That's What He Said

Rage Against the Machine vs. Arizona

My Letter to Mark Skoda and Mike Leahy After Their “Federation” Failure

I sent this email to Mike Leahy and Mark Skoda, April 5th, 2010, after they tried some misguided powerplay with the so-called “National Tea Party Federation”. I promptly removed them from the Teapartiers group that I moderate, which is made up of many of the nation’s influencers in the movement. There’s much more to this story, but this is all you get for now!

mark and mike:

given that elpac has kicked one of you to the curb, and that i’ve received numerous negative emails and phone calls about what you two have done regarding your approach to a “federated” tea party, including misrepresenting the members of the national tea party coalition and andrew breitbart, demonstrates that neither of you have the character, the support, nor the understanding it takes to continue in any capacity as “leaders” in this movement.

you can’t force yourselves on others as “leaders”. further, *no one* sees either of you as leaders after this stunt.

i’m ashamed of and disgusted by your actions and i no longer consider either of friends of the movement, but rather two more casualties of misguided self-advancement.

personally, i’d have bitchslapped you both over the weekend for  being so damned moronic if i’d have seen you.

if either of you have anything you want to say to me in person, i’ll be in nashville for the next two weeks.

sincerely,
brooks

Still Think The Nazis Weren’t Socialists?

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

reposted for posterity from http://www.constitution.org

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

McDonald v Chicago - McDonald and Liberty Win!

Below is the embedded decision of today’s landmark SCOTUS case deciding that the 2nd Amendment trumps certain local gun restrictions in the states. DC vs Heller was a case the Court decided in 2008 (a case that Obama was on the wrong side of, BTW), which struck down certain firearm restrictions in DC, a federal enclave.

With the McDonald decision, the individual right to “keep and bear arms” is once again the law of the land. It’s sad that something so basic for our liberty had been subverted, and/or forgotten, for so long.

mcdonald v chicago

The Most Sweeping Financial Overhaul Ever

Skeevy

This is in response to the numerous people who have asked what my beef is with a certain professional blog commenter, and talk show not-host, I’ll refer to as “Skeevy”. Typically, I reserve my public disdain for Marxists, shysters in the tea party movement, beltway douchebags, and emo “adults”, but I’m making an exception in this case.

Some have suggested that my position toward Skeevy is because I “wanted to be a guest on their show and they wouldn’t have me”. Let’s settle that nonsense straight away. I’ve never asked to be on any show, including Skeevy’s, or anyone else’s. In fact, and this can be corroborated by anyone who’s worked with me in the Tea Party movement for the last year and a half, I don’t want or need the spotlight. I don’t even speak at the Tea Party events I have organized. I have routinely turned down requests for radio and TV. Besides, their show is a little too campy and queer acting for my taste, even if I were wanting to be a talking head. I had plenty of spotlight from my touring days (yes, I even toured playing music for almost 10 years), thanks!

The next suggestion is that I’m “just a blogger that nobody knows” and I’m “making all this up for publicity”. That’s a cute one, but, granted, I’m not a celebretard, and I don’t aspire to be one. However, I’ve been involved in the sale of 3 tech companies, including my last one to Amazon.com in 2008. I also helped start the Tea Party movement and I’m still one of its biggest activists today. Quite a few people know who I am. And just because I have a blog, doesn’t mean that I consider myself a blogger, or even a blog commenter. I leave such designations for those people who deserve, and have earned them.

Last year, I met Skeevy in L.A. after only knowing of him a few months on ze Twitter. Seemed like a typical neo-Libertarian from what I could tell. He was in town for a political event that was talking place the next day that I was also planning to attend. A few of us hung out, had some drinks and discussed the weather and politics.

The subject of gay marriage came up and I shared the view that I’ve held for a long time. I’m against it, but if a state wants to allow it, per the 10th amendment, that’s the state’s call. Skeevy quickly questioned how I “could be against freedom”. I then explained all the historical, scientific and legal reasons for my position. I proffered much more than a typical “because” response due to the fact that I’m fairly well-versed on the subject. It’s clearly a state’s rights issue (as supported by Baker v Nelson), as long as there’s no discrimination based on race (Loving v Virginia). His position was the typical neo-Libertarian blather I’ve heard before ad nauseum…”You’re just wrong.”<ok, commenter of blogs, is it time for another drink yet?>

I found out that I couldn’t attend the political event with my acquaintance because of a miscommunication about the number of people going with them to the event. So, at the table, as was suggested by the girl Skeevy was “hanging out” with at the time, Skeevy should take me with him since he had a +1 available. His response was immediate: “No. He’s an asshole, because he thinks gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married.” There were at least a half dozen people at the table who heard the comment.

I didn’t think much of the classless affront in a political forum. That’s common when people have opposing political views. I mean, if he would’ve said, “No, he can’t come with me just because he’s an asshole”, there probably wouldn’t be more to this story. But, due to the “because he thinks gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married” qualification, and the fact that his show panders to conservatives, here we are. I was convinced that, due to his night shift job, and their conservative audience, his political convictions on this subject would be understandably offputting to many who watch the show.

I’ve since called him out on this position of his, which he publicly denies, even though there were a half dozen people there who heard his statement to me that night. He’s acted tough over there in NYC behind that Twitter account of his. So, I told him he could talk to me about it the next time he saw me if he didn’t like me calling him out publicly. Well, what do you know? He would have a chance to set me straight.

Fast-forward to June 21st, 2010. My son was flying into town and I get a call from a friend from DC, who was in town for the same political event as the one I mentioned above from last year. I told him I was picking up my son from LAX, but he encouraged me to stop by after I picked up my son, for a few minutes, anyway. So I did. My son and I met some cool people including a Hollywood director who wants me to help him with a Tea Party movie.

As I was leaving, my good friend, Tony Katz, pulls me into a discussion about the 14th Amendment (he knows I like the Constitutional discussions). Just after I join this group of guys, Tony sees Skeevy (who was about 10 feet away), who I didn’t know was at this year’s event, and asks him to join our discussion. Skeevy acted like he was coming our way…until he saw me and heard Tony say my name. At that point, Skeevy does an abrupt about-face and walks away. My 13 year old son, who was standing right beside me, asked, “Why did that guy turn around so fast when he saw you?” I laughed. Our impromptu group finished our chat about the 14th, and my son and I departed.

I figured I’d chide Skeevy on Twitter the next day for being such a spineless hypocrite (previously, I didn’t realize how spineless since he plays up that Army border gig he had every chance he gets on Twitter when he wants to pretend he’s tough). He first responds via @ reply with “xoxo”. Then it hits him that I had a followup, and his next response was to claim that he didn’t know I was even at the event. Utter hilarity! I wasn’t really going to beat Skeevy down in front of my son. Not unless Skeevy was going to trash talk me over something other than a political viewpoint, then I would’ve demonstrated to my son, and to Skeevy, how southerners deal with bi-coastal indiscretionists (just coined). I’ll be sure to get Skeevy’s attention next time, since standing 10 feet away from him as he’s looking right at me, while the person who called him over is pointing at me and saying my name isn’t enough to make my presence known. <cough>bs</cough>

Personally, I don’t care if Skeevy doesn’t like me as an individual. The feeling is mutual, as I don’t hang out with anyone who acts as wimpy, reactionary, and negative as he does. Although, I do think others need to know his underlying beliefs, considering he panders to conservatives for ratings on a daily basis. It’s important that conservatives know this guy is out there, on a network they watch, who thinks they’re “assholes” privately for being against gay marriage - while he’s winking at them publicly. In a word…skeevy.

Mandy Morello disassociates from Tea Party Patriots, blasts Mark Meckler

A Facebook Note from Mandy Morello says it all:

I am not a Tea Party Patriot…I AM AN AMERICAN!!!! My letter of disassociation from the TPP

By now, I am sure you have seen the latest hit piece on Larry from a blogger in Maine, most likely orchestrated by “someone on the West Coast with ulterior motives.” For anyone to attack Larry for defending himself from childish attacks, when they constantly are telling him he doesn’t have a snowballs chance of winning, is not politics, it’s character assassination!

http://www.examiner.com/x-47850-Portland-ME-Tea-Party-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d4-The-Governor-candidate-unwilling-to-call-out-his-fanatics 

For the past year and a half I have stood by Mark Meckler, put my reputation on the line defending him and the Tea Party Patriots organization to everyone who attempted to warn me not to trust him. I have been through thick and thin with both Mark and Patty, BUT…the other day they had the audacity to double team me on the phone insinuating that I deliberately roped Ginny and the TPP into this Grassroots Gubernatorial debate! I was driving to a funeral on Monday when they called, (I informed them of this fact) yet they proceeded to interrogate me, which made me realize they have absolutely no concern about anyone but themselves and there is no loyalty to anyone from them!

I informed them we all (Board Members of the Nor Cal Tea Party Patriots) decided the debate was a great idea! Mark was sent an email asking if California TPP could be involved. I also invited Dawn Wildman and Sarah Bond of So Cal Tax Revolt to participate . Sarah stated her opinion on May 22nd as this being a great idea but would have to get back to me when Dawn got back from vacation. She even sent me a reply that following Monday, May 24th, saying she did not get a chance to contact Dawn, but would be able to the following morning.

All of you know that I did not have funds to put this debate on by myself and I would never do something like this unless I had had the backing from at least the Nor Cal Tea Party Patriots organization, headed by Ginny Rapini. The entire cost for this event was $5000! Thanks to the emails sent out by Ginny Rapini at Mark Meckler’s request to dissociate the Tea Party Patriots organization including any individual group, we had about 300 guests physically attend the event when we had planned on filling it to it’s 1546 person capacity counting on Tea Party Patriots involvement. I only raised about $1200 to cover the costs which all of you knew would have been more than covered had we had a full house and the Tea Party Patriots organization support! This event could have secured us with the funds for the next 9/12 Rally and would have proven to the media, candidates, and voters that the Tea Party is a major influence in this election. Today I have the fun task of looking for a loan to cover the lack of donations from missing supporters due to the Tea Party Patriots organization pulling out at the eleventh hour which includes an outstanding bill to Andrew Bower at Red Dog Record for $3275 for the live feed video and sound. As if canceling weren’t damaging enough, the mass email to the enormous constant contact list, created a situation that the Gubernatorial Debate could not recover from resulting in the financial burden upon my self a fellow Tea Party Patriots VOLUNTEER!.

There isn’t a person around that doesn’t know that I refuse to associate with Liars! That is why I removed myself from the tea Party Express however everyone know that I will not go to the extent of disassociating myself from anyone who does have a relationship with them. In the past, I have advised Mark to keep up his guard around individuals and groups with whom we did not have personal interaction with; such as organizations that do things with the TPE, especially when Deborah Johns was a spokesperson. However, as the year has progressed, more and more people don’t care about that personal squabble! To disassociate us from ANYONE OR ANY group that has rallied with them, does not work with the Tea Party Patriots motto that this organization is all inclusive!

For the past year and a half, I have given just as much of my life for this movement as Mark and Patty have in order to make a better life for my family and to ensure my kids future, as are Patriots across the Country! Just because I did not have the savings account to live off of that they did, does not mean I have given any less. I chose not to be in the spotlight and did whatever I could to promote Mark Meckler and the Tea Party Patriots organization.

I have worked with the Mecklers since Feb 27, 2009. I covered their first rally for the paper, a fact they have informed numerous people of, yet I have never submitted an invoice to the TPP organization nor have I ever even hinted about any expectation for any reimbursement. I have felt, as many other volunteers have felt , that this was my duty as an American, to continue this fight in Reclaiming the republic as a grassroots volunteer. I have suggested to Mark to at least make a living to keep food on the table for his family , or at least be reimbursement for the funds they have personally used, yet they have never supported me in my endeavors to make a living supporting my family. They have never promoted my posters or anything I have done to promote the Tea Party Patriots to possibly make a meager income for my family.

I continued assisting the TPP each time they called me for favors or duty. There are many other products, groups and people who seem to be on a higher priority for the Meckler’s to promote through the vast network of Tea Party Patriots, than those of us volunteer who have given it our all. Wait! I take that back! After 8-28-09, Patty called to inform us Matt Gray was submitting an invoice and that I should also. I replied it was no big deal! Whatever they want to send my way would be appreciated, but I didn’t expect anything. They sent me $200. I do not believe this movement should become a meal ticket with donated monies going for hotel rooms and high priced dinners! Instead of receiving a paycheck, those of us giving 24/7, should be able to have our work promoted! After all, we are promoting Capitalism in the Free Market to preserve the Republic! What message are we sending when our volunteers who are promoting these principals, financially go under because of lack of support from the organization they have helped build?

Last week Mark called me and gave me a very pretty speech about “Honor and Principals!” He elaborated why I should remove myself from Larry’s campaign, and informed me about Larry’s volunteer, Alexandra Foster, who had supposedly threatened him! Mark stated this person had been posting smears about him, on the I Caucus website, and went as far as to say she attacked him for being a Jew! He asked me “How would I feel when I read someone had put a bullet in his head?” and commented that people are telling him they are going to “euthanize his kids.” Mark also said that Stephanie Jahn did not want to get Alexandra’s wrath turned on her and I Caucus, thus justifying why I Caucus did not block Alex.

When I told him to send proof of these “physical threats,” since he had no problem sharing her emails before, he replied “he couldn’t because it would be slander!” When I finished the conversation with Mark I then sent a message to Stephanie Jahn , the I Caucus President, whom Mark accused was removing posts from Alexandra on I caucus’ page. I also decided to check out Alexandra’s Facebook page to see what she was posting on Facebook. Arguably would be the most logical place for someone to post comments or links that cannot be removed! With Regard to Alexandra’s Facebook Page I found nothing! I asked Stephanie if Mark’s statements were true and she replied, “Absolutely not! I have no fear of Alex at all.”

I was also contacted by Orlean Koehle, Head of California Eagle Forum. She stated CEF wished to be sponsors of the Gubernatorial Event event. Apparently, she too was TOLD to remove herself from any association with Larry Naritelli…which she declined to do. This morning, Orlean sent out a press release regarding this whole fiasco! Her stance is not to be railroaded into having someone else make up her mind for her!.

DO NOT mistake this as a choice for Larry over the Tea Party/ Grassroots movement and our many wonderful Volunteers! I do not believe that I must choose one or the other. This is proof I think for myself! We ALL think for ourselves! I must stand by my choices to ensure all my endorsed candidates are not effected by this fiasco brought on by Mark Meckler. I believe standing by those whom I feel are the best choices for the office is the best move for California! Our mission is to take our country back! If I removed myself from Larry’s campaign, which I will not do, I would send people the message that Tea Party Patriots have turned into a cult of mindless drones who only do what Mark Meckler tells them to do…. this is not the case. Larry has been truthful with me, unlike what I have recently been subject to from Mark and Patty. As proof of protection to the movement, proof I am willing to “clean house” when it needs to be cleaned, I will distance myself when I am no longer represented by them. This will remain until things change.

Through all of this, people have been asking me, “What the …. is going on?!” My answer has always been that I am staying out of it AND that this in no way as far as I am aware has to do with Ginny or Nor Cal Tea Party Patriots! Above all, we must do anything and everything to protect the group of volunteers because they have done more for California than anyone else in TPP!

After last nights email sent to the entire Nor Cal Tea Party Patriots database, I guess that I am , or any other volunteer is expendable, and Mark is not. I thought we all were “Tea Party Leaders.”

I am re-evaluating everyone they “badmouthed,” including Jennifer Kerns! Maybe she was tired of the same stupidity the Sac Tax Day Planning Committee had to deal with during the planning of the Anniversary and Tax Day? I have never had a problem from Jennifer and she has helped me several times on other things in the past. I respect Jennifer and if she was dealing with the same garbage, I feel very sorry that she had to go through it alone. In hindsight I can see many situations when I did not get the whole story and should have spoke up. I saw the writing on the wall when I had decided to leave back in January, but was convinced to stay… I know now that I should have left then.

I will be informing all my contacts I no longer support the Tea Party Patriots organization, but that I remain a Patriot and a Grassroots American. This is not an attack on the Grassroots movement, or any of the individuals who have also given their invaluable time and energy to this movement. Unfortunately we are all feeling very betrayed. Ironically, it is fortunate that TPP chose to never support me as GOP Trumpeter or to promote my photography business… this way there are no links on ANY of the TPP websites for you to remove.

Since I donated my time as Webmaster for Nor Cal Tea Party Patriots, leadership has always had the the log-in info for Paypal. Please have Roy, the new webmaster, change the email address and manage that account. I have removed myself from anything associated with the “Tea Party Patriots” organization and have no intention of continuing beyond this point.

As far as I am concerned, Mark Meckler has proven to be worse than Mark Williams ever was. We know Mark Williams is a showman and spin artist extraordinaire. Mark Williams, at least, has the conviction to be who he is and to not quietly manipulate enthusiastic volunteers who are desperately looking for someone or someway to reclaim their country from total destruction. Mark Meckler led us to believe that he and his leadership would be different, and that he was a stand up guy who would fight “business as usual” politics. Instead, he has lowered us and this movement to a point that makes “business as usual” politics look more mature than we are! This is supposed to be a “starfish movement!” It will still continue without me. I hope the remaining Tea Party Patriots prove it is just that, a Starfish movement. I hope they are able to move on and not have to deal the childish temper tantrums coming from a Self Proclaimed National Tea Party Leader’s ego when volunteers choose not to step to the beat of his drum!

I wish you all the best and God Bless America and our Troops!

Mandy Morello
GOP Trumpeter

Marxisms Damage - Captcha of the Week

I was posting some political news on Facebook and this Captcha popped
up. How apropos.

Internet Trolls

This article used to be one of the go to articles for learning about internet trolls, but AOL’s hometown pages were shut down, so I decided to repost it here.

Excerpts from the article
“Internet Trolls”
Copyright © 2001 by Timothy Campbell
July 13 2001 Edition
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

What is an Internet Troll?

An Internet “troll” is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don’t “get” that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their ‘achievement’ (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Why does it Matter?

Some people — particularly those who have been online for years — are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, “You can’t have a picnic without ants.”

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.

<…snip…>
The Webmaster’s Challenge

When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed — more on this later.

The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll’s messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.

Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are “acting like dictators” and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.

Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter “J”. That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?

Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one — himself.

What about Free Speech?

When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.

While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.

Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.

The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is ‘monopolizing the channel’. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.

When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as ‘flooding’). Needless to say, no one person’s opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.

The ultimate response to the ‘free speech’ argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbor has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no “right” to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)

Conclusion

Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled “Troll Alert” and type only this:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby.

Read whole article:
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

American Power Act (formerly Cap and Trade)

The Marxists are ever busy with their agenda, “hidden” in polar bear clothes, to decimate capitalism and free markets.

American Power Act (formerly Cap and Trade)

Arizona’s Immigration Bill SB1070

Arizona’s Immigration Bill SB1070