Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis

In its place, they want to erect a system in which workers — instead of looking to employers for health insurance — would take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families: They would buy high-deductible "catastrophic" insurance policies to cover major medical needs, then pay routine costs with money set aside in tax-sheltered health savings accounts.

well well well. they are getting down to their business of destroying the fabric of life in the US. Forcing not only the mass of the general public to suffer disasterous health issues including increasing deaths and pandemics, but also significantly reducing the employment in the healthcare industry. Routine costs?? As if there is any such thing as routine costs in health care especially in the US. Their goal is to reduce US population, increase the redistribution of wealth to fewer and fewer wealthy monopolists, and create a massive military police state that separates out the zealous christian evangelicals from all the rest...

It's easier to figure out what the iraqi election doesn't mean.

It doesn't mean that the water that has been off for 8 straight days in Baghdad will come on anytime soon. Nor does it mean that the sputtering electrical grid will work for more than 4 hours a day, or that anyone is going to clean up the raw sewage that's coursing through the streets in downtown Baghdad. And it certainly doesn't mean that the newly "elected" officials will have any real influence over borders, air space, oil extraction, economic policy, deployment of troops or any of the other powers we normally associate with sovereign leaders. (Even the ridiculously named Iraqi National Bank is completely owned by foreign investors) Those will still be in the hands of their US overlords.
In fact all of the corporate activity in Iraq will be privately owned by non-iraqis who will not pay any taxes whatsoever on their profits, and will be allowed to take all of the money out of iraq. Indeed it is the US neo-feudal lords of capital who know that iraq will remain an international sacrifice zone, permanently damaged from depleted uranium and other toxins. All they want is the resources to take out and sell. The sooner the iraqis kill one another the better it will be for US

tóka he 'hwo?

In another presentation, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota introduced senators to the meaning of "blogging," explaining the basics of self-published online political commentary and arguing that it can affect public opinion.

let's look at this comment a little more thoroughly shall we? John Thune beat Daschle in SD through the abuse and misuse of webbased media. In essence Thune was teaching other republicans how to lie, deceipt, character assassinate, demean, slander, and disparage not only other candidates but the electorate as well. Thus Thune's "introduction" was a how to further erode the sensibilities of those for whom they serve by insuring that they will knowingly support someone who is lying to them. Then they are free to be as corrupt and as evil as they choose to be without any further possible consequences. Neat little plan really.

the glaringly misleading

Iraq sealed off its land borders for three days, shut down its international airport and imposed strict curfews ahead of the elections Sunday, even as radicals stepped up attacks against US and Iraqi security forces. The Al Qaeda outfit in Iraq led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi warned Iraqis that they could get killed if they approach polling stations, "the centers of atheism and of vice."
Just ahead of the first free balloting in Iraq in half a century, the country began battening down for the vote. A 7 p.m.-6 a.m. curfew began yesterday and will stay in effect through Monday. Baghdad International Airport was closed, effective last night, and the nation's borders will be sealed for the election period. Medical teams are on alert, and nationwide restrictions on traffic will be imposed from today to Monday to try to deter car bombs.

Iraq, the country, shut down the borders. Since we all know that the only force capable of doing this, the only power who makes all decisions in Iraq, is the US, why aren't these reporters telling the truth. WELL, isn't it obvious. They don't want the truth to be told. They, the US government, does not want what really is happening described. The use of "the country" makes it seem as if there is some sovereign iraqi authority, when of course there is none. We, the entire world's literate population, are being told we are so stupid we don't deserve to be told the truth.

yechi-ktepi

<>Mr Katsav, foreign minister of Israel, reminded European leaders that "rabid anti-Semitism" in Europe had made the Nazis' job easier and warned that such hatred was again on the rise. "We fear anti-Semitism. We fear Holocaust denial, we fear a distorted approach by the youth of Europe," he said. "We call upon the European Union: do not let Nazism dwell in the imaginations of the young generations as a horror show, so to speak."

Let's get this right this time. "Do not let Nazism dwell" seems much like a fascist edict itself. Or else what? We can only imagine. Given the treatment the Palestinians have received from the Zionists for nearly a century, given the overt ruthless fascism practiced by the Israelis against the arab world, it certainly seems that the only people who truly dwell on Nazism are the Israelis and Jews themselves. There seems to be the certitude that Bush and the leaders of Israel share concerning their vision of righteousness empowering the uncontrolled use of their powers. Faith based fundamentalism will always be faith based fundamentalism regardless of the religion. When Jewish commentators continue to describe the behavior of the Nazi regime as the " worst genocide in the history of western civilization" they are intentionally avoiding any referential signification of the slaughter of american indians, and the behaviors of western colonial empires throughout the world. Hell, the jewish slaughter in europe only killed a third of them. Whole entire native nations were exterminated, whole regions cleansed of populations, whole tribal groups in southeast asia eliminated. 20 million christians killed in china in the mid 1800's seems like a bit more than 6 million to me. But Jews love propaganda. They love trying to control rhetoric and symbols and semiotic referents, so that only they can spout the messages. The conservative message machine in this country is the bread and butter copycat version of AIPAC and FLAME and the early 20th century ZIONism. The only fascism breediing right now is the Israeli/USA version, based on lies and deceptions and nuclear weapons.

fascist bitch

Spellings' IntoleranceLate last year, when the Department of Education highlighted the new PBS series "Postcards from Buster," it praised the show's embrace of different cultures: "And by learning about different cultures, Buster also helps to show children what we all have in common." But apparently the concept of universal humanity only extends so far. On her second day on the job as secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, who replaced a previous education secretary with little regard for our nation's educators, has condemned a not-yet-aired episode of the show because of the title character's visit to the state of Vermont, where he spends some time with Emma, an 11-year-old girl, and her two mommies<>. EDUCATING OR PREJUDICING?: Secretary Spellings primly declared that "Congress' and the Department's purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children." She provides no justification as to why. The funding to which the secretary refers is the Ready-To-Learn program that provides grants for "the development of educational programming for preschool and early elementary school children and their families," and the stated purpose of the grant program is to promote school readiness and literacy amongst school-age children, a task which even the department has admitted "Postcards from Buster" is more than up to. And though Secretary Spellings points to the law's statement that "any funded shows must give top attention to 'research-based educational objectives, content and materials,'" she makes no explanation as to why the "Sugartime!" episode does not fit into these guidelines, as the format for this particular episode is no different from previous ones. SETTING UP THE CASE FOR CONSERVATIVE CENSORSHIP: In addition to criticizing this particular episode, Secretary Spellings "asked PBS to consider refunding the money it spent on the episode." That was not her only request. She also asked for the destruction of any symbol or statement "linking the department to the show" and that the member stations be alerted to "the nature of the show." She finished off the letter with an open-ended warning: "You can be assured that in the future the department will be more clear as to its expectations for any future programming that it funds." For now, the department is more than clear as to whether bigoted ideology matters more than fruitful education and true acceptance.

yes indeed, what we have here is a failure to communicate. well maybe not a failure; more like the direct interference and censorship of communication. powerful though they may be, those nasty little liberals will never get to broadcast their distasteful homoerotic messages in this country. the fear is palpable and visceral... look at their faces. look at their souls. oh that's right, they don't have souls. they are the wooden zombie people stepfording across the nation surplanting intelligence with mind numbing pure stupidities. zeig heil herr bush and herren spellings. and all hail to Rove the emperor in the shadows behind the curtains..

way too predictable...

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon yesterday confirmed plans to field new military spy teams to assist battlefield commanders with tasks traditionally carried out by the CIA but denied the move would encroach onto the intelligence agency's turf. Two senior Pentagon officials said the military already has forces in Iraq and Afghanistan doing similar work - citing a defense linguist's efforts in the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003 - but now wants to formalize what has been a largely ad-hoc operation. "We were fighting a long-term war with basically a pickup team," said one of the Defense officials, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity. None of the teams, formally authorized in this year's budget, have been deployed yet.
what? wait a sec. first they cite as an example that they were already doing the work in iraq, then they say none have been deployed. ponder this for a moment. none have been deployed additionally based on those authorized for this year? none have been deployed that we can tell you about? or no more have been deployed since it got revealed given that this is only the third week of january of the new year?

Meanwhile, the Pentagon sent its top intelligence official, Stephen Cambone, to Capitol Hill yesterday to explain the new teams which some lawmakers suggested may have skirted congressional oversight and not been fully coordinated with the CIA. Republicans, however, showed little appetite for congressional hearings on the topic.
At the Pentagon, the officials said the roughly 10-person teams would include linguists, interrogators and case officers focused on gathering "human intelligence." That is information gathered by spies and other human sources, not through electronic eavesdropping or other technical means.

But the Defense Department spokesman DiRita yesterday insisted that the "Strategic Support Teams" would merely provide senior commanders with exactly the kind of on-the-ground information they need to fight the war on terror. Exactly how these teams will operate remained unclear yesterday, as the senior officials declined to say, for instance, even how many would exist. They will operate in a "clandestine" manner - meaning that their efforts are meant to go undetected - but not as "covert" operators, which would mean that the U.S. government would disavow responsibility for their operation.
go DiRita go. dissemble and disinform as quickly as you can. run for cover cause there is fire in the hole.

Akhé ú wo.

Pentagon denies news report of new spy unit

here we go again, off down that road again. DiRita begins the week by denying there is such a thing as the Strategic Support Branch. This time, since he made such a fool of himself going through these machinations last week, he suggests that parts of the story are accurate, and that there simply isn't such a group. So he gets to deny something that he isn't denying. I guess this beats having the white house release a statement later today suggesting that more of this story may be true, then DiRita calling attention to the vague words he might have used. All this will lead to Cheney making a statement by thursday saying so what, get over it.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon acknowledged Sunday that it is trying to improve its network of spies abroad but denied a published report that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had reinterpreted U.S. law to create an espionage unit under his control. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said it was "accurate and should not be surprising" that the Pentagon would try to improve its human spying capability, an area that the 9/11 Commission concluded was inadequate. As part of that effort, he said, the Defense Intelligence Agency "has been taking steps to be more focused and task-oriented for the global war on terror." DiRita said the Defense Department "remains in regular consultation" with congressional committees, the CIA and other intelligence agencies. DiRita denied that Rumsfeld controls a secret group of spies. "There is no unit that is directly reportable to the Secretary of Defense for clandestine operations as is described in The Washington Post," he said in a statement. "Further, the Department is not attempting to 'bend' statutes to fit desired activities, as is suggested in this article."
aaaaaahh, there they are. The magic words "taking steps to be more focussed" and not "directly reportable" easily allows the wiggle room for DiRita to say by Wednesday that he didn't say there wasn't a group, just that Rumsfeld had a military commander between the group and him. You also have to love the phrase "not attempting" as in either we did it, or why bother, the statutes already favor what we are doing.

The Post said a new spy unit is called the Strategic Support Branch. In a written order quoted by the newspaper, Rumsfeld expresses frustration after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks over the Pentagon's "near total dependence on CIA" for human intelligence.

Under U.S. law, Pentagon intelligence missions are subject to less rigorous congressional oversight than similar operations carried out by the CIA.<> Rumsfeld fought for months against an intelligence overhaul bill passed by Congress late last year that leaves intact the CIA's control over human intelligence and which puts 15 U.S. intelligence agencies under a newly created national intelligence director. The Defense secretary dropped his objections only after House Republican leaders inserted language that was seen as preserving the Pentagon's autonomy. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on CBS' Face the Nation that he knew nothing of such a Pentagon unit and expected his panel to hold hearings about it. He said that he "would doubt" the unit was illegal.

Omakiyaka yo ye.

the spin cycle is amazing... this week began with hersh revealing the planning strategy and tactical operations regarding iran. Later that day, the pentagon says that is all BS. The next day the White House says that the story may be incorrect and may contain irregularies and falsehoods. The following day the DoD suggests that the pentagon did not say the story was wrong, but just inaccurate. Then the Vice President basically says the story is true but only because the news reported it as true.
Bush gives his speech and his spinners suggest a bold US policy. Later that day the world press reports the inherent hypocrisy and dangers in the speech. Friday the speech is considered bold and innovative by Rovian minions, but that it doesn't really promote intervention other than those that are currently being undertaken, well, except for other Middle Eastern nations. Then yesterday we get:

<>President Bush's call for an end to tyranny worldwide should not be interpreted by foreign governments and the American people as a prelude to a more aggressive and bellicose foreign policy in his second term, the president's father told reporters yesterday. "People want to read a lot into it -- that this means new aggression or newly asserted military forces," former president George H.W. Bush said. "That's not what that speech is about. It's about freedom."

After George W. Bush's second inaugural address, in which he promised to defend those who seek freedom everywhere, there has been confusion overseas and in the United States over whether he was signaling a shift in foreign policy. Some interpreted the speech as presaging a more confrontational relationship with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other nations that are allies in the war on terrorism but also have records of abusing human rights.

White House officials said in interviews Friday that Bush was not signaling a shift in policy but rather seeking to clarify what administration officials call the "Bush doctrine of liberty" that the president feels should guide policy well after he leaves the White House. The president's father reinforced that message yesterday.

People "certainly ought to not read into [the speech] any arrogance on the part of the United States," the former president said during an impromptu visit to the White House briefing room. White House officials said the president plans to detail the policies that will flow from the inaugural address in the upcoming State of the Union address.

you have to believe his daddy right? i mean they get this guy out to speak to the press, riding his so called coattails from the press he has gotten via the tsunami. i just have to keep wondering why the MSM isn't as cynical as it needs to be in times like this. where are they?? the simplest questions here would suffice to demonstrate the meaningless arrogance and stupidity of this administration.

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta.

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it," Cheney said. "In the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically."

it was one thing yesterday when bush suggested we end tyranny in oppression around the world, albeit by creating our own tyrannical empire to control all that. but when Cheney makes this statement--"we don't want a war in the middle east?" one has to pause and wonder what the hell is going on. How can there not be a war in the middle east??? US and British troops are on the ground in several middle eastern countries and are engaged in daily combat operations. the israelis are constantly at war with the palestinians, and the various factions and sects of islam are at war with each other. What would be war beyond any of this if this isn't a war? These Rovians are out of their minds; they think that noone is paying even the slightest bit of attention to their pronouncements, so they feel free to say some of the dumbest stuff imagineable.
Read the rest of these quotes; deconstruct them and define them. It is clear that he was reading a prepared script that he had no clue whatsoever of knowing what it meant or meaning any of what it said. Just try to follow the fire metaphor here from kindled to warm to burning to untamed.

When Bush wasn’t creating these lopsided debates, he often slipped into junior-high-school-style rhetoric about freedom: “As hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well as a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.”

But Bush wasn’t done with his pedantic lecture. “Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self,” Bush said. “Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before, ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

And on he went: “In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love.”

wi ote 'hi ka wi

two stories, the same day... with such interesting intersections of thought... the state, acting as we the people, kills a citizen while the president, the person responsible for acting as the nation for the people suggests that if people feel threatened with oppression they should rise up and overthrow those that are oppressing them... the glaring ironic hypocrisy of this is amazing...

Kevin Fagan was one of 13 reporters to witness Donald Beardslee's execution Wednesday. It was the fifth California execution he has witnessed. Two quick sighs, a flutter of the eyelids and then a yawn as the first shot of heavy sedative poured into his veins -- those were the closest things to death throes for triple-murderer Donald Beardslee as he was executed Wednesday morning at San Quentin Prison.

<>Indeed, President Bush's second inaugural address focused on liberty and spreading freedom throughout the world. "Americans in this young century proclaim liberty throughout all the world … Renewed in our strength, tested but not weary, we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom," Bush said on the west side of the U.S. Capitol. "Freedom by its nature must be chosen and defended by it citizens and supported by rule of law … America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice … and make their own way," the president said. The president encouraged oppressed nations to muster up and declare their liberty. "There is no justice without freedom and there can be no human rights without human liberty … Liberty will come to those who love it … When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

whoa... he can't possibly be suggesting that the people of iraq, should rise up against their occupiers and declare their liberty from them, and that the US would be there to support these efforts. that would be too much, we forming coalitions to attack ourselves because we are intending to impose freedom and liberty on these people.. but i suppose no one will read that into this amazingly stupid quote<>

to' ka ho?

<>Rice strongly denied the charges. "I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything," she angrily declared. "It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation ... without impugning my credibility or my integrity." She added that she continued to believe that removing the Saddam was the right policy.

what? all Boxer did was present a series of statements made by Rice over the last four years. How is that impugning her credibility or integrity? OOHH wait i get it, by Rice suggesting this, she was diverting the attention away from what she had said. Even in these moments she doesn't get off message, attack, deceive, lie, obscure. Yep, telling the world exactly what to expect from her as the US representative to their various governments. we should all be so very proud. who the hell is this bitch.

Well for starters she was daddy W's first advisor on the Soviet Union who through her own complete lack of any academic consciousness whatsoever, predicted that the soviet union would stay together and be a significant threat to the world. WRONG!!.. so wrong was she that when she went to Stanford, the academic senate recommended that rather than teach--since her capacity to do so would be tauntamount to suggesting that students there should only learn fictional accounts of the world--they asked that the Hoover institute give her a role that was essentially token and out of student contact. her history is tainted beyond credibility. she is a fraud down to the very core of her being. and where is that Chevron tanker that was named for her, before they changed it for their own credibility and integrity...

24 equivocation and random acts of bizarre

<>President Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, questioned earlier this week about the Hersh article, said he had read excerpts. "I think it's riddled with inaccuracies. And I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," the White House spokesman said.
so this is the line from the white house today, after the clear message from the Pentagon yesterday. hehehee.. "i think it is riddled" "i don't believe" "some conclusions".. in other words, after Di Risi makes bold statements that claimed Hersh was totally wrong, the White House suggest that maybe there were parts to hersh's efforts that weren't wrong. and then goes further by suggesting that whatever claims that hersh is still wrong are based on some things that he said, that would lead the white house to believe that maybe they were inaccurate... one giant huge step backwards folks...

and now for that proverbial larch..

George W. Bush has waited until the eve of his second inaugural to let us know that he doesn't hate pointy-headed intellectuals after all. Instead, he now confesses, he's one of them. On the subject of Social Security reform, "It's exciting to be part of stimulating a debate of such significance," President Bush told the Wall Street Journal this past week. "It really is the philosophical argument of the age."

Wehner explained. "Our goal is to provide a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control for individuals over their own lives. That is what the personal account debate is fundamentally about." In other words, it's a philosophical debate about the role of government, not a mathematical debate about how to make Social Security's outflows match its inflows.National Review, in its response to Kinsley's (in their words) "ingenious argument against reform," suggested that personal accounts would "increase incentives to work" and "induce people to save more." NR also argued that private Social Security accounts would "probably restrain federal spending" by preventing the government from "masking its deficits by borrowing from Social Security." Perhaps most important, the magazine argued that private accounts would create more Republicans, by increasing "both the public's financial sophistication and its receptivity to proposals to increase the returns to capital."

whoa dude, the bush puppet is using a big word... a word that he previously only related to jesus. so we have to decode this right now. social security is a philosophical argument and the greatest philosopher is jesus. so bush is asking: what would jesus do????? for real... mmmm let me explore how this works.. jesus wants us to give up our notion of christian charity in exchange for driving our incentive to exploit our capitalistic greed. if i create a special private account into which i put all of my social security entrusted funds, that amount would inspire me to what? well first realize that i was incredibly poor, that this amount was incapable of providing any sort of financial security, that spending it now rather than trying to save it would be much more useful and that is exactly how the wall street capitalist financiers of this effort understand what would happen... the public's financial sophistication comes when they wake up and realize they have been robbed, and they would more receptive to rolling over and becoming slaves... seems like empire is on their hearts and minds for sure...

Louis XIVth would almost be feeling inadequate if he were to experience the Bush inaugueral indulgent waste... when so much of the empire is suffering while the emperor and his masters and minions enjoy the benefits of extravagant selfish oppulence.. cool eh???

mark the date on your war calendar

when we invade Iran and drop bunker busters that will spew radioactive material for hundreds of kilometers, and then suggest it will all be over quick... remember this story...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Monday criticized a published report that said it was mounting reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify potential nuclear and other targets. <>"The Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled "The Coming Wars," the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said in a statement. Hersh's article, published on Sunday, was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed," DiRita said. <>Hersh reported that President Bush had signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces military units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia. DiRita did not comment on that assertion.

Instead, he said, Hersh's sources fed him "rumor, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist and statements by officials that were never made."
a typical character assasination by a Rove minion who desires to make his superiors recognize his coddling synchophantism while simultaneously proving he can lie and deceive better than most. We should believe DiRita because????? mmmmm let's see.. .review his comments on WMD and other causes of the Iraq conflict... put them together... evaluate.... then see that all he says here is more lies and deceipt... go figure...

Asked whether U.S. military forces had been conducting reconnaissance missions in Iran, Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, "We don't discuss missions, capabilities or activities of Special Operations forces."

i don't feel so all alone

Prince Harry being used to promote "Holocaust" - Enough already!
(15.01.2005)

Prince Charles has entered the continuing debate, over Prince Harry's Nazi party costume, by publicly showing backing for his son, saying that he should not be "hung out to dry".

Whilst the Prince of Wales no doubt accepts that his son's choice of costume could have been better, he is obviously angry that his son is being made a target for a foolish, but relatively harmless, prank.

The Media and certain members of the Jewish community have blown this event out of all proportion. The kid made a mistake, he was foolish, he has apologised, what more must he do? Should he offer to have himself nailed to a cross?

We all make mistakes in our youth, why should this be any different? Thousands of kids (perhaps millions?) have drawn swastika's at some time in their life, or have mimicked the style of Hitler, should all these people be forced to visit Auschwitz camp?

In reality, this doesn't have anything to do with Prince Harry personally, or that some claimed to be "shocked" at seeing him wearing such a costume at a "private" birthday party, it is simply another opportunity for certain members of the Jewish community to highlight an event (the Holocaust) that happened more than 60 years ago!

The world should remember this terrible event, but must it be rammed down our throats on an almost daily basis? Should those who were not responsible for the slaughtering of 11 million people be made to feel as guilty as the Nazi's?

Although the Holocaust is an event that no one but the victims can truly imagine, we must remember that this took place a long time ago. The purpose of remembering this event (and others) is in the hope that future generations will not repeat such vile acts. But sadly this is not the case, even today we see leaders of countries still carrying out terrible acts of violence to their people (for numerous reasons).

Perhaps those in the Jewish community (seeking Prince Harry's blood) should follow the example of most Poles, Ex-Soviets and others (who also suffered in the Holocaust) by putting this event respectfully to one side and moving on. How much longer must the world be reminded (or need to be reminded) of this event, another 100, 500, 1,000 years? It must be laid to rest at some time, maybe this time has come?

Millions of lives were lost in the World War's, we have a special time for people to remember this (once a year) and it is right that we should. Unfortunately, this does not stop wars from happening and constantly reminding people of the terrible losses in the Holocaust offers no guarantee that it would not happen again.

Sadly, we feel that this "obsession" shown by some Jewish members, might actually have a negative effect on what they are trying to achieve. People often resent the fact that many Jews sometimes forget to mention that 5 million "others" also died in the Holocaust (not Jewish), yet you would think sometimes that Jews are the only victims, or the only ones to be angered by this horror from the past.

Prince Harry has been used to further promote this historic event, as was the case in France a few months back when a number of "Jewish attacks" were hitting the headlines. Two of these were not as a result of anti-Semitism and one was carried out by a Jew who made it look as if it was!

Such incidents are not as rare as one would hope and this is (unfortunately) creating a growing hatred. There are many sites on the internet where this fear and hatred is developing and this is not related to the traditional resentment that many harbour. This "new" growing feeling has increased considerably over the last 2-3 years and must be dealt with! But trying to highlight a 60 year old tragedy will not help, especially in the way that it has been. This is one of those cases when less is more.

As for Prince Harry? He is no Nazi, he has no sympathies with Nazi's and we doubt if he holds any anti-Semitic views. So why don't we give the kid a break? Or should we say "Enough already!"

14 Commandments of Fascism--US version 21st century

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.


Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.


Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.


Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.


Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.


Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.


Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.


Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.


Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.


Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .


Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.


Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.


Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.


Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Protis meus id comedit.

and how about these two stories, from the same Reuter's pages on the same day. is it possible that they are telling the same story?? or is one rebutting the other?? make up your own mind---

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks finished sharply lower on Thursday as a jump in oil prices above $48 a barrel stirred concern about higher energy costs and General Motors Corp provided a weaker profit outlook. Oil prices surged to a six-week high yesterday, boosted by predictions of a cold blast in the northeast and a dip in stockpiles from last week.
For the blue-chip Dow average, it was the largest one-day percentage decline since Nov. 19. For the tech-laced Nasdaq and the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index, it was the largest one-day percentage drop since Jan 4. <>Crude shot up $2.03 at one point to $48.40 a barrel, its highest level since Dec. 1, before easing to close at $48.04. "A cold winter froze the market's faith today," said Alaron oil analyst Phil Flynn.

The weather warnings for next week came at the worst possible time, Flynn said, against the backdrop of OPEC production cuts, supply disruptions in the North Sea, and the tense buildup to the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. That's all combined to push crude up 14% so far this month.

"The terror premium has increased again," he said.

<> On Wall Street, rising oil sent stocks tumbling despite solid December retail sales. The Dow plunged 111.95 to 10,505.83, while the Nasdaq fell 21.97 to 2,070.56. It was the lowest close for the blue-chip index since Dec. 8, and the lowest for the Nasdaq since Nov. 19.
Worries over coming corporate profit announcements and a bump in jobless claims by 10,000 to 357,000 last week also pressured stocks, analysts said.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A sharp plunge in energy prices pulled U.S. producer prices down 0.7 percent last month, a sharper-than-expected drop and the biggest in more than 1-1/2 years, a government report showed on Friday.

Prices received by producers were also well contained when excluding volatile food and energy costs, advancing a mild 0.1 percent, the Labor Department said.

Prices for U.S. Treasury bonds moved higher and stock futures jumped as the report eased concerns that rising production costs could spill over into higher consumer prices and lead to a quickened pace of interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. The dollar was little changed.

Wall Street economists had forecast just a 0.1 percent decline in the producer price index, which measures prices received by farms, factories and refineries, and had expected the so-called core rate to rise 0.2 percent.

Economists said the report shed little light on the U.S. inflation outlook since it was heavily skewed by the energy price drop. "It was all energy prices,"

got it? while energy prices were down things were getting better, when energy prices rise things go from bad to worse... the fact that the upswing positives came out of official government reports ought to put everyone on notice that these guys are lying to us over the long haul. The "official" optimism reflects actual data that represents a tiny improvement following a huge downturn.. now we know that a bigger downturn has taken every possible aspect of that same tiny up and smashed it on the same rocks as the WMD claims made to move us into Iraq... as jon Stewart said on the Daily Show--$*@# us...

Jews need to let go of ancient archetype!!

did the Jews own this symbol??? They (the hierarchy bent on maintaining this memory meme--mostly in hopes of justifying their behavior in the MIddle East) make this claim that forever and ever the swastika is their's alone to determine and control the use thereof. It isn't their's. The very idea that they get to hold its semiotic value, is tauntamount to the fundamentalist claims of all other religions. It is not different that evangelicals claiming that the revised standard edition of the king james bible is the expressed and literal word of god. It is not different than hammas claiming that certain areas of the mount in jerusalem were sacred only to muslims--ignoring say the previous fifteen hundred years of history there. People, we need to get down to some consensual rational reality.

It is indeed much older than their own cultural existence. It is time to let go of it.

Dr. Robert Rozett, director of the library at Yad V'Shem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, said that Prince Harry's costume choice "represents a lack of sensitivity and trivialization of the events of the Holocaust."

Rozett said the fact that Prince Harry is a symbol for Britain makes it all the more important that "sends out a positive message."

"Part of the problem now, 60 years after World War II...[is that] the Holocaust is often discussed superficially [and] often used [as a description] for all kinds of things," Rozett said. The younger generation must be taught how it relates to them and why it is still relevant in their lives, he added.

<>The swastika gets its name from the Sanskrit word svastika, meaning well-being and good fortune. The earliest known swastikas date from 2500 or 3000 B.C. in India and Central Asia. A 1933 study suggests the swastika migrated from India across Persia and Asia Minor to Greece, then to Italy and Germany, probably in the first millennium B.C.

The fateful link was made by German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. >From 1871 to 1875, he excavated the site of Homer's Troy on the shores of the Dardanelles. When he found artifacts with swastikas, he quickly associated them with the swastikas he had seen near the Oder River in Germany. As Steven Heller, art director of The New York Times Book Review, wrote in "The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption," "Schliemann presumed that the swastika was a religious symbol of his German ancestors which linked ancient Teutons, Homeric Greeks and Vedic India."

Pretty soon swastikas were everywhere, rotating both clockwise and counterclockwise. Coca-Cola issued a swastika pendant. Carlsberg beer etched swastikas onto its bottles. During World War I, the American 45th Infantry division wore an orange swastika as a shoulder patch. The Girls' Club published a magazine called The Swastika. And until 1940, the Boy Scouts gave out a swastika badge.

Yet anyone who looks at art or architecture, no matter how casually, will eventually see the symbol. The Navajos, Tibetans and Turks incorporated the swastika into their rugs. Arizona's indigenous Pima and Maricopa people wove them into their baskets and painted them onto their pots. In Asia the emblem is found on everything from clothing to political ballots to the thresholds of houses. Swastikas are carved into the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia Museum of Art and many ancient Buddhist and Mayan temples. At Albuquerque's KiMo Theater, built in 1927 and recently restored, swastikas adorn the proscenium, entryway and the building's exterior. Elsewhere in New Mexico, they are evident in the architecture of the Shafer Hotel in Mountainair and the Swastika Hotel in Raton (now the International Bank).

One of the oldest symbols made by humans, the swastika dates back some 6,000 years to rock and cave paintings. Scholars generally agree it originated in India. With the emergence of the Sanskrit language came the term "swastika", a combination of "su", or good, and "asti", to be; in other words, well-being.

There's no clear answer on how the figure migrated to other parts of Asia, Europe, Africa and the New World. Early examples of swastikas on pottery and household objects in China indicate that the swastika traveled with traders and with the spread of Buddhism throughout Asia. According to Jim Clarke, an ancient Asian art expert and owner of Clarke & Clarke Asian Antiques and Tribal Art in Santa Fe, early Christian inhabitants of India and Iran used the swastika as an amulet or protective device. "In the 17th century, India and Iran were exotic places to Europeans," Clarke remarks. "Things brought back from these countries were viewed as exotic. To incorporate these symbols was considered very avant."

Clarke is intrigued by the notion that the swastika might have made its way from China to the New World with Chinese traders lost on the seas. Remains of Chinese vessels have been excavated in coastal communities in South America, he says, and along with them the goods they carried. Another theory goes that the swastika traveled with Asians who crossed the land bridge to Alaska and migrated southward to become the indigenous people of North and South America, bringing with them the magic symbols they considered crucial to their health and well-being.

In his book, The Swastika Symbol in Navajo Textiles, Dennis J. Aigner cites Thomas Wilson's research in the 1890s that the earliest evidence of the swastika in America was found in excavations in Tennessee and Ohio. "That the swastika found its way to the Western Hemisphere in prehistoric times cannot be doubted . . . ." Aigner quotes Wilson's writing. One of the specimens "shows its antiquity and its manufacture by the aborigines untainted by contact with the whites."

It's also very possible that this simple variation of a cross—which was often used by early humans to represent a star—sprung up out of the "collective unconscious" among cultures all over the world. "Potters and weavers are basically the first artists," comments Josh Baer, a Santa Fe dealer of Navajo rugs and other Native American artifacts. "They probably didn't influence each other as much as resorting to patterns. In weaving if the image is not pictorial, the alternative is to use geometric forms in such a way that they represent celestial and terrestrial forms."

The swastika's meaning does seem to be similar across cultures, generally denoting abundance and prosperity and referring to the four cardinal directions. To Hindus, it is a symbol of the sun and its rotation. Buddhists consider it a diagram of the footprints of Buddha. Among the Jainas of India, the emblem is a reminder of the four possible places of rebirth: in the animal or plant world, in hell, on Earth or in the spirit world. In 1963, the well-respected Southwest author Frank Waters described the swastika's meaning to the Hopi people as a depiction of the migration routes Hopi clans took through North and South America.

In Navajo myth the swastika represents the legend of the whirling log. As told by Aigner, the tale is of a man, outcast from his tribe, who rolls down river in a hollowed-out log. With the help of sacred deities he finds a place of friendship and abundance. Until the late 1800s, when J. Lorenzo Hubbell and J.B. Moore opened their trading posts in Arizona and New Mexico, Navajos portrayed the swastika solely in their religious ceremonies in the form of sand paintings. But by 1896, with prodding by Hubbell and Moore, the symbol proliferated on Navajo rugs, sometimes lifted directly from the images in sand and depicted as a central cross with a male-female pair of standing figures ("yei" or "dreaming twins") at the end of each of the four arms of the cross.

which of these is more important...

Brad-Jen split leaves many feeling hurt

By Alison apRoberts -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, January 11, 2005

How could they do this to us? Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston left countless admirers feeling dumped when they announced this past weekend that they were breaking up. "I can't tell you how many people have said to me, ‘If they can't make it, who can?' " said Ken Baker, West Coast executive editor for Us Weekly magazine, speaking by phone Monday from Los Angeles. You don't need to have been at the wedding in 2000 to feel jilted. "It's kind of depressing; I'm a single girl myself, and it's like there's no hope," said Michelle Biggs, who lives in Sacramento and is 35, the same age as Aniston. "I was hoping it would turn out to be forever."


Tuesday, January 11th, 2005
Four Remaining British Guantanamo Detainees To Be Freed

The British government has announced that the four remaining British citizens held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo will be released. The four Brits are: Moazzam Begg, Feroz Abbasi, Martin Mubanga and Richard Belmar. We speak with Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

---

The British government has announced that the four remaining British citizens held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo will be released. This follows months of negotiations between Washington and London and a direct appeal by Prime Minister Tony Blair to U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as multiple lawsuits filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights. The four Brits are: Moazzam Begg, Feroz Abbasi, Martin Mubanga and Richard Belmar. It is not clear when they will be released.

On Democracy Now!, we have covered these cases extensively, particularly that of Moazzam Begg. He was detained in Pakistan in 2001 and has been imprisoned without charge or trial in Guanatanmo after being transferred there from a base in Afghanistan. Last April, his father Azmat Begg joined us in our studio to talk about his son"s imprisonment. Here is some of what he had to say.Meanwhile, the Australian government says one of its citizens held at Guantanamo will also be released. Mamdouh Habib has been held at Guantanamo Bay for three years. He filed a lawsuit charging that in 2001 the U.S. transferred him to Egypt for 6 months, where he was electrocuted, beaten and nearly drowned. Habib alleges that while under Egyptian detention, he was hung by his arms from hooks, repeatedly shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten. Habib's case is only the second to describe a secret practice called "rendition," under which the CIA has sent suspected terrorists to be interrogated in countries where torture has been well documented. It is unclear which U.S. agency transferred him to Egypt. His was the first case to challenge the legality of the practice and could have implications for U.S. plans to send large numbers of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records.

Dan Rather Saves His Job, but Reputation Takes a Hit After Critical Report on Bush Guard Story

NEW YORK Jan 11, 2005 — As his anchor career nears its end in March, Dan Rather's reputation as a hard-charging news reporter took some damaging blows from the independent panel that probed CBS's discredited story on President Bush's National Guard service.

Three CBS News executives and the producer of last September's "60 Minutes Wednesday" report were fired Monday by CBS chief Leslie Moonves for rushing the story to air and then blindly defending it.

Rather was portrayed by the panel retired Associated Press chief executive officer Louis D. Boccardi and former GOP Attorney General Dick Thornburgh as "pushed to the limit" by coverage of the Republican National Convenion and Hurricane Frances as final reporting on the story was done.

hidden thoughts...

When approached literally the Book of necessity takes on a number of other characteristics. Everything in it must be factual and nothing outside the book can contradict those facts. The very possibility of scientific investigation is sacrificed a priori to the need to proclaim the text's inerrancy. Every word of it must be the unalterable and unchanging word of God, which of course can contain no contradictions. One of the ironies of fundamentalist reading is the rather considerable constraints it places on the deity. He proclaims and what he says remains so forever, beyond growth, development, change, revision. Whatever abomination of sex hatred one unearths from Leviticus must remain gospel today. The Book cannot be read progressively or retroactively, despite Christ's repeated claims to cancel the old law. An eye for an eye remains true for all time however out of keeping with the law of charity. After all, "It's in the Bible." That repeated assertion expresses the essence and fundamental paralysis of the literal mind.

Inside this quote is embedded a powerful observation about the consensual consciousness of the citizenry of the US that votes for and supports Rove's minions. To be able to ignore the obvious, to abandon logic and rational thoughts, to live comfortably with the most absurd of paradox--these folks have mastered the art of living insane. They can claim the most literal rendering of scriptures that within even a couple of pages represents the most opposal of pronouncements, and demand that others see them with the same clarity. That these passages are in direct contradiction to one another is no problem for them at all. that the US operates in the same manner, is perfectly faithful and believable. And so begins the madness of the failure of this Empire.

a must read....

The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism

By WALTER A. DAVIS

"I know you're a Christian, but who are you a Christian against."

Kenneth Burke

In Apocalypse, a patient study of Christian fundamentalism based on extensive interviews over a five year period with members of apocalyptic communities Charles Strozier identifies four basic beliefs as fundamental to Christian fundamentalism. (1) Inerrancy or biblical literalism, the belief that every word of the Bible is to be taken literally as the word of God; (2) conversion or the experience of being reborn in Christ; (3) evangelicalism or the duty of the saved to spread the gospel; and (4) Apocalypticism or Endism, the belief that The Book of Revelations describes the events that must come to pass for God's plan to be fulfilled. [1] Revelations thus becomes an object of longing as well as the key to understanding contemporary history, to reading the news of the day and keeping a handle on an otherwise overwhelming world. Each of these categories, Strozier adds, must be understood not doctrinally but psychologically. What follows attempts to constitute such an understanding by analyzing each category as the progression of a disorder that finds the end it seeks in Apocalyptic destructiveness.

Before undertaking that examination a note on method. My goal is not to number the streaks of the tulip with respect to Christian fundamentalism but to get to the essence of the thing by offering a psychoanalytic version of the method Hegel formulated in the Phenomenology of Mind. My effort will be to describe the inner structure of the psyche implied by fundamentalist beliefs by examining those beliefs in terms of the psychological needs they fulfill. The examination of each belief will reveal its function in an evolving "logic" that traces the sequence of internal operations required for the fundamentalist psyche to achieve the form required to resolve the conflicts that define its inner world. The difference between my method and Hegel's is this: Hegel's effort was to describe the sequence of rational self-mediations required for the attainment of absolute knowledge. Mine is to record the sequence of psychological transformations that must take place for another kind of certainty to be achieved: one in which, as we'll see, thanatos and not reason attains an absolute status, freed of anything within that would oppose it. In effect, my goal is to offer fundamentalists a self-knowledge they cannot have since it is precisely the function of the belief structure we shall examine to render it unconscious and all the more powerful and certain of itself by virtue of that fact. What after all is religion but a desire displacing itself into dogmas all the better to assure the flock that what they desire is writ into the nature of things?

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html