it's an economic headline mash mucking

Today we reflect on this week in the economy, as revealed in the business and political headlines:

Bush: Tax Cuts Good For Economy

Growth slowest in more than 3 years

Housing slump hits US economy growth

Q3 profit climbs to $10.49 billion

Chevron Continues Big Oil's Hot Streak

Chevron earns record profits

GDP Slows Sharply to1.6% Rate

Wall St. closes lower as growth falters

US economy falters as service sector dips

US economy losing its global dominance

Slump May Chill Asia's Hot Exporters

Global trade no longer hostage to US consumers

The rich get richer in Bush economy

Poor people die earlier: but why?

Reducing poverty will cut health bills, says research

Stakes are High for Business in Nov. Elections

Masticate Feces and Be Deceased you shriveling lunatic!

This from the most nefarious of idiots managing the US government at this time:

At the Pentagon press conference this afternoon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked what would happen if the Iraqi government failed to meet the “benchmarks.” Rumsfeld first responded that “it is not complicated,” but just seconds later said, “This is complicated stuff. It’s difficult. We’re looking out into the future. No one can predict the future with absolute certainty.” He added, “So you ought to just back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it’s complicated, it’s difficult.”

All that i can think to say is: shut the fuck up you spineless lizard of a chickenhawk! If no one can predict the future, then why in your own godheaded assbackward mind, did you promote and manipulate the US into invading Iraq in the first place??? The senility is no longer being hidden, the man is stark raving insane. He must be fired immediately, if not, then impeach the bastard.

a short pause in today's moments.

If the Repugs are able to withstand the onslaught and keep control of the House and Senate, it will be one of the crowning achievements of Karl Rove's life. It will also provide substantive evidence for something that the US military, the CIA, the NSA, and every other federal intelligence and security apparatus agency, has known for a long long time: there is a profound use of, and need for, political assasinations.

reading between the lines time again

Official disclaimer: My sister, upon receiving her Ph.D. was hired as a research nutritionist for the largest processor of tuna products in the US. This was during the mid to late-1970's, at the beginning of the focus on the Japanese experiencing large scale mercury poisoning from their seafood. Her analysis led her to warn members of her family to stay away from most seafood along the upper end of the protein food chain. She found unsafe levels of mercury, PCB's, and other contaminants in all fish brought through her lab; though the USDA, FDA, and NHS had agreed that the levels (the news ones they proposed) had not been exceeded, the levels my sister found were too high for her to accept. Now a new report from a taskforce on health and sea food suggests that we need to balance the healthy benefits with the known risks. How does this work??? Welll the following paragraph in the report certainly ought to illuminate that:

• For all seafood categories, levels of contaminants such as dioxin and PCBs in commercially obtained fish generally do not pose health risks when consumed in amounts recommended by federal agencies. These contaminants tend to be geographically specific problems. State advisories are intended to alert the public about contaminated fish and shellfish from regional and local sources. Most people can gain nutritional benefits from seafood while minimising their risk of exposure to contaminants by selecting fish and shellfish in amounts that fall within current dietary guidelines, the report says. Because seafood supplies and cultivation practices change constantly, it would be difficult for federal agencies to develop a list of "good fish" and "bad fish" that would not become obsolete in a short time.

Read that paragraph carefully again. Did you see that lovely and amazing equivocation? "Fish generally do not pose health risks" speaks volumes here. Generally is a gianormous category isn't it? Another valid way to say this would be that only in specific cases would the consumption of fish pose health risks; and that those cases include eating fish in amounts outside of those recommended by a consortium of federal agencies. However those federal agencies cannot agree on those recommendations, each suggesting different levels of exposure and quantities for safe and health eating. Then of course there is the reliance of consumers on state advisories; somehow commercial media, paid for by the largest food corporations in the US are going to provide education to the population regarding the safety and health of seafood??? I can't see that happening, any more than i can see people only eating recommended amounts. The US over eats constantly, in massive quantities. And if that isn't sufficient, then they note that bothering to actually work on these guidelines is pointless because they would have to change them constantly. So the people should rely on information that is current, but that current information isn't reliable, and no new information will be used in the recommendations, but people should pay attention to advisories. This is an objectivist libertarian's wetdream.

The rest of the report isn't really any better. Perhaps one of the most striking aspects may be that it does admit that all of our seafood is toxic at some levels. That human beings have successful polluted the oceans and rivers, lakes and seas, with massive amounts of hazardous materials should be the banner headline of this report. But they bury that information pretty deep down in there.

Seafood is the major source of human exposure to methylmercury, a contaminant that accumulates in the muscle of animals over time. Because evidence suggests that methylmercury can disrupt neurodevelopment in the foetus, the report supports current recommendations that women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant avoid consumption of lean, predatory fish such as swordfish, shark, king mackerel, and tilefish, and limit their consumption of albacore, or "white" tuna. Other potential risks associated with seafood are exposure to persistent organic pollutants such as dioxin and PCBs - though there is not clear evidence on the adverse effects associated with these compounds - and microbial infections, which are contracted mainly through the consumption of raw or undercooked fish and shellfish.

The report supports current dietary guidelines and seafood advisories. However, the committee's interpretation of the risks and benefits differs in that it consolidates information on both risks and benefits for sensitive population groups and addresses all segments of the population. And it does not support giving those with a history of heart disease advice different from that given to the general population

Among their other recommendations are these gems:

• Lean fish are good sources of protein, are low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and provide moderate amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Predatory fish with long life spans - such as swordfish, shark, and tilefish - contain levels of methylmercury that are too high for pregnant and breast-feeding women.

• Fatty fish such as salmon are good sources of protein and provide the highest amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. They also contain higher levels of saturated fat and cholesterol and can accumulate higher amounts of pollutants such as dioxin and PCB, depending upon the source. Their methylmercury burden is lower than that of many lean fish.

• Shellfish and crustaceans are good sources of protein and low in saturated fat, although some contain moderate amounts of cholesterol. They present the greatest risk of microbial infection if eaten raw.

Can you make sense of this? Eat salmon for the protein and omega-3 fatty acids; don't eat salmon because it contains some of the highest levels of toxic chemicals humans have spewed on the planet. Don't eat long-lived lean fishes (most of those sold throughout the US) because they contain the most mercury; eat long-lived lean fishes because they have good proteins and best balance of fatty acids w/ zero cholesterol. And so forth.

The problem is solved quite simply. Eat more vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, and much less seafood, and very little meat.

I demand CNN & FOX apologize immediately,

as well as all those conservative talking heads who lambasted Eason Jordan. I notice that i can't, at this time, find that either CNN nor Fox are carrying this story:

<>OXFORD (Reuters) - One of Britain's most experienced journalists was unlawfully killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, an inquest into his death ruled on Friday, prompting calls for the perpetrators to be tried for war crimes. Veteran war correspondent Terry Lloyd, 50, who worked for ITN, was killed in March 2003 in southern Iraq as he reported from the front line during the first few days of the U.S.-led invasion.

<>"He was fired on by American soldiers as a minibus carried wounded people away," Coroner Andrew Walker said at the conclusion of the inquest, which U.S. soldiers declined to attend. "I have no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire on the minibus," Walker added. He said he intended to write to the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in an effort to bring those responsible for Lloyd's death before a British court.

Louis Charalambous, the Lloyd family's lawyer, said those responsible for his death should be brought to trial for what he termed "a very serious war crime." "It was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act," he added. He said the unlawful killing verdict had been "inescapable" and had come about because "U.S. forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys"

Nearly two years ago Eason Jordan had made some comments regarding the targetting and killing of journalists by US military forces, at the World Social Forum in Davos. Shortly thereafter he was fired by CNN and was tarred and feathered by the MSM far reichstag talking pundits for merely suggesting that the US would ever do such a dastardly deed. Since then the killing has gone on, and the MSM has steadfastly avoided any mention of the stories, hoping against all hope that they would just fade away. At the time of the firing the WaPo published an essay that contained this bit:

Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?

This fiery topic became a real nightmare today for the Chief News Executive of CNN at what was an initially very mild discussion at the World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?".

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

<>Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

I am quite sure that somewhere in the Middle East, right now, his remarks are being printed up in Arab language newspapers as proof that the U.S. is an evil and corrupt nation. That is a real nightmare, because the Arab world is taking something said by a credible leader of the media (CNN!) as the gospel, or koranic truth. What is worse is that I am not really sure what Eason really meant to communicate to us, but I do know that he was quite passionate about it. Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.

To me, what was said can not be put back into the genie's bottle. So here is my request as a U.S. citizen, and really only a minor, minor player in the whole WEF scheme of things: Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, you both seem like good and honest men, and Congressman Frank especially seems like someone with a bit of courage (I'm sure Senator Dodd is brave as well). Clear up this mess, use your power and authority as elected leaders, and make transparent what really happened. You must do this to respect the 12 journalists killed and let the world know how and why. Here is another challenge, and this one is for the CNN and the BBC: What the hell happened? Is Eason right or is he wrong? Good journalism calls for digging into and revealing all of the facts (or was everything that was said in the mild part of the discussion about fair coverage and seeking the truth just verbage?).

If what Eason originally said was true, exactly what happened and why needs to become known to the American public and world at large. If it is not, it is an example of how "news" is created by the heat of the moment, without any bearing to reality. If it is true, we need to know if it was official or if it was just some random disgruntled soldiers. The dark scenario, what the rest of the world would love to believe, is that the U.S. is sinister and evil and this is just another example of Darth Bush. Is this the same U.S. that I know and love, or was this just someone accidentally becoming swept up in the anti-U.S. feeling that is all pervasive in Davos (but they love us too, especially Clinton).

Gosh, if only any of these suggestions had been followed? They were not however; what immediately transpired was the firing of the Jordan. That seemed to be the only way the US powers that be could deal with the issue. Fire the man, and make it seem that he was the "loose cannon" on the deck of a perfectly steered ship of war, rather than someone speaking truth to power. Idiots like those from the WSJ made comments like this:

If Jordan ever harbored thoughts that U.S. forces had targeted journalists, a position that could be supported by the Kurtz story, then it was his duty as a newsman to pursue the story by assigning a CNN investigative team to it. If he did, I'd love to see the results. But it's fairly obvious that he didn't. Jordan's dereliction is less a mistake than it is proof of brain rot. The supreme editor of a news organization can't expect to make unsupportable inflammatory statements and maintain the respect of his truth-seeking troops at the same time. CNN did the right thing to show him the door. I would have done the same.

Even Jordan spun a recantation because the Rovian forces of Swiftboaters had launched salvo after salvo of attacks on him. His "resignation message" offered:

This is the statement Eason Jordan released tonight around 6:00 pm EST:

After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq.

I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside.

While my CNN colleagues and my friends in the U.S. military know me well enough to know I have never stated, believed, or suspected that U.S. military forces intended to kill people they knew to be journalists, my comments on this subject in a World Economic Forum panel discussion were not as clear as they should have been.

I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise. I have great admiration and respect for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces, with whom I have worked closely and been embedded in Baghdad, Tikrit, and Mosul, in addition to my time with American soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen in Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the Arabian Gulf.

"I never meant to imply" what kind of lame ass bullshit is that? How powerful are these legions of doom that control the US government and media?? Most of us knew all along the US killed journalists. They had done so during Iran/Contra and were chastized for it until Bush I pardoned the cast and crew. But now, we have the British government asking the World Court to investigate serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions in the case of one of their own from two years before Eason made any comment whatsoever. Will these Bushco apologists fall on their swords?? Will they publicly acknowledge their complicity in their role to silence criticism of these practices??? Will they come forward and investigate and report on all the other more than 100 killed. Terry Lloyd died with two other journalists, in an ambulance shot intentionally by US troops. That is the long and short of it.

I'm the decider... see heh heh heh... see.. heh heh

From yesterday's press conference; count the number of times he claims to have made decisions (from David Corn).

THE PRESIDENT: Speaking about books, somebody ought to add up the number of pages that have been written about my administration. There's a lot of books out there -- a lot. I don't know if I've set the record, or not, but I guess it means that I've made some hard decisions and will continue to make hard decisions.

And...this is the -- this is about the fifth time I've been asked this type of question. And as you know, there are some things that I wish had happened differently -- Abu Ghraib. I believe that really hurt us. It hurt us internationally. It kind of eased us off the moral high ground. In other words, we weren't a country that was capable of, on the one hand, promoting democracy, and then treating people decently. Now the world has seen that we've held those to account who are -- who did this.

You know, there's just a lot of look-backs. Presidents don't get to look back, but I will tell you, the decision to remove Saddam was the right decision. And I would look forward to the debate where people debate whether or not Saddam should still be in power....So when it comes to that decision, which is a decision to cause a lot of people to write books, it's the right decision.

so what was that pesky question anyway?
So I'm wondering, is there anything you wish you would have done differently with regard to Iraq?

oops, nothing about any books in the question so to speak, nor was there any effort to respond to the question either. Oh well, he's the decider see, and he gets to decide what he decides to say.

Herr pResident orders us to fugedabodit

<>

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that former Rep. Mark Foley's behavior toward former congressional pages was "disgusting" but predicted that voters would care more about the economy and national security than the ex-Florida lawmaker in next month's election. "I know this Foley issue bothers a lot of people, including me, but I think when they get in that booth they are going to be thinking about how best to secure the country from attack and how best to keep the economy going," Bush said in response to a question at his Rose Garden news conference.

See it is really easy. He speaks, Fox listens, tells its constituency to act, they follow, GOP stays in power. and whatever they do, they must not think about GOP's glaring social conservative hypocrisy, nor the Iraq and Afghan war, nor the national debt, nor the failing to act on any legislation Congress, nor the crisis in health care for the vast majority of citizens, nor anything else except: that the GOP can run a better police state and give more tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens. If you look at the canned adds that the GOP Senate and Congressional candidates are running right now this is their only message. The Dems are weak on security and will raise taxes.

There is zero substance to any discourse on the issues, and mere platitudes concerning the most corrupt and now nefariously disgusting behavior of the party leadership. There is only fluff and smoke and illusion. The US is in deep shit, and put there by bushco intentionally. Yet the MSM and the GOP candidates are being told not to discuss that at all. So please remember, do only what your lead says, all else is treason.

stay the course??? mmmm..

Let's see how many courses we know have open-ended successful outcomes??

Well, the analogy must come from sailing on the oceans, as in "stay on course, mark such and such, bearing such and such, speed such and such." These types of courses have specific navigable requirements however. They go from point A to point B and so forth, with an end point necessary to facilitate the proper charting of the course in the first place. These courses, and their ever important course corrections, require prior knowledge of hazards, location of key celestial and terrestrial triangulation vertices, and capacity to change course in case of emergencies and obstacles. The only way one could endlessly stay on course would be for the watercraft to have suffered severe damage to its steering systems: broken or stuck rudder, loss of propulsion (set adrift from staying on course), loss of command and control function, and so forth.

Golf courses, have 19th holes of course. The last hole, the finishing stop, the end of the course, the goal so to speak of staying on course until the outcome is achieved. Several things can get one off the course, most important of which is threatening and bad weather (lightning, tornado, high dangerous winds, massive flooding downpours, etc.) or some other catastrophe in the capacity to actually stay on course and play (injury to self or party, loss of balls, crash of carts, dropping of clubs in lake). In each of these sorts of cases when staying on course is no longer intelligent, safe, healthy, useful, the parties choose to immediately go to the 19th hole and claim satisfaction that they arrived at the goal.

Race courses--such as auto, motorcycle, horse, and so forth--are closed looped, and thus staying on course is relatively easy in terms of knowing where the course is going. Completing each circuit represents the fine tuning of the knowledge required to stay on course, but likewise increases the chances of being taken off course. All sorts of crises make getting off course critically important for survival. Hell they shoot horses don't they???

Distance race courses for running, ride and tie, triathlons, etc. are more open-ended yet have all manner of safety and health checks, backup systems, provisions and equipment support, and so far forth. Thus if a runner/rider on the Western States Marathon, or Tevis Cup Ride and Tie, wishes to stay on course, to the finish line (ah yes, forgot to mention that these courses have finish lines where the course officially ends), that person must abide by the decisions of officials evaluating and judging that individuals capacity to stay on course. Many problems get people yanked from the course, and only those who exhibit the best strategies, tactics, equipment, and most of all training, are allowed to stay on course to compete until they reach the finish line and achieve the goal.

There are lots of other courses too: curricula, technical training, safety screenings, rudimentary skills acquisition, testing of manpower and equipment, etc. All of these have clearly defined check points, benchmarks, checks for understanding, analyses, achievement criteria, and other markers that determine if the path of the course is optimal and meeting the objectives as outlined before beginning the course. We can certainly see why Bushco is trying now to deny that they ever mentioned staying on course in the first place. It was idiotic for them to phrase it that way; they have demonstrated that they do not belong on course; they have failed to specify their desired outcomes; they simply are not on course, except possibly one that is headed for crashing on some sub-surface rocks that will destroy the ship and all aboard.

Len Hart writes today:

I suppose I should indulge a bit of Schadenfreude. For years, from obscurity, I have been yelling that the policies of George W. Bush have made terrorism worse, alienated friends, confirmed potential enemies, and, in short, made Americans less safe, despised, reviled around the world. Bush's polices were bone-headed -- misunderstanding and misstating the nature of terrorism and, worse, failing to address it. There was some hope even among liberals that Bush's invasion of Afghanistan might bring an acknowledged terrorist to justice -- hopes dashed when Bush, himself, made of our nation a rogue state with a pattern of ineffective, ham fisted, policies. Under Bush, we became a rogue state, little better -- if at all -- from terrorists themselves. Bush's body count in Iraq alone far surpasses those of either Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein -- whom Bush calls terrorist and dictator.

Among Bush's policy blunders, he arrogantly dismisses the principles of Geneva, Nuremberg and the other treaties to which the US is not merely obliged -- we helped write many of them. Bush has thus abjured the very principles which had -- until Bush -- distinguished America from the dictatorial regimes of Hussein, Pinochet, Pol Pot et al. We have -- under Bush -- become the world's number one terrorist threat.

So my question is: "When will the next superpower military force decide that it is time for regime change for the torturous evil US totalitarian Bushco government?" Seems to me we as a nation have just joined the parade of thugs and villians, hellbent on incresing the strength and might of the chosen few at the expense of the masses wellbeing, freedom, and safety. Welcome to the rest of the 21st century.

thick thick smoke, and it's getting hot in here

What happens when we combine these two stories on the same day that the major news should have been openly dissecting and discussing the abandonment of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions by the Bush Administration??? Can you say distraction??

<>The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley’s GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some “contact” between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him “we’re taking care of it.”
It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.

So they know about this for four months, do nothing until the story comes out, and time the responses to the same day as the Freedom to Torture bill is based. More intriguing however is Hastert's immediate response. Rather than admit he knew anything (and his own website changed the time frame of the story later in the day), or do much more than accept Foley's resignation, Hastert goes on the evening Fox news cycle and spins this drek:

HASTERT: I think what they do is, they are so bent on protecting criminals and going through the process and not expediting these people who really want to take our lives, to murder us, and you know, we’ve seen it time and time again. We just saw it just now with the ms-13 gangs, trying to stop them from coming into the country and the liberal Democrats in the Senate blocked it.

ASMAN: But again “coddling terrorists.” You say democrats are doing that. That’s really tough language.

HASTERT: I’m saying what they’re doing is they’re not allowing us to prosecute these people. They’re not allowing us to — the 130 most treacherous people, probably in the world, and they want to put them and release them out in the public eventually.

Wow, how amazing it is that he can discount the other 14,000 prisoners so casually? Or maybe it is the notion that we have convicted so many for terrorism of those we captured?? Oh, that's right we haven't been able to do that even with the illegal unconstitutional torture regimes. I am really curious who these 130 are though, because at last count the IRC talleyed more than 700 at GITMO, and every one of those who have been released from there (a couple of thousand or so) have been found to have been innocent of any charges. But Hastert, knowing the story is about supporting the elimination of the US Constitutional provisions, claims that there are these people somewhere we have been torturing who deserve that treatment and it is the Democrats fault for some reason; all the while blaming others while blowing smoke over the Foley story. Way to go Dennis, real statesmanship.

a snapshot of today's hidden news..

this is a quick overview of several stories just posted today:

• US Department of Energy releases study that essentially says that research shows it may already be too late to avoid the crunch of peak oil collapse.
  
• BP opens spigot to lower prices and reduce possible Congressional action and anti-GOP sentiment in upcoming election. A third coverup of global climate change data and reports by Bushco is reported today.
  
• US EPA releases report that states the population carrying capacity of the US environmement, with the population expected to grow towards 400 million by middle to end of 21st century, might only be 200 million or less. We are overusing our land, using too much water, polluting too much water and air, and otherwise making a giant mess of it all.
• Bushco needs more war to facilitate the remaining political power they receive from defense and security contractors.
  
• US housing bubble worsens as new inventory of available homes increases dramatically
• US Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Commerce release joint report that shows a whopping 84% increase in health insurance premiums between 2000 and 2006 while overall wages grew at a measly 19.7% over the same time period and inflation 17.8%. Of course executive salaries and compensation packages grew over 250%, and that would include those of insurance industry leadership. Corporations are refusing to continue too offer health benefits.

can it get worse... just wait...

one of them meme thangs....

If you make a music mix that is a reflection of your informative years, what would those dozen or so songs be, and maybe more interesting, why? You don't have to be proud of the song choices - they're not necessarily a reflection of taste, more about your history.

First we need to dispense with "informative years," then get to the implied difference between relative value of my history, versus long term recognition of influence and inspiration. I will accept the construct "informed" to apply to inherent (and coherent) integration of this or that particular piece of music to my development of my personhood: personality, spiritual consciousness, aesthetic values, shared relations with the world and people around me, and so far forth. However, for this exercise, i will rule out the years of developmental relations with music, the pubescent and adolescent period, because, although that music underlies and seriously informs the constructs of one's life, i acknowledge that those influences were largely unconscious. Rather i would prefer to look at music that is representative of serious personal choices, and/or relationships to events through and with the music.

So, let's quickly dispense with the obvious. I contracted mononucleosis and hepatitis during my junior year of high school and spent 8 weeks essentially isolated in convalescence. That happened to be the Spring semester of 1964, when the British invasion hit the US, and all over all radio one heard Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Dave Clark Five, etc. So those influences, stripped as they were of social relations and interactions, were absorbed into my core developing adult consciousness, and remain to this day. I have seen most of Stones tours since, still greatly appreciate Ray Davies, and always enjoy anything by the Beatles. That isn't the music i want to talk about.

No, the most significant musical intervention into my life must have been Dylan songs played by the early Grateful Dead (1966/1967). It was a synthesis, under the influence of lots of legal (cough cough) koolaid (and thus opening my consciousness to undo nearly two decades of imprinting), of all of the forms of music i had previously found near and dear to me. From CA surf guitars and drums, through folk and doo-wap ballads, to british rock blues and R&B, all amalgamated with psychedelicized classical forms (i played in orchestras and concert bands from the age of six to 17). The Grateful Dead were, are, and will be the music that informs me. Thus, music that has come to me through my interest and experience with the GD, is also part of that which informs me.

Bill Graham made an effort to tie SanFran 60's psychedelic music with other forms at his Fillmore and Winterland shows. Introduced to that diversity of forms and genres played by the best of the best, certainly influenced and informed my life. Watching Miles (playing with his Algartha and Pangaea band) at shows, waiting for the Dead to come on profoundly changed how i viewed the jazz i had learned to play back in the early 60's. Same can be said for Weather Report and so many other legends. There was the time that the GD (who controlled what music was played through their sound systems) introduced the crowd at intermission to the music of the young angelic voice of Dolly Parton, and later to Olatunji and Baba Maal.

If i am asked to pick others i have to go with:
Country Joe and the Fish whose sound and voice are found now in Widespread Panic
Quicksilver Messenger Service (early days) carried into the 21st century with My Morning Jacket
Love and Kaleidescope preparing the way for Queen or Sting to Bardo Pond and Molehill Orkestrah
Massive Attack along with Portishead are in my collection because of my sensitivities to Joan and Joni;

but perhaps the most impactful of all is the single David Crosby solo album: If I Could Only Remember My Name that took all of the SanFran/LA psychedelia and moved it into the 21st century 35 years ago. Today i find Godspeed You Black Emperor and Explosions in the Sky still hovering in that space. Along with so many many others from Dave Mathews to the Shins, Killers, Pixies, Calexico, Tea Leaf Green, Scott Law Band, etc. et al and so forth.

Lastly my world is only complete because of Frank Zappa who took me back to my father's fascination with Ken Nordine, Spike Jones, Ernie Kovacs, and spewed it into the 22nd century and further. Without Frank i would never have fully appreciated rap/hiphop/poetryslam jam performances rooted in protest and angst and anger with the world. Frank was the master of that synchretic form spewing joy and humor across the worst of our species behaviors calling us out for all of our stupidities and arrogance. Frank was one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time....

property is a privilege not a right

I am going to make this simple and explicit. The next time some objectivist libertarian type tries to tell you property is a right, and is natural like: life, liberty, faith, belief, learning, pursuing happiness, being, etc., turn to them and tell them to "fuck off." They are blowing the proverbial fascist smoke up your ass. Property as a right, requires fundamentally taking and controlling something that can never actually belong to you. Property is acquired initially through violence, controlled by coercive threats, fear, intimidation and violence. It is inextricably linked to power, manifested either physically or economically. There can be no right, when one agent (governmental, military, posse, gang, bank, financial institution, etc.) takes the property and holds it claiming it is their right to "own" it. We can't own a piece of the planet, we can't own material possessions, we can't own children, we can't own space. Everytime some white dude in the US claims they own a home on some land, they are doing so intentionally ignoring the history of violence and genocide that allowed them to acquire the land in the first place. They fund through the one set of taxes they must hold dear, the security apparatus necessary to protect their property against others who, like them, want to take it and hold it. If a something can only be acquired and controlled through fear, it is not a right.

George meets George...

Last week, our national pResident of the White House spaketh thusly:

“It's impossible for someone to have grown up in the ’50s and ’60s to envision a conflict with people that just kill mercilessly, using techniques that are kind of foreign to modern warfare,”

Interesting this, in that George the Third said pretty much the same thing back in May of 1775 or so, when it became apparent that the ragtag minions of colonists and revolutionaries stopped fighting fair, using techniques that were "kind of foreign" to the imperial military behavior of those civilized Europeans. And since our Georgey is talking about citizens of the US (i gather he never once participated in a drop drill in school; the idiotic posture that was supposed to help us survive nuclear war {as if nuclear war is somehow now the appropriate norm for modern warfare and never consisted of the merciless killing of mass populations and abject radiological destruction of whole ecosystems}), he must be applying the same rational at the Third was expressing for his subjects: "these people simply don't know what is good for them."

If ever Georgey hasn't looked more imperial and kinglike than last week, i don't know what moment that would be? He was downright regally pissy about being disobeyed by his minions when he wanted to scrap the Geneva Conventions, excuse himself and his synchophantic courtesans from all perception of crimes against humanity, and put torture as the paramount legal policy of the US. I suggest we look more closely at something those colonists wrote about how George the Third got it wrong; and how Georgey is our own tyrant king.

The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We could of course simply rewrite this by inserting : ruler of the US for King of Great Britain, since all else is true.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

can we all say "signing statements?"

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

we need to get rid of only "his Governors" and replace it with "all members of his administration and party"

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

"you are either with us or you are the enemy" meanwhile bow down to the lord thy ruler damn it.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

can we all say Terry Schiavo? can we all recognize that the GOP Congress of the last two sessions has been the least useful, with the least number of days worked???

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

we are either completely supportive and give up all powers and rights, or we are terrorists and the enemy within and must be destroyed.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
can we hear his immortal words of last week: "we are safer, but we are not yet safe"?

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

can we look at immigration issues, New Orleans, taking military control of planetary resources, the use of the term "enemy combatant" and extraordinary rendition???

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

well to be fair he simply has ignored the judiciary and restructured the administration of justice to be outside the constitution and public purview and control

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

you're laughing right?? you better be, because just looking at his appointments we can see this is incredibly true.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

can we all say DHS, and all of its subsidiaries and private contractors?? can we all recognize the political agents who are regulating and controlling the federal bureaucracy by repressing science, information about our health and safety, and increasing the number of classified documents at rates in excess of the entire history of classification in the world?

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

of course he then makes sure they are overseas when they are needed here in emergencies so that more and more of the population can be removed to camps and their homes and cities taken.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

can we all say Rumsfeld, as in there is only the three of them in charge--Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld? I don't see any civil authority operating here at all.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

can we see hundreds of signing statements, hundreds of executive orders, hundreds of military orders--all of which represent a usurption of the constitution and the development of a private secret government that does as it pleases, abandoning all rule of law and due process??

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

to be fair they are private security forces contracted through the DoD and DHS.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

isnt this what he is all pissy about at the moment?? he is trying to get Congress to grant him blanket immunity from all crimes against humanity, so that he can then turn this same behavior on the US population before 2008!!!

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

can we agree that maybe the massive record setting trade deficits have essentially destroyed the future of the US economy, while benefiting only the wealthiest 1%???

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

someone is going to have to pay for that more than a trillion dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%, while they move trillions of US dollars and assets outside the US.

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

hell even the US Supreme Court has had to tell him he is in violation, just to make it look like something is being done, but it isn't, and the abuses continue

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

two words: extraordinary rendition

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

can't we all see unconstitutional actions declared by fiat to be appropriate?

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

the list here is simply endless isn't it?? we have essentially allowed him to destroy our democratic republic through election fraud, massive corporate corruption, and defying the constitution.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

can we all say "signing statements?" can we recognize the many statements that he will do has he pleases and ignore any and all legal and constitutional constraints when it suits his purpose

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

can we all say the Patriot Act and the warrantless unconstitutional spying, terror watch lists, no-fly lists, restriction of all civil rights, abandoning the Geneva conventions, holding and torturing innocent persons against their will in prisons outside the US, etc., et al??

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people

can we acknowledge his complete and total savaging of the planet's environment and the gulf coast?? he has removed, or tried to remove, every environmental protection and law in the US, and encouraged his corporate colleagues to ignore the health of the earth for increasing profit.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
more than half of all US forces in Afghan and Iraq are private contracted mercenaries. most of the US security apparatus (and emergency preparedness services) are private corporate agents serving only their masters without citizen or civilian oversight, nor rule of law.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

can we all say Iraqis?? can we describe his efforts to increase the terror and encourage others around the world to attack us: "bring it on" my ass?

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

okay, this one needs some work, but when one considers his handling of Katrina and the mess of 9/11 etc., it becomes immediately apparent that he has done everything in his power (granted this is really Cheney) to foment fear and terror among the citizens to excuse his own ordering of US military to his known rules of warfare, torture, destroying innocents and infrastructure at home and abroad!!!

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

exactly!!! nuf said!!! I am beginning to understand why those colonists reacted the way they did 230 years ago!!!!! Maybe we better get off our asses before it is too late!!!!

RJ Eskow nails it... but i wanted to first.. hehe

< style="font-family: georgia;">

< style="font-family: georgia;">Let me get this straight: "Islamic fascism" is the greatest world threat since Nazism, Bin Laden is its Hitler ... and yet chasing him is not a priority. What's going on with the GOP's leadership? Do they want Al Qaeda to remain a threat to the US and its allies? Think about it: Al Qaeda's actions saved an already-failed Bush Presidency and gave the Republicans total political control in 2002, and in return we've given it great publicity and a new recruiting grounds in Iraq. With their heated rhetoric, our leaders elevated Bin Laden from a vile and desperate criminal to the de facto leader of world Islamic radicalism. It's just what he wanted - and they gave it to him.

Absolutely correct!!! Bushco must, at all costs, increase the level of fear and threat in order to maintain political power to insure the continuing transfer of wealth, remaining as assets of the nation and its citizens, from the many to the few. Massive corporate investment has put them in place solely to initiate this transfer. It cannot be accomplished without the diversion that only a threat of terror can create. Destruction of the environment of the country and planet are secondary to the guarantee that the super rich continue to amass wealth and control of the minions. Destruction of the remaining bastions of middle class, reducing their assets and any political power to those only of serfs and peasants, in order to increase the degree and level of population control, turning over the law and order system to the churches. Without terrorizing the citizens of the US, there is no chance that Bushco can continue to advance its cause, and secure the future protection of the 0.01% of the planet's population.

And this is about the future; it is about the way in which millions of US citizens and all of their american cousins will be forced to suffer in depravity and despair, living in extreme poverty with ever shrinking availability of resources. Without keeping them very afraid of one another, instilling a deep and abiding paranoia among the people, the churches and superrich would have no hold, no control. They are right about one thing: if this gets out there will be chaos and disorder. So we must legalize torture, we must legalize spying, we must abandon constitutional protections and rights and liberties. We must make the world so unsafe, make the US seem so horrendous, that we can live safely only under a regime that protects from the threats it creates. This is organized crime gangsterism 101; the ultimate protection racket.

please keep in mind

when you read the following story, that there has never been a minimum amount of this chemical small enough to not kill a dog. It is a chemical that is responsible for the deaths of farmworkers all over the world, for massive birth defects and other serious ailments around the planet, and instantly deadly if inhaled or swallowed. Got it? Now read this:

ENVIRONMENT -- BUSH ADMINISTRATION STOCKPILING BANNED PESTICIDE: Methyl bromide has been banned for almost two years under the U.N. Montreal Protocol, a pact designed to stop the thinning of the ozone layer. But according to newly available public documents, the United States has been stockpiling millions of pounds of the pesticide. Methyl bromide is "a highly toxic gas used to sterilize soil and kill pests, [and] is considered the most powerful ozone destroyer currently in large-scale use." Loss of ozone increases the risk of skin cancer, cataracts, slow blindness, and reduces ecosystem diversity. While the United States receives an annual exemption to use the chemical at farms whose crops are deemed "critical," under the treaty, nations are allowed to produce more only if "methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks." The Los Angeles Times notes, "In 2004, nearly 29 million pounds were stockpiled by U.S. chemical companies, but the Bush administration received permission from the United Nations to produce an additional 17 million pounds that year, according to newly released EPA data. That amounts to twice as much as U.S. farmers needed last year." David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council said "there's absolutely no justification for having a huge inventory" of methyl bromide when the Montreal Protocol says all nations "should have as little on hand as possible" -- a couple of months' worth.

So for what purpose would Bushco have for securing more than 46 million pounds of this stuff???

I only have one 9/11 question... for now

As this nation continues to be terrorized, losing citizens everyday to violence in Iraq and Afghanistan (deaths that of course wouldn't happen if we weren't there), suffering untold assaults on the rights and liberties of all the citizens here, and becoming increasingly more violent towards one another, i just need to know how the following makes any sense?

Four planes, ostensibly and supposedly taken over by minorly armed hijackers, were planned to have attacked four key facilities. One each for the WTC, and one for the Pentagon, and one for either the White House (where Cheney might have been) or the Capitol. The only plane that was "taken back" by stalwart and heroic US citizens was the one plane that was to target either of our most prized and sacred sites. Now we are being told that we are only to believe that the four planes were staffed with highly trained operatives who were organized to attack the US, and this operation had been in planning for a very long time. Fine, on its face i can accept that assumption for this question. So why is it that the weakest, most-inefficient, least- capable hijackers were on the single, most-important, most-obvious plane?

If the plan was to symbolically attack the US, and picking the WTC and Pentagon were certainly symbolic attacks (WTC housed major media, the largest bank consortium in the world, offices of the Federal government security apparatus, etc.; while the Pentagon was the symbolic HQ of the one military in the world that dwarfs all those of the rest of the world combined), then wouldn't the hijackers with the most sophistication, most experience, closest to Allah, choose to take control of the one plane that was targetted to hit the most symbolic site of all. Are we supposed to believe that it is mere coincidence that the only plane that didn't hit its target was the one that was intended to hit the most precious target???? Are we supposed to accept that the hijackers (who pulled this off) were otherwise so stupid and so inane that they could not have figured out a plan that would make sure that the one key target would be hit??? Are we supposed to accept our own clearly demonstrated incompetent government's assessment that the one plane that really mattered didn't get through because only those passengers had the courage to stop the attack? Just this one set of assumptions alone makes the entire event's official report suspect. It cannot go unanswered, because as of right now it makes absolutely no sense at all.

some would call this treason.. but others say it's just Bush

As of this weekend, here on the fifth year after the nefarious and infamous event of September 11, 2001, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration has now officially killed more US citizens than were killed on this date five years ago. By the end of this month, more US citizens will have been killed in Iraq than were killed just in the WTC attack. This of course doesn't count the number of permanently disabling wounds to US citizens, which are astronomically higher than any that possibly could be attributed to 9/11. I, of course, am not assessing those that will suffer immeasureably from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration's mishandling of the toxic and hazardous materials identification during the cleanup of DC and NYC. Yet, it is conceivable that of the more than one million US citizens who will have served merely in Iraq, most, if not all, will suffer from DU toxicity and poisoning.

So, here is the simple question. Who has inflicted the most terror and damage on the US population? I give you two choices: a) Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration or b) Al Qaeda. If you chose b) you are a puppet stooge of the MSM and will go forth blindly into your own massive insanity supporting the more treasonous and hideous regime in the history of the US. If you chose a) you better get your ass out and vote this year to rid ourselves of these bastards.

the battle lines are drawn..

Just taking today's news reports, we see that the battle for the spirit and soul of the US is now begun. In no particular order:

• the Senate Intel Committee releases more of its Phase 2 report showing no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, yet all of the major Bushco players go on TV and say that while not reading the report they still hold the view that there was definitely a connection. They are lying to us because they can.

• the supposed re-edit of the ABC 9/11 film didn't happen, merely deflected pressure until it could be released in NZ and AU earlier today. Same problem scenes are still in it; thus demonstrating that they never had any intention other than to insure that furthering the propaganda initiatives of Bushco is first and foremost their role.

• the RNCC arm of the GOP officially acknowledges that they will spend all of the money on negative personal attacks to insure they continue their control of Congress at all costs. Lies and threats are to be the tools by which they will demonstrate their deserving of the honor of staying in power. Essentially they will lie and distort to achieve their goals, because they are unwilling to stand on their own record.

We are in deep deep trouble.

only been back a few days..

but oh my, what has been going on in this country? I can only assume that ABC/Disney is convinced that by promoting and broadcasting blatant propaganda, they can forestall a change in a Congress that has been decidedly supportive of them in terms of tax breaks, lax FCC regulation, and more freedom to control the population through marketing of consumer products. It is likely that a Democratically controlled Senate or Congress would reduce the capacity to generate greater profits, necessary in this era of falling dollar values and national bankruptcy. Thus, this effort to revise history from a conservative theocratic fascist perspective, is designed to insure future profit at the expense of the US constitutional government.

Jason Miller on US crimes against humanity

Here are but a few recent examples of the United States' own flagrant human rights abuses:

1. carrying out quite a number of its own executions in a manner recently discovered to inflict a great deal of suffering on the victim, including executing the mentally retarded and mentally ill. The US also executes a greater per capita number of its citizens than any other nation.

2. routinely torturing and suspending justice for those labelled "enemy combatants"

3. funding the Israeli Apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

4. occupying a nation where it has killed over a million Iraqi civilians since the Gulf War invasion (through brutal economic sanctions {500K children alone in nine years} and military actions).

5. funding and providing the munitions for the Israeli devastation of Lebanon

6. supporting numerous ruthless and murderous regimes (as long as they are friendly to US corporations)

7. having cynically embraced Saddam Hussein as an ally (knowing of his crimes against humanity {Rumsfeld handing him a check after the Kurd gassing}) when it furthered US interests and invading Iraq preemptively to topple him when he ceased to be useful.

8. having kept the House of Saud in power for years despite its harsh practice of Sharia Law and repression of all dissent and opposition

9. maintaining the largest prison population in the world (and largest per capita prison population) through a legal system so unjust that 50% of those incarcerated are Black when Blacks comprise 14% of the general population.

10. engaging in numerous outright massacres of civilians (i.e. Haditha, Fallujah) {well this dates back to the early American colonial days now doesn't it??}

rummaging in the mind bin

When i get back in September, i need to post some thoughts on several topics.

I have a notion that those who propose that humans have a right to property, fail to acknowledge (intentionally) that in order to fully exercise such a right, one must deny others the access to that right, using capital assets and economic elitism to sustain control over the resources (security forces) at the expense of freely and openly allowing all to have free unfettered access to exercise that right. I see the concept of private property as a privilege like driving. If you can afford it, you can have it; but it is not a right by any means, and it must be regulated and controlled like use of motor vehicles. Private property advocates are essentially demanding that only their brand of capitalism exist and that all threats to their own views are dangerous and must be abandoned or destroyed. Keep that in mind next time someone suggests that they have a right to own a piece of the earth; look into their souls and you will see the greed and selfishness. As is said, more next month.

The MSM conservative media insist that the US population is stupid. Nothing new here, but the depths to which they put this to the test. The terror arrests help Bush stories seem to represent the notion that Bush needs help? So things really are that bad? The notion that Lamont's victory is representative of the Dems nominating losers to national office. Of course those losers were actually winners whose legal and forthright elections were stolen and subverted by a Supreme Court and electronic voting hacking.

The war on terror will go on forever?? Well it can't, because it presupposes that the US will eventually have to take on its own citizens, and when that happens there won't be a US to fight an openended war on terror, or anyone else for that matter. The ongoing efforts to establish the US as the Christian version of Israel, creating a theocratic state, empower with massive military protections, seeking to absorb much of the planet's resources for its own selfish and abusive use, will only serve to destroy the country from within. Not to mention the apparent failure of Israel's military planning and execution in its efforts to destroy its neighbors.

The man is completely insane...

It isn't shocking that more than 99% of the world's leaders think differently than George; no what is shocking is that he is being put out there by his puppet masters to prove it.

Bush Says Israel Defeated Hezbollah Guerillas <>
(CBS News) President Bush said Monday that Hezbollah guerillas suffered a defeat at the hands of Israel in their month-long Mideast war. "There's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon," Mr. Bush said. Mr. Bush also said the war was part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror and "we can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks."
Mr. Bush said Iran and Syria were the primary sponsors of Hezbollah guerrillas who captured two Israeli soldiers, igniting the battle with Israel. More than 900 people were killed in the fighting, and there was massive destruction in southern Lebanon. Mr. Bush said the "responsibility for this suffering lies with Hezbollah."

And now contrast that with Israel's own vision of this 34 day war. Keep in mind the hidden subversive message above: that an oppositional political party is guilty for the slaughter of its own nation's citizens simply because it was the oppositional party. Get it??? Just ask Cheney, when he says Democrats are in league with Al Qaeda.

Israel's Verdict: We Lost the War
by Donald Macintyre
<> Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival. Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved. The Prime Minister, who was repeatedly heckled by opposition MPs during his address, insisted the international commitments in Friday night's UN resolution would "change fundamentally" the balance of forces on the country's northern border. <>Promising that the government "will have to examine ourselves at all levels,"

Mr Olmert fought to pre-empt a probable campaign by the political right by declaring that Hizbollah had been dealt a "harsh blow". He added that the guerrilla group was no longer "a state within a state" or a "terrorist organisation that is allowed to act inside a state as an arm of the axis of evil", referring to Syria and Iran.
While refraining from a direct personal attack on Mr Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right- wing Likud opposition, lost little time in declaring "there were many failures, failures in identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of the home front."

Now let's consider two other points. First, that Bush and Olmert suggest that this was really about Syria and Iran; that the US has strategic intent to pre-emptively attack Iran and was supporting the Israeli strike against Lebanon to instigate a Syrian/Iranian response. Assume that Bush/Cheney also refers to Iraq as a victory, and considering Israel's effort a victory, foreshadows decades of war in the Middle East, killing thousands of US citizens and hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens, these crazy mofos would call that a victory too. But that isn't the critical point. What underlies all of this is that Israel had been planning this attack for more than a year, with the direct support and approval of Bushco, and that this year long planning and preparation are viewed by Israel as a complete defeat.

Last month the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hizbollah militants was unfolding according to a plan finalised more than a year ago". The report said that a senior Israeli army officer had been briefing diplomats, journalists and think-tanks for more than a year about the plan and it quoted Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at [Israel's] Bar-Ilan University, who said: "Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared." Last week the New Statesman magazine reported that Britain had also been informed in advance of the military preparations and that the Prime Minister had chosen not to try to stop them "because he did not want to".

This latest report is the first to tie the Israeli operation to a broader framework that includes a possible US strike against Iran.

Unidentified officials said a strike could "ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack". Shabtai Shavit, a national security adviser to the Knesset, said: "We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America's requirements, that's just part of a relationship between two friends. Hizbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time."

An anonymous Middle East expert claimed that while the State Department supported the plan because it believed it would help the Lebanese government assert control over the south, the White House was focussed on stripping Hizbollah of its missiles.

Noli me vocare; non lo so

Sixty one years ago the US decided it was necessary to drop a second atomic bomb, this time on the city of Nagasaki. Four days earlier it had done the nasty to Hiroshima, and assumed (with no basis in fact) that it needed to use the second bomb to insure its victory. In truth, it dropped the second bomb because it was there to be dropped; they really had no alternative plan for what to do with it. We fight war to fight war, not to win them. War machines are self-perpetuating beasts, living solely to continue to do what they do, increasing the entropy into which they expand their ever on-going destructive nature. The US will never leave Iraq nor Afghanistan; we are already there, like the Nagasaki bomb.

It was reported that the US lost 26,000 AK-47's in Iraq, weapons that had been brought into the country ostensibly to arm the Iraqi "insecurity" forces. You don't lose 26,000 automatic assault rifles; you don't forget where they went or who picked them up. No, our military allowed them to be taken to prolong its own bathing and showering in massive wealth generating actions, designed to continue to fight a war that can never be allowed to end. The fear expressed by Bushco about the defeat of Lieberman is that the political voice of those opposed to continual war might gain sufficient notice by those raising their voices (Bushco fears that people will hear themselves and thus feel empowered) that this huge transfer of inordinate wealth maybe suddenly stopped.

Following the bombings in Japan, my father was charged with identifying and destroying the remaining Japanese ordinance and munitions. He discovered that well after the surrender, citizens were still involved in the production of these things, solely because that was all they knew to do to make their lives meaningful enough to continue to move forward. The US has achieved that same military mindset. We have activated the core elements of that systemic complex, producing weapons, that must be used, in order to produce more that must be used, and so forth, purely and simply because the very nature of the consciousness of the country is so configured. Eventually we must be stopped, be destroyed before we destroy the earth.

the politics of sanctioned murder

Many, if not most, US citizens believe in the right of private property. They will tell you that they have a such a right to own some piece of matter, and that with that right, they are free to use that matter in anyway they see fit (supposedly as long as they don't use it to interfere with the rights of others etc. and so forth and so on). What they completely fail to understand is that in order to have such a right in the first place, one also must hold the view that coercion, fear, intimidation, threat, and mortal violence must be part and parcel of the package. It is the ultimate travesty of property rights, that to protect them, one must advocate violence as well.
Sure, you can get all sorts of folks who will say that this isn't true, that there are "peaceful" ways to resolve such conflicts that may arise. By "peaceful" of course, they mean economic; and by economic they mean the fear, threat, intimidation, and violence that can be perpetrated through the use of capital to insist that their own authority be acknowledged and granted. Because, quite simply, even the most virulent libertarian will pay taxes to sponsor a blue uniformed gang of thugs to provide the violent coercive power to protect their property. This has been the human way for tens of thousands of years. Perpetuating the control of territory and resources through violence, or at the threat thereof. And out wonderful liberal arts education reinforces this underlying meme through the use of the same coercive abuses, training subsequent generations to adhere to this heinous philosophical position.
We seem incapable of even talking about cultures that have moved beyond the violence, simply through rejecting private property. It is interesting how closely violence and property are tied when viewed from perspective of those who live free from the encumberments of concern for material possessions. We as a nation refuse to allow our children to be taught about these cultures, and we refuse to allow our children to be free from the coercive threat of punishment and violence. Our school rules are modeled on the society's penal codes sections of which contain phrases like: crimes against property, crimes against oneself, etc.
Well consider this one little example. Your neighbor chooses to use store bought pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on their property. According to those who advocate private property rights, this is all well and good. What they fail to acknowledge, and what they must also insure that they must never be held responsible or accountable for, is the toxicity and hazardous pollution they are dumping into the neighborhood. They are, through the protections and sanctions provided by the capital to which they are invested, free to threaten and kill their neighbors, to hundreds of species, and to destroy the planet for decades to come. This is war, it is murder, it is sanctioned violence at its core. And ultimately, there is no recourse whatsoever to stop them from doing so (the deepest pockets will always prevail and use their bluecoated gangs of thugs to protect themselves and their money). We can talk big about using violence to protect our property, but we will never accept violence to stop those that are killing our future. Such is the politics of capitalism and private property.

kill, consume, fornicate.. KEF...

Isn't that what it is all about?? Five thousand years of negotiating linguistic compromises to make the most efficient use of killing eating and fucking to survive and endure, and where has all that effort gotten the human species. We are still killing eating and fucking one another. It is all about the kill in the end. No matter how sophisticated and enlightened a utopian community becomes, they seem to always and invariably accept that some killing is justified. Once anyone does that, believes that he/she/they have the moral and ethical authorization to kill in the name of something, all else is reduced to might makes right. It just so happens that today the smallest among us can, with an appropriate tool (small handgun), kill the largest and biggest of us. That may be the only difference in 5000 years of "civilization" actually.

I give two ends of this spectrum. The best who ever killed-ate-fucked were the Mongol hordes, streaming across Asia and Europe slaughtering, eating, raping, pillaging, extracting, and utilizing every possible resource imagineable. No one stopped them, no one could, no amount of negotiations or massed armies could hold against their onslaught. They stopped because they had other business to take care of; interesting that. The only community who seems to have attained a certain grace through which they have chosen not to authorize the killing of other human beings (though they have one of the very best justifying excuses ever in the history of man), are the Tibetan Buddhists. It took them realizing it doesn't matter at all once they excuse themselves from the illusion of the game. Life is not about killing eating and fucking--it is about being, just being. If you eat food that is not killed, you change how you think about killing at its core. If you eat that which has been given you, you do not feel that you are free to take from others. If you accept that your own life is merely a chance vessel for a tiny portion of a larger and more eternal journey of the spirit then you don't need to fuck to prove that the illusion of the body isn't more than that. mmmmm

the abject denial of commerical media in US

In a few days the White House will welcome some American Idol contestants to visit the W. I am sure the handlers are well aware of the demographics and wish to attach their GOP hopes on the slimy bodies of preening celebrity wannabees. But this story underlies something that i have not seen talked about at all so far.

In not one single episode of any of the dozens of "reality" based programming as reality been presented. Are we to believe that not one person, among the hundreds, has mentioned the wars, global climate change, the costs of energy, etc.??? Not one???? For some reason (and speculation could take book volumes of text to discourse) the MSM has determined that all participants in their programming will never be shown discussing the reality of the world; they will only be shown worrying about their next consumer purchase, how they are viewed by the same/opposite sex, what time the next party begins, and so forth. This carefully scripted pseudo-reality portrays our US culture disdainful of any responsibility for the actions of our government, shows our "average" citizens consumed and engaged so much in their daily lives that they are incapable of comprehending international affairs. Is it even the least bit worrisome to the executives themselves that this portrayal is detrimental to the wellbeing of US citizens around the world, and fails completely in representing the views (as polled) of the vast super majority of US population??

We got problems, and yet, according to our media, not a single one of those problems involves the state and condition of living on the earth at this point.

A Kraft foods moment: libertarian perspective.

The other day, shopping in my local supermarket (and there is a word loaded with semioticity worthy of some academic research) i came upon a Kraft food representative working the cereal section. Another patron was overheard saying something about the hypocrisy of those who advocate in favor of the president's veto of the stem cell bill. I muttered something about the views of the founding fathers, as expressed in the constitution, to leave open all manner of imagineable and unimagineable future possibilities with regard to rights and civil liberties. The Kraft woman spokeup and said that the "founding fathers were libertarians." I was somewhat taken aback, in that one of the areas i research is the libertarian agenda, in which the core of their own philosophical thinkers do not accept this piece of gravitas, mostly on the grounds that it is fundamentally important to hold the classic liberalism of the enlightenment as the a priori foundation of later manifestations of libertarianism. But she also said something to the affect that the founding fathers were not only libertarians, but also good christians helping to form the "new israel." Yikes, she was espousing the contradictory view that the founding fathers were libertarians bent on creating a theocracy.

Yet even that didn't really get my goat rammed up. NO. What got me was what she was doing. Given her expressed passion for libertarianism, i was shocked at her own blatant hypocrisy for abusing the shelf space of a competitor. In essence she was declaring her own eminent domain of the grocery shelf for her products, reducing the size of both her major competitor and hiding the generic brands. This was not only a violation of what she professed to be her own principles, but it is a type of fraud given how product placement contracts are written and manifest in stores. I may be one of the few people, outside of grocery stores, to know how the system works. It is expensive and complicated and requires honesty and trustworthiness of the corporate representatives. Clearly the Kraft woman was not about to honor the domain of a competitor, and was busy claiming space, not hers, for herself; eminent domain!! Her actions belied her expressed views, and demonstrated that the rights of others are not worth acknowledging in the pursuit of capital asset acquisition. That got me to thinking about another form of piracy.

One of the more common misconceptions, philosophically, in assessing political networks and representational interconnectedness, is that anarchists are directly linked to libertarians. This simply is not true, and the best illustration is piracy and pirates. Well there is that and there is the bizarre support that US libertarians show for Israel to use massive military force against whole populations as part of their right as a nation. I link these two because if ever there was a nation created by an act of piracy and eminent domain, it is Israel (the US is of course the master role model). Pirates use the ultimate threat of imminent death to lay claim to any and all material possessions they feel they desire, then divide up those items equally through a consensual democratic process (pretty far from libertarian ideals). There is no property that belongs to either the pirates or their prey, just the process of redistribution of matter, encouraging its flow in a multitude of forms, at the point of destructive weapons. Each pirate was/is his/her own master, free to engage or disengage from the collective, but once so engaged is responsible to the collective to maximize the efforts to appropriate matter to be distributed.

Now, one of the justifications that is too oft provided for the existence of the nation state of Israel, is a biblical history that is not without some very controversial facts. There is much evidence that the torah was created in and around 1000 BCE as a means of justifying military action to support the consolidation of tribal groups under a rigid theocratic feudal system. It need be noted that even the Torah lays this out as the result of military conquests (supported by some god) of peoples living in the region they wished to occupy. In essense Israel's own historical claims to its land rest on acquisition through violence and piracy. Couple that with the eminent domain actions of the US and UK post WW2 in taking Palestinian land (land upon which most of the Semetic peoples have lived for 3500 years or so) and giving it to a group of chosen jews, and you discover that at the very root of the ongoing strife is the use of military might to sustain control over land taken from others. The expansionism of the Israelis, taking more and more of the former Palestianian lands as well as those belonging to other nations, all supported by the claim that they are protecting their nation, is further acts of eminent domain for the sole purpose of improving the material wealth of its citizens at the expense and suffering of others. It is nothing but piracy. Taking the homes and possessions of the Palestinians, removing people from their farms, expanding their territorial boundaries through military might, and so forth, is just the behavior of thugs and bullies, not of revered nation builders.

But many libertarians, for the most part, love and support Israel. It must be their neo-con, Straussian, Randian, objectivist interrelatednesses. It just baffles me how they can fight so hard against eminent domain and then turn around and reward it.

Kilakhota kteh^cin hetucha.

Reading the rationalizations given for irrational acts, particularly regarding providing justifications for Israel's actions, leads me to ponder some questions that seem to elude most of those who are doing this. First, if they weren't Jewish, would they try so hard to do it? Second, why do they insist on forgetting (excusing) the behavior of the zionists in forging the nation-state in the first place? Third, are they so enraptured in the throes of Jewish ecstasy that they simply disregard international law whenever it might conflict with their personal biases?

One of the more rational of these irrationalists, insists that Israel has the right as a nation to defend itself against anyone who attacks it, regardless of the causality of the attack. Perhaps the attacks are responses to Israeli attacks but that no longer matters to these people. Perhaps the attacks, killing civilians (women and children indiscriminately) are lashing out at sixty years of terrorism (now fully sanctioned state sponsored, but originally the cowardly acts of the zionists), but that doesn't count either. Perhaps the attacks (wow, they kidnapped one guy and shot nine), were in response to the expansionist agenda (from the original 17% of Palestine to an armed occupation of nearly 85%) all carried out at the point of vicious weapons killing tens of thousands and forcing hundreds of thousands to flee, but somehow these people don't have any right to resist anything.

It is too easy to drape the flag of Israel having a right to defend itself because of some historical victimhood. It is also too easy to suggest that such a right allows Israel to attack other nations and populations because somehow (and clearly never specified, defined, proven, or verified) these nations are participating in efforts to destroy Israel. Unfortunately both of these views are wrong and need to be discredited. I would think that the best way to solve this problem, if violence is justified, would be to arm the Palestinians with the same weaponry as Israel (including nukes), give each 50% of the original land, and let them start the MAD chess match. Wouldn't that be fair, equitable, justifiable, reasonable? No?? Then why is any violence justified???

the Democratic bitches of CA...

I am extremely disappointed in the support demonstrated for HR 921 by the top tier of Democratic leadership, especially the big three females from CA: Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. The resolution offers wholesale support for Israel in its behavior, although that behavior violates any number of international agreements, conventions, US and international laws, and so forth. The idiocy of these bitches, the blatant pandering to the jewish money, and bilious hypocritic stands--all of these are what make the Democratic party the perenniel loser that it is. The supposed condemnation of the Islamic groups, for behaving in ways absolutely no different than Israel, indeed behaving in much less violent, much less illegal ways, reeks of the duplicity that the party leadership of both parties flaunts in the face of the world.

Federal law prohibits the use of US manufactured military weapons, sold to other governments, on general populations and public/private infrastructure. Hell, Federal law prohibits that use by our own government, although noone dares to question the tactics of shock and awe. And there is the crux of the issue. The Israeli bombing of: Lebanese citizens (a host of Christians even), roads, bridges, airports, power installations, hospitals, medical clinics, libraries, food production facilities, food and water storage facilities; these are illegal acts, war crimes and crimes against humanity. But for the US to condemn the acts, the US would have to admit its own criminal behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since we can't admit that, and because Israel and the rest of the world know that we can't, we are forced to support Israel hideous and vile behavior. And so it goes.

another roadside attraction

has pulled me off the road and onto a siding. This won't last long, but i can report that out there in america there are still way too many people who don't seem to care that they, and their behavior choices, are creating suffering and damaging the earth. It really is that simple. The equations are too obvious to be ignored.

Take for example the way in which we discard and handle our waste/trash. I have spent considerable periods of time on archeaological digs of middens, some 1000 years old, still others 5000 years old. All that is left in those middens are bones, and shards of stone or pottery, and maybe rarely some pieces of fabric tied in bundles to be protected. None of the middens, even those less than 300 years old, produce toxic leechate or other heinous hazardous material. The technology simply didn't exist to toxify the water and earth, to damage and kill other species by human trash.

Today, that is all changed. A landfill, incinerator, processing unit, whatever, is a toxic circus nightmare, giving up after each rain a little of this or that poison or toxin into water or soil. These hazmats and toxic substances have inordinate half lives, some as long as forever in some cases. Recent studies on citizens who have spent their lives in the state of Washington show that these people have accumulated levels of some of these chemical wastes that are permanently hazardous to their health. They didn't knowingly put them in their bodies; it was just living and eating, drinking and breathing, the environment of WA that has created this problem. It is much worse for other species. To deny one's complicity in this, or worse, to justify behaving in this manner is criminal misconduct--it is attempted murder.

So why do so many keep doing it???