Left of Center: By Yukkione

Digging Deeper: You need to do it too.

2011-02-18T21:52:00.010-05:00

So I have been following the worker protests in Wisconsin. As usual, I didn't just want to base my opinion on headlines, and mainstream media reporting. So I started following links, and found some interesting stuff. You see, the Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker wants to weaken unions, and effectively destroy the collective bargaining process through legislation. Some great details can be found here. Thousands of workers have hit the streets in protest. So then I opened up the Drudge Report, and found a story telling how Wisconsin teachers are on average compensated $100,000 a year. Mind you, it doesn't say they get paid that much, but the casual reader (Drudges "conservative readership") might think that. So I follow the headline and it turns out it was posted by the MacIver Institute... (a self described free market think tank) The link has since become inoperative. So I wondered just what is the MacIver Institute. Easy enough to find information on that. It turns out that former Republican Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen is the force behind them, not an academic as one might expect from an "institute". Mr Jensen recently settled a misconduct in office case where he and other Republicans got caught using staffers for political campain work. The institute, I then found, used a former news anchor to pose as a himself still as a reporter, (to gain access) to "interview" Democratic office holders. Great stuff, and very telling of the machinations being used by those who would keep working people down.

The MacIver Institute has several internet presences, such as their page on YouTube. And like many other conservative YouTube and blog sites, they do not allow comentary on their post. Showing them to be the cowards they are.

Awesome Obama Blog

2009-01-19T16:01:00.003-05:00

My friend Andreline from Sodahead has a great blog dedicated to all things Obama. Please have a look.

http://yourobamaupdate.blogspot.com/

Biden: The Silence is Deafening

2008-09-05T18:42:00.001-04:00

Dawkins letter to Ben Stein

2008-04-23T06:03:00.000-04:00

by Richard Dawkins
On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J".
"Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!"

Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:
"Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit."

It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.
Richard

Dear Mr J

Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.

1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
"Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!"
Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.

2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.

3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?

4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.

With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins

Preserve Net Nuetrality

2008-03-13T22:47:00.001-04:00

Preserve Net Nuetrality

2008-03-13T22:47:00.000-04:00

-flash" width="425" height="350">

Hillary...It's Over.

2008-03-09T13:16:00.001-04:00

Dick Morris wrote a great piece for The Hill.

The real message of Tuesday’s primaries is not that Hillary won. It’s that she didn’t win by enough.

The race is over.

The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then? But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates? No way. They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.

You can read the rest here.

Vote for McCain?

2008-03-09T00:49:00.000-05:00

McCain Music Video

2008-02-11T23:15:00.000-05:00

The economy: two sides of the same coin

2008-02-03T01:00:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul Rap

2008-01-28T22:24:00.000-05:00

TraneJam rant: unbeleivable

2008-01-09T18:21:00.000-05:00

This is about 28 minutes long but I really encourage you to spend the time to watch it. As I told TJ in his comments, this is the video I would have made...um, if I had a web cam. Enjoy.

Our military spending is killing us.

2007-12-28T12:52:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul: A candidate for freedom

2007-12-27T08:33:00.000-05:00

Global Dimming: Must See

2007-12-10T06:10:00.000-05:00

Fox Excludes Paul from Poll

2007-12-08T13:04:00.000-05:00

Georgia Republican Caucus

2007-12-08T00:01:00.000-05:00

Do Not Vote For Paul!

2007-12-04T11:06:00.001-05:00

Ready For the New World Order?

2007-12-03T16:29:00.000-05:00

Who remembers the Constitution?

2007-12-03T12:53:00.000-05:00

The Media against Ron Paul

2007-12-02T13:08:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul on Medical Pot

2007-11-27T08:23:00.001-05:00

UnSubscribe Me: Torture

2007-11-23T07:21:00.000-05:00

Matrix Of Evil

2007-11-11T03:30:00.000-05:00

The Jewish lobby

2007-11-06T10:29:00.000-05:00

Dispelling Myths

2007-10-21T03:35:00.000-04:00

Hillary Screws a contributor

2007-10-19T12:29:00.001-04:00

Law Enforcement for Legalization

2007-10-18T16:47:00.000-04:00

Bush radio address on SCHIP

2007-10-16T14:41:00.000-04:00

Fascism in 10 Easy Steps!

2007-09-21T14:44:00.000-04:00

Taken from the writings of Naomi Wolf.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don't generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: "First they came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.

3. Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order".

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism". So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to include the opposition.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of "enemy of the people" tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling classified documents. He was harassed by the US military before the charges against him were dropped. Yee has been detained and released several times. He is still of interest.

Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon, was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist. His house was secretly broken into and his computer seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation against him, he is still on the list.

It is a standard practice of fascist societies that once you are on the list, you can't get off.

7. Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not "coordinate", in Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.

Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that "waterboarding is torture" was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were "coordinated" too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened "critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy - a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America - it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death", according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin's Soviet Union, dissidents were "enemies of the people". National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy "November traitors".

And here is where the circle closes: most Americans do not realise that since September of last year - when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - the president has the power to call any US citizen an "enemy combatant". He has the power to define what "enemy combatant" means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define "enemy combatant" any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin's gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo's, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We US citizens will get a trial eventually - for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get around giving even US citizens fair trials. "Enemy combatant" is a status offence - it is not even something you have to have done. "We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model - you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we're going to hold you," says a spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests - usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn't real dissent. There just isn't freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any 'other condition'."

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act - which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias' power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.

FaceBook and your Privacy

2007-09-16T03:19:00.000-04:00

This is some scary stuff.

Pat Tillman, Hero and Atheist

2007-09-13T01:36:00.000-04:00

KOS and Pariser on the Petraeus Testimony

2007-09-12T00:09:00.001-04:00

Save the Jena Six

2007-09-05T21:35:00.000-04:00

Read an excellent piece by Dusty here.

John Kerry's Testimony Before Congress

2007-09-04T02:54:00.000-04:00

A reread of this showed me just how history repeats itself.

April 23, 2004, 10:47 a.m.
Kerry’s Testimony
What he said.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Below is the text of John F. Kerry's testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971.

The Chairman: The committee will come to order.

OPENING STATEMENT
The committee is continuing this morning its hearing on proposals relating to the ending of the war in Southeast Asia. This morning the committee will hear testimony from Mr. John Kerry and, if he has any associates, we will be glad to hear from them. These are men who have fought in this unfortunate war in Vietnam. I believe they deserve to be heard and listened to by the Congress and by the officials in the executive branch and by the public generally. You have a perspective that those in the Government who make our Nation's policy do no always have and I am sure that your testimony today will be helpful to the committee in its consideration of the proposals before us.
I would like to add simply on my own account that I regret very much the action of the Supreme Court in denying the veterans the right to use the Mall. (Applause)

I regret that. It seems to me to be but another instance of an insensitivity of our Government to the tragic effects of this war upon our people.

I want also to congratulate Mr. Kerry, you, and your associates upon the restraint that you have shown, certainly in the hearing the other day when there were a great many of your people here. I think you conducted yourselves in a most commendable manner throughout this week. Whenever people gather there is always a tendency for some of the more emotional ones to do things which are even against their own interests. I think you deserve much of the credit because I understand you are one of the leaders of this group.

I have joined with some of my colleagues, specifically Senator Hart, in an effort to try to change the attitude of our Government toward your efforts in bringing to this committee and to the country your views about the war.

I personally don't know of any group which would have both a greater justification for doing it and also a more accurate view of the effect of the war. As you know, there has grown up in this town a feeling that it is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the war and I don't know a better source than you and your associates. So we are very please to have you and your associate, Mr. Kerry

At the beginning if you would give to the reporter your full name and a brief biography so that the record will show who you are.

Senator Javits: Mr. Chairman, I was down there to the veterans' camp yesterday and saw the New York group and I would like to say I am very proud of the deportment and general attitude of the group.

I hope it continues. I have joined in the Hart resolution, too. As a lawyer I hope you will find it possible to comply with the order even though, like the chairman, I am unhappy about it. I think it is our job to see that you are suitably set up as an alternative so that you can do what you came here to do. I welcome the fact that you came and what you are doing. (Applause.)

The Chairman: You may proceed, Mr. Kerry

STATEMENT OF JOHN KERRY, VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR
Mr. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

Winter soldier Investigation
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

Feelings of Men Coming Back from Vietnam
I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970 at West Point, Vice President Agnew said "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse" and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia, whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dated to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we can not consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We are probably much more angry than that and I don't want to go into the foreign policy aspects because I am outclassed here. I know that all of you talk about every possible alternative of getting out of Vietnam. We understand that. We know you have considered the seriousness of the aspects to the utmost level and I am not going to try to dwell on that, but I want to relate to you the feeling that many of the men who have returned to this country express because we are probably angriest about all that we were told about Vietnam and about the mystical war against communism.

What Was Found and Learned in Vietnam
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.

We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings," with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881's and Fire Base 6's and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese. Each day- (Applause)

The Chairman: I hope you won't interrupt. He is making a very significant statement. Let him proceed.

Mr. Kerry: Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to dies so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to dies in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says, and says clearly: But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.

But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.

Returning Veterans Are Not Really Wanted
But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says "I want you." And a young man comes out of high school and says, "That is fine. I am going to serve my country." And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren't enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.

Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but he couldn't. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man and so he died of convulsions.

I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk about suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back to this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn't really care, that doesn't really care.

Lack of Moral Indignation in United States
Suddenly we are faced with a very sickening situation in this country, because there is no moral indignation and, if there is, it comes from people who are almost exhausted by their past indignations, and I know that may of them are sitting in front of me. The country seems to have lain down and shrugged off something as serious as Laos, just as we calmly shrugged off the loss of 700,000 lives in Pakistan, the so-called greatest disaster of all times.

But we are here as veterans to say we think we are in the midst of the greatest disaster of all times now because they are still dying over there, and not just Americans, Vietnamese, and we are rationalizing leaving that country so that those people can go on killing each other for years to come.

Americans seems to have accepted the idea that the war is winding down, at least for Americans, and they have also allowed the bodies which were once used by a President for statistics to prove that we were winning that war, to be used as evidence against a man who followed orders and who interpreted those orders no differently than hundreds of other men in Vietnam.

We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country has been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration.

No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control. But believe me the helicopter crews fill the same body bags and they wreak the same kind of damage on the Vietnamese and Laotian countryside as anybody else, and the President is talking about allowing that to go on for many years to come. One can only ask if we will really be satisfied only when the troops march into Hanoi.

Request for Action by Congress
We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America which has the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.

We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.

Extent of Problem of Vietnam War
We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation al Alcataz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said "My God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people." And he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

Where is the Leadership?
We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.

Administration's Attempt to Disown Veterans
Finally, this administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifice we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam. We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witnesses enough for others and for ourselves.

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbarous war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more and so when, in 30 years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory but mean instead the pace where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

Thank you. (Applause.)

The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning.

You said you wished to communicate. I can't imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.

You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time very well indeed. (Laughter)

Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than otherwise.

PROPOSALS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been hearing testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can. That is the purpose of these hearing and that is why you were brought here.

You have been very eloquent about the reasons why we should proceed as quickly as possible. Are you familiar with some of the proposals before this committee?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I am, Senator.

The Chairman: Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?

Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.

As to the argument concerning the danger to our troops were we to withdraw or state that we would, they have also said many times in conjunction with that statement that all of our troops, the moment we set a date, will be given safe conduct out of Vietnam. The only other important point is that we allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own figure and that ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway.

I would, therefore, submit that the most expedient means of getting out of South Vietnam would be for the President of the United States to declare a cease-fire, to stop this blind commitment to a dictatorial regime, the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime, accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this Government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese.

Desire to Disengage From Vietnam
The Chairman: You seem to feel that there is still some doubt about the desire to disengage. I don't believe that is true. I believe there has been a tremendous change in the attitude of the people. As reflected in the Congress, they do wish to disengage and to bring the war to an end as soon as we can.

Question is How to Disengage
The question before us is how to do it. What is the best means that is most effective, taking into consideration the circumstances with which all governments are burdened? We have a precedent in this same country. The French had an experience, perhaps not traumatic as ours has been, but nevertheless they did make up their minds in the spring of 1954 and within a few weeks did bring it to a close. Some of us have thought that this is a precedent, from which we could learn, for ending such a war. I have personally advocated that this is the best procedure. It is a traditional rather classic procedure of how to end a war that could be called a stalemate, that neither side apparently has the capacity to end by military victory, and which apparently is going to go on for a long time. Speaking only for myself, this seems the more reasonable procedure.

I realize you want it immediately, but I think that procedure was about as immediate as any by which a country has ever succeeded in ending such a conflict or a similar conflict. Would that not appeal to you?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, frankly it does not appeal to me if American men have to continue to die when they don't have to, particularly when it seems the Government of this country is more concerned with the legality of where men sleep than it is with the legality of where they drop bombs. (Applause.)

The Chairman: In the case of the French when they made up their mind to take the matter up at the conference in Geneva, they did. The first thing they did was to arrange a cease-fire and the killing did cease. Then it took only, I think, two or three weeks to tidy up all the details regarding the withdrawal. Actually when they made up their mind to stop the war, they did have a cease-fire which is what you are recommending as the first step.

Mr. Kerry: Yes sir; that is correct.

The Chairman: It did not drag on. They didn't continue to fight. They stopped the fighting by agreement when they went to Geneva and all the countries then directly involved participated in that agreement.

I don't wish to press you on the details. It is for the committee to determine the best means, but you have given most eloquently the reasons why we should proceed as early as we can. That is, of course, the purpose of the hearing.

Mr. Kerry: Senator, if I may interject, I think that what we are trying to say is we do have a method. We believe we do have a plan, and that plan is that if this body were by some means either to permit a special referendum in this country so that the country itself might decide and therefore avoid this recrimination which people constantly refer to or if they couldn't do that, at least do it through immediate legislation which would state there would be an immediate cease-fire and we would be willing to undertake negotiations for a coalition government. But at the present moment that is not going to happen, so we are talking about men continuing to die for nothing and I think there is a tremendous moral question here which the Congress of the United States is ignoring.

The Chairman: The congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we can advice the President. We have to persuade the President of the urgency of taking this action. Now we have certain ways in which to proceed. We can, of course, express ourselves in a resolution or we can pass an act which directly affects appropriations which is the most concrete positive way the Congress can express itself.

But Congress has no capacity under our system to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the Executive to do this for the country.

Extraordinary Response Demanded by Extraordinary Question
Mr. Kerry: Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time. But I think if can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrell programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country. (Applause.)

And this, Mr. Chairman, is what we are trying to convey.

I understand. I really am aware that there are a tremendous number of difficulties in trying to persuade the Executive to move at this time. I believe they are committed. I don't believe we can. But I hope that we are not going to have to wait until 1972 to have this decision made. And what I am suggesting is that I think this is an extraordinary enough question so that it demands an extraordinary response, and if we can't respond extraordinarily to this problem then I doubt very seriously as men on each that we will be able to respond to the other serious question which face us. I think we have to start to consider that. This is what I am trying to say.

If this body could perhaps call for a referendum in the country or if we could perhaps move now for a vote in 3 weeks, I think the people of this country would rise up and back that. I am not saying a vote nationwide. I am talking about a vote here in Congress to cut off the funds, and a vote to perhaps pass a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the war and to do the things that uphold those things which we pretend to be. That is what we are asking. I don't think we can turn our back on that any longer, Senator.

The Chairman: Senator Symington?

WITNESS SERVICE DECORATIONS
Senator Symington: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kerry, please move your microphone. You have a Silver Star; have you not?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I do.

Senator Symington: And a Purple Heart?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I do.

Senator Symington: How many clusters?

Mr. Kerry: Two clusters.

Senator Symington: So you have been wounded three times.

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir.

Senator Symington: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Senator Aiken. (Applause.)

NORTH VIETNAMESE AND VC ATTITUDE TOWARD DEFINITE WITHDRAWAL DATE
Senator Aiken: Mr. Kerry, the Defense Department seems to feel that if we set a definite date for withdrawal when our forces get down to a certain level, they would be seriously in danger by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong. Do you believe that the North Vietnamese would undertake to prevent our withdrawal from the country and attack the troops that remain there?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, if I may answer you directly, I believe we are running that danger with the present course of withdrawal because the President has neglected to state to this country exactly what his response will be when we have reached the point that we do have, let us say, 50,000 support troops in Vietnam.

Senator Aiken: I am not telling you what I think. I am telling what the Department says.

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir; I understand that.

Senator Aiken: Do you believe the North Vietnamese would seriously undertake to impede our complete withdrawal?

Mr. Kerry: No, I do not believe that the North Vietnamese would and it has been clearly indicated at the Paris peace talks they would not.

Senator Aiken: Do you think they might help carry the bags for us? (Laughter)

Mr. Kerry: I would say they would be more prone to do that then the Army of the South Vietnamese. (Laughter) (Applause)

Senator Aiken: I think your answer is ahead of my question. (Laughter)

Saigon Government's Attitude Toward Complete Withdrawal Date
I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October 1st, and be completely out of there-air, sea, land- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?

Mr. Kerry: Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face his question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country-

Attitude of South Vietnamese Army and People Toward Withdrawal
Senator Aiken: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vienamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.

If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic combing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capacity. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.

Senator Aiken: I might say I asked those questions several years ago, rather ineffectively. But what I would like to know now is if we, as we complete our withdrawal and, say, get down to 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or even 50,000 troops there, would there be any effort on the part of the South Vietnamese government of the South Vietnamese army, in your opinion, to impede their withdrawal?

Mr. Kerry: No; I don't think so, Senator.

Senator Aiken: I don't see why North Vietnam should object.

Mr. Kerry: I don't for the simple reason, I used to talk with officers about their- we asked them, and one officer took great pleasure in playing with me in the sense that he would say, "Well, you know you American, you come over here for 1 year and you can afford, you know, you go to Hong Kong for R. & R. and if you are a good boy you get another R. & R. or something you know. You can afford to charge bunkers, but I have to try and be here for 30 years and stay alive." And I think that that really is the governing principle by which those people are now living and have been allowed to live because of our mistake. So that when we in fact state, let us say, that we will have a cease-fire or have a coalition government, most of the 2 million men you often hear quoted under arms, most of whom are regional popular reconnaissance forces, which is to say militia, and a very poor militia at that, will simply lay down their arms, if they haven't done so already, and not fight. And I think you will find they will respond to whatever government evolves which answer their needs, and those needs quite simply are to be fed, to bury their dead in plots where their ancestors lived, to be allowed to extend their culture, to try and exist as human beings. And I think that is what will happen.

I can cite many, many instances, sir, as in combat when these men refused to fight with us, when they shot with their guns over tin this area like this and their heads turned facing the other way. When we were taken under fire we Americans, supposedly fighting with them, and pinned down in a ditch, and I was in the Navy and this was pretty unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused. I don't believe they want to fight, sir.

Obligation to Furnish Economic Assistance
Senator Aiken: Do you think we are under obligation to furnish them with extensive economic assistance?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir. I think we have a very definite obligation to make extensive reparations to the people of Indochina.

Senator Aiken: I think that is all.

The Chairman: Senator Pell.

Senator Pell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the witness knows, I have a very high personal regard for him and hope before his life ends he will be a colleague of ours in this body.

GROWTH OF OPPOSITION TO THE WAR
This war was really just as wrong, immoral, and unrelated to our national interests 5 years ago as it is today, and I must say I agree with you. I think it is rather poor taste for the architects of this war to now be sitting as they are in quite sacrosanct intellectual glass houses.

I think that this committee, and particularly Chairman Fulbright, deserve a huge debt of gratitude from you and everyone of your men who are here because when he conducted hearings some years ago when we were fighting in Vietnam. At that time the word "peace" was a dirty word. It was tied in with "appeasement" and Nervous Nellies and that sort of thing. Chairman Fulbright and this committee really took public opinion at that time and turned it around and made "peace" a respectable word and produced the climate that produced President Johnson's abdication.

The problem is that the majority of the people in the Congress still don't agree with the view that you and we have. As the chairman pointed out, and as you know as a student of political science, whenever we wanted to end this war, we could have ended this war if the majority of us had used the power of the purse strings. That was just as true 5 years ago as it is today.

I don't think it is a question of guts. We didn't have the desire to do that and I am not sure the majority has the desire to do that yet. Whenever we want to as a Congress, we could do it. We can't start an action, but we can force an action with the purse strings.

I think it is wonderful you veterans have come down here as a cutting edge of public opinion because you again make this have more respect and I hope you succeed and prevail on the majority of the Congress.

Voting of Veterans and Nonveterans Concerning Vietnam War
It is interesting, speaking of veterans and speaking of statistics, that the press has never picked up and concentrated on quite interesting votes in the past. In those votes you find the majority of hawks were usually nonveterans and the majority of doves were usually veterans. Specifically, of those who voted in favor of the Hatfield-McGovern end-the-war amendment in the last session of the Congress 79 were veterans with actual military service. Of those voting against the amendment, only 36 percent were veterans.

Now on the sponsors of the Cooper-Church amendment you will find very much the same statistics. Eighty-two percent were veterans as compared to 71 percent of the Senate as a whole being veterans. So I would hope what you are doing will have an effect on the Congress.

Obligation to South Vietnamese Allies
I have two questions I would like to ask you. First, I was very much struck by your concern with asylum because now I see public opinion starting to swing and Congress passing legislation. Before they wouldn't get out at all; now they are talking about getting out yesterday. When it comes to looking after the people who would be killed if we left or badly ruined, I would hope you would develop your thinking a little bit to make sure that American public opinion, which now wants to get out, also bears in mind that when we depart we have an obligation to these people. I hope you will keep to that point.

Finally, in connection with Lieutenant Calley, which is a very emotional issue in this country, I was struck by your passing reference to that incident.

Wouldn't you agree with me though that what he did in herding old men, women and children into a trench and then shooting them was a little bit beyond the perimeter of even what has been going on in this war and that that action should be discouraged. There are other actions not that extreme that have gone on and have been permitted. If we had not taken action or cognizance of it, it would have been even worse. It would have indicated we encouraged this kind of action.

Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, on Lieutenant Calley is what he did quite obviously was a horrible, horrible, horrible thing and I have no bone to pick with the fact that he was prosecuted. But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere.

I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encourage body counts. I think it lies in large part with this country, which allows a young child before he reaches the age of 14 to see 12,500 deaths on television, which glorifies the John Wayne syndrome, which puts out fighting man comic books on the stands, which allows us in training to do calisthenics to four counts, on the fourth count of which we stand up and shout "kill" in unison, which has posters in barracks in this country with a crucified Vietnamese, blood on him, and underneath it says "kill the gook," and I think that clearly the responsibility for all of this is what has produced this horrible aberration.

Now, I think if you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same time try all those other people who have responsibility, and any aversion that we may have to the verdict as veterans is not to say that Calley should be freed, not to say that he is innocent, but to say that you can't just take him alone, and that would be my response to that.

Senator Pell: I agree with you. The guilt is shared by many, many, many of us, including the leaders of the get-out-now school. But in this regard if we had not tried him, I think we would be much more criticized and should be criticized. I would think the same fate would probably befall him as befell either Sergeant or Lieutenant Schwarz of West Virginia who was tried for life for the same offense and is out on a 9 months commuted sentence. By the same token I would hope the quality of mercy would be exercised in this regard for a young man who was not equipped for the job and ran amuck. But I think public opinion should think this through. We who have taken this position find ourselves very much in the minority.

Mr. Kerry: I understand that, Senator, but I think it is a very difficult thing for the public to think through faced with the facts. The fact that 18 other people indicted for the very same crime were freed and the fact among those were general and colonels. I mean this simply is not justice. That is all. It is just not justice.

Senator Pell: I guess it is the old revolutionary adage. When you see the white of their eyes you are more guilty. This seems to be our morality as has been pointed out. If you drop a bomb from a plane, you don't see the white of their eyes.

I agree with you and with the body count. It is like a Scottish nobleman saying, "How many grouse were caught on the moor." Four or five years ago those of us who criticized were more criticized.

Thank you for being here and I wish you all success. (Applause)

The Chairman: Senator from New Jersey.

Senator Case: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

STRATEGIC IMPLICATION OF VIETNAM WAR
Mr. Kerry, thank you too for coming. You have made more than clear something that I think always has been true: that the war never had any justification in terms of Indochina itself. I wish you would take this question a little further and touch on the larger strategic implications. It is in these larger strategic implications, if anywhere, that may be found justification for our involvement. As you know, the President said the other day that it is easy to get out and to end the war immediately.

The question is to get out and leave a reasonable chance for lasting peace. We have to look at this because the American people are going to see the issue in the terms he has defined it. I would be glad to have your comment on this matter, although I won't press you to discus it because in a sense you have already said this is not your area.

Mr. Kerry: I do want to. I want to very much.

Senator Case: And I would be very glad to have you do it.

Mr. Kerry: Thank you, sir. I would like to very much.

In my opinion, what we are trying to do, as the President talks about getting out with a semblance of honor is simply whitewashing ourselves. On the question of getting out with some semblance for peace, as a man who has fought there, I am trying to say that this policy has no chance for peace. You don't have a chance for peace when you arm the people of another country and tell them they can fight a war. That is even criminal in the sense that their country, if we are really worried about recrimination, is going to have to someday face up to the fact that we convinced a certain number of people, perhaps hundred of thousands, perhaps there will be several million, that they could stand up to something which they couldn't and ultimately will face the recrimination of the fact that their lives in addition to all the lives at this point, will be on our conscience. I don't think it is a question of peace at all. What we are doing is very, very, hypocritical in our withdrawal, and we really should face up to that.

Senator Case: May I press you just a little further or at least raise the question on which I would ask you to comment.

Mr. Kerry: I wish you would, please.

Senator Case: I think your answer was related still to the question of Indochina, but I think the President has tried to tie in Indochina with the question of world peace.

Mr. Kerry: I would like to discuss that.

It is my opinion that the United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers, and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles which was responsible for the creation of the SEATO treaty, which was, in fact, a direct reaction to this so-called Communist monolith. And I think we are reacting under cold-war precepts which are no longer applicable.

I say that because so long as we have the kind of strike force we have, and I am not party to the secret statistics which you gentlemen have here, but as long as we have the ones which we of the public know we have, I think we have a strike force of such capability and I think we have a strike force simply in our Polaris submarines, in the 62 or some Polaris submarines, which are constantly roaming around under the sea. And I know as a Navy man that underwater detection is the hardest kind in the world, and they have not perfected it, that we have the ability to destroy the human race. Why do we have to, therefore, consider and keep considering threats?

At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the security and freedom I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun and defend it, but right now we are reacting with paranoia to this question of peace and the people taking over the world. I think if we are ever going to get down to the question of dropping those bombs most of us in my generation simply don't want to be alive afterwards because of the kind of world that it would be with mutations and the genetic probabilities of freaks and everything else.

Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats and that is what I would say to this question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. (Laughter)

Senator, I will say this. I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in other it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist.

But when you start to neglect those needs, people will start to demand a new structure, and that, to me, is the only threat that this country faces now, because we are not responding to the needs and we are not responding to them because we work on these old cold-war precepts and because we have not woken up to realizing what is happening in the United States of America.

Senator Case: I thank you very much. I wanted you to have a chance to respond to the question of Indochina in a large context.

Mr. Chairman, I have just one further thing to do. Senator Javits had to go to the floor on important business, and he asked me to express his regret that he couldn't stay and also that if he had stayed he would have limited his participation to agreement with everything Senator Symington said. (Applause)

BACKGROUND OF VIETNAM WAR
The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, I have one other aspect of this I would like to explore for a moment. I recognize you and your associates, putting it on a personal point of view, feeling the seriousness and the tragedy of the experience in Vietnam. But I am disturbed very much by the possibility that your generation may become or is perhaps already in the process of becoming disillusioned with our whole country, with our system of government. There was much said about it. You didn't say it, but others have said this. I wonder if we could explore for a moment the background of this war.

It has seemed to me that its origin was essentially a mistake in judgment, beginning with our support of the French as a colonial power, which, I believe, is the only time our country has ever done that. Always our sympathies has been with the colony. If you will recall, we urged the British to get out of Egypt and India, and we urged many thought too vigorously, the Dutch prematurely to get out of Indonesia. I think there was much criticism that we acted prematurely in urging the Belgians to get out of the Congo. In any case, the support of the French to maintain their power was a departure from our traditional attitude toward colonial powers because of our own history.

It started in a relatively small way by our support of the French. Then one thing led to another. But these were not decisions, I believe, that involved evil motives. They were political judgements which at that time were justified by the conditions in the world. You have already referred to the fact that after World War II there was great apprehension, and I think properly. The apprehension was justified by the events, especially from Stalin's regime. There was apprehension that he would be able, and if he could he would, impose his regime by force on all of Western Europe, which could have created an extremely difficult situation which would amount to what you said a moment ago. You said if our country was really threatened, you would have no hesitancy in taking up a gun. So I think, in trying to evaluate the course of our involvement in this war, we have to take all of this into consideration. It was not a sign of any moral degradation or of bad motives. They were simply political judgments as to where our interest really was.

In retrospect I think we can say that our interest was not in supporting the French, that it was not in intervening, and it was not in undoing the Geneva Accords by the creation of SEATO, but that is all history. I am not saying this in order to try to lay the blame on anyone, but to get a perspective of our present situation, and hopefully to help, if I can, you and others not be too disillusioned and not to lose faith in the capacity of our institutions to respond to the public welfare. I believe what you and your associates are doing today certainly contributes to that, by the fact that you have taken the trouble to think these things through, and to come here. I know it is not very pleasant to do the things you have done.

While I wouldn't presume to compare my own experience, I have taken a great deal of criticism since I myself in 1965 took issue with the then President Johnson over his policies. I did what I could within my particular role in the Government to persuade both President Johnson and subsequent political leaders that this was not in the interests of our country. I did this, not because I thought they were evil men inherently or they were morally misguided, but their political judgment was wrong. All of us, of course, know that as fallible human beings we all make errors of judgment.

Possibility of Making U.S. Institutions Work Effectively
I think it is helpful to try to put it in perspective and not lose confidence in the basically good motives and purposes of this country. I believe in the possibility of making our institutions work effectively. I think they can be made responsible to the welfare of the people and to proper judgments. I only throw this out because I have a feeling that because of the unusual horror that has developed from this war too many people may lose confidence in our system as a whole. I know of no better system for a country as large as this, with 200-plus millions of people. No other country comparable to it in history has ever made a democratic system work.

They have all become dictatorships when they have achieved the size and complexity of this country. Only smaller countries really have made a democratic system work at all.

So I only wish to throw it out hopefully that, in spite of the tragic experiences of you and so many other people and the deaths of so many people, this system is not beyond recall and with the assistance of people like yourself and the younger generation we can get back on the track, and can make this system operate effectively.

I know that the idea of working within the system has been used so much, and many people have lost confidence that it can be done. They wish to destroy the system, to start all over, but I don't think in the history of human experience that those destructions of systems work. They usually destroy everything good as well as bad, and you have an awful lot of doing to recreate the good part and to get started again.

So I am hopeful that the younger generation- and I am certainly getting at the end of my generation because I have been here an awfully long time- but that you younger people can find it possible to accept the system and try to make it work because I can't at the moment think of a better one given the conditions that we have in this country and the great complexity and diversity.

I really believe if we can stop this war- I certainly expect to do everything I can. I have done all I can with all my limitations. I am sure many people have thought I could do better, but I did all that I was capable of doing and what wisdom I may have has been applied to it. I hope that you and your colleagues will feel the same way or at least you will accept the structure of the system and try to make it work. I can see no better alternative to offer in its place.

If I thought there was one, I would certainly propose it or try.

Can Basic System Be Made To Work

Have you yourself arrived at the point where you believe that basic structural changes must be brought about in our system or do you believe it can be made to work?

Mr. Kerry: I don't think I would be here if I didn't believe that it can be made to work, but I would have to say, and one of the traits of my generation now is that people don't pretend to speak for other people in it, and I can only speak as an individual about it, but I would say that I have certainly been frustrated in the past months, very, very seriously frustrated. I have gone to businessmen all over this country asking for money for fees, and met with a varying range of comments, ranging from "You can't sell war crimes" to, "War crimes are a glut on the market" or to "well, you know we are tired now, we have tried, we can't do anything." So I have seen unresponsiveness on the racial question in this country. I see an unwillingness on the part of too many of the members of this body to respond, to take gutsy stands, to face questions other than their own reelection, to make a profile of courage, and I am -although still with faith- very, very, very full of doubt, and I am not going to quit. But I think that unless we can respond on as a great a question as the war, I seriously question how we are going to find the kind of response needed to meet questions such as poverty and hunger and questions such as birth control and so many of the things that face our society today from low income housing to schooling, to recent reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on busing.

But I will say that I think we are going to keep trying. I also agree with you, Senator. I don't see another system other than democracy, but democracy has to remain reponsive. When it does not, you create the possibilities for all kinds of other systems to supplant it, and that very possibility, I think, is beginning to exist in this country.

The Chairman: That is why I ask you that. The feeling that it cannot be made responsive comes not so much from what you have said but from many different sources. I can assure you I have been frustrated too. We have lost most of our major efforts. That is we have not succeeded in getting enough votes, but there has been a very marked increase, I think, in the realization of the seriousness of the war. I think you have to keep in perspective, as I say, the size and complexity of the country itself and the difficulties of communication. This war is so far removed. The very fact, as you have said, you do not believe what happens there to be in the vital interest of this country, has from the beginning caused many people to think it wasn't so important.

Gradual Development of Concern About Vietnam War
In the beginning, back in the times that I mentioned when we first supported the French and throughout the 1950's up until the 1960's, this whole matter was not very much on the minds of anybody in the Congress. We were more preoccupied with what was going on in Western Europe, the fear, particularly during Stalin's time, that he might be able to subjugate all of Western Europe, which would have been a very serious challenge to us. This grew up almost as a peripheral matter without anyone taking too much notice until the 1960's. The major time when the Congress, I think, really became concerned about the significance of the war was really not before 1965, the big escalation. It was a very minor sideshow in all the things in which this country was involved until February 1965. That was when it became a matter that, you might say, warranted and compelled the attention of the country. It has been a gradual development of our realization of just what we were into.

As I said before, I think this came about not because of bad motives but by very serious errors in political judgment as to where our interest lies and what should be done about it.

I am only saying this hopefully to at least try to enlist your consideration, of the view that in a country of this kind I don't believe there is a better alternative from a structural point of view. I think the structure of our Government is sound.

To go back to my own State certainly, leaving out now the war, its affairs are being well managed. The people are, as you may say, maybe too indifferent to this.

Mr. Kerry: As it does in Massachusetts, too.

The Chairman: I have often thought they were too indifferent to it, but they have responded to the arguments as to where our interest lies quite well, at least from my personal experience. Otherwise I would not be here. But I think there is a gradual recognition of this.

War's Interference With Dealing With Other Problems
I also feel that if we could finish the war completely within the reasonably near future, as some of the proposals before this committee are designed to do if we can pass them, I think the country can right itself and get back on the track, in a reasonably quick time, dealing with the problems you mentioned. We are aware and conscious of all of them.

The thing that has inhibited us in doing things about what you mention has been the war. It has been the principal obstacle to dealing with these other problems with which you are very concerned, as, I think, the Congress is. Always we are faced with the demands of the war itself. Do you realize that this country has put well over $1,000 billion into military affairs since World War II?

I think it now approaches $1,500 billion. It is a sum so large no one can comprehend it, but I don't think outside of this war issue there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system that cannot be righted.

If we can give our resources to those developments, I don't have any doubt myself that it can be done. Whether it will be done or not is a matter of will. It is a matter of conviction of the various people who are involved, including the younger generation.

In that connection, I am say, the recent enactment of the right of all people from 18 years up to vote is at least a step in the direction where you and your generation can have an effect.

I hope that you won't lose faith in it. I hope you will use your talents after the war is over, and it surely will be over, to then attack these other problems and to make the system work.

I believe it can be made to work.

Do you have anything else you would like to say?

Mr. Kerry: Would you like me to respond at all, sir?

The Chairman: If you care to.

Mr. Kerry: Well, my feeling is that if you are talking about the ideal structure of this country as it is written down in the Constitution, then you or I would not differ at all. Yes, that is an ideal structure.

Developments in United States Requiring Fundamental Changes
What has developed in this country, however, at this point is something quite different and that does require some fundamental changes.

I do agree with you that what

Visualizing Ten Dimensions

2007-09-02T01:06:00.000-04:00

Unclassifiedproducer: What the hell IS going on.

2007-08-31T00:15:00.000-04:00

Have you seen this?

2007-08-26T23:58:00.000-04:00

About inside the Bush Whitehouse.
http://undergroundclips.com/video/ONeil_on_60min_320.mov

Something to think about

2007-08-20T20:39:00.000-04:00

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal
aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance
programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal
aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal
aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary
school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word
of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal
aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal
aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for
Welfare &social services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American
wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the
United States. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal
aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,
heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S. from the Southern border.
Homeland SecurityReport: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total
cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an
average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year
period." http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances
back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

It's about Time!

2007-08-20T07:22:00.000-04:00

Yesterday illegal immigrant Elvira Arellano was finally arrested. She had been seeking sanctuary in a church for some time after previously being arrested for using fraudulent documentation. Why is took so long for a known lawbreaker to be arrested is beyond me. The sad thing is that she has a young son who will suffer as a result of her bad decisions. Story here.

A Soldier Speaks out

2007-08-19T10:09:00.000-04:00

Bush and Cosby

2007-08-17T07:51:00.000-04:00

A song by Paul

2007-08-10T00:55:00.000-04:00

I have to say that once in awhile I need something like this to show me that the human race occasionaly produces great humans.

Christians Heckle Hindu Praying in Congress

2007-07-17T10:10:00.000-04:00

What more can be said. Of course mainstream theist will say these are radicals and extremists... but who empowers them? Who lets them rant unchallenged?

Olberman: Bush Resign Now!

2007-07-07T08:42:00.001-04:00

Scooter and all things fucked up

2007-07-04T11:21:00.000-04:00

So Bush has given Scooter a get out of jail free ticket. That’s to be expected... after all these folks look after their own. (when it suits them) After all, he only mislead, he didn’t actually release the Plame details. What gets our gall is that this is just another obfuscation of the law by the Bush administration. Another technicality… Another grey area… another judgment call. Didn’t Lil Kim go to jail for lying to a jury? Oh, I forgot, she's black. Speaking of justice for minorities... a young man named Wilson languishes in jail for getting a blowjob, and two border guards are in jail for shooting a Mexican drug mule. Nobody in position to help these people, (including the President) has done one damned thing. Justice is for the connected, the wealthy, the Hilton. Welcome to the Grand Imperial Age of America.

Dawkins Foundation

2007-06-05T11:51:00.001-04:00

Introduction to the Richard Dawkins Foundation

A Quote

2007-06-03T22:31:00.001-04:00

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
--Arthur C. Clarke

For the Love of Mitt

2007-05-04T15:56:00.000-04:00

So Mitt Romney is looking like an early Republican front runner. Even though his ludicrous statement about being a lifelong hunter came back to nip him in the ass. Mitt wanted to go Republican mainstream, so he recanted on his thoughts about a woman being able to make her own health decisions. But can he be truly embraced now? Can a man who thinks that the god character gave a new set of Holy Scriptures to a felon, who then used a magical pair of glasses to read them, be credible?

Thought for Today

2007-05-02T16:16:00.000-04:00

" It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan"

Blog Against Theocracy

2007-03-27T13:54:00.000-04:00

Well, I did this post hastily and for some reason the links and stuff didnt post properly. Gtreat comments though.

Douglas Adams

2007-02-20T08:48:00.001-05:00

Obama's Speech Today

2007-02-10T12:02:00.000-05:00

Wow, this is the guy I want to support. If Hillary supporters had seen this they would wonder what they were thinking.

Amen!

2007-01-13T19:57:00.000-05:00

Stanley Jordan Playing Eleanor Rigby

2007-01-11T21:35:00.000-05:00


Stanley Jordan Playing Eleanor Rigby

10 Questions

2007-01-10T17:32:00.000-05:00

Ted Stevens: Idiot Congressman

2007-01-06T13:36:00.000-05:00

Apparently Ted Stevens; the guy who thinks the internet is a series of tubes, wants to lend his expertise to writing more legislation that tax and regulates it. Once again he also does this on the sly by trying to bury the fine print in other legislation. God I wish this jerk off would just pop a blood vessel and become a vegetable.
Read more here.

Olberman 01/02/07 Bush's folly in Iraq

2007-01-03T23:25:00.000-05:00

New Poll: Bush Wins!

2007-01-03T08:26:00.000-05:00

UFO sighted over O'Hare airport Chicago

2007-01-02T07:07:00.000-05:00

Many people including pilots and ground crew witnessed a disk shaped object over Chicago's O'Hare airport on Nov seventh. They said it hoverd in midair just below the 1600' cloud level then raced off through the clouds leaving a hole that lasted several minutes. More here.

I'm back!

2006-12-30T00:35:00.000-05:00

So I took a vacation. So blooger isnt easy to communicate with.. oh well. Didya hear Saddam is dead. Yup, They hung him tonight. Get ready for more violence. Anyway in my hiatus I started a new blog. It's topic is atheism/ agnostisism. It's called Opposition 2 Delusion.

Celebrating something that didnt happen

2006-12-07T22:55:00.000-05:00

We all know the story, and now millennia later we choose this time of the year to celebrate the event. The story goes something like this. An ethereal being sporting wings and a gown pops into a little house somewhere in the middle east, and tells a girls she’s about to be raped by God and their isn’t a damned thing she can do about it. Her name is Mary. (in this version) She had been courting this older guy named Joseph, so she dupes him into playing daddy for a little while… Anyway the popular story goes on to say that they went to a little town named Bethlehem and in a barn gave birth to a baby boy they called Jesus..aka Baby Jeebus. So the King; Herrod, didn’t want some baby claiming his thrown, so he ordered all first born boys be killed. (a popular plot line in the Bible) (scene fades out) Camera focuses on a then 12 year old Jesus doing a scripture slam with a group of priests. He’s kickin’ ass and they are in the psalm of his hand. Mary and Joseph ask him what he was doing and he said he was about his fathers work. (Joseph was Pwn3d) Soon after this Joseph just disappears from the story altogether. Word has it that he got into smoking Myhr and ran off with a gay Rabbi. Now that I think of it Jesus disappeared from the story too. Hmm talk about crappy story telling. Well anyhow, a couple decades later he shows up again, gets baptized by John the Baptist. By the way, John the Baptist also miraculously survived the killing of the first born boys. Lucky him. So now that he’s freshly baptized and has on a clean robe Jesus goes out to the wilderness for 40 days and nights to collect his thoughts and thumb wrestle with Satan.
I’ll end the story there; I’ve already gone too far. Jesus’ life ends about 33 AD. Mark; was the first Gospel written about Christ, and it wasn’t written until after 70 AD. We know this because it mentions the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. That’s um… 40 years folks. Jesus, a guy who was doing huge ass miracles and speaking to crowds of hundreds or thousands was completely uncronicled for 40 years? CNotable writers of the time such as Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, Flauvius Josephus and Justus of Tiberius make no mention of Jesus even though all of them covered topics such as current religious movements. Actually there was a guy from that in between period named Saul of Tarsus, he said Jesus came to him in a vision. Saul changed his name to Paul… The Apostle Paul. From one vision Paul then went out an evangelized Jesus Christ and he wrote over 80,000 words about Christianity. The funny thing is that Paul didn’t know about Mary and Joseph, Bethlehem, Herrod, John the Baptist, or any of the miracles that Jesus was said to have performed. He never quotes anything Jesus ever said. The only thing about Jesus that the Apostle Paul has any idea about is the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension… That’s it. This is the first guy to write about Jesus, the only one who was around when Jesus was suppose to be alive, and he knew nothing about him. Yet he started a whole religion about a guy he didn’t have a clue about. Oh, here is the other kicker…( I have to laugh) the last three events… didn’t even happen on Earth according to Paul. What you may also need to know is that at the time there were many mythic heroes and gods that had the same basic story…
• Born of a virgin on Dec 25
• Stars appeared at birth
• Visited by magi from the east
• turned water to wine
• healed the sick
• Cast out demons
• Performed miracles
• Transfigured before followers
• Rode a donkey into a city
• Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
• celebrated a communal meal with bread and wine (which represented the saviors flesh and blood)
• Killed on a cross or a tree
• Descended into hell
• Resurrected on the third day
• Ascended into heaven
• Became a divine judge
Some of those characters were:
• Krishna
• Mithra
• Osiris
• Atos
• Adonis
• Tamuz
• odopus
• Theseus
• Romulus
• Hercules
• Perseus
• Horus
So was the character of Jesus derivative? I would say so.
When presented with these other heroic characters Christian theologians actually say that they were pre counterfeited by Satan to confuse non believers. Don’t believe me? Here is what Church Father Justin Martyr said of this, : For when they say that Dionysus arose again and ascended to heaven, is it not evident the devil has imitated the prophesy?” They say that they did not exist before Jesus, because Jesus being part of the holy trinity has always existed. Churches don’t talk much about the early days of Christianity because the story would go something like this: Jesus was here, then he was killed, he came back and was carried up to heaven. Then everyone completely forgot about him. Then they suddenly remembered again. Again allegorical literature was extremely common in those times attempts were made during the Nicean counsel to remove much of the folklore from the Bible and make it a more intellectual tome. However if you remove the folklore, what you end up with is just begat, begat, begat. Augustus Caesar who also lived in that time is intricately tied to the history. Many theologians and secular writers of the time confer his existence and timeline. Jesus however shares no such accreditation. Paul didn’t even think he was a man, and thought he arrived on earth in full grown human form. The Gospel of mark was the first written but is not read first in the Bible. Biblical scholars agree that the other Gospels are derivative of Mark. Oh, by the way, a guy named Mark did not write it. It was penned over 100 years after 33 AD. Justin Martyr, an OCF original church father said “When we say Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter. Talk about a sales pitch! Christian leader rearely have to offer explanations for these types of things because believers don’t ask these types of questions. The only Roman reference to Jesus or Christians anywhere near that time was a reference to Jesus in a letter which Pliny the Younger (62 - 113,) Proconsul of Bithynia, wrote to the emperor Trajan in the year 113. In it Pliny asked for instructions as to any action that he should take against the Christians. He informed the emperor that they sang hymns to Jesus Christ as to a god. They did not worship the emperor as was required by Roman law of that day. Although judged to be authentic, the letter, because of its relatively late date, is of no use in proving the existence of Jesus.
To make matters more confusing, the Talmud… a Jewish holy books had said that Jesus had lived 150 years before the account in the New Testament. That he had been stoned and hanged under the Roman Alaxander Jamaus. The New Testament says that Jesus was handed over from Pontius Pilate. Well if this was the case under Jewish law he would have been stoned to death, not crucified as was Roman tradition.
So, evidence that Jesus ever lived is found only in the New Testament gospels. But just how reliable is it? Consider the following:
• The dates of their writings are well after the alleged time of Jesus and contain numerous irresolvable contradictions and obvious forgeries.
• The writer of the Gospel of John presents a different Jesus from that of the synoptic gospels.
• Paul presents a Jesus unlike that of both John and the synoptics.
• Much in the gospels was borrowed from pagan sources.
• No two gospels writers could agree as to the date or circumstances of Jesus’ birth, and the birth narratives appear to have been contrived.
• The gospel writers cannot agree on the short inscription over Jesus' head at the alleged crucifixion.
• The gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are hopelessly contradictory.

Consider for your amusement this Biblical Jesus hair ball:
Romans 1:3 ~ "Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," says Paul. Although this statement agrees fully with the one made by Jesus in Revelation 22:16, it flies in the face of everything we are told in the gospels. In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 we learn that Mary was made pregnant with Jesus not by Joseph, who was of the Davidic line, but by the Holy Ghost. This creates a really big problem for Bible believers. First, although Joseph was of David's line, he was not Jesus' biological father. Second, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and spirits have neither flesh nor blood. Third, "according to the flesh" could not have been referring to Mary's flesh because she was not from David's line. According to the story, she was of the house of Aaron (Luke 1:5), a Levite. So, if the birth narratives are to be believed, Jesus did not come from the seed of David, and Paul told another big lie. If, on the other hand, Revelation 22:16 is true and Paul is right, the writers of Matthew and Luke lied.

I would like to summarize by quoting Louis W. Cable:
If Jesus did not exist, how did the story about him begin? One must remember that in the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived, there were many Jewish cults, especially in Galilee. Jewish mysticism, mixed with the Hellenistic stoic philosophy, gave birth to the legend of Jesus. Gullible minds accepted the myth, and as the centuries passed, a new religion developed out of a legend. Over time, as the gospels went through successive editions, "corrections" were made which reflect the compromises upon which the minds of Christians were exercised at the time and speeches were put in the mouth of Jesus in order to give authority to some particular dogma or view. The parable of the Good Samaritan, for example was added for the purpose of combating Jewish exclusiveness exhibited in many passages of earlier gospels. Meanwhile the Hebrew Bible was ransacked for passages which could be manipulated so as to apply to Jesus. Corresponding incidents were then written into the gospels to make it appear that Jesus had fulfilled these prophecies. This was done to such an extent that one writer observed that the Old Testament was converted to a biography of Jesus. The early Christian writers tried to prove the truth of Christian beliefs not by contemporary evidence of Jesus’ existence, which surely they would have done if they could, but out of the prophets and the Psalms by taking verses out of context and in many cases altering them so as to make them appear to be speaking about Jesus.
There are those who would protect the gospels by saying that everything in them is symbolism. But symbolism is not history. If the conclusion is accepted that the primitive gospels were essentially symbolism, with some infusion of myth, then the further conclusion must follow that the writers of these gospels were not intending to relate the actions of a real man. Thus the only evidence, such as it is, that Jesus ever lived ceases to be any evidence at all.
Thanks for your taking the time to read this. LOC

Why I care about religion

2006-12-05T15:52:00.000-05:00

Cheney Admits to being former Director of CFR

2006-11-30T17:34:00.000-05:00

Outsourcing The Dead

2006-11-30T14:56:00.000-05:00

Yet another dead American soldier is shipped home on a commercial airliner and uncerimoniously dumped through the luggage conveyor. Shame is a word unknown to this administration.

Letter from Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad to George Bush

2006-11-29T11:22:00.000-05:00

Mr George Bush,

President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions
that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political
forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have
prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might
bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,

Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make “War and Terror” his slogan,
And finally,
Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which
Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time,
Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on
the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire
village, city or convey set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around
one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed,
close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens
broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions
of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of
thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away
from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer
depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and
their bodies handed of their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples
of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to
begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the
announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was
toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy
about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was
supported by the West.

Mr President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be
reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of
Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

Page 2

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation,
their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own
country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows
whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could
not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the
provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions
correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus
Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the
phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a
new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents
and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII,
which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly
disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront
defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the
establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can
this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages
were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing
for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses
while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate
Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is
unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?
Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH)
or liberal values?

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and
outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs

Page 3

contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why
is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes
have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put
the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime,
abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian
people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian
government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why
are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr President,

As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them --
many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have
faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are
becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East
regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific
R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements
being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology
altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics,
chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is
reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,
Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being
opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in
fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and
valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and
spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from
happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals –
is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

Continued in comments.

The Wheeel of Bush

2006-11-13T08:05:00.000-05:00

In Germany charges are to be filed against Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former CIA director George Tenet. German law deems war crimes to be against humanity and therefore chargeable wherever the accused lives. Watching LINK tv last night I saw a discussion with the litigant and several journalist who claim there is paper evidence coming from Gitmo. They also spoke about how the Bush administration has worked to immunize themselves from prosecution. This after the US Supreme Court put the nix on their torture practices as was discovered. President Bush nominated former CIA director Robert Gates to take Rumsfelds job but he also has a lot of baggage. He was involved in the attempted overthrow of Nicaragua President Ortega with the help of John Negroponte. Negroponte is now the Director of National Intelligence. He was the Ambassador to Honduras. Both men were involved with the Oliver North Iran Contra deal, and were complicit in the torture and deaths of thousands of Central Americans. Ironic that Daniel Ortega was just voted back into office in Nicaragua. Gates was also a key player in the arms deals that went for both Iraq and Iran during thier war. He helped play one side against the other to keep the region unstable. Lee Hamilton who ran the investigation into these dealings cut the investigation short against the advice of Democrats who were collecting information. Once the inquiry was officially called off by Hamilton, the smoking guns were found but it was too late. Lee Hamilton is also part of the Iraq Study Group. Other members include James Baker the third, and you guessed it Robert Gates. It’s thought that the purpose of this group is really to deflect criticism from the Bush administration. So, still think things are hunky dory after the Democratic win?
An interesting artical can be found here on Rumsfelds war crimes.

George Bush, King of Death?

2006-11-07T07:59:00.000-05:00

600,000… 400,000. These are just numbers right? Oh come on, I know you’re smarter than that. The 600,000 figure represents the number of dead that have been statistically calculated that are a direct result of the Iraq war. 400,000 is the estimated number of people that have died in Darfur Sudan. If we weren’t in Iraq, would be then have been able to stop the genocide in Darfur. I know it’s a stretch to say that about a million people have died needlessly. But if we were really a superpower, and were really a country based on morals and goodness would these things have happened like they have? Having said that, it would REALLY be a stretch to say that George Bush has A LOT of blood on his hands. That is to say that he didn’t need to go to war in Iraq and that many of the deaths in Darfur are crimes of neglect. After Saddam, the next person who should be tried for crimes against humanity is George Bush. He, after being convicted should fry in the Texas electric chair. I would wager Saddam would walk to his death with greater comportment that Bush. I bet George would cry and piss himself as they drag him to the chair.

Anniversary Posting

2006-11-06T11:08:00.000-05:00

And for my anniversary post. Something fun yet poignant.

One Year of Blogging

2006-11-05T21:43:00.000-05:00

Well, as of Monday I've been doing this for one year. At times I have found it to be very satisfying, other times just depressing. I've sung for the choir, and wasted a lot of time. I’ve met a lot of people and have learned a thing or two about people, writing, and ideas. If you’ve been reading, thank you.

John Kerry go away

2006-11-01T17:55:00.000-05:00

Regardless if John Kerry is guilty of butchering a joke, or if in his elitist mind he meant what he actually said, he needs to just step off. He needs to just represent his state and leave the national stage for good. The Democrats need to move foreward, and he is part of the old guard. I could name others, but that will be for another time. Lets get through this election first. I doubt we'll do as good as some think we will. But a message will be sent, and power will come back to a point near balance. John... go sail boarding. Please.

Democracy At Risk

2006-10-26T18:51:00.000-04:00

by Garrison Keillor

I would not send my college kid off for a semester abroad if I were you. Last week, we suspended human rights in America, and what goes around comes around. Ixnay habeas corpus.

The U.S. Senate, in all its splendor and majesty, has decided that an "enemy combatant" is any non-citizen whom the president says is an enemy combatant, including your Korean greengrocer or your Swedish grandmother or your Czech au pair, and can be arrested and held for as long as authorities wish without any right of appeal to a court of law to examine the matter. If your college kid were to be arrested in Bangkok or Cairo, suspected of "crimes against the state" and held in prison, you'd assume that an American foreign service officer would be able to speak to your kid and arrange for a lawyer, but this may not be true anymore. Be forewarned.

The Senate also decided it's up to the president to decide whether it's OK to make these enemies stand naked in cold rooms for a couple days in blinding light and be beaten by interrogators. This is now purely a bureaucratic matter: The plenipotentiary stamps the file "enemy combatants" and throws the poor schnooks into prison and at his leisure he tries them by any sort of kangaroo court he wishes to assemble and they have no right to see the evidence against them, and there is no appeal. This was passed by 65 senators and will now be signed by Mr. Bush, put into effect, and in due course be thrown out by the courts.

It's good that Barry Goldwater is dead because this would have killed him. Go back to the Senate of 1964 - Goldwater, Dirksen, Russell, McCarthy, Javits, Morse, Fulbright - and you won't find more than 10 votes for it.

None of the men and women who voted for this bill has any right to speak in public about the rule of law anymore, or to take a high moral view of the Third Reich, or to wax poetic about the American Idea. Mark their names. Any institution of higher learning that grants honorary degrees to these people forfeits its honor. Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Carper, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Menendez, Murkowski, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor, Roberts, Rockefeller, Salazar, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Sununu, Talent, Thomas, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner.

To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott: Mark their names and mark them well. For them, no minstrel raptures swell. High though their titles, proud their name, boundless their wealth as wish can claim, these wretched figures shall go down to the vile dust from whence they sprung, unwept, unhonored and unsung.

Three Republican senators made a show of opposing the bill and, after they'd collected all the praise they could get, they quickly folded. Why be a hero when you can be fairly sure that the Court will dispose of this piece of garbage.

If, however, the Court does not, then our country has taken a step toward totalitarianism. If the government can round up someone and never be required to explain why, then it's no longer the United States of America as you and I always understood it. Our enemies have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They have made us become like them.

I got some insight week before last into who supports torture when I went down to Dallas to speak at Highland Park Methodist Church. It was spooky. I walked in, was met by two burly security men with walkie-talkies, and within 10 minutes was told by three people that this was the Bushes' church and that it would be better if I didn't talk about politics. I was there on a book tour for Homegrown Democrat, but they thought it better if I didn't mention it. So I tried to make light of it: I told the audience, "I don't need to talk politics. I have no need even to be interested in politics - I'm a citizen, I have plenty of money and my grandsons are at least 12 years away from being eligible for military service." And the audience applauded! Those were their sentiments exactly. We've got ours, and who cares?

The Methodists of Dallas can be fairly sure that none of them will be snatched off the streets, flown to Guantanamo, stripped naked, forced to stand for 48 hours in a freezing room with deafening noise, so why should they worry? It's only the Jews who are in danger, and the homosexuals and gypsies. The Christians are doing just fine. If you can't trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and not have to say why, then whom can you trust?

''That's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.''

Whats Happening to my America?

2006-10-22T08:26:00.000-04:00

What’s happening to my America? We are slowly becoming just like the enemies we have fought for generations. The US government has given a Halliburton subsidiary a contract to build detention centers in the US. Congress recently passed a law that allows the President to federalize State National Guards even at the opposition of said states Governors. Of course there is the Patriot Act which was passed even though few actually read it, and which goes against the very fabric with which this nation was created. The Pentagon has a 400 page document which calls for Phyops to be used against foreigners, but says that American may be exposed to this propaganda and that that’s ok. We have paramilitary contractors from companies like Blackwater patrolling in cities like New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, and they will be used in other domestic situations. Citizens can now be detained indefinitely and held without charges. They have limited access to lawyers, family and the evidence if any against them. There are also plans to shut down the civilian internet during “emergencies” because they deem it to be a weapon. Military Intelligence while unable to actively gather information on citizens is not prohibited from receiving it. So to those ends a myriad of gray agencies are now in place to provide them with said information. This includes NASA, the very agency Bush gave more money to to aid in “space exploration”. NASA uses its computer banks to data mine info provided by credit card companies and airlines. The Bush administration in league with the Pentagon have also deemed space as the property of the US and plans on weaponising it. Moreover we have committed ourselves to developing more nuclear weapons even though we have enough to blow up every major city in the world 20 times over. All this at a time when we have over 50 million people without health care, we have over five million more people below the poverty level, our students score near the bottom of western countries in math and science, and personal bankruptcy is at an all time high.
Time to hoist our flags higher, and slap more yellow ribbons on our SUV’s. Time for peaceful revolution.
You can read some more here.

help with cancer research

2006-10-20T13:48:00.000-04:00

Hey there friends... Folding@Home is a networked computer project that uses thousands of personal computers to simulataniously crunch numbers to help find cures for many diseases. I've started a group called MoonBat and am asking everyone to download the Folding@home client found at the link below. It is safe to use and only uses the computer power you arent. The reasearch being done is of huge importance. Teams participate to see which ones process the highest number of chemical combinations. You will actually see a 3d picture of the chemical molecules you are working on. So please... lets see how many people we can get to help. Get the client and then add this group number to the configuration screen: 52543 I have the url's listed at the bottom. (this works alittle like SETI@home if your familiar with that.
CURRENT PROJECTS AND PROGRESS TO DATE:

* Alzheimer's Disease
* Cancer
* Huntington's Disease
* Osteogenesis Imperfecta
* Parkinson's Disease
* Ribosome & antibiotics

http://folding.stanford.edu/
And here is our team page:
http://www.myteam.com/moonbat

Bush and Blair sing of their Love

2006-10-20T05:56:00.000-04:00

Jefferson's Manual

2006-10-15T18:08:00.000-04:00

We as citizens don't have to wait for politicians to start impeachment procedings.
"Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.
For more information go here.
Thanks Libby

Republican try to hide more bad news

2006-10-12T23:02:00.000-04:00

Check this out from my friend Mike over at Born at the crest of the empire. So they know democracy in Iraq won't work.... right now they know it! Yet they parade around in happy faces and say "stay the course". They call us defeatocrats. They are responsible for the deaths of untold civilians and American military personel. And they still spew lies.
We need to address mechanisms by which we can remove a sitting President for gross incompetence. Impeachment only works for crimes. Incompetence by itself may not be criminal but its overwhelming harm should be reason enough. These bastards have to go.

Debunking Republican Foley Myths

2006-10-12T11:29:00.000-04:00

A special Media Matters for America report: debunking the Foley myth machine Summary: The scandal surrounding the sexually explicit electronic communications former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) allegedly sent to underage former congressional pages -- and the House Republican leadership's alleged cover-up of Foley's behavior -- have produced a wave of misinformation. To aid members of the media in covering the scandal, Media Matters for America has compiled a list of the top myths, falsehoods, and baseless assertions surrounding the controversy.
Table of Contents
* Democrats and their allies orchestrated the Foley scandal as a political dirty trick
*Hastert did not learn about Foley's alleged behavior until September 29
* Alleged Foley emails that House Republicans possessed were merely "overly friendly"
* Foley scandal has not affected voters or Congressional races
* Hastert and the GOP leadership forced Foley to resign after they learned of the lurid instant messages
* Gay Men are More Likely Than Heterosexual Men to Sexually Abuse Children
* Kirk Fordham's Claim that Hastert's Office Told About Foley Before 2005 is Uncorroborated
* Hastert "Took Responsibility" for the Foley Scandal
* Conservative Evangelical Voters are Particularly Outraged by Foley Scandal
* Upon Learning of Emails, GOP Leadership or Rep. Shimkus Told Foley to End All Contact with Pages
* CREW Withheld Emails and Other Information From FBI, Congressional Leaders
* A "Velvet Mafia" on Capitol Hill Knew of Foley's Alleged Behavior and Protected Him from Public Exposure

One Day for Darfur

2006-10-05T08:45:00.000-04:00

Hastert must step down as house speaker

2006-10-03T13:06:00.000-04:00

Dennis Hastert, House Speaker knew about the improper action of congressman Foley and did nothing. Party loyalty was more important to him than the safety of our young people. This should not stand. Go here to send a letter to your representative, and let them know that they should support Hastert stepping down as House Speaker.
http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/hastert_must_go

Happy Clown Candy Centers

2006-09-28T16:29:00.000-04:00

Thanks Republicans

2006-09-27T07:37:00.000-04:00

Since the year 2000
Health care cost up 87%
Income up 20%

Weapon Testing on Americans

2006-09-22T12:04:00.000-04:00

I just read a great piece from my Friend Earl over at The Peace Train. Apparently the Pentagon is developing microwave and focused sound weapons. But, before they deploy them for use in places like Iraq, they want to test them on American civilians by letting law enforcment agencies use them on demonstrators. I guess the adminstrations definition of enemy has expanded, and that torture isnt just about getting information. Are you concerned yet?

Press for truth

2006-09-13T10:38:00.000-04:00

I just finished watching the movie Press for truth...Shortly after 9/11 four women came together because they had questions about why their family members had died in the attack. Prior, these women had little in common. One was a Democrat, One was an independent, and two were Republicans. They spent thousands of hours researching and reading everything they could about the lead up to the attack, and actions taken after. About the same time, another man started collection news items about 9/11. He began to create a time line on his internet site. A time line that took thousands of stories that when viewed separately may seem inoculous enough. But when put into a true historical perspective on a time line, portrays the true picture of what really happened. This movie is about these two groups. There is no “tinfoil hat stuff”, there are no conspiracy theory's. This is about what is documented. When put together as is done here the result is powerful and compelling. I urge you to watch this movie. I've seen all the conspiracy movies, and the one done by popular science. This is nothing like those. Please watch it. Home website for the movie can be found here.

Keith Olbermann rips Bush a new ass

2006-09-12T10:10:00.000-04:00

Keith Olbermann rips Bush a new ass.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

2006-09-10T17:43:00.000-04:00

So Iraqis have officially taken over operations at Abu Ghraib prison. Time for the tortures to commence. Screams can once again be heard coming from cell blocks as those that would replace the monster Saddam continue with practices just as barbaric. Welcome to freedom, liberty and Democracy Iraq! Terrorism suspects are also being moved there from the infamous detention center in Jadriyah, where American troops found 169 tortured and starved prisoners. Now at AG it's reported that screams can be heard coming from the cell blocks again. Or should we say, “The Rumsfeldian symphony”. Not to let Saddam be the best at mass killings, 27 prisoners were also hanged in the first group execution since the fall of the Bathists. Just another Iraq success story I suppose.

Walmart has Conservative friends

2006-09-08T07:24:00.000-04:00

Walmart, under siege from all sides has recently gained new allys in their effort to bring cheap foreign made goods to American shoppers. Groups like the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation are rallying to the WalMart battle cry. Why, because rich, conservative white guys get richer when companies can bully their way into every neighborhood, make the state pay for their employees benefits, and import goods made overseas at slave wages. Read more here.

Elaine Chao Lier Extraordinare

2006-09-04T08:48:00.000-04:00

I just watched Elaine Chao, who is the Labor Secretary, tell lie after lie after lie. Solodad O'Brien from CNN was interviewing her, and she just smiled and told lies. O'Brian cited statistic after statistic about the fact that people make less money now. O'Brian talked about real wages and the growing cost of health care. She also talked about the minimum wage which has not be raised in nine years. Chao just smiled and lied. Time after time she said “Thats not true.”. She blamed Democrats for killing the new minimum wage act. Even though it was tied to Republican wanted tax cuts. She talked about the new jobs being education based even though the cost of educations goes through the roof. She talked about retraining. Again real people with real families have neither the time or the money to constantly be retraining just so they can have a job with reduced benefits and pay. Elaine Chao, you are an asshole.

Plane crash could have been avoided

2006-08-30T10:17:00.000-04:00

In a recent plane crash in Kentucky 49 people died, The plane attempted to take off on the wrong runway. One that was half the length of the runway that was suppose to used. It turns out that against FAA rules, their was only one air traffic controller on duty at the time. An expert on CNN this morning said that most major airports are operating with understaffed control towers, and that about one quarter of the controllers are eligible to retire next year. He also stated that problems with lack of control in airport towers can be traced all the way back to President Regan who fired striking controllers and weakened incentive for anyone to enter the career path. I find it quite striking that in a time those in charge claim to be so focused on fighting terrorism and making flying safe for the public, that they can let the most basic safety system...control towers, go understaffed. Again we have an issue of not covering the basics. Of course actually having enough air traffic controllers isn't as macho as “taking the fight to the enemy”.

14 points of Fascism

2006-08-26T12:02:00.000-04:00

Aqaint yourself with them here.

Bush 0 - Nasrallah 1

2006-08-24T22:35:00.000-04:00

From my freind Earlbo as posted at The Peace Train.

Next week marks the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina hitting, but President Bush would prefer Americans not place too much importance on the date.

Bush says a one-year anniversary "is just that," because rebuilding efforts will take "a long time." The president says the date should be marked by remembering that people suffered, and recommitting to helping them.

Like the war in Iraq, it will no doubt take at least until we get a real leader in office.

While New Orleans languishes nearly a year after Katrina, Nasrallah has already begun to assist Lebanese residents in reconstruction:

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's grand promises to rebuild Lebanon began to materialize at Shahed High School yesterday, in the form of neat packs of $12,000 in US dollars handed without ceremony to people displaced from their homes.

"I like Hezbollah more and more," said Riyadh Nasser, 53, as he waited in a south Beirut suburb for the money from the Shi'ite Islamist movement. The money is meant to pay for a year's rent and new furniture, until his original home can be rebuilt.

Now, let's be honest here. I'm not sure what Nasrallah's actual level of concern for individuals is and I don't much care. The reality of what's going on is summed up in Riyadh Nasser's statement: "I like Hezbollah more and more."

While Bush controls the wealthiest and most powerful country on Earth he still can't understand what makes people tick -- his inability to understand why protesters in Iraq would be less than happy with the U.S. right now.

In Iraq look at security, electricity, unemployment, lack of housing, schools, clean water etc, and you understand why the Bush/Cheney doctrine is a failure. You understand why Hamas controls Palestine. People like those who help them. Period.

2006-08-22T23:39:00.000-04:00

the album leaf

Do you have five minutes? If you do you should watch this. Not when people are all around, but when things are quiet. You are an emotional creature. I guarantee it.

JonBenet Ramsey

2006-08-18T06:33:00.000-04:00

John Karr says he killed JonBenet Ramsey. I always thought the parents had something to do with her death. My Take is that this Karr fellow did not kill her, but feels guilty about being a child molester and wants to go to jail, and if he does he might as well get the press coverage that will come with being the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. I mean come on, this guy moved to Thailand, the world capitol of child sex abuse. he also lived in Honduras, a country where poverty is so rampant that child sex slavery is common. So there you have my take.

Leiberman Loses! Yes!

2006-08-09T07:59:00.000-04:00

Connecticut senator Joe Leiberman lost to Ned Lamont in the primary election on Tuesday. great news for progressives like myself. However, I just watched a morning after video with Leiberman on CNN, and as expected Joe is going to run as an independent. He says America needs him... that the Democratic party needs him. Bullshit! We don't need a Bush apologists in office. We don't need a republican lite. Time after time Joe has stymied progressive legislation and stood shoulder to shoulder with Republicans. No more! I will be writing my Democratic leadership to see that he is stripped of any leadership roles he has. This is important because he no longer represents the Democratic majority. Joe's ego is spinning out of control and like the beheaded king seconds after his head leaves his body, his brain can't process the fact that it's over. It's over Joe!

Leiberman loses Connecticut Primary!

2006-08-08T23:40:00.000-04:00

What great news! Awesome! What more can I say? But the selfish pig decides to run as an independant. Bad Joe! Bad! Way to go Ned! Great job hacking Joes website.

I'm Back!

2006-08-02T14:45:00.000-04:00

God I hate Verizon...Long Story. Needless to say they didn't like us switching our phone service to Vonage.... The bastards!

Whats up with Israel?

2006-07-19T10:23:00.000-04:00

Feeling much better today and more my old happy/pissed off self! My doc got me on some steroids and the pain is way down. Speaking of pain... what the hell is up with Israel? What is up with the media and all the western governments who are making excuses for the bombing of civilians and the crossing of borders by the Israeli military? The US is so behind most every other country in getting our people out of Lebanon, and then to say they need to pay back the government to stay on the ship. (looks like this may have changed but we will see) The problem here is language... the word defense has been distorted beyond comprehension. Of course Israel has the right to defend herself against attack. But bombing civilian areas, and perpetrating a non stop fear campaign on two civilian populations has nothing to do with defense of their country. Yes those soldiers were abducted, but abduction are deal with by negotiation and good detective/ special operation work. Hezbollah is not Al Queda! They condemn the tactics and disregard for life that Al Queda displays. Sure they are not “choir boys”, but they were created in a time when Israel was occupying their land. What we need is an end to the missiles and artillery on both sides. International peace keepers need to be sent in and those soldiers need to be returned. This madness has to stop.

Update

2006-07-17T15:19:00.000-04:00

Hello everyone. I just wanted to post here and tell you that I am recovering from my operation slower than I expected I would. Apparently my body does not like all the hardware installed in my spine and is continually producing inflammation in the area. It is causing me a great deal of pain. I'm often reminded of the line in the movie Hellraiser when the pinhead guy says, “ Your suffering will be legendary, even in hell!” Suffice it to say that writing about shit is way down at the bottom of my list. But I will as I can be posting about what matters and I hope that you all bear with me and continue your visits which are really appreciated. I read all you say and while I can't always reply, it gives me things to think about.

Shooting missles from the sky: THAAD

2006-07-13T22:31:00.000-04:00

Today I read an piece written by Jason Gibbs of the Las Cruces Sun-News about a recent missile intercept test at the White Sands missile range. (Story here) Essentially the test of the THAAD system was designed to use powerful radar and super accurate targeting to make one missile strike an incoming “enemy” missile that carried a simulated WMD payload. The purpose of which is to destroy it high enough above the ground, and with enough force to eliminate both the missile and any chance that the payload could affect targets on the ground. Our anti missile systems are based on our ability to calculate an arching trajectory from an enemy launch pad or ship to a target on American or ally soil. Once the path of the incoming missile is triangulated and plotted, interceptor missiles are sent to actually strike them out of the sky at a safe distance from us. Now of course, calculating all the variables for an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile is difficult beyond belief, but we have actually been having some level of success doing so. Unlike the Patriot anti missile system deployed in the gulf region... Some of the THAAD intercepts actually happened. This is great right? Makes us so much safer right? Well worth the billions (probably trillions) we have poured into “Star Wars” since the Reagan era? Hmm, Well maybe not... there is a kink in the fabric, a fray in the line, a fly in the ointment... You see the Russians, and some think the Chinese, have developed ICBM's that ZIG ZAG... thats right.. they don't fly straight like our brilliant scientists want them to. So there is no nice clean flight trajectory to triangulate. No, way to predict the path and therefore no way to intercept. Our Trillion dollar project has effectively been antiquated before it ever left the lab. All those dollars spent by politicians, military experts and scientists, who have less foresight than my seven year old playing me in a game of chess. I wrote Mr. Gibbs who wrote the original article about his thoughts on this, and he was kind enough to promptly respond. He said:

Mr. Shilliday
You make a good point. My understanding (limited, certainly) is that THAAD is one part of a larger puzzle that will eventually address the more advanced incoming missiles. I freely admit my forte is writing, and I posess very little military knowledge. But I can say without reservation the fireworks were stunning.
Wish I could offer you a more intelligent response, but the technology is truly beyond me.
I do, however, deeply appreciate you taking the time to read the article and especially appreciate the fact you took time to respond.
Best regards,
Jason Gibbs

I appreciate his candor. I understand the military often want people seeing their successes, but often offer little in the way of whole explanations. Again, thank you Jason.
What can be said of this system? Is it truly going to make us safer? Would this money being spent on systems like THAAD be better spent on things like scanning all incoming ports for nukes stashed in shipping containers.

Syd Barrett: Pink Floyd Founder Dies

2006-07-11T11:44:00.000-04:00

Syd Barrett, at the age of 60 died several days ago. He had been born Roger Keith Barrett, but was know as just Syd. Barrett retired early from Pink Floyd because of mental health problems and to a lesser degree drugs. Syd wrote song such as Emily Play and Bike. His songs contained childlike lyrics and were musically diverse.