By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
(06-07) 17:11 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
In a public health emergency, suspected victims would no longer have to give permission before experimental tests could be run to determine why they're sick, under a federal rule published Wednesday. Privacy experts called the exception unnecessary, ripe for abuse and an override of state informed-consent laws.
Health care workers will be free to run experimental tests on blood and other samples taken from people who have fallen sick as a result of a bioterrorist attack, bird flu outbreak, detonation of a dirty bomb or any other life-threatening public health emergency, according to the rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.
In all other cases, the use of an experimental test still requires the informed consent of a patient, as well as the review and approval of an outside panel.
"To be candid, I hope it is a hypothetical problem. I hope we spent a lot of time creating a rule we never have to invoke," said Dr. Steve Gutman, director of the FDA's in-vitro diagnostics office.
Determining what constitutes a life-threatening public health emergency would be left up to the laboratories doing the testing. That creates the potential for conflicts of interest and other abuses, critics said.
"I don't like a rule like this because its most likely use is likely to be a form of abuse. The emergency exception it creates will be stretched to encompass non-emergency situations," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute.
The FDA said it published the rule to ensure the ability to identify quickly whatever chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agent is involved in a terrorist attack or natural outbreak of disease. Doing so could save the lives of those being tested as well as of others exposed, the FDA said.
"Baloney," said Dr. Deborah Peel, chairwoman of the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation, a watchdog group. "This sounds like they're taking for themselves the right to test individuals every time they declare a public health emergency. There is no way getting consent would delay testing."
The FDA said that obtaining informed consent in those cases would be impracticable or unfeasible.
The rule lays out a scenario where a laboratory discovers what appears to be an unusual bug in a sample taken from a patient before a public health emergency was even suspected. With the apparent bug in the lab but the patient gone, going back for permission to use a confirmatory but experimental test — often the only type of test available — would introduce "unacceptable delays," the FDA said.
"They're basically overriding state informed-consent laws," said Sue Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom. Blevins said her group advocates for informed consent but that in emergencies it could be sought after the fact.
"If they don't have the time to get it, at least inform them retroactively what's been done, so people can keep track of what information has been collected from them," Blevins said.
The rule took effect Wednesday but remains subject to public comment until Aug. 7. The FDA said it published the rule without first seeking comments because it would hinder the response to an outbreak of bird flu or other public health emergency.
"Nobody said two airplanes would fly into the World Trade Center, did they? We wouldn't have written the rule unless we thought it was a possibility," Gutman said.
The FDA said the lack of such an exemption impeded the public health response to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, epidemic of 2003.
2006/06/10
The other lost war
With all the horror in Iraq, most Americans have forgotten about that other U.S. failure in the wake of 9/11: the war in Afghanistan.
Not only are the Taliban undefeated, U.S. forces in Afghanistan are now flying far more combat missions there than in Iraq.
According to Fox News and Associated Press, the United States made 750 air strikes in the month of May alone -- that's 24 bombing missions per day.
The commander of U.S. air operations in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, told reporters this week that "insurgents" are stronger than ever.
"We have seen more direct support in Afghanistan that is of a kinetic effect than in Iraq of late," North said, using military code for "we're screwed."
Rebel forces in the provinces of Helmand and Kandahar have been especially effective against the U.S. and NATO troops who have been trying to stabilize the war-torn country for five bloody years without success.
Many Afghans hated the Taliban and longed for the less-fanatical Northern Alliance to win the long civil war that began when U.S.-backed rebels led by Osama bin Laden fought off the Soviet occupiers.
But with the list of civilian casualties and U.S. war atrocities growing weekly -- on May 21 alone, at least 34 innocent Afghans were killed by American bombs -- Afghans are increasingly rooting for the Taliban to rule again.
At least 248 U.S. troops have been killed during the Afghanistan War so far.
Abramoff tried to remake Nazi feel-good flick
The word is out that America's favorite lobbyist failed in his efforts to remake the greatest movie ever about a clown who leads laughing children into the ovens of Auschwitz.
In 1972, funnyman Jerry Lewis directed and starred in "The Day the Clown Cried," the story of circus clown Helmut Doork, who entertains children to their deaths. Filming stopped after the story got caught up in a copyright fight, so only a rough cut was ever finished.
In this month's issue of Harper's magazine, there are excerpts of unsigned letters written by Jack Abramoff's friends to Judge Paul Huck of Federal District Court in Miami in the hopes of getting the judge to go easy on the lobbyist/criminal. Huck would later sentence Abramoff to six years and $21.7 million in fines.
Jack made every effort possible to secure funding for a film entitled The Day the Clown Cried, a movie about the importance of taking care of children, set in a WWII concentration camp.
Lawrence Levi claims to have obtained a copy of the letter which reveals that it was written by film producer Michael Barclay, who was to be one of Abramoff's partners in the venture. It was to be Abramoff's bid for respectability after the failure of the Dolph Lundgren epic "Red Scorpion," which he penned and produced
Legend has it that Lewis is so ashamed of the film that he keeps it locked in a briefcase in his office. In this age of You Tube and Bit Torrent, it is one of the few pieces of video not readily available.
Harry Shearer is among the luck few who have witnesses the debacle.
"This movie is so drastically wrong, its pathos and its comedy are so wildly misplaced, that you could not, in your fantasy of what it might be like, improve on what it really is," said Shearer.
2006/06/07
Crazy pills for all American kids!
Since 1993, the number of American children forced to take dangerous "antipsychotic" drugs has risen by fivefold, according to a grim new study published by the Archives of General Psychiatry.
The real effects of the crazy pills on kids haven't been studied -- none of the "commonly prescribed antipsychotics" are even approved for use on children.
But that hasn't stopped America's reckless and corrupt doctors from writing prescriptions for any child who shows the slightest sign of bad behavior.
What little is known about the long-term effects is all bad: The drugs turn kids into obese diabetics with ruined minds.
In the early 1990s, only 275 of every 100,000 kids were put on the deadly brain drugs. By 2002, that figure had risen to a shocking 1,438 per 100,000.
While prescription sales of Ritalin and antidepressants have finally dropped a bit after a decade of horror stories, suicides and mass murders committed by America's addled youth, more and more kids are being forced to take powerful antipsychotic medicine for the most mundane "behavioral problems."
"The explosion in the use of drugs, some experts said, can be traced in part to the growing number of children and adolescents whose problems are given psychiatric labels once reserved for adults and to doctors' increasing comfort with a newer generation of drugs for psychosis," the New York Times reported today.
But in the years since, the rate has risen even more dramatically.
Between 2001 and 2004, doctors prescribed antipsychotics to a staggering 80% more kids.
The results have been truly awful.
A grim yet common example is provided by a newspaper columnist in Halifax who tells the horrifying story of "Erin," a normal little girl whose teen years became a nightmare all because of crazed doctors who literally made her insane with their fiendish prescriptions.
By the time she was an institutionalized teenager, "Erin" was convinced Hitler was stalking her in the hospital, that an invisible boy named "Timmy" was always with here and that she couldn't cross a line drawn on the floor of her room.
"Erin" attacked nurses, spent hours writing tiny numbers all over the walls of her hospital cell, convulsed in fear over nothing apparent to anyone else and would go into eye-rolling seizures or collapse into her plate of food.
Bush's Big Government
According to the Homeland Stupidity website, much of the recent surge in child antipsychotic prescriptions comes from foster homes encouraged to get their charges on the crazy pills.
The federal government wants to perform mental health screening on infants and get them started on drugs which they will take for their entire lives, if the drugs don’t kill them first. And you’re going to pay for it, whether you want to or not.
Already, children as young as 3, who wind up in the foster care system, are receiving psychiatric drugs for such disorders as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression, with over 60% of foster children in Texas, nearly two-thirds in Massachusetts, and 55% of foster children in Florida on as many as 16 different psychiatric drugs.
The federal program's roots are in Texas.
The real effects of the crazy pills on kids haven't been studied -- none of the "commonly prescribed antipsychotics" are even approved for use on children.
But that hasn't stopped America's reckless and corrupt doctors from writing prescriptions for any child who shows the slightest sign of bad behavior.
What little is known about the long-term effects is all bad: The drugs turn kids into obese diabetics with ruined minds.
In the early 1990s, only 275 of every 100,000 kids were put on the deadly brain drugs. By 2002, that figure had risen to a shocking 1,438 per 100,000.
While prescription sales of Ritalin and antidepressants have finally dropped a bit after a decade of horror stories, suicides and mass murders committed by America's addled youth, more and more kids are being forced to take powerful antipsychotic medicine for the most mundane "behavioral problems."
"The explosion in the use of drugs, some experts said, can be traced in part to the growing number of children and adolescents whose problems are given psychiatric labels once reserved for adults and to doctors' increasing comfort with a newer generation of drugs for psychosis," the New York Times reported today.
But in the years since, the rate has risen even more dramatically.
Between 2001 and 2004, doctors prescribed antipsychotics to a staggering 80% more kids.
The results have been truly awful.
A grim yet common example is provided by a newspaper columnist in Halifax who tells the horrifying story of "Erin," a normal little girl whose teen years became a nightmare all because of crazed doctors who literally made her insane with their fiendish prescriptions.
By the time she was an institutionalized teenager, "Erin" was convinced Hitler was stalking her in the hospital, that an invisible boy named "Timmy" was always with here and that she couldn't cross a line drawn on the floor of her room.
"Erin" attacked nurses, spent hours writing tiny numbers all over the walls of her hospital cell, convulsed in fear over nothing apparent to anyone else and would go into eye-rolling seizures or collapse into her plate of food.
Bush's Big Government
According to the Homeland Stupidity website, much of the recent surge in child antipsychotic prescriptions comes from foster homes encouraged to get their charges on the crazy pills.
The federal government wants to perform mental health screening on infants and get them started on drugs which they will take for their entire lives, if the drugs don’t kill them first. And you’re going to pay for it, whether you want to or not.
Already, children as young as 3, who wind up in the foster care system, are receiving psychiatric drugs for such disorders as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression, with over 60% of foster children in Texas, nearly two-thirds in Massachusetts, and 55% of foster children in Florida on as many as 16 different psychiatric drugs.
The federal program's roots are in Texas.
pardoned
A foul-mouthed parrot's life has been spared thanks to an injunction against an Israeli psychic who offered Washington his supernatural help in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Oren Zarif practices alternative medicine in Tel Aviv. In his spare time he's also a psychic who's eager to join the hunt for Bin Laden, the now-forgotten enemy of America.
"I do not err; I pinpoint exactly. I do not want money. I want to negotiate with the Americans: Providing that I locate Bin Laden, as a quid pro quo they must free Jonathan Pollard. I am willing to foot all related expenses, and I am willing to post a one million dollar bond which I will forfeit if I err."
Pollard was sentenced in 1986 to life in a U.S. prison for spying on behalf of Israel.
"I am outfitted with maps and ready to go to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. I am certain -- unequivocally certain -- that I can do this."
Among Zarif's patients is an Orthodox man who had an unusual problem. The parrot he bought for his children was cursing like a sailor.
"The parrot would shriek out 'maniac,' 'son of a bitch,' 'homo,'" Zarif said.
"My patient consulted a rabbi, and the rabbi ruled that the parrot should be slaughtered because he sins and causes others to sin."
Not wanting to see the foul fowl hurt, Zarif bought the blue bird from his patient and consulted another rabbi, Meir Mazuz.
"The parrot must be muted with the minimum of suffering," Mazuz ruled. "If that doesn't help, he must be slaughtered."
The cruel rabbi added, "It is very harmful for children to learn swear words -- in a secular household, as well."
Zarif refused to go through with either sentence. In fact, his wife threatened him with divorce if he killed the parrot.
"I'm ready to donate the parrot to a safari or any other body that takes care of animals. At most, they can keep him away from children," Zarif says.
The parrot's story grabbed headlines across Israel, causing an outpouring of support. Dozens of people came forward offering the bird shelter. Protesters gathered outside Zarif's home, urging him not to harm the bird.
The Let Animals Live foundation took the bird's case to the courts, where they won an injunction. Judge Tzvi Kaspi has ruled that no harm is to come to the bird. Zarif and the bird will be heading to court soon in hopes of determining the bird's fate once and for all.
Oren Zarif practices alternative medicine in Tel Aviv. In his spare time he's also a psychic who's eager to join the hunt for Bin Laden, the now-forgotten enemy of America.
"I do not err; I pinpoint exactly. I do not want money. I want to negotiate with the Americans: Providing that I locate Bin Laden, as a quid pro quo they must free Jonathan Pollard. I am willing to foot all related expenses, and I am willing to post a one million dollar bond which I will forfeit if I err."
Pollard was sentenced in 1986 to life in a U.S. prison for spying on behalf of Israel.
"I am outfitted with maps and ready to go to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. I am certain -- unequivocally certain -- that I can do this."
Among Zarif's patients is an Orthodox man who had an unusual problem. The parrot he bought for his children was cursing like a sailor.
"The parrot would shriek out 'maniac,' 'son of a bitch,' 'homo,'" Zarif said.
"My patient consulted a rabbi, and the rabbi ruled that the parrot should be slaughtered because he sins and causes others to sin."
Not wanting to see the foul fowl hurt, Zarif bought the blue bird from his patient and consulted another rabbi, Meir Mazuz.
"The parrot must be muted with the minimum of suffering," Mazuz ruled. "If that doesn't help, he must be slaughtered."
The cruel rabbi added, "It is very harmful for children to learn swear words -- in a secular household, as well."
Zarif refused to go through with either sentence. In fact, his wife threatened him with divorce if he killed the parrot.
"I'm ready to donate the parrot to a safari or any other body that takes care of animals. At most, they can keep him away from children," Zarif says.
The parrot's story grabbed headlines across Israel, causing an outpouring of support. Dozens of people came forward offering the bird shelter. Protesters gathered outside Zarif's home, urging him not to harm the bird.
The Let Animals Live foundation took the bird's case to the courts, where they won an injunction. Judge Tzvi Kaspi has ruled that no harm is to come to the bird. Zarif and the bird will be heading to court soon in hopes of determining the bird's fate once and for all.
'Let's just give Iran nukes!'
Unique problems call for unique solutions, so today the White House decided to give nuclear technology to Iran.
Yes, Iran. The same Iran the White House has been planning to bomb for months ... because Iran is developing nuclear-power technology.
The offer comes from the United States and the other five world powers involved in the diplomatic talks.
The Bush Administration suddenly began negotiations with Iran last week after 26 years without official contact.
But the old hands in the White House have never cared too much about what's official or legal.
The Reagan Administration -- which included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, "Scooter" Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and many others hired by the current administration -- had regular dirty deals with America's alleged enemy Iran.
Bush's father and Reagan's vice-president elect, George H. W. Bush, was alleged to have cut a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of U.S. hostages during the 1980 presidential election campaign. Once Reagan had safely beaten Jimmy Carter, the hostages were released ... on the day Reagan was inaugurated.
In exchange, the Reagan Administration began providing Iran -- once again, an alleged fundamentalist-Islamic enemy of the United States -- with constant shipments of weapons.
Because that just wasn't evil enough, the Reagan Administration used the illegal profits from these illegal arm sales to fund right-wing death squads in Central America, specifically the phony "Contras" of Nicaragua.
Up is Down
News analysts and policy experts are in slack-jawed shock over the latest funhouse-mirror action by the Bush Administration, but they shouldn't be surprised.
Again and again, the White House has taken the mind-numbingly bizarre route, causing heartbreak and confusion amongst those who desperately try to "take sides" and assign certain actions or beliefs to the "Democrat" or 'Republican" political machines.
But the renegade Bush Administration has never been tied down by political considerations.
As Republican voters go insane over the sudden appearance of 12 million undocumented Mexican workers in the United States, Bush repeatedly says he wants to give the criminal laborers "amnesty."
When fear and hatred of Arabs is about all that holds the shrunken GOP base together, the Bush Administration tries to give control of U.S. ports to the Muslim monarchy of Dubai.
And as a handful of actual fiscal-conservatives shed tears of rage over massive federal deficits and total federal control over every aspect of American life, the White House just keeps on spending and keeps on expanding the police state.
Yes, Iran. The same Iran the White House has been planning to bomb for months ... because Iran is developing nuclear-power technology.
The offer comes from the United States and the other five world powers involved in the diplomatic talks.
The Bush Administration suddenly began negotiations with Iran last week after 26 years without official contact.
But the old hands in the White House have never cared too much about what's official or legal.
The Reagan Administration -- which included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, "Scooter" Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and many others hired by the current administration -- had regular dirty deals with America's alleged enemy Iran.
Bush's father and Reagan's vice-president elect, George H. W. Bush, was alleged to have cut a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of U.S. hostages during the 1980 presidential election campaign. Once Reagan had safely beaten Jimmy Carter, the hostages were released ... on the day Reagan was inaugurated.
In exchange, the Reagan Administration began providing Iran -- once again, an alleged fundamentalist-Islamic enemy of the United States -- with constant shipments of weapons.
Because that just wasn't evil enough, the Reagan Administration used the illegal profits from these illegal arm sales to fund right-wing death squads in Central America, specifically the phony "Contras" of Nicaragua.
Up is Down
News analysts and policy experts are in slack-jawed shock over the latest funhouse-mirror action by the Bush Administration, but they shouldn't be surprised.
Again and again, the White House has taken the mind-numbingly bizarre route, causing heartbreak and confusion amongst those who desperately try to "take sides" and assign certain actions or beliefs to the "Democrat" or 'Republican" political machines.
But the renegade Bush Administration has never been tied down by political considerations.
As Republican voters go insane over the sudden appearance of 12 million undocumented Mexican workers in the United States, Bush repeatedly says he wants to give the criminal laborers "amnesty."
When fear and hatred of Arabs is about all that holds the shrunken GOP base together, the Bush Administration tries to give control of U.S. ports to the Muslim monarchy of Dubai.
And as a handful of actual fiscal-conservatives shed tears of rage over massive federal deficits and total federal control over every aspect of American life, the White House just keeps on spending and keeps on expanding the police state.
2006/06/06
The New World Order, the military minions
Tuesday, June 6th, 2006
Full implementation of a one world government requires the annihilation of all defiant governments in conjunction with the establishment of central banks controlled by the international banking elite. Proponent Madeleine Albright, while Secretary of State, said: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation.” [1] While sounding arrogant and ego-driven, the enforced establishment of the New World Order depends on our duplicitous military involvement for we are the military minions of the powerful elite. To garner popular acceptance for offensive invasions, those nations that resist the globalist agenda automatically become America’s enemies and are labeled Communists, Marxists or whatever.
“When certain obstructionists become too irritating, label them, after suitable build-ups, as Fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic; and use the prestige of anti-Fascist and tolerance organizations to discredit them. In the public mind constantly associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell” (Communist Party to its U.S. members, 1943).
If political infiltration fails, with properly installed puppets, then military intervention for contrived explanations must suffice. Various subversive tactics include “shock and awe” invasion, armed occupation, economic sanctions or collapse, and cultural, social and religious decimation perpetuated overtly by our super power military or covertly by our super secret CIA. The major function of secrecy in Washington is to keep the U.S. citizens ignorant, to keep them from knowing what their leaders are doing. “Secrecy is power. Secrecy is license. Secrecy covers up mistakes. Secrecy covers up corruption.” [2]
“Extrapolating the figures as best we can, there have been about 3,000 major covert operations and over 10,000 minor operations, all illegal, and all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries.” [3] The targets of CIA destabilization have included, but are not limited to, the following countries: Grenada, Jamaica, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Iraq and Vietnam. [4] Would they still be third world without our subversive economic destabilization efforts?
So please, despite cheerleader Laura Ingraham’s assertions, and other Propaganda parrots, WE ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM IN IRAQ!!!! We won our freedom over two hundred years ago. Since that time we have fought in sixteen acknowledged wars. Our military has entered other countries for the purpose of influencing foreign governments about 200 times. It has never been about our freedom. The only entity attempting to deprive us of that hard won freedom appears to be our own government with monstrosities like the Patriot Act which defines the innovative crime of “domestic Terrorism.” New laws will further criminalize political protest and dissent, impacting our freedom of speech. Many, including ex-military men are hesitant to speak for fear of the certain negative consequences to their reputations and pensions. “We are living in a world in which nobody is free, in which hardly anybody is secure, in which it is almost impossible to be honest and to remain alive.” George Orwell
It is the presidents, the kings and other leaders, driven by the international bankers and their goals, abetted by the press, who inflame the compliant citizens to go into battle against people who allegedly have harmed us or who might harm us. Since our wars with Great Britain, the battles waged by America have been offensive. Even our retaliation against Japan was the result of the contrived and provoked attack on Pearl Harbor. Our wars, police actions, deposing dictators and concealed CIA interventions have always been for economic reasons — to enrich the bankers who typically fund both sides of the conflict.
“Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of War to whip the citizenry into patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums have reached fever pitch, and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry, rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar — Gaius.”
Acquiescent Americans have been seduced by pro War Propaganda. Our super power status has metastasized into a “police the world” super ego mentality that we apparently applaud with our voices and our tax dollars. Our pride precludes any premonitions about our own demise. Previous empires fell because of decadence and corruption — do we claim immunity to a similar collapse? Wake up people! Close the TV Guide and read.
“In their day to day lives, in their immediate physical environment, most Americans have no discernable enemies. It is always possible that there could be governments and other organizations that pose a genuine physical threat to the American people. However, it is virtually impossible for the people to know this for themselves. They must depend almost entirely upon information provided by government and the mainstream Media.” [5]
“In all of human behavior, what can be more serious than supporting acts of violence against people in faraway places? Or for that matter, at home! Is there not a profound, moral responsibility to be absolutely sure of both the accuracy and urgency of the situation before perpetrating acts of death and destruction upon other human beings? How difficult does this become when one is at the mercy of sources of information that cannot be verified? What if those sources have lied to you at other times and on other issues, and you know it? What if both intuition and available facts tell you that your government has not only been lying to you, but may have been involved in creating the very danger it now says will require the use of violence? Is it morally justifiable to support your government’s acts of violence against people anywhere when:
You are not in immediate physical danger
You feel strongly that you cannot trust your government
You have no way to verify the information the government is providing as its excuse for violence?” [6]
From infancy, Americans are Media conditioned to glorify War as a patriotic obligation. After years of viewing desensitizing violent multi Media marketing disseminated as entertainment, naïve Americans are ready and willing to “fight for their country.” By graduation, seniors, who lack experience and real world awareness, are prime enlistment targets. After all the “good guys” should do everything possible to defeat the “bad guys” even if goes against individual, family, religious and moral values, right?
The government will proficiently train enthusiastic recruits, after instilling strict discipline, to use guns, knives, land mines, bombs, napalm, cruise missiles, smart bombs, cluster bombs and white phosphorous in order to kill or maim strangers — men, women and children, often referred to as collateral damage. After utilizing their expert killing skills during active duty they are supposed to compartmentalize their horrific experiences and proceed psychologically and emotionally as if nothing had ever happened.
-continued-
Full implementation of a one world government requires the annihilation of all defiant governments in conjunction with the establishment of central banks controlled by the international banking elite. Proponent Madeleine Albright, while Secretary of State, said: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation.” [1] While sounding arrogant and ego-driven, the enforced establishment of the New World Order depends on our duplicitous military involvement for we are the military minions of the powerful elite. To garner popular acceptance for offensive invasions, those nations that resist the globalist agenda automatically become America’s enemies and are labeled Communists, Marxists or whatever.
“When certain obstructionists become too irritating, label them, after suitable build-ups, as Fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic; and use the prestige of anti-Fascist and tolerance organizations to discredit them. In the public mind constantly associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell” (Communist Party to its U.S. members, 1943).
If political infiltration fails, with properly installed puppets, then military intervention for contrived explanations must suffice. Various subversive tactics include “shock and awe” invasion, armed occupation, economic sanctions or collapse, and cultural, social and religious decimation perpetuated overtly by our super power military or covertly by our super secret CIA. The major function of secrecy in Washington is to keep the U.S. citizens ignorant, to keep them from knowing what their leaders are doing. “Secrecy is power. Secrecy is license. Secrecy covers up mistakes. Secrecy covers up corruption.” [2]
“Extrapolating the figures as best we can, there have been about 3,000 major covert operations and over 10,000 minor operations, all illegal, and all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries.” [3] The targets of CIA destabilization have included, but are not limited to, the following countries: Grenada, Jamaica, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Iraq and Vietnam. [4] Would they still be third world without our subversive economic destabilization efforts?
So please, despite cheerleader Laura Ingraham’s assertions, and other Propaganda parrots, WE ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM IN IRAQ!!!! We won our freedom over two hundred years ago. Since that time we have fought in sixteen acknowledged wars. Our military has entered other countries for the purpose of influencing foreign governments about 200 times. It has never been about our freedom. The only entity attempting to deprive us of that hard won freedom appears to be our own government with monstrosities like the Patriot Act which defines the innovative crime of “domestic Terrorism.” New laws will further criminalize political protest and dissent, impacting our freedom of speech. Many, including ex-military men are hesitant to speak for fear of the certain negative consequences to their reputations and pensions. “We are living in a world in which nobody is free, in which hardly anybody is secure, in which it is almost impossible to be honest and to remain alive.” George Orwell
It is the presidents, the kings and other leaders, driven by the international bankers and their goals, abetted by the press, who inflame the compliant citizens to go into battle against people who allegedly have harmed us or who might harm us. Since our wars with Great Britain, the battles waged by America have been offensive. Even our retaliation against Japan was the result of the contrived and provoked attack on Pearl Harbor. Our wars, police actions, deposing dictators and concealed CIA interventions have always been for economic reasons — to enrich the bankers who typically fund both sides of the conflict.
“Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of War to whip the citizenry into patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums have reached fever pitch, and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry, rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar — Gaius.”
Acquiescent Americans have been seduced by pro War Propaganda. Our super power status has metastasized into a “police the world” super ego mentality that we apparently applaud with our voices and our tax dollars. Our pride precludes any premonitions about our own demise. Previous empires fell because of decadence and corruption — do we claim immunity to a similar collapse? Wake up people! Close the TV Guide and read.
“In their day to day lives, in their immediate physical environment, most Americans have no discernable enemies. It is always possible that there could be governments and other organizations that pose a genuine physical threat to the American people. However, it is virtually impossible for the people to know this for themselves. They must depend almost entirely upon information provided by government and the mainstream Media.” [5]
“In all of human behavior, what can be more serious than supporting acts of violence against people in faraway places? Or for that matter, at home! Is there not a profound, moral responsibility to be absolutely sure of both the accuracy and urgency of the situation before perpetrating acts of death and destruction upon other human beings? How difficult does this become when one is at the mercy of sources of information that cannot be verified? What if those sources have lied to you at other times and on other issues, and you know it? What if both intuition and available facts tell you that your government has not only been lying to you, but may have been involved in creating the very danger it now says will require the use of violence? Is it morally justifiable to support your government’s acts of violence against people anywhere when:
You are not in immediate physical danger
You feel strongly that you cannot trust your government
You have no way to verify the information the government is providing as its excuse for violence?” [6]
From infancy, Americans are Media conditioned to glorify War as a patriotic obligation. After years of viewing desensitizing violent multi Media marketing disseminated as entertainment, naïve Americans are ready and willing to “fight for their country.” By graduation, seniors, who lack experience and real world awareness, are prime enlistment targets. After all the “good guys” should do everything possible to defeat the “bad guys” even if goes against individual, family, religious and moral values, right?
The government will proficiently train enthusiastic recruits, after instilling strict discipline, to use guns, knives, land mines, bombs, napalm, cruise missiles, smart bombs, cluster bombs and white phosphorous in order to kill or maim strangers — men, women and children, often referred to as collateral damage. After utilizing their expert killing skills during active duty they are supposed to compartmentalize their horrific experiences and proceed psychologically and emotionally as if nothing had ever happened.
-continued-
2006/06/05
Bush - Most Hated President Ever Stole Both Elections
The latest polls say Americans now dislike Bush more than any other president including even Tricky Dick. It only took the public five and half year to see through him.
That said, I wonder how long it will take people to accept the news that Bush never won either election and the country is in such a mess that it will take 50 years to get back to how it was when Bush took office.
According to Robert Kennedy Jr’s article in the June issue of Rolling Stone, “Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush’s victory as nut cases in “tinfoil hats.”
Well Republicans can call me whatever they like because this nut-case is finally going to weigh in on this subject.
Bush needed Ohio. He could not win the election without Ohio and he knew it.
So just as you might expect with the Bush gang, voter fraud was rampant in Ohio, described as “the critical battleground state that clinched Bush’s victory in the Electoral College,” by Mr Kennedy.
I can certainly verify that allegation. I lived in Ohio at the time and I went to vote plenty early before going to work and was there when the polls were supposed to open at 6:30 am. I ended up standing out in the rain for an hour and 45 minutes and when I got inside, voters had to track people down to explain what room or voting machine to go to.
I lived in a Democratic precinct by the way. But it was worse than that in other Democratic precincts in other parts of the state.
Some people ended up standing in line for up to 12 hours. But only those people who could miss work and go without pay for a whole day and not get fired for not showing up. And as we all know those people who could not wait in line were certainly not Republicans.
I had never seen anything like it in my life.
I knew Bush stole the election by the time the polls closed in Ohio. I knew it because in working for a major Media outlet, by late afternoon I knew that all the exit polls had Kerry winning. But by the time I left work to go home, the news channels were saying “all the exit polls” are wrong. Yea right, all the exit polls were wrong.
Don’t people realize how impossible that would be?
-continued-
That said, I wonder how long it will take people to accept the news that Bush never won either election and the country is in such a mess that it will take 50 years to get back to how it was when Bush took office.
According to Robert Kennedy Jr’s article in the June issue of Rolling Stone, “Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush’s victory as nut cases in “tinfoil hats.”
Well Republicans can call me whatever they like because this nut-case is finally going to weigh in on this subject.
Bush needed Ohio. He could not win the election without Ohio and he knew it.
So just as you might expect with the Bush gang, voter fraud was rampant in Ohio, described as “the critical battleground state that clinched Bush’s victory in the Electoral College,” by Mr Kennedy.
I can certainly verify that allegation. I lived in Ohio at the time and I went to vote plenty early before going to work and was there when the polls were supposed to open at 6:30 am. I ended up standing out in the rain for an hour and 45 minutes and when I got inside, voters had to track people down to explain what room or voting machine to go to.
I lived in a Democratic precinct by the way. But it was worse than that in other Democratic precincts in other parts of the state.
Some people ended up standing in line for up to 12 hours. But only those people who could miss work and go without pay for a whole day and not get fired for not showing up. And as we all know those people who could not wait in line were certainly not Republicans.
I had never seen anything like it in my life.
I knew Bush stole the election by the time the polls closed in Ohio. I knew it because in working for a major Media outlet, by late afternoon I knew that all the exit polls had Kerry winning. But by the time I left work to go home, the news channels were saying “all the exit polls” are wrong. Yea right, all the exit polls were wrong.
Don’t people realize how impossible that would be?
-continued-
Bar group will review Bush’s legal challenges
WASHINGTON — The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.
Meeting in New Orleans, the board of governors for the world’s largest association of legal professionals approved the creation of an all-star legal panel with a number of members from both political parties.
They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI director, and several prominent scholars — to evaluate Bush’s assertions that he has the power to ignore laws that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting which provisions he believes interfere with his powers.
Among the laws Bush has challenged are the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and “whistle-blower” protections for federal employees.
The challenges also have included safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research.
Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined.
The ABA’s president, Michael Greco, said in an interview that he proposed the task force because he believes the scope and aggressiveness of Bush’s signing statements may raise serious constitutional concerns. He said the ABA, which has more than 400,000 members, has a duty to speak out about such legal issues to the public, the courts, and Congress.
“The American Bar Association feels a very serious obligation to ensure that when there are legal issues that affect the American people, the ABA adopts a policy regarding such issues and then speaks out about it,” Greco said. “In this instance, the president’s practice of attaching signing statements to laws squarely presents a constitutional issue about the separation of powers among the three branches.”
-continued-
Meeting in New Orleans, the board of governors for the world’s largest association of legal professionals approved the creation of an all-star legal panel with a number of members from both political parties.
They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI director, and several prominent scholars — to evaluate Bush’s assertions that he has the power to ignore laws that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Bush has appended statements to new laws when he signs them, noting which provisions he believes interfere with his powers.
Among the laws Bush has challenged are the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and “whistle-blower” protections for federal employees.
The challenges also have included safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research.
Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined.
The ABA’s president, Michael Greco, said in an interview that he proposed the task force because he believes the scope and aggressiveness of Bush’s signing statements may raise serious constitutional concerns. He said the ABA, which has more than 400,000 members, has a duty to speak out about such legal issues to the public, the courts, and Congress.
“The American Bar Association feels a very serious obligation to ensure that when there are legal issues that affect the American people, the ABA adopts a policy regarding such issues and then speaks out about it,” Greco said. “In this instance, the president’s practice of attaching signing statements to laws squarely presents a constitutional issue about the separation of powers among the three branches.”
-continued-
Pentagon ‘could edit out torture ban’
NEW policies on prisoners being drawn up by the Pentagon will omit a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans “humiliating and degrading treatment,” the Los Angeles Times reported today.
Citing unidentified but knowledgeable military officials, it said the step would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift by the US Government away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
The decision could end a lengthy debate within the Defence Department but would not become final until the Pentagon makes the new guidelines public, the report said.
The State Department fiercely opposes the military’s decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the paper pointed out.
The Pentagon has been redrawing its policies on detainees for more than a year.
It intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on interrogation which, along with accompanying directives, represents core instructions to US troops around the world, The Times said.
The directive on interrogation, a senior defence official said, was being rewritten to create safeguards so that all detainees were treated humanely but can still be questioned effectively, according to the report.
Critics and supporters of US President George W. Bush have debated whether it is possible to prove a direct link between administration declarations that it will not be bound by the Geneva Convention, and events such as the abuses at Abu Ghraib or the killings of Iraqi civilians last year in Haditha, The Times said.
Omitting the Geneva provisions may make it harder for the administration to portray such incidents as aberrations, the paper noted, saying it would also undercut contentions that US forces follow the strictest, most broadly accepted standards when fighting wars.
Citing unidentified but knowledgeable military officials, it said the step would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift by the US Government away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
The decision could end a lengthy debate within the Defence Department but would not become final until the Pentagon makes the new guidelines public, the report said.
The State Department fiercely opposes the military’s decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the paper pointed out.
The Pentagon has been redrawing its policies on detainees for more than a year.
It intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on interrogation which, along with accompanying directives, represents core instructions to US troops around the world, The Times said.
The directive on interrogation, a senior defence official said, was being rewritten to create safeguards so that all detainees were treated humanely but can still be questioned effectively, according to the report.
Critics and supporters of US President George W. Bush have debated whether it is possible to prove a direct link between administration declarations that it will not be bound by the Geneva Convention, and events such as the abuses at Abu Ghraib or the killings of Iraqi civilians last year in Haditha, The Times said.
Omitting the Geneva provisions may make it harder for the administration to portray such incidents as aberrations, the paper noted, saying it would also undercut contentions that US forces follow the strictest, most broadly accepted standards when fighting wars.
Bush team blocks suits with state secrets claim
Washington — Facing a wave of litigation challenging its eavesdropping at home and its handling of terror suspects abroad, the Bush administration is increasingly turning to a legal tactic that swiftly torpedoes most lawsuits: the state secrets privilege.
In recent weeks alone, officials have used the privilege to win the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a German man who was abducted and held in Afghanistan for five months and to ask the courts to throw out three legal challenges to the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program.
But civil liberties groups and some scholars say the privilege claim, in which the government says any discussion of a lawsuit’s accusations would endanger national security, has short-circuited judicial scrutiny and public debate of some central controversies of the post-Sept. 11 era.
The privilege has been asserted by the Justice Department more frequently under President Bush than under any of his predecessors — in 19 cases, the same number as during the entire eight-year presidency of Ronald Reagan, the previous record holder, according to a count by William Weaver, a political scientist at the University of Texas at El Paso.
While the privilege, defined by a 1953 Supreme Court ruling, was once used to shield sensitive documents or witnesses from disclosure, it is now often used to try to snuff out lawsuits at their inception, Weaver and other legal specialists say.
“This is a very powerful weapon for the executive branch,” said Weaver, who has a law degree and is a co-author of one of the few scholarly articles examining the privilege. “Once it’s asserted, in almost every instance, it stops the case cold.”
Under Bush, the secrets privilege has been used to block a lawsuit by a translator at the FBI, Sibel Edmonds, who was fired after accusing colleagues of security breaches; to stop a discrimination lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Sterling, a Farsi-speaking, African American officer at the CIA; and to derail a patent claim involving a coupler for fiber-optic cable, evidently to guard technical details of government eavesdropping.
-continued-
In recent weeks alone, officials have used the privilege to win the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a German man who was abducted and held in Afghanistan for five months and to ask the courts to throw out three legal challenges to the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program.
But civil liberties groups and some scholars say the privilege claim, in which the government says any discussion of a lawsuit’s accusations would endanger national security, has short-circuited judicial scrutiny and public debate of some central controversies of the post-Sept. 11 era.
The privilege has been asserted by the Justice Department more frequently under President Bush than under any of his predecessors — in 19 cases, the same number as during the entire eight-year presidency of Ronald Reagan, the previous record holder, according to a count by William Weaver, a political scientist at the University of Texas at El Paso.
While the privilege, defined by a 1953 Supreme Court ruling, was once used to shield sensitive documents or witnesses from disclosure, it is now often used to try to snuff out lawsuits at their inception, Weaver and other legal specialists say.
“This is a very powerful weapon for the executive branch,” said Weaver, who has a law degree and is a co-author of one of the few scholarly articles examining the privilege. “Once it’s asserted, in almost every instance, it stops the case cold.”
Under Bush, the secrets privilege has been used to block a lawsuit by a translator at the FBI, Sibel Edmonds, who was fired after accusing colleagues of security breaches; to stop a discrimination lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Sterling, a Farsi-speaking, African American officer at the CIA; and to derail a patent claim involving a coupler for fiber-optic cable, evidently to guard technical details of government eavesdropping.
-continued-
Enemy of Islam
The latest target of the Islamic religious fanatics who now control the streets of Baghdad -- thanks America! -- is the humble falafel sandwich.
Roving thugs who fancy themselves Islamic judges are "Talibinizing" the wrecked city, handing out their own edicts and murdering anyone who disagrees.
Targeting the usual vices -- such as women walking in public or any sort of newsstand or DVD vendor who offers something racy -- apparently wasn't enough for the Sunni toughs. So they went after the hardworking street vendors who offer cheap and tasty food to a hungry, doomed city.
In a sick parody of the American health police, the tough guys are even imposing their own smoking bans on various restaurants. Instead of a fine, those who violate the smoking ban are slaughtered.
Falafel vendors first thought the fanatics were kidding about the falafel ban. But then two people who run falafel stands were shot dead in the street.
"They came telling us, 'You have 14 days to end this job,' and I asked them what was the problem," falafel man Abu Zeinab told England's Daily Telegraph.
"I said I was just feeding the people, but they said there were no falafels in Muhammad the prophet's time, so we shouldn't have them either. I felt like telling them there were no Kalashnikovs in Muhammad's time either, but I wanted to keep my life."
There were no pizzas and cola drinks in Muhammad's time, either, but merchants selling those Western treats have yet to be targeted by Iraq's brutal street-gang version of the Taliban.
Some suspect it's about Israel, because it's always about Israel. Falafel stands are wildly popular in the Jewish state -- as they are in every Mediterranean, North African and Middle Eastern nation, as well as pretty much any big city in the world these days.
But it's a political issue because Israelis claim the falafel as a national food. Palestinians say European Jews stole the tasty dish from local Arabs when those Jews first began resettling the Holy Land a century ago.
In fact, falafel is an ancient Egyptian food, predating both the Islamic religion and the founding of Israel.
Made originally from crushed and fried fava beans, most of today's falafel is made from chickpeas prepared in the same way. Stuffed in pita bread and topped with vegetables and sauces, the falafel is a cheap and healthy fast food.
But even though it has been a staple in the Middle East for thousands of years, it is no longer safe on the streets of the blood-soaked hellscape of Baghdad.
The United States military brought peace, prosperity and democracy to Iraq in 2003.
Roving thugs who fancy themselves Islamic judges are "Talibinizing" the wrecked city, handing out their own edicts and murdering anyone who disagrees.
Targeting the usual vices -- such as women walking in public or any sort of newsstand or DVD vendor who offers something racy -- apparently wasn't enough for the Sunni toughs. So they went after the hardworking street vendors who offer cheap and tasty food to a hungry, doomed city.
In a sick parody of the American health police, the tough guys are even imposing their own smoking bans on various restaurants. Instead of a fine, those who violate the smoking ban are slaughtered.
Falafel vendors first thought the fanatics were kidding about the falafel ban. But then two people who run falafel stands were shot dead in the street.
"They came telling us, 'You have 14 days to end this job,' and I asked them what was the problem," falafel man Abu Zeinab told England's Daily Telegraph.
"I said I was just feeding the people, but they said there were no falafels in Muhammad the prophet's time, so we shouldn't have them either. I felt like telling them there were no Kalashnikovs in Muhammad's time either, but I wanted to keep my life."
There were no pizzas and cola drinks in Muhammad's time, either, but merchants selling those Western treats have yet to be targeted by Iraq's brutal street-gang version of the Taliban.
Some suspect it's about Israel, because it's always about Israel. Falafel stands are wildly popular in the Jewish state -- as they are in every Mediterranean, North African and Middle Eastern nation, as well as pretty much any big city in the world these days.
But it's a political issue because Israelis claim the falafel as a national food. Palestinians say European Jews stole the tasty dish from local Arabs when those Jews first began resettling the Holy Land a century ago.
In fact, falafel is an ancient Egyptian food, predating both the Islamic religion and the founding of Israel.
Made originally from crushed and fried fava beans, most of today's falafel is made from chickpeas prepared in the same way. Stuffed in pita bread and topped with vegetables and sauces, the falafel is a cheap and healthy fast food.
But even though it has been a staple in the Middle East for thousands of years, it is no longer safe on the streets of the blood-soaked hellscape of Baghdad.
The United States military brought peace, prosperity and democracy to Iraq in 2003.
45% doubt 9/11 story
While political leaders in Washington desperately try to convince Americans that the major threats to the country are gay people having weddings, Mexicans picking lettuce and the off chance that somebody might one day burn a U.S. flag, the American people seem to have more serious concerns in mind.
A solid 45% of people polled by Zogby International now agree that "Congress or an international tribunal should re-investigate the 9/11 attacks, including whether any U.S. government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."
In other words, nearly half the country suspects there are U.S. government officials who permitted or even helped plan the horrific mass murder of September 11, 2001.
The credibility of Washington leaders is now so critically eroded that one of every two Americans would now support an international tribunal investigating the actions of the U.S. government.
The survey results, released May 23 by Zogby, also show 42% of Americans believe the official 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence."
It's a far cry from the near-unanimous support the White House, Congress and the Pentagon earned from the shocking horror of the 9/11 attacks nearly five years ago.
A growing "9/11 truth movement" is gathering converts at a furious clip, even filling convention centers with people from all walks of American life who can no longer accept the dubious "official narrative" told by the U.S. corporate media in the immediate aftermath of the made-for-TV slaughter of innocents.
In Chicago this weekend, some 500 skeptics of the "Islamic radical terrorist" story met at the first International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth, according to the New York Times.
Official media such as the New York Times still presents the skeptics as oddballs obsessed with minutiae such as the melting point of steel in the World Trade Center towers or dubious claims that Flight 77 didn't actually strike the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, uncontested evidence pointing to staggering levels of government complicity -- such as shamed CIA chief Porter Goss' breakfast with Mohammad Atta's financier on the very morning of the attacks or the Pentagon intelligence program that actually identified several of the hijackers a year before the hijackings -- continues to be ignored by the mainstream press and the more melodramatic 9/11 skeptics.
A Zogby poll in 2004 found that 49% of New Yorkers believed that some national leaders "knew in advance" that the outrageous crimes would take place and did absolutely nothing to stop the murder of some 3,000 innocent Americans.
The psychologically devastating attacks of 9/11 was the "new Pearl Harbor" that Bush Administration officials said was necessary for their plans in the Middle East, according to the now infamous "Project for a New American Century" report published a year earlier.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, "Scooter" Libby and Paul Wolfowitz are the most notorious of the 16 members of PNAC who were installed in top positions of power once the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush as president only nine months before the attacks took place.
A solid 45% of people polled by Zogby International now agree that "Congress or an international tribunal should re-investigate the 9/11 attacks, including whether any U.S. government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."
In other words, nearly half the country suspects there are U.S. government officials who permitted or even helped plan the horrific mass murder of September 11, 2001.
The credibility of Washington leaders is now so critically eroded that one of every two Americans would now support an international tribunal investigating the actions of the U.S. government.
The survey results, released May 23 by Zogby, also show 42% of Americans believe the official 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence."
It's a far cry from the near-unanimous support the White House, Congress and the Pentagon earned from the shocking horror of the 9/11 attacks nearly five years ago.
A growing "9/11 truth movement" is gathering converts at a furious clip, even filling convention centers with people from all walks of American life who can no longer accept the dubious "official narrative" told by the U.S. corporate media in the immediate aftermath of the made-for-TV slaughter of innocents.
In Chicago this weekend, some 500 skeptics of the "Islamic radical terrorist" story met at the first International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth, according to the New York Times.
Official media such as the New York Times still presents the skeptics as oddballs obsessed with minutiae such as the melting point of steel in the World Trade Center towers or dubious claims that Flight 77 didn't actually strike the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, uncontested evidence pointing to staggering levels of government complicity -- such as shamed CIA chief Porter Goss' breakfast with Mohammad Atta's financier on the very morning of the attacks or the Pentagon intelligence program that actually identified several of the hijackers a year before the hijackings -- continues to be ignored by the mainstream press and the more melodramatic 9/11 skeptics.
A Zogby poll in 2004 found that 49% of New Yorkers believed that some national leaders "knew in advance" that the outrageous crimes would take place and did absolutely nothing to stop the murder of some 3,000 innocent Americans.
The psychologically devastating attacks of 9/11 was the "new Pearl Harbor" that Bush Administration officials said was necessary for their plans in the Middle East, according to the now infamous "Project for a New American Century" report published a year earlier.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, "Scooter" Libby and Paul Wolfowitz are the most notorious of the 16 members of PNAC who were installed in top positions of power once the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush as president only nine months before the attacks took place.
BACK TO THE BUNKER
By William M. Arkin
Sunday, June 4, 2006; B01
On Monday, June 19, about 4,000 government workers representing more than 50 federal agencies from the State Department to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will say goodbye to their families and set off for dozens of classified emergency facilities stretching from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs to the foothills of the Alleghenies. They will take to the bunkers in an "evacuation" that my sources describe as the largest "continuity of government" exercise ever conducted, a drill intended to prepare the U.S. government for an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The exercise is the latest manifestation of an obsession with government survival that has been a hallmark of the Bush administration since 9/11, a focus of enormous and often absurd time, money and effort that has come to echo the worst follies of the Cold War. The vast secret operation has updated the duck-and-cover scenarios of the 1950s with state-of-the-art technology -- alerts and updates delivered by pager and PDA, wireless priority service, video teleconferencing, remote backups -- to ensure that "essential" government functions continue undisrupted should a terrorist's nuclear bomb go off in downtown Washington.
But for all the BlackBerry culture, the outcome is still old-fashioned black and white: We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on alternate facilities, data warehouses and communications, yet no one can really foretell what would happen to the leadership and functioning of the federal government in a catastrophe.
After 9/11, The Washington Post reported that President Bush had set up a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work outside Washington on a rotating basis to ensure the continuity of national security. Since then, a program once focused on presidential succession and civilian control of U.S. nuclear weapons has been expanded to encompass the entire government. From the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration to the National Archives, every department and agency is now required to plan for continuity outside Washington.
Yet according to scores of documents I've obtained and interviews with half a dozen sources, there's no greater confidence today that essential services would be maintained in a disaster. And no one really knows how an evacuation would even be physically possible.
Moreover, since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, the definition of what constitutes an "essential" government function has been expanded so ridiculously beyond core national security functions -- do we really need patent and trademark processing in the middle of a nuclear holocaust? -- that the term has become meaningless. The intent of the government effort may be laudable, even necessary, but a hyper-centralized approach based on the Cold War model of evacuations and bunkering makes it practically worthless.
That the continuity program is so poorly conceived, and poorly run, should come as no surprise. That's because the same Federal Emergency Management Agency that failed New Orleans after Katrina, an agency that a Senate investigating committee has pronounced "in shambles and beyond repair," is in charge of this enormous effort to plan for the U.S. government's survival.
Continuity programs began in the early 1950s, when the threat of nuclear war moved the administration of President Harry S. Truman to begin planning for emergency government functions and civil defense. Evacuation bunkers were built, and an incredibly complex and secretive shadow government program was created.
At its height, the grand era of continuity boasted the fully operational Mount Weather, a civilian bunker built along the crest of Virginia's Blue Ridge, to which most agency heads would evacuate; the Greenbrier hotel complex and bunker in West Virginia, where Congress would shelter; and Raven Rock, or Site R, a national security bunker bored into granite along the Pennsylvania-Maryland border near Camp David, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff would command a protracted nuclear war. Special communications networks were built, and evacuation and succession procedures were practiced continually.
-continued-
Sunday, June 4, 2006; B01
On Monday, June 19, about 4,000 government workers representing more than 50 federal agencies from the State Department to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will say goodbye to their families and set off for dozens of classified emergency facilities stretching from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs to the foothills of the Alleghenies. They will take to the bunkers in an "evacuation" that my sources describe as the largest "continuity of government" exercise ever conducted, a drill intended to prepare the U.S. government for an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The exercise is the latest manifestation of an obsession with government survival that has been a hallmark of the Bush administration since 9/11, a focus of enormous and often absurd time, money and effort that has come to echo the worst follies of the Cold War. The vast secret operation has updated the duck-and-cover scenarios of the 1950s with state-of-the-art technology -- alerts and updates delivered by pager and PDA, wireless priority service, video teleconferencing, remote backups -- to ensure that "essential" government functions continue undisrupted should a terrorist's nuclear bomb go off in downtown Washington.
But for all the BlackBerry culture, the outcome is still old-fashioned black and white: We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on alternate facilities, data warehouses and communications, yet no one can really foretell what would happen to the leadership and functioning of the federal government in a catastrophe.
After 9/11, The Washington Post reported that President Bush had set up a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work outside Washington on a rotating basis to ensure the continuity of national security. Since then, a program once focused on presidential succession and civilian control of U.S. nuclear weapons has been expanded to encompass the entire government. From the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration to the National Archives, every department and agency is now required to plan for continuity outside Washington.
Yet according to scores of documents I've obtained and interviews with half a dozen sources, there's no greater confidence today that essential services would be maintained in a disaster. And no one really knows how an evacuation would even be physically possible.
Moreover, since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, the definition of what constitutes an "essential" government function has been expanded so ridiculously beyond core national security functions -- do we really need patent and trademark processing in the middle of a nuclear holocaust? -- that the term has become meaningless. The intent of the government effort may be laudable, even necessary, but a hyper-centralized approach based on the Cold War model of evacuations and bunkering makes it practically worthless.
That the continuity program is so poorly conceived, and poorly run, should come as no surprise. That's because the same Federal Emergency Management Agency that failed New Orleans after Katrina, an agency that a Senate investigating committee has pronounced "in shambles and beyond repair," is in charge of this enormous effort to plan for the U.S. government's survival.
Continuity programs began in the early 1950s, when the threat of nuclear war moved the administration of President Harry S. Truman to begin planning for emergency government functions and civil defense. Evacuation bunkers were built, and an incredibly complex and secretive shadow government program was created.
At its height, the grand era of continuity boasted the fully operational Mount Weather, a civilian bunker built along the crest of Virginia's Blue Ridge, to which most agency heads would evacuate; the Greenbrier hotel complex and bunker in West Virginia, where Congress would shelter; and Raven Rock, or Site R, a national security bunker bored into granite along the Pennsylvania-Maryland border near Camp David, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff would command a protracted nuclear war. Special communications networks were built, and evacuation and succession procedures were practiced continually.
-continued-
2006/06/04
Advance of the Police State in Europe?
Saturday, June 3rd, 2006
Dave “Freeman” Fleck Indymedia
Police State in Europe encroached one more time on our lives when www.thepiratebay.org was taken out by raids pressured by the USA. What about the hundreds of innocent businesses that were also taken out? Another shooting by UK cops, and music festivals = tear gas?.
Most of us have heard of the loss of freedom happening daily in the USA. Almost all of us feel better that we still have a good press in the UK and our police don’t have guns and oppress us with sound weapons on the streets (yet?).
But this last few months we have seen (reported here) attacks by police on music festivals in the Czech republic, another shooting of a ‘terrorist’ by the increasingly militant British police, and 300 innocent web servers taken out along with one site when a whole data centre was confiscated by the Swedish police.
I won’t focus too much on that well reported story, and Slyck has done a great job of covering the ‘file sharing’ aspects of it in any case. The truth is that now the police in Europe serve corporate American interests ahead of the dozens of businesses which have been done immeasureable harm by sometimes their longest ‘downtime’ ever.
One might agree that such a site damages the economy in some way and should be targeted. Even if one supports that view, it hardly seems fair that an unnaccountable police force can take the easy option and shut down hundreds of sites to attack one.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels our rights being taken away one by one. Laws intended to make it easier for the police to operate against ‘terrorists’ are being used to weaken us all and our ability to criticise them in all areas. How many more shootings will we have in the UK before lessons from our infamous Jean Charles de Menezes situation?
Who knows, but in every story you read in the press about ‘clampdowns’ and arrests, just ask, is that another step towards our own US style police state?
Dave “Freeman” Fleck Indymedia
Police State in Europe encroached one more time on our lives when www.thepiratebay.org was taken out by raids pressured by the USA. What about the hundreds of innocent businesses that were also taken out? Another shooting by UK cops, and music festivals = tear gas?.
Most of us have heard of the loss of freedom happening daily in the USA. Almost all of us feel better that we still have a good press in the UK and our police don’t have guns and oppress us with sound weapons on the streets (yet?).
But this last few months we have seen (reported here) attacks by police on music festivals in the Czech republic, another shooting of a ‘terrorist’ by the increasingly militant British police, and 300 innocent web servers taken out along with one site when a whole data centre was confiscated by the Swedish police.
I won’t focus too much on that well reported story, and Slyck has done a great job of covering the ‘file sharing’ aspects of it in any case. The truth is that now the police in Europe serve corporate American interests ahead of the dozens of businesses which have been done immeasureable harm by sometimes their longest ‘downtime’ ever.
One might agree that such a site damages the economy in some way and should be targeted. Even if one supports that view, it hardly seems fair that an unnaccountable police force can take the easy option and shut down hundreds of sites to attack one.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels our rights being taken away one by one. Laws intended to make it easier for the police to operate against ‘terrorists’ are being used to weaken us all and our ability to criticise them in all areas. How many more shootings will we have in the UK before lessons from our infamous Jean Charles de Menezes situation?
Who knows, but in every story you read in the press about ‘clampdowns’ and arrests, just ask, is that another step towards our own US style police state?
Kenny Boy's Connections
Robert Scheer
The Bush Family consistently acted to put Enron and its longtime CEO Ken Lay into a position to rip off investors and taxpayers. Why is the mass media ignoring that fact now that Lay has been convicted in arguably the most egregious example of white-collar fraud in US history?
Until he hooked up with the Bushes, Lay was just another mid-level energy trader complaining endlessly about being hemmed in by onerous government regulations and those terrible consumer lawyers who prevent free market hustlers from doing their thing. But after he and his company became top supporters of the Bushes--eventually giving $3 million combined to various Bush electoral campaigns and the Republican Party--doors opened for them in a big way. In particular, once Bush the father got rid of key energy industry regulations, Lay was a made man and Enron's fortunes soared. This program of corporate welfare led Lay to dub the first President Bush "the energy president" in a column supporting his re-election because "just six months after George Bush became President, he directed...the development of a new energy strategy," which, in effect, compelled local utility companies to carry Enron electricity on their wires. It was, Lay crowed, "the most ambitious and sweeping energy plan ever proposed."
Another huge gift from the first Bush regime came in the form of a ruling by Wendy Gramm, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that permitted Enron to trade in energy derivatives, making possible the company's exponential growth. Five weeks after that ruling, Gramm resigned and joined the Enron board of directors, serving on its subsequently much-criticized audit committee. Six years later, Gramm's husband, US Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, further enabled Enron greed by pushing through additional anti-regulation legislation.
-continued-
The Bush Family consistently acted to put Enron and its longtime CEO Ken Lay into a position to rip off investors and taxpayers. Why is the mass media ignoring that fact now that Lay has been convicted in arguably the most egregious example of white-collar fraud in US history?
Until he hooked up with the Bushes, Lay was just another mid-level energy trader complaining endlessly about being hemmed in by onerous government regulations and those terrible consumer lawyers who prevent free market hustlers from doing their thing. But after he and his company became top supporters of the Bushes--eventually giving $3 million combined to various Bush electoral campaigns and the Republican Party--doors opened for them in a big way. In particular, once Bush the father got rid of key energy industry regulations, Lay was a made man and Enron's fortunes soared. This program of corporate welfare led Lay to dub the first President Bush "the energy president" in a column supporting his re-election because "just six months after George Bush became President, he directed...the development of a new energy strategy," which, in effect, compelled local utility companies to carry Enron electricity on their wires. It was, Lay crowed, "the most ambitious and sweeping energy plan ever proposed."
Another huge gift from the first Bush regime came in the form of a ruling by Wendy Gramm, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that permitted Enron to trade in energy derivatives, making possible the company's exponential growth. Five weeks after that ruling, Gramm resigned and joined the Enron board of directors, serving on its subsequently much-criticized audit committee. Six years later, Gramm's husband, US Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, further enabled Enron greed by pushing through additional anti-regulation legislation.
-continued-
'Never Before!' Our Amnesiac Torture Debate
Naomi Klein
It was the "Mission Accomplished" of George W. Bush's second term, and an announcement of that magnitude called for a suitably dramatic location. But what was the right backdrop for the infamous "We do not torture" declaration? With characteristic audacity, the Bush team settled on downtown Panama City.
It was certainly bold. An hour and a half's drive from where Bush stood, the US military ran the notorious School of the Americas from 1946 to 1984, a sinister educational institution that, if it had a motto, might have been "We do torture." It is here in Panama and, later, at the school's new location in Fort Benning, Georgia, where the roots of the current torture scandals can be found. According to declassified training manuals, SOA students--military and police officers from across the hemisphere--were instructed in many of the same "coercive interrogation" techniques that have since migrated to Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib: early morning capture to maximize shock, immediate hooding and blindfolding, forced nudity, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep and food "manipulation," humiliation, extreme temperatures, isolation, stress positions--and worse. In 1996 President Clinton's Intelligence Oversight Board admitted that US-produced training materials condoned "execution of guerrillas, extortion, physical abuse, coercion and false imprisonment."
Some of the Panama school's graduates returned to their countries to commit the continent's greatest war crimes of the past half-century: the murders of Archbishop Oscar Romero and six Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the systematic theft of babies from Argentina's "disappeared" prisoners, the massacre of 900 civilians in El Mozote in El Salvador and military coups too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that choosing Panama to declare "We do not torture" is a little like dropping by a slaughterhouse to pronounce the United States a nation of vegetarians.
-continued-
It was the "Mission Accomplished" of George W. Bush's second term, and an announcement of that magnitude called for a suitably dramatic location. But what was the right backdrop for the infamous "We do not torture" declaration? With characteristic audacity, the Bush team settled on downtown Panama City.
It was certainly bold. An hour and a half's drive from where Bush stood, the US military ran the notorious School of the Americas from 1946 to 1984, a sinister educational institution that, if it had a motto, might have been "We do torture." It is here in Panama and, later, at the school's new location in Fort Benning, Georgia, where the roots of the current torture scandals can be found. According to declassified training manuals, SOA students--military and police officers from across the hemisphere--were instructed in many of the same "coercive interrogation" techniques that have since migrated to Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib: early morning capture to maximize shock, immediate hooding and blindfolding, forced nudity, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep and food "manipulation," humiliation, extreme temperatures, isolation, stress positions--and worse. In 1996 President Clinton's Intelligence Oversight Board admitted that US-produced training materials condoned "execution of guerrillas, extortion, physical abuse, coercion and false imprisonment."
Some of the Panama school's graduates returned to their countries to commit the continent's greatest war crimes of the past half-century: the murders of Archbishop Oscar Romero and six Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the systematic theft of babies from Argentina's "disappeared" prisoners, the massacre of 900 civilians in El Mozote in El Salvador and military coups too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that choosing Panama to declare "We do not torture" is a little like dropping by a slaughterhouse to pronounce the United States a nation of vegetarians.
-continued-
Meanwhile: Where have all the protesters gone?
Sam Graham-Felsen International Herald Tribune
WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2006
NEW YORK The greatest disappointment of my generation has been its failure to truly stand up to the Bush administration - and particularly, its refusal to actively oppose the war in Iraq.
We are the youth who are living through what will perhaps be remembered as the most scandal- plagued, secretive, privacy-invading, rights-infringing, incompetent administration in American history - and we have barely made a peep.
How is it possible, that during a time of unprecedented promise for youth mobilization that this generation has remained so silent, so acquiescent?
Many point to the lack of personal threat; there is, as of now, no draft to frighten us into action. Others suggest that the pressures of an unstable and uncertain economy have caused my generation to look inwards, focusing on creating a solid economic future for themselves rather than dilly-dally with Utopian visions.
All of these explanations have merit, but I want to offer an alternative hypothesis. The reason that youth aren't protesting about anything, let alone the war in Iraq, is because there is no longer a serious youth political culture in this country. And the reason for that is because this generation does not believe in its ability to alter, or even slightly disrupt, the status quo.
Community service and volunteering is at an all-time high, so young people do, in fact, care. But this generational shift from activism to volunteerism reflects our lack of faith in our ability to affect broad social change.
We were force-fed the ideology that there is no alternative to the existing model of neoliberalism and corporate- controlled globalization. If we tried to suggest that we could play a role in molding our own destinies, we were laughed at. What's best for business is what's best for the world, we were told, and if you disagree with the bosses, too bad, because no one's going to listen.
All you can do is face this cold reality, get a good job, and try to keep as warm as possible within the confines of your isolated, insulated home.
Idealism died in this country because the doctrine of "There Is No Alternative" killed it. We don't dream of utopia anymore. So it's no wonder that our parents, not us, are showing up to protest the war in Iraq. They believe in the power of social movements because they saw the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement shape history before their very eyes.
I grew up with the belief that the only people who had real power were CEOs. When you grow up in an age of tax cuts for corporate bosses and slashed social programs, this is what happens.
But we are not asleep. We realize, plainly, that we're inheriting a profoundly precarious world. We know our economy is on the verge of collapse, that the climate crisis will soon leave our cities under water, that nuclear weapons will soon find themselves in the hands of willing detonators.
We know that the current course is unacceptable. We know that the future they want to hand us is far from what we want. And we are finally beginning to channel this anxiety into action.
-continued-
WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2006
NEW YORK The greatest disappointment of my generation has been its failure to truly stand up to the Bush administration - and particularly, its refusal to actively oppose the war in Iraq.
We are the youth who are living through what will perhaps be remembered as the most scandal- plagued, secretive, privacy-invading, rights-infringing, incompetent administration in American history - and we have barely made a peep.
How is it possible, that during a time of unprecedented promise for youth mobilization that this generation has remained so silent, so acquiescent?
Many point to the lack of personal threat; there is, as of now, no draft to frighten us into action. Others suggest that the pressures of an unstable and uncertain economy have caused my generation to look inwards, focusing on creating a solid economic future for themselves rather than dilly-dally with Utopian visions.
All of these explanations have merit, but I want to offer an alternative hypothesis. The reason that youth aren't protesting about anything, let alone the war in Iraq, is because there is no longer a serious youth political culture in this country. And the reason for that is because this generation does not believe in its ability to alter, or even slightly disrupt, the status quo.
Community service and volunteering is at an all-time high, so young people do, in fact, care. But this generational shift from activism to volunteerism reflects our lack of faith in our ability to affect broad social change.
We were force-fed the ideology that there is no alternative to the existing model of neoliberalism and corporate- controlled globalization. If we tried to suggest that we could play a role in molding our own destinies, we were laughed at. What's best for business is what's best for the world, we were told, and if you disagree with the bosses, too bad, because no one's going to listen.
All you can do is face this cold reality, get a good job, and try to keep as warm as possible within the confines of your isolated, insulated home.
Idealism died in this country because the doctrine of "There Is No Alternative" killed it. We don't dream of utopia anymore. So it's no wonder that our parents, not us, are showing up to protest the war in Iraq. They believe in the power of social movements because they saw the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement shape history before their very eyes.
I grew up with the belief that the only people who had real power were CEOs. When you grow up in an age of tax cuts for corporate bosses and slashed social programs, this is what happens.
But we are not asleep. We realize, plainly, that we're inheriting a profoundly precarious world. We know our economy is on the verge of collapse, that the climate crisis will soon leave our cities under water, that nuclear weapons will soon find themselves in the hands of willing detonators.
We know that the current course is unacceptable. We know that the future they want to hand us is far from what we want. And we are finally beginning to channel this anxiety into action.
-continued-
Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Rolling Stone
Thursday 01 June 2006
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted - enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.
The complete article, with Web-only citations, follows. For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary.
Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush - and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in "tinfoil hats," while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as "conspiracy theories," [1] and The New York Times declared that "there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale." [2]
But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad [3] never received their ballots - or received them too late to vote [4] - after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations. [5] A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states, [6] was discovered shredding Democratic registrations. [7] In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes, [8] malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. [9] Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment - roughly one for every 100 cast. [10]
The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count. [11]
Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. "We didn't have one election for president in 2004," says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. "We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities."
But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 [12] - more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes. [13] (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots. [14] And that doesn't even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes - enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. [15]
"It was terrible," says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. "People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct - it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I'm terribly disheartened."
Indeed, the extent of the GOP's effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. "Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen," Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. "You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb."
-continued-
Rolling Stone
Thursday 01 June 2006
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted - enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.
The complete article, with Web-only citations, follows. For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary.
Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush - and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in "tinfoil hats," while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as "conspiracy theories," [1] and The New York Times declared that "there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale." [2]
But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad [3] never received their ballots - or received them too late to vote [4] - after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations. [5] A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states, [6] was discovered shredding Democratic registrations. [7] In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes, [8] malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. [9] Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment - roughly one for every 100 cast. [10]
The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count. [11]
Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. "We didn't have one election for president in 2004," says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. "We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities."
But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 [12] - more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes. [13] (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots. [14] And that doesn't even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes - enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. [15]
"It was terrible," says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. "People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct - it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I'm terribly disheartened."
Indeed, the extent of the GOP's effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. "Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen," Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. "You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb."
-continued-
2006/06/03
Sun-Tzu Must Be Shaking His Head
by John Janks
All right, quick - what do pigeons, kites, garden hoses, mannequins, flashlights, trash piles and corpses all have in common? They are all inexpensive and highly effective methods used by the Iraqi insurgents to defeat the high-tech US military. Pigeons are used to communicate, kites are used as alternatives to artillery balloons, flashlights blind night vision goggles, and garden hoses, trash piles and corpses are all used to disguise IED’s. Mannequins are set up in plain view of the US troops with the aim of getting the soldiers used to seeing it then suddenly replacing it with a real soldier. Capt. Andrew Del Gaudio of the US Marine Corps summed it up best, “Firepower-wise they're no match for us, but that’s the nature and beauty of an insurgency – they capitalize on their strengths to hit our weaknesses.”
Where have we heard that before? Remember that in the heady days before Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 US troops were urged to read selected literature, including The Art of War, by the 5th Century B.C. Chinese writer, Sun-Tzu? Maybe the troops read it, maybe they didn't, but it is obvious that those starting this war did not. Sun-Tzu advised leaders to avoid war unless the state is threatened, never allowing haste, fear of being called a coward, and emotions like anger and hatred to influence their decisions. Hmmm.
Sun-Tzu separated military success by a combination of orthodox and unorthodox tactics. Massive frontal assaults that emphasize deliberate and organized movement are an example of orthodox tactics. Unorthodox tactics emphasize employing flexible forces, imaginative, unexpected and unconventional ways. The Chinese have a dictum that states, “With the orthodox govern the state, with the unorthodox employ the army.”
Is this coming through to you as easily as it does to me? I hate to keep pitching ‘em if you keep droppin’ ‘em. I don’t have any military expertise, let alone any credentials. I simply bought The Art of War several years ago for a few dollars. But the last three and one-half years sure seem to beg the question. What have the hundreds of billions spent on military weaponry gotten us, especially when compared to the simple, inexpensive and unorthodox methods used by the insurgency?
The Art of War does not paint a pretty picture for any nation caught in prolonged war and relying mostly on orthodox tactics. They drain a nation’s spirit as well as its treasury. The Damn Shame part of it all is how could a non-soldier reading a 2500-year old book figure this out and the high-tech high-dollar Bush administration not?
All right, quick - what do pigeons, kites, garden hoses, mannequins, flashlights, trash piles and corpses all have in common? They are all inexpensive and highly effective methods used by the Iraqi insurgents to defeat the high-tech US military. Pigeons are used to communicate, kites are used as alternatives to artillery balloons, flashlights blind night vision goggles, and garden hoses, trash piles and corpses are all used to disguise IED’s. Mannequins are set up in plain view of the US troops with the aim of getting the soldiers used to seeing it then suddenly replacing it with a real soldier. Capt. Andrew Del Gaudio of the US Marine Corps summed it up best, “Firepower-wise they're no match for us, but that’s the nature and beauty of an insurgency – they capitalize on their strengths to hit our weaknesses.”
Where have we heard that before? Remember that in the heady days before Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 US troops were urged to read selected literature, including The Art of War, by the 5th Century B.C. Chinese writer, Sun-Tzu? Maybe the troops read it, maybe they didn't, but it is obvious that those starting this war did not. Sun-Tzu advised leaders to avoid war unless the state is threatened, never allowing haste, fear of being called a coward, and emotions like anger and hatred to influence their decisions. Hmmm.
Sun-Tzu separated military success by a combination of orthodox and unorthodox tactics. Massive frontal assaults that emphasize deliberate and organized movement are an example of orthodox tactics. Unorthodox tactics emphasize employing flexible forces, imaginative, unexpected and unconventional ways. The Chinese have a dictum that states, “With the orthodox govern the state, with the unorthodox employ the army.”
Is this coming through to you as easily as it does to me? I hate to keep pitching ‘em if you keep droppin’ ‘em. I don’t have any military expertise, let alone any credentials. I simply bought The Art of War several years ago for a few dollars. But the last three and one-half years sure seem to beg the question. What have the hundreds of billions spent on military weaponry gotten us, especially when compared to the simple, inexpensive and unorthodox methods used by the insurgency?
The Art of War does not paint a pretty picture for any nation caught in prolonged war and relying mostly on orthodox tactics. They drain a nation’s spirit as well as its treasury. The Damn Shame part of it all is how could a non-soldier reading a 2500-year old book figure this out and the high-tech high-dollar Bush administration not?
US Propaganda in Iraq: Manure Manufactured by Bush & Co.
by Christopher Brauchli
All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself. -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
It keeps coming up roses. Now the roses are being fertilized by manure manufactured by Bush & Co. instead of fertilizer purchased from outside sources.
In 2005 we learned that the administration paid a group known as the Lincoln group $5 million for manure. The Lincoln Group is an American company that is paid for putting out favorable news about the war in Iraq to the Iraqi people who, seeing their friends and neighbors being blown up daily, might otherwise think things were not going well. Here is how it works.
The Pentagon has something called a “storyboard”. It is literary fertilizer prepared by the Pentagon and given to the Lincoln Group that then translates the text into Arabic and disseminates it in Iraq under the by-lines of Iraqi writers thus causing it to look like homegrown manure instead of Pentagon offal. That was only one example of propaganda disseminated by the administration.
In 2005 it was disclosed that Armstrong Williams, a conservative television personality, accepted $240,000 from the administration to spread fertilizer on the airways to grow the perception the “No Child Left Behind Act” was a success. The Department of Health and Human Services paid Maggie Gallagher and Mike McMannus to promote the Healthy Marriage Initiative on the airwaves. Now we have learned that the administration has started producing and distributing its own fertilizer.
According to a story by Al Kamen in the Washington Post in early May, the Department of Agriculture (for whom fertilizer creation and spreading is second nature) has begun issuing talking points to its employees that are designed to create a favorable impression among listeners as to how the war in Iraq is going. According to Mr. Kamen an e-mail containing the talking points was sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees giving them suggested language they could insert in speeches to remind people how well things in Iraq are going.
The talking points can be viewed at washingtonpost.com/fedpage but for those of you who can’t be bothered to go there to look them up here is an example of how they might be used. This is of course just my idea and people in the USDA will certainly come up with their own examples.
If an undersecretary were invited to go to Ault, Colorado, in order to address a group of 10 year-olds at a Future Farmers of America meeting, instead of starting right out by discussing the role of the family farm in America and why the administration wants to repeal the federal estate tax to protect the family farm so the 10-year olds will have a place to work when they grow up, the speaker would begin by saying: “Several topics I’d like to talk about today-Farm Bill, [your role as future leaders of your community], trade with Japan, WTO, avian flu, animal ID-but before I do, let me touch on a subject people always ask me about. . . progress in Iraq.” The speaker then spends a few minutes reading from the script describing all the wonderful things the USDA is doing in Iraq even if it isn’t. The speaker describes a November visit by Secretary Johanns with Iraq’s Minister of Agriculture and how impressed he was with the minister’s optimism. (Since that visit more than 325 U.S. service people have been killed and since the end of December more than 4,168 Iraqis have been killed.) The speaker then goes on saying: “The Iraqis have also discussed specific products, like tomatoes, which they are anxious to export into the world community.” That is the sort of uplifting sentiment that will have the Future Farmers sitting on the edges of their chairs.
The Department of Agriculture speaker is not, of course, limited to talking about agricultural fertilizer. Another talking point discusses civil rights and is an especially moving piece. It starts out explaining that our democracy has evolved for two hundred thirty years and we’re still working to become a more perfect union. The speaker then goes on to say that “before I begin talking about the civil rights climate at USDA, (a topic that most listeners had probably never thought would be addressed in a speech given by someone from the USDA) I’d like to address the situation in another nation that is just now forging the path to democracy.” And with that, the speaker is off and running telling the 10-year olds about how well things are going in Iraq.
If any of my readers thinks that the fertilizer that is thus being spread by the USDA speakers is nothing more than BS they may be right. They should keep their sentiments to themselves lest their phones get tapped.
All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself. -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
It keeps coming up roses. Now the roses are being fertilized by manure manufactured by Bush & Co. instead of fertilizer purchased from outside sources.
In 2005 we learned that the administration paid a group known as the Lincoln group $5 million for manure. The Lincoln Group is an American company that is paid for putting out favorable news about the war in Iraq to the Iraqi people who, seeing their friends and neighbors being blown up daily, might otherwise think things were not going well. Here is how it works.
The Pentagon has something called a “storyboard”. It is literary fertilizer prepared by the Pentagon and given to the Lincoln Group that then translates the text into Arabic and disseminates it in Iraq under the by-lines of Iraqi writers thus causing it to look like homegrown manure instead of Pentagon offal. That was only one example of propaganda disseminated by the administration.
In 2005 it was disclosed that Armstrong Williams, a conservative television personality, accepted $240,000 from the administration to spread fertilizer on the airways to grow the perception the “No Child Left Behind Act” was a success. The Department of Health and Human Services paid Maggie Gallagher and Mike McMannus to promote the Healthy Marriage Initiative on the airwaves. Now we have learned that the administration has started producing and distributing its own fertilizer.
According to a story by Al Kamen in the Washington Post in early May, the Department of Agriculture (for whom fertilizer creation and spreading is second nature) has begun issuing talking points to its employees that are designed to create a favorable impression among listeners as to how the war in Iraq is going. According to Mr. Kamen an e-mail containing the talking points was sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees giving them suggested language they could insert in speeches to remind people how well things in Iraq are going.
The talking points can be viewed at washingtonpost.com/fedpage but for those of you who can’t be bothered to go there to look them up here is an example of how they might be used. This is of course just my idea and people in the USDA will certainly come up with their own examples.
If an undersecretary were invited to go to Ault, Colorado, in order to address a group of 10 year-olds at a Future Farmers of America meeting, instead of starting right out by discussing the role of the family farm in America and why the administration wants to repeal the federal estate tax to protect the family farm so the 10-year olds will have a place to work when they grow up, the speaker would begin by saying: “Several topics I’d like to talk about today-Farm Bill, [your role as future leaders of your community], trade with Japan, WTO, avian flu, animal ID-but before I do, let me touch on a subject people always ask me about. . . progress in Iraq.” The speaker then spends a few minutes reading from the script describing all the wonderful things the USDA is doing in Iraq even if it isn’t. The speaker describes a November visit by Secretary Johanns with Iraq’s Minister of Agriculture and how impressed he was with the minister’s optimism. (Since that visit more than 325 U.S. service people have been killed and since the end of December more than 4,168 Iraqis have been killed.) The speaker then goes on saying: “The Iraqis have also discussed specific products, like tomatoes, which they are anxious to export into the world community.” That is the sort of uplifting sentiment that will have the Future Farmers sitting on the edges of their chairs.
The Department of Agriculture speaker is not, of course, limited to talking about agricultural fertilizer. Another talking point discusses civil rights and is an especially moving piece. It starts out explaining that our democracy has evolved for two hundred thirty years and we’re still working to become a more perfect union. The speaker then goes on to say that “before I begin talking about the civil rights climate at USDA, (a topic that most listeners had probably never thought would be addressed in a speech given by someone from the USDA) I’d like to address the situation in another nation that is just now forging the path to democracy.” And with that, the speaker is off and running telling the 10-year olds about how well things are going in Iraq.
If any of my readers thinks that the fertilizer that is thus being spread by the USDA speakers is nothing more than BS they may be right. They should keep their sentiments to themselves lest their phones get tapped.
Prime Minister Maliki Shows Us the Door
by Susan Lenfestey
Okay, time to get outta Dodge. We've been given the perfect deus ex machina to get out of Iraq by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who is understandably ticked off by the latest reports of American troops killing Iraqi civilians at Haditha, and has stated that violence against civilians has become a “daily phenomenon” by American-led troops who “do not respect the Iraqi people.”
I admit that I come to this cut-and-run strategy belatedly, being more in the We-Broke-It-We-Fix-It school of thought. But it's now clear even to dreamers like me that we are a huge part of the problem and not the solution. Arguably we always were the problem, but once the disastrous course was set (and we won't cover that old ground here -- but neither will we ever forget) I reluctantly bought into the idea that we couldn't abandon all the Iraqi people whose lives we had upended. I know some capital P patriot is going to yammer at me about how we toppled a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people, and yes we did, but now we're doing a lot of the killing of his own people for him, while he sits in a box being tried for crimes against civilians that are starting to sound sickeningly familiar.
And who, other than Don Rumsfeld, can say with a straight face that Iraq is a better place today? The New York Times reports that in the last 10 months the state has issued new passports to 1.85 million Iraqis, a quarter of the country's estimated middle-class, which right there ought to tell us something about how much better it really is.
Back when, I didn't see how we could justify so much loss of life on either side, only to pull out and leave a maelstrom of warring factions behind. So it seemed to me we needed to stay there to - prevent violence so that democracy could take root? Well, even that didn't really make sense to me, because in a democracy the majority rules, and in Iraq that's the Shiites, and whole militias of them aren't exactly immersed in democratic traditions, such as equal rights for women, just for starters. Shouldn't someone in Bush-world have been thinking about this beforehand? Ditto in Palestine?
-continued-
Okay, time to get outta Dodge. We've been given the perfect deus ex machina to get out of Iraq by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who is understandably ticked off by the latest reports of American troops killing Iraqi civilians at Haditha, and has stated that violence against civilians has become a “daily phenomenon” by American-led troops who “do not respect the Iraqi people.”
I admit that I come to this cut-and-run strategy belatedly, being more in the We-Broke-It-We-Fix-It school of thought. But it's now clear even to dreamers like me that we are a huge part of the problem and not the solution. Arguably we always were the problem, but once the disastrous course was set (and we won't cover that old ground here -- but neither will we ever forget) I reluctantly bought into the idea that we couldn't abandon all the Iraqi people whose lives we had upended. I know some capital P patriot is going to yammer at me about how we toppled a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people, and yes we did, but now we're doing a lot of the killing of his own people for him, while he sits in a box being tried for crimes against civilians that are starting to sound sickeningly familiar.
And who, other than Don Rumsfeld, can say with a straight face that Iraq is a better place today? The New York Times reports that in the last 10 months the state has issued new passports to 1.85 million Iraqis, a quarter of the country's estimated middle-class, which right there ought to tell us something about how much better it really is.
Back when, I didn't see how we could justify so much loss of life on either side, only to pull out and leave a maelstrom of warring factions behind. So it seemed to me we needed to stay there to - prevent violence so that democracy could take root? Well, even that didn't really make sense to me, because in a democracy the majority rules, and in Iraq that's the Shiites, and whole militias of them aren't exactly immersed in democratic traditions, such as equal rights for women, just for starters. Shouldn't someone in Bush-world have been thinking about this beforehand? Ditto in Palestine?
-continued-
The Way Americans Like Their War
by Robert Fisk
Could Haditha be just the tip of the mass grave?
The corpses we have glimpsed, the grainy footage of the cadavers and the dead children; could these be just a few of many? Does the handiwork of the United States' army of the slums go further?
I remember clearly the first suspicions I had that murder most foul might be taking place in our name in Iraq. I was in the Baghdad mortuary, counting corpses, when one of the city's senior medical officials, an old friend, told me of his fears. "Everyone brings bodies here," he said. "But when the Americans bring bodies in, we are instructed that under no circumstances are we ever to do post-mortems. We were given to understand that this had already been done. Sometimes we'd get a piece of paper like this one with a body." And here the man handed me a U.S. military document showing with the hand-drawn outline of a man's body and the words "trauma wounds."
What kind of trauma is now being experienced in Iraq? Just who is doing the mass killing? Who is dumping so many bodies on garbage heaps? After Haditha, we are going to reshape our suspicions.
It's no good saying "a few bad apples." All occupation armies are corrupted. But do they all commit war crimes? The Algerians are still uncovering the mass graves left by the French paras who liquidated whole villages. We know of the rapist-killers of the Russian army in Chechnya.
We have all heard of Bloody Sunday. The Israelis sat and watched while their proxy Lebanese militia butchered and eviscerated its way through 1,700 Palestinians. And of course the words My Lai are now uttered again. Yes, the Nazis were much worse. And the Japanese. And the Croatian Ustashi. But this is us. This is our army. These young soldiers are our representatives in Iraq. And they have innocent blood on their hands.
I suspect part of the problem is that we never really cared about Iraqis, which is why we refused to count their dead. Once the Iraqis turned upon the army of occupation with their roadside bombs and suicide cars, they became Arab "gooks," the evil sub-humans whom the Americans once identified in Vietnam. Get a president to tell us that we are fighting evil and one day we will wake to find that a child has horns, a baby has cloven feet.
Remind yourself these people are Muslims and they can all become little Mohamed Attas. Killing a roomful of civilians is only a step further from all those promiscuous air strikes that we are told kill 'terrorists" but which all too often turn out to be a wedding party or -- as in Afghanistan -- a mixture of "terrorists" and children or, as we are soon to hear, no doubt, "terrorist children."
-continued-
Could Haditha be just the tip of the mass grave?
The corpses we have glimpsed, the grainy footage of the cadavers and the dead children; could these be just a few of many? Does the handiwork of the United States' army of the slums go further?
I remember clearly the first suspicions I had that murder most foul might be taking place in our name in Iraq. I was in the Baghdad mortuary, counting corpses, when one of the city's senior medical officials, an old friend, told me of his fears. "Everyone brings bodies here," he said. "But when the Americans bring bodies in, we are instructed that under no circumstances are we ever to do post-mortems. We were given to understand that this had already been done. Sometimes we'd get a piece of paper like this one with a body." And here the man handed me a U.S. military document showing with the hand-drawn outline of a man's body and the words "trauma wounds."
What kind of trauma is now being experienced in Iraq? Just who is doing the mass killing? Who is dumping so many bodies on garbage heaps? After Haditha, we are going to reshape our suspicions.
It's no good saying "a few bad apples." All occupation armies are corrupted. But do they all commit war crimes? The Algerians are still uncovering the mass graves left by the French paras who liquidated whole villages. We know of the rapist-killers of the Russian army in Chechnya.
We have all heard of Bloody Sunday. The Israelis sat and watched while their proxy Lebanese militia butchered and eviscerated its way through 1,700 Palestinians. And of course the words My Lai are now uttered again. Yes, the Nazis were much worse. And the Japanese. And the Croatian Ustashi. But this is us. This is our army. These young soldiers are our representatives in Iraq. And they have innocent blood on their hands.
I suspect part of the problem is that we never really cared about Iraqis, which is why we refused to count their dead. Once the Iraqis turned upon the army of occupation with their roadside bombs and suicide cars, they became Arab "gooks," the evil sub-humans whom the Americans once identified in Vietnam. Get a president to tell us that we are fighting evil and one day we will wake to find that a child has horns, a baby has cloven feet.
Remind yourself these people are Muslims and they can all become little Mohamed Attas. Killing a roomful of civilians is only a step further from all those promiscuous air strikes that we are told kill 'terrorists" but which all too often turn out to be a wedding party or -- as in Afghanistan -- a mixture of "terrorists" and children or, as we are soon to hear, no doubt, "terrorist children."
-continued-
'Da Vinci Code' film banned in Pakistan, parts of India
Pakistan has joined seven of India's 29 states in banning the movie The Da Vinci Code saying it is insulting to Christians.
Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou in the Da Vinci Code
Pakistan's Minister of Culture Ghulam Jamal announced Saturday that the film would not be shown in the country out of respect for Pakistan's Christian minority, which comprises three per cent of the 150 million population.
"The Da Vinci Code is a sacrilegious act in the guise of freedom of expression and fiction," said Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian leader in Pakistan.
Pakistan's announcement comes in the wake of Friday's proclamation by officials in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, who said they would join six other states including Goa, Punjab and Tamil Nadu in banning the movie.
The movie starring Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou is based on the best-selling book by Dan Brown.
'Attacks Gospel'
"The film's storyline attacked the very heart of the Holy Gospel, destroying the divinity of Jesus Christ," said Paul Bhuyan, the special chief secretary of Andhra Pradesh. Christians make up one per cent of the state's 80 million people.
In terms of India's entire population of one billion people, only two per cent is Christian.
Part of the Da Vinci Code's premise is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that she bore him a child, and that their familial line has continued to modern times.
"The release of the movie could have led to demonstrations and trouble," pointed out Bhuyan.
Marampudi Joji, the Roman Catholic bishop in Hyderabad, India, said he appreciated the decision and was "grateful" to the state government.
Despite the film's controversy and bad reviews, it earned $224 million US worldwide in its first three days, the second-largest debut at the global box office.
Columbia Pictures was so pleased with the movie's performance that it announced plans to turn Brown's earlier book introducing symbologist Robert Langdon, Angels and Demons, into a movie. Hanks plays Langdon in The Da Vinci Code.
The film was released May 26 in India and has been playing to packed houses.
Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou in the Da Vinci Code
Pakistan's Minister of Culture Ghulam Jamal announced Saturday that the film would not be shown in the country out of respect for Pakistan's Christian minority, which comprises three per cent of the 150 million population.
"The Da Vinci Code is a sacrilegious act in the guise of freedom of expression and fiction," said Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian leader in Pakistan.
Pakistan's announcement comes in the wake of Friday's proclamation by officials in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, who said they would join six other states including Goa, Punjab and Tamil Nadu in banning the movie.
The movie starring Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou is based on the best-selling book by Dan Brown.
'Attacks Gospel'
"The film's storyline attacked the very heart of the Holy Gospel, destroying the divinity of Jesus Christ," said Paul Bhuyan, the special chief secretary of Andhra Pradesh. Christians make up one per cent of the state's 80 million people.
In terms of India's entire population of one billion people, only two per cent is Christian.
Part of the Da Vinci Code's premise is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that she bore him a child, and that their familial line has continued to modern times.
"The release of the movie could have led to demonstrations and trouble," pointed out Bhuyan.
Marampudi Joji, the Roman Catholic bishop in Hyderabad, India, said he appreciated the decision and was "grateful" to the state government.
Despite the film's controversy and bad reviews, it earned $224 million US worldwide in its first three days, the second-largest debut at the global box office.
Columbia Pictures was so pleased with the movie's performance that it announced plans to turn Brown's earlier book introducing symbologist Robert Langdon, Angels and Demons, into a movie. Hanks plays Langdon in The Da Vinci Code.
The film was released May 26 in India and has been playing to packed houses.
Beijing Civilians Join the Ranks of Internet Supervisors
[ Editor's note: This new measure is different from the already existing surveillance conducted by the Internet police ]
CHINA - On May 24, the Beijing Association of Online Media recruited 200 special Internet supervisors from across China to conduct comprehensive surveillance on the flow of information.
According to the Web site Qianlong.net, 200 people joined the first batch of special Internet supervisors for Beijing. From now on, all Web sites in Beijing will be under the surveillance of these Internet supervisors. If there is any so-called illegal content and undesirable information, the supervisor will rapidly transmit the relevant information to the Beijing Association of Online Media.
Current affairs analyst Zeng Ning from Guiyang City believes that employing Internet supervisors may be illegitimate. He said, "Such surveillance action, in my opinion, may infringe upon the legal rights of the person who posts the information. For example, the person's right to privacy or freedom of speech may be violated."
The Beijing Association of Online Media Web site indicates that the part-time responsibilities of the 200 Internet supervisors include conducting surveillance on uncivilized behavior, illegal and undesirable information in Beijing Web sites, and promptly informing the Beijing Association of Online Media through telephone, email and non-periodic participation in meetings.
-continued-
CHINA - On May 24, the Beijing Association of Online Media recruited 200 special Internet supervisors from across China to conduct comprehensive surveillance on the flow of information.
According to the Web site Qianlong.net, 200 people joined the first batch of special Internet supervisors for Beijing. From now on, all Web sites in Beijing will be under the surveillance of these Internet supervisors. If there is any so-called illegal content and undesirable information, the supervisor will rapidly transmit the relevant information to the Beijing Association of Online Media.
Current affairs analyst Zeng Ning from Guiyang City believes that employing Internet supervisors may be illegitimate. He said, "Such surveillance action, in my opinion, may infringe upon the legal rights of the person who posts the information. For example, the person's right to privacy or freedom of speech may be violated."
The Beijing Association of Online Media Web site indicates that the part-time responsibilities of the 200 Internet supervisors include conducting surveillance on uncivilized behavior, illegal and undesirable information in Beijing Web sites, and promptly informing the Beijing Association of Online Media through telephone, email and non-periodic participation in meetings.
-continued-
Banned from U.S. Airways!
US Airways became the most recent airline to fall victim to a rapacious anti-peanut cabal that will not rest until the humble legume is wiped off the face of the earth.
Following a merger between peanut-friendly America West and peanut-free US Airways, the new US Airways went pro-peanut.
According to Jennifer Tongé, US Airways' director of customer relations, it was far and away customers' favorite snack.
But, due to the complaints of an increasingly hostile and vocal group of allergy-sufferers, those halcyon days of coast-to-coast peanut eatin' are over.
It eventually "became very clear that it was the right decision," said Tongé.
The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis network crowed about its anti-peanut coup on its website.
"You will soon be able to add US Airways and America West to the list of airlines safe for peanut-allergic airline passengers," gloated the shadowy organization.
"[S]tarting from June 30, 2006, all US Airways and America West flights will serve only non-peanut snacks."
Make no mistake, Mr. Peanut: this means war.
Following a merger between peanut-friendly America West and peanut-free US Airways, the new US Airways went pro-peanut.
According to Jennifer Tongé, US Airways' director of customer relations, it was far and away customers' favorite snack.
But, due to the complaints of an increasingly hostile and vocal group of allergy-sufferers, those halcyon days of coast-to-coast peanut eatin' are over.
It eventually "became very clear that it was the right decision," said Tongé.
The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis network crowed about its anti-peanut coup on its website.
"You will soon be able to add US Airways and America West to the list of airlines safe for peanut-allergic airline passengers," gloated the shadowy organization.
"[S]tarting from June 30, 2006, all US Airways and America West flights will serve only non-peanut snacks."
Make no mistake, Mr. Peanut: this means war.
Web users to 'patrol' US border
A US state is to enlist web users in its fight against illegal immigration by offering live surveillance footage of the Mexican border on the internet.
The plan will allow web users worldwide to watch Texas' border with Mexico and phone the authorities if they spot any apparently illegal crossings.
Texas Governor Rick Perry said the cameras would focus on "hot-spots and common routes" used to enter the US.
US lawmakers have been debating a divisive new illegal immigration bill.
The Senate has approved a law that grants millions of illegal immigrants US citizenship and calls for the creation of a guest-worker programme, while beefing up border security.
But in order to come into effect, the plan must be reconciled with tougher anti-immigration measures backed by the House of Representatives, that insist all illegal immigration should be criminalised.
The issue has polarised politics and US society. Right-wing groups have protested against illegal immigrants, while millions of people marched in support of them last month.
-continued-
The plan will allow web users worldwide to watch Texas' border with Mexico and phone the authorities if they spot any apparently illegal crossings.
Texas Governor Rick Perry said the cameras would focus on "hot-spots and common routes" used to enter the US.
US lawmakers have been debating a divisive new illegal immigration bill.
The Senate has approved a law that grants millions of illegal immigrants US citizenship and calls for the creation of a guest-worker programme, while beefing up border security.
But in order to come into effect, the plan must be reconciled with tougher anti-immigration measures backed by the House of Representatives, that insist all illegal immigration should be criminalised.
The issue has polarised politics and US society. Right-wing groups have protested against illegal immigrants, while millions of people marched in support of them last month.
-continued-
Yahoo CEO likes China, unsure about Nazis
Corporate money-grabbers have shown their true colors again, with Yahoo chief Terry Semel making it clear that taking care of business is far more important than taking care of liberty.
At a recent presentation Semel was asked if Yahoo would have cooperated with Nazi Germany the same way it has with China.
"Yahoo has a basic obligation not to have a point of view on basic content, and to present content ... and aggregate things and to allow people to make their own choices. I don't know how I would have felt then," Semel answered.
The collaborator even dared to suggest that he was helping the cause of freedom.
"To me, it's about keeping the information flowing. Little by little, we start to bring about change," he said.
The tech giant has recently been implicated in a number of convictions of reporters in China, who had been trying to spread freedom and democracy (the real kind, not the Dubya kind). It seems that whenever China asks Yahoo for their user logs, they roll over at the drop of a hat to grease the wheels of business.
Trying to show a human side, the corporate collaborator whined that he didn't like having to rat good people out to the Chinese. "I don't feel good about what's happening in China today. I don't feel good about some of the things that happen in our own country," he claimed.
"I continue to be pissed off, outraged, and feel very very bad about it," Semel said. "But you have to follow the laws of the country you're in."
In April Yahoo was implicated in the conviction of Jiang Lijun, a 39-year-old reporter who was found guilty of using the Internet "to promote so-called Western-style democracy," and "advocate that our country implement a multiparty system." Lijun is currently serving a 4 year jail sentence, on the basis of evidence used by the prosecution which included "email account information provided by Yahoo! Holdings." In all, there have been four incidents already in which Yahoo acted as the lapdog of the Chinese government.
Semel has made clear in the past that China is a huge market for his company, due to the large amount of Internet, PC and wireless device users. It seems that the dollar signs are just too enticing for Yahoo to not do business with China, because Semel has every excuse imaginable in his trick bag.
"I don't think any one company is going to change a country, and I don't think any one industry is going to change a country," he said. That sort of avoids the simple moral answer of not dealing with fascist murderers, as Reporters Without Borders point out.
"We already knew that Yahoo collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well," the free press organization said recently. "The company will yet again simply state that they just conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate. But does the fact that this corporation operates under Chinese law free it from all ethical considerations? How far will it go to please Beijing?"
If American Yahoo users didn't already have enough reason to shop elsewhere, Semel had another message. He defended Yahoo's cooperation with recent data requests from U.S. authorities, saying that he "couldn't understand" why Google refused to turn over user information to the Feds. "The better job we do in making the Internet a safer environment, the better it is for growth of the Internet," he said. And he doesn't seem to mind if the little people - that's us - get trampled over in the process.
At a recent presentation Semel was asked if Yahoo would have cooperated with Nazi Germany the same way it has with China.
"Yahoo has a basic obligation not to have a point of view on basic content, and to present content ... and aggregate things and to allow people to make their own choices. I don't know how I would have felt then," Semel answered.
The collaborator even dared to suggest that he was helping the cause of freedom.
"To me, it's about keeping the information flowing. Little by little, we start to bring about change," he said.
The tech giant has recently been implicated in a number of convictions of reporters in China, who had been trying to spread freedom and democracy (the real kind, not the Dubya kind). It seems that whenever China asks Yahoo for their user logs, they roll over at the drop of a hat to grease the wheels of business.
Trying to show a human side, the corporate collaborator whined that he didn't like having to rat good people out to the Chinese. "I don't feel good about what's happening in China today. I don't feel good about some of the things that happen in our own country," he claimed.
"I continue to be pissed off, outraged, and feel very very bad about it," Semel said. "But you have to follow the laws of the country you're in."
In April Yahoo was implicated in the conviction of Jiang Lijun, a 39-year-old reporter who was found guilty of using the Internet "to promote so-called Western-style democracy," and "advocate that our country implement a multiparty system." Lijun is currently serving a 4 year jail sentence, on the basis of evidence used by the prosecution which included "email account information provided by Yahoo! Holdings." In all, there have been four incidents already in which Yahoo acted as the lapdog of the Chinese government.
Semel has made clear in the past that China is a huge market for his company, due to the large amount of Internet, PC and wireless device users. It seems that the dollar signs are just too enticing for Yahoo to not do business with China, because Semel has every excuse imaginable in his trick bag.
"I don't think any one company is going to change a country, and I don't think any one industry is going to change a country," he said. That sort of avoids the simple moral answer of not dealing with fascist murderers, as Reporters Without Borders point out.
"We already knew that Yahoo collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well," the free press organization said recently. "The company will yet again simply state that they just conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate. But does the fact that this corporation operates under Chinese law free it from all ethical considerations? How far will it go to please Beijing?"
If American Yahoo users didn't already have enough reason to shop elsewhere, Semel had another message. He defended Yahoo's cooperation with recent data requests from U.S. authorities, saying that he "couldn't understand" why Google refused to turn over user information to the Feds. "The better job we do in making the Internet a safer environment, the better it is for growth of the Internet," he said. And he doesn't seem to mind if the little people - that's us - get trampled over in the process.
Duck if you see an alien
What do you find more amazing? An x-ray of a dead duck which has a funny Rorschach image of an alien head in it, or the fact that it can dominate headlines around the world?
The story started when a bird rescue center x-rayed a dead duck it had picked up. The staff was 'stunned' to see what appeared to be the face, or head, of an extraterrestrial alien in the bird's stomach.
"Marie looked at it and all she could say was 'unbelievable,'" said Karen Benzel, public affairs director for the rescue center. Perhaps more unbelievable is the fact that such a trivial story soon spread across every news network.
So far the x-ray story has made the Washington Post, Forbes, National Geographic, MSNBC and ABC. Sure, Fox news is no surprise, but what the hell is WaPo doing running this stuff?
Guess there's not much else news of note around at the moment ... apart from an impending World War III, a disgrace of a President, and military murders in Iraq.
Looks like we're left with a choice between x-ray duck aliens or fake news from the Government.
In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks: "Go back to bed America...."
War Veteran Sues Moore Over 'Fahrenheit' Portrayal
A U.S. war veteran has filed a $85 million lawsuit against Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore for falsely portraying him in the documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Sergeant Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Massachusetts who lost both his arms in the Iraq war, claims the film caused him "a loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment and personal humiliation" after it featured a clip of an interview he did with NBC's "Nightly News."
Damon claims the way Moore edited the clip made him look to be anti-war by depicting him as "voicing a complaint about the war effort," when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" from his injuries.
Damon is seeking damages in the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Massachusetts, claiming Moore never asked for his consent to use the clip, adding, "(Damon) agrees with and supports the President (George W. Bush) and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."
Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, says, "It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that."
Sergeant Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Massachusetts who lost both his arms in the Iraq war, claims the film caused him "a loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment and personal humiliation" after it featured a clip of an interview he did with NBC's "Nightly News."
Damon claims the way Moore edited the clip made him look to be anti-war by depicting him as "voicing a complaint about the war effort," when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" from his injuries.
Damon is seeking damages in the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Massachusetts, claiming Moore never asked for his consent to use the clip, adding, "(Damon) agrees with and supports the President (George W. Bush) and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."
Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, says, "It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that."
'F Nader'
After five years of expressing his contempt for Ralph Nader via his license plate, a Chevy Corvair driver in Iowa has been told he must stop.
John Miller, 51, loves the Corvair. He collects, repairs and sells them. And like anyone who loves the Corvair, Miller feels a certain disgust for Nader. For the past five years he's shared his feelings about Nader with a license plate that reads "F NADER."
In 1965 Nader gained fame with the publication of his book "Unsafe at Any Speed," detailing the resistance of automobile manufacturers to improving safety. In particular he attacked the Corvair, claiming it had a tendency to roll over. That claim would be proved false in a 1972 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study.
But the good times ended with Joel Paulson's letter to the Iowa Department of Transportation on May 16.
"'F NADER' is obviously this Corvair owner's response to Ralph Nader's charge against the Corvair. I don't believe I should have to explain to my children about 'F NADER,' " Paulson wrote.
Apparently Paulson lacked the creativity or imagination to offer any number of non-swear related answers, ranging from "I don't know" to "Frank Nader."
It wasn't until receipt of this letter that it occurred to anyone at the DOT that the 'F' was in fact an f-bomb.
"Usually, it doesn't raise an eyebrow. It just brings a chuckle," Miller said. He's told several people in the past that he's Nader's brother Fred and adds that he sees cars with identical plates from across the country when he attends car shows.
Now Miller has to choose between another personalized plate, a $50 refund and a regular plate or filing an appeal.
"I kind of like this plate and want to keep it, but I am not going to make a federal case out of it," Miller said.
Of course Randall Wilson, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union-Iowa would be happy to.
"My thoughts are that they surely have better things to do than take on this guy. ... It just does not strike me as so offensive or gross that the state has any business trying to do something about it," Wilson said.
John Miller, 51, loves the Corvair. He collects, repairs and sells them. And like anyone who loves the Corvair, Miller feels a certain disgust for Nader. For the past five years he's shared his feelings about Nader with a license plate that reads "F NADER."
In 1965 Nader gained fame with the publication of his book "Unsafe at Any Speed," detailing the resistance of automobile manufacturers to improving safety. In particular he attacked the Corvair, claiming it had a tendency to roll over. That claim would be proved false in a 1972 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study.
But the good times ended with Joel Paulson's letter to the Iowa Department of Transportation on May 16.
"'F NADER' is obviously this Corvair owner's response to Ralph Nader's charge against the Corvair. I don't believe I should have to explain to my children about 'F NADER,' " Paulson wrote.
Apparently Paulson lacked the creativity or imagination to offer any number of non-swear related answers, ranging from "I don't know" to "Frank Nader."
It wasn't until receipt of this letter that it occurred to anyone at the DOT that the 'F' was in fact an f-bomb.
"Usually, it doesn't raise an eyebrow. It just brings a chuckle," Miller said. He's told several people in the past that he's Nader's brother Fred and adds that he sees cars with identical plates from across the country when he attends car shows.
Now Miller has to choose between another personalized plate, a $50 refund and a regular plate or filing an appeal.
"I kind of like this plate and want to keep it, but I am not going to make a federal case out of it," Miller said.
Of course Randall Wilson, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union-Iowa would be happy to.
"My thoughts are that they surely have better things to do than take on this guy. ... It just does not strike me as so offensive or gross that the state has any business trying to do something about it," Wilson said.
The good, the bad and the stupid
A Brazilian drug kingpin wanted by authorities on 12 counts of trafficking walked in through the front door of the local prison and gave a testimonial during the sermon. He then promptly walked straight out again, with officials none the wiser.
Alberico Medeiros, who says he has abandoned his criminal activities now that Jesus is his saviour, spoke during a Pentecostal sermon in front of 480 inmates. He reeled off his own personal rap-sheet for all listening, discussing his drug use and violent ways.
However, the Pentecostal perp wasn't recognized by prison officers and left through the front door after the sermon. But if the J-man has forgiven him his sins, it seems Brazilian police haven't.
"He may have repented his sins, but he is wanted by the police," said an investigator in Rio. "It's incredible that he dares to show up in a prison like that, talking about his crimes, and nobody even stops him."
The Brazilian criminal seems to have more of a clue than a would-be Japanese bank robber who walked into a bank and asked staff how he should carry out the crime. When bank staff asked him to leave, the thick thief quietly walked out and somehow managed to accidentally stab himself in the leg with the knife he was carrying.
The man walked up to a bank teller and asked, "Any idea how you rob a bank?" A staff member asked the man to leave and escorted him out of the building, but as he did so noticed the knife handle sticking out of the robber's pants, and blood on his trousers.
The clueless criminal was arrested for illegal possession of a weapon. "He didn't brandish the knife at anyone ... but he injured himself in the leg," the police spokesman said.
Alberico Medeiros, who says he has abandoned his criminal activities now that Jesus is his saviour, spoke during a Pentecostal sermon in front of 480 inmates. He reeled off his own personal rap-sheet for all listening, discussing his drug use and violent ways.
However, the Pentecostal perp wasn't recognized by prison officers and left through the front door after the sermon. But if the J-man has forgiven him his sins, it seems Brazilian police haven't.
"He may have repented his sins, but he is wanted by the police," said an investigator in Rio. "It's incredible that he dares to show up in a prison like that, talking about his crimes, and nobody even stops him."
The Brazilian criminal seems to have more of a clue than a would-be Japanese bank robber who walked into a bank and asked staff how he should carry out the crime. When bank staff asked him to leave, the thick thief quietly walked out and somehow managed to accidentally stab himself in the leg with the knife he was carrying.
The man walked up to a bank teller and asked, "Any idea how you rob a bank?" A staff member asked the man to leave and escorted him out of the building, but as he did so noticed the knife handle sticking out of the robber's pants, and blood on his trousers.
The clueless criminal was arrested for illegal possession of a weapon. "He didn't brandish the knife at anyone ... but he injured himself in the leg," the police spokesman said.
2006/06/01
Marines to face charges in Iraqi's death
By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 47 minutes ago
SAN DIEGO - Military prosecutors plan to file murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges against seven Marines and a Navy corpsman in the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian in April, a defense lawyer said Thursday.
The eight men are being held in the brig at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base north of San Diego, said Jeremiah Sullivan III, who represents one of the men.
The men served in Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, and are members of the battalion's Kilo Company. The highest-ranking serviceman is a staff sergeant.
Sullivan said he learned from Marine Corps attorneys that the charges have been drafted and official charging documents could be given to the men as early as Friday.
The Iraqi man was killed west of Baghdad on April 26. His death was unrelated to the shootings of as many as two dozen civilians in the western Iraqi city of Haditha. The Pentagon is investigating troops from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in that case.
The Marine Corps and Pentagon spokesmen have refused to comment on any aspect of the Iraqi man's death since an investigation was announced May 24.
However, a Pentagon official said Thursday that charges are expected to be brought "very soon." The official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss charges before they are filed, could not confirm the specific counts.
Sullivan said the eight men are being held in solitary confinement.
"There's concern about the publicity of Haditha having a detrimental impact on the case," he said. "My concern is that the whole politics of this. There's an assumption that these guys are guilty before there's been an opportunity for a thorough, impartial investigation."
1 hour, 47 minutes ago
SAN DIEGO - Military prosecutors plan to file murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges against seven Marines and a Navy corpsman in the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian in April, a defense lawyer said Thursday.
The eight men are being held in the brig at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base north of San Diego, said Jeremiah Sullivan III, who represents one of the men.
The men served in Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, and are members of the battalion's Kilo Company. The highest-ranking serviceman is a staff sergeant.
Sullivan said he learned from Marine Corps attorneys that the charges have been drafted and official charging documents could be given to the men as early as Friday.
The Iraqi man was killed west of Baghdad on April 26. His death was unrelated to the shootings of as many as two dozen civilians in the western Iraqi city of Haditha. The Pentagon is investigating troops from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in that case.
The Marine Corps and Pentagon spokesmen have refused to comment on any aspect of the Iraqi man's death since an investigation was announced May 24.
However, a Pentagon official said Thursday that charges are expected to be brought "very soon." The official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss charges before they are filed, could not confirm the specific counts.
Sullivan said the eight men are being held in solitary confinement.
"There's concern about the publicity of Haditha having a detrimental impact on the case," he said. "My concern is that the whole politics of this. There's an assumption that these guys are guilty before there's been an opportunity for a thorough, impartial investigation."
Shiite Muslims protest over comedy show
By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 56 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Thousands of Shiite Muslims enraged by a TV comedy that mocked the leader of Hezbollah took to the streets of southern Beirut on Thursday night, burning car tires and blocking roads, police and witneses said.
The trouble began after an actor spoofed Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, wearing the Hezbollah leader's trademark black turban and sporting a similar beard and spectacles on a TV show on Lebanese Broadcasting Corp, a privately-owned Christian channel.
Thousands of Hezbollah supporters went into the streets of southern Beirut, the stronghold of Hezbollah. They carried pictures of Nasrallah and shouted support. They blocked the road to the airport, but officials said the country's only air facility remained open.
The unrest spread to other Shiite neighborhoods of Beirut, where rioters blocked roads and burned car tires, including the highway to Lebanon's international airport, the officials said. Troops blocked roads in the commercial center in downtown Beirut to stop Hezbollah supporters riding on motorcycles from reaching the area.
Pro-Nasrallah protests also erupted in southern and eastern Lebanon, predominantly Shiite parts of the country where Hezbollah enjoys wide support, TV stations said.
The protests reflected the tension between pro- and anti-Syrian camps. Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, has been accused by the anti-Syrian legislative majority of doing the bidding of Syria after Damascus was forced to pull its army from Lebanon 13 months ago.
Syrian troops left under international pressure in the wake of the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri. Pro-Syrian factions accuse the parliamentary majority of working for the United States.
A Hezbollah broadcast said the TV show had "insulted the symbol of the resistance and its leader."
Hezbollah enjoys wide support among Lebanon's Shiite community of 1.2 million people, believed to be the largest sect in this nation of 3.5 million people.
Guerrillas of Hezbollah, which the United States lists as terrorist organization, frequently clash with Israeli forces along the south Lebanese border. The group has rejected international and domestic calls to disarm, saying weapons are needed to defend Lebanon against possible Israeli attack.
-Do you have to have your sense of humor surgically removed when you become a muslim?
1 hour, 56 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Thousands of Shiite Muslims enraged by a TV comedy that mocked the leader of Hezbollah took to the streets of southern Beirut on Thursday night, burning car tires and blocking roads, police and witneses said.
The trouble began after an actor spoofed Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, wearing the Hezbollah leader's trademark black turban and sporting a similar beard and spectacles on a TV show on Lebanese Broadcasting Corp, a privately-owned Christian channel.
Thousands of Hezbollah supporters went into the streets of southern Beirut, the stronghold of Hezbollah. They carried pictures of Nasrallah and shouted support. They blocked the road to the airport, but officials said the country's only air facility remained open.
The unrest spread to other Shiite neighborhoods of Beirut, where rioters blocked roads and burned car tires, including the highway to Lebanon's international airport, the officials said. Troops blocked roads in the commercial center in downtown Beirut to stop Hezbollah supporters riding on motorcycles from reaching the area.
Pro-Nasrallah protests also erupted in southern and eastern Lebanon, predominantly Shiite parts of the country where Hezbollah enjoys wide support, TV stations said.
The protests reflected the tension between pro- and anti-Syrian camps. Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, has been accused by the anti-Syrian legislative majority of doing the bidding of Syria after Damascus was forced to pull its army from Lebanon 13 months ago.
Syrian troops left under international pressure in the wake of the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri. Pro-Syrian factions accuse the parliamentary majority of working for the United States.
A Hezbollah broadcast said the TV show had "insulted the symbol of the resistance and its leader."
Hezbollah enjoys wide support among Lebanon's Shiite community of 1.2 million people, believed to be the largest sect in this nation of 3.5 million people.
Guerrillas of Hezbollah, which the United States lists as terrorist organization, frequently clash with Israeli forces along the south Lebanese border. The group has rejected international and domestic calls to disarm, saying weapons are needed to defend Lebanon against possible Israeli attack.
-Do you have to have your sense of humor surgically removed when you become a muslim?
A tracking device for immigrants
Not satisfied with building a wall along the Mexican border, politicians in D.C. are discussing the idea of implanting immigrants with radio frequency ID chips.
Scott Silverman is the chairman and CEO of Applied Digital, parent company of VeriChip, an RFID industry leader. Among their specialties is tagging pets. On a May 16 visit to "FOX & Friends First," a New York-based morning show, Silverman tried to make the plan sound innocent enough.
"It's an election at the part of the immigrant or an election on the part of the government," he explained.
"We have talked to many people in Washington about using it."
Silverman then tried to make it sound like he would be doing immigrants a favor by implanting a tracking device in their bodies, saying the chips would be "a benefit to the person that's in the guest worker program because if you leave your card at home or you leave it at your work, you're not going to be able to go back and forth across the border."
Brian Kilmeade, one of the show's hosts, compared the implants to "permanently putting a string on your finger."
A string that stretches all the way to Washington D.C.
Silverman's chips are currently being used to hold people's medical records. Their most notable guinea pig will be Tommy Thompson, President Bush's former Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a member of Applied Digital's board, he stands to profit handsomely if the government were to go forward with immigrant implants.
"We are all well aware of the need to enhance information technology in healthcare," Thompson said in a statement last year. "It is my belief that VeriChip is an important and secure means of accessing medical records and other information."
He has vowed to be tagged as soon as hospitals in D.C. and his home state of Wisconsin adopt the technology.
Americans are already being forced to have their passports implanted with the chips, enabling the government to access your personal information as well as a photograph of you.
RFID tags are also used to allow V.I.P. access to nightclubs, keep track of employees and luggage, and are in countless things you buy regularly.
Scott Silverman is the chairman and CEO of Applied Digital, parent company of VeriChip, an RFID industry leader. Among their specialties is tagging pets. On a May 16 visit to "FOX & Friends First," a New York-based morning show, Silverman tried to make the plan sound innocent enough.
"It's an election at the part of the immigrant or an election on the part of the government," he explained.
"We have talked to many people in Washington about using it."
Silverman then tried to make it sound like he would be doing immigrants a favor by implanting a tracking device in their bodies, saying the chips would be "a benefit to the person that's in the guest worker program because if you leave your card at home or you leave it at your work, you're not going to be able to go back and forth across the border."
Brian Kilmeade, one of the show's hosts, compared the implants to "permanently putting a string on your finger."
A string that stretches all the way to Washington D.C.
Silverman's chips are currently being used to hold people's medical records. Their most notable guinea pig will be Tommy Thompson, President Bush's former Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a member of Applied Digital's board, he stands to profit handsomely if the government were to go forward with immigrant implants.
"We are all well aware of the need to enhance information technology in healthcare," Thompson said in a statement last year. "It is my belief that VeriChip is an important and secure means of accessing medical records and other information."
He has vowed to be tagged as soon as hospitals in D.C. and his home state of Wisconsin adopt the technology.
Americans are already being forced to have their passports implanted with the chips, enabling the government to access your personal information as well as a photograph of you.
RFID tags are also used to allow V.I.P. access to nightclubs, keep track of employees and luggage, and are in countless things you buy regularly.
God fires a warning shot
Despite studies that prove God's contempt for prayer, people insist on dropping to their knees. When he isn't too busy with other things, the Lord isn't above striking down those that pray.
Clara Jean Brown had been left home alone this past weekend when a powerful storm rolled over her Daphne, Alabama home. Her husband had gone to the store, her son and his family were at the beach.
Unable to do anything useful for her family, Brown decided to say a prayer for their safe return.
"I said, 'Amen,' and the room was engulfed in a huge ball of fire," she said. "I was just standing there when a huge ball of fire engulfed this whole room. I don't remember much after that."
Brown passed out on the floor among exploded chunks of concrete. That's where her 14-year-old granddaughter found her upon coming home from the beach.
Fire officials told James Brown, Clara's husband, that the bolt appeared to have come from across the street and in through a waterline. The bolt tore up the kitchen floor - ruining the brownies on the stove top - and continued to the backyard where it ripped up a small trench.
Even though the Lord nearly killed her by his own hand, Brown didn't seem to get the message.
"I'm blessed. That's the good news," she said.
Clara Jean Brown had been left home alone this past weekend when a powerful storm rolled over her Daphne, Alabama home. Her husband had gone to the store, her son and his family were at the beach.
Unable to do anything useful for her family, Brown decided to say a prayer for their safe return.
"I said, 'Amen,' and the room was engulfed in a huge ball of fire," she said. "I was just standing there when a huge ball of fire engulfed this whole room. I don't remember much after that."
Brown passed out on the floor among exploded chunks of concrete. That's where her 14-year-old granddaughter found her upon coming home from the beach.
Fire officials told James Brown, Clara's husband, that the bolt appeared to have come from across the street and in through a waterline. The bolt tore up the kitchen floor - ruining the brownies on the stove top - and continued to the backyard where it ripped up a small trench.
Even though the Lord nearly killed her by his own hand, Brown didn't seem to get the message.
"I'm blessed. That's the good news," she said.
'Sorry guys - but I'm gay!'
A new superhero is protecting Gotham City, with Batwoman making a comeback to comic book shelves 27 years after she was killed off. And the leather-clad public protector is not just resurrected - she's coming out of the proverbial batcave, with the revelation that she is a lesbian.
DC Comics will be unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of the ongoing weekly comic book series 52. "We decided to give her a different point of view," say vice president and executive editor at DC Dan Didio. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."
The new Batwoman, whose 'real' name is Kathy Kane, will have flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a very provocative skin-tight black outfit. "She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya." Montoya is a former female police detective in Gotham City.
Batwoman's reappearance comes at a time when other DC superheroes - including Batman and Wonder Woman - have disappeared, leaving the city in turmoil.
Batwoman's new sexual preference has split comic book fans' opinion. "Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more groundbreaking?" asked one website forum poster. "You know, 200-pound woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores, etc.?"
DiDio asked that people suspend judgement until they see the comic book. "Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."
-Unfortunetly the comic will be written by a straight, white, homophobic, male, that still lives in his parents basement. So expect it to be big boobs, skin tight outfits, and lots of girl on girl kissing, and lots of hair pulling.
DC Comics will be unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of the ongoing weekly comic book series 52. "We decided to give her a different point of view," say vice president and executive editor at DC Dan Didio. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."
The new Batwoman, whose 'real' name is Kathy Kane, will have flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a very provocative skin-tight black outfit. "She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya." Montoya is a former female police detective in Gotham City.
Batwoman's reappearance comes at a time when other DC superheroes - including Batman and Wonder Woman - have disappeared, leaving the city in turmoil.
Batwoman's new sexual preference has split comic book fans' opinion. "Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more groundbreaking?" asked one website forum poster. "You know, 200-pound woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores, etc.?"
DiDio asked that people suspend judgement until they see the comic book. "Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."
-Unfortunetly the comic will be written by a straight, white, homophobic, male, that still lives in his parents basement. So expect it to be big boobs, skin tight outfits, and lots of girl on girl kissing, and lots of hair pulling.
Japan is proud home of Christ's tomb
From Leo Lewis in Shingo Village
IN A paddy-lined valley in the far north of Japan is a municipal signpost inscribed: “Tomb of Christ: next left.”
Follow the winding path up into the forest and there, sure enough, is a simple mound with a large wooden cross labelled as the grave of Jesus. Nearby is a tomb commemorating Isukiri, Christ’s brother, adorned with a plastic poinsettia Christmas wreath.
For two millennia the farming village of Shingo claims to have protected a tradition that Jesus spent most of his life in Japan. The village is the home of Sajiro Sawaguchi, a man in his eighties who claims to be a direct descendant of Jesus and whose family has always owned the land in which it is said that Christ is buried.
Mr Sawaguchi emerged as Jesus’s heir only in 1935, when a priest in Ibaraki discovered a document in ancient Japanese purporting to be Christ’s will. This document supposedly identifies Shingo as the location of the tombs of Jesus and Isukiri. The claim is widely believed. About 40,000 Japanese visit the site every year. Two years ago it was presented with a plaque by Jerusalem, and next Sunday it will host the annual Christ festival of traditional Japanese dance.
According to the account in the Christ Museum next to the tombs, Christ arrived in Japan at the age of 21 and learnt Japanese before returning to Judaea 12 years later to engage in his mission and preach about the “holy land of Japan”. The official Shingo history is that Jesus’s place on the Cross was “casually” taken by his brother, leaving Christ free to return to Japan. On his return he fell in love with Miyuko, a local girl, and lived happily with his family among the rice fields until dying aged 106.
Norihide Nagano, the straight-faced curator of the tombs, says that the theory that the grave does contain the remains of Jesus is supported by several pieces of evidence. There is the local tradition, dating back hundreds of years, of drawing a charcoal cross on babies’ heads; and ancient kimonos made in the area incorporated a Star of David.
The upkeep of the site is paid for out of the profits of a local yoghurt factory, and Mr Nagano agrees that The Da Vinci Code will probably boost Shingo’s coffers. The village shop is already doing a roaring trade in Christ-branded saké. “Did you enjoy the museum?” asks Mr Nagano. “If you did, I recommend you go to Ishikawa district. They have the tomb of Moses there.”
IN A paddy-lined valley in the far north of Japan is a municipal signpost inscribed: “Tomb of Christ: next left.”
Follow the winding path up into the forest and there, sure enough, is a simple mound with a large wooden cross labelled as the grave of Jesus. Nearby is a tomb commemorating Isukiri, Christ’s brother, adorned with a plastic poinsettia Christmas wreath.
For two millennia the farming village of Shingo claims to have protected a tradition that Jesus spent most of his life in Japan. The village is the home of Sajiro Sawaguchi, a man in his eighties who claims to be a direct descendant of Jesus and whose family has always owned the land in which it is said that Christ is buried.
Mr Sawaguchi emerged as Jesus’s heir only in 1935, when a priest in Ibaraki discovered a document in ancient Japanese purporting to be Christ’s will. This document supposedly identifies Shingo as the location of the tombs of Jesus and Isukiri. The claim is widely believed. About 40,000 Japanese visit the site every year. Two years ago it was presented with a plaque by Jerusalem, and next Sunday it will host the annual Christ festival of traditional Japanese dance.
According to the account in the Christ Museum next to the tombs, Christ arrived in Japan at the age of 21 and learnt Japanese before returning to Judaea 12 years later to engage in his mission and preach about the “holy land of Japan”. The official Shingo history is that Jesus’s place on the Cross was “casually” taken by his brother, leaving Christ free to return to Japan. On his return he fell in love with Miyuko, a local girl, and lived happily with his family among the rice fields until dying aged 106.
Norihide Nagano, the straight-faced curator of the tombs, says that the theory that the grave does contain the remains of Jesus is supported by several pieces of evidence. There is the local tradition, dating back hundreds of years, of drawing a charcoal cross on babies’ heads; and ancient kimonos made in the area incorporated a Star of David.
The upkeep of the site is paid for out of the profits of a local yoghurt factory, and Mr Nagano agrees that The Da Vinci Code will probably boost Shingo’s coffers. The village shop is already doing a roaring trade in Christ-branded saké. “Did you enjoy the museum?” asks Mr Nagano. “If you did, I recommend you go to Ishikawa district. They have the tomb of Moses there.”
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...
