Back to Map

Maptalk-Digest Thursday, December 27 2001 Volume 01 : Number 338

Pot for your sims
    From: Josh Sutcliffe <>
Re: MAP: Police state tactics in Bay Area
    From: "J. Colman-Pinning" <>
    From: "J. Colman-Pinning" <>
Re: MAP: CSAP Controversy - 1 of 4
    From: "J. Colman-Pinning" <>
NATO AWACS over US Airspace for first time
    From: "Dave Michon" <>
MMJ Makes MAD Magazine List
Re: DPFWI: Here are two more sent letters
    From: "Dave Michon" <>


Subj: Pot for your sims
From: Josh Sutcliffe <>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:39:32 -0500

In case anyone got "The Sims" computer game for Christmas, you may 
find this website useful:


Josh "The devil is building a jungle-gym on the playground that is 
(are?) my idle hands" Sutcliffe


Subj: Re: MAP: Police state tactics in Bay Area
From: "J. Colman-Pinning" <>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 12:15:24 -0800

To all,
Mi esposa and I were discussing the invasive BART blanket  sniffing of all
riders (and presumably those standing in stations waiting for the train) and
"police state" were the first words out of her mouth.  This new surveillance
wrinkle is analogous to setting up a roadblock and searching all cars coming
down the road.  I don't think this attack on personal privacy will stand up in

Question:  Has anyone heard of sniffer dogs being used on [Greyhound] bus
passengers; whether on the bus or at terminals?  Didn't this come up already
with the court saying that passengers cannot be subjected to random
suspicionless searches?

It would seem sniffing everyone without probable cause is unconstitutional,
but who knows what will fly here in the land of the free given the current
J. Colman-Pinning

Keith Sanders wrote:

> I can't believe I didn't hear about this until today.  In case you haven't
> already heard, check it out-- this is definitely worth a Focus Alert (at
> least locally to the Bay Area/CA).  And Rebecca & Chris: what should we
> (SSDP et al.) do in response?
> US CA: Dogs Sniff Out Drugs On BART [our public transport system]
> By the way, it seems that some SF Chronicle reporters, NOT the authors of
> the article, went out of their way to post the article to Craig's List, the
> local community bulletin board.  In that posting they listed their e-mail
> addresses.  If it's true that these folks are making a special effort to
> warn people, then we should probably say thanks!!
> "POSTED BY: John Koopman, Kelly St. John, Ryan Kim, SF Chronicle Staff
> Writers. Friday, December 14, 2001.  E-mail the posters at
> , , "
> Keith
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:


Subj: Gandhi
From: "J. Colman-Pinning" <>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 12:29:49 -0800

Science of war leads one to dictatorship pure and simple. Science of
non-violence can alone lead one to pure democracy.

Mahatma Gandhi


Subj: Re: MAP: CSAP Controversy - 1 of 4
From: "J. Colman-Pinning" <>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:23:26 -0800

Oy vey!

Does the suppression never stop?

In an [ostensibly] free society, the freedon to think and to express those
thoughts (perhaps ideas) is at the absolute core of freedom.  If the discussion
is controlled and circumscribed you have what I have come to call our present
"faux democracy."

Compadres, the disease runs deep and is persistent.  Thank you for posting an
important article.  An assault on [any] freedom is an assault on all freedoms.

J. Colman-Pinning

Beth wrote:

> This is the first of 4 postings on this topic for your perusal.  We don't
> post National Review Online, but there is information that may be of
> interest to some of us.
> December 5, 2001 - National Review Online - Stanley Kurtz, NRO Contributing
> Editor & a fellow at the Hudson Institute
> Article URL:
> Silencing Sommers : Clinton Holdovers Have Their Way With HHS
> Imagine that a feminist heroine like Carol Gilligan or Catherine MacKinnon
> had been silenced by federal officials at a government-sponsored
> conference, simply for airing her feminist views. Then imagine MacKinnon or
> Gilligan being put upon by a group of paid government consultants and told
> by a man to "shut the f*ck up, bitch" while the rest of the crowd laughed
> at her derisively. Now imagine our feminist heroine, having been publicly
> silenced and insulted, finally leaving the conference, while the federal
> officials running the show did nothing to challenge or chastise the man who
> had hurled the insult. Of course, none of this happened to Catherine
> MacKinnon or Carol Gilligan. Just imagine the media firestorm if it did.
> But this did happen to the famous critic of feminism, Christina Hoff
> Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Sommers
> was delivering an invited speech at a conference on "Boy Talk" (a program
> sponsored by the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention (CSAP) of the
> Department of Health and Human Services) when CSAP official Linda Bass
> summarily interrupted, and commanded Sommers to end her talk. Minutes
> later, as Sommers was forced by a hostile crowd to defend her claim that
> scientific studies ought to be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of
> government drug-prevention programs, Professor Jay Wade, of Fordham
> University's Department of Psychology  an expert on "listening skills" 
> ordered Sommers to "shut the f*ck up, bitch," to the laughter of the others
> in attendance. Having been muzzled by Bass and put upon by the crowd in a
> manner well outside the bounds of civilized discourse (and with not a move
> made by those running the conference to chastise Professor Wade) Sommers
> had little choice but to leave  effectively ejected from a government
> conference, simply for airing her views.
> I called Professor Jay Wade for a comment on his insulting remarks to
> Sommers at the conference. It turns out that Wade had himself gone back to
> HHS and asked them to tell him, using the tape, exactly what he had said to
> Sommers at the conference. So Wade's remarks to me reflected the official
> transcript, which does not include the word "bitch." Wade said he remembers
> saying "Shut the f*ck up," to Sommers, but was unsure about whether he said
> "bitch." "I could have said 'bitch.' I probably thought it," Wade told me.
> Sommers says that Wade did in fact say "bitch," and careful listening to
> the tape reveals that the word was uttered, although almost drowned out by
> the derisive laughter of the crowd.
> Under questioning, Wade was apologetic for his remarks, which he
> acknowledged to be thoroughly unprofessional  although he's made no move
> to apologize to Sommers herself and spent most of our call taking potshots
> at her. According to Wade, Sommers roused the anger of the people in the
> crowd  especially minorities, many of whom, according to Wade, had no
> advanced degrees  by insisting that scientific research was needed to
> validate the effectiveness of government programs. That hardly seems a crime.
> But Wade also said that what was really bothering Sommers was that she had
> been left feeling "insulted" and "flustered" by HHS officials, who had
> refused to let her finish her presentation. So why exactly had Sommers been
> silenced by HHS officials to begin with?
> I called Alvera Stern, acting director of the Division of Prevention
> Application and Education at HHS, for comments on what had happened to
> Sommers. Readers of National Review Online will know that I'm a fan of
> Sommers and her work, so I thought it was particularly important that I
> have a taped copy of the session, so as to fairly establish the truth of
> what happened. To her credit, Stern was kind enough to provide me with both
> a transcript of the session and a copy of the tape. Unfortunately, Stern's
> explanation for what happened simply doesn't hold up.
> Stern told me that Sommers's talk had been cut off because she'd run
> overtime. But it's obvious from the tape that Sommers was silenced at the
> moment she began to raise questions about "Girl Power"  the female
> counterpart of the "Boy Talk" drug-prevention program that was the subject
> of the conference. And even Jay Wade  hardly a Sommers fan  told me that
> it was Sommers's attempt to discuss Girl Power that had led to her being
> silenced. The tape makes it clear that Linda Bass, the HHS official who
> shut Sommers off, said nothing at all about Sommers's time being up. Bass
> simply insisted that any discussion of "Girl Power" was out of bounds 
> although it would seem to be impossible to properly evaluate a proposal to
> create a "Boy Talk" counterpart to "Girl Power" without considering the
> effectiveness of the Girl Power program itself.
> So what exactly is "Girl Power," and why were HHS officials so determined
> to prevent anyone from raising questions about it? The Girl Power program
> was a cornerstone of Clinton HHS secretary Donna Shalala's pro-androgyny
> feminist agenda, and a favorite of Hillary Clinton's. It's obvious from the
> transcript that the officials who run "Girl Power" were unwilling to allow
> any questions about the efficacy of the program to be raised.
> Sommers's daring to imply that overcoming femininity in girls and
> masculinity in boys might not be the most effective way to fight teenage
> drug abuse is the real reason she was put upon and effectively ejected by
> this crowd of HHS consultants and administrators.
> The highly questionable premise of the Girl Power program is that making
> girls less traditionally feminine will somehow cause them to be less likely
> to smoke, take drugs, or get pregnant.
> Of course, most people would expect the opposite effect. Isn't it precisely
> because girls are nowadays less bound by traditional codes of feminine
> behavior that we are seeing increases in smoking, drug-taking, and
> premarital sex among girls?
> Given the exceedingly debatable assumption upon which it rests, Christina
> Hoff Sommers can certainly be forgiven for asking to see some empirical
> research confirming that the Girl Power program actually succeeds in
> reducing substance abuse by making girls less traditionally feminine.
> But of course it would be naive to think that reducing drug abuse is the
> real purpose of either the Girl Power or Boy Talk programs.
> A careful reading of the reams of slick, expensive pamphlets put out by HHS
> under the heading of Girl Power makes it clear that the problem of drug
> abuse is just a convenient bureaucratic excuse for housing these programs
> in the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention division of HHS. The
> obvious purpose of Girl Power and Boy Talk is feminist social engineering.
> How exactly does encouraging girls to shoot, hunt, or play the drums,
> instead of sew and dance make them less likely to smoke or get pregnant?
> The Girl Power pamphlets cite statistics in which female athletes get
> pregnant at lower rates than non-athletes, but that could easily be a
> "selection effect," rather than actually caused by going out for the team.
> This is obviously something that needs to be carefully researched. And
> doesn't Girl Power's own resort to statistics validate Sommers's point that
> real empirical studies are needed to show that the Girl Power program
> actually reduces drug abuse?
> The truth is, Health and Human Services' Girl Power and Boy Talk programs
> are simply government-funded attempts to promote the training for sexual
> androgyny mandated by feminist Carol Gilligan and her followers. Studies by
> Gilligan, and such groups as the American Association of University women 
> studies that describe alleged "crises" of sexual identity among American
> girls and boys  are the only "evidence" that HHS officials will allow to
> be invoked in assessments of these programs. Of course, in a series of
> brilliant studies, psychologist Judith Kleinfeld  as well as Sommers
> herself, in her extraordinary book, The War Against Boys  have already
> thoroughly debunked Gilligan's notion of a "girl crisis." That is why
> Sommers was cut off by HHS officials as soon as she was about to raise
> questions about the shaky empirical foundations of the Girl Power and Boy
> Talk programs.
> Do Girl Power and Boy Talk really reduce teen drug use? It doesn't matter.
> Is there really a "girl crisis" or a "boy crisis?" It doesn't matter.
> Ultimately, the Clinton holdovers at HHS aren't interested in these
> questions, because the real rationale for their pet programs never really
> had anything to do with teen substance abuse  or even educational
> competence  to begin with. All of these rationales are simply bureaucratic
> window dressing for channeling literally millions of government dollars
> into a misguided and chimerical attempt to break American girls of their
> femininity and American boys of their masculinity. Christina Hoff Sommers
> understood this, and that is why she was silenced, insulted, and ejected
> from a conference before she could speak the truth.
> Will the Bush administration acquiesce in this outrage?


Subj: NATO AWACS over US Airspace for first time
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:41:01 -0600

Foreigners entering the WOD here at home?


Subj: MMJ Makes MAD Magazine List
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:15:25 EST

MAPers see number 8 in list below.  Number 2 is kinda interesting too.

- ---

MAD Magazine Announces Its Fourth Annual List of the 20 Dumbest People, 
Events and Things of the Year for 2001

NEW YORK--(ENTERTAINMENT WIRE)--Dec. 26, 2001--The editors of MAD Magazine, 
America's foremost experts in stupidity, have chosen Rev. Jerry Falwell, for 
blaming the terrorist attacks of September 11th on "the abortionists, 
feminists, gays and lesbians" to top its list of the fourth annual MAD 20, 
the humor monthly's year-end review of "The Dumbest People, Events and Things 
of 2001." 

"We thought Falwell had reached his personal pinnacle of dumbness a few years 
ago when he accused the Teletubbies of promoting homosexuality," said MAD 
co-Editor, John Ficarra. "Give the guy credit, we underestimated him." 

"He was listed sixth on the list in 1999," chimed in fellow co-Editor, Nick 
Meglin. "But now he's redefined dumbness and made it to the top spot. We 
congratulate the Reverend!" 

The MAD editors point out that the millennium is off to an extraordinarily 
dumb start. Ficarra explained, "The botched Presidential election made 2000 a 
very dumb year, but between Falwell's moronic comments after September 11th, 
the Gary Condit affair and the XFL debacle, 2001 was even dumber!" 

The previous winners of MAD's "dumbest thing of the year" were Monicagate 
(1998), The Y2K Panic (1999) and last year's Presidential Election. 

The MAD 20, a special full-color 18-page section, is featured in the year-end 
issue of MAD Magazine (#413), on sale at newsstands, bookstores and comic 
book shops everywhere.


The Dumbest People, Events and Things of 2001 

1.  Jerry Falwell's Ugly Remarks About September 11th 

2.  Celebrity Substance Abuse As A Career Move 

3.  "13-Year Old" Danny Almonte And The Bronx Little League Scandal 

4.  Bill Clinton Gets A Sweet $10 Million Book Deal 

5.  Anne Heche Says Bye "Bi," Goes Hetero 

6.  NASCAR's Abysmal Safety Record 

7.  Err Jordan: Michael's Foolish Comeback 

8.  The Supreme Court Snuffs Out Medical Marijuana 

9.  The Timothy McVeigh Death Lottery 

10. Fuzzy Math: The Bush Tax Rebate 

11. McDonald's McFixed Monopoly Game Contest 

12. Puff Daddy Changes His Name To "P. Diddy" 

13. The Butchers Of Beijing Awarded Olympic Games 

14. Elton John Duets With Eminem At Grammy Awards 

15. Weird Beard: Al Gore Grows Facial Hair 

16. The XFL Debacle 

17. The Bush Daughters Drunken Adventure 

18. That Millionaire Guy Who Bribed The Russians To Launch Him Into  


19. The Gary Condit Affair 

20. MAD Magazine Sells Out, Accepts Ads 

Note: A Photo is available at URL: 


DC Comics, New York 

Peggy Burns, 212/636-5450 



Subj: Re: DPFWI: Here are two more sent letters
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:25:35 -0600

This has been a real eye-opener on the real effect of MAP! In my own (new)
home town paper a nasty WOD letter is getting trounced from far afield
because of this resource. Vive` la MAP!
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Lake" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 10:00 PM
Subject: DPFWI: Here are two more sent letters

I guess that the letter got the blood boiling in some of MAP's letter
writers. I am snatching these from MAP's sent letter list - a list you can
sign up to by using the dropdown at this webform:

Usually the number of folks who as a habit send copies of their sent
letters to the sent letter list is less than half the number actually sent,
so I suspect the paper has already received others.


- --------

The Editor Eau Claire Leader-Telegram

(see proof of my numbers at

Dear Sirs

In this LTE, the  author, HAROLD E. DAVIS,  uses the truly illogical
argument  that terrorism can be eliminated by "ratcheting up" the war on

It is prohibition that finances terrorism - not drugs. It should be noted
that terrorists are not opening liquor stores, pharmacies or corner
groceries to finance terrorism. A rational analysis shows that drugs were
not funding terrorism before prohibition and that today legal drugs do not
finance terrorism.

Until voters  can learn to apply logic to their arguments and laws we may
see more incidents such as 911 because prohibition is a license for
terrorists to print money.

Furthermore the US now spends  40 billion a year to intercept at maximum 5%
of illegal drugs. Also frightening is the fact that the US jails 700
citizens per 100,000 compared to 50 in most of Europe and 115 in Canada,
mostly for drug crimes. How much more money and time should be wasted on
this crusade when there are real enemies in our midst.

Until now people who did not use drugs could ignore the war being waged by
the government against 10% of the population because they do not use drugs.
But now that terrorism is in the spot light, it is apparent that everyone
can be a victim of prohibition.

Voters should ask politicians this question "Do you support drug prohibition
because it finances criminals at home or because it finances terrorists

Chuck Beyer
456 Gorge
Victoria, B.C.

- ---------

To the Editors of The Eau Claire Leader-Telegram:

Letter writer Harold Davis is obviously confused as to what is
funding terrorism.  It is drug prohibition, not the drugs that
are funding terrorism.

At the beginning of the last century, Bayer heroin was sold in local
pharmacies for about the same price as Bayer aspirin.  Also Coca-
Cola contained cocaine instead of caffeine and sold for 5 cents
a bottle.  Drug users didn't have to rob, steal or commit acts of
prostitution to obtain their drugs.  Drug lords and drug dealers as
we know them today, didn't exist.

Drug prohibition is just as counterproductive as alcohol prohibition.
Today drug buyers are purchasing drugs of unknown quality,
unknown potency and unknown purity.

This is not unlike the "bathtub gin" our grandfathers bought
during alcohol prohibition that resulted in needless blindings
and needless deaths.

Drug prohibition is funding organized crime at home and inter-
national terrorists abroad.  Let's end this insanity known as
the war on (politically selected) drugs.

Best regards,
Kirk Muse
P. O. Box 1884
Vancouver, WA 98668
(360) 260-0372

Thank you for considering this letter for publication.


End of Maptalk-Digest V01 #338

Mark Greer ()         ___ ___     _ _  _ _
Media Awareness Project              /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651                        | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258                (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759                                         | |
URL:                      (_)

HomeBulletin BoardChat RoomsDrug LinksDrug News
Mailing ListsMedia EmailMedia LinksLettersSearch