A Place On The . Net

Steven took an interest in brewing after reading his Big Book of Boy Stuff.  I've wanted to try it myself.  At the moment we imagine very different products but they are common eno

There once was aplaceonthe.net

It was a place where new friends met.

I looked it over today

And I have to say

An update would be a good bet.

It once had pictures and post.

It had a formula that wasn't milk toast.

I read it each morn

Now I am forlorn

'Cause my friend has no blog for to boast.

His dad would write such nice quibbles

I saw artistry that wasn't just scribbles.

Now it is all empty

There's nothing  a plenty

I miss Mr. Wiegmans cool drivels.

He once used wordpress then drupal

a theme he had once that was purple

its blue resembles my feeling

it's emptiness still has me reeling

In his schedule he should find a loophole.

Copyright 2006, John H. Wiegman

There's an old, grey head with a steam engine and whistles in it. Bill Barbour hears a lot of things but he doesn't hear you... not particularly well anyway. His ears are busy.

Bill picks up his fork to eat oatmeal, looks quizzically and then smiles, murmuring ruefully to anyone near that, “I've gotta start thinkin' straight.” He didn't sleep a wink last night because of the train in his brain. That big steamer was hauling bugs and birds through a really wide waterfall.

Bill has a cheerful way about him and he points to his ears with a smile when you try to speak with him. He'd like you to know that he cares about you immensely and wants to listen to every detail of your life and decode every nuance of your joys and hopes.

And he will when he can, too. Bill's gentle smile says all that you need to know about his loving soul and his calm acceptance of your personal quality. Bill will do any chore with care and precision, thoughtfully adding those grandfatherly touches. Given paper, Bill will make you a sailor's hat and a paper plane. Given scissors, Bill will make you bunny ears for your hair, a crown or a robber's mask.

High blood pressure often accompanies the noise in Bill's head. If Bill's blood pressure is appropriately low, he may be able to share more words with you today. Then again, perhaps not. Either way, Bill will make the best of every effort at communication. You are under no obligation.

In the weeks before March 11, 2007 I was asked by many people why we were changing DST.  Shockingly enough, I knew the answer.  That happens from time to time.  Lately I've learned that when I do know the answer, it's best to keep my mouth shut.  I've been biting my lip pretty hard on issues surrounding "homeland security", "law enforcement", ethics in government and the 700 Club (statewide trunked radio system).  When I do speak the truth it tends to make people very angry.  Rather than surround myself with that kind of ugliness, I usually remain quiet.

So when it came to the DST issue, I quickly developed a canned response of "We're doing it so we're in sync with Europe."  It's one of those answers that isn't a lie, it just doesn't tell the complete truth.  Because it lacks a complete truth, people can stomach it much better.  Again, when I tell the truth it tends to disrupt my environment because people get nasty.

Ah yes, my environment.  Of course this is the environment in which the globe is being warmed by man.  Man is far more powerful than the stars in this modern, new-age, godless world in which we live.  Because man is more powerful than the stars, we don't concern ourselves with things like the reduced strength of our magnetic shield.  Instead we are focused on being masters of time.

People aren't as stupid as they would seem.  Nobody is that stupid.  But most people, lacking ethics as most do, tend to seek out creative ways to manipulate things to their advantage.  Honesty, as with my answers, is situational and is usually set aside when it gets in the way of these manipulations.

That's why, when the US Congress claimed they wanted to change DST to save energy and therefore save the planet, everyone went along with it.  It would have taken an idiot to believe it.  It would have taken an idiot with a head injury to believe it when you consider that most of the scientists and energy companies had already done the research and found it wasn't going to make a difference.  Since Australia had already tried this, measured the results and found no change, there was no reason for anyone to thing it would be otherwise for the US.  But people went along with it because it was a manipulation of the system. 

Global warming is big business.  We changed DST in the name of global warming.  What big business got this time was a whole lot of money spent in high tech to accomodate the time change and prevent related problems.  Even more money was spent in fixing the problems that weren't prevented.  The people who worked on these problems, and yes I'm one of them, had to set aside their routine duties so we will now spend lots of money making up for that.  Once again the system as been manipulated to the advantage of someone but hadn't done a damn thing for the greater good. 

We're finding out now just how much this didn't do to save energy.  I wonder if anyone will bother to look at the associated costs and loss of productivity.  I wonder if anyone other than me will ever care.

Those of you who have ever complimented me on my professional writing should really read through this.  I know it's long and legal and you might think it's boring.  But this guy makes some excellent points and....oh how he makes them!

You don't have to know a lot of the background of this case.  All you need to know is that the mafia (known as the RIAA) has been going around picking on the poor and the weak in an effort to take what money they can and drive these people to poverty or worse.

Enjoy!

From: Merl Ledford III, Esq. [mailto:m.ledford3@ledfordlaw.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:11 AM
To: Thomas McCarten Kerr, Esq
Cc: Barry Merchant
Subject: Sony BMG et al. v. Merchant Eastern Dist of Cal. Sacramento Branch 2:07-CV-00340-DFL-DAD

Dear Mr. Kerr

Thank you for your letter of March 23, 2007 received in my office today. I did not receive a copy of the letter by PDF although that method of delivery was shown on the letter.

Incorrect Venue and Emotional Distress

The lawsuit filed by your office and your letter arrive at a particularly inappropriate time in Barry and Cathy Merchant's life. Mrs. Merchant left my office after our first meeting to attend to ill father in Colorado. She and Barry Merchant left my office today to attend his funeral. You should advise your clients that they are facing a "thin skull plaintiff" either on a Rule 11 sanctions motion or (upon favorable termination) in a malicious prosecution action. The emotional distress inflicted by your clients' litigation -- filed in Sacramento rather than the Fresno Branch of the Eastern District Court where my clients' live in violation of the Rules of Court -- has been extreme.

Your client should carefully consider whether it has probable cause to proceed at this point. Mr. Merchant's hard drive is available for immediate, carefully supervised inspection by your client; a carbon copy of the drive has been made by technicians to insure that the evidence is well backed-up.

At the time of inspection, we will expect your clients to be prepared to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The pleadings may be e-filed from my office the same day. Although dismissal will not avoid your clients' exposure to attorneys' fees under the Copyright Act, it will certainly mitigate damages to Mr. and Mrs. Merchant and the possibility of escalating the issues by counter-claim on federal grounds that have been successfully pleaded in other states as well as on pendant California claims that have, thus far, tempered your clients' California zeal for litigating in this state.

Selling a Settlement and the AOL Subpoena

I have evidence of one letter dated June 5, 2005 from an attorney in your firm who is not licensed to practice law in California to Mr. Merchant claiming copyright infringement and demanding settlement negotiations. There is no other record of any kind.

Please provide copies of other correspondence that your clients claim was received by Mr. Merchant (whether by AOL or others) demanding settlement. Is it the same AOL letter that your clients' represented was sent by AOL to a woman with MS who lives in the New York borough of Queens. See Elektra v. Schwartz, Cent Dist NY, 1:06-cv-03533-DGT-RML, Document 21). When the letter was finally produced, after objection and delay, it became clear that its contents had been misrepresented to the Court. (How anyone from the former Gray Cary firm ever pull such a stunt stuns me; it used to be such a fine office.)

Also, please provide my office with copies of all telephone records of contacts your clients claim to have had with Mr. or Mrs. Merchant, and (with respect to your discussion of the AOL subpoena), proofs of service of Notice of Opportunity to Appear and Oppose RIAA's subpoena, a copy of the subpoena, and all of the parties' pleadings in support and opposition to issuance of the subpoena. In the event the AOL litigation named Doe defendants in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and obtained any information regarding Mr. Merchant's long-standing without appropriate notice or in violation of California consumer privacy laws, I will request a preclusion order barring any use or derivative use of any information so obtained. See, e.g., Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, W.D. Texas, Austin Div. 04-CA-550 LY.

Independent Factual Investigation and Probable Cause to Sue: Background

Your office has a duty of good faith independent factual investigation and legal research sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to sue.

In Williams v. Coombs (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 626, the California Court of Appeal held that attorneys who participate in the filing or maintenance of litigation without probable cause are personally liable for malicious prosecution of a civil action.

In Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal. 3d 863, the California Supreme Court narrowed Williams, holding that a trial court may not delegate the ultimate determination of probable cause to the jury; it held that the question was one of law which must be resolved by the Court. Id. at 876. The Sheldon decision specifically disapproved of dicta from Tool Research & Engineering Corp. v. Henigson (1975) 46 Cal. App. 3d 675, at 683, that the attorney must have a "subjective belief" in the tenability of his or her client's claim in order to avoid malicious prosecution liability. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, supra, 47 Cal. 3d at 881. It nevertheless "strongly emphasized" that its conclusion "does not by any means suggest that an attorney who institutes an action which he does not believe is legally tenable is free from the risk of liability" because the lawyer's subjective belief "would clearly be relevant to the question of malice." Id. (emphasis supplied); see also Slater v. Durchfort (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 1718, 1724.

The Shelton Court also disapproved of Tool Research dicta suggesting that lack of probable cause may be proven "simply by showing that [the attorney] failed to perform reasonable legal research or factual investigation before filing a claim." Id. at 882. Rather, the Shelton Court held that such lack of diligence is relevant on the issue of malice. Id. The Shelton Court specifically disapproved of the Williams decision's apparent use of lack of investigation to prove lack of probable cause, although it fully endorsed the Williams analysis of the tort of malicious prosecution itself. Id. at 882-883 (footnote 9).

Although malicious prosecution was once characterized as a “disfavored action,” it has been somewhat expanded in recent years in apparent frustration with continued "shotgun" lawyering tactics by Plaintiff's counsel. In Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 666, the California Supreme Court upheld a malicious prosecution complaint where only five of six underlying causes of action were alleged to have been brought without probable cause. The court specifically rejected the defendant's claim that because one of the original causes of action was based on probable cause, the entire complaint was made immune from malicious prosecution liability. Id. at 694-695. Similarly, in Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1297b, the Court endorsed an action against an anti-SLAPP motion where a litigant’s counsel filed and maintained causes of action without probable cause.

Independent Factual Investigation and Probable Cause to Sue: Lack of Probable Cause

I know of no facts on which a good faith finding of probable cause by either your clients or your law firm could be based to support a claim for relief against Mr. Merchant.

It is well documented that your clients' reliance on MediaSecurity (an admitted "non-expert;" UMG v. Lidor, East Dist NY No. 1:05-cv-01095-DGT-RML) and its overall method of identifying P2P copyright infringers is wholly unreliable and inadequate. See, e.g., February 23, 2007, deposition of the RIAA's expert. http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_lindor_070223JacobsonD.... See also expert witness statement of Prof. Pouwelse and Dr. Sips: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp filename=foundation_upcnederland_witnessdeclaration and amicus curiae brief of the ACLU, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma, in Capitol v. Foster decrying the RIAA's "driftnet" litigation strategy: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_foster_amicus.

Such facts were known or reasonably should have been known to you and your law firm before suit against Mr. Merchant was filed. Thus, unless you and your office undertook additional independent investigation to identify Mr. Merchant as a person who actually has engaged in copyright infringement by illegal downloading, good faith basis for a Rule 11-compliant probable cause finding consistent with the Williams line of cases cited above simply did not exist to file the action. . . and does not exist now for it to be maintained.

Your clients apparently argue that Mr. Merchant's failure to respond to "settlement" demands justifies their lawsuit without other basis on which a finding of probable cause to sue could be claimed. You devoted the bulk of your letter advocating that position. As you know, however, that posture is repugnant to both Rule 408, Fed.Rul.Evid. and California Evidence Code §§ 1152 and 1154.

The Evidence Code sections are quite clear: settlement negotiations of all kinds may not be used to prove the validity of any claim or defense. Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople. If your client (and your law firm?) are seeking probable cause shelter in a settlement negotiations house of straw (as suggested by your March 23 letter), all of you should consider the prevailing winds of the Evidence Code before making yourselves too comfortable. Straw will burn.

Your client take the position that my middle-aged, conservative clients should speculate regarding the identity of persons your clients' claim used their AOL account to download pornographic-lyric gangsta rap tracks as predicate to possible case resolution. In an age of Wintel-virus created bot-farms, spoofs, and easily cracked WEP encrypted wireless home networks (among other easy hacks), the only tech-savvy response to such a request is, "You've got to be kidding." The extensive press that has been generated over computer security (and the insecurity of Windows XP and its predecessors) underscores the complete absence of facts on which probable cause to sue my clients could be established and your clients' willingness (even insistence) that others be implicated in Big Music's speculative, "driftnet" litigation tactics. Sorry: Mr. Merchant cannot and will not expose himself to still more litigation by speculating.

Settlement Option

It is not too late to correct your clients' (and your law firm's) mistakes.

Mr. and Mrs. Merchant's emotional condition puts a premium on immediate case resolution. Thus, although I generally do not make opening legitimate offers as defense counsel, the clients' non-monetary interests and their probability of recovering their fees and costs in this matter (at a minimum) suggest that a defense settlement offer would not be inappropriate. Therefore:

My clients are willing to accept dismissal of the litigation in exchange for

1. Payment of Mr. Merchant's reasonable fees and costs including retainer of $6,880.25. The payment represents good value considering what your own firm's billings will have been to date and use of those billing records as the loadstar rate for Mr. Merchant's award. See Capitol Record v. Foster, Western Dist. Okla No. 5:04-cv-1569-W, Docment 182 filed 3-15-07).

2. Apology on your firm's letterhead by your supervising partner for inappropriately filing and maintaining an action against Mr. Merchant without probable cause and for the emotional hardship that such litigation caused; and

3. Execution of a mutual general release of all claims in my office's usual form. The RIAA form of release I have seen will not be used. It is my practice in these kinds of cases to require that the plaintiffs indemnity my clients against claims by third parties as part of my general release language. (E.g., your clients sue a site for posting guitar tabs to copyrighted music; my client visits the site, read the tabs, plays them on his guitar, and get sued by way of cross-claim by the guitar tab site). My form of release also anticipates class action litigation that is in the works at several SoCal class-action offices on RICO, Unfair Practices Act (Bus & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq.) and other grounds against RIAA, MediaSentry, and all of your named clients in the Merchant action. My clients will agree to opt out of any such litigation; the release language is tailored to your clients are not giving up any defenses they might otherwise have to the class claims.

4. Confidentiality: It is my general practice to disfavor confidential settlements. Under the circumstances, and so long as your clients are prompt and candid in dealing with their mistaken, misplaced lawsuit, I would consider a reasonable confidentiality provision. Again, quick response, full payment, and immediate dismissal will allow confidentiality as an option.

The authorized settlement offer expressed in the preceding paragraphs of this email (and confirmed in staff-proofed letter format to be sent by fax and US Mail tomorrow; sorry for typos that are an unfortunate part of any quick-response email) may be accepted by signing a copy of this email and returning it to my office by fax no later than the close of business on Friday, March 30, 2007. It is intended to be presented to your clients as written in complete context of this email (and text-corrected letter to follow) in accordance with Rule 3-510, CRPC. It is the best offer that will be made in this litigation based on the facts and circumstances as they are known at this time. Substantial discovery, investigation, and exchange of information remains that could substantially alter the settlement position of the parties to the betterment of either side in ways that cannot now be responsibly predicted. The case settlement value will, however, trend upward the longer I have to work on it. And the emotional distress damages for willfully filing and thereafter maintaining claims for relief without probable cause will only increase as the matter drags on.

The offer is made pursuant to California Civil Code section 47 and in accordance with Rule 408, Fed.Rul.Evid. and California Evidence Code §§ 1152 and 1154 for the sole purpose of settling doubtful and disputed claims by and between the parties. Neither the fact that the offer was made, nor its acceptance, nor any statement made in the course of settlement negotiations shall be admissible to prove the strength or weakness of any claim, counter- or cross-claim, or defense raised or that could be raised by or between the parties regarding the subject matter of their dispute.

Procedural Issues

Your reminder about preservation of evidence, of course, cuts both ways. Since my client's hard drive completely exculpates him, functionally compels dismissal, and opens the door to substantial recovery, he is doing everything in his power to preserve and protect his evidence. In our part of the world, that is a mid-six to low seven figure piece of computer gear.

Procedurally, we need to address how best to move the case to the Fresno Branch so you can enjoy our new Courthouse and avoid Judge Levi's wrath for filing in the wrong court. (Senior Judge Bob Coyle was responsible for building both our new facility and the District Court building in Sacramento; and, although neither building is as grand as Judge Manny Real's showpiece in Santa Ana, the Fresno Court is not only nicer than Sacramento but also one of the top three court facilities ever I've enjoyed practicing in.) Handling the issue by stipulation and order would probably be the most simple way to move the file. We do that routinely in PACA litigation although I am open to suggestions if you prefer to handle it differently

Once the case is moved to the Fresno Branch, your clients should consider cleaning up their complaint. The FRCP and collateral estoppel from other RIAA law and motion matters require much greater specificity in pleading than your clients provided in the complaint I reviewed. Dates of the alleged downloads, which plaintiff (or affiliate) holds which copyright to which track, etc. must be specifically pleaded and proven. You are as familiar as I am with the results in other cases where RIAA's general allegations have been challenged. Let's get over that hurdle without unnecessary law and motion practice.

We should also discuss how quickly you can get your tech people here to do their hard drive inspection. Again, I would be happy to send the airplane to either Butler at SFO or Kaiser at Oakland for roundtrip convenience of you and your clients' tech people. (Oakland is usually faster for me from Civic Center; Kaiser has a shuttle from Bart that beats SFO by about 20 minutes each way most of the time.)

Because your techs will want to do a full data recovery scan to pick up any "negatives" left behind from erased files, I suggest we create a mirror image on an unformatted hard drive purchased commercially in everyone's presence for that purpose. Other RIAA cases have handled the issue by Stipulation and Order although hopefully we can agree on the procedure without that sort of formality.

Once your tech people have confirmed that none of the titles set forth in your clients' complaint (or any other infringements) are or ever were on the drive, you will have irrefutable confirmation of the information provided to you by my office. From there, it should be a short trip to dismissal even if it means getting our clients to mediate Mr. Merchant's positive claims in the absence of an appropriate settlement.

Concluding Remarks and

Thank you for your continued professional courtesy. It is no fun becoming a litigation target as the result of your clients' widely-discredited tactics. Although I have a client to represent, I will do everything I can to keep that aspect of the case at the lowest level possible. You have a hard-nosed client to represent too; and I completely respect that.

Merl Ledford III

An Email Transmission of
LEDFORD LAW CORPORATION
805 West Oak Avenue
Visalia CA 93291-6033
Vox 559.627.2710/Fax 559.627.0717
Web Site: LedfordLaw.net
"Team-Based Transactions & Business Litigation in State and Federal Courts"

<!----><!----><!--

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation-->

I've been so busy at work stepping around the political cowpies we call rumors that I have ignored the world and national turds ^H^H^H^H^H headlines.  In catching up on all that this weekend, one thought really sticks in my mind.

The Democrats really are stupid. 

Not just really stupid, they're worse than the Republicans.  Worse yet, they seem to have no sense of value except as it applies to themselves.   Oh how easily I could rant right here about the party of the rich, but I'll hold back and focus on Iraq.

So the Democrats want us to pull out of Iraq.  They don't seem to care much about exit strategy or the end result, they just want out.  While they whip up an emotional froth talking about all of our kids that have been killed in Iraq, they don't fool anyone who has studied any history.  We know better.  We know that the loss of life, mitilary and civilian, has been pretty darn minimal for such a massive military undertaking.  War sucks, no doubt about that, but in terms of war this one has been pretty damn clean.   Knowing that, their arguements seem to be more about money than anything else.  No surprise there.  That's always the case with politicians and the Republicans are no different.  The only disagreement is who is getting the money and where it will be housed.  In this case the Democrats would rather let the oil flow in a different direction and the Iraqi people can burn in hell for all they care.

The Democrats have never cared for our military.  They don't take any pride in it or the work that our military does.  They aren't able to see past the hard work and long term investment that is involved in any military action.  An example of this was Viet Nam which they expected to be quick, easy and largely "hands off" on our part.  When this turned into a long, bloody, expensive long term investment they blamed the Republicans for the whole mess and spit on our troops when they came home.  A more recent example was Somalia where they pulled our troops out at the first sign of anything being really difficult rather than investing in the desired outcome.  They failed to either nail down a goal or to commit to a goal.

And now they want to do the same thing in Iraq.

Nothing will cripple our country more than leaving Iraq with the job not finished.  Even our trade imbalance or another huge natural disaster couldn't have the kind of negative impact on the US that we will experience from pulling out of Iraq too soon.  Iraq will most likely collapse and whatever emerges from that politically will bite us in the ass.  We've invested huge sums of money on this project and we will not see the long term benefit of that so it will change from an investment to simply tossing money into the pit.  Of course the great war machine, lots of Democrat companies there, will have made their bucks but that's not the kind of investiment I'm talking about.  We can't afford to not have a return on such a large investment.

Then there is the military cost.  There's no better way to remove the honor from the military than to force them to leave a job incomplete.  All those lives that were expended in this action will truely be lost, that's how the Democrats describe it.  Lost lives.  Well, they are lost if they were not invested in a greater good.  So when you turn that investment into a loss, the honor is rubbed out.  Without honor you won't have a top notch professional military for long.  The excellent military that we enjoy today will quickly become a thing of the past.  It takes men and women to volunteer to have that kind of force.  You don't get volunteers without honor.  It takes a lot of equipment and technology to have that kind of military and you don't get that without a proud committment.  And without that top notch military we quickly lose our place in the world.

Not that the Republicans have made all the right moves, but at least they haven't screwed things up as bad as the Democrats intend to.  Everyone wants their MTV, everyone wants instant gratification.  You don't get that with the military.  Someone needs to beat these people with a clue stick and get that through their heads.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present "Bob Boloni", a tongue twister by the talented Erik Wiegman.

Bob Boloni brought a big bag.

Did Bob Boloni bring a big bag?

If Bob Boloni brought a big bag,

Where is the big bag Bob Boloni brought?

Copyright 2007 by Erik Wiegman

Inspired by his world famous grandfather, submitted as school work and.....well, this thing rocks!  That's my boy!

There's a full size version of this in the photo gallery for those who would like to print out the artwork, frame it and hang it on the wall.  However, if you do that, you need to pay the artist a royalty...he suggests video games.

Once again I feel the time has come for me to say something about hazardous materials.  I'm not a chemist, don't play one on TV although I do have an aunt in the field.  But a part of my day job is hazardous materials, I've received a lot of awareness and operations training so I do try to keep up on these things.  This is not the first time I've warned people about dihydrogen monoxide in our area and yet nobody seems to care.

What concerns me about this is that I recently learned that Lake Pend Orielle is severely contaminated with dihydrogen monoxide.  It has been for many years.  With all the emotional drama that has revolved around the Rock Creek Mine and the Sandpoint Bypass, nobody seems the least bit concerned about this contaminiation and it's effect on our lakes and streams.  It comes from many sources, most of it in Montana where it enters the Clark Fork river and ends up filling our beautiful lake.  But we contribute to it as well.  Lightning Creek and Sand Creek are full of dihydrogen monoxide.  The sewage treatment plant in Sandpoint releases large quantities of this stuff into the lake frequently, although they are no different than most of the communities upstream along the Clark Fork River.   Amazingly enough both Avista and Army COE have known about the contamination for years and, because it works to their advantage and they have found ways to make huge profits from it, they tend to be very quiet about the subject.  The state of Idaho has even done research on the fish population in Lake Pend Orielle and found that the levels of dihydrogen monoxide in the lake have had a huge impact on fish reproduction, and yet not nearly enough is said about this.

I strongly encourage every one of you to learn more on the subject.  This effects every one of us.  What you don't know really can hurt you.

United States Environmental Assessment Center - Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division


Dihydrogen Monoxide - Unrecognized Killer by James K. Glassman, Washington Post


A short film about Dihydrogen Monoxide


College students of botany respond


Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide


The other side of the story - A group promoting the safe use of Hydrogen Hydroxide (a rose by any other name)



                               The Invisible Killer

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted
thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by
accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do 
not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage.
Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and
possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance.  
For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

   * is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid
      rain                 
   * contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
   * may cause severe burns.
   * contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
   * accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
   * may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of  
      automobile brakes.
   * has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream,
 lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the 
contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions 
of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

   * as an industrial solvent and coolant.
   * in nuclear power plants.
   * in the production of Styrofoam.
   * as a fire retardant.
   * in many forms of cruel animal research.
   * in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains
      contaminated by this chemical.
   * as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be 
done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is 
extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The Horror Must Be Stopped!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or 
use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health 
of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are
conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices 
to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research 
facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution
network. Many store large quantities for later use.

                             It's Not Too Late!

Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous
chemical. What you don't know can hurt you and others throughout the world.

This morning I was going through my usual routine and slowly waking up while reading the news online.  Assisting me in lifting the fog of sleep from my brain is a 24 oz (yeah, sorry, don't know what that is in liters) cup of Folgers Coffee.  That brand is a fairly tasty and cheap way of getting my morning drug to wake up.  Unfortunately for Proctor & Gamble they may wish they hadn't provided the jolt.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I came across this story on Yahoo about single origin chocolate.  The story makes these snobbish references about how chocolate is like fine wine.  There are two reasons I don't care for wine:  it gives me an instant headache and, most importantly, it's usually snobs who drink the stuff.  Ok, fine, whatever.  This is supposed to be about chocolate.  As I'm reading, a light bulb prepares to be switched on.  I remember reading recently how a great deal of cocoa is farmed by slave labor, child labor and is pretty much the source of a lot of evil in the world.  Now my brain is working far faster than my eyes because I find myself thinking that this snobbish story must be a launch point to tell me how we all are going to get more snobbish about our chocolate, put our feet down, and insist that this evil be stopped.  No such luck.  Instead this story goes on to point out that even Hershey is getting snooty.  Hershey.  The same Hershey that made chocolate a product for the common man.  The same chocolate company that ran a rather socialist community so that the common man made chocolate for the common man.  The very same Hershey that, it has been said, looks the other way as it purchases cocoa from suppliers known to use slave and/or child labor.

How could this be?  This is the 21st Century.  Even the people of the last century were enlightened enough to do something about this problem in the coffee industry.  Anyone who's spent more than ten minutes in a Starbucks knows about Fair Trade Certification.  For those who have been too busy with their yuppie lives, getting their latte in a mad dash, here's the Cliff Notes version.  The same situation existed with coffee, still does.  Our federal government claims to fight a war against drugs but doesn't do anything about the source.  Coffee farmers, just like cocoa farmers, find that these crops don't pay the bills.  If those farmers are going to provide for their families they are forced to produce crops that pay, and you can guess which crops those are.  The problem is that those of us in the "first world" are willing to pay nicely for a cup of coffee or a bar of chocolate.  In the "first world" these are products that represent $Billion industries.  In the "third world" where the raw materials come from, the farmer gets jack shit.  Fair Trade is all about making sure that the middle man passes on a fair profit to the farmer.   The guys who founded Starbucks knew this and set about doing something about it with Fair Trade.  Because Starbucks has been such a stellar success, Fair Trade has been able to do much.

That farmer busts his ass so we can have our morning cup of coffee.  Often it's his whole family involved.  With chocolate it's often kids who are busting their asses, and they don't get a dime.  There's no Playstation 3 for them.  They only reason they are fed at all is because starving workers don't produce.  So they maybe get a meal or two a day and their only hope in life is to be able to continue to be allowed to live to pick some more beans for your fat American ass tomorrow.

It's not right.

It turns out that my favorite cheap brand of morning coffee still may not support Fair Trade.  My favorite candy maker certainly doesn't. 

Why should I care?

I bust my ass every day too.  I'm not getting rich at it, I work in public service and the public doesn't see fit to pay me anything near what I could make in the private sector.  So I have damn little to give to others.  I feel bad about that, honestly I do.  Every day I worry about how I can teach charity to my children when every penny counts.  But then I think about the few luxuries we can partake in and I think that when I purchase a chocolate bar for my children, there should be a farmer somewhere who says "thank you".  But it doesn't happen that way.  When I purcahse a Hershey bar there is some child out there who doesn't have a clue why, all he or she knows is that if they don't harvest more tomorrow they might not live to see the day after.  Even with what little I have, when people like me buy things like chocolate or coffee, part of that should go toward a decent life for someone else.

The way history tells it, if Milton S Hershey were alive today he would be pretty pissed off about all this.  At least as pissed off as I am.  Then again, maybe corporate greed would have replaced his morals too, just most execs, when he saw the insane amount of cash that flows through his corporation.  Who knows.  Maybe it's that insane, chaotic cash flow that is the cause.  Maybe it's not evil.  Maybe it's just too much to manage the cash and be morally responsible as well.  Hershey is a bit larger than Starbucks after all.

I suppose part of what upsets me about this is the documentary I watched over the weekend on the Enron thing where the executives make green and the employees lost their retirements.  I'm sick of hearing about it.  People need to treat other people decently and with respect.  And that's mostly what all this is about, decency and respect.  Honesty.  Fair Trade.  Is the world really that far gone that we have no morals left?  While the christians and the islamics blow each other up over differences in their morals, neither side sees that their entire moral compass has been crushed.  You don't take what a man has worked for his entire life, especially when you have more than enough.  You don't take candy from a baby.

Today I found myself thinking about learning from mistakes.  I try to learn from my mistakes and the mistakes of others.  My mistakes alone provide enough information that, if one were to learn from half of them, could qualify someone for a P.h.D.

One thing that strikes me is that Americans do tend to learn well from mistakes.  And I think we're on that trend again.  

The Department of Homeland Security seems to contain all the key agencies who are players in the construction of our own version of an iron curtain.  I realize that the legitimate issue of border control has a majority of citizens anxiously awaiting a physical wall.  But I also realize that there are now huge restrictions on travel, transportation, shipping, that sort of thing.  Everything we say and do is monitored.  We now have to present papers at nearly every opportunity we cross paths with members of law enforcement or federal government.

I won't go into a debate about that being right or wrong.  I shouldn't have to.  That I even bring this up as a serious issue, and not some sick joke, is a clear sign that any such debate would be...well, a silly joke.

What is interesting to me is how our iron curtain, still being built, is already more efficient than what the USSR had.  No jokes about Soviet efficiency either, they were really good at some things and controlling people was pretty high on their talent list.  Germany was pretty darn good at it too in the years between 1923 and 1943.  But their systems were nothing like the one we're building today.

We have learned.  We've taken the best of what others had to control the populace and improved on it where we could.  We've noted the mistakes the others made and we're building our system to avoid them.  Most of the population in the USSR were all for their iron curtain, the government sold it to the masses.  We've gone a step better, even before our curtain is completely built it is already more efficient than those previously built.  And we've got the masses begging for it to be built.