December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Crypto FTP for NT?
by Evil Erik 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know of a crypto based FTP for NT? At this point, freeware, shareware, commercial is fine.. We'd prefer not to have to roll our own.. (Yes, I know about F-Secure's SFTP, but that is still a few months off..) Thanks, -=erik.

1 0

PGP 5.5 available outside US
by Jeff A. Hale 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems that unknown Cypherpunks have yet again shown their disrespect of US export laws by exporting the latest version of PGP. The Windows version of PGP 5.5 is now available for your downloading pleasure at ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/crypto/incoming/PGP55.zip PGP 5.5 features superior LDAP keyserver integration, multiple signature categories, and automatic decryption (set Preferences -> Email -> Automatically Decrypt). "You heard the rumors. Now try it yourself." :-) -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

1 0

[URGENT] Secure checksums
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Warning: if you fuck Timothy C[unt] May in the ass, a rabid tapeworm might bite your penis. \0/ \0/\ \ / / \0/ \0/ \0/\ \ / /\0/ \0/ Timothy C[unt] May | / /) | (\ | | / /) | (\ \ | / \__/\__/0\__/0\__/0\__/ \__/ \__/\__/0\__/0\__/0\__/\__/ \

2 1

WOMEN!! LIVE AND WAITING!!
by 1900＠qui.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

GUYS! WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!!! WE'RE LIVE AND WAITING!!! 1-900-407-2273 Extension 4688 24 hr hotline USA ONLY $3.99 per min Must be 18 yrs. Procall Co. (602)631-0615 To be removed from this mailing list, auto-reply with remove in the subject field

1 0

The Anti-Privacy Agenda of Gary Burnore/DataBasix (was: Re: Netcom ripped me off)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

moonman3(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Close, except that you post under the pseudonym "moonman3" instead. > > So unless your "real name" is "Moonman", it's more of the typical > > hypocrisy that spews forth from Gary Burnore and the DataBasix gang. > > Since most of Gary's "supporters" (including you) seem to post from > > Netcruiser accounts with phony pseudonyms ("eridani", "moonman3", > > "wotan", "tweek", etc.) it's counter-productive for you to whine > > too loudly about posting with "real names". Could it be that Gary > > is pi**ed when he sees a post with which he disagrees and which > > doesn't have an address which he can "spam bait", mail bomb, etc.? > > moonman3(a)ix.netcom.com is my legitimate address. > > Too bad for you that you have to hide behind the skirts of a remailer. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Something about your childhood? > > > Gary Burnore could suddenly acquire even more "supporters" like you if he > > could only afford to pay for a few more throwaway Netcom accounts with > > cutesy "names". > > "eridani", "moonman3", "wotan", "tweek", etc. are all valid addresses. > We do not hide behind a remailer. More classic double-speak from the DataBasix Gang, I see... Nice try at changing the subject, but it's you, Gary Burnore <gburnore(a)databasix.com>, and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com> that made such a pitiful whine about the need to post with "real names". It's irrelevant whether the pseudonyms you use at Netcom are "legitimate addresses" or not. Anonymity involves concealing your NAME, not your ADDRESS. Since your post does not contain your name, it's an ANONYMOUS post, just like mine is. Unless you're trying to claim that "moonman3" is your "real name", then you're a whining hypocrite. Personally, I don't care what your "real name" is. You have every right to "hide behind the skirts of" a pseudonym, if you so choose. But if you do so, you have no right to criticize someone who utilizes a remailer to protect his/her privacy rather than an ISP like Netcom. Like it or not, my e-mail address is my personal property. If I want someone to send e-mail to me, I'll give it to them. I need not broadcast it indiscriminately to accomplish that purpose. I need not subject myself to the abuse that seems to befall those who dare to publicly challenge Gary Burnore and his tactics as the price of free speech. Such abusive tactics are a form of de facto censorship. -- Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind. -- General William Westmoreland

1 0

Crypto-update: Magaziner on Clinton, Senate on crypto-czar
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Reminder: There //is// a DC cypherpunks meeting this Sunday afternoon! Email me for details if you don't have 'em yet. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:53:07 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Crypto-update: Magaziner on Clinton, Senate on crypto-czar Ira Magaziner, Clinton's Net-advisor, spoke today at the District of Columbia Bar Association, Computer and Telecommunications Law section conference. A brief report, as told to me by someone who was there: >Magaziner said Clinton and Gore specifically oppose mandatory >domestic key recovery. Said they're still fighting it >out within the administration and hope to work out a >reasonable compromise. Aligned himself pretty clearly >with the commercial, not the law enforcement side. Said >that when Freeh waves around the "four horsemen," he's >hard-pressed to come up with an informed answer. Said >NSA had been involved in lobbying on the Hill. Also, a Senate committee today approved the nomination of David "Crypto-Ambassador" Aaron to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. Aaron has been for the last year trying to export the FBI's crypto-proposals for mandatory Big Brother cryptoware. (And unconfirmed reports say he's been getting into fights not just inside the OECD in Paris, but outside: apparently he's tussled with Parisian cabbies more than once...) Aaron's nomination now goes to the full Senate; no vote has been scheduled yet. -Declan

1 0

Swallow all liquids before reading this...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

... as you may blow it all out your nose... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:38:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: weber.ucsd.edu: procmail set sender to rre-request(a)weber.ucsd.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: weber.ucsd.edu: Processed from queue /usr/spool/mqueue/rqueue Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:31:31 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> To: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Subject: Appraising Microsoft and Its Global Strategy Conference Resent-From: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Reply-To: rre-maintainers(a)weber.ucsd.edu X-URL: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html X-Mailing-List: <rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> archive/latest/1714 X-Loop: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: rre-request(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= [I don't have the original header.] Appraising Microsoft and Its Global Strategy Conference November 13 and 14, 1997 The Omni Shoreham Hotel Washington, D.C. Please join Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Roberta Katz, General Counsel for Netscape Communications and Christine Varney, Former Federal Trade Commissioner among others at the Appraising Microsoft and Its Global Strategy Conference cosponsored by Ralph Nader and Essential Information. The following is a list of confirmed speakers: Garth Saloner, Stanford University Morgan Chu, Irell & Manella Roberta Katz, General Counsel for Netscape Communications Audrie Krause, NetAction Bill Wendel, The Real Estate Cafe Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems Christine Varney, Former FTC Commissioner Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate Steve Susman, Susman and Godfrey Gary L. Reback, Esq., Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati Financial services: Bill Randle, VP Huntington Bancshares Consumer products: CEO and President Philip Monego, NetChannel Bryan Sparks, CEO Caldera, Inc. James P. Love, Consumer Project on Technology Graham Lea, Principal Analyst of Heterodox (London) Andrew Schulman, Consulting Editor O'Reilly and Association Steve Hill, Esq., Snow Christensen Rick Ross, Java Lobby Daniel Nachbar, Public Software Institute John Perry Barlow, Co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Sam Goodhope, Texas Attorney General's Office. Wendy Goldman Rohm, author Please see our web page for more information and registration materials. If more than five people from your organization/company would like to attend, we will give a 30% registration discount. http://www.appraising-microsoft.org/ For more information please call Caroline Jonah or Donna Colvin at (202)387-8030. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Harka wrote: > -=> Quoting In:anon@anon.efga.org (Monty Cantsin) to Harka <=- > > In> The government is not Janice's friend. It takes away $18,000 > In> from her each year and plunges her into poverty, sort of. If > In> you are appealing to the government to assist Janice, first > In> ask it to get the hell out of the way. (I realize you may > In> just be saying that Janice's plight is unavoidable, not that > In> she should be helped with government money.) > >Hmm, we all agree, that the government is not somebody to be trusted >to be your friend. However, we also know the amount of laws possible >to "violate" and the consequences that would have. And one of the >worst things you can do is evading taxes. At least when they clamp >down on you. Not something, I'd recommend to a mother of four kids >(that she really doesn't want to give up to >government-so-schill-workers). Jim Choate commented on that already, >so I save further words. Ignoring the ethical issues (Is it ethical to lie about your income? Is it ethical to break the law?), the consequences would probably not be too severe, if there were any consequences at all. We've seen several cabinet level people conspire to shield their employees from paying income tax and at least one of them (Ron Brown) did not even leave office. Nobody went to jail. Or, consider the record for prostitutes. How often do they go to jail for neglecting to pay income tax? Never, I believe. Prosecution would be hard after all, they receive cash and they spend cash. You could also do other low risk or even legal things like trading services. Maybe a discount is given to parents who will watch Janice's kids once in awhile. Maybe they trade services for food. Etc. Etc. > In> Janice should be baby sitting. Were she to take in 4 kids at > In> $500/month, she would make as much as her job and be able to > In> watch her own kids during the same time. > >True in short-term. But after 8 kids have been rummaging around in >your apartment every day (even without licence and off-the-books and >all that stuff) you can definitely expect to spend a couple of grands >on repairs in a matter of a month. You would be of more help to your friend Janice if you did not try to find reasons for her to fail. The reality is that 8 kids will not cause thousands of dollars of damage every month. Also, I left some play in my calculations. She doesn't actually have to make $2000 a month to break even because she already "makes" $1000 by watching her own kids. That means she only has to make $1000 each month to break even with her job. Let's say the tax rate is 50% (it's much lower), and she charges $500/month per kid. Then, 4 kids will result in an income of $1000/month. There's still some fat there. We haven't computed how much she'll save in work related expenses. You mentioned $120/month in mass transit costs. How much for clothing? If she has to dress professionally, $1000/year is quite a conservative figure. (Don't forget dry cleaning.) And we haven't considered the fact that she can charge more money because she is a babysitter and not a daycare center. > In> The food is generous because four of the five are kids, the > In> oldest only being 12. Kids don't each much. > >You're confirming my suspicion about not having kids :) Seriously, I don't think my figures are inaccurate. How much can a three year old eat? And, incidentally, I doubt very much that you or Janice even know with any accuracy what her actual expenses are. Janice should be tracking every expense to the penny. She should review her spending on a regular and scheduled basis to see where she could be spending it better. An adult who is not all that careful can comfortably buy enough food for $200/month. But, Janice should be more than careful. She should be fanatic about lowering this expense. This will work better if she looks at as an interesting puzzle to work out rather than a chore. She should practice vegetarianism. Not only that, she should be carefully studying other poor people for ideas on how to get by on just a little income. Peasants of India, Mexico, and China will all have interesting tricks. For instance, the stereotypical Mexican diet of corn and beans just turns out to be an optimal combination. The amino acids missing from the corn are found in the beans and vice versa. (How a bunch of "ignorant" peasants figured this out is a mystery to me.) There are many books on living inexpensively on a vegetarian diet. They tend to have titles like "Chinese Cooking on 25 Cents a Day". These books may be found at the library, or at a used bookstore, or even be borrowed. It is somewhat ironic that you can spend much less money and eat better than most Americans. Also, she should hunt up a food coop. I am sure there is one in her area. Usually you can volunteer some nominal amount of time and receive at least a 10% discount. Sometimes more. Also, buying staples in bulk can dramatically lower costs. (Best to make sure you like lentils before buying a fifty pound sack, though.) Food coops usually have people around who know a whole lot about living inexpensively. They may also have a lending library. Anyway, you will find (hopefully) that there are thousands of ways to improve one's situation. They (usually) aren't painful - when you find a new one it's fun. After awhile you discover you are not in a bad situation any more. Isn't that exciting? >Talking about freedom at the same time then is an oxymoron and you're >confirming my "criticisms about the free market" (Yes Tim, I have >re-considered my position without changing my perspective in the >end). Capitalism in it's current form does not allow for individual >freedom for most people (exceptions apply), because they have to make >the money to be free (independent). If that requires doing for >years, what you don't want to do (working in computers, although you >hate them and all you really want to do is paint and live as an >artist but can't afford to, for example), then that means by >definition, that freedom has to be given up. At least temporarely and >as mentioned before, that can be a _very_ long time for most people >(who have been born into the "wrong" families, for example). But of course you have to do things you don't want to do to put food on the table! This is true everywhere. The key question is this: why should somebody else labor all summer so you'll have food in the winter? All a "free market" advocate is saying is that you should not force the other guy to raise your food. You have to persuade him to do it for you, perhaps by doing something for him in return. If you think about it for awhile you will realize that this is a profoundly pacifistic belief. And a very reasonable and realistic one. If nobody else values your natural painting talent it won't be of much use getting food on the table. You'll have to find something else you can do for other people which they want and which you don't mind doing. How could this possibly be unjust? >Cypherpunks sometimes tend to become somewhat theoretical about >things, neglecting the possibility, that it may not apply on a >larger (real-life)scale. No, you don't understand the idea. You are looking at it like this: "How can we engineer this system so that everybody will do just fine (by my definition.)" The Cypherpunk point of view, to the extent there is such a thing, is something like this: "It is not right to dictate to other people what their life choices should be." People will make mistakes. People will get unlucky. Some people will get very unlucky and die (early). Most Cypherpunks prefer this to a world where we all live in little cells and have food brought every day. One way to solve the problems of the Janices in the world is to tell them what to do: Do not raise four kids. Do not get a lame degree. Do not get divorced. This would solve Janice's "problems". So what's wrong with the picture? Well, Janice apparently wanted four kids. She apparently wanted a degree in education instead of computer science. How can we judge whether getting married wasn't a worthwhile risk? How can we judge the value Janice places on her children? The answer is: we can not and should not. But, likewise, just because Janice took some chances and it led to minor problems, that does not mean that anybody else is obligated to worry about them. The problems Janice has are called "real life". Things may not be what she wants right now, but they result from her choices and her decisions. To me, and most Cypherpunks, that is preferable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFOteJaWtjSmRH/5AQFy4Qf9FwMV1Swp0YSwuaSNhaSnaUGpIe9B6Ndf m3eaSiiOhcQXaJH88CUUYUz2RvYqxqFpjfDp7Wzik9yncwuOHR1sd+LKzcAcD437 5DehzEhxnRSLBwVGVXy94FmLUXaEJCw5woedEhOa9GOPw2e8LUYkKOjG074Od1V1 Gs6XnBMnx/oa0lI1RNBi2oWbfBFzNSCiv24pp5PeMZVkb4e/MB51HOhv8FhH/f2J Te1SF/w2awXbv0BU8B4bZAc660DMVaXgi+uqMs2gUB6HRqmOjek3fuVK0cS8YRzC TMJSMehCZJbcoPEI+RkK2mnTqoivqdRdnYD4CnjiJ4KuSsqmGDWVNw== =oSqR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Choices
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >However, having a choice in matters does not imply the guarantee of >making the _right_ choices. That is exactly correct. >In fact, even society acknowledges that fact by making certain >choices available only after a certain point in life, such as voting, >marriage, driving, drinking etc.etc on the ground, that making such >decisions requires a certain level of insight and maturity. FYI, these discussions are about free adults. Not about dependents like children. >But there's _still_ no guarantee for making right choices even after >the "magical" age of 18 (or 21). Yep! >The only thing one can do is to gather enough information in order to >make the best choice based on available information and conditions >_known_ to you _at that time_. Right on! >And here's also the catch. By making a certain choice, one does >usually _not_ choose the consequences of his/her actions consciously! >In fact, the possible consequences may not even be foreseeable, >predictable or expected in any way! I guess we have to do our best anyway! But, seriously, most of the possible outcomes we are aware of. You gave the example of driving. Everybody knows that having an accident is a possible outcome of driving. >Let's take the example of Janice one more time (violins for Monty:)): >certainly her decision to get married and have 4 kids was her >personal and free choice at that time. >But it was not foreseeable nor expectable for her, that her husband >would take off after a while for another chick, leaving her with the >kids and a bunch of bills to pay! She obviously knew it was a possibility. I mean, look around you! It happens all the time. This used to be the reason people formed marriage contracts. They used to be respected and when not respected enforced. (Incidentally, Janice's child support payment is absurdly low. This is a situation where a marriage contract would really have some value. Funny how the government isn't protecting women and children anymore - you would almost think they didn't really care.) >Thus she married him and later did what every wife would do: >supporting him while he went to school instead of keeping the money >for herself as a backup-cushion in case he leaves. Her decision, though. Too bad it didn't work out better. It is a great tragedy of our society that marriage contracts cannot be freely made and that the terms and conditions are not enforced. For the most part women and children pay the price. (Also, the fact that pre-nuptial agreements are not consistently followed by the courts is tragic. Obviously, if you are wealthy you should be able to marry without exposing yourself to gold diggers.) >Is that really so out of the ordinary a choice?? Just because you go with the herd does not mean you did not make a mistake. But, really, I'm not convinced that Janice did make a mistake. Some people really want to have children. Some people really want to have a nice stable marriage which lasts decades. To get that you have to take chances. Sometimes it won't work out. That's life. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't worth a try. >But even if one is able to make fairly good decisions overall in >life: you may not have previous conditions necessary to make certain >choices. > >If you're born into a poor family, who just can't afford to send you >to College, how much of a choice to study will you have in that >event? More likely is, that you'll have to work and aid in the >support of the family instead of going to College. > >But are you to be held responsible for the conditions that you are >born into or grow up under? Ummm....who else should be responsible? >Clearly not. As you go along in life, one's personal ability to >influence your surroundings, conditions and overall life increase >(with right effort). But to expect everybody to be able to make >certain choices in a certain (right) way, or even expecting those >choices being available, is not based on the realities of life but a >mere projection from _your_ reality onto "theirs". But, what you are on your way to imposing is your reality on everybody else. This is implied by your skepticism of the "free market". If people are not allowed to freely make choices and arrangements with each other, it is implied that somebody else will be making choices and arrangements for them. >So is the statement of "screw 'em all" (if they weren't able to make >certain choices for reasons we don't know about). The "screw 'em all" statements usually arise when people begin to claim that because somebody has done well they should help other people who have done poorly. Often, perhaps in Tim's case for example, the person making the statement also started in a less than ideal situation and through stubborness and years of hard work, investing, and luck managed to do quite well. To have some worthless rotter come along and claim they are somehow entitled to your hard work and perseverance can be known to cause great anger. Try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes. >Not only does it lack basic notions of humanity, such as caring for >other people,... Actually, most of humanity only mildly cares, at best, about people they do not know. Consider those poor people. Many of them spend many tens of hours each week watching television when they could be learning new skills, fixing up the house, or making their lives better. They could also be cleaning up their neighborhood, helping the people that live around them, or just volunteering in the soup kitchens. For the most part, poor people don't spend any time to speak of helping out other people. It isn't because they can't - it's because they are not inclined to do so. >...but also devalues the human ability to learn and change. I completely disagree with this. The "screw 'em all" statement is actually an exhortation for these people to take responsibility for their own lives. It's a recognition that people do have the ability to learn and change but that other people can't do it for them. It's also a recognition that if they will not learn and change that they better not show up at the May house looking for handouts! >Just because you were young and careless (out of lack of >understanding at that time) or you were born in a slum in Rio de >Janeiro (or NYC) shouldn't mean, that you should still get "screwed" >for it when you're fifty or you now deserve the dis-respect of >society and no chances anymore. You may have never had them... There are very few people who never had a chance. But, let's say you do manage to find somebody who fits that description. Who do you believe should help them? In my opinion, since you claim to care, you should help them. >While technically it is probably correct to say, that current >conditions are caused by previous actions (different people have >different expressions for that: karma, choices, fate etc.), there's >no justification for suffering and certainly none for watching it >passively and saying "they deserve it", IMHO. BTW, do you actually express your care for other people by helping them in any way? My guess is that you don't. (By "help" I mean actual help such as giving them food or shelter or something like that. I do not mean helping by belonging to some political party or other.) >While technically it is probably correct to say, that current >conditions are caused by previous actions (different people have >different expressions for that: karma, choices, fate etc.), there's >no justification for suffering and certainly none for watching it >passively and saying "they deserve it", IMHO. There is plenty of pain and suffering in the world and instead of working hard every day from morning to night alleviating it you are living in New York City and sending messages to the cypherpunks list. Wrong? By your standards it should be. In my case, I prefer writing these little essays to helping poor people. Most people make this sort of choice all the time. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFPBeJaWtjSmRH/5AQHAzgf+LlwFk/ZuRwhF02fcnfmHqGyd5477FIkC FSYCdVBPX/g6270tgCJw0sGbJTOrpVncPWNQzVCQp8tQZAsWMfWDO6rMFmCthWQy CAnjA4xWbh6GlcV28wEGlv55C134FAin9GiJU+D87Zn+p1WRVzPKBPOAe8AXQtde a467+TGJtBDVLEcgI5GdjD2VLlo600oNti2kWSyr9G5yRTKhOglm9F0y8antP5Hq td9bjXEUX7Debd8Vb5Y4DJfkdQnYXQztsMDfdgr7XRLZKhdIVbrMbkXBcCVsyP7m Y7S2h3p/fdyDD8gPXrJWr3Dhm393MGW8BraO6zONz0TBf9cJI0Wsug== =jgE6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Kent Square and TiennaChinc State
by Yoshiwara Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BillyJ, the sex criminal, picking up where RichardM, the B&E artist, left off, is badmouthing the Chinese over their version of Kent State. Our Ambassador to the Home of the Orange Mennace (Led + Yarrow) is badmouthing the Chinese forced-labor camps, ignoring the US pigmentation criminals working for the Telecos and the Silicos for dimes on the dollar of what they would have to pay non-prison labor. In private conferences, these world fuckers/leaders are undoubtedly sharing a monstrous laugh over their public rhetoric. BillyJ: "See, first we kick them off welfare. Then, after Sprint turns down their job application and they turn to dealing drugs to feed their children, we put them in prison. Then we sell their labor to Sprint for a fraction of what their work is worth. "Everyone wins! Except for the taxpayer....HAHAHAHAHA!" Bonus Question: "What do you call a fat Chink?" Bonus Answer: "A 'Chunk'!" RacistLibertarianMonger

3 2