Saturday, August 20, 2005

Randi Rhodes Scholars Suggest: Google Images Search "bush + finger"


BONUS: Throw Ya Air Force One's Up!

Bush's like to rock and roll all night, and party every day.

They're like the freakin' Osbournes.


And Jay Leno shows how Bush responds to the White House Press Corpse:

"Thug Life! That's it! That's my new style! (Pthui! Pthui!) Thug Life!!!"


Friday, August 19, 2005

Brown Beltin' it outta the park...

- Where's your links?

You true believers are really going for your Brown Belt's aren't you!

I notice you'll just say any garbage you think of with a few exclamation marks, you almost never your homework, then you completely ignore any evidence that scares you:



What: no answers?

Just repeating the same Talking Points louder?

Good move: dealing with the facts will expose you as tools.

That would suck. It would help 90% of the world, but it would suck for you.

Then you randomly pull the "80% of the army support the war" out of your ass, when the figure is really around 10%.

Actually, the figure is 8.71%, but I thought I'd round up.

There, I said it with no corroborating evidence, just like you did.

Hey this is fun! I don't have to read a damn thing! And the Message Board Mafia will just cheer me on no matter what! And drown out any post with any substance in it! Hey, look over here, we're loud and we speak in unison! We know what's cool to say THIS WEEK to support our man Dubya, just help him get through another week of scandal! Yessirree that's our job! We're cheerleaders!

Aw, but I have this empty feeling barking like a mindless soulless Right Wing attack puppy, it makes me paranoid to just blurt out crap and act like I know what I'm talking about, and I think it makes you dumber. Curiousity is supposed to be a sign of intelligence, and I don't use it anymore except to expand different ways to say what I've been told to say...


Nah, this ain't for me. I'll stick to the truth.

Dubya was draft-dodger, Cheney dodged the draft FIVE TIMES, they love being chicken-hawks and they hate the soldiers:

Can you imagine any President except for The Worst President in History going on a 5-week vacation in the middle of a war? The longest Presidential vacation in 36 years while troops are begging for resources, an exit-plan, and a half-decent reason for being there?

The only way to get away with this is to have the grassroots support of people who DON'T support the troops, but will SAY THEY DO REALLY LOUDLY. Perfect cover-fire for cutting benefits, bonuses, extending tours, training 19-year olds to torture...

When you let your Commander-In-Chief get away with leaving them screwed by discrediting the people to protect the government, you all have soldiers blood on your hands. And you're not making honest well-thought out arguments: you've lost the ability to be critical when the peer pressure's on.

Don't tell me "the Generals will handle it", if Bill Clinton took a 5 week vacation during a war you'd have him impeached. This is a far greater crime of compromised leadership than a private infidelity, and many parents of the soldiers are absolutely disgusted by the insensitivity of Bush and his insensitive idiot chicken-hawk backers.

Congrats: you Brown Shirts aren't thinking anymore, you've lost the crucial ability to objectively examine leadership to safeguard democracy.

You're proving your blind loyalty to The Party well, God knows where this takes us...

- Answers.

First, thanks for checking the flick, I appreciate that you did.

I assume you're conceding all the stuff on 9/11, the Police State, and the military industrial complex by not contesting it, that was the real meat of the matter. No worries, I'll deal with your cherry-picked arguments below.

Some points on your first email:

1. All we did was prove the hole in the Pantagon doesn't look like what a jet could do, and there are several witnesses who contradict the governments official account including those who saw a missile. The movie mentioned a lot of stuff you didn't touch, including the available photographs totally disproving an airplan crashed there - AND HOW THEY ARE NOT RELEASING ANY OF THE LOCAL SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE.

There's different kinds of missiles and different sizes, your theorizing like there's only one kind doesn't make any sense. I didn't say I know what happened at the Pentagon, but I conclusively determined the evidence used to support their story is incomplete crap, and they're also definitely trying to hide the truth from the World.

Please, don't even think they're trying to tell you the truth:


The Dangerous Comfort of Secrecy

Published: July 12, 2005

The Bush administration is classifying the documents to be kept from public scrutiny at the rate of 125 a minute. The move toward greater secrecy has nearly doubled the number of documents annually hidden from public view - to well more than 15 million last year, nearly twice the number classified in 2001 - as bureaucrats have invented more amorphous categories like "sensitive security information." At the same time, the declassification of documents required under the Freedom of Information Act has been choked down to a fraction of what it was a decade ago, leaving the government working behind an ever darker, ever denser screen.



2. On to the war, it's going terribly. Even the Pentagon says so, several recent statements have been made by the military including totally lowering expectations on the future of Iraq - WHICH BASED ON THEIR PREVIOUS PREDICTIONS PROVES THEY ARE OFTEN WRONG OR LYING, THEY'VE DONE THIS SEVERAL TIMES.

That trumps whatever Matt Lauer read off the teleprompter - as if that's the killer argument, and for you to use the media as The Bible when it's convenient and The Necronomicon when it's not is pathetic: there are sources of information that are better documented, researched and delivered that will add depth and balance to Matt Lauer, and despite what you say:


If there were, they would better reflect the anti-war movement as a whole, and would:

1. criticize u.s. policy

2. criticize military spending

3. criticize foreign relations hypocrisy

4. criticize corporate greed and undue influence

5. criticize the issues "radical" groups do: making them mainstream

6. defend labour, welfare and universal health-care

7. defend protestors/activists and their value to society

8. defend the rights of minorities, immigrants, gays and women

9. defend the freedom of the press and its need for independence

10. defend the issues "radical" groups do: making them mainstream.

You've just been fed another enemy to attack like pitbull puppies, it's a tired old joke that works on the uninformed, and is perpetuated by the media itself at the behest of their corporate backers. They'll do a story or two, but they'd rather hound Clinton for a year over a blowjob than work to alleviate poverty.

How come there's a "Business Section" in every paper but ther's no "Labor Section"? That reflects a very select group of interests, and with 1% of the people owning 50% of the stocks this makes no sense if there were a "Liberal Bias". It's just more bullshit, it's repeated as a tactic, so don't be fooled: ask Liberals if they feel they're represented, and you'll hear us laugh.

Wake up man, you're smarter than this, you can't just accept things when legitimate criticism is brought up by smart people, and make no mistake: the smart people on the Right know this too.

On to the movie, you really cherry-picked info to argue, but you're still wrong anyway:

1. We all have an agenda, and if you think it's bad to have one then stop preaching the Republican Gospel. You cannot possibly attack the idea of people having an agenda. That's asinine.

2. On Bush's pagan rituals: why isn't this discussed? How come most Americans are not told Bush worships "Moloch" as well as Jesus? How do YOU know Bush is just blowing off steam? Are YOU just making excuses for your President's Pagan Rituals? Are you saying they are a real "Pagan" religion? With tax-exemptions and public membership? Can we join? If Clinton was into Pagan rituals would you treat him with the same "LEAVE HIM ALONE! HE'S JUST A PAGAN!" attitude?

3. The Bush Nazi connections are significant: WHY they are never mentioned shows just how controlled and "conservative" the "liberal" media is, after all most liberals at least acknowledge it as truth - which you do as well in arguing "well most Americans were for it!" at the time. That's not true and they didn't even say that, or you would've had a Nazi President. BUT, a lot of Americans were fooled by fascism (as is happening again today) and they had a substantial following in America. That all ended when America went to WWII, but not for Prescott Bush: he kept trading with the Nazi's through the war, got arrested in1942, traded again, got arrested again, and eventually stopped trading with remaining Nazi's in 1951.



4. On Arnie, he's been an asshole for years. Now don't get me wrong, I like his movies, and I've accepted entertainers being assholes for years. However, when it comes to having control over the lives of millions of people we as an electorate demand higher moral standards. If you can question Clinton's morals, you've got to question Arnie's: they're worse, and you can't just let him off the hook.

5. "Libs" don't like consolidation of corporate power, nor big government, nor any of the tools "Cons" love right now: you're advocating policies you don't even understand. All we want is the world to get along as one, not be run by one fascist plutocracy, so be careful what you don't know you're wishing for.

You left out 9/11 and the Police State: a staggering oversight considering that's the name and focus of the film, guess it convinced you huh?

You're probably 2 months away from opening your mind to all possibilities before you've investigated them, so enjoy your epiphany when it happens, it'll be scary to know how fooled you were while intellectually liberating.

For now, just have those images of Guantanamo on the Hudson, the Secret Police, people standing in the gaping holes of the towers despite supposed heat hot enough to melt steel, firefighters claiming they heard multiple explosions in the buildings before they fell, firefighters recorded saying the fires were almost out inside the building near the top floors, 9/11 victims families screaming at the press to pay attention to them, Michael Moore getting punk'd by Alex Jones for not dealing with the NORAD stand-down on 9/11, how many of the 19 hijackers turned up alive (BBC News), the growing domestic use of the military in direct violation of Posse Comitatus... and much more.

You're gonna have a lot of fun man, more than you've suggested here.

Just enjoy it: wake up and save the country...


P.S. Any other takers? I'd like to debate the more pressing and substantive portions of the film, they deal with the evisceration of the Constitution and could affect all of us soon.


The Endgame: Neo-Continuity...


They aren't wrong...

They can't be wrong...

They're too smart for that...

Fighting war badly is a deliberate strategy, the longer the war goes the more people get used to it, and the more it becomes an accepted part of our culture. Halliburton and The Carlyle Group (Cheney and Bush Sr.) in particular will make record profits, as will Boeing, General Electric, Lockheed-Martin, and thousands of other companies, universities, and other institutions with ties to the military. The army is losing in Iraq, so obviously their capabilities need to be upgraded, especially if America is increasingly vulnerable to foreign threats in an unstable world. It's a simple logical response to a simple logical cycle.

Many of these companies - especially the newly ultra-successful, count those with historic ties to the the CIA and the Republican party among their leaders. This means unlike ex-President Jimmy Carter, who's spent 20 years building houses for poor people, these ex-politicians are getting obscenely rich while maintaing or increasing their substantial power and influence. All of this was set up when they were out of office under Carter and Clinton, a unique cabal emerging from the revolving door of politics and the private sector hell-bent on maintaining elusive global control forever through war-corporatism.

Other big fish in the food chain are profiting enormously: anti-trust laws are ignored as corporations consolidate economic empires; oil companies are making record profits off weak consumers and the war machine; and countries are conveniently re-designed into cheap labor forces for the West after they are destroyed.

It's a video game: you have the biggest weapons and you built a world full of little enemies, so now you fight it out. It's fun.

Make no mistake: they are not that stupid.

There is a plan for post-war Iraq: it's called Iran.

And there's a plan for post-war Iran: it's called Syria.

(And there's plans in case these plans aren't feasable.)

Their famous radical ideology is well-known, almost too well-known, it's the established critique based on a small pool of information and possibilities. It's sold as a strange "Manifest Democracy" militaristic foreign policy that you like or you don't, but it's apparently legitimate. It's biggest defenders claim the idea is to rapidly transform the middle-east and the world into a free-market democratic paradise, which does not sound like a bad goal to the majority of Western audiences.

The problem is civilians managing the military: they don't play to win.

They're politicians: they play to their backers.

George W. Bush is the God-child of the top-rung of modern Republican leadership, and with those same Godfathers (including his own father) working for oil and defense companies or related investment banks, Bush is drafting policy that reflects their specific interests.

Politicians playing to corporate backers is not new, but these particular players are far more politically ambitious than greedy.

Their interests are best served by a quick period of massive profits so their corporations can gain control of the world before the rest of it can react, and that's exactly what this war is doing. If all goes well then financial and miitary control of the world will soon be in the hands of a few men, perhaps eventually even making them strong enough to challenge the ancient hierarchy of banking families.

Also, many are getting old, they made a world full of weapons, and after years of little conflicts they want to see the big show: World War III. Or World War IIII, depending on how you look at the Cold War. I think that distinction just makes it easier to sell the next war anyway: WWI made WWII easier, so if we've had WWIII then why not WWIIII? (They'll just turn into SuperBowls.) Anyone callous about the impact of the war machine is logically okay with the fringe benefits of population control, just another on a list of hegemonic rewards.

It's tough to run a successful business just for the money, so you have to love your job and the products you make. It's no fun making and selling weapons if you never see them used, so historically if you could politically arrange it you have wars for fun. Generals still weigh the costs, but argue individual desires within an interpretive military frame-work. The hawks always win if they know they're not going to be stopped by the civilian President, and with their legendary and yet secretive love of gadgets, strategy, and history, wars are a great place to put theories in action.

Private contractors are a new wrinkle, and while they antagonize average soldiers and even some officers, for those who use them they're priceless. They are above the law, many are from Latin American death squads trained by the CIA, and there are no rules on how to use them outside of secret contracts, so for $1500 a day the U.S. taxpayer buys you one hell of a weapon. The growth of private armies is dangerous on every level: the character of the military is severly compromised, as is that of all major corporations who use them for executive security right now. Their commercial legitimization only stands to eventually provide robber-barons more protection against all enemies and even governments, but especially those who protest the idea of massively profiting off the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare.

Make no mistake: not all the mistakes made are mistakes.

Incomptence can be faked by the best: Iraq is a mess.

All you have to do is look at The Usual Suspects and ask:

"Who is Kaiser Soze?"


"Qui bono?"

"Who profits?"

It's the Right cancer at the Right time with the Right karate class: Going for your Brown Belt?

Hitler walking out of the Brown House after the 1930 elections.


When your boss is evil, how do you get a promotion?

You act more evil.

And when everyone else sees that?

They act more evil.

And the cancer grows...


Right here, Right now, Right on time, the Right cancer is spreading.

Separating policy from people, the ideas themselves are achieving a world of evil, a world of ignorance, a world of distrust, and a world where we attack each other, spy on each other, and lie to each other as encouraged to by the state. Once in motion, a perpetual drafting of New-Normal acolytes will occur based on a progressive weakening of the social fabric: communities are authoritarian hierarchies, other communities are enemies, and within communities are spies disguised as dissidents. The media will carefully, cautiously, and sporadically reflect some changes, but we may be slow to recognize their danger if we don't know to define them as part of a bigger picture.

Right now, the Right tools are in place for the Right moves.

This is not clear, but many people see it clearly, and say it loudly despite marginalization.

How is this possible?

We've looked.

We've seen a million questions...

We've seen a million lies...

We've seen a million charater flaws that would send a man to hell...

We've seen a million dollars make a man and a million men pay for it...


We've all seen the Patriot Act was a flagrant attack on the U.S. Constitution, a deliberate weakening of the ultimate check and balance against tyranny enacted in haste under patriotic peer pressure after 9/11. Some have seen Patriot Act 2 was then prepared secretly for 6 months by Viet Dinh and his team of 168,000 people, and how it caused an uproar from both Republicans and Democrats when it was leaked for it's incredible powers of surveillance, detention, search and seizure, and violation of privacy; and the fact that legislation is now being drafted in secret. Included were ideas like deputizing janitors and cable-TV repairmen to spy on private homes for the FBI. It sounds crazy, but since then it's really happened, and is being trialed in local markets according to local news stories that endorse it.

We stop and rewind the 3rd eye: it took all those people 6 months to draft Patriot Act 2 and they still weren't finished? Even with Patiot Act 1 as a template? I wonder how long it took to draft Patriot Act 1?

A quick "Google" and "Wikipedia" later found this sentence: "The House passed the USA Patriot Act on October 12, 2001". One month after September 11th. One month.


(And I trust Wikipedia on simple stuff like this, I see no reason for anyone to lie about the date the Patriot Act was passed.)

There's a few million "anomalies"...

I think the frustration people feel is the true scope of the issue as broadly understood, and how that's not broadly understood despite its simple premises. One example from the great Jon Stewart quoting his appearance on C-SPAN: "I think the fact that so much of this country's business is conducted in the dark is a crime." Mr. Stewart, I agree, allow me to add that helps hide many crimes.

Make no mistake, the underground community is massive, and as I heard the great Arundathi Roy say recently: "Around the world, the dirty business of American history is now street-talk." So people know, and people who know people who know know they know even if they don't know because they don't want to know or think they know because they need to know.

Still, as defined by many, the recent and effective arrogance Empire is displaying to get popular endorsement for radical changes is astonishing: sometimes they lie, but often they don't. They say things people forgot are historically bad ideas: including the ways they say them.

They move freely in silence, like a giant blue whale ingesting plankton populations, all the while the plankton don't know they're being eaten. Some plankton have been digested, some are about to be, and some are simply in its path. It keeps swimming smoothly with a growing appetite around the blue marble of earth, a gentle giant among drifting plankton unaware they can swim.

Existential dilemmas in the face of Empire are nothing new, but that is not to say they are not important. If this is truly a battle, when one side stops fighting: they lose.

So, how do you cure cancer?


We may tear our hair out, but we'll keep blasting the Right cancer with as much radiating reality as possible. The rest is up to everyone to be objective about the motives, means and opportunities of the world they want to live in, and who you can trust based on their track record: friends, family, and neighbors, or government and corporations.

There is no central command on the outside, there are only local solutions based on universal principles, and individual actions as individually defined.

Counter-revolutionary thinking is needed:

The Revolution Is Happening.

It's just not who you expected to revolt against the system...



The NewStandard

Monsanto Looks to Patent Pigs, Breeding Methods

by Jeff Shaw

In a move that has environmentalists and consumer advocates worried, one of the world's most controversial corporations is looking to claim swine farming procedures as intellectual property.

Aug 18 - In what critics call a dangerous power grab, the Monsanto Company is seeking wide-ranging control over swine reproduction methods in the form of patents which, if granted, would give the corporation economic rights over any offspring produced using those techniques.

Documents obtained by Christoph Then, a Germany-based researcher for Greenpeace, show Monsanto's attempts to secure broad intellectual property protection for swine herds.

Monsanto spokesperson Chris Horner said that the company merely wants protection for its selective breeding processes, including the means to identify specific genes in pigs and use of a specialized insemination device.

Many say this trend is disturbing as corporations move to exert power and ownership over the fundamental human need for food. "We're not talking about [patenting] individual pigs," he said. "We're talking about the process itself."

But the actual wording of the patent applications appears to rebut this claim.

Besides production methods, Monsanto' applications seek to claim rights to "pig offspring produced by a method ...," a "pig herd having an increased frequency of a specific... gene...," a "pig population produced by the method...," and a "swine herd produced by a method..." respectively. If accepted, these patents would appear to grant Monsanto intellectual property rights to particular farm animals and particular herds of livestock.

"Broader and broader patent claims seem to be a trend," said Charles Margulis, spokesperson for the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group specializing in food policy, "and this is another move forward in that trend."

Many say this trend is disturbing as corporations move to exert power and ownership over the fundamental human need for food.

Monsanto is seeking to patent a package of protocols, including a device and several procedures aimed at increasing the effectiveness of artificial insemination.

But Then, who has been studying patents for a decade, said that there is really nothing new to the breeding processes of which Monsanto is seeking to claim exclusive ownership; rather, the patents attempt to privatize farming techniques already in existence for centuries.

"There's no invention in this," he said. "It's just normal pig breeding."

The dangers, Then said, are quite concerning. As food production centralizes, consumers could become dependent upon fewer and fewer companies -- raising the risk of dangerous monopolies. In this case, Monsanto -- already a giant in other arenas -- is making a bold move into pork products, on which American consumers spend about $38 billion each year.

But Monsanto’s new patent claims would give the company rights over pigs that have not been genetically modified, swine that have merely been produced with certain breeding protocols. Seeking to patent life forms is a relatively recent development. In a time of rapid scientific advancement, biotechnology companies are rushing to claim new discoveries as their own.

"But discoveries are different from inventions: genes have been in pigs forever," said Margulis. "In this case, it's as if someone had gone out during the California gold rush and tried to patent the process of gold panning, then said 'anyone who ever pans for any gold has to pay me a licensing fee.'"

Previous efforts at patenting life forms have mostly focused on genetically modified organisms. But Monsanto’s new patent claims would give the company rights over pigs that have not been genetically modified, swine that have merely been produced with certain breeding protocols.

Plus, Margolis contends, Monsanto's history suggests that the new patent applications deserve strict scrutiny.

"We're talking about one of the biggest polluters of the 20th century. This is a company with a 100-year track record of polluting the planet: now they're moving in and trying to control the food supply. This is a very troubling development, and people need to be aware of who is behind it."

For example, before dangerous industrial coolant chemicals called PCBs were banned, Monsanto spent decades producing the toxins and covering up internal studies that showed PCBs were deadly to humans and animal life.

To Then, granting these patents would be shortsighted and pose grave threats to small farmers.

"One patent is related to a genetic condition in pigs," he said. "It could be, in five years or so, that this becomes a desirable condition - nobody knows. If that happens, Monsanto could try to file lawsuits against farmers who own pigs with those genes, even if they've never bought a pig from Monsanto."

Monsanto has already sued farmers with crops containing the firm's patented strains of genetically modified plants. Often, plants with genetically modified genes cross-polinate with non-modified crops in nearby fields and farmers can end up with patented genes in the plants without ever even knowing it.

Food safety activists fully expect that if patents come into effect, Monsanto will begin filing lawsuits to enforce its newly gained intellectual property, targeting other producers -- including individual small farmers -- for using methods already in use. This, the activists say, would undermine local food production.

"That's exactly what's been happening with farmers and genetically engineered crops," says Margulis, "so there's every reason to believe that not only could [lawsuits] happen, but that Monsanto would be the first in line to make that happen."

Monsanto representatives downplayed the significance of the moves, pointing out that the claims have only been filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization, not with any particular country. The WIPO cannot itself grant patents, since it merely serves as a clearinghouse that forwards applications to regional patent offices.

"Anything we'd be looking at in terms of an individual country patent is still a ways away yet," said Horner.

He did not specify a timeframe, but did say that even though Monsanto is seeking patents in more than 100 countries, it would focus on the US market.

Irrespective of the practical implications, many critics say that placing patents on life is never justified.

"Genes should be looked at as the common heritage of nature," said Margulis, "and they shouldn't be owned by anyone."


Thursday, August 18, 2005

But that was back in 1989... have those guys been promoted?

Some points:

1. Liberals find it tougher to consolidate power because we like to allow each other to argue, so unless you use force (like Stalin) it's tougher to force a corporate fascist agenda. Conservatives today have decided to work together at unprecedented levels: you think WE would accept "Talking Points"?


That's what makes Bush more dangerous, plus his cabal has deep corrupt roots, I just saw The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney and he's been pulling scams forever...

2. On globalisation and ecomonic marginalization, first off I saw a movie called "Life or Debt" that told me how the 3rd World was screwed with awful loan conditions by the West after colonial rule, so there's some good reasons there: racists gave their former slaves bad loans at crippling interest, sounds reasonable.

Next when you look at the total amount of wealth created vs. how many people it reached, you've got to be insane to excuse it as a byproduct of healthy capitalism. I got no problem with rich people, but the corruption in the system has ensured no "level playing field" in history to allow for that wealth to spread wide enough to empower people - on purpose. To make excuses for the status quo is to simply deny that history and deny any pressing need for a solution. (Which is what people do.)

Plus a wicked flick called "The Money Masters" showed me how most countries have a Federal Reserve that is controlled by a handful of private banks, including the first in the U.S. and England who control the most capital, so they can shrink or grow economies. There is a way to Constitutionally recover our systems of money, but there is little awareness and thus little political will. And who's going to touch the story? Economics gobbledygook is in style...

(I've been watching a lot of movies lately, synthesizing a lot of different ideas... man, the world is nutz.)

Back to George (and this relates to economic disparity and racism), I think he's responsible for a tonne of this stuff, with Sr. positions at the CIA from the 1950's to his run as VP and Prez until the early 90's, he's had a profound influence on the world.

Sure, I know he's a tool of interests, but I refuse to believe people individually within a power structure don't have power themselves as well, and don't make decisions with massive consequences - like invasions, wars, assasinations, etc. He's had massive power, and repeatedly proved his loyalty to power by working his way up to the Presidency. He must've been aware of all CIA ops, and even as an ex-President he's the only one who exercises his right to receive daily CIA briefings. So figure out what they were up to, and then recognize what happened in the 1980's, and there's 50 years of Bush Dynasty evil as a principle architect.

And now his son's in charge: and he seems crazier.

I hope soldiers recognize this - I've heard the Army is split 50*50 on Bush as a leader. Our best hope is that wiithin military hierarchies there is the power to make a difference: every foot soldier that decides to put down his gun will help - like the 5000+ who've gone AWOL, and every whistleblower sheds a bit more light on the system - if we choose to listen and spread word of their courage.

I just saw a film that won the Oscar in 1992 for best documentary called "The Panama Deception" - though it's since almost disappeared. It showed how Bush Sr. ordered the brutal and illegal attack on Panama to: a) shake the "wimp" label, b) try out new Army equipment, c) practice for the Gulf War.

You should Google it, or a link is:


They were executing people in the streets in Panama, and putting them into detainment camps for no reason - this was a highly populated area they'd carpet-bombed for 4 hours. Once people were in the camps - with a few soldiers and civilians randomly executed, they proceeded to burn down houses in the area to flush out snipers, and all after they had Noriega and had easily overwhelmed PDF forces and terrorized the population. Then they took a list of people in opposition to them taking over Panama, and proceeded to...

Anyway... it's crazy. I can't do it justice, the whole damn thing is chock full of priceless footage. And the media sold it the same way they're selling Iraq: with lies.

(Curiously a friend just returned from vacation there, and she confirmed that there are still bombed-out areas from the invasion that never got fixed, and the people have a love*hate relationship with America... like everybody.)

But that was back in 1989... have those guys been promoted?

I think the growing insanity of current policies is lost on us - military budgets in America are rarely questioned, and they control so much of the media that trains us how to think that we don't even know when to get mad anymore. We all flipped out over the Tsunami, and then Live 8, but there's a million issues that we don't see as a whole to trace back to sources of responsibility: on purpose.

The bottom line?

That's also why I'm choosing Liberal and Libertarian media sources, I don't think we accurately understand what kind of danger we're in without mapping both world views - even the most "extreme" who are getting too much right just because they have the balls to publish it.

If the military's job is to "kill people and break things" (Alex Jones) they have no purpose domestically: we've already got cops. But they're here, and like with everything else American the rest of the world will soon copy these policies - with Britain helping lead the way. To change our entire world because of a handful of terrorists trained and funded by America's $40 bln intelligence apparatus seems odd to me - the recent attacks notwithstanding.

And to invite the Army that sodomized Panama to operate domestically is a historically bad idea...

From Wikipedia: The Posse Comitatus Act

The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, and was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The original act only referred to the Army, but the Air Force was added in 1956 and the Navy and Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is mentioned whenever it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

SOURCE - *********wiki*Posse_Comitatus_Act


BONUS: You Don't Get God...

And imho, God gave you the free will to choose your leaders, and educate yourself on those choices. Jesus may well return as President, but people have been waiting a thousand years: so better clean up the house in case He doesn't get here soon, or out of respect for His gift to us in case He does.



Street-fighting 'Neo-Con'

By Edna Gundersen,
Thu Aug 18, 7:46 AM ET

Sweet Neo-Con, Mick Jagger's scathing indictment of U.S. foreign policy, isn't just rankling conservatives. It rattled a usually unflappable firebrand.

The song, due Sept. 6 on the Rolling Stones' A Bigger Bang, wasn't warmly embraced by guitarist Keith Richards. (Related story: Four rockers define Stones age)

"I didn't want this to be a diversionary storm," he says. "I thought potentially it would detract attention from the rest of the album and be seen as cheap publicity. We don't need that. But I told Mick, 'If you really feel like you want to say that, I'll back you all the way.'

"If I'm going to write a song, politicians are the last subject I think of. Neo-Con is like an old headline. Nobody will know what it means in 10 years. I like the oblique angles like Sweet Black Angel or Street Fighting Man. This one is a bit of a finger-pointer, but what's wrong with a poke in the eye?"

Accusing the administration of hypocrisy, the song asserts, "It's liberty for all, democracy's our style/Unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial."

Jagger isn't dodging the lyrics' thrust. "I have my opinions, which I've stated in the tune. Maureen Dowd is no more qualified to have opinions than I am."

Jagger composed the song quickly, then watched jaws drop as he bounced it off bandmates and producer Don Was.

"Isn't that really what pop music should be about?" he says.

The Neo-controversy might never have ensued if more bands had topical rants in the marketplace. "Perhaps they don't because everyone says, 'How dare he have an opinion?' " Jagger says. "But whose opinion do you listen to? People on TV who have no qualifications."

Bang also offers social commentary in Rain Fall Down and Back of My Hand, but the joys and pitfalls of romance dominate.

"People can understand and empathize with love and broken hearts," Jagger says. "Writing a whole album about politics would not be a good idea, but I specifically tried to encompass a broader set of subjects."



BONUS: Why don't you deal with what's been said?

There's a very clever trick spin-doctors tell politicians for interviews:

"Remember: re-direct any questions to focus on what you want to say, you only have to talk about what YOU want to talk about!"

You guys are well-trained at this, but setting up straw-men for Daft and I to burn down isn't the point:

You haven't dealt with a damn thing he's said.

This is sad really, so little trust among friends.

You could at least honestly deal with it, and if you don't accept the overall conclusion you can certainly accept there are questions. I'll admit, I have no idea where the plane went that didn't hit the Pentagon:


We don't have to answer questions that we didn't say we could, THAT doesn't prove anyone wrong.

We also don't have the $50 mm you guys forced the government to spend on Clinton's blowjob, but I guarantee you if we took even a tenth of that money and did an INDEPENDENT investigation - not the "OFFICIAL" one with 6 out of 7 investigation committees run by Condoleeza's old college buddy and co-author that has been widely discredited, we'd come up with a hell of a lot.

Hell, we do now: you just don't deal with it.



Here you go, your opinions straight from Central Command:

RAW STORY has obtained an exclusive copy of Republican talking points on Bush adviser Karl Rove's leaking the name of a CIA agent to a reporter, circulated by the Republican National Committee to "D.C. Talkers" in Washington.


Your news sources "fix facts around intelligence" as opposed to the other way around, and by the time it gets to you it's been said so many times you take it as truth. You're very loyal to party ideology, so even though most slander is quietly disproven weeks later, you'll still keep drinking the Kool-Aid because it tastes great to be winning when you're angry and paranoid. These half-truths are really messing you guys up.

You've got to face facts:

You're smearing a grieving mother protesting a war that - beyond being illegal, was clearly botched because the civilian chicken-hawks ignored top Generals like Shinseki and others. On humanitarian and diplomatic grounds, they've weakened options to strengthen moderate muslim support by continuing to torture thousands of OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT muslims resulting in no good intelligence.

How do we ALL know?


Why do you subscribe to this madness?

You've been told to.

If this woman was protesting Clinton in the same situation you'd be cheering like crazy against his botched mess. She's a hero, and her actions in this climate of slandering idiot slaves for the rich and powerful devaluing dissent are incredibly brave:


You can't see clearly anymore, and you can't make objective decisions on fellow citizens without partisan bias.

It's sad...

You're all full of elephant-shit and don't even know it...


Rapilogue: Where are we going?

"Where are you going?
With the long face pulling down
Don’t hide away like the ocean
That you can’t see
But you can smell
And the sound of waves crash down...."

- Dave Matthews Band, "Where Are You Going?"

Chiggidy-check yo'self...

Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (2005)

Evil has spread across the land. Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State exposes the high-tech control grid that is being set up across America.

Out of the ashes of the September 11th tragedy, a dark empire of war and tyranny has risen. The Constitution has been shredded and America is now a Police State. This film exposes not just who was behind the 9-11 attacks, but the roots and history of its orchestrators.

Downloaded 4,539 times


MARTIAL LAW 911: RISE OF THE POLICE STATE Information Resource Companion Web Site.


Kanye West Calls for End to Gay Bashing

Kanye West Calls for End to Gay Bashing

Thu Aug 18,12:48 PM ET

NEW YORK - Kanye West says "gay" has become an antonym to hip-hop — and that it needs to be stopped.

During an interview for an MTV special, the 27-year-old rapper launched into a discussion about hip-hop and homosexuality while talking about "Hey Mama," a song on his upcoming album, "Late Registration."

West says that when he was young, people would call him a "mama's boy."

"And what happened was, it made me kind of homophobic, 'cause it's like I would go back and question myself," West says on the show, "All Eyes on Kanye West," set to air Thursday night (10:30 p.m. ET).

West says he changed his ways, though, when he learned one of his cousins was gay.

"It was kind of like a turning point when I was like, `Yo, this is my cousin. I love him and I've been discriminating against gays.'"

West says hip-hop was always about "speaking your mind and about breaking down barriers, but everyone in hip-hop discriminates against gay people." He adds that in slang, gay is "the opposite, the exact opposite word of hip-hop."

Kanye's message: "Not just hip-hop, but America just discriminates. And I wanna just, to come on TV and just tell my rappers, just tell my friends, `Yo, stop it.'"

West, whose debut disc "The College Dropout" won a Grammy for best rap album, will see his second record in stores on Aug. 30.


On the Net:



Putting politics back into US hip-hop

By Kris Evans in Los Angeles

Wednesday 17 August 2005, 9:24 Makka Time, 6:24 GMT

Fredwreck believes there is a place for political rap in the US

Thanks to MTV, there are certain expectations when entering the California home of a major rap producer: Cars with Italian names parked outside, ostentatious jewellery, giant TV screens running the latest videos.

While Fredwreck's Northridge home, about 30km northwest of Los Angeles, boasts a widescreen TV large enough to obscure one living room wall, there is also evidence that this hip-hop heavyweight has other cultural influences: Cushions positioned on the floor around a shisha (water pipe), an oud (Middle Eastern lute) and tabla (drum) resting next to the guitar rack.

To many of his big-name clients - Snoop Dogg, Xzibit and Mack 10 among them - Fredwreck is the go-to producer when preparing a new album. While most of his peers hail from South Central LA, Fredwreck's roots lie farther east.

"My father was born in the Israeli part of Jerusalem, my mother was born in Bir Zeit," says Fredwreck, born Farid Nassar. "[In Jerusalem] my father got to work in a machine shop. During those times General Motors was looking for machinists so that's how he got to come to America."

Fredwreck's father left after the 1967 Middle East war and managed to bring the rest of his family from Palestine to settle in the apartment block he had purchased in Flint, Michigan.

Fredwreck was born Farid Nassar
to Palestinian parents

The US-born Fredwreck recalls how parties back in Flint usually ended with each family member playing an instrument, his mother on the tabla, a cousin on the violin.

In those days, he says, buying a radio was beyond their budget, so music had to be made at home.

"People were always around making music and playing music. That's where I think I got it from."

Fast forward through breakdancing at high school, creating mix tapes and being a disc jockey, to the moment when Segal, Dr Dre's engineer, passed some of Fredwreck's music to that architect of West Coast hip-hop. Dre liked what he heard and Fredwreck's career took off.

Along with music, there is another recurring theme in Fredwreck's life.

Growing up political

The producer's first brush with activism was at age five when his parents came to collect him early one day from kindergarten.

His memory is hazy, but he believes it was after the Sabra-Shatila massacre. His father and uncles planned to march to the mayor's office and, as Fredwreck recalls, "have some words with him".

"I was a kid at the time thinking 'This is cool'," he says of his first involvement in political protest. "But people were driving by and throwing stuff at us and my uncles had to throw rocks back. The next day I was at school and all my friends said, 'Hey man, I saw you and your father on TV last night!'"

"After 9/11 happened and I saw they wanted to go and take out Saddam Hussein [and I thought] 'You're turning one thing into something else'"

Rap producer Fredwreck

Fredwreck's interest in politics never left him, but it was piqued by the Iraq war.

"After 9/11 happened and I saw they wanted to go and take out Saddam Hussein [and I thought] 'You're turning one thing into something else'."

His conversations with friends about the war made him realise he needed to create some music to reflect his feelings.

While socially conscious rap music may be blossoming in the Middle East, with acts emerging from Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine, the days of American hip-hop when Public Enemy urged the world to "fight the power" have been replaced by a rap movement which is more about partying than politics.

Fredwreck, himself a big fan of party jams, as he calls them, was not deterred and believes there is a place for political rap music in the United States.

Inspired by protest singers from the 1960s, he got to work.

"You see what music did in the sixties," he says. "Music is just a vehicle to send a message out. You can't tell me Bob Dylan didn't have an influence on how people thought about policy and war."

But he says that the industry is so commercially led, artists are scared of taking risks. While swearing and showing bikini-clad women is acceptable, politics is not.

Letter to president

"Dear Mr President" is Fredwreck's reaction to events in Iraq and attempts to ask questions that he thinks are not being addressed in the mainstream media.

"Everybody has got to take a bit of responsibility"


It is a protest song of sorts, one that brings together the talents of the big-name rappers Fredwreck works with, including Cypress Hill's B-Real, Evidence from Dilated Peoples and KRS-One.

But this was no "We are the World" get-together.

Financial constraints meant that Fredwreck recorded the track one part at a time, whenever one of the rappers was passing through.

To record Mobb Deep, he took his laptop and set up a mini studio in their hotel room.

Not all the participants were that eager initially, some worrying that they might be perceived as anti-American. Fredwreck says he tried to put them at ease.

"It's not anti-American. Each person is saying what their thoughts are. Every person got to put their own message across, and all their separate messages was the message I wanted to put out there."

The track, which clocks in at over six minutes, is breezy and laid back, with the haunting refrain of "There's blood on all our hands" forming part of the chorus, courtesy of former House of Pain frontman Everlast.

Irish rapper

Everlast, whose real name is Erik Schrody, says he is not a political person but this track presented a good venue to say something about the war.

"Everybody has got to take a bit of responsibility," says Everlast. "I'm a Muslim also, so I have this whole dichotomy of things I have to deal with. ... I feel that more Muslims need to stand up and say, 'That extremist stuff ain't right.'

"America ain't done a lot of great things lately, but it doesn't make cutting off innocent people's heads right. There's nothing in the Quran that tells me to take it (violence) to innocent people," he says.

"There's people dying," Everlast says. "They don't show us any dead soldiers at all, any dead Iraqis, because they know if the American people saw that stuff on TV it would be a mess. The average American, show them any dead baby in the street and it's going to mess with them."

Everlast and Fredwreck say their concern comes from a love of country, not a hatred of it. They are concerned about the direction their country is taking.

"The people of America aren't the government of America," says Everlast. "I think they (people in the Middle East) would be shocked about how many people really aren't down for what's going on."

New acts

Fredwreck is encouraged by the new hip-hop acts coming out of the Middle East and is already sending music - at no charge - to one group in Gaza.

"It's like 1988 all over again," says the producer. "It's NWA in Palestine. They're rapping about oppression and their message is getting out.

"And you got Israeli Jewish artists that are doing the same thing. And that's cool. That's what it's supposed to be about. Every person has a view."

You can download the S.T.O.P. Movement's free tracks at


The Clash of Civilizations: "Man shot by London police was sitting on seat in subway"

Reports: Man shot by London police was sitting on seat in subway train

Last Updated Tue, 16 Aug 2005
19:14:48 EDT

CBC News

An innocent Brazilian man shot dead by British police who mistook him for a London bombing suspect had taken a seat on a subway train and was tackled by a police surveillance officer before being shot, according to an account of events broadcast Tuesday.

British police had claimed that 27-year old electrician Jean Charles de Menezes didn't obey an order to stop as they tailed him into London's Stockwell underground train station a day after a series of bombs planted on London's transit system failed to fully detonate.

Menezes had emerged from a house that police had under surveillance, believing it was linked to the bombings.

On Tuesday, Britain's ITV news, citing security footage, said that Menezes entered the station at a normal walking pace, stopping to pick up a newspaper.

The television station claimed that witness accounts, included in an investigation report into the shooting, said Menezes was seated on the train before being shot.

A man sitting opposite Menezes is quoted as saying: "Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me. He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man's head. The gun was within 12 inches (30 centimetres) of the man's head when the first shot was fired."

A police surveillance officer described how he wrapped his arms around Menezes and pushed him down into a seat. "I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting . . . I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage."

The report obtained by ITV said while Menezes was shot eight times, a further three bullets were fired but missed. ITV said the documents came from an official investigation into his death.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, who have been charged with investigating the shooting, refused Tuesday to comment on the veracity of the documents. The IPCC said it would not speculate or release partial information about the investigation, and that others should not do so.

London Metropolitan Police said they could not make any comment while the police complaints commission investigation was ongoing.


He walked to the train, sat down and was shot

August 18, 2005

The Daily Telegraph

LONDON: Anti-terror police are under pressure after leaked documents revealed a catalogue of alleged errors that led to the shooting of a Brazilian man who was mistaken for a suicide bomber.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, investigating the controversial killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, refused to confirm or deny the information, broadcast by ITV News this week, which contradicted police and eye witness statements.

Police shot the electrician, 27, at point blank range on a Tube train on July 22, one day after four suspected would-be suicide bombers tried to attack London in a botched re-run of the July 7 atrocity.

Initial reports said Mr de Menezes had been acting suspiciously – wearing a bulky jacket, jumping a ticket barrier at Stockwell Underground station, south London, and sprinting on to the subway train.

But witness accounts and photographs leaked to ITV paint a very different picture, showing the young man in a light denim jacket, walking calmly through the station to the train and taking a seat on board.

They also revealed Mr de Menezes was restrained by a police officer on the train before being shot eight times.

In addition, a police officer outside his flat said he failed to videotape Mr de Menezes when the Brazilian left home as he had been on a toilet break.

The revelations prompted relatives and campaigners to call for a public inquiry into the shooting. "My family deserve the full truth about his murder," cousin Allessandro Pereira said.

"The truth cannot be hidden any longer. It has to be made pub

The ITV report said the operation was flawed from the start as police monitored Mr de Menezes' block of units where they believed two suspects in the July 21 attacks were living.

The undercover officer outside, who was supposed to identify anyone exiting the building, admitted he had been away from his post when the Brazilian left.

Closed circuit television footage later captured the electrician entering the station at a normal walking pace, even collecting a free newspaper, and descending to the platform on an escalator.

Contrary to dramatic witness accounts on the day, Mr de Menezes is seen to board the train through the middle doors before pausing, looking left and right, then sitting down in either the second or third seat facing the platform.

Moments later, police burst in and apparently restrained the Brazilian before pumping seven bullets into his head and one into his shoulder. Three more bullets missed him and the casings were left lying on the floor.


The New York Times: It's been 38 days, 912 hours, 54720 minutes, and 68400 documents classified by the Bush Administration.

It's been 38 days, 912 hours, 54720 minutes, and 68400 documents classified by the Bush Administration since The New York Times published this main editorial:

The Dangerous Comfort of Secrecy

Published: July 12, 2005

The Bush administration is classifying the documents to be kept from public scrutiny at the rate of 125 a minute. The move toward greater secrecy has nearly doubled the number of documents annually hidden from public view - to well more than 15 million last year, nearly twice the number classified in 2001 - as bureaucrats have invented more amorphous categories like "sensitive security information." At the same time, the declassification of documents required under the Freedom of Information Act has been choked down to a fraction of what it was a decade ago, leaving the government working behind an ever darker, ever denser screen.




So, in honor of our disappearing history, I proudly present:


Won the Academy Award for Best Documentary.

Directed by Barbara Trent of the Empowerment Project, website. This film documents the untold story of the December 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama. The United States military deliberately attacked and destroyed primarily residential neighborhoods, killing an estimated 3 to 4 thousand people in the process. This segment exposes the role the U.S. government and mainstream media play in suppressing information about U.S. foreign policy. Includes never before seen footage of this invasion. Narrated by (Actress) Elizabeth Montgomery

Download parts 1 - 2 - 3



I've only watched 21 minutes, but it's crazy...

Getcha learn on while ya can! :P


Okay, I watched the rest of it.


This movie just could not be made today.


The footage is crazy - it's nearly ALL footage of the craziness.

Panama was used as a military testing ground for the Gulf War.

Panama was used by George Bush Sr. to shake the "wimp" label.

The ramifications of that abuse of power were awful.

The ramifications of that abuse of power are awful.

The mass-media was again totally complicit in the cover-up.

And when you see what those soldiers did back in 1989...

And when you see what those soldiers did to civilians...

You'll be shocked.

You'll probably be less shocked if it happens here...


You'll be shocked.

Fear Factor: Alex Jones vs. Joe Rogan (Just talking shit, smoking pot, and fighting the New World Order.)

They scrap it out...

They're friends...

Joe thinks Alex is right...

Joe thinks Alex is insane...

And that makes him a good host for the rest of us...


Fear Factor - New World Order vs. 9/11

31m 43s

Added Mar 10 2002

The "A" Game.

Alex Jones informs Houston comic Ken Polk that the world is round, and that the US government was behind the 9-11 attacks. Featuring Joe Rogan. Long version.


Joe asks an interesting question...

If all the stuff Alex says is true...

If there really is a New World Order running the world...

How can we possibly win if they control the mass media?

I think the answer is they make mistakes...

9/11 is coming up again...

It'll be all over the TV...

There's going to be massive coverage...

We'll all be talking about it again...

We'll all be curious again...

And taking a look below...

It seems there will be a lot of answers...

That will lead to questions...

That will lead to answers...


9/11 dramas head for big, small screens

By Scott Bowles,
Wed Aug 17, 7:50 AM ET

After four years without dramatizing the tragedy, studios and networks will re-create the Sept. 11 attacks.

Two movies and three television projects will end what had been Hollywood's unofficial taboo on dramatizing the events of that day. Although movies and TV documentaries have dealt with Sept. 11 (including a National Geographic documentary this Sunday), these will be the first major projects that re-create the events of the day.

Some question whether the projects come too soon after the attacks. But executives say that with the release last year of the report by the government's 9/11 Commission, they have the grounding to create fact-based drama that is respectful of the victims' families.

Due out:

•The Flight That Fought Back, the Discovery Channel's docudrama about United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in southwest Pennsylvania, airs Sept. 11.

• Universal Pictures confirmed Tuesday it will produce Flight 93, a $15 million, 90-minute feature film that will re-create the flight in real time. Filming starts in October, but no release date is set.

• In October, Oliver Stone starts shooting a drama starring Nicolas Cage as a Port Authority officer trapped under the rubble of the twin towers. Parts will be shot in New York, but no release date has been set.

• ABC plans a six-hour miniseries on the attacks, slated to air next spring, with
Harvey Keitel starring as John O'Neill, an anti-terror expert who died in the south tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

• The A&E network will release Flight 93, a working title, some time next year. It will be largely based on cockpit and telephone recordings.

Andrea Meditch, executive producer of the Discovery Channel film, says audiences are prepared to see 9/11 anew.

"It's far enough away from the event that it's possible to think about it with a bit of perspective," she says. "Sept. 11 was not just about a tragedy. There were real heroes who should have their stories told."

Quinn Taylor, senior vice president of movies and miniseries at ABC, says his miniseries would have been impossible without the 9/11 Commission's 600-page report.

"We just wouldn't have had the manpower to do the kind of research that the government did," he says. "It reads frighteningly like a thriller."

Are audiences prepared for that kind of thriller? Wanda Teays, a film professor at Mount St. Mary's College in Los Angeles, says: "There should be no rush to re-create 9/11. I don't think we're close to forgetting it - or in need of a reminder."

But Esther Heymann, stepmother of Flight 93 passenger Honor Elizabeth Wainio, welcomes a retelling of the flight.

"It's a beautiful story of people who took a course of action instead of being victims," she says. "There are lessons there for all of us."


Wednesday, August 17, 2005

"This is not a conspiracy: if you just rub your eyes and look at the 20th Century again, it's just hidden reality..."

Thanks for checking my site man, respect.

I see issues differently, and that's why I'm in this game...

I think we get caught holding others to our own interpretation of what they should be, and that limits our understanding. This is a very normative fashionable-fascist view for a small world, and it's affecting everything as reflected by a shrinking common knowledge base about issues of the most importance - including neglible info about the rest of the world. Just check the message boards and see how little "trust" there is between many people over "facts" and "intentions", it's scary to see how policy can't be discussed when people seem to live in different worlds.

That's why I wanted you to watch the flick, and kick my ass with your arguments instead of ripping it's premise sight-unseen. The only way to start a debate is to agree you're debating about the same thing - e.g. a movie. If I'm wrong then I'll evolve my opinion, if you're wrong evolve yours.

In fact, I'd like to promote this idea widely...

The standards of proof for anything but MSM or official statements are incredibly high, way too high based on the evidence:

We've already seen the British and U.S. Government lie repeatedly over the last few years, and the media complicit in it. The Downing Street Memo. Etc. Etc.

So, I'm looking for a new standard for all of us: "Qui bono?"

"Who profits?"

When I saw people bravely swimming against the tide I got curious:


When I see them taking more crap then getting dap, again:


On the Bush Sr. stuff, the bottom line is people would rather attack it in principle than in practice - a curious strategy. The Right is being didactically fed a thinner gruel of information with false truisms and poor justifications, and it's backed up by the fact they're currently "winning" and terrorism is scary. This creates a mindset of paranoid insecurity - they aren't ever "comforted" by their facts on any level, and causes them to lash out in fear and anger over a premise instead of engaging in discussion about uncomfortable truths.

You'll see they avoid depth and make excuses: "How can you say Bush is bad? He hugged a 9*11 victim in front of 500 TV cameras! He almost cried! It was awesome!"

Then he stalled any investigation for 2 years despite begging and pleading 9*11 victims families. Etc. Etc.

On to my blogsite, I'm compiling a list of compelling clues to validate questions many refuse to say exist, and juxtaposing non-traditional ideas to suggest non-traditional revolutionary role models.

Do I need to provide more proof on my site? I think it's too wordy because I provide so much now, but I want to copy links, I want to narrate with images and ideas, and I want to copy some articles in their entirety - they change after they are initially published and a story is widely conformed to a new truth. I've confirmed it, others have historically, and while a justification is they're just correcting stuff they got wrong, in many cases it's excising crucial information that contradicts new lies.

On to your questions:

1. All I think I have to do in a forum like this is make an argument that something is reasonable: most of the questions I get like yours are things you can google yourself. Plus anyone who denies one set of proofs by claiming they don't achieve the aims of another isn't making much sense to me: I don't want to make stuff up to convince you, I just want to show you that people are acting really guilty by lying in clarifying this for us. There could've been a Chinese firecracker factory on the 30th floor: fine, let's prove it.

This the flick that I want everyone in the world to see at the moment:

Martial Law 9*11: Rise Of The Police State


His evidence is exceptional, his conclusions are insane.

If it makes no sense, that's what makes it so compelling: he can't be right, it's too scary, but he's not wrong, so...

2. The media is "truthful", at least ideally, and I think if Fox News et all didn't LIE so much then the Left wouldn't have a problem with them. For years Liberals and Conservatives respected each other and debated issues on the same TV networks, and if they were discussing something they at least agreed on most of the FACTS. The media telling the most "truth" - and I mean TRUTH with the best arguments and evidence available, are the hard-core Lefties and Libertarians who can critically deconstruct the whole system with no vested interest in any part of it. Remember, the MSM suggested that for a few hundred terrorist we had to destroy 2 countries, and we're on our way to Iran next...

3. Bush fanatics are a bigger problem: they're backed up by the Bush's and the media. It's no problem to let neo-Nazi's march and spout off once in a while, nor Anarchists, nor anyone else hell-bent on remaking society in their image: as long as they're not in charge. The Bush Worshippers are dangerous: they are the tools of extremely powerful people and they're being sold to the world as the mainstream American view, whipping up anti-American sentiment for new wars. Now Rush Limbaugh and others are selling "G'itmo" shirts to support Guantanamo Bay... there are serious character issues here.

Finally, on the express purpose: I don't believe people should be so concerned with a specific audience, I think that's playing into the problem of labels and I give myself and others more credit than that. I want to express a diverse array of views while often speaking truth to power, and help provide a Reference Manual for the Left to help deconstruct the lies of the Right.

I think "truth" is opinion backed up by facts, and I don't think the spin doctors are allowing even the good people on the Right to make honest arguments: that would violate the strategy. I really HATE the people who are practicing this nasty form of propaganda that is leading to ***WARS***... no seriously, I can't see many worth hating more. When I can see the big picture, and how they're abusing their own followers, soldiers, 9*11 victims, and even their religious "base" who are judged lest on their loyalty to God than their loyalty to Bush. They're being taught to militantly defend Bush as a "Messiah" while he's screwing them out of jobs... and for that treachery alone:


This really is a serious power play by America, in part because - as I heard author-activist Arundathi Roy say yesterday: "The dirty business of American history is now street talk."

The "truth" is out there, and it's not a bias: it's a check and balance on power. If we look at it we're saved, if not we're screwed: let's ride.

I've done my best to phrase and structure most of my stuff that way, and in my articulated-anger I hope to empower and educate. We've got a hell of a fight on our hands that most of us don't see, it's against the wishes of an elite group of banks, businesses, and military-intelligence, and they're dangerously consolidating power over everyone else. To see the early evidence, look at how 80% of the world is doing right now, and see if things have been steadily getting better with the overall increase in wealth.

This is not a conspiracy: if you just rub your eyes and look at the 20th Century again, it's just hidden reality...


P.S. You might enjoy this article, part of a series I did around the election:


"Dear John Kerry: My Husband Still Beats Me, Do You Know A Good Lawyer? - Thanks, America"


P.P.S. Got some tunes too, complementary philosophy...



BONUS: Gentlemen,

Thanks for your thoughts, both movies address many of your specifics about CIA + JFK + BUSH and 9*11, I strongly suggest you give them a shot and we can discuss - your opinions will certainly evolve, and through our discussion so will mine.

I am often in the uncomfortable position of knowing information others don't, and to give you an idea of why I empathize: I used to be pro-war and fairly pro-Bush before I looked into it, again this was very early after 9*11, and I used to kick the ass of my old peacenik co-worker Mansoor simply because I was better at arguing.

He was right.

I checked for myself, and now I'm vested in passing on info that I think is compelling enough to be passed-on again. This is not propaganda: it can't be because it can't act that way, it doesn't have nearly enough corroborating pressure anywhere except on the margins of society - unlike peer pressure and the MSM. And don't worry about it's "Platonic-ideal potential" to be, just looking at it here and now with how you think, your natural cynicism will be enough of a check on your belief in it.

On power, it's always corrupted: as soon as you figured out you could do it, you sat on your little brother's head and farted.

So, crude as that analogy may be, it applies when one either doesn't know or doesn't care that they're screwing people. We've been trained to accept a staggering array of lies as exposed by a staggering array of people - who don't get much exposure. Even the "Liberal" media is a farce: where are the peace activists? Where are the calls to defend unions? Where are the environmental activists? Where are all the stories of the mass poverty and unemployment and disease domestically and worldwide as the crises we know they are?

We can see how clearly the media is not liberal, especially when there is an alternative media universe springing up made of ****ed-off liberals. So the paradigm is false, the people repeating it are liars, and we've got to realize that.

On rising within the system, I agree, one will always have to compromise their ideals. I just saw a movie where the early 5th place candidate for the Democratic Primary in 2000 was denied any media coverage, dragged yelling out of debates before he could speak, ignored by the other candidates, and had his poll numbers falsified to disqualify him among other things.

His problem? He vowed as President that he would cut military spending in half.

One of the things that would've been great if Kerry had won was people like me are his "base", and while the system would crush major reforms we would at least be given a few more shots at denting the armour and rallying the rest of the public. There is a bigger movement than the MSM reflects - just check the boards.

I also say Bush is much, much worse, and his cronies are the most secretive and corrupt in history. If you look into what his critics are saying and their detractors - and I mean the serious ones who write books, investigators, journalists, academics, socio-environmental professionals... experts are saying he's taking the world off a cliff and effectively hiding it through the corporate media. There are people who at least take traditional Presidential steps to help a few people out, but there's nobody on the bottom who's benefiting from his agenda save for a handful of Christians with bigger Churches and crappier jobs.

It may sound hard to believe, but again: if you actually look beyond how people FEEL about these guys and actually at what they're SAYING, the quality of criticism has been unfairly lumped into being a partisan view. If you learn something is bad you don't like it, if it's really bad you really don't like it, and that's what it is.

It's Fashionably Fascist to make apologies for Bush today, everyone on both sides does it, it's the cool "reasonable" position to take even in opposition, and make no mistake: it's deliberate strategy.

I've taken a look, I haven't seen him change, I haven't seen him stop torturing innocent muslims while saying "we've got to spread freedom", I haven't him be a "uniter, not a divider", I haven't seen more openness and honesty from the White House, I haven't seen him make the world better on one single metric...

So I won't do it.



BONUS: Cheers...

Thanks guys, and yes I'm a guy last I whizzed standing up, sometimes I prefer the ideas speak for themselves with no gender attached, we brand each other a bit too easily for my taste.

If you look at the whole structure behind the changes in society, you'll see they're all related, and working together in conscious and sub-conscious ways. You media anecdote is telling, and it doesn't just affect her White House Press Corpse lippiness: it affects all the media.

Can you imagine as a journalist bringing up fascinating 9*11 questions right now? Hard-core stuff reflecting the views of millions of people? An expose on how crappy the 9*11 families have been treated? A listing of even a half-dozen of the 600 "smoking guns" discovered by Alex Jones and others? A shout-out to the alternative media scene?

Good luck keeping your job.

And so on and so on...

It's a confluence of interests, and from studying it a lot the simplest answer best explains it:

"Qui bono?"

Who profits.

There is no Conservative ideology with big-government war-mongering, and old school guys who don't care about the establishment will say so themselves - with little press, but they're out there and I've heard them. They are much more Libertarian, much more isolationist, and much less inclined to make the truly "radical" changes in policy the Bush Administration is making: that's what they used to yell at Liberals for.

All one has to do is follow the money: banks make obscene fortunes off war since countries will go heavily in debt to win them; the oil companies are making record profits while telling us middle-east instability has to double our gas prices (?!) - so it's not a supply chain issue; corporations are almost free from anti-trust regulations so they're consolidating rapidly into bigger empires; the Religious Right is building Mega-Churches and crusading against domestic enemies for more power and money; the military gets to finally play around after 8 mostly boring years under Clinton, and the more they spend the bigger their budgets get; the CIA and FBI are being given new powers - including deputizing janitors and cable-installers into spying on us looking for signs of "terrorism"; Halliburton, Carlyle...

You know, I went to Cuba a while ago, and it startled me how the power-hungry people in a stagnant economy get off on their jobs: they wield power over each other, or they snitch. That's the only way to get ahead, and while most people didn't, there were enough to keep the rest living in fear of being ratted out.

If you ask me where we're heading? I say that's where.

People will soon be asked to report "crazy" people on message boards and in neighborhoods and workplaces who may be preaching anti-government rhetoric that could be "terrorism", and natural paranoia will split the country into an intellectual civil war between people who no longer speak the same language.

The media will consolidate further, public broadcasting is being killed now, people will get more paranoid over the half-truths they're told, and the government already positioning itself as the people's champ for 4 years will only get stronger as the people turn to it for help unable to trust anyone or anything else. This is classic fascism, and why would corporations want to destroy the free-market? Because that's the only way they can be beaten by a competitor, and that's the only way they can beat back the tide of information.

Make no mistake, just because the public is sold one thing doesn't mean that's really the case: these companies are globally diversified, and "free-trade" just means they can move their money easier. They rush 3rd World economies into slave-situations, demanding a country take out costly IMF loans to clean up for a foreign investment dog-and-pony show, and then compete to offer the weakest labor standards for manufacturing Western goods. There's a great movie called "Life and Debt" that obliterated my high school World Issues course, I highly recommend it to truly know how countries were screwed economically after colonial rule.

I can see it all happening now, and that's one reason I'm wading so deep into the margins of the debate: the views of PEOPLE have to be legitimized. Yes, real-honest-to-goodness-honest-people, even the ones who seem crazy. Like Gallileo did.

Much like discrimination throughout history against the will of the people, I see peer-discrimination based on protecting establishment ideas for their own sake, and not for anything else, as if the truth is impossible to deal with, comprehend, or too dangerous to speak of. In other countries - and even in the U.S., people have lived comfortably for centuries knowing their leaders were crooked: you just took charges against them seriously because you knew your history, and throughout history they've been crooked.

What happened to crooked politicians as a RULE, and not an exception?

All I look for are peers, persistance and proof. If I find these in any school of thought they're on to something, and even if I decide not to dip in I still respect their efforts and wish them luck: we're all working on a giant puzzle here.

With respect to the 9*11 cover-up: we don't know what the hell we're talking about. Seriously.

It hasn't been clearly explained, so the bulk of theories out there involve us filling in the blanks and making a reasonable story out of it. Some friends say: "Of course! The planes hit the buildings!"; some professional engineers say: "So?"

I don't know if you know how to pull something like this off, so any theories that suggest it's not possible to arrange cooperation within an incredibly hierarchical set of organizations seem pointless.

Besides, PEOPLE HAVE LEAKED, that's not the issue, that's the fuel that keeps the 9*11 Truth Movement engine running: dozens of people have come forward, and many others have claimed they were told to shut up.

Please... check the film.

There's no point in my alluding to it otherwise, and this is not opinion: this is what I watched. I looked at the people and what they were saying, and they seemed reasonable to me, especially given what I already know, and convinced me that there's a case to be made against the people who've been acting really guilty ever since.

The bottom line: people have looked into it.

Good people. Honest people.

People taking a lot of crap for their stance, but people who've convinced enough people of their merit to have me write this sentence.