The Importance of Being

Above Top Secret: 9/11 Pentagon strike was a 757?!

2006-01-08T10:17:00.000-08:00

It's been awhile now since I've added anything to my blog, but that doesn't mean the world has become a boring place. Hooboy! Bush is gunning for Iran, Sharon is in a coma, the US economy has never looked worse (and now people are actually talking about it!), and the controversy over what really hit the Pentagon on 9/11 is still alive and well.

It seems that the folks at Above Top Secret REALLY REALLY don't want to believe that there was no way it was a 757 that hit the Pentagram on September 11th, in spite of the fact that the available evidence points to anything BUT a 757 hitting the building that fateful day.

The folks at my favorite news site, Signs of the Times, have released a totally rational and logical response to ATS's previous attempts to deny reality regarding the Pentagon strike. It's called Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11... and Neither Did a Boeing 757. For a site with so much alleged money and support, Above Top Secret has some god-awful analysis! In fact, you could hardly call it analysis. Hmm... Is ATS disinfo? Who knows. What I do know is that Signs of the Times's Joe Quinn gives an insightful dissection of CatHerder's (ATS's) "analysis" of what hit the Pentagon. Here's a snippet or two:

ATS: Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.
SOTT: Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons.

The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!
...
While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.
...
There are without doubt many sincere U.S. and other citizens and web site owners who promote the official story about 9/11 because they believe (or perhaps need to believe) that the government is telling the truth. Equally certain is the fact that there are many US citizens and website owners who know for sure that the government story is false, yet have been consciously recruited to push this story on the public. Members of the latter group are simply doing their job, but their influence is most directly felt among members of the former group who want to believe the official story.

Having said that, after reading through the long ATS thread that followed the posting of "CatHerders" article, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the ATS website is just one more government-funded damage control operation, albeit a very subtle one. I will explain why I came to this conclusion.

CatHerders article was received with much fanfare on the ATS forum, and much debate and analysis ensued with the thread finally reaching 125 pages. As the discussion and debate raged, it became apparent that many were convinced by CatHerder's article, but just as many were not. On the 8th page of the thread, two of the three owners of the ATS website weighed in and attempted to silence the naysayers with some large fonts and guilt trips. For example, "SkepticOverlord", "one of the three ATS amigos and co-owner of Abovetopsecret.com" wrote:

"It's very disappointing to see ignorance embraced like this [referring to those who were not embracing Catherders article as "the truth"]

Why? Because the real information is not wrapped up in an exciting Flash animation with angry metal grind? [referring, undoubtedly, to our Pentagonstrike Flash]

Shall we change our motto?

Ignorance Embraced [the ATS motto is "deny ignorance" which seems to be a twist on the QFG motto: Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Endangers.]

I still remember speaking to my brother (who was on the highway at the time) calling me that evening, haunted by the memory of a brief glimpse of faces in the windows of the 757. Especially when he discovered his friend was on the flight later that day.

This is a sad moment for ATS. I feel like I now see faces."

Very moving. Very manipulative, too. "Springer", another Co-owner, then added the following:

PITIFUL... "CH" (Catherder) has proven his/her POINT beyond much of anything that even comes close to logic... But ALAS, as S.O. (other ATS co-owner) Points out, it is NOT wrapped up in a pretty flash animation filled with BUNK so it must NOT be beleived... [another obvious reference to the Pentagon Flash.]

Sad Day for ATS indeed..."

Yes indeed, there's nothing like subjecting your subscribers to a little guilt trip to get them in line...

After reading the rest of Signs of the Times's article here, you'll definitely think twice about the reliability and honesty of the folks at Above Top Secret...

The Sound of Silence: Bush's Fort Bragg Speech

2005-07-03T05:43:00.000-07:00

During Bush's recent speech at Fort Bragg, it seems there was a glaring lack of applause from the soldiers present:

Troops' Silence at Fort Bragg Starts a Debate All Its Own

By DAVID E. SANGER, New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 29 - So what happened to the applause?

When President Bush visits military bases, he invariably receives a foot-stomping, loud ovation at every applause line. At bases like Fort Bragg - the backdrop for his Tuesday night speech on Iraq - the clapping is often interspersed with calls of "Hoo-ah," the military's all-purpose, spirited response to, well, almost anything.

So the silence during his speech was more than a little noticeable, both on television and in the hall. On Wednesday, as Mr. Bush's repeated use of the imagery of the Sept. 11 attacks drew bitter criticism from Congressional Democrats, there was a parallel debate under way about whether the troops sat on their hands because they were not impressed, or because they thought that was their orders.

[...]

Republicans moved quickly to respond to what was becoming a significant embarrassment.

Capt. Tom Earnhardt, a public affairs officer at Fort Bragg who participated in the planning for the president's trip, said that from the first meetings with White House officials there was agreement that a hall full of wildly cheering troops would not create the right atmosphere for a speech devoted to policy and strategy.

"The guy from White House advance, during the initial meetings, said, 'Be careful not to let this become a pep rally,' " Captain Earnhardt recalled in a telephone interview. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that account.

As the message drifted down to commanders, it appears that it may have gained an interpretation beyond what the administration's image-makers had in mind. "This is a very disciplined environment," said Captain Earnhardt, "and some guys may have taken it a bit far," leaving the troops hesitant to applaud.

After two presidential campaigns, Mr. Bush has finely tuned his sense of timing for cueing applause, especially when it comes to his most oft-expressed declarations of resolve to face down terrorists. But when the crowd did not respond on Tuesday , he seemed to speed up his delivery a bit. Then, toward the end of the 28-minute speech, there was an outbreak of clapping when Mr. Bush said, "We will stay in the fight until the fight is done."

Terry Moran, an ABC News White House correspondent, said on the air on Tuesday night that the first to clap appeared to be a woman who works for the White House, arranging events. Some other reporters had the same account, but Captain Earnhardt and others in the back of the room say the applause was started by a group of officers.

Let's think about this... Public opinion of Bush is at an all-time low, and I suspect the REAL percentage of those Americans who are not happy with George is more like 80%. Almost no one I talk to anymore is happy with Bush. The mainstream media widely - and quite rationally - predicted that Bush's speech would be turned into what amounts to a pep rally to get the American people to stand on the president's side again concerning the Iraq issue.

Now, what are the chances that the White House would tell US commanders to be careful not to let Bush's speech become a pep rally?! Bush's Brain (aka Karl Rove) no doubt selected a military venue specifically because he expected the troops to rally behind their commander-in-chief. The idea, then, is that we would all watch the speech and the cheering troops on TV, and get all fired up and patriotic and support Bush's mad crusade again. So, the White House's claims that they actually requested a subdued military audience go completely against the grain - and against common sense.

Then we have the little tidbit about how Bush sped up his delivery when he wasn't getting the desired response. Oops!

Finally, an ABC News correspondent claims that the first woman to clap was apparently an events coordinator for the White House.

If the "official version" of Bush's speech is a bunch of bull as I and many others I've heard from suspect, then Bushy has a big problem. The silence of US soldiers at a speech by their commander-in-chief can mean only one thing: they ain't happy.

But if US military leaders are backing up White House claims that the silence was intentional, then that would mean that your average US soldier is also none too happy with much of the senior military leadership. Now, lots of people are saying that Bush's next move will be to attack Iran. But how do you expand the so-called war on terror when the troops in the field are turning against their corrupt leaders?

Why, you set the Reichstag on fire... again...

Help Stop the Corporate Media!

2005-06-22T03:33:00.000-07:00

Many of us in America already know just how controlled and biased the corporate media in our country is today. While most of us have turned to alternative news sources, especially those on the internet, we have not really done anything to stop the corporate media in its tracks. With the pressure that the Bush administration is no doubt feeling at the moment, now is the time to act. And here is how we can do it:

Cancel Your Subscriptions - The Time Has Come

WE MUST STOP FUNDING THE ENEMY
AND THE ENEMY IS OUR CORPORATE MEDIA!

We cannot continue to battle the beast while we finance its very existence!

Successful mobilization of the masses by organizations such as Moveon.org has proved two things; 1. Congress does not represent its constituency; and 2. Protests and petitions do not work!!!

During these past 5 years, the American people have spoken out time and time again only to be completely ignored by those who are supposed to represent them in this republic that we so inaccurately call a democracy. It is painfully obvious that the people who are in office use their power for their own personal purposes. They represent only their sponsors, the corporations and other money-based centers of influence that finance their careers. As a result, the collective voices of the people are irrelevant and have no impact, no matter howloud or organized they are. Currently, the corporate media and the easily manipulated voting machines can keep politicians in power so that they need no longer fear an Election Day revolt from the people whom they ignore and undermine on a daily basis.

We are not going to use this space to list the surreal state of media affairs as it exists today. This web site has more than 350 pages of reference material if you need a refresher course. Suffice it to say that it has become frightening to watch the level of deception taking place on out TV sets each day. The amount of information that has been withheld from or misrepresented to the public is beyond criminal at this point.

Our democracy, our environment, our economy and our humanity can not survive if the people of this nation continue to be drawn into thefictional world created by the corporate media.

The time has come to use the only legal and non-lethal tool left available to the public.

We must counter the weapons of the power elite that has hijacked our democracy and taken control of the nation. Believe it our not, thattool is MONEY! In this case, however, we are not asking you to spend your money; we are asking you to withhold it!

WE MUST STOP FUNDING THE ENEMY - AND THE ENEMY IS OUR CORPORATE MEDIA!

TvNewsLIES is calling for an all out, 100% boycott of corporate news. We are asking our readers to do the following:

Cancel all subscriptions to the corporately owned newspapers & magazines
that have been complicit in deceiving the public about the many crimes
committed by the Bush administration and about the many outrageous
actions taken by our Congress to undermine our democracy, our
environment and our civil rights while they put forth an agenda that is
designed to hand ownership of our nation to a few wealthy individuals
and corporations.

Call your cable company and cancel the following news channels: all CNN
networks (CNN Headline News and CNN International), all FOX networks
that air news including your local FOX affiliate. (It is all right to
keep the entertainment based channels. Trash TV never resulted in
fascism!), and all network and local stations that purport to air news,
including ABC, NBC (including MSNBC), & CBS.

NOTE:

You can have your cable company block any channel you request. You need not cancel the rest of your service. If there are massive cancellations our voices will be heard. [And if they don't let you cancel individual channels, cancel your service completely. They'll all get the idea soon enough, especially with the economy the way it is...]

Where will you get your information if you comply with our request?
You can replace the cherry picked news that is spoon fed to you by the corporate media with the news harvesters on the Internet who collect important news items from around the globe and compile them in one place so that you can get a real sense of what is going on.

Suggested sites for real news: (we apologize to the many other good sites not mentioned here ) : Whatreallyhappened.com, Buzzflash.com, Counterpunch.org, Signs-of-the-Times.org, Guerrilla News Network, Rense.com, Informationclearinghouse.com, uruknet.com, and our TvNewsLIES.org’s news portal.

What else must you do? Search the Internet for organizations or websites that list the corporate sponsors of the news networks. Make every attempt to boycott goods and services produced by these
companies. Seek out progressive, socially and environmentally conscious businesses and direct your business to them.

It is time to act! Stop supporting our enemies.
Start supporting the people who have dedicated their lives to making this world a better place. If it inconveniences you, so be it. Make the sacrifice. If it costs you an extra dollar to subscribe to an independent newspaper, make the sacrifice and help us to regain our nation.

We are proud of the fact that TvNewsLIES is one of the many individuals and groups who have sacrificed a great deal to fight for this nation by acting as its troops of truth. Support the troops of truth! Support us! Stop supporting your enemies!

IT'S TIME TO STOP TALKING AND TO START DOING SOMETHING. STOP COMPLAINING AND ASKING WHAT YOU CAN DO! TVNL JUST TOLD YOU HOW YOU CAN HELP. ACT NOW TO HELP FIGHT THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF THE CORPORATE MEDIA! STOP PAYING THE MEDIA TO BRAINWASH THIS NATION!

HELP RECLAIM THE NATION BY WITHHOLDING YOUR MONEY FROM THOSE WHO DO US HARM! IT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WEAPON WE HAVE!

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO BATTLE THE BEAST WHILE WE FINANCE ITS VERY EXISTENCE!

NOTE TO BLOGGERS AND WEBMASTERS:

Please copy or link to this article. This has to be widely distributed in order to be effective. If you copy this you do not have to link back to this site or credit TvNewsLIES.org, although it would be deeply appreciated. The important thing is to get people to stop financially supporting our enemies in the media! We encourage all webmasters and bloggers to copy this message. We seek nocredit as long as we have helped the cause.

Is The Draft Already Here?

2005-06-17T08:47:00.000-07:00

Two recent articles on military recruiting:

They Won't Go

By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 13, 2005

George W. Bush is in no danger of being ranked among the nation's pre-eminent commanders in chief. Not only has he been unable thus far to win the war in Iraq, but on his watch significant sectors of the proud U.S. military have been rapidly deteriorating.

The Army reported on Friday that it had fallen short of its recruitment goals for a fourth consecutive month. The Marines managed to meet their recruitment target for May, but that was their first successful month this year.

Scrambling to fill its ranks, the Army is signing up more high school dropouts and lower-scoring applicants.

With the war in Iraq going badly and allegations of abuse by military personnel widespread, young men and women are increasingly deciding that there's no upside to a career choice in which the most important skills might be ducking bullets and dodging roadside bombs.

The primary reason the U.S. went to an all-volunteer military in 1973 was to ensure that those who did not want to fight wouldn't have to. That option is now being overwhelmingly exercised, discretion being the clear choice over valor. Young people and their parents alike are turning their backs on the military in droves.

The Army is so desperate for even lukewarm bodies that it is reluctant to release even problem soldiers, troops who are seriously out of shape, or pregnant, or abusing alcohol or drugs. And it is lowering standards for admission to the junior officer ranks. For example, minor criminal offenses that previously would have been prohibitive can now be overlooked.

At the same time Army recruiters have been chasing high school kids with such reckless abandon that a backlash is developing among parents who, in many cases, want the recruiters kept out of their children's schools.

"To the extent that we think students are threatened by recruiters, it's our job to intervene," said Amy Hagopian, a co-chair of the Parent-Teacher-Student Association at Garfield High School in Seattle. Ms. Hagopian, who has an 18-year-old son, complained that recruiters too often put the hard sell on impressionable high school youngsters without informing them of the potential dangers of a life in the military.

Recruiters with the gift of gab go into the schools with a glamorous pitch, bags full of goodies for the kids (T-shirts, donuts, key chains) and a litany of promises they often can't keep. The kids don't hear much about their chances of being maimed or killed, or the trauma that often results from killing someone else.

(A soldier's job is to kill. I can still hear the drill sergeants in basic training screaming at us decades ago: "What are you? What are you?" And we'd scream back: "Killers! Killers!" And the sergeants would say, "What is your purpose?" And we would shout: "To kill! To kill!")

The Army, frantically searching for solutions, is offering enlistments as short as 15 months and considering bonuses worth up to $40,000. But it may be facing a problem too difficult for any amount of money to overcome. Americans are catching on to the hideousness and apparent futility of the war in Iraq. Five marines were killed in a single bomb attack in western Iraq on Thursday. On Friday, a front-page Washington Post headline described the effort to rebuild the Iraqi military as "Mission Improbable."

A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, and 60 percent believe the war was not worth fighting.

There's something frankly embarrassing about a government offering trinkets to children to persuade them to go off and fight - and perhaps die - in a war that their nation should never have started in the first place. It's highly questionable whether most high school kids are equipped to make an informed decision about joining the military, which is exactly why they're targeted. The additional knowledge and maturity gained in the first few years after high school make it easier for a young man or woman to make a wiser, more meaningful choice, pro or con.

The parents of the kids being sought by recruiters to fight this unpopular war are creating a highly vocal and potentially very effective antiwar movement. In effect, they're saying to their own children: hell no, you won't go.

If you think that one is shocking, check out this one:

When Marine recruiters go way beyond the call

By SUSAN PAYNTER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
Wednesday, June 8, 2005

For mom Marcia Cobb and her teenage son Axel, the white letters USMC on their caller ID soon spelled, "Don't answer the phone!"

Marine recruiters began a relentless barrage of calls to Axel as soon as the mellow, compliant Sedro-Woolley High School grad had cut his 17th birthday cake. And soon it was nearly impossible to get the seekers of a few good men off the line.

With early and late calls ringing in their ears, Marcia tried using call blocking. And that's when she learned her first hard lesson. You can't block calls from the government, her server said. So, after pleas to "Please stop calling" went unanswered, the family's "do not answer" order ensued.

But warnings and liquid crystal lettering can fade. So, two weeks ago when Marcia was cooking dinner Axel goofed and answered the call. And, faster than you can say "semper fi," an odyssey kicked into action that illustrates just how desperate some of the recruiters we've read about really are to fill severely sagging quotas.

Let what we learned serve as a warning to other moms, dads and teens, the Cobbs now say. Even if your kids actually may want to join the military, if they hope to do it on their own terms, after a deep breath and due consideration, repeat these words after them: "No," "Not now" and "Back off!"

"I've been trained to be pretty friendly. I guess you might even say I'm kind of passive," Axel told me last week, just after his mother and older sister had tracked him to a Seattle testing center and sprung him on a ruse.

The next step of Axel's misadventure came when he heard about a cool "chin-ups" contest in Bellingham, where the prize was a free Xbox. The now 18-year-old Skagit Valley Community College student dragged his tail feathers home uncharacteristically late that night. And, in the morning, Marcia learned the Marines had hosted the event and "then had him out all night, drilling him to join."

A single mom with a meager income, Marcia raised her kids on the farm where, until recently, she grew salad greens for restaurants.

Axel's father, a Marine Corps vet who served in Vietnam, died when Axel was 4.

Clearly the recruiters knew all that and more.

"You don't want to be a burden to your mom," they told him. "Be a man." "Make your father proud." Never mind that, because of his own experience in the service, Marcia says enlistment for his son is the last thing Axel's dad would have wanted.

The next weekend, when Marcia went to Seattle for the Folklife Festival and Axel was home alone, two recruiters showed up at the door.

Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then.The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, "Not interested," the sarge turned surly, snapping, "You're making a big (bleeping) mistake!"

Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the LaConner Brewing Co., the restaurant where Axel works. And before Axel, an older cousin and other co-workers knew or understood what was happening, Axel was whisked away in a car.

"They said we were going somewhere but I didn't know we were going all the way to Seattle," Axel said.

Just a few tests. And so many free opportunities, the recruiters told him.

He could pursue his love of chemistry. He could serve anywhere he chose and leave any time he wanted on an "apathy discharge" if he didn't like it. And he wouldn't have to go to Iraq if he didn't want to.

At about 3:30 in the morning, Alex was awakened in the motel and fed a little something. Twelve hours later, without further sleep or food, he had taken a battery of tests and signed a lot of papers he hadn't gotten a chance to read. "Just formalities," he was told. "Sign here. And here. Nothing to worry about."

By then Marcia had "freaked out."

She went to the Burlington recruiting center where the door was open but no one was home. So she grabbed all the cards and numbers she could find, including the address of the Seattle-area testing center.

Then, with her grown daughter in tow, she high-tailed it south, frantically phoning Axel whose cell phone had been confiscated "so he wouldn't be distracted during tests."

Axel's grandfather was in the hospital dying, she told the people at the desk. He needed to come home right away. She would have said just about anything.

But, even after being told her son would be brought right out, her daughter spied him being taken down a separate hall and into another room. So she dashed down the hall and grabbed him by the arm.

"They were telling me I needed to 'be a man' and stand up to my family," Axel said.

What he needed, it turned out, was a lawyer.

Five minutes and $250 after an attorney called the recruiters, Axel's signed papers and his cell phone were in the mail.

My request to speak with the sergeant who recruited Axel and with the Burlington office about recruitment procedures went unanswered.

And so should your phone, Marcia Cobb advised. Take your own sweet time. Keep your own counsel. And, if you see USMC on caller ID, remember what answering the call could mean.

Gosh, it looks like the draft is already in progress. They're just going about it a bit differently this time around...

Fallujah Massacre - Your Tax Dollars at Work!

2005-05-05T09:47:00.000-07:00

Check out this image, allegedly from the BBC:

A larger version can be found here. Apparently, a reader sent the image in to Signs of the Times along with the following comments:

From A Reader: I'm trying one more time to send you the satellite image of Fallujah that I got on 03, December, 2003. As you know, the U.S. bombing of the city continued for another 2 or 3 weeks after that, but no additional aerial or satellite images were allowed to escape.

This image was in the BBC's earliest morning web news, which I receive at precisely 1:05 a.m. each and every morning. (The Brits do love to be punctual...) I was following the tiny drops of news from Fallujah very closely, and I went to the BBC site at once when I saw the article's subtitle "Satellite image shows extensive damage to Fallujah as U.S. continues battle with insurgents."

BBC news feature links expire after 30 days, normally, but this one was gone after 30 minutes. An article about Fallujah showing the effects of U.S. bombing "in areas controlled by insurgents" was there instead, and NO image was shown. It got yanked off just that fast.

In looking at the larger version of the image, it seems that the entire city was obliterated except for tiny portions in the lower left and lower right corners. And all to get the "insurgents"... The thing is, if Fallujah was an insurgent stronghold, what are we to make of the following?

Stories from Fallujah

Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches
Feb 8 2005

These are the stories that will continue to emerge from the rubble of Fallujah for years. No, for generations…

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the doctor sits with me in a hotel room in Amman, where he is now a refugee. He'd spoken about what he saw in Fallujah in the UK, and now is under threat by the US military if he returns to Iraq.

"I started speaking about what happened in Fallujah during both sieges in order to raise awareness, and the Americans raided my house three times," he says, talking so fast I can barely keep up. He is driven to tell what he's witnessed, and as a doctor working inside Fallujah, he has video and photographic proof of all that he tells me.

"I entered Fallujah with a British medical and humanitarian convoy at the end of December, and stayed until the end of January," he explains, "But I was in Fallujah before that to work with people and see what their needs were, so I was in there since the beginning of December."

When I ask him to explain what he saw when he first entered Fallujah in December he says it was like a tsunami struck the city.

"Fallujah is surrounded by refugee camps where people are living in tents and old cars," he explains, "It reminded me of Palestinian refugees. I saw children coughing because of the cold, and there are no medicines. Most everyone left their houses with nothing, and no money, so how can they live depending only on humanitarian aid?"

The doctors says that in one refugee camp in the northern area of Fallujah there were 1,200 students living in seven tents.

"The disaster caused by this siege is so much worse than the first one, which I witnessed first hand," he says, and then tells me he'll use one story as an example.

"One story is of a young girl who is 16 years old," he says of one of the testimonies he video taped recently, "She stayed for three days with the bodies of her family who were killed in their home. When the soldiers entered she was in her home with her father, mother, 12 year-old brother and two sisters. She watched the soldiers enter and shoot her mother and father directly, without saying anything."

The girl managed to hide behind the refrigerator with her brother and witnessed the war crimes first-hand.

"They beat her two sisters, then shot them in the head," he said. After this her brother was enraged and ran at the soldiers while shouting at them, so they shot him dead.

"She continued hiding after the soldiers left and stayed with her sisters because they were bleeding, but still alive. She was too afraid to call for help because she feared the soldiers would come back and kill her as well. She stayed for three days, with no water and no food. Eventually one of the American snipers saw her and took her to the hospital," he added before reminding me again that he had all of her testimony documented on film.

He briefly told me of another story he documented of a mother who was in her home during the siege. "On the fifth day of the siege her home was bombed, and the roof fell on her son, cutting his legs off," he says while using his hands to make cutting motions on his legs, "For hours she couldn't go outside because they announced that anyone going in the street would be shot. So all she could do was wrap his legs and watch him die before her eyes."

He pauses for a few deep breaths, then continues, "All I can say is that Fallujah is like it was struck by a tsunami. There weren't many families in there after the siege, but they had absolutely nothing. The suffering was beyond what you can imagine. When the Americans finally let us in, people were fighting just for a blanket."

"One of my colleagues, Dr. Saleh Alsawi, he was speaking so angrily about them. He was in the main hospital when they raided it at the beginning of the seige. They entered the theater room when they were working on a patient…he was there because he's an anesthesiologist. They entered with their boots on, beat the doctors and took them out, leaving the patient on the table to die."

This story has already been reported in the Arab media.

The doctor tells me of the bombing of the Hay Nazal clinic during the first week of the siege.

"This contained all the foreign aid and medical instruments we had. All the US military commanders knew this, because we told them about it so they wouldn't bomb it. But this was one of the clinics bombed, and in the first week of the siege they bombed it two times."

He then adds, "Of course they targeted all our ambulances and doctors. Everyone knows this."

The doctor tells me he and some other doctors are trying to sue the US military for the following incident, for which he has the testimonial evidence on tape.

It is a story I was told by several refugees in Baghdad as well…at the end of last November while the siege was still in progress.

"During the second week of the siege they entered and announced that all the families have to leave their homes and meet at an intersection in the street while carrying a white flag. They gave them 72 hours to leave and after that they would be considered an enemy," he says.

"We documented this story with video-a family of 12, including a relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could carry, and white flags. When they reached the intersection where the families were accumulating, they heard someone shouting ‘Now!' in English, and shooting started everywhere."

The family was all carrying white flags, as instructed, according to the young man who gave his testimony. Yet he watched his mother and father shot by snipers-his mother in the head and his father shot in the heart. His two aunts were shot, then his brother was shot in the neck. The man stated that when he raised himself from the ground to shout for help, he was shot in the side.

"After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm," continues the doctor, "So after awhile he raised his hand and they shot his hand."

A six year-old boy of the family was standing over the bodies of his parents, crying, and he too was then shot.

"Anyone who raised up was shot," adds the doctor, then added again that he had photographs of the dead as well as photos of the gunshot wounds of the survivors.

"Once it grew dark some of them along with this man who spoke with me, with his child and sister-in-law and sister managed to crawl away after it got dark. They crawled to a building and stayed for 8 days. They had one cup of water and gave it to the child. They used cooking oil to put on their wounds which were of course infected, and found some roots and dates to eat."

He stops here. His eyes look around the room as cars pass by outside on wet streets…water hissing under their tires.

He left Fallujah at the end of January, so I ask him what it was like when he left recently.

"Now maybe 25% of the people have returned, but there are still no doctors. The hatred now of Fallujans against every American is incredible, and you cannot blame them. The humiliation at the checkpoints is only making people even angrier," he tells me.

"I've been there, and I saw that anyone who even turns their head is threatened and hit by both American and Iraqi soldiers alike…one man did this, and when the Iraqi soldier tried to humiliate him, the man took a gun of a nearby soldier and killed two ING, so then of course he was shot."

The doctor tells me they are keeping people in the line for several hours at a time, in addition to the US military making propaganda films of the situation.

"And I've seen them use the media-and on January 2nd at the north checkpoint in the north part of Fallujah, they were giving people $200 per family to return to Fallujah so they can film them in the line…when actually, at that time, nobody was returning to Fallujah," he says. It reminds me of the story my colleague told me of what he saw in January. At that time a CNN crew was escorted in by the military to film street cleaners that were brought in as props, and soldiers handing out candy to children.

"You must understand the hatred that has been caused…it has gotten more difficult for Iraqis, including myself, to make the distinction between the American government and the American people," he tells me.

His story is like countless others.

"My cousin was a poor man in Fallujah," he explains, "He walked from his house to work and back, while living with his wife and five daughters. In July of 2003, American soldiers entered his house and woke them all up. They drug them into the main room of the house, and executed my cousin in front of his family. Then they simply left."

He pauses then holds up his hands and asks, "Now, how are these people going to feel about Americans?"

Put yourself and your family in their shoes. What would you think of an occupying force in the US that did all that to you, your family, and your city? You'd probably be pretty angry. You might even take up arms against the occupiers.

So much for the so-called "insurgents".

So much for freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people.

Bushwhacking America

2005-04-25T11:17:00.000-07:00

Today I found the following article from the Rolling Stone web site linked from Signs of the Times:

Bush's Most Radical Plan Yet

With a vote of hand-picked lobbyists, the president could terminate any federal agency he dislikes

By OSHA GRAY DAVIDSON

If you've got something to hide in Washington, the best place to bury it is in the federal budget. The spending plan that President Bush submitted to Congress this year contains 2,000 pages that outline funding to safeguard the environment, protect workers from injury and death, crack down on securities fraud and ensure the safety of prescription drugs. But almost unnoticed in the budget, tucked away in a single paragraph, is a provision that could make every one of those protections a thing of the past.

The proposal, spelled out in three short sentences, would give the president the power to appoint an eight-member panel called the "Sunset Commission," which would systematically review federal programs every ten years and decide whether they should be eliminated. Any programs that are not "producing results," in the eyes of the commission, would "automatically terminate unless the Congress took action to continue them."

The administration portrays the commission as a well-intentioned effort to make sure that federal agencies are actually doing their job. "We just think it makes sense," says Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, which crafted the provision. "The goal isn't to get rid of a program -- it's to make it work better."

In practice, however, the commission would enable the Bush administration to achieve what Ronald Reagan only dreamed of: the end of government regulation as we know it. With a simple vote of five commissioners -- many of them likely to be lobbyists and executives from major corporations currently subject to federal oversight -- the president could terminate any program or agency he dislikes. No more Environmental Protection Agency. No more Food and Drug Administration. No more Securities and Exchange Commission...

The Sunset Commission would go even further. The panel -- which will likely be composed of "experts in management issues," according to one senior OMB official -- will enable the administration to terminate entire government programs that protect citizens against injury and death. Consider what America might look like if Reagan had wielded such an anti-regulatory ax twenty years ago. Abolishing the EPA would have increased air pollution, causing tens of thousands of children to develop chronic respiratory diseases. Terminating the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would have eliminated many protections we now take for granted -- including air bags, child safety seats and automatic seat belts. And getting rid of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration would have forestalled workplace regulations that have prevented illnesses among millions of farmworkers.

Even if such regulations remain on the books, eliminating entire agencies would leave no one to enforce them. "And if there's no cop on the beat, who's going to follow the law?" says J. Robert Shull, senior policy analyst at OMB Watch.

The first hint of Bush's plan to create a commission surfaced only weeks after he won re-election last November. At an economic conference convened by Treasury Secretary John Snow, one panel member made the case for inserting a sunset provision into existing regulations. Such a move would "shift the burden of proof onto the regulations and require us to demonstrate that they're still needed," said Susan Dudley, director of regulatory studies at the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank based in Washington, D.C....

Given its political gains last November, the administration is optimistic about winning approval in Congress. "The stars and the planets are aligned," Johnson recently declared, citing the solid Republican majority in Congress and the need to curb the soaring federal deficit.

But there may be a stumbling block. The commission not only threatens the environment and public health -- it would also violate the constitutional separation of power between Congress and the executive branch, enabling the president to dismantle programs created by lawmakers. "Under the administration's proposal, Congress would relinquish its constitutional power to legislate," says Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California who has been the commission's most vocal opponent. "Power would be consolidated in the executive branch, and the legislative role would be emasculated."

Republicans already have a plan to counter such concerns. Under a bill expected to be introduced soon, the power to appoint the commission would be given to Congress rather than to the president -- simply transferring the authority from Bush to his GOP allies on the Hill. And if the commission is challenged in court, the administration is likely to drag out the fight until it has firmly established a conservative majority on the Supreme Court...

So, big deal - right? I mean, it's not like he can dismantle ANY federal group, right? Maybe not.

As some food for thought, check out this interesting exchange at Liberty Forum regarding a rather insidious use of the Patriot Act:

Patriot Act Being Used To Implement Currency Controls

The following exchange of letters appears on the Gold Eagle board in the
Gold Forum.

A letter to and reponse from Jim Sinclair:

Dear Jim:

My Bank in London called me today to inform me that in order to comply with
new US laws, they are halting all new services to American residents
(citizens?).

I can keep my accounts for the moment, but I cannot add any new currency
accounts or any other investment products to my portfolio. They will not
allow any US residents to open accounts in the future.

Just my thoughts but:

1. New bankruptcy law (last week)
2. Announcement that travel to other parts of North America will require a
passport (papers please)
3. New compliance standards for foreign banks (this past year)
4. Elimination of foreign accounts for US residents (one by one)

Currency controls have been initiated.

Regards,
Your "Anonymous Pal"

--------------

Dear "Anonymous Pal:"

I have cautioned the Community that financial privacy is all but a chapter
of history - with the exception of bullion coins.

Anyone attempting to open international bank accounts at major and reputable
non-US banks will run into the difficulties you have outlined, making it all
but impossible to accomplish even with the best of intentions.

The net result is an effective form of currency control as part of Patriot
Act II. This covert method of currency control is a preemptive strike at
what is coming when it is realized - as the Economist put it - that there is
no constituent support and therefore no real political will to reduce the US
Budget Deficit.

As a result, the dollar must decline. The result of a declining dollar is
logically a move towards other currencies which in itself is a form of
Gresham’s law.

Of all the possibilities you outline, there is only one that is in the
black: Patriot II will be just as effective as any currency control put into
law. This has significant implications for gold once all of this hits the
proverbial fan.

Regards,
Jim

Well, that's interesting, now isn't it? Of course, this is all being done in the name of "preventing terrorism", but what does terrorism have to do with my right to keep my money in an off-shore bank if I so choose? I'm not a criminal or a terrorist.

In fact, none of these latest moves on the part of the Bush administration has anything to do with terrorism. It is about control, plain and simple. And oh, do I wish it was just some crazy conspiracy theory! But let's face it: Bush wants the power to eliminate federal agencies he doesn't like for a REASON. If he didn't intend to use the new law, he wouldn't have pushed for it. Same thing for the Patriot Act. Even US citizens can be - and have been - detained without charge in the "War on Terror". The text of the Patriot Act and what is generally known as "Patriot Act II" give the executive branch and law enforcement officials a bunch of other frightening powers. Again, the powers would not have been granted if "they" weren't planning on using all of them at some point in the near future.

It makes me wonder about this article I read called The Beast and His Empire.
Here's a little excerpt:

Years ago it occurred to me that it was most peculiar that the United States was not taught as being included or mentioned in the great Biblical prophecies. Since it was apparent to me that it has become the most powerful and influential nation on the face of the planet, I thought this rather strange. This was due, as it was explained to me, to the fact that the prophecies concerned, mainly, the Jews and, having been delivered through Jews, primarily concerned those events which affected the Israeli people. Yet, we are talking about prophecies which are global in import. Again I say, if we are going to take, as a working hypothesis, the idea that prophetic abilities exist at all and that they can operate thousands of years into the future, then we must also accept that those same prophetic abilities will be able to perceive the major actors in the cosmic drama of the future. And, if the drama is played out on the stage of the entire globe, then we must understand that the discussion will, of necessity, involve the stars of the play...

Yes, indeedy. Based on the above articles, take a wild guess as to which role the US appears to be playing?

I Smell a Rat: The New Nazi Pope

2005-04-19T12:20:00.000-07:00

A new pope has been elected. From AFP:

The Roman Catholic Church elected Germany's Joseph Ratzinger, a staunch conservative, as its first new pope of the third millennium with the task of ushering its 1.1 billion followers into a new era.

The 78-year-old cardinal, the Vatican's doctrinal enforcer under John Paul II, will take the name Benedict XVI, the Vatican announced, and later said he would be inaugurated on Sunday...

I have to admit I was a bit surprised to see Ratzinger elected. It's no secret that he has a rather interesting past. From today's Signs of the Times:

Former Nazi Children Corps Member Elected Pope

SOTT

White smoke from the top of the Sistine Chapel in Rome, perhaps reminiscent of the fumes that billowed from concentration camp chimneys during WWII, has announced the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as the next leader of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

"Read my lips, the holy spirit selected me."

Hidden away in their secret conclave for the past 2 days, the 115 Cardinals finally opted for 78 year-old Ratzinger, who will henceforth be known as Pope Benedict XVI. Ratzinger appeared on the balcony of the Vatican palace to the cheers of the thousands of deluded yet devoted Pilgrims that thronged St Peter's square.

The appointment of Ratzinger, who has been head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the Vatican's guardian of orthodoxy since 1981, is unlikely to be good news for a world already suffering from a "war on terror" spawned by extremist and racist views.

The New York Post informs us:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger joined the Nazi children's corps in 1941 as a 14-year-old and was later an anti-aircraft gunner.

At one point, he guarded a factory where slaves from a concentration camp were forced to work. He was later shipped to Hungary, where he reportedly saw Jews persecuted.

Ratzinger, a staunch conservative dubbed "God's Rottweiler," has said he joined the Hitler Youth when membership became compulsory. He and his brother were later drafted but deserted. The cardinal claims he never fired a shot and that resistance would have meant death.

Not so, Germans from his hometown of Traunstein told The Times of London.

"It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others," recalled Elizabeth Lohner, 84. "The Ratzingers were young — and they had made a different choice."

As noted, Ratzinger is known as the "guardian of orthodoxy", which is just another way of saying that he is a religious despot, determined to perpetuate the type of existential lies upon which most organised religions are based. Lies that have served for millennia to constrict and control the truth about the nature and reason for human life on earth.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the Jewish community to the new pope.

The other strange item I noted while watching the news coverage of the new pope's first appearance is that the reporters mentioned several times that at 78, Ratzinger is unlikely to last very long. At one point, one announcer even remarked that perhaps Benedict XVI was only meant to be an "interim pope". It's like they're already prepping people for his death, for crying out loud! The whole thing has a slightly eerie feel to it...

Oil and Dollars: How to Start a War

2005-04-11T10:11:00.000-07:00

While surfing around yesterday for the lastest info on the US economy, I came across a rather interesting take on the current financial situation. Everyone has no doubt noticed the rising gas prices across America. Most people have probably also heard at least a little about the ever-expanding US deficit. A lot of people I talk to aren't too worried about the economy. They believe what their bankers and financial advisers tell them. The problem I have is that I spoke with my banker not too long ago, and what he showed me was pretty shocking.

I have written before about my take on the economy. From what I have seen and discovered through a little research, I am not optimistic to say the least. Always looking for more data, I decided to present what I found to my friendly local banker. The response was a lot of fluff that basically amounted to, "Well, the US economy has always pulled through, and it will again. Besides, no country wants to see the dollar tank. That would be bad for everyone. So, it's in everyone's best interest to keep the dollar strong."

A few days later, to illustrate his point, this person sent me an article about a speech Fed chief Alan Greenspan had recently made. To summarize, the article stated that no one understands why the US economy is doing what it's doing right now - not even Greenspan. The major part of the article was an explanation of how the economy was supposed to be working, which included an explanation about the price of US treasuries and the fact that Japan and China were still buying. Mr. Banker emphasized this last part about Asian countries continuing to buy treasuries and prop up the dollar. What he did not realize, apparently, was that the gist of the article in question was that the explanation provided was theoretical, and that the main point of the piece was that even Greenspan wasn't explaining - or couldn't explain - what is actually happening.

In other words, the banker was either trying to pull a fast one, or he honestly didn't understand what he was seeing. Scary, eh??

So, as I mentioned, I was fairly shocked by what my banker showed me - not because the information itself was surprising or unknown to me, but because his interpretation of the data was clearly skewed. He was reading what he wanted to read.

This brings us to the article I found yesterday related to the US deficit and the increasing price of oil:

SPEAKING FREELY: Oil for dollars, and dollars for US deficit

By Richard Benson
Apr 9, 2005

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

The Asians remain shocked and in disbelief. Just when Japan, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong had accumulated enough dollars to buy oil to keep them warm for many winters, it's all over. In broad daylight, the Americans and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cheered as the price of oil popped up from US$30 a barrel to more than $50.

Indeed, this jump in the price of oil increases the world's daily oil consumption bill of 84 million barrels a day to $4.2 billion, from $2.5 billion (or $1.5 trillion a year from $900 billion). The world now has to shell out an additional $600 billion a year of "lucky bucks" to oil-producing countries just to stay in motion.

The bigger shock, however, is in the devaluation of dollar holdings of US Treasury debt. The rise in oil prices guarantees that the value of the US dollar will be pushed down even further, and stay down. Now that China is the No 2 oil importer and Japan is No 3 - with the rest of Asia very thirsty for oil as well - you can understand why the Asians must find a way to protect themselves.

The US strategy for using oil to finance its deficit is, of course, brilliant. America's elected officials knew that at some point those independent foreign central banks would start getting edgy about buying more dollars to pay for the United States' war and deficits. The $650 billion trade deficit is breathing down the dollar's neck. So which central banks can the US continue to use as the fall guys to buy the dollar? Why not the Persian Gulf oil states - but where would they get the dollars to buy US Treasuries? Well, with the Chinese piling up dollars and growing like crazy, at some point the oil market had to tighten. It was only a matter of time before the Chinese would start bidding up the price of oil. The Asians, therefore, are hung out to dry when the price of oil rises because they have to spend more of their dollars on oil.

As the price of oil goes up, extra money floods into the Gulf kingdoms. With the US secretary of defense putting troops all over the ground in the Middle East, and those nimble aircraft carriers nearby and ready to deliver the "shock and awe of sudden democracy" to the Gulf monarchs, it's a sure bet that America's OPEC buddies will stash their newly found Asian lucky bucks into good old American Treasury notes.

With such a simple policy to fund its deficit for another year, it's no wonder the United States can get by without any brain power at the Treasury Department. In effect, the US and its Gulf Arab allies just pulled off the biggest central-bank heist in the history of the world. The price of oil just went up 60% or more, which really cuts down to size that $3.4 trillion of net foreign holdings of US financial assets. As a loyal American, one would like to cheer one's government's deft move to pick the pockets of our trading and financing partners. Moreover, the US gets the Arabs to fund a large share of our deficit, subsidize our interest rates, and help keep our taxes low for another year. Surely I can afford to buy another gas-guzzling sport-ute, get a rifle, and wave a flag.

The United States is extracting tribute on oil from the world. If the world wants Middle Eastern oil, it can pay for it through the Saudi branch of the US Treasury. Why do the heads of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Qatar, etc, hold dollars? Because they want to keep the money and the power. The ruling family of Saudi Arabia controls 25% of the world oil reserves and is completely dependent on oil revenues for its survival. Tens of thousands of Saudi princes live off lavish royal stipends. Think of Arabia as a family firm. If the dollar goes down in value, the Saudi royal family still gets to keep hundreds of billions of dollars. But, if they don't buy dollars, why would the US keep them in power? It would simply not be in our interests to do so. Remember when Saddam Hussein talked about pricing Iraq's oil in euros? "Shock and awe" quietly followed.

This program of oil for dollars and dollars for the US Treasury deficit is the simple tribute that we, as the superpower, can expect. The United States is well paid for keeping the world's supply of black gold safe and available to all. Unlike the Vietnam era - when the US was trying to finance guns and butter - getting others to pay now for our guns allows us to milk the oil out of the sand and turn it into butter.

The next question will be how the Asians respond to a 60% hike in the price of oil. Please stay tuned...

Richard Benson is founder of Specialty Finance Group. He can be reached at AssetBond@aol.com. This article is republished with permission from Benson's Economic and Market Trends.

There are, however, a couple of questions I have about this article.

The first question is what happens when Americans, who are already buried in an enormous mountain of debt, have to fork over ever-increasing amounts of money to keep their cars and SUVs fueled up? Obviously, while the economy may still keep running for a bit, it cannot last forever if the American people go broke. The housing bubble may also burst. Thus, it seems there are a few variables that have not been taken into account in the "brilliant plan" cited above. Or have they?

The second question is more or less the same one the author asks at the end of the article: What will Asian countries do in response to America's actions? Sure, Saudi Arabia has 25% of the world's oil reserves, but what about the other 75%? What if other sellers start pricing their oil in euros?

It is quite clear that the recent move by the Bush administration will by no means avoid economic armageddon in the US. In fact, given the history of this administration, I suspect that these latest actions may be intended to provoke a response. Any actions taken against the US dollar could then easily be labeled "economic terrorism". The American people would already be in dire straits because of high fuel costs and a staggering economy, and there would certainly be plenty of anger that could be redirected at the desired "enemy".

The author also talks about high oil prices fending off the effects of a massive US deficit for maybe a year - buying some time, in other words. But time to do what? A crashed economy would work in the Neocons' favor. Imagine high unemployment, a worthless dollar, and people rioting in the streets demanding action. Well, hell, fire up the tanks, battleships, and airplanes! You know: "I'm sick of eating beans and rice and sleeping in a box. I'm joining the Marines!"

I don't think we're even remotely close to being out of the woods yet...

The Secret History of the World: The Greatest Book Ever!

2005-04-03T01:56:00.000-08:00

It has been awhile (over two weeks - sheesh!) since I updated my blog. I've been spending all my free time reading and subsequently researching topics related to what is now my new favorite book of all time: The Secret History of the World. After seeing the ad for the hefty text in the magazine Fortean Times, I ordered it and read it madly cover to cover. After I finished reading it, I decided to dig a bit to read some of the sources from the substantial bibliography. Rarely does one find such a well-researched and well-reasoned book on history - plus, the book ties science, religion, and history together in a way that blew my mind. Forget The Da Vinci Code and all the hullabaloo surrounding it - read this book.

I'm not sure how I can summarize such a treasure trove (well over 800 pages) and still do the book justice, so I'll just quote the ad and one excerpt:

If you heard the Truth, would you believe it? Ancient civilisations. Hyperdimensional realities. DNA changes. Bible conspiracies. What are the realities? What is disinformation?

The Secret History of The World and How To Get Out Alive is the definitive book of the real answers where Truth is more fantastic than fiction. Laura Knight-Jadczyk, wife of internationally known theoretical physicist, Arkadiusz Jadczyk, an expert in hyperdimensional physics, draws on science and mysticism to pierce the veil of reality. Due to the many threats on her life from agents and agencies known and unknown, Laura left the United States to live in France, where she is working closely with Patrick Rivière, student of Eugene Canseliet, the only disciple of the legendary alchemist Fulcanelli.

With sparkling humour and wisdom, she picks up where Fulcanelli left off, sharing over thirty years of research to reveal, for the first time, The Great Work and the esoteric Science of the Ancients in terms accessible to scholar and layperson alike.

Conspiracies have existed since the time of Cain and Abel. Facts of history have been altered to support the illusion. The question today is whether a sufficient number of people will see through the deceptions, thus creating a counter-force for positive change - the gold of humanity - during the upcoming times of Macro-Cosmic Quantum Shift. Laura argues convincingly, based on the revelations of the deepest of esoteric secrets, that the present is a time of potential transition, an extraordinary opportunity for individual and collective renewal: a quantum shift of awareness and perception which could see the birth of true creativity in the fields of science, art and spirituality. The Secret History of the World allows us to redefine our interpretation of the universe, history, and culture and to thereby navigate a path through this darkness. In this way, Laura Knight-Jadczyk shows us how we may extend the possibilities for all our different futures in literal terms.

With over 850 pages of fascinating reading, The Secret History of The World and How to Get Out Alive is rapidly being acknowledged as a classic with profound implications for the destiny of the human race. With painstakingly researched facts and figures, the author overturns long-held conventional ideas on religion, philosophy, Grail legends, science, and alchemy, presenting a cohesive narrative pointing to the existence of an ancient techno-spirituality of the Golden Age which included a mastery of space and time: the Holy Grail, the Philosopher's Stone, the True Process of Ascension. Laura provides the evidence for the advanced level of scientific and metaphysical wisdom possessed by the greatest of lost ancient civilizations - a culture so advanced that none of the trappings of civilization as we know it were needed, explaining why there is no 'evidence' of civilization as we know it left to testify to its existence. The author's consummate synthesis reveals the Message in a Bottle reserved for humanity, including the Cosmology and Mysticism of mankind Before the Fall when, as the ancient texts tell us, man walked and talked with the gods. Laura shows us that the upcoming shift is that point in the vast cosmological cycle when mankind - or at least a portion of mankind - has the opportunity to regain his standing as The Child of the King in the Golden Age.

If ever there was a book that can answer the questions of those who are seeking Truth in the spiritual wilderness of this world, then surely The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive is it.

If that doesn't peak your interest, check out this excerpt:

Like many of you who have chosen to purchase this little book, I am a seeker of what we generally call "spiritual advancement." And, like many of you, I have been in this seeking mode as long as I can remember—from birth, even. Also, like many of you, in my search for "spiritual truths," I have encountered the term "Ascension" repeatedly in the course of this Quest. And finally, like many of you, I have come many definitions of the word, as well as varied purported techniques to accomplish this allegedly desirable objective.

In seeking a concise definition and philosophy behind it, I decided to search the Internet for clues. I typed the word "ascension" along with the word "spiritual" into a popular search engine. It returned 115,000 pages for my edification. This led me to ask: Why, at this present moment in history, is so much attention being focused on this subject?

Well, we all know the answer to that question. It is because of the frightening state of the World in which we live.

One might think that the Laws of Probability would mandate that, without any intelligent input, 50% of the time the events in our world would lead to benefits for mankind. In a strictly mechanical way, life in our world ought to have manifested a sort of "equilibrium." Factoring in intelligent decisions to do good might bring this average up to about 70%. That would mean that humanity would have advanced over the millennia to a state of existence where good and positive things happen in our lives more often than "negative" or "bad" things. In this way, many of the problems of humanity would have been effectively solved. War and conflict would be a rarity, perhaps 70 percent of the earth’s population would have decent medical care, a comfortable roof over their heads, and sufficient nutritious food so that death by disease or starvation would be almost unheard of. In other words, human society would have "evolved" in some way, on all levels.
The facts are, however, quite different.

More than 840,000,000 people on the Earth suffer from hunger. That’s about three times the population of the entire USA. This is chronic, persistent hunger, which kills 24,000 people every day, or over 8 million human beings each year. Three out of four who die from starvation are younger than five years old. How can "evolved" human beings accept that fact as "normal?"

According to the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, during the past 100 years there have been approximately 2 billion deaths (including civilians) resulting from war, tyrannical governments, and man-made famine. When these figures are broken down into deaths caused by Communism vs. Capitalism, they are almost equal, with the figures slightly higher for Capitalism which may surprise some people who believe that the Capitalistic system is the "right" one. "By their fruits you shall know them."

Turning to mortality statistics that are not related to war and famine, we find that it is a bit difficult to get an actual number because the statistics are nearly always expressed in terms of percentages rather than in hard population numbers. One gets the feeling that the actual count is so frightening that this approach is used for the express purpose of avoiding having to face the facts. One thing we do know is that deaths from cardiovascular diseases and stroke are the leading cause of death in 31 of the 35 Western Hemisphere countries that report disease related mortality statistics. The highest of these mortality rates are found in the English-speaking Caribbean, USA, Canada, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Mortality rates from these causes are increasing in the Central American and Latin Caribbean regions as they come more and more under the sway of Western capitalism. Again, "By their fruits you shall know them."

What we are talking about above are the "quiet" statistics, from our present reality. They are quiet because nobody ever makes a big deal about them. The headlines of our newspapers do not trumpet them on the front page where they rightly belong. Even now it is easy to forget that there were 65 million deaths from WW II alone and that deaths from disease and starvation continue as a quiet, steady, drumbeat of increasing mortality behind the blaring headlines of school shootings, sensational murder trials, and little Cuban boys who become the center of international custody disputes.

I don’t think that one single person on this planet will disagree that they want a better life for themselves and their children; and most of them will add that they do not presently have the capacity to make it a reality. Except for a very small minority of very sick people, I don’t think anybody really likes to see misery and suffering, disease and death and despair, in any context. And again we must ask: if these things are so detestable to human beings at large, if so many people are working and thinking and praying to improve the conditions of our world, why isn’t it happening?

Seekers of Spiritual Verity - a large number of whom could be considered "Intelligentsia" - are always aware of these things, and they are asking, "What is the origin of all the misery and suffering? Does it just happen? Do people and only people cause others to suffer? Is it that God is good, but allows bad things to happen?"

"Don’t forget the power of prayer," we are told by our religious leaders, or "positive thinking," as the New Age gurus tell us. The only problem is, prayers and positive thinking do not seem to have improved the world very much on the occasions when it is certain that nearly every human being was praying for a certain outcome.

Jesus promised: "If any two of you shall agree and ask... it shall be done." (Matt 18:19) That’s a promise. What do you want or need? Just ask!

But it doesn’t work and we see it!

Over sixty million people died because God didn’t do what everybody thought he should do. C.S. Lewis struggled with this issue in the latter part of his life. He saw clearly that, before World War II, practically every human being on the planet was praying—to Jesus, God the Father, the Virgin Mary, Allah, Buddha and whoever else you can name or mention, so all the bases were covered—that this terrible thing would not happen. The memory of the previous "Great War" was still fresh in the mind of mankind. They remembered the horrible carnage and vowed, never again!

In the end, after the mightiest cry of prayer in human memory, rising from the earth, almost one-third of the world was uninhabitable and sixty-five million human beings were dead. Are we to think that this was God’s answer to prayer? It certainly doesn’t give us much hope for the "power of positive thinking."

Think about it.

Anyone interested can purchase the book here: The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive.

Bye Bye, American Pie

2005-03-16T13:56:00.000-08:00

A fellow blogger who writes about the state of the US and world economies made the following economic observations on January 3, 3005 in response to an article declaring the US consumer confidence was at a five month high:

How can consumers in the United States be optimistic when last week’s news contained headlines like this one: “Russia and China to hold joint maneuvers" (Associated Press, Dec. 27, 2004) or “Venezuela and China Sign Oil Deal"? Or this from James Ridgeway in the Village Voice:

Running below the surface of the year-end self-congratulatory assertions of American supremacy (as in Monday's Washington Times: "The world really is becoming more 'American' ") are warnings, often ignored, of our decline. The steady loss of the dollar against the euro is one. The spiraling trade deficit is another. And in the past weeks, there were two serious economic signs signaling momentous change, if not outright decline. The first concerns China's invasion of Canadian oil fields, heretofore a U.S. energy fiefdom. The second came in the form of an all-but-hidden report from the Department of Agriculture that America, the breadbasket of the world, is now a net importer of food.
What about the past week’s earthquakes, floods and tsunamis? Again, if you separate economics from politics, or from any moral sense whatsoever, there is little need to worry. The newspaper USA Today reported last week that, since the Tsunami hit mostly poor areas, the insurance companies won’t suffer much since ‘those people’ don’t have insurance...

Geez. The last comment is enough to make one ill considering the devastation and extraordinary loss of life caused by the tsunami. But what really caught my interest was the report from the Department of Agriculture that apparently stated that the US has become a net importer of food. I decided to read the article from which that statement was taken. Check this out:

Homeland Insecurity

The American empire goes for broke - and it could be heading that way

by James Ridgeway
December 28th, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. Running below the surface of the year-end self-congratulatory assertions of American supremacy (as in Monday's Washington Times: "The world really is becoming more 'American' ") are warnings, often ignored, of our decline. The steady loss of the dollar against the euro is one. The spiraling trade deficit is another...

FOOD

Agriculture, long our largest and most important industry, has heavily influenced American foreign policy. As the push west ended by the turn of the 20th century, we began to struggle to find markets for an increasing food surplus. The isolationists of the 1930s and today's conservative Republicans sought to expand farm exports to friend and enemy alike. We sold quantities of grain to the Soviet Union. Before the first Persian Gulf war, Bob Dole had visited Iraq in part to enhance Midwest grain exports to Saddam Hussein. Before that, at the height of the Cold War, Hubert Humphrey, as both senator from Minnesota and then as LBJ's vice president, concocted the Food for Peace program, which masked U.S. military intervention under the banner of cheap foodstuffs to developing countries that we worried were too nationalistic in their policies.

But the surplus has suddenly disappeared. For the first time in decades, the U.S. will not turn an agricultural trade surplus, the Economic Research Service reported on November 22. The Agriculture Department couldn't say why. It could not explain how Bush managed to run down a $13.6 billion agricultural trade surplus in 2001 to zero in 2005. "Ironically, the very thing farmers have been told for years would be their savior - a cheaper dollar - is worsening the ag trade balance," the Peoria, Illinois, Journal Star's Alan Guebert wrote in early December. "Despite the dollar's now falling to new lows against most of the world's major currencies, the U.S.'s 2005 ag exports will be $6.3 billion less than in 2004."

All signs are that the trade balance will get worse. Brazil now exports more soy products than we do. To boost Brazil's strength in soybeans, the Chinese have entered into a trade deal for farm products. They will open their borders to Brazilian beef, soy, and minerals, while China agrees to invest $5 billion to $7 billion in Brazilian roads, ports, and railways. Brazilian agriculture is becoming such a hot item that the Chicago Board of Trade is setting up a Brazilian soybean futures contract so that the financial institutions that have driven American farmers out of business can speculate on Brazil and get in on the action. Russia is growing more grain than expected, as is the Black Sea region...

This bit of news does not mean that the US is no longer producing food, or that the US is running out of food. It does mean that the US is now importing more food than it exports - in other words, a trade deficit on agricultural products. It is clear to anyone with at least two brain cells still firing that the enormous US trade deficit does not bode well for the dollar or the average American. While it is clear that the US is not running out of food at present, the fact that we are importing more food than we export could be a problem in the near future. America, long regarded as the bread basket of the world, has recently food itself relinquishing that title. Many analysts and other more average joes have watched Brazil very closely in the past several years as its dominance in food exports increased.

Besides the obviously negative implications of the agri-trade deficit, what happens if - or more accurately, when - the dollar drops significantly? All of a sudden, that food we've been importing is going to become rather expensive, along with just about everything else. Since everything is Made in China or Made in Taiwan, everything will cost Americans a lot more the further the dollar drops. Factor in the huge numbers of jobs outsourced to countries like India, and what will be left in the US are basic service jobs - oh, and the military is always hiring. It seems that the executives of American companies (you know, the ones whose salaries have skyrocketed in relation to the meager wage increases for average workers) have sold the "American Dream" right out from under Americans. I know, I know - it's capitalism! That's how it works! Well, sure it works - if you're an executive. What about everyone else? Soon, social security will be changed. Employer-provided medical coverage will be changed. Everything is being changed to place an increased burden on the average worker and a lighter burden on corporations.

While no one really wants to "go there", it seems to me that the US economic bubble is going to burst. And when it does, it will make the Great Depression look like a company picnic. I know all the analysts and Fed officials are claiming that things aren't so bad, but the fact remains that there is no way that other countries are going to keep propping up the dollar while Bush and the crew continue to do darn near everything they can to pull it down. China and Japan are the two primary nations at present that are holding up the dollar. It is therefore rather curious that the Bush administration is antagonizing China so much lately. Bush's motto seems to be, "To hell with diplomacy and tact!" And what about Japan? Well, they hinted the other day that they might start selling off dollars, since diversifying their currency holdings is a good idea.

The thing is, you certainly can't blame other countries for bailing out on the dollar. American economic policy is completely unreasonable and totally unrealistic. And while I'd like to blame only the CEOs of American companies and the politicians, they wouldn't be getting away with it if We the People started paying attention and calling them on their actions.

NEW! Instant Terrorists! Just Add Torture

2005-03-13T10:15:00.000-08:00

Bush Aide Will Aim to Repair U.S. Image

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer, Sat Mar 12, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush will nominate one of his closest longtime advisers to a key State Department post in an effort to help repair the United States' image abroad, especially in the Arab world, a senior administration official said Saturday...

The official said that Hughes, 48, will spearhead the administration's campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Would that be the same kind of "freedom and democracy" enjoyed by this Iraqi family?

Hughes, who for years has had a major voice in crafting Bush's domestic message, is a former counselor to the president who left the White House in 2002 to move her family back to Texas...

As undersecretary, Hughes' main responsibility will be to repair the image of the United States which was badly tarnished abroad by anger over the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow its government.

She will be responsible for improving U.S. diplomats' face-to-face contact overseas and will oversee an array of programs, such as radio broadcasts that place American ideas and news before foreign audiences...

The problem is that America's image hasn't been tarnished by anger over the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. The problem is the way it was done. Remember back after the US invaded Iraq, and all we saw was cheering Iraqis? Who wouldn't cheer if they had been freed from a guy like Saddam?! Unfortunately, as with the post-9/11 warm relations with our allies that we squandered after Invasion Iraq, we threw everything away when the Bush administration decided that torture and permanent detention of Iraqis - including children - would be a good idea. The administration pretended to try so hard to prove that they were right about WMD's in Iraq, searching endlessly for old weapons that were destroyed after the Gulf War - but, not surprisingly, they came up empty-handed. The thing is, they knew they were going to come up empty-handed, so they needed to invent some other justification to keep Americans happy and numb to reality.

Enter the accusations that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda. The idea that Saddam and Osama were best buddies was planted in the minds of We the People, and it was all downhill from there. All that remained was to torture some poor innocent Iraqis into confessing their terrorist ways, and then permanently detain them. Instant terrorists! Just add torture.

The whole world got to hear about the torture at Abu Ghraib, and you can bet your last buck that they also knew about the rendition and torture of other suspects. America's image has been damaged by its actions, but those actions go way beyond freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam.

As for the plan to broadcast American ideas and news over the radio for foreign audiences: What the heck for? When it comes to American ideas and news, no one outside the US will pay any attention. Not now, after all the lies and the torture and death of so many innocent people who couldn't even be charged with a crime by the US due to lack of evidence...

Richard Dolan: Unveiling of the National Security State

2005-03-09T13:59:00.000-08:00

I found this great article today written by Richard M. Dolan:

The Unveiling of the National Security State

by Richard M. Dolan
Copyright ©2004 by Richard M. Dolan. All rights reserved.

All things change, including our time-honored system of government. We have entered into a new era, marked by the existence of an omnipresent state, controlled by the very few, bound by no law but its own. Welcome to the New World Order.

A new American order is in place. Better get used to it. Or else.

Five centuries ago, Niccolo Machiavelli explained how to undertake a revolution from above without most people even noticing. In his Discourses on Livy, he wrote that one "must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones."

That is, keep the old government structures, even while you make profound changes to the actual system, because the appearances are all that most people will notice.

So today, instead of seeing the corpse of a republic in which we live, we see merely the dead man’s clothing. Those clothes look the same as ever, albeit increasingly worn. We have had a quiet revolution that has not eliminated our Congressional representatives – it’s simply made them largely irrelevant.

It’s been a long journey to our current state of affairs. Not surprisingly, wars have been a major catalyst. Most wars fought by the United States have added power to the executive branch, while whittling power away from the legislature. This includes wars fought for high-minded purposes such as the Civil War and World War Two, mindless bloodbaths like World War One, and the dozens of undeclared wars over the past half-century.

I would select World War Two – and its immediate aftermath – as the real turning point when the American Dream went awry. This is ironic, since it was at that moment when America first sat atop the world at the pinnacle of power.

And therein lies the problem. For this was when the American republic began its transformation into a national security state. Or, to put it another way, into an Empire...

Read the rest...

Fearless Leaders, Fearful Citizens

2005-03-08T13:13:00.000-08:00

I have noticed something peculiar lately when amongst my friends and colleagues. It used to be that water cooler chit chat always seemed to exclude any mention of politics, unless one was praising the current administration's efforts in some way. Lately, it seems like something has changed. Very few people who think and feel that something is terribly wrong are speaking up - but they are grumbling and grunting a bit more.

I was talking the other day with a colleague who is very right wing and very pro-Bush. I disagree with most of the nonsense that this guy spews, if for no other reason than he has no facts to back up anything that he says. He prefers to label people he doesn't like "liberals" or "commies".

In a strange sort of way, I envy the guy. Life is much easier his way, really. Does someone confront you with an uncomfortable fact that has the potential to shatter your carefully constructed dream world? Why, just use the same emotional thinking upon which your beliefs are based to defend yourself: "You're just one of those bleeding heart liberals, aren't you?!"

So much for an intelligent, reasonable discussion.

The thing is, it is the people who are so infused with patriotism, who begin to glow red when you crack a joke about His Holiness President Bush, that should be the ones grumbling and grunting most of the time in the face of the bothersome and overwhelming evidence that contradicts their opinions and worldview. But that's not the way things are - in fact, it's exactly the opposite. Why? I think it is a case of fear and paranoia, with perhaps a few other factors thrown in for good measure.

Fear is a powerful emotion. People are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak up. They are afraid of the controversy that surrounds Ward Churchill, the U of Colorado professor now famous for his "Little Eichmanns" comment. They are afraid of being detained without charge in the war on terror like US citizens Hamdi and Padilla. They are afraid of their neighbors, who are afraid themselves of everyone and everything that could potentially be a terrorist. They are afraid of losing their piece of the American pie. They are afraid for their children. They are afraid of suffering, and they are afraid of death.

After 9-11, our "fearless leaders" told us all that we should not live in fear, even as they forced us to relive 9-11 again and again, and warned us over and over about more terrorist strikes yet to come. So, the question is, what kind of a world do we want to live in? What kind of example do we want to set for our children?

Our "fearless leaders" are neither fearless nor leaders. They are not fearless because they worry that you and I and everyone else will see behind the curtain and realize that we have all been had. They are not leaders because they do not lead; they terrorize and bully us into submission.

So, what to do?

Well, it is a certainty that traditional revolutions do nothing but create violence and death. So, how about a more subtle revolution: Let's swallow our fear long enough to stand up for the truth. Present the facts. Some people will call you a commie, but so what? In school when we were being taunted and beaten by a bully, we ran to the teacher. There is no teacher now, so we must be our own teachers, together. Talk to people - you might be surprised how many people actually agree with you. I did, and it appears that those grumbling and grunting people were grumbling and grunting for a very good reason at the emotion-laden madness that still passes for intelligent discussion.

In the end, I don't think anyone of us has the right to decide anyone else's future, but we certainly should have the right and the guts to decide our own. Research, learn, and share - for, as a great man once remarked:

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Join the Anti-Anti-Smoking Campaign!

2005-03-07T07:20:00.000-08:00

Today I thought I would discuss a subject that is dear to my heart (and lungs): smoking.

Most of the food we eat is genetically modified, and the long term effects of the consumption of such foods has not been determined. GM food is not limited to just fruits and vegetables. The animals we eat are often fed GM foods. Even processed foods now start with GM ingredients. Our food is poison, our water is poison, our air is poison, and our weather is downright looney.

Despite all this madness, the one thing that most governments are doing their darnedest to "protect" us from is smoking. We are told that smoking causes cancer, raises our blood pressure, destroys our heart, makes men impotent, etc. The thing is, so does the poison in our food, water, and air - and look how little has been done to protect us all against those evils. So, what gives?

It seems that in a very specific way, smoking is actually good for you. What are the benefits of smoking?

Now, nicotine is a most interesting drug. Nicotine mimics one of the body's most significant neurotransmitter, acetylcholine. This is the neurotransmitter most often associated with cognition in the cerebral cortex. Acetylcholine is the primary carrier of thought and memory in the brain. It is essential to have appropriate levels of acetylcholine to have new memories or recall old memories.

I cruised the net for sources on acetylcholine and the results were positively amazing as you will see from the following excerpts:

Acetyl-L-Carnitine (ALC) is the acetyl ester of carnitine, the carrier of fatty acids across Mitochondrial membranes. Like carnitine, ALC is naturally produced in the body and found in small amounts in some foods. ...Research in recent years has hoisted ALC from its somewhat mundane role in energy production to nutritional cognitive enhancer and neuroprotective agent extraordinaire. Indeed, taken in its entirety, ALC has become one of the premiere “anti-aging” compounds under scientific investigation, especially in relation to brain and nervous system deterioration.

ALC is found in various concentrations in the brain, and its levels are significantly reduced with aging.(1) In numerous studies in animal models, ALC administration has been shown to have the remarkable ability of improving not only cognitive changes, but also morphological (structural) and neurochemical changes. ...ALC has varied effects on cholinergic activity, including promoting the release(2) and synthesis(3) of acetylcholine. Additionally, ALC promotes high affinity uptake of choline, which declines significantly with age.(4) While these cholinergic effects were first described almost a quarter of a century ago,(5) it now appears that this is only the tip of the ALC iceberg. [Gissen, VRP's Nutritional News, March, 1995]

It turns out that Alzheimer's, a veritable epidemic in our country, is directly related to low levels of acetylcholine. In Alzheimer's disease, the neurons that make acetylcholine degenerate, resulting in memory deficits. In some Alzheimer's patients it can be a 90 per cent reduction! But, does anyone suggest smoking and exercising the brain as a possible cure?

Nope. [...]

Work in the Laboratory of Neurochemistry at the Barrow Neurological Institute principally concerns molecules critically involved in such signaling called nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR). nAChR act throughout the brain and body as "molecular switches" to connect nerve cell circuits involved in essential functions ranging from vision and memory to the control of heart rate and muscle movement.

Defects in nAChR or their loss cause diseases such as myasthenia gravis and epilepsy and can contribute to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases and schizophrenia.

nAChR also happen to be the principal targets of tobacco nicotine. ...nicotine-like medicines show promise in the treatment of diseases such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Tourette’s syndrome and in alleviation of anxiety, pain, and depression, suggesting involvement of nAChR in those disorders.

...We have shown that numbers and function of diverse nAChR subtypes can be influenced by many biologically active substances, ranging from steroids to local anesthetics, and by agents acting on the extracellular matrix, the cytoskeleton, on second messenger signaling, and at the nucleus. We also have shown that chronic nicotine exposure induces numerical upregulation of many diverse nAChR subtypes via a post-transcriptional process that is dominated by effects on intracellular pools of receptors or their precursors.

Some current studies are testing our hypothesis that chronic nicotine exposure, as occurs with habitual use of tobacco products, disables nAChR and the nerve cell circuits they subserve, thereby contributing to long-lasting changes in brain and body function. [Lukas, 1999]

Now, notice in the above account how tricky they were when they said that nicotine ..." That is jargon for "it increases the number of receptors" as well as the amount of acetylcholine. But, of course, the AMA wouldn't let them get away with any of their work if they weren't adding that they have a hypothesis that "habitual use of tobacco products... disables acetylcholine." Never mind that in the beginning they are proposing it as a therapeutic drug for some of the very problems that have risen to almost epidemic numbers in the present time.

Let's say it again: Research shows, however, that daily infusions of nicotine actually INCREASE the number of acetylcholine receptors by up to 40 %. Some researchers, such as the above, brush this finding off by saying "regardless, their function diminishes." But that is not empirically observed. Most people who smoke find a "set point," and once they have reached it, it does not take more and more and more to satisfy it.

How does nicotine act?

There are two major types (or classes) of acetylcholine receptors in the body, and they are commonly named by the other drugs which bind to them: nicotine and muscarine. Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) can bind muscarine as well as ACh, and they function to change the metabolism...

Acetylcholine acts on nicotine acetylcholine receptors to open a channel in the cell's membrane. Opening such a channel allows certain types of ions (charged atoms) to flow into or out of the cell. ...When ions flow, there is an electrical current, and the same is true in the nervous system. The flowing of ions, or the passing of current, can cause other things to happen, usually those "things" involve the opening of other types of channels and the passing of information from one neuron to another.

Nicotinic AChRs are found throughout the body, but they are most concentrated in the nervous system (the brain, the spinal cord, and the rest of the nerve cells in the body) and on the muscles of the body (in vertebrates).

We say that nicotine acts like ACh at the receptors to activate them, and both substances are called agonists. The opposite type of drug, something that binds to the receptors and does not allow them to be activated is called an antagonist.

...When a substance comes into the body that can interfere with ACh binding to muscle nAChRs, that chemical can cause death in a relatively short time (because you use muscles to do things like breathe). A class of chemicals in snake and other poisonous venoms, neurotoxins, do exactly that. If you are bitten by a krait or a cobra, for example, and enough venom gets into the blood, there will be enough of their neurotoxin in your body to shut down the diaphragm muscle expands your lungs. Without that muscle functioning, the person ceases to breathe and dies of asphyxiation.

One of the reasons we know so much about these receptors is precisely that--plants and people have used substances [acetylcholine antagonists] which cause paralysis and asphyxiation for a long time. Plants use them to prevent being eaten by herbivores. Animals use similar substances to paralyze their prey. At least one human neuromuscular disease is related to nAChRs, and that is myasthenia gravis...

So, as you can see, nAChRs are important to life. ...All known nicotinic receptors do share some common features. They are composed of 5 protein subunits which assemble like barrel staves around a central pore. ...When the ligand (ACh or nicotine) binds to the receptor, it causes the receptor complex to twist and open the pore in the center. [Pugh]

[...] It seems that the key to this is the fact that learning, hard thinking and pondering, requires that certain brain chemicals - usually acetylcholine - be squirted out at just the right place and in the right quantities. It is becoming clear that the molecules of memory are blind to the kind of memory - whether it is conscious or unconscious - that is occurring. What determines the quality of different kinds of memories is not the molecules that do the storing but the systems in which those molecules act. If they act in the hippocampus, the memories that get recorded are factual and accessible to our consciousness. If the chemicals are acting in the amygdala, they are emotional and mostly inaccessible to conscious awareness. ...

Working memory, or awareness, involves the frontal lobes of the brain just above and behind the eyebrows. This is what we use when we want to remember a new phone number just long enough to dial it, or to remember what we went to the kitchen for long enough to get it! It is also the place where many different kinds of information is held simultaneously while we are comparing one thing to another. We can have all kinds of things going on there at once. We can look at something, hold this image in working memory along with the memory of something that we have pulled out of long term memory which we wish to compare it to; sounds, smells, and even the ongoing physiological input from our system as we are considering this: does it make us feel peaceful, happy, sad, afraid? ...
(Read the rest of this excellent article that is a response to the anti-smoking campaign)

In other words, the nicotine absorbed into the body by smoking seems to actually help us think more clearly. When one is trying to verify and compare information in an effort to think for oneself, nicotine would certainly be helpful. Obviously, the administration and the parrots on Fox don't want us to think for ourselves. We might actually realize that the whole "WMDs in Iraq" thing was all a bunch of lies. We might actually remember something that Bush said two months ago and be able to see that it conflicts with what he says now. Think about it. Then, think about all the other poisons that are killing us, and ask yourself how much those in power have done to eliminate the risk to We the People. Kind of interesting, eh?

Think I'll go have a smoke.

Truth or Consequences

2005-03-06T09:45:00.000-08:00

In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him.
George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff

Why is it that we place our faith and trust in such irrational ideas and people?

Today I heard on the news that the process of "rendition" in which the US ships suspected terrorists overseas to countries known for brutal prison systems that employ torture was, in fact, authorized by G.W. Bush soon after September 11th.

I still can't understand why no one seems to care. There have been more than enough reports released by mostly foreign media outlets to indicate to anyone that still has a pulse that the current US administration uses torture as its primary tool in the war on terror. There are no trials or evidence, no lawyers or justice; it is the word of the suspect against the word of the Bush empire, and Bush is winning.

The above quote is some food for thought in this age of prosecutions of suspected terrorists that are reminiscent of the various Inquisitions that happened over a period of several centuries. How can we as a nation bring freedom and democracy to a country like Iraq when our own government is committing the very crimes from which we are supposed to be freeing the oppressed?

I would like to suggest that none of this madness would be possible if every person around the world would sit up and take notice of what is really going on. The simplest way to do so is to conduct oneself in exactly the manner Mr. Gurdjieff suggested ages ago: verify for yourself all that you hear and see. Presidents and administrations have lied in the past - this is a historical fact. Why should we magically assume that they won't do it again? Have we really become that advanced, or do we just tell ourselves that we have in order to hush that little voice in our heads that keeps telling us that something is definitely not right?

Our nation is obviously not very organized, and people like Bush use that fact to their advantage. Heck, they promote chaos whenever they can. COINTELPRO operations tried to destroy social movements in the past, so why not now? Do you KNOW that such operations have completely ceased? Have you verified it? Or do you just believe the friendly FBI agent on TV who would have no qualms about lying if he was actually up to no good? People lie for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is psychopathy.

We do not need to have faith in our government. Having faith leads to statements like, "Well, I just have to believe that if Bush is invading Iraq, he's doing it for a good reason, even if he has to keep that reason secret."

We do not need to trust our government. Trusting government without any good reason to do so leads to the same situation as when we have faith.

The only thing we need is to each verify for ourselves what we read in the newspaper and what we see and hear on television. If this simple act was performed by everyone, the world we live in would be radically transformed. Elections can be rigged and the population lied to about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because we are so disorganized, so hopelessly lost in a common, childish delusion that all is right with the world as long as we keep our hands covering our eyes. Yes, checking the facts it takes more than a quick ten minute scan of the headlines, or watching a few 3-minute reports on TV - but isn't it worth it? If not for ourselves, then maybe for our children...?

If that sounds like wasted effort, consider that the worst thing that can happen is that we discover that Bush has never lied, and all actually IS right with the world. In any case, at least we could each stop pretending that we know the truth, and start stating it clearly with facts to back our argument instead of the usual emotional tirades against liberals, commies, terrorists, or whomever else we feel like blaming that day.

The alternative is to do nothing - but then don't be surprised one day when you find yourself on a nice CIA jet on an express flight to Egypt.

One Flu Over the Cuckoo's Nest

2005-02-25T12:32:00.000-08:00

Wow. It seems that the whole world is sick. No, I don't mean that the world has gone mad, although that also seems to be true. Lately, everyone I know has been hit with a nasty, nasty flu bug. I had a fever off and on for four days. It was the kind of illness that makes you feel like you've been run over by an eighteen wheeler. I haven't been hit that hard in years.

In North Carolina, hospitals are still filled with flu victims. Michigan is calling this flu season the third worst in the last eight years. Mississippi is urging residents to get vaccinated. Personally, I never had much faith in flu shots. I used to get one every year, and it never did me any good; I still got sick at least once. Plus, there is quite a bit of evidence to indicate that vaccinations do more harm than good, and in fact do little to combat the flu threat.

I know that this is still flu season, but it ain't just in the US. I have a friend who lives in France who claims that the whole country has been smacked hard by a nasty cold. Another friend in Sweden says that he watched as all his coworkers disappeared one by one as they were bedridden by a merciless bug. To top it all off, the bird flu is still going strong.

Somehow, I don't think it is a coincidence that so many people are so ill this season. It is almost as if something is in the air, and I don't mean just a wicked virus. Whether it's Europe's sudden perfectly scripted and well-acted faux change of heart in supporting Bush and his antics, or the Shrub's grilling of supposed ally Vladimir Putin yesterday, things are getting REALLY weird...

The flu did give me a chance to read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Although the book is supposed to be based on a lot of facts, it seemed to me that Brown got his facts confused with fiction. For a far more accurate and relevant story along similar lines, check out this review that ties into the life of one of history's greatest mysteries, Fulcanelli.

The "Truth" of 9-11

2005-02-18T13:02:00.000-08:00

Originally, I intended my blog to be more philosophical. Somehow it always seems to tie into world events lately. But then, I suppose that's a big part of life, especially in this day and age. I feel a philosophical masterpiece coming on in the near future - but I'm afraid I'm going to be "political" again for today. The recent announcement of John Negroponte as the first US National Intelligence Director, which was certainly no suprise, inspired me. Many of you probably remember Negroponte emphatically denying that he had no knowledge of the hideous human rights abuses that took place in Honduras on his watch.

Gee, where did we hear that one recently?

As the War on Terror progresses, many people are focusing on attempting to stop one or two tentacles of the beast that is the American Neocon Empire. For example, many want Rumsfeld fired for the "isolated incidents" of torture at Abu Ghraib. But what if we could just jab that darn monster in its giant, bloodshot eye? The beast would have a much, much harder time manipulating things if it couldn't see anything.

Enter 9-11.

It is generally accepted that the War on Terror began after September 11th. So what would happen if one could show that 9-11 was not the type of attack that we were told it was? What if it wasn't Arab terrorists who conducted the attacks that day? Obviously, that would probably change people's minds quit a bit about everything that has happened since then.

There are a number of groups and individuals who are working in this direction. They have uncovered a lot of evidence which, even if much of it is circumstantial, raises enough questions that more thoroughly official inquiries should certainly have been conducted. But as it stands, government officials can simply point to the "nutball 9-11 conspiracy theorists" whose crazy ideas conflict with those of the more rationally-minded researchers. It also seems to be true that some of those "rational" researchers may not be so rational after all. The problem as far as I can tell is that the entire movement to seek the truth of 9-11 is buried in the same type of problems that seemed to be so characteristic of social, political, and anti-war movements from past decades. That got me to thinking about one of the factors in those groups trying to affect change: COINTELPRO. For those of you who don't remember COINTELPRO, here's a little recap from our good friends at Wikipedia:

COINTELPRO is an acronym ('COunter INTELligence PROgram') for a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at attacking dissident political organizations within the United States. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered politically radical, such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Background

The origins of COINTELPRO were rooted in the Bureau's operations against hostile foreign intelligence services. Counterintelligence, of course, goes beyond investigation; it refers to actions taken to neutralize enemy agents. "Counterintelligence" was a misnomer for the FBI programs, since the targets were American political dissidents, not foreign spies. In the atmosphere of the Cold War, the American Communist Party was seen as a serious threat to national security. Over the years, anti-Communist paranoia extended to civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups.

The FBI addressed the threats from the militant New Left as it had those from Communists in the 1950s and the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s. It used both traditional investigative techniques and counterintelligence programs (Cointelpro) to counteract domestic terrorism and conduct investigations of individuals and organizations who threatened terroristic violence. Wiretapping and other intrusive techniques were discouraged by J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director in the mid-1960s, and eventually were forbidden completely unless they conformed to the Omnibus Crime Control Act. Director Hoover formally terminated all "Cointelpro" operations on April 28, 1971. [...]

Methods

The COINTELPROs used a broad array of methods, including:

Infiltration: Both by informants and agents provocateur, who would waste time, sabotage campaigns, suggest or carry out dangerous, illegal, or divisive activities, or seduce and blackmail leaders.

Intimidation: Sending threatening letters and packages, breaking and entering into houses and offices, etc.

Propaganda: Feeding damaging information to friendly journalists, writing anonymous leaflets against organizations, or writing damaging leaflets or letters claiming to be from the organization.

Framing: Framing activists for crimes which the FBI committed, prosecuting them for genuine crimes they didn't commit, or "bad-jacketing," planting falsified documents or other "evidence" which made it appear that they were FBI informants.

Lawsuit harassment: Tying up organizations or individuals in court with frivolous prosecution of every possible offense, real or imagined.

Murder: Directly assassinating or hiring rival groups to assassinate prominent leaders.

After thinking about the possible application of COINTELPRO-type activities against the American people today, I noticed a new article on one of my favorite alternative news sites. It is a thoroughly well-written and well-reasoned article basically debunking two popular 9-11 investigators, Mike Ruppert and Daniel Hopsicker. This article on the 9-11 Truth Movement is a must-read for any of you out there who don't buy the official tale that has been spun by Washington. The following is a brief excerpt that relates directly to the idea of COINTELPRO:

Looking at the current infighting going on at present, it would appear that CoIntelPro agents have done a fine job. No one knows who is who anymore, everyone suspects everyone else, and those members of the public whose minds are not, as yet, welded shut will be the ones to suffer most from the lack of coherent information about what really happened on 911, who really is to blame, or what the real issue is.

For any 9-11 investigator to come out and say that a 757 plane definitely hit the Pentagon is to rob the public of the singularly most important aspect of 9-11 and the one that has the chance to blow the whole dastardly plot wide open.

I think the author definitely has a good point about the strike on the Pentagon. We all saw the airplanes hit the WTC towers. NO ONE saw the strike on the Pentagon repeated endlessly on the evening news, or anywhere else for that matter. Why not? The Pentagon has lots of security cameras. There are other cameras nearby that would have recorded the "airliner" as it flew down towards the Pentagon. Where's the footage? Why can't we see it?

Many people say that the theory that something other than a plane struck the Pentagon simply cannot be true unless you explain what happened to Flight 77 and the people on board. But logically, we do not have to explain what happened to the real airliner and the real people first; if we can somehow prove that the flight didn't hit the Pentagon, we can certainly band together and demand the rest of the answers from whomever orchestrated the plot. Likewise, we don't have to prove that it was a missile or a drone or the Easter Bunny that struck the Pentagon; all we have to prove is that it wasn't Flight 77.

The trouble so far is that this is easier said than done, of course. But if all those who are doubtful of the official story could overcome the bickering and BS of many 9-11 researchers such as Mike Ruppert and Daniel Hopsicker, the entire process could rightly be called the 9-11 Truth Movement, and maybe it would actually get somewhere.

Reading Cats, Reading People

2005-02-14T22:07:00.000-08:00

It's Valentine's Day. My folks called me up to see if I wanted to go to dinner since I would be alone otherwise. I fibbed and said I had plans to go out with 'the guys'. It's not that I don't enjoy spending time with my parents, but politics always comes up in the conversation. Let's just say that my views couldn't possibly be more different than theirs. They refer to Bush as some sort of messiah with a direct link to the Almighty. So, I suppose you actually COULD say that I don't enjoy spending time with my parents. We're apples and an orange.

Instead, I decided to spend a quiet evening with the cat. The lady chose Fancy Feast, and I ordered a pizza. Then it was off to the spare bedroom for some romantic blog and forum surfing. My cat likes to sit on the desk and read along with me.

I hopped over to LibertyForum and found a highly relevant article entitled Me, My Mother, and The NWO:

Me, My Mother, and The NWO

February 13, 2005
Author: Lisa Guliani

I just got off the phone with my mother. The conversation left me numb. Why? Because my mother is asleep, or mostly asleep when it comes to what’s going on in America. My mother can’t allow herself to absorb my words because my words unnerve her. They make her mentally freak out. I speak of those who really drive the U.S. government and shape public policy. I might as well be talking backwards. My mother is not a mentally deficient person - just a brainwashed person. I try to tell her of the Bush-bin Laden family connections, she says nothing. Hello, are you in there, Mom? I describe the Bilderbergs. I tell her of the Bush family’s past history of funding Hitler and the Nazis, and she responds with, “What happened to you? You were never this radical before.” Are we having the same conversation here, Mom? I tell her that our government not only facilitated the events of 9-11, but they - along with the media, have engaged in a massive cover-up and have deceived the American people. I explain things slowly. My mother replies with, “Whatever you say.”

I tell her the television is a conditioning tool with repetitive stories on every channel. My mother says she sees "different" stories because she watches FOX, the History Channel and National Geographic. Okaaay, I ask her to name one news story on television that she would classify as “different”. I’m still waiting for that answer. She does finally get around to asking me (in a snotty way) who is running the government, if not her precious“W”. I point her toward the PNAC and people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger, Kristol, Krauthammer, Cheney, etc.. I bring up the CIA and some of the fun stuff they’ve been into the last few years. I use the words "global elites" and "international bankers".

She tells me she ADMIRES the PNAC men, although until I told her, she had never heard of the PNAC. The first wave of nausea sweeps over me. Hellooo, Mother. Anybody in there?

I tell her we are close to war with Iran. She says, “GOOD! We should bomb them.” I have to hold my breath and count to ten before responding to this, or I’ll scream at her. I count to ten by two’s, hoping to quell the second wave of nausea. I systematically list all the reasons why - NO, Mom - war with Iran is not “good”. I point out how different war with Iran will be if it comes to that. I point to their intact military and their size, their larger population, the fact that they haven’t suffered from 13 years of UN sanctions. I point to their potential use of nuclear weapons against us. I use the word “bloodbath” because it’s very vivid and my mother can picture that. She was a nurse back when her brain worked. I add, “We may get more war than we bargained for if we attack Iran, Mom.” I talk about central banks in Iraq and Afghanistan and Bush’s axis of evil.My mother says our troops are not ready because they’re tired. I tell her they're tired because they're stretched thin all over the globe, in more than 140 countries to protect the interests of international bankers. Our national de fense is being misused. She asks what is wrong with me, rather than seeing what is wrong with that. My mother thinks our troops are where they should be, because “W” told her so when he read off the teleprompter. She asks suspiciously, “Who have you been talking to?” I fought the urge to say “Elvis”. This would have been the perfect moment for her to accuse me once again of being in a cult, but she took a pass. Tonight, she settled for sc reaming at me in her head.

This woman who gave birth to me believes the talking heads on FOX news. FOX is different, she says. Third wave of nausea hits me. My mom says quite firmly that she is “aware” of what's going on in America. She's aware bec ause Bill O'Really keeps her informed. God help us. I’m taking chances by trying to have this discussion with her. We don’t speak often. We probably won't talk for a long time after tonight. As in, years. I have to give i t my best shot. The level of mental conditioning in my own parents is astounding to me because they are smart people. I try not to condemn them for voting for Bush, but frankly, it’s embarrassing and inexplicable. It woul d be different if they didn’t have all the books we’ve sent, which they do. It would be different if they didn't know me. Then again, they don't want to know me. I grew up to be too "radical".

I’ll cut her some slack for not reading the books we send her, because she needs cataract surgery. Maybe in March, after the surgery, she’ll pick up a book again. If she does, it will likely be some slobbering epic multi- generational love story. She actually takes notes when she reads those books. She can’t handle our books.They’re too “radical”. She says to me, “Well, I suppose the next thing you’re going to tell me is that the holocaust never happened.” I start to go there, but then I decide to tell her how the Zionists betrayed the Jews in Europe and what’s really going on between the Israelis and Palestinians, instead. I get into the American Union, F TAA, the Patriot Act and illegal immigration. I hit everything but anti-hate speech legislation and unrepatriated POWs. Man, I’m on a roll because I can’t believe she even let me get this far this time without slamming th e phone down. So I push the envelope of her patience. I broach the subject of Skull & Bones and ask her if she wants to know the initiation rite “W” participated in. She says “No, I don’t want to know.” I didn’t think so. I tell her anyway.

I return to the slightly more palatable subject of Zionists within our government and media, and mention the story of the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS LIBERTY back in 1967, thinking maybe my mother will have sympa thy for NAVY men, being that my father is also a former Navy man. She takes a deep, heavy breath at this point, which I correctly interpret as exasperation. The lack of argument is still a good sign and spurs me onward. N o dial tone yet. It’s not often my mother’s words fail her, even when she’s dead wrong. After all, she’s Sicilian. I then tell her how and why the Israelis killed Rachel Corrie and how the U.S. government constantly gives Israel a free pass on their crimes, not to mention tons of U.S. taxpayer dollars. I relate how Israel engages in terroristic activities with the sanction of the U.S., and how all this is being done brazenly, openly and s hamelessly. I tell her our government is betraying Americans and our leaders are guilty of treason - and why. Her voice becomes louder and she tries to yell over my voice. "Where are you getting this crap???" So far, so g ood. Yelling is better than the dial tone, so I’ll accept that. This is how we communicate nowadays, when we talk.

I then figure, what the hell and jump into the deep end of the pool (as far as my folks are concerned). I say “IRS”. This is TABOO in my family because once-upon-a-time many years ago, my parents were audited. This audit traumatized them for LIFE. It destroyed them. They won’t even whisper “IRS” or think loud “IRS” thoughts or God-forbid dream “IRS” nightmares. This is the final straw on my mother’s camel. Her brain - and this conversatio n - simultaneously implode. All discussion abruptly ceases. I envision her clutching rosary beads in one hand and Xanax in the other, mouthing a silent novena, praying for God to remove my vocal chords. There will be NO t alk - ZERO - of “IRS”, not in my family, not in this life or the next. My parents have erased “IRS” from their vocabularies. They refuse to acknowledge its existence, except when writing that “check” on April 15th. On the “IRS”, my parents know I’m right, but they’re too freaked out of their minds with fear to venture into any sort of intelligent discussion about it. I scare the hell out of them because I won’t shut the hell up about how criminal it is. When they have nightmares, I play the leading role. In real time, they dutifully disavow any knowledge of me - ya know, just in case anybody comes knocking...”Lisa who? Never heard of her...” I can picture it.

Still, I tell this mother of mine about "Freedom Drive" and the time we went to Washington, to hear former IRS agents give speeches about IRS crimes against tthe American people, and to march in protest around the federal buildings. She says, “When were you in Washington? and Why would you want to do that?" Figure it out, Mom. Like I never mentioned it. Guess she doesn’t remember that particular conversation or the article I wrote and sen t to her describing it in detail a while back. What’s my name, Mom? I tell her (again) that the FED is a for-profit corporation and not “federal” in any way, shape or form. She begins to stammer and sputter as I go on abo ut how domestically earned income within the U.S. is not supposed to be taxed, and so on. I move on to the Fed banking cartel. Her breathing is becoming more rapid. I hear a huge gasp, like she just sucked in wind. She's probably trying to take her own pulse. Suddenly, I find myself cut off in mid-sentence. The party’s over. “I don’t believe what you’re saying,” she tells me. And I don’t believe that for a minute, Mom. My mother hates the IRS with a razor-sharp Sicilian passion. So I shoot back with, “What do I have to gain by lying to you about all this stuff?” She has no answer. There is no answer. Again, I’m tempted to ask, “What’s my name?” "Better ye t, what's your name?"

I can feel her anxiety seeping through the receiver. It happens every time I resurrect my “radical” self into their lives when they’d rather I stay dead. I know this time, for about 15 minutes, she heard me, sorta. Then I lost her. They wear a scarlet "A" on their chests. "A" as in Audit. My father chooses not to get on the telephone with me at all. He doesn’t chat with “radical” dead people.

The books we send are never acknowledged, probably never opened. The covers alone probably make them hyperventilate. They never acknowledge the links to information in the emails I send. I might as well email Bush. At lea st, I’d get the warm, fuzzy auto-generated response. I’ve just sent them some links to radio interviews Victor Thorn and I recently did on his new book, “9-11 On Trial”. My mother says she hasn’t been on her computer for a year. Like I'm buying that b.s. She will not turn it on even to hear me on the radio. Who am I, Mom? I tell her to have my father, the ghost, check them out. Weakly and unconvincingly, she says “Okay, but he’s not going to do it now.” He will never do it. I then catch her on something she should know very well about but apparently, she’s forgotten. Either that or it’s the brain drugs she’s chewing on. Brain drugs make you forget who you are, as well as a zillion other useful bits of important information. My mother has forgotten about how long it takes to cremate a body. She used to know this stuff. My father was a funeral director for more than 30 year s. My mother damn well knew how long it takes to cremate a body. She’s watched bodies being cremated, for God’s sake. I tell her that over 1000 bodies were vaporized on 9-11 at the World Trade Center towers and couldn’t b e identified. I asked her what she thought about that, considering my previous discussion with her of controlled demolition at Ground Zero on that day. She starts screaming at me. Whoa, there’s life in there after all...c ool. I tell her how long it takes to cremate a body at temps over 500 degrees. Her voice is high-pitched and shrill. She argues indignantly and incorrectly. She says, “That is NOT TRUE! Ask your father!” I say, “Sure, let ’s ask him.” Of course, this doesn’t happen. She refuses to put him on the phone and remember, he doesn’t get down with the dead. He just embalms them and sticks them in a box. It’s no use pushing the point. I've planted some more seeds in my mother's mind. Good enough for now. Later, I send her the “cremation info” in an email, directly from a funeral home website, which totally substantiates what she denied. She will never read it. But my father will. He will just shake his head and mutter again to himself what a crazy bitch I’ve become.

She says she is listening, but who knows. I assure her that I know how difficult this stuff is to hear, absorb, digest and believe. I urge her to read, read, read and not to simply “believe” anyone - even me. I tell her my name for good measure. Part of her is still alive in there somewhere. De- programming is virtually impossible with someone who is zonked on anti-depressants and sleeping meds. My mother’s reality is far different from mine.

Our phone call ends like this: "I love you dearly, but I don’t want to talk about politics with you. I don’t ever want to discuss politics with you - especially over the phone. Fear and paranoia. I lost her. Conversation over. Click. The dreaded dial tone.

I’ve spent the last few years telling people every single day that they must not live in fear. Fear paralyzes and dictates behavior if allowed to consume your thoughts. It it rules your brain, it will consume your life. The only thing that terrifies me: I cannot wake up my parents.

Well, doesn't that sound familiar? In fact, it describes perfectly my political discussions with my parents. The one thing that seems odd about Guliani's approach is that she seems to want to beat her mother over the head with this stuff until it clicks. The problem is, what if it never clicks? What if it can't click?

I am reminded of those who are so sure of their religion that they will wander around door to door and try to convince others to adopt their beliefs. It's no different with politics. In New America (as opposed to "Old Europe") one can be threatened and fired for strongly disagreeing with, say, the official explanation of 9/11. It's either think like everyone else, or hit the road.

The question, then, is this: Should we who are critical of Bush's Grand Vision try to force anything on those who simply don't want to know? Sure, we have lots of facts to back up what we say - but those who are supportive of the current regime also believe that the facts stand behind them, if only because Bush told them so. Dubya could scribble some lines with a crayon on a piece of paper, hold it up on national television, and declare, "This is proof that Saddam had WMDs!!" Far too many people would believe him without question. How do I know? Look at what happened in Iraq. Where are the WMDs? Remember way back when WMDs that could reach the US were the reason we were going to invade Iraq and take out Saddam?

As my father told me during one discussion, many people just "have to believe" that even if Bush isn't totally honest, he has a good reason for doing what he's doing - we just can't know about it just yet. In other words, giving up the illusions is just too hard to do for people like my father, so he's going to hang on to them at least a bit longer... I really can't blame him.

In a sense, it is like the two opposing "camps" are living in completely different realities. I would like to think that on my side of the fence, black is black, white is white, and nothing is believed until there is evidence to back it up. I don't care about propaganda and singing God Bless America before a baseball game - I want to know what happened, and why, even if it makes me ill for awhile. On the other side of the fence are those who "have to believe" that our country never makes big mistakes, our president would never deceive the people, and our cause is always peaceful and just - despite any evidence to the contrary.

It is clear to me at this point that many people just don't want to know anything that even remotely resembles the truth. And that IS scary, because they are the ones who are gathering all the power along with Bush. But for those who have made it quite clear that they are happy where they are, maybe trying to "convert" them is a waste of time and energy. Like Guliani's mother, one who has never seen the progression of facts and made all the neural connections themselves will probably not understand in exactly the same way that a second grader cannot be forced to understand calculus.

I guess I have just found another reason to continue this blog. Maybe somebody out there will find it and get something out of it, with no coercion on my part. In the meantime, I think I'll adjust the strategy with the parents just a bit by presenting information in a more digestable and less confrontational format - sort of like Fancy Feast for people. If it doesn't work, there's always the weather and the local ballclub to talk about...

Signs of the Times

2005-02-04T14:36:00.000-08:00

In a stunning blow to freedom of speech, Bill O'Reilly, host of FOXNews program "The O'Reilly Factor", seems to think that it is his duty to fire up the American people to get University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill fired.

Why?

Because recently, he and other political conservatives discovered that Churchill wrote an essay about 9/11 that - GASP! - was not very supportive of the subsequent actions of Bush and the USA. The following is part of the rather long essay in question:

"Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens

by Ward Churchill

When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously – and quite charitably, all things considered – replied that it was merely a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior – the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere.

How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew.

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys" – or was it "sand niggers" that week? – in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance.

It was a performance worthy of the nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia. And it should be borne in mind that Good Germans gleefully cheered that butchery, too. Indeed, support for Hitler suffered no serious erosion among Germany's "innocent civilians" until the defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.

There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly.

Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them.

Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

The Politics of a Perpetrator Population

As a whole, the American public greeted these revelations with yawns..

There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Getting "Jeremy" and "Ellington" to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little "Tiffany" an "Ashley" had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords. And, to be sure, there was the yuppie holy war against ashtrays – for "our kids," no less – as an all-absorbing point of political focus.

In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing "moral witness" as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable.

Be it said as well, and this is really the crux of it, that the "resistance" expended the bulk of its time and energy harnessed to the systemically-useful task of trying to ensure, as "a principle of moral virtue" that nobody went further than waving signs as a means of "challenging" the patently exterminatory pursuit of Pax Americana. So pure of principle were these "dissidents," in fact, that they began literally to supplant the police in protecting corporations profiting by the carnage against suffering such retaliatory "violence" as having their windows broken by persons less "enlightened" – or perhaps more outraged – than the self-anointed "peacekeepers."

Property before people, it seems – or at least the equation of property to people – is a value by no means restricted to America's boardrooms. And the sanctimony with which such putrid sentiments are enunciated turns out to be nauseatingly similar, whether mouthed by the CEO of Standard Oil or any of the swarm of comfort zone "pacifists" queuing up to condemn the black block after it ever so slightly disturbed the functioning of business-as-usual in Seattle.

Small wonder, all-in-all, that people elsewhere in the world – the Mideast, for instance – began to wonder where, exactly, aside from the streets of the US itself, one was to find the peace America's purportedly oppositional peacekeepers claimed they were keeping.

The answer, surely, was plain enough to anyone unblinded by the kind of delusions engendered by sheer vanity and self-absorption.

So, too, were the implications in terms of anything changing, out there, in America's free-fire zones.

Tellingly, it was at precisely this point – with the genocide in Iraq officially admitted and a public response demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were virtually no Americans, including most of those professing otherwise, doing anything tangible to stop it – that the combat teams which eventually commandeered the aircraft used on September 11 began to infiltrate the United States. [...]

Now, what was wrong with that? Keep in mind that in America, we're supposed to have this thing called freedom of speech. That means that everyone is allowed to voice their own opinions on things, and they won't have to worry about being fired, harassed, or threatened with death.

I read the entire essay, and nowhere did I find anything that would be considered racist, sexist, anti-semitic, or anything else that could be considered hate speech. The man was simply presenting his opinions - backed up by a formidable number of facts. Of course, you won't know that they are facts unless you've done your homework.

Apparently, what really angered many people was that Churchill dared to suggest that Americans themselves are the cause of 9/11, because we remain ignorant of what our leaders are really up to as a result of the pleasing distractions of daily life. Subsequently, Churchill received death threats, swastikas were painted on his truck, and he is on the verge of losing his job at the university.

Let's think especially about the death threats and swastikas, because I want to see if I have this all straight. A man exercises his right to free speech and publishes an essay. A bunch of Americans get all riled up by O'Reilly and become so enraged that they threaten to KILL Churchill, and paint Nazi symbols on his truck. In other words, for simply expressing a view that does not line up with their own, many Americans feel it necessary to act in exactly the same way that fascists would have - and they even use the swastika to convey their message of hate! Who are the real "terrorists" here? Who is really promoting hatred and violence? Churchill didn't say that Americans deserve to die; he believes that if we (WE, he includes himself) continue to allow our leaders to act malevolently in our name without really knowing what they are doing, then we deserve what we get.

Karma, right? No big deal.

What scares me the most is that I look around and I see an America that is quickly devolving into something much worse than McCarthyism. Since 9/11, we talk a lot about preserving and promoting freedom, while back home a man can't speak his mind without being fired and threatened with death. And this guy is a university professor! You know, the seat of "liberal" thought? I remember when I was in college. I took a sociology course taught by a short bald guy whose head would literally glow red when he got upset about how little Americans know about what their government has done - and continues to do - in their name.

This is nothing new, folks. It is our reaction to it as a nation that has changed. If we don't make an effort to learn the truth, we are all lost. If we don't stop it now, it will become unstoppable. I'm not sure what to call the phenomenon, other than American fundamentalism, or maybe even budding fascism. We've already got the Patriot Act I and II, torture, political persecution, death threats, and swastikas going on.

The only thing left is to open the detention camps.

What is Freedom and Democracy?

2005-01-31T13:14:00.000-08:00

Today, our un-re-elected president declared the Iraqi elections to be a "resounding success" and "a voice for freedom from the center of the Middle East."

I'm not sure how it could be called a resounding success, given the circumstances. The problem is, the vast majority of Iraqis who voted didn't even know who they were voting for. Candidates were warned to basically hide themselves away since several of them were assassinated. Of course, we could just take the US media's word for it and believe that it was the best Iraqis could do under the circumstances. And, actually, I agree with this assessment. It's the details of the situation that bother me.

Imagine that America was invaded by, say, Mexico. This scenario is highly unlikely, but the country isn't actually important - it just makes it easier to write about the hypothetical situation. So, America is invaded by Mexico. Before the invasion, Mexico tells the US that it believes America has some incredibly destructive superweapon, and that we plan on using this weapon to destroy numerous nations and peoples around the globe.

The UN is approached for support, and Mexico presents evidence that other nations can easily see is full of holes, if not outright invented for the occasion. But Mexico will not be deterred under her fearless leader, Arbusto. Sensing a slight problem with his plans, President Arbusto appeals to the Mexican people, reminding them that just a few short years ago, Mexico was horribly attacked by terrorists that hate their freedoms, and it just so happens that Arbusto knows that those terrorists were aided by the Evil Americans. The Mexican leader doesn't actually bother to provide any evidence of his claims, simply because he knows he doesn't need to. The emotional wounds of Mexicans everywhere are still fresh, or at least they can be re-opened by a little clever manipulation designed to appeal not to the people's rational minds, but to their feelings of sorrow and anger.

Soon, Mexicans start to repeat the unverified claims of their president that America is harboring terrorists, and therefore it must be stopped. When meeting each other in the streets or at work, they ask each other, "If America must be stopped, does it matter if they have superweapons? We know they at least have plans for superweapons, and they have the will to use them - perhaps even on us. They've used nukes before, and did radiation tests on their own people. They're crazy, ya know. They're fanatics. You can't trust them. They're leader is Bush, a born again Christian type who believes he takes his orders directly from God himself! How do we have a dialogue with a man like that? It's not possible. Diplomacy won't work. America must be stopped!"

And so, Mexico bribes or blackmails certain countries into going along with their little adventure. It actually isn't that hard to do, and quite often, bribes and blackmail aren't even necessary. If Mexico gains control of the US, they gain control of economically valuable materials and technologies. Many countries jump on the bandwagon to get a piece of the action. War may be profitable, but "reconstruction" is the jackpot. Total control, a monopoly... Why, the possibilities are endless!

Mexico invades the US. All sorts of pictures and stories are splashed on the TV and in the newspapers to convince Mexicans they they have done a good thing, and have nothing to worry about. Back in reality, the troops of Mexico and the "Coalition of the Willing" soon discover that Americans don't like being occupied by a foreign power. Although the infrastructure of the US was completely wiped out in the initial attacks to pave the way for "reconstruction" - or perhaps because the infrastructure was wiped out - Americans all over the country get really pissed off. They are fighting for their very nation. They are fighting for their families, their way of life, their very lives. Many of these "insurgents" lost one or more family members. Many others had friends and family disappear, only to show up later on Mexican television as victims of torture at the hands of "just a few bad apples" in the Mexican military. The Americans know better, but the Mexican people are fooled by the continuing lies and propaganda fed to them each day by the media outlets.

The simple fact is, most Mexicans don't want to know the truth of what their country is doing. To face the truth at this point would be too terrible, too gut-wrenching to even consider. And so, they tell themselves things like, "It must be that we are bringing freedom and democracy to America. Yup, that's it. Man, we're the best! I'm so fortunate to live in such a great nation. God bless Mexico!" They even sing the song God Bless Mexico at many sporting events, to remind themselves that the attacks on their country were horrible, and that they should completely forget about the fact that America had nothing to do with those attacks. Besides, how can they be expected to enjoy the game if they have to think about the ugly truth?

Eventually, an election is held. The Americans know that it is a crock, but the Mexican people believe it is genuine. If only Mexico could beat down the "insurgents" in America, the US could finally get on its feet after having been ruled so long by that maniac George W. Bush. After all, look what he did to civil liberties! Americans were forced to protest Bush and his policies in "free speech zones."

But some Mexicans see what is really going on in America. They are aware of an incident not too long before the "election" where a young girl and boy and some older brothers and sisters watched as their parents were filled with bullets. They were driving along and Mexican soldiers motioned for them to stop, but it was a confused moment. The children in the car were singing, playing, and the father, who was driving was momentarily distracted. That was all it took for the Mexican soldiers to assume that the father and his family were terrorists. The soldiers opened fire on the car, killing the father instantly. The car, now out of control, continued onward toward the soldiers. They continued firing, killing the mother and wounding some of the children. After blowing apart the father's skull, he slumped forward and the car drifted to a halt. The children, spattered with their parents' blood and brain matter, were screaming. The Mexican soldiers took them out of the car at gunpoint, verified that they weren't terrorists, and tried to tell them that everything would be okay. Obviously, it was a useless effort. The Mexicans took the orphaned American children to a hospital to treat their wounds.

Now, imagine that the above scenario happened to you. And your family was the one in the car. Then, think about this story:

In Pictures: Shooting in Talafar

BBC
January 20, 2005

US soldiers in Iraq approached a car after opening fire when it failed to stop at a checkpoint. Despite warning shots it continued to drive towards their dusk patrol in Tal Afar on 18 January. Chris Hondros a photographer with Getty News was on hand to record these pictures.

At the checkpoint a US soldier examines the car. A US military statement said troops trying to stop the car used hand signals and fired warning shots before firing directly at the car, killing the driver and front seat passenger. (Note: Driver's face obscured)

Inside the car were an Iraqi family of seven. The mother and father were killed but their five children in the backseat survived, one with a non-life threatening wound. As the children get out of the car one of them screams, her hands covered in blood...

...others cry or just stand bewildered.

This actually happened in Iraq, but we didn't see it on the evening news, did we? Maybe we should have. Maybe every parent who has a little girl like the one in the above photo should look at these images (and view the rest on the BBC's web site) and think long and hard about why we Americans are in Iraq. Bringing Freedom and Democracy to Iraq? Do the photos on the BBC's web site look like we Americans are bringing either of those things to Iraqis? Forget the BS responses about the security of American troops due to the insurgents - we MADE the "insurgents." Sure, there probably are some crazies causing trouble in Iraq, but wouldn't you take up arms against a nation that invaded America? Wouldn't you grieve and vow revenge on the perpetrators of acts like the above photo report? And Saddam had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. If he did, show me proof. Not rumors, proof.

Yes, the truth hurts. But ya know what? It's gonna hurt a whole hell of a lot more if we continue down the road we are currently on as a nation. I have never been afraid for the future of my country - until now.

Heil Bush???

2005-01-27T14:36:00.000-08:00

Every now and then, I read something that just totally blows me away. Today was one of those times:

Neocon Torture Rhetoric Alarmingly Mirrors Nazi Counterparts

"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed… were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."

Can anyone tell me who said that? Was it:

A) George W. Bush
B) John Ashcroft
C) Donald Rumsfeld
D) Someone else

If you answered "someone else", you’d be right. It was Rudolf Hoess, SS Kommandant of the infamous Auschwitz death camp where over 2.5 million people were murdered.

Conservatives, who love to call Liberals whiny, get whiny as hell when the Bush administration is compared to Nazi Germany, or to fascism in general. Guess what, though? The comparisons are beginning to come through more and more.

Scott Horton wrote in the LA Times:

"Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales – then the president’s attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote that the Geneva Convention was “obsolete” when it came to the war on terror. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill suited to anti-terrorist warfare.

In 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler’s Wehrmacht, mustered identical arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva “obsolete,” a remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it as an aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946."

Hitler was installed, then re-elected. Bush was installed, then re-elected. Hitler had Reichstag, Bush had 9/11. (I am not implying government collusion in 9/11, FYI) Both used their respective catastrophes to assume more power (Hitler with the Enabling Act, Bush with the USA PATRIOT Act), and to assume dictatorial powers.

Hitler used Christianity to give his words absolute authority and decried any who dissented as unpatriotic. Bush uses Christianity to give his words absolute authority and decries any who dissent as unpatriotic.

Hitler said:

"The German people are not a warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war, but does not fear it. It loves peace but also loves its honor and freedom."

Bush said:

"We’re pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want."

I have rejected this type of comparison of Bush to Hitler for months, because Hitler was a genocidal maniac bent on ruling the world with his ideology. I submit this comparison now because I believe the same to be true of George W. Bush.

George W. Bush will have his empire, and he will kill any person, group, or country that stands in his way. I challenge any of you to tell me why that is not so, as he has already proved it.

As an American, I had a really hard time with the idea that Bush could be anywhere near as bad as Hitler. I mean, come on, Hitler?! One of the reasons I found the comparison so outlandish is because of the circumstances in which Hitler rose to power. Germany was a mess, especially economically. Then, over the past few days, I wrote a bit about the deteriorating economic situation in the US...

Most people also don't realize that everything Hitler did in his rise to power was perfectly "legal." Oh sure, the idea of what was "legal" changed over time, but then look at Bush and the Patriot Act and the Abu Ghraib torture. Earlier today, I found a shocking report about US use of torture that I did NOT see on TV, or anywhere else for that matter. Nevertheless, the information was sitting right there, and the articles are from well-known sources.

To see what I'm talking about, check out this news page and scroll down to "Ashcroft Says Bush Rejects Use of Torture." The Associated Press article contains an interview with John Ashcroft about a 2002 US memo approving the use of torture. If you continue reading down the page a bit, you'll find another AFP article entitled, "Justice Department advised White House torture 'may be justified'"...

I am speechless...

Blessed by Materialism

2005-01-24T13:29:00.000-08:00

After yesterday's comments on the economy, I got to thinking about materialism. We Americans are terribly concerned about stuff. If you think about it, most of it is entirely unnecessary. Do we really need cars with seats that both heat and cool our behinds? Why not get a car with fabric seats? That way, they are never too cold in the winter, and never too hot to sit on in the summer. They also last a lot longer.

Quite often, we want more toys because we believe we deserve a little luxury, or because we want the luxuries than others have. I suppose this development is a natural one in a society that so values rich and famous movie stars and sports heroes. It also explains why America is now sagging under the weight of massive personal debt.

I used to have a neighbor who barely knew where he was going to get money for food each week. He was married with two young children. He was always looking at what everyone else had and trying to figure out a way to get similar things - cars, for example. When he and his wife started earning a bit of extra money on a side job, they decided that a new car and a bigger house were in order. All the extra money they made was immediately put to use to get even more stuff, even though they could barely pay the bills they had. Obviously, if personal debt is so high in America, this story is not the exception, but rather the rule.

I should clarify that I don't have a problem with stuff. I have plenty of stuff myself, although I try to limit it to things that are more or less necessary. I also try not to identify too much with my stuff. My stuff doesn't make me who I am. Like me, it can be there one instant and then gone in the blink of an eye. As Seneca once said:

What difference does it make how much you have? What you do not have amounts to much more.

The above statement is so simple, yet so ridiculously true - especially when one considers that what we don't have could include more than just material possessions. In fact, materialism is so absurd, that it seems like it is the perfect tool to control the masses. Before Iraq War II was launched, a friend of mine remarked, "Gimme cheap gas and cheap cigarettes, and I don't care what country we invade." In other words, as long as the stuff keeps coming, who cares about politics? Who cares about dead US soldiers or Iraqi civilians? Not surprisingly, this friend to this day is - in my opinion - one of the least informed people I know. He couldn't find Iraq on a map of the world. He doesn't know that the Patriot Act exists, or what new powers it gives the government. He just doesn't care. And religion obviously isn't doing him any good, but he believes he is "blessed by God" with cheap cigarettes and gasoline. Would any all-loving Creator want us to act so selfishly?

It's easy to be mad at other people for acting that way, but it doesn't do much good. The problem as I see it is that since there are many people like my friend, what will happen to our society? A nation of people who don't care about anything but their toys is an uninformed, even ignorant country. What happened to We the People? A population that is so unaware, so blinded by materialism is easy to control. Just scare them a little, and they will run like lemmings over the cliff of your choosing. If I know this, then certainly other people who are more inclined to seek power and take advantage of others also know it.

Demise of the Dollar?

2005-01-23T15:26:00.000-08:00

When I was a child, I had a paper route. It didn't pay very well, but then that was the whole idea. At a very young age, my initiation into the good old greedy economic system in place in America had begun. Looking back now, it was pretty sick. A newspaper company needed a cheap way to deliver papers, so why not pay a kid to do it? When I got older, I also mowed the lawn for a small company near my parents' home. Had they hired a professional landscaping service, they would have easily paid $100 a week. The company paid me $15 a week. I thought I was rich, and the company was happy because they basically took advantage of my age and ignorance and saved $85 a month. Now, I've taken college-level economics courses, and I understand how the system works. I still think it's crooked.

Anyone who has been paying attention lately will be aware that this paper route and lawn mowing problem also applies when we are all "growed up". It's called outsourcing, and it means that some professional in India or another country will be given your job because they are just as capable and far cheaper. We're talking all kinds of jobs here, from manufacturing to software and electronics design.

In my opinion, the problem with this system is that it is horribly unfare to the average shmoe, and horribly profitable to very rich people who run the corporations doing the outsourcing. A nation's laws should protect the citizens economically, and yet the law is powerless in the face of corporate greed. Now Bush wants to basically gut social security and give corporations even more power over your future. Every time I see the word "privatize", I cringe. Privatization means the government controls less, and their good pals in the corporate world control more. To be fair, the government hasn't really done a very good job with social security, so we might just ask: How much worse can it get?

A lot worse.

A couple days ago, I found this article:

Warren Buffett sees no way but down for US dollar

January 20, 2005

(AFP) -- The dollar cannot avoid further declines against other major currencies unless the US trade and current account deficits improve, legendary investor and businessman Warren Buffett said.

"I think, over time, unless we have a major change in trade policies, I don't see how the dollar avoids going down," the world's second-richest individual told CNBC television.

"I don't know when it happens. I don't have any idea whether it will be this month or this year or next year, but we are force-feeding dollars on to the rest of the world at the rate of close to a couple billion dollars a day, and that's going to weigh on the dollar."

Buffett noted the record US deficit of 164.7 billion dollars in the third quarter of 2004 in the current account, which measures trade and investment flows.

Buffett, nicknamed the Oracle of Omaha for his investment acumen, has a net worth of some 41 billion dollars, second only to Microsoft chief Bill Gates, according to Forbes magazine. But he said he saw few opportunities in the near term.

"I'm having a hard time finding things to buy, if that says anything about the market," he said.

"If I find something ... tomorrow to buy, I don't give a thought as to whether the market is going up," he added. "I barrel in."

Now, Warren Buffett is no idiot. He's just a fat cat who has more money than the rest of us combined will probably ever see. So, when he says the dollar is trouble, people might want to listen. The thing is, he's not the only one indicating that our economy is trouble. There are all kinds of bad signs. For example, the trade deficit has broken previous records several times now. A high trade deficit means that Americans are importing way more than the country is exporting. We buy a lot of crap from China, but we can't sell enough American goods overseas. Not only do we rely heavily on other countries for the goods that we need in our daily lives, but we are constantly paying other countries way more money for those goods than we can make selling our goodies. Another issue is the absolutely HUGE personal debt in our country. Personal debt is at an all-time high, and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger...

There have been quite a few rumors lately about countries selling off dollars, pricing oil in euros, and all kinds of other stuff that would probably spell doom for the US economy. There are others who believe that the dollar will never drop, because it is a "safe investment". All things being equal, I would be undecided on the fate of the dollar, myself. But I don't think all things are equal.

Enter the War on Terrorism.

Since 9/11, the US has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and is now threatening action against Iran. Bush has made a lot of leaders from other nations rather angry. Although they may not be able to stop us militarily, what about economically? If countries like China are holding the US up, what's to stop them from dropping us like a hot potato? Sure, the "experts" claim that won't happen, since the effects of a crashed dollar would ripple into the currencies of other nations. But think about it: When a nation goes to war, they know it will cost them something. So, say China decides to dump their many, many billions of dollars. Yeah, it will hurt their economy as well, but how is that different from the economic effects of a physical war?

Traditional wisdom dictates that war is generally "good" for a country's economy. But look at the US economy since 9/11: war has gone up, economy has gone down. Strange, isn't it? In fact, one might suspect that the economy is far more malleable than many would like to admit. Certainly, the Bush administration has down next to nothing to bolster the US economy. Oh sure, he says he's doing a lot, but I haven't seen any actual evidence that that is the case. In fact, given all the recent talk of an impending drop of monstrous proportions for the dollar, shouldn't Bush and his buddies in the White House be at least a little concerned? They don't seem to be concerned to me. In fact, they seem to be supporting a poor economy...

The bottom line is that if the dollar does indeed plummet, we Americans are in for one hell of a ride. Our society is completely centered around materialism - gotta have the biggest house, the fanciest car or biggest SUV, the latest electronic gizmos and bigscreen plasma TV, etc. What happens to such a society when their beloved economic system falls apart? How does a society that prides itself on material wealth cope with such a shock? One thing is certain: a lot of people would be very, very angry. I have to wonder how that anger would be directed. If history is any indication, it isn't going to be pretty at all...

All Hail King George

2005-01-20T14:28:00.000-08:00

Today, I watched Bush give his inaugural address. I couldn't believe my ears, so I went online and read the transcript. Sure enough, Bush said things like:

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty -- though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals.

So here's my question: In America, just who the heck is questioning the global appeal of liberty? I know some people who have questioned Bush's lies about WMD's in Iraq, for example, and in fact Bush did lie (see: White House: WMD Search was Fruitless). Oh, I know we're all supposed to believe that Bush didn't know, that it was the fault of the intell agencies, but let's face it - all the "intelligence" Bush took to the UN was later proven to be completely bogus. And the thing is, most countries around the world did NOT join the fight because they were able to easily determine that it was all bunk. But of course, you wouldn't know that unless you can read or watch the news from other countries. That's not to say that media outlets outside the US are always accurate - but a little homework and fact checking is far easier to accomplish than most people think. It seems the only thing lacking is the drive to do it.

Let me tell a brief story that shocked me to no end. Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel to a few countries in Europe. What I found for the most part was a lot of people who were kind, helpful, and extraordinarily well-informed on both other countries and current world events. Ask the average American where Israel is located, and they will shrug. Ask the average European, and one guy even drew me a map during one discussion. Waiters and shopkeepers frequently speak two or even three languages, and their English was way better than my feeble attempts at speaking the native language. One individual I met even knew more about US history than I do. Of all the people I met on my tour with European friends and during meetings with their friends, none of them expressed anger or hostility towards the American people; their beef was with GW. That's another thing that continues to shock me about my fellow Americans: most of us seem to be unable to make a distinction between a country's government and policies, and its people.

But what I really don't understand is how Bush can so easily dismiss any dissent with such blatant idiocy, and no one does anything. In his inaugural address, he spoke quite a bit about freedom. Well, I'm not happy with Bush or what he has done since 9/11, and I am frequently the target of angry comments and even threats just for giving my opinion when asked. Thing is, I usually have some good data to back up what I say. For example, in one discussion, I asked if one guy had actually read the Patriot Act after he claimed that it does not harm Americans' civil liberties. He hadn't. My suggestion that he do so was not warmly accepted. I mean, silly me! Who'd have thought that if one wants to know about a new law, one should read the text of the legislation itself! The pro-Bush crowd who was ready to lynch me had nothing except a lot of powerful emotions and catchy phrases that they once heard Bush utter. What's next, Gitmo for anyone who disagrees with Bush? I used to ask that question jokingly, but geez - I am really starting to wonder if that's not exactly where we're headed.

Lately I feel like there is little hope for my beloved America. When simple, logical questions and statements backed by facts cause such hatred and animosity, where is the hope? Then consider the rather popular Pentagon Strike video that started making the rounds a few months ago. It's fantastic in that it presents facts and poses questions, questions that the US government should be able to easily answer if they have nothing to hide - and yet they remain silent. Why??

All hail King George... and get ready for another four years that will make the last four look like a picnic...

Gnosis, I am totally serious

2005-01-19T15:09:00.000-08:00

One of my sisters once asked me how I would define love. I responded that I thought that love could best be described as having knowledge. I reasoned that since emotion could be described as chemical reactions in our brain, love can't simply be some pure, powerful, magical emotion.

"You're joking. You totally aren't serious, are you?" she queried.

"No sis, I am totally serious," I responded.

She thought I had lost my mind. But that's okay, because by the standard definition of "mind", I have lost it. The question is, what defines one's mind? Very often, it seems that we each define ourselves by ideas and labels that we assume are actually "us". Are they? Everyone is conditioned in their upbringing by a multitude of different influences. Sociologists seem to generally agree that there is a definite process of socialization and enculturation that occurs as one ages, and one's family and peers are certainly key participants in this process.

It would seem logical, then, to re-examine one's life in an attempt to figure out from where our impulses and responses originate. You might say that we are each "programmed" to react from birth. Children are wonderful at acting in a nonlinear fashion, but this tendancy is quickly suppressed and transformed from acting into reacting. And wouldn't said process of recapitulation be a sort of gathering of information? And if one was to think about this information, decide to observe oneself, and apply this information as it relates to recurring dramas in our lives, would this not be considered gaining knowledge? Information is one thing; applied information is another.

And what about love? Well, to love another is to know them completely. Sure, there are certainly powerful emotions and often a sexual level involved in the interaction, but we experience all kinds of emotions, and are sometimes sexually attracted to all different sorts of people. Those brain chemicals can be very powerful. Or, to look at it another way, "knowing" someone is the application of information about that person, which can take many forms.

Which brings us to happiness... What is happiness? For me, happiness is knowledge. Finding factual information and applying it in a creative way. Sure, I enjoy indulging in a brain chemical cocktail - in fact, I do it all the time - but I also realize that the chemicals will soon wear off. The truth about something cannot wear off.

Take the invasion of Iraq, for example. As an American (and lately, I feel like I am part of an ever-growing minority), I was shocked and confused by my country's invasion of Iraq. Recently, the White House admitted there were no WMD's in Iraq. Wasn't that the reason we invaded in the first place? Oh, I know the justification for war has mutated several times; Now it's, "But Saddam was a bad man - a VERY bad man!" But what would have happened if everyone had the information that the White House was dead wrong back before the invasion happened? (See It's Official: My Brother Died in Vain) Or soon after it had started? If we had all acted on this information, the knowledge of these events could have changed the course of history. Before all this madness began, the American people could have taken to the streets in peaceful protest. In Europe, there is some group somewhere holding a protest like every five minutes. We aren't we doing that? Don't we have the right - indeed, the obligation - to protest? Maybe I'm the only one like me left in the US!

But, I digress.

There is no relativity when it comes to things like Iraq, or a loved one. Either you know the truth about them, or you don't. If you don't, then you are quite possibly fooling yourself. Who wouldn't want to know the truth about their relationships, or world events that cause us and so many others so much grief? If knowledge is information applied, perhaps happiness is knowledge applied.

"Happiness" or Harleys?

2005-01-18T13:15:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I was yammering on about how happiness always seems to be based on fleeting elements of one's life. My uncle is happy only when he is on vacation. I know from talking with many other people that my uncle is certainly not alone in this department. So, what really gets me is why we won't really do something to change our lives to find happiness? Do we all like to suffer? Does suffering or wallowing in self-pity make us feel better about ourselves? What is really perplexing is when people do something that they know won't make them happy, but they keep repeating the same behavior consistently. I mean, sure, I also like the famous Conan quote about how what does not kill us makes us stronger, but geez! I actually conducted a recent experiment related to this very topic: I decided to spend Christmas with my friends instead of my family.

I know, I know... I'm a rebel. Or at least, that's what my family thinks. To them, it seems that I am now just one step away from riding around on a mean-looking Harley in leather and chains waving a sawed-off boomstick in the air and growling wildly.

I mean, it's CHRISTMAS!! It's the most important holiday of the year because it is a celebration of the birth of our Lord and Sav.... Oh wait, the fam aren't practicing Christians, they're just Immitation Christians (you know, all the salvation without any of the hassle).

But it's also a time to see my family, especially relatives who I don't get to see very often.... Right. I am so important to these people, and they so important to me, that neither of us can be bothered to even send an e-mail consisting of one word: "Hi". And it is for this very reason that we should all pretend that we DO care about each other by visiting for between 3 and 6 hours a year and asking each other about work, vacation (which many of us have already admitted is the only time we are truly happy, thus excluding the idea that conversing with our relatives at Christmas makes us happy) and our favorite sports teams.

But we should all get together on Christmas because the food is good.... Well, sure, it's good. But the flavors are always spoiled by the post-dinner "fruit-flavored" tums to cure the Christmas indigestion that results from being so "happy".

So anyway, this past Christmas I was invited by my good friends to spend the holidays with them. Since I happen to live so far away from the rest of the family, travel during the holidays is complete hell, and since I knew I needed to make some kind of change, I figured what the heck. Actually, the first two reasons were just excuses to make my rational mind happy. But I didn't use them with my family. I just told them that I had decided to stay where I live and spend the holidays with my good friends this year. That was it. And ya know what? It was probably the most enjoyable Christmas I have ever had. The fam, of course, was not happy that I had avoided suffering along with them - or at least that's how I interpreted it. The previous year, I had actually invited all of them out to where I live for the holidays, and that went down like a lead balloon. They pretended that they didn't hear me ask the question. So that was nice.

Given all of this, I have decided that happiness has nothing to do with any material goodies, including vacations. We are all masters at throwing around words like "happy" whose meaning was lost on us ages ago. Happiness has nothing to do with memories, or spending meaningless hours with people who happen to be related to us, or even the chemical reactions in our brains that we call emotion. So, what do I think happiness is?? And better yet, why should you care??? Tune in tomorrow!

Intro

2005-01-17T14:43:00.000-08:00

Well, It's finally happened: I done went and got myself one of these here new-fangled blogs.

Speaking of new-fangled things, it was always painful to watch certain "adult" family members try to use computers as I was growing up. And I'm not talking about these fancy modern gizmos we use now - I mean ancient machines with less memory than a stick of chewing gum and a monitor that looked suspiciously like the same television on which we had just watched Saturday morning cartoons. Disk drives were almost unheard of. You know, Stone Age machines.

Somehow, computers just seemed sort of... obvious... to me. Maybe it was just the curiosity and open-mindedness of youth, but maybe not.

As I grew up, I always thought the "adults" (those darn quotes again!) in my life were people to look up to. Role Models, with a capital 'R' and 'M'. People who had it all figured it out, people who had learned life's lessons and come out on top, people who I always assumed I would be like one day. Well, I was wrong.

Everybody always wants to talk about happiness. "My job doesn't make me happy. My family makes me happy. My car makes me happy. Vacation makes me happy. God makes me happy." And on and on it goes. As I aged a bit, I began to realize that these "adults" who I had so looked up to really didn't have a damn clue what they were doing. I was supposed to grow up and be successful and live a cookie cutter life just like my parents and aunts and uncles and so on. Then one day, an uncle who was a doctor told me that he didn't like his job. Nobody did, he said. The only time he felt really alive was when he was on vacation.

Well, shoot.

Now I knew that everyone was supposed to go through the same trials and tribulations, have a job they hated, and all that... But it just didn't make much sense to me. I was as confused as I had been when I watched in bewilderment as my father's brain strained to read three words on the "computer screen" and respond with the appropriate physical action. The words on the screen?

PRESS ANY KEY...

Was he searching for the "Any" key? Was he waiting for the computer to continue its thought after it had halted so abruptly with the dreaded ellipsis? The world may never know.

Anyway, from the point of my uncle's comment onward, I began to really realize just how zombified we have become. Sure, I had a regular job for awhile, and I made good money. It was almost the death of me in more ways than one. The programming to "get a good job" and "prepare for retirement" was powerful enough to lull me asleep for a bit, but an alarm clock shocked me awake. More on that later.

So, it seems to me that many people define their happiness by everything that is fleeting in their lives: Vacation makes them happy. Sometimes people claim that spending time with family makes them happy, yet they can't wait for that same family to shut up so they can hear the droning, mindless babble of sports commentators during their beloved sporting event.

And so, I slowly realized that most of the role models of my life were nothing more than children in mature bodies. And what about me? Who was I to think that I was so much better? Surely each of these people in my life thought they had it all figured out, too, I reasoned. After all, if they didn't think that, why in hell didn't they do something to change?

Obviously, happiness isn't so easy to define after all. Which brings us to... tomorrow's entry.