18 June 2005

18 June 2005 -- Why a First Amendment Blog?

Great Morning!

It is a beautiful Saturday morning with my father here in sunny Southern CT at my sister's and time for my first submission. At the outset I note that my father has neglected to bring his tennis rackets up from Cleveland, pointing to his hip or whatever. Yeah, right, Pal.

This blog is first and foremost about the First Amendment; second about judicial, corporate and political corruption and abuse. As such, it is a companion site to my website listed above. As I allude to in my online video, may none of us ever forget that we are all gathered here in this blogosphere because of the First Amendment or like principles throughout the World, which we cling to even in this post-9/11 era. Today the U.S. Government and other corporations want you to remain silent and stupid. Well I'm not having any of that.

That having been said, today's topic is naturally the current House Vote to repeal the "Sneak and Peek" provisions of The Act. I tend to be a First Amendment absolutist, but yet I am certain that terrorists (including people like Timothy McViegh, etc.) have used libraries and bookstores in their efforts. Nonetheless, there's something just not right about this -- regardless of whether the provision actually has been used inappropriately......yet. There's a slippery slope going on here. Besides, shouldn't we be a bit more careful just minding our own borders from truly dangerous would-be immigrants?

I mean, like, wowzers..... just look at this guy willya? Ouch. Yeah, that's right: Clearly people like me -- and you -- are the dangerous ones.

PS from 11 Dec 2005: I was right about that damn Patriot Act proviso.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

hey, nice blog jus checked it out. keep on fightin' the fat cats, someone's gotta change the world and i'm too lazy so good look. and yes you are dangerous, anyone who costs capitalism $300,000 is damn dangerous for the back pockets of the powerful. peace.

Anonymous said...

300 G is chump change -and capitalism is not a person.

Daddy drove a volvo - silver spooner. Sounds like you are acting the part.

Peace. For real real.

Christopher King said...

Wow, I'm catchin' you really negative, whomever. Silver-Spooner, eh? That’s a good one. My parents picked cotton growing up and we never had 2 cars until my last year of high school (1984) and that was a Honda Civic. The Volvos went nearly 100 miles each day to take my Dad to work and he and I broke knuckles fixing brakes, radiators, etc. to keep the family going. We kept them an average of 6 years a piece ‘cos we couldn’t afford new ones. No American car back then was worth a sh*t. Went to Hawken on a partial scholarship. Parents never gave me more than $500.00/year since my second year of undergrad (1986); Dad co-signed my first car, an ’83 VW Gti in 1989. Everything else – all the Bimmers, SAAB, Motorcycles -- I either bought with my hard-earned cash or went without.

And we can talk about socialism, capitalism, Marxism and Vulgar Marxism all night long.

I hope that clarifies the sitch a bit.

Peace.

Christopher King said...

P.S. $300G is "chump change" in some measure, but when you add the settlement figures and the cost of attorneys to it you got $.5M.... show me a company that likes to throw that amount of mo-nay out the window, much less be forced to pay the Overtime wages going forward.

And if more peeps do what I do, we could start a revolution, instead of sniping at each other, ya dig sho' 'nuff.

Peace.

Christopher King said...

July 2007 update for newbies:

The $300K and overtime references are to American Tower Corporation, and you can watch some movies about them at KingCast's "American Lawyer" Two and Three.