From: "Revolution PAC" <mailer@revolutionpac.com>
Subject: Exclusive Pass: Ron Paul Spin Room - Saturday
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Fw: Exclusive Pass: Ron Paul Spin Room - Saturday
Subject: Exclusive Pass: Ron Paul Spin Room - Saturday
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Ken is running for state rep.
Libertarians nominate Ken Krawchuk for State Rep in PA
Mon Jan 16, 2012
For more information, contact Ken Krawchuk at (215)-881-9696 or Ken@KenK.org
LIBERTARIANS NOMINATE KEN KRAWCHUK FOR STATE REP IN PENNSYLVANIA'S 153rd DISTRICT
Abington, PA -- Ken Krawchuk, the Libertarian candidate for Pennsylvania
Governor in 1998 and 2002, was chosen as the Libertarian Party candidate in
the upcoming special election for State Representative in Pennsylvania's
153rd District. The seat became vacant earlier this month when the
incumbent Josh Shapiro resigned to accept the position of Montgomery County
Commissioner. A date for the special election has not yet been set, but is
widely expected to take place on Primary Day, April 24, 2012.
"I would like to thank the Libertarian Party for once again selecting me to
be their standard bearer," Krawchuk said to the Montgomery County
Libertarians after his nomination at their monthly meeting on January 4th,
"especially in these exciting times. Thanks to true Americans like Ron
Paul, voters all across the nation are finally awakening to the libertarian
message of constitutionally-limited government, less taxes, and more
freedom. It's long past time someone championed those sentiments in the
Pennsylvania State House, and I plan to do just that."
Krawchuk indicated that his campaign will reaffirm the core message of his
prior campaigns. "It all comes down to a single principle," he said. "You
have the God-given, inalienable right to live your life your way without
interference, provided you respect the rights and property of others. It's
the political Golden Rule. Everything else follows from that."
Unsurprisingly, topping his legislative agenda are economic issues. "Taxes
are simply too high. Government spends far too much, most of which is
either unnecessary, counterproductive, or blatantly unconstitutional. To
help reign in that kind of out-of-control spending, I'm proposing an
entirely new approach: the separation of Society and State. Reduced to its
essentials, the idea is to transfer responsibility for all of the
well-meaning, unconstitutional programs to a separate public entity I call
Society. Society would work just like government, including three elected
branches, except that it would not wield any coercive powers, such as forced
taxation and mandatory regulations. Society would have a dual mission: to
help provide for those who can't provide for themselves, and to create a
viable mechanism for kind-hearted citizens who wish to help their fellow
man."
Separation of Society and State is also the central theme of Krawchuk's
latest novel, Atlas Snubbed, a pastiche parody sequel to Ayn Rand's Atlas
Shrugged.
Still ahead for Krawchuk lies the perennial challenge of ballot access,
which is another hot item on his agenda. "Pennsylvania's draconian election
laws are very effective at limiting choices on the ballot," Krawchuk
contends. "Take this race, for example. To get my name on the ballot, I
need to collect hundreds and hundreds of signatures in a very short period
of time, but the candidates from the two old parties need to collect no
signatures at all. None. Zip. Nada. Such blatant favoritism flies in the
face of the constitutional mandate that 'all elections shall be free and
equal.' Apparently some candidates are more equal than others."
In response, Krawchuk is championing Senate Bill 21, the Voters' Choice Act,
which would work to equalize signature requirements for all candidates.
"This is a bill that the outgoing state rep Josh Shapiro promised in writing
to support, but when it came up before his committee he flip-flopped and
withdrew his support," Krawchuk noted. "His two-faced behavior makes it all
the easier for his friends in the two old parties by making it all the
harder for someone like me to challenge their unconstitutional game.
Correcting the inherent unfairness of Pennsylvania's ballot access laws is
yet another issue that drives me to seek public office. Enough is enough,
wouldn't you agree?"
Ken V. Krawchuk, 58, is a Philadelphia native and long-time political
activist who has run for political office eight times, including two
record-breaking campaigns for Governor of Pennsylvania. He is an
entrepreneur, an Information Technology professional, and holds three US
patents related to computer database theory. He is also a professional
public speaker, an author, and an award-winning Distinguished Toastmaster.
He and his wife Roberta have three daughters and two grandchildren, and have
lived in Abington Township, a Philadelphia suburb, for over 30 years. More
information about Mr. Krawchuk can be found on Wikipedia.
Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party is the third largest political party
in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and the nation, with over 150 elected or
appointed officeholders nationwide, 27 in Pennsylvania, and 2 in Montgomery
County. For more information about the Libertarian Party, the public may
contact the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania at www.LpPa.org or (800)
R-RIGHTS, or the National Libertarian Party at Lp.org or (202) 333-0008.
--
Mon Jan 16, 2012
For more information, contact Ken Krawchuk at (215)-881-9696 or Ken@KenK.org
LIBERTARIANS NOMINATE KEN KRAWCHUK FOR STATE REP IN PENNSYLVANIA'S 153rd DISTRICT
Abington, PA -- Ken Krawchuk, the Libertarian candidate for Pennsylvania
Governor in 1998 and 2002, was chosen as the Libertarian Party candidate in
the upcoming special election for State Representative in Pennsylvania's
153rd District. The seat became vacant earlier this month when the
incumbent Josh Shapiro resigned to accept the position of Montgomery County
Commissioner. A date for the special election has not yet been set, but is
widely expected to take place on Primary Day, April 24, 2012.
"I would like to thank the Libertarian Party for once again selecting me to
be their standard bearer," Krawchuk said to the Montgomery County
Libertarians after his nomination at their monthly meeting on January 4th,
"especially in these exciting times. Thanks to true Americans like Ron
Paul, voters all across the nation are finally awakening to the libertarian
message of constitutionally-limited government, less taxes, and more
freedom. It's long past time someone championed those sentiments in the
Pennsylvania State House, and I plan to do just that."
Krawchuk indicated that his campaign will reaffirm the core message of his
prior campaigns. "It all comes down to a single principle," he said. "You
have the God-given, inalienable right to live your life your way without
interference, provided you respect the rights and property of others. It's
the political Golden Rule. Everything else follows from that."
Unsurprisingly, topping his legislative agenda are economic issues. "Taxes
are simply too high. Government spends far too much, most of which is
either unnecessary, counterproductive, or blatantly unconstitutional. To
help reign in that kind of out-of-control spending, I'm proposing an
entirely new approach: the separation of Society and State. Reduced to its
essentials, the idea is to transfer responsibility for all of the
well-meaning, unconstitutional programs to a separate public entity I call
Society. Society would work just like government, including three elected
branches, except that it would not wield any coercive powers, such as forced
taxation and mandatory regulations. Society would have a dual mission: to
help provide for those who can't provide for themselves, and to create a
viable mechanism for kind-hearted citizens who wish to help their fellow
man."
Separation of Society and State is also the central theme of Krawchuk's
latest novel, Atlas Snubbed, a pastiche parody sequel to Ayn Rand's Atlas
Shrugged.
Still ahead for Krawchuk lies the perennial challenge of ballot access,
which is another hot item on his agenda. "Pennsylvania's draconian election
laws are very effective at limiting choices on the ballot," Krawchuk
contends. "Take this race, for example. To get my name on the ballot, I
need to collect hundreds and hundreds of signatures in a very short period
of time, but the candidates from the two old parties need to collect no
signatures at all. None. Zip. Nada. Such blatant favoritism flies in the
face of the constitutional mandate that 'all elections shall be free and
equal.' Apparently some candidates are more equal than others."
In response, Krawchuk is championing Senate Bill 21, the Voters' Choice Act,
which would work to equalize signature requirements for all candidates.
"This is a bill that the outgoing state rep Josh Shapiro promised in writing
to support, but when it came up before his committee he flip-flopped and
withdrew his support," Krawchuk noted. "His two-faced behavior makes it all
the easier for his friends in the two old parties by making it all the
harder for someone like me to challenge their unconstitutional game.
Correcting the inherent unfairness of Pennsylvania's ballot access laws is
yet another issue that drives me to seek public office. Enough is enough,
wouldn't you agree?"
Ken V. Krawchuk, 58, is a Philadelphia native and long-time political
activist who has run for political office eight times, including two
record-breaking campaigns for Governor of Pennsylvania. He is an
entrepreneur, an Information Technology professional, and holds three US
patents related to computer database theory. He is also a professional
public speaker, an author, and an award-winning Distinguished Toastmaster.
He and his wife Roberta have three daughters and two grandchildren, and have
lived in Abington Township, a Philadelphia suburb, for over 30 years. More
information about Mr. Krawchuk can be found on Wikipedia.
Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party is the third largest political party
in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and the nation, with over 150 elected or
appointed officeholders nationwide, 27 in Pennsylvania, and 2 in Montgomery
County. For more information about the Libertarian Party, the public may
contact the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania at www.LpPa.org or (800)
R-RIGHTS, or the National Libertarian Party at Lp.org or (202) 333-0008.
--
--
Ta.
Mark Rauterkus Mark.Rauterkus@gmail.com http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com
412 298 3432 = cell
Fwd: [DW] Wikipedia Black Out to Protest Proposed US Legislation
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven Clift
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Subject: [DW] Wikipedia Black Out to Protest Proposed US Legislation
To: newswire@groups.dowire.org
Hat tip to Anjney Midha for passing along ...
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012
Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the
English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00
UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the
Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed
legislation in the United States—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in
the U.S. Senate—that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and
open Internet, including Wikipedia.
This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a
public protest of this nature, and it's a decision that wasn't lightly
made. Here's how it's been described by the three Wikipedia
administrators who formally facilitated the community's discussion.
From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker
and User:Billinghurst:
It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of
these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open
web.Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have
joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might
wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level
of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia,
which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about
this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants
support community action to encourage greater public action in
response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by
Wikipedians, those that would result in a "blackout" of the English
Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed
to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.On careful review of
this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based
support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from
within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout
came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers
from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple
banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those
supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many
pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.
In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to
abandon neutrality to take a political position. That's a real,
legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it
is trying to propagandize them.
But although Wikipedia's articles are neutral, its existence is not.
As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our
mailing lists recently,
We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to
operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows
other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and
expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and
summarizing and collecting the world's knowledge. We're putting it in
context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.But that
knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it.
Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker,
the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have
sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or, if your views are
pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already
popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.
The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn't made by me; it
was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But
I support it.
Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have
increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia's public voice, and the
goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be
used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because
they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia's heart is in the right
place. It's not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe
some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden
agenda: it just wants to be helpful.
That's less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated:
their purpose is to make money. That doesn't mean they don't have a
desire to make the world a better place—many do!—but it does mean that
their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of
conflicting interests.
My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will
understand that we're doing it for our readers. We support everyone's
right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think
everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of
subjects, even if they can't pay for it. We believe in a free and open
Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We
believe that new proposed laws like SOPA—and PIPA, and other similar
laws under discussion inside and outside the United States—don't
advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good
list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic
Frontier Foundation.
Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some
American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?
The reality is that we don't think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is
still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a
much broader problem. All around the world, we're seeing the
development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and
regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our
concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the
problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for
everyone.
On January 18, we hope you'll agree with us, and will do what you can
to make your own voice heard.
Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
___________________________
Anjney Midha
Stanford University | Undergaduate
_______________________________________________
liberationtech mailing list
liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu
Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you
click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a
daily digest?"
You will need the user name and password you receive from the list
moderator in monthly reminders.
Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
-----------------------------------------
Group home for Newswire - Steven Clift's Democracies Online Newswire:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/newswire
Replies go to members of Newswire - Steven Clift's Democracies Online Newswire with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4r6qhBhBFMarJ8ANN1nuQn
For digest version or to leave Newswire - Steven Clift's Democracies Online Newswire,
email newswire@groups.dowire.org
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
Newswire - Steven Clift's Democracies Online Newswire is hosted by Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
--
--
Ta.
Mark Rauterkus Mark.Rauterkus@gmail.com http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com
412 298 3432 = cell
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Fw: Skirts
From: Shelby Knox, Change.org
|
Voters
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: West PA Black Political Assembly
Date: Friday, January 13, 2012
Subject:
To: Western PA Blk Pol Assembly <wpbpa2006@fastmail.fm>
PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS IN PENNSYLVANIA!
STATEWIDE PHONE-IN DAY - TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 9:00 am - 11:00 PM!
Join with other defenders of democracy by participating in a Statewide Phone-in Day Against Voter Suppression on Tuesday, January 17, between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Call your state Senator's Capitol office on Tuesday and insist that he or she oppose the Voter Suppression Bill (House Bill 934) as an unnecessary, expensive, and undemocratic obstacle to voting rights. Click HERE to find your senator's name, his/her State Capitol office number, and some suggestions about what to say.
The Pennsylvania Senate is poised to vote on legislation that will disenfranchise thousands of voters -- possibly as early as next week when the Senate returns from recess. House Bill 934, which was passed by the state House last summer, would deprive voters of the right to cast a ballot if they do not show a valid state-issued photo ID card, with only a few limited exceptions. This will particularly affect non-drivers (senior citizens who no longer drive, persons with disabilities, and residents of urban communities who travel by public transit), and the challenge of securing a non-driver photo ID card from PennDOT will be costly, difficult, and impossible for some. Supporters of the bill have been unable to show any evidence of voter identity fraud in Pennsylvania, because safeguards against fraudulent voting are already in place in our state. Worse yet, the legislation will cost Pennsylvania taxpayers millions to implement. Long lines at polling places are likely to form, leading other voters to simply give up and go home. Background info is available here.
Please join us in opposing voter suppression by calling your state Senator on Tuesday, and help spread the word!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Rick Adams and Rev. Tom Smith Co-Conveners WPBPA
E. Richard Phipps Comm. Secretary WPBPA
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. "
Franklin D. Roosevelt
--
--
Ta.
Mark Rauterkus Mark.Rauterkus@gmail.com http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com
412 298 3432 = cell
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Fw: Rick Santorum Exposed
Sent from my BlackBerry®
From: "Ron Paul" <ron.paul@ronpaul2012.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 06:04:50 -0800
To: Liberty Activist<mark@rauterkus.com>
ReplyTo: ron.paul@ronpaul2012.com
Subject: Rick Santorum Exposed
 Dear Liberty Activist, The question everyone asks in the campaign for the Republican nomination for President is "Who is the genuine conservative?" Obviously, it isn't Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich. And just take a peek at Rick Santorum's Big Government voting record , rather than his current rhetoric, it's clear he is also a counterfeit conservative. When you compare it to my record on opposing Big Government, deficit spending, and reckless growth in federal programs, I think you will conclude that I am "the real thing." Just like the other "flavor of the week" establishment candidates, Rick Santorum's campaign will come crashing down once voters learn of his Big Government record. In fact, my campaign just put together a TV ad called "Betrayal" highlighting Rick Santorum's long record of being part of the Big Government, big spending status quo in Washington. Won't you take a minute to watch it.  And, if you possibly can, I hope you'll agree to make a generous contribution to help me run this ad in New Hampshire, South Carolina and the other key early states. As you'll see from my ad, Rick Santorum is anything but a conservative. Just consider his record, which includes: *** Padding his own wallet as a corporate lobbyist at the expense of taxpayers; *** Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times; *** Voting to DOUBLE the federal Department of Education; *** Voting with liberals like Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions in support of Big Labor's radical agenda; *** Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; *** Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities; *** Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter later became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda; *** Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses; *** Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump; *** Voting for gun control; *** Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents; *** Voting to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea; *** Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion - and hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel. But unlike many of my other establishment opponents, Rick Santorum isn't even trying to sweep his Big Government record under the rug.He's proud of it!  Rick Santorum said constitutional conservatives have a "crazy" idea that government should "keep our taxes down, and keep our regulations low." Not only that, but he endorsed Mitt Romney just four years ago! How can the "alternative to Romney" also be a Romney supporter? The truth is, Rick Santorum has no national campaign and no funding to compete against Mitt Romney, let alone Barack Obama. And as I've laid out, there's no way his Big Government record can stand up to an ounce of scrutiny. On the other hand, my campaign has seized the momentum in New Hampshire and elsewhere after my strong finish in Iowa. That's because I've been warning about the dangers of Big Government, out-of-control spending, and runaway inflation for years. In fact, I'm the only candidate to predict the current economic mess we're in right now. In 2003, I predicted the housing crisis and pushed to get the government out of the mortgage business. In 2008, I fought TARP and the Fed when they laid waste to our economy, while others in this race applauded their disastrous Big Government intervention. And unlike my opponents, I am absolutely ready to enact real spending cuts, right now. In fact, my Plan to Restore America cuts $1 trillion in federal spending during the first year of my presidency by eliminating five federal departments that I can actually name - Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior. As President, I'll balance the budget by year three without cutting one penny from our veterans, our senior citizens, or our national defense. That's what sets me apart - my plan, my record of being right while others were wrong, and my unmatched and unwavering record of fighting for fiscal responsibility and constitutional principles. In a nutshell, it's my conservatism that's winning the day. And today, I'm asking for your support. These are troubling times for our country - times that call for conservative leadership. A counterfeit like Rick Santorum won't cut it. As I run for President, I want to make sure our Republican Party keeps its strong commitment to limited constitutional government and free market solutions. The only way to do that is to nominate someone in 2012 who predicted the economic crisis long before it happened. Someone who has conviction and has fought against Big Government in Washington his entire career. And if you are so moved, I'd appreciate it if you would consider contributing to my presidential campaign, as well. I don't have big corporations or special interests behind my campaign. But I do have hundreds of thousands of individuals who care about getting our economy moving in the right direction again. Whatever you can do, $500, $250, $100, or even $50, will help. Together, you and I can Restore America Now. For Liberty,  Ron Paul P.S. Considering the trouble our nation is facing, we simply can't afford to nominate a counterfeit conservative. As my new TV ad shows, Rick Santorum is just another counterfeit conservative with a long record of being part of the Big Government, big spending status quo in Washington. The truth is, I'm the only candidate left in the race with the fundraising, organization and track record to defeat both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. So please, support my campaign and help get my message out to as many voters as quickly as possible. |
Monday, January 02, 2012
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Fwd: 2011 Dirty Dozen Results & Summary Article
http://www.dannychew.com/dd_11.html
8 Links to 2011 DD Articles, Photos, & Videos
2011 DIRTY DOZEN RESULTS
The 29th annual Dirty Dozen was held on Saturday, November 26th. With a high temperature of 60 degrees F, mostly cloudy skies, and dry conditions, we had a record turnout of 305 riders! Of these 305 cyclists, 175 (57.4%) were rookies (first timers). A record 47 riders were over 50 years old including ten over 60. A record 16 teenagers. A record women's field of 16.
Taking 1st & 2nd on the first 2 hills, Steve Cummings (Steevo) and Sam Morrison (started with a fractured wrist he got in a cyclocross race two weeks before) were tied for the lead when Steevo dropped his chain at the bottom of the 3rd hill (Berryhill) forcing him to go to the bottom for a restart. Sam placed 4th giving him a 7 point lead over Steevo. This made Steevo raving at me for going 10 places deep on the points this year. Instead of being down by just 2 points (old 5 place system), defending champ Steevo was down by 7. I explained to him that Sam could have a similar mishap on future hills such as Canton which causes many crashes even among the leaders. On the next 3 hills, Steevo was only able to gain one point on Sam on each hill, but on the toughest hill (#7 - Suffolk), Steevo won and Sam scored no points. This gave Steevo the lead again which he held to the end (winning 5 hills) for his record 8th consecutive DD win. Because of his fractured wrist, Sam stopped on the next hill (#8 - Sycamore) atop of which he quit.
Finishing in 2nd & 3rd place were 5 time DD riders Eddie Grystar Jr. & Bob Stumpf - the only 2 riders to score points on every hill. The top rookie finisher & 4th place was my Nephew Steven Perezluha from Florida who finished solo Race Across AMerica (RAAM) this summer. Sprinters John Cotter & Mark Nicoll each won 2 hills. 51 year old Jim Doan was the first 40+ rider and finished in 7th place. Of the 29 men to score points, only 5 were rookies, but 8 were over 40 years old. Pro Bikes owner Craig Cozza was the only 40+ rookie to score points. This was the highest calibre DD field I have ever seen. Even with the points going 10 places deep, it was still quite difficult to score. The following riders dropped in places from last year to this year: Gerry Pflug went from 2nd place last year to 8th place this year. Joe Lydic fell from 3rd to 6th. Jonathan Pratt (not the photographer) dropped from 13th to 22nd. Gunnar Shogren went from 15th to 24th. I fell from 6th to 19th.
Gunnar Shogren headed a new single gear/speed (SS) category this year. None of the bikes were fixed gear. The winner Bill (Stik) Westover finished in 10 place overall. He forfeited points on hill #6 (Pig Hill/Rialto St.) by deciding to climb in the SS heat. Montana Miller (first to finish DD on a fixed gear in 2009) broke Gunnar Shogren's (45x22 {2.045} fixed gear in 2010) highest low gear record by using a 36x17 {2.118} gear this year. Here are the SS results with the gears they used:
1. Bill "Stik" Westover, 39x22 {1.773}, 10 place overall
2. Gunnar Shogren, 36x19 {1.895}
3. Donald Powers, 38x20 {1.900}
4. Montana Miller, 36x17 {2.118}, a new highest low gear record
5. Steve Harouff, 42x22 {1.909}
Without the top 5 places returning from last year, the women's race was wide open this year. 14 out of the 16 women were rookies. I went 5 places deep on the points again. The women tie a piece of pink tape around their handlebars to distinguish themselves from the men. Ironman triathlete Anne-Marie Alderson led through the first 6 hills despite being shut out (no points) on hill #5 (Logan) in Millvale. Near the top of the hill, a guy crashed right in front of her causing her to stop (got a foot out before crashing) so she had to go back down and ride up the hill again. On the toughest hill (#7 - Suffolk), Alderson was shut out again, and Erin Yanacek won the hill and moved into the lead.
A trumpet player at CMU, Erin lost her lead on the steepest (37% grade) hill - #9 Canton in Beechview which Alderson won and led to the end (winning 9 hills) for her first DD victory. After Erin's manfriend Jean-Christophe Veloso was seen pushing her up Canton, I insisted that she make it up on her own. After many failed attempts, she switched rear wheels with Jeff Lazar (a 25 cog for a 28 cog), and on her 7th try finally made it up - weaving at walking speed all the way across the rough cobblestones, and nearly coming to a stop several times. Bloodied up from crashes on the hill, Erin's heroic effort was truly remarkable and inspiring to watch by the huge, cheering crowd assembled on the hill. After one of these crashes, a photo shows her lying on the ground with her bike, and it looks like she is taking a nap. Erin won 3 hills and finished in 2nd place.
Karen Brooks (of Dirt Rag Mag & Bicycle Times) finished 3rd. Despite not having her feet attached to her pedals (this gives a huge advantage for climbing up steep hills), Linda Thomas was 4th. Riding her mountain bike, 15 year old Angelina Palermo was 5th, and became the youngest female DD finisher. Only 5 women made it up all of the hills. The DD was quite a family affair for the Palermo's of Butler. Angelina's parents Ron & Cheryl rode, and Ron's brother Dan attempted to break bike race promoter JR Petsko's heaviest DD finisher record of 240 pounds (set in 2009). 245 pound Dan nearly had it until he had to veer off and loop around side streets on the last 2 hills.
To be an official DD finisher, you must ride up every hill without stopping or crashing. You must have continuous forward motion UP the hill! You can weave back and forth as long as you are continuing to go UP. As soon as you start to go level or back down the hill, you are disqualified. You can go back down to the bottom of the hill, and try again as many times as you want. In the early days of 20 or fewer riders, I was able to keep track of who made all the hills, but once the DD grew bigger than this, I was unable to police it anymore. Now there exists an honor system where riders keep track of themselves. Of course when it comes to scoring points and setting DD records, I still have to keep track of this.
With the DD growing so fast, I had to organize an entire staff again this year to help me run it. Thanks to Maura Spillane, Ashley Bock & Nina Wilczek for doing registration in the morning. Thanks to Lee-Ann's brother Kevin Beatty (men's), his wife Amanda (videotaped top men finishers), & Carol Moore (women's & single speed) for officiating (scoring points) atop hills. Thanks to Ron Lutz & son Eric and Dave Shaffer for driving the food vehicle, and organizing the food stops - Millvale's Riverfront Park on the Allegheny River at the bottom of the 5th hill Logan, and at the top of the 9th hill Canton Ave. Thanks again to Steve Mentzer for loaning me his 10 gallon orange coolers and 6 gallon blue cubes he uses for the Rachel Carson Trail Challenge.
Thanks to Glenn Pawlak & Big Bang Bicycles for sponsoring the DD again this year. Glenn's brother Scott drove the BB support vehicle again with Glenn's son Isaac, and mechanic Evan Robinson making on-the-go repairs. Thanks to Gary Baun (Ian's father) for driving the clothing/spare equipment vehicle. If you lost any clothes, please e-mail him about it at soleman33@aol.com
Thanks to the Eat'n Park and Vice President Brooks Broadhurst who really stepped up to the plate this year. They donated hot chocolate, Smuckers Uncrustables peanut butter & grape jelly sandwiches, and smiley face cookies. Once theBud Harris Cycling Track (oval) parking lot filled up at the start in the morning, Brooks made sure people didn't park illegally by sending them down to overflow parking - a gravel lot North of the oval on Washington Blvd. Thanks also to the little girl who held up a sign for this. Brooks also allowed my DD food crew to empty trash and get water at his restaurant along the route at Crane Ave. & Banksville Rd. in Beechview before Canton Ave. At this location and at Middle Rd. & Rt. 8 in Shaler Twp. (also on the route between hills 3 & 4), Brooks had his employees come out and marshal traffic at these very busy, dangerous intersections. Here is a photo of Brooks, myself & Glenn at the start. The registration table is to our right.
With such a huge pack/field of riders this year, safety became my #1 concern, so I increased the number of orange vest marshals and made Chris Helbling head marshal. A big thanks to Chris, his son Ian, & the rest of the marshals: Returning from last year were Bob {looks like Al from "Home Improvement" TV show with Tim Allen} Bliss (Aaron's father), Tom Reay (Andrew's father), & Michael Hordijk. Also helping were Gene Nacey & his daughter Nina Wilczek, Ken Kaszak, Mike Horowitz, Mark Rauterkus (Erik's father), and August (a woman from Miami, FL). Ron Mower (Tyler's father) was a motorcycle marshal. Riding marshals were Joe Ross, Matt Kurpiewski, Owen Bittner, & Seth Gernot. If I have left anybody out, please let me know who you are. Thanks to West Virginian Steve Harouff for giving us 4 stop/slow signs and 4 orange flags all of which belong to JR Petsko.
Neighborhoods have been getting involved. Thanks to Julie Ewing & her Troy Hill crew for sweeping clean closed hill #6 - Pig Hill/Rialto St., and removing the barrier atop the hill. Thanks to Fineview's Melissa Gallagher for welcoming riders (with signs) up hill #7 - Suffolk/Hazelton/Burgess - the single toughest DD hill! Thanks to Oscar Swan and Bob Stumpf for lending me their electronic bullhorns again. 855 people have ridden (started) the DD over the past 28 years. 30 riders graduated to my 3 or more DDs ridden list this year. I was unable to ride the 2008 DD because of back surgery. This ended my record 25 consecutive DDs streak. Currently, Steevo has the longest consecutive DDs ridden streak at 9 years. Only 7 people have ridden more DDs than Steevo. Of these 7, only two (Ray Russell & myself) rode this year. Bryan Routledge has ridden the most DDs (9) without ever scoring any points.
Congrats to all the riders who conquered every hill. To those who didn't, train harder next year and bring a lower gear. If you have say over 50 DD photos in a Facebook album and would like to share them, please send the link to me at DanChew@yahoo.com and I will put them in my media links section. Could somebody with an advanced GPS unit please send me a file with the entire (oval to oval) 50 mile DD route on it with a cue sheet at least as nice as this one? I need to replace the old one (Liberty Tunnels used to be on the course) on my website.
Last year, brothers Rich & Greg Hartley started the DD, but only Rich was able to finish. This year, Greg came back and finished. Greg would like to get a 2010 DD jersey (black & yellow) for his brother Rich who inspired him to finish this year. Greg will pay the $75 purchase price for a size XL jersey in good condition. I still have one bran new (unopened) size medium jersey left. If your XL jersey is way too big (maybe you just lost a lot of weight), and you would like to make a trade, I can sell Greg my new one which he will trade you for your old one. If interested, please call Greg at 412-445-5570 or e-mail him at HartleyGreg@verizon.net
Sincerely,
Danny
website: http://www.dannychew.com
--
--
Ta.
Mark Rauterkus Mark.Rauterkus@gmail.com http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com
412 298 3432 = cell
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Ron Paul and a perspective on the race matters
Ron Paul gave CNN some answers yesterday and then the CNN reporter asked the same questions today. And, the question got a reply. And then the CNN reporter re-asked the same dang question over again. Go figure.
Then I was reading a thread and came upon this remark reposted from someone called, "theredpill" at http://www.dailypaul.com.
The second flaw in the Ron Paul critique is that his voting record doesn't support what is being implied. After 30 years in public office shouldn't we see a pattern in his voting record that is blatantly racist? Unfortunately for his detractors, we don't. Some votes were not in favor of issues sympathetic to poor blacks. Some votes were not in favor of issues sympathetic to rich whites. In the balance his voting record (which is how he actually MUST be judged) shows an uncanny bravery and consistency. Agree with him or not I can see a constitutional thread through every single vote he's cast. There doesn't appear to be a specific race bias but more a guiding principle of not permitting favors or handicaps based on belonging to a group. His voting records says that people should be free to make their own choices and governments cant legislate who you speak with, love or hate. If I disagree with him at least I know the foundation of my counter argument. The constitution. In an era where lobbyists determine congressional votes by bribery isn't it refreshing and a bit inspiring that no such bias exists with this man? Rather than demonize the man for newsletters why don't you in the media find a consistent strain in his record in public office against blacks, Jews, hispanics or any other ethnic group specifically.
In addition to this I looked for a speech or presentation that contained racist rhetoric. Where is his Sally Kern style "..blacks are lazy" moment? Where is the moment where like Joe Biden, he says that "..."You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."? Where is his outrageously racist quote similar to those we can find from Senator Byrd, Governor Wallace or even Hilary Clinton's now famous "Ghandi" quote? I can't even find a public Truman-esque "God does hate the Chinese and Japs" meltdown. With the way he's described I'd at least expect to hear something akin to the famous "...(God) created the white man. I know not who created the blacks" quote from Theodore Bilbo but I haven't found it. If Ron Paul is as racist as some in the media implies, I would think there would be a few Freudian slips from Mr. Paul. Yet there don't seem to be any that I can find.
--------------
There were many on the left who protested against accusations that Obama hated America due to his "spiritual mentor's" incendiary words. I think Barack's tolerance and support for Reverend Wright somewhat parallels Ron Paul's current situation. The views we support and our words do come back to haunt us. But should the possibility of his words alone disqualify Ron Paul? If we're going to judge Ron Paul in the history books as a racist, unfit to lead America in its darkest hour then is it fair for us to examine the words of others in the same light?Ghandi is the icon of civil disobedience. He was the face that inspired millions of Indians seeking independence from the British. But if he were judged by his views on race as the press is doing with Dr Paul he would be excluded from the pages of history as a be-speckled, calm loving pacifist.
Ghandi was a outspoken racist when he lived in South Africa. He had a newsletter called Indian Opinion where he regularly presented his anti black rhetoric such as ...
"...Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs (niggers) of the town, passes my comprehension. ...About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."
Beyond his anti-black rhetoric Ghandi was also rumored to have a slightly deviant perspective with regards to sex. So let me get this straight. If I'm Ghandi I can basically call people niggers (kaffirs), sleep with young girls and still end up being admired by Martin Luther King, become an icon to every peace activist in the world and even get a spot on the Apple "THINK DIFFERENT" commercial. Sounds good to me. If we judge Ron Paul by his newsletters is it safe to say we should judge Ghandi by his as well? Or does the Ron Paul Rule not apply?
We're taught that Winston Churchill was England's brave leader who kept the allied forces inspired with his words and deeds during WW2. Even though many Americans limited perspective of the British is gleaned from watching royal weddings, there are a good many that have learned that Churchill was a man to be admired. If we apply the Ron Paul rule to him however then he too must be disqualified from history as a racist deserving of scorn and not the leader we've been taught about. Churchill once said.
"...I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place"
Is it safe to say that Winston Churchill and Hitler agreed that there were superior and inferior races? It appears that what they disagreed on is who should lord over them.Abraham Lincoln is portrayed as the central hero in the emancipation of black slaves. A hero worthy of his own monument and face on the five dollar bill. However if we use the Ron Paul Rule we should also be told that he felt blacks were a lesser species and unfit for equality with whites?
Wasn't Abraham Lincoln the one that said
"... Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living amongst us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."
Do you in the media ask us to denounce or disregard the words of these men? No and for good reason. They were imperfect men who espoused perfect ideas. As racist as Churchill was I'm happy that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the allies against Hitler. For as racist as Abraham Lincoln was and despite his reluctance to end slavery, he did influence the ending of that institution. Despite his attitudes towards blacks I will always have great respect for Mahatma Ghandi's sacrifice and heroism.
Like these icons of our freedom and peace, Ron Paul's words deserve scrutiny. How one views the world will affect how they govern. Ultimately though, it is his voting record and public statements that are the criteria by which he should be judged. If we vilify Ron Paul we must by definition do the same with Ghandi, Lincoln and dozens of others who are imperfect individuals.
Regardless of the views in those newsletters Ron Paul deserves the same respect afforded to Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. He's denounced the controversial contents. Let's move on. The words attributed to Ron Paul are no worse than the blatant racism of our accepted icons of virtue. For Ron Paul supporters, civil liberties, ending militarism and fighting against crony capitalism of the Federal Reserve takes precedence over these newsletters for good reason. If we're collectively shackled by debt or perhaps indefinitely detained for speaking our minds in what used to be the freest nation on earth the content of those newsletters won't really matter. In the final analysis, Ron Paul is an imperfect man with a nearly perfect, and very simple message.
Freedom is popular.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Fwd: Project Report from Julian Heicklen, 12–11–11
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julian P Heicklen <jph13@psu.edu>
Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:08 PM
From: Julian P Heicklen <jph13@psu.edu>
Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:08 PM
Hi Tyranny Fighters:
PROGRESS REPORT, 12–9–11
We are now Living in Stalin's Soviet Union.
The Congress has just passed a bill by overwhelming margins to permit the President to arrest and detain any person indefinitely without a trial whom he deems to be a threat to the country.
1. Already it is the illegal immigrants and the presumed terrorists.
2. Next it will be the militias and gun owners.
3. Then the opposing press and intellectuals.
4. Then a Democrat President will dispose of the far right.
5. Then a Republican President will dispose of the far left.
6. Then come the atheists, Zoroastrians, and Rastafarians.
7. Then the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintos, and Mormons.
8. Then the dissenting Christian clergy.
They will all be used as slave laborers until they die. If they do not die fast enough, then comes the gas chambers. Already the U. S. government is reopening the FEMA camps to house all of the new prisoners.
It only took about 15 years for Stalin and Hitler to accomplish this.
The good news is that I may die before they come for me.
Jury Tampering Case
As many of you know, I am being tried for jury tampering. On Monday, December 12, 2011, at 10:00 am, I was supposed to have a court hearing in front of Judge Kimba Wood at the U. S. District Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York , NY 10007. Presumably the only issue to be discussed was the Constitutionality of the indictment. However the hearing has been postponed, until when or why I do not know.
The U. S. Attorney's position is that:
- Jury nullification is legal, but that jurors are not to be informed of this.
- It is permissible to distribute my literature in a public forum.
- The plaza in front of the courthouse is not a public forum.
All of my pertinent submissions to the Court are posted on my web page at:
To make sense of this you need two other documents which are attached. They are:
1. Memorandum of Law submitted by Sabrina Shroff
2. Response to her Memorandum by the U. S. Attorney
Chronologically, they precede my letter to Judge Wood and Reply Memorandum of November 29, 2011.
I have prepared a new flyer to distribute at federal courthouses. It appears at the end of this E-mail for your comments.
Another View
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (c.k.a. Stroock) is an American law firm based in New York City with approximately 350 lawyers in three offices, the other two being in Miami and Los Angeles. Stroock, founded in 1876, maintained an office in Boston from 1996 to 2000 and briefly maintained an office in Budapest as well.
Stroock was named "Law Firm of the Year" by Securitization News in 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroock_%26_Stroock_%26_Lavan
Joel Cohen, a lawyer at Strroock & Stroock and Katherine A. Helm have written an article about jury nullification
(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202535168513&slreturn=1)
much of which attacks me as a person. Of more concern is their ignorance of the law. They state that: "It is a doctrine that encourages jurors to decide cases irrespective of the law given to jurors during trial." Actually jury nullification does not encourage jurors to decide cases irrespective of the law unless justice is not being served.
They also state "Runaway jury verdicts would amount to little more than a random 12-person vote, where each person could vote their conscience, their pocketbook, a flip of their coin, or what have you." This is a deliberate falsehood. Jury nullification only requires that the issue of justice be predominant. They do not seem to be equally concerned that a judge, prosecuting attorney, the President, or a police officer can dismiss for any reason whatsoever.
They further write: "But, for the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuting him, on a misdemeanor charge, for violating Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1504 ("Influencing Juror By Writing"), Heicklen was intentionally, and very directly, seeking to impede the legal process by stopping jurors in their tracks." This statement is incorrect for two reasons:
1) The statement in the code says: "influencing juror by writing or sending to him." I do not send stuff to jurors.
2) I do not stop jurors in their tracks. I do not even know who jurors are. I only distribute literature to people that approach me.
They go on to state: "The truth is: That's not the law. Our justice system is based on jurors following the law as instructed by judges. As the 2nd Circuit made exquisitely clear in U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 614 (2d Cir. 1997):" Actually the Constitutions of both New York and New Jersey require the jury to judge the law as well as the fact. Several U. S. Supreme Court decisions and opinions have upheld this view.
This article is interesting for several reasons. Much of it attacks me as a person, which is irrelevant. The authors are completely ignorant of the Constitutional requirements for the Jury. They incompletely quote a statement in a statute to alter its meaning. They are willing to permit me to discuss my ideas where no jurors are present, in what are often called free speech zones. That is a euphemism which means where no-one interested in the information will be present.
The article was written by a lawyer in the "Law Firm of the Year," a law firm with 350 lawyers and branches in several U. S. cities, presumably with the sanction of that firm. Is this the best that the legal profession can provide?
The Free Dictionary defines judiciary as "A system of courts of law for the administration of justice." Most lawyers and all judges consider the purpose of a judicial system is to uphold the law, when its real purpose is to deliver justice. Law is only the means to that end, not the end in itself.
Michael Allison
Michael Allison was charged with five counts of eavesdropping in Illinois because he took pictures of police making arrests. Each charge carries a 15-year sentence, so Allison could have spent 75 years in prison. Subsequently the charges have been dropped. In 12 states it is a crime to photograph police making arrests.
THE PRICE OF LIBERTY IS IMMEDIATE VIGILANCE
THE PRICE OF JUSTICE IS IMMEDIATE PUBLICITY
The time is now. Tomorrow will be too late. Yours in desperation—Julian
WHAT IS THE JURYʼS DUTY?
JUDGEʼS CHARGE
JUDGE WILL TELL THE JURY THAT IT MUST UPHOLD THE LAW AS HE GIVES IT
HE WILL BE LYING; TWICE
THE LAW
"...THE JURY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE LAW AND THE FACT."
NY Constitution Article I § 8
U. S. Constitution Amendment X
GUILT MUST BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
Leland v. Oregon 343 U.S. 790 (1952)
Winship 397 U. S. 358 (1970)
Sullivan v. Louisiana 508 U. S. 275, 278 (1983)
U. S. ATTORNEYʼS POSITION
JURY NULLIFICATION IS LEGAL
THE JURY MUST NOT BE SO INFORMED
JURY NULLIFICATION CAN BE DISCUSSED ONLY IN A PUBLIC FORUM
THE PLAZA IN FRONT OF A COURTHOUSE IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM
JURYʼS DUTY
THE JURY MUST JUDGE THE LAW AS WELL AS THE FACTS
IF THE JURY UPHOLDS THE LAW, IT MUST BE THE WRITTEN STATUTE
IF THE COURT HAS NOT GIVEN THE JURORS THE WRITTEN STATUTE THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT
THEN THE JURY MUST ACQUIT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
