(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.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Hal, We Hardly Knew You
I love writing letters to people I admire. i mean, I really love it. So, when I found this website I just had to dash off a note proclaiming my support. Below is the link and the letter I sent out this morning:
http://64.233.161.104/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=cache%3Awww.halturnershow.com
Hi Hal, I just wanted to compliment you on your fabulous website. You certainly have a way with one-syllable verbalisms. Plus, all of that angry red you've splashed everywhere just like the very blood you're demanding from those who think the government should keep its nose out of private family business. I think you personally should blow that truck bomb up.In fact, it would be really neat if you were to make it a suicide bombing. In this manner you would become a martyr and symbol to the right-to-have-no-life-of-any-meaningful-kind crowd. You could become the "face" of the "Culture of Fright" groups. Even better, go down to Texas (if you're not there already) and fight the law put in place by George Bush, Jr when he was governor there.You're familiar with it, right? It's the one that allows hospitals to cut off medical services to patients they deem terminal, especially if the patients' families do not have the money or medical coverage to pay for said services. This can be done to patients who are conscious and cognitive.
But back to your website. You wrote:"Conscious but brain damaged American citizen Terri Schiavo is being starved to death in a Florida hospice. Cried when told feeding tube was being removed, yelled "I want to live.""
Well now, and which radio personality did we possibly get that from? Was it Limbaugh, perhaps? He IS a Paragon of unbiased news. I don't know why those filthy Liberals are always ranting about him. Just because he calls them Communists, terrorist sympathizers, smelly, dumb,unpatriotic, idiots, etc. Doesn't mean he's not correct, right? Just mean and blinded by his own sense of morality.
Or did you get the quote from Terry Randall? He's believable, too. His unfettered access to Mrs. Schiavo would give him the inside scoop on any utterances she might have made...oops, he didn't have access, did he? In fact, he's never met the woman, has he? In fact, he's a bit of a screamer himself, isn't he? I don't think I've ever seen a picture of him in which his face isn't contorted into a Gollum-like appearance, flooded red with the bitter knowledge of his rightness in the face of the masses that ignorantly disagree with him or certain facts that pop up and slap him across the kisser (but he doesn't strike me as much of a kisser).
Anyway, I just want you to know that I support you in getting in that bomb-laden truck, driving it somewhere nice and quiet and remote and far, far away from the madding crowds. Then, I support you as you reach down between your thighs and caress that special "button" until suddenly you no longer exist. Remember to leave a note.
I really am not a violent person, but your cause makes me want to getmywaron. You go, boy!Kisses and Candy,
Joel Dyer
http://64.233.161.104/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=cache%3Awww.halturnershow.com
Hi Hal, I just wanted to compliment you on your fabulous website. You certainly have a way with one-syllable verbalisms. Plus, all of that angry red you've splashed everywhere just like the very blood you're demanding from those who think the government should keep its nose out of private family business. I think you personally should blow that truck bomb up.In fact, it would be really neat if you were to make it a suicide bombing. In this manner you would become a martyr and symbol to the right-to-have-no-life-of-any-meaningful-kind crowd. You could become the "face" of the "Culture of Fright" groups. Even better, go down to Texas (if you're not there already) and fight the law put in place by George Bush, Jr when he was governor there.You're familiar with it, right? It's the one that allows hospitals to cut off medical services to patients they deem terminal, especially if the patients' families do not have the money or medical coverage to pay for said services. This can be done to patients who are conscious and cognitive.
But back to your website. You wrote:"Conscious but brain damaged American citizen Terri Schiavo is being starved to death in a Florida hospice. Cried when told feeding tube was being removed, yelled "I want to live.""
Well now, and which radio personality did we possibly get that from? Was it Limbaugh, perhaps? He IS a Paragon of unbiased news. I don't know why those filthy Liberals are always ranting about him. Just because he calls them Communists, terrorist sympathizers, smelly, dumb,unpatriotic, idiots, etc. Doesn't mean he's not correct, right? Just mean and blinded by his own sense of morality.
Or did you get the quote from Terry Randall? He's believable, too. His unfettered access to Mrs. Schiavo would give him the inside scoop on any utterances she might have made...oops, he didn't have access, did he? In fact, he's never met the woman, has he? In fact, he's a bit of a screamer himself, isn't he? I don't think I've ever seen a picture of him in which his face isn't contorted into a Gollum-like appearance, flooded red with the bitter knowledge of his rightness in the face of the masses that ignorantly disagree with him or certain facts that pop up and slap him across the kisser (but he doesn't strike me as much of a kisser).
Anyway, I just want you to know that I support you in getting in that bomb-laden truck, driving it somewhere nice and quiet and remote and far, far away from the madding crowds. Then, I support you as you reach down between your thighs and caress that special "button" until suddenly you no longer exist. Remember to leave a note.
I really am not a violent person, but your cause makes me want to getmywaron. You go, boy!Kisses and Candy,
Joel Dyer
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Plum Island
Plum Island (to which much noteriety was attached in Silence of the Lambs) is real and it is now a top level bio-hazard lab.
http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-3plumisland.html
Lyme disease is often said to have been created there (the city of Lyme, for which the disease is named, sits only 12 miles away). Now, rumors float that it was the genesis for West Nile virus. They, of course, poo poo that...I take no sides without more evidence. But today I heard on Pacifica Radio that this lab has been granted access to tissue from victims of the 1918 Flu pandemic in order to revive the virus (the corpses were naturally frozen by the elements until exhumation except for the lady who was buried in a lead-lined coffin) and bring it back to life (they say they can with many frozen viruses), ostensibly to infect monkeys, cats and pigs. Ostensibly to find a vaccine for it and study how it mutated into a deadly disease that killed millions. With the Avian bird flu now crossing over into humans and being passed from human to human contact( with a few deaths being recorded so far), concern is rising among medical professionals that a new pandemic is a matter of when and not if. However, it seems to me that reviving a virus that was so virulent it killed millions of humans is not the wisest thing to do considering that they will have no immediate way of killing it (ahem, no vaccine). Also, according to Pacifica Radio, Plum Island has had a variety of mishaps occur in the past, including: infected employees, virus escapes and laboratory meltdowns (or bio-hazard collapses in which the lab had to be shut down and quarantined). All this under the vigilant watch of the Department of Defense...maybe that was a bit of an oxymoron. I apologize.
Oh, by the way, Plum is not the only lab being given Flu victim tissue. There seem to be three or four that are going to be yelling "Frau Blucher" soon (if not already).
Also, I didn't know that the 1918 flu began here in the USA and is thought to have been transported abroad by soldiers of WW I. Now, I do.
And this is the man who found remnants of the virus in Alaska:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/17/CM40502.DTL
I went further than I thought I would in looking for info on the virus being rejuvenated and ran into a website that is very fun, but not for that reason. It is fun, because these people are even wackier than I ever have been. Sylphs and chemtrails abound. It's damn fun reading about why those pesky chemtrails aren't actually being allowed to attack us:
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/
And, then, I find this blog, which I find interesting, but will have to look into. An Iraqi scientist was employed by Plum Island Large Animal Laboratory(which has a Bio Level 5 since 1970) to head up a project researching mycoplasma. He later left to go back to Iraq and work at the University of Baghdad before the first Gulf War and was murdered sometime later, supposedly by the Israelis. We all know now that our country provided Iraq with bioterrorism organisms and equipment with which to incubate and procreate them:
http://www.rense.com/general2/up.htm
Then, I stumble onto another blog, which names the Iraqi guy again and goes even further as it states that Plum Island (well, a "representative") denied any mycoplasma research, then admitted that it was done under the Iraqi scientist (I guess this type of research is supposed to be illegal in the US). Plus, it mentions 40 micro-biologists who have died mysteriously in the past few years, who were all somehow related to bio-weapons research:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=64146
Then, ConsumerHealth Canada weighs in about the those chemtrails. The fact that the writer won an award from Project Censored is an indication of possible credibility:
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20000830164825
but it leads me astray of the reason i started this blog, so I go back to looking for Plum Island and if there is any reason to believe that the 1918 flu virus is actively being resuscitated. And, somehow, I remembered that I had forgotten to mention that Plum Island now has a new owner: The Department of Homeland Security:
(excerpt)
On the face of it, DHS says it is "committed to positive community relations"; but in a recently-published notice in the Federal Register, it proposed to grant itself authority to make secret the environmental assessments of government activities that are required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The change would make it possible for DHS to conduct activities on Plum Island (and other facilities) without divulging risks, effects or even their existence under NEPA. Plum Island is poised on the bleeding edge of DHS’ research program on biological weapons, a program that includes activities that independent observers conclude are practically indistinguishable from offensive biological weapons research.
Which brings us back to Plum Island’s institutional biosafety committee (IBC), the local committee that, according to the Bush administration, forms the government’s major line of defense to review dual-use research projects and to ensure their safety and security. Thus, if there is a place where the government might demonstrate that IBCs can in fact be an effective mechanism to review the conduct of dual-use bioweapons research, it is at facilities like Plum Island, which are under direct government control and which have missions that are focused on biodefense.
What has DHS done with the Plum Island Institutional Biosafety Committee? Nothing. Since DHS took over the facility more than a year ago, the Plum Island IBC has not met. Not once. The committee whose responsibility it is to ensure that research is safe and secure appears to be moribund. Not only has there been no committee review of Plum Island’s new and ongoing research projects, the committee has not met to review safety conditions in laboratories nor to perform any of the other duties incumbent upon it.
Bush administration biodefense policy leaders claim that IBCs can take responsibility for the conduct of dual-use research with biological weapons agents; but the Department of Homeland Security itself does not maintain an effective institutional biosafety committee at Plum Island.
http://sunshineproject.org/biodefense/bb.html#3
But, again, I feel I am still on a tangent. I want to know about the flu virus. Unfortunately, the beer is kicking in and I am beginning to giggle as I surf amid the detritus of the bottles and expended cigarettes. I am now feeling like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theaory except for the fact that I don't yet appear to have any ADD-like symptoms and there is no Julia Roberts for me to drool over...yet. So, I soldier on even as the dead soldiers pile up around me (no war is won without casualties, but this time I have gone to war with the army I want, not- like Rumsfeld- the army I have. My army is from Newcastle and it's coals they want to return).
Where was I? Oh yes.
Soldiering on and kicking the dead out of my way. So, then I run into the name Beth Lautner who became head of Plum Island Animal Disease Center (new name, I guess) in 2003. Previously, she had been involved with various organizations, including the USDA, and specialized in swine diseases. Which might be a good thing, because the most deadly flu viruses (to humans) come from pigs. The new avian flu is an exception. Evidently, the most virulent forms of human flu have had to transfer from bird to pig (where it was forced to mutate in order to survive, because the pig's immune system is extremely close to ours, but once it mutated it then had an inside track to infecting us). So, Lautner has spent a lot of time studying pig sickness and working through how it mutates. Promising...until I read this:
http://thehamptons.com/group/newsletter/fall04/plum_island.html
in which a local community group contacted Plum Island in order to express its concerns. They were eventually rewarded with a meeting with Lautner, but later found out that Plum Island had had another "accident" and failed to report it to anyone. Also, she was vice-president of the National Pork Board, which means she would have been instrumental in pushing the business-friendly side of the pig (which side I'm not sure, because I've been to pig farms and both ends of the swine can be dangerous).
But, then, I find this:
http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=22711
which still has nothing to do with the flu. But it does mention the fact that Plum Island employees are owned by a private contractor and that Senators (including that hottie Hillary) are concerned. So, that was fun. However, after 2 and 1/2 hours my attention begins to wane and I begin to yawn and I suddenly remember what Generik told me about blogging: "welcome and get ready to give up of your free time". Hell with that, I'm going for a beer. I must really hate my internal organs. Then again, I always root for the underdog and skin is outnumbered by like a lot to one.
Maybe more later.
http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-3plumisland.html
Lyme disease is often said to have been created there (the city of Lyme, for which the disease is named, sits only 12 miles away). Now, rumors float that it was the genesis for West Nile virus. They, of course, poo poo that...I take no sides without more evidence. But today I heard on Pacifica Radio that this lab has been granted access to tissue from victims of the 1918 Flu pandemic in order to revive the virus (the corpses were naturally frozen by the elements until exhumation except for the lady who was buried in a lead-lined coffin) and bring it back to life (they say they can with many frozen viruses), ostensibly to infect monkeys, cats and pigs. Ostensibly to find a vaccine for it and study how it mutated into a deadly disease that killed millions. With the Avian bird flu now crossing over into humans and being passed from human to human contact( with a few deaths being recorded so far), concern is rising among medical professionals that a new pandemic is a matter of when and not if. However, it seems to me that reviving a virus that was so virulent it killed millions of humans is not the wisest thing to do considering that they will have no immediate way of killing it (ahem, no vaccine). Also, according to Pacifica Radio, Plum Island has had a variety of mishaps occur in the past, including: infected employees, virus escapes and laboratory meltdowns (or bio-hazard collapses in which the lab had to be shut down and quarantined). All this under the vigilant watch of the Department of Defense...maybe that was a bit of an oxymoron. I apologize.
Oh, by the way, Plum is not the only lab being given Flu victim tissue. There seem to be three or four that are going to be yelling "Frau Blucher" soon (if not already).
Also, I didn't know that the 1918 flu began here in the USA and is thought to have been transported abroad by soldiers of WW I. Now, I do.
And this is the man who found remnants of the virus in Alaska:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/17/CM40502.DTL
I went further than I thought I would in looking for info on the virus being rejuvenated and ran into a website that is very fun, but not for that reason. It is fun, because these people are even wackier than I ever have been. Sylphs and chemtrails abound. It's damn fun reading about why those pesky chemtrails aren't actually being allowed to attack us:
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/
And, then, I find this blog, which I find interesting, but will have to look into. An Iraqi scientist was employed by Plum Island Large Animal Laboratory(which has a Bio Level 5 since 1970) to head up a project researching mycoplasma. He later left to go back to Iraq and work at the University of Baghdad before the first Gulf War and was murdered sometime later, supposedly by the Israelis. We all know now that our country provided Iraq with bioterrorism organisms and equipment with which to incubate and procreate them:
http://www.rense.com/general2/up.htm
Then, I stumble onto another blog, which names the Iraqi guy again and goes even further as it states that Plum Island (well, a "representative") denied any mycoplasma research, then admitted that it was done under the Iraqi scientist (I guess this type of research is supposed to be illegal in the US). Plus, it mentions 40 micro-biologists who have died mysteriously in the past few years, who were all somehow related to bio-weapons research:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=64146
Then, ConsumerHealth Canada weighs in about the those chemtrails. The fact that the writer won an award from Project Censored is an indication of possible credibility:
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20000830164825
but it leads me astray of the reason i started this blog, so I go back to looking for Plum Island and if there is any reason to believe that the 1918 flu virus is actively being resuscitated. And, somehow, I remembered that I had forgotten to mention that Plum Island now has a new owner: The Department of Homeland Security:
(excerpt)
On the face of it, DHS says it is "committed to positive community relations"; but in a recently-published notice in the Federal Register, it proposed to grant itself authority to make secret the environmental assessments of government activities that are required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The change would make it possible for DHS to conduct activities on Plum Island (and other facilities) without divulging risks, effects or even their existence under NEPA. Plum Island is poised on the bleeding edge of DHS’ research program on biological weapons, a program that includes activities that independent observers conclude are practically indistinguishable from offensive biological weapons research.
Which brings us back to Plum Island’s institutional biosafety committee (IBC), the local committee that, according to the Bush administration, forms the government’s major line of defense to review dual-use research projects and to ensure their safety and security. Thus, if there is a place where the government might demonstrate that IBCs can in fact be an effective mechanism to review the conduct of dual-use bioweapons research, it is at facilities like Plum Island, which are under direct government control and which have missions that are focused on biodefense.
What has DHS done with the Plum Island Institutional Biosafety Committee? Nothing. Since DHS took over the facility more than a year ago, the Plum Island IBC has not met. Not once. The committee whose responsibility it is to ensure that research is safe and secure appears to be moribund. Not only has there been no committee review of Plum Island’s new and ongoing research projects, the committee has not met to review safety conditions in laboratories nor to perform any of the other duties incumbent upon it.
Bush administration biodefense policy leaders claim that IBCs can take responsibility for the conduct of dual-use research with biological weapons agents; but the Department of Homeland Security itself does not maintain an effective institutional biosafety committee at Plum Island.
http://sunshineproject.org/biodefense/bb.html#3
But, again, I feel I am still on a tangent. I want to know about the flu virus. Unfortunately, the beer is kicking in and I am beginning to giggle as I surf amid the detritus of the bottles and expended cigarettes. I am now feeling like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theaory except for the fact that I don't yet appear to have any ADD-like symptoms and there is no Julia Roberts for me to drool over...yet. So, I soldier on even as the dead soldiers pile up around me (no war is won without casualties, but this time I have gone to war with the army I want, not- like Rumsfeld- the army I have. My army is from Newcastle and it's coals they want to return).
Where was I? Oh yes.
Soldiering on and kicking the dead out of my way. So, then I run into the name Beth Lautner who became head of Plum Island Animal Disease Center (new name, I guess) in 2003. Previously, she had been involved with various organizations, including the USDA, and specialized in swine diseases. Which might be a good thing, because the most deadly flu viruses (to humans) come from pigs. The new avian flu is an exception. Evidently, the most virulent forms of human flu have had to transfer from bird to pig (where it was forced to mutate in order to survive, because the pig's immune system is extremely close to ours, but once it mutated it then had an inside track to infecting us). So, Lautner has spent a lot of time studying pig sickness and working through how it mutates. Promising...until I read this:
http://thehamptons.com/group/newsletter/fall04/plum_island.html
in which a local community group contacted Plum Island in order to express its concerns. They were eventually rewarded with a meeting with Lautner, but later found out that Plum Island had had another "accident" and failed to report it to anyone. Also, she was vice-president of the National Pork Board, which means she would have been instrumental in pushing the business-friendly side of the pig (which side I'm not sure, because I've been to pig farms and both ends of the swine can be dangerous).
But, then, I find this:
http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=22711
which still has nothing to do with the flu. But it does mention the fact that Plum Island employees are owned by a private contractor and that Senators (including that hottie Hillary) are concerned. So, that was fun. However, after 2 and 1/2 hours my attention begins to wane and I begin to yawn and I suddenly remember what Generik told me about blogging: "welcome and get ready to give up of your free time". Hell with that, I'm going for a beer. I must really hate my internal organs. Then again, I always root for the underdog and skin is outnumbered by like a lot to one.
Maybe more later.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Pay No Attention to the Snake Behind the White Horse
ABC News Poll shows that most Americans are in agreement that our politicians are merely trying to stop Terri Schiavo from dying in order to garner votes in 2006. Finally, a bit of common sense from the commoners:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf
You need Acrobat to read it, but who doesn't have Acrobat? Right? Word, on the other hand...
I still say that this is a Republican attempt to lead us away from other, more pressing issues like: Tom DeLay, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gannongate, our UN ambassador, our Iraq Ambassador, Haiti, all very boring nothing to see please let's move on we're walking hey look isn't that a pretty white Floridian woman being starved to death by her mean old husband who's been screwing around behind her comatose back and probably only wants her estate money to spend on his whore hussy girlfriend and her little illegitimate brats? Bright klieg lights, please. Ta ran tara. We must save her in the name of the "(Ann) Culture of Life".
Barf.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf
You need Acrobat to read it, but who doesn't have Acrobat? Right? Word, on the other hand...
I still say that this is a Republican attempt to lead us away from other, more pressing issues like: Tom DeLay, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gannongate, our UN ambassador, our Iraq Ambassador, Haiti, all very boring nothing to see please let's move on we're walking hey look isn't that a pretty white Floridian woman being starved to death by her mean old husband who's been screwing around behind her comatose back and probably only wants her estate money to spend on his whore hussy girlfriend and her little illegitimate brats? Bright klieg lights, please. Ta ran tara. We must save her in the name of the "(Ann) Culture of Life".
Barf.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
BO, You Don't Know Gritz
(I sent this a few minutes ago to that paragon of freedom, Bo Gritz- you know the guy. He intervened at Ruby Ridge after all the death, then claimed he was there before it happened. He went in to the Freemen ranch , but walked out with no agreement in hand. He is a gladhander and a camera hog. Now he is in Florida making up lies, as far as I can tell by researching the media, in order to score new points off of the Terri Schiavo case)
I have a few words for you, Bo. You have not done your homework before jumping on the "Save Terri" bandwagon. First of all, she IS in a coma. While her eyes do open from time to time (which is normal for comatose patients-it's an involuntary reflex of the muscles) she does not recognize anyone. Both private and court-appointed physicians have attested to this. And don't start talking about any conspiracy. It's Jeb Bush's state after all. She is not able to swallow, which just might explain the feeding tube. Were she able to swallow on her own, I think this would be a different story. But she can't. She CAN breathe on her own. That has never been a question. Michael Schiavo seems to love her very much and has maintained that she told him she would not want to live this way. Neither you or I can dispute that. He's either lying or not. But neither of us were there and I would rather trust that they loved each other enough to share their wants. Of course, you seem to be attracted to any kind of public division that will garner you a camera in your face. How're the Freemen doing by the way? As for Terri, she was deprived under suspicious circumstances of oxygen? She was already comatose. Her husband then "dis-allowed" corrective action? Explain, please. Are you accusing him of wanting her estate as soon as she fell ill and comatose? Did he connive at such an early date? Is this all it's about in your eyes? A man wanting money as opposed to an end to his wife's vegetative state? By the way, your assertion that Michael is refusing to allow the brushing of her teeth is an absolute lie. In fact, he was chastised by the hospital staff for being too demanding in her care. He had someone come in every day to change her clothes, do her makeup and make sure she was cleaned regularly until the hospital told him to knock it off. They were feeling as if they weren't doing enough. So, shut it about that.Yes, he does have a girlfriend and they do have children. Gasp. Oh my. He has not allowed divorce so that he may stay in control of what he feels are Terri's wishes. I don't know the veracity of it, neither do you. So, shut it about that as well. I will if you do. The fact that he has a girlfriend I can't complain about. He has lived in this situation for a long time. He has been told by every physician that Terri will never regain consciousness or any cognitive state remotely approximating that of a human. I understand. You should, too. After all, didn't you try to kill yourself when your wife filed for divorce? In a way, it's somewhat the same. Please prove the following (which you wrote)by providing your sources (credible or not) to me:
"Michael Schiavo is 6'-3" tall and weighs 250-pounds. Here is reported evidence of abuse concerning Terri: Terri's medical records show multiple broken bones. When she collapsed in 1990 he failed to perform CPR. He has had her medical records sealed -- even from Terri's parents. Seven months after receiving $1.3-million for Terri's medical care, Michael prohibited antibiotics for infection which could have killed Terri (1993 & 1995). Despite medical records and witness reports that Terri is responsive, Michael has not allowed therapy since receiving the cash. He has prevented swallowing tests, despite medical testimony that Terri can be taught to eat. Ordered caretakers not to clean Terri's teeth (five teeth removed in 2004). Since 2000, refuses to allow Terri to leave her room. Refuses to fix her wheelchair. Orders the window shades down at all times in Terri's room, denying natural sunlight. Removed family photos from Terri's room, denies flowers, won't allow her to hear music. Won't allow visitors unless approved by him. Denied visits by her parents for eight-months. Denies all requests for Terri to attend nursing home functions and refuses to allow therapeutic animals to visit, knowing she is an animal lover."
I can access articles and testimonies which refute each and every one of these assertions. Let me know how you come by your beliefs.
Sincerely,Joel Dyer
I have a few words for you, Bo. You have not done your homework before jumping on the "Save Terri" bandwagon. First of all, she IS in a coma. While her eyes do open from time to time (which is normal for comatose patients-it's an involuntary reflex of the muscles) she does not recognize anyone. Both private and court-appointed physicians have attested to this. And don't start talking about any conspiracy. It's Jeb Bush's state after all. She is not able to swallow, which just might explain the feeding tube. Were she able to swallow on her own, I think this would be a different story. But she can't. She CAN breathe on her own. That has never been a question. Michael Schiavo seems to love her very much and has maintained that she told him she would not want to live this way. Neither you or I can dispute that. He's either lying or not. But neither of us were there and I would rather trust that they loved each other enough to share their wants. Of course, you seem to be attracted to any kind of public division that will garner you a camera in your face. How're the Freemen doing by the way? As for Terri, she was deprived under suspicious circumstances of oxygen? She was already comatose. Her husband then "dis-allowed" corrective action? Explain, please. Are you accusing him of wanting her estate as soon as she fell ill and comatose? Did he connive at such an early date? Is this all it's about in your eyes? A man wanting money as opposed to an end to his wife's vegetative state? By the way, your assertion that Michael is refusing to allow the brushing of her teeth is an absolute lie. In fact, he was chastised by the hospital staff for being too demanding in her care. He had someone come in every day to change her clothes, do her makeup and make sure she was cleaned regularly until the hospital told him to knock it off. They were feeling as if they weren't doing enough. So, shut it about that.Yes, he does have a girlfriend and they do have children. Gasp. Oh my. He has not allowed divorce so that he may stay in control of what he feels are Terri's wishes. I don't know the veracity of it, neither do you. So, shut it about that as well. I will if you do. The fact that he has a girlfriend I can't complain about. He has lived in this situation for a long time. He has been told by every physician that Terri will never regain consciousness or any cognitive state remotely approximating that of a human. I understand. You should, too. After all, didn't you try to kill yourself when your wife filed for divorce? In a way, it's somewhat the same. Please prove the following (which you wrote)by providing your sources (credible or not) to me:
"Michael Schiavo is 6'-3" tall and weighs 250-pounds. Here is reported evidence of abuse concerning Terri: Terri's medical records show multiple broken bones. When she collapsed in 1990 he failed to perform CPR. He has had her medical records sealed -- even from Terri's parents. Seven months after receiving $1.3-million for Terri's medical care, Michael prohibited antibiotics for infection which could have killed Terri (1993 & 1995). Despite medical records and witness reports that Terri is responsive, Michael has not allowed therapy since receiving the cash. He has prevented swallowing tests, despite medical testimony that Terri can be taught to eat. Ordered caretakers not to clean Terri's teeth (five teeth removed in 2004). Since 2000, refuses to allow Terri to leave her room. Refuses to fix her wheelchair. Orders the window shades down at all times in Terri's room, denying natural sunlight. Removed family photos from Terri's room, denies flowers, won't allow her to hear music. Won't allow visitors unless approved by him. Denied visits by her parents for eight-months. Denies all requests for Terri to attend nursing home functions and refuses to allow therapeutic animals to visit, knowing she is an animal lover."
I can access articles and testimonies which refute each and every one of these assertions. Let me know how you come by your beliefs.
Sincerely,Joel Dyer
First, We Kill All of the Embryos...
I'll just highlight what I perceive to be the main idiocy here. And mention that I found the Republican "insult" to not be insulting at all. We live in an era of "you're not allowed to talk about what my grandfather went through if I don't agree with you politically and I'll call you a racist/bigot/sexist/philanderer/chauvinist/whatever, because your toes are touching the grass I call hallowed". Hence my reticence to possibly malign the idiots who live in cellophane houses and piss on those of us "unlucky" enough to have witnessed the Holocaust (not that I did, I'm 40). I can still reference Tonya Harding, can't I?
Friday, March 18, 2005 · Last updated 4:49 p.m. PT
Republican leader apologizes for Holocaust remarks during stem cell debate
By REBECCA COOK ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- State House Minority Leader Bruce Chandler apologized Friday for remarks other Republicans made earlier in the week comparing embryonic stem cell research to the Holocaust.
"The references made to the Holocaust were regarded by some, understandably, as insensitive and inappropriate," Chandler, R-Granger, said on the House floor.
However, one of the representatives who made such a comparison said he did not mean to disparage the mass murder of Jews in Hitler's Germany, and saw no reason to apologize personally.
Chandler said he'd spoken with Jewish community leaders about the stem cell debate. "I offer my apologies to them and to people who have committed their lives to using science to improve humanity."
Rep. Shay Schual-Berke, D-Normandy Park, who sponsored the bill endorsing embryonic stem cell research and who is Jewish, said she believed Chandler's apology was heartfelt, sincere and appropriate.
"We need to take this as an opportunity now to continue to educate and inform," Schual-Berke said.
"I don't know anyone who thinks the horrible events of the Holocaust were anything but an affront to humanity," she added. Comparing the murder of 6 million Jews to stem cell research, she said, "is just unthinkable."
Schual-Berke's bill passed by a vote of 59-36 in the House after an emotional, sometimes tearful debate late Tuesday night. A couple of Republican representatives - not Chandler - referred very obliquely to the Holocaust, but Rep. Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City, drew the most direct comparison.
"Life sciences, biotech research - it sounds warm, sounds progressive. The potential is there, we hope, we're betting on it," Anderson said Tuesday on the House floor. "But the cold look of history really does require sobriety. Sixty years ago in Nazi Germany, it was state policy in order to perfect humanity it would be required to destroy humanity. And the medical experiments at Auschwitz were carried out for that explicit purpose. We all say no, that's not us, that would never happen, that's not why we're doing this." [blogger's note: I actually like the tone of care given here. He states later that he voted in favor of the law, but asks for vigilance so that this research will not be abused. It is exactly what I argued for here in California while getting ready to vote for our own embryonic stem cell research law.]
Schual-Berke leapt to her feet and objected, and House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, quickly called for a break to let both sides cool off. They returned about 15 minutes later and passed the bill after more debate.
The embryonic stem cells in question come from human embryos created through in-vitro fertilization. The embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted. Researchers believe this research may someday lead to cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes.
Anderson did not apologize on Friday, and told reporters he saw no need to do so. He voted for the stem cell bill, and said he meant his comments as a warning that as Washington state encourages stem cell research with its possible applications of genetic engineering, it should not "drift down that road" that led to the Holocaust.
"This is not about any diminishment of that experience," Anderson said. "It's about actually honoring that experience as we move forward."
Comments such as Anderson's trivialize the Holocaust, said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. The Holocaust was a uniquely horrific event, he said, so any comparison inevitably cheapens the memory. [blogger's note: If it's so damned unique I think you should be glad to have people reference it in order to keep its memory alive. But it seems you want it all for yourselves. An anti-Semite might agree with you and tell you to keep Christ's death as well.]
"I understand people use it to get the shock effect," Foxman said. "Either they are totally ignorant about what the Holocaust was all about, or they're insensitive, or they're bigoted." [Blogger's note:No, we are not all any of the above. Quit claiming sole ownership to something that affected many more people than just you and yours. I understand the Holocaust, I know what happened and why. I am not insensitive. But i know a need when I see one to relate the horrors of that experience to what may now be going on or to help show the dangers of what could happen to something in the now if we don't take heed and guard against it.]
Foxman said he believes inappropriate references to the Holocaust are becoming more common as the event recedes into history and connections to actual Holocaust survivors and victims fade over time. [Blogger's note: Inappropriate references may be popping up more frequently. I don't know. I think i've seen racists and bigots misuse the Holocaust fairly evenly throughout my 40 years in terms of frequency. What I do know is inappropriate defense of the memory is popping up much more frequently. As if the farther certain segments of our society get from the actuality of the event, the more afraid they get of their children forgetting it. That may be so. I don't know. But it doesn't make a case for condemning others for using it as a learning or warning tool.]
Earlier this month the Anti-Defamation League criticized U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., for comparing a Senate GOP plan to block Democrats from filibustering to the tactics Hitler used in his rise to power. [Blogger's note: Again, why the bristling? Did Byrd bring up the Holocaust? Evidently not. He brought up certain fascist attempts to exert power at the expense of the people and the nation. The Anti-Defamation League does have a problem with Byrd rooted in history. Byrd has not always been the champion of civil rights. But he has, in recent years, stood up and apologized for it and promised to make up for it. Let it go and listen to what he is saying. He is comparing the current Republican party to the Nazis- an accusation I could make after 30 minutes on the Internet.]
Washington state Jewish leaders plan a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday to emphasize that the Holocaust shouldn't be used as a rhetorical device.
"We're going to try to use this as an educational opportunity," said Remy Trupin, lobbyist for the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. "You're talking about science, about a bill, and you're talking about the systematic extermination of the Jewish people and of other people. You have to be very careful with that history and honor that history."[You should also be careful about appropriating history for yourself and locking everyone else out. There are many instances throughout recorded and unrecorded history that are as horrific and worse. The only people I hear whining about theft of pain is the German Jew. That reads as callous, but it is not from where I sit. I will never forget what happened. I will always tell what I know to those who don't. But I hate it when anyone puts up fences around a memory and says "hands off".]
Friday, March 18, 2005 · Last updated 4:49 p.m. PT
Republican leader apologizes for Holocaust remarks during stem cell debate
By REBECCA COOK ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- State House Minority Leader Bruce Chandler apologized Friday for remarks other Republicans made earlier in the week comparing embryonic stem cell research to the Holocaust.
"The references made to the Holocaust were regarded by some, understandably, as insensitive and inappropriate," Chandler, R-Granger, said on the House floor.
However, one of the representatives who made such a comparison said he did not mean to disparage the mass murder of Jews in Hitler's Germany, and saw no reason to apologize personally.
Chandler said he'd spoken with Jewish community leaders about the stem cell debate. "I offer my apologies to them and to people who have committed their lives to using science to improve humanity."
Rep. Shay Schual-Berke, D-Normandy Park, who sponsored the bill endorsing embryonic stem cell research and who is Jewish, said she believed Chandler's apology was heartfelt, sincere and appropriate.
"We need to take this as an opportunity now to continue to educate and inform," Schual-Berke said.
"I don't know anyone who thinks the horrible events of the Holocaust were anything but an affront to humanity," she added. Comparing the murder of 6 million Jews to stem cell research, she said, "is just unthinkable."
Schual-Berke's bill passed by a vote of 59-36 in the House after an emotional, sometimes tearful debate late Tuesday night. A couple of Republican representatives - not Chandler - referred very obliquely to the Holocaust, but Rep. Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City, drew the most direct comparison.
"Life sciences, biotech research - it sounds warm, sounds progressive. The potential is there, we hope, we're betting on it," Anderson said Tuesday on the House floor. "But the cold look of history really does require sobriety. Sixty years ago in Nazi Germany, it was state policy in order to perfect humanity it would be required to destroy humanity. And the medical experiments at Auschwitz were carried out for that explicit purpose. We all say no, that's not us, that would never happen, that's not why we're doing this." [blogger's note: I actually like the tone of care given here. He states later that he voted in favor of the law, but asks for vigilance so that this research will not be abused. It is exactly what I argued for here in California while getting ready to vote for our own embryonic stem cell research law.]
Schual-Berke leapt to her feet and objected, and House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, quickly called for a break to let both sides cool off. They returned about 15 minutes later and passed the bill after more debate.
The embryonic stem cells in question come from human embryos created through in-vitro fertilization. The embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted. Researchers believe this research may someday lead to cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes.
Anderson did not apologize on Friday, and told reporters he saw no need to do so. He voted for the stem cell bill, and said he meant his comments as a warning that as Washington state encourages stem cell research with its possible applications of genetic engineering, it should not "drift down that road" that led to the Holocaust.
"This is not about any diminishment of that experience," Anderson said. "It's about actually honoring that experience as we move forward."
Comments such as Anderson's trivialize the Holocaust, said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. The Holocaust was a uniquely horrific event, he said, so any comparison inevitably cheapens the memory. [blogger's note: If it's so damned unique I think you should be glad to have people reference it in order to keep its memory alive. But it seems you want it all for yourselves. An anti-Semite might agree with you and tell you to keep Christ's death as well.]
"I understand people use it to get the shock effect," Foxman said. "Either they are totally ignorant about what the Holocaust was all about, or they're insensitive, or they're bigoted." [Blogger's note:No, we are not all any of the above. Quit claiming sole ownership to something that affected many more people than just you and yours. I understand the Holocaust, I know what happened and why. I am not insensitive. But i know a need when I see one to relate the horrors of that experience to what may now be going on or to help show the dangers of what could happen to something in the now if we don't take heed and guard against it.]
Foxman said he believes inappropriate references to the Holocaust are becoming more common as the event recedes into history and connections to actual Holocaust survivors and victims fade over time. [Blogger's note: Inappropriate references may be popping up more frequently. I don't know. I think i've seen racists and bigots misuse the Holocaust fairly evenly throughout my 40 years in terms of frequency. What I do know is inappropriate defense of the memory is popping up much more frequently. As if the farther certain segments of our society get from the actuality of the event, the more afraid they get of their children forgetting it. That may be so. I don't know. But it doesn't make a case for condemning others for using it as a learning or warning tool.]
Earlier this month the Anti-Defamation League criticized U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., for comparing a Senate GOP plan to block Democrats from filibustering to the tactics Hitler used in his rise to power. [Blogger's note: Again, why the bristling? Did Byrd bring up the Holocaust? Evidently not. He brought up certain fascist attempts to exert power at the expense of the people and the nation. The Anti-Defamation League does have a problem with Byrd rooted in history. Byrd has not always been the champion of civil rights. But he has, in recent years, stood up and apologized for it and promised to make up for it. Let it go and listen to what he is saying. He is comparing the current Republican party to the Nazis- an accusation I could make after 30 minutes on the Internet.]
Washington state Jewish leaders plan a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday to emphasize that the Holocaust shouldn't be used as a rhetorical device.
"We're going to try to use this as an educational opportunity," said Remy Trupin, lobbyist for the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. "You're talking about science, about a bill, and you're talking about the systematic extermination of the Jewish people and of other people. You have to be very careful with that history and honor that history."[You should also be careful about appropriating history for yourself and locking everyone else out. There are many instances throughout recorded and unrecorded history that are as horrific and worse. The only people I hear whining about theft of pain is the German Jew. That reads as callous, but it is not from where I sit. I will never forget what happened. I will always tell what I know to those who don't. But I hate it when anyone puts up fences around a memory and says "hands off".]
Works-based Salvation? Huh? As in "do as I would do"?
I gotta stop drinking and surfing. The waves are getting choppy indeed. By the way, this article speaks for itself. As for me, I'm still trying to figure out how Donald Rumsfeld can say that "old Europe" denigrates no one over there (another article).
Mar 19, 2005 : 8:38 am ET
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A church has withdrawn its support for a food pantry serving the needy because the pantry works with Roman Catholics.
Central Church of God explained its decision in a letter March 1 from minister of evangelism Shannon Burton to Loaves & Fishes in Charlotte.
"As a Christian church, we feel it is our responsibility to follow closely the (principles) and commands of Scripture," the letter said.
"To do this best, we feel we should abstain from any ministry that partners with or promotes Catholicism, or for that matter, any other denomination promoting a works-based salvation."
Loaves & Fishes isn't the only ministry with which the large church has cut ties, and Catholics have not been the only reason they've given.
The Rev. Tony Marciano, executive director of Charlotte Rescue Mission, said Burton told him the church could no longer support the agency after it allowed three Muslim students from UNC Charlotte to help serve a meal.
Doug Hartjes, director of development for Crisis Assistance Ministry in Charlotte, said Central Church of God told them it will not provide financial support this year. Crisis Assistance provides emergency financial aid and other help to people.
Hartjes said 200 congregations representing Christian, Jewish and other faiths donate money and volunteer time, as do people with no religious affiliation.
The church also ended funding for Love Inc., which provides services for the poor, elderly and disabled in Mecklenburg County.
Anna Burton, a spokesperson for Central Church of God and the minister's wife, said church leaders decline comment, letting the letter speak for itself. She said there was no animosity toward any of the organizations.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte released a statement Friday, saying, "This apparent attempt to divide the faith community is most unfortunate."
With some 6,000 members, Central Church of God is known for its huge crowds and electrifying sermons by the Rev. Loran Livingston.
Mar 19, 2005 : 8:38 am ET
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A church has withdrawn its support for a food pantry serving the needy because the pantry works with Roman Catholics.
Central Church of God explained its decision in a letter March 1 from minister of evangelism Shannon Burton to Loaves & Fishes in Charlotte.
"As a Christian church, we feel it is our responsibility to follow closely the (principles) and commands of Scripture," the letter said.
"To do this best, we feel we should abstain from any ministry that partners with or promotes Catholicism, or for that matter, any other denomination promoting a works-based salvation."
Loaves & Fishes isn't the only ministry with which the large church has cut ties, and Catholics have not been the only reason they've given.
The Rev. Tony Marciano, executive director of Charlotte Rescue Mission, said Burton told him the church could no longer support the agency after it allowed three Muslim students from UNC Charlotte to help serve a meal.
Doug Hartjes, director of development for Crisis Assistance Ministry in Charlotte, said Central Church of God told them it will not provide financial support this year. Crisis Assistance provides emergency financial aid and other help to people.
Hartjes said 200 congregations representing Christian, Jewish and other faiths donate money and volunteer time, as do people with no religious affiliation.
The church also ended funding for Love Inc., which provides services for the poor, elderly and disabled in Mecklenburg County.
Anna Burton, a spokesperson for Central Church of God and the minister's wife, said church leaders decline comment, letting the letter speak for itself. She said there was no animosity toward any of the organizations.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte released a statement Friday, saying, "This apparent attempt to divide the faith community is most unfortunate."
With some 6,000 members, Central Church of God is known for its huge crowds and electrifying sermons by the Rev. Loran Livingston.
Ahem...I did announce in my very first post that I wouldn't write unless I was imbibing. Today, I broke that promise. I would like to apologize to all none of you reading this and make up for it right now. The following article is enough to make me drink (if i wasn't already):
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=595860
---"Bush mentioned Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the past, but not the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons — a key U.S. prewar justification for military action — that were not found after the invasion.
"On this day two years ago, we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to disarm a brutal regime, free its people, and defend the world from a grave danger," Bush said.
"We knew of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew of his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction, and we know that September the 11th requires our country to think differently," he said.
"We must, and we will, confront threats to America before they fully materialize," Bush said. "Now, because we acted, Iraq's government is no longer a threat to the world or its own people."---
...Yeah. What he forgot to mention was that he and his boys had a plan in place before 9/11 to take out Saddam and were actively working on putting it into action. He forget to mention his very callous comment about "winning the Trifecta" after 9/11, because the event allowed him to declare war without Congress's approval, circumnavigate our civil liberties and take ownership of all monies not being used for a military build-up.
And when did Saddam retake his role as uber-boogeyman? He had been proven to be a toothless tiger (except to his political opponents inside Iraq). He beat up and had killed large numbers of his fellow countrymen (we do the same thing, but more slowly with the aid of regressive and repressive laws that make the bleeding barely noticeable). BUT Saddam had NO weapons of mass destruction, he was not involved with al-quaeda, he was not successfully pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Remember the "yellow cake" incident? The so-called evidence was forged (think Bush's national Guard papers that got Dan Rather screwed). Remember the drone planes that we were told were capable of loosing a nuclear weapon on our soil within 45 minutes? They couldn't fly more than 500 miles and weren't capable of carrying the kind of weight required for a nuclear missile. Remember the guy who exposed the "yellow cake" fiasco? His wife's undercover CIA status was leaked to the Press by our government as retaliation (but I digress).
Remember how the majority of Americans in the aftermath of 9/11 were convinced that Saddam was 100% responsible for it? Guess what: they still do. Why? Because Bush and group won't give up on it. They have given out "proof" that they say is definitive. Every time their "proof" is struck down as false. Remember when Colin Powell went before the UN and argued that Iraq could kill us all? Remember when Condoleeza Rice talked of the "mushroom cloud" as did Rumsfeld, Bush and Ashcroft? Remember when the UN agency in charge of maintaining monitors on Iraq and its weapons manufacturing said just before our invasion that the sanctions were working? And, then, they were told to get out by us? Remember how our government spun that to suggest that it was Saddam's fault that the UN workers were almost put in harm's way? Saddam had caved in to us and the UN a month before we invaded. But we didn't care, because we wanted a war. We needed to kill in order to revenge the 9/11 victims and our government needed a war, because Bush's poll numbers were in the tank (remember when he said he never read poll numbers? Remember when he said he disdained them? Remember when he called the tens of millions protesting the invasion across the world as a "focus group" not to be taken seriously?).
Remember when? Do you?
Do you, also, remember Tom DeLay's legal problems? Do you remember that he has had his hand slapped three times within the last year or so for improprieties? Do you remember his involvement with the Texas redistricting scam? As a Congressional head? Getting involved with state politics?
Do you remember the Enron scandal and Vice President Cheney's refusal to disclose which energy companys' hatchetmen were at the meetings he held? And that he said disclosure would somehow compromise national security? Do you remember the California energy crisis and the emails found that suggested it was a set-up by the energy companies to create a fake crisis and, thereby, drive their profits to obscene heights? Remember "let grandma burn"?
Do you remember how we crucified Bill Clinton for getting his knob polished while on the clock? Do you? Because, if you do, you seem to have developed a late sense of amnesia or forgiveness for these types of transgressions.
Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Thompson, et al have proven themselves to be the biggest group of liars in the history of our country. Some say since the Nixon administration. I say, no. Nixon got caught and his fellow liars rolled on him for much less. This ain't gonna happen this time. We have become too pacific in nature, We have become so jaded that we just accept they are liars and shrug our shoulders. We ask what we as individuals can do. And it's pathetic. We used to believe our vote counted. We used to believe in standing up to the powers-that-be and make them account for their deeds. We used to...
Now, we accept "fair and balanced" to be the unvarnished truth. We accept that Janet Jackson's tittie (what we saw of it after repeated internet searches. don't shake your head, most of us went looking, because we missed it on the live feed) as the ultimate arbiter of communications decency. Never mind that we let a guy smack his wife around on "Amazing Journey". Don't worry about the dog-eat-dog ethics of "Survivor". Let's focus on a breast, a Super Bowl commercial, and the fact that "Saving Private Ryan" wasn't be aired by a host of network television stations, because it includes "indecent" language that is used in context in the movie and is used hourly by teenagers in front of their own parents. Let's focus on the rights we have lost, the inability we've been told we have to come to our own conclusions regarding what is acceptable and what isn't.
Aw, the hell with it. let's focus on the next war game coming to us on the XBox, because it's not really about killing. It's about hand/eye coordination. Right?
Remember when Pong was destroying the next generation? Neither do I.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=595860
---"Bush mentioned Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the past, but not the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons — a key U.S. prewar justification for military action — that were not found after the invasion.
"On this day two years ago, we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to disarm a brutal regime, free its people, and defend the world from a grave danger," Bush said.
"We knew of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew of his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction, and we know that September the 11th requires our country to think differently," he said.
"We must, and we will, confront threats to America before they fully materialize," Bush said. "Now, because we acted, Iraq's government is no longer a threat to the world or its own people."---
...Yeah. What he forgot to mention was that he and his boys had a plan in place before 9/11 to take out Saddam and were actively working on putting it into action. He forget to mention his very callous comment about "winning the Trifecta" after 9/11, because the event allowed him to declare war without Congress's approval, circumnavigate our civil liberties and take ownership of all monies not being used for a military build-up.
And when did Saddam retake his role as uber-boogeyman? He had been proven to be a toothless tiger (except to his political opponents inside Iraq). He beat up and had killed large numbers of his fellow countrymen (we do the same thing, but more slowly with the aid of regressive and repressive laws that make the bleeding barely noticeable). BUT Saddam had NO weapons of mass destruction, he was not involved with al-quaeda, he was not successfully pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Remember the "yellow cake" incident? The so-called evidence was forged (think Bush's national Guard papers that got Dan Rather screwed). Remember the drone planes that we were told were capable of loosing a nuclear weapon on our soil within 45 minutes? They couldn't fly more than 500 miles and weren't capable of carrying the kind of weight required for a nuclear missile. Remember the guy who exposed the "yellow cake" fiasco? His wife's undercover CIA status was leaked to the Press by our government as retaliation (but I digress).
Remember how the majority of Americans in the aftermath of 9/11 were convinced that Saddam was 100% responsible for it? Guess what: they still do. Why? Because Bush and group won't give up on it. They have given out "proof" that they say is definitive. Every time their "proof" is struck down as false. Remember when Colin Powell went before the UN and argued that Iraq could kill us all? Remember when Condoleeza Rice talked of the "mushroom cloud" as did Rumsfeld, Bush and Ashcroft? Remember when the UN agency in charge of maintaining monitors on Iraq and its weapons manufacturing said just before our invasion that the sanctions were working? And, then, they were told to get out by us? Remember how our government spun that to suggest that it was Saddam's fault that the UN workers were almost put in harm's way? Saddam had caved in to us and the UN a month before we invaded. But we didn't care, because we wanted a war. We needed to kill in order to revenge the 9/11 victims and our government needed a war, because Bush's poll numbers were in the tank (remember when he said he never read poll numbers? Remember when he said he disdained them? Remember when he called the tens of millions protesting the invasion across the world as a "focus group" not to be taken seriously?).
Remember when? Do you?
Do you, also, remember Tom DeLay's legal problems? Do you remember that he has had his hand slapped three times within the last year or so for improprieties? Do you remember his involvement with the Texas redistricting scam? As a Congressional head? Getting involved with state politics?
Do you remember the Enron scandal and Vice President Cheney's refusal to disclose which energy companys' hatchetmen were at the meetings he held? And that he said disclosure would somehow compromise national security? Do you remember the California energy crisis and the emails found that suggested it was a set-up by the energy companies to create a fake crisis and, thereby, drive their profits to obscene heights? Remember "let grandma burn"?
Do you remember how we crucified Bill Clinton for getting his knob polished while on the clock? Do you? Because, if you do, you seem to have developed a late sense of amnesia or forgiveness for these types of transgressions.
Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Thompson, et al have proven themselves to be the biggest group of liars in the history of our country. Some say since the Nixon administration. I say, no. Nixon got caught and his fellow liars rolled on him for much less. This ain't gonna happen this time. We have become too pacific in nature, We have become so jaded that we just accept they are liars and shrug our shoulders. We ask what we as individuals can do. And it's pathetic. We used to believe our vote counted. We used to believe in standing up to the powers-that-be and make them account for their deeds. We used to...
Now, we accept "fair and balanced" to be the unvarnished truth. We accept that Janet Jackson's tittie (what we saw of it after repeated internet searches. don't shake your head, most of us went looking, because we missed it on the live feed) as the ultimate arbiter of communications decency. Never mind that we let a guy smack his wife around on "Amazing Journey". Don't worry about the dog-eat-dog ethics of "Survivor". Let's focus on a breast, a Super Bowl commercial, and the fact that "Saving Private Ryan" wasn't be aired by a host of network television stations, because it includes "indecent" language that is used in context in the movie and is used hourly by teenagers in front of their own parents. Let's focus on the rights we have lost, the inability we've been told we have to come to our own conclusions regarding what is acceptable and what isn't.
Aw, the hell with it. let's focus on the next war game coming to us on the XBox, because it's not really about killing. It's about hand/eye coordination. Right?
Remember when Pong was destroying the next generation? Neither do I.
Compassion(?) Redux
As a postscript to the previous post, here is an article discussing Congress's heartwrenching and oh-so-compassionate attempt to win votes for the 2006 elections. Hey, vote for me. I wasted untold amounts of taxpayers' money to keep a person who is considered unsaveable breathing:
http://www.courant.com/hc-schiavo0320.artmar20,0,7981398.story
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., stepped into a nearly empty chamber at 6:15 p.m. Saturday and said Congress "has been working nonstop over the last three days to do its part to uphold human dignity and affirm a culture of life."Frist said he is committed "to see this legislation pass and give Terri Schiavo one last chance at life.""
"Republican officials declared, in a memo that was supposed to be seen only by senators, that they believe their attention to the issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006."
These two quotes from the article particularly fill me with anxiety. Bill Frist wants to give Terri Schiavo a last chance at life? What the hell does that mean? How exactly does Frist define "life"? Breathing? Involuntary muscle spasms? Or is he perhaps cleverly disguising another meaning? Maybe he wants to give Terri one last chance at furthering his political life. I mean, really. This is the same politician who is in favor of .50 caliber guns being sold on the open market; a weapon that can kill at one mile, a weapon too heavy for most to hold thereby requiring a bi-pod.
Then there's the memo. Memo, memo, memo. It's this piece of paper that puts the reality of this whole mess in its proper light. "Pay dividends with Christian conservatives". Tom DeLay (whose last name is quite appropos in light of what he's trying to do with his career problems) has denied all knowledge and denounced it as disgusting. No one is coming forward to take credit for it. But everyone on Capitol Hill would agree that its truth is unassailable. And if I'm a Democrat, I'm jumping all over it as a way to encroach on the Republicans' turf come 2006.
And, in all of this, a White, Floridian woman continues to deteriorate with or without her feeding tube.
http://www.courant.com/hc-schiavo0320.artmar20,0,7981398.story
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., stepped into a nearly empty chamber at 6:15 p.m. Saturday and said Congress "has been working nonstop over the last three days to do its part to uphold human dignity and affirm a culture of life."Frist said he is committed "to see this legislation pass and give Terri Schiavo one last chance at life.""
"Republican officials declared, in a memo that was supposed to be seen only by senators, that they believe their attention to the issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006."
These two quotes from the article particularly fill me with anxiety. Bill Frist wants to give Terri Schiavo a last chance at life? What the hell does that mean? How exactly does Frist define "life"? Breathing? Involuntary muscle spasms? Or is he perhaps cleverly disguising another meaning? Maybe he wants to give Terri one last chance at furthering his political life. I mean, really. This is the same politician who is in favor of .50 caliber guns being sold on the open market; a weapon that can kill at one mile, a weapon too heavy for most to hold thereby requiring a bi-pod.
Then there's the memo. Memo, memo, memo. It's this piece of paper that puts the reality of this whole mess in its proper light. "Pay dividends with Christian conservatives". Tom DeLay (whose last name is quite appropos in light of what he's trying to do with his career problems) has denied all knowledge and denounced it as disgusting. No one is coming forward to take credit for it. But everyone on Capitol Hill would agree that its truth is unassailable. And if I'm a Democrat, I'm jumping all over it as a way to encroach on the Republicans' turf come 2006.
And, in all of this, a White, Floridian woman continues to deteriorate with or without her feeding tube.
When Is Enough Too Much?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7952284
As I write, Congress is supposedly in session (on a Sunday, no less) to pass a bill that would take the Terry Schiavo case out of the hands of the state of Florida and into those of the Federales. This is being supported by President Bush and it was instigated by politicians who are in fear of being seen as anything less than in favor of Life at any cost. Are you surprised? I'm not. In our climate of politics through fear, ignorance and repression we have arrived at a milepost: both Parties are willing to shed their priciples for any chance to curry favor with those special interests who can give or take away votes.
Also, has Bush rescinded his support for a Texas law that he signed into being while Governor of that state, which allowed for removal of feeding tubes by hospital staff against the wishes of the patient's family? I can find no evidence that he has. I can find no evidence, either, that a member of the Press has bothered to ask him about this. Perhaps, it's a different situation morally when the family in Texas can't pay for the continuation of a person's life, because that's what that law is, in part, based on. If you're poor and your medical coverage runs out and the hospital says the patient is never going to get better, then it's time to yank life suport. The only difference between a Texas vegetable and a Florida vegetable seems to be the money factor. And, maybe, the fact that Florida voted for Bush and is governed by his brother. Maybe.
Ans why is this such a big story? Why has our nation become caught in its grip? It's a case of a single human whose cerebral cortex has literally turned to liquid and whose doctors (including court-appointed ones) have steadfastly maintained that recovery is not going to happen. In effect, the decision to let her die should be a no-brainer (yes, i wrote that one on purpose).
But here we are, transfixed as a nation, on what's going to happen. Here we are, while two wars rage on that we have no exit strategy for; while the government continues to repress any scientific information that does not gibe with its fantastical view of the world as brought to them by Ronco
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1358
and which can affect the health and lives of thousands, even millions; while the government continues to nominate radical activists to judgeships, World Bank seats, UN and Iraq ambassadorships, etc.
By the way, does anyone know the score of the Clinton v. Bush nomination defeats? Under Bush, the Dems have defeated ten nominees. Under Clinton, the Reps defeated them in the hundreds. And, yet, the Reps are screaming about ending filibusters and using the "nuclear option" if the Dems won't stop being so damned partisan. And, instead of finding new nominees to replace the ones the Dems rejected, Bush is recycling them. He's bringing almost all of them back for a second try now that he feels he has the votes to get them by Congress.
And the Dems? Well, a few of them are crying "foul" about this and the many other infractions commited by the Reps and Bush, but most of them are too busy voting for protection of the credit card companies and the medical establishment (both of which make it almost impossible for a normal, working-class citizen to exact justice and claim protection from these huge corporate special interest groups).
But back to Terry. Because that's what we really want to know about. Right? Screw the Iraqis and soldiers dying in Iraq. Screw the Afghani women we were sworn to protect and give new rights to (which we no longer are now that attention is elsewhere). Screw the Asian victims of the recent tsunami (our government, so far, has given less than 5% of what it promised for emergency aid. It seems to have stopped right about the time that the Indonesian government informed ours that it would not allow our military to use its airspace for Air Force "flight training" missions). Screw global warming. And (absolutely) give it up the poop shute to anyone who might argue that we are a less-than-all-compassionate culture. We're proving it by spending millions of dollars on one individual to answer that age-old moral question: when is a vegetable not a vegetable? In our current climate, most likely the answer would be: when it's a fruit.
As I write, Congress is supposedly in session (on a Sunday, no less) to pass a bill that would take the Terry Schiavo case out of the hands of the state of Florida and into those of the Federales. This is being supported by President Bush and it was instigated by politicians who are in fear of being seen as anything less than in favor of Life at any cost. Are you surprised? I'm not. In our climate of politics through fear, ignorance and repression we have arrived at a milepost: both Parties are willing to shed their priciples for any chance to curry favor with those special interests who can give or take away votes.
Also, has Bush rescinded his support for a Texas law that he signed into being while Governor of that state, which allowed for removal of feeding tubes by hospital staff against the wishes of the patient's family? I can find no evidence that he has. I can find no evidence, either, that a member of the Press has bothered to ask him about this. Perhaps, it's a different situation morally when the family in Texas can't pay for the continuation of a person's life, because that's what that law is, in part, based on. If you're poor and your medical coverage runs out and the hospital says the patient is never going to get better, then it's time to yank life suport. The only difference between a Texas vegetable and a Florida vegetable seems to be the money factor. And, maybe, the fact that Florida voted for Bush and is governed by his brother. Maybe.
Ans why is this such a big story? Why has our nation become caught in its grip? It's a case of a single human whose cerebral cortex has literally turned to liquid and whose doctors (including court-appointed ones) have steadfastly maintained that recovery is not going to happen. In effect, the decision to let her die should be a no-brainer (yes, i wrote that one on purpose).
But here we are, transfixed as a nation, on what's going to happen. Here we are, while two wars rage on that we have no exit strategy for; while the government continues to repress any scientific information that does not gibe with its fantastical view of the world as brought to them by Ronco
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1358
and which can affect the health and lives of thousands, even millions; while the government continues to nominate radical activists to judgeships, World Bank seats, UN and Iraq ambassadorships, etc.
By the way, does anyone know the score of the Clinton v. Bush nomination defeats? Under Bush, the Dems have defeated ten nominees. Under Clinton, the Reps defeated them in the hundreds. And, yet, the Reps are screaming about ending filibusters and using the "nuclear option" if the Dems won't stop being so damned partisan. And, instead of finding new nominees to replace the ones the Dems rejected, Bush is recycling them. He's bringing almost all of them back for a second try now that he feels he has the votes to get them by Congress.
And the Dems? Well, a few of them are crying "foul" about this and the many other infractions commited by the Reps and Bush, but most of them are too busy voting for protection of the credit card companies and the medical establishment (both of which make it almost impossible for a normal, working-class citizen to exact justice and claim protection from these huge corporate special interest groups).
But back to Terry. Because that's what we really want to know about. Right? Screw the Iraqis and soldiers dying in Iraq. Screw the Afghani women we were sworn to protect and give new rights to (which we no longer are now that attention is elsewhere). Screw the Asian victims of the recent tsunami (our government, so far, has given less than 5% of what it promised for emergency aid. It seems to have stopped right about the time that the Indonesian government informed ours that it would not allow our military to use its airspace for Air Force "flight training" missions). Screw global warming. And (absolutely) give it up the poop shute to anyone who might argue that we are a less-than-all-compassionate culture. We're proving it by spending millions of dollars on one individual to answer that age-old moral question: when is a vegetable not a vegetable? In our current climate, most likely the answer would be: when it's a fruit.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
A FAN LETTER
Only because my friend Erik egged me on will I reprint this from his blog to mine. I wrote it to Pat Robertson's university:
I'd like to thank you for taking in John Ashcroft as a teacher. Ibelieve it shows your commitment to support the economy and keeppeople away from the unemployment lines. While Mr. Ashcroft may haveshown himself to be a liar, a hypocrite, a perjurer and a politicalopportunist (who would stop at nothing to further the agenda of anyonewho outranked him, thereby making him a toady as well), it is withglee that I regard your hiring of him. Better the enemy I know at apre-fab "university" in plain sight then then the enemy I know somewhereout in the ether where I can't see him. So, thank you for putting himback in the bulls-eye of the media. Now, I can continue to hear of hisstrident, anti-American remarks about how we Liberals are ruining thecountry and making it a Godless place for you Chosen People who knowoh-so-much more than we about how God wants this country to be run.Thank you and God Bless You as your bosses make a mockery of a dilemmathat most likely started out as a simple question: what gives you theright to call someone like me a transgressor merely because I think orbelieve differently than you?
I'd like to thank you for taking in John Ashcroft as a teacher. Ibelieve it shows your commitment to support the economy and keeppeople away from the unemployment lines. While Mr. Ashcroft may haveshown himself to be a liar, a hypocrite, a perjurer and a politicalopportunist (who would stop at nothing to further the agenda of anyonewho outranked him, thereby making him a toady as well), it is withglee that I regard your hiring of him. Better the enemy I know at apre-fab "university" in plain sight then then the enemy I know somewhereout in the ether where I can't see him. So, thank you for putting himback in the bulls-eye of the media. Now, I can continue to hear of hisstrident, anti-American remarks about how we Liberals are ruining thecountry and making it a Godless place for you Chosen People who knowoh-so-much more than we about how God wants this country to be run.Thank you and God Bless You as your bosses make a mockery of a dilemmathat most likely started out as a simple question: what gives you theright to call someone like me a transgressor merely because I think orbelieve differently than you?
Friday, March 18, 2005
WILL HEDLEY HOLD???
found this just now. it checks in on gannon/guckert/gurniquet. doonesbury takes it on as a comment on fake news. a good one. because this story really is about the administration creating news (which is propaganda and illegal).
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000846355
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000846355
The following newspaper quote
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050318/D88TKSC00.html
which includes:
"Reassuring his audience at Pensacola Junior College that he wasn't proposing to dismantle the system, Bush said younger workers will continue to get Social Security checks when they retire.
"I just can't guarantee how big it's going be," he said. "There's not enough money to pay the promises - I'll just tell you that.
(AP) President Bush walks from the residence, Friday, March 18, 2005, as he departs the White House for...Full Image"We're not going to be able to keep the promises unless we're willing to have extraordinarily high taxes on the people coming up, or significant benefit cuts.""
Begs the question: when did the President assume full responsibility for Social Security"s future? He has blamed its future failure on Democrats, Socialists, Tax Hikers (read that quote above again) and I can't remember who else. Read the quote. Without "extraordinarily high taxes" or "significant benefit cuts", but the opposite is exactly what he's done. He gave a tax break that benefited the upper 5% earners of our nation over everyone else (and it wasn't based on dollar numbers, but the ratio of dollars in terms of annual income. In other words, if you made $1 million you got back 50-70% more back per dollar than I did grossing $35,000. being adult and single, i can't withhold anything other than the skin on my back. I don't complain about that.
What I complain about tonight is the fact that the more I earn, the more this government smiles on me. If I earn over $200,000 I am looked upon as an asset to the party and I am rewarded when I give. If I earn less than that, then I am looked on merely as an asset to the economy. It doesn't matter if I support the cause or I give to Charity or if I donate my time to a worthy community cause. Many of these that I might do I find I can't legally do and get a tax cut, because the receipt isn't honored or the group is suspect. I am an asset to the Economy, only because no matter how poor I might be I will still have to purchase goods consistently. And the $200,000-ers like that. They own the businesses that I spend money in. They count on me to make them a profit. I am taxed more for not being wealthy and they rely on me to balloon their bank accounts.
Back to When Did Bush Assume Full Responsibility For Social Security's Future?:
First, Bush wanted to dismantle it completely. He said private accounts were the way to go. He said SS would be defunct by 2010. Then, it became 2020. Then, he was faced with 2052 by SS's estimation. Then, it was put at 2048. This last is the most accepted date. But this date will happen only if we don't find a way to put funds back into it. What you might not know is that this administration has borrowed so heavily from it in order to finance the Iraq War that there is no way they could pay it back in the next 15 years if we went through a bull market and the Dow climbed to 50,000. Of course, this administration wants us to believe that the only way to save SS is to de-exist it. If I owe you a new girlfriend, because I stole your last one...well, I might still be there next Tuesday to tip a brew like we might have used to, but only if you can prove we used to.
Back to cutting benefits significantly, wouldn't it be more significant if all politicians above the state level were to tell all of us that they are wealthy enough that they don't need medical benefits at the taxpayer's cost? or that they can give up retirement and Social Securities benefits, because they are so set for life? If one congressman were to come forward and tell me that he or she is disengaging from the public benefits process, but still willing to pay into it as a proper American, I would most likely vote for him or her. I mean, what happened to "the meek shall inherit the earth" or "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? Did "the buck stops here" have a literal meaning as it sat on Truman's desk so many decades ago? Do we give and give and not receive? Is there life after Sponge Bob's outing?
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050318/D88TKSC00.html
which includes:
"Reassuring his audience at Pensacola Junior College that he wasn't proposing to dismantle the system, Bush said younger workers will continue to get Social Security checks when they retire.
"I just can't guarantee how big it's going be," he said. "There's not enough money to pay the promises - I'll just tell you that.
(AP) President Bush walks from the residence, Friday, March 18, 2005, as he departs the White House for...Full Image"We're not going to be able to keep the promises unless we're willing to have extraordinarily high taxes on the people coming up, or significant benefit cuts.""
Begs the question: when did the President assume full responsibility for Social Security"s future? He has blamed its future failure on Democrats, Socialists, Tax Hikers (read that quote above again) and I can't remember who else. Read the quote. Without "extraordinarily high taxes" or "significant benefit cuts", but the opposite is exactly what he's done. He gave a tax break that benefited the upper 5% earners of our nation over everyone else (and it wasn't based on dollar numbers, but the ratio of dollars in terms of annual income. In other words, if you made $1 million you got back 50-70% more back per dollar than I did grossing $35,000. being adult and single, i can't withhold anything other than the skin on my back. I don't complain about that.
What I complain about tonight is the fact that the more I earn, the more this government smiles on me. If I earn over $200,000 I am looked upon as an asset to the party and I am rewarded when I give. If I earn less than that, then I am looked on merely as an asset to the economy. It doesn't matter if I support the cause or I give to Charity or if I donate my time to a worthy community cause. Many of these that I might do I find I can't legally do and get a tax cut, because the receipt isn't honored or the group is suspect. I am an asset to the Economy, only because no matter how poor I might be I will still have to purchase goods consistently. And the $200,000-ers like that. They own the businesses that I spend money in. They count on me to make them a profit. I am taxed more for not being wealthy and they rely on me to balloon their bank accounts.
Back to When Did Bush Assume Full Responsibility For Social Security's Future?:
First, Bush wanted to dismantle it completely. He said private accounts were the way to go. He said SS would be defunct by 2010. Then, it became 2020. Then, he was faced with 2052 by SS's estimation. Then, it was put at 2048. This last is the most accepted date. But this date will happen only if we don't find a way to put funds back into it. What you might not know is that this administration has borrowed so heavily from it in order to finance the Iraq War that there is no way they could pay it back in the next 15 years if we went through a bull market and the Dow climbed to 50,000. Of course, this administration wants us to believe that the only way to save SS is to de-exist it. If I owe you a new girlfriend, because I stole your last one...well, I might still be there next Tuesday to tip a brew like we might have used to, but only if you can prove we used to.
Back to cutting benefits significantly, wouldn't it be more significant if all politicians above the state level were to tell all of us that they are wealthy enough that they don't need medical benefits at the taxpayer's cost? or that they can give up retirement and Social Securities benefits, because they are so set for life? If one congressman were to come forward and tell me that he or she is disengaging from the public benefits process, but still willing to pay into it as a proper American, I would most likely vote for him or her. I mean, what happened to "the meek shall inherit the earth" or "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? Did "the buck stops here" have a literal meaning as it sat on Truman's desk so many decades ago? Do we give and give and not receive? Is there life after Sponge Bob's outing?
Jim?Jeff Needs A Hug
As a first post, I must admit that I only do this while imbibing. I promise to never write while sober...because writing sober is like fucking alone: over too quick and no one to talk to but myself. by the way (not that I condone this type of behavior), Jeff/Jim's email address at his website is comments@jeffgannon.com. In case you wanted to send him a hug or something.
Below is my letter to him that I sent two days ago. I felt he needed solace and succor. Having viewed his other websites, I opted for sarcasm and rancor in case cyber-touching him might result in something contagious (sarcasm is the ultimate antidote to the disease called "holier-than-thou"). The letter follows:
"so, how does it really feel to slam the very sexuality you are tied to by nature? or were you just moonlighting on those websites and advertisements? and what exactly do you mean when you say that you are"on hiatus" from the white house press room? do you seriously think you would ever be invited back now that you have been shown to be a liar and a shill? hiatus means "on a break" or "vacation". you have been shunned, turned away, disassociated from, given the heave-ho. a better career move might be to challenge tonya harding to a wrestling match, although i'd be leery of betting my money on you. while you have a very creepy quality about you (i.e. you change your name, get by the secret service "somehow", toss sophmoric questions that make even the biased cringe in their argyles, then whine about the unfairness of your outing [in both senses of the word]), which should make even the stoutest of heart unwilling to touch you in fear of some loathsome legion attaching itself to their souls, ms. harding has enough similar qualities in terms of shameless self-promoting and ability to sell oneself's bedrock identity in return for an extra 15 minutes worth of fame to actually be able to grapple with you. think about it while you slip further into your chasm of self-demise."
I don't particularly wish Jeff/Jim ill-will. After all, we all might be willing to shuck our souls for a chance to bump ugly with an unnamed White House official and listen to his inebriated pillow talk. Not that I could prove this is why Jim/Jeff was allowed access to the President, but it makes me wonder how Jim/Jeff made it so far into the inner sanctum of a very paranoid administration. This is a presidency, mind you, shrouded in secrecy, shadows, mirrors and doublespeak. These people trust nothing and no one. They routinely undermine freedom of information, freedom of speech, access by the media. Yet, somehow, a male prostitute (who advertised as an escort on websites searching for gay military men or gay men with a military fetish) was granted a daily pass to the White House Press Room for over two years. He routinely lobbed biased questions at the Press Secretary, which favored the President. He, also, was within feet of the President on multiple occasions and allowed to ask the questions directly. This is a male prostitute using a fake name and posing as a reporter for an illegitimate news source.
The Secret Service says that, as far as they're concerned, he was as valid as any reporter (even though they knew he was using an assumed name while no one else was). The Press Secretary said he was unaware of Jim/Jeff's true identity until notified after the brouhaha hit the internet waves, then subsequently admitted he "may have known his name earlier". Karl Rove denied knowing about Jim/Jeff until recently when he admitted he may have been given a memo some time previous to jim/Jeff's outing that talked about Jim/Jeff's true identity. And neither of these gentlemen nor the Secret Service thought it odd that a "reporter" should want to hide his true name and/or nature.
Since then, Jim/Jeff has decried his outing, continued to revile the homosexual agenda and now publishes the "questions" he woulda asked if he weren't "on hiatus from the White House" on his own website.
If nothing else, it makes for amusing reading. And, no, I don't have his website address handy, but all you have to do is move you little finger, squeeze your little finger...to Google...and you can change the world.
'Nuff for now. Beer calling. NCAA tournament calling. Stanford's down by ten and I love it.
Below is my letter to him that I sent two days ago. I felt he needed solace and succor. Having viewed his other websites, I opted for sarcasm and rancor in case cyber-touching him might result in something contagious (sarcasm is the ultimate antidote to the disease called "holier-than-thou"). The letter follows:
"so, how does it really feel to slam the very sexuality you are tied to by nature? or were you just moonlighting on those websites and advertisements? and what exactly do you mean when you say that you are"on hiatus" from the white house press room? do you seriously think you would ever be invited back now that you have been shown to be a liar and a shill? hiatus means "on a break" or "vacation". you have been shunned, turned away, disassociated from, given the heave-ho. a better career move might be to challenge tonya harding to a wrestling match, although i'd be leery of betting my money on you. while you have a very creepy quality about you (i.e. you change your name, get by the secret service "somehow", toss sophmoric questions that make even the biased cringe in their argyles, then whine about the unfairness of your outing [in both senses of the word]), which should make even the stoutest of heart unwilling to touch you in fear of some loathsome legion attaching itself to their souls, ms. harding has enough similar qualities in terms of shameless self-promoting and ability to sell oneself's bedrock identity in return for an extra 15 minutes worth of fame to actually be able to grapple with you. think about it while you slip further into your chasm of self-demise."
I don't particularly wish Jeff/Jim ill-will. After all, we all might be willing to shuck our souls for a chance to bump ugly with an unnamed White House official and listen to his inebriated pillow talk. Not that I could prove this is why Jim/Jeff was allowed access to the President, but it makes me wonder how Jim/Jeff made it so far into the inner sanctum of a very paranoid administration. This is a presidency, mind you, shrouded in secrecy, shadows, mirrors and doublespeak. These people trust nothing and no one. They routinely undermine freedom of information, freedom of speech, access by the media. Yet, somehow, a male prostitute (who advertised as an escort on websites searching for gay military men or gay men with a military fetish) was granted a daily pass to the White House Press Room for over two years. He routinely lobbed biased questions at the Press Secretary, which favored the President. He, also, was within feet of the President on multiple occasions and allowed to ask the questions directly. This is a male prostitute using a fake name and posing as a reporter for an illegitimate news source.
The Secret Service says that, as far as they're concerned, he was as valid as any reporter (even though they knew he was using an assumed name while no one else was). The Press Secretary said he was unaware of Jim/Jeff's true identity until notified after the brouhaha hit the internet waves, then subsequently admitted he "may have known his name earlier". Karl Rove denied knowing about Jim/Jeff until recently when he admitted he may have been given a memo some time previous to jim/Jeff's outing that talked about Jim/Jeff's true identity. And neither of these gentlemen nor the Secret Service thought it odd that a "reporter" should want to hide his true name and/or nature.
Since then, Jim/Jeff has decried his outing, continued to revile the homosexual agenda and now publishes the "questions" he woulda asked if he weren't "on hiatus from the White House" on his own website.
If nothing else, it makes for amusing reading. And, no, I don't have his website address handy, but all you have to do is move you little finger, squeeze your little finger...to Google...and you can change the world.
'Nuff for now. Beer calling. NCAA tournament calling. Stanford's down by ten and I love it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
