenders.
Despite the billions of dollars being spent annually on marijuana law enforcement, use and availability have not declined, while cost has dropped.
The full report is available here.
American Enterprise Institute: Prison is not an effective drug policy
American drug policy should focus on expanding treatment options and not on prison, says a new book from the American Enterprise Institute, one of the country's most respected conservative think tanks.
In An Analytic Assessment of U.S. Drug Policy (published in February 2005), Peter Reuter, a professor at the University of Maryland and a
senior economist in the Drug Policy Research Center at RAND, and independent consultant David Boyum use a market framework to assess
the effectiveness of anti-drug efforts ... and conclude that they have failed.
The authors note that while there is little evidence that tougher law enforcement reduces drug use, drug policy has become increasingly punitive -- the number of drug offenders in jail and prison grew tenfold between 1980 and 2003. They recommend the following changes:
Law enforcement should focus on reducing drug-related problems, such as violence associated with drug markets, rather than on locking up large numbers of low-level dealers.
Treatment services for heavy users need more money and fewer regulations, and programs that coerce convicted drug addicts to enter treatment and maintain abstinence as a condition of continued freedom should be expanded.
The full report is available here.
Taxpayers for Common Sense: Effectiveness of billions spent to stop marijuana use remains unknown
Despite the federal government spending tens of billions to combat marijuana use over the last three decades, use and perception of the drug has barely changed, according to an economic study released by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a national budget watchdog organization that targets wasteful and ineffective federal spending.
"Federal Marijuana Policy: A Preliminary Assessment," released June 28, 2005, finds that efforts to reduce marijuana use and supply cost federal taxpayers billions, despite no evidence that the programs actual work. "Despite sky-high deficits, taxpayers continue to watch their money go up in smoke funding expensive but ineffective government programs intended to reduce marijuana use," said a Taxpayers for Common Sense spokesman.
The report assesses the cost of the nation's anti-marijuana efforts and the effect those efforts have had on marijuana use and finds the program to have been a failure, noting that increased federal spending on marijuana has accompanied increased use.
The report singles out as particularly wasteful and ineffective marijuana arrests (which have not stemmed marijuana usage rates), the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy's youth anti-drug media campaign, and student drug testing programs.
"The ultimate measure of the drug war's worth is its impact on drug usage," concludes the report. "By this standard, the federal marijuana program has fared poorly. Rather than continue to spend billions of dollars on the problem, it would be better for the U.S. government to get out of the marijuana business entirely."
The full report, which the MPP grants program helped to fund, is available here.
U.S. Department of Justice: Top cops say drug war is on the wrong track
The Justice Department's 2005 "National Drug Threat Assessment" concludes that not only is the war on marijuana a failure, but police officers overwhelmingly see methamphetamine as a much greater threat than marijuana. Asked to identify the greatest drug threat in their communities, only 12 percent of local law enforcement agencies named marijuana -- a figure that has been declining for years. In contrast, 36 percent named cocaine and 40 percent cited methamphetamine as the greatest threat -- despite the fact that marijuana use is massively more common and despite what the report describes as "marijuana's widespread and ready availability in the United States."
The report explains, "Such data indicate that, despite the volume of marijuana trafficked and used in this country, for many in law enforcement marijuana is much less an immediate problem than methamphetamine, for example, which is associated with more tangible risks such as violent users and toxic production sites." (Despite this, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has focused heavily on marijuana. In November 2002, ONDCP sent a letter to the nation's prosecutors declaring flatly, "Nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana.")
The report also finds "no reports of a trend toward decreased availability" anywhere in the country ... Indeed, reporting from some areas has suggested that marijuana is easier for youths to obtain than alcohol or cigarettes."
Posted by springbrooke
at 11:29 PM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 16 October 2005 11:34 PM PDT
Newer | Latest | Older
|
