Fed Up With War, Some Won't Pay Taxes

Some Activists Fed Up With Iraq War Refuse to Pay Taxes, Interest Is Growing

By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN

When the United States invaded Iraq more than four years ago, war opponent David Gross asked his bosses for a radical pay cut, enough so he wouldn't have to pay taxes to support the war.

"I was having a hard time looking at myself in the mirror," Gross said. "I knew the bombs falling were in part paid with my tax dollars. I had to actually do something concrete to remove my complicity."

The San Francisco technical writer was making close to $100,000 a year. He didn't know exactly how big of a pay cut he would need to fall below the federal tax threshold, but later figured out he would have to make less than minimum wage.

In any event, his employer turned him down and he quit. Gross, 38, now works on a contract basis, and last year he refused to pay self-employment taxes.

War tax resistance, popularized by Henry David Thoreau in the 19th century and by singer Joan Baez and others during the Vietnam War, is gaining renewed interest among peace activists upset over the Iraq war.

"Clearly this year we definitely had more people calling, sending e-mails about how they decided to start resisting," said Ruth Benn, coordinator of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee in New York.

Based on the committee's mailing list and reports from numerous groups it works with around the country, Benn estimates 8,000 to 10,000 Americans refuse to pay some or all of their federal taxes over war objections. Internal Revenue Service officials say they don't have figures for that specific category, but earlier this year reported an overall noncompliance rate of 16.3 percent and estimated the annual tax gap at about $345 billion.

Peace activists are considering a mass tax resistance campaign next April to step up pressure to end the war in Iraq, Benn said.

Many tax protesters say they redirect the money they withhold to charities. Some, like Joanne Sheehan of Norwich, keep their income below taxable levels.

"I don't see the point of working for peace and paying for war," Sheehan said.

Gross said he now manages to live on about $15,000 per year by carefully tracking his spending.

He acknowledged the tax resistance movement is too small to stop the war.

"But I think what we're doing is showing the way for people in the anti-war movement," Gross said. "I can look myself in the mirror and say at least I'm not supporting it, at least I'm not part of the machine."

The IRS said that while taxpayers have a right to express their opinions, they still have an obligation to pay their taxes. Tax resisters place an undue burden on taxpayers who pay their fair share of taxes, IRS spokeswoman Dianne Besunder said.

John Ubaldi, spokesman for Move America Forward, which supports the military and the war on terror, said the government would not be able to function if everyone opposed to a program stopped paying taxes.

"They're showing the terrorists that America is not committed," Ubaldi said.

The IRS considers it a frivolous argument when a taxpayer cites disagreement with the government's use of tax money as the reason for not paying taxes.

A new federal law increases the penalty for frivolous tax returns from $500 to $5,000. The IRS says it investigates promoters of frivolous arguments and refers cases to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

Unlike the days when Thoreau was sent to prison in a tax protest against the Mexican-American War, modern war tax protesters rarely go to prison, according to tax resisters. The IRS may take their money from wages and bank accounts with penalties and interest after sending a series of letters.

"They're very polite, which makes it a little boring," said Rosa Packard of Greenwich, a longtime anti-war tax protester.

But Randy Kehler, who has refused to pay federal income taxes since 1976 to protest U.S. military policy, was evicted with his wife from their home in Colrain, Mass., in 1989 for nonpayment of more than $45,000 in taxes, interest and penalties. Kehler was also jailed for nearly three months for contempt of court.

Their tax fight was the subject of a 1997 documentary called "An Act of Conscience," narrated by actor Martin Sheen.

War protesters have been pushing for a law called the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund that would allow designated conscientious objectors to have their income, estate, or gift taxes used for nonmilitary purposes. After years of efforts, they hope a Congressional hearing will be held on the proposal next year.

"People fear the IRS more than they fear God," said Alan Gamble, executive director of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. "They're paying under a tremendous burden."

How children lost the right to roam in four generations

By DAVID DERBYSHIRE

When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere.

It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision.

Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom.

He is driven the few minutes to school, is taken by car to a safe place to ride his bike and can roam no more than 300 yards from home.

Sign of the times: Jack, Vicky and Ed

Even if he wanted to play outdoors, none of his friends strays from their home or garden unsupervised.

The contrast between Edward and George's childhoods is highlighted in a report which warns that the mental health of 21st-century children is at risk because they are missing out on the exposure to the natural world enjoyed by past generations.

The report says the change in attitudes is reflected in four generations of the Thomas family in Sheffield.

The oldest member, George, was allowed to roam for six miles from home unaccompanied when he was eight.

His home was tiny and crowded and he spent most of his time outside, playing games and making dens.

Mr Thomas, who went on to become a carpenter, has never lost some of the habits picked up as a child and, aged 88, is still a keen walker.

His son-in-law, Jack Hattersley, 63, was also given freedom to roam.

He was aged eight in 1950, and was allowed to walk for about one mile on his own to the local woods. Again, he walked to school and never travelled by car.

By 1979, when his daughter Vicky Grant was eight, there were signs that children's independence was being eroded.

"I was able to go out quite freely - I'd ride my bike around the estate, play with friends in the park and walk to the swimming pool and to school," said Mrs Grant, 36.

"There was a lot less traffic then - and families had only one car. People didn't make all these short journeys."

Today, her son Edward spends little time on his own outside his garden in their quiet suburban street. She takes him by car to school to ensure she gets to her part-time job as a medical librarian on time.

While he enjoys piano lessons, cubs, skiing lessons, regular holidays and the trampoline, slide and climbing frame in the garden, his mother is concerned he may be missing out.

She said: "He can go out in the crescent but he doesn't tend to go out because the other children don't. We put a bike in the car and go off to the country where we can all cycle together.

"It's not just about time. Traffic is an important consideration, as is the fear of abduction, but I'm not sure whether that's real or perceived."

She added: "Over four generations our family is poles apart in terms of affluence. But I'm not sure our lives are any richer."

The report's author, Dr William Bird, the health adviser to Natural England and the organiser of a conference on nature and health on Monday, believes children's long-term mental health is at risk.

He has compiled evidence that people are healthier and better adjusted if they get out into the countryside, parks or gardens.

Stress levels fall within minutes of seeing green spaces, he says. Even filling a home with flowers and plants can improve concentration and lower stress.

"If children haven't had contact with nature, they never develop a relationship with natural environment and they are unable to use it to cope with stress," he said.

"Studies have shown that people deprived of contact with nature were at greater risk of depression and anxiety. Children are getting less and less unsupervised time in the natural environment.

"They need time playing in the countryside, in parks and in gardens where they can explore, dig up the ground and build dens."

The report, published by Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, also found that children's behaviour and school work improve if their playground has grassy areas, ponds and trees.

It also found evidence that hospital patients need fewer painkillers after surgery if they have views of nature from their bed.

America's War on Science

There is an unseen war going on in America. It's part of the war on drugs, part of the war on terror, and part of consumer safety. As an emergent side effect of these, and some additional foolishness, America is waging war on science. While the government targets terrorists, drug makers and illegal fireworks, it's the arm chair chemists and curious youngsters that get caught in the crossfire. The government has enabled legislation that makes DIY chemistry impossible without violating laws. And in so doing, we are sowing salt into the soil of our own future. Years ago, chemistry sets geared toward children and model rockets were simply part of growing up as a youngster in middle America. Some of my fondest childhood memories involve standing over the metal cabinet of my Chemcraft chemistry set, wearing over sized adult safety goggles and scrawling notes on my latest bubbling concoction, or launching an Estes rocket in the park.

But many of the youth of today will never get that chance. The Consumer Product Saftey Division has made it a point to outlaw chemicals that can be used to make illegal fireworks. Chemicals like sulfur and potassium perchlorate, that would have been standard issue in any lab experiment of yesteryear are now contraband. The CPSD, best known for its issuing of recalls for consumer goods, claims that this ban is in effect to reduce injuries from home made fireworks. The fact of the matter is that 98% of all firework related injuries are caused by off the shelf fireworks. All of this CPSD nonsense is to cut down on the other 2%.

The modern CPSD does more than just alert consumers to dangerous toasters. They have the power to mobilize law enforcement, and sponsor raids on citizens and businesses. One such raid was directed at the amazing online store United Nuclear. United Nuclear sells super powerful magnets, aerogel, lasers, chemicals, lab ware, and all sorts of other geeky goodness. The founders of United Nuclear were held at gun point, handcuffed, and had all of their computers and records confiscated. Why? Because some of the chemicals they sell could be used to make fireworks. United Nuclear is now involved in a long legal battle to avoid fines and prison sentences thanks to the CPSD.

And the fun doesn't stop there. In an attempt to curb the production of crystal meth, more than 30 states have now outlawed or require registration for common lab equipment. In Texas, you need to register the purchase of Erlenmeyer flasks or three-necked beakers. The same state where I do not have to register a handgun, forces me to register a glass beaker. In Portland, Oregon, even pH strips are suspect. Modern off the shelf "chemistry" sets are sold without any of the questionable chemicals or equipment. For example, when a current company tried re releasing a kit based on the one marketed by Mr. Wizard himself back in the 1950s, they found that they could only include five of the original chemicals in the set. The rest of the items were replaced with inane things like super balls and balloons. Even a non neutered modern chemistry set like the C3000 from Thames and Kosmos is forced to ship without many key chemicals, suggesting to their customers that they acquire the missing ingredients elsewhere.

Forget about model rocketry. Since the beginnings of the war on terror, the government has ridiculously claimed that model rockets could be used to shoot down commercial aircraft. Now all rocket engines above a certain size and thrust limit require fingerprinting, background checks and waving of your search and seizure rights! Said engines often require a Low Explosive Usage Permit to launch or take them across state lines. And all of these paranoid laws and regulations on chemistry, rocketry, and lab ware are not being done in ignorance. The powers that be are aware of the effect legislation is having on budding scientists and hobby enthusiasts. Pentagon and Justice Department consultant, professor James Tour said, “The fact that there are amateurs and retired professors out there who need access to these chemicals is a valid problem, but there aren’t many of those guys weighed against the possible dangers.” So because we still fear the terrorist boogieman, our kids are not allowed the same access to science that we had growing up. And hobbyists are forced to collect their chemicals and do their work in secret.

But there are some lights shinning in the darkness of this situation. Companies like United Nuclear, which continue to sell chemicals and lab equipment despite legal problems, and websites that support chemistry hobbyists. Like Readily Available Chemicals, which maintains a list of places where one can make an end run around the restrictions and purchase chemicals or lab ware. Or The Nitrogen Order, who provides a how to on building your own chemistry set, and provides lessons and experiments. And Science Madness who's forums give hobbyists a place to meet, compare notes, and exchange secrets of the trade anonymously. One of my favorites is the Society for Amateur Scientists, which just began a LABRats program, to match up youngsters that are interested in science with mentors that are practicing scientists.

I propose a Web 2.0 weapon in the fight to protect good chemistry from bad government. Perhaps a combination of the above websites, along with a strong membership of successful scientists. You could invite any and all hobbyists to participate, recommending and rating various experiments for others to try. Rolling lists of where to buy chemicals and supplies in local areas could be constantly updated with pricing and availability. Arm chair scientists could hold meet ups, collaborate on projects, and even "publish" their findings on the sites electronic periodical. It would be a great jumping off point for youngsters looking to start the beakers bubbling, and an excellent haven for amateur chemists of all ages. You could get a high profile spokes person, like Bill Nye or the Myth Busters, and subsidize the site via marketing deals with companies like Thames and Kosmos, United Nuclear, and Estes. I'd be happy to pay a small fee to join something like that, and they could even funnel a chunk of the profits into lobbying to put an end to the war on science.

While this continues, and children's exposure to real chemistry is stifled, our national science scores are plummeting. People are getting out of high school without ever having fired up a Bunsen burner. Now more than ever, innovation is needed for the United States to compete in the global economy. Visionaries like Gordon Moore, Vint Cerf, and David Packard all acquired their love of science and technology by enjoying real hands on chemistry as children. By legislating away amateur chemistry and rocketry, we are depriving an entire generation of potential innovators that same chance. All in the name of a little extra false security. “People who want to make meth will find ways to do it that don’t require an Erlenmeyer flask. But raising a generation of people who are technically incompetent is a recipe for disaster.” says Bill Nye.

Take a look at the picture I included with this post. It came from Stacina's Creative Commons licensed flickr stream. It's a picture of a home chemistry lab in Fort Myers, Florida. A lab full of unlicensed glassware and chemicals that would break all sorts of rules, and arouse untold suspicion and maybe even be shutdown by the powers that be. It's a good thing the war on science is a relatively new phenomenon... Because that's the home chemistry lab of Thomas Alva Edison.

Man calls for EMS, gets police Tasers

By JOANN LIVINGSTON

Waxahachie resident Allen Nelms says a call to 911 to get medical attention for his diabetic seizure got him Tasered by police instead.

He said he still has no answer as to why police broke down his door with their guns drawn before shooting him multiple times with a Taser as he lay in bed.

“One of the officers said I ‘lunged’ at him. I asked him, ‘How can I lunge at you from my back and on my bed?’ ” Nelms said in an interview with the Daily Light.

All he’s received, he said, is a one-paragraph statement from police that indicates the department concluded an investigation into his allegation of excessive force in less than five days, with Assistant Chief Brett Colston saying the officers operated within policy guidelines.

The 52-year-old partially disabled man - who also suffers from rheumatoid arthritis - was having a diabetic seizure during the early morning hours of April 28 when his girlfriend, Josie Edwards, called 911 to request paramedics.

“I respect the law and police but on this day I was a shooting target for them when I needed help,” Nelms said in his May 3 written complaint to the police department.

The couple’s statements indicate an officer came to the residence on Perry Avenue and inquired as to what was going on - and then called for backup.

Nelms told the Daily Light that he was in his bed in the couple’s bedroom when officers burst in with their guns drawn and yelling at him to get on the floor.

He said he told them he needed medical help, not the police, but officers continued yelling at him to get on the floor. He said he went to roll over to his right, with photographs indicating he was struck by Taser barbs on his left side, his back and his shoulder. He said he was handcuffed, with paramedics intervening when the officers began trying to yank the Taser barbs from his skin.

Paramedics removed the Taser barbs and then checked his blood sugar, with officers then releasing him from the handcuffs.

In her statement, Edwards, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease and is on oxygen, said an officer came to the door and asked her what was the matter before calling for backup and the paramedics.

She said about six or seven police officers kicked the front door in and stormed the back bedroom where she said she could hear one telling Nelms to get on the floor.

“Allen was shouting, ‘Please don’t do me like this. I just need help.’ Next thing I heard some ‘zing’ noise and Allen was shouting,” she wrote in her statement. “I asked what were they doing to him. One policeman replied, ‘We just took care of him.’

“After they did their shooting and laughing, they came out (of) the rooms. The paramedics had to pull out the Tasers,” she said.

After Nelms was Tasered, Edwards said officers asked her what she was doing there, with Edwards telling them it was her home and she lived there. She said the officers then questioned her about what time Nelms came home and if he was drunk or on drugs, if he ever got into fights or if he had hit her.

In her statement, Edwards said she told officers Nelms did none of that and that he was sickly. She also said she told the officers they had called for paramedics in the past because of his seizures.

Nelms told the Daily Light he has never had a problem in calling for paramedics before, and there is no history of his becoming violent when he is having a diabetic seizure.

Edwards noted the same in her statement, which was taken as part of Nelms’ complaint.

“Of the 16 years that we (have) lived here and called for paramedics, police decide to come and take over and try to almost kill the man,” she said in her statement. “They never asked any questions (like) did he have a heart pacer, they just wanted to have fun by shooting Tasers and handcuffing the man after he was shot,” she said.

Nelms said after he was checked over, the police and paramedics left. He was not transported, there was no arrest made nor charge filed.

After his complaint was closed, Nelms said he was referred by a city council member to Waxahachie attorney Rodney Ramsey, who told the Daily Light he has filed notice with the city on Nelms’ behalf to preserve all documentation and evidence relating to the incident.

“This police department has a bad history of disparate treatment on the east side,” Ramsey said. “They’re not treated fairly. They’re not treated justly.

“I bet the police wouldn’t kick in a white man’s door on Spring Creek at 4:30 a.m. and Taser him three or four times,” said Ramsey, saying he will seek justice on Nelms’ behalf.

“I don’t care if I make a dime on this case. I don’t care if this costs me money,” he said. “I want to know what policy says you can kick somebody’s door down and Taser them for asking for medical help. This is not going to happen in this town anymore.”

Ramsey said he wants the names of the officers involved in the incident and that he will renew his efforts to see a citizens review board of police established in the city of Waxahachie, saying that while the majority of the department’s officers are good officers, there are some whose actions are questionable.

In addition to what Ramsey cites as Civil Rights violations, he said what really disturbs him about the incident is that the officers were laughing about what happened.

“They better have everything they have on this,” he said. “There had better not be one piece of evidence that is shredded in this case.”

Nelms filed his complaint with the police department at 2:05 p.m. Thursday, May 3.

An internal affairs investigation was conducted, with Colston informing Nelms of its conclusion in a written response dated Wednesday, May 9.

“A review regarding your written complaint dated May 3, 2007, was conducted,” Colston wrote in a one-paragraph response. “After careful consideration of your allegations we have found that the officers were within our departmental policies regarding the use of a less than lethal force option (TASER) on you during an event at your residence on April 28, 2007.”

Because litigation has been threatened, little if any information is available for public release. A provision of the Open Records Act allows governmental agencies to withhold otherwise releasable materials under an exception of pending litigation.

As a result, in this case, such materials as dispatcher and radio communications and the use of force report in all likelihood will be withheld - as allowed by prior rulings of the state Attorney General’s Office.

A brief synopsis of the incident that is releasable by the department says only that officers responded to 720 Perry at about 4:30 a.m. April 28 in reference to a 911 hangup.

A Waxahachie Fire Department call record indicates a fire squad responded to the address on a “medical assist, assist EMS crew.” Fire personnel were notified at 4:44 a.m., arriving at 4:47 and clearing at 5:25 a.m.

“We acknowledge an incident occurred and allegations of excessive force made,” Police Chief Chuck Edge said. “We have looked into the incident and (because of Civil Service rules and the pending litigation Open Record exception) cannot talk about it any further.”

The Daily Light has requested a copy of the department’s policies on use of a less than lethal force option.

The Waxahachie Police Department acquired Tasers in late 2004. The weapons fire two small probes from up to 21 feet away and administer a 50,000-volt shock. The electrical charge disables a person’s ability to control his muscles, making coordinated activity all but impossible during the five-second duration of the impulse.

10G TO BEAT$65 PARKING TICKET

By DAREH GREGORIAN

June 15, 2007 -- Sometimes it does pay to fight City Hall - even if it costs you bigtime.

Lawyer Sanford Young spent two years and almost $10,000, but finally beat the $65 ticket he fought all the way to Manhattan Supreme Court.

"I feel great," Young said yesterday after learning that Manhattan Justice Emily Jane Goodman had ordered the Parking Violations Bureau to pay his money back on the 2005 ticket.

"It's a good feeling to fight the system and right a wrong."

The lawyer estimated that his $9,935 loss was well worth it. "I figured I'm sick and tired and I'm not going to take it anymore," he said.

In her ruling, Goodman referred to Young's battle as the "unusual case of a parking-violation summons reaching the Supreme Court."

Young got the ticket on Nov. 29, 2005, after he parked on First Avenue near East 70th Street to have dinner with a friend. He returned from his $60 dinner to find a $65 ticket.

The summons charged him with violating the weekday no-parking rule between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., and "noted the time of the offense as 6:59 p.m.," the judge's decision says.

The summons especially ticketed Young off because he made sure he didn't park until after 7.

He entered a plea of not guilty on the Parking Violation Bureau's Web site. He called the ticket "absurd and wrong," and said that as "lifelong New Yorker and lawyer," he knew when he could park.

"Therefore, I respectfully ask that the summons be dismissed," he wrote.

The city Department of Finance offered to reduce the fine to $43, but Young declined the offer.

In March 2006, a city administrative law judge found that Young was "not persuasive," and was guilty as charged.

Young appealed the ruling and lost - which led to his suit in state Supreme Court.

"It cost a fortune" and "30 to 40 hours of my legal time, but it was time well spent," Young said, predicting the case would pave the way for others to right ticket wrongs.

The city declined comment.

Young said if the city appeals the ruling, "I'll be ready."

'This Is Not Right'

By Kevin Reece

DES MOINES - Cecilia Beaman is a 57-year-old grandmother, a principal at Pacific Middle School in Des Moines, and as of Sunday is also a suspected terrorist.

"This is not right," she told us. It's not right!"

This past weekend she and several other chaperones took 37 middle school students to a Heritage Festival band competition in California. The trip included two days at Disneyland.

During the stay she made sandwiches for the kids and was careful to pack the knives she used to prepare those sandwiches in her checked luggage. She says she even alerted security screeners that the knives were in her checked bags and they told her that was OK.

But Beaman says she couldn't find a third knife. It was a 5 1/2 inch bread knife with a rounded tip and a serrated edge. She thought she might have lost or misplaced it during the trip.

On the trip home, screeners with the Transportation Security Administration at Los Angeles International Airport found it deep in the outside pocket of a carry-on cooler. Beaman apologized and told them it was a mistake.

"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."

Beaman says she was told her name would go on a terrorist watch-list and that she would have to pay a $500 fine.

"I'm a 57-year-old woman who is taking care of 37 kids," she told them. "I'm not gonna commit a terrorist act." Beaman says they took information from her Washington drivers license and confiscated and photographed the knife according to standard operating procedure.

She says screeners refused to give her paperwork or documentation of her violation, documentation of the pending fine, or a copy of the photograph of the knife.

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this point ... you don't have any'."

KOMO News did reach a spokesperson with the Transportation Security Administration for comment. They said they did not have record of Beaman's confrontation but did admit that TSA screeners are, by design, becoming more strict.

Despite continued warnings to passengers, TSA screeners say travelers continue to bring banned items in their carry-on luggage. Knives, guns, and other weapons are found and confiscated daily.

Fines issued for knives and other sharp objects range from $250 to $1,500. Fines issued for firearms discovered in carry-on luggage range from $1,500 to $7,500.

The TSA web site also indicates firearms violations will be referred for potential criminal prosecution. The same site does not propose the same criminal referral for knives like the one Cecilia Beaman was carrying.

"This is not the way my country should be treating me," she said. My concern is that if that's the way they're treating American citizens I would hate to think how they're treating other people. It's crazy."

The TSA reminds travelers that is has the authority to impose civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation.

"TSA needs the help of the traveling public in reducing the number of prohibited items brought to airport screening checkpoints," reads the Sanction Guidelines section of the TSA web site. "TSA recognizes that most passengers who carry prohibited items do so without any ill intent. TSA does not impose fines on the vast number of passengers who inadvertently carry prohibited items. Dealing with any prohibited item, however, adds time to the screening process both for the traveler who brought the item and for other travelers as well."

São Paulo: The City That Said No To Advertising

The "Clean City" law passed last year by the populist mayor, Gilberto Kassab, stripped the Brazilian city of all advertising. So how's it looking now?

by Patrick Burgoyne

A city stripped of advertising. No Posters. No flyers. No ads on buses. No ads on trains. No Adshels, no 48-sheets, no nothing.

It sounds like an Adbusters editorial: an activist's dream. But in São Paulo, Brazil, the dream has become a reality.

In September last year, the city's populist right-wing mayor, Gilberto Kassab, passed the so-called Clean City laws. Fed up with the "visual pollution" caused by the city's 8,000 billboard sites, many of them erected illegally, Kassab proposed a law banning all outdoor advertising. The skyscraper-sized hoardings that lined the city's streets would be wiped away at a stroke. And it was not just billboards that attracted his wrath: all forms of outdoor advertising were to be prohibited, including ads on taxis, on buses—even shopfronts were to be restricted, their signs limited to 1.5 metres for every 10 metres of frontage. "It is hard in a city of 11 million people to find enough equipment and personnel to determine what is and isn't legal," reasoned Kassab, "so we have decided to go all the way."

The law was hailed by writer Roberto Pompeu de Toledo as "a rare victory of the public interest over private, of order over disorder, aesthetics over ugliness, of cleanliness over trash… For once, all that is accustomed to coming out on top in Brazil has lost."

Border, the Brazilian Association of Advertisers, was up in arms over the move. In a statement released on 2 October, the date on which law PL 379/06 was formally approved by the city council, Border called the new laws "unreal, ineffective and fascist". It pointed to the tens of thousands of small businesses that would have to bear the burden of altering their shopfronts under regulations "unknown in their virulence in any other city in the world". A prediction of US$133 million in lost advertising revenue for the city surfaced in the press, while the São Paulo outdoor media owners' association, Sepex, warned that 20,000 people would lose their jobs.

Others predicted that the city would look even worse with the ads removed, a bland concrete jungle replacing the chaos of the present. North Korea and communist Eastern Europe were cited as indicative of what was to come. "I think this city will become a sadder, duller place," Dalton Silvano, the only city councillor to vote against the laws and (not entirely coincidentally) an ad executive, was quoted as saying in the International Herald Tribune. "Advertising is both an art form and, when you're in your car, or alone on foot, a form of entertainment that helps relieve solitude and boredom," he claimed.

There was also much questioning of whether there weren't, in fact, far greater eyesores in the city—such as the thousands of homeless people, the poor condition of the roads and the notorious favelas: wouldn't Kassab's time be better spent removing these problems than persecuting taxi drivers and shop owners? Legal challenges followed while, in an almost comical scenario, advertising executives followed marches by the city's students and its bin men by driving their cars up and down in front of city hall in protest.

Nevertheless, the council pressed ahead. "What we are aiming for is a complete change of culture," its president Roberto Tripoli said. "Yes, some people are going to have to pay a price but things were out of hand and the population has made it clear that it wants this."

Originally, the law was to be introduced last autumn with immediate effect but it was first delayed until December and then finally introduced in January 2007 with a 90-day compliance period, supposedly giving everyone time to take down any posters or signs that did not meet the new regulations or face a fine of up to US$4,500 per day. Throughout that period, the city's workmen were busy dismantling around 100 sites per day, occasionally supervised personally by Kassab, a man with an obvious eye for a photo opportunity.

In theory, 1 April was the first day of São Paulo's re-birth as a Clean City. So what does it feel like?

"I can't tell you what it's like to live in a city without ads yet," says Gustavo Piqueira, who runs the studio Rex Design in São Paulo, "because in a lot of places they still haven't been removed. In Brazil, every time that some new law comes in, everybody waits a little to see if it will really be applied and seriously controlled, or if it's just something to fill the newspapers for a week or two.

In a lot of places, Piqueira says, this has led to the removal of posters but not the structures on which they were displayed. "It's a kind of 'billboard cemetery'. I guess they're waiting to see if the law will really last. If the mayor keeps the law for a year or so, people will start to remove them and the city will, finally, start to look better."

Photographer and typographer Tony de Marco has been out documenting this strange hiatus in a sequence of images published on Flickr and used to illustrate this piece. The city, he says, is starting to feel more "serene".

Already the law has led to some strange discoveries. Because the site-ing of billboards was unregulated, many poor people readily accepted cash to have a poster site in their gardens or even in front of their homes. With their removal, a new city is emerging: "Last week, on my way to work, I 'discovered' a house," says Piqueira. "It had been covered by a big billboard for years so I never even knew what it looked like." The removal of the posters has "revealed an architecture that we must learn to be proud of, instead of hiding," says de Marco.

But there are downsides—Piqueira worries that much of the "vernacular" lettering and signage from small businesses—"an important part of the city's history and culture"—will be lost. The organisers of the São Paulo carnival have also expressed concerns about the long-term future of their event now that sponsors will not be allowed to advertise along the route. The city authorities for their part have made it clear that certain public information and cultural works will be exempted from the rules.

After a period of zero tolerance, Piqueira believes that advertising, albeit in a far more regulated form, will start to creep back into the city, either as a result of legal challenges, a change in administration, or compromises between media owners and the city. Already, the council has stated that it would like to see the introduction of approved street furniture such as bus stops, which may well carry ads. As these will no doubt be for the major brands that can afford such lucrative positions, a more sterile, bland visual environment may replace the vibrant, if chaotic streets of the past. Flyposters, hand-lettered signs and club flyers will remain banned while international ad campaigns for global brands on city-approved poster sites will return.

For de Marco, though, "the low quality of the letters and the images on those immense pieces of propaganda" were always a concern, as was "the misuse and occupation of public space. In the weeks before my birthday," he says, "my visual enemies begin to disappear like the happy end of a motion picture. To see my city clean was my best birthday present and my photos were the record of the feast."

Meanwhile, according to Augusto Moya, creative director of ad agency DDB Brasil, the ban is forcing agencies to be more inventive. "As a creative, I think that there is one good thing the ban has brought: we must now use more traditional outdoor media (like bus stops and all kinds of urban fittings) in a more creative way," he says. "People at all the agencies are thinking about how to develop outdoor media that do not interfere so much in the physical structure of the city."

Moya takes an enlightened view of the law. "As a citizen, I think that future generations will thank the current city administration for this ban," he says. "There's still a lot to be done in terms of pollution—air pollution, river pollution, street pollution and so on. São Paulo is still one of the most polluted cities in the world. But I believe this law is the first step for a better future."

And even if some Paulistanos remain unconvinced, there is at least one group who are certainly not complaining—the city's scrap dealers, who are set to make a killing from recovering all the old signs and structures.

Sex with a woman who is drunk may soon be rape

By KIRSTY WALKER

Under the proposed laws if a girl is too drunk she will be deemed incapable of giving consent

Men who have sex with drunken women risk being convicted of rape - even if they appear to have given consent.

Ministers will unveil the controversial proposals this week in a bid to boost conviction rates for sex offences and bring more 'date rapists' to justice.

A new white paper is expected to propose that judges should give firmer guidance to juries in cases where the woman has been drinking.

If a woman is deemed to have consumed so much alcohol that she is incapable of agreeing to make love, the man would be far more likely to be convicted of rape.

The new law would potentially open the way for the prosecution of thousands of men for having sex with drunk women - regardless of whether agreement had been given at the time.

Successful prosecutions for rape often founder before they get to court because of the difficulty in proving to juries that a victim had not given consent.

At the moment, a drunken woman is deemed to be capable of giving consent so long as she is not unconscious.

The law change is expected to lead to a huge rise in the current conviction rate of five per cent.

Proof of whether a woman was drunk would come from medical tests - as well as evidence from witnesses and victims.

The new law places a heavy responsibility on men to be certain that a woman is sober enough to know what she is doing.

The white paper, which has been signed off by ministers, will be published later this week. It follows months of consultation with the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, police and women's support groups.

There were nearly 15,000 allegations of rape in 2005, but only 12 per cent of these went to court and only a handful resulted in convictions.

The proposals will leave far more discretion to judges and juries to determine the amount of alcohol a woman can consume before she is deemed incapable.

The new proposals follow a recent ruling by senior judges that a woman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk.

The Appeal Court raised deep doubts over the Government's latest attempt to improve rate conviction rates.

In March, the Deputy Lord Chief Justice Sir Igor Judge (CORR), and two other senior judges, quashed the conviction of software engineer Benjamin Bree, 25, jailed for five years in December after a drunken evening with a 19-year-old student.

The girl told the jury that she did not want to have sex, but Mr Bree told the court she had given her consent.

Sir Igor said sex amounts to rape if the woman is incapable of giving consent.

But he added: "Where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape."

The judge added that it would not be right to lay down rules – 'some kind of grid system' – that say a woman who has reached a set level of drunkenness is incapable of consent.

He said: "Experience shows that different individuals have a greater or lesser capacity to cope with alcohol."

Earlier this year the Council of Circuit Judges said it should be left to juries to decide whether a woman is capable of consenting to sex.

A study by the Association of Chief Police Officers has found that a 'significant' number of rape and sexual assault victims had drunk at least the equivalent of eight pub glasses of wine. This is equivalent to two and a half times the drink driving limit.

Opponents of the proposals fear they may encourage some women to allege rape when they regret having had sex while drunk.

George McAuley, chairman of the UK Men's Movement, said men may have to resort to obtaining written 'contracts' or using mobile phones to film their partners consenting to sex.

He said: "It means men will have to get a consent form signed, dated and countersigned in triplicate before they make love. This legislation is deliberately designed to put more men behind bars."

'You're fired,' man hears after saving a woman's life

By Jim Schoettler

When a neighbor screamed she'd been shot, Colin Bruley grabbed his shotgun, found the victim and began treating her bloodied right leg.

Tonnetta Lee survived Tuesday's pre-dawn shooting at her Jacksonville apartment, and her sister and a neighbor praised Bruley's actions. But his employers, the same people who own the Arlington complex where Bruley lives, reacted differently. They fired him.

Bruley, a leasing agent at the Oaks at Mill Creek, said he lost his job after being told that brandishing the weapon was a workplace violation, as was failing to notify supervisors after the incident occurred. He'd worked at the Monument Road complex since December and for the owner, Village Green Cos., since 2005.

Bruley said he was too shaken to call his supervisor immediately after the incident, which occurred just before 2 a.m., but planned to eventually do so. He also said he was acting as a citizen, not an employee, and shouldn't have been punished for trying to protect himself and others. He never fired the shotgun.

"I was expecting work to give me some kind of commendation," said Bruley, 24. "I was totally blown back. It was a crisis that most people don't go through."

Andrea Roebker, the company's director of public relations, said "We're not in a position to discuss any employment issues outside of [with] the employee.

She declined to comment further, citing confidentiality rules.

A complaint Bruley said was given to him by his supervisor Tuesday said he violated several company policies found in an employee handbook. Those procedures were also explained in a recent meeting and an e-mail, the complaint said. One policy prohibits any type of weapons being used in the workplace. The complaint cited him for "gross misconduct."

"Colin demonstrated extremely poor judgment in responding to this situation," the complaint said. "Colin's failure to immediately report this incident ... could have serious ramifications to the property, its associates and residents."

A police report said the shooting followed a domestic quarrel involving Lee, 24, and her boyfriend. Bruley said he was dozing off in his apartment when he heard Lee's screams. He said he then grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun he uses for protection and hunting.

Bruley said he found the woman bleeding heavily. He handed the shotgun to a neighbor, tied a tourniquet around her right leg and waited for police and rescue to arrive.

"I was kind of in a state of shock. I had blood all over my body," Bruley said.

After emergency officials took Lee to the hospital, Bruley returned to his apartment and tried to settle down, eventually falling asleep. He said he could have called his supervisor but didn't think she could do anything at the time. He said he was called into the office about 9:30 a.m., gave his account and then left. He said he was called back that afternoon and told he was fired.

Neighbor Kevin Courson joined Bruley at the crime scene when he saw Bruley had a gun for protection. Courson said he is incensed by the dismissal.

"Here was a guy trying to do a good deed. He wasn't trying to hurt nobody," said Courson, 31.

Erica Jenkins, Lee's sister, said Bruley should still have a job. Lee couldn't be reached to comment despite several messages left with her sister and mother.

"If it wasn't for him ... she could have lost her leg or died," said Jenkins, 19. "He put his life in jeopardy for someone else."

Bruley said he is considering contacting a lawyer about his dismissal, but will first look for another job and possibly another home. He promises he won't shy away from aiding others in need.

"If I'd lose my job again for helping some girl's life ... I'd do it over and over," Bruley said.

A Phone Call With The Federal Reserve

Man Arrested for Riding His Bike Home From an Airport!

Here are the salient facts of this case:
I was leaving MSP airport by bicycle after a flight from California. I was legally operating my bicycle completely in accord with MN statutes and MAC airport ordinances. I was following all posted signs. There were NO signs at that time prohibiting bicycles. I was rudely accosted by an officer in a passing squad car, came to a stop, and was immediately threatened with mace and taser if I didn't get off the bike and up on the curb. I did not understand the reason for this outrage.

I calmly yet firmly protested the threats, and said that I was happy to abide by all laws that applied, but asked what I had done wrong and why the process was so immediately belligerent. Officer Wingate said 'You can't ride here'.

I asked where that was posted. Officer Wingate made a vague gesture in the direction of the Lindbergh terminal and angrily said 'back there'. I asked for specifics of where it was and what the sign said, and tried to explain that I had been to the airport many times and had never seen such a sign. Officer Wingate became more angry at this questioning of his authority, and burst out 'I'm *telling* you you can't ride here'. I never raised my voice, used profanity or made threatening gestures yet I was threatened again: 'I'm going to mace you, I'm going to tase you!'.

I told Officer Wingate that he was being rude to me, and as I said that, I read his name clearly aloud off his shirt and asked to speak with his supervisor. At this, he took a step back and changed his tone for the better. He asked if I worked at the airport. I answered 'no' and explained that I had just come in on a NW flight from California. He asked where I was going. I said I was on my way to St Paul to see my family. He asked how I planned to get there. I explained my planned route out of the airport that completely avoids the highway, using the service roads, connecting to Post Road and then the bike trails in Fort Snelling State Park. Officer Wingate said, 'Well, I see you've done your homework. *Just this once* I'll let you ride out along here', referring to the one-way service road that parallels the main airport egress, but traveling against the marked flow of traffic, and that connects to Post Road, Fort Snelling, and so forth.

I replied 'OK, that's fine, but what do I do the next time I come to the airport, because I don't want to go through this again?'

The notion that I was even thinking of ever operating my bicycle again at the airport brought back Officer Wingate's anger in full force. He vehemently replied, 'NO, you're going to *WALK* your bike to Post Road'. I asked what had changed all of a sudden. The one way service road is rarely traveled, a walking cyclist is twice the width of a riding one and with more limited control and you would be on the road 10 times longer. I stated that I saw no problem with doing what he had just said, as there was no traffic at all on the road. Officer Wingate then blurted, 'NO, you're going to *walk your bike back to the terminal and take public transportation*'.

This last order was clearly not in the interests of my safety, but was delivered in a vindictive and punitive way. I would have become a pedestrian (illegal), double the width of a normal cyclist, walking back against 2 to 3 lanes of oncoming traffic on the main airport egress road with no sidewalks, blind walled curves allowing no margin of safe retreat from the road, and regular posts and pillars along the small curb that is there. I stated what was obvious: 'that's ridiculous, that would put me at risk'. Officer Wingate then ordered me to 'get on my knees'.

I replied that that was absurd, that there was no basis for that as I wasn't doing anything threatening to him. I stated again, 'You are being rude to me and I want to speak to your supervisor'. Officer Wingate then said, 'Look, you're wasting our time. We were on a call to the Humphrey Terminal for a runaway teenage girl, and we would have been there by now.' I completely agreed that it was a waste of time for everybody. I noted that I was not being cited for any violation, nor told any statute that I had violated. I explained that I would follow the first and most reasonable, safety-wise, of the conflicting orders given to me, and then said 'I'm going to wish you both a good evening, and hope the rest of it goes better than this has gone.' I then got on my bike and began to leave.

I was instantly and with absolutely no verbal warning whatsoever attacked from behind and thrown to the ground. I received wounds to chin and arm. The impact put a new casing crack on my helmet. My glasses were thrown off by the impact and bounced several feet away. The bicycle continued to roll forwards a few feet, coming to a stop in the center of the road. (A gold van would later have to stop, because the bike was crumpled in the middle of the one lane road.) Officer Wingate then came up behind me and jerked me up into a standing position. I then heard him yell an order to Officer Bryant- 'Shoot him!'. Officer Bryant then shot me with the taser. I fell uncontrolled to the pavement for the second time, experiencing the full force of a weapon that can only be considered barbaric. (There are many documented deaths by taser. For this reason police departments do not consider it a 'non' lethal weapon, but a 'less' lethal weapon. It was developed to be used in lieu of a gun, as a weapon of last resort when a person is seriously threatened. Needless to say, I did not give permission for this to be used on me as part of the exercise, nor was I asked in advance if I had any medical history that could have led to my death. Only after the fact, in the hospital, was I asked my medical history.)

As I lay still on the pavement, Officer Wingate walked over to my glasses and smashed them into the ground with his boot. I was handcuffed, body searched and baggage searched. Reinforcements were called in, a total of (4) squad cars and a paramedic unit.

Officer Wingate said, 'Well, you wanted to speak to my supervisor, here he is'. I then asked Sergeant Karsnia 'What in the world is going on here?' He also wanted to know from me what had happened but said 'first, I'd like to speak to my officer, and then I'll get back to you'. He had a private conversation with Officer Wingate, came back, asked what had happened but immediately interrupted me and said 'Look, I'll do the talking here because you tried to take a swing at my officer'. At this point the collusion was clear. I then had no reason to believe that the brutality was over. As I stood on Outbound Rd next to the squad car, handcuffed, I called out 'Help!' to all passing traffic, hoping to draw attention to the situation, and in hope of a witness. No cars would stop. When ironically asked to 'calm down' I explained to Sergeant Karsnia that I wanted a third party present, as I no longer had reason to trust the police. At no time did I physically resist arrest.

After being taken to the hospital, I was again in the squad car. At this point Officer Wingate was calm. I asked him if he *really* thought that I was going to take a swing at him. I think this caught him off-guard, and he replied, a bit hesitatingly and somewhat sheepishly, that in police work any gesture has to be interpreted as potentially aggressive. In demonstration he put his fist to his chest, and said 'you never know when someone could put their hand like this, and then suddenly strike out'.

My California driver's license passed with flying colors- I have no criminal record, and no recent moving violations. The Minnesota test also passed with no violations or adverse history of any kind.

I was put in Hennepin County jail, and on the entry form the box was checked that I should be detained WITHOUT bail, because I was 'likely to commit another crime'.

I was thus held without charges and without bail. The admission process was intentionally made to take over 8 hours, so I could legally be held through the long weekend to an arraignment on Monday. Everything was taken from me. I could only make collect calls to numbers I had remembered. It was impossible with this arrangement to even leave a message on a message machine.

Police photographs were made that night of a series of 'NO PED XING' signs and a lone 'AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY' sign that is buried in the transit hub, and not even visible from the road. That is the photo 'evidence' against me.

24 hours later I was released on a negotiated $2000 bail, reduced from an intermediate $10,000. (note- Vikings player Travis Taylor in an incident earlier this year, was released in 45 minutes on a $50 bail.)

Sergeant Karsnia had by now reviewed the CCTV video evidence and made a margin note ordering the video evidence from 5 cameras burned to disc. My personal request for video evidence was never answered by Airport Police. There are over 800 CCTV cameras at MSP Airport. The system was substantially upgraded after 9-11. Police are now claiming through the prosecution that I didn't show up on any camera.

I was kept in limbo for one month, then finally charged with (6) counts, including a Gross Misdemeanor of Obstructing Legal Process 'with force or violence or threat thereof'. (see the CASE SUMMARY link for details on all the counts).

Four months later, new signs prohibiting bicycles are installed by police without the knowledge of the Metropolitan Airports Council.

I think the underlying circumstance of the incident is clear. I later learned that the threatening officer, Officer Wingate, had taken his oath of office less than 3 years previously. The squad car driver, Officer Bryant, had taken his oath of office less than 3 weeks before. To begin with, Officer Wingate probably doesn't like cyclists. He was also likely showing off to the younger recruit, using me as ready educational fodder, demonstrating how immediate threats of violence can quickly force the compliance of a suspicious person. He became angry when I legally questioned the legitimacy of it all. Is this what his education taught him? Is this courtesy, respect and professionalism? Hubris and unchecked authority are a volatile combination, and should have no place in a peace officer who has taken an oath to 'serve and protect'.

An altogether illegitimate police stop cannot trump our Constitutional Rights. If this is not the case, then any officer for any whim whatsoever could blurt out (4) warnings to anybody's grandmother that they 'will be tased', and then do it if they don't like being disagreed with. It would be hard to imagine a clearer definition of a police state.

At the very least MSP Airport Police are in violation of the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights Amendments IV and VIII, Metropolitan Airport Council Ordinance 58, discrimination and profiling of a cyclist, flagrant violation of the MN police policy manual's stated force continuum policy, collusion and embroidery of police narratives to support a Complaint against an innocent person supported by spurious and irrelevant evidence, posting of new signs without due notification of the appropriate authorities and the likely destruction of key CCTV video evidence that would make the truth of what happened clear to all.

I remain committed to the peaceful and lawful resolution of these issues. For whatever reason I am truly glad to have no anger over the matter, but this is fully replaced by a heightened concern for everybody of what the precedent could be from the outcome of this case. On one level this is a personal case for me, and an important test of cycling civil rights, but at an even deeper and more profound level it is about the Constitutional Rights of all of us and whether we will allow them to be trod upon.

With thanks to the many voices of support,

Peace and best wishes to all,

Stephan Orsak

Man bursts into flames after being shot by a taser gun

Police are investigating the firey death of a man who burst into flames after dousing himself in petrol and then being shot with a taser gun.

Officers used the gun after the man had poured gasoline over himself.

Juan Flores Lopez, 47, died on Tuesday at a hospital in Texas.

Police initially used pepper spray when they tried to take Lopez into custody. Then they used the Taser. Some stun guns emit an electric spark when they deliver the jolt of electricity.

The Texas Rangers were also investigating whether a lighter that was on the porch could have contributed to the fire.

"We don't know what ignited the fire," police said.

>Let's see... hmm... He was covered in flammable liquid and shot with an electric device. I wonder...<

No one else was injured in the confrontation. It was unclear whether Lopez had been charged with anything.

Two of his sons who live nearby said their father had been threatening for months to burn himself and his house. His wife was seeking a divorce and he did not want to have to leave the house, the sons said.

Female counsellor had sex with girl

By PATRICK CREWDSON

Janette Isaac has been ordered to pay her former client $35,000 in damages and $5000 costs for humiliation, loss of dignity, injury to her feelings, and "flagrant disregard" of her rights.

All identifying details about the girl, referred to in a Human Rights Review Tribunal decision issued last week as Miss B, have been permanently suppressed.

In March, 2000, Miss B went to see the high school guidance counsellor because she was having trouble with her mother at home. Their monthly sessions increased to weekly and, in November, Isaac referred her to a mental health service because of her drug use, self-harming, and violence.

In early April 2001, the girl was suspended from school for drug possession, but her suspension was lifted with the help of Isaac. During the next few months she was admitted to hospital three times – for acute alcohol intoxication, self-harm, and because she was suicidal. In May, she disclosed a history of sexual abuse and was referred to a specialist counsellor, bringing her formal relationship with Isaac to an end.

After a drug overdose in August, she wrote a suicide note to Isaac, addressing her as "Aunty Janette". That prompted formal complaints from her mother and her mental health therapist about the pair's inappropriate relationship.

But, in October, the girl moved in with Isaac and her female partner – who she believed was a flatmate – as she prepared for School Certificate.

The next month, Isaac and the girl kissed "in a sexual manner". By January, 2002, the pair were often sleeping in the same bed and the girl said she was in love with Isaac.

They had sex for the first time in June, when the girl was 16. She stayed at Isaac's home for about a week before moving to Wellington to live with her mother. Soon after, Isaac paid for the girl, who had been drinking heavily, to return to Tauranga to stay with her. They had sex many times.

In August, they spent another week together in Tauranga, after which the girl decided to stay in the city, taking on a job and renting a flat.

In October, Isaac greatly upset the girl with the revelation that she and her partner had been together for 16 years. But their tryst continued, with Miss B believing the long-term relationship was over.

The next month, the girl attacked Isaac after learning she was still in contact with her partner. A few days later she approached Isaac with a knife, telling police later that if she could not be with Isaac, she would kill herself.

The next day she tried to overdose on aspirin, anti-depressants and anti-nausea pills but vomited before they took effect. After that, Isaac and the girl had sex once more, in December.

Speaking through her lawyer, Isaac said she was no longer working as a guidance counsellor or in a school.

Laws Require Flags to Be Born in USA

By BRIAN BAKST
ROSEMOUNT, Minn. -- What's red, white and blue _ and made in China? A move is on in state legislatures to ensure that the flags folks will be flying and buying this Independence Day were made on this fruited plain.

Minnesota has passed the strongest measure, a new law that goes into effect at year's end requiring every Old Glory sold in state stores to be domestically produced. Violations are a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

In Arizona, schools and public colleges were required starting July 1 to outfit every classroom from junior high up with a made-in-the-USA flag. Tennessee requires all U.S. flags bought via state contract to be made here, and similar bills are moving forward in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The Fourth of July is considered peak season for flag sales with millions of them lining parade routes and flying above back yard barbecues.

Most of the major domestic flag makers are privately held companies that don't release their sales figures, so it's difficult to gauge the inroads being made by foreign manufacturers.

The U.S. Census bureau estimates that $5.3 million worth of U.S. flags were imported from other countries in 2006, mostly from China. That figure has been steady over the past few years. The big exception was in 2001 when $51.7 million in U.S. flags were brought into the country, most on the heels of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Sandy Van Leiu, chairman of the Flag Manufacturers Association of America, said the imports are cause for concern even though U.S. companies still dominate the flag market.

"That door is going to keep opening," said Van Leiu, a sixth-generation executive at the family owned Annin & Co., a 160-year-old business that supplies retailers like Wal-Mart. "It starts small, then it gets big. You're just opening Pandora's box."

To help consumers identify the origin of their flags, the association created a certification program two years ago that bestows a seal-of-approval logo to flags made with domestic fibers and labor.

Whether Minnesota's law violates international trade agreements _ and whether anything would be done about it _ is an open question.

Under World Trade Organization standards, the U.S. government can't treat foreign products less favorably than those produced within its boundaries, said Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland and the former chief economist for the U.S. International Trade Commission. How the rules apply to states is debatable, he said.

Morici said a foreign business harmed by the law would have to get its government to take action against the U.S. government. Robert Litan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, said while the likelihood of Minnesota's law sparking a dispute is slim, the symbolic message is hard to miss.

"It's symptomatic of an anti-foreign bias moving through the country right now. It would not surprise me if other states copied it," Litan said. "It's hard to oppose politically."

When the bill was debated this spring, some legislators argued it sent the wrong message to close Minnesota's borders to foreign-produced flags.

"That flag should be made throughout the world because it is our message to the world that there is hope for freedom and justice," Republican Rep. Dan Severson said at the time.

The law's sponsor, Democratic Rep. Tom Rukavina, said the flag deserves extra protection. To celebrate his legislative victory, he plans to hand out 1,000 miniature flags at Fourth of July parades in his district.

"The biggest honor that you can give the flag is that it be made by American workers in the United States of America," he said. "Nothing is more embarrassing to me than a plastic flag made in China. This replica of freedom we so respect should be made in this country."

The new law doesn't spell out a penalty for violators. In Minnesota, the default punishment for prohibited acts is a misdemeanor offense, carrying up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

Army Mom Goes AWOL To Fight For Custody Of Child

(CBS) CONCORD, N.H. A National Guard soldier serving her second tour of duty in Iraq could face several years in prison on desertion charges after leaving the Army to pursue custody of her young daughter.

Spc. Lisa Hayes, 32, of Rindge, N.H., asked for emergency leave in February to attend a court custody hearing.

According to the Concord Monitor, Hayes sought custody after she learned of two violent incidents between her ex-husband and his live-in girlfriend. Hayes' ex-husband has primary guardianship of the child.

Hayes' leave expired in March but the court proceedings are not finished. She went ahead and filed for a hardship discharge.

"I can't serve my country at my daughter's expense," Hayes told the Monitor. "I have to be here. There's no going back."

The Guard says it's trying to help Hayes, but claims she isn't following procedure.

Her commander, Capt. Tony Gagnon, extended her leave three times to prevent her from entering AWOL status. He also informed her that she needed to improve communication with her superiors.

First Sgt. Michael Daigle, a spokesman for the state National Guard, said Hayes has forgone assistance and ignored counsel.

"It's not fair to every other soldier if we give her special treatment," Daigle told the Monitor. "There are so many soldiers at war that are single parents who came up with a responsible family care plan to take care of their children."

Hayes arrived at Fort Dix in New Jersey this morning. She faces a dishonorable discharge and up to two years in prison.

Holy Smokes- DOD Creating SIM Earth With You As The Star…

Perhaps your real life is so rich you don’t have time for another.

Even so, the US Department of Defense (DOD) may already be creating a copy of you in an alternate reality to see how long you can go without food or water, or how you will respond to televised propaganda.

The DOD is developing a parallel to Planet Earth, with billions of individual “nodes” to reflect every man, woman, and child this side of the dividing line between reality and AR.

Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS), it will be a “synthetic mirror of the real world with automated continuous calibration with respect to current real-world information”, according to a concept paper for the project.

“SWS provides an environment for testing Psychological Operations (PSYOP),” the paper reads, so that military leaders can “develop and test multiple courses of action to anticipate and shape behaviors of adversaries, neutrals, and partners”.

SWS also replicates financial institutions, utilities, media outlets, and street corner shops. By applying theories of economics and human psychology, its developers believe they can predict how individuals and mobs will respond to various stressors.

Yank a country’s water supply. Stage a military coup. SWS will tell you what happens next.

“The idea is to generate alternative futures with outcomes based on interactions between multiple sides,” said Purdue University professor Alok Chaturvedi, co-author of the SWS concept paper.

Chaturvedi directs Purdue’s laboratories for Synthetic Environment for Analysis and Simulations, or SEAS - the platform underlying SWS. Chaturvedi also makes a commercial version of SEAS available through his company, Simulex, Inc (http://www.simulexinc.com).

SEAS users can visualise the nodes and scenarios in text boxes and graphs, or as icons set against geographical maps.

Corporations can use SEAS to test the market for new products, said Chaturvedi. Simulex lists the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and defense contractor Lockheed Martin among its private sector clients.

The US government appears to be Simulex’s number one customer, however. And Chaturvedi has received millions of dollars in grants from the military and the National Science Foundation to develop SEAS.

Chaturvedi is now pitching SWS to DARPA (http://www.darpa.mil) and discussing it with officials at the US Department of Homeland Security (http://www.dhs.gov), where he said the idea has been well received, despite the thorny privacy issues for US citizens.

In fact, Homeland Security and the Defense Department are already using SEAS to simulate crises on the US mainland.

The Joint Innovation and Experimentation Directorate of the US Joint Forces Command (JFCOM-J9) in April began working with Homeland Security and multinational forces over “Noble Resolve 07″, (http://www.jfcom.mil/about/experiments/nobleresolve.html) a homeland defense experiment.

In August, the agencies will shift their crises scenarios from the East Coast to the Pacific theatre.

JFCOM-J9 completed another test of SEAS last year. Called Urban Resolve (http://www.jfcom.mil/about/experiments/uresolve.htm), the experiment projected warfare scenarios for Baghdad in 2015, eight years from now.

JFCOM-9 is now capable of running real-time simulations for up to 62 nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and China. The simulations gobble up breaking news, census data, economic indicators, and climactic events in the real world, along with proprietary information such as military intelligence.

Military and intel officials can introduce fictitious agents into the simulations (such as a spike in unemployment, for example) to gauge their destabilising effects on a population.

Officials can also “inject an earthquake or a tsunami and observe their impacts (on a society)”, Chaturvedi added.

Jim Blank, modelling and simulation division chief at JFCOM-J9, declined to discuss the specific routines military commanders are running in the Iraq and Afghanistan computer models. He did say SEAS might help officers determine where to position snipers in a city square, or to envision scenarios that might emerge from widespread civil unrest.

SEAS helps commanders consider the multitude of variables and outcomes possible in urban warfare, said Blank.

“Future wars will be asymetric in nature. They will be more non-kinetic, with the center of gravity being a population.”

The Iraq and Afghanistan computer models are the most highly developed and complex of the 62 available to JFCOM-J9. Each has about five million individual nodes representing things such as hospitals, mosques, pipelines, and people.

The other SEAS models are far less detailed, encompassing only a few thousand nodes altogether, Blank said.

Feeding a whole-Earth simulation will be a colossal challenge.

“(SWS) is a hungry beast,” Blank said. “A lot of data will be required to make this thing even credible.”

Alok Chaturvedi wants SWS to match every person on the planet, one-to-one.

Right now, the 62 simulated nations in SEAS depict humans as composites, at a 100-to-1 ratio.

One organisation has achieved a one-to-one level of granularity for its simulations, according to Chaturvedi: the US Army, which is using SEAS to identify potential recruits.

Chaturvedi insists his goal for SWS is to have a depersonalised likeness for each individual, rather than an immediately identifiable duplicate. If your town census records your birthdate, job title, and whether you own a dog, SWS will generate what Chaturvedi calls a “like someone” with the same stats, but not the same name.

Of course, government agencies and corporations can add to SWS whatever personally-identifiable information they choose from their own databases, and for their own purposes.

And with consumers already giving up their personal information regularly to websites such as MySpace and Twitter, it is not a stretch to imagine SWS doing the same thing.

“There may be hooks through which individuals may voluntarily contribute information to SWS,” Chaturvedi said.

SEAS bases its AI “thinking” on the theories of cognitive psychologists and the work of Princeton University professor Daniel Kahneman, one of the fathers of behavioural economics.

Chaturvedi, as do many AR developers, also cites the work of positive psychology guru Martin Seligman (known, too, for his concept of “learned hopelessness”) as an influence on SEAS human behaviour models. The Simulex website says, if a bit vaguely, SEAS similarly incorporates predictive models based upon production, marketing, finance and other fields.

But SWS may never be smart enough to anticipate every possibility, or predict how people will react under stress, said Philip Lieberman, professor of cognitive and linguistic studies at Brown University.

“Experts make ‘correct’ decisions under time pressure and extreme stress that are not necessarily optimum but work,” said Lieberman, who nevertheless said the simulations might be useful for anticipating some scenarios.

JFCOM’s Blank agreed that SWS, which is using computers and code to do cultural anthropology, does not include any “hard science at this point”.

“Ultimately,” said Blank, “the guy to make decision is the commander.”

For now it's a way for them to easily and efficiently use the data they already have. In the future, they'll be able to make predictions, not only on the macro, but on the micro-scale (ie YOU)>

UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins

By Lucy Sherriff

The government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum.

It has also defined "Intelligent Design", the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of a greater intelligence, as a religion, along with "creationism".

Responding to a petition on the Number 10 ePetitions site, the government said: "The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. "

It added that it would expect teachers to be able to answer pupil's questions about "creationism, intelligent design, and other religious beliefs" within a scientific framework.

The petition was posted by James Rocks of the Science, Just Science campaign, a group that formed to counter a nascent anti-evolution lobby in the UK.

He wrote: "Creationism & Intelligent design are...being used disingenuously to portray science & the theory or evolution as being in crisis when they are not... These ideas therefore do not constitute science, cannot be considered scientific education and therefore do not belong in the nation's science classrooms."

Jailed for waving at my daughter

By JENNY JOHNSTON and RACHEL HALLIWELL

Denied access to his three children after his divorce, Mark was jailed for standing outside his house to wave to them. It took ten years and 133 hearings before they were reunited. How CAN the Government insist cases like his are kept secret?

Every day there is some reminder of what Mark Harris calls 'the lost years'.

It could be his daughter's reference to a particular birthday party or a family holiday. It could be talk of exams sat, dentists visited or pop stars worshipped.

Each time it happens, he feels a stab of regret. 'I missed so much,' he reveals, with understandable bitterness. 'They took my daughter's childhood, her formative years, from me. Lisa is 20 now. I didn't see her between the ages of ten and 16. An awful lot happens in a child's life in that time, and I missed it all.'

Reunited: Lisa, 20, with her father, Mark Harris

Lisa missed a lot, too. She sits by Mark's side as he talks, a beautiful and assured young woman, but one still coming to terms with the fact that her father simply wasn't there when she needed him - and for an entire decade she did not know why.

'There were times when I needed a father figure - for reassurance and advice,' she says, with quiet restraint. 'There just wasn't one there.'

But the story of what happened to the Harris family isn't just another tragic case of broken homes and estrangement. Mark, Lisa and her two younger sisters were wrenched apart by the state.

Mark was not a feckless, irresponsible father. He did not walk out of his children's lives. Rather, he was ordered out by the family courts, and when he objected - insisting it was his right to see them - he was dealt with in a scandalous way.

Mark Harris went to prison for his girls. He was jailed for waving to them after a court order demanded he sever all contact. It was the most shameful chapter in an extraordinary ten-year custody battle.

He has now 'won' - today, two of his daughters live with him - only because they shared their father's determination to re-establish their relationship.

He has lived every father's worst nightmare, and every miserable step is etched on his face. 'It took ten years, 133 court appearances before 33 different judges, two prison sentences and a hunger strike before I was given permission to be with my daughters again,' he says quietly.

'What happened to my family is unforgivable. And that it was all sanctioned - ordered - by a system that is supposed to help families is outrageous.'

The controversial family court system has much to answer for in this case. Mark Harris isn't the first father who has questioned how it operates. Family court proceedings are notoriously secretive, and campaigners have long appealed for the proceedings to be more open and judges more accountable.

That is not to be, however. Last week the Lord Chancellor ruled that proceedings must remain secret - something that horrifies Mark and his girls.

So angry is he about his experiences that he has written a book, Family Court Hell. 'Surely my story is evidence enough that the system needs to change.

'If it doesn't, the family courts are open to abuse by unaccountable judges and social workers with their own agendas, whose word is taken as law and who almost invariably favour the mother.

'It's a scandal which has left hundreds of fathers like me in desperation. The only solution is to have a court system that's transparent. Otherwise it is simply not fair to fathers or, more importantly, to the children it is supposed to protect.'

When Lisa was born in 1988, Mark felt 'like the happiest man alive'. He had been married to his wife - whom we cannot name even now for legal reasons - for three-and-a-half years, and he had longed for fatherhood. Over the next four years, two more daughters followed.

MARK says: 'I remember thinking how lucky I was because I had a job that I could organise around the children. I'm a driving instructor, so my work was flexible. I loved the time I spent with Lisa. Not every father could read their children stories, bath them or take them out for walks in their pram.'

Mark thought he had a happy marriage, too. The only difficulty was his strained relationship with his mother-inlaw. Yet it didn't concern him much.

'Looking back, we rowed constantly about my mother-in-law, but I never thought it would lead to drastic action,' he says. Perhaps he will never know exactly what was wrong in his marriage, but his wife was clearly unhappy.

One day in 1993, Mark returned from a football match to find the house 'looking as though it had been ransacked'. Almost all the furniture had disappeared. So, too, had his wife and children, and he had no clue where they had gone.

'I went to the police,' he says. 'I was beside myself, distraught. They said my

wife was in a rented house nearby, but that I shouldn't go round until the next day. When I did, she told me she no longer loved me, but said I could see the children whenever I wanted. I was bereft.

'I took the children home for a few hours and they spent the time crying - they were only six, four and two, and it must have been horrific for them to see their parents like that. They wanted to know when we'd all be at home together again, and I didn't know what to say. I was as shocked and bewildered as them.'

Over the next few weeks, Mark stumbled through life in a daze. He saw his girls every day he wasn't working, but his anger towards his wife was building up.

Two months after she left, she asked if he would take her back. Mark was too hurt to contemplate that. Instead, he launched divorce proceedings.

'At that point, it didn't even occur to me that access to the children would be an issue. I was granted unrestricted access - but later I discovered that even then my wife was seeing a solicitor, with a view to having my time with them reduced. She said it was confusing for them to see me.'

THE FAMILY court agreed, and his access was reduced to three times a week, then to once a week and finally to once a fortnight. Mark was stunned to discover he was powerless to resist. 'I petitioned the judge every time, but there was nothing I could do,' he says.

A year after they had separated, the couple divorced. Again, Mark made a bid to see more of his girls, and asked the court if they could live with him. His wife retaliated, claiming that seeing him at all was unsettling them. The court's reaction? It banned him from any contact at all with his daughters.

'I was just floored, disgusted. On my wife's word, the judge simply severed all my rights of access. When I protested, no one listened. I was devastated, but there was no way I was going to turn my back on my children. How could a court order stop me from being a father?'

Every morning, while he waited for a court date to argue against this judgment, Mark saw his children being driven past his house to school by their mother. He'd wave - angry that he couldn't say hello, but grateful for their smiles.

Then his former wife was granted an injunction stopping him even gesturing to his children as they passed. 'It was incredible. She said it was harassment, and the court believed her. But I carried on waving. I was looking for a job and I'd walk to the Jobcentre every morning - knowing how to time it so they would come past.

'I was damned if I was going to be prevented from waving at my own children. Naively, maybe, I assumed the whole business would be cleared up at the next court hearing.'

It wasn't. Instead, Mark left that courtroom in handcuffs, sentenced to four months, having been told that waving was tantamount to stalking his ex. He couldn't believe what was happening.

'On my first night in jail I shared a cell with a murderer,' he says. 'It was so intimidating. The next few weeks just blurred into one long nightmare. Every waking hour I pined for my girls, wondering if I would ever see them again.

'When I got out, the nightmare continued. It took another year for me to convince the courts I should be allowed to see them at all. Life was an endless round of court hearings. It was a wretched existence. Time and again I'd be facing a new judge and having to re-tell the story. To me, it was a matter of life and death, but to them, it seemed I was just another pushy, undeserving father who was trying to interfere in his former wife's life.

'I was so messed up by it all that I had a vasectomy to ensure I couldn't find myself in that position again.'

Finally, five years after the separation, Mark was granted permission to see his daughters. He was excited about the planned date - but devastated-when Lisa didn't turn up. 'By then I was livid at the system. It was destroying my life. I know it was a foolish thing to do, but I started picketing the homes of the judges who had denied me contact, hoping they would take pity on me.'

His protests were to no avail. Instead, in 2001, he was sentenced to ten months in prison for contempt of court for driving past his girls' house to catch a glimpse of them. By then spiralling into depression, he went on hunger strike. For two weeks he refused food and water. 'I stopped only when I realised that if I died I would never see my precious daughters again,' Mark says.

Who knows how this desperate fight to be a father would have ended had Lisa, then 16, not intervened. 'After a row with her mother, she called Mark and told him she and one of her sisters wanted to live with him.

'I got this call saying they had packed their bags and were at a bus stop. Would I pick them up? In breach of all court orders, I got in the car and brought them home. Seeing Lisa again, for the first time in six years, was incredible. I didn't know how to speak to, or look at, this young woman before me. She was wearing make-up. She had her 6ft boyfriend in tow. It was surreal, but in the end we fell into each other's arms and sobbed.'

It was only then that the family court system seemed to consider Mark's rights. He called the High Court emergency hotline and eventually spoke to a 'decent, humane judge'.

Ten minutes after their conversation-he was faxed a temporary residency order. In court the following week, every previous court order was set aside. 'It took ten minutes to put right and ten years of injustice, which made me realise just what power those judges have,' says Mark.

The ruling meant that Lisa and her sisters could choose which parent they lived with. Lisa and her youngest sister - who, again, we can't name for legal reasons - now live with him.

Lisa is studying to be a legal secretary. Her story is even more poignant. She tells of the confusion that has blighted most of her life, and you cannot help but wonder what long-term damage has been inflicted on her and her sisters.

'One minute we were normal children. The next we were in a rented house with Dad hammering on the door demanding to be allowed to see us,' she says. 'We were scared. None of it made sense. Sometimes we'd be allowed to see Dad regularly, then there were times with no contact at all.

'When Dad disappeared out of our lives, we just thought he had stopped loving us. I was certain I'd done something wrong. 'The first time we saw him waving to us as we went to school, I was thrilled. I remember thinking: "He still cares."

'Every morning, Mum would tell us we shouldn't look at him - that he was a bad man - yet we couldn't help but grin when we saw him. It made our day.' It was impossible for Lisa's mother to go a different route.

WHEN her father went to prison, no one explained to Lisa why. 'Mum said: "You see - I told you he was bad." I was ten years old. As far as I knew, you had to do something pretty awful to go to prison.'

She turned against her father, telling social workers she didn't want to see him. Yet with hindsight she explains she was simply trying to gain control over the horrific situation.

'There was this endless pantomime with social workers wanting to know what I thought. All I wanted was to be allowed to love both my parents, but I knew that was never going to happen.

'Mum's hatred for Dad was so deep that to keep her happy, and to get them off my back, I said I wouldn't see him. Turning love to hate made that easier. I told myself that my dad had been wicked, so he deserved it.'

When the courts finally granted access, Lisa was so tortured that she often didn't turn up to see her father. She thought she was protecting her mother by siding with her.

However, when she fell out with her mother during a phase of teenage rebellion, it was to her father that she fled - and when she discovered he had never stopped loving her, she was left reeling.

'I'd never forgotten Dad's number. I know I was only ringing him then to get back at Mum, but when I heard his voice, I wanted to cry. I told him I loved him and that I wanted to see him. Everything just flooded out.'

The first meeting was as hard for her as it was for him. 'The last time I'd seen him I'd been ten and carrying a skipping rope. When I walked into my old bedroom - and saw it was as I had left it - I wanted to sob. I didn't dare do so, though, because I knew if I did I'd never stop.'

Four years on, Lisa and Mark are only just beginning to rebuild their relationship. Every day, more gaps are filled, and more trust regained.

Meanwhile, Lisa rarely sees her mother, and she is angry at her mother's behaviour. It is a desperately sorry story, with no real winners. But then, as Lisa points out, it was never supposed to be a contest.

'I wish to God that my parents had avoided the courts from day one, and simply shared us, the children they created together,' she says.

'Instead, complete strangers were allowed to get involved in our lives to such an extent that everyone lost sight of the needs of us children.

'I love both my parents; I always will. But I will never get my childhood back. It is gone for ever.'