September 30, 2007

Closing the 'Collapse Gap': USSR was better prepared for collapse than US

How would the USA do if the economy collapsed? Dmitry Orlov witnessed the collapse of the USSR first hand. He compares the similarities, relative advantages and disadvantages of the USSR then, to the US now.This LITTLE item was the heaviest thing I read all summer.I suggest that YOU read it. The observations that Mr. Orlov makes are truths that should not be sidestepped.Of course, I am very cynical as I see so much DENIAL it's driving me crazy so I don't expect that many will read this, but everyone should pay attention to this cautionary tale!!

read more | digg story

Highway checkpoint asks drivers for blood, saliva

Sign of the times??Motorists in Colorado are expressing outrage over a weekend stunt in Gilpin County, about an hour's drive west of Denver, where highway checkpoints were set up so a private organization could ask for samples of blood and saliva.Follow the details in the story, and read the comments on digg. This turns out to be a most aggressive program and left people confused as uniformed officers were on the scene.

read more | digg story

NYT Editorial

Things Go Better With Rules

Published: September 30, 2007

To hear the nation’s top economic officials tell it, the worst effect of the reckless mortgage lending during the housing bubble is not mass foreclosures, bankruptcies, investor losses or credit seizures. It is the possibility that the turmoil could lead to new regulation.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. has inveighed against a “rush” to regulation following the mortgage meltdown, and two Treasury under secretaries, writing recently in The Financial Times, criticized calls for “immediate” regulation.

There is nothing sudden about the push for regulatory reforms. Consumer advocates have been warning for years about unfair and deceptive lending that has taken place in plain view of do-nothing regulators. All along, they have presented detailed analyses and recommendations for regulatory action. And yet, Mr. Paulson has dismissed even the suggestion that a lack of regulation may have precipitated today’s financial turmoil, saying that “history says it’s very difficult for policy to keep up with innovation.” His under secretaries chalked up the current mess to “benign” market conditions that bred “complacency” and impaired “discipline.”

That’s all way off. Turning a profit by making rotten loans to uncreditworthy borrowers — ruining families and neighborhoods in the process — requires a lot more creativity than selling the Brooklyn Bridge to a gullible immigrant. But it is hardly the kind of innovation we want to encourage. Financial bubbles are not benign. And “undisciplined” is inapt, to put it politely, to describe lender behavior that ranged from amoral to deceptive, predatory and fraudulent — and that was enabled by bankers and investors at the other end of the transactions.

During the bubble, regulators allowed financial market participants to run amok. To help ensure that does not happen again, consumer protections that have languished, like providing loan disclosures in a borrower’s native language, need to be reinvigorated and violators prosecuted. Loan-making standards need to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, both at banks and nonbanks. The system must be rid of perverse incentives that made it profitable for brokers and lenders to make reckless loans.

And to ensure that market participants have the information they need to make rational decisions — a crucial underpinning of orderly markets — hedge funds and other secretive investors need to be held to strict disclosure standards and government monitoring.

The Treasury Department has pledged to work internationally to develop regulatory responses to the current instability. That rings hollow from a department that has a clear antiregulatory bias and that has previously blown off multilateral regulatory efforts.

Congress should welcome whatever input the Treasury may offer. But it is clearly up to lawmakers to set a new course. They should act with due speed and due deliberation, mindful of the balance between protecting consumers and fostering economic vitality.

Bruce Springsteen calls out Bush Administration: “This is a song about things that shouldn’t happen here…happening here.”

By John Amato on Friday, September 28th, 2007

brucespringsteen.jpg

Scarce sent in this video and rough transcript of Bruce Springsteen’s appearance on NBC this morning. He slammed the Bush administraion over the way they have attacked our core US values. He sums it up nicely, wouldn’t you say?

video_wmv Download (2703) | Play (3367) video_mov Download (1159) | Play (1509) (25 mgs)

“This is a song called Livin’ In the Future. But it’s really about what’s happening now. Right now. It’s kind of about how the things we love about America, cheeseburgers, French fries, the Yankees battlin’ Boston… the Bill of Rights [holds up microphone, urging crowd to cheer] … v-twin motorcycles… Tim Russert’s haircut, trans-fats and the Jersey Shore… we love those things the way womenfolk love Matt Lauer.

But over the past six years we’ve had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeus corpus, the neglect of our great city New Orleans and its people, an attack on the Constitution. And the loss of our young best men and women in a tragic war.

This is a song about things that shouldn’t happen here—happening here.”



How to think like an EARTHLING

For the graphics,
please go to the link
it would take me too long to post them

Why You Don't Care About 99% of Humanity


What is the Monkeysphere?

"One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic."
-Sportacus

What do monkeys have to do with war, oppression, crime, racism and even e-mail spam? You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go Inside the Monkeysphere.

"What the Hell is the Monkeysphere?"

First, picture a monkey. A monkey dressed like a little pirate, if that helps you. We'll call him Slappy.

Imagine you have Slappy as a pet. Imagine a personality for him. Maybe you and he have little pirate monkey adventures and maybe even join up to fight crime. Think how sad you'd be if Slappy died.

Now, imagine you get four more monkeys. We'll call them Tito, Bubbles, Marcel and ShitTosser. Imagine personalities for each of them now. Maybe one is aggressive, one is affectionate, one is quiet, the other just throws shit all the time. But they're all your personal monkey friends.

Now imagine a hundred monkeys.

Not so easy now, is it? So how many monkeys would you have to own before you couldn't remember their names? At what point, in your mind, do your beloved pets become just a faceless sea of monkey? Even though each one is every bit the monkey Slappy was, there's a certain point where you will no longer really care if one of them dies.

So how many monkeys would it take before you stopped caring?

That's not a rhetorical question. We actually know the number.

"So this whole thing is your crusade against monkey overpopulation? I'll have my monkey castrated this very day!"

Uh, no. It'll become clear in a moment.

You see, monkey experts performed a monkey study a while back, and discovered that the size of the monkey's monkey brain determined the size of the monkey groups the monkeys formed. The bigger the brain, the bigger the little societies they built.

They cut up so many monkey brains, in fact, that they found they could actually take a brain they had never seen before and from it they could accurately predict what size tribes that species of creature formed.

Most monkeys operate in troupes of 50 or so. But somebody slipped them a slightly larger brain and they estimated the ideal group or society for this particular animal was about 150.

That brain, of course, was human. Probably from a homeless man they snatched off the streets.

"So that's the big news? That humans are God's big-budget sequel to the monkey? Who didn't know that?"

It goes much, much deeper than that. Let's try an example.

Famous news talking guy Tim Russert tells a charming story about his father, in his book Big Russ and Me (the title referring to his on-and-off romance with actor Russell Crowe). Russert's dad used to take half an hour to carefully box up any broken glass before taking it to the trash. Why? Because "The trash guy might cut his hands."

That this was such an unusual thing to do illustrates my monkey point. None of us spend much time worrying about the garbage man's welfare even though he performs a crucial role in not forcing us to live in a cave carved from a mountain of our own filth. We don't usually consider his safety or comfort at all and if we do, it's not in the same way we would worry over our best friend or wife or girlfriend or even our dog.

People toss half-full bottles of drain cleaner right into the barrel, without a second thought of what would happen if the trash man got it splattered into his eyes. Why? Because the trash guy exists outside the Monkeysphere.

"There's that word again..."

The Monkeysphere is the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number much larger than 150.

Most of us do not have room in our Monkeysphere for our friendly neighborhood sanitation worker. So, we don't think of him as a person. We think of him as The Thing That Makes The Trash Go Away.

And even if you happen to know and like your particular garbage man, at one point or another we all have limits to our sphere of monkey concern. It's the way our brains are built. We each have a certain circle of people who we think of as people, usually our own friends and family and neighbors, and then maybe some classmates or coworkers or church or suicide cult.

Those who exist outside that core group of a few dozen people are not people to us. They're sort of one-dimensional bit characters.

Remember the first time, as a kid, you met one of your school teachers outside the classroom? Maybe you saw old Miss Puckerson at Taco Bell eating refried beans through a straw, or saw your principal walking out of a dildo shop. Do you remember that surreal feeling you had when you saw these people actually had lives outside the classroom?

I mean, they're not people. They're teachers.

"So? What difference does all this make?"

Oh, not much. It's just the one single reason society doesn't work.

It's like this: which would upset you more, your best friend dying, or a dozen kids across town getting killed because their bus collided with a truck hauling killer bees? Which would hit you harder, your Mom dying, or seeing on the news that 15,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran?

They're all humans and they are all equally dead. But the closer to our Monkeysphere they are, the more it means to us. Just as your death won't mean anything to the Chinese or, for that matter, hardly anyone else more than 100 feet or so from where you're sitting right now.

"Why should I feel bad for them? I don't even know those people!"

Exactly. This is so ingrained that to even suggest you should feel their deaths as deeply as that of your best friend sounds a little ridiculous. We are hard-wired to have a drastic double standard for the people inside our Monkeysphere versus the 99.999% of the world's population who are on the outside.

Think about this the next time you get really pissed off in traffic, when you start throwing finger gestures and wedging your head out of the window to scream, "LEARN TO FUCKING DRIVE, FUCKER!!" Try to imagine acting like that in a smaller group. Like if you're standing in an elevator with two friends and a coworker, and the friend goes to hit a button and accidentally punches the wrong one. Would you lean over, your mouth two inches from her ear, and scream "LEARN TO OPERATE THE FUCKING ELEVATOR BUTTONS, SHITCAMEL!!"

They'd think you'd gone insane. We all go a little insane, though, when we get in a group larger than the Monkeysphere. That's why you get that weird feeling of anonymous invincibility when you're sitting in a large crowd, screaming curses at a football player you'd never dare say to his face.

"Well, I'm nice to strangers. Have you considered that maybe you're just an asshole?"

Sure, you probably don't go out of your way to be mean to strangers. You don't go out of your way to be mean to stray dogs, either.

The problem is that eventually, the needs of you or those within your Monkeysphere will require screwing someone outside it (even if that need is just venting some tension and anger via exaggerated insults). This is why most of us wouldn't dream of stealing money from the pocket of the old lady next door, but don't mind stealing cable, adding a shady exemption on our tax return, or quietly celebrating when they forget to charge us for something at the restaurant.

You may have a list of rationalizations long enough to circle the Earth, but the truth is that in our monkey brains the old woman next door is a human being while the cable company is a big, cold, faceless machine. That the company is, in reality, nothing but a group of people every bit as human as the old lady, or that some kind old ladies actually work there and would lose their jobs if enough cable were stolen, rarely occurs to us.

That's one of the ingenius things about the big-time religions, by the way. The old religious writers knew it was easier to put the screws to a stranger, so they taught us to get a personal idea of a God in our heads who says, "No matter who you hurt, you're really hurting me. Also, I can crush you like a grape." You must admit that if they weren't writing words inspired by the Almighty, they at least understood the Monkeysphere.

It's everywhere. Once you grasp the concept, you can see examples all around you. You'll walk the streets in a daze, like Roddy Piper after putting on his X-ray sunglasses in They Live.


But wait, because this gets much bigger and much, much stranger...

"So you're going to tell us that this Monkeysphere thing runs the whole world? Also, They Live sucked."

Go flip on the radio. Listen to the conservative talk about "The Government" as if it were some huge, lurking dragon ready to eat you and your paycheck whole. Never mind that the government is made up of people and that all of that money they take goes into the pockets of human beings. Talk radio's Rush Limbaugh is known to tip 50% at restaurants, but flies into a broadcast tirade if even half that dollar amount is deducted from his paycheck by "The Government." That's despite the fact that the money helps that very same single mom he had no problem tipping in her capacity as a waitress.

Now click over to a liberal show now, listen to them describe "Multinational Corporations" in the same diabolical terms, an evil black force that belches smoke and poisons water and enslaves humanity. Isn't it strange how, say, a lone man who carves and sells children's toys in his basement is a sweetheart who just loves bringing joy at Christmas, but a big-time toy corporation (which brings toys to millions of kids at Christmas) is an inhuman soul-grinding greed machine? Strangely enough, if the kindly lone toy making guy made enough toys and hired enough people and expanded to enough shops, we'd eventually stop seeing it as a toy-making shop and start seeing it as the fiery Orc factories of Mordor.

And if you've just thought, "Well, those talk show hosts are just a bunch of egomaniacal blowhards anyway," you've just done it again, turned real humans into two-word cartoon characters. It's no surprise, you do it with pretty much all six billion human beings outside the Monkeysphere.

"So I'm supposed to suddenly start worrying about six billion strangers? That's not even possible!"

That's right, it isn't possible. That's the point.

What is hard to understand is that it's also impossible for them to care about you.

That's why they don't mind stealing your stereo or vandalizing your house or cutting your wages or raising your taxes or bombing your office building or choking your computer with spam advertising diet and penis drugs they know don't work. You're outside their Monkeysphere. In their mind, you're just a vague shape with a pocket full of money for the taking.

Think of Osama Bin Laden. Did you just picture a camouflaged man hiding in a cave, drawing up suicide missions? Or are you thinking of a man who gets hungry and has a favorite food and who had a childhood crush on a girl and who has athlete's foot and chronic headaches and wakes up in the morning with a boner and loves volleyball?

Something in you, just now, probably was offended by that. You think there's an effort to build sympathy for the murderous fuck. Isn't it strange how simply knowing random human facts about him immediately tugs at your sympathy strings? He comes closer to your Monkeysphere, he takes on dimension.

Now, the cold truth is this Bin Laden is just as desperately in need of a bullet to the skull as the raving four-color caricature on some redneck's T-shirt. The key to understanding people like him, though, is realizing that we are the caricature on his T-shirt.

"So you're using monkeys to claim that we're all a bunch of Osama Bin Ladens?"

Sort of.

Listen to any 16 year-old kid with his first job, going on and on about how the boss is screwing him and the government is screwing him even more ("What's FICA?!?!" he screams as he looks at his first paycheck).

Then watch that same kid at work, as he drops a hamburger patty on the floor, picks it up, and slaps in on a bun and serves it to a customer.

In that one dropped burger he has everything he needs to understand those black-hearted politicians and corporate bosses. They see him in the exact same way he sees the customers lined up at the burger counter. Which is, just barely.

In both cases, for the guy making the burger and the guy running Exxon, getting through the workweek and collecting the paycheck are all that matters. No thought is given to the real human unhappiness being spread by doing it shittily (ever gotten so sick from food poisoning you thought your stomach lining was going to fly out of your mouth?) That many customers or employees just can't fit inside the Monkeysphere.

The kid will protest that he shouldn't have to care for the customers for minimum wage, but the truth is if a man doesn't feel sympathy for his fellow man at $6.00 an hour, he won't feel anything more at $600,000 a year.

Or, to look at it the other way, if we're allowed to be indifferent and even resentful to the masses for $6.00 an hour, just think of how angry the some Pakistani man is allowed to be when he's making the equivalent of six dollars a week.

"You've used the word 'monkey' more than 50 times, but the same principle hardly applies. Humans have been to the moon. Let's see the monkeys do that."

It doesn't matter. It's just an issue of degree.

There's a reason why legendary monkeytician Charles Darwin and his assistant, Jeje (pronounced "heyhey") Santiago deduced that humans and chimps were evolutionary cousins. As sophisticated as we are (compare our advanced sewage treatment plants to the chimps' primitive technique of hurling the feces with their bare hands), the inescapable truth is we are just as limited by our mental hardware.

The primary difference is that monkeys are happy to stay in small groups and rarely interact with others outside their monkey gang. This is why they rarely go to war, though when they do it is widely thought to be hilarious. Humans, however, require cars and oil and quality manufactured goods by the fine folks at 3M and Japanese video games and worldwide internets and, most importantly, governments. All of these things take groups larger than 150 people to maintain effectively. Thus, we routinely find ourselves functioning in bunches larger than our primate brains are able to cope with.

This is where the problems begin. Like a fragile naked human pyramid, we are simultaneously supporting and resenting each other. We bitch out loud about our soul-sucking job as an anonymous face on an assembly line, while at the exact same time riding in a car that only an assembly line could have produced. It's a constant contradiction that has left us pissed off and joining informal wrestling clubs in basements.

This is why I think it was with a great burden of sadness that Darwin turned to his assistant and lamented, "Jeje, we're the monkeys."

"Oh, no you didn't."

If you think about it, our entire society has evolved around the limitations of the Monkeysphere. There is a reason why all of the really phat-ass nations with the biggest SUV's with the shiniest 22-inch rims all have some kind of representative democracy (where you vote for people to do the governing for you) and all of them are, to some degree, capitalist (where people actually get to buy property and keep some of what they earn).

A representative democracy allows a small group of people to make all of the decisions, while letting us common people feel like we're doing something by going to a polling place every couple of years and pulling a lever that, in reality, has about the same effect as the darkness knob on your toaster. We can simultaneously feel like we're in charge while being contained enough that we can't cause any real monkey mayhem once we fly into one of our screeching, arm-flapping monkey frenzies ("A woman showed her boob at the Super Bowl! We want a boob and football ban immediately!")

Conversely, some people in the distant past naively thought they could sit all of the millions of monkeys down and say, "Okay, everybody go pick the bananas, then bring them here, and we'll distribute them with a complex formula determining banana need! Now go gather bananas for the good of society!" For the monkeys it was a confused, comical, tree-humping disaster.

Later, a far more realistic man sat the monkeys down and said, "You want bananas? Each of you go get your own. I'm taking a nap." That man, of course, was German philosopher Hans Capitalism.

As long as everybody gets their own bananas and shares with the few in their Monkeysphere, the system will thrive even though nobody is even trying to make the system thrive. This is perhaps how Ayn Rand would have put it, had she not been such a hateful bitch.

Then, some time in the Third Century, French philosopher Pierre "Frenchy" LaFrench invented racism.

This was a way of simplifying the too-complex-for-monkeys world by imagining all people of a certain race as being the same person, thinking they all have the same attitudes and mannerisms and tastes in food and clothes and music. It sort of works, as long as we think of that person as being a good person ("Those Asians are so hard-working and precise and well-mannered!") but when we start seeing them as being one, giant, gaping asshole (the French, ironically) our monkey happiness again breaks down.

It's not all the French's fault. The truth is, all of these monkey management schemes only go so far. For instance, today one in four Americans has some kind of mental illness, usually depression. One in four. Watch a basketball game. The odds are at least two of those people on the floor are mentally ill. Look around your house; if everybody else there seems okay, it's you.

Is it any surprise? You turn on the news and see a whole special on the Obesity Epidemic. You've had this worry laid on your shoulders about millions of other people eating too much. What exactly are you supposed to do about the eating habits of 80 million people you don't even know? You've taken on the pork-laden burden of all these people outside the Monkeysphere and you now carry that useless weight of worry like, you know, some kind of animal on your back.

"So what exactly are we supposed to do about all this?"

First, train yourself to get suspicious every time you see simplicity. Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.

So reject binary thinking of "good vs. bad" or "us vs. them." Know problems cannot be solved with clever slogans and over-simplified step-by-step programs.

You can do that by following these simple steps. We like to call this plan the T.R.Y. plan:

First, TOTAL MORON. That is, accept the fact THAT YOU ARE ONE. We all are.

That really annoying person you know, the one who's always spouting bullshit, the person who always thinks they're right? Well, the odds are that for somebody else, you're that person. So take the amount you think you know, reduce it by 99.999%, and then you'll have an idea of how much you actually know regarding things outside your Monkeysphere.

Second, UNDERSTAND that there are no Supermonkeys. Just monkeys. Those guys on TV you see, giving the inspirational seminars, teaching you how to reach your potential and become rich and successful like them? You know how they made their money? By giving seminars. For the most part, the only thing they do well is convince others they do everything well.

No, the universal moron principal established in No. 1 above applies here, too. Don't pretend politicians are somehow supposed to be immune to all the backhanded fuckery we all do in our daily lives and don't laugh and point when the preacher gets caught on video snorting cocaine off a prostitute's ass. A good exercise is to picture your hero--whoever it is--passed out on his lawn, naked from the waist down. The odds are it's happened at some point. Even Gandhi may have had hotel rooms and dead hookers in his past.

And don't even think about ignoring advice from a moral teacher just because the source enjoys the ol' Colombian Nose Candy from time to time. We're all members of varying species of hypocrite (or did you tell them at the job interview that you once called in sick to spend a day leveling up on World of Warcraft?) Don't use your heroes' vices as an excuse to let yours run wild.

And finally, DON'T LET ANYBODY simplify it for you. The world cannot be made simple. Anyone who tries to paint a picture of the world in basic comic book colors is most likely trying to use you as a pawn.

So just remember: T-R-Y. Go forth and do likewise, gents. Copies of our book are available in the lobby.

Related

Actual headline: "Chimp not a person, Court rules"

i162.photobucket.com

Big mistake, your honor.

Morgan Stanley used Sept. 11 to falsely claim records were destroyed

Morgan Stanley Fined Over Sept. 11 Lost E-Mail Claim (Update4)

By David Scheer

Sept. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Morgan Stanley, the second-largest securities firm, will pay $12.5 million to settle regulatory claims it wrongly withheld e-mails in arbitration cases by saying they were lost in the Sept. 11 attacks, the company's third sanction since 2002 for mishandling the records.

The firm's Morgan Stanley DW subsidiary failed on ``numerous occasions'' to produce e-mails for plaintiffs and regulators, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said in a statement today. The accord is the first of its kind, providing $9.5 million to claimants affected by the lapses, said Finra, the Washington-based brokerage regulator.

The government already sanctioned Morgan Stanley twice for mishandling electronic messages under former Chief Executive Officer Philip Purcell. Last year, it paid a record $15 million to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission probe of deficient e-mail preservation. In 2002, the SEC and other regulators faulted the New York-based firm for destroying e-mails and backup tapes.

``Hiding behind the events of Sept. 11 to avoid litigation obligations is unseemly,'' said Steven Caruso, president of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association and a partner at the New York office of Maddox Hargett & Caruso PC. ``This sets a new standard for how low a firm will go to take advantage of their clients.''

The settlement documents don't accuse the firm of withholding the e-mails intentionally, according to Finra spokesman Herb Perone.

`Legacy Legal Matters'

``That allegation is false. The minute that we discovered that we had these e-mails we notified regulators and began turning them over in arbitration discovery,'' said Jim Wiggins, a spokesman for Morgan Stanley. The company didn't admit or deny wrongdoing under the settlement.

Current CEO John Mack made improving the firm's standing with securities regulators a priority when he took the helm in June 2005. Today's accord resolves a claim filed in December by Finra's predecessor, NASD.

``We are pleased to have reached an agreement with Finra to resolve these legacy legal matters and put them behind the firm,'' Morgan Stanley said in an e-mailed statement.

Days after the terrorist attacks destroyed Morgan Stanley's 12 e-mail servers in New York, the company recovered millions of messages from backup tapes, Finra said. Additional data were stored on networks and individual computers throughout the firm.

Still, Morgan Stanley ``routinely'' claimed all e-mails before October 2001 were gone, the regulator said. The company later allowed much of the data to be erased.

Payments to Customers

``The integrity of our process demands that brokerage firms comply with their obligations to search diligently for'' e-mails and turn them over ``in a timely way,'' said Susan Merrill, Finra's enforcement chief.

The accord allows customers whose arbitration claims may have been affected to automatically receive payments of as much as $5,000. Many clients also have the right to obtain pre-Sept. 11 e-mails. Those people may then ask the fund's administrator for more money, up to $20,000, based on the facts of their case.

Accepting payments doesn't prevent clients from pressing their original claims in other venues, such as court, Finra's Perone said.

Finra was formed this year through the merger of the NASD brokerage regulator and the New York Stock Exchange's enforcement arm.

Morgan Stanley's shares rose 2.5 percent to $64.55 in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock has slipped 4.5 percent this year.

To contact the reporter on this story: David Scheer in Washington at dscheer@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 27, 2007 17:52 EDT

September 29, 2007

Naomi Wolf Schools Stephen Colbert on The Rise of Fascism in America [VIDEO]



The author of "The End of America" points out disturbing parallels between the Bush administration and fascist dictatorships throughout history.
Share and save this post

The clip to your right features writer Naomi Wolf on The Colbert Report talking about her book, The End of America, A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which outlines ten steps that "fascist, totalitarian, and other repressive leaders [employ to] seize and maintain power, especially in what were once democracies.” The ten steps are:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

Naturally an in-character Colbert tries to challenge Wolf's points, shouting "USA number one!" Check out the video to your right for more.

Digg!

Dengue fever in Mexico

Timothy was kind to send this item on Dengue fever which is translated by google.

Dengue, virus that attacked 69 people in Leon: Ssa

It reports the dependency that the disease affects to adults and minors, but is no deceases


Dengue, virus that attacked 69 people in Leon: Ssa
- TO A TO +

Xóchiltl Alvarez/Correspondent
The Universal one
Leon, Guanajuato
Friday 28 of September of 2007

22:24 the Institute of Dermatology and Reference Epidemiologist, INDRE, identified that it corresponds to dengue, the virus that in last the two weeks attacked 69 people who live in the zone center on this city.

The Secretary of Health, Jorge Armando Aguirre, informed that the bud of dengue affects to adults and minors, but said that there are no deceases.

This problem expanded by the colonies the Duraznal, Obregón and the Calvario, annexed to the zone center and confirmed a case more in the colony Trees of Ibarrilla, to the north of the municipality.

Virus entered, by first time to Guanajuato, by some of patients which it was infected in anyone of the 20 organizations of the country, that for a long time have been having that problem of health, said the health secretary.

At the beginning of this week the dependency discarded the presence of dengue in the municipality after making analysis in the regional laboratory, reason why 34 hypotheses of disease considered, by the similarity in the signs and symptoms of the affected ones.

Nevertheless, this Friday after analyzing 32 samples of patients, the INDRE, confirmed the presence of the virus of dengue in 31, men and women.

The patients present/display extreme fevers, salpullido, headaches and bones, vomits and diarreas.

This Friday at night the Secretariat of Health initiated actions of fumigation in 29 apples of the center where a wall tended epidemiologist, with nebulizaciones in the streets and dowry of Father in the addresses.

The civil employee advanced that thousands of workers of the health, medical personnel of the municipality and the educative sector will support the actions of alert and prevention of the disease.

It said that in following the weeks maneuvers for the nebulización in 250 thousand houses of the municipality will be made. Simultaneously, an intense campaign will settle down so that the families eliminate the stored water and they undo of the earthenware vessels.

Also, the call to the leonine ones so that they go to the doctor when they register annoyances that could be associate to dengue.

mgg

Dengue fever and aspirin

Mantra: There is NO global warming. If there is, we can wait to take action to find out what is REALLY causing it.

Here is what it is .. Dengue Fever

Top 100 Ways Global Warming Will Change Your Life



Spread of Dengue Fever. Scientists predict warmer temperatures will allow mosquitoes carrying Dengue Fever to travel outside the tropics. Since people in cooler climes lack immunity from previous exposure, that means transmission would be extensive. You get a severe fever, you start spontaneously bleeding, you can die. There is no vaccine. [Science Daily]

Aspirin with dengue could kill - Ministry
published: Friday | September 28, 2007

Petrina Francis, Staff Reporter

The Ministry of Health and Environment yesterday said it was concerned about dengue haemorrhagic fever and urged persons with fever not to take aspirin as this could result in death.

Dengue occurs in two forms: Dengue fever and dengue haemorrhagic fever.

Dengue fever is marked by the onset of sudden high fever, severe headache and pain behind the eyes, muscles and joints.

Potentially deadly

According to the World Health Organisation, dengue haemorrhagic fever is a potentially deadly complication that is characterised by high fever, often with enlargement of the liver and, in severe cases, circulatory failure.

"We are concerned about dengue haemorrhagic fever," Dr. Sheila Campbell-Forrester, chief medical officer of health, told The Gleaner yesterday.

She said there were four types of dengue virus, and Jamaica was now experiencing type two.

Dr. Campbell-Forrester said more than 100 cases of dengue fever have been identified between July and September. She noted that vector control programmes are ongoing islandwide, but are mostly concentrated in parishes where cases have been identified.

These areas include Kingston, St. Catherine, St. Ann and Portland.

"We want to stress the importance of self response. Mosquitoes breed in containers or areas where water settles," she said, noting that persons should be vigilant and punch holes in containers, among other safety measures.

petrina.francis@gleanerjm.com

Dengue facts

Dengue fever is transmitted by female Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes which acquire the virus while feeding on the blood of an infected person.

Persons suspected of having dengue fever or dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) must see a doctor at once;

There is no specific treatment for dengue fever but early recognition and symptomatic treatment can save lives. People who are infected with dengue should drink a lot of fluids and eat nutritious food, as this may improve the course of the disease;

Dengue disease is not contagious. However, when dengue patients are bitten by an infected dengue mosquito, the mosquito may infect somebody else. Therefore, the dengue patient should be kept under a mosquito net or in a screened room during the period of illness.

Source: World Health Organisation.


We Shall Never Sell

Our Sacred Black Hills

Frank Fools Crow

Lakota Chief


Frank Kills Enemy

Lakota Headman


JOINT STATEMENT OF CHIEF FRANK FOOLS CROW AND FRANK KILLS ENEMY ON BEHALF OF THE TRADITIONAL LAKOTA TREATY COUNCIL BEFORE HONORABLE LLOYD MEADS SUB-COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS. (September 10, 1976)

Kola (friends). I am Frank Fools Crow, Chief of the Lakota and I am here today with Frank Kills Enemy, one of the most respected headmen and also an expert on Indian treaty rights. Before we begin, I would like to ask you why when we speak you do not listen, and when you listen, you do not hear, and when you hear us, you do not choose to understand what we say. This is one time that I ask you to listen carefully and understand what we have to say.

We have come here from Pine Ridge today to discuss this house bill (H.R.14629) which permits the tribal councils and the people they represent to get interest on the $17,500,000 award given by the Indian Claims Commission. That interest, I believe, amounts to $85,000,000. Our people have been holding meetings on this Black Hills Claim for many years and we have just held such a meeting at Porcupine on September 8 and 9, 1976. At this meeting, the people authorized us to come to this hearing today and speak for them. The people unanimously reaffirmed our long-standing position that the Black Hills are not for sale under any circumstances. We are therefore standing behind the resolution we passed at Ft. Yates in February of this year. That resolution, my friends, reads:

RESOLUTION ON 1868 TREATY

WHEREAS, a meeting of all Sioux Tribes concerned with the 1868 Treaty was called by the Standing Rock Sioux and all elected and traditional leaders were invited and,

WHEREAS, during this meeting, presentations regarding the Black Hills were made by Larry Leventhal, Attorney, traditional people and elected leaders and it being the consensus of all present, the traditional people held a meeting and delegates of eight (8) Sioux Reservations were present,

BE IT RESOLVED, the delegates of the eight (8) Sioux Reservations have unanimously agreed that all land involved in the 1868 Treaty is not for sale, and all monies appropriated for such sale will not be accepted by members of the Traditional people of each reservation, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the judgment of this Black Hills case immediately implements the overall and complete jurisdiction and sovereignty of and by Indian people the Sioux Nation.

Many people cannot and refuse to understand why the Lakota people do not want to sell the Black Hills and have taken this position. I am therefore going to explain our reasons, because the discussions surrounding this claim and the acceptance of it will have very far-reaching effects. I do not want our people, many years from now, to think that we have sold out. We will never sell out. I am 87 years of age and Mr. Kills Enemy is 82. Our only concern here today is for the best interests and welfare of our people and future generations of our people.

I have some comments I would like to make on what will be going on here today.

TRIBAL COUNCILS UNDER I.R.A.

On all our reservations today, there are tribal councils operating under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. These councils were placed on the reservations by the United States Government to replace our traditional councils. These puppet governments are often times the most corrupt governments around and bring out the very worse in the whiteman system of governments. Councilmen on these puppet governments always represent the view of the whiteman because they are indoctrinated by the whiteman to act like this. These type of people are on the council because very few of our traditional people vote in these whiteman elections. I am told that only 30 percent of our people vote. These councilmen do not represent the majority of the people on the reservation. Naturally, many of them are here today to urge the acceptance of this bill, as they have been brainwashed to do by the whiteman.

I want to repeat that there can never be an acceptance of this bill or the total Black Hills Claim under any circumstances. This is the wish of the people. We have a treaty and it requires 3/4 of all adult male members to sign before our land can be sold. I believe that this provision was stuck in the treaty by the whiteman because Lakota do not sell their land. The whiteman claims that he is not bound by the 3/4 provision of the treaty. This Lonewolf v. Hitchcock case has been explained to me and I have to laugh at the whiteman and his views. This case says only that the whiteman can break treaties with Indian any time he wants to. Let me tell you my friends, that Mr. Kills Enemy has a book which tells that the United States Commissioners who signed the 1868 Treaty were in Chicago two or three days before they signed it, and they were passing resolutions which were designed to break it. After these resolutions were passed, the Commissioners signed it. The treaty was broken by the whiteman before it was even signed by him. But we Lakota are more honorable men. We have signed the treaty and we will try to live by it and respect it. Even though this treaty may not be binding on the whiteman, it is binding on us until we vote it out. It says that 3/4 of the Lakota adult male members must sign before land can be sold and the Lakota people can never accept any payment until this provision is fully complied with.

NONACCEPTANCE OF THE BLACK HILLS CLAIM

The Black Hills are sacred to the Lakota people. Both the sacred pipe and the Black Hills go hand and hand in our religion. The Black Hills is our church, the place where we worship. The Black Hills is our burial grounds. The Bones of our grandfathers lie buried in those hills. How can you expect us to sell our church and our cemeteries for a few token whiteman dollars. We will never sell.

We know the underlying policy behind the Claims Commission Act and we are not fooled. The government intends to clear title to the land illegally taken, to clear their own conscience, then terminate us. I see this come out in the testimony of government witnesses in past hearings. For example, on page 13 of the Senate Subcommittee hearings on S. 2780 held on August 13, 1976, the witness answered Senator Abourezk's statement on how acceptance of the bill would be a disservice to the Indian people. The witness said:

MR. MILLEUR. By constantly bringing up the ancient wrongs which were supposed to have been settled once and for all by the Indian Claims Commission Act and having them litigated over and over again rather than forgetting the ancient wrongs and let the very salutory effect of the doctrine of res judicata take its effect as it does normally in any judicial proceedings in the country.

These wrongs only happened yesterday and are not ancient wrongs. And I wonder where the whiteman ever got the idea that these wrongs had to be settled in his courts by his rules. Anyone can win a ball game if he makes up his own rules. This res judicata business is one of these rules. But whatever the rules are, and whatever the Claims Commission awards for the Black Hills, please remember that we will never sell.

There can only be one settlement for the Black Hills. The Black Hills must be immediately returned to the rightful owners, the Lakota people. After that, we can talk about compensation for damages done to the fruits taken from the land. We should be paid for everything taken from the land at the value they are worth today, since the land is still rightfully ours today. But our people are a generous people and our people are willing to accept one-half the value of everything taken at the value they are worth today.

The Claims Commission, an agency of the United States Government, has stated that the taking of the Black Hills was illegal, and the Commission claimed also that it could have been taken by Eminent Domain. We also understand that under the whiteman laws, the rules of the game that have been imposed in this claim, that land can be acquired in only three methods: (1) by discovery, (2) by extinguishment of title, and (3) by sale. There certainly has never been any discovery of our land by the whiteman. We discovered it first, because we have always been here. The whiteman recognized this right, that is why they had to enter into these treaties with us. These treaties recognized our title to the Black Hills and other land and acknowledged our right to exist as a nation without being terminated and placed under state jurisdiction. I believe the whiteman constitution also recognizes this right. Also, there has never been any conquest of the Sioux Nation by the United States. It was the United States that came to us and asked for peace after we continually defeated them in over twenty three years of war. With the exception of the Blue Water Creek and Wounded Knee massacres and maybe one small battle called the Box Wagon Fight in Montana, we defeated the United States in every encounter. We have not been conquered by friends and instead lived in peace with the United States in accordance with the treaty as equals. And also, there has never been a sale of the Black Hills, because there has never been an acceptance of the governments offer to buy. What the decision of the Claims Commission amounts to is an offer, although they do not wish to call it that. By deceit, they are trying to get us to accept this offer by telling us that we have no choice but to accept the judgment award. And until we accept this offer, the United States can never have clear and legal title to the Black Hills. And the white people living in the Black Hills have a cloudy title on their land because their titles are only as good as their government's. I would like to tell our IRA council friends that this is the only reasons that the United States is so anxious to get the Indian people to accept the award. They only want to clear their own illegal title in an underhanded method. We do not believe the United States government has the power to eminent domain over us, anymore than we have the power to eminent domain over them. This is because we are equal nations living side by side. We are citizens of our own nations. But even if the government has this power, as the claims commission stated, and could have taken the Black Hills by eminent domain, the fact remains that it did not do so. Therefore, the Black Hills were taken by an illegal act and the government does not have any legal title whatsoever on our sacred hills.

We understand that over 80 percent of the Black Hills is still under the control of the United States. This must be immediately returned to the Lakota people and negotiations must begin for the remainder in individual ownership. We know the white people living in the hills now love it. We love it for many of the same reasons and more importantly because they are our sacred grounds. So these white people should understand why we will not sell. The Oglala Lakota have always been the caretakers of the Black Hills and it is appropriate that I have been allowed to talk here today defending the sale of these hills for my people and other Lakota people from our other Lakota tribes.

ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE TRIBAL COUNCILS

Before I close, I have one statement to make about the attorneys representing the tribal councils. Naturally, at this stage of the game, they would rather get 10 percent of $102,000,000 rather than 10 percent of $17,500,000. But they are the only ones that stand to gain from these claims. They testify only for their own self interests.

Many of these attorneys have worked hard for the puppet tribal governments that they represent. They do not represent us and the majority of the people on the reservations who reject the claims. They have never consulted us, the silent majority, to get our views on the sale. If they would have, they would have seen that the majority of us are against the sale of the Black Hills.

These tribal attorneys, many of them are of the Jewish people. They should look at their own history and hold their heads in shame for what they are trying to talk us into doing here. They lost their lands for almost 2,000 years and have just got them returned. They lost many of their people throughout the years fighting for their homeland, but not as many people as we lost fighting for ours. Yet they stand here very eagerly trying to talk us into selling our land when they know the United States does not have good legal title. It is understandable that they do this because they too are whitemen. We wonder if they will be willing to sell Israel to the Arabs for $17,500,000 plus interest.

Also, we have been told that the passage of this bill today is 20 to 1 against passage. These odds are not good. I say this because I do not want to hear the attorneys blaming us for the rejection of this bill after today. It is easy to use us as their scapegoats when they have to tell their puppet governments that the bill was defeated. I wish to emphasis again that our only concern here today is to restate our position that the Black Hills cannot and will not be sold under any circumstances and we are here today to protect our people.

Before I go, I would like to attach to our statement a statement from the Standing Rock Lakota people. They have not been allowed to talk today and I think what they have to say should be heard. Hau. He cetu yelo.

I once worked with Philip Berigan in DC, after the Pentagon march. He was a lovely, LOVELY hardworking man of PEACE.


This is his .. well .. his nemesis?

Rev. Billy Graham: A Prince of War Exposed

William Hughes


The Rev. Billy Graham sits for his portrait in the Carnegie Hall, New York
studio. By John Howard Sanden

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.” - Stendhal

The propaganda machine of the Evangelical Christian Right will soon be in counter attack mode. One of its darling preachers is about to take it on the proverbial chin. The Rev. Billy Graham, who has created a multimillion dollar media empire, that a Rupert Murdock would envy, is the subject of a shocking expose’ due out on Nov. 15, 2007. It’s entitled, “The Prince of War: Billy Graham’s Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire.” The author is Cecil Bothwell. He hails from Asheville, North Carolina and is an award winning investigative reporter. Bothwell’s unflattering portrait of Rev. Graham shows him as a wily warmonger and a lackey for the Establishment. He describes Rev. Graham as a public figure who: “Undermined the Founders’ skeptical Deism and sought to rebrand the U.S. as a Christian nation, [and] its armies [as] the rightful instruments of [a] Christian crusade and empire.”

Bothwell documents that there wasn’t a war the U.S. was involved in that Rev. Graham couldn’t bless. In fact, he reveals that during the horrific Vietnam conflict, (1959-75), he had urged the then-President, Richard M. Nixon, to bomb North Vietnam! In a 13-page letter, that Rev. Graham had forwarded to the White House in April, 1969, it was stated: “There are tens of thousands of North Vietnamese defectors to bomb and invade the North. Why should all the fighting be in the South?...Especially let them bomb the dikes which could over night destroy the economy of North Vietnam.” Mr. Bothwell underscored that such a military action against the dikes, a huge complex of earthworks, would probably “kill a million people and wipe out an already poor nation’s agricultural system” He added that the advice in Graham’s transmittal “fell on receptive ears. Not longer after, Nixon moved the air war north and west.”

There is more. After the deadly Kent State U. affair, (May 4, 1970), where four students, who were protesting the Nixon-Henry Kissinger-inspired bombing of Cambodia, were killed by Ohio’s National Guard troops, Rev. Graham invited the mostly unbalanced Nixon to address his crusade. It was held in Knoxville, TN. While parents of the students were still grieving and burying their dead, Rev. Graham shamelessly shilled: “All Americans may not agree with the decision a president makes--but he is our president...”


Madame Tussauds Wax, 2000 @
Madame Tussauds in New York.
By Karen Newman
Also, every chance Rev. Graham got he ripped into antiwar protesters in this country, while the Vietnam inferno was raging. After a large pro peace demonstration in late 1969, he railed in a letter to then President Lyndon B. Johnson, that the protesters were “radicals and those seeking to overthrow the American way of life.” When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke out, in 1967 against the war in a sermon at the Riverside Church in NYC, Rev. Graham, jumped right in and tagged his criticism as “an affront to the thousands of loyal Negro troops who are in Vietnam.” When Dr. King marched for Civil Rights in Selma, Alabama, Rev. Graham was no where to be found. And, after Dr. King was gunned down in Memphis, TN, he couldn’t be bothered to attend his funeral either.

Rev. Graham made a career out of sucking up to U.S. presidents. Mr. Bothwell wrote how he loved those “endless photo-ops” at the White House, and how he was always, “so eager to shake the hands of...despots, movie stars and industrial kingpins, and to offer grandiose approval of their greatness. Obsequy, more than money, seemed to drive the man--though his pockets were never empty.” Fortunately, not all the presidents bought into Rev. Graham’s bogus act. One of my favorites, President Harry S. Truman, who was born in Lamar, MO, knew a wide variety of people from political bosses to political hacks. He had a built in b... s... detector. This is what President Truman had to say about the war-loving, camera-mugging preacher: “Graham has gone off the beam. He’s...well, I hadn’t ought to say this, but he’s one of those ‘counterfeits’ I was telling you about. He claims he’s a friend of all the presidents, but he was never a friend of mine when I was president. I just don’t go for people like that. All he’s interested in is getting his name in the paper.”

Just before Bush 1 (George H.W. Bush) launched the Persian Gulf War, he invited Rev. Graham to the White House. On Jan. 16, 1991, they both watched the “air war against Iraq on CNN.” Later that same evening, he prayed “three times” with the president before he delivered a “televised address to the nation.” In a phone call to Bush 1, prior to that White House invite, Rev. Graham had supposedly referred to Saddam Hussein as the “Antichrist.” This conversation reportedly helped Bush 1 to resolve “all the moral issues in my mind. It’s black and white, good versus evil.” Can anyone imagine Jesus watching a war on TV, without weeping aloud for its innocent victims, and demanding that it be stopped immediately?

As for the ongoing Iraq War, started by Bush 2 (George W. Bush Jr.), and based on a pack of rotten lies, not one word of criticism has been heard from Rev. Graham. Even after the notorious torture scandal at Abu Ghraib was revealed, the preacher maintained his vow of silence on this country’s worst president, a man who deserves impeachment and jail time for violating his oath of office. (1) The country has lost 3,801 of its finest sons and daughters in Iraq and wasted $455 billion there. Another 27,000 U.S. troops have been seriously injured. An estimated one million Iraqis are now dead and about 3.7 million have become refugees. Yet, Rev. Graham, a supposed follower of the “Prince of Peace,” has remained mute in his criticism of the outrageous conduct of this president and his insane policies. Why have we rarely heard Rev. Graham preach about Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount?” Why have we rarely, if ever, heard him repeat these words that came directly from the mouth of Christ: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God?”

Mr. Bothwell suggests a possible reason why Rev. Graham has failed to speak out about the unjust Iraq War and Bush 2’s responsibility for it. At p. 164, he relates how the preacher, in 1985, had supposedly “saved” Bush 2 from perdition. It was at the family compound at Kennebunkport. Bush 2 was drunk and had allegedly “insulted a friend of his mother.” It was around the time of Bush 2’s 39th birthday. Mr. Bothwell writes: “George senior and Barbara blew up. Words were exchanged along the lines of something having to be done. George senior, then the vice-president, dialed up his friend, Billy Graham, who came to the compound and spent several days with George W. in probing exchanges and walks on the beach. George W. was soon ‘born again.’ He stopped drinking, attended Bible study and wrestle with issues of fervent faith. A man who was lost was saved.”

We now know that Bush 2, although he may have stopped hitting the bottle, never did anything in the realm of therapy about his alcoholism problem. He’s known by the experts in the field as a “dry drunk,” a potential danger to himself and to others. (2) As for Bush 2 being “born again,” the question must be asked: “Born again for what?” To kill Iraqis? Invade Iran? Bankrupt our Republic? “Brother” Elliott Nesch, an Evangelical and Peace advocate, believes that pro-War Christians “should repent.” (3) I agree with him. The bottom line is clerics, like Rev. Graham, dominate today much of the Religious Right in America. Bothwell’s tome deals, however, with a lot more relevant issues than just the preacher’s disgusting war addiction. It’s an insightful book that I am highly recommending. It’s well documented, too, with 274 footnotes.

Finally, I wrote last year that “Rev. Graham wasn’t a Phil Berrigan.” The latter, an ex-priest, was a true apostle of peace, who spent 11 of his 79 years behind bars in the cause of justice. Unlike Rev. Graham, who skipped out of WWII, Berrigan was involved in the Normandy invasion and the “Battle of the Bulge” as a member of the U.S. Army. (4) I’m convinced that unless the Christian community in this country, Protestant and Catholic alike, opens its eyes to what Rev. Graham and his Establishment-serving ilk have been doing “in Christ’s name,” this nation is headed for a fall that will make the collapse of Rome look like a Sunday picnic.

Here is what it is ..

Dengue Fever Surges in Latin America

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Dengue fever is spreading across Latin America and the Caribbean in one of the worst outbreaks in decades, causing agonizing joint pain for hundreds of thousands of people and killing nearly 200 so far this year.

The mosquitoes that carry dengue are thriving in expanded urban slums scattered with water-collecting trash and old tires. Experts say dengue is approaching record levels this year as many countries enter their wettest months.

"If we do not slow it down, it will intensify and take a greater social and economic toll on these countries," said Dr. Jose Luis San Martin, head of anti-dengue efforts for the Pan American Health Organization, a regional public health agency.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has posted advisories this year for people visiting Latin American and Caribbean destinations to use mosquito repellant and stay inside screened areas whenever possible.

"The danger is that the doctors at home don't recognize the dengue," said Dr. Wellington Sun, the chief of the CDC's dengue branch in San Juan. "The doctors need to raise their level of suspicion for any traveler who returns with a fever."

Dengue has already damaged the economies of countries across the region by driving away tourists, according to a document prepared for a PAHO conference beginning Monday in Washington.

Some countries have focused mosquito eradication efforts on areas popular with tourists. Mexico sent hundreds of workers to the resorts of Puerto Vallarta, Cancun and Acapulco this year to try to avert outbreaks.

Health ministers from across the region meet at the PAHO conference and San Martin said he will urge them to devote more resources to dengue fever.

The tropical virus was once thought to have been nearly eliminated from Latin America, but it has steadily gained strength since the early 1980s. Now, officials fear it could emerge as a pandemic similar to one that became a leading killer of children in Southeast Asia following World War II.

Officials say the virus is likely to grow deadlier in part because tourism and migration are circulating four different strains across the region. A person exposed to one strain may develop immunity to that strain — but subsequent exposure to another strain makes it more likely the person will develop the hemorrhagic form.

"The main concern is what's happening in the Americas will recapitulate what has happened in Southeast Asia, and we will start seeing more and more severe types of cases of dengue as time progresses," Sun said.

The disease — known as "bonebreak fever" because of the pain — can incapacitate patients for as long as a week with flu-like symptoms. A deadly hemorrhagic form, which also causes internal and external bleeding, accounts for less than 5 percent of cases but has shown signs of growing.

So far this year, 630,356 dengue cases have been reported in the Americas — most in Brazil, Venezuela, or Colombia — with 12,147 cases of hemorrhagic fever and 183 deaths, according to the Pan American Health Organization. With the spread expected to accelerate during the upcoming rainy season in many countries, cases this year could exceed the 1,015,000 reported in 2002, according to San Martin.

In Puerto Rico, where 5,592 suspected cases and three deaths have been reported, some lawmakers called this week for the health secretary to resign.

In the Dominican Republic, which has reported 25 deaths this year, the health department announced Thursday that it would train 2.5 million public school students to encourage parents and neighbors to eliminate standing water.

Researchers have not yet developed a vaccine against dengue and Sun said that for now, the only way to stop the virus is to contain the mosquito population — a task that relies of countless, relentless individual efforts including installing screen doors and making sure mosquitoes are not breeding in garbage.

"It's like telling people to stop smoking," he said. "They may do it for a while, but they don't do it on a consistent basis and without doing that, it's not effective."

While dengue is increasing around the developing world, the problem is most dramatic in the Americas, according to the CDC.

Health officials believe the resurgence of the malaria-like illness is due partly to a premature easing of eradication programs in the 1970s.

Migration and tourism also have carried new strains of the virus across national borders, even into the United States, which had largely wiped out the disease after a 1922 outbreak that infected a half-million people.

Mexico has been struggling with an alarming increase in the deadly hemorrhagic form of dengue, which now accounts for roughly one in four cases. The government has confirmed 3,249 cases of hemorraghic dengue for the year through Sept. 15, up from 1,924 last year.

The CDC says there is no drug to treat hemorrhagic dengue, but proper treatment, including rest, fluids and pain relief, can reduce death rates to about 1 percent. (See below.)

San Martin said he use the meetings starting Monday to urge enforcement of trash disposal regulations, more investment in mosquito control and new incentives for communities to participate.

"It is a battle of every government, every community and every individual," he said.


Aspirin with dengue could kill - Ministry
published: Friday | September 28, 2007

Petrina Francis, Staff Reporter

The Ministry of Health and Environment yesterday said it was concerned about dengue haemorrhagic fever and urged persons with fever not to take aspirin as this could result in death.

Dengue occurs in two forms: Dengue fever and dengue haemorrhagic fever.

Dengue fever is marked by the onset of sudden high fever, severe headache and pain behind the eyes, muscles and joints.

Potentially deadly

According to the World Health Organisation, dengue haemorrhagic fever is a potentially deadly complication that is characterised by high fever, often with enlargement of the liver and, in severe cases, circulatory failure.

"We are concerned about dengue haemorrhagic fever," Dr. Sheila Campbell-Forrester, chief medical officer of health, told The Gleaner yesterday.

She said there were four types of dengue virus, and Jamaica was now experiencing type two.

Dr. Campbell-Forrester said more than 100 cases of dengue fever have been identified between July and September. She noted that vector control programmes are ongoing islandwide, but are mostly concentrated in parishes where cases have been identified.

These areas include Kingston, St. Catherine, St. Ann and Portland.

"We want to stress the importance of self response. Mosquitoes breed in containers or areas where water settles," she said, noting that persons should be vigilant and punch holes in containers, among other safety measures.

petrina.francis@gleanerjm.com

Dengue facts

Dengue fever is transmitted by female Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes which acquire the virus while feeding on the blood of an infected person.

Persons suspected of having dengue fever or dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) must see a doctor at once;

There is no specific treatment for dengue fever but early recognition and symptomatic treatment can save lives. People who are infected with dengue should drink a lot of fluids and eat nutritious food, as this may improve the course of the disease;

Dengue disease is not contagious. However, when dengue patients are bitten by an infected dengue mosquito, the mosquito may infect somebody else. Therefore, the dengue patient should be kept under a mosquito net or in a screened room during the period of illness.

Source: World Health Organisation.

Please forward as far as possible

Please copy and spread this.

Straight truth on nuclear fallout

Long, unwieldy and not to be missed!!

Yes, this means YOU.

For a 'scientific' paper, it is not hard to follow.

Are you in a comfortable chair, playing at activism? Or just not concerned? As the planet prepares for nuclear war against Iran, Syria, North Korea? As increasing numbers of people are exposed to depleted uranium and the contaminants spread every wider onto the planet?

Thinking about the effects this might have on YOU?

Just what effects might this have on offspring born into your families?

You cannot CONTAIN Nuclear fallout.
There is no such thing as a "tiny nuke"!!
Depleted uranium's use is JUST as bad, maybe far far worse.
There are children dieing of uranium poisoning in America, being badly deformed at birth.
And we must all fight together. For much is at stake.

Who's TELLING YOU??

Surely not YOUR government!!!

Ever REALLY wondered what happened to the Chernobyl victims and to other radiation victims as well??
Ever wonder how you would REALLY find out about it??
Did the information mysteriously go missing "under the radar?"
Did they fund any studies?
If so, who did them, and DID THEY AGREE?
Were findings and results published?
Are we going to be TOLD what nuclear fallout did to us ALL, seeing as how it cannot be contained?
Why are Russians, Ukrainians and other groups still pouring into Canada and other places at ever faster rates?
Just how are those Chernobyl children and others like them now? - we were warned it wouldn't be "pretty".
Were things in place to help out and how?

and maybe most important of all questions:


Can the planet learn from this lesson??

and stop making horrible bombs

and having horrible "accidents"

Can we put a 'face' on it?

Pretty obvious, if you don't really follow scientific principles, the lesson is going to come at you incomplete.

And then there is that gnawing, never before possible to answer question:

HOW AM I GOING TO FEEL WHEN I FIND OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENS to the survivors and to their children??

Finally, some answers and you get to feel your feelings. The events were gut wrenching for the entire world and each time we grew more traumized. Please go to www.shockdoctrine.com and watch the video.

The effects of the radiation that has been covered up, but are made available to you from the Low Level Radiation Campaign.

When you are through digesting this may WE,
fellow earthlings
suggest
you pass this on,
you begin discussing this.
Maybe have a very good cry about it all

But don't fail to get angry at the coverup

Begin to write, email, fax, call
the media and ask them and the politicians

Why is no one telling me this?

When you are through, you may email Richard at his email below
Tell him you are now INVOLVED
in saving this precious, precious planet

Don't fall for the snow job!!

Demand an end to uranium mininng,
To nuclear power plants,
to the proliferation of nuclear weapons
and the use of depleted uranium

DO NOT BE CONNED BY THE DEAFENING SILENCE
taking place on this issue.

So here it is is

international campaign "low-level" radiation

It can be difficult to grasp the sheer scale of the deception that the Commission continues to practise upon the public through its failure to apply scientific method. It amounts to nothing less than a Nelsonian blindness to the health impacts of contaminating the environment with low concentrations of radioactivity, and the theft of mankind's collective opportunity to learn from the post-war nuclear arms race and the Chernobyl disaster.

Here we are not embarking on a rehearsal of all the arguments and all the evidence. It is clear that the Commission is impervious to such submissions. At the same time silence must not give consent. For economy we concentrate on the overarching matter of scientific method.
Scientific method requires countervailing evidence to be addressed. In this respect the Commission fails. Studies of the effects of weapons test fallout and Chernobyl are not cited. In fact the word "Chernobyl" is notably absent from the consultation draft and its key supporting documents, Annexes A and B. The single exception (a study highlighting the difficulty of reconstructing thyroid doses) is cited because of the Commission's obsessive concern with dose. ICRP clings to the outworn dogma that the assessment of radiation doses is fundamental to radiological protection despite robust criticism even from within its own ranks which, characteristically, it ignores. Thus the CERRIE Majority Report is cited in various contexts but not in the context of its attack on the concept of absorbed dose):-

..... There are important concerns with respect to the
heterogeneity of dose delivery within tissues and cells from
short-range charged particle emissions, the extent to which
current models adequately represent such interactions with
biological targets, and the specification of target cells at risk.
Indeed, the actual concepts of absorbed dose become
questionable, and sometimes meaningless, when considering
interactions at the cellular and molecular levels.
(CERRIE Majority Report Chapter 2.1 paragraph 11).

The work of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR 2003 [1)) is not cited. Neither is IRSN's recent report on the ECRR (IRSN 2005 [2]) although ICRP shares staff with IRSN and although IRSN states:

Various questions raised by the ECRR are quite pertinent and
led IRSN to analyze this document with a pluralistic approach.
a. Besides natural and medical exposures, populations are
basically undergoing low dose and low dose rate prolonged
internal exposures. But the possible health consequences under
such exposure conditions are ill-known. Failing statistically
significant observations, the health consequences of low dose
exposures are extrapolated from data concerning exposures
that involve higher dose rates and doses. Also, few
epidemiologic data could be analyzed for assessing inner
exposure effects. The risks were thus assessed from health
consequences observed after external exposure, considering
that effects were identical, whether the exposure source is
located outside or inside the human body. However, the
intensity, or even the type of effects might be different.
b. The pertinence of dosimetric values used for quantifying
doses may be questioned. Indeed, the factors applied for risk
management values are basically relying on the results from
the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors' monitoring. It is thus
not ensured that the numerical values of these factors translate
the actual risk, regardless of exposure conditions, and
especially after low dose internal exposure.
c. Furthermore, since the preparation of the ICRP 60
publication, improvements in radiobiology and
radiopathology, or even in general biology, might finally
impair the radiation cell and tissue response model applied to
justify radioprotection recommendations. It was thus justified
to contemplate the impact of such recent observations on the
assessment of risk induced by an exposure to ionizing
radiation.


and

The phenomena concerning internal contamination by
radionuclides are complex because they involve numerous
physico-chemical, biochemical and physiological mechanisms,
still ill-known and thus difficult to model. Due to this complexity,
the behaviour of radionuclides in the organism is often ill
described and it is difficult to accurately define a relationship
between the dose delivered by radionuclides and the observed
consequences on health. This led the radioprotection specialists
to mostly use the dose/risk relationships derived from the study
of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors, exposed in conditions very
different from those met in the cases of internal contaminations.
This fact raises numerous questions, which should be considered
with caution because a wide part of the public exposure in some
areas of the world is due to chronic internal contaminations and
very few data concern these situations.
[…] the questions raised by the ECRR are fully acceptable, … "


and

… we do not possess, in the current state of knowledge, the
elements required to improve the existing radioprotection
system.


In the draft Recommendations [3] preceding the present one paragraphs 37, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48 , 49 and 50 gave detailed discussion of the circumstances where heterogeneity of energy distribution compromises absorbed dose. Paragraph 51, immediately following, presented a bizarre and risible contradiction in asserting (or re-asserting) that

The definition of the protection quantities is based on the mean absorbed dose …


The present consultation draft has reorganised or vanished the material from the paragraphs listed. It does not seem worth making a detailed analysis of the fate of this material since the Commission clings to its original conclusion about the assessment of radiation doses. However, we note one example (selected at random, not according to any ranking).
Paragraph (44) of the 2004 draft read:

Absorbed dose is defined based on the expectation value of the
stochastic quantity e, energy imparted, and therefore does not
consider the random fluctuation of the interaction events. It is defined
at any point in matter and, in principle, is a measurable quantity, i.e. it
can be determined experimentally and by computation. The definition
of absorbed dose has the scientific rigour required for a fundamental
quantity. It takes implicitly account of the radiation field as well as of
all of its interactions inside and outside the specified volume. It does
not, however, consider the atomic structure of matter and the
stochastic nature of the interactions.


The final sentence with its inherent caveat about heterogeneity of energy deposition has vanished from the analogous paragraph of the present draft.

Section 4.4.5.1 of Annex A, Supralinear low dose responses, discusses a number of disputed areas of radiation risk, citing the CERRIE Minority Report but not the Minority Report [4]. This cannot be dismissed as an oversight, in view of the overlapping membership of CERRIE and the ICRP Task Group which wrote the Annex. We see it as an exercise in misrepresenting the status of a scientific dialogue.

A feature of the technique is that it attacks the work of individuals in a manner that allows them to be identified by the cognoscenti but does not cite them overtly — a propaganda technique rather than science.
The topics so treated in Section 4.4.5.1 are dismissed in terms of

The Task Group agree[ing] with the general view expressed by the majority of CERRIE members that none of the proposals on the gross underestimation of risk that were considered have a sound scientific basis and that some are demonstrably flawed. The following points illustrate the views of the Task Group:

a) the interpretation of selected epidemiological datasets.


The Annex glosses this as

The epidemiological evidence cited did not provide consistent evidence that risk of childhood leukaemia from nuclear test fallout was seriously underestimated by established radiation risk models.
XXXX points should be noted. 1) The principle of Popperian falsification holds that a single genuine counterexample is enough to require a hypothesis to be modified. It is not a question of having to provide consistent evidence of a serious underestimate. 2) Rather than accepting the unsupported statements of the Task Group, readers should refer to detailed discussion of the childhood leukaemia in the CERRIE Minority Report pp.30-2. 3) In fact just as much attention was given to INFANT leukaemia post-Chernobyl. The CERRIE Majority Report handled this in a farcical manner which has been analysed in a number of submissions (e.g LLRC to CoRWM) and published in Radioactive Times Vol 6 no 1 without being rebutted. A version is appended as Appendix 1. 4) CERRIE cannot be represented as a thorough examination of even a substantial proportion of the epidemiological datasets available. It is particularly noteworthy that two Russian Academicians attended the 3-day international workshop convened by CERRIE in 2003. They recommended that there were tens of thousands of papers in Russian which were relevant to the Committee's remit and they asked that the Committee should recommend translation of at least the abstracts to make them more widely accessible. The Majority Report ignored this entire topic, but the Minority Report included translations of about 100 summaries showing supralinear effects, both experimental and epidemiological, tending to falsify ICRP's risk estimates. This work has now been augmented in publication of a far larger volume of work from Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine [5]. A summary is appended as Appendix 2. b) biophysical proposals on the mode of action of certain internal radiations.
The Annex glosses this as

The so called Second Event Theory cited in support of higher than expected cancer risk from 90Sr and particulate forms of alpha-emitters [which the majority felt] was inadequately formulated and inconsistent with a wellestablished body of biological data.
The manner in which this was treated by CERRIE was highly unsatisfactory. An external reviewer was appointed without reference to the Committee; the criteria he applied were not satisfactory and omitted some key issues. As the Minority Report reveals [6], Committee members failed to understand key aspects of the debate. Crucially, it was never contended that the Second Event Theory has to be valid in order to demonstrate that there is something badly wrong with the ICRP's modelling. The epidemiological data, allied to the caveats uttered by the ICRP itself, take precedence; the Theory stands as a possible explanation of why the epidemiological data fail to conform to simplistic assumptions based on external irradiation and average dose. This it shares with the next category:

c) the role of induced genomic instability/bystander signalling in cancer development;
Jury out. It is said that if these mechanisms play a role in radiation induced disease they are already subsumed within existing radiation risk factors. This is hard to sustain since they have potential to cause a far larger range of disease than are currently assumed to be radiogenic — cf ECRR 2006.

d) the fitting of bimodal or polymodal dose-responses to epidemiological and experimental data.


The Annex glosses this as

The data relating to bimodal/polymodal dose responses were generally weak, statistical analyses were inadequate and the phenomena, if real, had no obvious mechanistic basis.

Many of the post-Chernobyl reports in ECRR 2006 and the CERRIE Minority Report show bimodal/polymodal dose responses. The Commission fails to examine these data, just as CERRIE did; CERRIE did not undertake enough analysis to allow the conclusion that statistical analyses were inadequate. One does not know how much analysis ICRP has carried out since it cites no post-Chernobyl evidence. It has been pointed out that some of the data sets cited by ICRP and other conventional agencies (e.g. of nuclear industry workers) show anomalously high effects at low dose, though these points are usually dismissed as outliers. Mechanistic bases for bimodal responses have been proposed, including during CERRIE. An example is to be found on page 58 of the CERRIE Minority Report. We know of no logical rebuttal, as contrasted with the Annex's unscientific opinion mongering.

This section of the ICRP's Annex A concludes:

Epidemiology takes precedence over theory, and the post-Chernobyl epidemiology falsifies this statement.
The Commission assumes on the basis of the LSS external irradiation studies that effects are limited to a small range of disorders. Post-Chernobyl studies showing a wide range of non-cancer diseases falsify this assumption, as does Whyte's metaanalysis of infant mortality at the time of the weapons test fallout (not cited by ICRP). ICRP itself admits that no specific judgement on low dose risk of non-cancer diseases is possible. [7]

Conclusion

The Commission's approach is fundamentally unscientific. The Commission's obsession with absorbed dose as an average and its refusal to consider any studies where dose cannot at least be inferred conflict with opinions about the limitations of absorbed dose from a range of authorities including the Commission itself.

On the basis of copious epidemiological evidence radioactive contaminants appear to be acting as toxins irrespective of dose considerations, irrespective of whether biological mechanisms are known, and irrespective of assumptions based on the LSS studies about which types of disorder are inducible by radiation.








Appendix 1


INFANT LEUKAEMIA: AN ACID TEST

A sharp increase in infant leukaemia was observed in several countries after the Chernobyl accident in 1986. It was extensively discussed by CERRIE.

Leukaemia is recognised as an early indicator of radiation damage; more specifically, infant leukaemia (i.e. diagnosed before a baby’s first birthday) signals damage acquired in the womb. Scientific journals have published papers by different research teams showing post-Chernobyl increases of between 20% and 330% in various countries as far apart as Belarus and the USA (Busby 2000; Gibson 1988; Ivanov 1998; Mangano 1997; Michaelis 1997; Petridou 1996 [8]).

This is a crucial challenge to conventional radiation risk estimates because only the Chernobyl fallout can have caused the disease in this very precisely defined subset of the population. The number of sick babies was small but they are in effect miners’ canaries, suggesting that radioactive discharges are contributing to the global epidemic of cancer.
All the post-Chernobyl studies show between 150 and 800 times more leukaemia than expected. We argued in CERRIE that this was prima facie evidence against the external risk model. Our opponents set out to show it could be ignored.

They argued that the statistical power of the individual studies was so low that no reliance could be placed on the overall observation. One strand of this argument depends on ignoring studies of Scotland and Wales where excess risks were high and statistically significant.

The second strand began with using wrong data and ended in nonsense. The first draft of the CERRIE Majority Report said radiation doses in Germany were the same as in Greece. This had the effect of reducing the apparent significance of the German study and CERRIE concluded that

… the only study to show a large discrepancy with the predictions of
external radiation risk estimates is the Greek … study.

However, we knew from UN monitoring that fallout in Greece was roughly four times higher than in Germany (Savchenko 1995). We told CERRIE’s Chairman that the stated doses were obviously wrong and the Majority Report was changed. As published, it contains the correct doses but, untenably, still concludes that only the Greek study is out of line with expectation.
The third strand of the CERRIE case is an unsubstantiated slur on the quality of data collection in Greece. This was never discussed in Committee, but the Report’s implication is that the Greek study can therefore be ignored.
The fourth concerns the study from Belarus, where fallout levels from Chernobyl were more than seven times higher than in Greece ‘though the increase in infant leukaemia was smaller than anywhere else in mainland Europe. The Majority Report says the Greek study (the only one supposed to be an anomaly) is

... statistically inconsistent with … the study in Belarus where the highest
doses from Chernobyl contamination were received.


Statistically inconsistent with … is code, meaning that the observations challenge the dogma that dose and effect are always linear. We had consistently argued in CERRIE that there are good reasons why disease may not always show linear relationships with dose. Infant leukaemia is just one example. It starts in the womb, so babies carried by pregnant women in high fallout areas will suffer more damage than in low fallout areas. As a result more babies will be miscarried or stillborn or will die before leukaemia is diagnosed. A high fallout area will therefore inevitably have a lower incidence of leukaemia per unit dose than a low dose area and possibly an absolutely lower incidence as well, as in the case of Belarus. Thus we have further evidence of the invalidity of the ICRP linear risk model.

The Majority Report thus used a combination of wrong and selective data, innuendo and dependence on assumptions which CERRIE itself had been set up to test, to find that the increase in each country could have happened by chance, so the overall increase could have happened by chance. This ignores the classic scientific dictum of “instance confirmation”; that is, studies which consistently show a trend increase our confidence that the trend is real. The Chernobyl infants’ studies satisfy Professor Sir Austin Bradford Hill’s famous features of reliable epidemiological studies (Bradford Hill 1965: extracts in italics. This discussion of Bradford Hill was part of the CERRIE process — it was as near as CERRIE would get to discussing the philosophy of science, or How do you know what you know?):-

• “strength” (Is the observed increase in risk large enough, relative to unexposed people, to draw a firm inference about causation?

On this Bradford Hill cautions

We must not be too ready to dismiss a cause-and-effect hypothesis merely on the grounds that the observed association appears to be slight.)
• “consistency” (Has it been repeatedly observed by different persons, in different places, circumstances and times?)

• “specificity” (Is there a specific association between the disease and the type of exposure?),

• “temporality” (Does the disease follow the exposure?)

• “plausibility” (Is the causation we suspect biologically plausible, bearing in mind that the association we observe may be one new to science or medicine and we must not dismiss it too light-heartedly as just too odd.)

• and “coherence” (Does the cause-and-effect interpretation of our data …. seriously conflict with the generally known facts of the natural history and biology of the disease?)

The Biological gradient criterion is not satisfied, but Bradford Hill envisages circumstances in which a linear dose response would not be seen, and I have already given good reason why infant leukaemia would not display one. As the CERRIE Minority Report’s appendix of studies from the Chernobyl affected territories of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine shows, many disease phenomena show non-linear relationships with dose.

Statistical significance, so crucial to CERRIE’s dismissal of the infant leukaemia, is of minor importance according to Bradford Hill. Nonetheless, we can amalgamate the statistical tests contained in the various studies. The Scottish, Greek and German studies combined, for example, have a p value of 0.00065, meaning that an event on this scale occupying a two year period would not happen by chance in more than two thousand lifetimes. Common sense says that if the events were truly random, at least some of the data points would have been below the dotted line.

FOUR-WAY SPLIT NOT EXPLAINED

On this key issue the Majority Report shows a bizarre four-way split:

In the judgement of a large majority of Committee members, it is
likely that radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident resulted
in an increased risk of infant leukaemia in the exposed populations.
A substantial fraction of members thinks that this increase is at the
level anticipated from current risk models. However, another
substantial fraction feels that these models may have underestimated
the level of this increased risk. Of this latter group, two members
further believe that the evidence for infant leukaemia suggests that
the current risk estimates are appreciably in error. The remainder of
the Committee believes that there exists relatively little evidence that
lends support to this view. There is a consensus within the
Committee that leukaemia incidence in infants post-Chernobyl
merits further study. [CERRIE Majority Report Chapter 4 para. 26]

The reasoning behind some of the views remains a mystery even to CERRIE members, since the Committee never went through an open process of identifying members’ opinions. One faction - its size is not stated - seems to think Chernobyl had no effect on how many babies got leukaemia. Most members thought it did have an effect, but were split three ways on how big it was; some thought all the data points could be interpreted as being in line with ICRP expectations, others thought the risks might have been higher, but the report doesn’t say how much higher, nor who thought so, nor why. Two members insisted that the various scientific papers unequivocally show radiation is at least 100 times and maybe up to 1000 times more dangerous than conventional estimates. The majority felt there was relatively little evidence of this.

The Committee’s remit required differences of opinion to be explained, but the Majority Report leaves the reader only to guess whether there were any scientific grounds for this wide divergence (as opposed to the obvious political motivations). The implications are huge, for if the risk factors are so grossly in error we have an explanation not only for the Seascale leukaemia cluster but for the global epidemic of cancer which started when the nuclear industry began to spread radioactive pollution around the planet. On this key issue, as on many others, the Majority Report completely fails to produce any reliable advice for policy makers.
The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment colluded with the cover-up. Professor Bryn Bridges, Chairman of COMARE, attended every meeting of CERRIE as an observer. Professor Eric Wright was a member of both CERRIE and COMARE and also sat on the COMARE sub-Committee shadowing CERRIE, so despite the opacity of CERRIE’s treatment of the infant leukaemia, COMARE was fully aware of its importance. However, its 9th Report, which advises ministers on CERRIE’s findings, contains not a word about it. Professor Bridges retired as Chair of COMARE at the end of 2004 but he defends his report against this criticism. In an email to LLRC he cites a paragraph which refers to the forthcoming European Childhood Leukaemia/ Lymphoma Incidence Study (ECLIS). This he says

will investigate trends in incidence rates of childhood leukaemia and
lymphoma in 20 European countries, in relation to [...] Chernobyl [...]
Such large studies are much more likely to produce firm results than
those proposed in the CERRIE report.

As ECLIS is unpublished it does not falsify studies published up to 18 years ago. CERRIE’s own study is part of the body of evidence which the Majority Report misrepresents.

Appendix 2

ECRR 2006 contains a vast amount of information on conditions that could be described as generalised ill-health. We summarise some of them here. The discussion commences:

Since 1986, in the USSR, life expectancy has noticeably decreased.
On average, infant mortality has noticeably increased, as well as
death rates for those of advanced ages. There is no proof of a
direct connection between these parameters and the Chernobyl
catastrophe, but THERE IS PROOF OF SUCH CONNECTIONS FOR
PARTICULAR POLLUTED TERRITORIES.
AFTER 1986, IN THE RADIOACTIVELY POLLUTED AREAS OF UKRAINE, BELARUS AND RUSSIA, THERE IS AN INCREASE IN GENERAL MORTALITY BY COMPARISON WITH NEIGHBORING AREAS. (EMPHASIS added.)

The following list of conditions has been taken from Chapter 1 of ECRR 2006. The presence of a condition here indicates that the parameter has worsened since the accident and many of the studies report a dose dependent relationship [9].

  • Stillbirths, miscarriages, infant mortality, general mortality, cancer mortality, sudden deaths.
  • Thyroid cancer.
  • The 40 % increase in all malignancies between 1990 and 2000 correlates with radioactive fallout levels. The list of cancer sites includes retinoblastoma, lung, intestines, colon, kidneys, female breast, bladder, respiratory organs, nervous system, pancreas, all cancers in children.
  • Psychological diseases correlate with levels of radioactive pollution. There is a steep and continuing increase in diseases of the nervous system, e.g. congenital convulsive syndrome, brain circulation pathology, general neurological diseases, short-term memory loss, deterioration of attention function in school-children.
  • In adults there is growing evidence of a syndrome marked by deteriorating memory and motor skills, occurrence of convulsions, and pulsing headaches. This is caused by the destruction of brain cells and in the region has been dubbed Chernobyl
  • dementia.
  • In the Chernobyl territories cataracts have become a common disease.
  • Urogenital illnesses correlate with levels of radioactive pollution, and include interruption of pregnancy, gestosis, premature birth, inflammation of female genitals, ovarian cysts, uterine fibroma, menstrual irregularities, kidney infections, kidney stones, stones in urinary passages, infringements of sexual development, complications of pregnancy and births, failures of pregnancy, medical abortions, infertility, pathology of sperm, sclerocystosis, early impotence in men aged 25 - 30, structural changes of testiculus, spermatogenesis disturbances, lactation in 70- year old women, and delayed puberty as well as accelerated sexual development.
  • Diseases of the cardio-vascular system and blood are one of the most common consequences of the Chernobyl radioactive pollution:- anaemia, illnesses of the blood circulation system, arterial hypertensia or hypotensia, disturbances of heart rhythm and digestive systems, macrocitosis of lymphocytes, diseases of the blood and circulatory organs in adults, early atherosclerosis and ischemic heart disease, leucopenia, infringement of the blood supply in legs, changes in abundance and activity of leukocytes.
  • There is much evidence correlating fallout levels with endocrine/hormone diseases, e.g. incidence rate for Type 1 diabetes mellitus in Belarus. Similarly thyroid gland diseases (autoimmune thyroiditis, thyrotoxicosis, diabetes etc.). In 1993 more
  • than 40 % of the surveyed children in the Gomel area of Belarus had an enlarged thyroid gland. Experts think up to 1.5 million people in Belarus are at risk of pathology of the thyroid gland.
  • In some of the Chernobyl-polluted territories immune systems are compromised, with changes to cellular and humoral immunity, decreased maintenance Т- and В- lymphocytes, reduced resistance to infections and other diseases, raised frequency and expressiveness of tonsillitis, lymphadenopathies and lowered resistance to cancer.
  • In the radioactively polluted territories the typical consequence of infringement of the immune system appears as an immuno-deficiency. An increase in frequency and intensity of both acute and chronic diseases is observed everywhere in the Chernobyl polluted territories. Sometimes the weakening of the immune system in these radioactively polluted territories is referred to as Chernobyl AIDS.
  • There is accelerated ageing among the people in radioactively polluted territories in the Ukraine: their biological age exceeds their actual age by 7 - 9 years. In highly polluted territories in Belarus the mean age of men and women who died from heart attacks was 8 years younger than the average across Belarus.
  • The array of diseases commonly considered exclusive to the elderly is now typical for children in all of the heavily polluted territories. The immune system activity of these children is similar to the type of immune system activity experienced in old age. The pathology of the digestive system epithelium in children from the polluted areas of Belarus also shows similarities with elderly people.
  • There are many studies showing a wide range of chromosomal aberrations in the Chernobyl radioactively polluted areas. Examples:- higher frequency of chromosomal aberrations in somatic cells, lowered mitotic index in polluted districts, increased mutation rates in satellite DNA, chromosomal aberrations and satellite DNA mutations increased in children with thyroid cancer, chromosomal mutations de novo higher in polluted territories.
  • In the polluted territories, compared with clean ones, there is increasing morbidity by intestinal toxicosis, gastro-enteritis, dysbacteriosis, sepses, respiratory viruses, herpes infections, trichocephalisis, pneumocistis, cryptosporidosis, tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Microsporia occur in the radioactively polluted territories of the Bryansk areas (Russia) more frequently and in a more virulent form.
  • There are increases in children’s general morbidity, and increases in rare illnesses in the Chernobyl polluted territories of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia;
  • It is clear that children in heavily radio-polluted territories really do suffer,
  • to a much greater degree, from a variety of diseases.
  • Practically all forms of studied nosology are more prevalent […] [there is] a
  • convincing picture of sharply worsening health in children from the polluted
  • territories.
  • Conditions listed under this heading are:- chronic gastritis, chronic duodenitis, chronic gastro-duodenitis, bilious dyskinesia, vegeto-vascular and cardiac syndrome, astheno-neurotic syndrome, chronic tonsillitis, caries, chronic periodontitis.
  • Total child morbidity in Ukraine increased by 2.9 times between 1986 and 2001, newborn morbidity in Belarus increases year-on-year at a rate of 9.5% with greatest increases in the most polluted Gomel area. The spectrum of children’s noncancer
  • illnesses in the polluted territories includes lowered birthweight in those irradiated in utero in Ukraine, reduced head circumference in newborns in the polluted territories of Ukraine and Belarus, infringements of the rate of physical development in those irradiated in utero, premature birth more common in the polluted territories of Belarus, delayed rate of growth in the radioactively polluted parts of Belarus.
  • Respiratory system diseases occurred everywhere in the polluted territories and tend to correlate with levels of radioactive pollution:- asphyxia was observed in half of the 345 surveyed newborns irradiated in utero in Ukraine 10. Other pathologies
  • were latent bronchospasm, bronchial asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic nasopharyngeal pathology, acute respiratory diseases.
  • Cardiovascular system diseases in children occurred more frequently in the polluted territories, including infringements of cardiac rhythm, infringements of vegetative regulation of cardiac activity, arterial hypertension, reduced numbers of В- and Т—lymphocytes, lymphopenia, brachycardia, lymphoid hyperplasia, haematological disease, heart conductivity, and reduced elasticity of arterial vessels even in apparently healthy children.
  • Dental diseases in children are more frequent in the Chernobyl radioactively polluted territories. The frequency of some dental diseases correlates with levels of radioactive pollution.
  • Congenital malformations. Increased rates of teratogenic effects all over Europe, with a dose dependent relationship found in a Bavarian study. It reports that in Europe there were also widespread increases in still birth, premature birth, low birth weight, Down's Syndrome, perinatal and neonatal deaths, and reduced birth rate. In Belarus, according to the Belarus National Genetic Monitoring Registry, there were post-Chernobyl increases in anencephaly, spina bifida, cleft lip, cleft palate, polydactyly, limb reduction, oesophageal atresia, anorectal atresia and multiple malformations. Many of the authors explicitly state that these phenomena are radiogenic. One, a researcher known for her caution, says only a third of congenital deformities of the face and jaw could be attributed to radiation. But it is a third, and those which are so attributed are said to be anomalously severe.
  • The proportion of children with impaired intellectual development is consistently greater in polluted areas. Irradiated children have not kept pace with other children. Disorders of intellectual development in children irradiated in utero in the polluted territories
  1. are described as

the most tragic consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe’s impact on health.


The ECRR 2006 book has an entire chapter on the topic. Its author observes that the official French agency IRSN has recognised that the Central Nervous System is radiosensitive. Children irradiated in utero whose mothers had been evacuated or who lived in a zone contaminated with between 5 and 40 Ci/km2, suffered a greater frequency of neurotic disorders, CNS pathology and delay of mental development, compared with children in the less polluted areas of Belarus. The depression of intellectual development was massively greater in the irradiated group than in the controls; pathologies include neurotic disorders, asthenic syndrome, vegetative dystonia, CNS organic pathology, delayed mental development, EEG pathology, delayed development of speech, lowered psycho-emotional development, low IQ indices, deviations in mental development, memory impairment, immaturity for school, organic pathology of the brain, decreased and delayed psychomotor development, epilepsy and epilepsy-related conditions, and schizophrenia.

Overview of health in Lugyny district

Here are some health statistics for one remote Ukrainian administrative district from the Zhytomir area – Lugyny district, which is not one of the most contaminated regions. Comparison is made between two years just before the accident (1984 – 1985) and 1995 - 1996, ten years after. All the medical information for this study was collected by the same people in the Central Hospital before and after the catastrophe, using the same equipment and the same protocols.

The proportion of detected tuberculoses which were of a very aggressive type doubled. Endocrine pathology in children increased 10-fold. Goitres were not registered before the accident but ten years later were found in 12 or 13 children per 1000. Neonatal morbidity increased between 4 and 13-fold. Total mortality increased from 10.9 per 1000 to 15.5. Life expectancy declined from 75 years to 65.

Life-expectancy remaining to a patient in Lugyny District after being diagnosed with lung or stomach cancer shrank from 38 – 62 months before the accident to 2 – 7 months afterwards. The CERRIE Minority Report (p. 126) observes that this reduction in life expectancy runs counter to the view that increased incidence of cancer since the Chernobyl accident has been an artefact caused by increased vigilance and hence better ascertainment. Better ascertainment ought to mean earlier detection and hence more effective treatment and a better prognosis. In the Lugyny overview we see a dramatically worse prognosis — after a lung or stomach cancer diagnosis the average patient now survives for only 4½ months, instead of between 3 and 5 years before Chernobyl. Only four explanations are readily apparent:

  • doctors are not looking for cancer as assiduously as before Chernobyl, so they
  • detect it very late in its course;
  • treatment resources are much reduced;
  • cancer patients fear that their cancer was caused by radiation;
  • the post-Chernobyl cancers are of a more aggressive type.
The first of these is contrary to the general pattern. The second is possible and should be investigated. The third is, to put it mildly, contentious. The fourth is consistent with many observations in the region including non-cancer diseases.



















Low Level Radiation Campaign,
Richard Bramhall, bramhall@llrc.org

15th September 2006



[1] 2003 Recommendations of the ECRR The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators’ Edition Edited by ChrisBusby with Rosalie Bertell, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake, Molly Scott Cato and Alexei Yablokov. Published on Behalf of the European Committee on Radiation Risk Comité Européen sur le Risque del’Irradiation, Brussels by Green Audit, 2003. ISBN: 1 897761 24 4

[2] DRPH/2005-20: Health consequences of chronic internal contamination by radionuclides. Comments on the ECRR report “The health effects of ionising radiation exposure at low doses for radiation protection purposes” and IRSN recommendations.

[3] 2005 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection

[4] Minority Report of the UK Department of Health / Department of Environment (DEFRA) Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE); Sosiumi Press Aberystwyth. ISBN 0- 9543081-1-5

[5] ECRR Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident. European Committee on Radiation Risk Documents of the ECRR 2006 No1 Edited by C.C.Busby and A.V. Yablokov Published on behalf of the European Committee on Radiation Risk Comité Européen sur le Risque de l’Irradiation, Brussels by Green Audit, 2006. ISBN: 1-897761-25-2

[6] CERRIE Minority Report Technical Annex 2

[7] Table 7.1 of Annexe A

[8] For references to this section see Radioactive Times Vol 6 No 1 on www.llrc.org

Find out more about how survivors of Chernobyl have coped with the effects of the disaster:

Interviews on Chernobyl from Chernobyl.info
“Chernobyl Journey”—For the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, Belarusian journalist Vasily Semashko travels through the Chernobyl region and reports on his impressions about everyday life of the people living in the contaminated area
NPR: ‘Voices of Chernobyl’: Survivors’ Stories









More info about Chernobyl:
Chernobyl.info
wikipedia entry on “Chernobyl Disaster”
In Focus : Chernobyl (International Atomic Energy Agency)
Chernobyl Children’s Project

Read articles in New America Media category: Environment

NOW the time to take out a pen and start writing.


Sign Women Title Holders petition!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois


Must watch videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhntUkeVBYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjFl9Go1xDE


NO MORE NUCLEAR THREATS!!!!

Send it out. Go through your email list and send it to everyone you know. You can easily find this at:

http://ladybroadoak.blogspot.com/2007/09/please-forward-as-far-as-possible.html


Castro cites report on U.S., British, Spanish "plot" to start Iraq war

[A new sort of Axis of EVIL!!]

Chinese Report


Cuban leader Fidel Castro on Friday cited a report carried in a Spanish daily as saying leaders of the United States and Britain and Spanish had met for a "plot" to start the 2003 war on Iraq to get rid of its former leader Saddam Hussein.

U.S. President George W. Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had met for the plot at Portugal's Azores islands on March 16, 2003, three days prior to launching the war on Iraq, he cited Spanish daily El Pais as saying.

The article carried in El Pais narrates how the leaders of the three countries unilaterally decided to launch the aggression, said Castro in his weekly "Reflections" published by local press.

The three men had infringed on the functions of the UN Security Council by so doing, he added.

Castro, 81, temporarily handed over power to his younger brother Raul Castro, Cuba's vice president and defense minister, on July 31 last year, due to an intestinal hemorrhage. He has rarely been seen in public ever since.

Roundup: Cuba slams Bush for acting like world's policeman
Castro meets with Angolan president
Fidel Castro looks healthier in taped televison interview
U.S. embargo has cost Cuba 89 billion dollars: FM
Cubans celebrate as Castro turns 81

Source: Xinhua

Castro’s thoughts on the British Astute

May 2007

Check out this speech that Fidel Castro gave to the Cuban press providing his thoughts on the newest addition to the British navy - see my post on the Astute. Isn’t he supposed to be recovering in the hospital somewhere? Seems odd that with all that’s going on in the world this is what he chooses to enlighten the masses about.

The press dispatches bring the news; it belongs to the Astute Class, the first of its kind to be constructed in Great Britain in more than two decades.

“A nuclear reactor will allow it to navigate without refuelling during its 25 year of service. Since it makes its own oxigen and drinking water, it can circumnavigate the globe without needing to surface,” was the statement to the BBC by Nigel Ward, head of the shipyards.

Someone says that “it can observe the movements of cruisers in New York Harbor right from the English Channel, drawing close to the coast without being detected and listen to conversations on cell phones”. “In addition, it can transport special troops in mini-subs that, at the same time, will be able to fire lethal Tomahawk missiles for distances of 1,400 miles”, a fourth person declares.

El Mercurio, the Chilean newspaper, emphatically spreads the news.

The UK Royal Navy declares that it will be one of the most advanced in the world. The first of them will be launched on June 8 and will go into service in January of 2009.

It can transport up to 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes, capable of destroying a large warship. It will possess a permanent crew of 98 sailors who will even be able to watch movies on giant plasma screens.

“BAE Systems, the armaments manufacturer, will build two other submarines of the same class,” AP reported. The total cost of the three submarines, according to calculations that will certainly be below the mark, is 7.5 billion dollars.

What a feat for the British! The intelligent and tenacious people of that nation will surely not feel any sense of pride. What is most amazing is that with such an amount of money, 75 thousand doctors could be trained to care for 150 million people, assuming that the cost of training a doctor would be one-third of what it costs in the United States. You could build 3 thousand polyclinics, outfitted with sophisticated equipment, ten times what our country possesses.

Cuba is currently training thousands of young people from other countries as medical doctors.

In any remote African village, a Cuban doctor can impart medical knowledge to any youth from the village or from the surrounding municipality who has the equivalent of a grade twelve education, using videos and computers energized by a small solar panel; the youth does not even have to leave his hometown, nor does he need to be contaminated with the consumer habits of a large city.

The important thing is the patients who are suffering from malaria or any other of the typical and unmistakable diseases that the student will be seeing together the doctor.

The method has been tested with surprising results. The knowledge and practical experience accumulated for years have no possible comparison.

The non-lucrative practice of medicine is capable of winning over all noble hearts.

Since the beginning of the Revolution, Cuba has been engaged in training doctors, teachers and other professionals; with a population of less than 12 million inhabitants, today we have more Comprehensive General Medicine specialists than all the doctors in sub-Saharan Africa where the population exceeds 700 million people.

We must bow our heads in awe after reading the news about the English submarine. It teaches us, among other things, about the sophisticated weapons that are needed to maintain the untenable order developed by the United States imperial system.

We cannot forget that for centuries, and until recently, England was called the Queen of the Seas. Today, what remains of that privileged position is merely a fraction of the hegemonic power of her ally and leader, the United States.

Churchill said: Sink the Bismarck! Today Blair says: Sink whatever remains of Great Britain’s prestige!

For that purpose, or for the holocaust of the species, is what his “marvellous submarine” will be good for.

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 21, 2007

Why Do Police Really Oppose Marijuana Legalization?

How could anyone that really cares about the community they live in enforce drug laws that obviously damage society? I always thought it was because they were sent to some sort of camp for brainwashing. No its just a need for control.

read more | digg story


No, I don't use or smoke dope, BUT
Law Enforcement Maintains Marijuana Focus Despite Rise in Violent Crime
Thursday, September 27, 2007

According to recently released statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), marijuana arrests reached an all-time high last year. This news comes despite a rise in violent crime for the second consecutive year. Yet, last year alone, 829,625 Americans were charged with marijuana offenses according to the recently released FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. Eighty-nine percent of those charges were merely for simple possession.

This begs the question: shouldn’t law enforcement focus on the rising violent crime rate instead of wasting precious resources and manpower going after people for marijuana?

Close to 100 million Americans—including more than half of those between the ages of 18 and 50—have tried marijuana at least once. Military and police recruiters often have no choice but to ignore past marijuana use by job seekers. In fact, the FBI recently announced it is changing its policy of not hiring people with a history of marijuana or other illegal drug use because the policy disqualifies so many people the agency cannot fill needed positions.

Marijuana prohibition is unique among American criminal laws. No other law is both enforced so widely and harshly and yet deemed unnecessary by such a substantial portion of the populace. Millions of Americans have never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense except this. Enforcing marijuana laws costs an estimated $10-15 billion in direct costs alone.

Punishments range widely across the country, from modest fines to a few days in jail to many years in prison. Prosecutors often contend that no one goes to prison for simple possession—but tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people on probation and parole are locked up each year because their urine tested positive for marijuana or because they were picked up in possession of a joint. Alabama currently locks up people convicted three times of marijuana possession for 15 years to life. There are probably— no firm estimates exist—100,000 Americans behind bars tonight for one marijuana offense or another. And even for those who don’t lose their freedom, simply being arrested can be traumatic and costly. A parent’s marijuana use can be the basis for taking away her children and putting them in foster care. Foreign-born residents of the U.S. can be deported for a marijuana offense no matter how long they have lived in this country, no matter if their children are U.S. citizens, and no matter how long they have been legally employed. More than half the states revoke or suspend driver’s licenses of people arrested for marijuana possession even though they were not driving at the time of arrest.

With violent crime on the rise, arresting marijuana users at such alarming rates does nothing to make Americans feel safer.

Testimony by Bill Piper on a New Bottom Line for U.S. Drug Policy
As you know, it is impossible to talk about federal crime policy without talking about the war on drugs. More than half of all people incarcerated in federal prison are there for drug law violations; and through various law enforcement grant programs the federal government encourages the mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders at the local and state level as well. Police make more than 1.8 million drug arrests in the U.S. every year (nearly 700,000 for nothing more than marijuana possession). Those arrested are separated from their loved ones, branded criminals, denied jobs, and in many cases prohibited from accessing public assistance for life. The United States incarcerates more of its citizens for drug violations than all of Western Europe incarcerates for all crimes (and Western Europe has 100 million more people).

Yet, despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars and arresting millions of Americans, illegal drugs remain cheap, potent and widely available in every community; and the harms associated with them continue to mount. Meanwhile, the war on drugs is creating problems of its own - broken families, racial disparities, and the erosion of civil liberties. Congress’s 30 year social experiment in trying to solve a health problem through the criminal justice system is a clear failure. It’s time for a change.

And he goes on to say (and this is REAL, this happened to me although I had never dealt a drug in my life, had run a chemical dependency centre for five years and hadn't taken a drug or drink in ten years!! -- but there was a QUOTA to meet, so what the hell, why not frame me? I didn't have money to fight back. And thus I continue ot live in EXILE.)

Congress should also institutionalize a new bottom line in drug law enforcement. One that moves beyond grading agencies, taskforces, and individual officers on such Vietnam-like “body count” statistics as the number of people arrested and the amount of drugs seized. There is ample evidence that arrests and seizures have little if any impact on drug availability or the problems associated with substance abuse. And the pressure to meet arrest and seizure quotas is spurring civil rights abuses as some officers fabricate informants, raid homes on false evidence, lie to judges, and plant evidence. Anything to increase the “body count”. This pressure to boost the numbers is at the heart of drug war tragedies, including the Tulia, Texas scandal, the Dallas sheetrock scandal and the recent shooting death of Katheryn Johnston in Atlanta.



September 28, 2007

US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran


Global Research, September 27, 2007



In late August, reported by the Military Times, a US Air Force B-52 bomber flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana with six AGM advanced cruise missiles, each of which was armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead. "... Missiles were mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War." (See Bill Van Auken, Global Research September 2007)

The Military Times byline was "B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard". The issue was casually acknowledged by The Washington Post and the New York Times. The reports quoted a US Air force spokesman. The matter was offhandedly brushed aside. The incident represented “an isolated mistake” and that “at no time was there a threat to public safety.” (Ibid) :

"As far as is known, the incident marked the first time that a US plane has taken off armed with nuclear weapons in nearly 40 years. ...

... The transport of weapons from one base to another, however, is normally carried out in the holds of C-17 and C-130 cargo planes, not fixed to the wings of combat bombers.

Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. The question is whether it was a local Air Force commander—either by mistake or deliberately—or whether the order came from higher up.

B-52s from Barksdale have been used repeatedly to strike targets in Iraq, firing cruise missiles at Iraqi targets in 1996 and 1998, and in the “shock and awe” campaign that preceded the 2003 invasion, carrying out some 150 bombing runs that devastated much of the southern half of the country.

Moreover, the weapon that was fixed to the wings of the B-52 flying from Minot air base was designed for use against hardened targets, such as underground bunkers.

Given the ratcheting up of the threats against Iran and the previous reports of plans for the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear installations, there is a very real possibility that the flight to Barksdale was part of covert preparations for a nuclear strike against Iran.

If this is indeed the case, the claims about a “mistake” by a munitions officer and a few airmen in North Dakota may well be merely a cover story aimed at concealing the fact that the government in Washington is preparing a criminal act of world historic proportions by ordering—without provocation—the first use of nuclear weapons since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than sixty years ago. (Bill van Auken, op. cit).

In recent developments, Wayne Madsen (September 27) has suggested, based on US and foreign intelligence sources, that the B-52 carrying the advanced cruise missiles with bunker buster nuclear warheads was in fact destined for the Middle East.

Is the B-52 Barksdale incident in any way related to US plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran?

Madsen suggests, in this regard, that the operation of shipping the nuclear warheads was aborted "due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community", which was opposed to a planned US attack on Iran using nuclear warheads.

To grasp the seriousness of the "Barksdale incident", it is important to understand the broader context of nuclear weapons deployment respectively by the US, NATO and Israel.

We are not dealing with a single aborted operation of deployment of nuclear weapons to the Middle East.

There are indications that a large number of US made nuclear weapons are currently deployed in Western Europe and the Middle East including Israel.

This deployment pertains explicitly to targets in Iran.

Without downplaying the significance of the Barksdale incident, if Washington were to decide to use nuclear weapons against Iran, they could be launched at short notice from a number of military bases in Western Europe and the Middle East, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean or from a US Aircraft carrier. Turkey has some 90 B61 tactical nuclear weapons which are fully deployed.(See details below).

We are dealing with a coordinated military operation in which US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) plays a central role. The main coalition partners are the US, NATO and Israel.

There are four interrelated "building blocks" pertaining to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater:

1. CONPLAN 8022 formulated in 2004. CONPLAN integrates the use of conventional and nuclear weapons.

2. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization issued in May 2004

3. The deployment of Israeli nuclear weapons directed against targets in the Middle East

4. Deployment of Nuclear Weapons by NATO/EU countries, directed against targets in the Middle East

1. CONPLAN 8022

CONPLAN 8022 under the jurisdiction of USSTRATCOM sets the stage. It envisages the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the use of nukes on a preemptive basis in the conventional war theater. It is described as "a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world." CONPLAN became operational in early 2004. "As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)." (Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)

CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022 now consists of "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).

"CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

2. Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization: NSPD 35 (2004)

National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued in May 2004.

The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

There are indications that B61-type tactical nuclear weapons have been deployed to the Middle East following NSPD 35. The B-61s would be used against Iran, if Iran were to retaliate to a US or Israeli attack (See Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).

3. Israeli Nukes

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in case the planned attacks on Iran were to be carried out. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . Coinciding with the 2005 preparations to wage air strikes against Iran, Israel took delivery of two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a “necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to “stop” Iran. (General Leonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global Research, January 2007)

At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it".

"Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran’s hard targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak.(Michael Carmichael, Global research, January 2007)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants [former] Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

..."And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."

Beneath the rhetoric, what we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israeli military operation directed against Iran and Syria, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. US advisers in the Pentagon have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )

In recent developments, at the September 2007 meetings of the Vienna based IAEA, a critical resolution, implicitly aimed at Israel, was put forth which would put Israel's nuclear program "under international purview." The resolution was adopted with the US and Israel voting against it.

4. NATO Nukes. Nuclear Weapons Deployment by Five Non-nuclear States

Several Western European countries, officially considered as "non-nuclear states", possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington.

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. These weapons are ready for delivery to "known military targets".







Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm

See Details and Map of Nuclear Facilities located in 5 European Non-Nuclear States


As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005). These military facilities are part of the war plans directed against Iran.


B61-11 NEP Thermonuclear Bomb

Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 nuclear weapons in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Confirmed by "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the "non-nuclear States") could be launched "against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act):

"arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran and Syria"

(quoted in http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm italics added)

Moreover, the U.S. military made arrangements in the mid-1990s for the use of these nukes outside the area of jurisdiction of European Command (EURCOM).For EUCOM, this would mean responsibility for the the delivery of nukes within CENTCOM (Central Command) area of jurisdiction, meaning that nuclear attacks on Iran and Syria could be launched from military bases in non-nuclear EU/NATO countries.

.. It is unclear whether [the] parliaments [of EU/NATO countries] are aware of arrangements to target and potentially strike Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons based in Europe.(http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm



Documents partially declassified and released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act reveal that arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran and Syria.

Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm


Nuclear Weapons' Double Standards. Where is the Nuclear Threat?

While these "non-nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran. To say that this is a clear case of "double standards" in the process of identifying the threat of nuclear weapons is a gross understatement.

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy Endorses Bush's Pre-emptive Nuclear War Doctrine

France accuses Tehran of developing nuclear weapons against mountains of evidence that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

The Sarkozy government favors a military operation directed against Iran. Ironically, these threats by President Sarkozy and his Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner were formulated immediately following the release of the IAEA Report. The latter confirms unequivocally the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program.

According to President Sarkozy in his September 26, 2007 address to the UN General Assembly:

"There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation … Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war,"

France has also confirmed that it could use its own nuclear warheads estimated at between 200 and 300, on a preemptive basis. In January 2006, (former) President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France's nuclear weapons policy.

Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were "considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).

Chirac's successor, Nicolas Sarkozy has embraced the US sponsored "War on Terrorism".

France supports the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater, broadly following the principles formulated in the Bush Administration's nuclear doctrine, which allows the use of nukes (against Iran or Syria) for "self-defense".





Michel Chossudovsky
is the author of the international best America’s "War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.

To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here

HOPELESS

Ida's video on Guantanamo

Guantanamo Bay.

What to say?

No one really knows what is going on there.

It is an American nightmare from which we cannot awaken.


See also:

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/

The above site has the a fully-translatable
copy of the Universal Declation on Human Rights.





It's Easier to Run

"Until recently, I ignorantly thought the only nuclear weapons were atomic bombs. I didn't know that weapons, like the bunker buster,were made with depleted uranium. Our sons and daughters are being exposed, as well as the citizens of Iraq. No wonder that people of the world hate Americans.

Google depleted uranium and you'll be shocked."

~ IDA
.

Avian flu appears in Mexico city ...

This story may be a wind up, BUT . supposedly 45 cases of avian flu (or something like botchulism) have shown in Mexico City hospitals. Planning an emergency protocol to deal with severe influenza outbreaks has been part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the UN has appointed a major policy maker specifically for pandemics.

read more | digg story

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Being “Guarded” by Israel

Publication time: 26 September 2007, 10:27

American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems-owned in part by the government of Israel-is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.

The largest perimeter security company in the world, Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI)-which was owned in part by the government of Israel. In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly-traded company, although IAI (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.


What all of this means is that the government of Israel will actually have control over the security of America's nuclear weapons.


Supporters of Israel say that this is a splendid idea, since Israel is said to be perhaps America's closest ally on the face of the planet. However, there are some critics who question the propriety of America's super-sensitive nuclear security being in the hands of any foreign nation, particularly Israel which, even today, officially denies that it is engaged in the production of nuclear arms. [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

Be that as it may, however, Magal's global interests are quite broad-ranging. Having secured 90 percent of Israel's borders through a wide-ranging array of super-modern "space age" technology, Magal has now branched out internationally.

Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also does likewise for most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia. In addition, the Israeli firm also provides security for Chicago's O'Hare Airport and, for the last fifteen years, has kept watch on the Queen of England's famed Buckingham Palace in London. What's more, Magal provides security for 90% of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems. Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards.

There is hardly a major country or major enterprise that does not have Magal's security specialists keeping a close watch on their activities.

Clearly, Magal is no small enterprise. While 27% of its total sales are in the Israeli market, its largest market is in North America, which currently accounts for 35% of its sales.

However, Magal's American outreach is expected to increase substantially, especially now that firm has set up a Washington, D.C. office which will promote its products to federal agencies and to the members of Congress who provide funding for federally-supervised security projects across the country at all levels: local, state and national. [Think corruption, think graft, think lobbying for WAR ... ]

And with current U.S. Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, not only a strong supporter of Israel but also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli ties-even including service with El Al, the national airline of Israel-Magal, owned in party by Israeli Aircraft Industries-will be a clear-cut favorite in the eyes of the power brokers in official Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.

At the moment, Magal has four U.S.-based subsidiaries: two in California, Stellar Security Products, Inc. and Perimeter Products Inc., as well as the New York-based Smart Interactive Systems, Inc., and the Virginia-based Dominion Wireless, Inc.

All told, the Israeli company holds a 40% share in the worldwide market in perimeter intrusion detection systems and is working to expand its business in the protection of oil pipelines. [Really? New ones coming to Canada soon, maybe expanding them in IRAQ .. or not ...!!]

Magal is also said to be quite interested in guarding water lines around the globe, particularly in the United States. In fact, Magal may have an inside shot at getting a monopoly in guarding America's water supplies. [think they were tipped off about the coming water diversion from outta CANADA!!??]

On July 19, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency announced a "partnership" with the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures to improve what they called "water supply system security in the United States and Israel." Since Magal is so highly respected in Israel, it's an even bet that Magal will soon be guarding the U.S. water supply.


By Michael Collins Piper

Correspondent for American Free Press and author of "The New Jerusalem:Zionist Power in America", "The High Priests of War," and "Final Judgment," which details the Mossad role in the JFK assassination conspiracy.


Federal spending .. GREAT WEBSITE!!

Welcome to FedSpending.org

You have a right to know how the federal government spends our money.

This website, created by OMB Watch, is a free, searchable database of federal government spending. To begin searching, select either the Grants or Contracts tab at the top left side of this page. You can easily switch back and forth as you search.

The data below on total federal spending was taken directly from the FedSpending.org database. With over $14 trillion in federal spending, this more open and accessible tool for citizens to find out where federal money goes and who gets it is long overdue. We believe this website is a good first step toward providing that access.

New Version of FedSpending.org Released

On September 20, 2007, OMB Watch released a new version of FedSpending.org, including updated data for FY 2006/2007, and some upgraded features. Learn more about the new features in About This Site.

Summary of Federal Spending:
Financial Assistance and Procurement in Billions of Dollars


FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006*Help link
(partial year)
FY 2007*Help link
(partial year)
Contracts
$208.8
$219.8
$262.3
$304.1
$342.8
$385.4
$415.0
$146.7
Grants
$294.5
$330.7
$406.2
$493.3
$449.6
$441.0
$325.4

Loans
$108.0
$141.8
$216.8
$210.8
$154.8
$118.8
$74.1

Insurance
$431.3
$492.2
$556.6
$567.2
$603.9
$653.2
$510.3

Direct Payments
(e.g. Social Security)
$768.3
$839.6
$841.5
$947.9
$965.5
$1,004.1
$823.4

Other
$2.8
$2.7
$0.2
$0.7
$0.4
$0.3
$3.7

Total
$1,813.7
$2,026.9
$2,283.6
$2,524.0
$2,516.9
$2,602.7
$2,151.9
$146.7

We hope you will explore this site. But mostly we hope you will use the data to hold our elected leaders and government agencies accountable for their actions.

*Note: FY 2006 only includes the first three quarters for federal assistance. FY 2007 contains only the first two quarters of federal contracts data.

Contracts to BLACKWATER USA
(FY 2000-2007)

Searching...


Summary


Total dollars: $1,059,633,363
Total number of contractors: 1
Total number of transactions: 724
Get list of contractors
Get list of transactions

Extent of Competition Competition categories help link

Pie chart: in table form below
Full and open competiton$47,860,771
Full and open competiton, but only one bid$31,863,181
Competition after exclusion of sources$55,258,431
Follow-on contract$0
Not available for competition$255,658
Not competed$337,560,923
Unknown$586,834,399

Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Work is Performed Known congressional district help link

North Carolina 3 (Walter B. Jones)$523,527,640
Louisiana 6 (Richard H. Baker)$86,320,696
Florida 15 (Dave Weldon)$5,854,249
North Carolina 2 (Bob Etheridge)$413,001
Virginia 3 (Robert C. Scott)$313,943


Top 5 Products or Services Sold
Personal Services Contracts $499,357,114
Other Professional Services $332,603,703
Guard Services $87,930,582
Passenger Air Charter Service $50,672,344
Other Education and Training Services $28,983,048


Top 5 Contracting Agencies Purchasing from Contractor(s)
STATE, Department of $834,950,317
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement $86,270,152
AIR FORCE, Department of the (Headquarters, USAF) $50,163,492
NAVY, Department of the $47,099,789
ARMY, Department of the (except Corps of Engineers Civil Program Financing) $21,716,511


Top 10 Contractors
BLACKWATER USA $1,059,633,363


Trend
Bar chart: in table form below

2000 $204,911
2001 $736,906
2002 $3,415,884
2003 $25,395,556
2004 $48,496,902
2005 $201,010,119
2006 $593,075,845
2007 2Q * Partial year help link $187,297,239
*Note: FY 2007 only includes up through second and part of third quarter.

Firefly
Tawo Seed Carrier
POB 1456
South Pasadena, CA 91031

Tribal Courts Should Be Aware that American Indians Won't Win Upcoming Sovereignty Confrontation

Expert: Tribal courts should beware

American Indians won't win sovereignty conference told
By Joel Hanel - Herald Denver Bureau
Sept. 25, 2007

COLORADO SPRINGS - Indian tribes are headed for a showdown over sovereignty with the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are sure to lose, an Indian scholar said Monday.
The fight probably will start over Indian courts trying to get jurisdiction over a non-Indian defendant, said Philip S. Deloria, who ran the American Indian Law Center at the University of New Mexico for 37 years.
"I bet you a month's salary it's going to happen. The question is when, and how long can we stall it," Deloria said at a conference called "Completing the Circle: Strengthening Criminal Justice in Indian Country."
Efforts already under way in Southwest Colorado might help the tribal courts keep their power.
Congress has protected Indian sovereignty, or the right of the tribes to run their own affairs, Deloria said. But federal judges are getting ready for a challenge. The evidence is plain to see in a number of legal opinions.
"I'm not a legal scholar, but I can read," Deloria said. "And we know the courts have said, 'We don't want you messing with non-Indians, '" he said.
The Supreme Court, he said, will want to defend the rights of non-Indians who live on the reservation but cannot vote in tribal elections.
The answer is for tribes, cities, counties and the federal government to cooperate closely, Deloria said.
That's happening now in Southwest Colorado. Since February, 85 officers have been cross-deputized to enforce federal, state and tribal laws. Thirty more will go through the training next month in Cortez, said Troy Eid, the U.S. Attorney for Colorado.
If police officers are cross-deputized, then they have the authority to enforce the laws whether or not suspects are Indians, Deloria said.
If the tribes can make themselves an essential partner to the local governments, then they might have a chance to retain their power, Deloria said.
"If we had everybody at the table talking about law enforcement and there's an empty chair `85 suddenly, you get focused on who needs to get with the program," Deloria said. "But if we write it off as politics - acceptable politics - then nobody's responsible. "
Despite the success with cross-deputization, Eid was pessimistic about the prospects for more full-time police officers from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Ute Mountain Ute reservation.
"Let's be candid about it. We're not making progress in terms of Ute Mountain Ute police levels from BIA," Eid said. "It's just a tough situation out there. Those guys are working 12-hour shifts. Twelve hours on, 12 hours off, sometimes six days in a row."
The problem affects reservations nationwide, and only more money from Congress will help, Eid said.
The conference, sponsored by the Colorado U.S. Attorney's Office, brought together federal and Indian justice experts from the Four Corners states. It continues today and Wednesday, but the last two days are closed to the public because they deal with sensitive victim and law-enforcement topics.
http://durangoheral d.com/asp- bin/article_ generation. asp?article_ type=news&article_path= news/o7/news/ 070925_6. htm

Your tax dollars (US) at work!

How ferry project, pushed by Sen. Stevens, floated


Artist's rendering of Ted Stevens' high-speed ferry. It will be built in Alaska and used for three years as a ferry from Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Office of Naval Research
Artist's rendering of Ted Stevens' high-speed ferry. It will be built in Alaska and used for three years as a ferry from Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Stevens, who championed $452 million in federal funding for Alaska's notorious "bridges to nowhere," has directed the Navy to build an experimental ferry it once rejected to serve a little-used port in a remote area of his home state.

The high-speed ferry will connect Anchorage to Port MacKenzie in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $84 million. The project follows the same route as one of the two "bridges to nowhere," which the non-partisan Taxpayers for Common Sense and others spotlighted in 2005 as examples of wasteful projects promoted by members of Congress that benefit few people.

'Bridge to nowhere:' Plans hit a dead end

*snip*

In an e-mail to USA TODAY, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) said it did not request the funding. The Navy said it rejected Lockheed Martin's proposal for a similar prototype to transport military personnel and equipment, saying the project was not a high priority.

Stevens declined to be interviewed. His spokesman, Aaron Saunders, said the deal benefits taxpayers by providing a use for a Navy prototype that otherwise might be scrapped after a year. Saunders said the ferry will bring jobs and revenue to the borough, which has about 80,000 residents.

"This is a win-win for the military and the Mat-Su valley," Saunders said.

The ferry alone is now expected to cost $58 million, the Navy statement said. That's nearly double the Navy's original $29.9 million agreement with the shipbuilder.

The "biggest cost driver" has been its unique design, the Navy said. The design is complicated by a retractable center hull that is raised to reach high speeds and lowered to offload passengers and vehicles.

A former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its defense subcommittee, Stevens inserted nearly $50 million into defense and transportation spending bills between 2002 and 2006 for the project and related costs. Stevens added $20 million in this year's pending defense bill, according to the legislation.

One company that could benefit from the ferry is VECO Corp., the oil services firm at the heart of a federal corruption probe that led to an FBI search of Stevens' home July 30. The company, whose former chief executive is a business partner of Stevens, signed a letter of interest six years ago to open a manufacturing facility at the port once the ferry begins operations, which is now expected in 2009. Borough Manager John Duffy says VECO remains interested in building huge oilfield equipment at the port, where it built smaller equipment "modules" in 2005 and 2006.

VECO spokesman Tim Woolston declined to comment. Tom Maloney, the company's vice president of business development, told the Anchorage Daily News, in 2005 that the ferry — which can carry up to 26 cars and 150 people — would allow the company to bring workers to the site more cheaply and safely than driving them from Anchorage.

VECO chief executive Bill Allen and vice president Richard Smith pleaded guilty in May to bribing state lawmakers to limit a state tax on oil production and resigned. Allen testified in a related case this month that one of the lawmakers he bribed was Ted Stevens' son, Ben, a former state senator.

Allen also testified he oversaw renovations to Ted Stevens' Alaska home in 2000 that more than doubled its size, and had VECO employees do some of the work. Stevens said in a July interview with Alaska reporters that he paid all the bills he received for the construction. He has declined further comment on the probe.

Neither Ted nor Ben Stevens has been charged with wrongdoing.

Navy rejected similar ship

The ferry's design came from the world's largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, which also has ties to Stevens. Lockheed pitched the design to the Mat-Su Borough in 2002 after the Navy rejected its proposal.

With funds secured by Stevens, the borough paid Lockheed $2 million in 2003 to design the ship.

Lockheed's lobbyists include Stevens' brother-in-law, William Bittner. Lockheed paid Bittner and his law firm $420,000 to lobby on defense spending issues from 2002 through 2006, the firm's disclosure reports say. Bittner said he never lobbied for Lockheed on the ferry.

"Until you called, I had no idea Lockheed was involved in this project," Bittner told USA TODAY in an e-mail.

New ethics laws ban any senator or staffer from being lobbied by the senator's immediate family, which does not include brothers-in-law.

Campaign finance reports show Lockheed's political action committee, executives and lobbyists gave Stevens' political committees $63,650 during 2002 through 2005, when the first legislative-directed funding, known as earmarks, were awarded for the ferry project.

Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky said, "Lockheed Martin did not initiate any congressional support or lobbying efforts to secure funding for the program."

Contracting rules exempted

Once Stevens' earmarks directed the Navy to build the ferry, the ONR hired Alaska Ship & Drydock under an obscure type of agreement called "other transaction authority." Those agreements are not formal contracts and therefore are exempt from many federal contracting rules, such as those requiring detailed cost justifications.

The shipyard is reimbursed for its costs plus a guaranteed profit, according to the Pentagon announcement of the agreement.

Critics such as the non-partisan Project on Government Oversight (POGO) have said such arrangements are vulnerable to waste.

"Cost and pricing data should be available for auditors to review to ensure the government isn't being ripped off," said Danielle Brian, executive director of POGO.

*snip*

Former Senate staffer Winslow Wheeler, who handled defense spending issues for three Republicans and one Democrat and is now with the non-partisan Center for Defense Information, said the ferry is an example of earmarks siphoning money from worthier defense projects.

"He's loaded up defense bills" with projects that have "no direct usefulness for national security," Wheeler said of Stevens

September 27, 2007

Your tax dollars at WORK!!


A statement released by Senate Democrats said that under Bush's

watch, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $2.78 trillion

since 2001; the $236 billion surplus he inherited has been turned

into the three largest deficits in U.S. history; and national debt has

risen $3 trillion to $8.9 trillion.

"After running up $3 trillion in new debt -- including

more than half a trillion dollars for his flawed Iraq

policy -- it is astounding that the president is once again

lecturing Congress about fiscal responsibility," said

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

"Democrats are investing in the priorities of America's

middle class families, veterans and children, and are

dedicated to fighting terror more effectively; President

Bush wants to continue investing only in Iraq."

Evo Morales tells it like it is to Jon Stewart

"I personally know that there are presidents in countries who send troops abroad to save lives," Morales added later in the program, "but there are also countries who send troops abroad to take away lives. If we compare these two things...certainly we're going to the conclusion that these policies must change."

read more | digg story

Jon Stewart tells Bolivian president America's elections are 'rigged'

Mike Aivaz and Jason Rhyne
Published: Wednesday September 26, 2007

Bolivian president Evo Morales and his translator joined Jon Stewart to discuss the leader's rise from poor farmer to Bolivia's "first indigenous president." Morales also made use of the the opportunity to take some jabs at America and the West.

"I understand that all have rights. It's not just intellectuals and professionals who can become president," Morales said through translation. "People who have other experiences, who have a working life as well, can become president. Therefore indigenous persons can also become president."

"In Bolivia," Steward deadpanned. "In America, it's a little rigged."

"So if it's rigged, then something needs to be done to change that," the leader said.

Discussing Morales's accomplishments, Stewart noted that the president's campaign promises, which had included pledges to nationalize resources, convene a constitutional assembly and institute agrarian reform, were all completed within eight months of his election.

"What are you trying to pull?" Stewart asked.

"On the issue of nationalization of oil and gas," Morales said, "in 2005, before I came president, the Bolivian state received only 300 million dollars from its oil and gas exports. And now since they've been nationalized, the Bolivian state receives more than two billion dollars. Therefore, we followed through on what we promised."

"We are going forward with the idea of a multi-cultural state," he continued, "a multi-national state, trying to live in unity at the same time respecting our diversity."

"We're so diverse, there are blue and green-eyed people like you,"the president joked, pointing at Stewart.

Responding to a question about the US and its relationship with countries including Venezuela and Cuba, Morales said the nations should come together to think about "how we can support life and human kind."

"It should be the millennium of life," he said.

"I personally know that there are presidents in countries who send troops abroad to save lives," Morales added later in the program, "but there are also countries who send troops abroad to take away lives. If we compare these two things...certainly we're going to the conclusion that these policies must change."

"And please don't consider me to part of the axis of evil," he begged.


War and Peak Oil

(My ex-husband told me ALL this back in 1982)

Confessions of an ‘ex’ Peak Oil believer

By F. William Engdahl

Global Research, September 26, 2007

Confessions of an ‘ex’ Peak Oil believer

The good news is that panic scenarios about the world running out of oil anytime soon are wrong. The bad news is that the price of oil is going to continue to rise. Peak Oil is not our problem. Politics is. Big Oil wants to sustain high oil prices. Dick Cheney and friends are all too willing to assist.

On a personal note, I’ve researched questions of petroleum, since the first oil shocks of the 1970’s. I was intrigued in 2003 with something called Peak Oil theory. It seemed to explain the otherwise inexplicable decision by Washington to risk all in a military move on Iraq.

Peak Oil advocates, led by former BP geologist Colin Campbell, and Texas banker Matt Simmons, argued that the world faced a new crisis, an end to cheap oil, or Absolute Peak Oil, perhaps by 2012, perhaps by 2007. Oil was supposedly on its last drops. They pointed to our soaring gasoline and oil prices, to the declines in output of North Sea and Alaska and other fields as proof they were right.

According to Campbell, the fact that no new North Sea-size fields had been discovered since the North Sea in the late 1960’s was proof. He reportedly managed to convince the International Energy Agency and the Swedish government. That, however, does not prove him correct.

Intellectual fossils?

The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is a ‘fossil fuel,’ a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago. That would mean that, say, dead dinosaur remains became compressed and over tens of millions of years fossilized and trapped in underground reservoirs perhaps 4-6,000 feet below the surface of the earth. In rare cases, so goes the theory, huge amounts of biological matter should have been trapped in rock formations in the shallower ocean offshore as in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea or Gulf of Guinea. Geology should be only about figuring out where these pockets in the layers of the earth, called reservoirs, lie within certain sedimentary basins.

An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950’s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.

Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.

Necessity: the mother of invention

In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.

Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?

In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.

If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of organic hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth’s formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth’s inner regions. They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.

Defying conventional geology

That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990’s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.

Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.

A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”

That Russian geophysics experience in finding oil and gas was tightly wrapped in the usual Soviet veil of state security during the Cold War era, and went largely unknown to Western geophysicists, who continued to teach fossil origins and, hence, the severe physical limits of petroleum. Slowly it begin to dawn on some strategists in and around the Pentagon well after the 2003 Iraq war, that the Russian geophysicists might be on to something of profound strategic importance.

If Russia had the scientific know-how and Western geology not, Russia possessed a strategic trump card of staggering geopolitical import. It was not surprising that Washington would go about erecting a “wall of steel”—a network of military bases and ballistic anti-missile shields around Russia, to cut her pipeline and port links to western Europe, China and the rest of Eurasia. Halford Mackinder’s worst nightmare--a cooperative convergence of mutual interests of the major states of Eurasia, born of necessity and need for oil to fuel economic growth--was emerging. Ironically, it was the blatant US grab for the vast oil riches of Iraq and, potentially, of Iran, that catalyzed closer cooperation between traditional Eurasian foes, China and Russia, and a growing realization in western Europe that their options too were narrowing.

The Peak King

Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their “peak” was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert’s Curve, and the peak as Hubbert’s Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.

The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It “peaked” because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.

Vietnam success

While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.

They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show that their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s. Few in the West understood why, or bothered to ask.

Dr. J. F. Kenney is one of the only Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that “alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that (Saudi Arabia’s) Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high.” In short, an absurdity.

Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert it as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.

Closing the door

The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after Khodorkovsky had a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have got control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the a-biotic techniques of deep drilling.

Since 2003 Russian scientific sharing of their knowledge has markedly lessened. Offers in the early 1990’s to share their knowledge with US and other oil geophysicists were met with cold rejection according to American geophysicists involved.

Why then the high-risk war to control Iraq? For a century US and allied Western oil giants have controlled world oil via control of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Nigeria. Today, as many giant fields are declining, the companies see the state-controlled oilfields of Iraq and Iran as the largest remaining base of cheap, easy oil. With the huge demand for oil from China and now India, it becomes a geopolitical imperative for the United States to take direct, military control of those Middle East reserves as fast as possible. Vice President Dick Cheney, came to the job from Halliburton Corp., the world’s largest oil geophysical services company. The only potential threat to that US control of oil just happens to lie inside Russia and with the now-state-controlled Russian energy giants. Hmmmm.

According to Kenney the Russian geophysicists used the theories of the brilliant German scientist Alfred Wegener fully 30 years before the Western geologists “discovered” Wegener in the 1960’s. In 1915 Wegener published the seminal text, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, which suggested an original unified landmass or “pangaea” more than 200 million years ago which separated into present Continents by what he called Continental Drift.

Up to the 1960’s supposed US scientists such as Dr Frank Press, White House science advisor referred to Wegener as “lunatic.” Geologists at the end of the 1960’s were forced to eat their words as Wegener offered the only interpretation that allowed them to discover the vast oil resources of the North Sea. Perhaps in some decades Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known since the 1950’s. In the meantime Moscow holds a massive energy trump card.

F. William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press Ltd..
To contact:
www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

His most recent book, forthcoming with Global Research, is Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran, Not For Decommissioning: Airforce Refused

-- SPECIAL REPORT --
Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater
By Wayne Madsen
Sept. 24, 2007
Author's website

WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional
weapons.

The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.

Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria.

WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran.

WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.

PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the /Times of London/, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident.

Kass' area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring "information blockades," such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian "nuclear installation." British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a "true flag" attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other.

The other part of CHECKMATE's brief is to ensure that a media "perception management" is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick's and Walter Pincus' bylines in yesterdays /Washington Post/. The article, titled "The Saga of a Bent Spear," quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the "nuclear business" since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident "more disturbing."

Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.

CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed.

Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to /Military Times/ on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation in Syria and the day planned for the simultaneous U.S. attack on Iran. The leaking of classified information on U.S. nuclear weapons disposition or movement to the media, is, itself, unprecedented. Air Force regulations require the sending of classified BEELINE reports to higher Air Force authorities on the disclosure of classified Air Force information to the media.

In another highly unusual move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked an outside inquiry board to look into BENT SPEAR, even before the Air Force has completed its own investigation, a virtual vote of no confidence in the official investigation being conducted by Major General Douglas Raaberg, chief of air and space operations at the Air Combat Command.

Gates asked former Air Force Chief of Staff, retired General Larry Welch, to lead a Defense Science Board task force that will also look into the BENT SPEAR incident. The official Air Force investigation has reportedly been delayed for unknown reasons. Welch is President and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), a federally-funded research contractor that operates three research centers, including one for Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and another for the National Security Agency. One of the board members of IDA is Dr. Suzanne H. Woolsey of the Paladin Capital Group and wife of former CIA director and arch-neocon James Woolsey.

WMR has learned that neither the upper echelons of the State Department nor the British Foreign Office were privy to OPERATION ORCHARD, although Hadley briefed President Bush on Israeli spy satellite intelligence that showed the Syrian installation was a joint nuclear facility built with North Korean and Iranian assistance. However, it is puzzling why Hadley would rely on Israeli imagery intelligence (IMINT) from its OFEK (Horizon) 7 satellite when considering that U.S. IMINT satellites have greater capabilities.

The Air Force's "information warfare" campaign against media reports on CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD also affected international reporting of the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program under IAEA controls, similar to those that the United States wants imposed on Iran and North Korea. The resolution also called for a nuclear-free zone throughout the Middle East. The IAEA's resolution, titled "Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East," was passed by the 144-member IAEA General Meeting on September 20 by a vote of 53 to 2, with 47 abstentions. The only two countries to vote against were Israel and the United States. However, the story carried from the IAEA meeting in Vienna by Reuters, the Associated Press, and Agence France Press, was that it was Arab and Islamic nations that voted for the resolution.

This was yet more perception management carried out by CHECKMATE, the White House, and their allies in Europe and Israel with the connivance of the media. In fact, among the 53 nations that voted for the resolution were China, Russia, India, Ireland, and Japan. The 47 abstentions were described as votes "against" the resolution even though an abstention is neither a vote for nor against a measure. America's close allies, including Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and Georgia, all abstained.

Suspiciously, the IAEA carried only a brief item on the resolution concerning Israel's nuclear program and a roll call vote was not available either at the IAEA's web site -- www.iaea.org -- or in the media.

The perception management campaign by the neocon operational cells in the Bush administration, Israel and Europe was designed to keep a focus on Iran's nuclear program, not on Israel's. Any international examination of Israel's nuclear weapons program would likely bring up Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu, a covert from Judaism to Christianity, who was kidnapped in Rome by a Mossad "honey trap" named Cheryl Bentov (aka, Cindy) and a Mossad team in 1986 and held against his will in Israel ever since.

Vanunu's knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons program would focus on the country's own role in nuclear proliferation, including its program to share nuclear weapons technology with apartheid South Africa and Taiwan in the late 1970s and 1980s. The role of Ronald Reagan's Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Ken Adelman in Israeli's nuclear proliferation during the time frame 1983-1987 would also come under scrutiny. Adelman, a member of the Reagan-Bush transition State Department team from November 1980 to January 1981, voiced his understanding for the nuclear weapons programs of Israel, South Africa, and Taiwan in a June 28, 1981 /New York Times/ article titled, "3 Nations Widening Nuclear Contacts." The journalist who wrote the article was Judith Miller. Adelman felt that the three countries wanted nuclear weapons because of their ostracism from the West, the third world, and the hostility from the Communist countries. Of course, today, the same argument can be used by Iran, North Korea, and other "Axis of Evil" nations so designated by the neocons in the Bush administration and other governments.

There are also news reports that suggest an intelligence relationship between Israel and North Korea. On July 21, 2004, New Zealand's /Dominion Post/ reported that three Mossad agents were involved in espionage in New Zealand. Two of the Mossad agents, Uriel Kelman and Elisha Cara (aka Kra), were arrested and imprisoned by New Zealand police (an Israeli diplomat in Canberra, Amir Lati, was expelled by Australia and New Zealand intelligence identified a fourth Mossad agent involved in the New Zealand espionage operation in Singapore). The third Mossad agent in New Zealand, Zev William Barkan (aka Lev Bruckenstein), fled New Zealand -- for North Korea.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff revealed that Barkan, a former Israeli Navy diver, had previously worked at the Israeli embassy in Vienna, which is also the headquarters of the IAEA. He was cited by the /Sydney Morning Herald/ as trafficking in passports stolen from foreign tourists in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. New Zealand's One News reported that Barkan was in North Korea to help the nation build a wall to keep its citizens from leaving.

The nuclear brinkmanship involving the United States and Israel and the breakdown in America's command and control systems have every major capital around the world wondering about the Bush administration's true intentions.

NOTE: WMR understands the risks to informed individuals in reporting the events of August 29/30, to the present time, that concern the discord within the U.S. Air Force, U.S. intelligence agencies, and other military services. Any source with relevant information and who wishes to contact us anonymously may drop off sealed correspondence at or send mail via the Postal Service to: Wayne Madsen, c/o The Front Desk, National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC, 20045.

Backgrounder: Blackwater timeline and issues

crossposted from Alternet and Independent Media Institute
and The Carpetbagger Report

US Military Official: Blackwater “May Be Worse Than Abu Ghraib”

September 26th, 2007

AlterNet

By Steve Benen
Posted on September 26, 2007, Printed on September 26, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/benen/63604/

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

To describe the ongoing Blackwater scandal as a fiasco would be a dramatic understatement. Not only do we have a situation in which private security contractors stand accused of killing Iraqi civilians without provocation, we also have deep divisions brewing between the Pentagon and the State Department, coupled by State stonewalling a congressional investigation.

A confrontation between the U.S. military and the State Department is unfolding over the involvement of Blackwater USA in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghdad square Sept. 16, bringing to the surface long-simmering tensions between the military and private security companies in Iraq, according to U.S. military and government officials.

In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater, which operates under the department’s authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. “The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they’ve built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event,” the official said.

“This is a nightmare,” said a senior U.S. military official. “We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we’re trying to have an impact for the long term.”

At this point, the State Department seems to be treating Blackwater contractors as the agency’s own private army, accountable to no one outside the department. The Maliki government believes Blackwater is a criminal enterprise, the Iraqi people resent Blackwater’s presence, the Pentagon believes Blackwater is lying about the Sept. 16 incident in Nisoor Square, and congressional Democrats have questions about what has transpired — which the State Department refuses to answer.

This is a debacle so severe and humiliating, only the Bush administration could pull it off.

David Kurtz offers this helpful timeline of events that sets the stage for where we are now.

Sun, Sept. 16: Blackwater incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians are killed after State Department convoy reportedly comes under fire, an account disputed by the Iraqis.

Mon, Sept. 17: Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee announces his committee will investigate the Blackwater incident.

Tue, Sept. 18: The American Embassy in Baghdad suspends diplomatic convoys outside the Green Zone.

Wed, Sept. 19: In a phone call, Acting Assistant Secretary of State William Moser warns Blackwater that no information regarding the Blackwater contract can be released without State’s prior written approval.

Thu, Sept. 20: Moser repeats the warning in a second call to Blackwater, and State sends Blackwater a follow-up letter again asserting again that the information possessed by Blackwater belongs to State and cannot be disclosed.

Fri, Sept. 21: The four-day suspension of State Department convoys ends and Blackwater resumes business. Secretary of State Condi Rice announces that her department will undertake a “full and complete review” of diplomatic security in Iraq.

And while it’s certainly nice of Rice to suddenly take an interest in accountability, Congress, which has oversight responsibility and is paying the bills for all of this, believes a bipartisan review on Capitol Hill will produce a more accurate picture of what’s transpired.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not only refuses to cooperate, her office has also ordered Blackwater not to answer any questions from lawmakers.

The State Department has interceded in a congressional investigation of Blackwater USA, the private security firm accused of killing Iraqi civilians last week, ordering the company not to disclose information about its Iraq operations without approval from the Bush administration, according to documents revealed Tuesday.

In a letter sent to a senior Blackwater executive Thursday, a State Department contracting official ordered the company “to make no disclosure of the documents or information” about its work in Iraq without permission.

I appreciate the fact that outrage fatigue is inevitable when dealing with the Bush gang, but this is truly ridiculous. We have American taxpayers financing a private security army, whose members stand accused of slaughtering civilians. The Secretary of State believes no one should ask any questions about this, and those who do must be ignored. It’s pure lunacy.

The State Department’s cooperation with a congressional inquiry is not optional. Rice can’t simply refuse to divulge information, and ordering others to remain silent is getting fairly close to the obstruction-of-justice line.

When these guys act like they have something to hide, it’s almost always because they have something to hide. Stay tuned.
read article


Or is this part of the fourth level of government?

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com’s Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/benen/63604/

How to dessiminate propaganda during a war, Case: Iraq

By Sumedha Senanayake
Iraq -- Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki addresses reporters in Baghdad, 19Sep2007
Prime Minister al-Maliki may be powerless to deal with the Blackwater incident
(AFP)
September 26, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- The killing of 11 Iraqis in Al-Nusur Square in western Baghdad on September 16, allegedly by Blackwater USA security contractors has enraged Iraqis for more than a week.

Details of the incident remain unclear, but Iraqi officials and witnesses at the scene contend that the contractors, opened fire on unarmed civilians without provocation. This contradicts claims by the company and U.S. officials that a State Department convoy guarded by Blackwater contractors came under fire, and the contractors reacted in a defensive manner by returning fire

This item is appearing in Radio Free Europe.

No mention of the incriminating video is mentioned. There IS a video readily availabe to view. So do many other videos exist of Blackwater guards shooting on innocent civilians in other incident. They are not mentioned in this FEATURE report.

No responsibility is taken for them to find out themselves, although Radio Free Euorpe is paid for with US tax dollar$!!

Dig this misleading statement:

However, it is the issue of not holding Blackwater and other private security firms accountable for their actions that has truly roiled Iraqis and created the impression that Iraq's sovereignty is being undermined.
What IMPRESSION? Is it not TRUE??

While officials at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad indicated that Blackwater was carrying out only vital missions, this underscores the frustration expressed by many Iraqis that they do not have control over what goes on in their own country.

... Moreover, according to Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order No. 17, private contractors "shall be immune from the Iraqi legal process," essentially meaning there is no chance of the contractors allegedly involved in the Al-Nusur incident being prosecuted under Iraqi law. Iraqi officials have indicated that the recent shootings may prompt them to amend CPA Order 17 and create new guidelines for dealing with foreign contractors.

And of course, note that by NOT linking both paragraphs, people reading this are sadly mislead. The FRUSTRATION actually is that they have NO sovereignty.

Now to back up the Iraqi accustion is this tidbit (mostly censored in the US)

Furthermore, the issue of Iraq's sovereignty continues to be raised after the arrest of an Iranian national, Mahmud Farhadi, by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi city of Al-Sulaymaniyah on September 20. The United States accused Farhadi of being an officer of the Al-Quds Force, a secret military wing of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, who was trying to smuggle weapons into Iraq.

However, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani insisted Farhadi was a member of an Iranian trade delegation that was in the region "with the knowledge of the federal government in Baghdad and the government of Kurdistan." Both Talabani and al-Maliki condemned the arrest and demanded Farhadi's immediate release. The arrest prompted Iran to close its border with Iraq's Kurdish region in protest, and Kurdish officials have warned that the local economy would suffer as a result of the United States' unilateral actions.
And the reason it is included is that so many in Europe actually read Al Jazeera, which has fully reported on this incident.

So why bother with this report coming out at ALL? Here's a clue which indicates that one little peep of complaint by Iraqis will result in outster:

There have been also murmurings in the Iraqi media that former Prime Minister and Islamic Al-Da'wah Party member Ibrahim al-Ja'fari was set to announce the formation of a new political coalition, the National Reform Grouping, that would counter the moderates' front established by the UIA and the Kurdish Alliance in mid-August. If it is formed, the new coalition is expected to be the largest in parliament and al-Ja'fari may seek to replace al-Maliki as prime minister

You can visit the report yourself to visit the rest of the doublespeak - the gist of it is that Maliki set up the QUAMIRE in Iraq and it is hopeless for him to do ANYTHING. Blackwater got the upperhand ..

Why not just SAY so ...???


9-11... Who really did it


What Really Happened on 9-11?

The events of 9-11 are seared into the collective psyche of this generation. We have all been affected by the catastrophes of that fateful day, but what really happened on 9-11?

Some people believe an outlandish conspiracy theory involving 19 Arab hijackers who allegedly: commandeered four commercial jets with nothing more than their cunning, wit, resolve, hatred of America, and some box cutters; then proceed to fly these aircraft around US airspace unfettered for a total lapsed time of over an hour; on three of the planes, pulled stunning flight maneuvers beyond the capability of even expert pilots; and, managed to cause damage to their targets — one of which just happens to have been the most heavily defended building in the world — so extreme as to be in clear violation of several well understood laws of Physics, Chemistry, and Thermodynamics. This amazing conspiracy theory is even more suspicious and bizarre in that it is the one proffered by the United States Government (USG) and the 9-11 Cover-Up Omission Commission. In the 9-11 Truth Movement we call it the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT).

Thankfully, despite the best efforts of the corporate-controlled media and virtually the entire US Congress, there are literally millions of people in this country and millions more around the world who do not believe that these 19 Arabs, as clever as they purportedly were, could have somehow suspended the laws of Physics on 9-11.
Are There Competing Conspiracy Theories?

We just observed that the official story of 9-11 is in fact a “conspiracy theory”… and a wacky one at that, one that happens to be physically impossible!

There must be another explanation, one that doesn’t require us to rewrite most of Newtonian Physics. There is, in fact, another explanation that is supported by the empirical evidence, the observed events of the day. It is more than a “conspiracy theory” at this point. It has been sufficiently verified, tested, and refined to be rightly called a “conspiracy reality”.

True, there are competing conspiracy “theories”, but they only compete with the OCT not the conspiracy reality, as they all have anomalies, inconsistencies, improbabilities, and out right impossibilities that will keep them forever in the realm of “theory” unsupported by fact. These conspiracy “theories” that eschew the OCT only to embrace other utter nonsense (like: planes didn’t hit the WTC, holograms and “video trickery” were used instead; the three WTC skyscrapers demolished on 9-11 were destroyed by exotic, space-based, directed energy beam weapons; a commercial jet really did hit the Pentagon) are in reality all part of a concerted COINTELPRO-style USG disinformation campaign designed to splinter and marginalize those of us who have solved the Rubik’s Cube of 9-11. These “theories” don’t compete with what is known to be true by the vast majority of the 9-11 Truth Movement, they are deliberate and elaborate disinformation campaigns designed to make those of us who do know the truth look foolish by association.

What Is The Real Conspiracy?

Here is a synopsis of what the best and brightest researchers around the world have gleaned over the past five-plus years from the best evidence available:

* yes, 9-11 was a “terrorist” attack, but it was not perpetrated by “angry Arabs”, it was a State-sponsored “inside job”, a “false flag” operation planned, executed, and covered up by elements of the USG and operatives from at least two other countries… it was the greatest act of psychological warfare ever perpetrated;

* the alleged 19 Arab “hijackers” were “patsies”, several are still alive, several were under the care and feeding of USG operatives and were being “trained” at CIA-operated flight schools;

* FBI field agents who discovered the plot were told by their superiors not to investigate the “suspicious Arabs in flight schools”;

* no interceptor jets were launched in a timely manner on 9-11 because of the five to seven overlapping war games — “games” simulating a simultaneous hijacking of several planes — that were taking place on 9-11;

* the planes that hit the Twin Towers were most likely remotely controlled to their intended targets;

* WTC 1 and 2 (the Twin Towers) and WTC 7 were all destroyed by preplanted charges — a combination of Thermate and high-powered explosives — in controlled demolitions;

* the Pentagon was hit by a military drone painted to look like American Airlines flight 77, possibly in combination with a cruise missile;

* the cell-phone calls allegedly made from the “hijacked” flights were not possible with the technology available on 9-11 from the altitude and speed at which the jets were traveling, these calls were faked to help sell the OCT;

* the fate of United flight 93 is still up for debate at this time, it seems to have been intended to hit Congress and was likely shot down by a “rogue” air force interceptor, but some reports claim it landed in Cleveland (one way or another, all passengers are dead).

Why Kill Your Own People?

This is the toughest part for the uninitiated to understand. The people who planned and executed the treasonous, heinous crimes of 9-11 are largely drawn from a handful of people known as NeoCons. Many of these are current or former members of PNAC (Project for the New American Century). Many are disciples of Leo Strauss, a German-born, fascistic, political philosopher who taught at the University of Chicago. Strauss thought that the average person was too stupid to decide what is in their best interest and that a ruling elite should govern all of humanity.

Taking a long-term perspective, 9-11 was conceived as a “stepping stone” to eventually enable the creation of a New World Order (NWO), the ultimate goal of the ruling elite — one global, fascistic, police state in perpetual war against an unseen enemy… terrorism.

There were also several short-term objectives of 9-11: to push the USA Patriot Act through a compliant and complicit Congress; to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq; to create a “siege mentality” in the USA and around the world; to eliminate the Constitution and in doing so eliminate Constitutional Rights and civil liberties; to dramatically increase military and “security” spending; to further divide the country; to rapidly militarize local police; to set the stage for the next “9-11”; and, ultimately, to prepare for martial law.

How Could They Keep It Secret?

Most people assume that for insiders to have pulled off 9-11 would have taken so many people that someone would have talked by now.

First of all, it seems likely that there were as few as roughly 140 people who were intimately involved in the details of 9-11. On this site, you can see pictures and a short bio of the 90 people who are highly likely to be the top criminal coconspirators guilty of the planning, execution, and subsequent cover-up of the treason and mass murder that took place on 9-11.

As far as why no one has confessed, look at it this way: everyone involved in 9-11, even those only involved in the cover-up, are guilty of crimes for which they could possibly receive a death sentence if convicted. If that isn’t enough incentive to remain silent, i don’t know what is! How many times has a criminal ever confessed to a crime for which they were not even a suspect?! Criminals will only confess if they’re convinced they’ve been caught and they’re willing to make a deal for leniency if they reveal their cohorts.

Furthermore, when you read the names on the list of suspected perpetrators, you’ll see right away what a tight-knit little group it is. If there were even a shadow of a doubt about someone’s loyalty, they would not have been invited into this cabal.

About the List of Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators.

This list was compiled after many hours of research. Many, if not most, of the people named here were very likely criminally involved in the planning, execution, and cover-up of the crimes of 9-11 — crimes which include mass murder, accessory to mass murder, and treason. There is a slim possibility that a few people named here should not be on this list. If evidence surfaces that would exonerate someone named here, their name will be removed.

Clearly, there are people who were involved who are not on this list; for instance, the people on the small team of demolition experts who actually wired WTC 1, 2, and 7 for demolition. We won’t have a final verdict on all of the perpetrators until a new and fully independent 9-11 investigation is launched that has the ability to subpoena documents and question suspects under oath.

If you would like to offer someone to be added to the list of suspected perpetrators, you can submit pertinent information to contact@whodidit.org.

Please note: In an effort to reclaim the meaning of certain highly-charged words, the word “defense” has been replaced by the word “war” in all USG department names, position titles, and policy boards. For instance, “Secretary of Defense” is retitled “Secretary of War” to more accurately reflect the true nature of the position.

Analysis of the Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators.

Of the 103 people named on the list of Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators there are:
# 22 current or former members of George W. Bush’s White House (21.4%);
# 4 current or former members of Congress (3.9%);
# 6 current or former FBI agents or officials (5.8%);
# 6 current or former CIA agents or officials (5.8%);
# 6 current or former officials of New York (5.8%);
# 12 current or former high-ranking USG military commanders (11.7%);
# 13 current or former USG officials (not included above) (12.6%);
# 12 current or former members of PNAC (11.7%);
# 16 consultants, lobbyists, or members of a “think tank” (not including PNAC) (15.5%);
# 12 engineers (11.7%);
# 34 current or former corporate executives (33.0%);
# 4 senior “statesmen” (3.9%);
# 5 members of the Bush family (4.9%);
# 1 Canadian (1.0%);
# 1 Pakistani (1.0%);
# 2 Arabs (1.9%);
# 2 Brits (1.9%);
# 4 known or suspected Mossad agents (3.9%);
# 14 people who hold “dual citizenship” (13.6%); and
# 27 Israelis and Zionists (including people with “dual citizenship” noted above) (26.2%).

Note: Since the same person can be counted in more than one category, the tally above will not add up to 103 and the percentages will not total to 100%.

What Can We Do?

Once you know the truth of what really happened on 9-11 and you realize that a handful of people at the highest levels of the USG and the corporate world committed mass murder and treason on 9-11, it’s impossible to simply look the other way and carry on as if the OCT fairy tale were true.

The perpetrators of the “false flag” attack of 9-11 committed an abominable crime and have, so far, escaped prosecution. If they are not removed from power in the very near future it is virtually assured that they will do another 9-11-style attack. The biggest difference is the next one will be much worse, most likely involving a nuclear device, and the outcome will be much worse as well. Expect the following: casualties in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands; an immediate declaration of martial law; the total suspension of the constitution and all civil rights; the abolition of Congress; and the hasty coronation of George W. Bush as Dictator of the Americas.

Don’t let anybody tell you, “One person can’t make a difference”! Tell your friends and family the uncomfortable truth about 9-11. Pass out copies of dvds like “9-11 Mysteries”. Organize talks about 9-11 in your community. Demand your elected officials launch a new and independent investigation of 9-11. Vote for 9-11 Truth Candidates for public office. Individually and together we can, must, and will see that the perpetrators of 9-11 are removed from power and brought to justice.

Ocean heat, the Arctic and Global Warming

http://www.michaelmandeville.com/ecbulletin/2007/gsstanim_9-17-07.gif



Ocean Heat, the Artic & Global Warming, Return of the Phoenix

From: David
Subject: Got a Question for You
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:06:57 -0600

Michael,
First, thank you for all your hard work and effort on The Earth Changes Bulletin.

In your last weekly update of Sept. 24th, in the Global Warming section you state: "Scientists are now on the cusp of admitting that it is heat in the Arctic Ocean which is melting the ice, not the air."

I have been following the global warming issue closely for sometime now, and do not see indications of this occurring yet. Yes, the warming of the oceans is being acknowledged, but it still appears to be attributed primarily to greenhouse gases, not underwater volcanic activity.

Can you provide me with any sources from the scientific community that state otherwise ? I am having trouble locating them.

With the entire solar system heating up, I am not sure one can attribute any one cause as primary. I agree that volcanic activity plays a role, along with cosmic ray bombardment and greenhouse gases.

Thanks for the help.

David

MWM:
Profoundly to the point. All right look diligently at the charts I present here in succession. They are not difficult and in combination they summarize the logical essence of the issue.

Rising temp of the Arctic - Very North Atlantic (actually more the Norway Sea)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2007/09/07091717 2937.htm

The scientist is thinking ritualistically by relating the warming of the Arctic (mystically without explaining it) to CO2 but still makes a BIG point of saying that the heat flux in the Artic is caused by ocean heating.

But look at the table here below by NOAA: It is a real shame that it is a couple years out of date. - increasing cloud cover in the artic zone - click on the url and look for the "cloud cover" near top of list. Greater than normal for many years. Then look at temps for Bering Sea. Greater than normal for many years THE TWO CANNOT OCCUR TOGETHER WITH A DECLINING SOLAR INPUT. DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH ONE WAY INSULATING GLASS YOU USE. The whole system will leak energy out, lowering the temps and cloud cover IF the Sun is the driver.

http://www.arctic. noaa.gov/ detect/indicator s.shtml

I have been watching all year and the Bering Sea was on a running average warmer than normal all Spring and Summer (Norway Sea also). Even now. Go look AT THE SECOND CHART, WHICH TELLS YOU IF CONDITIONS ARE ON AVERAGE NORMAL OR IN A VARIATION OF COOL OR HOT.

http://www.cpc. ncep.noaa. gov/products/ analysis_ monitoring/ enso_update/ gsstanim. shtml

One of the most powerful data instruments on the web. It tells us we are broadly (extent) in a MILD La Nina (cooler Pacific Equator but not radically cooler by several degrees). The Bering Sea (north of the Aleutians) you can barely see but it has been warmer by a few degrees for many weeks as has the North Pacific and the North Atlantic and Norway Sea areas.
(the professional weather people call this heat flux in the North Atlantic part of the North Atlantic Climate Oscillation, which if I recall correctly is about a 20 year cycle.

This also means increased cloud cover with a declining Sun. It contradicts. So the heat is coming through the oceans.

Could it be from the other oceans being heated by the Sun. Okay, maybe. BUT

THIS CURRENT SUN IS THE LOWEST ACTIVITY SOLAR CYCLE IN ABOUT 35 YEARS. Average solar output is declining and has been, with normal cyclical sunspot swings (lower than normal), during the entire appearance of the Global Warming Debate.

Go look at the solar cycle chart in the EC Bulletin Weekly Update, it is there for a reason, here is the URL to the solar cycle chart. Scroll down to the chart of Solar Output 1975-2006.

http://www.michaelm andeville. com/earthchanges /bulletin/ 2007/ecb_ wupdate_09- 17-07.htm# Sun

If you mathematically averaged all curves into a straight line,

All variables, DOWN

SO GO DOWN DOWN DOWN DEEP TO FIND THE REAL SOURCE. (pun very intentional)

Simple. The Great Rift is 70,000 kilometers long and its current active zone is several kilometers to about 50 kilometers wide. MOST OF IT IS VOLCANICALLY ACTIVE WITH THE EQUIVILENT OF AT LEAST A YELLOWSTONE EVERY 10 kilometers. Every time Kilauea and Etna ooze lava, there is a high probability that a couple hundred equivalent along the Rift do the same. THAT'S JUST THE EXPANSION RIFT. Then there are the subduction zones, back arcs, and seamounts... .some hundred thousand other hot spots. If you want a copy of my summary table of underwater heat, let me know and I will post it to the group. I can't remember if I have posted it or not.


I predict that within the next two years the oceanographers will convincingly disprove CO2 theory of Global Warming. Partly this will happen professionally because oceanography is virtually virgin. It is BAADLY underfunded for the value it presents and promises. Oceanography needs to be and will be one of the main RECOVERY industries of the early 21st century. Oceanographers will see the opportunity and go for it. They will have to trash some of the pet global warming theorems of the atmospheric sciences, but once they get into it they will have fun doing it.

The message of the oceans is both comforting and upsetting. It is comforting to realize that humans are still not that big of a factor in the global heat balance, that it is natural causes creating the trends. It is upsetting to realize that the planet is NOT STABLE beyond a few hundred to maybe a thousand years at most. It is also upsetting to realize that humans have no control and have no idea where the trends are going, how soon. The stability of the last 500 years, if projected as "reality" can be a deadly illusion. It is only true part of the time. Civilizations rise and flourish and then hit the brick wall of climate shift which comes on them faster than the people can adapt. I think this has been a much bigger cause of the rise and fall of humans for the past twelve thousand years than is yet widely understood, though historians are now getting "on" to it more and more. I think in some sense the early migrations of the North Euro peoples to the Western Hemisphere can be partly explained by the "cold spell" in Northern Europe at the end of the Middle Ages. That set of migrations, dynastic struggles, and eventully the rise of the euro empires and colonization schemes, which generally went South, not east into Russia, which was largely a vast wilderness (and very frigid).

Now it is a "warm spell". Without even thinking about major earth movements, such as axis shift, the changes created by this warm spell could easily raise sea levels by 10 meters, even 20 during the next few decades. The rate of the melting of the Artic IS alarming. Greenland's ice is next if the warming continues. Thus more vast migrations may be coming... Or not, maybe it stops. That's the truly upsetting part of all of this. But think about this. Do you know that a great part of modern manufacturing is located at close to sea level where several hundred million people live in China?

So the last factoid is, how much change?. The U.N. graphs from the antarctic ice profiles of climate change suggest that fairly quick temperature shifts of several degrees occur frequently enough to suppose that this could be one of those times. Thusly, sea level could rise fairly rapidly by 20 meters in the coming several decades....or more...or less...or more slowly....or more rapidly.... So this leaves us thoroughly confused with the realization that anything can happen during the coming decades.

This is all straight up dealt in strictly hard materialistic terms such as the scientific literature deals with. Now if we put this within the context of the Cayce predictions, we can see we that we are well along on the road of his major earth changes. Speaking in truncated terse prose, with no understanding of geology or geophysics, he predicted that upheavals in the frigid zone will lead to major volcanic eruptions in the tropical zones prior to a shifting of the location of the spin axis. Actually I believe that all of that was about increased volcanism as a major precursor, noticed first in the "frigid zones". "Global Warming" AKA AS THE WARMING OF THE ARCTIC is how we are noticing the "upheavals" in the "frigid zone". Meanwhile the tropical zones in the South Pacific are breaking up at rates now several times more rapid than 60 years ago and visible surface world volcanism is setting new records this year. In a week or less I will release to subscribers for review a panopoly of several dozen graphs and charts which show how earthquake trends reveal where the Earth is actually breaking up, how the tectonic plates are actually moving, and where the crust is "flowing" and "leaning-towards. Some "offical" and unofficial myths will be trashed by these charts. These charts will give the "Return of the Phoenix" about 1000 times more scientific credibility, which is the main reason why I have not yet finished the revise of the third volume. It is all coming together quite nicely now.

++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++
The Earth Changes Bulletin Updates are usually published in a brief form and distributed free on a weekly basis. Occasionally Earth Changes Special Reports are produced on timely topics. This is Shareware Information, if it is useful to you, please help support it by making a VOLUNTARY donation (you will not be denied access). A donation of $3.00 per month or $36.00 per year is requested to sustain this work and additional benefits may be available. To provide a mechanism for making a donation, a donation request
will be emailed to new subscribers and periodically to all subscribers via Paypal, or click now on on this URL to make your donation.
http://www.michaelm andeville. com/catalog/ donations_ for_ec_bulletins .htm

Myanmar junta intensifies crackdown

Despite censorship, many images of action in Myanmar/Burma are being released. This is a collection of powerful images released on 27 September 2007 after the ruling junta has killed five people ...

read more | digg story



Link: Myanmar heading towards confrontation

Video available


Bread and Butter Issues behind Myanmar Protests

by Stephen Gowans

Global Research, September 26, 2007
gowans.wordpress.com/
Before discussion on Myanmar becomes another demonizing ritual led by the White House, and actively subscribed to by the respectable left, it would be prudent to consider recent mass protests in the country in the context of surrounding events and independent of the frame set the US government.

In his address to the UN General Assembly, US President George Bush denounced Myanmar as a “brutal regime” (along with Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Syria, north Korea and Zimbabwe), an echo of the 2006 National Security Directive, which called the same countries “outposts of tyranny”.

While media accounts – in step with the US state -- have fostered the impression that the mass marches in Myanmar are “pro-democracy” protests against political tyranny, they have, on the contrary, been provoked by bread and butter issues. As the New York Times explained in the concluding paragraphs of a September 24 report, the protests began “August 19 in response to sharp, unannounced fuel price increases of up to 500 percent, immediately raising the prices of goods and transportation.”

The protests were initially led by students, and only recently by monks, after the police beat some monks at a small demonstration.

The monks have denounced the government for “impoverishing and pauperizing” the people -- language devoid of the references to freedom and democracy much favored by the US state and firmly rooted in day-to-day economic concerns.

Washington’s real beef with Myanmar isn’t that it is a “brutal regime” or “outpost of tyranny.” Such US allies as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia and Israel are brutal regimes, but they’re showered with US aid and given diplomatic protection. The real problem with Myanmar is that its markets, land, resources and labor aren’t completely open to exploitation by US corporations and investors.

Myanmar practices protectionism. The government owns enterprises, rather than letting private capital (especially US capital) totally run the show. Like Cuba, north Korea and other US designated “outposts of tyranny”, it is not the kind of place the investment bankers, CEOs and corporate lawyers who dominate the US state can cozy up to -- or make a buck in.

The US Department of Commerce complains that Myanmar has restrictive trade policies and sets the prices of staples below market value, including gasoline. Ironically, it appears Myanmar’s efforts to bring gasoline prices up to market value – something the US government would applaud – sparked the protests.

“The state totally dominates some sectors, including mining and power, and state-owned firms have an important role in transport, trade and manufacturing,” according to the Economist’s Intelligence Unit.

What’s worst from Washington’s point of view is that the country restricts foreign investment. Worst still, it fails to protect private property.

Those who are ready to jump on the demonize-Myanmar-bandwagon should understand whose agenda they’re advancing -- and what its goals really are.

Stephen Gowans is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Gowans

YANGON, Myanmar - Myanmar security forces opened fire on Buddhist monks and other pro-democracy demonstrators Wednesday for the first time in a month of anti-government protests, killing at least one man and wounding others in chaotic confrontations across Yangon.

Dramatic images of the protests, many transmitted from the secretive Southeast Asian nation formerly called Burma by dissidents using cell phones and the Internet, riveted world attention on the escalating face-off between the military regime and its opponents.

Clouds of tear gas and smoke from fires hung over streets, and defiant protesters and even bystanders pelted police with bottles and rocks in some places. Onlookers helped monks escape arrest by bundling them into taxis and other vehicles and shouting "Go, go, go, run!"

The government said one man was killed when police opened fire during the ninth consecutive day of demonstrations, but dissidents outside Myanmar reported receiving news of up to eight deaths.

Some reports said the dead included monks, who are widely revered in Myanmar, and the emergence of such martyr figures could stoke public anger against the regime and escalate the violence.

Early today, security forces raided two prominent Buddhist monasteries, beating up and hauling away more than 70 monks. Family members said Myint Thein, the spokesman for detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's political party, was arrested.

As the stiffest challenge to the generals in two decades, the crisis that began Aug. 19 with protests over a fuel-price hike has drawn increasing international pressure on the isolated regime, especially from its chief economic and diplomatic ally, China.

The United States and the European Union issued a joint statement decrying the assault on peaceful demonstrators and calling on the junta to open talks with democracy activists, including Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace laureate.

"What's going on in Burma is outrageous," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

The U.N. Security Council met in private to be briefed on developments, then issued a brief statement expressing concern about the violent response to demonstrations.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who was sending a special envoy to the region, urged the junta "to exercise utmost restraint toward the peaceful demonstrations taking place, as such action can only undermine the prospects for peace, prosperity and stability in Myanmar."

The junta issued an edict late Tuesday banning gatherings of more than five people, but the order was ignored by democracy activists and the public alike Wednesday.

The number of protesters seemed a bit less than on Tuesday, but thousands massed at the golden Shwedagon Pagoda, including monks in cinnamon robes, students, members of Suu Kyi's democracy movement and activists waving flags emblazoned with the fighting peacock - a symbol of Myanmar's democracy movement. Large crowds of bystanders also gathered to watch.

Police fired tear gas and made some arrests trying unsuccessfully to scatter the demonstrators. Protesters marched off toward the Sule Pagoda in the heart of Yangon, but were later blocked by military trucks and security officers with riot shields, clubs and guns. Groups of marchers then fanned out into other streets, chased by security forces.

Officers fired warning shots and tear gas trying to disperse the main group and began dragging monks into army trucks - the first mass arrests since protests against the military dictatorship erupted Aug. 19.

Reporters saw some monks beaten, and an exile dissident group said about 300 monks and other protesters had been arrested in small clashes across Myanmar's biggest city.

Myanmar's government said security forces fired when a crowd that included what it called "so-called monks" refused to disperse at the Sule Pagoda and tried to grab weapons from officers. It said police used "minimum force."

The junta statement, read on state radio and television Wednesday night, said a 30-year-old man was killed by a police bullet. It said two men, ages 25 and 27, and a 47-year-old woman also were hurt when police fired, but did not specify their injuries.

Exiled Myanmar journalists and democracy activists released reports of higher death tolls, but the accounts could not be independently confirmed.

Khim Maung Win, deputy editor of the Democratic Voice of Burma, an opposition-run shortwave radio service based in Norway, said five monks and three civilians were reported killed and at least four seriously injured.

Zin Linn, information minister for the Washington-based National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, which is Myanmar's self-styled government-in-exile, said at least five monks were killed.


U.N. divided over Myanmar 2:48
Some U.N. delegates disagree about the organization's proposed involvement in Myanmar. CNN's Richard Roth reports.
• Bush: U.S. to tighten sanctions on Myanmar - CNN.com
• Rice: U.S. to raise Myanmar protests at U.N. - CNN.com

September 26, 2007

A Shining Light Goes Out in Africa

All 114 on board were killed in the crash of Kenyan Airlines Flight 507, including Anthony Mitchell, a brave journalist who risked his life to shine a light on often ignored Africa. Shortly before his death, Mitchell had revealed America’s use of secret Ethiopian prisons.

read more | digg story

A Culture of Violence

What do you call a country that glorifies wars and violence in the name of peace. One that's been at war every year in its history against one or more adversaries. It has the highest homicide rate of all western nations and a passion for owning guns, yet the two seem oddly unconnected. Violent films are some of its most popular, and similar video g

read more | digg story


Burma, Myanmar - small corral of items
Comment on youtube:

If you are interested in Geopolitical studies You know it. American organized and paid the Orange Revolution in Ukraine against Russia (Everybody knows that, Also some French and German media said that, and some western generals). Now it's time for China with this fake revolutions. Americans wants to have frienedly government in SE Asia to hit China as well. Unfortunately Burma free or not will be just a sexual tourists paradise for americans.


It is regretable that BuZh lacks all moral authority after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (and other fantastic human rights abuses) for surely democracies must speak out against such blatant human rights abuses. But SANCTIONS against the Burmese government just spell MORE suffering for the Burmese people.

Instead of establishing a UN presence in Baghdad -- why is it NOT going in as a protectorate so that Burma has neither China nor the US as its next oppressor? Oh, well, I guess I must DREAM on.

Myanmar Heaven and Hell. (Narration in Myanmar.)

POWERFUL video series exactly depicting
the excesses of COLONIALISM
(read: imperialism)

This video compares the lives of Military dictators and poor citizens within the country. Corrupted Military generals enjoy life full of Dimonds and precious stones withe the country's finance while citizens are suffering and struggling to feed their children.

No medicines in hospitals, no electricity, no clean water etc are just the beginning.

The video includes the wedding of General Than Shwe's daughter.

(less)Myanmar Heaven and Hell. (Narration in Myanmar.)

This video compares the lives of Military dictators and poor citizens within the country. Corrupted Military generals enjoy life full of Dimonds and precious stones withe the country's finance while citizens are suffering and struggling to feed their children.

No medicines in hospitals, no electricity, no clean water etc are just the beginning.

The video includes the wedding of General Than Shwe's daughter.
(less)





Keeping the foreign press at bay


THE datelines tell a story. Most reports of the protests in Myanmar come from Bangkok. Never overly hospitable to foreign journalists, Myanmar’s ruling junta has, at its moment of crisis, shut the door altogether. A few have sneaked in, posing as tourists, but internet links have been cut and mobile phone lines are intermittent.

Sometimes in the past the junta has permitted foreign journalists to visit on official visas. This has served two purposes: they can be easily monitored while in-country; and they will be on file should they ever seek to enter incognito. A window opened briefly after the ouster of the former intelligence chief, Khin Nyunt, in 2004. In the ensuing shake-up, the spooks seem to have lost track of their previous journalist visitors. *snip* Reporting from a country without letting the government know all but forces a journalist to spend more time with its opponents. The government’s opacity arouses suspicion by suggesting it has something to hide. But then, of course, it usually does.



A CANADIAN’S AMERICAN LEGAL ODYSSEY

This mediascout articles is indicative of why Omar Khadr is frying in HELL

Rather than focus on the total unfairness of holding a 15 year old boy in custody for 5 years in solitary confinement (!!!) and PERSONALIZING the story, it turns on the legal ramifications.

Yes, these are HIGHLY troubling legal ramifications; no one would dispute this. BUT in the entire five years, the press has steadfastly put a face on Omar Khadr. No source reporting ever questions this practice. So his very age of arrest goes unnoticed.

When for an instant it appeared he just MIGHT get out of Guantanamo, the press didn't raise a peep to help him. This just appears to me to be a self serving "get up and put up and shut up" routine that allows systemic and systematic racism to FLORISH in Canada. They are citizens, too, these reporters, these are fellow human beings, but they've left Omar Khadr to FRY. And then ensured that no one is going to identify with HIM - he's DIFFERENT. In this brief posting, he's guilty of having the "wrong" family.

No Omar Khadr is a martyr; an unintentional martyr.

He's been left to be the scapegoat of those who cannot morally look at their lack of compassion for a fellow human being who at fifteen was made a stooge for public policy "considerations".

No fifteen year old should be sitting in a military prison HELLHOLE, nowhere in the world. And none less so than a CANADIAN, if the twisted reality that Canada is a human rights supporter.

Omar Khadr should go free - not because it is bad legal precedent (it is that, too) but because it is just plain WRONG that he is even in US hands, that he is young, that he has never been justice and never will be.

I read yesterday about a case where another young man has been framed in the UK legal system by having downloaded some muslim propaganda into his computer. He was ANGRY but guilty of nothing. But his curiosity was criminalized and now he stands convicted.

While people floak to the site teardown.org in absolute rage that Guantanomo is still standing and crying at its existence - the press still acts as if somehow there were justifications for torture ... and completely unacceptable practice of detaining people in its bowels of HORROR.

From Amnesty International's brief on Omar Khadr:

"The Canadian government has yet to publicly express concern about the shortcomings of the military commissions. By contrast, the British government took a strong stand against the trial of their nationals by the military commissions. All U.K. nationals were subsequently released from Guantánamo Bay."

You can read all the details in the case on Amnesty site here.

He should get out NOW! It is easy to see why Omar Khadr is still in jail. I hope you'll go to the Amnesty site and start writing to have him freed. The information is right on the link!!

From Today's Mediascout:

The Star and The Citizen (not available online) go inside with the latest from Canadian and Guantanamo Bay captive Omar Khadr’s legal odyssey. Earlier this week the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review overturned a lower tribunal’s decision to throw out the charges against Khadr, who has been held for five years, mostly in solitary confinement.

This sets the stage for his prosecution under the controversial military court process set up by the Bush administration. Khadr is only the second “unlawful enemy combatant”—as the Bush administration has famously designated those captured fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan—to face trial under the process.

The Star reports that as of yet, Ottawa has no intention of intervening on Khadr’s behalf, as his family’s ties to top al-Qaeda leaders have made him widely unpopular in Canada. The Citizen reports that Khadr’s lawyers hope to block the proceedings. Human rights groups are critical of Ottawa’s decision not to intervene, as they have been of the entire Guantanamo Bay process. Author Erna Paris in a Globe comment piece (not available online), argues against allowing Khadr’s trial to proceed under a military court.

To do so would risk establishing a precedent that undermines fundamental legal standards such as due process. The trial would also help to establish the “unlawful enemy combatant” designation and might have implications for the future legal standards applied to child soldiers (Khadr was first arrested when he was 15).

Paris notes that when an Australian faced this same legal process, the public uproar and diplomatic pressure was so great from that country that the US backed down. MediaScout hopes that despite Khadr’s unpopularity, the Big Seven will give the important legal principles involved in this case the airing they deserve.

C.H.A.N.G.E.confronts Greenspan


September 25, 2007

As Blackwater Comes Under Fire in Iraq, So-Cal Turns Up Heat to Stop Blackwater West


by StopBlackwater.net Monday, Sep. 24, 2007 at 1:59 PM
info@prcsd.org

As US Congress and Iraqi government officials probe recent killings of civilians by the notorious private contractors in Baghdad, local opponents to the expansion of Blackwater USA will stage a major rally and encampment at the gates of the proposed “Blackwater West” site in Potrero, a tiny town in east San Diego county on Saturday, October 6th - Sunday, October, 7th. The event will happen just days after Blackwater founder Erik Prince is scheduled to testify before the US Congress.
Citizens’ Oversight Projects
http://www.CitizensOversight.org
http://www.stopblackwater.net

As Blackwater USA Comes Under Increasing Fire for Actions in Iraq, So-Cal Locals Turn Up the Heat to Stop Blackwater West

Residents Organize Largest Protest to Date at the Gates of
Planned Blackwater West Site Near Tiny Border Town

Weekend of Saturday, October 6th – Sunday, October 7th
Special Guest Speakers TBA

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA (Sept. 24) – – As US Congress and Iraqi government officials probe recent killings of civilians by the notorious private contractors in Baghdad, local opponents to the expansion of Blackwater USA will stage a major rally and encampment at the gates of the proposed “Blackwater West” site in Potrero, a tiny town in east San Diego county on Saturday, October 6th - Sunday, October, 7th. The event will happen just days after Blackwater founder Erik Prince is scheduled to testify before the US Congress.

Blackwater USA plans to build a training facility “Blackwater West” in Potrero, California, a small community in San Diego County 45 miles east of the City of San Diego. Residents of Potrero and San Diego have been organizing and began fighting this facility earlier this year on a number of issues.

Opponents point to the environmental impacts which will be enormous and long-lasting, including loss of sensitive habitat, depletion of an already fragile and shrinking water table, groundwater pollution and more. In addition, people living in Potrero will be exposed to noise, traffic and disruption of their quiet way of life.

Blackwater USA, known as one of the most powerful and secretive forces to emerge from the U.S. military-industrial complex and one of the greatest beneficiaries of the “global war on terror,” is increasingly underfire for acting above the law. The recent killing and wounding of at least a dozen innocent Iraqi civilians underscores the dangers this company poses to the community.

“There is no place for companies like Blackwater in a democracy," said Carol Jahnkow, key organizer and Executive Director, Peace Resource Center of San Diego. “Destroying communities for profit at the expense of the environment must stop. Profiting from war and human suffering must stop!”

“The public is waking up to the atrocities attributed to Blackwater and to the private mercenary soldier industry now staring us in the face," said Raymond Lutz, coordinator of Citizens’ Oversight Projects (COPS) and StopBlackwater.net. “The intimidating nature of these mercenary boot camps has kept locals from speaking out but, the tides have changed, when Blackwater USA tried to put in a jungle training camp in the Philippines they has to pull out after fierce public outcry. We can do the same here in San Diego County, we are resisting the further expansion of corporate mercenary armies and unregulated training of U.S. Armed Forces in residential areas.”

The two-day educational encampment and walk to the gates of the site are expected to draw hundreds of opponents of the project and to the expansion of Blackwater West.

The event will start on Saturday, October 6th at 9am with a hike to visit the Hauser Wilderness which abuts the project site conducted by the Sierra Club. From 2-5pm, educational seminars will be conducted at the Potrero Regional Park (see locations details below) and then an evening of music and spoken word at the rally site from 7-9pm.

Attendees will camp at the Potrero Regional Park campground, and other lodging is available nearby.

On Sunday, the special guest keynote speakers will make their presentations starting at 1pm and then the rally will proceed to march to the gate of the site and to an viewpoint that overlooks the valley.

DETAILS OF THE EVENT:

DAY 1 – ENCAMPMENT AND EDUCATION DAY: Saturday, October 6th
Camping at Potrero Regional Park.

9AM – 2PM: Sierra Club-led Hauser Wilderness Hike – Begins at Potrero County Park.
2-5 PM: Educational Workshops and displays on the environment, Blackwater West impacts on Potrero and the San Diego region, Potrero area Wildlife, Militarization of the Border and more (Potrero Regional Park) Speakers include Raymond Lutz (COPS), Jeanette Hartman (Sierra Club) and Jan Hedlun (Sole member opponent on the Potrero Planning Group.)

7-9 PM: Music and spoken word gathering celebrating peace, the environment and safe, livable communities (will be held on private property at corner of Round Potrero Road & Yerba Santa. The “Rally Site.”)

DAY 2--RALLY AND MARCH, Sunday, October 7th

NOON: Music and gathering at the rally site.
1 PM: Special Keynote Speakers (to be announced)
2:30 PM. One Mile Walk to gates of proposed Blackwater site

Location of the Rally is on private property, (corner of Round Potrero Road & Yerba Santa;)

Sponsored by the Peace Resource Center of San Diego, the San Diego Coalition for Peace & Justice, Citizens' Oversight Projects (COPS), San Diego Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, Activist San Diego, San Diego SUN, San Diego Puppet Insurgency, North County Coalition for Peace & Justice, San Diego Renters Union, and endorsed by the Green Party, the Democratic Party of San Diego County, and the East County Democratic Club.

DIRECTIONS: Potrero Regional Park: From San Diego, East on 94. North on Potrero Valley Rd, Right on Potrero Park Rd. to the end. Rally Site: 23975 Yerba Santa Rd. From San Diego, East on 94. N on Potrero Valley Rd, Left on Round Potrero Rd. to 23975 Yerba Santa Rd.)

####

Losing My Religion


The concept of the video is based on Gabriel Garcia Marquez' short story, "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings", which told the story of an angel who fell from Heaven, and people made money off of putting him on display.[1] The first scene is based on a scene from Andrei Tarkovsky's Offret. (from wikipedia)



Losing My Religion

by R.E.M.

album: Out Of Time (1991),
In Time - The Best Of R.E.M. 1988-2003 (2003)


Ooh, life is bigger
It's bigger than you
And you are not me
The lengths that I will go to
The distance in your eyes
Oh no I've said too much, I set it up

That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no I've said too much
I haven't said enough
I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

Every whisper
Of every waking hour I'm
Choosing my confessions
Trying to keep an eye on you
Like a hurt, lost and blinded fool, fool
Oh no I've said too much, I set it up

Consider this, consider this
The hint of the century
Consider this
The slip that brought me
To my knees, failed
What if all these fantasies
Come flailing around
Now I've said too much

I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

But that was just a dream
That was just a dream

That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no I've said too much
I haven't said enough
I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

But that was just a dream
Try, cry, why try?
That was just a dream
Just a dream
Just a dream, dream


Firedoglake blog: The Tin Political Ear of Evan Bayh

Can't you just see it now? Hilary needs someone to justify her actions against the American people and she trots our Evan Bayh to do her barking ..?

Here's part ONE of the set up. The fix is "in"!!

firedoglake: The Tin Political Ear of Evan Bayh
The Tin Political Ear of Evan

Bayh



Meet our newest Lemming.

BushCo. is on the ropes, but Evan Bayh offers them a helping hand:



But the first thing Democrats need to do, Bayh said, is take Republicans on in an area they've dominated: national security.



"It's a threshold issue for us, and it's a threshold issue for America," Bayh said.

"People aren't going to trust us with anything else if we first can't convince them to trust us with their lives."



Before he spoke, Bayh told reporters that he does not support efforts by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., another potential 2008 presidential candidate, to censure Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping.

Bayh said it's not clear whether the law requiring court approval before surveillance was broken, and he instead favors revisiting and possibly updating the law.

How exactly does Bayh plan to be the big national security badass? By changing the law so that the President's illegal actions are made legal? Wow you are one tough hombre, Evan.

I wouldn't trust you to guard my potted fern.



I never want to hear "Evan Bayh" for anything, ever again. Not President, not Vice President, not dog catcher. Ever.

posted by Jane Hamsher @ 3/16/2006 05:26:00 PM



Powered by ScribeFire.

so why an article on Hilary Clinton here?
Because she would enormous power over our entire world if elected.
Who would select to run it with her?
And what can we find out about them before it's too late ...

A Clinton-Bayh ticket for 2008?

Russ Pulliam
Is Bayh the guy? It's looking good
The path is clearing for Evan Bayh to be nominated for vice president.



He and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner were on the short list of moderates that Hillary Clinton might select as a running mate. Now Warner is running for the U.S. Senate seat left open by the retirement of Republican Sen. John Warner.
Clinton continues to lead Barack Obama and John Edwards in polls and is strong in fundraising. Obama and Edwards also could split the activist left-wing voters that dominate the primaries.
Bayh, meanwhile, could reap the benefit of a career of cautiousness. He would bring several assets to the Clinton campaign.
He is polite and charming. He's been an articulate spokesman for fatherhood, even writing a book on the subject. As Indiana's governor, he promoted the fatherhood movement and offered other culturally conservative initiatives. He didn't serve liquor at the governor's mansion and reinstated Gideons Bibles in state park inns after an overzealous official thought they violated the First Amendment.
Politically he rebuilt his party from near death in Indiana, helping it win four consecutive races for governor. He captured his own Senate seat after winning two terms as governor. Other Democrats who served under him went on to win their own races, including the late Gov. Frank O'Bannon and Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson. Bayh did all of that in a state that has not gone for a Democratic presidential nominee since the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964.
As governor, Bayh was the opposite of Mitch Daniels, who never seems to shy from taking on controversial issues such as daylight-saving time or leasing the Toll Road. Bayh took a stab at education reform but never put a definitive stamp on a particular policy or issue. He did, however, win elections and returned Indiana to a competitive two-party state.
For Hillary Clinton, Bayh would bolster her attempts to move to the political center. He is stronger on national defense issues than most Democrats and is most zealous about being a moderate.
Former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg of Vincennes thinks a Bayh vice presidential nomination would help Clinton as well as Democrats in Indiana.
"He'd be the ideal candidate," Gregg, a possible Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor next year, said.
"Historically, Bayh is from southern Indiana," Gregg said. "He'll play well in the Midwest and the near South -- Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. He is the modern-day Moses for the Indiana Democratic Party."
Notre Dame professor Robert Schmul said Bayh would balance Clinton's current New York home base geographically and ideologically.
"He would also be a figure who understands how the vice president should campaign and serve," Schmul said. "I don't think he is the kind of person who would try to upstage the presidential candidate."
One obstacle for Bayh could be a strong surge from either Obama or Edwards in early primaries. Clinton, if she wins the nomination, might feel compelled to add the second-place finisher to the ticket.
If she keeps the lead she has now, however, watch for a Clinton-Bayh ticket in 2008.

He's at it again!! BuZh on proposals to cough up some money for CITIZENS.

And watching his oral belligerance yet ANOTHER TIME is sick making.

And I am not as charitable as to call his remarks ironic, I call him a LIAR.
Just listen as he trips up on the phrase social security ... he's figured out he has to have every last nickel!!

Bush: We Can’t Spend $22 Billion On America Because We Need $200 Billion For Iraq War

The Democratic leadership in Congress is set to pass a host of domestic funding bills that would exceed Bush’s request by $22 billion. The extra funding would help go towards veterans health care, infrastructure improvements, education, and other domestic priorities.

Speaking to business leaders at a White House event this morning, Bush railed against the relatively modest increase in spending, arguing that $22 billion is “a lot of money”:

Some in Congress will tell you that $22 billion is not a lot of money. As business leaders, you know better. As a matter of fact, $22 billion is larger than the annual revenues of most Fortune 500 companies. The $22 billion is only for the first year. With every passing year the number gets bigger and bigger, and so over the next five years the increase in federal spending would add up to $205 billion.

Watch it:

Bush warned that spending increases, which could add up to over $200 billion over five years, would be “taking money out of the pocket” of Americans who need to “pay their mortgages or pay for their children going to college.” Unfortunately, Bush failed to appreciate the irony in his remarks.

While complaining of modest spending increases on much-needed domestic funding priorities, Bush is far less concerned about the impact of spending $200 billion in the next year alone on a disastrous war in Iraq:

President Bush plans to ask lawmakers next week to approve another massive spending measure — totaling nearly $200 billion — to fund the war through next year, Pentagon officials said.

It shouldn’t take a “CEO President” to figure out that $200 billion is greater than $22 billion.

Digg It!

Transcript:

BUSH: Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in Congress has chosen a different path. The plan they have put forward includes an increase in discretionary spending that is nearly $22 billion more than my budget request.

Some in Congress will tell you that $22 billion is not a lot of money. As business leaders, you know better. As a matter of fact, $22 billion is larger than the annual revenues of most Fortune 500 companies.

And the $22 billion is only for the first year. With every passing year the number gets bigger and bigger, and so over the next five years the increase in federal spending would add up to $205 billion.

And the only way to pay for such a large spending increase is to raise taxes on the American people. So, it’s no surprise that the same members of Congress who are planning the big increase in federal spending are also planning the largest tax increase in American history. At a time when families are working hard to pay their mortgages or pay for their children going to college, now is not the time to be taking money out of their pocket.




ENVIRONMENT Global warming

From American Progress report

Bush's Bake Sale

Dozens of world leaders are currently assembled at the United Nations to create a "road map" for reducing greenhouse gas emissions once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. Yesterday, President Bush skipped the meetings, but managed to show up in time for a dinner hosted by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Even though a new poll finds that 90 percent of people worldwide believe action i

s necessary on climate change, Bush continues to undermine global progress on emission reductions. On Thursday, he will host a meeting of the world's major emitters of greenhouse gases where he will push them to accept his misguided framework of "voluntary" reductions. Embracing the rhetoric of global warming isn't enough. Scientists estimate that the world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50-80 percent by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. "Today, the time for doubt has passed," Ban told the General Assembly. "Inaction now will prove the costliest action of all in the long term.


BUSH'S ALTERNATE, 'ASPIRATIONAL' UNIVERSE: Thursday's White House-sponsored meeting will include the 15 major emitters of greenhouse gases, in addition to the United Nations and the European Union. Most of these countries are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, with the exception of the United States and Australia, which remain the only major industrialized nations to stay out of the international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellows Joseph Romm and Daniel J. Weiss note, Bush's meeting will end up starting "another process outside the United Nations and post-Kyoto talks -- a process consisting of multiple meetings that don't finish their work until the very end of his presidency." The Bush administration has made clear that it wants each country to adopt voluntary "aspirational" goals to reduce emissions. By convening this separate meeting, Bush is essentially undermining the mandatory caps on emissions that the United Nations is attempting to negotiate.

VOLUNTEERISM IS FOR BAKE SALES, NOT GLOBAL WARMING: Bush announced his idea for this major emitters meeting just five days before the G-8 summit in June. He said that he wanted the United States to be involved in post-Kyoto talks on greenhouse gas emissions, but that the focus should be on a "long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases." The Bush administration hailed the major emitters meeting as a "new" policy on climate change. Yet pushing for toothless, watered-down climate policies is nothing new for this administration. At the G-8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed that countries adopt a 50 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, "but had to settle for compromise language after President Bush made it clear the United States would not agree to it." Earlier this month, Bush also convinced leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation agree to a "long-term aspirational goal" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, instead of binding targets. Yesterday, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) told The Progress Report that Bush's focus on voluntary reductions is misguided and destructive. "We simply know that volunteerism is great for PTA bake sales, but they will not reorder the economic system of the world, and move to a clean energy technology," said Inslee.

HIDING BEHIND AMERICA'S SKIRTS: Bush's refusal to join the international community in battling climate change is more than just a nuisance. The United States is "responsible for roughly one-quarter of the world's carbon dioxide" and other greenhouse gases. While many nations have already agreed to adopt significant greenhouse gas reductions, U.S. action on the issue would make it more likely that countries such as China, India, and Brazil would do so as well. "The leadership role of the United States is absolutely essential," said former senator Timothy E. Wirth, who is now president of the United Nations Foundation. "Unless the United States decides that it wants to be a major and committed leadership player in this and make very specific commitments, much of the rest of the world is effectively going to hide behind the skirts of the United States and not do anything."
PUSHING FORWARD ON MANDATORY CAPS: Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wrote to Bush and urged him to support "mandatory national and international limits," as well as Congress's energy bill that is currently being held up by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and other conservatives. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates that the strongest provisions of the House and Senate legislation -- including increasing fuel economy to 35 mpg and establishing a 15 percent renewable electricity standard -- could cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 20 percent by 2030, compared to business as usual. This bill would be an essential contribution to meeting long-term global warming pollution reduction goals. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) are putting together a bill with a market-based approach that could reduce emissions by 70 percent by 2050. The bill, likely to be introduced in October, has "already garnered tentative support from members who have previously been opposed to measures mandating carbon limits." Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Todd Stern and Brookings Institution scholar William Antholis have also put together a plan for an E-8 summit that would "consist of four developed and four developing countries (or entities) focused on global ecological and resource problems." "While an E-8 would be small enough to facilitate productive dialogue," they write, "it would have such a formidable footprint that its actions would be consequential in their own right and could set the terms of the policy debate more broadly."

Ahmadinejad Interview, Part 2 Scott Pelley's Interview With Iran's Leader

Sept. 23, 07

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/60minutes/main3286706.shtml

PELLEY: Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?
AHMADINEJAD: It is a firm "no." Any party who uses national revenues to make a bomb, a nuclear bomb, will make a mistake. The nuclear bomb is of no use. The time of the bomb is past. Today we are living in the era of intellectual pursuits. You should spend your money on your people. We don't need the bomb. In fact, we think that this is inhuman. So can you please tell me why the U.S. government is fabricating these bombs? Are you going to deal with global poverty? Or do you want to kill people? ...
PELLEY: At the moment, our two countries may very well be walking down the road to war.
AHMADINEJAD: Who says that?
PELLEY: France this week said that war might be indicated.
AHMADEINEJAD: It's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Why should we go to war? We have a logic which we have announced for some time now. We very much oppose the behavior of the U.S. administration. We think it's wrong. ...that is a part of a psychological warfare plot. The American people are well familiar with these plots. There is no war in the offing. Again, this is psychological warfare. If you have differences of opinions, you can use logic to resolve your differences.
PELLEY: You can show the world today that you are not pursuing a bomb. Open your nuclear facilities. Let the United Nations inspectors in there today .
AHMADEINEJAD: The reports say that we have been complying. And they are inspecting all of our sites every day. Inspectors have said there's no diversion here. We have not diverted from a peaceful path. This is what the agencies think. There is a solution here, however, a very simple solution. The countries that have atomic bombs should destroy their stockpiles. And that would make everyone happy. Five or six nations have diverted from the peaceful path, road. So those five or six should return to the correct path. The American government respect the views of the agency. It's very regrettable to see that certain U.S. officials have insulted the very clear positions taken by the agency. They have attacked the director general of the agency. That is shameful. If you think that the agency is a reputable one, you should allow it to go ahead with its business. The problems of the American politicians are because they are interested in their own interests. And they want the rest of the world just to say "yes, sir" and go along with whatever they say. That is finished. It's in the past.
PELLEY: What trait do you admire in President Bush?
AHMADINEJAD: Again, I have a very frank tone. I think that President Bush needs to correct his ways. He should respect the American people. As an American citizen, tell me what trait do you admire?
PELLEY: Well, Mr. Bush is, without question, a very religious man.
AHMADEINEJAD: Well, is Mr. Bush a religious man?
PELLEY: Very much so. As you are.
AHMADEINEJAD: What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Religion tells us all that you should respect the property, the life of different people. Respect human rights. Love your fellow man. And once you hear that a person has been killed, you should be saddened. You shouldn't sit in a room, a dark room, and hatch plots. And because of your plots, many thousands of people are killed. Having said that, we respect the American people. And because of our respect for the American people, we respectfully talk with President Bush. We have a respectful tone. But having said that, I don't think that that is a good definition of religion. Religion is love for your fellow man, brotherhood, telling the truth.
PELLEY: President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary.
AHMADEINEJAD: I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things. But if they insist on what they are saying right now, this will not help them. Again, nobody can hurt the Iranian people.
PELLEY: When your airplane approaches Manhattan this week, you will look out the window and you will see that the World Trade Center is gone. Many Americans, Mr. President, to be frank, believe that you look out that window and you say to yourself, "Good. Somebody got 'em."
AHMADEINEJAD: We issued an official communiqué condemning that incident. And you are saying that the American people are saying these things. The American people still don't know who was behind the bombing of the Twin Towers. Many books in the U.S. have been written about the incident., and there are questions circling in your society. I have the latest surveys. Eighty percent of the American citizens say that the American government knew about the attack beforehand. They had information.
PELLEY: You don't believe that, sir.
AHMADEINEJAD: Unethical politicians make war. Nations don't make war. We're saying that you should allow our nations to be friends with one another. You cannot produce even one document, a single document, about terrorist action on the part of the Iranian government or Iranian officials. It's very regrettable that many thousands of people were killed in the Twin Tower incident. Can we do something that ensures this never happens? We can do that, providing a number of parties do not establish terrorist organizations and set them off on nations. We know who is behind terrorist organizations. You know full well who is behind a number of terrorist organizations around my part of the world. Who provided them with logistical support, political support? It's a very well-known fact they have made and created these terrorist organizations themselves.
ELLEY: Shall I say CIA and the United States? Will that . . .
AHMADEINEJAD: Well, maybe you know something that . . . I don't want to say something which would agitate and fan the flames