A non-profit news blog, focused on providing independent journalism.

Tuesday 25 August 2015

Consumer Reports Study Finds that Nearly All Ground Beef Sold in America Has Feces in It

The megalithic federal bureaucracy known as the U.S. Department of Agriculture is made up of 100,000 employees who are stationed at 4,500 locations across the country. Their mission statement, in part, reads “to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans.”

A recent study by Consumer Reports, however, shows that nourishing Americans consists of feeding them deadly superbugs, food poisoning pathogens, and feces.

While it’s not surprising to the readers of the Free Thought Project that the US government could fail so miserably in their stated mission, this recent study exhibits an unrivaled level of incompetence within this behemoth bureaucracy.

Consumer Reports tested several hundred packages of ground meat from stores across America, and their findings were shocking, to say the least.

According to the report, 

New lab tests conducted by Consumer Reports found that of the 300 packages of ground beef purchased in stores across the country, almost all contained bacteria that signified fecal contamination.

More than 40 percent contained Staphylococcus aureus. Almost 20 percent contained Clostridium perfringens, which causes nearly 1 million cases of food poisoning annually, many related to beef.

A significant amount also contained superbugs, bacteria that are resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics. A key reason is the overuse of antibiotics on cattle farms.

The irony here is that local organic farmers who have harmed no one, are being raided by SWAT teams for selling raw milk, eggs, or grass fed beef. Meanwhile, millions of people are getting sick and dying across the country by government-subsidized factory farms.

In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan points out how concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), are dependent upon the cost of corn remaining low.

The government ensures these low corn prices by throwing billions of dollars a year the top 1 percent of corn farms in the United States. Since 1995, a whopping $85 billion has been taken from taxpayers and given to corn producers; all of this so you can have poop in your burger.

Aside from the horrific results of feeding corn to cows, there is also the apocalyptic problem of creating superbugs by massively dosing the factory farmed cattle with antibiotics to counter the horrendously dirty conditions in which they live.

“That practice (heavy use of antibiotics) can lead to the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a major public health problem. If you get sick from these bugs, your infection can be difficult to treat,” said Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., director of Food Safety and Sustainability at Consumer Reports.

The consumer reports study wasn’t all doom and gloom, however. When they tested the sustainably produced, antibiotic-free, grass-fed cattle, they found that these were far less likely to have any of the bacteria.

“This study is significant, because it’s among the largest scientific studies to show that sustainable methods of raising cattle can produce cleaner and safer ground beef,” Rangan said.

Of course, “big government beef” is upset and defensive about these findings. When consumer reports contacted the National Cattleman’s Beef Association for a statement, they received this single comment from Kansas State University professor Mike Apley:

If all cattle were grass-fed, we’d have less beef, and it would be less affordable. Since grass doesn’t grow on pasture year-round in many parts of the country, feed lots evolved to make the most efficient use of land, water, fuel, labor and feed.

Amazingly enough, however, farmers can sustainably raise organic cattle to meet the market demand, without using government subsidized corn. Instead of massive amounts of chemical and mechanical inputs, the organic farmers can plan for the harsh winter months by saving the surplus from summer months.

The good news is that the demand is shifting from factory farmed cattle to sustainable and humanely raised cattle. Despite the best attempts of the USDA to regulate sustainable farms to death, they are thriving as demand increases.

Even some fast food chains are adopting this sustainable method. In December, California-based quick-service chain Carl’s Jr. rolled out the All-Natural Burger, which sources solely grass-fed beef from Austrailia.

Besides Carl’s Jr., a grass-fed burger chain called Farm Burger, has begun to spring up from coast to coast.

Besides sustainable beef, there is also the option of no beef. One of the fastest growing categories in food choice happens to be vegetarian. 

In the information age, ignorance is a choice, and it seems that it’s a choice more, and more people are avoiding. While this study shows that we still have an uphill battle when it comes to healthy, non-taxpayer subsidized food, it is only a matter of time before we reach critical mass.

TSA airport style searches begins on all Amtrak trains

 

Our government is stepping up its plans to search EVERYONE, ANYWHERE, whether you're travelling by air, rail, ferry or bus.

Beginning this week and almost four years since writers warned Americans that our government wants to search people on trains, its finally become a reality!

The Baltimore Sun reported Amtrak will begin searching all passengers: 

“Passengers failing to consent to security procedures will be denied access to trains.”“I don’t know if that level of security we have at airports would be practical at train stations,” said Vernon Herron, University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security. “Washington DC and New York City—our financial district and our seat of power in Washington DC. Those types of targets are always going to be on their radar.”

What does this mean for anyone taking a government train (Amtrak)? It means EVERYONE will be subjected to airline style boarding procedures. In Europe, you won’t find pre-boarding ticket checks on any international intercity train line except Eurostar (between London and Paris, for border control purposes). By importing the security theater of air travel, DHS, sorry I mean Amtrak will treat EVERYONE like a suspected terrorist!

Just who will be conducting these security procedures?  Why, Amtrak employees and police of course. If an Amtrak employee questions you, its because they're trained to suspect EVERYONE.  

Since 2010 Amtrak's' 

Blue Campaign

' has been used as an excuse to identify suspected human traffickers.

Men — traveling with children will be subject to enhanced scrutiny

. Perhaps Amtrak's employees will engage children in conversation or demand a statement of their relationship status with the accompanying adults.

"Over 8,000 Amtrak employees overtly or covertly examine passengers for the validity of their identification, their level of stress, how they interact, and their conversations."

On July 25, 2012, 

DHS held an event to update stakeholders 

on recent activities and to provide a platform for participants to offer individual feedback regarding the department’s Blue Campaign efforts. (This is all about profit & surveillance)

Don't be alarmed if you see men in tactical gear with an attack dog approaching you, it's for your safety, wink, wink!

Those men in black fatigues are Amtrak's police or "

Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response

" or (VIPR) teams will conduct baggage searches and interrogate you. VIPER has a nice ring to it doesn't it? Oops, sorry I meant VIPR no government snakes here, RIGHT?

Herron points out DHS deploys VIPR teams, which include agents in uniform and bomb-sniffing dogs and agents out of uniform, designed to blend in with passengers.

Below is a picture of a VIPR team:

In 2011 the 

TSA news blog

 reported VIPR teams conducted 8,000 unwarranted searches of Americans on buses, trains, ferries and even highways! 

Doing the math that means, since 2011 VIPR teams have conducted over 32,000+ unwarranted searches!

Just how bad are Amtrak's VIPR teams? Click the following links to read more:

Amtrak/DHS is spying on passengers and letting police access records without warrants.

 

DHS/Amtrak wants citizens to spy on innocent passengers:

 

“Citizens have to be the extra eyes and ears of public officials,” Herron said.

In other words, DHS/Amtrak wants Americans to spy on each other, you know since we're all terrorists!

"What the powers-that-be understand--and Americans remain oblivious to--is the fact that by constantly pushing the envelope and testing the limits of what Americans will tolerate, the government is thus able to ratchet up the level of intrusiveness that Americans consider reasonable Jonh Rutherford said."

There are numerous private railroad police in America that will soon be searching Americans for no reason other than you MIGHT be a terrorist.

Private rail lines 

CSXT

BNSF

KCS

UP

, and 

others

 maintain their own private police. The 

Amtrak Police

 is the largest with more than 450 sworn officers 

FYI, railroad police even have '

Council Charter Homeland Security Memberships'

.

Private railroad police officers licensed in every state, have been accused of physical assaults, racial profiling and harassment according to lawsuits, interviews and court records. The records and interviews show that there have been numerous complaints and dozens of lawsuits filed against railroad police officers in recent years.

"Most states have a statute that authorizes railroad corporations to hire and appoint railroad police officers. Generally, these laws are found in the railroad or public utility sections of a state’s consolidated statutes. A railroad police commission is issued by a specific state agency, usually from the state police but sometimes from the governor’s office. The remaining state code sections regarding railroad police often require the employing corporations to bear all liability; the officers to take an oath and wear a badge indicating that they serve as railroad police officers for a specific railroad corporation; and local police agencies to accept persons arrested by railroad police.""If the requirement to accept prisoners is not explicitly stated in the railroad police statute, the police powers conferred upon sworn and commissioned railroad police officers in the enabling law will convey that they possess the same legal authority as state and local police or peace officers." 

Railroad police are trained using the same standards as local police departments, right? WRONG!

Anyone who passes a background check can become a train cop and then go on to train SWAT teams nationwide!

“Once we do a background check, we pass the information on to the governor’s office which approves or denies the applicant,” said Terry Baker, training and research manager at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. “That’s the full extent of our dealings with railroad police.”

America's SWAT teams and police are being trained by privately run police who's only requirement is to pass a background check! What kind of psychopath's are training police officers and SWAT teams across America?

It's unknown if railroad police officers receive any psychological testing. At least DHS run police departments force new cops to undergo some psychological testing, see below:

"Right now we give cops a test called the MMPI-2, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. So we pretty much determine that they're not psychopaths. I think that's a low bar." Former Police Chief  John DeCarlo said.



Austin Police Institute "No Refusal" Blood Draws Until "End Of Summer"


The Austin, Texas, Police Department has announced the implementation of a “no refusal” policy until the “end of summer,” by which officers can forcibly extract blood samples and breath tests from drivers without consent.

“The no refusal initiative is an effort to enforce DWI laws, keep the public safe, and to conduct blood search warrants on suspects who refuse to give a breath or blood specimen as required by law,” the department claimed in a press release. “A high number of DWI arrests are made in Austin each year.”

"No refusal" means police can forcibly extract blood or breath samples against a person’s will after they have refused, enabling law enforcement to secure evidence which may aid in future prosecution.

A judge is typically on hand to sign warrants, an effort to give the blood draws an air of legitimacy in the face of Fourth Amendment violations.

DWI attorney Jamie Balagia, who specializes in contesting DWI cases, has said the “no refusal” policy basically amounts to police telling the public, "We're going to take your blood no matter what you do."

“I've never seen a judge say no" to a warrant for blood draws, Balagia told The Fix in 2012. "Why not have a chimpanzee rubber-stamp these warrants? Because they are not turning down or rejecting any of them." 

The San Antonio-based former cop-turned-attorney’s website, DWIDude.com, informs the public they still have rights when faced with a “no refusal” traffic stop, despite being suspected of driving under the influence.

“You have the right to refuse to answer questions about whether you have been drinking, perform any field sobriety tests, and give the police permission to search your car,” the attorney’s site advises, among other things. 

As Balagia explains, once a warrant is obtained police must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving while intoxicated.”

“If the police get a warrant you have to submit a sample of your blood,” he says. “Nonetheless, this warrant can later be challenged in court, and may result in any blood results being excluded from trial or subsequent hearings related to a DWI in Texas.” 

Balagia also lists a number of objections which can be brought before the court to strike blood draw evidence from the record, including ensuring a trained phlebotomist followed all correct procedures, in addition to confirming that a proper lab set-up was used. 

“A big myth in a Texas DWI case is that the blood test results are more reliable than any other chemical DWI testing. This is simply not true,” Balagia says. “There are many things that can cause a high BAC results in a blood test artificially, which means the test can be very unreliable.” 

The APD initiative runs from August 21 through September 3, at which point police say they will institute their Labor Day policing initiative, which they have yet to announce the details of.

Vampire cops warn residents they can have their Fourth Amendment violated at will

Austin Police Institute "No Refusal" Blood Draws Until "End Of Summer"


The Austin, Texas, Police Department has announced the implementation of a “no refusal” policy until the “end of summer,” by which officers can forcibly extract blood samples and breath tests from drivers without consent.

“The no refusal initiative is an effort to enforce DWI laws, keep the public safe, and to conduct blood search warrants on suspects who refuse to give a breath or blood specimen as required by law,” the department claimed in a press release. “A high number of DWI arrests are made in Austin each year.”

"No refusal" means police can forcibly extract blood or breath samples against a person’s will after they have refused, enabling law enforcement to secure evidence which may aid in future prosecution.

A judge is typically on hand to sign warrants, an effort to give the blood draws an air of legitimacy in the face of Fourth Amendment violations.

DWI attorney Jamie Balagia, who specializes in contesting DWI cases, has said the “no refusal” policy basically amounts to police telling the public, "We're going to take your blood no matter what you do."

“I've never seen a judge say no" to a warrant for blood draws, Balagia told The Fix in 2012. "Why not have a chimpanzee rubber-stamp these warrants? Because they are not turning down or rejecting any of them." 

The San Antonio-based former cop-turned-attorney’s website, DWIDude.com, informs the public they still have rights when faced with a “no refusal” traffic stop, despite being suspected of driving under the influence.

“You have the right to refuse to answer questions about whether you have been drinking, perform any field sobriety tests, and give the police permission to search your car,” the attorney’s site advises, among other things. 

As Balagia explains, once a warrant is obtained police must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving while intoxicated.”

“If the police get a warrant you have to submit a sample of your blood,” he says. “Nonetheless, this warrant can later be challenged in court, and may result in any blood results being excluded from trial or subsequent hearings related to a DWI in Texas.” 

Balagia also lists a number of objections which can be brought before the court to strike blood draw evidence from the record, including ensuring a trained phlebotomist followed all correct procedures, in addition to confirming that a proper lab set-up was used. 

“A big myth in a Texas DWI case is that the blood test results are more reliable than any other chemical DWI testing. This is simply not true,” Balagia says. “There are many things that can cause a high BAC results in a blood test artificially, which means the test can be very unreliable.” 

The APD initiative runs from August 21 through September 3, at which point police say they will institute their Labor Day policing initiative, which they have yet to announce the details of.

Vampire cops warn residents they can have their Fourth Amendment violated at will

NYSE Invokes Rule 48 For Second Day In A Row Ahead Of Market Open

Precisely 24 hours ago, in an attempt to pre-empt the panic-selling open, the NYSE invoked the little used Rule 48, which was to be expected: the Nasdaq 100 has just tumbled limit down and the S&P and DJIA would follow shortly. Today, however, it is unclear just why the NYSE decided to once again invoke Rule 48 as futures are set to open about 3-4% higher, and yet that is precisely what the NYSE did. As a reminder, what this means is that mandatory opening indications are not required, which in theory should make it easier to open stocks.

As further reminder, yesterday in conjunction with the liquidity meltdown, this led to mangled ETFs left and right. Let's hope today is different, even though as we showed earlier, ES liquidity today is even worse than yesterday.

The complete reminder of what Rule 48 is:

Rule 48. Exemptive Relief — Extreme Market Volatility Condition

(a) In the event that extremely high market volatility is likely to have a Floor-wide impact on the ability of DMMs to arrange for the fair and orderly opening, reopening following a market-wide halt of trading at the Exchange, or closing of trading at the Exchange and that absent relief, the operation of the Exchange is likely to be impaired, a qualified Exchange officer may declare an extreme market volatility condition with respect to trading on or through the facilities of the Exchange.

(b) In the event that an extreme market volatility condition is declared with respect to trading on or through the facilities of the Exchange, a qualified Exchange officer shall be empowered to temporarily suspend at the opening of trading or reopening of trading following a market-wide trading halt: (i) the need for prior Floor Official or prior NYSE Floor operations approval to open or reopen a security at the Exchange (Rules 123D(1) and 79A.30); and/or (ii) applicable requirements to make pre-opening indications in a security (Rules 15 and 123D(1)).

(c) A suspension under section (b) of this Rule is subject to the following provisions:

(1) (A) Before declaring an extreme market volatility condition, the qualified Exchange officer shall consider the facts and circumstances that are likely to have Floor-wide impact for a particular trading session, including volatility in the previous day's trading session, trading in foreign markets before the open, substantial activity in the futures market before the open, the volume of pre-opening indications of interest, evidence of pre-opening significant order imbalances across the market, government announcements, news and corporate events, and such other market conditions that could impact Floor-wide trading conditions.

(B) Such review shall be undertaken in consultation with relevant officers of NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation, as appropriate. Following the review, the qualified Exchange officer or his or her designee shall document the basis for declaring an extreme market volatility condition.

(2) The qualified Exchange officer will, as promptly as practicable in the circumstances, inform the Securities and Exchange Commission staff that an extreme market volatility condition has been declared, the basis for such declaration, and what relief has been granted.

(3) An extreme market volatility condition may only be declared before the scheduled opening or reopening following a market-wide halt of securities at the Exchange.

(4) A declaration of an extreme market volatility condition shall be in effect only for the particular opening or reopening for the trading session on the particular day that the extreme market volatility condition is determined to exist. The Exchange may declare a separate extreme market volatility condition on subsequent days subject to sections (b)(1) through (b)(3) above.

(5) A declaration of extreme market volatility shall not relieve DMMs from the obligation to make pre-opening indications in situations where the opening of a security is delayed for reasons unrelated to the extreme market volatility condition.

(d) For purposes of this Rule, a "qualified Exchange officer" means the Chief Executive Officer of ICE, or his or her designee, or the Chief Executive Officer of NYSE Regulation, Inc., or his or her designee.

Man dies after being run over by WWII tank on Jelly Belly chairman's property

The LA Times reports that on Saturday "the husband of Jelly Belly’s chief executiveaccidentally crushed a man to death with a World War II-era tank during a reunion on the family’s property in Fairfield, Calif."

The man who died, Kevin Wright (54), was a volunteer who maintained the tank and other restored military vehicles that candy maker Herman Rowland collects. Wright was sitting on the front edge of the tank and fell off. The driver was not able to stop in time and was Wright was crushed under the 944 M5 tank.

tanks

Catching Up With the Unabomber. When Does the End Justify the Means?

Kaczynski after his capture in 1996.

Kaczynski after his capture in 1996.

The Unabomber, known as Ted Kaczynski, was not a fan of technology. To expose the world to his anti-technology philosophy, from the years 1978 to 1995, Kaczynski sent 16 bombs to universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring 23, before he was eventually caught and sent to prison. He remains there today. At one time, he was possibly the most famous criminal in the world.

He said of technology’s role:

The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.

In his essay Industrial Society and Its Future, Kaczynski argued that while his bombings were “a bit” extreme, they were quite necessary to attract attention to the loss of human freedom caused by modern technology. His book Technological Slavery: The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. “The Unabomber” breaks all of his philosophies down for those of us that just know him through corporate news stations.

517fe1d2p8L

Was the Unabomber crazy, or just so sane he was blowing our minds?

I talked to David Skrbina, confidant of Kaczynski, and philosophy professor at the University of Michigan. Skrbina wrote the intro to Technological Slavery.

Can you tell me a bit about how you and Kaczynski began to communicate? Are you still in touch with him today?

Back in 2003, I began work on a new course at the University of Michigan: Philosophy of Technology. Surprisingly, such a course had never been offered before, at any of our campusesI wanted to remedy that deficiency.

I then began to pull together recent and relevant material for the course, focusing on critical approaches to technology. These, to me, were more insightful and more interesting, and were notably under-analyzed among current philosophers of technology. Most of them are either neutral toward modern technology, or positively embrace it, or accept its presence resignedly. As I found out, very few philosophers of the past four decades adopted anything like a critical stance. This, for me, was highly revealing.

Anyway, I was well aware of Kaczynski’s manifesto, “Industrial society and its future,” which was published in late 1995 at the height of the Unabomber mania. I was very impressed with its analysis, even though most of the ideas were not new to me (many were reiterations of arguments by Jacques Ellul, for example—see his 1964 book The Technological Society). But the manifesto was clear and concise, and made a compelling argument.

After Kaczynski was arrested in 1996, and after a year-long trial process, he was stashed away in a super-max prison in Colorado. The media then decided that, in essence, the story was over. Case closed. No need to cover Kaczynski or his troubling ideas ever again.

By 2003, I suspected he was still actively researching and writing, but I had heard nothing of substance about him in years. So I decided to write to him personally, hoping to get some follow-up material that might be useful in my new course. Fortunately, he replied. That began a long string of letters, all on the problem of technology. To date, I’ve received something over 100 letters from him.

Most of the letters occurred in the few years prior to, and just after, the publication of Technological SlaverySeveral of his more important and detailed replies to me were included in that book—about 100 pages worth.

We’ve had less occasion to communicate in the past couple years. My most recent letter from him was in late 2014.

You have said that his ideas “threaten to undermine the power structure of our technological order. And since the system’s defenders are unable to defeat the ideas, they choose to attack the man who wrote them.” Can you expand on that?

The present military and economic power of the US government, and governments everywhere, rests on advanced technology. Governments, by their very nature, function to manipulate and coerce people—both their own citizens, and any other non-citizens whom they declare to be of interest. Governments have a monopoly on force, and this force is manifest through technological structures and systems.

Therefore, all governments—and in fact anyone who would seek to exert power in the world—must embrace modern technology. American government, at all levels, is deeply pro-tech. So too are our corporations, universities, and other organized institutions. Technology is literally their life-blood. They couldn’t oppose it in any substantial way without committing virtual suicide.

So when a Ted Kaczynski comes along and reminds everyone of the inherent and potentially catastrophic problems involved with modern technology, “the system” doesn’t want you to hear it. It will do everything possible to distort or censor such discussion. As you may recall, during the final years of the Unabomber episode, there was very little—astonishingly little—discussion of the actual ideas of the manifesto. Now and then, little passages would be quoted in the newspapers, but that was it; no follow-up, no discussion, no analysis.

Basically, the system’s defenders had no counterarguments. The data, empirical observation, and common sense all were on the side of Kaczynski. There was no rational case to be made against him.

The only option for the defenders was an ad hominem attack: to portray Kaczynski as a sick murderer, a crazed loner, and so on. That was the only way to ‘discredit’ his ideas. Of course, as we know, the ad hominem tactic is a logical fallacy. Kaczynski’s personal situation, his mental state, or even his extreme actions, have precisely zero bearing on the strength of his arguments.

The system’s biggest fear was—and still is—that people will believe that he was right. People might begin, in ways small or large, to withdraw from, or to undermine, the technological basis of society. This cuts to the heart of the system. It poses a fundamental threat, to which the system has few options, apart from on-going propaganda efforts, or brute force.

What do you think of the fact that when our government, or any figure in authority such as a police officer, kills in the name of the established belief system, it is thought of as just. But when a guy like Kaczynski kills in the name of his belief system, he is thought of as a deranged psychopath?

As I mentioned, governmental authorities have a monopoly on force. Whenever they use it, it is, almost by definition, ‘right.’ Granted, police can be convicted of ‘excessive force.’ But such cases, as we know, are very rare. And militaries can never be so convicted.

At best, if the public is truly appalled by some lethal action of our police or military, they may vote in a more ‘pacifist’ administration. But even that rarely works. People were disgusted by the war-monger George W. Bush, and so they voted in the “anti-war” Obama. Ironically, he continued on with much the same killing. And through foreign aid and UN votes, Obama continues to support and defend murderous regimes around the world. So much for pacifism.

Let’s keep in mind: Kaczynski killed three people. This was tragic and regrettable, but still, it was just three people. American police kill that many citizens every other day, on average. The same with Obama’s drone operators. Technology kills many times that number, every day—even every hour. Let’s keep things in perspective.

Kaczynski killed in order to gain the notoriety necessary to get the manifesto into the public eye. And it worked. When it was published, the Washington Post sold something like 1.2 million copies that day—still a record. He devised a plan, executed it, and thereby caused millions of people to contemplate the problem of technology in a way they never had before.

Does the end justify the means? It’s too early to tell. If Kaczynski’s actions ultimately have some effect on averting technological disaster, there will be no doubt: his actions were justified. They may yet save millions of lives, not to mention much of the natural world. Time will tell.

You recently wrote a book, The Metaphysics of Technology. Can you tell us a little about that?

Sure. In thinking about the problem of technology, it struck me that there was very little philosophical analysis about what, exactly, technology is. We’ve had many action plans, ranging from tepid and mild (think Sherry Turkle), to Bill Joy’s thesis of “relinquishment” of key technologies, to Kaczynski’s total revolution. But if we don’t really understand what we’re dealing with, our actions are likely to be misguided and ineffectual. In short, we need a true metaphysics of technology.

On my view, technology advances with tremendous, autonomous power. Humans are the implementers of this power, but we can’t really guide it and we certainly can’t stop it. In effect, it functions as a law of nature. It advances with an evolutionary force, and that’s why we are heading toward disaster.

I see technology much as the ancient Greeks did—as a combination of two potent entities, Technê and Logos (hence ‘techno-logy’). For them, these were quasi-divine forces. Logos was the guiding intelligence behind all order in the universe. Technê was the process by which all things—manmade and otherwise—came into being. These were not mere mythology; they were rational conclusions regarding the operation of the cosmos.

Like the Greeks, I argue that technê is a universal process. All order in the universe is a form of technê. Hence my coining of the term ‘Pantechnikon’—the universe as an orderly construction, manifesting a kind of intelligence, or Logos. Our modern, human technology is on a continuum with all order in the universe. (Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson has argued for precisely the same point, incidentally; see his 2006 book Epic of Evolution.)

The net effect of all this is not good news for us. Technology is like a wave moving through the Earth, and the universe. For a long while, we were at the peak of that wave. Now we’re on the downside. Technology is rapidly heading toward true autonomy. Our opportunity to slow or redirect it is rapidly vanishing. If technology achieves true autonomy—we can take Kurzweil’s singularity date of 2045 as a rough guide—then it’s game over for us. We will likely either become more or less enslaved, or else wiped out. And then technology will continue on its merry way without us.

This is not mere speculation on my part, incidentally. Within the past year, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates have all come out with related concerns. They don’t understand the metaphysics behind it, but they’re seeing the same trend.

How has your experience communicating with Kaczynski changed you as a person and as a philosopher?

As a philosopher, not that much. Kaczynski generally avoids philosophy and metaphysics, preferring practical issues. In a sense, we are operating on different planes, even as we are working on the same problem.

As a person, I have a greater understanding of the basis for the ‘extreme’ actions that he took. It’s not often in life that you get a chance to communicate with someone with such a total commitment to their cause. It’s impressive.

Also, the media treatment of his whole case has been enlightening. When his book, Technological Slavery, came out in 2010, I expected that there would be at least some media coverage. But there was none. The most famous “American terrorist” publishes a complete book from a super-max prison—and it’s not news? Seriously? Compare this topic to the garbage shown on our national evening news programs, and it’s a joke. NPR, 60 Minutes, Wired magazine, etc.—all decided it wasn’t newsworthy. Very telling.

One last thing: Expect to hear from Kaczynski again soon. His second book is nearing completion. The provisional title is “Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How.” But don’t look for it on your evening news.

Things are not as simplistic as you think.


Buy Technological Slavery, by Ted Kaczynski, and The Metaphysics of Technology by David Skrbina. Kaczynski does not profit from his book.


Brian Whitney’s latest book is Raping the Gods. 

Denver Police Arrest “Jury Nullification” Activist for Passing Out Informational Pamphlets

Screen Shot 2015-08-24 at 4.06.59 PM

Most of you will be familiar with the concept of jury nullification. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not. This is precisely why Mark Iannicelli set up a “Jury Info” booth outside the Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver. In a nutshell, jury nullification is the idea that jurors can “can ignore the law and follow their conscience when they believe the law would dictate a miscarriage of justice.” In other words, jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts. As you will see in the video at the end, this concept has centuries of precedence in these United States behind it.

When you recognize the vast power that such a concept holds, you recognize why it would be so hated by statists and authoritarians across the land. That is precisely why Mr. Iannicelli was arrested and charged with handing out information.

For a little background, read the following from the Denver Post:

Denver prosecutors have charged a man with seven counts of jury tampering after they say he tried to influence jurors by passing out literature on jury nullification on Monday.

Mark Iannicelli, 56, set up a small booth with a sign that said “Juror Info” in front of the city’s Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse courthouse, prosecutors say. 

 

The Denver District Attorney’s Office says Iannicelli provided jury nullification flyers to jury pool members.

Jury nullification is when jurors believe a defendant is guilty of the charges but reject the law and return a not guilty verdict.

In response to what appears to be a clear attack on freedom of speech, the Denver Post editorial board published an admirable defense of Mr. Iannicelli several weeks after his arrest. Here are a few excerpts:

It is astonishing that Denver police would arrest someone for handing out political literature outside a courthouse.

It’s even more astonishing that prosecutors would charge that person with seven felony counts of jury tampering.

Now, fortunately,  civil rights attorney David Lane has filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of other jury nullification activists. They want an injunction to stop the city from violating their First Amendment rights should they too wish to pass out literature.

They deserve to get one.

Jury nullification is understandably controversial — and is especially resented by courts and prosecutors. It is the notion that jurors can ignore the law and follow their conscience when they believe the law would dictate a miscarriage of justice. But it is hardly a new concept.

In the 19th century, Northern juries refused to convict abolitionists for harboring runaway slaves. In the 20th century, juries often balked at enforcing Prohibition and later, on occasion, at what they considered overly harsh drug laws or laws governing sexual behavior.

Jury nullification had a darker strain, too, as Southern juries would sometimes refuse to convict white defendants guilty of racial violence.

The point is that jury nullification is not some crank theory concocted out of the blue.

As First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has written, “It’s clear that it’s not a crime for jurors to refuse to convict even when the jury instructions seem to call for a guilty verdict.”

Those who believe the public needs to know about this possibility should have every right to publicize their views — even outside a courthouse.

Their jury nullification literature, as it happens, merely offered general statements, such as, “Juror nullification is your right to refuse to enforce bad laws and bad prosecutions.”

Four years ago, prosecutors in New York City charged a retired chemistry professor with jury tampering after he stood outside a federal courthouse handing out information on jury nullification. But Judge Kimba M. Wood of federal district court wouldn’t buy it. She ruled that prosecutors needed to show the protester meant to influence jurors in a specific case, and dismissed all charges.

Denver officials should be held to no less of a standard.

So where do things stand now?

The good news is that Denver’s city attorney has come to the aid of the activists, setting up a fight between him and the district attorney. Once again, from the Denver Post:

Denver’s city attorney has directed the police and sheriff’s department to stop arresting people passing out jury nullification literature in front of the courthouse.

The order was revealed Friday in U.S. District Court during a hearing involving a lawsuit against the city and Denver police chief Robert White.

The lawsuit was filed earlier this month on behalf of activists who want to distribute jury nullification information outside the Lindsey-Flanigan courthouse. They sued after two others who were handing out pamphlets were  charged with seven counts of jury tampering by District Attorney Mitch Morrissey.

The lawsuit argues that the arrests are a violation of free speech rights and asks for a federal injunction against further arrests.

The lawsuit also named Denver Chief Judge Michael Martinez, who on Thursday issued an order barring demonstrations, protests, distributing literature, proselytizing and other activities on the courthouse grounds.

City Attorney Scott Martinez said his staff argued that the Denver judge’s order was overly broad. They also argued against arrests targeting people handing out jury nullification literature.

The city attorney’s office also has taken a position that their actions do not violate state law.

“We agree that the court house steps are a public forum and that people can pass out information, including pamphlets, in accordance with the First Amendment,” the city attorney said.

The city attorney’s position is unusual in that it is siding with the very people who are suing the city. It also pits the city attorney’s office against the district attorney’s office, which filed criminal charges.

Well done Mr. Martinez.

If you want a little more info on jury nullification, check out the following video featuring a much younger Ron Paul:

Part 2:

For related articles, see:

The War on Free Speech – U.S. Department of Justice Subpoenas Reason.com Over Comment Section

French Authorities Demonstrate Defense of Free Speech by Arresting 54 People for Free Speech

Statists Declare War on Free Speech – College Students Banned from Handing Out Constitutions in Hawaii

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger