I found the following information at US Reprentative Bob Barr's web site (GA) very disturbing. It would appear that some top folks at Department of Justice are running extremely scared...

http://www.house.gov/barr/p_doj.html

If Y2K is 'no big problem', why are the top ranks at the Dept of Justice apparently giving this Nazi-style slash and burn policy serious consideration?

If true, the outlook is extremely grim and there are no safe havens. It looks like the DoJ is prepared to save us all. When the government launches a full scale attack on its own people, there are no winners.

Comments please...

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), September 30, 1998

Answers

Is this a rhetorical question? Of course they are mad. They've always been mad. I think more folks are seeing it these days, that's all. Ain't consciousness grand?

"'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,' bellowed the Great and Terrible Wizard of Oz!"

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), September 30, 1998.

What? You expect anything less from our current administration?

Bill wants everything you have including your daughter.

Remember this country is now run by nothing but lawyers and they could care "diddly" about you or some piece of paper(constitution).

It's all getting really wierd and it's not even 99 yet.

-- yada (yada@yada.com), September 30, 1998.

This is truly depressing. Here's another rhetorical question: With help like this, who needs Y2K?

Seriously. We are only complicating the first potential disaster with a second equally if not more serious disaster.

The first thing I tell people is "don't panic". This sure sounds like severe panic to me. And by people who should know better.

I remember being offended a few years back when law enforcement officials were being described as 'jack-booted thugs' (the details escape me but the phrase never has). I was raised in an enviroment where law enforcement was respected and that respect was reciprocated. Naive? Yeah, I guess it was (sigh), but I gotta tell ya, it was a very nice place to grow up. It was safe and you could count on the police to help. We smiled at each other and neither was afraid to talk to the other. I'd sure like to go back there someday. (Did I hear one of you say 'dream on'? No?)

On the bright side, it sounds like there's at least one person left at DOJ with some respect for the constitution. Unfortunately, if he/she is ever identified, it will most likely be end of his/her career. That person and Congressman Barr are to be commended for stepping forward.

This proposed knee-jerk legislation and its authors should be sent packing immediately. Such people have no place anywhere law enforcement, let alone at the top.

If DOJ wants this legislation, let them lobby for it openly and defend it to the public. Sneaking such incredibly stupid legislation in as a 'rider' is the moral equivalent of the Titanic's crew locking the steerage passngers below deck.

What is needed now is solid, positive LEADERSHIP - not yet one more short-sighted, poorly thought-out 'silver bullet'. I guess this just serves as yet another Y2K wake up call. Trouble is, that darn alarm clock just doesn't stop ringing and each alarm is getting progressively louder. I'm begging to suspect the darn thing is non-compliant.

Our country has some bitter medicine to swallow. The longer we procrastinate, the more bitter the taste.

OK, rant over. Everybody back to your stations. Paddle harder! ...and lets try to stay together this time.

-- Steve B. Cooper (Steve199@usa.net), October 01, 1998.

Sadly, this 'shopping list' pops up every few years. Thank goodness our Congress has had too much sense to go for it. Usually, the only way the DOJ gets any of the more extreme stuff they want is to either claim its needed for the 'war on drugs', or its needed to help save the children - ie - track pedophiles. Both claims are usually totally bogus, but they figure if enough people buy into them then Congress will knuckle under and give them whatever they want. Just a note - the war on drugs is now consuming about 70 billion a year - has stuffed our prisons to the point where we routinely turn loose rapists and murderers early to make room for the new crop of drug arrests - has led to a gestapo like mentality on the part of many police - has caused about 70 federal judges to refuse to hear any more drug cases stating they are a waste of valuable time on the federal docket - has caused a calculated attack on Constiutional rights by the govt sworn to defend them - and after all this the DEA's own figures show that hard drug use in the US still tracks the usage of legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) and the effort has had no measurable effect. The insane effort to track pedophiles makes even less sense - the end result of that effort has made the US govt become the sole commercial source for child porn in the US. A fact - they import the stuff from Sweden and Turkey to advertize for sale here. After they tempt someone into making a 'buy' they bombard them with brochures, flyers, and so on until they feel they have enough evidence to convince a judge to put the person away. Can someone please explain to me how promoting the exploitation of children in another country is right? And how entrapment of someone for any crime is right? And despite all this activity they have no evidence that the people they have caught would ever have harmed a child - just looked at stuff the govt enticed them with. And for that matter - since they advertize the stuff openly and brazenly - if one accepts the view of the people running this program that child porn leads to pedophile crime - then aren't they promoting the very crime they claim to be trying to eradicate?

My own philosophy is very simple. Crime involves harm to someone else. You can't commit a crime against yourself. If someone on drugs commits harm against another - put them away. If someone harms a child - bury them under the jail. Trying to enforce some standard set of moral values on a nation as large as ours just leads to frustration.

Sorry about the length of this post, its just that blanket attacks on the Bill of Rights get my dander up.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), October 01, 1998.

This is in reply to Paul. There was a recent example of gross abuse of disturbed young children in a special school in Sussex UK (where I live). This happened over a long period of time and it was hideous. The paedophiles were the staff, the headmaster (a paedophile) appointed others to "caring" positions. This is not the first time, if you want to find paedophiles just look at these institutions or people who have a job which involves contact with children. Its happened before, the authorities should check the psychological suitability of all teaching staff in "special" schools. Often the abuse happens over many years! Its incredible. Do you think that more dangerous drugs should be legalised. We have enough problems with the ones that are.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 01, 1998.

Richard

The war on our own citizens (drugs) is a good example of the cure being worse than the disease. Addiction rates have remained roughly the same whether drugs (love that catchphrase, asprin=pot=cocaine=LSD=heroin, its all drugs, you silly wabbit) have been legal or not, about 3% of the population has a hard core problem. Doesn't seem to matter how many you throw in jail, them that is gonna do, is gonna do. I am constantly amazed by the ignorance of the lessons of Prohibition, if cars were illegal, the GM clan would be gunning down the Ford clan in a battle for turf.

PS, do you know anyone who would take up the heroin habit simply because it was legal to do so? I don't.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 01, 1998.

I,m thinking of the moves to legalise pot, ecstasy etc where do you draw the line. Morphine derivatives used to be legal in Victorian times. Personally I think that LSD & even pot are dangerous. What will be the effect of prolonged use of pot for instance, you end up gaga maybe happy as well. Use of LSD/ecstasy definitely leads to mental problems. Our medicine is also dependent on giving out drugs like sweets, I know of many people who have suffered worse side-effects from drugs than the original malady. They should only be used as a last resort. For every action there is a reaction, ie if a drug has a curative effect on one direction it will have a detrimental effect in another. Most of the people that I knew used drugs years ago suffered because of it,some ended up dead, then it was just a few, now a whole society is suffering. Alcohol and tobacco are bad enough, why introduce more, they're even trying to ban tobacco whilst wanting to legalise pot, where's the logic in that. Fortunately I do not mix socially with heroin addicts, my view is that its their own fault.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 01, 1998.

About 2 years ago a talk show host on the readio mentioned that the smell of the Weimar Republic is in the air. My parents lived in that country during that era. They were very gregarious people. My father wrote my mother in 1933 something close to the following: "You are right that you keep to yourself. I am doing the same. If I I disagree with someone politically, I am called an idiot and don't know what I am talking about. I am not "politically correct." ----- Bring up the subject of this thread and see what reaction you get. History repeats...

-- trying to forget (seenit@before.com), October 01, 1998.

Richard, "Where do you draw the line"

How about this saying, it sums it up for me: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". Let people be responsible for their own actions, for better or worse. Why worry about what Joe Shmoe does as long as he does not infringe on you. ENOUGH OF THE NANNY STATE!

TTF, thank you, thank you. I do so much appreciate that 'green slimy puss' free post, and yes it does repeat, and is repeating now. WAKE UP PEOPLE, you can only preserve your right to live as you see fit by allowing the other guy to live as he sees fit. There is no other way!!!!

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 01, 1998.

No, it wouldn't surprise me that the DoJ floated yet another trial balloon. And it would be no more surprising if this turns out to be yet another one of Bob Barr's fantasy trips. That guy is a first-degree FLAKE & a deadbeat dad to boot.

I'd find it much more disturbing if a different congresscritter (say, GA's Deal or Linder), one with a few more scruples & a less wacko track record, had broken this story.

-- Larry Kollar (lekollar@nyx.net), October 01, 1998.

Well said , Uncle Deedah. I once climbed a high mountain, Mt. Rainier, with a couple of rope teams. When we got to the top, one of us had to pee. He turned into the wind to shield his jewels from the view of the others. Did not want to make everyone jealous. He got wet. That's how it is nowadays if you're morally correct...I did have green pus running down my neck when I was a kid until the wild meat was sugically removed in a Swiss hospital. But it grew again... and again.. now I am OK. Even smell good. Just call me meathead.

-- trying to forget (seenit@before.com), October 01, 1998.

In a Sept 06, 1998 Charlotte.com Charlotte Times article (from an LA Times original reporter - how's that for a trail) quoting Robert Blitzer, FBI section chief for domestic terrorism, as "specifically launching an ambitious domestic assessment" to "gauge the potential threat" ... "most likely from within some Christian compound like those that have arisen in the Ozarks, the desert Southwest, and the Northwest"...impregnable to to law enforcement undercover agents."

"...And the militancy of the retoric of such extremists becomes clear only when they choose to expose themselves to the outside world."

The story continues from there in the same vein of fear-mongering and hatred.

Big Brother seems to be scared of Y2K-prepared Christains in the Northwest alright, glad I'm a Catholic in the Southeast. Pastor Chris, watch out. You're officially a "domestic terrorist according to the FBI.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 01, 1998.

(quote)Big Brother seems to be scared of Y2K-prepared Christains in the Northwest alright, glad I'm a Catholic in the Southeast. Pastor Chris, watch out. You're officially a "domestic terrorist according to the FBI. (unquote)

I think it was Abbie Hoffman who once said: If you name is not on a list somewhere, shame on you.

Perhaps as we posit on Beyond 2000 and other people suggest on other websites, there is a gift in Y2K,...the gift wrapped inside the problem/the chaos. When the center will not hold, those who cling to the centralization of "power" (not real power, but the false old mind concept of power, "power over"), will see their system crumble.

Imagine.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), October 01, 1998.

Uncle and everyone, I am the last to be called politically correct, which is a euphemism for socialist. Its an attitude that has taken hold of political thinking in Britain, resulting in the words racist/feminist/ageist etc etc you are called fascist if you are not left wing. The left are completely intolerant of other points of view, whatever the Labour Party does is correct (even if its doing non-socialist things). All I heard at the British general election were people repeating Labour propaganda whether they were really Labour or not. Yes there is a form of totalitarianism in the air, it could manifest itself in a number of ways, more likely a socialist take-over. It will be politically incorrect (PI) to own a car, PI to own property, PI to be ambitious, PI to prepare for y2k, PI not to be "caring", PI not to be socialist, PI not to be pro-gay etc etc. People have become bad-tempered and intolerant. They are brainwashed by PC TV. BTW they never use the word socialist any more

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 02, 1998.

I see no-one has answered my point about paedophiles (in response to the "insane search"). Maybe its too sensitive to discuss, like race problems.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 02, 1998.

Hard to tell, Richard.

That type of crime is so repulsive, I think most caring people would prefer it be dealt with without publicity, perhaps even without the "normal" protections of liberty we usually so stridently demand.

It has been decided (by the lastest cultural "gurus" and the entertainment media) that we should not make the admittedly tough decision also to literally 'draw a line" and decide, as a nation, as a culture, to prohibit certain behaivor. Legal actions against drugs, as indicated above, and against pornogrpahy, are opposed by some as entrapment, or as excessive gov. interference in liberties.

Others, as I do, believe, that these actions (or parts of these actions such as child abuse/child porn) are morally wrong, and must be kept illegal. To prosecute, I agree that sting operations may be needed, but I strongly disagree that the gov. is the source of the problem.

Make sense?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 02, 1998.

When it comes to a sicko bastard who preys on children, my solution is definitely not P.C. Castrate the &^%$#@$#, then throw away the key. Problem solved for one creep. In any crime where there is a VICTIM, harsh punishment is OK by me.

Conversely, when the "victim" and the perpetrator are one and the same, having society step in and say "That is offensive behavior, and even though you have harmed nobody exept perhaps yourself, its off to the clink with you" seems just shy of insanity, in a supposedly 'FREE' country.

Try this one on for size: "I don't like carrots, I don't eat them, I find their consumption very offensive, and so I'll be damned if I stand by and quietly watch you eat them. In fact, I know same legislators, and we will soon pass a bill containing the stiffest penalties for you lowlife carrot eaters!"

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 02, 1998.

Your remarks about pedophiles just reinforce my point. What possible purpose can encouraging the abuse of children in another country serve towards reducing pedophilia in this country. One of the things the law and the papers never mention when they break up "rings" of pedophiles is that their stuff is all home made and traded around the ring. There is no market for their garbage, they have to do it themselves. The time and money could be much better spent performing background investigations of child care workers than on entrapment of persons who may not ever abuse a child.

Dangerous drugs - just what do you call dangerous? After I found out the govt had nearly half a million of my fellow citizens jailed on drug charges - nearly 400,000 of them on simple possession of pot, I decided to investigate. We spent about $67 BILLION on stopping the drug trade last year, counting $25,000 per inmate as minimun costs for prisoners, (think they live in luxury? you try keeping up a bunch of guards plus yourself on 25k) plus the costs to the DEA plus costs for the Army,Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, plus the Customs service, but not trying to count special detectives and vice squads and gang units in State Police and various City Units. By the DEA's own figures (though they try to claim otherwise I can read numbers) the usage of hard drugs tracks the usage of legal drugs. If sales drop of tobacco, the sales of hard stuff have also gone down. So they aren't having much effect. If you don't like my analysis, why not look up what Will Buckley had to say about it. I have heard him called a lot of things but never a liberal.

Back to the question of what is a dangerous drug. Well, alcohol causes the deaths of about 35,000 a year due to drunk drivers. That is pretty bad, but our drug laws are responsible for the gang wars and turf battles that have killed thousands in our cities. Considering that, how could some form of treatment similar to the way our laws handle alcohol be worse. Look, I am all for jailing people who hurt others, and that certainly includes drunk or dopey drivers. But I can't see this endless attack on our own people to "keep them from hurting themselves".

Now I know this has religous overtones for many folks - but really, consider that you should minister to the afflicted - not threaten them with jail. We are tearing ourselves apart as a society with this drug fight - the racial overtones of the drug war have gotten pretty ugly (punishment for different forms of the identical drug being greater if mostly blacks use that form) - we just don't need this crap any more.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), October 02, 1998.

As for Marijuana...the only reason it is illegal is because it can't be controlled by the parmaceutical companies... and if you use it then you won't need they're legal drugs, of which some are alot more dangerous then pot ever could be..It's just about profit...

-- S.E.Carlson (ciattis@earthlink.net), October 04, 1998.

The verdict is in - the so-called "War on Drugs" ain't working. As Uncle Deedah said, those that are gonna, are gonna. As the adult child of two alcoholics (otherwise known as "an alcoholic waiting to jappen" per some theories), I believe there is MUCH more damage done linked to this "legal" drug, than to marijuana. I agree with the line of reasoning about not legislating morality and things that only affect myself - next thing you know, high fat foods will be illegal and you won't be able to eat them in public (second hand fat?) because of the health care costs related to obesity and athersclerosis and so on. But that's where they get ya' - the links created to the effects your actions have on other people.

What frightens me is that someday someone will come in and snatch all my hard-won stored food, water and supplies, call me a felonious hoarder or something, and leave me, and my family, to starve in order to conform with everyone else. That could truly happen!

-- Melissa (financed@forbin.com), October 04, 1998.

Barr's in the next district over. (I'm next door in Newt's, but Barr's office is actually closer.)

I'll go by Monday and see what their answer is.

But make sure you contact your own rep's. These guys are very "locally" aware of people in an election year - even if they decide to tune you out, at least they've tuned you out with the local control, rather then the remote control.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 04, 1998.

A few facts from The Emperor Wears no Clothes by Jack Herer, ISBN 1- 878124-00-1

[Number of American deaths per year from:

Tobacco: 340,000-425,000

Alcohol: (not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders) 150,000+

Aspirin: 180-1000+

Caffeine: 1000-10,000

Legal drug overdose: (deliberate or accidental) 14,000-27,000

Illicit drug overdose: (deliberate or accidental) 3800-5200

Theophylline: (asthma medication) 50

Marijuana: 0

LOWEST TOXICITY: 100% of the studies done at dozens of American universities and research facilities show that pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history does not record anyone dying from an overdose of Marijuana (UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.).]

So there you have it fellow forum readers. Your government will not, of course, admit any of this because it would Send a bad message. Yes, an admission would say, Weve been lying to you. Now, if they will support a lie this big, for this long, why would you think they will tell you the truth about Y2K?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 04, 1998.

Uncle Deehdah, Read the old book How to Lie With Statistics. No deaths from accidents involving marijuana? What about men growing real breasts, like Dolly's, when using this stuff?

-- statistician (ahoi@poloi.cnet), October 04, 1998.

Statman

Reread the above stats, you will see that none of the categories contain accidental traffic deaths or in the case of alcohol, murders.

As for your ancient What about growing titties? that silly nonsense was debunked long ago. But of course, you were not told about it by the powers that be. The lies have been spread thick for decades now. Read that book, it contains a $10,000 challenge, rewarded to anyone who is able to prove the data contained within wrong. (They still have all of their cash)

Consider the attitude taken in the Netherlands. Pot is openly tolerated, and the Dutch youth use it in a far lower percentage of cases than American youth. Half of the appeal is its very forbiddance. Doing it to rebel against adults is a quite commonly stated reason here in the states. Cigarette smoking is on the decline among adults, not because of any laws, but because it is bad for your health. All you have to do is tell the truth, and most people will do the right thing. BTW, my argument applies to adults only, I do not believe that all things should be openly available to persons under the age of 21. I do believe strongly that adults must be responsible for their own actions, whether the decision they make hurts or helps them. That is the essence of FREEDOM.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 04, 1998.

I suppose they've "lost the war" against violent crime, so why not de-criminalise it. Even that's happening now,"society is to blame" so let them off. You see whatever people do affects others, if someone has psychological problems because of drug abuse (in the freedom of your own home) someone else suffers. I'm all for individual freedom up to a point. I can't understand why anyone would wish to take hallucinatory drugs for recreation, presumably they haven't got a life.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 05, 1998.

=I suppose they've "lost the war" against violent crime, so why not de-criminalise it. Even that's happening now, "society is to blame" so let them off.=

Richard

Violent crime affects others in a direct way, just ask the violated. Your society is to blame argument proves my point about personal responsibility, you must let people be responsible for their actions. If they are not responsible for running their lives as they see fit, then society is to blame for what goes wrong. Consider the following:

Papa smokes a weed to unwind after work, and some yard work waits until tomorrow.

Papa gets busted for weed, goes to the clink, and loses his job. Mama cant find a job that pays enough to pay the bills, and the family ends up on the street. Social Services takes the 2 kids into foster care, and they are then abused by a friend of the foster parents. Five years later Papa gets out of jail and finds that he can no longer get a job, because he is now a convicted felon, and the marriage falls apart. The children now live in two different states, and do not see each other any more. Papa blows his brains out.

Now which hurts the family more, temporarily unfinished yard work, or, saving society from those awful pot smokers?

PS, just in case I have aroused your curiosity, NO I dont smoke pot, or crack, or mainline heroin. Nor do I visit prostitutes, but I will debate the silly anti prostitution laws as well. For all I care, you can have 15 wives, as long as everyone involved in the arrangement agrees with that way of living, I dont see how it is any of my (or your) business.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 05, 1998.

Don't burn the leaves either, if you decide to do the yard work and put off smoking the weed.

It's also illegal in most states because the EPA types have decided you can't smoke outside: tobacco, weeds, or leaves.

Do I smell a Big Brother around here?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 05, 1998.

All I've got to say is if anyone tries to take my whiskey or pot if and when Y2K chaos breaks out, I'll shoot 'em.

-- whatever (norml@jack.daniels), October 05, 1998.

On the other hand, if anyone CAN give me evidence that pot smoking increases breast size, PLEASE let me know ASAP. ROFL!!

-- Melissa (financed@forbin.com), October 05, 1998.

Yes it can, it does however cause itching, when placed between the breast and bra.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 05, 1998.

While we are on this subject, will someone PLEASE explain to me just what difference it makes if an AMA licensed quack waves his hand over a piece of paper so someone can get drugs. From personal knowledge (friends and family) I firmly believe that legal abuse of tranks and speed is at least as big a problem as the illegal trade in these drugs. I just love to see some character who is taking Miltown or some such, a few more pills for this and that, with a half dozen drinks under his belt, a cigar in his hand and his other hand in his belt, hold forth about the dirty drug soaked hippies and how they and their drugs almost ruined the United States.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), October 05, 1998.