 |
|
|
L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 311, March 20, 2005 "This is your government, people."
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Ken, Kenneth, Ken, Kenny... My man! You simply must post more information about when and where TPM will be available in graphic format. And I want to be the first to place an order for both the e-book version and the dead tree version of this wonderful piece of art! This is my second favorite LNS novel, right after TPB! Derek Benner
[All in due time. I'm working as fast as I can considering health (mine, my wife's, and her mom's—all taking up a lot of my mental energy and attention). Just remember that you will hear it here first!—Editor] Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, & Jay, Re.: "Filtering Entertainment", by Jay P. Hailey http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle310-20050313-12.html
Interesting. I haven't watched TV since Dec. 23, 1995—the day I settled into my house. To be sure, I have a 'TV', but it hasn't been used as such—to watch broadcast media. Rather, it's been used to watch old video tapes. You might remember that old Ray Miland move "The Man With The X-Ray Eyes." It's from 1963, and Amazon.com has it [DVD or VHS]. Amazing!! In the last few moments of the drama, Miland enters a Fundametalist church, and confronts the preacher telling about what he sees. The preacher yells at Miland—something to the effect: "If thine eyes offend thee, pluck them out!" Of course, Miland's character does just that. I can't be sure of the exact quote, because the last time I saw the movie was back in 1963. In any case? There's that subtle theme which runs through the article by Jay, which hints at a degree of Sado-Masochism. I'll paraphrase the preacher in the above movie: If thine TV offends thee, chuck it out! You'll be a better man for it. E.J. Totty
Reply from Jay P Hailey Mr ET— The point of that article isn't the masochism of being a Star Trek fan, a point which I'll cheerfully concede. The point of that article was whether or not I am comfortable filtering my entertainment by whether or not the creators are Libertarian enough. The origial discussion was about books and can apply to books, music, movies, paintings, operas and ballets Obviously I wasn't communicating well enough. Ah well. Better luck to me next time. Jay P Hailey
Florida's Supreme Court let stand restrictions on drug dogs, after the U.S. Supreme Court loosened leashes. The nation's top court let cops take dogs fishing for drugs in Illinois v Caballes. Florida allows other avenues for relief in Florida v Matheson (3-3-05) and the very libertarian decision at [this link] (the appellate case below). I am the attorney who argued the original motion to suppress for Matheson. Drug dogs are covers for lies. Here's how— 1. Cops tell drivers that they should consent to a search of their car because radio dispatch "has a drug dog on the way over." It is often a lie told to induce drivers to consent to search. There is no dog on the way. 2. If a dog is or is not "on the way," cops add additional lies to make drivers think that there will be a long wait and that the driver must stay until a dog arrives. Cops rely on driver ignorance of the fact that evidence will be suppressed if drivers are detained longer than it takes to complete the traffic stop (e.g. write the ticket). Drivers are induced to consent to search to avoid a long wait based on lies. 3. If a dog is enroute, cops let drivers think that they are obliged to stay even when the cop has no reason to detain drivers any longer. The cop's rationalization is that drivers loiter roadside with cops for no apparent reason or because drivers enjoy waiting for dog sniffs. Cops take advantage of drivers who are too stupid (or too meek) to ask if they are free to go, so that drivers "consent" to unwarranted detention by not leaving. 4. Cops lie about how long it is taking to write a ticket or to obtain a radio response on a driver's license or tag check. If a dog is actually on the way, the cops will make sure that the ticket is written very slowly, until the dog arrives. 5. After the dog arrives, cops will lie and say that the dog alerted, even if it didn't. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether or not dogs are well-trained or accurate, because dogs are often ruses for lies to violate constitutional rights. 6. If a dog alerts and nothing is found, then cops will never record that as an error, but will claim that the dog detected lingering odors of contraband that were recently present. Cops will testify that dogs never make mistakes, never have and never will, and that apparent errors are skillful detections of lingering (residual) odors of contraband. Government's attitude toward your liberty is like a dog at a fire hydrant. It is a reminder of the police-state tactics in the infamous Goose Creek videotape of the government school in South Carolina where children were forced to the floor in handcuffs and terrorized by dogs and cops with guns drawn. Nothing was found. In other government schools, classes have been interrupted and the children were marched out and lined up to be harassed by a dog. yours in liberty, Rex Curry
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and
affiliates.
|
|
|
|
