by: Walter M. Brasch
The man whom the people elected in 2000 to be president was in the temporary residence of the man whom the Supreme Court anointed.
President George W. Bush hosted former Vice-President Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and five other Nobel laureates, Nov. 26. This annual handshake photo-op has been an American tradition.
The Nobel committee had cited Gore, Oct. 12 , as “probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted” to reduce global warming. Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN network of about 2,000 scientists, who have shown that global warming isn’t a liberal conspiracy theory.
Believing that it is some kind of liberal conspiracy theory are the fringe right-wing who dominate Talk Radio and Pundit TV. The day after the announcement, Steve Doocy, co-anchor of FOX’s morning show, set the tone for the rabid-dog attacks. He produced a chart of past Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including “that crazy Jimmy Carter,” and claimed the award is nothing more than an “anti-Bush” trophy. On CNN, guest commentator Marlo Lewis, who was identified as a global warming expert, called Gore’s writings manipulative, misleading, and exaggerated. Jay Richards of the National Review claimed the Peace prize is “politicized.” Rush Limbaugh, who had a front group nominate him for the Peace Prize only to learn that the Landmark Legal Foundation had no standing to nominate anyone, was furious that Gore, not he, received the honor. With the microphone of more than 600 radio stations that carry his talk show, Limbaugh claimed his lawyers—the ones at the Landmark group—“are looking into the possibility of filing an objection with the Nobel Committee over the unethical tampering for this award that Al Gore is engaging in.” He claimed, “This is clearly above and beyond the pale. I mean, this might happen in high school class president elections and so forth, but this is shameless.”
Bloggers chattered almost endlessly that not only didn’t Gore deserve the award but also that global warming is a myth. The Nobel committee, blogged William Teach of Pirate’s Cove, “has basically surrendered to hysterics, mass exaggerators, and liars.”
Also doubting global warming, and volumes of scientific evidence, is Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), former chair of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, and recipient of one of the largest cumulative campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Inhofe has claimed that there is “compelling evidence” that global warming not only is a hoax, but that it is “the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people.”
George H.W. Bush, during his failed re-election campaign in 1992, called Gore “Ozone Man,” and claimed the vice-presidential candidate was “so far out in the environmental extreme we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.”
As for the current President Bush, he delegated the “congratulations” to a deputy press secretary. Tony Fratto told the media that Bush is not only “happy for Vice President Gore,” but also happy for the UN scientists who co-shared the award. “Obviously, it’s an important recognition, and we’re sure the vice president is thrilled,” said Fratto, dripping with insincerity.
The Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, one of the nation’s most conservative newspapers, claimed, “The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud,” and called the prize a “useless medal.” The Wall Street Journal didn’t even mention Gore in its editorial the day the Nobel committee made its announcement, but listed several others who should be considered for the award. The Journal’s unscientific poll of its largely conservative upper middle-class and upper class readers that day revealed that 54 percent didn’t think Al Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. One reader, reflecting the opinion of about 13,000 who disagreed with the award, called it “a joke and it encourages the pursuit of junk science for political gain.” Another reader believed, “The fear being installed from man made global warming is now officially a communist plot to control behavior.” However, among the 11,250 who believed the award was justified was one reader who believed that Al Gore, the former journalist, “did what the National Academy of Sciences could not do—explain the issue in a way that non-scientists can understand.”
For more than three decades, Al Gore has been one of the nation’s strongest voices for the protection of the environment. His first book, Earth in the Balance (1992), had pushed protection of the environment onto the national political agenda; as vice-president, he became the Clinton Administration’s primary advocate to protect the environment and the nation’s natural resources.
During the past seven years, Gore co-founded a major TV cable network (Current TV), which was honored with an Emmy in 2007; wrote the best-selling book about the effects of global warming, An Inconvenient Truth (2006), which was turned into a box office hit that won an Oscar for the best documentary; wrote a best-seller, The Assault on Reason (2007), which received the Quill Award for history/current events/politics; and increased his public appearances to speak out about a number of social issues, including environmental protection.
During the past seven years, George W. Bush spun a nation not only into a war that has destroyed the environment and natural resources of Iraq, but had also begun a war in America that is leading to a destruction of its environment and natural resources. President Bush consistently ignored the evidence of global warming, and suppressed the views of government scientists. He allowed Enron and other energy companies to direct the nation’s energy policy. With a cabinet that includes persons who either were employed by large oil and coal companies or were paid lobbyists against environmental protections, he reduced federal environmental rules. He believes that most of the 250 million acres under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management should be available so private industry can strip the resources for their own economic gain. He has allowed extensive off-shore drilling, increased the incursion by mining companies, and allowed logging companies to devastate federal lands. He is a leading advocate for allowing oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, claiming it’s for “national security,” but completely oblivious to the reality that such intrusion would severely alter the balance of nature, while yielding little gas and oil for the American people. He has permitted gas-spewing recreational vehicles to tear up federal parks and permanently disturb the wildlife. He reversed himself on a campaign pledge to reduce acceptable levels of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and determined that higher levels of arsenic and other toxins in drinking water was acceptable. He reduced the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency, preferring companies to undergo “voluntary compliance,” and eliminated the tax upon the oil and chemical industries that paid for the clean up of SuperFund toxic waste sites. It’s now the taxpayers not polluters who are paying for clean-up operations.
Within months of his first inaugural, Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol that called for global environmental protection by stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. With Australia about to sign the Protocol, 173 nations will have signed the agreement; the U.S. is now the only industrialized nation not to sign.
And now, on a Monday evening after Thanksgiving, President George W. Bush was meeting with five American Nobel laureates, including Al Gore. By all accounts, a 40-minute private meeting with Mr. Gore was “cordial.” The President, after snubbing the former vice-president when the Nobel committee made its announcement, could now be cordial. He had personally called Gore to make sure the former vice-president was available, and was willing to rearrange the White House schedule to accommodate Mr. Gore. At the post-Thanksgiving ceremony, Bush could smile and backslap. After all, George W. Bush was president, and nothing that Al Gore was doing to protect the environment would ever be enough to erase this president’s political ability to alter the environment to benefit corporate interests.
16 Winston Churchill Quotes to Celebrate His Birthday
by: Noel Jameson
Power, prominence and a bit of a rebellious nature thrown in -- Winston Churchill quotes are definitely some of the most interesting you'll ever come across. For someone who was said to have a speech impediment, his words and message definitely did not suffer. This month, as we celebrate his birthday, let's remember Sir Winston Churchill with these 16 quotes.
1. "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
2. "A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him."
3. "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
4. "There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."
5. "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last."
6. "Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened."
7. "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."
8. "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
9. "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
10. "A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril."
11. "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
12. "Never give in -- never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
13. "The price of greatness is responsibility."
14. "The farther backward you can look, the further forward you are likely to see."
15. "Difficulties mastered are opportunities won."
16. "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."
So there you have it -- a glimpse inside the mind of an extraordinary man. Honor, courage, bravery -- think it's the stuff fairy tales are made of? Guess again. These 16 Winston Churchill quotes show us just how real they can be in the right man.
Power, prominence and a bit of a rebellious nature thrown in -- Winston Churchill quotes are definitely some of the most interesting you'll ever come across. For someone who was said to have a speech impediment, his words and message definitely did not suffer. This month, as we celebrate his birthday, let's remember Sir Winston Churchill with these 16 quotes.
1. "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
2. "A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him."
3. "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
4. "There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."
5. "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last."
6. "Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened."
7. "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."
8. "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
9. "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
10. "A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril."
11. "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
12. "Never give in -- never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
13. "The price of greatness is responsibility."
14. "The farther backward you can look, the further forward you are likely to see."
15. "Difficulties mastered are opportunities won."
16. "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."
So there you have it -- a glimpse inside the mind of an extraordinary man. Honor, courage, bravery -- think it's the stuff fairy tales are made of? Guess again. These 16 Winston Churchill quotes show us just how real they can be in the right man.
The Unknow Facts About Global Warming
by: James Heimler
The issues about global warming and the effects of global warming are continuously under debate. Somehow the debate has made its way into virtually every aspect of our lives. There is even thought that the issues about global warming are also applicable to the beliefs that other beings from other planets were forced to make themselves to Earth as their planet began to deteriorate, due to global warming.
It is all around us. It is on the weather stations. It faces us when we decide to purchase a new car or even a cleaning product. The real issues come when trying to learn about global warming. There is a lot of conflicting information on the internet and there is not one group that can agree on all aspects of the global warming debate.
Over the past century, with out a doubt, global temperatures have risen. While the rise in temperature has been only a degree or so, the concern is whether the Earth's temperatures will continue to rise and what impact that will have on the environment. The controversy about the warming of the earth is a result of conflicting evidence.
The fact that global warming also occurred in the prehistoric era is a scientific point. Some think a large meteor hitting the planet caused an big change in the earth's temperature. Is that what killed the dinosaurs? Science cannot prove this conclusively yet. The political and industrial lobbies further complicate conversations about global warming. The contention of these groups is that, we currently do not know enough about the effects of global warming to limit industrial emissions.
When will we know the full facts about global warming and will the global warming issue be resolved anytime soon? Unfortunately the answer is no. There will continue to be studies performed and there will always be a measure of doubt clouding the minds of citizens around the world. Perhaps, when enough data comes through, we will be able to make a determination based on scientific fact rather than theory. Until then we can continue to monitor the progress of scientists and try to do our part in conserving the environment.
The issues about global warming and the effects of global warming are continuously under debate. Somehow the debate has made its way into virtually every aspect of our lives. There is even thought that the issues about global warming are also applicable to the beliefs that other beings from other planets were forced to make themselves to Earth as their planet began to deteriorate, due to global warming.
It is all around us. It is on the weather stations. It faces us when we decide to purchase a new car or even a cleaning product. The real issues come when trying to learn about global warming. There is a lot of conflicting information on the internet and there is not one group that can agree on all aspects of the global warming debate.
Over the past century, with out a doubt, global temperatures have risen. While the rise in temperature has been only a degree or so, the concern is whether the Earth's temperatures will continue to rise and what impact that will have on the environment. The controversy about the warming of the earth is a result of conflicting evidence.
The fact that global warming also occurred in the prehistoric era is a scientific point. Some think a large meteor hitting the planet caused an big change in the earth's temperature. Is that what killed the dinosaurs? Science cannot prove this conclusively yet. The political and industrial lobbies further complicate conversations about global warming. The contention of these groups is that, we currently do not know enough about the effects of global warming to limit industrial emissions.
When will we know the full facts about global warming and will the global warming issue be resolved anytime soon? Unfortunately the answer is no. There will continue to be studies performed and there will always be a measure of doubt clouding the minds of citizens around the world. Perhaps, when enough data comes through, we will be able to make a determination based on scientific fact rather than theory. Until then we can continue to monitor the progress of scientists and try to do our part in conserving the environment.
The Bitch Labours A Few Points!
by: Michael Knell
Yo!
What a week it has been, hasn't it? Harold Wilson will be forever remembered telling us: "a week is a long time in politics", however with all the pettiness we have to suffer these days, it is fast becoming a long time for everyone in the UK regardless of their occupation. We are living in the slow motion of an occurring disaster.
Consider: the angels in children's school Nativity plays may no longer have wings, mince pies have been banned at school Christmas fetes, pantomimes are having to be re-written into being unrecognisable and unfunny, there are calls for our National Anthem to be changed, an elderly grandmother is told off by a council workman for sweeping the leaves from her front doorstep, a young mother is fined £360 for not keeping her wheelie bin full of rubbish within her tiny (8 foot by 4 foot) backyard where under the window the smell becomes intolerable despite regular cleaning, the police were called to a shopping centre because someone felt the schoolchildren performing there were singing the Christmas carols too loudly, a butcher has been banned from chopping meat after a new neighbour complained to the council about the noise, and despite the country footpaths across uneven grassy fields and moorland being non-negotiable safely by the disabled in wheelchairs, the kissing gates and stiles which allow access to them have got to be replaced with expensive cattle grids - presumably so anyone in a wheelchair can then sue the farmer for having a field that isn't perfectly flat should they suffer a tumble!
I could go on and on, the list of stupidities we live with today is seemingly endless, but I am in danger of becoming suicidal. Who wants to live in a world like this? What has happened to society? Why has: "love thy neighbour" all too often turned into: "persecute thy neighbour", with people wanting to complain and report somebody for simply living or doing their job? Where can anyone today use some common sense and make up their own mind about what they want to do, and what risks they are prepared to accept in doing it?
Political Correctness and Health & Safety issues have been around for quite some time but, whereas once any new proposal used to be ridiculed and dismissed were it not a sensible one, under these past ten years of Labour government rules and regulations to ensure we all live in exactly the same way, and that is in accordance to some insignificant people's idea of an ethical code, they have totally run riot. The freedom these prats have recently enjoyed is now detrimentally affecting the lives of every sensible person, and their self-given right to enforce their wishes upon the rest of us is at risk of soon becoming the only freedom left in the land. In our everyday lives we are not only being told exactly what to do, but when and how to do it and even the way in which we should be feeling about doing it - and all too often now these imposing rules become actual controls and are backed up by some ill thought through law which will penalise us and put money into either government or local authority coffers should we not wish to conform. We live in a preposterous world where our very own lives no longer belong to us. Give us back our lives!
Individuality? In this Nanny State we live in today, we may as well remove that word from the dictionary! Anyway, judging by how well the UK fared in the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), where in reading ability our 15-year-olds dropped from being 7th in 2000 to 17th today and now lag behind countries such as Estonia and Liechtenstein, I doubt many could even spell the word! In science the UK dropped from being 4th to 14th, but worse than that in mathematics it was appalling news with the pupils falling from 8th position to 24th, which for the first time places our children below the international average. Having been brought up and educated in a time when a UK education was the envy of the world, I never thought I would live to see this day - I am ashamed for my country!
Ed-you-Kay-shun? Ed-you-Kay-shun? Ed-you-Kay-shun? Get it? No, despite all that never-ending spin, it seems too few kids do these days! And that point needs to be Laboured!
In an attempt to hide their shame the government has tried to belittle the tests and performance tables which are a part of the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment, however as they are the same criteria praised by Tony Blair in 2000 as being evidence of how well we were doing at that time, there is little credibility being given to their arguments. Of course, those 2000 results would have been based on a time only a couple of years after a Conservative government, so therefore much of Labour's interference with their damaging policies would not have had time to filter through the system, take affect, and become apparent. Whoops! Get out of that one, Gordon Brown. With apologies to the late and great Laurel & Hardy: that's another fine mess Tony has got you into!
Another day, another disaster, and yet another apology having to be begrudgingly spluttered out by the sorry bunch we, for whatever reason, still call our government and not the Crazy Gang. This one, following the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry report, by Des Browne the Defence Secretary to the families of the 14 who died as a result of the 37-year-old reconnaissance plane exploding over Afghanistan last year when leaking fuel ignited moments after mid-air refuelling - probably, it is thought, because the recommended fire suppression system had not been fitted to the aircraft. The Nimrod, a museum piece yet an aircraft so vital to the war, is only still flying because as part of a package of cuts its replacement was delayed - so this report by the Board of Inquiry goes a long way in giving credence to all those vociferous military chiefs' complaints of a lack of funding.
The government can, and often do in an effort to convince us they are providing adequate funding, produce figures to show they have increased the money allocated to the Armed Forces year on year, however what they don't like to admit, or perhaps are too incompetent to appreciate, is that these increases are on an already severely cut defence budget - one that was something like halved years ago in tune with the more peaceful times. Since those happy days we have entered into two lengthy conflicts, and our commitments have magnified to breaking point - and all without even reinstating the original budget of yesteryear. The increases we are being told of today, when seen in those real terms, become plainly pitiful!
It seems neither Gordon Brown nor his predecessor, or anyone in the present government, has realised that the minute a country declares war or enters into a military conflict, if it really means business and wishes to avoid prolonging the action, it needs to write a blank cheque for its Armed Forces. When our lads and lasses are putting their lives on the line for us they must have EVERYTHING they need to do the job we ask of them as safely, as quickly, and as efficiently as is possible. To provide them with anything less is criminal, and to my mind today we have a government of criminals. Our engagements in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been plagued throughout by stories of a lack of equipment and resources.
These stories have not gone away. Far from it, many have been substantiated by investigative journalism and television documentaries. I doubt I was alone in feeling ashamed of my country when at one point in the Iraq conflict it was revealed on a television documentary that it was only possible to have just one creaky, old Nimrod aircraft in operation as all the rest, having been cannibalised to keep that one airborne, were grounded. Talk about going to war on a shoestring! Our military lads and lasses have been performing miracles! But perhaps I shouldn't have said that, it might encourage the government to ask them to walk on water to get to the next conflict - and there goes our navy!
Our troops have enough to do fighting the enemy, they should not at the same time have to fight their government for rifles that do not jam, suitable field weapons and the ammunition for them, enough flak jackets to go round, the correct camouflage, the (available) technology to protect them against roadside bombs, enough helicopters (embarrassingly, in Afghanistan there are stories we had to borrow some from other nations!), reconnaissance and attack aircraft, and all the other many items they need, but which have not been readily provided or are easily obtainable.
If anyone should think these are all acceptable situations for our service personnel to suffer and overcome, I beg to differ!
Finally, the Times newspaper's revelation that it has found more than a 100 websites offering for sale the fullest details of many thousands of the UK's bank accounts, including those of a High Court Judge, with some of the rogues even providing "free samples" to whet the appetite, is nothing short of frightening. The newspaper claims it was able to download the banking information of 32 individuals for free. Apparently one of the sites has 30,000 British credit card numbers for sale for as little as £1 each - which, as serious as this is, posed a comical question for me: how would anyone buy them? Few would be silly enough to pay for them with their Visa, would they?
Strangely nobody has attempted to link this data with either the widely reported two discs recently lost by HM Revenue and Customs, or the subsequently learned about but less widely reported others - those of an unknown quantity and length of time missing, but which apparently contain similar unencrypted information, and have been similarly "misplaced" by different governmental departments.
As if all this potentially damaging and confidential information being for sale on the internet isn't bad enough, perhaps equally as frightening is the spokesman for Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner. After confirming the data these websites are offering appears to be for currently active accounts, this person went on to explain that if it had been acquired fraudulently, or by theft, the matter would be passed on to the police as a criminal inquiry. Hmm . . . Really? That is considerate of them!
Now I don't class myself as a simpleton, but maybe I should for I cannot for the life of me think of a way in which these details that are subject to all the laws on privacy could appear openly for sale on a public website without an infringement of some law occurring somewhere along the line. Why does the Information Commission want to waste time looking to see if fraud or theft has been involved when so obviously the police should be brought in immediately in an attempt to protect the British people, their personal identities, and their money? Do they intend sitting on this for months, scratching their heads and throwing their hands in the air as people's bank accounts are emptied? Am I missing something here?
I shall just have to hope it is not soon going to be the Royal Mews millions, won't I? With difficulty, I suppose one possibly could learn how to survive without having a batman - but without an occasional Robin? Have a heart - the weeks would feel unbearably long!
Holy abstentions!
"The Bitch!" 6/12/07.
Yo!
What a week it has been, hasn't it? Harold Wilson will be forever remembered telling us: "a week is a long time in politics", however with all the pettiness we have to suffer these days, it is fast becoming a long time for everyone in the UK regardless of their occupation. We are living in the slow motion of an occurring disaster.
Consider: the angels in children's school Nativity plays may no longer have wings, mince pies have been banned at school Christmas fetes, pantomimes are having to be re-written into being unrecognisable and unfunny, there are calls for our National Anthem to be changed, an elderly grandmother is told off by a council workman for sweeping the leaves from her front doorstep, a young mother is fined £360 for not keeping her wheelie bin full of rubbish within her tiny (8 foot by 4 foot) backyard where under the window the smell becomes intolerable despite regular cleaning, the police were called to a shopping centre because someone felt the schoolchildren performing there were singing the Christmas carols too loudly, a butcher has been banned from chopping meat after a new neighbour complained to the council about the noise, and despite the country footpaths across uneven grassy fields and moorland being non-negotiable safely by the disabled in wheelchairs, the kissing gates and stiles which allow access to them have got to be replaced with expensive cattle grids - presumably so anyone in a wheelchair can then sue the farmer for having a field that isn't perfectly flat should they suffer a tumble!
I could go on and on, the list of stupidities we live with today is seemingly endless, but I am in danger of becoming suicidal. Who wants to live in a world like this? What has happened to society? Why has: "love thy neighbour" all too often turned into: "persecute thy neighbour", with people wanting to complain and report somebody for simply living or doing their job? Where can anyone today use some common sense and make up their own mind about what they want to do, and what risks they are prepared to accept in doing it?
Political Correctness and Health & Safety issues have been around for quite some time but, whereas once any new proposal used to be ridiculed and dismissed were it not a sensible one, under these past ten years of Labour government rules and regulations to ensure we all live in exactly the same way, and that is in accordance to some insignificant people's idea of an ethical code, they have totally run riot. The freedom these prats have recently enjoyed is now detrimentally affecting the lives of every sensible person, and their self-given right to enforce their wishes upon the rest of us is at risk of soon becoming the only freedom left in the land. In our everyday lives we are not only being told exactly what to do, but when and how to do it and even the way in which we should be feeling about doing it - and all too often now these imposing rules become actual controls and are backed up by some ill thought through law which will penalise us and put money into either government or local authority coffers should we not wish to conform. We live in a preposterous world where our very own lives no longer belong to us. Give us back our lives!
Individuality? In this Nanny State we live in today, we may as well remove that word from the dictionary! Anyway, judging by how well the UK fared in the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), where in reading ability our 15-year-olds dropped from being 7th in 2000 to 17th today and now lag behind countries such as Estonia and Liechtenstein, I doubt many could even spell the word! In science the UK dropped from being 4th to 14th, but worse than that in mathematics it was appalling news with the pupils falling from 8th position to 24th, which for the first time places our children below the international average. Having been brought up and educated in a time when a UK education was the envy of the world, I never thought I would live to see this day - I am ashamed for my country!
Ed-you-Kay-shun? Ed-you-Kay-shun? Ed-you-Kay-shun? Get it? No, despite all that never-ending spin, it seems too few kids do these days! And that point needs to be Laboured!
In an attempt to hide their shame the government has tried to belittle the tests and performance tables which are a part of the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment, however as they are the same criteria praised by Tony Blair in 2000 as being evidence of how well we were doing at that time, there is little credibility being given to their arguments. Of course, those 2000 results would have been based on a time only a couple of years after a Conservative government, so therefore much of Labour's interference with their damaging policies would not have had time to filter through the system, take affect, and become apparent. Whoops! Get out of that one, Gordon Brown. With apologies to the late and great Laurel & Hardy: that's another fine mess Tony has got you into!
Another day, another disaster, and yet another apology having to be begrudgingly spluttered out by the sorry bunch we, for whatever reason, still call our government and not the Crazy Gang. This one, following the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry report, by Des Browne the Defence Secretary to the families of the 14 who died as a result of the 37-year-old reconnaissance plane exploding over Afghanistan last year when leaking fuel ignited moments after mid-air refuelling - probably, it is thought, because the recommended fire suppression system had not been fitted to the aircraft. The Nimrod, a museum piece yet an aircraft so vital to the war, is only still flying because as part of a package of cuts its replacement was delayed - so this report by the Board of Inquiry goes a long way in giving credence to all those vociferous military chiefs' complaints of a lack of funding.
The government can, and often do in an effort to convince us they are providing adequate funding, produce figures to show they have increased the money allocated to the Armed Forces year on year, however what they don't like to admit, or perhaps are too incompetent to appreciate, is that these increases are on an already severely cut defence budget - one that was something like halved years ago in tune with the more peaceful times. Since those happy days we have entered into two lengthy conflicts, and our commitments have magnified to breaking point - and all without even reinstating the original budget of yesteryear. The increases we are being told of today, when seen in those real terms, become plainly pitiful!
It seems neither Gordon Brown nor his predecessor, or anyone in the present government, has realised that the minute a country declares war or enters into a military conflict, if it really means business and wishes to avoid prolonging the action, it needs to write a blank cheque for its Armed Forces. When our lads and lasses are putting their lives on the line for us they must have EVERYTHING they need to do the job we ask of them as safely, as quickly, and as efficiently as is possible. To provide them with anything less is criminal, and to my mind today we have a government of criminals. Our engagements in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been plagued throughout by stories of a lack of equipment and resources.
These stories have not gone away. Far from it, many have been substantiated by investigative journalism and television documentaries. I doubt I was alone in feeling ashamed of my country when at one point in the Iraq conflict it was revealed on a television documentary that it was only possible to have just one creaky, old Nimrod aircraft in operation as all the rest, having been cannibalised to keep that one airborne, were grounded. Talk about going to war on a shoestring! Our military lads and lasses have been performing miracles! But perhaps I shouldn't have said that, it might encourage the government to ask them to walk on water to get to the next conflict - and there goes our navy!
Our troops have enough to do fighting the enemy, they should not at the same time have to fight their government for rifles that do not jam, suitable field weapons and the ammunition for them, enough flak jackets to go round, the correct camouflage, the (available) technology to protect them against roadside bombs, enough helicopters (embarrassingly, in Afghanistan there are stories we had to borrow some from other nations!), reconnaissance and attack aircraft, and all the other many items they need, but which have not been readily provided or are easily obtainable.
If anyone should think these are all acceptable situations for our service personnel to suffer and overcome, I beg to differ!
Finally, the Times newspaper's revelation that it has found more than a 100 websites offering for sale the fullest details of many thousands of the UK's bank accounts, including those of a High Court Judge, with some of the rogues even providing "free samples" to whet the appetite, is nothing short of frightening. The newspaper claims it was able to download the banking information of 32 individuals for free. Apparently one of the sites has 30,000 British credit card numbers for sale for as little as £1 each - which, as serious as this is, posed a comical question for me: how would anyone buy them? Few would be silly enough to pay for them with their Visa, would they?
Strangely nobody has attempted to link this data with either the widely reported two discs recently lost by HM Revenue and Customs, or the subsequently learned about but less widely reported others - those of an unknown quantity and length of time missing, but which apparently contain similar unencrypted information, and have been similarly "misplaced" by different governmental departments.
As if all this potentially damaging and confidential information being for sale on the internet isn't bad enough, perhaps equally as frightening is the spokesman for Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner. After confirming the data these websites are offering appears to be for currently active accounts, this person went on to explain that if it had been acquired fraudulently, or by theft, the matter would be passed on to the police as a criminal inquiry. Hmm . . . Really? That is considerate of them!
Now I don't class myself as a simpleton, but maybe I should for I cannot for the life of me think of a way in which these details that are subject to all the laws on privacy could appear openly for sale on a public website without an infringement of some law occurring somewhere along the line. Why does the Information Commission want to waste time looking to see if fraud or theft has been involved when so obviously the police should be brought in immediately in an attempt to protect the British people, their personal identities, and their money? Do they intend sitting on this for months, scratching their heads and throwing their hands in the air as people's bank accounts are emptied? Am I missing something here?
I shall just have to hope it is not soon going to be the Royal Mews millions, won't I? With difficulty, I suppose one possibly could learn how to survive without having a batman - but without an occasional Robin? Have a heart - the weeks would feel unbearably long!
Holy abstentions!
"The Bitch!" 6/12/07.
Burgers, Fries and Ignorant Politics: Does Democracy Need an Overhaul?
by: Murad C Ali
America has become a confusing place for many people who are trying to decipher through the mess of politics that is inherent in a huge country that touts democracy. The Critical Review’s (No. 1 Vol. 19) article Ignorance as a Starting Point: From Modest Epistemology to Realistic Political Theory states that a new elitist political paternalism may be necessary to counter the general ignorance of the population. In other words, brighter minds need to make decisions for people.
The concept of political elite makes some sense but in reality this is already the case. We have in the U.S. a pseudo-democracy in the sense that all of the candidates are known but few, except the elite, know what the candidates stand for. Democracy, in its early American terms, meant that politics was done on a local basis. People knew who the runners were, shook their hands, asked them questions, etc… This is one of the reasons why many politicians still travel the country.
At one time in history it meant something to be part of a party. However, as these parties matured (Democrats & Republicans) the lines of difference in their ideologies have changed. People seem to float near the center and it is almost impossible to determine their party simply based on the way they vote. Some are liberal and some are conservative but parties have become only a path to politics; not an ideological difference.
The fact that candidates and parties have become confusing, the average person has become confused as to what the issues really are. For example, people might not know what all of the candidates stand for and may possibly vote on race issues, locality, and appearance instead of actual political ideology. In other words, issues of importance are no longer the issues of politics.
When people are faced with making a decision without adequate information or with confusing information they will choose what they know. If someone appears to be honest or they speak in a tone or manner that makes sense then they will vote for that candidate. In some cases people will simply vote for a candidate because they remember their name. This means the process is breaking down.
Currently, the country is run by political elites. This is the group of people who have the highest level of income and education. They are the ones that contribute to campaigns, read their newspaper on a regular basis, and view politics as a method of maintaining wealth. For example, the Israeli lobby as the countries largest lobby even though it is a foreign entity. Where are the domestic issues in relation to this issue?
Thus, the article Ignorance as a Starting Point: From Modest Epistemology to Realistic Political Theory premises that a paternalistic political elite need to be developed in order to steer people into the right candidates is already in existence. It isn’t a formal method or system as outlined in the system but that those who control the labor control the country. The farther you move up the wealthy scale the tighter knit the group.
America has become a confusing place for many people who are trying to decipher through the mess of politics that is inherent in a huge country that touts democracy. The Critical Review’s (No. 1 Vol. 19) article Ignorance as a Starting Point: From Modest Epistemology to Realistic Political Theory states that a new elitist political paternalism may be necessary to counter the general ignorance of the population. In other words, brighter minds need to make decisions for people.
The concept of political elite makes some sense but in reality this is already the case. We have in the U.S. a pseudo-democracy in the sense that all of the candidates are known but few, except the elite, know what the candidates stand for. Democracy, in its early American terms, meant that politics was done on a local basis. People knew who the runners were, shook their hands, asked them questions, etc… This is one of the reasons why many politicians still travel the country.
At one time in history it meant something to be part of a party. However, as these parties matured (Democrats & Republicans) the lines of difference in their ideologies have changed. People seem to float near the center and it is almost impossible to determine their party simply based on the way they vote. Some are liberal and some are conservative but parties have become only a path to politics; not an ideological difference.
The fact that candidates and parties have become confusing, the average person has become confused as to what the issues really are. For example, people might not know what all of the candidates stand for and may possibly vote on race issues, locality, and appearance instead of actual political ideology. In other words, issues of importance are no longer the issues of politics.
When people are faced with making a decision without adequate information or with confusing information they will choose what they know. If someone appears to be honest or they speak in a tone or manner that makes sense then they will vote for that candidate. In some cases people will simply vote for a candidate because they remember their name. This means the process is breaking down.
Currently, the country is run by political elites. This is the group of people who have the highest level of income and education. They are the ones that contribute to campaigns, read their newspaper on a regular basis, and view politics as a method of maintaining wealth. For example, the Israeli lobby as the countries largest lobby even though it is a foreign entity. Where are the domestic issues in relation to this issue?
Thus, the article Ignorance as a Starting Point: From Modest Epistemology to Realistic Political Theory premises that a paternalistic political elite need to be developed in order to steer people into the right candidates is already in existence. It isn’t a formal method or system as outlined in the system but that those who control the labor control the country. The farther you move up the wealthy scale the tighter knit the group.
The Mike Huckabee Factor
by: Tania Gabrielle
I know it’s been Oprah’s big weekend foray into politics. But there’s another story that’s brewing. And its effect will probably eclipse Oprah very soon.
I’m talking about Mike Huckabee. A friend asked me about him a couple of months ago. Not knowing who he was, I did the numbers. Then I told my friend, ‘watch out for this man. He’s going to go far.’
Since that day I’ve kept an eye on Huckabee. He’s fulfilling his promise fast. Unusually fast. Two weeks ago polls put him in 5th place in South Carolina. Now he’s leading. Without ever placing a television ad. You may think the Republican race is unpredictable from day to day. And that everything is still up for grabs.
Well, wait til you hear about Huckabee’s numbers before assuming it’s a free-for-all.
Mike Huckabee’s name, an unforgettable one, adds up to 14/5 - the Media Number. Watch out when a candidate has this number. Yes, it took a little time before he made national news, but once people SAW him, they LIKED him. This is what the number 14/5 does. It endears you to the person you’re seeing and hearing on radio, TV and the internet.
With a 14 name, Huckabee’s magnetic communication with the public will even outweigh his message. Meaning, there will be many people who agree with some of what he stands for - but the main reason they’re going to vote for him is entirely instinctual. They’re having a strong gut reaction to his voice and his demanor. He is genuine. He’s funny. He’s got the magnetic personality of a bygone star.
The 14/5 Media Number also gives him the freedom to not always tote the party line. Huckabee’s willingness to break with certain long-held views and stick to his own guns, makes him even more appealing.
And what about those debates. His 14 name is crucial for those as well, enabling him to come out on top, because of his endearing and humorous communication skills.
Huckabee’s day of birth, 24/6, adds to his fortune. Here again he has another highly magnetic vibration. 24 ensures an effortless flow in life – everything is easily attainable. Additionally, 6 represents the ‘cosmic parent.’ Huckabee’s folksy, down home style makes him someone you want to get to know – and invite home for dinner.
These two numbers, 14 and 24, are vital to his campaign.
In fact, going into the holidays, when campaigns go on hiatus, Huckabee is in the middle of an out-of-left-field surge in key states. Due to the suddenness of his rising popularity, he’s more unscathed than other Republicans. With his 14/5 name, he’ll emerge back in January in full force.
And I haven’t even talked about his currently active numbers. Believe me, they are good. So is his Life Purpose Number. In fact, ALL are going to be in full force next year. 2008 is a Personal Year of amazing synchronicities for Huckabee.
2008 is shaping up to be a big year for you as well. It happens to add up to a 10 – the number of Instant Manifestation. So it’s very, very important for you to know how your own personal numbers are lining up next year. Because you will manifest everything easily – good or bad.
And because there’s an 8 in 2008, a big subject for you will be all things related to monee and abundance. Get your personal blueprint now at http://www.taniagabrielle.com
As for the other Presidential Candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, I’ll be revealing their numerology success quotient very soon.
I know it’s been Oprah’s big weekend foray into politics. But there’s another story that’s brewing. And its effect will probably eclipse Oprah very soon.
I’m talking about Mike Huckabee. A friend asked me about him a couple of months ago. Not knowing who he was, I did the numbers. Then I told my friend, ‘watch out for this man. He’s going to go far.’
Since that day I’ve kept an eye on Huckabee. He’s fulfilling his promise fast. Unusually fast. Two weeks ago polls put him in 5th place in South Carolina. Now he’s leading. Without ever placing a television ad. You may think the Republican race is unpredictable from day to day. And that everything is still up for grabs.
Well, wait til you hear about Huckabee’s numbers before assuming it’s a free-for-all.
Mike Huckabee’s name, an unforgettable one, adds up to 14/5 - the Media Number. Watch out when a candidate has this number. Yes, it took a little time before he made national news, but once people SAW him, they LIKED him. This is what the number 14/5 does. It endears you to the person you’re seeing and hearing on radio, TV and the internet.
With a 14 name, Huckabee’s magnetic communication with the public will even outweigh his message. Meaning, there will be many people who agree with some of what he stands for - but the main reason they’re going to vote for him is entirely instinctual. They’re having a strong gut reaction to his voice and his demanor. He is genuine. He’s funny. He’s got the magnetic personality of a bygone star.
The 14/5 Media Number also gives him the freedom to not always tote the party line. Huckabee’s willingness to break with certain long-held views and stick to his own guns, makes him even more appealing.
And what about those debates. His 14 name is crucial for those as well, enabling him to come out on top, because of his endearing and humorous communication skills.
Huckabee’s day of birth, 24/6, adds to his fortune. Here again he has another highly magnetic vibration. 24 ensures an effortless flow in life – everything is easily attainable. Additionally, 6 represents the ‘cosmic parent.’ Huckabee’s folksy, down home style makes him someone you want to get to know – and invite home for dinner.
These two numbers, 14 and 24, are vital to his campaign.
In fact, going into the holidays, when campaigns go on hiatus, Huckabee is in the middle of an out-of-left-field surge in key states. Due to the suddenness of his rising popularity, he’s more unscathed than other Republicans. With his 14/5 name, he’ll emerge back in January in full force.
And I haven’t even talked about his currently active numbers. Believe me, they are good. So is his Life Purpose Number. In fact, ALL are going to be in full force next year. 2008 is a Personal Year of amazing synchronicities for Huckabee.
2008 is shaping up to be a big year for you as well. It happens to add up to a 10 – the number of Instant Manifestation. So it’s very, very important for you to know how your own personal numbers are lining up next year. Because you will manifest everything easily – good or bad.
And because there’s an 8 in 2008, a big subject for you will be all things related to monee and abundance. Get your personal blueprint now at http://www.taniagabrielle.com
As for the other Presidential Candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, I’ll be revealing their numerology success quotient very soon.
Bali Bombings Cover-Up: New Documentary
by: Glen Clancy
Released on Youtube and Googlevideo this week, FOOL ME TWICE, exposes the cover-up of the Bali bombings and provides evidence that it was a Falseflag Operation.
The film begins by documenting the Australian government’s prior knowledge of the Indonesian military’s plan to use violence to maintain autonomy over East Timor. Contrary to The Howard Governments claims they argued against peacekeeping forces allowing the Indonesian Special Forces to carry out their campaign of fear and suppression.
Within 24 hours of the 2002 Bali bombings a team of FBI, UK special agents and Australian federal police started arriving in Bali. The investigation team continuously claimed different explosive devices were responsible for the main blast. Days after the attacks, Indonesian Police Chief, General Dai’ Bachtier, announced that the FBI had discovered C4 pointing the blame towards Jemaah Islamiah, JI (“SE Asia wing of Al qaeda”). Eventually, investigators concluded that the main explosive device was a potassium chlorate car bomb. C4 was never included in final reports.
The main explosive device was so powerful it seriously damaged buildings in a 2/400 metre radius and left a 1 metre deep, 10 metre wide crater. 202 people perished in the blasts, the majority incinerated from the main explosive device. Investigators quickly excavated the crater contents and dumped the remaining debris off the coast of southern Bali, including completely stripped concrete reinforcing bars. Potassium chlorate is a low velocity explosive and does not have the overpressure force to create a 1 metre deep crater or completely incinerate humans, let alone strip concrete. Only a high-tech explosive device has the power to strip concrete.
FBI claims of C4 announced by General Dai’ Bachtier, ensured Jemaah Islamiah was immediately blamed for the Bali bombings. All prior intelligence of the Bali bombings came from so called JI leader, Omar Al-Faruq. Omar Al-Faruq was secretly handed over to the US by Indonesia months prior to the bombings under the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. Australian intelligence agencies reported that intelligence obtained from captured “JI suspect”, Omar Al-Faruq, warned of possible terrorist attacks in Bali. After the attacks the Bush administration denied access to Al-Faruq for questioning in the Bali bombing trials. When Omar Al-Faruq was suddenly called by US court to provide evidence in a trial of another terrorist suspect – he had “escaped high security prison”. No JI leaders have ever been brought to trial.
Prior to the Bali bombings the Indonesian government denied the existence of terrorists within Indonesia and opposed US anti-terror operations in Afghanistan. After the bombings President Megawati signed a joint statement – “Agreeing that terrorism poses a continued threat to international peace and security, and that the two Presidents are committed to enhancing their bilateral cooperation in the fight against terrorism”. The Bush administration provided funds to the Indonesian police and military and setup a national terrorism unit under the control of national police chief, General Dai’ Bachtier.
Released on Youtube and Googlevideo this week, FOOL ME TWICE, exposes the cover-up of the Bali bombings and provides evidence that it was a Falseflag Operation.
The film begins by documenting the Australian government’s prior knowledge of the Indonesian military’s plan to use violence to maintain autonomy over East Timor. Contrary to The Howard Governments claims they argued against peacekeeping forces allowing the Indonesian Special Forces to carry out their campaign of fear and suppression.
Within 24 hours of the 2002 Bali bombings a team of FBI, UK special agents and Australian federal police started arriving in Bali. The investigation team continuously claimed different explosive devices were responsible for the main blast. Days after the attacks, Indonesian Police Chief, General Dai’ Bachtier, announced that the FBI had discovered C4 pointing the blame towards Jemaah Islamiah, JI (“SE Asia wing of Al qaeda”). Eventually, investigators concluded that the main explosive device was a potassium chlorate car bomb. C4 was never included in final reports.
The main explosive device was so powerful it seriously damaged buildings in a 2/400 metre radius and left a 1 metre deep, 10 metre wide crater. 202 people perished in the blasts, the majority incinerated from the main explosive device. Investigators quickly excavated the crater contents and dumped the remaining debris off the coast of southern Bali, including completely stripped concrete reinforcing bars. Potassium chlorate is a low velocity explosive and does not have the overpressure force to create a 1 metre deep crater or completely incinerate humans, let alone strip concrete. Only a high-tech explosive device has the power to strip concrete.
FBI claims of C4 announced by General Dai’ Bachtier, ensured Jemaah Islamiah was immediately blamed for the Bali bombings. All prior intelligence of the Bali bombings came from so called JI leader, Omar Al-Faruq. Omar Al-Faruq was secretly handed over to the US by Indonesia months prior to the bombings under the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. Australian intelligence agencies reported that intelligence obtained from captured “JI suspect”, Omar Al-Faruq, warned of possible terrorist attacks in Bali. After the attacks the Bush administration denied access to Al-Faruq for questioning in the Bali bombing trials. When Omar Al-Faruq was suddenly called by US court to provide evidence in a trial of another terrorist suspect – he had “escaped high security prison”. No JI leaders have ever been brought to trial.
Prior to the Bali bombings the Indonesian government denied the existence of terrorists within Indonesia and opposed US anti-terror operations in Afghanistan. After the bombings President Megawati signed a joint statement – “Agreeing that terrorism poses a continued threat to international peace and security, and that the two Presidents are committed to enhancing their bilateral cooperation in the fight against terrorism”. The Bush administration provided funds to the Indonesian police and military and setup a national terrorism unit under the control of national police chief, General Dai’ Bachtier.
Who Is Bob Miller?
by: Nick Carter
"I don't hate predators. If there weren't hawks in this country, those in other countries would show up here. Do not misinterpret "Hawk" to mean I approve of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and their Hermann Goering protégés in the Pentagon. Bush is a mouth and a pen; he's in a different league altogether than his vice president. Cheney is a vulgar, immoral, sadistic subhuman."
It would be safe to say that Bob Miller doesn't like the Bush administration, nor does he take to kindly the war in Iraq. But why? A personal rift with the men at the top? Another rebel looking to make a name for himself by campaigning against authority? Or a talented author and political activist that gives his all for the chance to share his views and talk about what he perceives to be the 'evil' of the Bush family?
A loyal American citizen and Veteran of the Vietnam war, Bob Miller is also one of the country's leading authors, portraying both wit and humour amongst the most serious of all subject matter. In his latest book "Kill Me If You Can, You SOB", Bob draws on the entries he made in his diary during the height of the Vietnam war, expressing both comedy and horror in equal measure from the blindingly honest portrayal of military life at the time.
Having stood for the Senate back in 1992 as a Republican candidate, it's not as if Bob is leveraging Bush's foreign policy for political gain. More accurately Miller is determined to carry on his life's work in spreading the message of the evil and hatred propagated by the Bush regimes, and campaigning for an end to the aggressive foreign policy handling of the US authorities over the last half century.
Never afraid to speak his mind, Bob Miller has been made out to be a rebel and one of the more controversial modern writers, yet his aims are simple: to express his opinions about the underlying problems with the Bush administration, which in his eyes is driven by the greed and desire for personal wealth and power. Never has a writer crossed such difficult issues with the grace of Miller, avoiding political bias and focusing on the truth of the matter, particularly in "Kill Me If You Can".
Criticizing the Bush family and standing up against corruption since 1976, Bob Miller has been widely regarded as having extreme views on the war in Iraq, the real reasons behind the invasion and the link with 9/11, and was taken in for questioning by the US Secret Service back in 1990. Furthermore he has been slated in the media as a controversial figure for speaking the sometimes brutal truth about the current state of the American government. Yet unlike many of his peers Miller brings to the table an honesty and integrity that comes from first hand experience of the horrors of war and fighting for a thankless US government. Who is Bob Miller? You decide.
"I don't hate predators. If there weren't hawks in this country, those in other countries would show up here. Do not misinterpret "Hawk" to mean I approve of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and their Hermann Goering protégés in the Pentagon. Bush is a mouth and a pen; he's in a different league altogether than his vice president. Cheney is a vulgar, immoral, sadistic subhuman."
It would be safe to say that Bob Miller doesn't like the Bush administration, nor does he take to kindly the war in Iraq. But why? A personal rift with the men at the top? Another rebel looking to make a name for himself by campaigning against authority? Or a talented author and political activist that gives his all for the chance to share his views and talk about what he perceives to be the 'evil' of the Bush family?
A loyal American citizen and Veteran of the Vietnam war, Bob Miller is also one of the country's leading authors, portraying both wit and humour amongst the most serious of all subject matter. In his latest book "Kill Me If You Can, You SOB", Bob draws on the entries he made in his diary during the height of the Vietnam war, expressing both comedy and horror in equal measure from the blindingly honest portrayal of military life at the time.
Having stood for the Senate back in 1992 as a Republican candidate, it's not as if Bob is leveraging Bush's foreign policy for political gain. More accurately Miller is determined to carry on his life's work in spreading the message of the evil and hatred propagated by the Bush regimes, and campaigning for an end to the aggressive foreign policy handling of the US authorities over the last half century.
Never afraid to speak his mind, Bob Miller has been made out to be a rebel and one of the more controversial modern writers, yet his aims are simple: to express his opinions about the underlying problems with the Bush administration, which in his eyes is driven by the greed and desire for personal wealth and power. Never has a writer crossed such difficult issues with the grace of Miller, avoiding political bias and focusing on the truth of the matter, particularly in "Kill Me If You Can".
Criticizing the Bush family and standing up against corruption since 1976, Bob Miller has been widely regarded as having extreme views on the war in Iraq, the real reasons behind the invasion and the link with 9/11, and was taken in for questioning by the US Secret Service back in 1990. Furthermore he has been slated in the media as a controversial figure for speaking the sometimes brutal truth about the current state of the American government. Yet unlike many of his peers Miller brings to the table an honesty and integrity that comes from first hand experience of the horrors of war and fighting for a thankless US government. Who is Bob Miller? You decide.
America: The Presidents, The Politics And The Wars
by: Nick Carter
The United States of America used to pride itself on a reputation for diplomacy and integrity. The world's largest economy, land of the capitalist dream. Immigrants would flock to America looking for their chance in life, looking to make a go of it all for their family. Then something went wrong. The global perception of the US changed, and suddenly the ethical and moral high ground was destroyed by needless bloodshed and political interference beyond the scope of their global role.
The Vietnam war - a tragedy of greed and senseless aggression. Vietnam wasn't an American war, yet it was this involvement that started the cycle of distrust and negative feeling towards the United States and everything it stood for. And that's not to mention the horrendous loss of life, and the destruction of lives caused by politically motivated violence. You'd think we'd learn our lesson, huh?
In 2003, George W. Bush with the support of Tony Blair sent hundreds of thousands of troops to invade Iraq on the premise of 'illegal weapons programmes' and 'imminent threats'. A chip off the old block, some would say. George H. W. Bush's invasion of 1990 failed to overthrow the regime or gain control of the wealth of oil in Iraq. His son was more fortunate.
One of the most controversial American authors of our time, Bob Miller has been a staunch campaigner against the Bush administrations of now and then, since back in 1976. A Veteran of the Vietnam war, Miller has been cast as a pariah, a renegade, and has even been taken into custody by the US Secret Service for his outspoken approach to American politics. Nevertheless Miller has continued his relentless attack on the Bush regime and everything it stands for, traveling the country to deliver his opinions on the real motives of the Bush family.
A Republican himself, Miller is no stranger to the world of political activism. Yet his controversial branding in the mainstream media has seen him cast aside as yet another extremist, unpatriotic and senseless. However, with his latest book "Kill Me If You Can, You SOB", Miller aims to express the true horrors of the Vietnam war, without descending into the same old 'this and that' of the Bush dynasty and their own brand of extremism.
Without forming opinions for the reader or giving a blow by blow account of the war and the politics behind it, Miller's latest effort is based on diary entries from his time in the war, telling the tale more graphically than could otherwise be possible of the horrors behind the wars and foreign policy of the Bush administrations.
As Miller was quoted as saying, "Bush has spent the lives of thousands of young Americans and billions of dollars for oil, not terrorists, and everyone knew it. To have participated in this needless savagery in any way is not only hypocritical, it's blasphemous. And to blame the son, and not the father, is like blaming the puppet, not the puppeteer. Like his father Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush's epitaph should read, 'Here lies incomprehensible evil.'"
The United States of America used to pride itself on a reputation for diplomacy and integrity. The world's largest economy, land of the capitalist dream. Immigrants would flock to America looking for their chance in life, looking to make a go of it all for their family. Then something went wrong. The global perception of the US changed, and suddenly the ethical and moral high ground was destroyed by needless bloodshed and political interference beyond the scope of their global role.
The Vietnam war - a tragedy of greed and senseless aggression. Vietnam wasn't an American war, yet it was this involvement that started the cycle of distrust and negative feeling towards the United States and everything it stood for. And that's not to mention the horrendous loss of life, and the destruction of lives caused by politically motivated violence. You'd think we'd learn our lesson, huh?
In 2003, George W. Bush with the support of Tony Blair sent hundreds of thousands of troops to invade Iraq on the premise of 'illegal weapons programmes' and 'imminent threats'. A chip off the old block, some would say. George H. W. Bush's invasion of 1990 failed to overthrow the regime or gain control of the wealth of oil in Iraq. His son was more fortunate.
One of the most controversial American authors of our time, Bob Miller has been a staunch campaigner against the Bush administrations of now and then, since back in 1976. A Veteran of the Vietnam war, Miller has been cast as a pariah, a renegade, and has even been taken into custody by the US Secret Service for his outspoken approach to American politics. Nevertheless Miller has continued his relentless attack on the Bush regime and everything it stands for, traveling the country to deliver his opinions on the real motives of the Bush family.
A Republican himself, Miller is no stranger to the world of political activism. Yet his controversial branding in the mainstream media has seen him cast aside as yet another extremist, unpatriotic and senseless. However, with his latest book "Kill Me If You Can, You SOB", Miller aims to express the true horrors of the Vietnam war, without descending into the same old 'this and that' of the Bush dynasty and their own brand of extremism.
Without forming opinions for the reader or giving a blow by blow account of the war and the politics behind it, Miller's latest effort is based on diary entries from his time in the war, telling the tale more graphically than could otherwise be possible of the horrors behind the wars and foreign policy of the Bush administrations.
As Miller was quoted as saying, "Bush has spent the lives of thousands of young Americans and billions of dollars for oil, not terrorists, and everyone knew it. To have participated in this needless savagery in any way is not only hypocritical, it's blasphemous. And to blame the son, and not the father, is like blaming the puppet, not the puppeteer. Like his father Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush's epitaph should read, 'Here lies incomprehensible evil.'"
Administrative Government Agencies
by: Donald Yates
Petitioning Government
Just how does one go about petitioning one of the many obscure branches of government? Agencies discussed here mostly effect our lives in administering the laws of the land, are called “The Administrative Agencies”. There are three devisions within the Administrative Agencies, first is the Regulatory Agencies which consist of:
Business Standards
Responsible for regulating safety issues of public interest of specific businesses For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Rate making
Regulates the price of certain goods and services, such as utilities, telephone,
transportation companies, and dairy products. For example, state public utility
Commissions, department of Food and Agriculture and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Licensing sets and maintains standards for entry into a business or occupation; many also enforce professional standards and decide disciplinary matters involving licensees. Medical boards, funeral boards, and cosmetology boards, for example, are licensing agencies. Many states have a long list of such boards. Some boards are completely independent; others fall under the jurisdiction of other state departments
Permitting agencies generally require businesses or industries to preserve the quality of the environment. They set minimum standards for construction projects, waste disposal plants, the agricultural use of pesticides, and other projects with an environmental impact. City and county planning commissions are local permitting agencies.
Social welfare and entitlement agencies oversee public benefits programs. They include social service departments, health and welfare agencies, and housing departments.
Government operations agencies keep government functioning; they involve purchasing, personnel, property management, etc.
There are some agencies classified as part of the executive branch which fall under the authority of the president, state governor, or mayor, which can also be independent groups. There are also independent agencies known as boards or commissions which are headed by multi-member groups appointed by the executive or legislative branch or by both branches together like the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Many states also have agencies chaired by elected officials,such as insurance commissioners.
Administrative agencies expedite their missions mainly through one of four ways:
1.Rule-making,
2.Adjudication
3.Licensing and permitting,
4.Rate-making.
Some public agencies, such as school, municipal utility, emergency services and hospital boards oversee services provided directly to the community.
Private agencies and organizations
There are organizations not connected to government which can be petitioned to make changes in their procedures. These organizations are under no obligation to respond or act as you wish. But by following proper protocol you stand a good chance of moving your agenda for change forward. By using documented facts, an organized coalition of interested groups, presenting a possible solution, and media pressure will almost always get a response from the agency you focus on.
Agencies’ processes
Rule-making is the process by which agencies establish, change, or eliminate rules and regulations—the operational details of the laws passed by the legislative branch.
Rules and regulations are used to require businesses to act in a responsible manner so as to refrain them from behaving in ways that could harm the public, or to provide government services in an efficient and equitable manner. As example would be to restrict the amounts and types of chemicals farmers can use, or prevent the sale of unsafe or unreliable drugs and medical devices.
Agencies also establish rules and regulations to require responsible, positive behavior, like testing drugs and medical devices before they are made available to the public. Many rules and regulations are set by the agency, profession, trade, or populace who are being regulated or affected by the particular agency. One note of importance is to remember, that you or any citizen may propose a new regulation, or propose change or the elimination of an existing regulation. Simply by following protocol you can exercise your right to petition local, state, or federal agencies, if you feel a change needs to be made.
Before any proposed rule can be adopted, agency officials must notify the effected public and provide an opportunity for people to comment or protest.
Most usually regulations are formally adopted when approved by the head of an agency or members of its board of directors. The new ruling usually becomes effective 30 days after the approval. I
Adjudication
The process by which an agency may determine whether a person or organization has violated a rule or a law and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken. Some agencies have the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders, to impose fines, or to revoke, suspend, or modify licenses or permits or operation. Usually, such proceedings are held as hearings similar to court procedures and decisions.
You or any citizen can ask an agency to enforce a rule or a law. Requests for enforcement can be an effective tool to hold industry or business accountable for their actions.
Licensing and permitting
The process by which an agency grants a business or individual permission to engage in a particular occupation, operate in a certain manner, or do business in a certain jurisdiction. Agencies are often required to post public notices of an application for a license or permit and to provide for public comment. Citizens participation in the process can effectively shape the activity of a licensed business or require some public benefit in return for granting a license or permit
Rate-making
The process by which an administrative body determines the rate companies can charge for public utilities or certain goods and services, such as gas and electricity, cable and telephone services, and transportation. If proper procedures are followed, the public may participate in rate-making proceedings.
If a citizen believes the agency’s procedures are not fair, or if they have not given the public a reasonable chance to make their case, they can be petitioned by any citizen to change, eliminate, or add to their procedures.
It is the right and duty of each citizen to be observant and responsible in holding government agencies accountable for their actions.
Petitioning Government
Just how does one go about petitioning one of the many obscure branches of government? Agencies discussed here mostly effect our lives in administering the laws of the land, are called “The Administrative Agencies”. There are three devisions within the Administrative Agencies, first is the Regulatory Agencies which consist of:
Business Standards
Responsible for regulating safety issues of public interest of specific businesses For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Rate making
Regulates the price of certain goods and services, such as utilities, telephone,
transportation companies, and dairy products. For example, state public utility
Commissions, department of Food and Agriculture and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Licensing sets and maintains standards for entry into a business or occupation; many also enforce professional standards and decide disciplinary matters involving licensees. Medical boards, funeral boards, and cosmetology boards, for example, are licensing agencies. Many states have a long list of such boards. Some boards are completely independent; others fall under the jurisdiction of other state departments
Permitting agencies generally require businesses or industries to preserve the quality of the environment. They set minimum standards for construction projects, waste disposal plants, the agricultural use of pesticides, and other projects with an environmental impact. City and county planning commissions are local permitting agencies.
Social welfare and entitlement agencies oversee public benefits programs. They include social service departments, health and welfare agencies, and housing departments.
Government operations agencies keep government functioning; they involve purchasing, personnel, property management, etc.
There are some agencies classified as part of the executive branch which fall under the authority of the president, state governor, or mayor, which can also be independent groups. There are also independent agencies known as boards or commissions which are headed by multi-member groups appointed by the executive or legislative branch or by both branches together like the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Many states also have agencies chaired by elected officials,such as insurance commissioners.
Administrative agencies expedite their missions mainly through one of four ways:
1.Rule-making,
2.Adjudication
3.Licensing and permitting,
4.Rate-making.
Some public agencies, such as school, municipal utility, emergency services and hospital boards oversee services provided directly to the community.
Private agencies and organizations
There are organizations not connected to government which can be petitioned to make changes in their procedures. These organizations are under no obligation to respond or act as you wish. But by following proper protocol you stand a good chance of moving your agenda for change forward. By using documented facts, an organized coalition of interested groups, presenting a possible solution, and media pressure will almost always get a response from the agency you focus on.
Agencies’ processes
Rule-making is the process by which agencies establish, change, or eliminate rules and regulations—the operational details of the laws passed by the legislative branch.
Rules and regulations are used to require businesses to act in a responsible manner so as to refrain them from behaving in ways that could harm the public, or to provide government services in an efficient and equitable manner. As example would be to restrict the amounts and types of chemicals farmers can use, or prevent the sale of unsafe or unreliable drugs and medical devices.
Agencies also establish rules and regulations to require responsible, positive behavior, like testing drugs and medical devices before they are made available to the public. Many rules and regulations are set by the agency, profession, trade, or populace who are being regulated or affected by the particular agency. One note of importance is to remember, that you or any citizen may propose a new regulation, or propose change or the elimination of an existing regulation. Simply by following protocol you can exercise your right to petition local, state, or federal agencies, if you feel a change needs to be made.
Before any proposed rule can be adopted, agency officials must notify the effected public and provide an opportunity for people to comment or protest.
Most usually regulations are formally adopted when approved by the head of an agency or members of its board of directors. The new ruling usually becomes effective 30 days after the approval. I
Adjudication
The process by which an agency may determine whether a person or organization has violated a rule or a law and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken. Some agencies have the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders, to impose fines, or to revoke, suspend, or modify licenses or permits or operation. Usually, such proceedings are held as hearings similar to court procedures and decisions.
You or any citizen can ask an agency to enforce a rule or a law. Requests for enforcement can be an effective tool to hold industry or business accountable for their actions.
Licensing and permitting
The process by which an agency grants a business or individual permission to engage in a particular occupation, operate in a certain manner, or do business in a certain jurisdiction. Agencies are often required to post public notices of an application for a license or permit and to provide for public comment. Citizens participation in the process can effectively shape the activity of a licensed business or require some public benefit in return for granting a license or permit
Rate-making
The process by which an administrative body determines the rate companies can charge for public utilities or certain goods and services, such as gas and electricity, cable and telephone services, and transportation. If proper procedures are followed, the public may participate in rate-making proceedings.
If a citizen believes the agency’s procedures are not fair, or if they have not given the public a reasonable chance to make their case, they can be petitioned by any citizen to change, eliminate, or add to their procedures.
It is the right and duty of each citizen to be observant and responsible in holding government agencies accountable for their actions.
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)