Click Here to read the last UP!!
Click Here to read the next UP!
TURN
ON
COMPUTER
//
TUNE IN TO
FREED SPIRIT OF INTERNET //
TAKE
OVER!
"Bush Visits Ottawa November 30, 2004"
MOMENTOUS TURN OCCURRING IN THE WORLD
We have begun a huge transformation in
thinking.
This beginning phase will end on January 5.
In addition, Carl Johan Calleman, Mayan expert,
says that according to the Mayan calendar,
on December 4 we begin a new phase in the cosmic time plan,
which will last until November 28, 2005. Be aware.
Daykeeper Daily Success Guide
at
http://www.daykeeperjournal.com/calendar.shtml
* * * * ** * * * ** * * * ** * * *
** * * * ** * * * ** * * * *
UP!
Sen. John F.
Kerry's presidential campaign
has asked an Ohio judge to allow it to join a legal fight there over whether election officials in one county may sit out the state's impending recount.
MUCH MORE INFO ON PAGE 17-22
UP!
p.02 How Extraterrestrial Intelligence Regards Humanity
p.07 Fukuyama’s Moment: CIVIL WAR BREAKS OUT
p.14 The Intoxication Instinct //FEEDBACK
p.17 VOTERGATE - the protest a’building underground is beginning
p.17 Kerry Won By At Least 1,7 Million Votes!!
p.19 20 Amazing Facts about Voting in the USA
p.21 Starhawk’s Post Election Thought: RIDE OUT TO MEET THEM!!
UP!
__,,,,_{ô¿ô}_,,,,__
**************************************************
// my moment of the week //
************************************************** was as i arrived at st george’s church (squatted) last friday evening. each of the first 4 people i bumped into as i came through the door, one after another, was an old friend i hadn’t seen in months! and then, for about 5 minutes, it seemed that everywhere i cast my eyes they fell on some old or new friend or ally. it was like Coming Home, totally unposed. a wonderful, human feeling of GroupMind that is rare these days, and therefore priceless.
i’d like to recommend to anyone in north london to come by friday nights, that’s concert night (really great solo performers, poets, singer-songwriters) and much quieter than their saturday party nights. it’s over by 1am so come early.
every friday till they lose the place if they lose it. it’s like the old rainbow centre for those who remember that or have heard about it, only phoenix, snakes and the crew have been doing it for 15 years now and have their ting down pat. spaceship kenny calls it (and so do i now) the over the rainbow centre. it’s half way down tufnel park road, st george’s church.
UP!
u cant understand the world without innerstanding yourself
UP! 214// dec 5 2004
la- la- la- lap-toppling da system!
u cant innerstand yourself without understanding the world
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
How
Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Regards Humanity
I FEEL THIS GOES A LITTLE TOO FAR, AND THE THINKING BELONGS TO THE PRE-‘60S ERA. HOWEVER THIS SHOULD NOT BLIND US TO THE HUGE NUGGET OF OBJECTIVE INFORMATION INCLUDED,…
ETI attitudes toward humanity are not very flattering. Humanity of the planet called Earth is generally considered to be an inferior and unworthy species. Human beings cannot easily handle the truth about humanity because that is an integral part of the human condition. Ignorant pride cannot handle being told that it’s an inferior individual with learning disabilities. If it could be shown the truth of ignorant pride and learning disability, if would no longer be completely in that state.
This is particularly true of human beings who have risen to positions of relative intellectual superiority, professional expertise or political authority on the Earth, for a slight superiority here on Earth is still an inferiority elsewhere.
>> further, anyone who rises high in a sick society must inevitably share that sickness.
Of course there are cosmically adequate individuals within humanity on the Earth, sometimes called "Ultraterrestrials", but they are sociologically irrelevant, tend to remain hidden and disguised, and are statistically next-to-nothing as a social group because of their rarity.
>> yet they have grown massively since, say, 1965, and continue to do so.
Though I’m your superior, which you will not wish to acknowledge, I don’t feel superior anywhere in the Universe except here on our planet Earth. And even this feeling here is more like a burden than a social pleasure. You would have to be in my position, in fact, to understand it, for I am a kind of Ultraterrestrial and you are not. And even this you cannot accept very much, even if you are not too far gone. It’s too hard on your intellectual pride, questions your authority and devastates your present inadequate cosmogony. If you are not here to learn, how will you learn?
I don’t care, for instance, who you vote for in your nation-state elections because it will be for an ignorant, proud, silly and deceitful person whose private life is degenerate and unevolved. Collective trends of humanity and its criminally insane leaders will tend to be pretty much the same no matter which brand of criminally insane leader is put into office.
Now, for anyone capable of learning, here is a breakdown of 5 critical zones of evaluation of humanity on the part of ETI in general, though emphasis changes somewhat from one ET race to the next, though all races (and they are uncountable zillions in the Universe) will tend to more or less agree with this general assessment.
1- Stupid Ignorance.
ETI regards human beings as the most stupid, ignorant race on any planet that has written language and technology. Human beings are seen to be wholly lacking in Cosmic Knowledge, due to both the isolation-and-quarantine of Earth and the general tendency of human beings to reject genuine Cosmic Knowledge due to pride, prejudice and inability to learn.
Earth Science is seen as crude, primitive and missing several important dimensions. Earth Theology is seen as a cluster of warring, pathetic fragments that lack coherence and full-blown mystical experience even among the best of mystics, who invariably labour under this or that cultural prejudice. Earth Philosophy is seen as virtually non-existent, with a dreadful lack of genuine original thinkers.
ETI sees human beings also as almost wholly blocked by rigid belief and disbelief cognitive systems. They see very few human beings asking the right questions or becoming receptive to superior sources of knowledge even when offered such knowledge.
ETI, because of this deplorable cognitive state of humanity, find virtually all human beings of the planet Earth to be incredibly boring and pathetic. Intellectually and psychically, human beings are regarded as dull and undeveloped, lacking higher psychic functions, and hardly worthy of being called "human". Humanity is on average subhuman from the standpoint of ETI. When human beings from Earth are occasionally brought to other star-systems or taken on space voyages, they are treated more as pets or retardeds.
This also explains why no extraterrestrial race or governing body of races on any scale of organisation can make valid political negotiations with any socio-political group on Earth. Human beings are on too low a level of intelligence and psychic development. Could you expect farmers to politically negotiate with herds of cattle? Whatever "deals" the dominant bulls might make with the farmers would only be plausible to herds of cattle, but would have nothing whatsoever to do with the real intentions of the ranchers or farmers. This is why, for instance, any "deals" made with ET's on the part of the secret American government (or any other Earth grouping, such as Bilderberger types, Illuminati or the like) are nothing but a pathetic farce from the standpoint of any ETI grouping, whatever their remit or motivation set.
2- Silly Egotism.
ETI sees human beings and their leaders as false human beings, easily give to pretending they’re something they’re not. Human beings are invariably self-enclosed, proud, vain, overestimating of their own importance, conceited, arrogant and ridiculous. They’re not only stupid and boring, but almost always feel superior to one another, or look up with blind admiration to highly unworthy persons of religious, cultural or political authority. They’ll cast their vote for dull, uneducated and thoughtless movie-stars while feeling superior to their neighbours. They’ll criticise anyone who does not flatter or favour them, but cannot themselves bear constructive criticism.
ETI sees human beings as sadly out of touch with the truth of their human condition, they do not understand or acknowledge their own Souls or higher spiritual nature. They’re inauthentic people, virtual herd animals dwelling each one in their self-styled fog of arrogant opinions inculcated into them by the leading political, business and religious leaders. Even the manipulating leaders are also seen as hypnotised fools carrying on with absurd beliefs they got from their predecessors.
Take a look at the various Star Trek episodes that portray Earth people as the leading ethical intelligence of the Galaxy. They travel about as Lords-the-Galaxy, sorting out all the supposedly defective and pathetic Extraterrestrial races. From the standpoint of ETI, these stories are nothing but infantile aberrations of a deluded race of arrogant morons. A race of actually defective people from Earth travelling in space (if or when the quarantine is lifted) will be dreaded by ETI rather than warmly welcomed, even if in a compassionate mood. A group of sex-crazed morons waving pistols who tend to see Extraterrestrials as Alien Monsters are just not going to do well.
3- Biological Roboticism
ETI sees human beings of Earth as lacking genuine Free Will. Though human beings pride themselves on "thinking for themselves", "not belonging to cults", "making their own choices" and so on, it is hard to find an authentic human being who does real thinking, is free from prejudice and possesses an individual decision-system that acts with a freedom to act beyond mere habit, conditioning, routine or clinging to familiar things, people and ideas. Human beings are seen as something more like helpless robots running in programmed ruts than actual free spirits who can understand or do something unusual or "out of character" for them.
Human beings, like herd animals, cling to conditioned norms and pseudo-moralities (like the "War on Terrorism") even when the norms and pseudo-moralities are destructive to their health and sanity. They tend to hate anyone who is "different", so various cultures, subcultures, nations, languages and peoples are all treated as virtual enemies. In fact, anyone who is "different" or "foreign" is even called "alien", as if they might as well be Extraterrestrials, who they also call Aliens.
4- Criminal Insanity
ETI sees human beings as mentally disturbed, usually suffering from unhappiness and negativity with tendencies toward violence or the support of violence and warfare of various Earth collectives against other collectives that are regarded as inferior or threatening. They also see pervasive dishonesty, tendency to cheat or steal, and general mistreatment of "loved ones" with harsh language or occasional blows or slaps of violence.
ETI sees very few actually kind and loving people who will at least gently tolerate those who are "different". They see human beings as tending to be lazy, irresponsible, not doing the work they should be doing, often not doing the work right when they have agreed to do the work, and not willing to look at shared problems of the community or the world.
ETI sees humanity as not sincerely wanting to solve or correct the destructive actions of humanity, which means that humanity is seen as generally self-destructive, suicidal and degenerate, both socially and personally.
ETI sees humanity as so criminally insane that they will on average vote for and support criminally insane leaders and follow them. They see that even when the truth of criminally insane leadership is made publicly available, the majority and the mass media dilute the truth and carry on as if everything is OK, trying to believe the lies and cover-ups of the leaders. Hence they do not see the masses as innocent victims of their manipulating leaders, but see that those same masses would personally behave the same as the leaders if given leadership.
They see genuine ethical intelligence as a minority of humanity at best, with even most of those infected with various kinds of insanity, neurosis and mental debilitation from simply dwelling amongst average upset people.
Thus they see that any individual on Earth who wants to be mentally healthy will have to go beyond normal and not "adjust" to it. To be adjusted to the normal on Earth is to be stupid and mentally ill. No ETI in his or her right mind would want to be "normal" on the planet Earth as a member of humanity.
5- Physically Impure and Short-lived
ETI sees human beings as self-poisoned from wrong eating and drinking as well as environmentally poisoned from chemical pollution, harmful radiation of various kinds, genetically modified food and harmful bacteria or viruses. ETI knows that Extraterrestrials live much longer, healthier lives than the sick, poisoned and short-lived people of the Earth. Hence, the Earth is seen as a diseased shithole, a kind of Hell. It is seen as a place where only the most hardy Souls might incarnate for a boost of intense living in a state of dangerous debilitation for a dubious individual gain, or as a place where Souls might have to incarnate as a punishment for misbehaviour on a normal, healthy planet of their previous origin.
>> i reckon there’s this utterly gigantic “Creation” (like every lightshow u ever saw plus a zillion other things) and each and every one of us has a crucial role in upholding the whole thing. if we get fed up doing this and want to explore doing what WE want to do, then we get incarnated down here where we see how things go if everyone chooses just to be free. and eventually we choose to return to the small but crucial part that’s ours to handle in the overall Creation.
that’s how i would set it all UP! if i was god.
They are aware that sometimes a Great Soul will incarnate on Earth out of a Divine Compassion, like Buddha, Christ or Krishna, but they consider that even that is generally a rather foolhardy and self-destructive effort which is not to be recommended. For the human beings of Earth tend to mistreat, ignore or otherwise distort the meaning of Superhuman personages who try to take birth and help out. In fact, more than one wise man, sage or mystic has been martyred on Earth for being unacceptably intelligent or remarkable in some way, which means "different" to the subhuman collective humanity of this or that local region and historical time.
ETI sees human beings are living in fear of disease, old age and death, but of not having the kind of enlightened anxiety that would give them what Heidegger calls Authenticity and Resoluteness as a deeply thoughtful existential response to the inevitability of one's personal death. All of humanity's speculations and plans for travelling to the stars, meeting other races, attempting to live in colonies on other worlds and doing "exopolitics" or organised negotiations with Extraterrestrial races, whether in this Galaxy or some other, are at present wholly lacking in objectivity of how the state of the average human being compares to the state of the average Extraterrestrial Being. All such speculations and plans are themselves presently aberrated. Humanity is in deep shit and not even beginning to solve and resolve self-caused problems, destructions and conflicts on Earth.
>> goes too far, misses the overall changes that have been going on.
It gets worse. Even if you or others wake up to the truth of all this, it will not take you long to find out that all of us who are awake are wholly and decisively outnumbered by those who prefer to sleep, which means that the coming massive destructions and megadeaths on the planet cannot be prevented. We can share the truth of all this among ourselves, but there is no way we can popularise the real Cosmic Knowledge or make it acceptable to the masses or their leaders in any country. However it may help us as individuals in our own self-education and development, we cannot realistically expect to have a massive sociological or political effectiveness.
For us, the Earth is a school, not an opportunity for effective change of humanity and the world. Humanity is to learn through shock, not through voluntary, innovative learning. This is not only true in regard to trends on the Earth, but also in regard to Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For instance, the dominant and presently abusive societies and governments such as America, Britain, Russia and China are exactly those that may be most subject to a rough takeover by an abusive Reptilian race, which has been rightly pointed out by various sources as a real possibility.
So, if we do experience shocking results from Outer Space in the near future, they are not necessarily going to be of the same character for all regions of the Earth. There may be a division of responsibilities from a variety of sectors of the Galaxy or even from beyond the Galaxy. This is why we should try to avoid the usual simplistic models of the future that see only a singular invasion, intervention or even total non-interference of one specific kind. We should look more deeply into the idea that each society on Earth will get the invasion, intervention or non-interference from the exact kind of ETI race that is most deserved or necessary.
A uniform response from Beyond is not very realistic, but simplistic speculations or expectations are always easier for the posturing dogmatic brain of most people, which brings us back to the category of Stupid Ignorance described above.
ETI is a superior and complex presence to humanity that is not easy to understand even where a human lone individual is willing and able to process cosmic information to the fullest extent possible. Various organised social groupings in and around the subject are invariably too naive or too government-manipulated to be of real service to the sincerely truth-seeking aspiration of a strong and spiritual intellect armed with genuine humility and learning capacity.
In deepest realism it must be said that a Sufi, Yogi or Zen Master is more likely to truly understand ETI than an American New Ager caught-up in "crystal healing" or a pseudo-scientific UFO Investigator caught-up in crying out for an end to government cover-up and hoping to also be abducted by Aliens (wow!).
http://www.minotaurlabyrinth.com
UP!
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do." William Blake.
UP!
FleeAmerica.com
Welcome to the website that matches you with a NEW country appropriate to your personal tastes and values! You wouldn't want to keep a spouse or a job that you've grown estranged from, and there's no reason to be stuck with a nationality that doesn't reflect the REAL you. After all, your nationality is one of the few things you can change WITHOUT SURGERY, simply by filling out the forms below, including your up-to-date passport and credit card numbers.
Many people write to ask: Am I betraying my country by leaving? The answer is NO, your country has already betrayed you. Maybe you grew up believing America meant bacon cheeseburgers, Martin Luther King, rock 'n' roll, and Saturday afternoon softball. But-as you've probably noticed-the operative images in the world today are Abu Ghraib, Condi Rice, and the flattening of Fallujah.
http://www.progressive.org/jan05/ehren0105.html
UP!
TEXT JOCKEY // TJ PHRASER (Fraser Clark) & THE MEDIA EVOLUTION
MIXING THE TRACTS LIVE ON THE KEYBOARD @ A MEDIA-MEME RATE OF 160 IPP *
* Ideas Per Paragraph
TO SUBSCRIBE, WRITE “I wanna get UP!” TO fraser@parallel-youniversity.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, HIT REPLY WITH REMOVE IN THE SUBJECT BOX
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)
UP!166:
>> WE’VE COVERED THIS FIERY FIERCELY HONOURABLE LABOUR M.P.’s DECLARATIONS IN PAST UP!s, and i personally am sending him a cheque which is very very rare for me. i feel this one’s very important, george being no half-hearted member of the chattering classes who can be bought off, and this court case could generate much insight, as well as heat, about the Iraq War.
UP!
ON THE NEO-CON EMPIRE FRONT
A NEOCON SCHISM OPENS
The Iraq war opened a fratricidal split among United States neoconservatives. Danny Postel examines the bitter dispute between two leading neocons, Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer, and suggests that Fukuyama’s critique of the Iraq war and decision not to vote for George W Bush is a significant political as well as intellectual moment. Over the last two years, the term “neoconservative” has come into sharper focus than at any other point in its roughly 30 year history. The neoconservative movement has exerted greater influence on United States foreign policy since 9/11 than it was ever previously able to do, the Iraq war being its crowning achievement.
Coinciding with this ascendancy has been an unrelenting stream of criticism directed at neoconservatism from virtually every square on the ideological chessboard. Such sorties have become something of a rallyingcry among much of the left. Neoconservatives either ignore leftwing criticism (a luxury they can well afford) or else chew it up and spit it out: the more vitriolic it is, the more emboldened it makes them.
Some of the most savage reprisals against the neocons, however, have come from the right. I have written elsewhere of the ensemble of realists, libertarians, and “paleoconservatives” who opposed the Iraq adventure and the doctrines that justified it, and of other conservatives who fear that the neocons and their war will sink Bush’s presidency.
Wang Qiaolin’s 2 sons were born 2 years apart, but are twins according to their birth certificates. She says penalties for having more than one child force some mothers in China to make extraordinary claims.
[The Times]
But the latest salvo against the war and its neocon architects has stung its targets like none other has done. That’s because the critique Francis Fukuyama has advanced is an inside job: not only is its author among the most celebrated members of the neoconservative intelligentsia, but his dissection of the conceptual problems at the core of the Iraq undertaking appeared on the neocons’ home ground. “The Neoconservative Moment,” his 12page intervention into the Iraq debate, was published in the Summer 2004 issue of The National Interest, a flagship conservative foreignpolicy journal.
This, in short, is different. Fukuyama is to use a phrase patented by Margaret Thatcher one of us. He’s part of the club. Indeed, he’s played as prominent a role as any of his cothinkers in fostering the life of the neo-conservative mind since helping define the postcold war moment 15 years ago with his famous “end of history” thesis.
That’s why the neocon world is abuzz about Fukuyama’s jab, and about his decision not to support Bush for reelection. “I just think that if you’re responsible for this kind of a big policy failure,” he tells openDemocracy, “you ought to be held accountable for it.”
Breaking Ranks
In “The Neoconservative Moment,” Fukuyama turns a heat lamp on the cogitations of one thinker in particular, Charles Krauthammer, whose “strategic thinking has become emblematic” of the neo-conservative camp that envisaged the Iraq invasion. Krauthammer, one of the war’s most vociferous advocates, had somewhat famously fancied the end of the cold war as a “unipolar moment” in geopolitics which, by 2002, he was calling a “Unipolar Era.” In February 2004 Krauthammer delivered an address at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington in which he offered a strident defence of the Iraq war in terms of his concept of unipolarity, or what he now calls “democratic realism.”
Fukuyama was in the audience that evening and did not like what he heard.
Fraudsters Jeremy Jaynes, 30, and Jessica DeGroot, 28, could become the first people to be jailed for spamming. The brother and sister amassed $24 million from internet scams involving bogus products. A Virginia judge will decide in February whether they will serve their 9 year jail sentence.
[New Scientist]
Fukuyama’s case against Krauthammer’s and thus the dominant neoconservative position on Iraq is manifold.
Social Engineering
Krauthammer’s logic, Fukuyama argues, is “utterly unrealistic in its overestimation of U.S. power and our ability to control events around the world. Of all of the different views that have now come to be associated with neoconservatives, the strangest one to me was the confidence that the United States could transform Iraq into a Westernstyle democracy,” he wrote, “and to go on from there to democratise the broader Middle East.”
This struck Fukuyama as strange, he explained, “precisely because these same neoconservatives had spent much of the past generation warning...about the dangers of ambitious social engineering, and how social planners could never control behaviour or deal with unanticipated consequences.” If the US can’t eradicate poverty at home or improve its own education system, he asked, “how does it expect to bring democracy to a part of the world that has stubbornly resisted it and is virulently antiAmerican to boot?”
He didn’t rule out the possibility of the endeavour succeeding, but saw its chances of doing so as weak. Wise policy, he wrote, “is not made by staking everything on a throw of the dice. Culture is not destiny,” but, he argued in tones echoing his former professor Samuel Huntington, it “plays an important role in making possible certain kinds of institutions something that is usually taken to be a conservative insight.”
Using a mobile phone for 10 or more years doubles the risk of getting an acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour that grows on the nerve connecting the ear to the brain.
news@nature.com
The only way for such an “unbelievably ambitious effort to politically transform one of the world’s most troubled and hostile regions” to have an outside chance of working, Fukuyama maintained, was a huge, longterm commitment to postwar reconstruction. “America has been involved in approximately 18 nationbuilding projects between its conquest of the Philippines in 1899 and the current occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq,” he wrote, “and the overall record is not a pretty one.”
The signs thus far in Iraq? “Lurking like an unbidden guest at a dinner party is the reality of what has happened in Iraq since the U.S. invasion: We have been our usual inept and disorganized selves in planning for and carrying out the reconstruction, something that was predictable in advance and should not have surprised anyone familiar with American history.” (There are, it should be noted, serious doubts about whether democratisation is the real agenda of the regimechangers.
But unlike many conservative critics of nationbuilding the aforementioned realists, libertarians, and paleocons, for example Fukuyama believes there are cases when it is necessary, indeed vital. While he argues that America “needs to be more realistic about its nationbuilding abilities, and cautious in taking on large socialengineering projects in parts of the world it does not understand very well,” he sees it as inevitable that the US will get “sucked into similar projects in the future,” and America must be “much better prepared,” he warns, for a scenario such as the “sudden collapse of the North Korean regime.”
Legitimacy
Krauthammer and other neocon advocates of the war Robert Kagan most famously have turned antiEuropeanism into a sport, arguing that Europe’s doubts about Iraq reflect a platetectonic shift in consciousness and signal a cleft in transatlantic relations of epochal significance.
Fukuyama doesn’t dismiss this argument entirely, but sees a sleight of hand at work in its rhetorical deployment in the Iraq debate. If Krauthammer, rather than summarily spurning continental arguments as just so much bad faith and responsibilityshirking, had instead “listened carefully to what many Europeans were actually saying (something that Americans are not very good at doing these days), he would have discovered that much of their objection to the war was not a normative one having to do with procedural issues and the UN, but rather a prudential one having to do with the overall wisdom of attacking Iraq.”
Krauthammer’s almost principled disdain for European sensibilities is particularly problematic, Fukuyama argued, when one considers that “the European bottom line proved to be closer to the truth than the administration’s far more alarmist position” visàvis weapons of mass destruction (WMD). “On the question of the manageability of postwar Iraq, the more sceptical European position was almost certainly right.” Despite this, Krauthammer proceeds “as if the Bush administration’s judgment had been vindicated at every turn, and that any questioning of it can only be the result of base or dishonest motives.”
The FDA has approved for medical use the world's first implantable radio frequency identification microchip for use on humans. About the size of a grain of rice, the VeriChip contains a unique 16-digit verification number that’s captured with a scanner. The corresponding medical record is sent via the Internet to the registered requesting agency.
[TechNewsWorld]
Israelpolitik
Finally, Fukuyama argues, Krauthammer and other neoconservatives misconstrue the nature of the threat facing the US today, in part because they view American foreign policy through the prism of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. Krauthammer’s hard line, Likudnik position on Israel “colours his views on how the United States should deal with the Arabs more broadly.” Krauthammer once quipped in a radio interview that the only way to earn respect in the Arab world is to reach down and squeeze between the legs. (his exact wording was slightly less delicate.)
Fukuyama questions the logic of transposing this Ariel Sharon style of thought to US strategy: “Are we like Israel, locked in a remorseless struggle with a large part of the Arab and Muslim world, with few avenues open to us for dealing with them other than an iron fist?” In an argument echoed by Anatol Lieven in his book America Right or Wrong, Fukuyama asks: “does a strategic doctrine developed by a small, vulnerable country surrounded by implacable enemies make sense when applied to the situation of the world’s sole superpower…?”
Calling for a “more complex strategy” that “recalibrates the proportion of sticks and carrots,” Fukuyama argues that “an American policy toward the Muslim world that, like Sharon’s, is largely stick will be a disaster: we do not have enough sticks in our closet to ‘make them respect us’. The Islamists for sure hated us from the beginning, but Krauthammerian unipolarity has increased hatred for the United States in the broader fight for hearts and minds.”
In his response to Fukuyama, published in the current (Fall 2004) issue of The National Interest, Krauthammer polemically dismisses Fukuyama’s arguments with words like “bizarre,” “ridiculous,” “absurd,” “silly,” and “odd in the extreme.” Fukuyama, he writes, has “enthusiastically joined the crowd seizing upon the difficulties in Iraq as a refutation of any forwardlooking policy that might have gotten us there…” As for Fukuyama’s claim that the fecklessness of the reconstruction effort was “predictable in advance,” Krauthammer writes: “Curiously, however, Fukuyama never predicted it in advance. He waited a year to ascertain wind direction, then predicted what had already occurred.”
On Fukuyama’s argument about the role of Israel, Krauthammer accuses his interlocutor of “Humanizing” neoconservatism. “His is not the crude kind, advanced by Pat Buchanan and Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad, among others, that American neoconservatives (read: Jews) are simply doing Israel’s bidding, hijacking American foreign policy in the service of Israel and the greater Jewish conspiracy. Fukuyama’s take is more subtle and implicit.”
What makes Fukuyama’s argument “quite ridiculous,” Krauthammer contends, is that at the vanguard of the policies in question are Bush, Blair, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. “How,” he asks, “did they come to their delusional identification with Israel? Are they Marranos, or have they been hypnotized by ‘neoconservatives’ into sharing the tribal bond?”
"Much of the equipment that Information Technology departments concern themselves with now
- -
- -
- -
- -
Inside or out?
Just how deep into the body of neo-conservatism did Fukuyama’s knife go? Is he himself still a neocon? Fukuyama is ambiguous on this point. Others are less so.
On the one hand, Fukuyama claims he’s starting from faithful neoconservative axioms and simply drawing different conclusions about their application in the specific case of the Iraq war. “One can start with premises identical to Krauthammer’s… and yet come up with a foreign policy that is very different from the one he lays out,” he writes.
“I still consider myself to be a dyedinthewool neoconservative,” he told an audience in August.
In the same stroke of the pen, however, he writes (in “The Neoconservative Moment”) that “it is probably too late to reclaim the label ‘neoconservative’ for any but the policies undertaken by the Bush administration” and doubts whether the vision he proposes as an alternative to Krauthammer’s “will ever be seen as neoconservative. Then again, there is no reason why it should not have this title.”
In his National Interest response, Krauthammer writes that Fukuyama’s “intent is to take down the entire neoconservative edifice.” Indeed, Krauthammer’s counterpunch is shot through with the conviction that, notwithstanding his interlocutor’s pronouncements to the contrary, this is anything but a family quarrel: Fukuyama’s train, he believes, has pulled out of the neoconservative station.
Why Fukuyama Matters
John Mearsheimer thinks Krauthammer is on to something.
“Fukuyama understands, quite correctly, that the Bush doctrine has washed up on the rocks,” the University of Chicago political scientist and author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics tells openDemocracy. Fukuyama’s essay provides a “great service,” he says, in making plain that the neo-conservative strategy for dealing with Iraq has “crashed and burned.” Fukuyama is “to be admired for his honesty here. He is confronting reality.”
The significance of Fukuyama’s intervention, says Mearsheimer, goes beyond its being the first inhouse, intraneocon dispute over Iraq. “It’s not only that he’s a member of the [neoconservative] tribe going after another member of the tribe; he’s one of the tribe’s most important members.” Indeed, he says, Fukuyama and Krauthammer are without a doubt “the two heavyweights” of the neoconservative intelligentsia, and their debate is about “terribly important issues, issues of central importance to American foreign policy.”
Mearsheimer agrees with Krauthammer that Fukuyama’s critique threatens to dismantle the neo-conservative project. First, he says, Fukuyama is challenging “the unilateralist impulse that’s hard wired into the neoconservative worldview.” Second, Fukuyama disputes the argument that the Iraq war would create a democratic domino effect in the ArabIslamic world. These, says Mearsheimer, are “two of the most important planks” in the Bush doctrine and in the neo-conservative Weltanschauung.
Fukuyama also possesses what Mearsheimer calls a “very healthy respect for the limits of military force.” “I think you cannot bring about democracy through the use of military force,” he told the Cairobased weekly AlAhram. Then there is Fukuyama’s point about the limits of social engineering and his argument regarding the neocon tendency to conflate Israel’s security threats with those of the United States.
Taken together, says Mearsheimer, this band of criticisms makes Fukuyama’s case nothing less than devastating. “This is not just a minor spat within the camp. This is consequential.”
Nanotechnology, with its promise of nanofiltration devices that
"clean polluted water of bacteria, viruses, heavy metals and organic material”,
appears to be producing a slow, methodical transformation
of the $400-billion-a-year water-management industry.”
[Wired News]
The FukuyamaKrauthammer exchange has generated considerable buzz within Washington. “The foreign policy establishment are paying attention,” National Interest editor John O’Sullivan tells openDemocracy. The exchange, he says, is “generating debate and discussion more generally” as well.
“It was about time somebody out of this circle broke out and dealt with reality,” says Gary Dorrien, author of The Neoconservative Mind and Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana, of this “first crack in the dyke. I’m not surprised that he’s the one who did. He was never the hardline ideologue that most of them are.”
Though David Frum, a daily National Review Online columnist for and former Bush speechwriter currently at work on a history of foreignpolicy decisionmaking in the Bush administration, continues to support the war and thinks Krauthammer makes “intellectual mincemeat” of Fukuyama in their exchange, says he “would find it hard to believe” if the two men were still friends. (Fukuyama tells openDemocracy that he and Krauthammer have not spoken since the shootout began.) Frum attributes the rather rancorous tone of the debate particularly, one must say, in Krauthammer’s reply to the magnitude of the issues. “We’re fighting right now over who’s going to control the fate of the [Republican] party. There are large stakes.”
Fallout
Fukuyama does plan to respond to Krauthammer’s essay, in a forthcoming issue of The National Interest. “There’s a little bit of an implication that I’m being antiSemitic and I really do think I need to talk about that,” he tells openDemocracy.
He admits to being “a little bit disappointed” that Krauthammer didn’t employ “a more neutral tone,” he says of his old friend. “On the other hand, that’s his style. He does this to everybody. I don’t know why I would be exempted.”
What does Fukuyama make of Krauthammer’s claim that “The Neoconservative Moment” amounts to an attempt to raze the Neocon Palace? “The zealousness of many people who wear the neoconservative label for the war in Iraq has done more to undermine neoconservatism than anything I possibly could have said,” he rejoins, adding that a dose of introspection might do them well.
“That’s the thing that strikes me it’s the same thing that strikes me about President Bush, as well,” he says. “I would forgive a lot if any of these people who were very strong advocates of the war showed any reflectiveness about what’s happened or any acknowledgement that maybe there was something problematic in what they were recommending. Krauthammer doesn’t do that, and President Bush doesn’t do that. I take that as a big flaw. It seems to me it’s not going to help their case to keep insisting that they were right about everything.”
Absent from Krauthammer’s reply, says Fukuyama, “was any acknowledgement that any of my points had any validity, or that the way the war developed led to any rethinking of anything.”
Neoconservatism faces a test, says Fukuyama. Either it will adapt in the face of changing realities on the ground or “stick to a rigid set of principles.” The outcome, he says, will “mean either the death or the survival of this movement.”
Burt Ryan, designer of SpaceShipOne, the first private rocket to reach space, was presented with $10 million last Saturday for winning the Ansari X prize. He can now set his sights on the America’s Space Prize, which offers $50 million to the first private spacecraft to carry 5 people to an altitude of 400 kilometres and orbit the Earth twice within 60 days.
[New Scientist]
Why didn’t Fukuyama voice the doubts he says he had about the war in the months leading up to it, when the debate was in full stride? “I didn’t think it would do any good for me to come out against it because everybody was so determined to do it,” he says. And so I thought, ‘well, let them have their chance.’ I was not certain about the outcome. I thought the probabilities of it working out were not sufficient to justify taking that kind of a risk.”
While the Bush people “have been much too willing to use force and to use it recklessly,” the Democrats, he says, “still have this big problem about using it at all. I wish there were someone who had a better balance between the two positions. ”
In April 2005, Fukuyama will give a series of lectures in which he intends to address “more systematically” his criticisms of the Iraq adventure and its neoconservative architects.
Does Fukuyama regard the recent turn of events his critique of the war, his debate with Krauthammer, his opposition to Bush’s re-election as signalling something of a paradigm shift in his selfunderstanding? “I don’t know whether it’s going to prompt the shift so much as reflect the shift,” he explains. “I’ve been moving towards an interest in development questions over the last few years”.
Indeed, he explores the politics and economics of international institutions at some length in his recent State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century and will continue to do so in 2005 when he takes over as head of the International Development Program at SAIS (Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies), where he is currently a professor of international political economy.
“I think one of the big divides in the world is between people who primarily do security studies and people who do development. And I think one of the reasons the Bush people got into so much trouble is they put people who knew security in charge of what was really a big development project. These are people who had not spent a lot of time in East Timor or Somalia or Bosnia, watching how these things are done,” he says. “I think that was one of the big problems.”
UP!
the UP! is a global edutainment round-up, broadcast weekly to =[13,353]=
Alternative// Activist// Zippy// Trance// New Age// Peace folks
recommended to the Parallel YOUniversity// Megatripolis Dance Dept
as "showing signs of life".
Since recipients forward it widely to their own lists and sites,
we conservatively estimate 30,000+ direct recipients.
A further 30,000 read it on the YOUniversity's site.
And, because of its 'mix' of 'specialist' & 'general' content,
it's increasingly being posted on a variety of sites worldwide,
making an estimated total weekly readership of =[275,000+]=
(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o/)(\o
The Intoxication Instinct //FEEDBACK
>> agreed. so why’s it not happening?
If for whatever reason we move away from our truth we become more and more reckless with our life as we have moved away from it's purpose and hence feel less love for ourselves and others...
>> agreed again. so how are we to move ruffly 50% of the american public including their leaders back to a more natural life?
At such times drugs along with many other risk taking activities, adrenalin sports, doing a job that makes us mentally or physically ill, abusive relationships, risking our liberty etc can serve a profound purpose to remind us of our truth and make us feel more 'alive'.
>> you’re seriously mixing levels there but i still generally agree.
However if we confuse the drug experience, emotions and the mental state therein with our truth, our purpose, and our path returning to the experience time and time again, in the misled belief that only through the drug can we see and feel our truth the activity will eventually take us further and further away from our life's purpose and eventually lead to our death and rebirth in order to come around and have another go.
>> don’t overdo it, agreed. the use of the drug is to repattern us back to the Natural Model, NOT to just take drugs.
If however we realise that the drug experience is an extreme experience we have resorted to as a brief and intense reminder to return to our true path, purpose, truth and love. It can serve an excellent purpose and it is only in this spirit of awareness that we should alter the chemistry of our minds.
>> total agreement. inneresting that your basically anti-drug view so neatly fits with my own Drugs Are Humanity’s Only Hope, huh? now who’s been giving us all a false picture? NOT my side, i think.
The catch 22 of this is as we become more aware of our truth, our love and our joy we feel peace and love for ourselves and others and no longer need drug reminders or indeed any extreme, dangerous activities of any kind....
>> i don’t see how it’s catch 22. we lose touch with the natural allies and then we re-find them and also the natural Big Purpose, and as long as that stays steady we don’t need the drugs except the planet-wide weed, of course, which is simply our Daily Bread :)
Gaynor O'Flynn, Miami.
up!
Good stuff, Maynard!
But gotta take issue with the following common misconception:
"DRUGS provide some of the best evidence we have that the mind is the brain; that our thoughts, beliefs and perceptions are created by chemistry." While perceptions et al. can be altered by chemistry, this does NOT mean the brain is the mind.
spot on, scott! somehow missed that. woulda edited it out if i’d noticed it, or injected a note.
The neatest refutation I've yet encountered is in The Holotropic Mind, by Stanislav Grof, M.D. (New York: HarperCollins, 1993). Speaking of how mentation can be altered both chemically and mechanically, Grof says on page 5:
“These observations prove that our mental functions are linked to biological processes in our brains. However, this does not necessarily mean that consciousness originates in or is produced by our brains. This conclusion made by Western science is a metaphysical assumption rather than a scientific fact, and it is certainly possible to come up with other interpretations of the same data. To draw an analogy: A good television repair person can look at the particular distortion of the picture or sound of a television set and tell us exactly what is wrong with it and which parts must be replaced to make the set work properly again. No one would see this as proof that the set itself was responsible for the programs we see when we turn it on. The assumption that consciousness is a by-product of material processes occurring in the brain has become one of the most important tenets of the Western worldview.”
As modern science discovers the profound interactions between creative intelligence and all levels of reality, this simplistic image of the universe becomes increasingly untenable. The probability that human consciousness and our infinitely complex universe could have come into existence through the random interactions of inert matter has aptly been compared to that of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a 747 jumbo jet.
>> given enuff time, given enuff time mutters dawkins :)
A similar argument is proffered by Guru Nitya Chaitanya Yati in Love and Blessings (Portland: Narayana Gurukula, 2003) p. 307:
“Beautiful things happen more by chance or what we call providential grace than by careful planning. Chance and providential grace are not two things, we are only giving two names to an unexplainable event. If you don't believe that God is administering all benevolent things from behind, you may have to believe that everything happens by coincidence or Chance. In that case, chance is to be taken with a capital C. Some think that everything happens by coincidence through laws of nature, such as the random hitting of billiard balls.
>> goddess does not play snooker with the youniverse.
According to physicists, molecules hit one another, producing a cause and effect relationship which accounts for all physical manifestations. If this is the case, the randomness in nature is so superior that its sheer coincidence can make a Shakespeare, and the same randomness can even make a Shakespeare write a Hamlet. That randomness, which seems to make consistent meaning and provide for the contiguity of the universe, is what we call providential grace.”
So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!
>> fine by moi :)
Peace,
Mr. T, Athens.
up!
Shame on you, Fraser!
I read with interest your last post about animals and psychedelics UNTIL I got to the part about Dr. Siegel experimenting on animals - on pigeons and monkeys, specifically. He wanted to know about the effects of pot smoking so he gets a pigeon stoned? He tortures monkeys by attaching them to nicotine tubes and then impels them to take DMT?
>> i certainly accept your general point, amanda, and stand beside you 100% on this barricade. but he didn’t impel them, in fact his whole point is that, in certain conditions, animals freely choose to take drugs. sounds to me like the monkeys got bored by sensory deprivation and decided to try that shit again, no? been there myself once or twice.
Would you put an infant child on DMT? Never. Well, a teen/adult monkey is far more intelligent than an infant human. You have referenced useless cruelty.
Every year 25 million animals are tortured and killed for mostly inconclusive "studies" that mostly have noting to do with the human mind or condition.
>> not to mention the probably billions we eat. what must hindus think of us is usually my thought.
Monkeys are trained to ingest ethanol so that they develop irreversible liver damage. Monkeys and baboons are injected every 3 hours with human size doses of MDMA until it kills them. Cats are fed speed and are infected with HIV; then they're killed and dissected. Read Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" if you want to really know the score.
>> i don’t think you should throw siegel in with these psychopaths. i may be wrong, of course. there are people who know him reading this so we may get some more info on this.
It is commendable that the rave community should want to know about the effects of drugs on our minds. But do we have much to gain by supporting the torture of animals which is CRUEL and BARBARIC. Not to mention, toxicity and drug abuse testing on animals is completely unnecessary.
Here's to "Ethical Raving."
>> yo!
Amanda Nowinski, Brooklyn, New York
up!
What a wonderful UP! 213 What a wonderful! ! ! ! ! ! ! # # # ! ! ! ! ! ! !Thank you again now playing:
[York OMRLP" <yorkloonies>]
UP!
Is this why so many of the Bush gang have been jumping ship?
How will it affect the two snivellers John Howard and Tony Blair
if the whistleblowing becomes as insistent as it did
over the far, far lesser offences of Richard Nixon
or the personal indiscretions of Bill Clinton?
by Brad Menfil
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEN412A.html
Brad Menfil is not my real name. I work for the Republican National Committee. I fear reprisals if I'm found out.
The truth about this election is this: Florida and Ohio had to go for Bush in order for him to "win" the election. In reality he lost both states. In fact, he did not win the popular vote. He lost the national popular vote by at least 1,750,000.
This shows you the scale of the fraud.
The exit polls were not wrong. Kerry was the clear winner, but victory was snatched from him.
Florida first. The 200,000+ margin of victory for Bush on the night made this state incontestable. Everybody assumed that, even with some fraud, Kerry could never have made up the difference in a recount. But Kerry actually won by about 750,000 votes. The numbers were changed by a computer program (in both electronic and scan-tron voting systems) called "KerryLite." That, of course, is not the actual name of the program. The actual name is 11-5-18-18 etc. For additional encryption, the numbers were jumbled but I'm not sure in which order. The numbers replace the letters of the alphabet. For example, K is the eleventh letter of the alphabet.
So the if-then statement goes something like this: "if total true Kerry>total true Bush, Bush x 1.04x (.04 is a random number)(total true Kerry), total true Bush". The second part of the equation takes the total number of votes cast and subtracts the new Bush total, subtracts the third party totals and leaves the rest for Kerry.
Sometimes the program would also reduce third party votes and award them to Bush. And even where Bush legitimately won, he was still awarded additional votes. The big Democratic counties (Broward for example) went to Kerry because it had to appear that everything was on the up and up. It's interesting to see this unfold. Does anybody wonder why the Republican counties were mostly counted after the Democratic counties? You should wonder, and also know that this was no accident. The Bush team had to make up the votes as the night went on.
In Ohio, computer voting fraud, vote tossing and voter suppression were the main methods. Vote tossing was simply the removal of Kerry votes and some third party votes. In some areas, the Bush vs. Kerry votes were absurd. Nine to one, eight to two.
Voter suppression took the form of making voters stand in four hour long lines. This of course took place in Democratic areas. The simplest thing to do was to have too few voting machines. Sometimes that's all it takes. People eventually lose patience and leave without casting a vote.
In other states such as New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry's leads evaporated very quickly once the polls were shut down. Kerry only won New Hampshire, but barely. As it turned out, the lead was 6% for Kerry in that state and not enough fraudulent activity took place to flip the state to Bush.
So this will all come out and be known to everyone. Nothing this massive can be kept a secret. You're already beginning to see these "irregularities" and the whisper will become a roar.
up!
the protest a’building underground
is beginning to creep
into the overground media.
2 examples below:-
NO ONE CHEATED
(but they could have)
The U.S. is rife with rumours that George Bush stole the election. There is no hard proof, reports ALAN FREEMAN, but electronic voting is like 'Russian roulette'.
WASHINGTON - Almost three weeks after his apparent resounding victory, the blogosphere is awash in claims that President George W. Bush stole the election.
''Kerry Won,'' declares investigative journalist Greg Palast, who argues John Kerry should never have conceded the key state of Ohio, insisting that tens of thousands of votes remained uncounted and that the Bush victory can still be overturned.
"It's okay to say the F word," says the website BlackBoxVoting.org, which alleges that only massive Fraud delivered victory to Mr. Bush.
In Ohio, a non-profit group called Justice Through Music has gone so far as to offer a $200,000 (U.S.) reward to anybody who can provide "conclusive and verifiable evidence that the results of the 2004 presidential election were not correctly tabulated."
At first glance, the allegations are preposterous. While Al Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, this time around Mr. Bush attracted 3.3 million more votes than Senator Kerry, which would mean stuffing a forest full of paper into American ballot boxes.
But in a country where 30% of the votes were cast using touch-screen electronic voting machines that leave no verifiable paper trail, there are bound to be suspicions.
"Were playing Russian roulette with electronic voting machines and the gun is still loaded," says David Dill, a professor of computer science at Stanford University and founder of VerifiedVoting.org, an organisation dedicated to reforming the electronic voting system.
Etc Etc.
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041122.gtvote20/BNStory/Technology/
up!
VOTERS TO CHALLENGE US ELECTION
Washington: George Bush's victory in the US presidential election will be challenged in Ohio's supreme court when a group of Democratic voters will allege widespread fraud.
President Bush clinched re-election by winning the state of Ohio on November 2 by a margin of 136,000 votes.. Despite claims of fraud and technical glitches, Senator Kerry decided they were not big enough to affect the result and conceded the election on November 3.
However, Cliff Arnebeck, a lawyer representing a group of voters challenging the Ohio result, claimed new analysis of various anomalies suggested it was rigged.
"We'll be calling for a reversal of the result based on evidence developed in the course of litigation," Mr Arnebeck told The Guardian yesterday. "Exit polling and substantial irregularities excluded votes that should have been counted. There is evidence that votes cast for one candidate were moved to the column of the other candidate."
Mr Arnebeck said that hearings held in Ohio cities have brought to light new evidence of malpractice. He said one voter of a pro-Republican group caught destroying Democratic registration documents in Nevada before the election, had also been operating in Ohio.
Critics of the Ohio count have also pointed to the case of an electronic voting machine found to have credited President Bush with 3,893 extra votes in a suburb of Columbus where only 638 people voted. State officials have said those votes will not be included in the final certified totals.
The veteran civil rights leader, Reverend Jesse Jackson, is spearheading the call for an Ohio recount.
Exit polls on election day suggested that the election could be heading towards a Kerry victory, deepening the despair in Democratic ranks at the Bush win. The anomaly was blamed on the exit polls, but Mr Arnebeck argued that it was evidence of malpractice.
etc etc.
up!
by Angry Girl Nightweed.com
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority/oversight of the voting machine industry.
3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.
4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organiser and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
5. 35% of ES&S is owned by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who became Senator, based on votes counted by ES&S machines.
6. The Senate Ethics Committee caught Hagel, a long-time Bush family friend, lying about his ES&S ownership
7. Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.
8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.
9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes.
10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.
11. Diebold is based in Ohio.
12. 5 of Diebold’s developers are convicted felons - they write the voting machine computer code.
13. Diebold's Senior Vice-President, Jeff Dean, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.
14. Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years.
15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.
16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Ireland and Australia rejected similar systems for the same reasons.
17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.
18. All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favour of Bush or Republican candidates.
19. Major voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favouring Bush - have been mathematically demonstrated and questioned by experts.
20. Florida's governor, Jeb is Bush's brother.
PLEASE COPY THE ABOVE LIST AND DISTRIBUTE FREELY! FOLLOW UP! ACTION
up!
The 2004 election theft marks the 3rd in a row for the Bush Gang. Though much has been written about 2000, and now about 2004, the pivotal 2002 mid-term elections came and went in a torrent, which was how Republican strategists wanted it. The one thing they fear is sober reflection followed by solid investigation. Fortunately they have the complaisant mainstream corporate media looking the other way.
The 2002 mid-term elections were viewed as a grand triumph for George W. Bush since he ostensibly °defied” the tradition that incumbents suffer losses in such contests. While the corporate media saluted him for his efforts, disturbing trends were observed by those detached enough from mainstream media ozone to investigate.
In Minnesota Democrats were united behind Walter Mondale as a replacement for the recently deceased Senator Paul Wellstone, against Democrat turned Republican Norm Coleman. After some tough moments Wellstone had weathered well-financed Republican onslaughts to secure a lead in the polls before his tragic demise. Those same polls found Mondale maintaining a lead going into Election Day, upon which a big surprise was recorded and Coleman emerged the winner.
Republican Senator Wayne Allard was running behind in Colorado with the momentum going against him. When the results were revealed he had won in a final surge the pollsters had failed to detect.
The identical phenomenon occurred in New Hampshire, where popular Governor Jean Shaheen, who’d been on Al Gore’s short list for the vice presidency in 2000, appeared on her way to the U.S. Senate. The pollsters were once more revealed to be dramatically wrong as John Sununu Jr. pulled through with another of those 2002 Republican final surges to nip his opponent at the wire.
The most widely observed case of Republicans clutching victory from the jaws of defeat occurred in Georgia. This is the state where Karl Rove enticed lacklustre Congressman Saxby Chambliss to run against Vietnam War hero and incumbent Senator Max Cleland. Despite shameful television ads showing Cleland alongside Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the incumbent appeared to have weathered the storm and was ahead in the polls, as was Democratic Governor Roy Barnes. On Election Day the Republicans scored two more of those amazing come from behind victories.
A few perceptive analysts observed the strong showings made by the 2 Republicans in polling areas when the widely heralded new Diebold voting machines were in use. They dovetailed this information alongside the fact that similar machines were being used in the other races in which Republicans had scored dramatic triumphs.
William Hare
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000869.php
up!
RIDE OUT TO MEET THEM!!
It becomes clearer and clearer that there are massive, unexplained discrepancies between exit polls (historically quite accurate and used in many countries - Ukraine, for example - to verify election results) and vote counts, too many black box machines that leave no paper trail, too many stories of ballots disappearing, of counts in locked rooms from which observers are excluded.
And there are the thousands of out front, obvious attempts to intimidate, confuse and discourage voters from targeted groups - communities of colour and students. Absentee ballots that disappeared, the ‘challengers’ inside polling places, the lack of machines in key areas leading to lines hours long, the clearly partisan election officials: all of this needs to be challenged.
We can actively pressure the mainstream media to start covering these scandals. They are reluctant to do so - but organise even a small demonstration on their doorstep and you can suddenly find yourself on the evening news. And we can pressure our Democratic representatives to step up and demand a full Congressional investigation.
In waging this fight, we should not define victory as overturning the election results. This is for the future, to assure that elections cannot be stolen, that at least the small aspect of democracy that voting represents is open to all.
And this is a battle to reframe the election, to make clear that Bush and Co. did not win because they suddenly have a huge mandate for their policies, but squeaked by on a narrow margin they achieved through lying, cheating and outright fraud. Success is the chipping away of their legitimacy, laying the groundwork for a possible new Watergate. We need to wage a long term campaign not just to remove the current neocons from power but to utterly discredit their philosophies and policies. Since ‘morals’ are being put forward as a rationale for right-wing success, we need to put this forward also in moral terms.
Stealing elections is morally wrong. Intimidating voters, the whole toolbox of dirty tricks and intimidation, TV. ads that lie, misrepresentation of issues and facts - these are all moral issues, whatever your religion or lack thereof.
www.starhawk.org
up!
Jennifer writes to say that she 3 three different Orange Ribbons she’s making available to everyone who’s concerned with the election results. This is similar to the Orange ribbons and armbands used in the Ukraine for the protests.
jennieis@mchsi.com
up!
Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@y...>
Greetings William C. Carlotti:
My office has been watching the heavy traffic in Internet email messages describing a multitude of reasons why the 2004 General Election was questionable at best, and most probably fraudulent and criminal at worst.
The general principle here is that no right of action arises from crime of any kind.
If the Electoral College were to cast their final votes today, their votes would necessarily by colored by popular counts which were obviously fabricated by agents, both known and unknown, who manipulated the outcome to achieve their desired results.
Although many people are urging that lawsuits be filed in this or that federal court, our office has now accumulated a mountain of certified evidence proving that the federal courts are biased and prejudiced beyond repair in this matter. For example, the People's APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION in Bush v. Palm Beach
Canvassing Board (2000) was intentionally obstructed by a man who is now impersonating a Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/palmbeach/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/nad.oath.suter.htm
(PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/final.nad.oath.suter.htm
(PAST DUE)
Accordingly, because I believe the 50 States have a fundamental Right to determine, on their own, whether or not their Electors are being asked to make important decisions on the basis of tampered tallies, I see no reasons why the respective Supreme Courts of the 50 States can not and should not be petitioned promptly for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS, enjoining their Electors from finalising their votes until and unless the allegations of fraud can be litigated to finality.
This approach also necessarily means that these State Supreme Courts are the courts of last resort, in part because all 9 "Justices" of the high Court are compromised now, to the point of disqualification and recusal, for violating 28 U.S.C. 455 (ALL of them!) See also:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/supreme.complaint.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aouscourts/ (PAST DUE)
Sincerely yours,
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
"William C. Carlotti" williamccarlotti@msn.com wrote:
I recently sent the following message to the recipients shown. If you are convinced, as I am, that there is sufficient credible evidence of voter fraud in the recent vote for the Presidency that warrants an investigation prior to inaugurating a President, I urge you to contact the Senators and Representative from Vermont.
BILL.
----- Original Message -----
From: William C. Carlotti
To: Senator Jim Jeffords ; Senator Patrick Leahy ;
Senator ROCKEFELLER ; Representative Bernie Sanders
Subject: Fw: Contest the Election of Bush
Senator Jeffords,
I am informed that when you made the bold move of declaring yourself an Independent Senator you invoked the memory of Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont.
<snip>
Senator Jeffords: Please, once again, invoke the memory of Congressman Matthew Lyon to give validity to the Presidency of the United States by contesting the election of Bush.
ONE SENATOR! CALLING ONE HONEST SENATOR!
THIS IS BIG: House Members Ready To Contest Election If 1 Senator Will Join.
From: carol wolman
To: ImpeachGeorgeWBush@yahoogroups.com
CALL YOUR SENATOR! ASK HIM/HER TO JOIN 14 HOUSE MEMBERS IN CONTESTING THE ELECTION! THIS WILL STOP THE INAUGURATION!!!!
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has asked to become the 14th signatory of the GAO letter demanding an investigation of electronic voting. This information was confirmed by a staffer, Theresa, in the U.S. House Judiciary Office, on November 22, 2004.
As of this writing, Schakowsky's signature has not been submitted to the GAO. However, the GAO has received letters of concern with 13 signatories thus far:
John Conyers (D-MI)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Robert Scott (D-GA)
Melvin Watt (D-NC)
Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
UP!
to join DJ Goddess in the IAMbient Room
An obituary for Rosy Rofe
by your roving ACCESS-ALL-LEVELS reporter
And you can tell your friends there with you she had to go”
Quite simply, Rosy Rofe was one of the highest points of light in the early days of underground Rave Culture, back when damn near everybody thought it was just about music and would be a passing fad. Just to see her dancing away in that endless effortless Alexander-style of hers, a smile of pure physical pleasure across her face, used to hit you as a reassurance that what we were all doing WAS about more than music & fashion at least it was also about dancing and non-ageism!
Certainly, from Megatripolis onwards, I could/would never have dreamed of putting on any club without her as my Hostess. She seemed to know everyone, and even more knew her. She was unquestionably a secure landmark and an oasis of care for many many young clubbers dancing their first steps beyond the Designated Motorway. (I remember someone telling me during the Zippy Tour that I didn’t need to DO anything any more, I just had to exist in order to show young people it is possible.)
Nor have I met many people who lived more in the moment than Rosy, even to the point where she would pop just about anything empatheogenic just like that, and even to the extent that she found it hard to be home, alone. That must have been hard, I’m glad I was never like that, I positively craved some time alone during that era.
Rosy was born Dorothy Leckstein, on May 24th, 1924, slap in the middle of the Roaring ‘20s, Destiny clearly never intending her to go through life quietly. The Rofe part of her name came from her husband Hussein Rofe, head assistant to Bapak, the spiritual leader of the Subud religion which swept Europe through the Psychedelic ‘60s. The Rosy part (Rosanna) was given her by Bapak, her guru.
Though she was a great beauty, sketched by Augustus John, photographed by Cecil Beaton, and wined, dined and bedded across Europe, she had a very serious thirst for knowledge. In her twenties, she studied the Alexander Technique under (I use the word advisedly) the old teacher himself, Mathias Alexander. This was to give her the infinite energy that, much later in her life, would allow her, always, to be the only person still dancing at the end of the after-after-after party.
Very lucid as regards World Peace, hands-on community and all the issues of the day (she’d been a White Witch at one stage, and was even a member of their union!) she would sometimes just beam silently at you in clubland. People had different ideas what was going on but the truth is she tripped out a lot (a taste for LSD had followed her from the ‘60s and caught up with her in the ‘90s) and she often told me she was actually watching fairies and elves climbing and playing and posing all over people as they talked to her :)
Subud might have been her deepest influence. Certainly its Latehans (sessions where you were supposed to let it all hang out, to put it too crudely) encouraged her ability to let the Larger Force express Itself through her.
Her association with the roses that she used to make and give away or sell to cover her running expenses, began when Lindsay Kemp commissioned her to create a thousand red roses (or more?) for a staging he mounted of Genet’s “Our Lady of the Flowers”.
The fact that Rosy was born of a Russian father and a Polish mother who came from a long line of milliners and dyers certainly explains her love of dressing up and her love of colour. It was in the DNA! Indeed, o