(started March 30)
Evidently, I don't know how to access the newspapers via the internet. I read today in the Fresno Bee a story entitled "Newspapers Can Be Sued Over Political Figures' Lies". I can't find it now on their website nor can I find it on the LA Times website (where it originated).
But the article talks about how the Supreme Court (couldn't find it there either) "refused to shield the news media from being sued for accurately reporting a politician's false charges against a rival". The politician in question called some other politicians (city council members and a mayor) "liars", "queers" and "child molesters". Evidently, this was either not true or unprovable and the politicians so maligned took umbrage at the accusations being printed. The case does not mention whether the paper in question printed the allegations as fact or not. It merely says (within the confines of the newspaper article) "the law has placed a burden (albeit a minimal one) on the media to refrain from publishing reports that they know to be false".
Is that so? The media needs now to research every quote they get? Every newsbyte they catch must now be double and triplechecked in order to ascertain the veracity of said politician? All of us know that politicians lie as easily as they intake free brunches. So, now reporters must prove that the politicos are being honest. And, evidently, they need to go dooor to door and ask people if it's true they're queer, liars and kiddie touchers. Otherwise, they're not allowed to print what public figures say. So, can I sue the entire country's newspapers for WMD's in Iraq and Iraq's ties to al-qaeda and the "ongoing fight by our government for women's rights in Afghanistan"? Or is this a ruling tied strictly to local pissing contests that involve offended public figures?
The story that has encouraged the Supreme Court to rule that all newspapers must be self-censoring if they don't want to get spanked by the federal government is one "that started ten years ago when the Daily Local News in West Chester, PA printed a story headlined: 'Slurs, insults drag town into controversy'. It reported that the city council in nearby Parkesburg had been torn apart by shouting matches and fistfights." In 2000, the trial judge dropped the newspaper from the case and ordered that the person making the accusations pay the complainants, but it seems the newspaper was put back in last October (though that part of the case has not yet been tried).
(continued April 1)
So, I get printed by the media as stating that George Bush is the nation's worst mass murderer from his stint as Governor of Texas (he put something like 137 people to death), he is responsible for around 1,600 American deaths and around 100,000 Iraqi deaths, he has the morals of a Boy Scout group leader caught with kiddie porn, he's a liar, a drunk and a drug abuser. But I either can't prove these things or it can be said by others that these are merely my opinion and not fact. The newspaper prints what I say, but doesn't endorse it as fact. It prints as fact that I said it and in context of whatever the story is (i.e. I hold a protest vigil outside one of Bush's so-called Town Councils, because I was asked to leave after the GOP people saw an offensive bumpersticker on my car that said "Better Dead Than Red Stater").
The newspaper can be sued for covering what they might see as a story of interest when, in the context of that story, they print my arguments verbatim?
This is censorship at the highest judicial level. This validates Fox News and their pro-Bush rah rahing. This validates going after Dan Rather and company for running a story they did not research deeply enough. This validates embedded journalists who feed us only what they are fed by the military propagandists. And this completely invalidates anyone who wants to print the truth or their version of it if it steps out of line with the established order. In the meantime, Robert Novak is still on the loose even though he is the one who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the world. Interesting, too, because every other journalist who merely followed up on his story have been hit with contempt charges for refusing to give up their sources' names. And Seymour Hersh is being called a traitor and perhaps investigated for exposing our government's attempts to spy on Iran within Irani sovereign soil against all international treaties it's signed.
So, don't print any story about anyone calling your local poobah a poo-poo head unless you have pictures that show him with actual feces in his hair and don't take the administration to task for their illegal activities. But, by all means, ruin a CIA agent's career, because her husband went public to refute an administration lie.
By the way, I did finally find the article on the LA Times website, but they want money from me to even let me see it. And the Fresno Bee didn't seem to archive it. I don't know why. They paid something to reprint it. you'd think the press wanted us to have access to the printed word. Then again, maybe they're taking self-censorship to another level.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Daily kos Says It All
I got nuthin' more to add other than I have been witnessing this through the media for the last 5 years. This crap started as soon as Bush was "elected" the first time and it has gotten progressively worse ever since. Shame on us for staying silent and cowlike.
Suppressing free speechby kos Tue Mar 29th, 2005 at 08:36:51 PST
This is incredible:
Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.
But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.
There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been "ID'ed" and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.
After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a "private event" and were commanded to leave.
More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:
How is the Bush Administration "ID'ing" citizens before presidential events?
Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a "private event" - leading to citizens being kicked out?
Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.
The Secret Service revealed that we were "ID'ed" when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said "No More Blood For Oil." Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)
The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.
After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a "private event" the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt. The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?
Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander YoungDenver residentsI was emailed this account by the people involved, so it's straight from the horse's mouth. The AP did a story on this as well.
"They hadn't done anything wrong. They weren't dressed inappropriately, they didn't say anything inappropriate," Recht said. "They were kicked out of this venue and not allowed to hear what the president had to say based solely on this political bumper sticker.
"The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make," Recht said.So to emphasize -- the White House uses taxpayer dollars to finance these propaganda events. THEN, in order to keep out anyone who might be critical, they "outsource" ticketing and security. That way they can label the events "private" and kick out anyone they want in violation of the First Amendment.
Who in Congress will step up and call for an investigation?
Suppressing free speechby kos Tue Mar 29th, 2005 at 08:36:51 PST
This is incredible:
Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.
But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.
There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been "ID'ed" and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.
After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a "private event" and were commanded to leave.
More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:
How is the Bush Administration "ID'ing" citizens before presidential events?
Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a "private event" - leading to citizens being kicked out?
Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.
The Secret Service revealed that we were "ID'ed" when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said "No More Blood For Oil." Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)
The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.
After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a "private event" the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt. The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?
Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander YoungDenver residentsI was emailed this account by the people involved, so it's straight from the horse's mouth. The AP did a story on this as well.
"They hadn't done anything wrong. They weren't dressed inappropriately, they didn't say anything inappropriate," Recht said. "They were kicked out of this venue and not allowed to hear what the president had to say based solely on this political bumper sticker.
"The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make," Recht said.So to emphasize -- the White House uses taxpayer dollars to finance these propaganda events. THEN, in order to keep out anyone who might be critical, they "outsource" ticketing and security. That way they can label the events "private" and kick out anyone they want in violation of the First Amendment.
Who in Congress will step up and call for an investigation?
So I Sent Him A Letter!
I had to. Because I like writing letters to famous people who can hurt me in oh so amny ways if they only cared to. Dennis Baxley is the man who created the bill in my last column and I couldn't let this pass by without a thoughtful note to him. So far, I have received a personal response from only one "famous" person that I have written to. It was not Baxley or anyone I have referred to so far on my blog. But here's hoping:
I'm not from your state. I live on the other shore. And I don't expect or even presume to have any say in how you and your fellow politicians run your state. But I was alarmed to read that you wish to impinge on academia's freedom of speech, as it concerns teaching. If i read correctly, you think that students should have the right to sue their teachers if they feel their beliefs are being held in disregard. Do you mean to say that students have the right to sue for their tuition being repaid or at least a portion to cover said class? Or do you believe that any student can sue a teacher for emotional damages and compensation, because the student feels their voice is not being heard in a manner they see fit?If a teacher is talking about evolution in the Darwinian sense and a student wants to argue in favor of Creationism, do you want the student to have the right to sue if the teacher tells that student that Creationism is not what the class is about? Or not what the class is about at that given time? Do you want the student to have the power to shut the course down, because he or she feels they are being dismissed?Having read the text of your proposed bill I can't help but wonder if you are not in favor of the latter. Remember, please, that you are dealing with education and imprinting your moral values on such will only lead to chaos and disfavor. This is the sort of issue that most likely will haunt you in later years. I know that you would say nerts to politicking for future votes. Most politicians would claim that. But you should take the time to think this over in a sober manner and decide slowly whether or not you should proceed further. Shutting down college teachers, because you think they discriminate against those of your philisophical ilk is an open invitation to anyone who has or will curry a grudge against a teacher. You think you will be able to control this if it's passed, but you don't consider the legal system thoroughly. Just as your party claims to hate tort lawyers, so you will open the floodgates for them.Think before you push this bill. Those who complain the loudest in the halls of learning are usually those who have no wish to excel.
I'm not from your state. I live on the other shore. And I don't expect or even presume to have any say in how you and your fellow politicians run your state. But I was alarmed to read that you wish to impinge on academia's freedom of speech, as it concerns teaching. If i read correctly, you think that students should have the right to sue their teachers if they feel their beliefs are being held in disregard. Do you mean to say that students have the right to sue for their tuition being repaid or at least a portion to cover said class? Or do you believe that any student can sue a teacher for emotional damages and compensation, because the student feels their voice is not being heard in a manner they see fit?If a teacher is talking about evolution in the Darwinian sense and a student wants to argue in favor of Creationism, do you want the student to have the right to sue if the teacher tells that student that Creationism is not what the class is about? Or not what the class is about at that given time? Do you want the student to have the power to shut the course down, because he or she feels they are being dismissed?Having read the text of your proposed bill I can't help but wonder if you are not in favor of the latter. Remember, please, that you are dealing with education and imprinting your moral values on such will only lead to chaos and disfavor. This is the sort of issue that most likely will haunt you in later years. I know that you would say nerts to politicking for future votes. Most politicians would claim that. But you should take the time to think this over in a sober manner and decide slowly whether or not you should proceed further. Shutting down college teachers, because you think they discriminate against those of your philisophical ilk is an open invitation to anyone who has or will curry a grudge against a teacher. You think you will be able to control this if it's passed, but you don't consider the legal system thoroughly. Just as your party claims to hate tort lawyers, so you will open the floodgates for them.Think before you push this bill. Those who complain the loudest in the halls of learning are usually those who have no wish to excel.
Monday, March 28, 2005
The Flouridating of America
ohmigodohmigodohmigod (and when i say 'god' i mean the one not taught about in the classrooms). only in the floridation
Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs
THE LAW COULD LET STUDENTS SUE FOR UNTOLERATED BELIEFS.
By JAMES VANLANDINGHAMAlligator Staff Writer
TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.
The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.
The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.
While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”
The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.
According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.
Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.
“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.
Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened.
Similar suits could be filed by students who don’t believe astronauts landed on the moon, who believe teaching birth control is a sin or even by Shands medical students who refuse to perform blood transfusions and believe prayer is the only way to heal the body, Gelber added.
“This is a horrible step,” he said. “Universities will have to hire lawyers so our curricula can be decided by judges in courtrooms. Professors might have to pay court costs — even if they win — from their own pockets. This is not an innocent piece of legislation.”
The staff analysis also warned the bill may shift responsibility for determining whether a student’s freedom has been infringed from the faculty to the courts.
But Baxley brushed off Gelber’s concerns. “Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don’t want to hear,” he said. “Being a businessman, I found out you can be sued for anything. Besides, if students are being persecuted and ridiculed for their beliefs, I think they should be given standing to sue.”
During the committee hearing, Baxley cast opposition to his bill as “leftists” struggling against “mainstream society.”
“The critics ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty,” he said, adding that he was called a McCarthyist.
Baxley later said he had a list of students who were discriminated against by professors, but refused to reveal names because he felt they would be persecuted.
Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, argued universities and the state Board of Governors already have policies in place to protect academic freedom. Moreover, a state law outlining how professors are supposed to teach would encroach on the board’s authority to manage state schools.
“The big hand of state government is going into the universities telling them how to teach,” she said. “This bill is the antithesis of academic freedom.”
But Baxley compared the state’s universities to children, saying the legislature should not give them money without providing “guidance” to their behavior.
“Professors are accountable for what they say or do,” he said. “They’re accountable to the rest of us in society … All of a sudden the faculty think they can do what they want and shut us out. Why is it so unheard of to say the professor shouldn’t be a dictator and control that room as their totalitarian niche?”
In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said “arrogant, elitist academics are swarming” to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.
“I expect to be out there on my own pretty far,” he said. “I don’t expect to be part of a team.”
House Bill H-837 can be viewed online at http://www.flsenate.gov/.
Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs
THE LAW COULD LET STUDENTS SUE FOR UNTOLERATED BELIEFS.
By JAMES VANLANDINGHAMAlligator Staff Writer
TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.
The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.
The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.
While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”
The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.
According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.
Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.
“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.
Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened.
Similar suits could be filed by students who don’t believe astronauts landed on the moon, who believe teaching birth control is a sin or even by Shands medical students who refuse to perform blood transfusions and believe prayer is the only way to heal the body, Gelber added.
“This is a horrible step,” he said. “Universities will have to hire lawyers so our curricula can be decided by judges in courtrooms. Professors might have to pay court costs — even if they win — from their own pockets. This is not an innocent piece of legislation.”
The staff analysis also warned the bill may shift responsibility for determining whether a student’s freedom has been infringed from the faculty to the courts.
But Baxley brushed off Gelber’s concerns. “Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don’t want to hear,” he said. “Being a businessman, I found out you can be sued for anything. Besides, if students are being persecuted and ridiculed for their beliefs, I think they should be given standing to sue.”
During the committee hearing, Baxley cast opposition to his bill as “leftists” struggling against “mainstream society.”
“The critics ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty,” he said, adding that he was called a McCarthyist.
Baxley later said he had a list of students who were discriminated against by professors, but refused to reveal names because he felt they would be persecuted.
Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, argued universities and the state Board of Governors already have policies in place to protect academic freedom. Moreover, a state law outlining how professors are supposed to teach would encroach on the board’s authority to manage state schools.
“The big hand of state government is going into the universities telling them how to teach,” she said. “This bill is the antithesis of academic freedom.”
But Baxley compared the state’s universities to children, saying the legislature should not give them money without providing “guidance” to their behavior.
“Professors are accountable for what they say or do,” he said. “They’re accountable to the rest of us in society … All of a sudden the faculty think they can do what they want and shut us out. Why is it so unheard of to say the professor shouldn’t be a dictator and control that room as their totalitarian niche?”
In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said “arrogant, elitist academics are swarming” to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.
“I expect to be out there on my own pretty far,” he said. “I don’t expect to be part of a team.”
House Bill H-837 can be viewed online at http://www.flsenate.gov/.
An Open Letter To The National Press Club
-->
An Open Letter To The National Press ClubSean-Paul Kelley San Antonio March 28
Members of The National Press Club,
We, the undersigned bloggers, are very concerned about how liberal political bloggers are being systematically under-represented and belittled in the mainstream media, academic settings and media forums. By being intentionally excluded away from these venues, we are effectively pushed out of the discourse of opinion-leaders. The result is that the conventional wisdom about blogging, politics and journalism, as it concerns liberal blogs, becomes a feedback loop framed by the Conservatives and their media allies.
- By Sean Paul in Media Criticism on Mon Mar 28th, 2005 at 01:59:15 PM PDT
Indeed, just a few weeks ago, The Brookings Institution hosted a panel that originally included no liberal political bloggers and yet while including numerous conservative political operatives in the event. We registered our protest and the Brookings Institution's response was simply to invite a few liberal political bloggers to attend, yet not sit on the panel, as we had originally insisted upon.
Today, however, we are faced with an entirely new situation that is more insult than misrepresentation. The discredited conservative media operative Jeff Gannon, nee Guckert has been invited to sit on a panel at the prestigious National Press Club to talk about the scandal surrounding his access to the White House and more generally, the similarities and differences between bloggers and journalists. Guckert's token liberal counterpart will be a gossip blogger and sex comedy blogger. While we have nothing but the greatest respect for Mr. Graff and Ms. Cox we believe that neither represents bloggers who write about hard-nosed politics. And as for Mr. Guckert, he isn't a blogger, he's barely a journalist, and not a single political blogger involved with the Gannon/Guckert scandal, or otherwise, has been invited to sit on the panel to counter Mr. Guckert's arguments.
Therefore, we the undersigned bloggers, respectfully but firmly insist that a serious political blogger such as John Aravosis, of Americablog.org be included on the panel to fairly and accurately represent our industry and us. Mr. Aravosis has agreed to our request that he serve on the panel as our representative and is available should such an invite be forthcoming.
This situation is simply unacceptable. We will push back against the growing bias and sloppiness we see in the mainstream media as it concerns serious political blogging. If we do not we will never achieve any semblance of balance in the media. If we do not, we abdicate our ability to tell our own side of the story. If we do not we leave it to others to define us and defame us.
Please call Julie Shue at the The National Press Club and politely insist that they include John Aravosis of Americablog.org at their event. Here are there numbers: 202-662-7500 or 202-662-7501 or email at tglad@press.org and info@npcpress.org.
Sincerely,
Sean-Paul Kelley, http://www.agonist.org DCMediagirl, http://www.dcmediagirl.com Ezra Klein, http://ezraklein.typepad.com Echidne of the snakes, http://www.echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.comAmanda Marcotte, http://www.pandagon.net Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, http://www.BuzzFlash.comMatt Stoller, http://bopnews.com Democratic Underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/Lindsay Beyerstein http://majikthise.typepad.comShakespeare's Sister, http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com and http://www.bigbrassblog.comBob Brigham, www.SwingStateProject.comDave Johnson, http://www.Seeingtheforest.comMatt Singer, http://www.leftinthewest.comKos, http://www.dailykos.comKari Chisholm, http://www.blueoregon.com Steve Gilliard, http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/Crooks and Liars, http://www.crooksandliars.com/Brian Baltahttp://balta.blogspot.comThat Colored Fellahttp://www.ThatColoredFellasweblog.bloghorn.comAnna Brosovic http://annatopia.com/blog.html skippy the bush kangaroo http://www.xnerg.blogspot.comDavid Neiwert Orcinus http://www.dneiwert.blogspot.comJulien 's List http://www.educatedeclectic.blogspot.com
but what I'm still trying to figure out (even though I like the letter) is why I can't put my name and blog address on there. Is this an elitist blogger thing? Do they not know of the clout I carry with all of my posse? Are they afraid that I will legitimize them in a way they are not ready for? Is blogging only for "them folk"? Am I too enebriated to find the right button? Inquisitive minds want to know.
Seriously, What's His Name from Americablog should be on that panel if they're going to allow Guckert (kind of sounds like what I do after a long Saturday night) that public forum.
Plum Island Redux
Well, here we are at 5:00 PM on a beautiful day after a week of almost solid rain and I'm in front of the computer once more...aided by my ever-diminishing army of Newcastlians. I continue my "research" about Plum Island Animal Disease Research Lab and I find that the Homeland Security Department took it over in 2003. I, also, find that we signed an international treaty in (I think) 1969 to stop developing bioterror organisms, but we continue to "produce' them in order to find out how to stop them. So, we agree to stop, but don't on the grounds of self-defense:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/29/210214.shtml
Also, Grumpy ( a commenter) mentioned that the island may now be involved in "weaponized" anthrax. I had come across this allegation yesterday, but didn't note in my blog. Mainly because I was having too much fun seeing just how adrift from my initial point I could go. But here we have the Island denying any interest in anthrax:
In "The Silence of the Lambs," FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) promises Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) an annual trip to Plum Island in exchange for information on a serial killer. The cannibal seethes: "Anthrax Island?"
The island is still battling that image. "We have no interest in anthrax," Dr. McKenna says, because it is endemic to the U.S.
Anthrax is endemic to the U.S. ? Perhaps natural anthrax is, although I don't know of anthrax in the wild. I've never heard of roving herds of anthrax. I've never heard of hunting permits for anthrax. I do know that it is a naturally occuring substance, much like cannabis. But I have never known it to be anything other than invisible and unattended until somebody started putting it in letters (it should be said, though, that the anthrax put in the letters was not naturally occuring. it was "manipulated" or man-made). So, if anthrax for a terror use is endemic (made in the U.S.), then it seems that we are making it and f**king with it at some level. Maybe not Plum Island level, but a level that cuts out the handyman and/or meth maker.
But what constitutes "weaponized" anthrax? Well, according to the Washington Post, it's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A40896-2001Dec13
"It remains unclear whether Dugway scientists have the technical capacity to make anthrax spores as dangerous as those found in the letters to Daschle (D-S.D.) and Leahy (D-Vt.). The particles in those letters were extremely small and the formulation very pure, with far more spores per gram than the U.S. offensive bioweapons program had achieved at its pinnacle in the late 1960s. Small size and high purity are crucial if infectious quantities are to become airborne and inhaled to cause the most deadly form of anthrax.
William Patrick, who led the Army's offensive biological weapons program at Fort Detrick until the program ended in 1969, said yesterday that it was he who taught Dugway scientists how to dry deadly bacteria into a fine powdery form in 1998. "
Drying the stuff and making it small and pure. Sounds simple to me...except for that little problem of getting my hands on any of it.
But wait one stinkin' minute. Does this article talk of Dugway Proving Ground, 80 miles out of Salt Lake City? And does it talk about commercial animals that were killed downwind of Dugway by nerve gas? It's not Plum Island, but the aria's similar. And it's now proven that we are making weaponized anthrax domestically along with unnamed other "deadly bacteria".
Newsmax (of undefined credibility) states that it was Russia that provided Iraq with the know-how to produce weaponized anthrax and the timing of our government's shipping of "normal" anthrax to Iraq was coincidental:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/140747.shtml
However, as I noted in an earlier column there was an Iraqi scientist at Plum Island doing bio-germ research who went back to Iraq in 1990 or 91, began teaching at Baghdad University and was subsequently killed (some say by the Israelis).
http://www.rense.com/general2/up.htm
So, who's to say which government did the most damage?
Continuing on, however. This blog that I found actually seems rational and well researched:
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/9.htm
and it states that the University of Iowa and Iowa State University both had strains of the weaponized anthrax in their possession for some time. But, somehow, both institutions destroyed all of their samples before any comparison could be made between theirs and that which was mailed.
In a sense, I'm getting closer to Plum Island geographically. I've made it from utah back to the upper Mid-West. And I'm wondering why colleges are being allowed to play with substances that can kill through the smallest exposure. Not that I don't trust the government any more than I would a grad student. I'd never say that. Never.
It's interesting to note how many of the so-called mainstream websites that purport to have educational knowledge of weaponized anthrax insist that the most probable perpetrator od disseminating weaponized anthrax is none other than the former Soviet Union. in the following article, the writer mentions the USSR and downplays any possible U.S. involvement, because (as the writer notes) the U.S. signed a treaty in the 1970's agreeing to stop the cultivation of bio-terrorism germs. But at the end of the article it states that the most likely perpetrator of the mailing of the weaponized anthrax is domestic and that the original Ames strain comes from College Station, Texas. So, our country doesn't produce this stuff any more, but the perpetrator is most likely an American and the strain of anthax used is a domestic product. Did the mailer latch onto it before we signed our treaty and let it sit for 20-30 years? Unlikely.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/bt/bioprep/biofacts/bioterr-overview.html
According to the Washington Post, however, only three countries have the technology to produce an airborne anthrax that can do what the anthrax mailed within our country did: the former Soviet Union, Iraq and us. So, that gives us a 2 out of 3 chance to be the creators of this strain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A47864-2001Oct24¬Found=true
And where in all of this is Plum Island? I still don't know. We have documentation of weaponized anthrax being cultivated in Utah, Iowa and even Arkansas. But Plum Island and the government deny adamantly that the Island ever worked with or on it. And we still have not a single lead as to who might have sent the stuff to anyone. Our government was able to define Iraq as the culprit behind the 9/11 attacks without any corroborating evidence and invade it with no meaningful opposition (other than the one "focus group" comprised of tens of millions of people around the world), but it can't even give us a hint of who might have sent the anthrax or where they got it from almost four years after the fact. This anthrax is a very rare commodity and each batch has unique "fingerprints". It shouldn't take a bio-chemist to figure it out. And, if it does, we've got plenty of them.
By the way, I've got to give thanks to my good friend Erik over at The Generik Brand:
http://generik.blogspot.com/
for egging me into starting a blog. Somehow, he knew that my love for beer, my unlimited home time due to being single and reclusive during my afterhours and my need to blow sputum would either land me on the FBI list (which I do believe I'm already on) or get me elected Governor of California. He wanted neither so he suggested a blog. I thank him even as I curse him.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/29/210214.shtml
Also, Grumpy ( a commenter) mentioned that the island may now be involved in "weaponized" anthrax. I had come across this allegation yesterday, but didn't note in my blog. Mainly because I was having too much fun seeing just how adrift from my initial point I could go. But here we have the Island denying any interest in anthrax:
In "The Silence of the Lambs," FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) promises Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) an annual trip to Plum Island in exchange for information on a serial killer. The cannibal seethes: "Anthrax Island?"
The island is still battling that image. "We have no interest in anthrax," Dr. McKenna says, because it is endemic to the U.S.
Anthrax is endemic to the U.S. ? Perhaps natural anthrax is, although I don't know of anthrax in the wild. I've never heard of roving herds of anthrax. I've never heard of hunting permits for anthrax. I do know that it is a naturally occuring substance, much like cannabis. But I have never known it to be anything other than invisible and unattended until somebody started putting it in letters (it should be said, though, that the anthrax put in the letters was not naturally occuring. it was "manipulated" or man-made). So, if anthrax for a terror use is endemic (made in the U.S.), then it seems that we are making it and f**king with it at some level. Maybe not Plum Island level, but a level that cuts out the handyman and/or meth maker.
But what constitutes "weaponized" anthrax? Well, according to the Washington Post, it's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A40896-2001Dec13
"It remains unclear whether Dugway scientists have the technical capacity to make anthrax spores as dangerous as those found in the letters to Daschle (D-S.D.) and Leahy (D-Vt.). The particles in those letters were extremely small and the formulation very pure, with far more spores per gram than the U.S. offensive bioweapons program had achieved at its pinnacle in the late 1960s. Small size and high purity are crucial if infectious quantities are to become airborne and inhaled to cause the most deadly form of anthrax.
William Patrick, who led the Army's offensive biological weapons program at Fort Detrick until the program ended in 1969, said yesterday that it was he who taught Dugway scientists how to dry deadly bacteria into a fine powdery form in 1998. "
Drying the stuff and making it small and pure. Sounds simple to me...except for that little problem of getting my hands on any of it.
But wait one stinkin' minute. Does this article talk of Dugway Proving Ground, 80 miles out of Salt Lake City? And does it talk about commercial animals that were killed downwind of Dugway by nerve gas? It's not Plum Island, but the aria's similar. And it's now proven that we are making weaponized anthrax domestically along with unnamed other "deadly bacteria".
Newsmax (of undefined credibility) states that it was Russia that provided Iraq with the know-how to produce weaponized anthrax and the timing of our government's shipping of "normal" anthrax to Iraq was coincidental:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/140747.shtml
However, as I noted in an earlier column there was an Iraqi scientist at Plum Island doing bio-germ research who went back to Iraq in 1990 or 91, began teaching at Baghdad University and was subsequently killed (some say by the Israelis).
http://www.rense.com/general2/up.htm
So, who's to say which government did the most damage?
Continuing on, however. This blog that I found actually seems rational and well researched:
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/9.htm
and it states that the University of Iowa and Iowa State University both had strains of the weaponized anthrax in their possession for some time. But, somehow, both institutions destroyed all of their samples before any comparison could be made between theirs and that which was mailed.
In a sense, I'm getting closer to Plum Island geographically. I've made it from utah back to the upper Mid-West. And I'm wondering why colleges are being allowed to play with substances that can kill through the smallest exposure. Not that I don't trust the government any more than I would a grad student. I'd never say that. Never.
It's interesting to note how many of the so-called mainstream websites that purport to have educational knowledge of weaponized anthrax insist that the most probable perpetrator od disseminating weaponized anthrax is none other than the former Soviet Union. in the following article, the writer mentions the USSR and downplays any possible U.S. involvement, because (as the writer notes) the U.S. signed a treaty in the 1970's agreeing to stop the cultivation of bio-terrorism germs. But at the end of the article it states that the most likely perpetrator of the mailing of the weaponized anthrax is domestic and that the original Ames strain comes from College Station, Texas. So, our country doesn't produce this stuff any more, but the perpetrator is most likely an American and the strain of anthax used is a domestic product. Did the mailer latch onto it before we signed our treaty and let it sit for 20-30 years? Unlikely.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/bt/bioprep/biofacts/bioterr-overview.html
According to the Washington Post, however, only three countries have the technology to produce an airborne anthrax that can do what the anthrax mailed within our country did: the former Soviet Union, Iraq and us. So, that gives us a 2 out of 3 chance to be the creators of this strain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A47864-2001Oct24¬Found=true
And where in all of this is Plum Island? I still don't know. We have documentation of weaponized anthrax being cultivated in Utah, Iowa and even Arkansas. But Plum Island and the government deny adamantly that the Island ever worked with or on it. And we still have not a single lead as to who might have sent the stuff to anyone. Our government was able to define Iraq as the culprit behind the 9/11 attacks without any corroborating evidence and invade it with no meaningful opposition (other than the one "focus group" comprised of tens of millions of people around the world), but it can't even give us a hint of who might have sent the anthrax or where they got it from almost four years after the fact. This anthrax is a very rare commodity and each batch has unique "fingerprints". It shouldn't take a bio-chemist to figure it out. And, if it does, we've got plenty of them.
By the way, I've got to give thanks to my good friend Erik over at The Generik Brand:
http://generik.blogspot.com/
for egging me into starting a blog. Somehow, he knew that my love for beer, my unlimited home time due to being single and reclusive during my afterhours and my need to blow sputum would either land me on the FBI list (which I do believe I'm already on) or get me elected Governor of California. He wanted neither so he suggested a blog. I thank him even as I curse him.
Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays?
Normally, I'd add on my own two cents worth and more, but this speaks for itself.
(do not click on the "links" within the story...they are really links to ads)
http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes#
(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.
Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.
(do not click on the "links" within the story...they are really links to ads)
http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes#
(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.
Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
