Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Monday, 20 June 2005 at 12h 8m 55s|
Social Security : da FACTz!!!
Go here and read a well-organized, easy to understand,
complete and utter refutation of all the lies that have come from those who
think that Social Security is in trouble and that private accounts are better
for workers than the Social Security system.
The study comes from the Directors of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research (or CEPR). These are statisticians and economic researchers who
analyze and crunch data to provide accurate financial assessments of government
policy and economic trends. They are well-respected by everyone because they
know what they are doing and can be relied upon for the straight facts.
You expect your sportscaster to give you the straight talk about the game or
the seasonal stats. The same is true about economic data and cost-benefit
analysis. This is the service the CEPR provides for entrepreneurs, government
policy analysts, and businesses in general who need the hard facts without the
|Friday, 17 June 2005 at 18h 14m 59s|
What is news? Is it the front pages of the local newspaper? Is it the events
that are discussed on the television during the anointed time that we decide to
According to my favorite abridged dictionary, American Heritage, news is "1.
Recent events and happenings. 2. Written or broadcast information about recent
events. 3. Newsworthy material." Newsworthy by the way means "Interesting or
signifigant enough to be included in a news report."
In other words, if we want to tell it to you we will, but don't expect to be
informed because we intend to tell it in a perspective we consider the most
beneficial, using whatever standard we deem to be proper.
|Wednesday, 15 June 2005 at 17h 0m 53s|
In case you didn't understand the issue about Guantanamo
Don't listen to Donald Rumsfeld. [source]
Rumsfeld Obscures Facts About Gitmo
At yesterday’s press briefing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used selective
memory to retell the story of how combatant status review tribunals in Gitmo
came about and just how “appropriate” such hearings are.
Rumsfeld’s claim: After deciding that the enemy combatants were not
covered by the Geneva Conventions, the administration “established procedures
that would provide appropriate legal process” to enemy combatants. These
included combatant status review tribunals.
The full story: Actually, after September 11th President Bush tried to
hold combatants indefinitely, without giving them access to court systems where
they could challenge their detention. In Rasul v Bush, the Supreme Court
rebuffed the administration: “both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seized
as potential terrorists can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.” The
ruling forced the administration to create “procedures that would provide
appropriate legal process” to enemy combatants. But, instead of using already
established and internationally recognized legal procedures for detained
persons – the Article 5 hearings of the Geneva Convention – the administration
stubbornly created combatant status review tribunals.
Rumsfeld’s claim: The procedures, which include the combatant status
review tribunals, “go beyond what is required even under the Geneva
The full story: The tribunals are an illegal and unconstitutional
alternative to the process which the Supreme Court determined detainees are
entitled. Earlier this year, federal Judge Joyce Hens Green echoed the Supreme
Court ruling by declaring that “the Bush administration must allow [Guantanamo]
prisoners…to contest their detention in U.S. courts.” Green was forced to
return to the issue because the special tribunals established by the Pentagon
as an alternative were “illegal” and unconstitutional. Far from going “beyond
what is required even under the Geneva Conventions,” the hearings had denied
detainees the “most basic fundamental rights.”
It is called dissembling -- or dis-assembling, as Mr. Bush says (listen here.) -- and
Bush knows that word very well. That's what these people do, lie to manipulate
the gullible and the weak-minded.
Well, I may be gullible sometimes Meister Bush, but I am not weak-minded. Your
time will come.
|Wednesday, 15 June 2005 at 16h 20m 54s|
The generals speak to the public
|Wednesday, 15 June 2005 at 16h 5m 10s|
Time to eat crow -- but don't hold your breath
Schiavo's Brain Was Severely Deteriorated, Autopsy Says
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS 3:04 PM ET
"The autopsy found that no treatment could have reversed the damage to her
brain, which weighed half of what it should have."
"...During a televised news conference in Largo, Fla., the Piniellas-Pasco
Medical Examiner, Jon Thogmartin, also said the autopsy showed that Ms.
Schiavo's condition was 'consistent' with a person in a persistent vegetative
state. That point had become a key issue in the debate over whether to prolong
Ms. Schiavo's life and whether she had a chance to recover normal brain
Dr. Thogmartin said that recovery was not possible because of the massive brain
damage that occurred after Ms. Schiavo collapsed in 1990. Her brain weighed 615
grams at the time of her death on March 31.
'This damage was irreversible,' said Dr. Thogmartin. 'No amount of therapy or
treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.' "
"...The autopsy ... showed that physical abuse or poison did not play a role
in her collapse , he said. Ms. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler,
had accused their daughter's husband, Michael Schiavo, of abusing her, which he
has steadfastly denied. Dr. Thogmartin also said there was no evidence she had
had an eating disorder before she collapsed, although a disorder was widely
suspected because she had diminished levels of potassium in her blood. "
How many hours of prime-time television were spent by the ministers of lies
debating this story? For more than how many weeks was this sad private affair
treated as the number one news item?
Of all the vacations President Bush has spent at his fake ranch in Crawford --
remember he bought that ranch in 1999 so he could play the role he and Karl
planned -- of the 60% of the time he has been on vacation or on money-raising
events, the only time he interrupted a vacation was to come back to the White
House to support the rumblings by the Re-thuglican Congress to get a bill
to "save Terri Shiavo."
He didn't interrupt his vacation in August 2001 when apparently CIA director
George Tenet had a conference video session with Mr. Bush about the "terrorist
chatter" and the August PDB memo that was titled "Bin Laden determined to
in the United States." John Ashcroft cancelled his public air travel in August
2001. Cheney had plenty of meetings with Texas Oil and energy conglomerates
that spring and summer, but not one meeting was held to discuss the issue
of "terrorism." Not one.
But a map from those Energy meetings with Cheney shows Iraq parcelled out into
sections and estimates of what various different oil companies could own. Why
was this map at those meetings?
To see these maps for yourself go here.
Judicial Watch sued the government for these documents of the Cheney meetings.
What were Cheney and a bunch of oil-energy conglomerate exec's doing looking at
these in Spring 2001? Was this why they refused to admit any environmentalist
groups to what were supposed to be "public" meetings -- which is why Judicial
Watch was successful in its lawsuit.
|Tuesday, 14 June 2005 at 17h 41m 1s|
I like Ike
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of
that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of
course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are (xxx)..a few
Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other
areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
|Tuesday, 14 June 2005 at 17h 28m 31s|
There is a scientific reason
From The Artic Beacon, an Alaskan outfit.
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition
And 'Inside Job'
Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts
official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence of cover-up
government foul play and possible criminal implications.
June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first
term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,'
saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers
and adjacent Building No. 7.
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on
9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America
would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush
team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National
Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes
it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty
U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may
hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.
"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause
(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week
from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is
wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering
analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory
is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to
account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three
"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if
impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile,
the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get
the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."
However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains
challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been
intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.
From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel
caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have
disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since
most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.
Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and
the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence
contradicting the official version of 9/11.
Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
Photos showing people walking
around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel
supposedly was burning..
When the South Tower was hit, most
of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes,
making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
The fire did not grow over time,
probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating
without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.
FDNY fire fighters still remain
under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard,
felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
Even the flawed 9/11 Commission
Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a
total collapse of either tower was possible."
Fire had never before caused steel-
frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has
fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
The fires, especially in the
South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane
and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story
steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires
but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
In a PBS documentary, Larry
Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11
about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for
It's difficult if not impossible
for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the
temperature of steel close to melting.
Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has
brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts,
speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an
airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened
structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper
floors to pancake onto the floors below.
One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials
engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse
occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-
bearing capacity on the structural frame.
Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to
the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees
Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear
to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.
Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes,
not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics
contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less
the entire structural system.
Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either
theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural
steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that
crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or
shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.
And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally
officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to
conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."
Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel
quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS
and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.
In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition
theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour,
had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a
few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not,"
said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires
made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders,
to study what had happened.
"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on
Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic
that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary
exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.'
Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no
resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting
through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story
regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.
"In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of
the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight
93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything
recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said
Reynolds. "Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the
FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced
any report on the alleged airliner crashes."
For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com.
|Sunday, 12 June 2005 at 14h 8m 28s|
The three main human emotions
There has to be a symbiotic relationship between people and the
programs they chose to watch everyday. We exist in our true sense during every
moment underwhich we have freedom of choice. Those actions that result from
choices that we have made by ourselves are indicative of fundamental human
emotions and behaviors. To name a few: desire, love, and fear.
If we desire something, we find a way to either achieve or feel some sense of
achievement towards the desired goal or end result. The urges within us touch
our deepest sense of satisfaction.
Love is that non-thinking wholesome sense of peace and endearment as regards
another person, usually someone special in our own eyes. Fear is something
that pokes at us constantly, and is usually the result of a long evolved
insecurity which has obtained the fuel of desire.
This triad of deep human emotions are inter-related, thereby creating hybrids
of different human internalization packages. There can for instance be a
desire for love that is somehow entangled by a fear that no-one will love
thee. Or the love that you have for someone causes you to desire them even
more. Or you might fear love, and your actions thereby are the various subtle
forms of the desire to have escape-routes from long-term relationships.
There are 3 others, and these are the more deranged hybrids -- loving fear
causes one's desire for who knows what(yikes!!!), desiring fear causes one to
love/form relationships that enable this desire of fear (yikes!!!), and fear of
desire causes one to love/form relationships only when this fear is not
These are the three essential emotions for all movies and television programs --
and all plays and human modes of relating larger than life issues to one
This being said, what does it mean when people regularly watch television shows
like "Survivor" which pretends to be real, but is only real insofar as
you see what people will do in a ridiculous situation knowing the cameras are
filming, and also knowing that they will be alive one to three months
henceforth. Have we become Roman to the extent that we are watching
fake "survival" attempts -- in lieu of our being able to survive on our own for
the hour that it is on the television that night.
Some (if not most, or nearly all) of the "shows" on TV need the laugh tracks
and the dramatic music to remind us when to laugh and when to be afraid -- and
when to start feeling that thrilling life-changing moment that is being
dramatized with the faces of tele-thespians and the melodies of hip music.
More often it would probably be better if you spent the hour or so pondering
and experiencing these life-changing moments yourself, but my largest criticism
is that these life-changing moments are "crafted" and "focused" only upon what
we are viewing when we experience them through the television. We are
experiencing the life change without actually engaging in the moment, in that
the events do not come from our life's own real events. That we are reminded
of those events is not relevant, because we did not get there from our own
experiences but through the massaging of the TV programs and the television
Television obfuscates the relationship of the three emotions either by putting
them into unreal contexts, or by having to resort to a small fraction of
underlying events in order to a create the motion picture event. There is no
way one can hope that a 2 hour program can achieve an exactitude or
resemblance to the experience of an entire life, or the experience of a couple
months or years.
The point here is not to play the role of he Luddite. There is no realistic
hope that all of those TV sets and television stations out there are going to
suddenly desolve. However, we must understand that the TV is not just a mild
form of leisure activity. I am at odds with myself to suggest what should be
done because I would severely limit most television programming except sporting
events -- but not the internet or home DVD viewing. At the very least, I would
ban advertizing, because the number one culprit of subliminal stupidity comes
from the commercials.
This is where my thinking gets muddled. If the advertizing is banned, this
means that the television has 2 alternatives: 1) becoming cable-service, fee-
based, or 2) becoming owned by the federal government which then licenses the
right of the company to do business.
Hup, wait a minute, the government already has the authority of #2, so why
aren't advertizers banned from television except public service
announcements. I mean are we really benefitted by slanderous political
advertizing? But then I ponder what other form of mass media is there like
television. Mass mailing? Billboards? Newsprint ads? Magazine ads? Radio ad
spots? If you needed to get the message out to the masses, where would you go
that you couldn't go to already -- and would those other mediums be effective?
Considering that television as mass medium was not a reality until maybe the
later 1950s, you have to wonder. The rise of the "talkies" in the motion
picture industry led to the "weekly movie" phenomenom. People would also get
the weekly "news" in the process, because of the spots that would be played
before the main movie was shown -- just like the advertisements and
endless "previews" they show now for 15 minutes before they show every movie.
If television was banned, and only internet and DVD home-viewing were left, the
internet and DVD market would explode with independents everywhere. The news
media already presume themselves to be the bearers of the "national pulse."
Would the national pulse just disappear, or would there arise other more potent
forms that are more representative of the people's pulse? -- simply because
there would be other options.
|Friday, 10 June 2005 at 18h 42m 34s|
BEHIND TODAY'S FACADE OF DIVERSITY LIES
A NEARLY ALL-WHITE REPUBLICAN PARTY
One Percent of Republican Legislators in the States And Washington are African-
American or Hispanic
The uninformed viewer watching TV coverage of [the last] Republican national
convention in New York might come away thinking that the President's party is
built upon a solid commitment to inclusion of racial minorities. Once again, as
it does every four years, the Republican Party is trying to portray itself as
a 'big tent,' with room for every American.
But a new book about America's political divisions notes that the 99 percent of
all Republican legislators across the country and in Congress are white. The
national Republican Party, whose base is in the South, the Plains and the
Mountain states, looks to white men as its power base and source of leadership.
Even when Republican states have significant minority populations, the elected
Republican representatives rarely are drawn from those communities.
The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America, a new look at political divisions in
America by educator-entrepreneur Dr. John Sperling, calls those states 'Retro
America,' and notes: 'Its whiteness and maleness are mirrored in the Republican
Of 3,643 Republicans serving in the state legislatures, only 44 are minorities,
or 1.2 percent. In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and
representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans
from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator
originally elected as a Democrat.[NOTE FROM JOHN: That means the GOP has
elected ZERO blacks to Congress.]
'President Bush's home state leads the way. Texas, with a minority population
of 47 percent, has 106 Republicans in the state legislature, but there are 0
blacks and 0 Hispanics among them,' Sperling writes. 'No major corporation
doing business with the government could be so white without being subject to
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) action!'
Oh that dastardly Howard Dean. Could it be that he "read" the book? Yet the
lousy scheming bastid's will still villify this good man for accurate
commentary, merely because they have a biased perspective.
We must fight. The alternative is truly slavery.
|Friday, 10 June 2005 at 17h 34m 34s|
There's a new thug in town
Boston radio host Jay Severin confirmed on the June 7 edition of MSNBC's
in the Morning that he would be a "permanent cast member" on MSNBC's new show
The Situation with Tucker Carlson. Severin, a former longtime Republican
political consultant who has worked for the presidential campaigns of George
H.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan, has a history of controversial comments, including
a suggestion on how to deal with Muslims in the United States: "I think we
should kill them."
Prior to hosting talk radio, Severin worked as a political advertising
consultant. Clients of his firm, Severin Aviles Associates, included George
H.W. Bush's 1980 presidential campaign and his political action committee (Fund
for America's Future); Pat Buchanan's 1996 presidential campaign; the
Republican National Committee; and the Reagan White House. [The Washington
Post, 3/19/98; National Journal, 12/10/88; Adweek, 8/4/86; Crain's New York
Among Severin's more controversial statements:
"A caller had recommended that we befriend Muslims living in the United States.
[Severin] said that, as far as he was concerned, 'the vast majority' of those
Muslims are not loyal to the United States and are ready, when the time comes,
to take over this country. [Severin] asked several times: 'Do you think we
should befriend them?' The caller said yes. [Severin] then said that he had an
alternative viewpoint: 'You think we should befriend them. I think we should
kill them.' " [The Boston Globe, 5/5/04, quoting from Severin's April 22, 2004,
He regretted calling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) a "lying bitch"
because "technically, it's a redundancy." [The Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
"I believe Al Gore would murder his daughter in order to become President."
[The Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
Called Al Gore "Al Whore." [The Boston Globe, 6/5/01]
"Hillary Clinton is the Antichrist to anyone who vaguely regards themselves as
a Republican. People who despise her will happily give money to derail her."
[The Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
"I said [former Massachusetts Gov.] Michael Dukakis should be arrested, tried,
convicted, and executed as an accessory to murder -- until I was educated by a
caller. Willie Horton, when he was let out of jail by the governor, only
assaulted, knifed, and raped people, but didn't kill them. So I said: 'OK,
Dukakis should only be sentenced to prison for a long time.' " Asked if the
statement was hyperbole, or if he meant it literally, he answered, "Literally."
[The Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
On the actions of President Clinton's defense lawyers during his Senate
impeachment trial: "I said the -- the Simpson -- the O.J. Simpson trial analogy
holds, as you said, at least in this regard. The Democrats, the president's
men, have effectively made Ken Starr into Mark Fuhrman." [The Geraldo Rivera
Show, syndicated, 3/4/98]
On whether a woman in a sexual harassment test case video had
said "no": "That's not the big 'no.' And our job as guys is to convert a
succession of 'nos' into one 'yes.' And to try and be as persuasive as possible
in making that happen. The fact is my job, my right, my duty as a guy is to
persuade girls to say yes." [NBC's Dateline, 10/24/97]
"Bill Clinton was as helpful to the defense in this trial as Mark Fuhrman was
to the prosecution in the O.J. trial," talking about the Arkansas cases of
former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and James and Susan McDougal on CNBC's
Rivera Live, 5/29/96. [Hotline, 12/20/96]
Severin, quoted in the political newsletter PulseLine: "Anyone who's for a
woman's right to have caps or get a nose job ... or have an abortion, it's all
the same thing. It's elective surgery." [Columnist Anna Quindlen, The New York
From the June 7 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
DON IMUS (host): Somebody told me you've been hired by MSNBC as a permanent
cast member on Tucker Carlson's fine new program entitled The Situation, which
will begin -- which will debut on June 13. Is that right?
SEVERIN: I plead guilty. That's true. I'm rejoining MSNBC for The Situation
with Tucker Carlson. And I can't wait.
IMUS: What will be your role there?
SEVERIN: I play the crazy brother-in-law.
IMUS: Oh, I see. Is this something you'll be able to do from Boston?
SEVERIN: I'll be doing it from -- no, I'll be live in the studio at [MSNBC]
world headquarters there in Secaucus [New Jersey]. So I'll be having to do the
radio show very frequently from Secaucus or New York.
IMUS: Oh, so this is a pretty good deal for you.
SEVERIN: Well, sure. I'm an old-time MSNBC guy.
IMUS: Right, so this could be a pretty good show, couldn't it?
SEVERIN: I think it's going to be great. Tucker is extraordinarily smart. He's
entertaining. He's quick. He's fun.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS