Evil Seeds, Evil Crop
Sam Aurelius Milam III
On Wednesday January 3, 2001, two cops were killed in Eden, Idaho, while trying to serve a search warrant for suspicion of marijuana.¹  The same report that announced the deaths of the cops also mentioned in passing (journalistic fairness, I suppose) the death of the man who allegedly killed the cops, and who was himself killed in the same confrontation.
A subsequent report (I don't remember which station) briefly covering the funeral of the victim, alleged that he had been shot 22 times.  Since the first shot or two probably dropped him, the remaining 20 or so shots were a typical shooting spree at a dead man, by the cops.  When I later accessed the websites of the local TV stations to confirm what I had heard, the report wasn't there.  The other stories presented that day were archived, but not that one.  Anyway, scant concern was expressed regarding this man's death during any report that I saw.  As I said, it was mentioned in passing.  The deaths of the cops were reported, repeatedly, as a tragedy.  According to the coverage, you'd think that it was the worst thing to happen in the history of the state.  Hundreds of cops showed up at the funeral, which became almost a royal pageant of despair, complete with a parade of mourning cops.  Meanwhile, the victim of the police shooting, the one presumably shot 20 or so times after he was already down, was buried quietly, with little fanfare, and almost no notice by the news media.  As I said, they didn't even archive the report.
Such disparity in reporting is typical.  The establishment media doesn't report the deaths of people as tragedies, when those people are murdered by cops.  Such an event is reported as a shootout with a cultist, as a standoff with a survivalist, as an attempted apprehension of a suspected terrorist, or as some other such event.  Without exception, each such victim is characterized in some way that demonizes him sufficiently so that it's OK that the cops killed him.  Such events are not reported as a human being murdered by a cop, in other words, as a tragedy.  Such media bias is blatant pro-government propaganda.  It glorifies cops and glamorizes tyranny in the name of law enforcement.  It is outright pro-cop brainwashing and it is an insult to Americans.
The brainwashing might have worked on some Americans, but in my case it backfired.  Cops could have been good.  They could have been useful.  They have chosen to be otherwise.  So, when cops are arrogant, when they strut around like thugs, when they use no-knock search warrants and kick in the doors of people's homes, when they harass people, beating or killing those who dare to resist, when they arrest and imprison people who haven't harmed anyone, when they seize other people's property (civil asset forfeiture), when they murder people who are minding their own business or trying to defend themselves, when they attempt to disarm everyone, then they don't deserve any sympathy.  Today, they do all of those things and more, routinely and without a qualm.  Today, they don't deserve any sympathy, so I won't give them any.  Today, when I hear of a cop killed "in the line of duty", I'm satisfied.  He probably shouldn't have been doing whatever he was doing.  He probably shouldn't have been were he was.  He was probably being arrogant, belligerent, brutal, intrusive, and he was probably wrong.  He and his kind have been that way for a long, long time.  For years, they have been sowing the evil seeds of an evil crop.  They shall reap what they sow.  Today, when a cop is killed "in the line of duty", I lay the blame squarely at their feet.  He probably got exactly what he deserved.

Internet Speech Under Global Fire
http://www.khouse.org/enews/2001-01-16.html
Freedom of speech and the press is a core right, which is crucial for maintaining freedom.  Of course, the people most often watched by the press are those in government and so government is often hostile to a free press, because it doesn't want light shed on its misdeeds.
An article by Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters without Borders) in France lists a total of forty-five countries that restrict their citizens' access to the Internet.  Of those, twenty are extremely hostile to the global communications system. 
Authoritarian regimes have particular problems with the Internet.
Although the Internet is a major factor in economic growth, it also opens the floodgates of free speech and information and therefore constitutes a major threat.  The great dictators of the 20th Century all made a major point of seizing control of the organs of public communications.
Typically the rationale for the restrictions is that of protecting the public from "subversive ideas" or defending "national security and unity."  Governments restrict access by forcing users to subscribe via a single state-run Internet Service Provider (ISP) or using government-controlled filters on various ISPs, which block access to sites regarded as unsuitable.  Sometimes the filters actually force users to register with the authorities.
It will prove interesting to see which side of the struggle wins the battle.  As economic pressures mount, the efforts of countries to keep their people from world communications may prove insurmountable.

Frontiersman  479 E. 700 N.  Firth, Idaho 83236            Even if it is imposed by a majority with its vote, the arbitrary and coercive control of someone's behavior, with punishment for disobedience, is still slavery.  The so-called "Rule of Law" isn't a justification.  It's an excuse.

Acknowledgments
•     My thanks to The Affiliate, http://www.the-grand-barn.com/, of Vankleek Hill, Ontario for regularly printing reviews of the Frontiersman.
•     My thanks to Sir John the Generous http://www.jwebster.com/, and Sir Donald the Elusive for their contributions. 

Does Anybody Know?
Source Unknown — forwarded by Sir Donald the Elusive
•     If lawyers can be disbarred and clergymen can be defrocked, then doesn't it follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians can be denoted, cowboys can be deranged, models can be deposed, tree surgeons can be debarked, and dry cleaners can be depressed?
•     Why do we say something is "out of whack"?  What is whack?
•     Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
•     If someone offers you a penny for your thoughts and you give him your two cents worth, should you try to collect the other penny?
•     Why do croutons come in airtight packages?  They're just stale bread
•     Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one?