DefCon goes off the deep end about Left Behind game

The "Campaign to Defend the Constitution," or "DefCon," describes itself as "an online grassroots movement combating the growing power of the religious right. We will fight for the separation of church and state, individual freedom, scientific progress, pluralism, and tolerance while respecting people of faith and their right to express their beliefs."

They just sent out a mailing calling for people to ask Wal-Mart to stop selling the game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces."

What Wal-Mart sells in its stores is irrelevant to defending the U.S. Constitution. The fact is, this is a crappy game that won't sell well, despite some initial media attention due to its absurd premise. As GameSpot reviewer Brett Todd observes (in a review that rates the game 3.4--bad--on a scale of 10), "Don't mock Left Behind: Eternal Forces because it's a Christian game. Mock it because it's a very bad game."

Let the market handle this one, DefCon, and stick to issues that actually have relevance to your mission. Giving it more attention and treating it as a threat is likely only to sell more copies.

UPDATE (December 13, 2006): DefCon's campaign has successfully created more media coverage for this game.

UPDATE (March 21, 2007): Looks like the market has spoken. Left Behind Games' stock peaked at $7.44 in November and closed today at $0.31 (up from $0.18 yesterday). Their financial auditors' 2006 report questioned their "ability to continue as a going concern."

UPDATE (October 9, 2007): Left Behind Games is now sending out cease and desist letters to bloggers who have given the game negative reviews. (And their stock closed today at $0.11.)

Mike Newdow, the pledge, and the presidential oath

Mike Newdow, the atheist doctor/lawyer who has been working a new case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance up to the Supreme Court since the Court sidestepped the key issue in the case last time around, has put together a song and video about the presidential oath of office and "so help me God" being appended to the end of it. He's also recently had an article printed at WorldNetDaily responding to former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore about whether "In God We Trust" on money violates the First Amendment (hat tip to Ed Brayton). Here's the video:

FBI eavesdropping via cell phones and OnStar

Declan McCullagh reports on the FBI using remote activation of cell phone microphones to eavesdrop on nearby conversations. He comments on a few models that are particularly vulnerable to exploitation:

Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razr are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. "They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time," he said. "You can do that without having physical access to the phone."

Nextel says that they didn't participate in the eavesdropping on a couple of mobsters who were allegedly listened in on using this technique--both using Nextel cell phones.

The same story reports that a 2003 lawsuit revealed similar monitoring of conversations occurring in cars featuring OnStar.

UPDATE (December 5, 2006): Bruce Schneier has commented on this story, and his readers have some interesting comments.

Landmark Forum abuses copyright to suppress criticism

The San Francisco-based Landmark Education, an offshoot of Werner Erhard's est, has been misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to threaten online video providers and cause the removal of material critical of the organization. They've specifically targeted a film that was broadcast on French television titled "Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus" ("Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous") which was posted on Google Video, YouTube, and the Internet Archive. This film included footage shot undercover at Landmark events.

In addition to demanding removal of the film under the DMCA on the bogus ground that their copyright in the "Landmark forum leaders manual" is being infringed, they have issued subpoenas to try to identify the individuals who have uploaded the video.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has acted to support the Internet Archive and Google in actions to fight the subpoenas; YouTube has notified its user and given them an opportunity to quash the subpoena. The EFF's website documents their activities and the status of the case.

These three videos include part of the content that Landmark Education is trying to suppress. The first begins with some references to Scientology and a quote from Christian anti-cultist Walter Martin (the late "Bible Answer Man," whose successor was discredited creationist Hank Hanegraaf), followed by video footage of Anthony Rapp from "Rent" talking about Landmark Education. It then goes into "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous" beginning at about 3 minutes in, which is French with English subtitles. Unfortunately, this is not the complete show, though it does show some interesting undercover footage of Alain Roth of Landmark Education verbally abusing a woman at a Landmark seminar.

Landmark Education Part 1


Landmark Education Part 2


Landmark Education Part 3


UPDATE (December 10, 2006): Landmark Forum has withdrawn its subpoena of Google.

John Mackay and Answers in Genesis

The link regarding information about John Mackay wasn't working when I first posted information about the split between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, but it can now be seen here. This links to a set of web pages which makes some devastating charges about the circumstances under which Mackay left the Australian organization in 1987.

Creation Ministries International is composed of all of the non-U.S. groups which were formerly part of Answers in Genesis, based in the countries of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada; the U.S. group is the only one which continues to use the name Answers in Genesis.

The Creation Science Foundation came into existence in 1980 as the merger between Dr. Carl Wieland's Creation Science Association (which had a magazine called Ex Nihilo) and Ken Ham's Creation Science Supplies and Creation Science Educational Media Services. Ken Ham ran the CSF, and John Mackay became editor of its magazine, then called Creation Ex Nihilo.

In 1987, Mackay left the CSF and started another creationist organization called Creation Research, and Wieland took a leadership role as Ken Ham began spending more time in the United States. This history is recounted in the CreationWiki article on the Creation Science Foundation.

According to the information assembled on the CMI webpage, which was originally assembled in 1986-87:

The pack was originally prepared in response to the aftermath of a horrific attack (February, 1986) on our ministry (then called Creation Science Foundation) by Mr Mackay. The mechanism of attack involved a monstrous series of allegations without evidence—the basis was alleged ‘spiritual discernment’, involving ‘black cats’ and similar. These slanderous allegations concerned Margaret Buchanan, at the time a well-regarded Christian widow working for the ministry as Ken Ham’s personal secretary. John said she had been ‘specially sent by Satan’ to undermine him and the ministry, involved in covens, attending séances, etc.—never was there any eyewitness testimony or other evidence, merely ‘discernment’.

When his attempt to sack her and take over the ministry failed, due to the Board’s refusal to violate biblical principle, Mr Mackay resigned. This was followed by a campaign of widespread innuendo and slander, involving actual fabrications which if accepted would tend to bolster his claim of ‘demonic infiltration’ of our ministry and thus would tend to undermine public confidence in our ministry. This included the bizarre and incredibly offensive claim that Margaret had claimed to have had intercourse with the corpse of her late husband (!).

Sadly, these horrific sins have never been repented of, nor forgiveness sought, nor restitution offered—despite a Baptist church excommunicating Mr Mackay and urging people to respect this decision in the Lord. When Ken Ham left ICR in about 1996, the rumour mill from this source again swung into action; the story this time was that Margaret was to blame for this ‘split’, somehow using demonic ‘powers’ to damage another creation ministry. Again, the real ‘target’ of the rumours was clearly public confidence in our ministry; if it could be undermined, it would be more likely to leave the Australian ‘creation public’ diverting the support in other directions. It might also be seen as a ‘vindication’ of the original offensive actions.

Currently, the issue has surfaced again in the context of the recent tensions between the Australian ministry and AiG-USA, with John Mackay’s newsletter suddenly urging supporters to pray for the ‘attack’ the US ministry is allegedly under.

In fact, it appears that new alliances are being forged, and talk of ‘reconciliation’ is being used to rehabilitate Mr Mackay in creationist circles—again the aim appears to be to undermine the Australian ministry, only from a different angle. Reconciliation is a wonderful and most desirable thing, but can never occur except on a biblical basis; the original slander must be withdrawn, and there must be a repentance and forgiveness sought from the main victim, Margaret, for a start.

No one likes to keep things alive that are best forgotten, but to cover up serious sin or attempt to sweep it under the carpet can never earn God’s approval. There is a cost to taking a strong stand in defence of truth and integrity, not the least being that it can easily be misrepresented.

However, we will quietly but persistently maintain our stand, especially as the ugly stain of these rumours is encouraged to resurface to once again undermine the ministry—until and unless these seriously sinful actions are dealt with under the cross, not whitewashed for ‘political’ convenience or excused on the basis of any ‘personalities’ involved. Anything less would not only dishonour God, it would ultimately be running away from our responsibility of Christian love to the perpetrator himself.

The web page with this text contains two documents--one with the text of an account of these attacks titled Salem Revisited (PDF, 59 pp.), by Margaret Buchanan, and the other additional supporting documentation (PDF, 63 pp.).

Buchanan, who was a widow at the time, is now the wife of CMI managing director Carl Wieland.

Mackay's charges seem a lot like the fabricated charges of Laurel Willson, a deeply disturbed woman better known as Lauren Stratford (pseudonym), author of Satan's Underground. Her account of being a victim of Satanic ritual abuse was debunked by Gretchen and Bob Passantino and Jon Trott, who were also instrumental in exposing the fake claims of "Satanist turned Christian comedian" Mike Warnke.

UPDATE (June 10, 2007): CMI's main point about Mackay is that (a) he made these charges and never apologized for them, (b) Ken Ham agreed that Mackay was in the wrong, and that he shouldn't be associated with until he retracted these charges, but (c) Ken Ham and AiG-US have been associating with Mackay despite his failure to retract, in order to use him as a conduit to supporters in Australia.

The CMI position on (c) is supported by the fact that when Mackay sent out the AiG "spiritual attack" email to his supporters, he left attached this email from Ken Ham:

From: Ken Ham Sent: Saturday, 2 June 2007 1:13 PM
To: John Mackay
Subject: Letter: AiG under Spiritual Attac


John-the attachment is the letter you are free to send to your entire
mailing list and anyone else you want to send it to. Also send to
pastors etc.

Ken

Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics: The Debate

In five parts:

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Also see these resources and Matt Taibbi on 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

More from behind the scenes of the Australian/U.S. creationism schism at Answers in Genesis

More information has just come out about the split between the Kentucky-based Answers in Genesis and the Australia-based Creation Ministries International. (UPDATED for clarification: CMI is composed of organizations from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada which were all formerly united with the Kentucky group under the Answers in Genesis name. The Australian group was the Creation Science Foundation prior to the association of the groups under the Answers in Genesis name.) CMI has published a number of documents on its web site about the split. These documents, which I'll describe below, make the case that the U.S. group has acted in bad faith to appropriate for itself many of the resources of the Australian group, as well as to put it into an untenable position of being potentially liable for certain actions of the U.S. group without getting any financial benefits. These documents, on a website headed with tomorrow's date (today in Australia, where it's currently afternoon), were pointed out in comments on my blog post by "JaneD" (presumably the D is for "Doe"), who appears to have set up a new blogger account to bring the information to public attention.

This split, which I pointed out on my blog back in March 2006, along with some financial data about the U.S. group and some speculation about the causes, occurred in late 2005. In that post, I noted that certain information critical of other creationists (and convicted tax evader Kent Hovind in particular) had been removed from the U.S. group's site. A brochure from the CMI suggested that a difference of approach, including ethical considerations, was the primary reason for the split:

The AiG website was developed in the US and hosted there. It was largely dependent for its intellectual content on the scientists and thinkers in the parent corporation, in particular such as Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, and Dr Carl Wieland. These and other writers were heavily contributing to the site until late 2005/early 2006, when the US ministry withdrew themselves from the international ministry group (with the exception of the UK) with an expressed desire to operate autonomously, without e.g. website content being subject to an international representative system of checks/balances/peer review involving all the other offices bearing the same 'brand name'.

At that time, in the midst of discussions about this and other differences in operating philosophy (not involving the statement of faith or similar), the Australian office was formally invited to form its own website. This required a new name to avoid confusion.

The four national ministries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) which were committed to continuing their focus and operational ^Qteam^R philosophy, and to continuing to forge and strengthen a representative international ministry alliance structure (based on Proverbs 11:14), then rebranded as Creation Ministries International (CMI).

The Australian group has long had a policy of publishing material critical of bad creationist work, and its journals have occasionally published some excellent debunkings of standard creationist arguments, such as the shrinking sun and moon dust arguments for a young earth. This apparently was considered by the U.S. group to be bad for business. (UPDATE: This was indeed a major issue in the dispute which led to the split. The Australian organization wanted more international control over the content of material to be distributed internationally, in the form of an international committee with votes weighted based on the size and seniority of the organization. The U.S. organization rejected this proposal, reserving most of the power to itself.)

Roger Stanyard has proposed that the Australian methodology was not actually peer review, but a form of shakedown against creationist authors who didn't toe the group's party line. He attributes the breakdown to the handling of Dennis Petersen's book, Unlocking the Mysteries, which was making money for Answers in Genesis but was criticized by the Australians. While I agree that the Australians' peer review was less-than-stellar (in what it let pass through uncritically), my interactions with the leadership of that group lead me to believe that they are honest and ethical in their behavior (though wrong in their beliefs). (UPDATE: The removal of material criticizing the Petersen book from the Answers in Genesis website occurred after the split. Stanyard appears to base his account on John Mackay, a source of highly dubious quality.)

The new information on CMI's website consists of the following:
1. A letter dated November 15, 2006 (PDF), from CMI to Answers in Genesis setting forth their complaint about a November 1, 2006 letter from Answers in Genesis to the general public, which CMI considers defamatory.
2. An email of November 21, 2006, alerting a number of people to the previous item, which had so far been ignored.
3. A summary of an October 2005 memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Australian and U.S. groups setting forth the conditions of their separation, explaining how it disadvantages the Australian group and why the Australian group's management attempted to reject and renegotiate it.
4. A section of the "Deed of Copyright License" (PDF) signed by the directors of both groups, with comments pointing out its unreasonable terms.
5. A PDF document setting forth a chronology of the relevant events.
6. The text of a letter from senior staff of the Australian group to their board of directors (PDF) prior to their trip to meet with the U.S. board, setting out their desired reforms.

As near as I can tell, the documents on the website suggest that the directors of the Australian group were induced to fly to the United States and sign the memorandum of agreement setting forth the terms of the separation of the groups without the knowledge of the management of the Australian group (e.g., Carl Wieland and the Australian staff). The MOA, drafted by the U.S. group's attorneys, set terms for the separation that were entirely favorable to the U.S. group. The Australian group's directors who signed the document then resigned en masse, under the condition that they be given indemnity for their actions--the letter suggests that they were in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Australian group for signing the agreements. (UPDATE: These Australian directors--John Thallon, Greg Peacock, Jim Kitson, and David Denner--asked for indemnity for their actions in return for their resignations after consulting with an attorney. Thallon then moved to Kentucky and is on the board of the U.S. group.)

The description of the MOA states that it gives perpetual license for all articles published by the Australian group's magazine and journal to the U.S. group, including the right to modify the articles and change the names of the authors, including a false statement that the authors had given permission for this. If anyone sues the U.S. group for copyright infringement, the Australian group agrees to pay all costs. All fees and costs for items are set unilaterally by the U.S. group, which the U.S. group has used to increase fees charged to the Australian group for materials (such as DVDs) by up to three times. The domain name answersingenesis.com, an asset of the Australian group, was transferred to the U.S. group, apparently without compensation.

Upon learning of these onerous terms, the Australian management attempted to reject the MOA and requested renegotiation of terms, to no avail; the U.S. group has refused to allow the participation of Carl Wieland in any negotiation.

In short, it looks like this was a struggle over money and control, with the Australian group out-maneuvered by the U.S. group. If the information in these documents is accurate--and I am inclined to believe that it is--it shows that Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis is as sleazy in its business dealings as it is in its misrepresentations of science.

I'll be digging further into this story... watch this blog for updates.

UPDATE (November 21, 2006): I've been informed by Carl Wieland that the page of documents on the website was not supposed to have been made available through the website, but only as individual items for recipients of the email referenced above as item 2 (and given below). The main page and several of the other items are no longer at the locations I had linked to, but I've updated the links based on the below email. Wieland has declined to comment on the actions or motivation of AiG, and expressed a desire to avoid anything that would be used "to smear all creation ministry in general."

The following is the text of that email:

Clarification re innuendo about CMI in email/letter from AiG-USA.

Sent 21 November 2006

From: the Board of Creation Ministries International (CMI)-publishers of Creation magazine (still available in the USA) and the Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) in Brisbane, Australia.

Dear colleague in creation outreach

We write this with considerable sadness. You are likely aware that there are some tensions between the ministries of CMI and AiG that go back some two years or so. We had hoped to be able to settle these peacefully, despite our ministry having suffered significant tangible losses at AiG's hands. We have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get AiG to meet openly with all of us, or failing that, to have both our ministries submit to binding Christian arbitration to see things done justly.

We believe we have acted with considerable restraint in our public comments thus far, despite seriously provocative actions. These include substantial commercial ruthlessness against our ministry as part of what increasingly has the hallmarks of some sort of vendetta. Nevertheless, we have kept the details very quiet for a very long time, not wishing to cause harm or escalation, and hoping for 'peace with honour'.

A most unfortunate and unfair email

Unfortunately, a number of people have contacted us just now, saying they have received a brief email from AiG-USA's chairman (which we have seen) that casts serious slurs against our ministry. In effect, it engages in widespread public slander.

The email alleges that we have engaged in 'unbiblical' and 'factious' behaviour (a word applied in the NT to those who introduce doctrines contrary to the Gospel, and translated as 'heretic' in the KJV). This is an immensely serious and damaging allegation against an evangelical ministry and one that has not been substantiated, and is totally without foundation; our ministry's doctrine has not changed one iota, either in word or in practice.

The email also hints darkly at a 'spiritual problem' as a justification for their breaking off discussions with us. It also refers to a letter the AiG-Board sent us on November 1 to that effect, saying that that letter is available to enquirers upon request. That letter was essentially an expansion of their shorter email; it repeatedly affirmed their own righteousness, and that they were breaking off negotiations until we resolved our 'spiritual problems'. These 'problems' are not specified, which darkens the innuendo ('What? Who?').

Dismayed by this turn of events, we prepared a detailed response that was emailed to each of the Directors on AiG-USA's Board, on 15 November 2006. It outlined and clarified the issues in detail. In it we also pleaded for AiG to urgently withdraw from this action, giving them three days to respond-i.e. to contact us, to make some move to draw back from this abyss, to avoid us making our response public. We have received no response or acknowledgement from AiG, even to this date, some six days later.

Worldwide libel distribution

The same AiG email defaming our ministry has also been sent out by an Australian creationist running his own ministry, who had split with Ken Ham in 1986 (this man had been excommunicated by an Australian church, a still unresolved issue-see www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/mackay for Ken Ham's own words about the seriousness of these actions against our ministry and an individual at that time). So this defamation has been sent to a substantial worldwide email mailing list, which would include overlap with many of our own supporters. This AiG email was clearly sent to that 'distribution source' by AiG; the covering comments state that 'Ken Ham advises', and refer to AiG's permission for the recipient to spread it still further.

(The aim appears to be to encourage as many people as possible to lose confidence in our ministry, and of course AiG will have a commercial 'bonus' in that the more that are encouraged to 'enquire', the more email addresses they will have, making it easier to further undermine CMI ministry in this country.)

We deeply regret that AiG/Ken Ham have seen fit to engage in this most serious escalation. Even in the face of this defamation, our overwhelming preference would have been to have had AiG respond to our urgent letter, to continue talks in openness and light as the Scriptures enjoin us to do rather than for us to have to publically stand against the libel.

In the absence of any evidence of remorse or willingness to undo this most recent and grave public attempt to damage us, we solemnly, before the Lord, believe we now have no choice but to protect the public reputation of the ministry organisation that has been entrusted to us, in as dignified and God-honoring a way as we can.

So we have chosen in the first instance to provide, within this email, a website link (below) to the full text of our formal 15 November response to AiG, which should substantially clarify CMI's position.

Of course, we do not know who all the many folk to whom AiG's defamatory comments have been emailed are, or how many times it has multiplied on the internet. So we are sending this email you are reading to the following:

1) To any who actually enquire of us.

2) To our corporation's members (an outer layer of protection which holds the directors accountable), our staff and our volunteer workers/speakers, local reps, etc.

3) To the management of our four national affiliates (CMI offices in Canada, NZ, US and South Africa, as well as affiliates in the UK) for providing to their staff, so that they will be able to answer these allegations as they inevitably spread. Sadly, some mud always sticks, especially when it comes from a 'big name'.

4) To those we know of who are involved in creation outreach of any sort, since we are aware that at least some of these have been targeted with this AiG email and previous ones.

5) To any (including those within AiG itself) that we have reason to believe have been contacted by AiG with similar intent and have likely received similarly misleading statements and views.

The link

Our letter of response to AiG is reproduced at this link on our site, www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/dispute

If you did not receive the AiG email, we ask for your compassionate understanding of the dilemma we were facing; we know from those who have already contacted us that it went out widely to creationists, but do not know exactly who did and didn't receive it.

This sorry development will bring shame on the Name of our Lord and Saviour, and give cause for the enemies of God to gloat. Would you please consider committing these matters, which also have the potential do damage to creation ministry in general (even more than has already occurred), to prayer.

Yours very sincerely in Christ,

The Board of Creation Ministries International Ltd. (Australia)

Mr. Kerry Boettcher (Chairman)
Mrs. Carolyn McPherson (Vice-Chairman)
Dr. Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S. (Managing Director)
Dr. Dave Christie, B.Com, M.Admin, Ph.D., FAICD, FIMC (Director)
Mr. Fang, Chang Sha B.Sc (hons), M.Sc. (Director)
Rev. Dr. Don Hardgrave, B.D, M.A., D.B.S., Dip. Theol, Dip. R.E. (Director)

UPDATE (November 21, 2006): I have inserted a number of minor clarifications and updates throughout the above text.

Creation Ministries International has a USA branch now, in Atlanta, Georgia, to ensure distribution of its materials in the United States. This means that they will be competing for dollars with Answers in Genesis of Kentucky.

UPDATE: The link above regarding defamatory material from John Mackay and background information about Mackay was a broken link that has now been corrected, and I've devoted a separate post to this issue. The information there shows why Mackay left the Creation Science Foundation in 1987, and raises concern about Mackay's image being rehabilitated without having retracted the charges that he brought in the past. Mackay has now been attacking Creation Ministries International and siding with Ham and Answers in Genesis in the dispute--Answers in Genesis must be questioning whether having Mackay as a friend is a benefit.

UPDATE (December 29, 2006): I've added a new item to the list of materials now available on the AiG website, which is the text of a letter from the staff of the Australian group to their own board of directors listing the items of reform that they wanted from the international organization (and AiG-U.S.). This letter was sent to the Australian board members a few days before their flight to the U.S. in October 2005, which resulted in the separation agreement.

The letter specifically called for the creation of a class of non-director membership for the non-profit, composed of eight people to be chosen from a list of 20 suggestions, independent of each other and not employees of the organization, to provide better oversight and to adjudicate disputes between the board and the CEO. This group of people is intended to be analogous to the shareholders of a public company. This mechanism has now been put in place at CMI in the wake of their split from AiG-U.S.

Atheist missionaries

Part of the Australian series "John Safran vs. God," this video shows Safran ranting about Mormon missionaries bashing on his door before noon on Saturday, then him and his director seeking revenge by flying to Salt Lake City, putting on matching white shirts and "ATHEIST" badges, carrying some atheist tracts and a copy of Origin of Species, and going door to door.

(Hat tip to Pharyngula.)

Embarrassingly bad arguments in support of David Paszkiewicz

The website KearnyontheWeb.com is an online forum for people in Kearny, New Jersey, where U.S. History teacher and Baptist youth pastor David Paszkiewicz has used his Kearny High School classroom (apparently for years) to evangelize students with his own brand of Christianity and conservative politics. I've already commented on how some Kearny High School students have made a poor case defending Paszkiewicz, now I'm afraid the adults of Kearny are no better.

The adults posting at KearnyontheWeb.com are noteworthy (just like the students) for a complete failure to address the issues raised by Paszkiewicz's actions--they ignore the content of what he's been teaching, they ignore the fact that he lied about what he had done until confronted with the recordings, and they ignore the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they accuse Matthew LaClair of having set the teacher up, invent new "crimes" like "premeditated entrapment" that they accuse LaClair of having committed by recording the class, and say that he should have been suspended, expelled, or jailed for creating this issue and "embarrassing the town." They say that LaClair, by protesting the Bush administration by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, "practically spits on our 'Pledge of Allegiance'" and "is free to leave this country if he does not agree with what we stand for!" They claim that Paszkiewicz is "the best teacher to hit town in years" and "A PROUD AMERICAN [who] IS 100% RIGHT!"

I've posted there to point out the issues they aren't addressing, to which the only response has not been any attempt to address those issues but to claim that there is no evidence that Paszkiewicz lied and to express doubt that I've actually listened to any of the recordings. (You can find a cleaned-up version of the first online recording here, some more recordings here, and a partial transcripts here and here and here. The November 22 issue of the Kearny Observer will include numerous transcripts from Paszkiewicz's classes based on LaClair's recordings. Also note that Kearny Observer editor Kevin Canessa has an online poll up on his blog about whether you support Paszkiewicz, LaClair, or neither. At the moment the results are 7 supporting Paszkiewicz, 8 supporting LaClair, 0 don't care and 0 don't know enough about the situation.)

Global Crossing criticizes wiretapping rules

News.com has a nice article about how Global Crossing (my employer) has criticized the extension of CALEA wiretapping rules to VoIP and broadband:

Paul Kouroupas, vice president of regulatory affairs for Global Crossing, strongly criticized the Federal Communications Commission's broadening of a 1994 law--originally intended to cover telephone providers--as disproportionately costly, complex, and riddled with privacy concerns. His company is one of the world's largest Internet backbone providers.

"Our customers are large Fortune 500 companies--not too many of those companies are conducting drug deals or terrorist activities out of Merrill Lynch's offices or using their phones in that way," Kouroupas said at an event here sponsored by the DC Bar Association. "By and large we don't get wiretap requests, yet we're faced with the costs to come into compliance," which he estimated at $1 million.

I think that's a conservative estimate.