BS: Free speech, eh?

Subject: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:34 AM

I wasn't aware of this. Interesting and concerning.

form the CBC

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:55 AM

A useful tool when evaluating a claim for freedom of speech is to invert it. For example, replace "Muslim" by "Jew", and decide then if an argument in that form would be acceptable. I haven't read the article; the BBC news article seems a little more balanced than the CBC one; it also points out that Maclean's refused to publish a response.

Freedom of speech is important; to allow only one side to present the case is not promoting it, and when the medium in question has overwhelming coverage, the failure to present one point of view amounts to support for the other.

There are of course times when a group or individual is so far beyond the pale as to have lost their right to this freedom; no one would support such freedom being extended to extreme racists*, holocaust revisionists who lack overwhelming new evidence**, violent dogmatists** etc. I can't see that mainstream Islam comes into any of these categories.

* including of course antisemites
**i.e. all of them so far
***like al Qaeda and the Clontarf branch of CCE

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 04:03 PM

"Elmasry complains that Steyn's book tars entire Muslim communities as complicit in violent jihad"

Is it just me or does anyone else find it obtuse of Elmasry to complain that Steyn is claiming that entire Muslim communities are complicit in violent Jihad when the word Jihad is Islamic/Muslim for holy war?
I have heard no major Muslim community expressing it's outrage against their brethren that are involved in the various "Jihads" around the globe, demanding they cease.
I have heard no Muslim clerics preaching love and tolerance of the "infidels" (my wording here meant to include all non-muslims).
I've not seen any Wahabi schools closed down because the clerics had a change of heart.

What I have seen with my own eyes are a proliferation of tracts encouraging Jihad against everything that is not Shariah.

By not speaking out against Jihad, demanding it's end, condeming it's leaders and those who are involved in it, are the Muslim communities not complicit in it?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:23 PM

Hmmm. But I know a lot of Muslims who do not believe in either Jihad or in Shariah law. I suspect there are Muslim clerics who don't either, but I don't think we're hearing about them much on the news.

It is extremists whom one hears about on the news, not moderates.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:26 PM

Jihad isn't Islamic/Muslim for "holy war". It's Islamic/Muslim for "struggle to do good". Some Jihad can be violent, but most Jihad isn't violent. I think, on that level at least, Elmasry has a legitimate beef with Steyn's terminology.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:56 PM

CarolC beat me to the punch ~ I have also read that the term "Jihad" can refer to the "warfare" or struggle within one's own soul that is necessary to any effort to live righteously, and that for moderate (sane) Muslims, the vast majority of Muslims, this is the only kind of "jihad" in which they engage.

However, to be fair, is is NOT only critics and "outsiders" like Mr Steyn who interpret the word "jihad" to mean "holy war." Plenty of Muslims, including Islamic clerics and other leaders, are preaching hatred for Westerners, for the modern world in general, and for violent, deadly resitance to all such "alien" influences.

And the more violent and antisocial interpretation of "jihad" is nothing new, either. The rapid spread of Islam in its early days is directly attributable to violence and conquest.

(Of course, Islam is hardly unique among world religions in this regard. Christianity was a small, fragmented, and generally pacifistic movement until the conversion of Constantine, when the church joined forces with the empire.)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:00 PM

Face it, the USA is about the only place in the world that does not restrain unlawful speech. The real question is what is unlawful.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:06 PM

Has anyone here read the book?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

There is intolerance and hate practiced in many religions.....but 'most' religions do not do not have extremist groups which inflict violence on their OWN members when someone speaks out against certain practices.
Muslims have a problem when they don't know when they might be attacked by their supposed 'brethren' for trying to assert moderation.

No I do not have recent and immediate citations, but I have read several things about this situation the last few years.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:41 PM

I on't want it to sound like I agree with the author, I'm far from what might even be considered a conservative, however I don't think they have grounds to sue him for hate speach. There are movements for Sharia law and other extremist movements that are taking place on at least two different continents not to mention several island states in southeast asia.

It's like the TSA folks strip searching a little old white lady from Pasadena at the airport. She doesn't fit the profile of the folks that caused 9-11, or the ongoing conflicts in Sudan, Somalia, and Malaysia.

I know there are moderate and even liberal Moslems but they need to announce a Jihad against their radical brethren. That's where the bad press really comes from. That is where this author is inspired to make his claims.

Without the radicals and the non-radical groups that refuse to condem them this guy wouldn't be able to sell his book.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:45 PM

Has anyone here read the book?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:56 PM

There have been many, many non-radical Muslims who have condemned the more radical Muslims and the Muslims who commit terrorist acts, and the Muslims who issue fatwas that result in people getting killed. But people in the US and some other Western countries will never hear about those Muslims because it doesn't fit their governments' and their compliant main stream media's agendas to report on those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 09:14 PM

I know where you lean on this one CarolC but the main stream media here have covered alot of different stories on the Muslim faith in this country. They've even covered stories of discrimination and criminal acts against the mosques. Even when they have been the victims of crime against them they have not condemned the radical elements of their own religion that most likely were the target of the attack. I'm not saying that they provoked it or deserved it and I'm not saying that the folks that perpetrated the hate crimes against the mosques/muslims were right or had the right. But these were perfect opportunities to set themselves apart from the radical muslim elements and they didn't bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:15 PM

"but 'most' religions do not do not have extremist groups which inflict violence on their OWN members when someone speaks out against certain practices."

Well, there was The Roman Catholic Church, which in earlier times, did a roaring trade (if you'll pardon the expression) in such a business...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 02:43 AM

Like I said, there are numerous examples of moderate Muslims condemning the acts of more extremist Muslims. Anyone in the US who is unaware of these examples can thank the lack of reportage on the part of the main stream media in this country for their lack of awareness. It's not that moderate Muslims aren't condemning the more extremist Muslims, it's that when they do, nobody ever hears about it. That's not the fault of the moderate Musilms. It's the fault of a discriminatory media.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 03:45 AM

Some examples of Muslims speaking out against and condemning terrorism and Islamic extremism...

http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/9143.htm

January 28, 2002

"When 500,000 Muslims rallied in Pakistan last October for peace and moderation, it was a footnote in the press reports. In that rally, statements against terrorism and for tolerance were made, yet attention remained fixated on the few who burned effigies. After September 11th, Muslims from around the world expressed shock and remorse over the terrorist attacks, ranging from a moment of silence during a soccer match in Iran, to candlelight vigils throughout the Occupied Territories of Palestine. Statements of solidarity with the American people coupled with condemnations of the terrorist attacks were sent from practically every Muslim country. Lack of widespread hostility towards Americans and even many aspects of American culture is one feature of mainstream Muslims."


This page contains links to dozens of condemnations by Muslims of terrorism and Islamic extremism...

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php


http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:OwlTNQacu_gJ:www.daralnoor.org/pr/MAVPressRelease_072505.pdf+%22muslims+condemn+terrorists%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php/id2418/comments.php?id=1497

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/811

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1015/p03s02-usfp.html?page=1

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:05 AM

Muslims issue a Fatwa against Osama bin Laden...

http://www.int-review.org/terr42a.html

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:06 PM

Thanks CarolC. I withdraw my previous statements.
On a more disturbing note...
The U.S. command in Iraq believes yesterdays car bombing may have been perpetrated by an Iranian backed Shiite group against Iraqi Shiites to incite violence against Sunnis. No confirmation of course and this could be more sabre rattling by the administration but AlQuaida in Iraq has not claimed responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 04:23 PM

It is downright REMARKABLE, Carol, that all those links come from so far afield, rather than being covered by our own media. Wouldn't ya think our brave journalists would be interested? Hmmmmm? ;>0


A

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:16 PM

Yeah, eh? Mysterious, ain't it? ;-)

You know, there are many kinds of censorship, and we are getting one kind in the North American media. It's the kind of censorship that is accomplished by choosing to report and emphasize certain stories, while selectively ignoring others, and it doesn't just happen around the issues being discussed here.

It's a very clear policy, and one that is practiced pretty consistently by those who own the large media chains in North America. They decide what is "news" and what isn't. That is how you control public perceptions in a supposedly free society.

Peace - "Has anyone here read the book?"

No.... But I have read "How To Pick Up Fast Girls in Sudbury". I haven't had a chance to see if it's any good, though, because I never go to Sudbury if I can possibly help it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: bankley
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:28 PM

I tried reading the book, but for the first part it didn't make any sense at all.. then I stood on me head an' realized that it was upside doon ...
has anyone visited these places, ,,,,, in person???

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 10:23 PM

waddaya talking about there is nothing un-American about the Christian Science Monitor, or Boston. Plus it gets lots of great all-American awards.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 01:43 PM

"Jihad" and derived forms of this word are found in the Koran 35 times. In 29 of these 35 times the meaning in the context is "armed fight".

Yes, "inner struggle" also happens to be one meaning of "jihad".

Most Jihad is not violent?

In reading Muslim literature - both contemporary and classical - one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superceded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue,
and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible. Presentations along these lines are ideological in tone and should be discounted for their bias and deliberate ignorance of the Muslim sources and attitudes toward the subject. (D. Cook, Understanding Jihad, p. 165f)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 06:04 PM

I have just been browsing thru the links Carol posted. Although I have not read each & every one, I find 2 major patterns.

The first is older notes and lists of sympathy for and condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. At that time, many, many Muslims in various places joined in expressing horror at the attacks and in asserting the basic peaceful messages in the Koran. Since then, there are far fewer comments...possibly because of the details of how the Bush administration went about seeking retribution.

The second pattern I see involving Islamic statements of moderation since 9/11 is that they are largely from NON-Muslim majority nations. Muslim scholars & clerics in the US, Canada, Spain, Denmark and others have, indeed, decried terror and violent Jihad.....but except for a largely grassroots rally in Pakistan, I see little evidence of Muslim clerics & scholars in nations from Egypt to Saudi Arabia attempting to guide their followers away from sympathy to and support of, terrorist causes. THIS is the situation I was most concerned with in my earlier comment.
I am not suprised by this....I just still claim that it does represent a common problem. Until the extremist clerics can be controlled and openly anti-American schools and training centers calmed down IN Muslim countries, I don't expect see much progress. And I do not feel that finding one or two counter-examples will disprove my claim. IF anyone has information to make me less apprehensive, I'd be glad to see it.

My point is....openly moderate Muslims in several countries speak out at their own peril, as there are few safeguards in place to protect such folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM

Of course non-violent Jihad is the more common form. Jihad is a practice, not just an idea. There are close to a billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of those people are not practicing armed or violent Jihad. If Jihad is a central tenet/practice in the Muslim faith, this means that most of the (almost) billion Muslims in the world are practicing the non-violent form of Jihad.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,oll
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 07:24 PM

The Human Rights Commissions in Canada have become a sick joke (as has the United Nations Human Rights Council), expect these kangaroo courts to have their powers reduced soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 09:39 PM

*sigh*..Carol, you are of course, right in what you say about 'most' Muslims being non-violent, but it still does not address the problem.

'Most' folks in the inner-city ghettos are aslo non-violent, but those who do espouse and employ violence color the entire issue. Most of the Muslim population of the world does NOT engage in terrorism, but most of those who are committing acts of terrorism are Muslim. Muslim religion and culture is being corrupted to further extremist policies...BY other Muslims. The violence is being perpetrated in the name of Islam, whether most followers are involved or not...just as racial hatred was fomented in this country by supposed Christians and Christian values were corrupted and perverted to defend the hate.

In order for ANY group to combat evil being done in its name, cleansing must be done from within the group and led by recognized persons in the group! As long as minor clerics get away with declaring Fatwas against anyone they don't like, for political purposes, Muslims in general will be seen as dangerous and the vicious circle where this leads to more recruitment of impressionable young Muslims as terrorists will continue!

I am given to understood that telling young men that Paradise awaits those who volunteer as suicide bombers is a lie and a perversion of Islamic laws. Yet it happens... Who is responsible for saying so? Catholics have the Pope...who among Muslims can authoritatively tell young men that is is NOT right and that they will NOT be rewarded?

That is my point...IN the areas where most terrorists are being recruited, moderates take risks speaking out. Something must happen to break this chain.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:26 PM

I am not allowed to directly address any posters. However I must point out that my last post was not for the purpose of addressing anything said by anyone who has responded to me since my 24 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM post. My last post addressed an inaccuracy in a post by someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:29 PM

I know it is confusing to people who read my posts and don't know which specific points I am addressing, but there is nothing I can do about that, so I would just ask people to keep in mind that when I post, I am not allowed to directly refer to any other posts, any other posters, or to quote any lines or passages from any other posts, and I would ask them to not assume that just because my posts may follow theirs in a thread, that this means I am responding to anything they have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:31 PM

LOL

I find the above two posts of mine highly ironic in a thread titled "Free speech, eh?"

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:55 PM

Worry about terrorists and religious extremists keep talk away from more serious threats.
Al Jazeera news website is running a cartoon strip titled "Nuclear is the New Nobel." This was inspired by Jimmy Carter, Nobel Laureate, mentioning the number of nuclear arms in Israel's hands.

1. Carter: "Israel has 150 atomic bombs."
2. Ahmadinejad of Iran: "We'll try to achieve that target. Insha Allah!"
3. Kim Jong-il, North Korea: "Hey! Over here! We have more than that!"
4. Musharraf, Pakistan: "We have less, but more accurate!"
5. Smt. Pratibha Patil, India: "We'll not disclose the number, it's confidential."

Cartoon by Shujaat, Al Jazeera's gifted satirist cartoonist.

http://english.aljazeera.net/cartoons/2008/06/20086150581289784.html

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:59 PM

well...I was not aware of this. I did wonder why MY post sat for several days with no answer. I would be curious as to what precipitated it, since I have not been on a lot myself in the last month. In the past, several posters were ummm... 'curtailed' by management for exuberances of various sorts.

"Free speech" is indeed a slippery and debatable concept in many circumstances. Context and type of forum are considerations. I do know that I very often temper what *I* say in this world, lest I offend whoevertheheck could pounce on my gentle promulgations.

I dunno...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:07 PM

"I find the above two posts of mine highly ironic in a thread titled "Free speech, eh?"

Carol C. ..... very ironic !! LOL

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:07 PM

I have not noticed any decrease in the amount of exuberances in the Mudcat (or outright viciousness, either) since this rule was placed upon me, nor have the people who are doing these things been subjected to any restrictions on their postings, so I would tend to think that exuberances have nothing whatever to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:15 PM

Shujaat cartoons running at Al Jazeera-

Farewell, Hillary, hello Obama (same old?)
Nuclear is the new Nobel (I left off the UN response- take a look)
Sixty years of the Nabka (Sigh!)
Bush goes down with the ship (Troops wanting to go home)
Let the games begin (Chinese persecution of Tibetans)

http://english.aljazeera.net/CARTOONS/

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:31 PM

CarolC- I often disagree with your opinions, and I think I have slammed you from time to time (and v. v.) but that is part of the game. Sorry that such nonsensical restrictions were put in place.

A couple of patrons here at mudcat can't be questioned without censorship being applied to the in(en)quirer, and you must have run afoul of one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:41 PM

I suspect that's probably the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:48 AM

Carol C ... being one who has agreed with you and disagreed, I must say your posts are (in the least) thought provoking ... so much so, I have (regarding many of the opinions I have disagreed with) come to see your point of view ... that's what good debates and arguments are all about.

The beauty of free speech, eh.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,HughM
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 08:05 AM

Getting back to what Chief Chaos wrote earlier:
Everybody's saying that there's nobody meaner
Than the little old lady from Pasadena,
She drives real fast and she drives real hard
She's the terror of Colorado Boulevard....
   Perhap's someone didn't hear Jan and Dean's lyrics correctly and they thought she was the terrorist of Colorado Boulevard!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:27 AM

"I know it is confusing to people who read my posts and don't know which specific points I am addressing, but there is nothing I can do about that, so I would just ask people to keep in mind that when I post, I am not allowed to directly refer to any other posts, any other posters, or to quote any lines or passages from any other posts, and I would ask them to not assume that just because my posts may follow theirs in a thread, that this means I am responding to anything they have said."

Sounds like a case for the BC Human Rights Commission.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:46 AM

In the USA we have effectively eliminated free speech

First the FCC (not elected but politically appointed) decided that free speech will not apply to Television and radio. They got a complaint from Donald Wildman, a evangelical preacher who complained about what he heard on TV.

Secondly Reagan eliminated the Fairness doctrine so networks like FOX will not have to have to be fair and balanced.

Of course you can't talk about something if the goverment says it is a secret.

The Supreme Court says it is OK to intentionally lie if you are a CEO, News Network or Goverment spokesperson.

You can still write however.

I am thinking of three authors who did unauthorized books on the Bush family and all three died of suicide.

Homeland Security goes where the FBI won;t tread and demands library records. When strong arming people deosn;t work sometines they back down.

Free speech is now something you have to fight for on an individual basis.

For now there is still the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 12:05 PM

I am not allowed to thank people directly in threads, but if I could, I would thank someone for their kind words in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:41 PM

Hello there, Wacky, how is it on the other side of the grave? Long time no see in the news. (W. A. C. = Wacky, long time premier of British Columbia))

And that other Bennett, Bill, also from BC. He had to resign from the British Columbia cabinet (2007) after writing a profanity-laden email to a constituent.

I suggested this ditty from the TV show "Wyatt Earp" to Hillary, but now I offer it to CarolC-

Carol C, Carol C,
Brave, courageous and bold!
Long live her fame,
And long live her glory,
And long may her story be told.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:53 PM

Guest oll says, "The Human Rights Commissions in Canada have become a sick joke (as has the United Nations Human Rights Council), expect these kangaroo courts to have their powers reduced soon. "

Sounds like wishful thinking on your part, sunshine......

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Skivee
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:54 PM

Donuel, who are the three authors you cite who wrote unauthorized biographies of the Bush family and died of suicide (implicitely being killed by government agents to protect their evil overlords)?...details of their cases and the titles of their books, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:57 PM

Who controls Mudcat and why is CarolC muzzled? Is this not America where we have free speech? Why are other Mudcatters standing for such censorship?

This important poem says it all"

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

by Pastor Martin Niemoller

Well, I am not CarolC but I must speak out because if they can censor CarolC, they can censor me. If they censor me, they can censor you. If they can censor you, they can censor anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:04 PM

well obviously Carol C isn't completely muzzled, if she was she'd be completely barred from Mudcat, besides other posters wouldn't be able to read her posts.

Q said, "And that other Bennett, Bill, also from BC. He had to resign from the British Columbia cabinet (2007) after writing a profanity-laden email to a constituent."

What a wonderful sounding family, great role models :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:45 PM

They can censor anyone they want to, because it's their site. The only serious quibble I have about this is that there seems to be two sets of rules... one set for a small number of people, and another set for the rest of us, and neither of them is the one posted in the FAQ. The actual rules (if you're one of the people covered by the second set of rules) you don't find out about until after you've already broken one of them. If you're one of the people covered by the first set of rules, the only rules seem to relate to how others are allowed to behave toward you, but there are no rules about how you may behave toward others. But it's their site, and if they want to have two sets of rules and keep them secret, that's their right.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:49 PM

So, CarolC, you agree that you should be treated as a second class citizen at Mudcat.

Now that's wacky.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:50 PM

I don't have to like it to understand that there's really nothing I can do about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 02:55 PM

You could organize an uprising among the rest of the people at Mudcat. Who do they think they are imposing such censorship. This is a folk music site. Let us remember that Pete Seeger rose to heights of greatness by refusing to be censored or muzzled, by standing up to the House Unamerican Activities Committee. How can you allow them to treat you like that? That kind of tratment, and accepting that kind of treatment, is what is unamerican.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:05 PM

Ya know, Wacky Bennett, you'd have more credibility if you signed in as a full memeber, then you could criticise the management of this site. It's called taking responsibility for your statements. Oh, but I forgot, taking responsibility was never a big thing for The Bennett Family, was it?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:10 PM

The alternative to complying with the rule would be to be barred from posting. If that happened, I would be completely muzzled, wouldn't I? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. The Mudcat is privately owned and operated, and they can treat people however they like here.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:14 PM

"The Mudcat is privately owned and operated, and they can treat people however they like here."

If the African Americans who sat-in at the Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, NC in 1960 thought like you, America would still have legal segregation in businesses that are privately owned and operated.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:22 PM

I wonder if anyone would purposely try to get me to do something that would get me banned from posting in the forum entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:26 PM

Carol, if that be the case take a close look at what the Guest Wacky Bennett is doing, poking and prodding you, beware him/her

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:30 PM

Hackers and trolls, the bane of these forums.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:33 PM

CarolC, never ever stop questioning :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:23 PM

CarolC is quite correct in her summary of the situation. To compare her plight to that of the African American community struggling for civil rights is comparing apples and oranges. This site is privately owned and operated and not goverened by any requirements for fair and equal treatment of any members. Aside from threatening to boycott any advertisers there is not a lot of leverage that could be employed to change the situation.

Although she and others might not like it, we are here at the suffrage of those that run the site. Without them there would be no site so occasionally they get to make rules that soe people won't like. If you don't like that, you are completely free to take your marbles and go home.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:29 PM

Mudcat, in general, has very loose standards and largely open discussion on most topics. (I have been here since the beginning and can say this with authority.)
As in any forum, we occasionally get threads where tempers rise, issues get debated hotly, and name calling, bad language and personal attacks & threats are posted. In addition, a few folks have pressed certain points to excess, used excessive copy/pasting, signed 'guest' posts under various pseudonyms, and otherwise caused uproar & disputes that made life for moderators difficult as they tried to keep things flowing smoothly.
Obviously, rules had to be made, and some penalty had to be possible for those who, in the judgment OF the main moderator, broke those rules. I would suggest that folks like "wacky Bennett" take...oh...a few weeks, and read some of the history for the last 6-8 years before proclaiming what should be done or not done.

As even Carol C admits, this IS a privately owned site, and the management can apply the rules without appeal to the US Supreme Court.
This being said, I have watched this process for many years, and IT AIN'T EASY! Those who are censored, censured, blocked, admonished, edited, deleted..etc..almost never agree that they were guilty, and they USUALLY insist that 'things just as bad' were done by others who 'get by with it'.
It is all a matter of a judgment call.

As I said above, I frankly am not aware of why Carol C. has had these restrictions applied at this time...or even if she is accurately representing them. I do know that Carol has been at the center of some ongoing hotly contested debates for quite awhile....I have debated her myself on several.

(She could, of course...with no penalty, PM me if she wished, and explain the situation from HER point of view. I assume she does not feel it would help.)

So....there are 2 issues. 1) Whether Carol is being treated unfairly within the context of Mudcat's own rules, and 2) whether Mudcat should even attempt to model its own rules after public institutions like NBC or The New York Times...and by implication 2c) whether all those who think they know the answers without knowing all the history and specific details should offer their opinions.

(Boy it is hard work to write one of those while attempting to be fair & neutral!)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM

As I post a bit back, don't let people like GUEST,Wacky Bennett wind you up, you just never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:32 PM

Some of you sound like a bunch of brainwashed Moonies.

As the late great Utah Phillips said, "Question authority. Always question authority."

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:40 PM

I've forgotten more about politics than you'll ever know, Bennett, and I know the smell of B.S and deliberate provocation, so give it up, and please, don't quote a man who did more for music just by getting out of bed in the morning, than you'll ever do in your whole life. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:42 PM

(even Utah questioned authority with reason & direction. I have spoked to Utah. He did NOT advocate blind questioning of every rule in every situation)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:44 PM

Perhaps we could learn from this quote the late great George Carlin, who said'

"A man has barricaded himself inside his house. However, he is not armed and nobody is paying any attention to him."

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:46 PM

You guys really are a bunch of trained seals.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:50 PM

oh, yep! And some of us can juggle 3-4 silly 'guests' at one time!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:50 PM

whatever you say Bennett, just don't quote a truly great man out of context. There's a saying about the mediocre quoting the truly great, you, Bennett are the poster boy for that saying. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 04:52 PM

Nearly 20 years in the military does have that affect on a person, but I'm not complaining! Orrf Orrf Orff! *clapping flippers*

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:05 PM

and to use one of the most corrupt Candian politicians of all time as your role model; I mean what DOES that say about you, Sonny Jim? :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:08 PM

Well I see the predilection for emoticons hasn't gone away.
Thanks for the mention in another place BTW, a friend drew my attention to it, really made my day!


G

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:10 PM

Is this Let's all stop making sense day? There's another one. Hmm I wonder if...nooo..can't be. That would sound like a conspiracy theory. But then again anything's possible here.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:25 PM

I guess that some of us truly understand that there are some personal freedoms that we are called upon to sacrifice so that things can function in a peaceful manner in which we can all coexist. Others believe that the only true order is anarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:31 PM

That's exactly it, freedom of speech to my mind is a free exchange of ideas, not the name calling and the 'if you don't agree with me you're a complete idiot' school of thought. Many have died, and many more will die defending the right to freedom of speech, but there are those who quite simply don't get that, and very likely never will. Sad really.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

Ramble on

Most if the time it's a judgment call and most of the time it's well made (IMHO). However, how often should a judgment call be "correct"? "Most of the time" doesn't cut it, because at 50% the level of judgment would be equal to a flip of a coin. What would be a perfect score in exercising judgement when there has to be room for legitimate differences? I don't know. That percentage less the true percentage would equal the amount of bias in the moderating.

I think it is guaranteed that there is some level of bias inherent in the process.

The bias could be issue basis or it could be bias against the personality. I can't think of any others.

'If you don't agree with me you're a complete idiot' is an extraordinarily common approach around here, as is the more simple "you're a complete idiot."

CarolC has endured an extraordinary level of "you're a complete idiot" thrown her way. Mostly it is because of bias against her positions on substantive issues. There's more, though, because she is a lightning rod for controversy. I have a guess, not much more than that, that the analogy is not "flies to honey," but something closer to enraged bees. That is, a cluster of them form around her on the issue, already agitated, then something about the exchange enrages them. My guess is that the aggravation arises because she will parse their words, unflinchingly, unfailingly and interminably.

I only mention this arcane theory because I don't feel like working the unique retrictions placed on her suggest that The Moderator may have come up with a similar theory.

So imagine you are Carol. You never, ever use the complete idiot allegation, yet you have been stifled, even after being called a complete idiot ad nauseum. Add to that the fact there are "beloved" posters who can pull that crap a lot, and, worse, the sad but unacnowledged truth t that there are sycopants around here, who also do that directly at her.

It's a tough one when you are a moderator who has to clean up the crap over and over and over again. But someone went through the trouble to craft a compromise for Carol.

Maybe just maybe I don't know but Carol maybe you should have altered (and still can) something in the technical approach, without compromising on substance.

Ramble off.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:14 PM

crap oh crap I failed to sign my name just there - now subject to deletion depending on who's deleting this afternoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:18 PM

. . . I don't feel like working AND the unique retrictions placed [on Carol] suggest. . .

(I guess I'll go work.)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,crazyhorse or shakey take your pick
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:22 PM

what the hell is going on here? I've only been on mudcat a couple of times in the last year or so; I don't understand carolC's statements about being unable to comment. I have nearly always disagreed with her but surely she's allowed to say what she wants to.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM

sycopants = psycho-pants? whatever I am outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,oll
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:58 PM

Dear Def Shepherd, the Canadian government is already investigating the commissions and as for the UN HMC - it's already been closed down once what makes you think it won't happen again?

Sunshine

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:37 PM

I have been told that if I respond directly to any posters, or if I quote passages from their posts or copy paste them, I will be banned from the Mudcat. I was told this by the "head moderator". So no, I'm not allowed to say what I want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:52 PM

I'm having some difficulty seeing how a theory that I'm not allowed to directly reference could be the case. I'm still getting the same amount of personal abuse directed at me as I was before, more, actually (because it seems that some people only like to fight with people who aren't in a position to defend themselves), so I don't see in what way anything constitutes a compromise. Unless one can describe something that is entirely one-sided as 'compromise'.

It seems to me that people either consistently enforce their rules, or they don't. There's certainly no less fighting and bickering going on in the Mudcat between people who aren't me than there was before the rule was put in place, and those people aren't having any restrictions placed on their postings, so I don't think it has anything whatever to do with whether or not people are playing nice. I think Q probably has it right.

However, having said that, if the powers that be in the Mudcat want to selectively enforce their rules, or have one set of rules for some people and another for other people, that's their right.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:59 PM

I think you could beat the system. You could even, for example, just use my secret name (heric-O) or Bill's (D-O), etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:11 AM

I'd like to send someone a PM, but I don't know if this person ever logs onto their membership or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:01 AM

PMs should be confidential to the members concerned- much personal information is given, addresses, etc. If not, I will stop using the PM.

Send the PM, if the intended recipient doesn't check, it should just die.

(Of course the government(s) evesdrop on everything, but that is beyond our, and Mudcat's, control)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:35 AM

My last post was in the hope that, after the person I'd like to send the message to sees it, he/she will log in to his/her account and see the message I sent him/her. It's tricky when one can't tell people things directly and one has to phrase things obliquely. There's lots of potential for confusion. But there it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:42 PM

I do not agree with anything that carol has ever said, but I do not want her prevented from speaking, and do not understand the reasoning behind her gagging.
I complained a few times on the Bobby Sands thread about the behaviour of a guest.
He told lies about me and ignored my challeges to justify.
He never once challenged an argument , but called me names like bigot.
His guest posts against a member were allowed to stand, and now I read that a member is being restricted in her posts, which are never personal.
What is going on?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:55 PM

Its my experience, which is quite wide, that those who don`t support human rights generally want any human rights commissions closed down.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 07:52 PM

I want the UN HRC closed down, yes, but the reason is they are anti human rights. Read up on the subject before you tell everyone how wide your experience is. As I've said, they were closed down once for their behaviour and they are doing the same again.


In addition; what KAofH said.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 09:19 PM

crazyhorse said: "...I don't understand carolC's statements about being unable to comment. I have nearly always disagreed with her but surely she's allowed to say what she wants to."

So far, I don't understand either. I DO know that for a long time, she said pretty much what she wished. As to Carol's remark about "selective enforcement" I offer this: when ANY poster becomes, as heric said, "a lightning rod for controversy.", some of their posts are inevitably more controversial than others. It is common for folks with "an ax to grind" to push the limits. Thus, any enforcement is necessarily "selective". When & how does a moderator decide that 'enough is enough'?

As I said....I do NOT know exactly what brought on this limitation on Carol's posts, nor do I know exactly how it was worded to her....and basically, it is none of my business unless one party or another chooses to inform me.
All I am doing is pointing out 'how things work' and why it is so difficult to 1)describe reasonable rules...and 2)to enforce them equitably & reasonably.

By & large, for a number of years, it has seemed to me that most folks were given a pretty LONG leash before anyone censured them...and on several occasions, I have seen decisions reversed and restrictions lifted.....so why not just wait & see and not make wild guesses about details you are not aware of?

Much too easy, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:21 AM

I think the lightening rod idea has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of people with controversial opinions who are targeted with a lot of personal abuse here, just as I am, who have not had their posting curtailed. There are also a few people who habitually abuse other posters here (which is against the rules, while having controversial opinions wasn't against the rules, last time I checked) who have not had their posting curtailed. So that idea just doesn't add up.

But like I said, the people who run the forum can treat people however they like here, since it's their forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:42 AM

'Freedom of speech'??..yeah, as long as it is 'politically correct'(choke choke), so they made you all the 'brain police'... AND on another thread I posted some poetry, and some 'kumbaya' hippie-come-lately-wannabee wants to steal it!! As far as 'politics' we really don't have ANYONE worth a poop running! Oil is abionic, (not fossil), global warming is not from SUVs, but a natural occurrence, 'rap' and 'music' should never be next to each other in the same sentence, America is in the shape it is now, because the weak people(you and me) let it happen, by being stupid, greedy, loose, permissive,, and 'they' were counting on it, and exploiting it, God is the giver of life, and if you don't like it, tough shit! Women's rights was pushed by the Rockerfellers(David in the '60s) because approx. 1/3 to 1/2 the tax base could be increased(suckers!), and your rights make a lonely companion, anyway, and it is not to be cofused with mental stability(it was a 'political movement')..and your kids are messed up because of it...what else?...hmmmm some jerk is going to want to argue with me, because the didn't do their homework, and want to champion some stupid notion, THAT THEY HEARD ON T.V.!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM

..and my previous post is just for starters!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:10 AM

"Women's rights was pushed by the Rockerfellers(David in the '60s) because approx. 1/3 to 1/2 the tax base could be increased"

Now that is interesting !

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:30 AM

"Oil is abionic, (not fossil), global warming is not from SUVs, but a natural occurrence, 'rap' and 'music' should never be next to each other in the same sentence."

Wow! Homerun! You need to post more often.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:56 AM

'rap & music incompatible'.......nice to find one bit there that I can agree with.

Oil is abionic? *tsk* ONE guy has promoted that fantasy...99% of those who agree with him are non-scientists who simply like the idea.

...and there is so much evidence that WE are exacerbating global warming and other environmental problems that you'd NEED an SUV to carry printed copies of the data. Believe what you wish....but buy wading boots while they're cheap.

As to 'free speech' on Mudcat and specific claims....as I said, let's wait and see how it plays out.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:54 AM

BillD

so why not just wait & see and not make wild guesses about details you are not aware of

What wild guess would that be then? Or am i supposed to guess?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:01 PM

I refer to the 'guesses' folks make about why any editing or censorship was imposed on any particular member, or whether it was warranted or not. Since no one has offered details, I prefer not to speculate, but only to discuss generalities.

Ok?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:06 PM

Abionic???..Naw, of course all the dinosaurs got together an one or two places, and turn into all that oil...Boy! There sure must have been scads upon scads, of them, who didn't decay like everything else does!!...Now, who is being silly????..The earth, 'makes' it, just as it 'makes' natural gas.
And as far as your 'reports' on how SUVs are doing all this,..yeah, take a boat, to the southern hemisphere, take temperature readings, coming up from the ocean floor, then you can return, and tow your boat home, in your electric car, and feel even more stupider...but at least you won't change your mind!!...Boy! They got you!!
And as far as the wading boots??..I have both boat a boat, and dive equipment, waders would be far more inefficient, like your propagandized 'logic'! ....other than that, Hey! you're ok...Love ya'

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:07 PM

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:22 PM

May I giggle along with you, lansing??

(ummmm...it wasn't dinosaurs, mr. sanity....it was the vegetation that some of them ate and wallowed in. At least learn what you 'think' you're objecting to.)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:43 PM

...Yeah, all that vegetation, beneath the sea, and the deserts, and in the mountains, and the natural gas is its farts....

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:53 PM

Bill D is close to correct.

The microfloras and microfaunas, plus degraded plant material, are the main sources of the organic matter in the sediments. Rapid burial of organic-rich sediments, avoiding oxidation of these materials, and with the right temperature-time relationships following burial, hydrocarbons are formed. If there is sufficient pressure to move the hydrocarbons to adjacent porous sediments (hopefully connected to the source bed), these porous sediments (the reservoir) may contain sufficient volumes of hydrocarbons to make production possible.

If temperatures and pressures have been insufficient to convert the hydrocarbons to a liquid stage and express them to porous sediments, and the organic matter or proto-hydrocarbon is very abundant, the proto-hydrocarbons and hydrocarbons remain in or close to the source; one then may have reserves in oil sands or oil shales.

If temperatures and pressures become very high, the liquid hydrocarbons may be lost, but often dry gas is formed and preserved.
Areas near mountain building, or buried very deeply, are most likely to lose their liquid hydrocarbons.

Those of us who have worked in petroleum research and exploration are very familiar with these processes, which must be taken into account when looking for possible new oil areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:59 PM

Q:

Off hand, do you have a likely explanation for the wide-spread concept that deposits of oil are the remains of actual dinosaurs? It is silly on the face of it, but it has been part of the mythology since before my time and I recall being fed it as a child (the story, not the hydrocarbons).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:15 AM

It's the theory d'jour

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:22 AM

D'jour? Merde, ca nous avons renseigne depuis plus que quarante ans!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:27 AM

Amos, I think I posted at the same time you were posting your question. That dinosaurs had anything to do with oil deposits is nonsense, of course.

The immense volume of microfloras and faunas make them the main source, supplemented by degrading plant material (not as rich a source of protohydrocarbons, however). Every other living thing buried in the sediments is minimal in its contribution.

(This thread has gone in several directions- free speech, eh?)


(Hmmm, now what asylum did guest from... escape from? Trolls are not being properly locked up lately)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:12 AM

Well, I guess the oil thing was, at least addressed, Global warming thing, well, I guess we'll leave that one alone, huh?..By the way, now that they're jacking up the cost of oil, the public is turning toward drilling here, in the continental U.S.,...and being as their are deposits, in the Dakotas that rival Saudi Arabia, I wonder who will provide the drilling equipment..Halliburton??..Oh! What as complete surprise co-incidence!!..My my!! So, who gets the royalties for that??..The U.S?...we the people??....oooops, forgot to mention, the fed used it for 'collateral'. Shucks!.Missed out again!! Good thing we have great leaders looking out for us! Actually, I think we have the best politicians money can buy!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:22 AM

Oh, and did I mention that they have known about those deposits since the mid-fifties??? So, Bill, the oil guy, explain.......(Hint:I already know the answer)...Sorta like those pesky SUVs heatin' up that ol' ocean down south, isn't it???

P.S However, I do really think a lot of people own SUVs who don't really need them, but its a status thing, you know, people putting on airs of being 'wealthy' like those big oil company guys, and the like.

And diesel, less refining than gas....higher??

Oh well, the thread said 'free speech'...and I still haven't got started yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:26 AM

And one more question...Who and what kind of instrument or musical involvement do you all play???...('you all'..jeeez)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:45 AM

Ooops my mistake, pardon me, it was 'Q' the oil guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:58 PM

I play autoharp & dulcimer and about 15 types of recorders and whistles...when I'm not busy keeping an eye on silliness down here below the line. (Was involved yesterday in helping document old copies of Richard Dyer-Bennet recordings)

and you?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:13 PM

Me?..I play guitar, bass, keyboards/piano, sound engineer, arranger/composer, laser engineer, marriage and family counselor, writer(screenplay), and soundtrack for film, though at present, I'm working on a new piece of music, that tells a story vividly, using no words..(even though I wrote some, for a female vocalist, should I find one with a suitable voice) Also doing a benefit concert for a xcharitable organization, that raises financial assistance, food, medical for needy people in the community...among some other stuff...
Some one on this forum heard the piece(so far) that I was working on...seemed to knock his socks off...he posted some stuff about it on another thread(can't remember which one)..His forum name is Cecil, with a capital 'c', not the lower case....thanks1...Love to yak with other musicians..and..anything I can do to help..let me know!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:14 PM



I am considerably well read on the mater and thus I will stick by my original post...oh, by the way, given you posting name are you Oglala or Lakota?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

The major oil reserves in the Dakotas are tied to the Bakken Formation, the same as touted in Saskatchewan.
These oil shales need crude oil prices around $150/barrel before they become profitable to produce. That price is almost here.
Regardless of the amounts, one must be prepared for continuing high petroleum and gas prices.

The U. S. Geological Survey estimate of 400 billion barrels includes portions of the Formation that will be difficult to reach.
Estimates of this sort are always 'guesstimates.' In the Williston Basin area, an article in The Oil & Gas Journal estimates 3-4 billion bbls. recoverable; associated with the oil shales are some reservoirs with liquid hydrocarbons and gas, but nothing spectacular.

Several regions have large deposits of this type, including Australia, Venezuela, China, Colorado, Morocco, etc.

If large areas are brought into production, investor pressure on prices would weaken, but some 10 years' lead-in is needed before large volumes enter the picture.

People blame speculators for price increases in the futures market. Anyone who has savings with any interest-paying institution (banks, credit and retirement funds, etc.), or invests in mutual funds, as well as in industrial stocks and bonds- not just oil company issues or futures- will have part of that money invested in oil. In other words, we are the ones driving the prices, which are still based on supply and demand.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:39 PM

Well, with the 5 big major oil companies posting PROFITS of $143 Billion(!) in the last quarter, of last year..how do you say it is US that is driving the cost up???....The economic stimulus package was $200 billion, ....wow, what a co-incidence again!..We are headed for a depression, as this country had before(but worse)...and a depression is not that there is no money....its just shifting into fewer hands, with the bulk going to the wealthier, and both you and I know this to be true. Leading the pack, are the oil companies...and if anyone thinks that the oil companies are more interested in THIS country, than the are about their global profit economics, they must be asleep at the wheel. The boundries that make up sovereign countries(ours included) are meaningless to international predatory 'investors'...wouldn't you say??...unless they have a military that can help them achieve their goals!...and thats about all they support us for....America, where you can rent a military, and profit while doing that too!..Its sad, truly sad, that it has gone this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 02:15 PM

That $143 billion the oil companies took is returned in large part to the investors- who are the ones who really own the oil companies! Most of the rest goes to maintenance and exploration.

Some 55 million Americans invest in mutual funds, most of which own oil company shares or have arms in the futures market. Some 15% of Americans have IRAs, many of which invest in oil company shares. Some 23% of individual investors have oil and gas shares. Many invest in union funds, which invest in part in oil (example, Ontario Teachers Union, which not only is widely invested in stocks and bonds but controls blocks of urban areas in Toronto, New York and elsewhere).

In other words, the majority of the industry's shareholders are average middle-class Americans.

Corporate management, on average, holds only 1.5% of the oil companies that they run. It is the votes of the shareholders who determine the policies of companies like Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon-Mobil, and others not controlled by government.

(Saudi Aramco is the largest government-controlled operation).

If the government taxes "excess profits," who does that really hurt? The investor!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

I watched on the news, an oil exec 'explain' that.."what do you mean? The stock market shows an 8 gain, while the oil companies show 7%"..and no one challenged that bold face lie, and since the market fell another 1.3&, because of the cost of the oil,...and their profits. By the way, you didn't address my other issues!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 03:02 PM

www.leftlanenews.com/video-revolutionary-water-based-power-for-cars.html
cut and paste this video, and watch it. guess who bought the rights for this??
Also, as you may or may not know, the dollar is supposed to be de-valued, after the election(no matter who wins)..I guess the rush is on to convert liquidity into hard assets, before then, Like refineries and such, so once again, the 'little people' are once again leveraged upon, and still stuck with paying even higher yet, while many of the people cannot barely afford to put food on the table...but I guess as long as some oil shill can explain it away, SO HE CAN FEEL comfortable, I guess its ok, right???

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:52 PM

www.leftlanenews.com/video-revolutionary-water-based-power-for-cars.html


Go there!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:20 PM

Harking back to one of the topics in this thread earlier on, here's a good article about Muslims speaking out against violence...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080628/national/cda_day_imam_walking

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 04:25 PM

I approve heartily of the effort the Imam is making and the example he is setting....in Canada.

I refer you again to my post of 19 June, 6:04PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:33 PM

I see no relevance of the cited post to any of the posts that I have made on the subject of Muslims speaking out against violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 07:01 AM

"...it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superceded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars...and by Muslim apologists..."   (D. Cook, Understanding Jihad, p. 165f)

That is from Wolfgang's earlier post. You can go back to the original of 19 JUN 1:43 PM if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 10:11 AM

Unfortunately, this is one of the times when not being able to cite a post creates confusion about what I am talking about. The "cited" post that I was obliquely referring to to in my last post can, in this particular case, be deduced from the placement of the posts. My post and the post with the cited content are the only two posts that reference Muslims on this page of the thread (page 3 if you're going front to back).


I already addressed (on 24 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM) the earlier point that has been referenced since my last post. Here is what I said when I did that...

Of course non-violent Jihad is the more common form. Jihad is a practice, not just an idea. There are close to a billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of those people are not practicing armed or violent Jihad. If Jihad is a central tenet/practice in the Muslim faith, this means that most of the (almost) billion Muslims in the world are practicing the non-violent form of Jihad.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 10:24 AM

I'm afraid, CarolC, that without context, what you say doesn't make much sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 10:25 AM

There are close to 1.8 billion Moslems in the world, about 27 percent of the world's population. If only a majority can descriminate and only a majority can be racist, a common belief among in the US by those who belive in the Civil Rights Movement, then Muslims are bigoted against non-Moslems. So, let us all be fair and start calling them names also.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:05 AM

Speaking only for myself, I have not been calling any religious groups any names. And I don't approve of anyone else doing so, either. If I see or hear someone calling any religious groups names, I speak up about it.

We don't really know what percentage of Muslims are racist, and for anyone to suggest that the behavior of governments is an indication of how the citizens of any particular country feel, is, in itself, a bit racist. On the other hand, if we are going to call all Muslims racist because some Muslims are racist (or call all Muslims violent because some Muslims are violent), we also will have to apply that (rather racist) standard to ourselves, whoever we are and wherever we live. If there are any members of any groups to which we belong who are racists or who are violent, then that means we ourselves are racist and/or violent. If we used that standard, all people in the US would be considered racist and/or violent.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:08 AM

Correction to my last post. I see that I should have used the word "bigoted" rather than "racist".

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:48 AM

I stand by my contention that followers of Islam are bigots. Most countries that they dominate have driven all Jews out. Last time I heard, the capital of Pakistan had two very old Jewish men who were too poor to move away. Iraq and many other Islam-dominated countries have no Jews. They would likely be killed on sight.

This trait would be easier to ignore if the Muslims were not 27% of the world's population. I would like to see all religions practiced in each and every country, if that is what the people want. Secular governments are needed, but the sad reality is that things are going the wrong way.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:07 PM

Oh now THIS is hilarious "I stand by my contention that followers of Islam are bigots" I know of many many Christians who're exactly the same way, funny how it works out. So...get off your moral high horse.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:52 PM

Any time someone characterizes an entire group on the basis of what some members of the group do or say, that person is practicing racism and bigotry him or herself.

27 percent of the world's population is a lot of people. If all Muslims (or even the majority of Muslims) were bigoted towards non-Muslims (and Jews in particular), and if the majority of Muslims were practicing violent Jihad, there would be a hell of a lot more Jews and other non-Muslims being killed by Muslims than there are.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 01:08 PM

"...there would be a hell of a lot more Jews and other non-Muslims being killed by Muslims than there are..."

Nice to see that you approve of keeping the slaughter down to a "reasonable number". How kind of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:09 PM

Looking at history, the Ottomans in Constantinople-Istanbul and their empire not only tolerated but encouraged settlement by Greek Orthodox and Jewish businessmen.
The Muslims in Spain sometimes had their mosque adjacent to a synagogue (Toledo, Spain) and Jews prospered under their rule. In the diaspora when the Sephardic Jews and Muslims were expelled, many of the Jews kept their Muslim style names-- Abu-..., etc. Some of these Jews are still in Morocco, a Muslim country.
The Coptic Christians did well in Muslim Egypt.

Muslim intolerance developed slowly, building as their territories came under foreign domination, and some very peculiar land divisions were made, throwing diverse groups together (Afganistan, Iraq, etc.).
Their societies were under pressure.

The land grabs and mistreatment of Muslim (and Christian) Palestinians by the Israelis, aided by Zionist money and settlers from the United States, Canada and Europe, destabilized much of the Middle East. Lebanon, a once prosperous country, with large Christian elements, has become divided and chaotic.

Militants, angry, frustrated, and (in the case of Palestinian Muslims) dispairing of ever being free, multiplied rapidly.

Now Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, North Africa, Nigeria, China, England (as well as in Iran, Syria and Jordan where tolerance for non-Muslims has dropped drastically) are being infected.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:26 PM

One...more...time.

"The post cited" asserted that MOST of the free, public attempts by moderate Muslims to combat extremism happen in countries NOT populated by Muslim majorities, when what is NEEDED is for Muslim clerics WITHIN those countries to take the lead. Respected Islamic leaders must clarify to impressionable youth that the Koran does NOT guarantee paradise ..or virgins...for killing just ANY non-Muslims thru suicide.

   I further muse that moderates may not feel safe doing so in various countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria...etc.

Now...this in no way denigrates those Muslims in other countries who DO try to calm things....they just are not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:32 PM

"The Muslims in Spain sometimes had their mosque adjacent to a synagogue (Toledo, Spain)..."

Well how very nice of them Muslims.

Perhaps one could find some outrage in the fact that Islamic militants marched across much of Europe in an effort to make Islam the dominant faith

The Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal were not separated yet) was occupied for 800 years and the native people were subjugated, raped, robbed and terrorized. Outrage at historical atrocities seems to be directed at certain favored people and not at others.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:35 PM

"Jordan where tolerance for non-Muslims has dropped drastically"


Jordan ( Transjordan) was created with the provision that NO Jews were allowed to settle there. Hardly tolerant...

Please review the history of the Mandate Palestine territories, from 1921 to 1948.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:45 PM

I personally think that this person, pdq, is as much a racist and bigot as he/she accuses Muslims of being. That's putting it as bluntly as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:47 PM

Muslim clerics reflect the views of their constituents. Most are moderate, and express moderate views, but Al Sadr and his Shia activists get the headlines in Iraq.

The Pushtun peoples of the 'frontier' states of Pakistan and adjacent Afganistan, primitively biblical but overlain by Muslim religion in their beliefs, feel under attack. The government in Kabul, an enclave with different beliefs, does not represent them. The government in Pakistan does not represent them.
Their young join the Taliban.

All of this has less to do with Muslim belief than it does with preservation of culture, yearning for self-rule, and anger and frustration at domination from outside.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:56 PM

Well, Hon. Sec., you have been here three whole days and you have the banned art of personal attack down cold. Lovely.

Hate to tell you but that niche was filled a long time ago and there is a waiting list. Try another act, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 03:07 PM

Please tell that to the next Muslim you encounter. It seems to be perfectly alright for you to attack Islam and it's adherents collectively ( sort if one's a terrorist, they are all to be tarred with the same brush), but when someone calls you into question all of a sudden it's something totally different. What's good for the goose is good for the gander comes immediately to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM

Many, many more Muslims are being killed by non-Muslims at this point in the world's history than non-Muslims being killed by Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:32 PM

On the subject of the "post cited", I still fail to see what it has to do with anything I've said.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:37 PM

I wish to add to my 30 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM post...

Many, many more Muslims are being killed by non-Muslims at this point in the world's history than non-Muslims being killed by Muslims. But I guess that's ok. They're only Muslims, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:50 PM

Here is what this thread is actually about:


Free speech, eh? Why is Canada prosecuting Mark Steyn?

Last Updated: Friday, June 13, 2008 | 6:54 PM ET
By Neil Macdonald CBC News

The bookshop across the street from my office here in Washington is once again offering America Alone, Mark Steyn's 2006 polemic about the Muslim diaspora in the West. But it now carries this splash on the cover: "Soon to be banned in Canada."

Inside the latest edition, Steyn, a conservative New Hampshire-based columnist who writes regularly for a number of Canadian publications, advises the reader: "If you're browsing this in a Canadian bookstore, you may well be holding a bona fide 'hate crime' in your hand."

That is a bit of self-promotion, of course, designed to sell even more copies of a book that is already a New York Times bestseller. It also happens to be true.

Steyn, at the moment, is effectively being tried, by a quasi-judicial panel in Vancouver, for insulting Islam. Normally, that's the sort of proceeding you'd expect to hear about in Saudi Arabia or Iran, not the West. But the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, in the cause of protecting minorities, asserts its right to judge and even restrict speech.

Currently, it is hearing a complaint about Steyn's book from Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Elmasry is going after both Steyn and Maclean's magazine, which excerpted his book when it was published two years ago.
The complaint states that the article "discriminates against Muslims on the basis of their religion. It exposes Muslims to hatred and contempt due to their religion." Elmasry complains that Steyn's book tars entire Muslim communities as complicit in violent jihad.

In Canada, such a proceeding is evidently unremarkable. With the exception of Maclean's and the National Post, the two national outlets that Steyn writes for, coverage in the Canadian media has been notably limited.

Here in the U.S, though, where freedom of expression and the public right to know is taken very seriously, it is front-page news when an organ of government — a neighbouring Western government at that — hauls a journalist before its bar to judge his writings. ...{see link in initial post for whole story}

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:54 PM

Oh nice try, but it still doesn't change my postition on the matter. As is stating the cut and paste job, In Canada such a proceeding is evidently unremarkable...exactly

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:59 PM

I've said what I have to say. Since my specific point is not being addressed...except by Q, I will bow out.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 06:19 PM

I don't agree with it, but here is a summary of hate provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

""Hate" is defined as a crime under two parts of Canada's Criminal Code: sections 318 and 319. To convict anyone under the code, very specific proof is required: both of the criminal act itself, and of the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn't enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the code exactly, and if they did it deliberately.
"In most cases, hate propaganda communicated through the internet is an offence under the Criminal Code. Amendments to the Code, made under the Anti-Terrorism Act in December 2001, further clarify measures and offences regarding Internet hate crimes.
Section 319: Advocating Genocide.
...defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group"- persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. ... imprisonment up to 5 years, deportation.
Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred
...
"To contravene the Code, a person must:
-communicate statements,
-in a public place,
-incite hatred against an identifiable group,
-in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
"Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting..., statements means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures and signs or other visible representations.

Canada's Bil C-250 amended the Hate Crimes Act to include sexual orientation.

Indian leader Ahenakew was convicted for telling a reporter that Jews were a "disease," but the conviction was overturned (2002) and a new trial ordered. It is doubtful that the trial will take place.
In British Columbia, a Catholic city councilor has been ordered to pay $1000 fine because he said a homosexual's lifestyle was "not normal and not natural."

The Code, originally proposed to punish hate crimes and anti-holocaust talk, is now being applied to all sorts of statements.

The holocaust denier, 83 year-old Eric Zundel, was deported from Canada after a conviction for racism, and sentenced to five years in prison in Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: heric
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 06:53 PM

wow.

I thought jobs were plentiful up there. Don't these people have any work to do?

Hypothetical: "I agree with current Catholic doctrine on homosexuality."

Pay a fine.

"Homosexuality is normal and natural."

"No, it's not."

Pay a fine?

I'm sure homophobes are not an "identifiable group." We could safely disparage them, and incite . . . , without running afoul of the law?

I suppose this councilman made his comment during official proceedings, which changes things - but still. "Inciting hatred . . . in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace" is not that ambiguous to reasonable people. (Bureaucrats are an identifiabe group so I will say no more.) sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 03:50 PM

Didn't want to start a new thread without cookie...


Jailed Cuban punk rocker to stand trial Friday

HAVANA (AP) - Cuba has ordered jailed punk rocker Gorki Aguila, an outspoken critic of Fidel Castro and the communist government, to stand trial on Friday for "social dangerousness," a charge that could carry up to four years in prison.

Authorities arrested the 39-year-old lead singer of Porno para Ricardo at his Havana home on Monday, shortly after the band had completed work on a new album. Cuban law defines "social dangerousness" as behavior contrary to "communist morality," and police use it to detain offenders before they have a chance to commit a crime.

Performing songs with angry lyrics that poke fun at or openly insult Fidel Castro and his brother Raul, who became Cuba's president in February, Porno para Ricardo is banned from official Cuban airwaves.

The government often applies the "social dangerousness" charge in cases of public drunkenness or as a way to keep large groups of unemployed Cubans - or those simply skipping work - from congregating on city streets during business hours. It is also applied to cases of drug addiction and "anti-social behavior."

But Aguila works for Cuba's film institute and was doing nothing out of the ordinary when police came and took him away, his father Luis said Wednesday.

The arrest has touched off an avalanche of criticism on blogs in Cuba and the United States. Musicians on and off the island also sent e-mails decrying the case. Aguila remains in police custody but has been well-treated and is in good spirits, his father said.

Elizardo Sanchez, head of the independent Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, released a statement Wednesday saying legal protocols should mean the trial will be held in public. He said Aguila has asked "diplomatic observers" to attend, apparently hoping they will be allowed to get a glimpse of a legal system seldom seen by foreigners in this closed society.

Sanchez's statement said that after investigating, the commission determined that "Gorki Aguila has not committed any specific crime as defined by the current criminal code."

The Cuban government has not commented.

Ciro Diaz, guitarist for the band whose name means "Porno For Ricardo" in English, said "these kinds of trials are very biased. It's difficult for someone to be absolved."

"A lawyer can do very little because there's no evidence of criminal activity presented, only what the police say," said Diaz, who plans to attend the trial.

Diaz said there were rumors months ago that the police would break up a concert and that Aguila's neighbors complained of excess noise during rehearsals.

"We've finished our new album. We don't know if this is because of that or if it could be something that's been cooking for months," Diaz said.

He said the band is working to upload its latest album to the Internet.

Aguila was arrested and sentenced to prison in 2005 on drug charges, which he denied, saying Cuban authorities entrapped him. His band accused the government at the time of trying to keep Porno para Ricardo from appearing in Habana Blues, a 2005 documentary about a flourishing underground music movement on the island.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 04:02 PM

Hope they don't water board him!

Is there--that you know of--a place to send an e-mail? I'd like to register a protest.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 04:23 PM

"Cuban law defines "social dangerousness" as behavior contrary to "communist morality," and police use it to detain offenders before they have a chance to commit a crime.
...
The government often applies the "social dangerousness" charge in cases of public drunkenness or as a way to keep large groups of unemployed Cubans - or those simply skipping work - from congregating on city streets during business hours. It is also applied to cases of drug addiction and "anti-social behavior.""


Wrongthinking is doubleplus ungood...