The Ubiquitous Flying Blue Blog: July 2006

Sunday, July 30, 2006

"Water, Water Everywhere..."

Water Wars: Drought, Flood, Folly and the Politics of Thirst
Diane Rainses Ward

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

Lurking in the background of the last great wars over oil is a likely series of battles over a resource without which we literally cannot live: water.

That is why corporations have already begin working toward the privatization of water rights and the distribution of water throughout the globe. It is a relatively quiet profit-making encroachment on our most basic free commodity -- at least up until now.

Water Wars sets the stage for the developing political and real wars over something we always believed to be a free, elemental resource. In short, it's an extremely fascinating and well-written primer into how historically we have gotten to this point. It focuses on specific issues and initiatives relating to water -- and reveals their impact on the global problem.

Along the way, Diane Raines Ward, the author, provides us with historical background on the role of water in the development of civilization. After all, it's the ultimate resource we take for granted and is inextricably intertwined with life itself.

Yet, after reading this book, you will never take water for granted again.

Consider some of these facts:

"Six thousand children die daily from water-related maladies."

"In Onitsha, Nigeria, poorer householders spend almost twenty percent of their income on water."

"1.4 billion people, almost twenty percent of those living on the planet, don't have access to an adequate supply of clean water."

Currently, "a third of all countries suffer water stress."

"In Bombay, local mafias chain water taps and charge residents by the bucket."

Our fear is that it won't be long before water distribution becomes a private, not a public, utility. Imagine Exxon/Mobil in charge of our water supplies. Trust us, they are already thinking about it. Water is the new oil to big business, because oil is running out.

In "Water Wars: Drought, Flood, Folly, and the Politics of Thirst," Diane Raines Ward makes a compassionate, detailed and compelling argument that we need to adopt an international strategic approach to water use, because demand is outstripping supply.

It's a plea we should heed, ignoring it at our peril. She leaves it to another author to explore the corporate plans to turn water into a profitable commodity (although bottled water already does that on a small-scale), but she persuasviely sets the stage.

We may be reaching the tipping point where water will no longer be free, and the poor may literally die of thirst on a regular basis.

Diane Raines Ward warns us.

We should be listening.

With shipping included, BuzzFlash is able to offer "Water Wars" for less than the original price due to a special purchase.

Friday, July 28, 2006

"The Silent Majority..."

Back in the days of Nixon, when everyone seemed predisposed against the government, Nixon intoned the Silent Majority. It was conjured up to represent the vast middle class that stood firm for middle of the road values and those silent Americans who believed in apple pie, motherhood and the American dream. It was the mysterious support that supported the unsupportable actions of a man who had lied and acted as a traitor in order to win power. And it was all invisible.

Today, we'd probably call these invisible figures right wing Republicans.

Much can be said about invisible things. In fact, today, democrats have donned the garb of the invisible presence but instead of using this "silent majority" as their crutch, the Republicans have chosen to ignore them. Today's silent majority are democrats!....Democrats who seem to be bathed in the comforting notion that if they don't do anything or say anything, that nothing will happen and that nobody can accuse you of anything and that life will go on.

However, that notion is dead wrong.

Surely, if any people will accelerate our downfall, it is they...

Those who make up this group must be educated to realize that by making no decision, they are actually making a decision and that decision has determined every action that the Republicans have taken over the last six years. They have won by default.

Whose default: Ours!

Why do I say this?

In the beginning, it was clear that Bush's government believed that if you have the ball, you run with it. If there is no direct opposition, seize the high ground. They did that by assuming a mandate which they did not have. In fact, they were voted in by the slenderest of margins and one that was held in dispute by any clear thinking voter.

How did they then manage to gather up all of the power so quickly? They believed that If nobody jumped out of their chairs at the boldness or deliberateness of their actions, then they had clear sailing. It's a concept that derives from sales courses where you always act like you already have the sale.

But nobody did jump out of their chairs to take them to task.

And the Republicans took that as a sign that they could do whatever they could get away with. That was the equivalent of leaving the cell doors open and the keys on the desk.

In effect, by being silent, we had implicitly sent a message to the Republicans that whatever they did, they didn't have to worry about repercussions. Democrats don't cry; they don't speak up; they don't complain. In fact, they don't do much of anything so they can be ignored.

This was the overwhelming message to a kind of sea slug mentality that charges ahead until it runs into an obstacle. We have been paying the price ever since. Perhaps, the new democratic party to emerge from the ruins will realize that for every action there is a reaction, one of the first rules of molecular physics.

Rule two: Modified for politics: If there is no contravening force, it is possible to do anything without running into interference.

That is what we have seen through five desperate years of office where not one democratic strategy has shown any teeth, any serious resolve.

We are older now, and hopefully wiser; however, there is still no one standing up; no one willing to say, "All of this is bullshit. All of it is wrong. And you by your very actions, no longer deserve the podium or a place in the Sun..."

At that precise point in time, we need to take out the tar and feathers!

I guarantee they will back off....

Les Aaron

Thursday, July 27, 2006

What's the Market For Armored Flying Carpets?

US boosts Iraq troop levels amid Baghdad violence
Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:32pm ET

US boosts Iraq troop levels amid Baghdad violence
Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:32pm ET

RELATED VIDEO

Car bomb, mortars rip through Baghdad
Play Video
Top News

[-] Text [+] By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday ordered about 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq to stay up to four months past their scheduled departure, boosting U.S. forces in an attempt to curb unrelenting violence in Baghdad.

The move, involving the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Fort Wainwright in Alaska, is the latest sign that any significant reduction in the size of the 130,000-strong U.S. force in Iraq is unlikely soon.

It comes after President George W. Bush said on Tuesday after meeting visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that more U.S. and Iraqi troops would be deployed in Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq to confront mounting sectarian violence.

About 100 people have died daily in attacks between Iraqi factions in the past few weeks, raising fears of all-out civil war.

The Pentagon said Rumsfeld approved a request by Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to extend the year-long tour of the brigade, which has operated primarily in the Mosul area in northern Iraq, by up to 120 days.

A senior defense official said most of the brigade is expected to operate in Baghdad, moving from relatively calm northern Iraq into a capital beset with car bombs, suicide bombers and kidnappings. The U.S. military is sending roughly 4,000 more troops to Baghdad.

By extending troops due to depart, the military, as it has done periodically during the 3-year-old war, will temporarily increase the overall size of the U.S. force by lengthening the overlap between newly arriving units and those heading out.

[-] Text [+]
Opinion polls show eroding U.S. public support for the war ahead of congressional elections in November. Casey just last month expressed confidence the military would be able to cut the size of the U.S. force in Iraq over the rest of 2006.

"I think that no one ought to draw any conclusion as to what force levels will exist in the months ahead from this," Rumsfeld told reporters, saying conditions in Iraq will dictate force levels.

Rumsfeld said U.S. leaders "recognize it is a disappointment for them (soldiers) and their families, that hoped to be coming home in the next few weeks. ... They've done a terrific job, and we appreciate it."

The Pentagon also identified five additional Army and Marine Corps units, each with about 3,500 troops, slated to go to Iraq in force rotations beginning later this year. This allows for maintaining current troop levels into early 2008, while leaving open the option of cuts, officials said.

Pentagon policy is for Army units to serve 12-month tours in Iraq and Marine Corps units to serve seven-month tours.

But at key times in the war -- for example, during Iraqi elections in 2005 and the return of sovereignty in 2004 -- the Pentagon has delayed the departure of troops to beef up the American presence temporarily.

After some troops and families complained earlier in the war about lack of predictability in the length of tours in Iraq, the Pentagon instituted the rules on deployment duration. This was intended to reduce emotional stress for troops serving in a hostile and unpredictable environment.

The brigade replacing the 172nd in northern Iraq has arrived in Iraq. About 200 soldiers from the 172nd already are back in Alaska and 200 more have reached Kuwait en route home, but Army officials said some might have to return to Iraq.

Soldiers kept beyond a year in Iraq have received extra pay.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

No Need to Campaign If Diebold Counts the Vote...

THE DIEBOLD BOMBSHELL

by David Dill, Doug Jones and Barbara Simons
July 23, 2006
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_di_060723_the_diebold_bombshel.htm

Most computer scientists have long viewed Diebold as the poster child
for all that is wrong with touch screen voting machines. But we never
imagined that Diebold would be as irresponsible and incompetent as they
have turned out to be.

Recently, computer security expert Harri Hursti revealed serious
security vulnerabilities in Diebold's software. According to Michael
Shamos, a computer scientist and voting system examiner in
Pennsylvania, "It's the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a
voting system."

Even more shockingly, we learned recently that Diebold and the State of
Maryland had been aware of these vulnerabilities for at least two
years. They were documented in analysis, commissioned by Maryland and
conducted by RABA Technologies, published in January 2004. For over
two years, Diebold has chosen not to fix the security holes, and
Maryland has chosen not to alert other states or national officials
about these problems.

Basically, DIEBOLD INCLUDED A "BACK DOOR" IN ITS SOFTWARE, ALLOWING
ANYONE TO CHANGE OR MODIFY THE SOFTWARE. There are no technical
safeguards in place to ensure that only authorized people can make
changes.

A malicious individual with access to a voting machine could rig the
software without being detected. Worse yet, IF THE ATTACKER RIGGED THE
MACHINE USED TO COMPUTE THE TOTALS FOR SOME PRECINCT, HE OR SHE COULD
ALTER THE RESULTS OF THAT PRECINCT.

The only fix the RABA authors suggested was to warn people that
manipulating an election is against the law.

Typically, modern voting machines are delivered several days before an
election and stored in people's homes or in insecure polling stations.
A wide variety of poll workers, shippers, technicians, and others who
have access to these voting machines could rig the software. Such
software alterations could be difficult to impossible to detect.

Diebold spokesman David Bear admitted to the New York Times that THE
BACK DOOR WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY "so that election officials would
be able to update their systems easily."

Bear justified Diebold's actions by saying, "For there to be a problem
here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil
and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a
piece of software... I don't believe those evil elections people exist."
While Diebold's confidence in election officials is heartwarming,
Diebold has placed election officials in an awkward position, with no
defense against disgruntled candidates or voters questioning the
results of an election. The situation is even worse for those states
and localities using Diebold touch-screen machines that have no
voter-verified paper records to recount.

Diebold voting machines have been certified to be in compliance with
2002 Voting System Standards, as required by the Help America Vote Act.
These standards prohibit software features that raise any doubt "that
the software tested during the qualification process remains unchanged
and retains its integrity." We must ask, how did software containing
such an outrageous violation come to be certified, and what other
flaws, yet to be uncovered, lurk in other certified systems?

There have been many significant problems - some resulting in lost
votes - involving paperless voting machines produced by other vendors.
Recognizing the intrinsic risks of paperless voting machines, the
Association for Computing Machinery issued a statement saying that each
voter should be able "to inspect a physical (e.g., paper) record to
verify that his or her vote has been accurately cast and to serve as an
independent check on the result." Without voter-verified paper records
of all the votes, and without routine spot audits of these records, no
currently available voting system can be trusted. With such records,
even when machines do not function correctly, each voter can make sure
that his or her vote has been correctly recorded on paper.

Our democracy depends on our having secure, reliable, and accurate
elections.

David L. Dill is a Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University
and the founder of VerifiedVoting.org.
Doug Jones is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the
University of Iowa.
Barbara Simons is retired from IBM Research and a former ACM President.
Jones and Simons are writing a book on voting machines to be published
by PoliPoint Press.

Monday, July 24, 2006

"Kinky's The Man!..."

Dissident Kinky Friedman - Just What Our Delusional Democracy Needs

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

http://www.opednews.com

I want Kinky Friedman to become Governor of Texas, do a great job, and then become a candidate for President of the United States. If the punishment should fit the crime, then cigar-chomping, joke-cracking Kinky Friedman is surely the ideal candidate for governor of the home state of George W. Bush, who should go down in history as the president that propelled our delusional democracy to new depths. Texas is the ideal place for Kinky-the-dissident to become politically kosher.

Knowing that opinion surveys repeatedly verify Americans' increasing disgust with both major parties is one thing. Knowing that 137,154 Texans had the wisdom to sign Kinky's petitions to get on this year's ballot as an independent candidate is even better, especially when only 45,540 signatures were needed.

"The other three candidates seem to have humor bypasses," he says. Funny is what Kinky is and funny is perhaps the least painful way these days to reflect on the state of American democracy, with all three branches of government plus the proverbial fourth estate failing to serve we the people. Remember that Texas also produced Ross Perot who looked at least as funny as Kinky and he got about 19 percent of the national vote for the presidency and 30 percent in some states. My hope is not merely that Kinky wins in November and becomes Texas governor, but more that he completely boggles the minds of Democrats and Republicans and does one heck of a job so that he then moves on eventually to run for president of the United States.

If all this sounds more than a little crazy, how else should rational progressives think about our
political world? After all, when a democracy that for a long time seemed to have the energy, intelligence and commitment to keep making itself better changes direction and becomes delusional it surely reflects a degree of cultural insanity. That makes Kinky the ideal candidate for our times, a man who correctly sees the ludicrous actions of mainstream politicians yet is able to rise above his despair and keep making himself laugh, as well as other Americans who have not yet succumbed to the mass political misdirection and consumer distraction designed to keep the population obedient servants of the corporatist state.

Noting that in the last Texas election for governor only 29 percent of the voters cared enough to vote, Kinky is right on target when he declares: "Last time, they spent $100 million just to drive 71 percent of us away from the polls. This time, that 71 percent is coming roarin' back - with pitchforks! - to throw the money-changers out of the temple!" When you hear that, recall that George W. Bush won with just 31 percent of eligible voters in 2004. Kinky has a gut understanding of the enormous opportunity to turn on millions more Americans, but only by offering candidates that truly deserve their support - and keep them laughing all the way to the polls.

Kinky is not just about beating incumbent Republican Texas governor Rick Perry. It is about beating the two-party duopoly. Kinky is up against "Governor Good Hair" and "What's-his-name, the Democrat." Exactly the point.

Kinky has raised more than $3.4 million. John McCall gave $1 million to Kinky's campaign. He made his money in hair-care products and noted: "I have a business that deals with hairdressers. People talk to their hairdressers. And what I'm hearing is: Kinky's gonna win in a landslide." From his lips to God's ear I say. Because the Kinkster is the ideal candidate for our times, an irreverently serious candidate that ultimately makes a lot more sense than the humorless, corporate-kissing cowards of the two major parties. Kinky talks about a pig farmer he met who told him: "You ain't worth a damn, but you're better than what we got." Exactly the point.

Dean Barkley is Kinky's campaign manager. He was the architect of Jessy Ventura's successful capturing of the Minnesota governorship in 1998. Unlike Perot and Kinky, Ventura actually had some experience in politics, but a larger-than-life character he also was. If voter turnout rises to 40 percent, Barkley says "Kinky will win."

For the good of the country I hope so, and so should you. More than we need Kinky as Texas governor, we need him as President of the United States. This is the path to our much needed Second American Revolution that could restore American democracy. Kinky's brutal honesty and humor is just what we need to break through psychological defenses of Americans and get them to see the miserable state of our delusional democracy. I can't wait to see in a televised presidential debate (if only the two-party duopoly allowed independent candidates in) and being interviewed by Tim Russett on Meet the Press.

And if Kinky wins, the nation's other governors - who suffer through meetings of the moribund National Governors Association and normally doze off (e.g., Jesse Ventura), read newspapers to stay awake (e.g., George W. Bush), or escape to social functions (nearly everyone) - will eagerly attend meetings blessed by Kinky's attendance. Kinky will surely find NGA's activities new fodder for his comic wit. He might even try to change the name of NGA's Center for Best Practices to better reflect reality, making it the Center for Worst Practices.

[Formerly Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources at the National Governors Association, Joel S. Hirschhorn's new book is Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government, to be released soon by Common Courage Press; he can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]

www.delusionaldemocracy.com

Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of the forthcoming Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government; his previous book is Sprawl Kills - How Blandburbs Steal Your Time, Health and Money

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Weapons for Terrorists Available Where? US Surplus

Report raps Pentagon for equipment sales
By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 21, 11:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Undercover government investigators purchased sensitive surplus military equipment such as launcher mounts for shoulder-fired missiles and guided missile radar test sets from a Defense Department contractor.

Much of the equipment could be useful to terrorists, according to a draft report by the In June, two GAO investigators spent $1.1 million on such equipment at two excess property warehouses. Their purchases included several types of body armor inserts used by troops in

Iraq and Afghanistan, an all-band antenna used to track aircraft, and a digital signal converter used in naval surveillance.

"The body armor could be used by terrorists or other criminal activity," noted the report, obtained Friday by The Associated Press. "Many of the other military items have weapons applications that would also be useful to terrorists."

Thousands of items that should have been destroyed were sold to the public, the report said. Much of the equipment was sold for pennies on the dollar.

The list included circuit cards used in computerized Navy systems, a cesium technology timing unit with global positioning capabilities, and 12 digital microcircuits used in F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft.

At least 2,669 sensitive military items were sold to 79 buyers in 216 sales transactions from November 2005 to June 2006.

"DOD has not enforced security controls for preventing sensitive excess military equipment from release to the public," the report concluded. "GAO was able to purchase these items because controls broke down at virtually every step in the excess property turn-in and disposal process."

In the report, the GAO said it had briefed

Pentagon officials on its findings but that the Pentagon had no response because it had not had time to perform a detailed review.

Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., chairman of the

House Government Reform Committee's national security panel, will hold a hearing on the matter Tuesday. Earlier GAO reports also had found lax security controls over sensitive excess military equipment.

"During previous hearings we learned DOD was a bargain basement for would-be terrorists due to lax security screening of excess military equipment," Shays said in a statement Friday. "Based on GAO's most recent undercover investigation it looks like the store is still open."

Shays added: "We've seen partial changes that have resulted in over $34 million savings, but they still have a long way to go to make this system functional."

The GAO findings were first reported by CBS News and ABC News.

Claims that Diebold Voting Machines Unhackable Disputed

RFK Jr. Blows the Whistle on Diebold

By John Ireland, In These Times. Posted July 21, 2006.

The environmental lawyer-turned voting-rights advocate has found Diebold employees who may link the company to election fraud.

On July 13, the Pensacola, Fla.-based law firm of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a "qui tam" lawsuit in U.S. District Court, alleging that Diebold and other electronic voting machine (EVM) companies fraudulently represented to state election boards and the federal government that their products were "unhackable."

Kennedy claims to have witnesses "centrally located, deep within the corporations," who will confirm that company officials withheld their knowledge of problems with accuracy, reliability and security of EVMs in order to procure government contracts. Since going into service, many of these machines have been linked to allegations of election fraud.

In the wake of alleged vote count inconsistencies and the "hanging chad" debacle of 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. HAVA appropriated $3 billion to replace voting equipment and make other improvements in election administration. Diebold, Election Systems & Software and Sequoia Systems secured the lion's share of nearly half that sum in contracts to purchase EVMs. All 50 states have received funds and many are hurriedly spending it on replacing lever and punch card machines in time for November.

According to the Election Assistance Commission, more than 61 percent of votes in the 2004 presidential election were cast and/or tallied by EVMs. Election Data Services, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm, estimates that the figure will jump to 80 percent by November, which will see elections for all 435 seats in the House of Representatives.

Matt Schultz, an attorney with Kennedy's law firm, Levin Papantonio, describes the process of competition for HAVA's $300 million of contractor funds as "a race to the bottom." "There is no question in my mind that these companies sacrificed security and accuracy, mass-producing a cheap product to cash in on tons of federal money," Schultz says. "It's an industry-wide problem."

Qui tam lawsuits stem from a provision in the Civil False Claims Act, which Congress passed in 1863 at the behest of President Abraham Lincoln to respond to price gouging, use of defective products and substitution of inferior material by contractors supplying the Union Army. The provision allows private citizens to file a suit in the name of the U.S. government charging fraud by government contractors and other entities that receive or use government funds.

Long known as "Lincoln's Law," it is now commonly referred to as the "Whistleblower Law." Since the mid-'80s, qui tam recoveries have exceeded $1 billion, mostly after exposing medical and defense overcharging.

Mike Papantonio, partner in the law firm and co-host with Kennedy on "Ring of Fire," a weekly radio show on the Air America Network, explains the value of the qui tam approach. "The problem with injunctive relief, or [a writ of] mandamus, or prohibition-type writs, is it all comes down to politics. ... How do you bring injunctive relief with [Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth] Blackwell? How do you get [Florida Governor] Jeb Bush to do anything? They won't. You have to move outside of that political realm."

In 2004, Blackwell was in charge of implementing state and federal election laws, while, at the same time, co-chairing the state's 2004 Bush/Cheney Campaign. Under his watch, election officials neglected to process registration cards from Democratic voter drives, purged tens of thousands of voter registrations and distributed EVMs unevenly, leaving some voters waiting up to 12 hours. According to Kennedy, "at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted." Ohio was decided by 118,601 votes.

The contents of the suit could be under judicial seal for at least 60 days while the U.S. Department of Justice considers whether or not to join the suit. If U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales decides not to join the suit, Levin Papantonio may approach individual state attorneys general. If no one joins, the firm is free to, as Papantonio puts it, "stand in the shoes of the Attorney General and fight on behalf of the taxpayers and the nation."

"The single greatest threat to our democracy is the insecurity of our voting system," warns Kennedy. "Whoever controls the voting machines can control who wins the votes."

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Is the Future All Good; Or Could You Have a Personality Clash With Your Personal Clone...

The Pace of Technology.

Chart it up to the fact that I am tired of writing about GWBush and his violations of most things I hold dear. And there are only so many TV sets I can afford to kick in without raising the ire of my wife.

Anyway, I got to thinking after reading a technical report on robotics of a time when I was calling on some of the early scientists involved in getting MIT up to speed on robotics and what was then a fledgling AI.

AI was so new; nobody knew very much about it. Two of the scientists I was working were working on very different projects. One was hoping to use the human eye to diagnose potential illness... I never learned whether he got anywhere with it but it wouldn't have been too surprised to learn that he switched gears since I don't remember seeing anything on it... In point of fact, a lot of the stuff that we were blue skying in those early days never seemed to work out.
One of the hardest was figuring out truck routing. Using some of the most advanced processors and the efforts of more than twenty sophisticated programmers and systems people, we could never get it to work the right way; nor could we come up with a program to diagnose disease by addressing all of the potential symptoms as we tried to do for one big California chain of hospitals. However, the one area that proved most promising and seemed most exciting were the basic AI experiments. No, it was not like Brave New World nor was the robot my scientists came up with anything like Hal.
No, it was merely trying to determine from a base line what it would be like for a robotic device to understand its simple environment through exploration and a primitive form of touch and feel.

That was nearly fifty years ago.

Today, it seems that despite a bad glitch that lasted maybe a dozen or more years, it seems that we are back on track. Part of that has to do with a better understanding on the part of science as to how the mind works. And incorporating some of those fundamental building blocks into the robotic devices that are being developed in the laboratory..

We are not at the point where we can honestly say that AI has engineered a robot that thinks like a human being but we are getting there. One of these days, we will take on Alan Turing's test which plays a robot against a human with the standard being that a third person cannot tell the difference between the human and the robot.

However, I do predict that predicated on some of the developments I've seen over the last few years, that robotics and micro-technology are among the things to watch. By that, I am referring to nanotube technology, those little cellular size engines that will be doing everything from cleaning out your bloodstream to building an elevator in space that is if the ex-chairman of Intel is right and he's had a record of being right time and time again.

I suspect, too, that based on the fact that the Chinese are proving adept at these new technologies and that Chinese schools are outgraduating us in terms of mathematicians and scientists and engineers, much of this work will not be done here but in China.

I suspect, too, that women will get their wish: that men will become unnecessary as long as they have their little robotic clones that with the proper software will be able to do everything from basic repairs to mowing the lawn.

Men, on the other hand, will be able to stay single longer with the advent of cooking robots where each recipe will be accompanied by a piece of software.

i know for myself that it is bad enough to have two people in the kitchen, but if one of them is a robot, who knows? It might even work. As long as I could get mine to make a perfect soufle that doesn't droop...

In short, robots will take over the chore work freeing their owners to do the important things like deciding who we go to war with and who will design the next best thing. Humans will be free to watch on more than 25,000 channels the same awful fare but in much greater clarity and in three dimension because of satellite transmission and holography on super-large flat panel displays.

That's the point, the hardware will get better and be inversely proportional to the quality of content, leaving most of us hungry for the Caesar Hour or Upstairs Downstairs and other Masterpiece Theatre presentations. I know about the technology because ATT told me that in 1969; it's just been a little slow coming...

Conceptually, we are not far away from doing most of these things right now. We could conceivably build unlimited networks of channels, we understand holography and its just a matter of hooking up the right connections and putting up enough satellites into orbit.
It is existing technology.

What we can't seem to do is shoot an intercontinental missile aimed at us out of space without fudging the statistics or doctoring up the vehicle despite an outpouring of 264 billion by the time the project is up and the system operational, according to the gurus of the impossible.

But if we transfer to another planetary system, which may be necessary if we don't act on Global Warming or discourage all of the people from blowing each other up according to the present holder of the Einstein Chair in Physical Science, we may take comfort in the fact that we already have a system that can reproduce any part that self-destructs as we launch and we already have a system that will drive us robotically across Mars if the current experiments are any indicator.

Of course, there are a few more glitches to work out but it is clear that we are on our way...and that in the not impossibly distant future, we expect that robots will develop feelings, start a union, and who knows, maybe even start a third political party. Some of this comes from one of the leading software designers who seems to be concerned about what happens when the robots are as smart as the programmers. One would hope that they would do less damage than man...But who knows we may wake up one morning and be asked to take a red or a blue pill if we want to understand the Matrix....

It's all ahead of us. So hang on; it's going to be quite a ride.

Musings by the Armchair Curmudgeon,

Les Aaron

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

"Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers, is Now Saying What Many of Us Believe: That The US Government May Have Brought On 9/11...."

Wow! Now, maybe people will stop rolling their eyes when I bring up this possibility based on the content vaccum, psychographic profiles and my own investigations into this and recent reports by those around the world who find as many holes in the explanations as I do...

Les Aaron

In a message dated 7/19/2006 11:01:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, Sphphlgrvy writes:

Pentagon Papers Author on 9/11

http://www.infowars.com/articles/terror/pentagon_papers_author_gov_maybe_did_911.htm
Pentagon Papers Author Daniel Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11

Predicts Bush Regime Will Stage Terrorist Attack to Provide Pretext for Iran, Syria Invasion, And Justify Internment Camps for American People

Infowars | July 19, 2006

By Kevin Smith & Alex Jones

Daniel Ellsberg is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national firestorm in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military's account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. The release awakened the American people to a systematic program of organized deception carried out by the Pentagon against the population to continue the Vietnam War.

Daniel Ellsberg, speaking on air to GCN radio host Jack Blood, stated his concerns that criminal elements of the US government were psychologically capable to have carried out 9/11. He warned that within days after a US military strike on Iran that Bush's handlers would probably stage some type of terror attack in the West to legitimize the new war.

"If there's another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country. "
- Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Pentagon Papers

Ellsberg went on to state that another major Reichstag-like state-sponsored attack would be followed by a martial law scenario which might include detention camps for American dissenters.

Ellsberg said that he worked with individuals at the highest levels of government who staged war provocations several times to whip up pro-war sentiment in the US. Daniel Ellsberg now joins the ranks of hundreds of prominent engineers, physicists, economists, military officers, pilots, high-level intelligence analysts, and cabinet ministers who are exposing the 9/11 hoax.

Each day more and more respected professionals are going public with their questions about the official 9/11 fable. The 9/11 cover-up dam is breaking under the weight of these truthseekers' efforts and the perpetrators of 9/11 are watching them in horror while wondering who will be the next to speak up.

Here is a partial transcript of the interview:

Jack Blood: Have you had a chance to take a look at a lot of this information coming from America's leading scholars, physicists, engineers, etc. Who have taken a look now at 9/11 and are now, not only questioning what might have happened on 9/11, but really being very direct including a number of high level ?

Daniel Ellsberg: Actually, I have looked at a lot of that, and I'll tell you without going into it all which would take a lot of time, I find some of it very implausible and other parts of it quite solid, and there's no question in my mind that there's enough evidence there to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of a kind that we've not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, and raising the release of a lot of documents, there's no question that ( D.E. chuckles) put it this way, very serious questions have been raised, about how much they knew beforehand and how much involvement there may been. Is the, is a administration capable, humanly and physiologically of engineering such a provocation?

Yes, I would say that, I worked for such an administration myself, Johnson, ah, President Johnson put destroyers in harm's way in the Tonkin Gulf not only once, but several times, with the, with a lot of his people hoping that it would lead to a confrontation and claiming that it had. And could have resulted in the lost of many lives in the course of it.

And what I'm saying now, by the way though is this, and here there's a very strong analogy, to this day there is a controversy gone back and forth historically, as to who caused the Reichstag fire, the burning of their parliament, the Reichstag, on February 27 th 1933. Goering, at one point, the number two man in the Nazi regime, said "I set that fire", later he denied that at Nuremberg, and I've noticed that the latest history suggests, that it wasn't the Nazi's. The point is that all this time later is there is still a controversy about that. But, what there's no controversy about is the use the Nazi's made of it, that very night and the next day.

J.B. Cui Bono, who benefits

D.E. February 28th, there was a Reichstag fire decree that ended freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, all in the Weimar Constitution, and privacy of the postal system and of communications and of telephone, what ended here to, more than we knew four years ago right after 9/11. If there's another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country, detention camps for middle-easterners and their quote "sympathizers", critics of the President's policy and essentially the wiping-out of the Bill of Rights.

J.B. I know your walking very carefully here Daniel Ellsberg, but that's pretty strong medicine and we have to look at the history of the world, governments do this, as you mentioned, governments are liars, governments are murderers, they, this is not above them, I'm sure your familiar with the Northwoods Document.

D.E. Ah yes, indeed. Yeah talking about a manufactured provocation which could have involved even the shooting down of an American or some other airliner, with American support. Yes I would say by the way, that Americans definitely play this game, I'm sure that it's happening now.

We, I expected by the way, Bush to manufacture a kind of Tonkin Gulf incident before he went into Iraq and then I decided well I'd been wrong they didn't feel they needed that. It is interesting that the memos that came out, in conversations between Blair and Bush, (aka The White House Memo), show that Bush was pressing for the possibility of sending over a U-2 and getting it fired on and using that as an excuse.

J.B. A U-2 painted like a U.N., ah, a United Nations airplane.

D.E. Yes, but they couldn't do that again for sure. But, what is happening right now is that Israel is clearly seeking a generally provocative act by both Hammas and Hezbollah, which I think were not wise acts some people are applauding those in the Middle-East passing out sweets and so forth, very short-sighted I would say, a lot of innocent people are going to die as a result.

Former Reagan Deputy and Colonel Says 9/11 "Dog That Doesn't Hunt"

Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack

Neo-Con Blog Fears Bruce Willis Now 9/11 Truther

Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

Former CIA Analyst: Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism

Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Questions Twin Towers Collapse

Physics Professor Says Science Points To Conclusive Evidence of WTC Controlled Demolition

Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11: Alex Jones Interviews Andreas Von Buelow

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus
Former Bush Admin Member Says Government Complicit In 9/11.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/terror/pentagon_papers_author_gov_maybe_did_911.htm

Saturday, July 15, 2006

US On Bankruptcy Path According To London Telegraph Editor

US 'could be going bankrupt'
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor

(Filed: 14/07/2006)

The United States is heading for bankruptcy, according to an extraordinary paper published by one of the key members of the country's central bank.

A ballooning budget deficit and a pensions and welfare timebomb could send the economic superpower into insolvency, according to research by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve.

Prof Kotlikoff said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. "To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors," he asked.

According to his central analysis, "the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds''.

The budget deficit in the US is not massive. The Bush administration this week cut its forecasts for the fiscal shortfall this year by almost a third, saying it will come in at 2.3pc of gross domestic product. This is smaller than most European countries - including the UK - which have deficits north of 3pc of GDP.

Prof Kotlikoff, who teaches at Boston University, says: "The proper way to consider a country's solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country's policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.

"Does the United States fit this bill? No one knows for sure, but there are strong reasons to believe the United States may be going broke."

Experts have calculated that the country's long-term "fiscal gap" between all future government spending and all future receipts will widen immensely as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and as the amount the state will have to spend on healthcare and pensions soars. The total fiscal gap could be an almost incomprehensible $65.9 trillion, according to a study by Professors Gokhale and Smetters.

The figure is massive because President George W Bush has made major tax cuts in recent years, and because the bill for Medicare, which provides health insurance for the elderly, and Medicaid, which does likewise for the poor, will increase greatly due to demographics.

Prof Kotlikoff said: "This figure is more than five times US GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one's head around $65.9trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143pc."

The scenario has serious implications for the dollar. If investors lose confidence in the US's future, and suspect the country may at some point allow inflation to erode away its debts, they may reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds.

Prof Kotlikoff said: "The United States has experienced high rates of inflation in the past and appears to be running the same type of fiscal policies that engendered hyperinflations in 20 countries over the past century."

Paul Ashworth, of Capital Economics, was more sanguine about the coming retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. "For a start, the expected deterioration in the Federal budget owes more to rising per capita spending on health care than to changing demographics," he said.

"This can be contained if the political will is there. Similarly, the expected increase in social security spending can be controlled by reducing the growth rate of benefits. Expecting a fix now is probably asking too much of short-sighted politicians who have no incentives to do so. But a fix, or at least a succession of patches, will come when the problem becomes more pressing."

Print
Email this story

Have you had enuff yet? Want change?

Come visit with the site known for CHANGE...See what you're missing!...We scan the top magazines, Internet sites, service bureaus, news programs to provide you with the latest news and information..See why www.lesaaron.blogspot.com earns one of the top ratings

Also....Visit the new Armchair Curmudgeon BLog , www.hubgram.blogspot.com and Subscribe to HUBGRAM, the Online Newsletter. Send a request to Hubmaster@aol.com; mention Hubgram in the subject area.

PRE-ORDER "HOW TO TAKE BACK AMERICA: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE" AT INTRODUCTORY PRICE OF $24.00. EMAIL HUBMASTER@AOL. COM. . Remit full payment to R. Friedlieb, 239 Lakeside Drive, Lewes, DE 19958. A percentage of all profits earmarked for important progressive causes.

An Insider's View of the Republican Party

An Insider's Point of View... And something for us to consider in laying our plans for 08.

les aaron

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

John W. Dean | Triumph of the Authoritarians

Triumph of the Authoritarians
By John W. Dean
The Boston Globe
Friday 14 July 2006

Contemporary conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest - none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical.

For more than 40 years I have considered myself a "Goldwater conservative," and am thoroughly familiar with the movement's canon. But I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon "imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.

What true conservative calls for packing the courts to politicize the federal judiciary to the degree that it is now possible to determine the outcome of cases by looking at the prior politics of judges? Where is the conservative precedent for the monocratic leadership style that conservative Republicans imposed on the US House when they took control in 1994, a style that seeks primarily to perfect fund-raising skills while outsourcing the writing of legislation to special interests and freezing Democrats out of the legislative process?

How can those who claim themselves conservatives seek to destroy the deliberative nature of the US Senate by eliminating its extended-debate tradition, which has been the institution's distinctive contribution to our democracy? Yet that is precisely what Republican Senate leaders want to do by eliminating the filibuster when dealing with executive business (namely judicial appointments).

Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in "conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.

Candid and knowledgeable Republicans on the far right concede - usually only when not speaking for attribution - that they are not truly conservative. They do not like to talk about why they behave as they do, or even to reflect on it. Nonetheless, their leaders admit they like being in charge, and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe. This is what I gleaned from discussions with countless conservative leaders and followers, over a decade of questioning.

I started my inquiry in the mid-1990s, after a series of conversations with Goldwater, whom I had known for more than 40 years. Goldwater was also mystified (when not miffed) by the direction of today's professed conservatives - their growing incivility, pugnacious attitudes, and arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their thinking. He worried that the Republican Party had sold its soul to Christian fundamentalists, whose divisive social values would polarize the nation. From those conversations, Goldwater and I planned to study why these people behave as they do, and to author a book laying out what we found. Sadly, the senator's declining health soon precluded his continuing on the project, so I put it on the shelf. But I kept digging until I found some answers, and here are my thoughts.

For almost half a century, social scientists have been exploring authoritarianism. We do not typically associate authoritarianism with our democracy, but as I discovered while examining decades of empirical research, we ignore some findings at our risk. Unfortunately, the social scientists who have studied these issues report their findings in monographs and professional journals written for their peers, not for general readers. With the help of a leading researcher and others, I waded into this massive body of work.

What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.

Authoritarianism's impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they've often been supplanted by authoritarians.

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

John W. Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, just published his seventh nonfiction book, Conservatives Without Conscience.

Have you had enuff yet? Want change?

Come visit with the site known for CHANGE...See what you're missing!...We scan the top magazines, Internet sites, service bureaus, news programs to provide you with the latest news and information..See why www.lesaaron.blogspot.com earns one of the top ratings

Also....Visit the new Armchair Curmudgeon BLog , www.hubgram.blogspot.com and Subscribe to HUBGRAM, the Online Newsletter. Send a request to Hubmaster@aol.com; mention Hubgram in the subject area.

PRE-ORDER "HOW TO TAKE BACK AMERICA: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE" AT INTRODUCTORY PRICE OF $24.00. EMAIL HUBMASTER@AOL. COM. . Remit full payment to R. Friedlieb, 239 Lakeside Drive, Lewes, DE 19958. A percentage of all profits earmarked for important progressive causes.

Friday, July 14, 2006

The Hero of Miami Speaks Up About What it Takes To Have a Democracy...

Why Democrats Don't Count

Lessons from the Un-Gore of Mexico
July 14, 2006
By Greg Palast

[Watch "Florida con Salsa," Palast's 15-minute investigative report from Mexico City for Democracy Now!]

The Exit polls said he won, but the "official" tally took his victory away. His supporters found they were scrubbed off voter rolls. Violence and intimidation kept even more of his voters away from the polls. Hundreds of thousands of ballots supposedly showed no choice for president -- like ballots with hanging chads.

And the officials in charge of this suspect election refused to re-count those votes in public. Everyone knew full well a fair count would certainly change the outcome.

You've heard this story before: Gore 2000. Kerry 2004.

But Lopez Obrador 2006 is made out of very different stuff than the scarecrow candidates who, oddly, call themselves "Democrats."

For six years now, I've had this crazy fantasy in my head. In it, an election is stolen and the guy who's declared the loser stands up in front of the White House and says three magic words: "Count the votes."

This past Saturday, my dream came true. Unfortunately, it was in Spanish -- but I'll take what I can get. There was Andreas Manuel Lopez Obrador, presidential challenger, standing in the "Zocalo" -- the square in front of Mexico's White House, telling the ruling clique inside, "Count the votes!"

Most important, his simple demand was echoed by half a million pissed-off, activated voters chanting with him, "Vota por vota!" -- vote by vote.

And you know what? I think they are going to have to listen. I suspect that the rulers of Mexico, a vicious, puffed-up, arrogant elite, may well have to count those votes. But, for that to happen, someone had to ask them to do it -- in no uncertain terms.

Traveling the USA, I'm asked again and again 'Why don't Democrats stand up when their elections are stolen?'

The answer: for the same reason jellyfish don't stand up... they're invertebrates.

I'm beginning to find that answer a bit too glib (though darn funny). Because it's not about electoral cojones; it's about a devotion to democracy deep in the bone. Yet weirdly, candidates that call themselves "Democrats" seem kind of, well, indifferent to democracy.

Why? Elections are the radical tool of the working class -- the great leveler of the powerless against the too-powerful. But the candidates themselves, both Republican and Democrat, tend to come from the privileged and pampered class. Votes are just the surfboards on which their ambitions ride.

Right now in Mexico's capitol, nearly a million ballots sit in tied bundles uncounted. That's four times the "official" margin of victory of the ruling party over Lopez Obrador. Supposedly, they're "votos nulos" -- null votes, unreadable. But, not surprisingly, when a few packets were opened, the majority of these supposedly unreadable votes were Lopez Obrador's.

If you think that's a Mexican game, think again. Because that's exactly what happened in Florida and Ohio.

In Florida, 179,855 ballots supposedly showed no vote for President. A closer look by the US Civil Rights Commission statisticians showed that 54% of those Florida "votos nulos" were cast by African-Americans. Did Black folk forget to vote for President, couldn't make up their minds or, as one TV network implied, were too dumb to figure out the ballot? Not at all. Machines can't count some ballots. But people can. For example, several voters wrote in, "Al Gore," which the machines rejected as his name was already printed on the ballot. The write-in could fool a machine but a human has no problem figuring out that voter's intent.

The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago reviewed all 179,855 "uncountable" votes and found the majority attempted to choose Gore. And they would have been counted -- but Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered a halt.

So Bush was elected not by counting the votes but by preventing their count. And he was reelected the same way in 2004 when a quarter million votes were nullified in Ohio.

But why fixate on Florida and Ohio? Here's a nasty little fact about voting in the Land of the Free not reported in your newspapers: 3,600,380 ballots were cast in the November 2004 presidential election that were never counted. In 2000, the uncounted ballots totaled just under two million.

And where were the Democrats? In 2004, behind the huge jump in uncounted votes was a mass challenge campaign aimed at poor, Black and Hispanic voters by the Republican Party -- pushing these voters, mostly Democrats, to "provisional ballots." They could have been counted, if someone had fought for it. Hundreds of lawyers were on stand-by but the head of the biggest legal team told me in confidence -- and in frustration -- that the Kerry campaign told them to stand down.

Recently, Al Gore was asked if the election of 2000 was stolen. "There may come a time when I speak on that, but it's not now," said the beta dog. (I suspect that if Al Gore were found bleeding in an alley, he'd answer the question, Who shot you? with "There may come a time when I speak on that...").

Lopez Obrador is of a different breed. At the rally last Saturday in Mexico City, he played video and audio tapes of the evidence of fraud on a screen eighty feet tall. Imagine if Gore had projected the "scrub sheets" of purged Black voters on a ten-story-high screen in front of the White House.

Lopez Obrador put political force behind his legal demands by calling on voters from every state in Mexico to march to the capital. Two million are expected to arrive this Sunday. The result: the word among the political classes is that the election may be annulled. Even the conservative Financial Times has warned Mexico's elite not to "fool itself" by ignoring the demand for a full vote count.

North-of-the-Border Democrats just don't get it. The Republican Party is pushing "provisional" ballots, pushing voter ID requirements, compiling secret challenge lists, scrubbing voter registries and selling us vote-nullifying ballot boxes: they get it completely. The GOP knows the key to their electoral domination is not in winning over their opponents' votes, but in not counting them.

The un-Gore of Mexico City has a lesson for the Blue-party gringos. Either the Democrats demand that all votes count, or the Democrats will count for nothing.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

FULL CIRCLE: WHAT STARTED IN TEXAS MAY END THERE, TOO!

OTHER NEWS FROM THE REGION
themedialine.org

GOP CONGRESSMAN SAYS BUSH SHOULD GO

David Swanson writes:

“A radio show reported yesterday that Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the following:

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

And this: "Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law."

And this: "When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing."

And Paul said “the United States had entered a period of "soft fascism."

The report of these statements might surprise some people, especially people who rely on the corporate media for their news, but it fits with previous remarks by Congressman Paul, including these wonderful speeches recently made on the floor of the House of Representatives by Rep. Paul and Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina:

Investing Against Your Country While Your Troops Fight to Save It: Benedict Arnold Cheney!

The Veeps Curious Investment Portfolio
Subject: Is Cheney Betting On Economic Collapse?

July 5, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07052006.html

The Veep's Curious Investment Portfolio

Is Cheney Betting On Economic Collapse?

By MIKE WHITNEY

Wouldn't you like to know where Dick Cheney puts his money? Then
you'd know whether his "deficits don't matter" claim is just baloney
or not.

Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on
Cheney's financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out
that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time.
Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly.

The article is called "Cheney's betting on bad news" and provides an
account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While
the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to
Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in
"a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt
money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The
first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is
protected against inflation."

Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a
European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily
weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are losing ground
to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing
his wealth in "Old Europe". As Blackburn sagely notes, "Not all bad
news' is bad for everybody."

This should put to rest once and for all the foolish notion that the
"Bush Economic Plan" is anything more than a scam aimed at looting
the public till. The whole deal is intended to shift the nation's
wealth from one class to another. It's also clear that Bush-Cheney
couldn't have carried this off without the tacit approval of the
thieves at the Federal Reserve who engineered the low-interest rate
boondoggle to put the American people to sleep while they picked
their pockets.

Reasonable people can dispute that Bush is "intentionally" skewering
the dollar with his lavish tax cuts, but how does that explain
Cheney's portfolio?

It doesn't. And, one thing we can say with metaphysical certainty is
that the miserly Cheney would never plunk his money into an
investment that wasn't a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the
dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that's
what'll happen.

The Bush-Cheney team has racked up another $3 trillion in debt in
just 6 years. The US national debt now stands at $8.4 trillion
dollars while the trade deficit has ballooned to $800 billion nearly
7% of GDP.

This is lunacy. No country, however powerful, can maintain these
staggering numbers. The country is in hock up to its neck and has to
borrow $2.5 billion per day just to stay above water. Presently, the
Fed is expanding the money supply and buying back its own treasuries
to hide the hemorrhaging from the public. Its utter madness.

Last month the trade deficit climbed to $70 billion. More
importantly, foreign central banks only purchased a meager $47
billion in treasuries to shore up our ravenous appetite for cheap
junk from China.

Do the math! They're not investing in America anymore. They are
decreasing their stockpiles of dollars. We're sinking fast and Cheney
and his pals are manning the lifeboats while the public is diverted
with gay marriage amendments and "American Celebrity".

The American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out by cutthroat
corporations who've abandoned their country to make a fast-buck in
China or Mexico. The $3 trillion housing (equity) bubble is quickly
loosing air while the anemic dollar continues to sag. All the signs
indicate that the economy is slowing at the same time that energy
prices continue to rise.

This is the onset of stagflation; the dreaded combo of a slowing
economy and inflation.

Did Americans really think they'd be spared the same type of economic
colonization that has been applied throughout the developing world
under the rubric of "neoliberalism"?

Well, think again. The American economy is barrel-rolling towards
earth and there are only enough parachutes for Cheney and the gang.

The country has lost 3 million jobs from outsourcing since Bush took
office; more than 200,000 of those are the high-paying, high-tech
jobs that are the life's-blood of every economy.

Consider this from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) June
edition of Foreign Affairs, the Bible of globalists and plutocrats:

"Between 2000 and 2003 alone, foreign firms built 60,000manufacturing
plants in China. European chemical companies, Japanese carmakers, and
US industrial conglomerates are all building factories in China to
supply export markets around the world. Similarly, banks, insurance
companies, professional-service firms, and IT companies are building
R&D and service centers in India to support employees, customers, and
production worldwide." ("The Globally integrated Enterprise" Samuel
Palmisano, Foreign Affairs page 130)

"60,000 manufacturing plants" in 3 years?!?

"Banks, insurance companies, professional-service firms, and IT
companies"?

No job is safe. American elites and corporate tycoons are loading the
boats and heading for foreign shores. The only thing they're leaving
behind is the insurmountable debt that will be shackled to our
children into perpetuity and the carefully arranged levers of a
modern police-surveillance state.

Welcome to Bush's 21st Century gulag; third world luxury in a
Guantanamo-type setting.

Take another look at Cheney's investment strategy; it tells the whole
ugly story. Interest rates are going up, the middle class is going
down, and the poor dollar is headed for the dumpster. The country is
not simply teetering on the brink of financial collapse; it is being
thrust headfirst by the blackguards in office and their satrapies at
Federal Reserve.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at:
fergiewhitney@msn.com

--
Tim Hermach
Native Forest Council
PO Box 2190
Eugene, OR 97402
541.688.2600
541.461.2156 fax

web page: http://www.forestcouncil.org

DEFENDING LIFE, LAND & LIBERTY

* Honest & Fully Costed Accounting,
* Voices of Integrity, Hope & Reason
* Honest & Uncompromised Education, Advocacy & Litigation
* Real Protection for 650 Million Acres of Federal Land, Rivers & Streams

See for yourself at:
http://forestcouncil.org/learn/aerial/index.html

HRH
Lee Mentley

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

A Winning Alternative!

Have democrats assumed the wrong posture.

Are we making a mistake talking about peace and setting a policy to get us out of Iraq... Have we made ourselves as a result politically liable for all of the negative arguments that we know the Republicans will use against us?

Are the Republicans contriving arguments against us using our desire for peace to call us a bunch of chicken-livered liberals
who don't have the guts to protect America?
Are we being played as yellow-bellies? We the ones who volunteered to serve our country against the malingerers and buck passers of the Grand Old Party...

I know much of this is hard to stomach but there may be some truth in the above. And to make matters worse, we may be playing into that kind of perception that can make us look weak, spineless and not committed to ending terrorism and that, you can be sure, is the card that the Republcans will play if given half a chance....

In doing my research, I've come across pro and con arguments but one of the best arguments is from a retired democrat official who thinks we are fighting the wrong war.
Ah, someone who thinks like I do.
Okay, let's go somewhere with that argument:

For those of us who go back a few years, we've seen these kind of strategies played up by the dirty tricks crowds of Segretti and Atwater and their successors...

It is not uncommon to use any tricks in their unlimited bag of tricks if it is going to serve their ends...

But what is an alternative course that will allow us to persue our legitimate goals and still come off looking strong and courageous?

Tough question: Almost by allowing the Republicans to frame the argument, we seem to have placed ourselves somewhere between a rock and a hard place.

Here's the facts that we can use.

One, Iraq is a disaster; nothing we shall do will change the outcome. It is already acknowledged as a Civil War.

Two, we left Afghanistan when Iraq began when we were just this close to Victory.

Three: We took our eye off the ball in Iraq and Al Qaeda is back raising hell.

Four: Although we left, Afghans do not hate us the way the Muslims do; nor is there a Civil War there and, most importantly, we can still win.

Therefore, let's pose the same strategy:

Let's pull our troops to the periphery like Murtha said to be used only in emergency and let's transfer our troops to Afghanistan and take out bin Laden, the real person behind 9/11.

This would provide us with a dose of credibility and bring us back to the real issue: Getting the guys who tried to take us out!

This would not only have credibility with the American people, it would change the framing of the argument from something that is support of a position that is irrelevant to fighting a war that is relevant, germane and can be won!

It also makes us look a heck of a lot smarter than the guys in power who aree fighting the wrong war in the wrong place.

Les Aaron

__,_._,___

"Civil War. They've Said It!"

You cannot keep an untruth bottled up forever...

Every single presumption by this government has been shown to be either amazingly naive or untrue.

And even the media is now admitting that we are on a failed mission.

Now, it may all be too late to salvage anything!

Yesterday, one the anchor for one of the Networks along with a retired general assessed the situation in Iraq as being a Civil War--they called it a civil war. I didn't invent those words..

The General, McCAffrey, admitted that Civil War has been building for three years.

He also said words to the effect:....When there is a group of foreigners who come into a land and start shooting up the people....and divided groups start targeting each other, this is no longer a question of catching the "trouble-makers" from outside but an undeclared civil war. From the honest asssessment of both the senior reporter and a clear-eyed general, the future looks bleak unless something changes radically.

In the past week, literally hundreds of people in Baghdad, which seems to be the center of the Civil War, were killed by street bombs and attrocities. Clearly, we can no longer call this something it is not.

Civil War. Civil War. We should get used to saying the truth; not folding under Bush's PR barage that is falling short...

It is no longer an incursion, an "incident," and isolated event, or simply another bit of evidence that by takingthe war to the middle east, we saved ourselves from enduring it up close. It is none of those things. It is simply evidence of one major group alligned against the other. The Sunni and Shia hate each other. Nor can they coexist under the present circumstances and we will not admit the truth until this new government is dragged through the mud and the delegates disposed.

The big question becomes what then?

Right now, we persist in what is clearly a lost cause for no reason while Afghanistan, where we did have successes, is being lost because we took our eye off the ball and bin laden.

This government's arrogance is starting to wear thin.

And we have enough of their lies...

it is time to speak out....and often: A government that does not represent the people's wishes needs to be replaced with one that does...

Les Aaron

Monday, July 10, 2006

Dimwit Editors Attack Al Gore Film

In reading the reviews put out by Google, approximately 8 to 1 seem against Al Gore's film about Global Warming.

Is that because Google is only picking up the negative reviews?

We don't know.

While science has been careful not to criticize the ideas of Al Gore as reflected in his important environmental film, unless, of course, those scientists are on the government payroll, there has been little restraint on the part of whacky media critics who spare no snide remark, no attack on Al Gore's mental faculties.

Despite their willingness to lash out, these so-called media critics fail to back up their critiques with hard science. In other words, if they are willing to assert Al is wrong, prove it. Why is the thesis of Al's movie wrong?
In the proof department, they fail to deliver.

Therefore, what we are seeing is a hatchet job done by the hacks of the Right. They are just delivering on the contract to do Al in every chance they get. Clearly, not much has changed since 1999.

Most of us who have been trained in the physical sciences are inclined to be severely distressed by the environmental challenges and the possible tipping points we see before us that seems to have fallen off the radar of our government and its spokespeople. .

The fact is that we have already seen an escalation in sea temperatures; we have already seen a rise in sea levels; we have already seen a tendency for the Greenland ice cap to increase its level of melt and as hypothesized by James Burke going back to Heat Series in the 80's. Based on empirical evidence, the changing of the water salinity in the North Atlantic might well impact the "conveyor belt" effect that keeps most of the world in the temperate range. If this were to happen, the prospect of a New Ice Age is not as far out of line with accepted thought as most would believe. In James Burke's stunning series, "Heat" he talks about evidence of green life along the St. Lawrence millions of years ago as confirmed by core samples drilled into the Arctic region before the Ice Age settled on this globe and the constructs for life and its probabilities changed.

Are we likely to see such an event happening in our life time?

We don't know; however, the silly, groundless attacks by a bunch of dimwit local critics is enough to make one question whether there are any serious papers left worth reading.

Meanwhile, we still have not been successful in getting Al Gore's film down here to screen despite the fact that we live in a free state in a free society that claims to be democratic and open to the requests and demands of the public.

Hogwash!.

Where are the prophets, the purveyors of accumulated wisdom when you need them or have they all moved into caves in Canada?

les Aaron

Have you had enuff yet? Want change?

Come visit with the site known for CHANGE...See what you're missing!...We scan the top magazines, Internet sites, service bureaus, news programs to provide you with the latest news and information..See why www.lesaaron.blogspot.com earns one of the top ratings

Also....Visit the new Armchair Curmudgeon BLog , www.hubgram.blogspot.com and Subscribe to HUBGRAM, the Online Newsletter. Send a request to Hubmaster@aol.com; mention Hubgram in the subject area.

PRE-ORDER "HOW TO TAKE BACK AMERICA: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE" AT INTRODUCTORY PRICE OF $24.00. EMAIL HUBMASTER@AOL. COM. . Remit full payment to R. Friedlieb, 239 Lakeside Drive, Lewes, DE 19958. A percentage of all profits earmarked for important progressive causes.

5th Anniversary of 9/11 Coming Up and We Still Have Questions...

Fifth Anniversary of 9/11.

What are we going to do about it?

Does everyone believe the findings of the Commission?

Does anyone have any questions about the attack on the Pentagon? ie. the fact that no wings or parts turned up. Or that stainless steel and titanium engines each 12 feet long completely disappeared without a trace. Or that nobody's seen any remains.
In any similiar occurence of a plane colliding with the earth and hitting lamp posts, wings and parts were sheared off; not in this occurrence.

Does anyone have trouble with the crash in Pennsylvania? Where were the remains for example. The only result seems a twelve foot hole and some burn marks; there is no collision of such an aircraft where the impact points seems so different from the collision in Pennsylvania. And where are the remains? Where are the black boxes that are virtually indestructable?

How did building 7 of the WTC go down since it wasn't directly hit?

Why did the phone messages on the flite where the passengers took over seem so formal, so unbelievable?

Why was their no report from the special commission formed by the CIA to look into charges of the upcoming attack?

Why did NORAD conduct tests of an attack on both the WTC and the Pentagon within 12 months of the actual attack and why did Secretary Rice say that nobody could have expected such an event many months after the actual attack?

Why did they not examine the records in the files of the 93 attackers of the WTC when they contained evidence that the WTC was a high priority target?

Why did they let the other two conspirators go?

Why did they ground all of the airplanes the day after and then let all of the Saudis go without investigation even after the fact that 17 of the 19 attackers were Saudis?

Why did Freeh the head of the FBI continue to assign his top agents to investigating Clinton even though a threat was made on this country?

Why did the president in the wake of a report saying that New York was an imminent target continue to plan for his vacation through out the month of August?

Why did the president and the vice president agree to be interviewed together and that no notes would be taken of their hearing?

Why did it take more than a year to investigate the WTC when the investigation of Pearl Harbor was completed in less time than it took us to begin an inquiry?

Why were air exercises conducted on the same day as the attack?

Why were the jets that normally protect DC flown more than 160 miles away for a special exercise?

Why did the FBI refuse to follow up on a group of Saudis who were just taking flying lessons and only wanted to take off and not to land?

Why was nothing done when terrorists had tried to take over airlines in South East Asia; Why did we not immediately go on an alert and harden our defenses?

Why were these issues never fully addressed at the hearings?

And why do we so placcidly accept all of the crap that this government hands out?

Pass these thoughts around to your friends and see what comes of it...
Les Aaron

Have you had enuff yet? Want change?

Come visit with the site known for CHANGE...See what you're missing!...We scan the top magazines, Internet sites, service bureaus, news programs to provide you with the latest news and information..See why www.lesaaron.blogspot.com earns one of the top ratings

Also....Visit the new Armchair Curmudgeon BLog , www.hubgram.blogspot.com and Subscribe to HUBGRAM, the Online Newsletter. Send a request to Hubmaster@aol.com; mention Hubgram in the subject area.

PRE-ORDER "HOW TO TAKE BACK AMERICA: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE" AT INTRODUCTORY PRICE OF $24.00. EMAIL HUBMASTER@AOL. COM. . Remit full payment to R. Friedlieb, 239 Lakeside Drive, Lewes, DE 19958. A percentage of all profits earmarked for important progressive causes.

Putin's Approval Rating Twice That of George Bush!

Putin intent on dispelling old notions

Simon Tisdall
Monday July 10, 2006
The Guardian

The official agenda for this weekend's Group of Eight summit of leading industrial countries in St Petersburg includes action on energy security, global education and disease pandemics. But for the summit's host, President Vladimir Putin, the overriding aim is to confirm post-Soviet Russia's re-emergence as a global player deserving of a place at the top table.
"What Putin really wants is for Russia to be recognised as a power in its own right, not relying or dependent on the US, China or the EU," said Jennifer Moll, a Russia expert with the Risk Advisory Group. "The increasing assertiveness of Russia's foreign policy and the push to join the World Trade Organisation are evidence of this. For Putin, the summit is about dispelling old notions of the G7 plus one. It's about great power status."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Putin's bullish mood looks justified. Russia's economy has grown annually by an average 6% since 1999. As financial analyst Andrew Rozanov recently pointed out for the Chatham House thinktank, Russia is now the world's 12th largest economy. It has a trade surplus of over $120bn (£65bn), a budget surplus of 7.5% of GDP, and international and domestic reserves in excess of $300bn.
Most of this new-found wealth, and the Kremlin's resulting political confidence, flows from energy exports. Russia is the world's second largest oil producer and has an estimated 65% of global natural gas reserves. Last winter brought a glimpse of what that means when Ukraine's gas supplies were temporarily cut, causing a panic further west. As in the Cold War, Russian tanks are again poised on Europe's borders - but these days the tanks contain oil, not gun crews.

Despite accusations of of anti-democratic tendencies, Mr Putin's personal popularity is unmatched by his G8 guests. His approval rating is roughly twice that of George Bush or Tony Blair. And despite growing NGO and opposition criticism at home, many Russians seem to admire his readiness to challenge US global leadership assumptions.

On North Korea's missiles tests, on Iran's nuclear ambitions, on Hamas's control of the Palestinian Authority, and on Darfur, Mr Putin has consistently blocked or sidestepped US-led moves towards punitive action. On Kosovo, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, his position is often seen as unhelpful. These issues, plus Russia's poor human and civil rights record, could make for an indigestible dinner when he and Mr Bush meet privately on Friday evening. The fact that they are unlikely to be resolved only underscores Moscow's strengthening self-belief.

Yet old, familiar Russian paranoia still makes Moscow a touchy partner. "To be honest, not everyone was ready to see Russia begin to restore its economic health and its position on the international stage so rapidly," Mr Putin said last month. "Some still perceive us through the prism of past prejudices ... and see a strong, reinvigorated Russia as a threat." Nato's eastward expansion is set in this context; so, too, is European reluctance to open downstream energy business to Russian companies.

Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Centre said the US made a strategic mistake in assuming that post-Soviet Russia could be drawn, or tethered, within the west's orbit. "Now it has left that orbit entirely. Russia's leaders have given up on becoming part of the west and have started creating their own Moscow-centred system," he wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine. On issues such as Iran, "Russia will continue essentially to share western goals while opposing western (and especially US) hardline policies".

Mr Putin was not seeking confrontation at the G8 summit or beyond, Ms Moll said. But nor was the meeting likely to achieve a sudden consensus or, indeed, very much at all. "He doesn't want to be seen as an energy hawk threatening other people. He does want to do things his own way," she said. As a result, increasing friction was likely while the Bush administration remained in office. "We need some new thinking in Washington."

Saturday, July 08, 2006

The Search for 9/11 Truth Imperilled

Scholars for 9/11 Truth Under Attack

Download this press release as an Adobe PDF document.

Member's children threatened by name; teacher's position under assault.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) July 4, 2006 --- The author of an article about the attack on the World Trade Center has found himself under attack for having published it in a new on-line publication, Journal of 9/11 Studies. Entitled "The Third Elephant", the article discusses evidence that a third airplane was captured on video at the time of the WTC attack. He has now received a thinly-veiled threat against his children, who are cited by name, suggesting it would be a good idea if his article were to simply "go away".

Universities are for inquiries, not inquisitions. UW must operate in the traditions of La Follette, not McCarthy
Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a non-partisan society of experts and scholars committed to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11. The journal, which is archived at journalof911studies.com, is its latest attempt to create forums for discussion and debate about these important issues beyond its web site, which is archived at st911.org. The author, Reynolds Dixon, a writer and Professor of English, former lecturer and Fellow at Stanford University, has withdrawn from the society.

"Threats of this kind have no place in a democratic nation", said James H. Fetzer, the founder of S9/11T. "These are the tactics of brown-shirts and totalitarians who fear the discussion of controversial questions that threaten the government's control over the governed. This is a despicable act and we are not going to back down!" He added that the organization itself will assume responsibility for the study, which Reynolds has relinquished. "We cannot allow advances in understanding what happened on 9/11 to be suppressed by threats to our members. The stakes are simply too high."

In Wisconsin, another member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Kevin Barrett, who has been active in efforts to inform the American people about discoveries that have been made by Scholars--including that the Twin Towers were destroyed, not by the impact of airplanes or the ensuing fires, but by sophisticated controlled demolition; that Vice President Dick Cheney gave a "stand down" order to not shoot down the plane approaching the Pentagon; and that the FBI has now confirmed that it has "no hard evidence" connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11--confronts the loss of his job.

A Wisconsin legislator, Stephen Nass, Republican of Whitewater, has called for the University of Wisconsin-Madison to immediately fire him from his teaching position. The UW Office of the Provost has announced that it will conduct a 10-day review of Barrett's plans for an introductory fall course in Islam and of his past performance as a teacher at UW-Madison. Provost Patrick Farrell has endorsed his freedom of speech, but "We have an obligation to insure that his course content is academically appropriate, of high quality, and that he is not imposing his views on his students."

Prominent experts and scholars who are members of S9/11T include Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in the George W. Bush administration; Bob Bowman, who directed research on the "Star Wars" program in both Republican and Democratic administrations; Andreas von Buelow, the former director of Science and Technology for Germany; and David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus of theology at the Claremont Graduate School and author or editor of four books on the events of 9/11.

Concern about academic freedom at UW-Madison extends beyond the Scholars group. Ron Rattner, an attorney from San Francisco, CA, for example, has written to Provost Farrell with the observation that, "When teachers are intimidated against seeking and speaking truth on a campus renowned for its liberal and progressive traditions, we are in trouble". He added, "Universities are for inquiries, not inquisitions. UW must operate in the traditions of La Follette, not McCarthy". Robert La Follette was noted as a progressive leader, while Joe McCarthy portrayed his opponents as subversives.

Fetzer observed that the right wing is continuing to attack faculty who speak out on 9/11. "During an appearance on Hannity & Colmes (June 22, 2006), with Ollie North sitting in for Hannity, I made points about controlled demolition, the "stand down" order, and the FBI's position," he said, "but they were more interested in whether I was discussing these things with my students than whether they were true." On a subsequent appearance on Laura Ingraham's program (June 30, 2006), "She had her staff chanting about 'nutty professors' before I was even introduced. Then, after I made some telling points at the end of the program, they edited their archived copy and cut it off after a long harangue attacking me. That is intellectually dishonest."

Many other members of S9/11T, including Morgan Reynolds and David Ray Griffin, have spoken out in defense of academic freedom and in opposition to censorship and curtailing research into 9/11. "These nasty threats against the children of one member and the freedom of speech of another", Fetzer said, "make a sorry statement about this nation on the eve of the 4th of July." Coincidentally, Fetzer will appear with Barrett at the Mid-West Social Forum on Sunday, July 9, 2006, from 9-10:30 AM, at the Student Union of UW-Milwaukee, to discuss 9/11.

###

Trackback URI: http://www.prweb.com/dingpr.php/VGhpci1NYWduLUhhbGYtUGlnZy1JbnNlLVplcm8=

scholars for 9/11 truth member's children threatened teacher faces loss of job controlled demolition "stand down" order fbi admits it has no "hard evidence" relating bin laden to 9/11

Bookmark - Del.icio.us | Digg | Furl It | Spurl | RawSugar | Simpy | Shadows | Blink It | My Web

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

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

Email this story to a colleague
Printer Friendly Version
Bookmark with del.icio.us
Bookmark with Y!MyWeb
Submit to Digg

James Fetzer
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Visit Our Site

218-724--2706
Email us Here

There are no multimedia files attached to this release. If this is your release, you may add images or other multimedia files through your login.

If you have any questions regarding information in these press releases please contact the company listed in the press release. Please do not contact PRWeb. We will be unable to assist you with your inquiry. PRWeb disclaims any content contained in these releases. Our complete disclaimer appears here.

Name: The Armchair Curmudgeon

Location: Roots Are In NYC and always will be..., United States

A few things that drive me: Fair Play and representation of the smaller guy who tends to get beat up by the system. In representing the small guy's interest in good, clean government, government that is fair to the governed--the way the Founding Fathers saw it, I like to give it back to the bullies in spades. the guys who always complain about "our Values" those self professed arbiters of what's right and what's wrong; those guys who wave the flag and never served because they were too busy! Those Crusaders who are ready for Armegeddon!...and don't care who they sacrifice on the way!...And when I'm doing this, I also like to introduce a little levity, tweak their noses, yank their chains, inject some sarcasm and, hopefully, a little wit that flies over their heads. If you came around for the truth, good for you. If you came around the truth and the ability to give it back to the Right Wing lunatics, so much the better. With a media that's copped out, a Congress that is compliant, a government that is never mindful of those it governs, it is time for people like you and me to take back our country!

View my complete profile

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

The Ubiquitous Flying Blue Blog