People:
1. How did you find out about/why did you become of estrip?
Shawn Rider and the DMS community at UB, I had stumbled on the site prior to that but never signed up for an account.

2. How "out" are you about having a publicly accessible online journal. Do your friends know? Does your family know? Do your co-workers know? Does your boss know? Do you use your real name? Do you use your real photo?
I don't write or use anything I don't want to be public. Don't use my real name. My journal will be more public soon because I have set up a basic API and will give it a simple address.

3. How many epeeps have you met real life? 4-5, most at the Geek Meet or UB

4. How has estrip changed the way that you meet people, on and/or off line?
Not much, sometimes I am more social on the site, but I don't use it to meet people outside.

5. How has estrip affected you love life?
None.

6. How many of your friends have joined estrip because of your influence?
None yet, though I have tried.

7. Are you from Buffalo/do you live in Buffalo?
Sure do, yes to both questions.

Equipment:
1. What type of hardware or software purchases have you made as a result of using estrip?
none

2. Have you used the mobile version of estrip? Why or why not?
No, seems very cool but I have no phone. Like the idea of posting from Concerts or news events.

Lifestyle:
1. In what way has estrip changed your Internet surfings habits? Describe the amount of time you spend on estrip, when you use it and about how long?
Depends on the week, at first I was on (e:strip) about 2-3 hours per day, now it depends on whether I am having a discussion on the site.

1a. How many journals do you usually read per day?
I don't check the site every day anymore, I did for the first 3-4 months. Now I check probably twice a week. Average, I'll read 4-6 different user's journals.

2. In what ways has estrip changed the way you perceive your local community?
It allows me to see a range of perspectives from people who live differently than I do, I understand more facets of my community. I might not be able to find such a variety of perspectives otherwise.

3. How has journaling about your life affected the way you spend your free time?
Well, having a journal that people can easily read and respond to, has kind of filled the role of my old paper journal. Much of that had gotten political, rather than too personal to share. And I always wanted to publish some of my journals someday, (e:strip) provides a great audience.

4. Has estrip changed your living situation in any way?
Nope.

5. Do you find that you mediate/document more of your experiences now that you share them with others?
Sometimes. Most of my pieces are opinion rather than personal stories. I find that my personal stories tend to be expressed and remembered through pictures, now that I think about it. I like to have my camera around when I do fun stuff that I might like to remember, concerts, hiking, traveling, etc. interesting, never thought about that. But I think I do write more about politics than I would without an account on a welcoming and functionally thoughtful site like (e:strip).

6. Has publishing on estrip affected the way that write?
I haven't particularly noticed, but I do generally pay attention to my audience. I actually have gotten to be a little less picky about my writing, but I don't know the cause of that really, maybe just laziness.

7. Do you have other online journals? If so, with what service and has estrip affected your usage of that journal?
Blogger, I just use that for news articles, not my own writings.
WNY Media, I use that just for longer more important articles that I write, though I usually post them on (e:strip) too, or they start on (e:strip) and turn into longer pieces as I do research.
Myspace, never really used it, just played with the interface.
Flickr, I should post more pictures on (e:strip) but I don't.

8. Have you ever gotten in trouble for using estrip at work?
Almost, I've definitely posted from work.

9. If you have stopped using estrip, why?
Decreased now just because I'm busier.

In response to (e:libertad,50) This started as a comment, but it is something I've been wanting to write about for a while, so I'll post it here.

"A patriotic company isn't just concerned with the bottom line, but for the environment in which it operates, the welfare of its employees and the image they are portraying of their country." Hell yea to that Brother!

We have been fooled, in so many ways, by those who make a profit. They have convinced us that the most profitable course of action is the most enjoyable.

Paying less, has become more valuable than walking to the corner store, interacting with your neighbors and being part of your community.

There is no community at Wal-Mart, just miserable underpaid staff and impatient irritable customers. Is that Life? Does it mean that society is doing well if we have more faceless warehouses selling us cheap crap? Paying $3.99 instead of $4.99 for a garbage can is supposed to make my life complete?!

Instead how about, running a small business doing what I love to do, a hardware store, clothing store, a bike shop, shoe store, camping store etc... That's life, waking up each morning and doing something I enjoy.

Instead we are convinced that if we can buy more things, then our life will be fulfilled. What we own determines how happy we are, not how we live. What a bunch of crap.

Personally I'm careful of where I spend my money, I will pay that extra dollar at a local business to get a plunger for my bathroom, instead of looking for the cheapest price. Because local businesses make my community a better place, they are more enjoyable to visit, and I feel like I am giving the owner a gift by helping them to live peacefully. The paradigm in this country has got to shift.

Yea, it seems more and more, that Fascism and Neo-Conservatism are one in the same. if you haven't read the recent Beast article "top ten signs of an impending police state" you definitely should. it's a quick laundry list of the atrocities being committed against us by our imperial president. I'm sorry, but this stuff is seriously getting out of hand.

Now the whitehouse is tapping journalists phones the reason, so they can find out who is leaking information to the press. You know like Abu Graib, our secret prisons in Romania and other un-american atrocities committed by the Bush administration. The goal apparently is to stop the american people from finding out any damaging info about the Bush administration.

And PS, they're tapping your phones too . actually if you want to be technical, they aren't actually listening to your phone calls, they are simply recording every number you dial. So they know everyone you call. the daily show explains .

And if that wasn't bad enough, they're spying on the Internet. The following quote is from a key witness in the lawsuit against AT&T saying it was against the law for the them to comply with the NSA spy program. Hello Totalitarianism!
"In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities."
More of his story here

This all clearly has little to do with terrorism, and it has everything to do with detecting ANYONE who disagrees with the policies of the executive branch. Watergate was nothing compared to this.

the "Legitimate power of the executive" as dick Cheney calls it, is just a polite way of saying, the imperial president.

I'm leaving North Street and heading a few blocks up Richmond into a much nicer apartment. the one we're in now is dirty, small, and a haven for too many crackheads. Molly and I are moving into a much bigger and nicer place now.

A picture of the new apartment on Richmond.



It has a porch in the back, off-street parking, all utilities and appliances included, 2 bedrooms, a big living-room, a real kitchen with counters and storage, and it's in a nice building, not like this one.
Very excited, I can't wait to have a porch and more space, it's going to be a good summer.

__________________________________________________

I'd also like to mention one of my new favorite beverages,
Wild Irish Rose. one bottle costs a whopping $3.50, and after about half of it you start slurring your words. It's a red wine with 18% alcohol, but it's not bitter or cough syrupy, it's like a light sherry, easy to drink. Great for bonfire parties, camping, and barbecues. it's my fun summer wine.




At this point in the bottle Molly and I were too drunk to stay inside, so we went for a drunken stroll around the neighborhood. it was too fun, we aren't lightweights, this is just good wine.

Thoughts,
ok supply and demand right, if America raised the fuel efficiency standards on vehicles we would all save money. if there was some incentive for car companies to make more fuel efficient cars, or if there was an incentive for people to buy more efficient cars, the price of gas would go down and everyone would save money. do you think that this is a good use for government?
We need to demand that car companies make more fuel efficient cars. The fuel efficiency standards haven't been raised since the 1970s, raise them 2-6 mpg and we'll be saving a lot of oil and paying a shit load less for gas as a nation. We will be using less gas because we have switched to more fuel efficient cars.
Thoughts from you guys?

I'm tired of the short term political 'solutions' to the increase in gas prices. Artificially lowering the price of gas by giving a gas tax holiday, or rebate checks, and all the other bs will just screw up supply and demand, and ignore the real issue of declining fossil fuel supplies. I'm also pissed that we are giving tax breaks to the richest company in the world Exxon-Mobil, which has made record profits the past 6 years straight, but they still get breaks from the government.

La Times sums it up well


Oil and politics don't mix
April 28, 2006

NO DOUBT PRESIDENT BUSH hoped his Tuesday speech to the Renewable Fuels Assn. would mollify grumpy Americans tired of high gas prices. But by proposing dubious policies that - at best - might save a few cents per gallon in the short term, while doing little to address the underlying problem of U.S. oil dependence, the president did something worse than nothing: He ushered in a silly season for wrongheaded, economically ignorant proposals by headline-chasing politicians.

Just a few short months ago, Bush was paying lip service to addressing the country's oil "addiction." On Tuesday, he offered us gas junkies a cheaper, faster fix by deferring new deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And now, after a week's worth of 1970s-style economic rhetoric, the prospects for successful detox seem all the more distant as public officials scramble to follow the president's lead in dreaming up their own "solutions" to the oil market. Like most insta-legislation rushed to the floor in the wake of controversial news - think Terri Schiavo - the gas-price proposals should be ignored and scorned.

Take the calls to root out alleged misdeeds by oil companies. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to look at Big Oil's tax returns "to make sure [they] aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed breaking up the industry altogether. And state officials want their piece of the witch hunt too. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had sicced the California Energy Commission on the case. In Arkansas, a candidate for attorney general also pledged to investigate oil companies, even though that state's anti-gouging law only applies during emergencies.

Everyone likes to see a villain squirm. The problem is, the Federal Trade Commission already has been sniffing out price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and has yet to uncover one instance of illegal behavior. Election-year investigations into marketwide collusion and gouging are window dressing, nothing more.

Worse are renewed calls to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to relax environmental restrictions on polluting refineries. A still-lower circle of populist hell is reserved for embarrassingly baldfaced sops to voters, such as the Senate's $100 taxpayer refund. Or that body's proposal to increase farm energy subsidies by $1.5 billion. Or its push for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.

All of these proposals would provide scant relief even while encouraging continued fuel overuse. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Thursday, "Unfortunately, there's nothing, really, that can be done that's going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run."

Sensible policy would focus on curbing consumption. Indeed, if politicians were being honest about breaking the addiction, they'd admit that it might make sense to hope that gas prices stay high - which would drive down demand and perhaps spur businesses to get real about alternative fuel technologies and improved auto mileage.

As a Texas governor running for president wisely said in 2000, the "Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election."

You think I'm kidding don't you?



On June 2 the the pentagon will test a 700 ton bomb at their Nevada testing site. This is the largest open air explosion ever at the site, no others come close. This test just happens to be called called "Devine Strake" seriously. what the hell is wrong with the people in our government? apparently they are all about the holy war metaphors.

---

From Washington Post
"This is the largest single explosive we could imagine doing," said James A. Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is conducting the test.

The June test will detonate 700 tons of heavy ammonium nitrate-fuel oil emulsion -- creating a blast equivalent to 593 tons of TNT -- in a 36-foot-deep hole near a tunnel in the center of the Nevada Test Site, according to official reports. It aims to allow scientists to model the type of ground shock that will be created, and to weigh the effectiveness of such a weapon against its collateral impact.

Tyler Drumheller, the CIA's number one agent in europe during the lead up to the war has recently retired, and has just come forward to talk about how the Bush administration ignored evidence that Saddam had no WMD.

For example he says that in the lead up to the Iraq War, the CIA got Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, to cooperate with them by making a deal. George Tenet went to the whitehouse to deliver the good news to the president VP and other top officials and they were very excited about the success. until the report came back from this new spy that Iraq didn't have any WMD, and then the administration decided it wasn't worth their time, they didn't want any additional data from Sabri.

"The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "



I'll just post the full story here it's short:

---

A Spy Speaks Out
April 21, 2006
Source

(CBS) A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.

The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence - which the administration chose to ignore.

Drumheller talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley in his first television interview this Sunday, April 23 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Drumheller, who retired last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.

When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited - but not for long.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

They didn't want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

The White House declined to respond to this charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.

Drumheller says the administration routinely relied on single sources - when those single sources confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he says. The "yellowcake story" refers to a report the CIA received in late 2001 alleging that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from Africa, presumably to build a nuclear bomb.

Many in the CIA doubted the uranium report from the beginning, and continued to doubt it, even as White House speechwriters tried to include the report in the president's speeches.

In a major speech the president was scheduled to give in Cincinnati, the leadership of the CIA intervened directly to remove the uranium report from the speech. But that didn't stop it from making it into the president's State of the Union address a short time later.
"As a British report," says Drumheller. A senior CIA official signed off on the speech only because the uranium reference was attributed to the British.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. ... This was a policy failure. ... I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time," Drumheller tells Bradley.

The biggest issue with the casino is economics. When I go to Latina foods and buy some vegetables and a carton of half and half my money does not stop there, it goes to the workers and owners who also buy things throughout the community. My money also goes toward buying more products for the store, many of which come from local farmers and manufacturers who in turn have employees to pay. and it goes toward infrastructure improvements, parking lots, gardens and etc that make my neighborhood better to live in.

In a casino, especially one owned by a separate sovereign nation, my dollars will not travel as far, and very little will return to my community. It doesn't matter how much Smirnoff or slot machines the casino buys, my community gets nothing. The only thing that comes back is what they pay their workers, $30-$50 million per year, and building contracts for construction, a one time expense of $125 million.

The Casino expects to make $150 Million per year. Add it up, and 10 years down the road our community will lose $850 million. Most of that would have gone to places like Chippewa, Elmwood, Hertel, and the restaurants and bars throughout the city. Small businesses around buffalo can not afford to lose that much money. they will close, and when they do Elmwood, and city living in general, will seem a lot less inviting. We need our businesses, that's why I live here, because I can walk to the store, I can walk to restaurants, cafes, events, grocery stores, and everything else. Destroy our local businesses and you destroy the vitality of Buffalo.

The poor people argument tends to divide people and start conflicts. It is true that poor people gamble in greater numbers, despite the fact that they can't afford to lose. And they inevitably lose more than they gain, they come home from the casino and have to deal with the reality that they can't pay all of their bills. I'm worried that they will decide to rob my car, instead of letting their gas be shut off in the winter. pretty simple. It is in my self interest to keep crime down, so it is beneficial for me to keep some money in the pockets of poor people, because they don't steal for fun, they steal for money. But I don't want to have a "nanny state" any more than ((e:joshua)) and I refuse to allow the state to legislate morality. However when it comes down to preserving property and property values within the jurisdiction of the city, it seems reasonable that the city and it's citizens protect their interests.

this deal is terrible for so many reasons, it amazes me that took 4 years for people to start really speaking out on it.

• Geez, I never could spell, just changed it to steAl, yea....*

In my last post I urged everyone to write to their representatives. The casino has been in the news lately, so now is the time to get a critical mass of letters to your elected officials, and make sure they know what you think. If they don't hear from us they will just sit back and do nothing, but if they know we are against it they will feel pressured to take a stand.

So, out of curiosity, who sent a letter? anyone?

voting is the most minimal way to participate in government, the real way to have an impact is to contact your representatives, they want your opinion because they need your vote. This is not as true with the president, but with local leaders votes are crucial, 40 votes can make or break an election. Also, local leaders don't get many letters, so at the end of a week if they got 12-16 letters against the casino they think their whole district is up in arms, and they'll start to get worried. I only know this because I have a bachelors in Political Science and I've worked with local politicians.

here are links to district maps so you can find out what district you are in, then you can find out who the head of your district is. if your district is ambiguous just send it to both.
City
County

Leave a comment here if you intend to call or write a letter, or if you already have. Any questions or opposing views will also be much appreciated.

---

Recent Articles

To help people catch up on the issue, below are a bunch of links to the recent articles dealing with the casino. maybe I'll do this in rambling summary blog form.

The media attention all started a few weeks ago. the common council asked the Senecas to sign an agreement saying they wouldn't acquire any more downtown land tax free, and the Senecas got offended and said "you don't trust us, this is an insult to the entire Seneca Nation" the Buffalo News Covered it and Bruce Jackson writes a very pointed and outraged response to the Senecas "hissy fit" in the Artvoice
Then the same day, the Senecas ask for $6 million in road work and infrastructure improvements around the site. this is also covered well in the Artvoice article above. Paying $6mill for the casino got the media's wheels moving.
In the next Artvoice Bruce Jackson brings to light the Senecas SEC filing with the federal government , this official document contradicts most of the public rhetoric involving the casino, especially the myth that they intend to attract tourists. nope the $150 million profit from a Buffalo casino will be coming from Buffalonians. WBEN and the The Buffalo News (archived ) pick up the story on the SEC filing. both focus on the fact that dollars will be drained from our fragile local economy.
The next day Giambra joins the anti-casino lawsuits and adds it to his caseload .
Tom Golisano goes public with his opposition next, Business First , Buff News , Artvoice does a great interview with Golisano (click the picture for video of the interview). Amazingly enough Byron Brown also finds it troubling that the casino will be devouring local dollars, not tourist dollars , not bad for the casino's biggest cheerleader.
This past Sunday the Buffalo News carries a giant front page article "Casino Promises - Still Waiting" which takes a long hard look at the effects of the Niagara Falls Casino on that city (archived ) That story was first in a two part casino series, today we got "The Hidden Costs of Gambling" which quotes bankruptcy lawyers, gambling addiction councilors, and others whose workload has tripled since the casinos opened , very interesting to get their first hand experience.

---

The casino idea is on the table, this was never a done deal and now people are finally starting to realize it. I guess 4 years is enough to do a tiny bit of research and discover that this stupid casino idea will devastate our community.
Here's one of my articles on the casino from December . Jason, sorry I didn't respond to your casino question untill just now, you can read that article and my previous post here to get some idea of my opinion.

Please let's all try to keep the ball rolling. Write a letter, or call someone during Business hours. you can also thank Giambra for coming out against it, tell him that stopping the casino is a lot better legacy than screwing up the budget.

Hope you are all interested in this issue.