A mysterious empty military casket was found in the Arizona desert near Tucson on Saturday, fueling local fears that a zombie soldier may have escaped.
Two men found the silver coffin in a pile of trash near Interstate 10; the men were reportedly "playing paintball" in the desert.
"When deputies arrived, they opened the casket expecting to find a body but did not," KVOA TV reported. "Instead they found hair and fluid."
Pima County Sheriff's deputies identified the empty casket as belonging to the U.S. military, which they found "particularly suspicious."
"Put out a nationwide broadcast to see if anyone anywhere in the country is missing a military style casket and the body it contained," Lt. Bob Kimmins demanded.
The odd tale took an even stranger twist on Monday, when the same TV news program claimed the casket had been sent to a garbage dump by a mortuary -- because the missing soldier's family dug up his coffin, removed the corpse and burned it.
No explanation or evidence was offered for this bizzarre claim, and neither the soldier nor the alleged family have been identified.
"The Pima County Sheriff got a call from the mortuary who said they thought the casket was one they had taken to a local landfill," KVOA reported Monday. "Employees at the landfill also say they had a casket stolen."
It was unclear whether the second "stolen casket" had anything to do with the original empty casket found in the desert, or exactly what kind of landfill keeps inventory of the garbage dumped and buried there.
Just as mysteriously, the "landfill" and its employees have not been identified.
Pagan ceremonies
The weird news comes as families of pagan troops killed in the U.S. occupation of Iraq demand the right to bury their loved ones under a magical pagan symbol.
The Veteran's Administration has never authorized the use of Wicca's pentacle on grave markers, even though it allows the use of symbols from 38 other beliefs, including obscure or possibly fictional religions such as Ixumo Taishakyo, Soks Gakkai, Aaronic Order, Seicho-no-ie and Presbyterians.
The online group Military Pagans says Wiccans have been trying to get their symbol recognized for a decade, but VA bureaucrats have yet to simply approve the pentacle.
Some find it ironic that American troops serve a Pentagon -- the heart of every Wiccan pentacle -- but aren't allowed to have a pentacle mark their final resting place.
Zombies don't die
The unpopularity of the deadly Iraq occupation has forced the White House to come up with endless schemes to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Stopgap" policies keep soldiers stuck in Iraq long after they were supposed to get out of the service. Miserable recruitment levels have led the Pentagon to start taking the true dregs of society: imbeciles, criminals, the retarded and the elderly.
The Defense Department can't make its new robot soldiers fast enough, and the government's obvious desperation has fueled rumors that "undead soldiers" are being tested and even deployed.
The deep unease about zombie soldiers was expressed by "Uncle Sam," the groundbreaking Isaac Hayes film about a 1991 Gulf War soldier who was killed by "friendly fire" and returned to America as a zombie dressed as Uncle Sam to wreak vengeance on hippies and other people who weren't patriotic.
The 1974 classic "Deathdream" told a similarly poignant tale, in which a Vietnam soldier comes home after being killed in battle. Angry about the war, the undead soldier is also "cursed with the need to kill and inject the blood of others in himself to keep from rotting away."
But most Americans know about the government's zombie troops from the popular "Universal Soldier" movies of the 1990s.
2006/06/27
Spy in the sky!
The Pentagon's creepy National Reconnaissance Office is launching another Orwellian billion-dollar spy machine tonight, but at least it will provide a colorful light show over much of the western United States.
The "classified payload" will be launched on a Delta IV rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.
The high-security base is on California's central coast, north of Santa Barbara.
First scheduled in 2004, the mission has since been delayed eight times, leaving a gaping hole in Washington's efforts to record the activities and thoughts of every single American.
It's the inaugural West Coast launch of the huge Delta IV cargo rocket.
Vandenberg wasted some $4 billion on a West Coast space-shuttle launch site that was never used, and has since converted the boondoggle into a Delta platform.
"The rocket will fly in a configuration with two strap-on solid rocket boosters," reported SpaceFlightNow.com.
Evening launches from Vandenberg have created stunning light shows in the western skies.
"In order for a launch to be visible from a given location, it has to be above the observer's horizon at some point," says SpaceArchive.info.
"The visibility footprint for a launch is controlled by the vehicle's trajectory or flight path. Of primary importance are the direction of launch, steepness of the flight path, and how high the vehicle is during the powered phase .... Delta, Taurus, and other satellite launch vehicles fly towards the south and climb more slowly."
Twilight launches are the "most impressive," according to the site.
"If the conditions are right, the Sun is below the observer's horizon and sunlight illuminates the vehicle's contrail and exhaust plume, creating a display visible for distances of several hundred miles."
The "classified payload" will be launched on a Delta IV rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.
The high-security base is on California's central coast, north of Santa Barbara.
First scheduled in 2004, the mission has since been delayed eight times, leaving a gaping hole in Washington's efforts to record the activities and thoughts of every single American.
It's the inaugural West Coast launch of the huge Delta IV cargo rocket.
Vandenberg wasted some $4 billion on a West Coast space-shuttle launch site that was never used, and has since converted the boondoggle into a Delta platform.
"The rocket will fly in a configuration with two strap-on solid rocket boosters," reported SpaceFlightNow.com.
Evening launches from Vandenberg have created stunning light shows in the western skies.
"In order for a launch to be visible from a given location, it has to be above the observer's horizon at some point," says SpaceArchive.info.
"The visibility footprint for a launch is controlled by the vehicle's trajectory or flight path. Of primary importance are the direction of launch, steepness of the flight path, and how high the vehicle is during the powered phase .... Delta, Taurus, and other satellite launch vehicles fly towards the south and climb more slowly."
Twilight launches are the "most impressive," according to the site.
"If the conditions are right, the Sun is below the observer's horizon and sunlight illuminates the vehicle's contrail and exhaust plume, creating a display visible for distances of several hundred miles."
Librarians beat Feds!
As the First Lady - herself a former librarian - cheers on the rebuilding of New Orleans' libraries, her husband's thugs continue to terrorize, threaten and bully the nation's patriotic book-lenders. Yesterday, they finally backed off a bit.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations finally gave up their attempt to inspect the records of a group of Connecticut libraries, but not before leveling a veiled threat against those who dare to defy them.
"In this case, because the threat ultimately was without merit, that delay came at no cost other than slowing the pace of the investigation," John Miller, the FBI's assistant director, said.
Naturally, as part of the administration's regular M.O., Miller also accused librarians of endangering Americans.
"In another case, where the threat may be real, the delays incurred in this investigation could have increased the danger of terrorists succeeding."
"We concluded that based on the passage of time as well as other information we've been able to develop that this [emailed] threat is probably not viable," added Connecticut U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor.
Last February, the FBI demanded that a consortium of 26 Connecticut libraries turn over their computer records, claiming they were following up on yet another alleged terror threat. Four board members of the Library Connection bravely resisted their efforts.
"I'm glad that we're vindicated in resisting the request for the records," said George Christian, one of the librarians who received a national security letter demanding the records. "We're just protecting our patrons to the extent we can."
"While the government's real motives in this case have been questionable from the beginning, their decision to back down is a victory not just for librarians, but for all Americans who value their privacy," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU.
Monday, while speaking before an audience of more than 1,000, Laura Bush reminded the country of "the importance of libraries and reading." She recognizes these revered institutions as being of vital importance to the nation's intellectual well-being.
Sadly, President Bush doesn't share his wife's views about libraries. Over the past year, DHS goons have interrogated a young man for reading Mao's "Little Red Book," tried to seize the computers at the Brandeis University library and randomly stormed a Maryland library to warn folks against the dangers of online porn.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations finally gave up their attempt to inspect the records of a group of Connecticut libraries, but not before leveling a veiled threat against those who dare to defy them.
"In this case, because the threat ultimately was without merit, that delay came at no cost other than slowing the pace of the investigation," John Miller, the FBI's assistant director, said.
Naturally, as part of the administration's regular M.O., Miller also accused librarians of endangering Americans.
"In another case, where the threat may be real, the delays incurred in this investigation could have increased the danger of terrorists succeeding."
"We concluded that based on the passage of time as well as other information we've been able to develop that this [emailed] threat is probably not viable," added Connecticut U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor.
Last February, the FBI demanded that a consortium of 26 Connecticut libraries turn over their computer records, claiming they were following up on yet another alleged terror threat. Four board members of the Library Connection bravely resisted their efforts.
"I'm glad that we're vindicated in resisting the request for the records," said George Christian, one of the librarians who received a national security letter demanding the records. "We're just protecting our patrons to the extent we can."
"While the government's real motives in this case have been questionable from the beginning, their decision to back down is a victory not just for librarians, but for all Americans who value their privacy," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU.
Monday, while speaking before an audience of more than 1,000, Laura Bush reminded the country of "the importance of libraries and reading." She recognizes these revered institutions as being of vital importance to the nation's intellectual well-being.
Sadly, President Bush doesn't share his wife's views about libraries. Over the past year, DHS goons have interrogated a young man for reading Mao's "Little Red Book," tried to seize the computers at the Brandeis University library and randomly stormed a Maryland library to warn folks against the dangers of online porn.
Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jun 27, 2:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's frequent use of special statements that claim authority to limit the effects of bills he signs, saying the statements help him uphold the Constitution and defend national security.
Senators weren't so sure.
"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," said Arlen Specter, a Republican whose Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings on the issue. "There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview."
At the White House, Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."
The bill-signing statements say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds. Some 110 statements have challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.
Snow said presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton have issued such statements.
"The president has done the same thing that his predecessors have," he told reporters. "Presidents generally had the same concerns about defending the presidential prerogatives when it comes to national security."
In addition to Specter's objections, Democrats called the signing statements an example of the administration trying to expand executive power.
"I believe that this new use of signing statements is a means to undermine and weaken the law," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) of California. "If the president is going to have the power to nullify all or part of a statute, it should only be through veto authority that the president has authorized and can reject — rather than through a unilateral action taken outside the structures of our democracy."
Defending Bush, a Justice Department lawyer said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks had made it prudent for the president to protect his powers with signing statements more than did his predecessors.
-continued-
Tue Jun 27, 2:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's frequent use of special statements that claim authority to limit the effects of bills he signs, saying the statements help him uphold the Constitution and defend national security.
Senators weren't so sure.
"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," said Arlen Specter, a Republican whose Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings on the issue. "There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview."
At the White House, Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."
The bill-signing statements say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds. Some 110 statements have challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.
Snow said presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton have issued such statements.
"The president has done the same thing that his predecessors have," he told reporters. "Presidents generally had the same concerns about defending the presidential prerogatives when it comes to national security."
In addition to Specter's objections, Democrats called the signing statements an example of the administration trying to expand executive power.
"I believe that this new use of signing statements is a means to undermine and weaken the law," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) of California. "If the president is going to have the power to nullify all or part of a statute, it should only be through veto authority that the president has authorized and can reject — rather than through a unilateral action taken outside the structures of our democracy."
Defending Bush, a Justice Department lawyer said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks had made it prudent for the president to protect his powers with signing statements more than did his predecessors.
-continued-
Pill-popping blowhard busted
To many, he's the voice of Red America, to others he's a bloated nuisance with an insatiable taste for prescription drugs. Yesterday, authorities at the West Palm Beach airport found one of the country's most beloved - and reviled - radio hosts in possession of pharmaceutical aphrodisiacs.
A search of Rush Limbaugh's luggage Monday by U.S. Customs and Border cops revealed he was in possession of drugs without a prescription. It seems that self-professed patriot Rush Limbaugh, 55, only flies his flag at half-mast, as cops yesterday found Viagra in his luggage. The name on the bottle's label was that of Limbaugh's doctor.
"We believe there may be a second degree misdemeanor violation, which is possession of certain drugs without a prescription, because the bottle does not have his name on it," said Paul Miller, spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.
The drug was "labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes," according to the talk radio star's attorney, Roy Black.
A recovering Oxycontin junkie, Limbaugh last month reached a deal with prosecutors that would've made charges of "doctor shopping" - duping multiple doctors into giving you drugs - go away. If he had managed to stay clean for 18 months, the whole nasty business would've gone away. Oh, well.
A search of Rush Limbaugh's luggage Monday by U.S. Customs and Border cops revealed he was in possession of drugs without a prescription. It seems that self-professed patriot Rush Limbaugh, 55, only flies his flag at half-mast, as cops yesterday found Viagra in his luggage. The name on the bottle's label was that of Limbaugh's doctor.
"We believe there may be a second degree misdemeanor violation, which is possession of certain drugs without a prescription, because the bottle does not have his name on it," said Paul Miller, spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.
The drug was "labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes," according to the talk radio star's attorney, Roy Black.
A recovering Oxycontin junkie, Limbaugh last month reached a deal with prosecutors that would've made charges of "doctor shopping" - duping multiple doctors into giving you drugs - go away. If he had managed to stay clean for 18 months, the whole nasty business would've gone away. Oh, well.
Thought crimes
Freedom-loving Americans are all talking about the same thing: Is it legal to talk about how great it would be to kill George W. Bush?
As proven by last week's arrest of seven oddball black guys in Florida who wanted superhero uniforms so they could dream about exciting attacks on federal cops and a building in Chicago, it turns out that simply talking about how awesome it would be to do something illegal is enough to get you hauled away to prison forever.
With all but a delusional 30% of Americans finally realizing their country is run by a murderous criminal mafia -- and with U.S. spy agencies and telecommunications companies illegally recording every word you say, hear, type or read -- there's a good chance "Homeland Security" will bust down your door tonight and torture you forever in Cuba or Poland. (Or they'll just shoot you in the head, leaving valuable interrogators free for more important duties, such as torturing retarded people.)
So the question of "Can I say what I actually think?" is hardly an academic exercise -- it's a matter of life and death, or at least life and liberty.
Writing in Harper's magazine this month, Ben Metcalf explored the dangers of saying or writing anything "bad" about the president:
Because I am loath to violate whatever fresh new mores the people have agreed upon, or have been told they agree upon, and because I do not care to have my ass kicked repeatedly in a holding cell while I beg to see a lawyer, I almost hesitate to ask the following question. I will ask it, though, out of what used to be called simple human decency:
Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of the United States, and kill him with my bare hands?
Metcalf made clear that he didn't actually desire to personally kill George W. Bush with his bare hands, because Bush was a fellow human being -- "at least in the technical sense."
The problem, or one of the problems, is that the president was given special protections in 1917 to prevent citizens from rising up and -- as Thomas Jefferson wrote -- refreshing the "tree of liberty" with the "blood of patriots and tyrants."
Before that time, existing laws against murder were used against those who killed presidents. It was enough. But after 1917, it became a federal crime to express thoughts about "taking out the trash."
As the journalist Metcalf explains, "What I mean to imply is that his free ride on our backs was made possible by the clever solution Congress found to its conundrum back in 1917: a law that deems guilty of a federal offense anyone who knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail ... any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States ... or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat....
In one swift draconian move, Washington made it illegal to share the opinion that a president should be killed. The law cleverly covered all books, newspapers, magazines and letters (all travel by mail) and then tossed in "or knowingly and willfully otherwise" expressing the desire for the sudden violent death of an American chief executive -- covering every conceivable circumstance in which a moral American might utter the illegal words.
(Legal scholars have ignored the crucial contradiction of the federal law: Would judge and jury at a president's criminal trial be barred from mentioning his death sentence? Would prosecutors find themselves hauled away in chains every time they brought up the death penalty? Would newspaper reporters be jailed for simply reporting on the death penalty phase of the president's trial? Would the whole thing be done in pantomime, or some sort of code such as Pig Latin?)
Experts say it's best to just keep your mouth shut, considering the way things are going in the country. Washington is not exactly run by thoughtful men who wile away their hours discussing the literary intricacies of contextual theory. In fact, Washington is run by dangerous thugs who delight in torturing, murdering and otherwise doing away with as many "enemies" as they can, whether foreign innocents, retarded "terrorists" or the poor black population of an American city.
It seems one way to semi-safely discuss such things is to do so under the protection of "satire" -- and happily for this publication, no less an authority than Google News makes it clear that "satire" is exactly what you'll find at SPLOID.
But Metcalf has a better, safer idea: Rather than attract unwanted attention by simply using the "k" word, Americans who are losing their minds over the White House's America-hating crime lords should stick to the kind of "legal" scenarios defended daily by all the president's men:
"In place of the initial question I might ask instead, 'Am I allowed to write that I would like to kidnap George W. Bush and fly him to a prison in some faraway land where his 'rights' are no longer an issue, there to put a bag over his head and make him stand for hours on one leg while I defecate on his New Testament before chaining his arms to the ceiling until he dies of a heart attack, after which I will claim that he never existed?'"
For Americans who hope to make it through this regime alive, the answer is a happy "Yes!"
As proven by last week's arrest of seven oddball black guys in Florida who wanted superhero uniforms so they could dream about exciting attacks on federal cops and a building in Chicago, it turns out that simply talking about how awesome it would be to do something illegal is enough to get you hauled away to prison forever.
With all but a delusional 30% of Americans finally realizing their country is run by a murderous criminal mafia -- and with U.S. spy agencies and telecommunications companies illegally recording every word you say, hear, type or read -- there's a good chance "Homeland Security" will bust down your door tonight and torture you forever in Cuba or Poland. (Or they'll just shoot you in the head, leaving valuable interrogators free for more important duties, such as torturing retarded people.)
So the question of "Can I say what I actually think?" is hardly an academic exercise -- it's a matter of life and death, or at least life and liberty.
Writing in Harper's magazine this month, Ben Metcalf explored the dangers of saying or writing anything "bad" about the president:
Because I am loath to violate whatever fresh new mores the people have agreed upon, or have been told they agree upon, and because I do not care to have my ass kicked repeatedly in a holding cell while I beg to see a lawyer, I almost hesitate to ask the following question. I will ask it, though, out of what used to be called simple human decency:
Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of the United States, and kill him with my bare hands?
Metcalf made clear that he didn't actually desire to personally kill George W. Bush with his bare hands, because Bush was a fellow human being -- "at least in the technical sense."
The problem, or one of the problems, is that the president was given special protections in 1917 to prevent citizens from rising up and -- as Thomas Jefferson wrote -- refreshing the "tree of liberty" with the "blood of patriots and tyrants."
Before that time, existing laws against murder were used against those who killed presidents. It was enough. But after 1917, it became a federal crime to express thoughts about "taking out the trash."
As the journalist Metcalf explains, "What I mean to imply is that his free ride on our backs was made possible by the clever solution Congress found to its conundrum back in 1917: a law that deems guilty of a federal offense anyone who knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail ... any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States ... or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat....
In one swift draconian move, Washington made it illegal to share the opinion that a president should be killed. The law cleverly covered all books, newspapers, magazines and letters (all travel by mail) and then tossed in "or knowingly and willfully otherwise" expressing the desire for the sudden violent death of an American chief executive -- covering every conceivable circumstance in which a moral American might utter the illegal words.
(Legal scholars have ignored the crucial contradiction of the federal law: Would judge and jury at a president's criminal trial be barred from mentioning his death sentence? Would prosecutors find themselves hauled away in chains every time they brought up the death penalty? Would newspaper reporters be jailed for simply reporting on the death penalty phase of the president's trial? Would the whole thing be done in pantomime, or some sort of code such as Pig Latin?)
Experts say it's best to just keep your mouth shut, considering the way things are going in the country. Washington is not exactly run by thoughtful men who wile away their hours discussing the literary intricacies of contextual theory. In fact, Washington is run by dangerous thugs who delight in torturing, murdering and otherwise doing away with as many "enemies" as they can, whether foreign innocents, retarded "terrorists" or the poor black population of an American city.
It seems one way to semi-safely discuss such things is to do so under the protection of "satire" -- and happily for this publication, no less an authority than Google News makes it clear that "satire" is exactly what you'll find at SPLOID.
But Metcalf has a better, safer idea: Rather than attract unwanted attention by simply using the "k" word, Americans who are losing their minds over the White House's America-hating crime lords should stick to the kind of "legal" scenarios defended daily by all the president's men:
"In place of the initial question I might ask instead, 'Am I allowed to write that I would like to kidnap George W. Bush and fly him to a prison in some faraway land where his 'rights' are no longer an issue, there to put a bag over his head and make him stand for hours on one leg while I defecate on his New Testament before chaining his arms to the ceiling until he dies of a heart attack, after which I will claim that he never existed?'"
For Americans who hope to make it through this regime alive, the answer is a happy "Yes!"
9/11 conspiracy theorists gather at LA conference
By Jill Serjeant
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - They wore T-shirts asking "What Really Happened?," snapped up DVDs titled "9/11; The Great Illusion," and cheered as physicists, philosophers and terrorism experts decried the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks that shook America to its core.
Some 1,200 people gathered at a Los Angeles hotel on the weekend for what organizers billed as the largest conference on the plethora of conspiracy theories that see the 2001 attacks on Washington and New York as, at best, official negligence, and at worst an orchestrated U.S. attempt to incite world war.
"There are so many prominent people who are incredibly well-respected who have stated that the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job," syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones told a news conference.
"There are hundreds of smoking guns that people need to be made aware of," said Jones, calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and charging that mainstream media had been slow to cover the growing movement of 9/11 skeptics.
The "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda" conference comprised two days of seminars, video presentations and talks by groups including "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," www.infowars.com and an appearance by actor Charlie Sheen.
Most are convinced the U.S. military command "stood down" on the day of the attack, that the hijackers were trained at American military bases, and that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of a series of controlled explosions set before they were hit by two hijacked planes.
Suggested motives range from expected benefits for U.S. arms and oil conglomerates to revolutionary plans for a new world order headed by the United States.
The theories, derided by critics as wild and far-fetched, have mostly been confined to the Internet, talk radio and the alternative press.
But an August 2004 Zogby opinion poll revealed 49 percent of New York City residents believed U.S. leaders knew in advance of the attacks and failed to act.
The official 9/11 Commission, set up in 2002, cited government intelligence lapses in the failure to prevent the attacks by al Qaeda that killed about 3,000 people.
A 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology held that jet-fuel fires weakened the structure of the Twin Towers and led to their collapse.
'BAD THINGS HAPPENING'
Sheen, star of the TV sitcom "Two and a Half Men," provoked a media storm in March by calling in interviews for an independent investigation.
Sheen "brings the movement some legitimacy. He gives it a face," said a Los Angeles student attending the conference who gave his name as Rico.
"Rational, well-educated people are starting to take a look at all this and are seeing there are some pretty bad things happening," Rico added.
Webster Tarpley, author of "911 Synthetic Terror; Made in USA," said the Sept. 11 attacks were an example of "state-sponsored, false-flag terrorism" designed by rogue CIA elements "to start the war of civilizations."
Tarpley said Washington was "gripped by war psychosis" and had used terror as a pretext to turn the United States into a police state.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - They wore T-shirts asking "What Really Happened?," snapped up DVDs titled "9/11; The Great Illusion," and cheered as physicists, philosophers and terrorism experts decried the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks that shook America to its core.
Some 1,200 people gathered at a Los Angeles hotel on the weekend for what organizers billed as the largest conference on the plethora of conspiracy theories that see the 2001 attacks on Washington and New York as, at best, official negligence, and at worst an orchestrated U.S. attempt to incite world war.
"There are so many prominent people who are incredibly well-respected who have stated that the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job," syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones told a news conference.
"There are hundreds of smoking guns that people need to be made aware of," said Jones, calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and charging that mainstream media had been slow to cover the growing movement of 9/11 skeptics.
The "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda" conference comprised two days of seminars, video presentations and talks by groups including "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," www.infowars.com and an appearance by actor Charlie Sheen.
Most are convinced the U.S. military command "stood down" on the day of the attack, that the hijackers were trained at American military bases, and that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of a series of controlled explosions set before they were hit by two hijacked planes.
Suggested motives range from expected benefits for U.S. arms and oil conglomerates to revolutionary plans for a new world order headed by the United States.
The theories, derided by critics as wild and far-fetched, have mostly been confined to the Internet, talk radio and the alternative press.
But an August 2004 Zogby opinion poll revealed 49 percent of New York City residents believed U.S. leaders knew in advance of the attacks and failed to act.
The official 9/11 Commission, set up in 2002, cited government intelligence lapses in the failure to prevent the attacks by al Qaeda that killed about 3,000 people.
A 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology held that jet-fuel fires weakened the structure of the Twin Towers and led to their collapse.
'BAD THINGS HAPPENING'
Sheen, star of the TV sitcom "Two and a Half Men," provoked a media storm in March by calling in interviews for an independent investigation.
Sheen "brings the movement some legitimacy. He gives it a face," said a Los Angeles student attending the conference who gave his name as Rico.
"Rational, well-educated people are starting to take a look at all this and are seeing there are some pretty bad things happening," Rico added.
Webster Tarpley, author of "911 Synthetic Terror; Made in USA," said the Sept. 11 attacks were an example of "state-sponsored, false-flag terrorism" designed by rogue CIA elements "to start the war of civilizations."
Tarpley said Washington was "gripped by war psychosis" and had used terror as a pretext to turn the United States into a police state.
Baby Jesus' insurance cancelled!
Raising a child as a single parent can pose serious financial challenges. Fearing that they wouldn't be able to cover the expense of immaculate pregnancy, three sisters in Scotland took out insurance in the event they were so blessed. It was with heavy hearts that they heard their policies had been cancelled.
Simon Burgess, managing director of Britishinsurance.com, delivered the news last week.
"Three women, all Christian sisters who live in Inverness, came to me in the year 2000 and asked me to insure them in case they immaculately conceived the second coming of Christ," Burgess announced. "They have renewed the policy of £100 each year since 2000 and would get a payout of £1million if they had an immaculate conception."
The move came after protest from Catholics who considered such thoughtful financial planning to be in poor taste.
"Our company used to specialize in weird and wonderful policies, and this was one of them... The Catholic Church was not happy about what we've been doing," according to Burgess.
They women weren't trying to profit from their faith. They just wanted a Second Coming fit for a King.
"They say if Christ came again they want to give him a lifestyle commensurate with his status and the money would pay for that."
Simon Burgess, managing director of Britishinsurance.com, delivered the news last week.
"Three women, all Christian sisters who live in Inverness, came to me in the year 2000 and asked me to insure them in case they immaculately conceived the second coming of Christ," Burgess announced. "They have renewed the policy of £100 each year since 2000 and would get a payout of £1million if they had an immaculate conception."
The move came after protest from Catholics who considered such thoughtful financial planning to be in poor taste.
"Our company used to specialize in weird and wonderful policies, and this was one of them... The Catholic Church was not happy about what we've been doing," according to Burgess.
They women weren't trying to profit from their faith. They just wanted a Second Coming fit for a King.
"They say if Christ came again they want to give him a lifestyle commensurate with his status and the money would pay for that."
Gays are born that way?!?!
A shocking new study proves that gays aren't deviant monsters who choose to love men. As shocking as it may sound, God makes homosexuals.
Science had known for years that the more older brothers a made had, the more likely he was to be gay. Some people assumed this was because young boys grow accustomed to the affections of other boys. Others figured that as the baby of the family, they become sissified momma's boys.
Not true, says Anthony F. Bogaert of the Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
His research shows that these people don't choose to be gay as they grow older; rather, they come out of the womb that way.
"The research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth," says Bogaert.
Bogaert first discovered the link between fraternal birth order and male homosexuality a decade ago. What he didn't know was "Why?"
"Is it a biological phenomenon? Or is it psychological or have to do with rearing?" he said without giggling.
Bogaert followed 944 Canadian men, both straight and gay. The older-brother effect was constant regardless of whether men were raised with their biological or adoptive families.
Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, is excited about the new findings.
"For me as a molecular geneticist, this study opens a new path of research into the biology of sexual orientation," Bocklandt said.
Bocklandt wants to start testing mothers of multiple sons to see if there's something in their blood that responds to genes linked to homosexuality.
With this amazing new discovery, legislators may be forced to acknowledge that gays are human.
Science had known for years that the more older brothers a made had, the more likely he was to be gay. Some people assumed this was because young boys grow accustomed to the affections of other boys. Others figured that as the baby of the family, they become sissified momma's boys.
Not true, says Anthony F. Bogaert of the Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
His research shows that these people don't choose to be gay as they grow older; rather, they come out of the womb that way.
"The research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth," says Bogaert.
Bogaert first discovered the link between fraternal birth order and male homosexuality a decade ago. What he didn't know was "Why?"
"Is it a biological phenomenon? Or is it psychological or have to do with rearing?" he said without giggling.
Bogaert followed 944 Canadian men, both straight and gay. The older-brother effect was constant regardless of whether men were raised with their biological or adoptive families.
Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, is excited about the new findings.
"For me as a molecular geneticist, this study opens a new path of research into the biology of sexual orientation," Bocklandt said.
Bocklandt wants to start testing mothers of multiple sons to see if there's something in their blood that responds to genes linked to homosexuality.
With this amazing new discovery, legislators may be forced to acknowledge that gays are human.
Pol blames Satan for crap luck
John Jacob, a Congressional candidate from Utah, said Thursday that Satan was trying to keep him out of office.
It seems the old deluder has kept Jacob from investing as much money as he'd like into his campaign, and has caused a series of recent business-related mishaps.
"You know, you plan, you organize, you put your budget together and when you have 10 things fall through, not just one, there's some other, something else that is happening," he told the Salt Lake Tribune.
"There's another force that wants to keep us from going to Washington, D.C. It's the devil is what it is. I don't want you to print that, but it feels like that's what it is," he said, apparently unaware that pleas for secrecy are like catnip to journalists.
He first brought up the Satan-as-campaign-foe theme on Wednesday, at an immigration rally, and then reiterated it in a meeting with the Salt Lake Tribune editorial staff on Thursday.
"I don't know who else it would be if it wasn't him," he said. "Now when that gets out in the paper, I'm going to be one of the screw-loose people."
This is exactly what came to pass, because Satan deemed it so.
By Friday, Jacob was backtracking -- sort of.
"What I was trying to say, and obviously didn't do it very well, is that over the last eight months I've had more adversity in my life than I've had in the last 10 years," he said.
This adversity includes business deals gone sour, allegations that he aided illegal immigrants, and revelations that the devout Mormon used to gamble. But what others might call a run of bad luck, or even an accountability moment, was, for this charming wingnut, Lucifer.
Jacob is a political neophyte attempting to unseat fellow Republican Chris Cannon, a five-term Congressman. And, in a state crawling with religious types, all the talk about Satan might actually help.
"The people he would alienate probably wouldn't vote for him anyway," said David Gutterman, a political science professor at Linfield College in Oregon. "The people he's going to attract are shoring up a base that probably shares his religious views."
And indeed, a poll released today suggests Jacob might very well triumph in the 3rd Congressional District race.
"Jacob has a pretty good shot at pulling this off," said Brad Coker, managing director for Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. "It's never easy to beat an incumbent, but he is in a very good position."
It seems the old deluder has kept Jacob from investing as much money as he'd like into his campaign, and has caused a series of recent business-related mishaps.
"You know, you plan, you organize, you put your budget together and when you have 10 things fall through, not just one, there's some other, something else that is happening," he told the Salt Lake Tribune.
"There's another force that wants to keep us from going to Washington, D.C. It's the devil is what it is. I don't want you to print that, but it feels like that's what it is," he said, apparently unaware that pleas for secrecy are like catnip to journalists.
He first brought up the Satan-as-campaign-foe theme on Wednesday, at an immigration rally, and then reiterated it in a meeting with the Salt Lake Tribune editorial staff on Thursday.
"I don't know who else it would be if it wasn't him," he said. "Now when that gets out in the paper, I'm going to be one of the screw-loose people."
This is exactly what came to pass, because Satan deemed it so.
By Friday, Jacob was backtracking -- sort of.
"What I was trying to say, and obviously didn't do it very well, is that over the last eight months I've had more adversity in my life than I've had in the last 10 years," he said.
This adversity includes business deals gone sour, allegations that he aided illegal immigrants, and revelations that the devout Mormon used to gamble. But what others might call a run of bad luck, or even an accountability moment, was, for this charming wingnut, Lucifer.
Jacob is a political neophyte attempting to unseat fellow Republican Chris Cannon, a five-term Congressman. And, in a state crawling with religious types, all the talk about Satan might actually help.
"The people he would alienate probably wouldn't vote for him anyway," said David Gutterman, a political science professor at Linfield College in Oregon. "The people he's going to attract are shoring up a base that probably shares his religious views."
And indeed, a poll released today suggests Jacob might very well triumph in the 3rd Congressional District race.
"Jacob has a pretty good shot at pulling this off," said Brad Coker, managing director for Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. "It's never easy to beat an incumbent, but he is in a very good position."
2006/06/25
Smuggler ate 329 condoms-o'-heroin
After the quick demise of the dope-in-the-fish routine, enterprising Australian heroin smugglers have gone back to doing it the old-fashioned way: by eating it.
A 25-year-old woman was recently arrested for attempting to smuggle drugs into the country from Singapore by swallowing a mind-boggling 329 heroin-filled condoms.
News agencies aren't reporting what made authorities suspect she was smuggling, but one imagines she may have looked a little green about the gills. If a mere 60 heroin-filled condoms can take "a grueling afternoon" to choke down, and 87 can make a person so sick they voluntarily turn themselves in to police, then 329 would be truly excruciating.
The Aussie gal was apprehended at the Sydney airport and taken to a nearby hospital, where she spent the week pooping out around $90,000 AUD of heroin.
She now faces life imprisonment and a maximum penalty of $825,000.
I can't even begin to imagine what swallowing one of those is like, yet alone 329, that is just insane. What stupid things people will do for drugs. What a crazy world we live in.
A 25-year-old woman was recently arrested for attempting to smuggle drugs into the country from Singapore by swallowing a mind-boggling 329 heroin-filled condoms.
News agencies aren't reporting what made authorities suspect she was smuggling, but one imagines she may have looked a little green about the gills. If a mere 60 heroin-filled condoms can take "a grueling afternoon" to choke down, and 87 can make a person so sick they voluntarily turn themselves in to police, then 329 would be truly excruciating.
The Aussie gal was apprehended at the Sydney airport and taken to a nearby hospital, where she spent the week pooping out around $90,000 AUD of heroin.
She now faces life imprisonment and a maximum penalty of $825,000.
I can't even begin to imagine what swallowing one of those is like, yet alone 329, that is just insane. What stupid things people will do for drugs. What a crazy world we live in.
Disgraced army goat demoted
Lance corporal Billy, a ceremonial pet goat in the British army, was demoted for poor behavior in a parade in Cyprus marking Queen Elizabeth II's birthday.
Billy refused to march in line, and instead tried to "headbutt the waist and nether regions of the drummers," according to Captain William Rose, a soldier at the parade.
The entire nation of England stood shamed at the abominable conduct of the goat in front of foreign dignitaries. In the wake of the incident, Billy has been demoted from lance corporal to fusilier, a rank equivalent to private. Soldiers of lower rank are no longer expected to salute him.
The goat has been the mascot for the First Battalion, the Royal Welsh regiment, for five and a half years. However, the parade was his first tour overseas.
"He has certainly not made a good start for himself," said Captain Crispian Coates.
But all is not lost: "His situation is currently being reviewed and he could regain his rank," said Captain Coates.
Billy refused to march in line, and instead tried to "headbutt the waist and nether regions of the drummers," according to Captain William Rose, a soldier at the parade.
The entire nation of England stood shamed at the abominable conduct of the goat in front of foreign dignitaries. In the wake of the incident, Billy has been demoted from lance corporal to fusilier, a rank equivalent to private. Soldiers of lower rank are no longer expected to salute him.
The goat has been the mascot for the First Battalion, the Royal Welsh regiment, for five and a half years. However, the parade was his first tour overseas.
"He has certainly not made a good start for himself," said Captain Crispian Coates.
But all is not lost: "His situation is currently being reviewed and he could regain his rank," said Captain Coates.
2006/06/24
Cheney's dream hunting trip
Watch out rich white rebublicans, Cheney's getting ready for another hunting trip
The Electric Six - Gay Bar
Detroit's very own Electric Six!
This version is banned in the U.S. and U.K.
For some reason the president, and primeminister didn't like this video.
Raccoon eats cats!
A hungry raccoon is terrorizing the sleepy Bay Area town of Cupertino. It has eaten at least three housecats since Memorial Day.
At this time of year, raccoons are normally gorging themselves on plums and apricots, steering clear of domestic pets. However, heavy spring rains delayed fruit from ripening. So the raccoons are hungry--and the cats are slow.
Resident Jackie Jackson recently lost her 11-year-old cat, Tiki, to the masked menace. She let him out at 4 in the morning on Memorial Day and never saw him again...until a neighbor found his body in her yard.
"The raccoons leave the head and shoulders," Jackson told the San Jose Mercury News.
Pest control Steve Hebert said that raccoons have been know to attack animals as large as German shepherds. However, a Canadian woman recently reported being personally harrassed by raccoons.
"[T]hey come after you. [The bigger one] literally comes after you. It chases you and growls at you. I've literally had to run away and jump into a car," said Anita Eastcott, who lives in the Vancouver area.
She said the raccoon was about as big a medium-sized dog, a report that urban wildlife specialist Robert Boelens said might have been exaggerated due to "the vividness of the experience."
Still, there's no denying that raccoons, particularly young male ones, can be dangerous to people and pets alike.
"Urban males are the thugs," said Steve Hebert.
"It's like a bunch of teenagers running loose," agreed Boelens.
So for now at least, Cupertino cat-owners are keeping their pets indoors.
-The Racoons around here are always getting cats, if they can catch them. They should consider themselves lucky if this is a rare event.
At this time of year, raccoons are normally gorging themselves on plums and apricots, steering clear of domestic pets. However, heavy spring rains delayed fruit from ripening. So the raccoons are hungry--and the cats are slow.
Resident Jackie Jackson recently lost her 11-year-old cat, Tiki, to the masked menace. She let him out at 4 in the morning on Memorial Day and never saw him again...until a neighbor found his body in her yard.
"The raccoons leave the head and shoulders," Jackson told the San Jose Mercury News.
Pest control Steve Hebert said that raccoons have been know to attack animals as large as German shepherds. However, a Canadian woman recently reported being personally harrassed by raccoons.
"[T]hey come after you. [The bigger one] literally comes after you. It chases you and growls at you. I've literally had to run away and jump into a car," said Anita Eastcott, who lives in the Vancouver area.
She said the raccoon was about as big a medium-sized dog, a report that urban wildlife specialist Robert Boelens said might have been exaggerated due to "the vividness of the experience."
Still, there's no denying that raccoons, particularly young male ones, can be dangerous to people and pets alike.
"Urban males are the thugs," said Steve Hebert.
"It's like a bunch of teenagers running loose," agreed Boelens.
So for now at least, Cupertino cat-owners are keeping their pets indoors.
-The Racoons around here are always getting cats, if they can catch them. They should consider themselves lucky if this is a rare event.
Lonely America
In just 20 years, the number of Americans without a single close friend has nearly tripled -- to a quarter of the population.
A depressing new study released today proves that people in the United States are becoming more isolated and more lonely at a rapid pace.
In the new study, only 50.6% had a close relationship with someone who wasn't their spouse or relative -- down from 73.2% in the mid-1980s -- and 24.6% had nobody at all, compared to just 10% in 1985.
In 1985, Americans on average counted about three confidants, including relatives. Now they have only two, on average.
The huge jump in people having only a family member as confidant doesn't just make people's worlds smaller; it literally kills them quicker than those with non-relative friends.
Those who counted only their spouse as a confidant nearly doubled, from 5% to 9%. Researchers say these people are setting themselves up for trouble, because spouses often leave or die.
People who have close friends are happier and healthier than lonely folks, much more engaged in their communities and what's going on in the world, and have a crucial "safety net" when things are bad. The researchers point to Hurricane Katrina for an awful example of what happens to people who lack friends.
"That image of people on roofs after Katrina resonates with me, because those people did not know someone with a car," said sociologist Lynn Smith-Lovin, one of the study's authors.
White people with money reported more friends than poor non-whites. But all groups reported fewer friends than they did in 1985.
The survey shows dramatic drops in the number of neighbors and co-workers Americans consider as friends.
Sociologists are blaming the usual suspects for America's loneliness epidemic: long commutes to work for both parents, television and the Internet. But with the exception of the Internet, all those things were just as prevalent in 1985, when the last study was done.
Television is a refuge for the people with no friends. They can watch strangers talk about personal problems on such programs as "Oprah" and "Jerry Springer," and for most of the 1990s the most popular TV series was about young people who actually had friends.
Americans have been losing friends since the mid-1960s. Until that point, the 20th Century saw increases in friends and confidants for most Americans.
The survey, published by the American Sociological Review (PDF), was done by interviewing 1,500 people in person.
I NEED A HUG,,,,,,ANYONE??? ANYONE????
A depressing new study released today proves that people in the United States are becoming more isolated and more lonely at a rapid pace.
In the new study, only 50.6% had a close relationship with someone who wasn't their spouse or relative -- down from 73.2% in the mid-1980s -- and 24.6% had nobody at all, compared to just 10% in 1985.
In 1985, Americans on average counted about three confidants, including relatives. Now they have only two, on average.
The huge jump in people having only a family member as confidant doesn't just make people's worlds smaller; it literally kills them quicker than those with non-relative friends.
Those who counted only their spouse as a confidant nearly doubled, from 5% to 9%. Researchers say these people are setting themselves up for trouble, because spouses often leave or die.
People who have close friends are happier and healthier than lonely folks, much more engaged in their communities and what's going on in the world, and have a crucial "safety net" when things are bad. The researchers point to Hurricane Katrina for an awful example of what happens to people who lack friends.
"That image of people on roofs after Katrina resonates with me, because those people did not know someone with a car," said sociologist Lynn Smith-Lovin, one of the study's authors.
White people with money reported more friends than poor non-whites. But all groups reported fewer friends than they did in 1985.
The survey shows dramatic drops in the number of neighbors and co-workers Americans consider as friends.
Sociologists are blaming the usual suspects for America's loneliness epidemic: long commutes to work for both parents, television and the Internet. But with the exception of the Internet, all those things were just as prevalent in 1985, when the last study was done.
Television is a refuge for the people with no friends. They can watch strangers talk about personal problems on such programs as "Oprah" and "Jerry Springer," and for most of the 1990s the most popular TV series was about young people who actually had friends.
Americans have been losing friends since the mid-1960s. Until that point, the 20th Century saw increases in friends and confidants for most Americans.
The survey, published by the American Sociological Review (PDF), was done by interviewing 1,500 people in person.
I NEED A HUG,,,,,,ANYONE??? ANYONE????
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Who invented the noodle is a hotly contested topic - with the Chinese, Italians and Arabs all staking a claim. But the discovery of a pot of...
-
I work for a rather large company, and before that I worked for a huge company. Both companies had one thing in common, and I see this trend...
