Thursday, September 28, 2006

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

Remember Amerika's Metamorphosizing Values? Recent developments...


Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006) It's only been 791 years, but WE know best. Time to go.

Molly Ivins was right. Say it again. Habeas Corpus, R.I.P.

Who in the hell are we? OR at least, who the hell are these people in congress? Retroactive immunity for torture and no rights of the accused...

Backwards, before the New Deal, beyond the Robber Barons, and onto 1214...back we go to the fall of Rome.

What a disgrace.

And now...beat this!!! As if that wasn't bad enough...get a load of this...

Spy time, too.

Geneva conventions, anyone? WTF?
History and this issue?
Ah, like, the Magna Carta?

Everything that has happened since the fraudulent 2000 election and the "cataclysmic event" of 9/11/01 has paved this road to nowhere. We are there.

Remember the PNAC? New Pearl Harbor?

Follow the black gold road. And now we are in serious, serious trouble.

Are we on the slippery slope? Remember Pastor Martin Niemoeller, Nazi Germany?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

So will this be many of US?

We must not let it be so.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Update: Stay tuned as there's more to come!

A brief overview of what's to come shortly on 9/11 academic freedom, 9/11 collective memory, 9/11 physics, torture and the new "compromise," ongoing spying, media monopoly and official narrative propaganda in the US, the public opinion polling fraud, vote theft, and a great deal more!

Still working on the latest Retropoll, the upcoming ACME Coalition media conference in Burlington, VT, and the November 9/11 science conference in Berkeley, CA! Then there's teaching seven sections at three colleges, so, much is afoot!

Meanwhile, a fun link to a moderate voice blogger which has very interesting sections in the margins to right/left/center blogs. A place to hunt and peck.

And, of course, a link to weekly comics. Ah, a pattern of presentation emerges--we start our tantalizing yet bleak, cut to sponsors, sports, banter, weather, bobbing heads, chit chat, local updates, human interest story, end it lightly, cut and that's a wrap! It's just like the evening news!

Hoping for more updates this week.

Til soon...

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Amerika's Metamorphosizing Values

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Since the advent of the absurdly titled Global War on Terror, many dystopic literary works have been applied to current life in America under George W. Bush. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley come to mind quickly for 1984, Animal Farm, and Brave New World. But another series of literary allusions include Franz Kafka. From his last unfinished work Amerika to earlier The Trial and, of course, Metamorphosis, Kafka explores a wide variety of the absurd in life, and indeed, in becoming victims of our own society's institutions, and in other instances, becoming that which we loathe. In fact, a blending of the aforementioned works has also been in vogue these past few strange years of tortured definitions and administration equivocation. While we argue at home about the potential efficacy of our illegalities under international law, torture in Iraq is said to be worse than under Saddam.

What is happening to our purported values of freedom, liberty, privacy, and due process? What about the Universal Declaration of Rights to which we profess to adhere? How does torture and violation of privacy fit in according to Bush (or Kafka)?

Again, reenter the current American crisis over the alleged quaintness of the Geneva conventions and stated outdatedness of the FISA law. Both of these provide ample ground for such dystopic literary allusion. While "debate" twists through congress on due process, culpability issues, prosecutorial protections, and invasive permissiveness of permissive invasiveness (try that one on, Rummy), our discourse has become quite debased. Our values are under attack, not from abroad, but from within.

To torture or not to torture? How can this be the question? To spy or not to spy? How can this be the question? In the post 9/11 Amerika, it seems most of all that our professed values have been the main victims of our actual policies. If this is so, then we will be next. Our American way of life will follow, like lemmings we go further and further off the cliff of reason.

We need to take notice. We need to act. We need to say no to torture and warrantless spying. We need to define who we are as a people. We cannot allow ourselves to languish in an Orwellian Kafkaesque hell. We are not a country merely of government elites. We the people should decide the laws and policies. We should seek universal applications of justice and ought follow the rule of law, not change it to save renegade officials or justify inhumane and undemocratic acts. It's the only American thing to do. But...

The most recent developments concerning "compromises" are here.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Wishful Thinking Continues

Just this past week, VP Dick Cheney told Tim Russert that if the administration had to do it all over again, they'd still have invaded Iraq. This after yet another report, this from the Republican controlled Senate, linked previously, indicating there were, in fact, no WMD's. Yet another study showed the Bush rationale for war was flat out wrong. But...

Dick said, no worries. We'd have done it anyway. This is what Paul Wolfowitz said just after the invasion, but most didn't pay much attention when he said it was just an excuse to garner public support for the war. Now almost everyone has said it, no WMD's, from the UN to a Republican congress. But Dick says there were WMD's, even reconstituted nuclear weapons. Dick, W, Rummy and Paul and General Myers even said we'd be greeted as liberators. Paul has moved on to the World Bank (cushy gig for time well served). Rummy has flip flopped more than an opportunistic candidate Kerry in an election year on Iraq. But not Dick. True lies to the end. Can't be confused by the facts it seems.

Again, some lowlights from USA Today April 1, 2003:

Changing rhetoric of war

* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

The war begins

* March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."

* March 21, Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news briefing: "The confusion of Iraqi officials is growing. Their ability to see what is happening on the battlefield, to communicate with their forces and to control their country is slipping away. . . . The regime is starting to lose control of their country."

* March 27, Bush, at a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked how long the war would take: "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."

* March 30, Myers, on Meet the Press: "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."

* March 30, Rumsfeld, on Fox News Sunday, when asked whether Iraqis would "celebrate in the streets" when victory is won: "We'll see."

We'll see. Or we'll see what we want to see. So, over three years later, why are these folks not held accountable for their colossal bungling?

Not only was the WMD business and all the pre-war wishful thinking about cakewalk nonsense, so too were the incessant remarks drawing links between Iraq and 9/11, which never existed (someone, quickly, tell Dick). There are, however, other links found between Iraq and 9/11 that prove to be interesting. Not what the administration has in mind probably.

Meanwhile, while we drone on and politicize one tragedy after another, here and abroad, and proselytize the masses from on high endlessly, Iraqis die to the tune of a new 9/11 every couple months.

A great new study/book just released from the PR Watch folks has more on all this. It's follow up to their Weapons of Mass Deception work. Really a must read, both books, for getting a grip on the propaganda war waged on the public here at home.

We should try to pay attention to facts. They do, after all, matter. We might even learn something. As the Indian writer Rabindranath Tagore once said, "Truth comes as a conqueror only to those who have lost the art of receiving it as a friend." We really should try to make up with our old friend, the truth. Lives depend on it, on all sides of the aisle.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Remembering September the 11th

In the recent past, we as a culture have often been told to remember 9/11, espeically on the run up to the fifth anniversary. But, what should we remember? Which memories do we honor? Omit? Deify? Distort? Attack? What are the facts, five years later? The previous post is but an introduction.

More on collective memory and 9/11 to come...some thoughts.

Meanwhile, an older piece on collective memory. The politics of how we remember and honor or commemorate our collective tragedies. Here's a thesis on a previous generations homeland insecurity, the Kent State shootings, May 4th, 1970. How were the memories of May Fourth used to provide meaning to the actual historical event? And in those memories told, who benefitted? Who paid? What of community, official, and vernacular views?


On this anniversary, how do we remember 9/11? And how do we use what we know? What context are we allowing history to provide, and what are we denying it to manifest? In other words, we remember, for better or worse. And moreover, how do we speak about 9/11 and the so-called war on terror? What are we framing with metaphors of war? A recent George Lakoff piece addresses this in more detail. Dropping the war metaphor and reclaiming vernacular views. High time. We need to move to a more democratically interactive historical construction if we are to truly be a free society.

Stayed tuned...if you want.

Osama who? Greg Palast Smoked Out and Charged!

Five years on and no Osama. We're not really even looking. But, that was the first priority after 9/11, remember? Or no? Further, no successful prosecutions for Terrorism. It's amazing. But we still have plenty of resources to go after others...

Palast Charged

We've long abandoned the search for Osama. The Taliban is on the rise. Falluja isn't secured, nor much outside Baghdad, and even within, things are ugly. We've stopped counting BOTH U.S. and Iraq deaths in Iraq unless they are a direct result of a deliberate attack, not collateral damage. It's been shown over and over there were no connections between Osama and Saddam. It's been shown there were no WMD's. Further, we jumped from $28 million spent on government PR under Clinton's last years to over $1 billion with Bush in the past few years. What is it we need convincing that costs that much? We've taken the world's sympathy at 9/11 and turned it to antipathy in five years flat, actually a few years less. We have more impoverished and uninsured and imprisoned than ever before. Our planet is changing and the climate growing worse. We have the highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, and the highest incarceration rates. And we're worried about a guy filming Exxon pollute the air? Or a guy in an Oakland, CA gym talk about his dislike of the current war? Or a college student with posters on her wall critical of Bush as TX governor? Why? We're worried about this, the New McCarthyism, too?. A very partial, yet long and interesting list for our free society...Especially that no fly list! CAPPSII? Total Information Awareness? I mean Terrorist Information Awareness?

More to come on domestic impacts of the so-called war on terror.

Given even the few examples here, and the many more chronicled and available in a variety of media (links to right), it may be past time to reassess our priorities.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

September 11th, Five Years On...

Five years later, many questions still linger about what exactly happened on that day. This morning, Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow! even hosted a debate between the film makers of Loose Change (challenging the official views on 9/11 with the most freely downloaded internet film on the topic) and editors of Popular Mechanics, who have attempted to debunk various "conspiracy theories" surrounding the events of that day in an article and recently published book (remember that the Official Story is also a conspiracy theory, one that 2/3 of New Yorkers believe is untrue).

Although it makes for an interesting exchange, below you will find better material for mental fodder. The first, Jim Hoffman's site, deals much more effectively with questions raised by Popular Mechanics. The others deal with many other possible theories, but the best ones tend to be those that focus only on facts, on what we know, not on what might have happened. (The following three links are also to the right.)

9/11 Research

9/11 Truth

Scholars for Truth

Among the best attacks on the official story have been by Brigham Young physics professor Steven Jones (who was just last week placed on paid leave for his research on 9/11 and WTC collapse problems in the official view) and David Ray Griffin who has published three books on omissions and distortions from the 911 commission. These, along with Hoffman's, are among the best supported studies although some within the 911 Truth Movement and 911 Scholars for Truth (linked above and to side) disagree and debate alternative notions. (A future post will deal with 9/11 and academic freedom.)

Despite differences within the skeptical community, one thing emerges clearly: that the government's reports and commissioned studies, while having the edifice of objectivity and a ring of officialdom, are inaccurate, incomplete, and implausible. In the coming days, we can look into many of the problems with the official views in addition to what is discussed here today.

As far as 9/11 as pretext for American policy, that, too, has been well documented. The Project for the New American Century, a right wing think tank founded by the Bush administration war planners in the Clinton years, forshadowed much of what has come to pass in the wake of what they called "A New Pearl Harbor." Remember that language was conveniently employed in the days after 9/11 while Americans grieved and history was used to provide new context for preemtive war and Pax Americana. Given the importance of the 9/11 attacks in this light, we need to carefully scrutinize the events of that day and be ever vigilant of possible false flags. (More background concerning LIHOPS, MIHOPS, etc., in the days ahead.)

And last, but certainly not least, for those, like about half of the American public, that still believe Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11, here's yet another report showing otherwise, this one by the U.S. Senate (hardly a bastion of lefty conspiratorialists). Someone should tell the troops...about 80% of them still believe in this nonsensical fiction according to a Zogby poll done earlier this year.

Ah Ha!

We should remember these things this Monday, 9/11, with all the speeches and political posturing going on. The Bush administration worked hard to connect unrelated things to gather public support for their war, which began on the morning of September 11th, 2001. That support is now waning and the only card left to play is terror. If the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, it seems we as a nation have our work cut out for us this election season. The antidote to fear is knowledge. Let's seek it.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

What is a terrorist?

Here comes the 5th anniversary of 9/11 and Bush whipped out bin Laden 17 times in a recent speech (despite having ignored prior 9/11 warnings about attacks in the U.S. and despite having disbanded the units seeking him-from Tora Bora to this year!) and still had the time to trot out Lenin and Hitler, too. Busy day. FYI...A brief intro to what a terrorist might look like while our president calls for the legitimation and normalization of torture, military tribunals, the admission of secret evidence in convicting state appointed terror suspects, and expanded wire tapping rights for the government.

Let's see what a terrorist might be...see below.

Terrorism Pre-9/11

Or several official definitions. Terrorist Defined

Webster's University Dictionary

Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

US Dept of Defense

The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

US State Department

International terrorism is terrorism conducted with the support of a foreign government or organization and / or directed against foreign nationals, institutions or governments.


Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

If these are the working definitions, officially agreed upon, then many acts throughout history could be described as terrorist acts or acts of patriotism, depending upon the perspective.

Here's a great intro to terrorism and its various definitions...Also, Jonathan Barker's book, "The No-Nonsense Guide to Terrorism" is a fine, concise introduction to the topic.

Terrorism Defined at Length

So what of State terrorism? Is there a difference between war crimes and terrorism? Could the following acts fit what we describe as terrorist acts, applying official definitions equally across the spectrum of examples?

What is a Terrorist?

Published on Wednesday, May 1, 2002
What Is A Terrorist?
by Jeff Cohen

ter·ror·ist (ter'er-ist) n. 1. One who engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

2. One who leads an armed group that kills civilians as a means of political intimidation -- unless he terrorizes Haitians while on the CIA-payroll, as did 1990s death squad leader Emmanuel Constant, in which case the U.S. refuses to extradite him to Haiti, even after Sept. 11, 2001.

3. One who targets civilian airliners and ships -- unless he blows up a Cuban civilian airliner, killing 73 people, and fires at a Polish freighter, like Orlando Bosch, in which case he is coddled and paroled by the Bush Justice Department in 1990, and his extradition is blocked.

4. One who leads a group that engages in kidnapping and murder -- unless the victims are Hondurans attacked by CIA-backed death squad Battalion 316, in which case Battalion architect Gustavo Alvarez becomes a Pentagon consultant, while the then-ambassador to Honduras who downplayed the terror, John Negroponte, is appointed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations days after Sept. 11.

5. One who uses rape and murder for political purposes -- unless the victims are four U.S. church women sexually assaulted and killed in 1980 by members of El Salvador’s U.S.-backed military, in which case excuses and distortions pour forth from then-U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick (“these nuns were not just nuns; they were also political activists”) and Secretary of State Al Haig (the nuns “may have tried to run a roadblock”).

6. One who designates civilians as “soft targets” to be attacked in the cause of political transformation -- unless the targets are Nicaraguans killed by Contra guerrillas armed and directed by the U.S who, according to Human Rights Watch, “systematically engage in violent abuses…so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war.”

7. One who facilitates a massacre of civilians -- unless the victims are 900 Palestinians shot and hacked to death in the Sabra and Shatila camps by Lebanese Christian militia as Israeli soldiers stood guard, in which case Israel’s then-Defense Minster (now Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon remains a U.S. “War on Terrorism” ally after being censured as indirectly responsible for the massacre by an Israeli commission of inquiry.

Jeff Cohen is a founder of FAIR, a media critic, and author.

What of U.S. backed coup attempts and the subsequent overthrow of several democratically elected governments over the course of the 20th century, like Iran in 1953 or Guatamala in 1954? Centrist Stephen Kinzer explains in his recent work "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." Overviews and interviews below.

Kinzer I

Kinzer II

So while we in the U.S. incessantly talk about a so-called War on Terror (and many from military brass to legal scholars decry the term as meaningless), what do we mean exactly when we use such terms and phrases to justify our behavior in the global community? What happens if we apply such terms to our own actions, historically and in the present? We should give that a try and see where it leads.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Overwhelming and upcoming...

So much has happened this past day, it's hard to catch up. Yes, today the Bushies admitted to torture, asked to change laws to protect those that did it, compared administration critics to Nazis while casting Osama in the light of Lenin and Hitler, and even asked us all to stay the course into oblivion while we try terror suspects with secret evidence they can never see? Fear Factory Torture>

So, to recap. That should all be cool, right? A couple amendments need a fixin'? No trouble. We, the leaders of the free world, winning the hearts and minds all the while, can do what we please. Double standards all the way. I wonder if any of these self-professed Christians in the Bush administration ever read the Gospels where the classic hypocrite is described? You know, the one where Jesus explains the underlying core principle of universality which rests at the feet of our moral and ethical fiber? Yikes!

If that's not enough, check out what John Dean, former Nixon counsel, thinks about these Neocons. He's been doing rounds on the talk shows, too! Some interesting footage at if you look, but reading is nice. Glenn Greenwald on JD

Many other places to see the authoritarianism spelled out in the Bush regime as well, including Dean's newest book seen on the previous link and here. Conservatives without Conscience

Moving on...Obviously, there will be commentary on the fifth anniversary of subtrahend 11th upcoming. Several events and a conference I've plotted in the near future as well...

Lifting the Fog: 9/11, the World Trade Center, and the Scientific Method

Much more soon, especially surrounding 9/11. Links, articles, etc. In closing, here's some light but necessary reading from Peter Phillips at Project Censored, Sonoma State ;)

Global Dominance

A fabulous lecture on the topic by Phillips here

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Islam + Fascism = Double Plus Ungood?

In the past couple weeks, Bush officials have resorted to old lows--brandishing the "F" word. It wasn't enough to compare Saddam Hussein in Iraq to Hitler (remember the "appeasement" talk in 2003?), but now Rummy and others are carting out all the historical baggage they can muster to further their war against Eurasia (sorry, that was hard to resist). The creation of the term "Islamofascism" is an Orwellian gem, a double plus ungood, if you will. The major problem with this, other than being a grand example of a fallacious historical analogy, is that the concept doesn't exist in the real world (something the Bush folks seem to focus on a lot). It is useful to propagandize the masses for sure, but it is furthering a lack of understanding about the Middle East and Islam in general already ubiquitous in the U.S.

Just today, here is Bush reminding us we're at war...note the familar enemies of the past. "Bin laden and his terrorist's allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them." Reminder Maybe someone should remind Bush he dismantled intelligence units designed to nab bin Laden. Oh, well.

Below are some examples of what is wrong with historical distortion and the current trendy Islamofascist talk (other than Christopher Hitchens has made it his favorite term). Other related issues follow.

Brief Overview


Islamofascism and the Big Lie

Anatomy of Fascism

So what about the concept of fascism, as it floats around freely in our culture, as applied a bit closer to home?

"Don't think that modern fascists are like Hitler or Mussolini. Today's Big Government-Big Business tyrants are just as willing to use violence. But they do it more efficiently than the old-time fascists-- with higher tech and lower costs to them. They have the best looks, politicians, celebrities, and control mechanisms that money can buy. Yes, their own conscience tells them that true democracy would be nice. But suppressing their conscience, they undermine the rights of the working and middle classes. Their operating principle is "Might, Money,Male, Murder-- and also White--Make Right." They wreck the environment. They fool you,rule you, use you, abuse you--and make you like it. They divide you by race, sex, class, and nationality. But they fear the power of the powerless. They're afraid of what you could do if you get off the boob tube and drugs, out of the night clubs and cut-throat competition--and work with others for equal rights."

Bertram Gross, author of Friendly Fascism, South End Press,

Here's more on this idea.

Friendly Fascism

Let's also reconsider Fascism: concentrated private control of wealth, control of information, massive investment/manufacture of arms and military equipment, suppression of labor movements...sound familiar?

So, since we're playing with terms and definitions here, how about this one?

Fascism closer to home

Granted, much of the use of the term "fascism" has been hyperbolic, on all fronts. The term "Nazi" or "Fascist" has been abused to the point that it's merely a swear word, that is, it's almost lost it's historical context with its present usage (while obviously we all know it has a very specific context in the past). However, once a state begins appropriation of such radical and emotional verbiage, especially to characterize a perceived enemy, what images are conjured? How do they inform about the present and how does the term "fascist" apply to current world woes? History can be used and misused as a weapon of propaganda in the present to control future developments. As Orwell suggested, "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." Here's Newt Gingrich on Bush critics as enablers and appeasers of the evildoers, for example:

Words as Weapons

It is also the case that many on the right have used the term "Nazi" interchangeably with "fascist" when criticizing those who oppose the Bush agenda (think O'Reilly). Here

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black...or no? Does it cut both ways? Should we avoid this rash talk on all sides? We would do well to think and examine facts before we leap to linguistic hyperbole. However, where the facts demonstrably fit, we ought wear them. Regardless of our personal ideologies.

Would we now know fascism if we saw it? Robert Freeman piece

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11 (in a highly politicized climate of midterm elections where the ruling party smells trouble), is Islamofascism the latest answer to "why do they hate us?" Is it the new red herring? Is it the rationale for "stay the course?" ("Cut and run" sounds like "appeasement" of fascism...hmmmm). It also sounds like fearmongering. This is what our government has left in its mighty arsenal...

I truly hope not. I hope there will soon be a sober analysis of the facts and issues at the root of global conflicts where the U.S. seemingly finds itself in the tempestuous center. Some departing words of wisdom from American muckraker I.F.Stone...maybe Rummy should take note.

"All governments lie." Double plus ungood, indeed.

Monday, September 04, 2006

Happy Labor Day!

Some ruminations on Labor Day from investigative reporter Greg Palast ("Today's Pig is Tomorrow's Bacon"). And praise for our ownership society...where for many workers, things are not working out so well.


Ownership Society

A brief look at the beginning of Labor Day in the U.S. as opposed to May Day.

Labor Wiki

Labor Origins

"Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains." Karl Marx

Former Reaganite on Bush War

Here's former Reagan Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, WSJ Associate Editor of the editorial page, and right wing National Review Contributing Editor on the Bush Iraq Neoconjob. Rove's GOP damage control meter may be overheating by now. The Paul Craig Roberts link is below. Maybe the Democrats should pay attention for November...or just anybody should for that matter at anytime...just a thought.

read here

Sunday, September 03, 2006

To Fear...or Not to Fear

Ministry of Mythinformation

This is an interesting bit by Debi Smith with many good points. I think the links are a great part of this concise commentary on our current state of affairs. Check them out if you can...and the Goering quote is always quite chilling.

read here

Friday, September 01, 2006

Greetings Blogosphere!

Hello? Anyone care? Another random cyber-pundit for the blogosphere!