http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2445.shtml
The end of America: The police state is right here, right now
By Carolyn Baker
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 21, 2007
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness. --Justice William O. Douglas
In April 2007, I was pleasantly surprised to find Naomi Wolf's article, "Fascist America, In 10 Easy Steps," posted in several places online. I have been a fan of Wolf for many years, greatly appreciating her works and especially her 1991 book, The Beauty Myth.
I had been looking for a list -- or more specifically, an encyclopedia of the losses of civil liberties in the United States that might clarify for my history students the extent to which America has become a fascist empire. Wolf's "10 Easy Steps" was perfect, but her just -- published book, The End of America: A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, from which the 10 easy steps was compiled, offers an even fuller picture -- a succinct and engaging explanation of how our civil liberties have been hijacked in the past decade. It is the most poignant, powerful, genuinely patriotic piece of literature I have encountered since Thomas Paine's Common Sense. No wonder then, that the book's cover greatly resembles that 46-page tract by Paine written in 1775 -- as well it should.
One of the most frightening realities of teaching college history is that most students rarely have a clue what fascism is. They know about Hitler and the extermination of Jews, but they see little connection with Nazi rule in the 1930s and 40s and the current political milieu in the United States. Overwhelmingly, they cannot define fascism, nor can they define socialism or democracy. After all, they were preoccupied during grammar school with becoming standardized human beings by way of taking standardized "No Child's Behind Left" tests, five hours a day, four days a week. So why would they know the definitions of fascism, socialism or democracy?
Refreshingly, Wolf is not shy about using the term fascism and lets the reader know why. "I have made a deliberate choice in using the terms fascist tactics and fascist shift when I describe some events in America now. I stand by my choice. I am not being heated or even rhetorical; I am being technical." (20) She explains that where Americans tend to see the various political "isms" as all-or-nothing, that perception is often inaccurate because of what she calls a "range of authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, and varieties of Fascist states . . . there are many shades of gray on the spectrum from an open to a closed society." (20)
Wolf also emphasizes that America flirted with fascism openly in the 1930s when numerous corporations and robber barons helped finance Hitler and when, as Edwin Black notes in IBM and the Holocaust, some American corporations assisted the Nazi regime in carrying out its "final solution" to the "Jewish problem." In fact, several of these corporate tycoons attempted to stage a coup d'etat to overthrow Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and restructure the American government under fascist control. A thorough investigation of American politics and society from the end of the Civil War until the present moment reveals, as I have carefully traced in my book U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You, that much of recent American history is replete with a preference on the part of corporations and the politicians they own for an economic and political system on the far right end of the spectrum. In fact, resistance to fascism in the United States has been an arduous and daunting struggle for those who have been able to understand and oppose the appeal that fascism has to the corporatocracy, and in fact, take seriously Mussolini's fundamental definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
As an historian who views American history as the complex unfolding of events that it is, I feel invigorated upon hearing someone like Wolf -- especially the Wolf of feminist Beauty Myth fame -- part company with the presentation of the Founders as "dead white men" inwardly tormented by various hypocrisies, such as the ownership of slaves and the subordination of women. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves and fathered six children by one of them, but what gets lost in that drama and other colorful stories of the Founders is that they were also thinking, speaking, and writing highly subversive thoughts. "You are not taught," says Wolf, that "these men and women were radicals for liberty; that they had a vision of equality that was a slap in the face of what the rest of their world understood to be the unchanging, God-given order of nations; and that they were wiling to die to make that desperate vision into a reality for people like us, whom they would never live to see." (27) I do not wish to romanticize the Founders and their generation living in a milieu replete with racism, misogyny, and classism, but neither will I throw their achievements out with the bathwater of political correctness, nor is Wolf willing to do so in her examination of them.
In the "10 easy steps" outlined by Wolf, countries move from open to closed and repressive societies by devolving past certain markers, and Wolf makes a powerful case for the way in which the United States is following a similar pattern without any significant deviation. In each instance she compares and contrasts how America's adherence to the pattern compares or contrasts with the pattern in pre-World War II Germany. The 10 steps are:
Invoking an external and internal threat
Establishing secret prisons
Developing a paramilitary force
Surveiling ordinary citizens
Infiltrating citizens' groups
Arbitrarily detaining and releasing citizens
Targeting key individuals
Restricting the press
Casting criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
Subverting the rule of law
As noted in the above quote from Justice Douglas, the fascist shift is a protracted process; it never happens overnight, and in U.S. History Uncensored, I offer an historical narrative describing exactly how we have arrived where we are -- at "the end of America". Some aspects of the process were generated before the U.S. Civil War, but our recent history is nothing less than the story of the acceleration of the fascist agenda and the death of the Republic.
Frequently, books come into our lives with momentous timing. Several weeks ago a friend of mine was traveling through a small town in upstate New York, looking for the location of a meeting he was scheduled to attend. Realizing that he was lost, he spotted a police officer in a marked car and waived to the officer to pull over. The officer pulled over, and my friend innocently got out of his car to walk back to the officer's car. Suddenly, the officer's voice came blasting across a loud speaker, "Get back in the car! Stop where you are! Get back in the car!" My friend returned to his vehicle and waited for the officer to approach his driver's side window. The officer, with a hand on his holstered firearm, angrily asked my friend what he wanted. When my friend asked him for directions, he replied with hostility that he didn't know the location of the place for which my friend was searching and once again repeated, "Never get out of your car when you're dealing with a police officer." So much for asking directions from a police officer these days.
On another occasion, two friends of mine returning from Canada were detained at the U.S./Canadian border, and while one of them had a U.S. passport, the other had forgotten to bring his. He produced a variety of identification but was taken aside, questioned, shouted at, and harassed in an extremely hostile manner as if he were an enemy of the state. Fortunately, after over-the-top intimidation from a couple of surly Customs officers, he was allowed to enter the U.S.
About three weeks ago I was returning from a routine visit to the dentist in Mexico and had a U.S. passport with me, even though none will be required for returning from Mexico until January 2008. I was told by a very aggressive female US Customs agent to pull over to the center where vehicles are detained. I was ordered in a very hostile manner to give her my driver's license and the keys to my vehicle and stay in my vehicle. When I asked what the problem was, I was told to be quiet and, again, to stay in my vehicle. Having taught in Mexico for three years, returning to the U.S. every day and rarely having to show any identification whatsoever, I found this procedure to be astonishingly rigid and unnecessary. I have made many trips to Mexico in recent months and have never had any problem when the automatic photos that are taken of every license plate crossing the border appeared on U.S. Customs' computer screens.
After what seemed like an eternity the female officer returned and told me that it appeared that I had had an expired vehicle registration four years ago which I had not taken care of and that I needed to do so at once. She gave me the name of the court where the offense was allegedly registered. The very next day I contacted the court and discovered that indeed I had been stopped four years ago for an expired registration for which I was given a warning. Every year since, I have purchased my annual registration well before the deadline, but the offense was never brought to my attention, and I even acquired a new driver's license last year through the motor vehicles division and was not informed of the offense. Not wanting any further hassle regarding the "heinous crime" of having an expired registration four years ago, I agreed to pay the small fine imposed by the court.
Some readers may assume that I was harassed because of who I am and my open delivery of alternative news and opinions on my website daily. I, on the other hand, do not believe that this was "all about me." Whether or not it was, it is blatantly obvious to me that the behavior of law enforcement in the United States has shifted dramatically in recent months. Whether or not I was targeted, which I sincerely doubt, this kind of treatment is becoming standard in law enforcement procedure throughout the United States.
And now fast-forward to Monday, September 17, at the University of Florida and the Tasering of a student questioning John Kerry regarding the 2004 elections and Kerry's membership in Skull and Bones -- an incident which has been viewed by millions on the Internet and on mainstream TV news broadcasts. Writing of this debacle, Wolf's article, "A Shocking Moment For Society," appeared on various Internet sites Wednesday morning, and in it she states:
There is a chapter in my new book, The End of America, entitled "Recast Criticism as ‘Espionage' and Dissent as ‘Treason,'" that conveys why this moment is the horrific harbinger it is. I argue that strategists using historical models to close down an open society start by using force on ‘undesirables,' ‘aliens,' ‘enemies of the state,' and those considered by mainstream civil society to be untouchable; in other times they were, of course, Jews, Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals. Then, once society has been acculturated to that use of force, the ‘blurring of the line' begins and the parameters of criminalized speech are extended -- the definition of ‘terrorist' expanded -- and the use of force begins to be deployed in HIGHLY VISIBLE, STRATEGIC and VISUALLY SHOCKING WAYS against people that others see and identify with as ordinary citizens. The first ‘torture cellars' used by the SA, in Germany between 1931 and 1933 -- even before the National Socialists gained control of the state, during the years when Germany was still a parliamentary democracy -- were informal and widely publicized in the mainstream media. Few German citizens objected because those abused there were seen as ‘other' -- even though the abuse was technically illegal. But then, after this escalation of the use of force was accepted by the population, students, journalists, opposition leaders, and clergy were similarly abused during their own arrests. Within six months dissent was stilled in Germany.
What is the lesson for us from this and from other closing societies, some of them democracies? You can have a working Congress or Parliament; newspapers; human rights groups; even elections; but when ordinary people start to be hurt by the state for speaking out, dissent closes quickly and the shock chills opposition very, very fast. Once that happens, democracy has been so weakened that major tactical and strategic incursions -- greater violations of democratic process -- are far more likely. If there is dissent about the vote in Florida in this next presidential election -- and the police are Tasering voters' rights groups -- we will still have an election.
What we will not have is liberty.
We have to understand what time it is. When the state starts to hurt people for asking questions, we can no longer operate on the leisurely time of a strong democracy -- the ‘Oh gosh how awful!' kind of time. It is time to take to the streets. It is time to confront those committing crimes against the Constitution. The window has now dropped several precipitous inches and once it is closed there is no opening it without great and sorrowful upheaval.
As I read Wolf's latest article, I realized that despite my enormous admiration for her and The End of America, there are a number of areas where I must disagree with her.
First, the only thing shocking to me about the University of Florida incident is that so many Americans are shocked that it happened. Last night I posted a communication to her mailing list regarding the incident from former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who says:
No police officer should be in the business of denying Constitutional rights to anyone; I am particularly chagrined when it appears that a black police officer participated in this attack on an innocent student.
What is happening to us???? How much more will the people accept?? I was outraged as early as 2000 when Florida was stolen and the Democrats said nothing!!!! Now, innocent students get Tasered just for asking questions.
What kind of US Senator do we have who can't or won't answer a question about his own election that affects all of us???
Wolf has given us a compendium of civil and constitutional rights stolen from us during the past eight years of the Bush administration. If one understands this odyssey of oppression, then Monday's Tasering of a questioning student makes perfect sense. I appreciate why Wolf used the word "shocking" in her most recent article, but I'd be willing to bet that she isn't shocked at all -- not after the extraordinary documentation she has given us in The End Of America. What I do believe she wishes to clarify is the intentionally traumatizing methodology of law enforcement to maintain social control.
Secondly, I must take issue with Wolf regarding her statement that " . . . we on the left must snap out of our ‘it's-all-the-WTO-the-two-parties-are-the-same' torpor . . . We have to reengage in an old-fashioned commitment to democratic action and believe once again in an old-fashioned notion of the Republic. We need to help lead a democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas." (141)
Again, let's fast forward not to yesterday, but today and the headline "Senate bars bill to restore detainee rights" -- a decision which supports the Bush administration's denial of habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners who want to challenge their imprisonment in court. Need we reiterate one more time that since the 2006 elections, the Democrats have done virtually nothing to end the occupation of Iraq? Need we watch the video one more time of John Kerry standing mute and statue-like on the University of Florida auditorium stage -- saying or doing nothing as a student was Tasered for asking him why he handed the 2004 election to George W. Bush? Does anyone seriously believe that in a world where fellow students applaud as police remove and Taser a questioning student and do nothing to speak up against such an outrage that we will see a viable, effective "democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas"?
As for Wolf's suggestion in today's article that we "take to the streets," the police state is preparing for that eventuality as well by letting us know that it has developed severely injuring electromagnetic crowd control technology that will dramatically limit how many and how often people can "take to the streets." Welcome to full-spectrum "1984".
I repeat: the policestate is right here, right now!
Moreover, some pivotal factors that Wolf has not addressed are global energy depletion, climate change, and global economic meltdown which are exacerbating the fascist shift about which she so brilliantly writes and which will continue to embolden that shift as energy scarcity, climate chaos, and financial crises add fuel to the fires of terrorism that the ruling elite have so consciously and carefully incited and fanned throughout America. As American society continues to unravel, the fascist shift will escalate, and what is left of our civil liberties will further evaporate.
As for political parties, I prefer the definition offered by Mike Ruppert in "America: From Freedom To Fascism," in which he explains that the two major parties are like two crime families -- the Genoveses and the Gambinos. They function like players in a crap game that feign opposition to each other, but when the chips are down, they will always unite to serve their common interests. (If the Iraq occupation is not a case in point, then I don't know what is.) When we vote in presidential elections for corporately-owned candidates or "the lesser evil." we are merely choosing between the two crime families, and even if one candidate were not a crime family member, our votes in the past two presidential elections, as Bev Harris has so astutely demonstrated, have been hacked. In the throes of the current, and I might add, rapidly accelerating fascist shift, what evidence do we have for assuming that if there is an election in 2008, anything will be different? Tell me again, what's the definition of insanity?
At this moment another Naomi comes to mind -- Naomi Klein whose book, The Shock Doctrine, I shall soon review. In that work, Klein documents one of the key strategies of fascist empires: shocking their citizens into submission in a variety of ways from widespread societal terrorism to the administering of electroshock therapy to individuals. What we witnessed at the University of Florida Monday, and what we are likely to see more frequently in America, are deliberate shock tactics applied by law enforcement to citizens for the purpose of achieving massive social control.
Some of my students who are criminal justice majors tell me that the latest strategies now being taught to police officers are "shock doctrine" techniques which terrorize and intimidate civilians in order to control them. Law enforcement officers are no longer encouraged to "keep a cool head" but to "follow their own instincts" (which usually means their own internal, adrenaline-charged state of terror) and react with full force because it's easier to apologize (or encounter a lawsuit) than to ask permission or risk being killed. Terrified people should not be wearing a badge and carrying a gun, and when they are, a fully terrorized society is guaranteed.
In spite of my disagreements with Naomi Wolf's suggested solutions, I cannot recommend The End of America enthusiastically enough. It is now a permanent part of my U.S. history curriculum and is an ideal tool not only for educators, but for parents who want to teach their children where all those civil liberties we used to have actually came from as well as how and why they are disappearing in the present moment.
Carolyn Baker, Ph.D. is author of a forthcoming book, “COMING OUT FROM CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM: Affirming Life, Love and The Sacred.” Her recent book is “U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You .” Her website is http://www.carolynbaker.org/ where she may be contacted.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Next step to 9/11 justice
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2454.shtml
Next step to 9/11 justice
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 25, 2007
Everyone thinks of terrorism and homeland security for lessons learned from 9/11. There is another opportunity. Make our government trustworthy and truthful.
The 9/11 truth movement is stronger than ever, though it is generally derided by politicians and ignored by the mainstream media. It is fueled by people passionate about alternative explanations to the official 9/11 story. Understandable, considering that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission admitted: “We were set up to fail.”
In 2006, Time magazine said: “The population of [the 9/11 truth movement] is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36 percent of Americans consider it ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”
A 2006 Zogby International poll found that 42 percent of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that “the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up.”
This year Zogby found that 31 perecent of likely voters do not buy the official 9/11 story [72 percent for ages 18 to 24 and nearly 60 percent for Hispanics and singles]; 51 percent still await a congressional investigation of Bush's and Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks [88 percent for ages 18 to 24 and 77 percent for Hispanics and singles]; and 67 percent fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous and still unexplained collapse of World Trade Center building 7.
So, six years later, a large fraction of Americans question the government’s official 9/11 story. Countless groups and websites sustain the 9/11 truth movement with many conferences held nationwide. There have been several best-selling books and many well known political, military, law enforcement and academic persons publicly support alternative theories of 9/11 and/or the need for a new investigation. Yet, being a 9/11 truth seeker exposes one to ridicule as a conspiracy nut by those brainwashed by establishment propaganda and lies, or afraid to face the painful truth, or too lazy to think for themselves.
Writing recently in the Guardian, Peter Tatchell made important points: “The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001. . . . What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.”
In other words, the truth movement has set the stage for taking their passion to a higher political level that even more Americans can support -- government reform.
Specifically, waiting is a reform mechanism as old as the Constitution itself. Few Americans realize they have a constitutional right to a national convention of state delegates that can propose constitutional amendments. Once convened, delegates can debate and propose amendments without government review, but like amendments proposed by Congress, still must meet the tough ratification requirements of Article V. Though all 50 states have applied for a convention, well in excess of the 34 required by the Constitution, Congress has refused to call one. The nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org seeks the nation’s first Article V convention.
The Framers of our Constitution created the convention option because they feared one dark day the public would lose confidence in the federal government. With record-low approval of Congress -- just 11 percent - and so little truth about 9/11, that day has crashed our democracy. Unsurprisingly, just like a new 9/11 investigation, Congress fears what may come out of an Article V convention. The truth is not politically popular.
The nexus between the 9/11 truth movement and the Article V convention effort is this: When a sizable fraction of the population wants a more comprehensive and credible government investigation into a matter of great public concern, but Congress and the Executive Branch refuse, a new legal mechanism is needed. Considering how the Bush administration used 9/11 to start the insane Iraq war, the public has profoundly good reasons for a new option for obtaining trustworthy information. Surely there will be other events and issues in the future that raise the same need for reliable analysis and conclusions independent of the usual web of government circles and tricks.
A new constitutional amendment can establish a framework for citizens to petition and seek “redress” from their federal government without going through elected representatives adept at ignoring them. Here is a possible approach. The highly respected and independent General Accountability Office could be given constitutional responsibility for collecting citizen petitions for investigations. If a threshold number is reached, then GAO would conduct a nonpartisan investigation using its staff and any other persons deemed necessary. This would be a taste of direct democracy, akin to a national referendum. The threshold might be one million citizen requests, with at least 10,000 coming from each of at least two-thirds of the states.
The intense 9/11 truth movement has a historic opportunity to seek a permanent means to counter bipartisan government intransigence and untrustworthiness that now is the rule, not the exception.
I urge 9/11 truth seekers to join Friends of the Article V Convention, recognizing that Congress’ refusal to re-investigate 9/11 is matched by its refusal to permit an Article V convention. Our common goal is to compel the federal government to be accountable to the Constitution, federal law and the people. 9/11 truth seekers must become government reform seekers to achieve their objectives through smart political strategy.
Other political strategies also merit support, notably the current effort in New York City to obtain a ballot initiative to establish a new independent commission and investigation: http://www.nyc911initiative.org/.
Consider what Mark Twain wisely observed: “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” Our patriotic crusade for 9/11 truth and systemic government reform is still at the first stage. Courage is needed to persevere. Truth does not come easy.
Joel S. Hirschhorn is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, former full professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and senior staffer at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, and author of Delusional Democracy -- Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government.
Next step to 9/11 justice
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 25, 2007
Everyone thinks of terrorism and homeland security for lessons learned from 9/11. There is another opportunity. Make our government trustworthy and truthful.
The 9/11 truth movement is stronger than ever, though it is generally derided by politicians and ignored by the mainstream media. It is fueled by people passionate about alternative explanations to the official 9/11 story. Understandable, considering that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission admitted: “We were set up to fail.”
In 2006, Time magazine said: “The population of [the 9/11 truth movement] is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36 percent of Americans consider it ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”
A 2006 Zogby International poll found that 42 percent of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that “the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up.”
This year Zogby found that 31 perecent of likely voters do not buy the official 9/11 story [72 percent for ages 18 to 24 and nearly 60 percent for Hispanics and singles]; 51 percent still await a congressional investigation of Bush's and Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks [88 percent for ages 18 to 24 and 77 percent for Hispanics and singles]; and 67 percent fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous and still unexplained collapse of World Trade Center building 7.
So, six years later, a large fraction of Americans question the government’s official 9/11 story. Countless groups and websites sustain the 9/11 truth movement with many conferences held nationwide. There have been several best-selling books and many well known political, military, law enforcement and academic persons publicly support alternative theories of 9/11 and/or the need for a new investigation. Yet, being a 9/11 truth seeker exposes one to ridicule as a conspiracy nut by those brainwashed by establishment propaganda and lies, or afraid to face the painful truth, or too lazy to think for themselves.
Writing recently in the Guardian, Peter Tatchell made important points: “The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001. . . . What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.”
In other words, the truth movement has set the stage for taking their passion to a higher political level that even more Americans can support -- government reform.
Specifically, waiting is a reform mechanism as old as the Constitution itself. Few Americans realize they have a constitutional right to a national convention of state delegates that can propose constitutional amendments. Once convened, delegates can debate and propose amendments without government review, but like amendments proposed by Congress, still must meet the tough ratification requirements of Article V. Though all 50 states have applied for a convention, well in excess of the 34 required by the Constitution, Congress has refused to call one. The nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org seeks the nation’s first Article V convention.
The Framers of our Constitution created the convention option because they feared one dark day the public would lose confidence in the federal government. With record-low approval of Congress -- just 11 percent - and so little truth about 9/11, that day has crashed our democracy. Unsurprisingly, just like a new 9/11 investigation, Congress fears what may come out of an Article V convention. The truth is not politically popular.
The nexus between the 9/11 truth movement and the Article V convention effort is this: When a sizable fraction of the population wants a more comprehensive and credible government investigation into a matter of great public concern, but Congress and the Executive Branch refuse, a new legal mechanism is needed. Considering how the Bush administration used 9/11 to start the insane Iraq war, the public has profoundly good reasons for a new option for obtaining trustworthy information. Surely there will be other events and issues in the future that raise the same need for reliable analysis and conclusions independent of the usual web of government circles and tricks.
A new constitutional amendment can establish a framework for citizens to petition and seek “redress” from their federal government without going through elected representatives adept at ignoring them. Here is a possible approach. The highly respected and independent General Accountability Office could be given constitutional responsibility for collecting citizen petitions for investigations. If a threshold number is reached, then GAO would conduct a nonpartisan investigation using its staff and any other persons deemed necessary. This would be a taste of direct democracy, akin to a national referendum. The threshold might be one million citizen requests, with at least 10,000 coming from each of at least two-thirds of the states.
The intense 9/11 truth movement has a historic opportunity to seek a permanent means to counter bipartisan government intransigence and untrustworthiness that now is the rule, not the exception.
I urge 9/11 truth seekers to join Friends of the Article V Convention, recognizing that Congress’ refusal to re-investigate 9/11 is matched by its refusal to permit an Article V convention. Our common goal is to compel the federal government to be accountable to the Constitution, federal law and the people. 9/11 truth seekers must become government reform seekers to achieve their objectives through smart political strategy.
Other political strategies also merit support, notably the current effort in New York City to obtain a ballot initiative to establish a new independent commission and investigation: http://www.nyc911initiative.org/.
Consider what Mark Twain wisely observed: “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” Our patriotic crusade for 9/11 truth and systemic government reform is still at the first stage. Courage is needed to persevere. Truth does not come easy.
Joel S. Hirschhorn is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, former full professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and senior staffer at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, and author of Delusional Democracy -- Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government.
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Voter ID Law
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/washington/25cnd-scotus.html
September 25, 2007
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Voter ID Law
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — With the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections on the horizon, the Supreme Court agreed today to consider whether voter-identification laws unfairly keep poor people and members of minority groups from going to the polls.
The justices will hear arguments from an Indiana case, in which a federal district judge and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in January upheld a state law requiring, with certain exceptions, that someone wanting to vote in person in a primary or general election present a government-issued photo identification. Presumably, the court would rule on the case by June.
Before the law was enacted in 2005, an Indiana voter was required only to sign a book at the polling place, where a photocopy of the voter’s signature was kept on file.
Voter-identification requirements have divided Democrats and Republicans, and the courts, for years. In July, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld that state’s identification law. A month earlier, the Georgia high court threw out a challenge to that state’s identification law. But last year, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a state voter-identification statute. Other states are considering various identification statutes.
Election-law experts had hoped that the United States Supreme Court would take the Indiana case because that state has perhaps the toughest law in the country. “The court better resolve this question before ballots start getting counted next fall,” Pamela Karlan, a Stanford University law professor, told The Associated Press.
In general, Republicans argue that identification laws reduce voter fraud, while Democrats oppose them on grounds that they lower the turnout among people who tend to vote Democratic.
Coincidentally or otherwise, the two Seventh Circuit judges who voted to uphold the Indiana law, Richard A. Posner and Diane S. Sykes, were put on the bench by Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively), while the one dissenting judge, Terence T. Evans, was elevated by President Bill Clinton.
Writing for the majority, Judge Posner acknowledged that the Indiana law favors one party. “No doubt most people who don’t have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates,” he wrote.
But the purpose of the law is to reduce voting fraud, “and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes — dilution being recognized to be an impairment of the right to vote,” Judge Posner said. And assertions that many people will be disenfranchised, or that there is no significant voter-fraud problem in Indiana, are based on unreliable data and “may reflect nothing more than the vagaries of journalists’ and other investigators’ choice of scandals to investigate,” the judge held.
In dissent, Judge Evans wrote that the Indiana law imposed an unconstitutional burden on some eligible voters. “Let’s not beat around the bush,” he wrote. “The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
Arguments that the law’s purpose is to stamp out voter fraud amount to a mere “fig leaf of respectability,” Judge Evans wrote. Furthermore, he said, the law is too extreme in view of the fact that no one in Indiana has ever been prosecuted for voter fraud. “Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?” he asked rhetorically. “I think not.”
September 25, 2007
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Voter ID Law
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — With the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections on the horizon, the Supreme Court agreed today to consider whether voter-identification laws unfairly keep poor people and members of minority groups from going to the polls.
The justices will hear arguments from an Indiana case, in which a federal district judge and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in January upheld a state law requiring, with certain exceptions, that someone wanting to vote in person in a primary or general election present a government-issued photo identification. Presumably, the court would rule on the case by June.
Before the law was enacted in 2005, an Indiana voter was required only to sign a book at the polling place, where a photocopy of the voter’s signature was kept on file.
Voter-identification requirements have divided Democrats and Republicans, and the courts, for years. In July, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld that state’s identification law. A month earlier, the Georgia high court threw out a challenge to that state’s identification law. But last year, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a state voter-identification statute. Other states are considering various identification statutes.
Election-law experts had hoped that the United States Supreme Court would take the Indiana case because that state has perhaps the toughest law in the country. “The court better resolve this question before ballots start getting counted next fall,” Pamela Karlan, a Stanford University law professor, told The Associated Press.
In general, Republicans argue that identification laws reduce voter fraud, while Democrats oppose them on grounds that they lower the turnout among people who tend to vote Democratic.
Coincidentally or otherwise, the two Seventh Circuit judges who voted to uphold the Indiana law, Richard A. Posner and Diane S. Sykes, were put on the bench by Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively), while the one dissenting judge, Terence T. Evans, was elevated by President Bill Clinton.
Writing for the majority, Judge Posner acknowledged that the Indiana law favors one party. “No doubt most people who don’t have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates,” he wrote.
But the purpose of the law is to reduce voting fraud, “and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes — dilution being recognized to be an impairment of the right to vote,” Judge Posner said. And assertions that many people will be disenfranchised, or that there is no significant voter-fraud problem in Indiana, are based on unreliable data and “may reflect nothing more than the vagaries of journalists’ and other investigators’ choice of scandals to investigate,” the judge held.
In dissent, Judge Evans wrote that the Indiana law imposed an unconstitutional burden on some eligible voters. “Let’s not beat around the bush,” he wrote. “The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
Arguments that the law’s purpose is to stamp out voter fraud amount to a mere “fig leaf of respectability,” Judge Evans wrote. Furthermore, he said, the law is too extreme in view of the fact that no one in Indiana has ever been prosecuted for voter fraud. “Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?” he asked rhetorically. “I think not.”
Elvis Presley, "Unchained Melody"
YouTube Video of the Week
Elvis Presley, "Unchained Melody" (1977)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UispCK7Q--M
Anyone who is unaware or has forgotten what a great singer and performer Elvis was should view this clip from his last concert, where he covers the classic Righteous Brothers tune. Needless to say, even overweight and in poor health, Presley blows fire and proves whatever he may have lost over the years, his voice was still there to the end...
Elvis Presley, "Unchained Melody" (1977)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UispCK7Q--M
Anyone who is unaware or has forgotten what a great singer and performer Elvis was should view this clip from his last concert, where he covers the classic Righteous Brothers tune. Needless to say, even overweight and in poor health, Presley blows fire and proves whatever he may have lost over the years, his voice was still there to the end...
Crooks, Suckers, and Lazy Cowards
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=300
Crooks, Suckers, and Lazy Cowards
Published by cyrano2
Depraved Aristocracy, Neocons, Crony Capitalism, Bourgeoisie, Banality of Evil, GOP, Republican filth
Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to JMiller@bestcyrano.org
By John Hanks
9/17/07
After the filth murdered the Wellstones, I knew that we were under a Nazi regime and that soon we would all be dead. At that point I just assumed I was dead, like any experienced combat soldier. I put signs in my car windows that say “Bush ordered 911? or “Republicans Return to Their Own Vomit”, etc. Since I live in Wyoming, I figured that I would be murdered in short order, but so far I’m fine, after 4 years of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. If you put good hateful signs in your windows, you outflank the crook media, and cell phones often do the rest.
The only way to counter demoralization, which is the stock and trade of the filth, is to cultivate a black and intelligent hatred. Anger is an exhausting weakness and just an expression of demoralization. But, hatred is an instinctual reaction to those who would like to kill you. Republicans are full of hatred because they know that liberals would like to revoke their license to steal. That is why they don’t have to think except in terms of slogans.
The world has a minority of crooks and their suckers. The rest of the world just a bunch of lazy cowards. If you don’t overcome your physical cowardice now, you may have to be equally cowardly inside a concentration camp.
I have always wanted to have a good argument with Thomas Hartmann (sucker) on Air America Radio. But the constraints of money and time make it impossible. He exemplifies the best of the liberal tradition in his broad intelligence, senility and his respect for facts and ideas.
Compared to know nothings like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter he is like a cool shower after an encounter with a six pack of stale vomit.
The only problem with this picture is that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (crooks) are right about the human race while Hartmann is dead wrong. These crooks know that the human race consists of crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards, while Hartmann thinks that it is good and even educable in important ways. Liberals believe that people are moral actors, but experience shows us that nothing could be further from the truth. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, liberals still give lip service to the idea that people are good.
Hartmann thinks that the founding fatheads (crooks) thought well of men and their potential, while I think they were just the opposite. I think that the best of them, including Jefferson, were suspicious of both themselves and others. That is why they went to great pains to approve a Constitution that would set one institution against another in a sort of perpetual greedy gridlock. Of course, after all this work, they gave themselves a generous tip and the right to steal by doing nothing to balance the power of money or property. This omission has led to one catastrophe after another from the Civil War to commercial television.
But, I digress.
Why does it matter whether one thinks well or ill of mankind? Is it true that liberals are starry-eyed idealists that think a better class of humans can be produced in classrooms? Or is it also true that conservatives view man as depraved and therefore a ripe target for every sort of scam and contempt? I can only reply that I have always been a liberal, but I fail to entertain any hope for the world, this country, or anyone in it.
It is possible to have the cynical vision of H. L. Mencken without becoming a snobby blockhead or hypocrite. It is possible to get rid of the crooks without thinking that we haven’t asked for everything we get.
Republicans can walk and chew gum, but they rarely compare and contrast anything, since all major ideas have been set in concrete since 5th grade. They seem inherently incapable of entertaining more than one idea at a time. It is this lazy ignorance that makes them do their politics of destruction with no sense of blowback. They are so afraid of losing their stolen wealth that they try to demoralize an ignorant and cowardly population so that they actually think they are morally better by not voting.
This crookery works because Republicans prey on every human weakness. They mine Pride, Envy, Sloth, Anger, Cowardice, and Lust with gay abandon in or out of the political season.
In short, they know that weak emotions lead, while thoughts just tag along. They particularly like to exploit moralism and moralizing because it is the lazy man’s way of feeling superior to everyone else.
So what is the point of all this anyway? As long as liberals appeal to ideas and facts they can have a lot of good moralistic conversations, but they mean nothing to lazy cowards who like a good story which feeds conceit, lust, or fear. Almost all Republican jokes appeal to conceit because they are usually racist or sexist, and they give a little lift to the second-rate juveniles who make up the Republican filth.
Republican friends send me these jokes and I always analyze them in terms of the tawdry satisfactions they produce. Then I send them back since it usually pisses them off.
Today’s Republicans have all the characteristics of the Nazi movement. They are triumphal, ignorant, lazy, vicious, and they think that the use of lies and intimidation is the road to success. They love symbols, flags and media just like the Nazis did, and they have even built a few “internment” camps for the “homeland”. This time, they have turned Muslims into the bogey man, while the Jewish Neocons and the Pentagon are sporting the swastikas. They are even starting wars for bucks all over the world so that they can reap a bonanza from weapons, oil, graft, opium, and even museum treasures. This great adventure started with the 9/11 protection racket stunt, which has reaped even more billions from the lazy cowards amongst the gullible public.
Republicans have a problem with their sexuality, but Democrats have a problem with hatred. Anger has its problems because it is tiresome and sometimes outright dangerous. But a cold, black hatred is always serene and detached. Hatred is a natural response to liars and bullies. It is the source of all real thought and action. It is not a fist, but a compass. It is a radar that keeps us pointed in the right direction so we don’t get the next sucker punch. It is blowback with brains and understanding. It is not Osama or George. Republicans are always angry because they are afraid they will lose their stolen wealth. Their anger makes them clever like juvenile delinquents. My black hatred of them however makes me free to think up blowbacks. I would prefer government by Genghis Khan to these lazy half-dead second-rate bums.
Since liberals can’t allow themselves to develop hatred, they prefer to develop a culture of peace. The problem with this is that the only real peace is the peace of the grave. Otherwise peace is just a period when crooks set up the next war. This idea of a Beulahland heaven is just a childish fantasy. Man is and will always be more like a jackal than an angel. Hitler preyed on this sentimentality with his warm Nazi posters showing healthy farm girls holding infants in wheat fields. Everything a Nazi does is for a “higher good”, just like a liberal is supposed to provide an example of the one true moral way to a “higher good”. I have attended many liberal meetings where some blowhard bullies the proceedings and no one says anything for fear of falling off the sentimental moral pedestal. A Laramie peace group that I am in now is almost paralyzed by one professional female veteran who courts attacks, dominates and controls, and actually censors newsletter communications. All of her stunts are done with a lot of moralizing and remembering the “higher good”. Yet, the moralizers do nothing. Whenever I try to even start a conversation about this person, I get silenced. For all I know, she might even be an agent provocateur! For all I know, the whole group might be agent provocateurs!
John Hanks is a long-time agitator and fledgling sociopolitical editorialist.
Crooks, Suckers, and Lazy Cowards
Published by cyrano2
Depraved Aristocracy, Neocons, Crony Capitalism, Bourgeoisie, Banality of Evil, GOP, Republican filth
Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to JMiller@bestcyrano.org
By John Hanks
9/17/07
After the filth murdered the Wellstones, I knew that we were under a Nazi regime and that soon we would all be dead. At that point I just assumed I was dead, like any experienced combat soldier. I put signs in my car windows that say “Bush ordered 911? or “Republicans Return to Their Own Vomit”, etc. Since I live in Wyoming, I figured that I would be murdered in short order, but so far I’m fine, after 4 years of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. If you put good hateful signs in your windows, you outflank the crook media, and cell phones often do the rest.
The only way to counter demoralization, which is the stock and trade of the filth, is to cultivate a black and intelligent hatred. Anger is an exhausting weakness and just an expression of demoralization. But, hatred is an instinctual reaction to those who would like to kill you. Republicans are full of hatred because they know that liberals would like to revoke their license to steal. That is why they don’t have to think except in terms of slogans.
The world has a minority of crooks and their suckers. The rest of the world just a bunch of lazy cowards. If you don’t overcome your physical cowardice now, you may have to be equally cowardly inside a concentration camp.
I have always wanted to have a good argument with Thomas Hartmann (sucker) on Air America Radio. But the constraints of money and time make it impossible. He exemplifies the best of the liberal tradition in his broad intelligence, senility and his respect for facts and ideas.
Compared to know nothings like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter he is like a cool shower after an encounter with a six pack of stale vomit.
The only problem with this picture is that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (crooks) are right about the human race while Hartmann is dead wrong. These crooks know that the human race consists of crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards, while Hartmann thinks that it is good and even educable in important ways. Liberals believe that people are moral actors, but experience shows us that nothing could be further from the truth. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, liberals still give lip service to the idea that people are good.
Hartmann thinks that the founding fatheads (crooks) thought well of men and their potential, while I think they were just the opposite. I think that the best of them, including Jefferson, were suspicious of both themselves and others. That is why they went to great pains to approve a Constitution that would set one institution against another in a sort of perpetual greedy gridlock. Of course, after all this work, they gave themselves a generous tip and the right to steal by doing nothing to balance the power of money or property. This omission has led to one catastrophe after another from the Civil War to commercial television.
But, I digress.
Why does it matter whether one thinks well or ill of mankind? Is it true that liberals are starry-eyed idealists that think a better class of humans can be produced in classrooms? Or is it also true that conservatives view man as depraved and therefore a ripe target for every sort of scam and contempt? I can only reply that I have always been a liberal, but I fail to entertain any hope for the world, this country, or anyone in it.
It is possible to have the cynical vision of H. L. Mencken without becoming a snobby blockhead or hypocrite. It is possible to get rid of the crooks without thinking that we haven’t asked for everything we get.
Republicans can walk and chew gum, but they rarely compare and contrast anything, since all major ideas have been set in concrete since 5th grade. They seem inherently incapable of entertaining more than one idea at a time. It is this lazy ignorance that makes them do their politics of destruction with no sense of blowback. They are so afraid of losing their stolen wealth that they try to demoralize an ignorant and cowardly population so that they actually think they are morally better by not voting.
This crookery works because Republicans prey on every human weakness. They mine Pride, Envy, Sloth, Anger, Cowardice, and Lust with gay abandon in or out of the political season.
In short, they know that weak emotions lead, while thoughts just tag along. They particularly like to exploit moralism and moralizing because it is the lazy man’s way of feeling superior to everyone else.
So what is the point of all this anyway? As long as liberals appeal to ideas and facts they can have a lot of good moralistic conversations, but they mean nothing to lazy cowards who like a good story which feeds conceit, lust, or fear. Almost all Republican jokes appeal to conceit because they are usually racist or sexist, and they give a little lift to the second-rate juveniles who make up the Republican filth.
Republican friends send me these jokes and I always analyze them in terms of the tawdry satisfactions they produce. Then I send them back since it usually pisses them off.
Today’s Republicans have all the characteristics of the Nazi movement. They are triumphal, ignorant, lazy, vicious, and they think that the use of lies and intimidation is the road to success. They love symbols, flags and media just like the Nazis did, and they have even built a few “internment” camps for the “homeland”. This time, they have turned Muslims into the bogey man, while the Jewish Neocons and the Pentagon are sporting the swastikas. They are even starting wars for bucks all over the world so that they can reap a bonanza from weapons, oil, graft, opium, and even museum treasures. This great adventure started with the 9/11 protection racket stunt, which has reaped even more billions from the lazy cowards amongst the gullible public.
Republicans have a problem with their sexuality, but Democrats have a problem with hatred. Anger has its problems because it is tiresome and sometimes outright dangerous. But a cold, black hatred is always serene and detached. Hatred is a natural response to liars and bullies. It is the source of all real thought and action. It is not a fist, but a compass. It is a radar that keeps us pointed in the right direction so we don’t get the next sucker punch. It is blowback with brains and understanding. It is not Osama or George. Republicans are always angry because they are afraid they will lose their stolen wealth. Their anger makes them clever like juvenile delinquents. My black hatred of them however makes me free to think up blowbacks. I would prefer government by Genghis Khan to these lazy half-dead second-rate bums.
Since liberals can’t allow themselves to develop hatred, they prefer to develop a culture of peace. The problem with this is that the only real peace is the peace of the grave. Otherwise peace is just a period when crooks set up the next war. This idea of a Beulahland heaven is just a childish fantasy. Man is and will always be more like a jackal than an angel. Hitler preyed on this sentimentality with his warm Nazi posters showing healthy farm girls holding infants in wheat fields. Everything a Nazi does is for a “higher good”, just like a liberal is supposed to provide an example of the one true moral way to a “higher good”. I have attended many liberal meetings where some blowhard bullies the proceedings and no one says anything for fear of falling off the sentimental moral pedestal. A Laramie peace group that I am in now is almost paralyzed by one professional female veteran who courts attacks, dominates and controls, and actually censors newsletter communications. All of her stunts are done with a lot of moralizing and remembering the “higher good”. Yet, the moralizers do nothing. Whenever I try to even start a conversation about this person, I get silenced. For all I know, she might even be an agent provocateur! For all I know, the whole group might be agent provocateurs!
John Hanks is a long-time agitator and fledgling sociopolitical editorialist.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Kerry Should be Ashamed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-antosca/kerry-should-be-ashamed-_b_64873.html
The Huffington Post
Nick Antosca
Kerry Should be Ashamed, and the Cop Who Tased Andrew Meyer Should be Jailed
Posted September 18, 2007
Read More: Andrew Meyer, florida, John Kerry, taser, torture, Breaking Politics News
By now I'm sure you've seen the videos of University of Florida student Andrew Meyer being attacked and tasered by university police at a John Kerry speaking event.
The videos (reminiscent of the nasty video from last year showing UCLA student Mostafa Tabatabainejad getting tortured with a taser by seriously fucked up campus police) show Meyer asking a series of questions -- which aren't particularly combative, although his tone is -- before his mic is turned off and the police officers inexplicably grab him from behind. He tries to pull away, raising his arms to show he's not threatening them, but they drag him out, pin him to ground as he yells "What did I do?" and says he'll walk out if they let him, and then they tase him as he screams in pain. One of the videos shows them taking him downstairs and accusing him, insanely, hilariously, of "inciting a riot." Downstairs he gets even more agitated, saying they want to "kill" him and give him to "the government." It sounds a little nuts, but at that point, you would be scared and furious, too.
Three things I felt when I watched these videos (about a half hour ago at the time I'm typing this):
First, Meyer is being kind of alarming and weirdly noisy, but not inappropriate. It's really odd how the police try to stop him almost immediately. As one of the videos shows, Kerry pointed to him and indicated that he should ask his question... he's not speaking out of line. I wonder about the context here. Had something happened between Meyer and the police earlier? Is it just that he exceeded a one minute time limit -- that's why he was attacked?
Second, John Kerry did not handle this well at all. I liked him all right before -- I voted for him, but what were the alternatives? -- but now I really dislike the man. His behavior here is pathetic. Listen to him droning sonorously on in the background as a guy is dragged down the aisles and pinned the ground. He does say something like, "Officers, can we--" but then trails off ineffectually... and you can also hear him make what sounds like a joke about Meyer: "...unfortunately he's not available to come up here and swear me in as President..." At that point, fair enough, maybe it didn't seem as bad from the stage as it looks on the video. But then the guy is screaming in pain, and Kerry is still droning on, not agitated, nothing. He should have gotten off the stage and told the cops to get the hell off that guy. It's not what a politician would do, but it's what a fucking man would do.
And third, the police officers in this video are absolute scum. They should all be fired, and the one who used the taser should be put in jail. It was bizarre and irrational for them to attack Meyer, a display of utterly unprovoked violence. The sheer brazenness of it, in front of an auditorium and multiple cameras, chills me. You can't go to a microphone and question an elected official (and again, there was nothing abusive or even particularly combative about these questions) without fear of being dragged off and tased? It's heartening that some audience members followed the police downstairs, telling them to stop and assuring Meyer that they would testify in his behalf -- but frankly, as far as I'm concerned, people watching this happen a few feet away would be justified in defending the victim from the officers with the use of any weapon available. The use of tasers on handcuffed prisoners, particularly when, like Meyer and Mostafa Tabatabainejad, the prisoner has done absolutely nothing wrong and is unarmed, is straight torture. You can't stand around and watch some innocent guy get tortured by the police. You ought to do whatever you can to make it stop.
The Huffington Post
Nick Antosca
Kerry Should be Ashamed, and the Cop Who Tased Andrew Meyer Should be Jailed
Posted September 18, 2007
Read More: Andrew Meyer, florida, John Kerry, taser, torture, Breaking Politics News
By now I'm sure you've seen the videos of University of Florida student Andrew Meyer being attacked and tasered by university police at a John Kerry speaking event.
The videos (reminiscent of the nasty video from last year showing UCLA student Mostafa Tabatabainejad getting tortured with a taser by seriously fucked up campus police) show Meyer asking a series of questions -- which aren't particularly combative, although his tone is -- before his mic is turned off and the police officers inexplicably grab him from behind. He tries to pull away, raising his arms to show he's not threatening them, but they drag him out, pin him to ground as he yells "What did I do?" and says he'll walk out if they let him, and then they tase him as he screams in pain. One of the videos shows them taking him downstairs and accusing him, insanely, hilariously, of "inciting a riot." Downstairs he gets even more agitated, saying they want to "kill" him and give him to "the government." It sounds a little nuts, but at that point, you would be scared and furious, too.
Three things I felt when I watched these videos (about a half hour ago at the time I'm typing this):
First, Meyer is being kind of alarming and weirdly noisy, but not inappropriate. It's really odd how the police try to stop him almost immediately. As one of the videos shows, Kerry pointed to him and indicated that he should ask his question... he's not speaking out of line. I wonder about the context here. Had something happened between Meyer and the police earlier? Is it just that he exceeded a one minute time limit -- that's why he was attacked?
Second, John Kerry did not handle this well at all. I liked him all right before -- I voted for him, but what were the alternatives? -- but now I really dislike the man. His behavior here is pathetic. Listen to him droning sonorously on in the background as a guy is dragged down the aisles and pinned the ground. He does say something like, "Officers, can we--" but then trails off ineffectually... and you can also hear him make what sounds like a joke about Meyer: "...unfortunately he's not available to come up here and swear me in as President..." At that point, fair enough, maybe it didn't seem as bad from the stage as it looks on the video. But then the guy is screaming in pain, and Kerry is still droning on, not agitated, nothing. He should have gotten off the stage and told the cops to get the hell off that guy. It's not what a politician would do, but it's what a fucking man would do.
And third, the police officers in this video are absolute scum. They should all be fired, and the one who used the taser should be put in jail. It was bizarre and irrational for them to attack Meyer, a display of utterly unprovoked violence. The sheer brazenness of it, in front of an auditorium and multiple cameras, chills me. You can't go to a microphone and question an elected official (and again, there was nothing abusive or even particularly combative about these questions) without fear of being dragged off and tased? It's heartening that some audience members followed the police downstairs, telling them to stop and assuring Meyer that they would testify in his behalf -- but frankly, as far as I'm concerned, people watching this happen a few feet away would be justified in defending the victim from the officers with the use of any weapon available. The use of tasers on handcuffed prisoners, particularly when, like Meyer and Mostafa Tabatabainejad, the prisoner has done absolutely nothing wrong and is unarmed, is straight torture. You can't stand around and watch some innocent guy get tortured by the police. You ought to do whatever you can to make it stop.
Tasered Student, Waving Greg Palast Book
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5083
Tasered Student, Waving Greg Palast Book, Asked Kerry About Conceding 2004 Presidential Election
'In this book, it says five million votes were supressed. Didn't you want to be President?' Asks 21-Year-Old Prior to be Dragged Off by Security
'Kerry, true to character, stood immobile,' Notes the New York Times Best-Selling Author in Response...
Posted By Brad Friedman On 18th September 2007 @ 13:10 In Election Irregularities, Election 2004, Greg Palast, Florida, John Kerry
Fortunately, it happened at a John Kerry event. So we'll likely hear a whole lot about this incident. Had it happened at a Republican event, Fox "News" and the rest of the news channels that receive their assignments from them, would have made this a one-day story at best.
The blurry-ish video version of the incident seen at right, shows the entire statement and questions asked by University of Florida student Andrew Meyer. He was waving the recently released paperback version of investigative journalist Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse [1] and recommend the book to Kerry before asking him about his early concession to the 2004 Presidential Election.
"He says you won the 2004 Election, isn't that amazing?," proclaimed Meyer referring to Palast's claims in the book. The 21-year-old student continued on to speak about "multiple reports of disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida and Ohio on the day of the election" and "electronic voting machines in Volusia County, Florida that counted backwards."
"So amidst all of these reports of phony, bogus stuff going on, how could you concede the election on the day?," he asked as security guards surrounded him. "How could you concede the 2004 election on the day? In this book, it says there were five million votes that were suppressed. Didn't you want to be President?!"
Kerry is heard earlier in Meyer's statement acknowledging that he has the book and that he's "already read it." Though we've seen the incident now on all of the cable news channels, several times, we've not seen any of them show the actual statement and questions being asked by Meyer.
[2] "We warned you: ‘Armed Madhouse’ is a dangerous book," writes the sardonic New York Times best-selling author (and occasional BRAD BLOG [3] Guest Contributor), in an article posted [4] to his website earlier today.
Before being dragged off, Meyer was able to get out additional question about Impeachment of George W. Bush and whether or not Kerry was a member of Yale University's Skull and Bones Society.
"Kerry, true to character, stood immobile," writes Palast.
"The Washington Post reported only that Meyers was holding a 'mysterious yellow book.' VERY mysterious," notes Palast, adding "I must admit I feel some appreciation for Meyers, especially because, even while he was being shot with untold amps of electricity, until he was handcuffed, he would not let go of his mysterious yellow book."
"If you let me go, I'll walk out of here," Meyer's can be heard pleading with the uniformed University security team on the short video after being dragged away from the microphone.
A female voice can be heard shouting "do it now!". Though it's unclear from the tape whether or not the comment is coming from one of the officers and whether or not it was meant as encouragement to use the Taser on Meyer, who can shortly thereafter be heard screaming as he was allegedly zapped by one or more of the officers.
RAW STORY's coverage [5] reports that Kerry was unaware a Taser gun was used until after he'd left the building. Though the former Democratic Presidential Nominee is heard on tape attempting to speak to Meyer's question as the 21-year-old student is heard apparently screaming in pain --- just moments after he is heard pleading: "Don't taze me bro, I didn't do anything."
UPDATE, AND A COMMENT: I continue to be troubled that neither Kerry, nor the bulk of the people in the audience appeared to take any action. Kudos to whoever was yelling near the end of the video above "what are you doing?!"
Discussion of the incident over at DU [6] has led several to say "Well, I don't think he should have been tasered, but he was clearing seeking publicity" or "being an ass" or "wasn't polite" or whatever.
I'm troubled that so many there seem to feel that though "he shouldn't have been tasered", it's okay that he was, because he was less than polite. Or something. If he didn't deserve to be tasered, then that's the end of it. Period.
The lack of outrage at such behavior, and the passivity displayed by both Kerry and the audience, along with those who seem to think such an overly-violent reaction is just fine --- to what appears to be a non-threatening situation --- is very troubling. What is says about our society today has been reminding me all day of the old "When They Came for Me..." poem [7].
The First Amendment doesn't include a Politeness Clause as far as I'm aware.
URLs in this post:
[1] Armed Madhouse: http://www.gregpalast.com/order-the-book/
[2] Image: http://www.gregpalast.com/student-tasered-for-armed-madhouse-question-to-kerry/
[3] BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com/
[4] article posted: http://www.gregpalast.com/student-tasered-for-armed-madhouse-question-to-kerry/
[5] RAW STORY's coverage: http://rawstory.com//news/2007/tudent_Tasered_for_asking_Senator_Kerry_0917.html
[6] Discussion of the incident over at DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1837676
[7] "When They Came for Me..." poem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
Tasered Student, Waving Greg Palast Book, Asked Kerry About Conceding 2004 Presidential Election
'In this book, it says five million votes were supressed. Didn't you want to be President?' Asks 21-Year-Old Prior to be Dragged Off by Security
'Kerry, true to character, stood immobile,' Notes the New York Times Best-Selling Author in Response...
Posted By Brad Friedman On 18th September 2007 @ 13:10 In Election Irregularities, Election 2004, Greg Palast, Florida, John Kerry
Fortunately, it happened at a John Kerry event. So we'll likely hear a whole lot about this incident. Had it happened at a Republican event, Fox "News" and the rest of the news channels that receive their assignments from them, would have made this a one-day story at best.
The blurry-ish video version of the incident seen at right, shows the entire statement and questions asked by University of Florida student Andrew Meyer. He was waving the recently released paperback version of investigative journalist Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse [1] and recommend the book to Kerry before asking him about his early concession to the 2004 Presidential Election.
"He says you won the 2004 Election, isn't that amazing?," proclaimed Meyer referring to Palast's claims in the book. The 21-year-old student continued on to speak about "multiple reports of disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida and Ohio on the day of the election" and "electronic voting machines in Volusia County, Florida that counted backwards."
"So amidst all of these reports of phony, bogus stuff going on, how could you concede the election on the day?," he asked as security guards surrounded him. "How could you concede the 2004 election on the day? In this book, it says there were five million votes that were suppressed. Didn't you want to be President?!"
Kerry is heard earlier in Meyer's statement acknowledging that he has the book and that he's "already read it." Though we've seen the incident now on all of the cable news channels, several times, we've not seen any of them show the actual statement and questions being asked by Meyer.
[2] "We warned you: ‘Armed Madhouse’ is a dangerous book," writes the sardonic New York Times best-selling author (and occasional BRAD BLOG [3] Guest Contributor), in an article posted [4] to his website earlier today.
Before being dragged off, Meyer was able to get out additional question about Impeachment of George W. Bush and whether or not Kerry was a member of Yale University's Skull and Bones Society.
"Kerry, true to character, stood immobile," writes Palast.
"The Washington Post reported only that Meyers was holding a 'mysterious yellow book.' VERY mysterious," notes Palast, adding "I must admit I feel some appreciation for Meyers, especially because, even while he was being shot with untold amps of electricity, until he was handcuffed, he would not let go of his mysterious yellow book."
"If you let me go, I'll walk out of here," Meyer's can be heard pleading with the uniformed University security team on the short video after being dragged away from the microphone.
A female voice can be heard shouting "do it now!". Though it's unclear from the tape whether or not the comment is coming from one of the officers and whether or not it was meant as encouragement to use the Taser on Meyer, who can shortly thereafter be heard screaming as he was allegedly zapped by one or more of the officers.
RAW STORY's coverage [5] reports that Kerry was unaware a Taser gun was used until after he'd left the building. Though the former Democratic Presidential Nominee is heard on tape attempting to speak to Meyer's question as the 21-year-old student is heard apparently screaming in pain --- just moments after he is heard pleading: "Don't taze me bro, I didn't do anything."
UPDATE, AND A COMMENT: I continue to be troubled that neither Kerry, nor the bulk of the people in the audience appeared to take any action. Kudos to whoever was yelling near the end of the video above "what are you doing?!"
Discussion of the incident over at DU [6] has led several to say "Well, I don't think he should have been tasered, but he was clearing seeking publicity" or "being an ass" or "wasn't polite" or whatever.
I'm troubled that so many there seem to feel that though "he shouldn't have been tasered", it's okay that he was, because he was less than polite. Or something. If he didn't deserve to be tasered, then that's the end of it. Period.
The lack of outrage at such behavior, and the passivity displayed by both Kerry and the audience, along with those who seem to think such an overly-violent reaction is just fine --- to what appears to be a non-threatening situation --- is very troubling. What is says about our society today has been reminding me all day of the old "When They Came for Me..." poem [7].
The First Amendment doesn't include a Politeness Clause as far as I'm aware.
URLs in this post:
[1] Armed Madhouse: http://www.gregpalast.com/order-the-book/
[2] Image: http://www.gregpalast.com/student-tasered-for-armed-madhouse-question-to-kerry/
[3] BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com/
[4] article posted: http://www.gregpalast.com/student-tasered-for-armed-madhouse-question-to-kerry/
[5] RAW STORY's coverage: http://rawstory.com//news/2007/tudent_Tasered_for_asking_Senator_Kerry_0917.html
[6] Discussion of the incident over at DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1837676
[7] "When They Came for Me..." poem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
Student Tasered for Armed Madhouse Question to Kerry
http://www.gregpalast.com/student-tasered-for-armed-madhouse-question-to-kerry/
Student Tasered for Armed Madhouse Question to Kerry
Posted By Greg Palast On September 18, 2007
“[Palast] said you won the 2004 election - isn’t that amazing?
There were multiple reports of disenfranchising of Black voters on the day of the election in 2004 in Florida and Ohio. … How could you concede the election on the day?”
by Greg Palast
[1] Read the excerpt from Armed Madhouse that got Andrew Meyer’s in trouble.
We warned you: ‘Armed Madhouse’ is a dangerous book. Yesterday, [2] Andrew Meyer, a University of Florida student was attacked by five cops, zapped with tasers and arrested after demanding that Senator John Kerry answer the question.
Meyers, just released from jail and now facing five years in prison for resisting arrest, held up a copy of the book and began:
Student to John Kerry: “I want to recommend a book to you. It’s called ‘Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.’ He’s the top investigative journalist in America.”
Kerry: “I have the book. I’ve already read it.”
Student: “… In this book, it says there were 5 million votes and you won the election. … How could you concede the election on the day?”
Meyers, a telecommunications student at the Gainesville campus, asked related questions including a query as to why Kerry refused to vote for impeachment. When he passed his alloted one minute mic time, five cops jumped him, threw him to the ground, shot him with taser shockers.
Kerry, true to character, stood immobile.
Now, I’ve given many talks. And some questioners have taken too long at the mic. But I’ve never done the Stalin thing of cops and electronic beating to limit the discussion. (Yes, it’s true that Randi Rhodes recently threatened me with a taser when I’ve monopolized the mic in her studio.)
The Washington Post reported only that Meyers was holding a “mysterious yellow book.” VERY mysterious.
I would note that enchained student was busted in Alachua County, Florida, where, six years ago, I uncovered massive, systematic and utterly illegal disenfranchisement of Black voters - ordered by Gov. Jeb Bush’s office just before the 2000 election. (”Florida’s Disappeared Voters,” February 2001, The Nation.) Alachua remains under federal scrutiny for its long history of racial bias against Black voters.
I must admit I feel some appreciation for Meyers, especially because, even while he was being shot with untold amps of electricity, until he was handcuffed, he would not let go of his mysterious yellow book, ‘Armed Madhouse.’
Hear the update live tonight on the new “Palast Report” on Air America Radio. The Palast Report will now broadcast every Tuesday night, at 9:30pm, on Richard Greene’s new weeknight show, “Clout.”
And get America’s most SHOCKING book, the New York Times bestseller, [3] Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans (Penguin 2007).
Subscribe to Palast’s writings and view his investigative reports for BBC Television’s Newsnight, at http://www.gregpalast.com/.
URLs in this post:
[1] Read the excerpt: http://www.gregpalast.com/cranks-and-kooks-kerry-won-in-04-hear-one-of-them-larry-david-tell-you-the-stone-cold-evidence-that-yep-george-bush-stole-it-in-2004-again/
[2] Andrew Meyer: http://www.theandrewmeyer.com/
[3] Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans: http://www.gregpalast.com/order-the-book/
Student Tasered for Armed Madhouse Question to Kerry
Posted By Greg Palast On September 18, 2007
“[Palast] said you won the 2004 election - isn’t that amazing?
There were multiple reports of disenfranchising of Black voters on the day of the election in 2004 in Florida and Ohio. … How could you concede the election on the day?”
by Greg Palast
[1] Read the excerpt from Armed Madhouse that got Andrew Meyer’s in trouble.
We warned you: ‘Armed Madhouse’ is a dangerous book. Yesterday, [2] Andrew Meyer, a University of Florida student was attacked by five cops, zapped with tasers and arrested after demanding that Senator John Kerry answer the question.
Meyers, just released from jail and now facing five years in prison for resisting arrest, held up a copy of the book and began:
Student to John Kerry: “I want to recommend a book to you. It’s called ‘Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.’ He’s the top investigative journalist in America.”
Kerry: “I have the book. I’ve already read it.”
Student: “… In this book, it says there were 5 million votes and you won the election. … How could you concede the election on the day?”
Meyers, a telecommunications student at the Gainesville campus, asked related questions including a query as to why Kerry refused to vote for impeachment. When he passed his alloted one minute mic time, five cops jumped him, threw him to the ground, shot him with taser shockers.
Kerry, true to character, stood immobile.
Now, I’ve given many talks. And some questioners have taken too long at the mic. But I’ve never done the Stalin thing of cops and electronic beating to limit the discussion. (Yes, it’s true that Randi Rhodes recently threatened me with a taser when I’ve monopolized the mic in her studio.)
The Washington Post reported only that Meyers was holding a “mysterious yellow book.” VERY mysterious.
I would note that enchained student was busted in Alachua County, Florida, where, six years ago, I uncovered massive, systematic and utterly illegal disenfranchisement of Black voters - ordered by Gov. Jeb Bush’s office just before the 2000 election. (”Florida’s Disappeared Voters,” February 2001, The Nation.) Alachua remains under federal scrutiny for its long history of racial bias against Black voters.
I must admit I feel some appreciation for Meyers, especially because, even while he was being shot with untold amps of electricity, until he was handcuffed, he would not let go of his mysterious yellow book, ‘Armed Madhouse.’
Hear the update live tonight on the new “Palast Report” on Air America Radio. The Palast Report will now broadcast every Tuesday night, at 9:30pm, on Richard Greene’s new weeknight show, “Clout.”
And get America’s most SHOCKING book, the New York Times bestseller, [3] Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans (Penguin 2007).
Subscribe to Palast’s writings and view his investigative reports for BBC Television’s Newsnight, at http://www.gregpalast.com/.
URLs in this post:
[1] Read the excerpt: http://www.gregpalast.com/cranks-and-kooks-kerry-won-in-04-hear-one-of-them-larry-david-tell-you-the-stone-cold-evidence-that-yep-george-bush-stole-it-in-2004-again/
[2] Andrew Meyer: http://www.theandrewmeyer.com/
[3] Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans: http://www.gregpalast.com/order-the-book/
Student Arrested, Tasered at Kerry Event
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hfZBulx_H-prruRU2Clj0dIgUOww
Student Arrested, Tasered at Kerry Event
By TRAVIS REED
9-18-7
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's all right, let me answer his question."
Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room. Meyer screams for help and tries to break away from officers with his arms flailing at them, then is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting.
As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is shocked by the Taser. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"
Meyer was arrested on charges of resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records, but the State Attorney's Office had yet to make the formal charging decision. Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor.
University President J. Bernard Machen issued a statement Tuesday saying he requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate the arrest. Officials said it would determine whether the officers used an appropriate level of force.
Machen called the situation "regretful" in an afternoon news conference and said two officers involved in the incident were placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the probe.
"We're absolutely committed to having a safe environment for our faculty and our students so that a free exchange of ideas can occur," Machen said.
Kerry said Tuesday he regretted that a healthy discussion was interrupted and that he never had a dialogue end that way in 37 years of public appearances. He also said he hoped neither the student nor police were injured.
"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he told The Associated Press in Washington.
Meyer has his own Web site and it contains several "comedy" videos that he appears in. In one, he stands in a street with a sign that says "Harry Dies" after the latest Harry Potter book was released. In another, he acts like a drunk while trying to pick up a woman in a bar.
The site also has what is called a "disorganized diatribe" attributed to Meyer that criticizes the Iraq war, the news media for not covering the conflict enough and the American public for paying too much attention to celebrity news.
Associated Press writer Andrew Miga in Washington contributed to this report.
To see the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CheY0jYXJjY
Student Arrested, Tasered at Kerry Event
By TRAVIS REED
9-18-7
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's all right, let me answer his question."
Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room. Meyer screams for help and tries to break away from officers with his arms flailing at them, then is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting.
As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is shocked by the Taser. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"
Meyer was arrested on charges of resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records, but the State Attorney's Office had yet to make the formal charging decision. Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor.
University President J. Bernard Machen issued a statement Tuesday saying he requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate the arrest. Officials said it would determine whether the officers used an appropriate level of force.
Machen called the situation "regretful" in an afternoon news conference and said two officers involved in the incident were placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the probe.
"We're absolutely committed to having a safe environment for our faculty and our students so that a free exchange of ideas can occur," Machen said.
Kerry said Tuesday he regretted that a healthy discussion was interrupted and that he never had a dialogue end that way in 37 years of public appearances. He also said he hoped neither the student nor police were injured.
"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he told The Associated Press in Washington.
Meyer has his own Web site and it contains several "comedy" videos that he appears in. In one, he stands in a street with a sign that says "Harry Dies" after the latest Harry Potter book was released. In another, he acts like a drunk while trying to pick up a woman in a bar.
The site also has what is called a "disorganized diatribe" attributed to Meyer that criticizes the Iraq war, the news media for not covering the conflict enough and the American public for paying too much attention to celebrity news.
Associated Press writer Andrew Miga in Washington contributed to this report.
To see the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CheY0jYXJjY
L.A. has worst traffic; drivers lose 72 hrs a year
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070918/us_nm/traffic_usa_study_dc_1
L.A. has worst traffic; drivers lose 72 hrs a year
By Joan Gralla
Tue Sep 18, 2007
The Los Angeles metropolitan area led the nation in traffic jams in 2005, with rush-hour drivers spending an extra 72 hours a year on average stuck in traffic, according to a study released on Tuesday.
The metropolitan areas of San Francisco-0akland, Washington, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland, and Atlanta were tied for the second most gridlocked areas, according to the study by the Texas Transportation Institute.
Drivers in those three areas spent an extra 60 hours on average during peak periods, defined as 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., the study found.
But drivers in other regions around the country were not much luckier. The report (http://mobility.tamu.edu) found traffic gridlock worsened in all 437 large, medium and small urban centers in 2005.
"What causes congestion? In a word, 'you.' Most of the Mojave Desert is not congested," wrote report authors David Schrank, associate research scientist, and Tim Lomax, research engineer.
The Texas Transportation Institute is an arm of the Texas A&M University System in College Station, Texas.
In the last 20 years, travel has increased by 105 percent in metropolitan areas but road capacity -- measured by freeways and major thoroughfares -- has only risen 45 percent.
Travel by public transportation in 85 urban areas climbed 30 percent in the past two decades.
The study found that drivers in the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas, area had average delays of 58 hours.
San Diego drivers faced an average delay of 57 hours, and Houston drivers had an average delay of 56 hours. Detroit was in a three-way tie with San Jose, California, and Orlando, with average delays of 54 hours, according to the report.
Traffic forced U.S. urban dwellers to travel 4.2 billion hours more and buy an extra 2.9 billion gallons of fuel in 2005, for a total cost of $78 billion, the study said.
That worked out to 220 million more hours and 140 million more gallons of fuel than in 2004, with the total cost rising $5 billion.
Solving the problem not only includes focusing on "critical" corridors and easing choke points but making work schedules more flexible and building more areas where people can walk to work, the study said.
L.A. has worst traffic; drivers lose 72 hrs a year
By Joan Gralla
Tue Sep 18, 2007
The Los Angeles metropolitan area led the nation in traffic jams in 2005, with rush-hour drivers spending an extra 72 hours a year on average stuck in traffic, according to a study released on Tuesday.
The metropolitan areas of San Francisco-0akland, Washington, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland, and Atlanta were tied for the second most gridlocked areas, according to the study by the Texas Transportation Institute.
Drivers in those three areas spent an extra 60 hours on average during peak periods, defined as 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., the study found.
But drivers in other regions around the country were not much luckier. The report (http://mobility.tamu.edu) found traffic gridlock worsened in all 437 large, medium and small urban centers in 2005.
"What causes congestion? In a word, 'you.' Most of the Mojave Desert is not congested," wrote report authors David Schrank, associate research scientist, and Tim Lomax, research engineer.
The Texas Transportation Institute is an arm of the Texas A&M University System in College Station, Texas.
In the last 20 years, travel has increased by 105 percent in metropolitan areas but road capacity -- measured by freeways and major thoroughfares -- has only risen 45 percent.
Travel by public transportation in 85 urban areas climbed 30 percent in the past two decades.
The study found that drivers in the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas, area had average delays of 58 hours.
San Diego drivers faced an average delay of 57 hours, and Houston drivers had an average delay of 56 hours. Detroit was in a three-way tie with San Jose, California, and Orlando, with average delays of 54 hours, according to the report.
Traffic forced U.S. urban dwellers to travel 4.2 billion hours more and buy an extra 2.9 billion gallons of fuel in 2005, for a total cost of $78 billion, the study said.
That worked out to 220 million more hours and 140 million more gallons of fuel than in 2004, with the total cost rising $5 billion.
Solving the problem not only includes focusing on "critical" corridors and easing choke points but making work schedules more flexible and building more areas where people can walk to work, the study said.
Greenspan Spills the Beans on Oil
http://consortiumnews.com/2007/091607a.html
Greenspan Spills the Beans on Oil
By Ray McGovern
September 16, 2007
For those still wondering why President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney sent our young men and women into Iraq, the secret is now “largely” out.
No, not from the lips of former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It appears we shall have to wait until the disgraced general/diplomat draws nearer to meeting his maker before he gets concerned over anything more than the “blot” that Iraq has put on his reputation.
Rather, the uncommon candor comes from a highly respected Republican doyen, economist Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, whom the president has praised for his “wise policies and prudent judgment.”
Sadly for Bush and Cheney, Greenspan decided to put prudence aside in his new book, The Age of Turbulence, and answer the most neuralgic issue of our times—why the United States invaded Iraq.
Greenspan writes:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Everyone knows? Would that it were so. But it’s hardly everyone.
There are so many, still, who “can’t handle the truth,” and that is understandable. I have found it a wrenching experience to conclude that the America I love would deliberately launch what the Nuremburg Tribunal called the “supreme international crime”—a war of aggression—largely for oil.
For those who are able to overcome the very common, instinctive denial, for those who can handle the truth, it really helps to turn off the Sunday football games early enough to catch up on what’s going on.
There they could have seen another of Bush’s senior economic advisers, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill on Jan. 11, 2004, discussing The Price of Loyalty, his memoir about his two years inside the Bush administration.
O’Neill, a plain speaker, likened the president’s behavior at cabinet meetings to that of “a blind man in a roomful of deaf people.” Cheney and “a praetorian guard that encircled the president” would help Bush make decisions off-line, blocking contrary views.
Cheney has a Rumsfeldian knack for aphorisms that don’t parse in the real world— like “deficits don’t matter.” To his credit, O’Neill picked a fight with that and ended up being fired personally by Cheney. In his book, Greenspan heaps scorn on the same Cheneyesque insight.
O’Neill made no bones about his befuddlement over the president’s diffident disengagement from discussions on policy, except, that is, for Bush’s remarks betraying a pep-rally-cheerleader fixation with removing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq.
Why Iraq? 'Largely Oil'
O’Neill began to understand right after Bush’s inauguration when the discussion among his top advisers abruptly moved to how to divvy up Iraq’s oil wealth.
Just days into the job, President Bush created the Cheney energy task force with the stated aim of developing “a national energy policy designed to help the private sector.” Typically, Cheney has been able to keep secret its deliberations and even the names of its members.
But a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced the Commerce Department to turn over task force documents, including a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries, terminals, and potential areas for exploration; a Pentagon chart “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts”; and another chart detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects—all dated March 2001.
On the 60 Minutes program on Dec. 15, 2002, Steve Croft asked then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “What do you say to people who think this [the coming invasion of Iraq] is about oil?” Rumsfeld replied:
“Nonsense. It just isn’t. There—there—there are certain............. things like that, myths that are floating around. I’m glad you asked. I—it has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.”
Au Contraire
Greenspan’s indiscreet remark adds to the abundant evidence that Iraq oil, and not weapons of mass destruction, was the priority target long before the Bush administration invoked WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq.
In the heady days of “Mission Accomplished,” a week after the president landed on the aircraft carrier, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz virtually bragged about the deceit during an interview.
On May 9, 2003, Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair:
“The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason...”
During a relaxed moment in Singapore later that same month, Wolfowitz reminded the press that Iraq “floats on a sea of oil,” and thus added to the migraine he had already given folks in the White House PR shop.
But wait. For those of us absorbing more than Fox channel news, the primacy of the oil factor was a no-brainer.
The limited number of invading troops were ordered to give priority to securing the oil wells and oil industry infrastructure immediately and let looters have their way with just about everything else (including the ammunition storage depots!).
Barely three weeks into the war, Rumsfeld famously answered criticism for not stopping the looting: “Stuff happens.” No stuff happened to the Oil Ministry.
Small wonder that, according to O’Neill, Rumsfeld tried hard to dissuade him from writing his book and has avoided all comment on it. As for Greenspan’s book, Rumsfeld will find it easier to dodge questions from the Washington press corps from his sinecure at the Hoover Institute at Stanford.
Eminence Grise...or Oily
But the other half of what Col. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff at the State Department, calls the “Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal” is still lurking in the shadows.
What changed Cheney’s attitude toward Iraq from his sensible remark in 1992 when then-Defense Secretary Cheney defended President George H.W. Bush's decision in 1991 not to follow up the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait with the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the conquest of Iraq.
“How many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?” Cheney asked in August 1992. “Not that damned many. So I think we got it right...when the president made the decision that we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Then, there were Cheney’s revealing, damning remarks as Halliburton's CEO?
“Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand,” Cheney said in autumn 1999. “So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. The Middle East with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
Not only Cheney, but also many of the captains of the oil industry were looking on Iraq with covetous eyes before the war.
Most forget that the Bush/Cheney administration came in on the heels of severe shortages of oil and natural gas in the U.S., and the passing of a milestone at which the United States had just begun importing more than half of the oil it consumes.
One oil executive confided to a New York Times reporter a month before the war: “For any oil company, being in Iraq is like being a kid in F.A.O. Schwarz.”
There were, to be sure, other factors behind the ill-starred attack on Iraq—the determination to acquire permanent military bases in the area, for one. But that factor can be viewed as a subset of the energy motivation.
In other words, the felt need for what the Pentagon prefers to call “enduring” military bases in the Middle East is a function of its strategic importance which is a function—you guessed it, a function of its natural resources. Not only oil, but natural gas and water as well.
In my opinion, the other major factor in the Bush/Cheney decision to make war on Iraq was the misguided notion that this would make that part of the world safer for Israel.
Indeed, the so-called “neo-conservatives” still running U.S. policy toward the Middle East continue to have great difficulty distinguishing between what they perceive to be the strategic interests of Israel and those of the United States.
Why Are Americans Silent?
Could it be that many Americans remain silent because we are unwilling to recognize the Iraq war as the first of the resource wars of the 21st century; because we continue to be comfortable hogging far more than our share of the world’s resources and will look the other way if our leaders tell us that aggressive war is necessary to protect that siren-call, “our way of life,” from attack by those who are just plain jealous?
Perhaps a clue can be found in the remarkable reaction I received after a lecture I gave two and a half years ago in a very affluent suburb of Milwaukee. I had devoted much of my talk to what I consider the most important factoid of this century: the world is running out of oil.
Afterwards some 20 folks lingered in a small circle to ask follow-up questions. A persistent, handsomely dressed man, who just would not let go, dominated the questioning:
"Surely you agree that we need the oil. Then what's your problem? Some 1,450 killed thus far are far fewer than the toll in Vietnam where we lost 58,000; it's a small price to pay... a sustainable rate to bear. What IS your problem?"
I asked the man if he would feel differently if one of those (then) 1,450 killed were his own son. Judging from his abrupt, incredulous reaction, the suggestion struck him as so farfetched as to be beyond his ken. “It wouldn’t be my son,” he said.
And that, I believe, is a HUGE part of the problem.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. A former CIA analyst, he is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. His e-mail is RRMcGovern@aol.com.
Greenspan Spills the Beans on Oil
By Ray McGovern
September 16, 2007
For those still wondering why President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney sent our young men and women into Iraq, the secret is now “largely” out.
No, not from the lips of former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It appears we shall have to wait until the disgraced general/diplomat draws nearer to meeting his maker before he gets concerned over anything more than the “blot” that Iraq has put on his reputation.
Rather, the uncommon candor comes from a highly respected Republican doyen, economist Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, whom the president has praised for his “wise policies and prudent judgment.”
Sadly for Bush and Cheney, Greenspan decided to put prudence aside in his new book, The Age of Turbulence, and answer the most neuralgic issue of our times—why the United States invaded Iraq.
Greenspan writes:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Everyone knows? Would that it were so. But it’s hardly everyone.
There are so many, still, who “can’t handle the truth,” and that is understandable. I have found it a wrenching experience to conclude that the America I love would deliberately launch what the Nuremburg Tribunal called the “supreme international crime”—a war of aggression—largely for oil.
For those who are able to overcome the very common, instinctive denial, for those who can handle the truth, it really helps to turn off the Sunday football games early enough to catch up on what’s going on.
There they could have seen another of Bush’s senior economic advisers, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill on Jan. 11, 2004, discussing The Price of Loyalty, his memoir about his two years inside the Bush administration.
O’Neill, a plain speaker, likened the president’s behavior at cabinet meetings to that of “a blind man in a roomful of deaf people.” Cheney and “a praetorian guard that encircled the president” would help Bush make decisions off-line, blocking contrary views.
Cheney has a Rumsfeldian knack for aphorisms that don’t parse in the real world— like “deficits don’t matter.” To his credit, O’Neill picked a fight with that and ended up being fired personally by Cheney. In his book, Greenspan heaps scorn on the same Cheneyesque insight.
O’Neill made no bones about his befuddlement over the president’s diffident disengagement from discussions on policy, except, that is, for Bush’s remarks betraying a pep-rally-cheerleader fixation with removing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq.
Why Iraq? 'Largely Oil'
O’Neill began to understand right after Bush’s inauguration when the discussion among his top advisers abruptly moved to how to divvy up Iraq’s oil wealth.
Just days into the job, President Bush created the Cheney energy task force with the stated aim of developing “a national energy policy designed to help the private sector.” Typically, Cheney has been able to keep secret its deliberations and even the names of its members.
But a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced the Commerce Department to turn over task force documents, including a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries, terminals, and potential areas for exploration; a Pentagon chart “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts”; and another chart detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects—all dated March 2001.
On the 60 Minutes program on Dec. 15, 2002, Steve Croft asked then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “What do you say to people who think this [the coming invasion of Iraq] is about oil?” Rumsfeld replied:
“Nonsense. It just isn’t. There—there—there are certain............. things like that, myths that are floating around. I’m glad you asked. I—it has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.”
Au Contraire
Greenspan’s indiscreet remark adds to the abundant evidence that Iraq oil, and not weapons of mass destruction, was the priority target long before the Bush administration invoked WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq.
In the heady days of “Mission Accomplished,” a week after the president landed on the aircraft carrier, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz virtually bragged about the deceit during an interview.
On May 9, 2003, Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair:
“The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason...”
During a relaxed moment in Singapore later that same month, Wolfowitz reminded the press that Iraq “floats on a sea of oil,” and thus added to the migraine he had already given folks in the White House PR shop.
But wait. For those of us absorbing more than Fox channel news, the primacy of the oil factor was a no-brainer.
The limited number of invading troops were ordered to give priority to securing the oil wells and oil industry infrastructure immediately and let looters have their way with just about everything else (including the ammunition storage depots!).
Barely three weeks into the war, Rumsfeld famously answered criticism for not stopping the looting: “Stuff happens.” No stuff happened to the Oil Ministry.
Small wonder that, according to O’Neill, Rumsfeld tried hard to dissuade him from writing his book and has avoided all comment on it. As for Greenspan’s book, Rumsfeld will find it easier to dodge questions from the Washington press corps from his sinecure at the Hoover Institute at Stanford.
Eminence Grise...or Oily
But the other half of what Col. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff at the State Department, calls the “Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal” is still lurking in the shadows.
What changed Cheney’s attitude toward Iraq from his sensible remark in 1992 when then-Defense Secretary Cheney defended President George H.W. Bush's decision in 1991 not to follow up the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait with the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the conquest of Iraq.
“How many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?” Cheney asked in August 1992. “Not that damned many. So I think we got it right...when the president made the decision that we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Then, there were Cheney’s revealing, damning remarks as Halliburton's CEO?
“Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand,” Cheney said in autumn 1999. “So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. The Middle East with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
Not only Cheney, but also many of the captains of the oil industry were looking on Iraq with covetous eyes before the war.
Most forget that the Bush/Cheney administration came in on the heels of severe shortages of oil and natural gas in the U.S., and the passing of a milestone at which the United States had just begun importing more than half of the oil it consumes.
One oil executive confided to a New York Times reporter a month before the war: “For any oil company, being in Iraq is like being a kid in F.A.O. Schwarz.”
There were, to be sure, other factors behind the ill-starred attack on Iraq—the determination to acquire permanent military bases in the area, for one. But that factor can be viewed as a subset of the energy motivation.
In other words, the felt need for what the Pentagon prefers to call “enduring” military bases in the Middle East is a function of its strategic importance which is a function—you guessed it, a function of its natural resources. Not only oil, but natural gas and water as well.
In my opinion, the other major factor in the Bush/Cheney decision to make war on Iraq was the misguided notion that this would make that part of the world safer for Israel.
Indeed, the so-called “neo-conservatives” still running U.S. policy toward the Middle East continue to have great difficulty distinguishing between what they perceive to be the strategic interests of Israel and those of the United States.
Why Are Americans Silent?
Could it be that many Americans remain silent because we are unwilling to recognize the Iraq war as the first of the resource wars of the 21st century; because we continue to be comfortable hogging far more than our share of the world’s resources and will look the other way if our leaders tell us that aggressive war is necessary to protect that siren-call, “our way of life,” from attack by those who are just plain jealous?
Perhaps a clue can be found in the remarkable reaction I received after a lecture I gave two and a half years ago in a very affluent suburb of Milwaukee. I had devoted much of my talk to what I consider the most important factoid of this century: the world is running out of oil.
Afterwards some 20 folks lingered in a small circle to ask follow-up questions. A persistent, handsomely dressed man, who just would not let go, dominated the questioning:
"Surely you agree that we need the oil. Then what's your problem? Some 1,450 killed thus far are far fewer than the toll in Vietnam where we lost 58,000; it's a small price to pay... a sustainable rate to bear. What IS your problem?"
I asked the man if he would feel differently if one of those (then) 1,450 killed were his own son. Judging from his abrupt, incredulous reaction, the suggestion struck him as so farfetched as to be beyond his ken. “It wouldn’t be my son,” he said.
And that, I believe, is a HUGE part of the problem.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. A former CIA analyst, he is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. His e-mail is RRMcGovern@aol.com.
Fudge-Glazed Creamy Peanut Butter Cake
Uncle Fats' Tasty Meal of the Week
In honor of my Uncle Fats' birthday, we present:
Fudge-Glazed Creamy Peanut Butter Cake
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/recipe.jsp?recipe_id=1186592299223
This spectacular cake features two favorite flavors: chocolate and peanut butter.
Cake
1 cup (7 ounces) granulated sugar
1 cup (4 1/4 ounces) King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour
1 tablespoon (1/4 ounce) Instant ClearJel® or cornstarch
1/3 cup (1 ounce) Double-Dutch Dark Cocoa, black cocoa, or Dutch-process cocoa
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon espresso powder
1/4 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 large eggs
1/3 cup (2 3/8 ounces) vegetable oil
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 cup + 2 tablespoons (5 ounces) water
Filling
3/4 cup (7 ounces) peanut butter, creamy or chunky
2 cups (8 ounces) confectioners' sugar or glazing sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/3 cup (2 5/8 ounces) milk or cream
Icing
1 cup (6 ounces) chopped semisweet or bittersweet chocolate
6 tablespoons (3 ounces) heavy or whipping cream
1/2 cup chopped salted peanuts, for garnish (optional)
Preheat the oven to 350°F. Lightly grease and flour (or grease, then line with parchment, then grease again) an 8" round cake pan. Note: This pan needs to be at least 2" tall; if you have a non-standard, shorter 8" pan, substitute a 9" round pan.
To make the cake: Whisk together the dry ingredients. Add the eggs, oil, and vanilla, beating until smooth. Gradually add the water, beating until smooth. Pour the batter into the prepared pan.
Bake the cake for 35 to 38 minutes (about 25 minutes if you're using a 9" pan), or until a cake tester inserted into the center comes out clean. Cool the cake in the pan for 15 minutes, then turn it out of the pan to cool completely on a rack.
To make the filling: Beat together the peanut butter, sugar, and vanilla till crumbly, then add the milk or cream, beating till smooth. Add additional milk or cream, if necessary, to make a spreadable filling.
To make the icing: Combine the chocolate and cream in a microwave-safe bowl, and heat until the cream is hot, and the chocolate soft. Stir to melt the chocolate completely, reheating very briefly if necessary. Allow the icing to rest for about 30 to 45 minutes, or until it's thickened enough to be spreadable.
To assemble the cake: Slice the cake in half horizontally, to make two layers. Place one piece, cut side up, on a serving plate. Spread with the filling. Top with the second piece, cut side down. Spread the top and sides of the cake with the icing. Garnish with chopped peanuts, if desired. Yield: one 8" cake, 8 to 10 servings.
In honor of my Uncle Fats' birthday, we present:
Fudge-Glazed Creamy Peanut Butter Cake
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/recipe.jsp?recipe_id=1186592299223
This spectacular cake features two favorite flavors: chocolate and peanut butter.
Cake
1 cup (7 ounces) granulated sugar
1 cup (4 1/4 ounces) King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour
1 tablespoon (1/4 ounce) Instant ClearJel® or cornstarch
1/3 cup (1 ounce) Double-Dutch Dark Cocoa, black cocoa, or Dutch-process cocoa
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon espresso powder
1/4 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 large eggs
1/3 cup (2 3/8 ounces) vegetable oil
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 cup + 2 tablespoons (5 ounces) water
Filling
3/4 cup (7 ounces) peanut butter, creamy or chunky
2 cups (8 ounces) confectioners' sugar or glazing sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/3 cup (2 5/8 ounces) milk or cream
Icing
1 cup (6 ounces) chopped semisweet or bittersweet chocolate
6 tablespoons (3 ounces) heavy or whipping cream
1/2 cup chopped salted peanuts, for garnish (optional)
Preheat the oven to 350°F. Lightly grease and flour (or grease, then line with parchment, then grease again) an 8" round cake pan. Note: This pan needs to be at least 2" tall; if you have a non-standard, shorter 8" pan, substitute a 9" round pan.
To make the cake: Whisk together the dry ingredients. Add the eggs, oil, and vanilla, beating until smooth. Gradually add the water, beating until smooth. Pour the batter into the prepared pan.
Bake the cake for 35 to 38 minutes (about 25 minutes if you're using a 9" pan), or until a cake tester inserted into the center comes out clean. Cool the cake in the pan for 15 minutes, then turn it out of the pan to cool completely on a rack.
To make the filling: Beat together the peanut butter, sugar, and vanilla till crumbly, then add the milk or cream, beating till smooth. Add additional milk or cream, if necessary, to make a spreadable filling.
To make the icing: Combine the chocolate and cream in a microwave-safe bowl, and heat until the cream is hot, and the chocolate soft. Stir to melt the chocolate completely, reheating very briefly if necessary. Allow the icing to rest for about 30 to 45 minutes, or until it's thickened enough to be spreadable.
To assemble the cake: Slice the cake in half horizontally, to make two layers. Place one piece, cut side up, on a serving plate. Spread with the filling. Top with the second piece, cut side down. Spread the top and sides of the cake with the icing. Garnish with chopped peanuts, if desired. Yield: one 8" cake, 8 to 10 servings.
New Age COINTELPRO and the Optimism Gestapo
http://www.mysteriesmagazine.com/articles/issue18.html
Mysteries Magazine
Issue 18
New Age COINTELPRO and the Optimism Gestapo
by Jaye Beldo
Why has there not been a mass transformation of consciousness, culminating in peace on earth, as so many promised back in the early days of the New Age movement? The answer is that there may be a metaphysical COINTELPRO at work, all under the cover of love and light.
Most people remember COINTELPRO from the days of the Black Panthers, Yippies, and other revolutionary groups who threatened our government during the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war. Sensing that these groups might incite American citizens into radical action, the FBI sent in agents to agitate members of these various groups, often pitting them against each other through various forms of subterfuge, such as blackmail.
It appears that the CIA, FBI, and NSA are now sending their goons into the metaphysical marketplace, making sure that people who think they are aspiring to higher and positively transformative things are, in reality, only becoming more self-indulgent, disconnected, and confused.
The biggest influx of these agents occurred during the blossoming of the "human potential" movement in the early '70s, through such institutions as Esalen. Legions of people threw away their protest banners and followed their bliss during a time when directly addressing the socio-political problems of the day was imperative.
Since then, the emphasis on personal development—and more recently, the You Create Your Own Reality movement—a significant segment of the population has been brainwashed into disdaining all socio-political issues. For what better way to disempower people than to have them focus on their personal evolution at the expense of their families, communities, and the countries they live in?
Metaphysical Double-Speak
Probably the most flagrant examples of New Age COINTELPRO are channelers who convey disturbing messages from supposedly highly evolved discarnate entities. For example, when the war in Iraq first started in 2003, a well-known channeler in Santa Fe, NM, who channels the ancient Egyptian goddess Sekhmet, allegedly claimed that the war was an "ultimate expression of [Sekhmet's] compassion for the human race." It would take a considerable amount of gullibility to swallow this kind of nonsense, but swallow it the New Agers did.
With such multidimensional "logic" at hand, practically any injustice, whether torture, environmental destruction, or manipulation of the economy by global powers, can be justified as an act of compassion. This is no different from the theocratic stance of George W. Bush when he said that God told him to invade Iraq! Such metaphysical double-speak is dangerous, yet is nevertheless seeping into popular culture.
Of course, not all channelers are working for the shadow government. Rather, we should use much discernment in regard to channeled information. If channeled information through predictions of global cataclysm, for instance, creates fear and makes us feel ungrounded, unsure, and mistrusting, then it probably is coming from a COINTELPRO source and should be taken with an immense grain of salt.
The Optimism Gestapo
However, perhaps the most insidious aspect of the New Age movement is what I call the Optimism Gestapo, or those who regulate and insist on positive thinking by any means necessary, where any criticism or expression of negative or painful emotions are disdained.
I once brought up to an Ashtar Command "ascencionist" (i.e. someone who believes that extraterrestrials will come and save her), the fact that democratic senator Paul Wellstone may have been murdered in order to get republican Norm Coleman elected. Before I could elaborate, she cut me off by saying, "It was just his time." She was intolerant of the fact that I dared interfere with the reality she was creating, free of conspiracy, cutthroat politicians, and skullduggery. And the more I have played devil's advocate with New Agers, the more I have discovered that such intolerance is the norm. For there currently is a belief amongst New Agers that anything negative that one expresses will only further magnetize negativity. However, those who pursue this line of thinking just end up repressing their negative emotions, only to have them burst forth in uncontrollable ways.
As an example, I once was in a massage therapist's office proofreading a manuscript for him. I was reading how he had a deep respect for his Japanese ancestors who originated the massage techniques he used in his practice. The phone rang and I heard him say, "Just dial 911," then slammed the phone down. He then turned to me and explained, "That was my wife. My kid just fell down some stairs. I can't deal with it."
On the surface, the massage therapist conveyed an aura of humaneness and caring, all the while repressing his shadow side, as evidenced by his coldness towards his wife and child. Dr. Carl Jung recognized the danger of such repression and recommended confronting the nether-regions of our psyches—primarily through dream work—as a way of achieving healthy psychological equilibrium.
Anyone seeking a supportive metaphysical community should first ask themselves if their ability to think independently is being compromised. For keeping one's metaphysical radar functioning is most important in a world crawling with "forced cheer" gurus, COINTELPRO channelers, and self-help authors.
Jaye Beldo is a writer, musician and intuitive healer. His work has appeared in Paranoia Magazine, Mysteries Magazine, FATE, Dream Network, City Pages and Rain Taxi Review of Books. He has appeared on BBC and Capitol Radio London, WGN Chicago, WLW Cincinnatti, Untamed Dimensions, The Robin Zodiac Show, The Darker Side of the Moon and Out There Radio on the WWW. He is the author of the New Age Murder Mystery A Stab in the Light available at: http://www.stabinthelight.com/
He can be reached at: stabinthelight@earthlink.net
This commentary does not reflect the views and opinions of the publisher or staff of Mysteries magazine.
Mysteries Magazine
Issue 18
New Age COINTELPRO and the Optimism Gestapo
by Jaye Beldo
Why has there not been a mass transformation of consciousness, culminating in peace on earth, as so many promised back in the early days of the New Age movement? The answer is that there may be a metaphysical COINTELPRO at work, all under the cover of love and light.
Most people remember COINTELPRO from the days of the Black Panthers, Yippies, and other revolutionary groups who threatened our government during the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war. Sensing that these groups might incite American citizens into radical action, the FBI sent in agents to agitate members of these various groups, often pitting them against each other through various forms of subterfuge, such as blackmail.
It appears that the CIA, FBI, and NSA are now sending their goons into the metaphysical marketplace, making sure that people who think they are aspiring to higher and positively transformative things are, in reality, only becoming more self-indulgent, disconnected, and confused.
The biggest influx of these agents occurred during the blossoming of the "human potential" movement in the early '70s, through such institutions as Esalen. Legions of people threw away their protest banners and followed their bliss during a time when directly addressing the socio-political problems of the day was imperative.
Since then, the emphasis on personal development—and more recently, the You Create Your Own Reality movement—a significant segment of the population has been brainwashed into disdaining all socio-political issues. For what better way to disempower people than to have them focus on their personal evolution at the expense of their families, communities, and the countries they live in?
Metaphysical Double-Speak
Probably the most flagrant examples of New Age COINTELPRO are channelers who convey disturbing messages from supposedly highly evolved discarnate entities. For example, when the war in Iraq first started in 2003, a well-known channeler in Santa Fe, NM, who channels the ancient Egyptian goddess Sekhmet, allegedly claimed that the war was an "ultimate expression of [Sekhmet's] compassion for the human race." It would take a considerable amount of gullibility to swallow this kind of nonsense, but swallow it the New Agers did.
With such multidimensional "logic" at hand, practically any injustice, whether torture, environmental destruction, or manipulation of the economy by global powers, can be justified as an act of compassion. This is no different from the theocratic stance of George W. Bush when he said that God told him to invade Iraq! Such metaphysical double-speak is dangerous, yet is nevertheless seeping into popular culture.
Of course, not all channelers are working for the shadow government. Rather, we should use much discernment in regard to channeled information. If channeled information through predictions of global cataclysm, for instance, creates fear and makes us feel ungrounded, unsure, and mistrusting, then it probably is coming from a COINTELPRO source and should be taken with an immense grain of salt.
The Optimism Gestapo
However, perhaps the most insidious aspect of the New Age movement is what I call the Optimism Gestapo, or those who regulate and insist on positive thinking by any means necessary, where any criticism or expression of negative or painful emotions are disdained.
I once brought up to an Ashtar Command "ascencionist" (i.e. someone who believes that extraterrestrials will come and save her), the fact that democratic senator Paul Wellstone may have been murdered in order to get republican Norm Coleman elected. Before I could elaborate, she cut me off by saying, "It was just his time." She was intolerant of the fact that I dared interfere with the reality she was creating, free of conspiracy, cutthroat politicians, and skullduggery. And the more I have played devil's advocate with New Agers, the more I have discovered that such intolerance is the norm. For there currently is a belief amongst New Agers that anything negative that one expresses will only further magnetize negativity. However, those who pursue this line of thinking just end up repressing their negative emotions, only to have them burst forth in uncontrollable ways.
As an example, I once was in a massage therapist's office proofreading a manuscript for him. I was reading how he had a deep respect for his Japanese ancestors who originated the massage techniques he used in his practice. The phone rang and I heard him say, "Just dial 911," then slammed the phone down. He then turned to me and explained, "That was my wife. My kid just fell down some stairs. I can't deal with it."
On the surface, the massage therapist conveyed an aura of humaneness and caring, all the while repressing his shadow side, as evidenced by his coldness towards his wife and child. Dr. Carl Jung recognized the danger of such repression and recommended confronting the nether-regions of our psyches—primarily through dream work—as a way of achieving healthy psychological equilibrium.
Anyone seeking a supportive metaphysical community should first ask themselves if their ability to think independently is being compromised. For keeping one's metaphysical radar functioning is most important in a world crawling with "forced cheer" gurus, COINTELPRO channelers, and self-help authors.
Jaye Beldo is a writer, musician and intuitive healer. His work has appeared in Paranoia Magazine, Mysteries Magazine, FATE, Dream Network, City Pages and Rain Taxi Review of Books. He has appeared on BBC and Capitol Radio London, WGN Chicago, WLW Cincinnatti, Untamed Dimensions, The Robin Zodiac Show, The Darker Side of the Moon and Out There Radio on the WWW. He is the author of the New Age Murder Mystery A Stab in the Light available at: http://www.stabinthelight.com/
He can be reached at: stabinthelight@earthlink.net
This commentary does not reflect the views and opinions of the publisher or staff of Mysteries magazine.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
What is Zeolite?
Thanks to Rense.com for the following link:
http://www.islandzeolite.com
What is Zeolite?
Natural Zeolites are porous minerals created through the interaction of volcanic ash with sea water, forming over thousands of years. Liquid Zeolite is made from clinoptilolite, a safe and well-studied variety of zeolite.
Zeolite has been used to improve health in India, Russia and China for over 800 years. It is classified by the FDA as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe).
In its powdered form, this special mineral has been found useful in many other ways. After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, for example, tons of Zeolites were dumped over the area to absorb radioactive particles and prevent contamination of the groundwater.
How does Liquid Zeolite work?
Zeolite has a highly negatively-charged honeycomb-like molecular structure. This gives it the unique ability to attract positively-charged molecules such as heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides, plastics and other environmental toxins, as well as to inhibit virus replication. Many studies have shown zeolite’s effectiveness in binding and removing heavy metals and other toxins which adversely affect biological systems. The advantage of this specially processed liquid zeolite is that each small bottle is a powerhouse, containing 3 grams of zeolite. Each gram has 90 square feet of surface area, purified and activated to trap toxins by an exclusive, patented process.
We are all exposed to multiple, difficult-to-remove toxins in our environment, including depleted uranium and other heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, etc. Urine tests can demonstrate how Liquid Zeolite removes pernicious heavy metal toxins from the body. Doctors report that using Liquid Zeolite is much more effective, safer and easier than standard chelation for heavy metal detoxification.
Liquid Zeolite users with varied and serious health challenges have experienced wonderful, often quite dramatic health improvements. For this reason, Gabriel Cousens, M.D., has called this new, purified, activated form of zeolite “An alchemical gift from God”! Dr. Cousens and other holistically-oriented doctors are safely using Liquid Zeolite with pre-pregnant and pregnant women, removing dangerous toxins before they can affect the new babies.
If you or someone you care about has a toxin-related challenge, NCD Liquid Zeolite may be just what you are looking for. We feel once you discover what this product can do, you will want to try it for your own use, and to let others know about it as well.
To enjoy the lowest distributor prices, please call us at the toll-free number for more specific information. You may order directly here. Our opportunity to serve you is a blessing.
Please contact Hari or Anne
toll-free at
1-877-480-7481,
or islandzeolite@hawaiiantel.net
http://www.islandzeolite.com
What is Zeolite?
Natural Zeolites are porous minerals created through the interaction of volcanic ash with sea water, forming over thousands of years. Liquid Zeolite is made from clinoptilolite, a safe and well-studied variety of zeolite.
Zeolite has been used to improve health in India, Russia and China for over 800 years. It is classified by the FDA as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe).
In its powdered form, this special mineral has been found useful in many other ways. After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, for example, tons of Zeolites were dumped over the area to absorb radioactive particles and prevent contamination of the groundwater.
How does Liquid Zeolite work?
Zeolite has a highly negatively-charged honeycomb-like molecular structure. This gives it the unique ability to attract positively-charged molecules such as heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides, plastics and other environmental toxins, as well as to inhibit virus replication. Many studies have shown zeolite’s effectiveness in binding and removing heavy metals and other toxins which adversely affect biological systems. The advantage of this specially processed liquid zeolite is that each small bottle is a powerhouse, containing 3 grams of zeolite. Each gram has 90 square feet of surface area, purified and activated to trap toxins by an exclusive, patented process.
We are all exposed to multiple, difficult-to-remove toxins in our environment, including depleted uranium and other heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, etc. Urine tests can demonstrate how Liquid Zeolite removes pernicious heavy metal toxins from the body. Doctors report that using Liquid Zeolite is much more effective, safer and easier than standard chelation for heavy metal detoxification.
Liquid Zeolite users with varied and serious health challenges have experienced wonderful, often quite dramatic health improvements. For this reason, Gabriel Cousens, M.D., has called this new, purified, activated form of zeolite “An alchemical gift from God”! Dr. Cousens and other holistically-oriented doctors are safely using Liquid Zeolite with pre-pregnant and pregnant women, removing dangerous toxins before they can affect the new babies.
If you or someone you care about has a toxin-related challenge, NCD Liquid Zeolite may be just what you are looking for. We feel once you discover what this product can do, you will want to try it for your own use, and to let others know about it as well.
To enjoy the lowest distributor prices, please call us at the toll-free number for more specific information. You may order directly here. Our opportunity to serve you is a blessing.
Please contact Hari or Anne
toll-free at
1-877-480-7481,
or islandzeolite@hawaiiantel.net
Verizon Dumps on Open Access, Sues FCC
http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/09/verizon-dumps-o.html
Verizon Dumps on Open Access, Sues FCC
By Bryan Gardiner
September 13, 2007
Categories: Legal, Telecom, Wireless
Casting aside all pretense of public interest (and concern for corporate image), Verizon Wireless filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit earlier this week decrying the open access rules pertaining to the FCC's forthcoming 700 MHz auction.
Despite the conventional wisdom that carriers would avoid challenging the 700 MHz auction rules, Verizon Wireless confidently assumed the role of industry jerk earlier this week by asking the federal court to overturn the FCC's open-access rules calling them "arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law."
To be clear, Verizon has not sought a stay to prevent the auction from actually starting on Jan. 16, 2008. It apparently just wants the government (and everyone else) to know that competition won't be appreciated. This, in and of itself, is odd because the company, under anti-trust precedent, would not be able to even hold this yummy spectrum, according to Frontline Wireless.
In reaction to Verizon's legal move, Frontline observed that the petition "throws a wrench into the auction to promote competition and innovation for consumers…," adding that "[the company] is challenging the FCC for doing what Congress required it to do in the first place -- ensure that auction policy is guided solely by the public interest."
Google's not too impressed, either. On the company's Public Policy Blog, Chris Sacca said "It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics."
Indeed, Verizon's short petition (.pdf) seems to prove, among other things, that the open access rules being imposed (for now) on the 22 MHz block really do have the potential to give consumers more choices.
Of course, what's even more odd about all of this is that those two open access rules the FCC granted to Google and others are in fact not all that guaranteed. Here's an interesting little portion of the current auction rules:
…if the license block that had been conditioned on limited no-locking, no-blocking requirements fails to sell for at least $4.6 billion, it will be re-auctioned in smaller chunks without any conditions applied.
That escape clause, as communications law professor Susan Crawford notes on her blog, could very well "hand the industry the pen to write the auction rules and to constrict all the opportunities this spectrum held forth."
In response to Verizon’s move this week, Crawford also had this to say:
The very modest, much-less-than-halfway measures taken by the Commission are under attack -- which shows how vitally uninterested these incumbents are in having their business models undermined. Even for a tiny piece of spectrum. Even when they already have all the frequencies they need.
Verizon was not immediately available for comment and was last seen punching old ladies and stealing candy from babies.
Verizon Dumps on Open Access, Sues FCC
By Bryan Gardiner
September 13, 2007
Categories: Legal, Telecom, Wireless
Casting aside all pretense of public interest (and concern for corporate image), Verizon Wireless filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit earlier this week decrying the open access rules pertaining to the FCC's forthcoming 700 MHz auction.
Despite the conventional wisdom that carriers would avoid challenging the 700 MHz auction rules, Verizon Wireless confidently assumed the role of industry jerk earlier this week by asking the federal court to overturn the FCC's open-access rules calling them "arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law."
To be clear, Verizon has not sought a stay to prevent the auction from actually starting on Jan. 16, 2008. It apparently just wants the government (and everyone else) to know that competition won't be appreciated. This, in and of itself, is odd because the company, under anti-trust precedent, would not be able to even hold this yummy spectrum, according to Frontline Wireless.
In reaction to Verizon's legal move, Frontline observed that the petition "throws a wrench into the auction to promote competition and innovation for consumers…," adding that "[the company] is challenging the FCC for doing what Congress required it to do in the first place -- ensure that auction policy is guided solely by the public interest."
Google's not too impressed, either. On the company's Public Policy Blog, Chris Sacca said "It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics."
Indeed, Verizon's short petition (.pdf) seems to prove, among other things, that the open access rules being imposed (for now) on the 22 MHz block really do have the potential to give consumers more choices.
Of course, what's even more odd about all of this is that those two open access rules the FCC granted to Google and others are in fact not all that guaranteed. Here's an interesting little portion of the current auction rules:
…if the license block that had been conditioned on limited no-locking, no-blocking requirements fails to sell for at least $4.6 billion, it will be re-auctioned in smaller chunks without any conditions applied.
That escape clause, as communications law professor Susan Crawford notes on her blog, could very well "hand the industry the pen to write the auction rules and to constrict all the opportunities this spectrum held forth."
In response to Verizon’s move this week, Crawford also had this to say:
The very modest, much-less-than-halfway measures taken by the Commission are under attack -- which shows how vitally uninterested these incumbents are in having their business models undermined. Even for a tiny piece of spectrum. Even when they already have all the frequencies they need.
Verizon was not immediately available for comment and was last seen punching old ladies and stealing candy from babies.
Robot Maker Builds Artificial Boy
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RKI2F80&show_article=1
Robot Maker Builds Artificial Boy
Sep 13, 2007
By MATT SLAGLE
AP Technology Writer
RICHARDSON, Texas (AP) - David Hanson has two little Zenos to care for these days. There's his 18-month-old son Zeno, who prattles and smiles as he bounds through his father's cramped office. Then there's the robotic Zeno. It can't speak or walk yet, but has blinking eyes that can track people and a face that captivates with a range of expressions.
At 17 inches tall and 6 pounds, the artificial Zeno is the culmination of five years of work by Hanson and a small group of engineers, designers and programmers at his company, Hanson Robotics. They believe there's an emerging business in the design and sale of lifelike robotic companions, or social robots. And they'll be showing off the robot boy to students in grades 3-12 at the Wired NextFest technology conference Thursday in Los Angeles.
Unlike clearly artificial robotic toys, Hanson says he envisions Zeno as an interactive learning companion, a synthetic pal who can engage in conversation and convey human emotion through a face made of a skin-like, patented material Hanson calls frubber.
"It's a representation of robotics as a character animation medium, one that is intelligent," Hanson beams. "It sees you and recognizes your face. It learns your name and can build a relationship with you."
It's no coincidence if the whole concept sounds like a science-fiction movie.
Hanson said he was inspired by, and is aiming for, the same sort of realism found in the book "Supertoys Last All Summer Long," by Brian Aldiss. Aldiss' story of troubled robot boy David and his quest for the love of his flesh-and-blood parents was the source material for Steven Spielberg's film "Artificial Intelligence: AI."
He plans to make little Zenos available to consumers within the next three years for $200 to $300.
Until then, Hanson, 37, makes a living selling and renting pricey, lifelike robotic heads. His company offers models that look like Albert Einstein, a pirate and a rocker, complete with spiky hair and sunglasses. They cost tens of thousands of dollars and can be customized to look like anyone, Hanson said.
The company, which has yet to break even, was also buoyed by a $1.5 million grant from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund last October. The fund was created by Gov. Rick Perry in 2005 to improve research at Texas universities and help startup technology companies get off the ground.
Hanson concedes it's going to be at least 15 years before robot builders can approach anything like what seems to be possible in movies. Zeno the robot remains a prototype.
During a recent demonstration, Zeno could barely stand and had to be tethered to a bank of PCs that told it how to smile, frown, act surprised or wrinkle its nose in anger.
Robotics, Hanson believes, should be about artistic expression, a creative medium akin to sculpting or painting. But convincing people that robots should look like people instead of, well, robots, remains a challenge that robot experts call the "uncanny valley" theory.
The theory posits that humans have a positive psychological reaction to robots that look somewhat like humans, but that robots made to look very realistic end up seeming grotesque instead of comforting.
"Nobody complains that Bernini's sculptures are too darn real, right? Or that Norman Rockwell's paintings are too creepy," Hanson said. "Well, robots can seem real and be loved too. We're trying to make a new art medium out of robotics."
So just how did Hanson end up with two Zenos, anyway?
It all goes back to when his wife, Amanda, gave birth to their first child and Zeno the robot was already in the works.
They rattled off several names to their baby boy, but it wasn't until they whispered "Zeno" that "this look of peace fell over his face; it was like soothing to his ears," Hanson recalled.
"There was no way we could give him any other name. He chose Zeno as his name," he said.
That was just fine with Amanda.
"I thought that it was very endearing, very sweet," she said.
The similarities go beyond the name. Though Zeno the robot was built to resemble the animated Japanese TV show character Astro Boy, his plastic hair and saucer-shaped eyes bear a striking resemblance to the curly locks and wide-eyed smile of the real Zeno.
"So by coincidence they're both Zeno, and in other ways this robot has become more of a portrait sculpturally of the son, although it's almost coincidence," said Hanson, whose previous jobs include working as a character sculptor for The Walt Disney Co. "We didn't consciously sculpt this robot to look like him. It's the way things filter through the hands of the artist."
Hanson says one of the robot Zeno's biggest advancements is that its brains aren't inside the robot. Instead Zeno synchs wirelessly to a PC running a variant of Massive Software—the same Academy Award-winning code that enabled the fantastical battles among humans, orcs and elves in the "Lord of the Rings" movies.
Like some modern version of Geppetto's workshop, Hanson's office is crammed with rows of shelves stacked with books about robots next to toy robots and plastic skulls. Notes ranging from mathematical formulas to design sketches cover several white boards like high-tech graffiti.
There are scattered bits from Hanson's previous creations, including Albert Hubo, a white robotic body topped with a realistic head of Albert Einstein that has graced magazine covers and even shaken hands with President Bush.
Hanson has been recognized for his work, garnering accolades from the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence in 2005 and a "best design" award at the Smithsonian's Cooper-Hewitt National Design Triennial last year.
But Hanson is most proud of the real Zeno, a rambunctious toddler who frolics with free rein among priceless electronics.
"If the robots become popular I suppose it will pose an identity crisis for my son," Hanson said. "But I think that the amount of love that he receives will make him feel like an individual no matter what."
___
On the Net:
http://www.zenosworld.com/
Robot Maker Builds Artificial Boy
Sep 13, 2007
By MATT SLAGLE
AP Technology Writer
RICHARDSON, Texas (AP) - David Hanson has two little Zenos to care for these days. There's his 18-month-old son Zeno, who prattles and smiles as he bounds through his father's cramped office. Then there's the robotic Zeno. It can't speak or walk yet, but has blinking eyes that can track people and a face that captivates with a range of expressions.
At 17 inches tall and 6 pounds, the artificial Zeno is the culmination of five years of work by Hanson and a small group of engineers, designers and programmers at his company, Hanson Robotics. They believe there's an emerging business in the design and sale of lifelike robotic companions, or social robots. And they'll be showing off the robot boy to students in grades 3-12 at the Wired NextFest technology conference Thursday in Los Angeles.
Unlike clearly artificial robotic toys, Hanson says he envisions Zeno as an interactive learning companion, a synthetic pal who can engage in conversation and convey human emotion through a face made of a skin-like, patented material Hanson calls frubber.
"It's a representation of robotics as a character animation medium, one that is intelligent," Hanson beams. "It sees you and recognizes your face. It learns your name and can build a relationship with you."
It's no coincidence if the whole concept sounds like a science-fiction movie.
Hanson said he was inspired by, and is aiming for, the same sort of realism found in the book "Supertoys Last All Summer Long," by Brian Aldiss. Aldiss' story of troubled robot boy David and his quest for the love of his flesh-and-blood parents was the source material for Steven Spielberg's film "Artificial Intelligence: AI."
He plans to make little Zenos available to consumers within the next three years for $200 to $300.
Until then, Hanson, 37, makes a living selling and renting pricey, lifelike robotic heads. His company offers models that look like Albert Einstein, a pirate and a rocker, complete with spiky hair and sunglasses. They cost tens of thousands of dollars and can be customized to look like anyone, Hanson said.
The company, which has yet to break even, was also buoyed by a $1.5 million grant from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund last October. The fund was created by Gov. Rick Perry in 2005 to improve research at Texas universities and help startup technology companies get off the ground.
Hanson concedes it's going to be at least 15 years before robot builders can approach anything like what seems to be possible in movies. Zeno the robot remains a prototype.
During a recent demonstration, Zeno could barely stand and had to be tethered to a bank of PCs that told it how to smile, frown, act surprised or wrinkle its nose in anger.
Robotics, Hanson believes, should be about artistic expression, a creative medium akin to sculpting or painting. But convincing people that robots should look like people instead of, well, robots, remains a challenge that robot experts call the "uncanny valley" theory.
The theory posits that humans have a positive psychological reaction to robots that look somewhat like humans, but that robots made to look very realistic end up seeming grotesque instead of comforting.
"Nobody complains that Bernini's sculptures are too darn real, right? Or that Norman Rockwell's paintings are too creepy," Hanson said. "Well, robots can seem real and be loved too. We're trying to make a new art medium out of robotics."
So just how did Hanson end up with two Zenos, anyway?
It all goes back to when his wife, Amanda, gave birth to their first child and Zeno the robot was already in the works.
They rattled off several names to their baby boy, but it wasn't until they whispered "Zeno" that "this look of peace fell over his face; it was like soothing to his ears," Hanson recalled.
"There was no way we could give him any other name. He chose Zeno as his name," he said.
That was just fine with Amanda.
"I thought that it was very endearing, very sweet," she said.
The similarities go beyond the name. Though Zeno the robot was built to resemble the animated Japanese TV show character Astro Boy, his plastic hair and saucer-shaped eyes bear a striking resemblance to the curly locks and wide-eyed smile of the real Zeno.
"So by coincidence they're both Zeno, and in other ways this robot has become more of a portrait sculpturally of the son, although it's almost coincidence," said Hanson, whose previous jobs include working as a character sculptor for The Walt Disney Co. "We didn't consciously sculpt this robot to look like him. It's the way things filter through the hands of the artist."
Hanson says one of the robot Zeno's biggest advancements is that its brains aren't inside the robot. Instead Zeno synchs wirelessly to a PC running a variant of Massive Software—the same Academy Award-winning code that enabled the fantastical battles among humans, orcs and elves in the "Lord of the Rings" movies.
Like some modern version of Geppetto's workshop, Hanson's office is crammed with rows of shelves stacked with books about robots next to toy robots and plastic skulls. Notes ranging from mathematical formulas to design sketches cover several white boards like high-tech graffiti.
There are scattered bits from Hanson's previous creations, including Albert Hubo, a white robotic body topped with a realistic head of Albert Einstein that has graced magazine covers and even shaken hands with President Bush.
Hanson has been recognized for his work, garnering accolades from the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence in 2005 and a "best design" award at the Smithsonian's Cooper-Hewitt National Design Triennial last year.
But Hanson is most proud of the real Zeno, a rambunctious toddler who frolics with free rein among priceless electronics.
"If the robots become popular I suppose it will pose an identity crisis for my son," Hanson said. "But I think that the amount of love that he receives will make him feel like an individual no matter what."
___
On the Net:
http://www.zenosworld.com/
Google $20 Million X Prize to Put Robot on Moon
http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-10/ff_moon
WIRED MAGAZINE: ISSUE 15.10
Science : Space
Google Offers $20 Million X Prize to Put Robot on Moon
By Spencer Reiss
09.13.07
Editor's Note: Google will award $20 million to the first private team to put a robot on the moon, the company and the X Prize Foundation announced at Wired NextFest in Los Angeles Thursday. Members of the public will also get the chance to send digital mementos to the moon. In this advance from the October issue of Wired magazine, contributing editor Spencer Reiss explains what's behind the Google Lunar X Prize, and what it will take to win it.
Maybe it was the edible wafer-paper-and-soy-ink menus or the "sustainable" blue-cheese mousse whipped up by Google's chefs. Maybe it was the full-size replica of the indie commercial spacecraft SpaceShipOne suspended overhead. Or Robin Williams' jokes. Whatever the reason, the hundreds of Silicon Valley grandees who packed the Googleplex one Saturday evening last March were in an expansive mood. They had dropped $1,250 or more a head to benefit the X Prize Foundation, the nonprofit dedicated to spurring innovation through public competitions that promise big payouts to the winners. Supersize possibilities hung in the air.
A morning brainstorm featuring Google's Larry Page and Virgin's Richard Branson had already turned up scores of possible new X Prize targets, from early cancer detection to ultracheap solar energy. During a break for lunch, Page dropped one more on X Prize chief Peter Diamandis: He and Google cofounder Sergey Brin had been "kicking around" the idea of sending low-cost robotic landers to the moon.
Diamandis, who has been launching extraterrestrial enterprises since he was an MIT undergrad in the 1980s, grabbed his laptop and disappeared, returning half an hour later with a freshly minted PowerPoint deck. Page looked it over, then said, "Talk to Sergey." That evening, as the guests sipped cocktails in the shadow of the little white spaceplane, Diamandis cornered the Google technology chief and pitched. Brin loved it. "Some endeavors are too speculative, even for venture capital," he says. "If they're really worth doing, you try to find some other way."
Thus was born the Google Lunar X Prize, the latest and, well, farthest-out of the foundation's efforts to bolt competitive afterburners onto some of mankind's signature quests. Three years ago, SpaceShipOne won the first X Prize — officially the Ansari X Prize, named for the family of software entrepreneurs that underwrote it. Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen and serial aeronaut Burt Rutan collected $10 million for building the world's first privately funded reusable manned spacecraft. Since then, Diamandis has announced competitions for ultra-rapid gene sequencing and hyper fuel efficient vehicles. This latest challenge: Put a robotic lander on the moon, take a spin across the lunar landscape, and beam back visuals — with minimal or no government assistance. Pull that off before anyone else and the galaxy's richest, most audacious Internet company will hand over $20 million. You can win up to $5 million more for extras like traversing greater distances, visiting historic landing sites, and surviving the lunar night. There's a $5 million consolation prize if you come in second or land safely but fail to complete the rest of the mission. (No prize for guessing the name of the competition's official Web video service.)
The challenge goes beyond merely reaching the lunar surface. Pound for pound, putting anything on the moon — let alone sending back panoramic photos and YouTube clips — makes even manned suborbital flight look like a walk on the Mojave runway. Winning will require the biz-dev skills to muster funding and the technical savvy to manage squirrelly orbital mechanics, remote-control robotics, and bring-your-own bandwidth. Sure, the Russians made the first soft lunar landing more than 40 years ago, using Cold War era hardware. And yes, today you can fire up an iPhone and check the view from NASA's rovers on the Red Planet, another 90 million or so miles farther out in the cosmos. What you can't do — at least for now — is go off-planet without the kind of boondoggle budget that only governments can cough up. "How cool would it be," Diamandis says, "to do what NASA does at a tenth the cost? Or a hundredth? The technologies are there. What we need is a competitive model that can make it happen."
In fact, X Prize-style competitions tend to be less about the technological bleeding edge than busting down cost barriers. Charles Lindbergh's famous Spirit of St. Louis, the gold standard for prize-driven innovation, was adapted from a stock production plane, after all. The Ansari X Prize required a tremendous feat of aeronautics, but its real accomplishment was making it cheaper to get into space — and thus opening a flight path to space tourism. The Google Lunar X Prize aims to do the same for Earth's nearest neighbor, transforming what has been a combination celestial junkyard and stone-dead nature preserve into a viable human frontier. "Today, Earth's economic sphere extends out to geosynchronous orbit — 22,000 miles," Diamandis says. "We want to increase that by an order of magnitude."
Two dozen registered teams took a crack at the original X Prize, though few of them made it off the ground. Will the higher stakes of the lunar challenge pull a bigger, wealthier crowd? One likely participant, Paul Allen, won't comment. Neither will Idealab chair Bill Gross, whose bubble-era startup, Blastoff, had a strikingly similar lunar mission — and a CEO named Peter Diamandis. Google, in particular, hopes to see a global pool of challengers; China, India, Japan, Russia, and plenty of European countries boast the requisite technical skills, pride, and billionaires. (An international judging committee will watch for under-the-table government aid.) Launch costs alone could burn up tens of millions of dollars, so the foundation is hoping to lure high-profile corporate sponsors.
Of course, it took almost a decade to award the Ansari X Prize; the winner emerged only after a midcourse adjustment dropped the altitude requirement from 100 miles to 100 kilometers. ("Thank god we did," Diamandis says. "Or we'd still be waiting.") Aiming to bring the lunar showdown to a conclusion by 2012, Diamandis and company spent last summer debating how high to set the bar. "It's audacity versus achievability," says Will Pomerantz, the foundation's space prize director. "Too hard, and you won't have a winner. Too easy, and you don't drive breakthroughs." Then there's the question of affordability: The $20 million grand prize probably won't cover the cost of getting something up there, and losers will likely spend at least that amount with no return on investment.
Which raises the question: What's in it for Google? Lunar data centers? Google Maps Street View for Tranquility Base? For the record, Mountain View's corporate feet are planted squarely on terra firma. "Companies today spend more on stadiums and sailboat races than we will spend on this," says Brin, who was barely out of diapers back in Moscow when the last — Soviet, as it happens — moon lander, itself a robot craft, sent a scoop of soil back to Earth three decades ago. "Expanding science and technology is a far better way to reflect Google's values," he says. Plus there's the possibility of putting a Google logo on the moon.
Contributing editor Spencer Reiss (spencer@upperroad.net) wrote about pollution and the 2008 Olympics in issue 15.08.
WIRED MAGAZINE: ISSUE 15.10
Science : Space
Google Offers $20 Million X Prize to Put Robot on Moon
By Spencer Reiss
09.13.07
Editor's Note: Google will award $20 million to the first private team to put a robot on the moon, the company and the X Prize Foundation announced at Wired NextFest in Los Angeles Thursday. Members of the public will also get the chance to send digital mementos to the moon. In this advance from the October issue of Wired magazine, contributing editor Spencer Reiss explains what's behind the Google Lunar X Prize, and what it will take to win it.
Maybe it was the edible wafer-paper-and-soy-ink menus or the "sustainable" blue-cheese mousse whipped up by Google's chefs. Maybe it was the full-size replica of the indie commercial spacecraft SpaceShipOne suspended overhead. Or Robin Williams' jokes. Whatever the reason, the hundreds of Silicon Valley grandees who packed the Googleplex one Saturday evening last March were in an expansive mood. They had dropped $1,250 or more a head to benefit the X Prize Foundation, the nonprofit dedicated to spurring innovation through public competitions that promise big payouts to the winners. Supersize possibilities hung in the air.
A morning brainstorm featuring Google's Larry Page and Virgin's Richard Branson had already turned up scores of possible new X Prize targets, from early cancer detection to ultracheap solar energy. During a break for lunch, Page dropped one more on X Prize chief Peter Diamandis: He and Google cofounder Sergey Brin had been "kicking around" the idea of sending low-cost robotic landers to the moon.
Diamandis, who has been launching extraterrestrial enterprises since he was an MIT undergrad in the 1980s, grabbed his laptop and disappeared, returning half an hour later with a freshly minted PowerPoint deck. Page looked it over, then said, "Talk to Sergey." That evening, as the guests sipped cocktails in the shadow of the little white spaceplane, Diamandis cornered the Google technology chief and pitched. Brin loved it. "Some endeavors are too speculative, even for venture capital," he says. "If they're really worth doing, you try to find some other way."
Thus was born the Google Lunar X Prize, the latest and, well, farthest-out of the foundation's efforts to bolt competitive afterburners onto some of mankind's signature quests. Three years ago, SpaceShipOne won the first X Prize — officially the Ansari X Prize, named for the family of software entrepreneurs that underwrote it. Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen and serial aeronaut Burt Rutan collected $10 million for building the world's first privately funded reusable manned spacecraft. Since then, Diamandis has announced competitions for ultra-rapid gene sequencing and hyper fuel efficient vehicles. This latest challenge: Put a robotic lander on the moon, take a spin across the lunar landscape, and beam back visuals — with minimal or no government assistance. Pull that off before anyone else and the galaxy's richest, most audacious Internet company will hand over $20 million. You can win up to $5 million more for extras like traversing greater distances, visiting historic landing sites, and surviving the lunar night. There's a $5 million consolation prize if you come in second or land safely but fail to complete the rest of the mission. (No prize for guessing the name of the competition's official Web video service.)
The challenge goes beyond merely reaching the lunar surface. Pound for pound, putting anything on the moon — let alone sending back panoramic photos and YouTube clips — makes even manned suborbital flight look like a walk on the Mojave runway. Winning will require the biz-dev skills to muster funding and the technical savvy to manage squirrelly orbital mechanics, remote-control robotics, and bring-your-own bandwidth. Sure, the Russians made the first soft lunar landing more than 40 years ago, using Cold War era hardware. And yes, today you can fire up an iPhone and check the view from NASA's rovers on the Red Planet, another 90 million or so miles farther out in the cosmos. What you can't do — at least for now — is go off-planet without the kind of boondoggle budget that only governments can cough up. "How cool would it be," Diamandis says, "to do what NASA does at a tenth the cost? Or a hundredth? The technologies are there. What we need is a competitive model that can make it happen."
In fact, X Prize-style competitions tend to be less about the technological bleeding edge than busting down cost barriers. Charles Lindbergh's famous Spirit of St. Louis, the gold standard for prize-driven innovation, was adapted from a stock production plane, after all. The Ansari X Prize required a tremendous feat of aeronautics, but its real accomplishment was making it cheaper to get into space — and thus opening a flight path to space tourism. The Google Lunar X Prize aims to do the same for Earth's nearest neighbor, transforming what has been a combination celestial junkyard and stone-dead nature preserve into a viable human frontier. "Today, Earth's economic sphere extends out to geosynchronous orbit — 22,000 miles," Diamandis says. "We want to increase that by an order of magnitude."
Two dozen registered teams took a crack at the original X Prize, though few of them made it off the ground. Will the higher stakes of the lunar challenge pull a bigger, wealthier crowd? One likely participant, Paul Allen, won't comment. Neither will Idealab chair Bill Gross, whose bubble-era startup, Blastoff, had a strikingly similar lunar mission — and a CEO named Peter Diamandis. Google, in particular, hopes to see a global pool of challengers; China, India, Japan, Russia, and plenty of European countries boast the requisite technical skills, pride, and billionaires. (An international judging committee will watch for under-the-table government aid.) Launch costs alone could burn up tens of millions of dollars, so the foundation is hoping to lure high-profile corporate sponsors.
Of course, it took almost a decade to award the Ansari X Prize; the winner emerged only after a midcourse adjustment dropped the altitude requirement from 100 miles to 100 kilometers. ("Thank god we did," Diamandis says. "Or we'd still be waiting.") Aiming to bring the lunar showdown to a conclusion by 2012, Diamandis and company spent last summer debating how high to set the bar. "It's audacity versus achievability," says Will Pomerantz, the foundation's space prize director. "Too hard, and you won't have a winner. Too easy, and you don't drive breakthroughs." Then there's the question of affordability: The $20 million grand prize probably won't cover the cost of getting something up there, and losers will likely spend at least that amount with no return on investment.
Which raises the question: What's in it for Google? Lunar data centers? Google Maps Street View for Tranquility Base? For the record, Mountain View's corporate feet are planted squarely on terra firma. "Companies today spend more on stadiums and sailboat races than we will spend on this," says Brin, who was barely out of diapers back in Moscow when the last — Soviet, as it happens — moon lander, itself a robot craft, sent a scoop of soil back to Earth three decades ago. "Expanding science and technology is a far better way to reflect Google's values," he says. Plus there's the possibility of putting a Google logo on the moon.
Contributing editor Spencer Reiss (spencer@upperroad.net) wrote about pollution and the 2008 Olympics in issue 15.08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
