Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Good Morning America!

Boy a lot is going on. I'll be posting some time later about Rep. Hostettler's comment about the long liberal war against christianity, the database the Pentagon is putting together with GoNow, and maybe even about a comment Rhandi Rhodes made on Air America. However, today I want to focus on an issue that is looming, few seem to know about, and even fewer understand.

I think the reason this issue is not understood is because we have dubbed our ability to use the computer to communicate as cyber-space. As we all know, space is limitless, and essentially empty, and we already know that radio, phone, micro, radar, and who knows what other kinds of waves waft freely through our sky and us every second. Not to mention neutrinos! However, with the computer this idea is incorrect. Even for so called wireless computers. When I type into my keyboard, that bit/byte combo is translated, sent via the cables out of my house along miles of other cables to wherever the server is that is holding my blog. Then as others log on, the same thing happens from all over the US. A wireless computer simply sends the message to the outside of the house using a low power transmitter signal that a receiver picks up and sends along on cable from the outside of the house. So the issue is, who will control this. Senate Bill 1294, co-sponsored by Frank Lautenberg and John McCain, want municipalities to have the freedom to wire their own communities and offer low-cost service. On the other hand, Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, a former telcom exec who's wife still works for SBC, wants to prohibit municipalities from offering broadband. This is is HR. 2726. So if a corporation doesn't cover your area, well, the local community can't. And already the telcoms have gotten this form of legislation passed in Florida, Louisiana, Colorado, Nebraska, and Tennessee. Notice anything similar about these states?

What is at stake here, and what I have been told is impossible, is the control and ownership of the internet by the same conglomerates that own and have watered down television, radio, and the print media. I'll come back to this later.

Alright, later is now! So it's impossible to control the internet is it? How can that be? I have to wonder then what planet these legislators are on if they are devising laws that are designed to do just that: control it. Now the Lautenberg and McCain duo are trying to maintain that local municipalities can retain control of their own telecommunications services if they choose to do so. Of course, one of the things to look for when legislation is introduced is the money that is doing the talking. So I looked up Senator Lautenbergs donors list, and in the last cycle he raised a whopping one tenth of the guy who is trying legislatively to do the opposite of Mr. Lautneberg. On Lautenbergs list were several telcom firms, ranging from $1000 to $5000. That's it, a whopping five grand. All told with all PAC money, a gigantic $100,000. So there doesn't appear to be much influence happening here. What I might check out is why he got into this issue, what example did he see that he thought it necessary to legislate this issue. Lautenberg is of course the Democrat, and McCain the Republican. So it's a bi-partisan bill at least in it's sponsorship, and it's aim is to amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 "to preserve and protect the ability of local governments to provide broadband capability and services. "

Now if you try to read the Telcom Act of 1996, it amounts to about 128 pages of legally constructed language that details how communications are handled in this country as to low service areas, rates, eligibility and so forth. The States retain several rights to control this, and in the end the telcoms that provide the service do get paid. The upshot being that municipalities can offer telecommunications services to it's people if the telcoms decide it isn't where the money is. No big deal you say?

So let's say then that the local municipal government decides that the phone company can get involved and they decide to wire the hospital, the schools, their own offices, and the local library with the internet. Whoa! Under Sessions bill, they couldn't do that. And unless there was a corporation willing to do that, they'd be out of luck. Disconnected from the information age.

The bigger issue with corporate ownership is twofold. One is the aspect of control of information. We saw in the last election cycle how two of these large controllers of media came out in an unprecedented manner for support of President Bush. What made that support so egregious is the fact that they are large supporters of the right wing, and they relaxing of the rules of media ownership. We'll see more about this in a little while. As corporations operate today, the bottom line no matter what is profit. So if speaking the truth is deemed as harmful to making money, then the truth just doesn't come out. Corporate ownership is all about corporate needs, and in our semi-capatalist world, profit and shareholder earnings are more important than anything. Which means of course everything else is expendable, including truth. Therefore journalism takes a backseat or trunk to making money, and that money primarily goes to the very top. The second issue is accountability.

Friday, June 24, 2005

"The long liberal war against christianity." This was John Hostettler's description of of Democrat efforts to ensure religious freedom. I find that pretty funny when they take this martyr stance, because the Scriptures admonish christians that they are in a spiritual war. In Ephesians chapter 6 you can read all about the armor they are to take up, and the sword. Oh yes, there is plenty of talk in the Bible about warfare. And why not? According to Jerry Falwell, God is pro-war. I saw Falwell say, "let's go blow them away in the name of the Lord."

So a little detail for the above. Apparently the Air Force Academy is a religiously hostile environment. The fundies, in their political hubris, have made it so. Note I didn't say excitement, or exuberance. Everyone has the right to share their faith, no doubt. When I was a fundie(I know, shocking isn't it.) I was under the impression that the best context for that was either a question asked, or the freedom that a developed relationship allowed. In other words, it was meant to be by influence. Letting the light shine means just that. A religiously hostile environment on the other hand is the opposite. In other words, were it the Prince of Peace influencing the Cadets, the environment would not be hostile. So something else is motivating the evangelizing. So folk got wind, and I guess you could go to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, www.au.org, and read more about this particular situation, and demanded an explanation. One officer who complained was transferred, and cadets were being verbally abused in the name of the Lord.

So anyway, David Obey(D-Wi), decided to put an amendment on a bill that condemned unwelcome "coercive and abusive religious proselytizing." The Republicans voted it oput when Hostettler(R-In) made the comments he made, and he sparked some contention. So this week, after the Supreme Court ruled that some displays of the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in courts, Ernest Istook(R-Ok) decided to introduce a new amendment to the Constitution called the Religious Freedom Amendment. Hot damn!

Now I have to ask myself, why any one would want to amend a Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peacfully to assemble." It's obvious that everyone in this country has the right to assemble, speak freely, and exercise their religion. It also maintains that NO law will be made to establish one. Or any. Which is why Thomas Jefferson used the phrase of separation of church and state. History at that time was replete with the horros of the blending of the two, and so the Pilgrims left England. So just what is Istook thinking?

I've been down this road on a previous blog. It is no secret that the religious right want America to be a theocracy. In fact, they think that was God's idea to begin with. I have discovered that their research to support this utilizes quotes from a self taught historian named David Barton. In Rick Scarborough's book Enough is Enough, his tome to support this theocracy, he quotes James Madison as saying, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." However, if you ask any James Madison researcher, you will find that this quote is entirely fabricated by the same David Barton mentioned above. And Barton admitted it. Rick Scarborough uses this same quote to establish that the founding fathers were after a theocracy. Scarborough though doesn't quote Madison's works directly. Instead, most of the quotes from that chapter came from another book written by another fundie who used as a source David Barton. At the least we have extremely poor and inaccurate writing by these fundies that distorts history in order to prove their point. Yet they, like Bush, conitnue to repeat their propaganda. Not the truth, but propaganda. Which is why Istook wants this amendment. What is in the Bill of Rights is not specific enough. They want to establish Christianity as the official religion. These fundies are sometimes called Reconstructionists. It makes an interesting Google search. Why else would they want to change what is so clear already? I would like to ask Istook if we could really spice up his amendment with specifics. In other words, would he still present it if it said. "To secure the Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, Natives (peoples)and others' right to acknowledge (God(s)), Goddess(s), or no God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity." I somehow doubt it. ("peoples" and "God" are the original language.)

Obviouslty Hostettler is a whining martyr and a smokescreen. One needs little imagination to dig up the many statements the fundies have made about the warfare for the minds of children, the culture war, let alone the spiritual war. And they have gladly jumped itno the battle, yet theirs is to do away with our Constitutional Republic. The fundies may not get along with the secualr imperialists of the PNAC and AEI. Time will tell how that all falls out. Hoefully, it will all fall down. That will depend on us though.

I think there is much effort to alter our Constitution. They want to amend it to prohibit something that rarely happens on our land: flag burning. Representative Hoyer and co-sponsor Sensenbrenner want to amend it to do away with limits on Presidential terms. Istook wants to amend it as seen above. Does all this smell like the rose of freedom to you?

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Hey folks! I see today the House passed, by a mere 8 votes, the anti-flag burning amendment proposal. Personally I hope the states trump the hell out of this. It is a non-issue. How many flag burnings have you seen in this country? Do we need a Constituttional amendment to control that? Ask why the original framers never considered protecting a national symbol. This is a smoke screen. Hyper jingoism, not patriotism. Especially when you look at the service records of the chickenhawk Republicans. So contact your representatives and senators, and tell them what you think. I will. First I need to see how my rep voted, and I go to the Library of Congress for that.(www.thomas.loc.gov) There you can find all the legislative activities of the House, and the activities of the Senate. It also lists how everyone voted. Quite nice actually, since I know the paper where I live, the closest big city paper, listed a voting record wrong once. I knew that because I referred to the LOC first, and saw the opposite of the paper. Plus from LOC you can link to the Reps or Sens and leave them e-mail messages like, "Way to go!" or "What the hell was that?" I did the latter when my Senator voted to confirm Negroponte as intel czar. Jeez, this guy has a past that is littered with death and criminal conviction, and you want him as a head of anything?! Crazy! Not that I expected anything other than the canned response, but I spoke my mind.

So I say "NO" to this amendment.
Good Morning! I hope all of you have the courage and know-how to contact Congress folk who do either the right thing, or something dumb. Like Senator Voinovich. He is a Rebublican that stood up against Bolton. On the other hand is Senator Dubin, who made some strong comments comparing American treatment of prisoners to past historical atrocities. And then apologized for it.

The problem I have with that apology, and I wrote and told him so, was that it made him gutless, worse, useless. Fascists are ruining this country, and we need Democratic leaders that will stand up to them and not be bullied. Durbin was correct in the statement. What happened in Afghanistan, Abu Gharaib, and Gitmo is inexcusable, and not just unAmerican, it's anti-American. The use of torture, the outsourcing of torture, and the classification as "enemy combatants" as opposed to prisoners, are all thought out precisely to get around the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions. That is an anti-American activity. As the supposed leaders of the free world, we should be above that type of thinking.

So where does that put Durbin? There are some options. He might be hiding skeletons, and the fascists leaned on him. Maybe he's protecting a pork project. But I don't think the teary apology was because of pork. Or he's ignorant of just what is happening in this country. He's not aware of the depravity of prisoner treatment. He's not aware of the anti-Constitutional activities of this administration. Or, he just doesn't have the balls to get into a confrontation. The upshot is he doesn't stand against the erosion of freedom and liberty, and he neeeds to hear about that from us. So click on www.durbin.senate.gov and let him know what you think! And www.voinovich.senate.gov and let him know what you think. You'll likely get a canned response, but numbers of e-mails are telling to politicians. And then write the same info in a letter to the editor of your local paper.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

A detour

It seems that there is this ambassador in Afghanistan that Bush wants to make ambassador to Iraq now. His name is Zalmay Khalilzad. I have seen this guys name appear as a member of the Project For a New American Century, but can find no verifying proof of that. Which is besides the point. It seems there is some conflict regarding this guy, and his work in Afghanistan. Besides the charges that the US flew ONLY Kharzai with Zalmay in tow to all the provinces on Afghanistan for the election campaign, I found a curious little sentence about Khalilzad helping the warlords and smugglers. Smugglers?

Let's go back in time. Back to the time when the French were in Viet Nam, before US involvement. The French were fighting the communist guerilla forces with regular army. It wasn't working. (How long did it take the US to learn that...?) Both sides, but more so the VC, were having money shortage problems. So the VC decided to raid neighboring Thailand and steal some heroin and sell it. Well, not to be out done, the French visited several neighboring countries, and instead of stealing the crop, hired the farmers, and then bought the crop. The French then in turn sold the drug to gangs and criminal organizations, and had money to create their own guerilla forces. Hence was born the foreign policy to finance state backed terror using drug money. Sort of has that Iran/Contra ring to it doesn't it? Or shall we say, the Zalmay/Hamid ring?

It is a well known fact by now, since Rumsfeld acknowledged the need to use US soldiers to eradicate opium in late 2003, that the opium trade in Afghanistan has grown even larger. Estimates say 75% of the worlds heroin base comes from US controlled(?) Afghanistan. There are some interesting facts here. I will get to those, but thess questions first: could it be that the US is allowing this trade to flourish? Further, are they buying the drug and then re-selling it to those who distribute it to users the world over, including the US? And how cheap could it be to use soldiers to eradicate the poppy?

Now to flesh out this story, which remember, has at it's head a possible member of the PNAC, Zalmay Khalilzad. This story actually begins back in the days when the Soviet Union was in control, ostensibly, of Afgahanistan. The US was allied with the mujhadden. The mujhadeen financed themselves by selling opium. The US didn't do anything in regards to the opium. It is highly possible that they purchased it. These mujhadeen later evolved into the Northern Alliance, and durin the Taliban tenure, opium production dropped to 77 tons. All of it came from the Northern Alliance controlled region. The conservative Cato Institute writer Ted Galen Carpenter states on their web site that the Taliban just held the crops in warehouses to drive prices up, but offers no evidence of that. Usually with drugs, price goes up when quantity becomes scare, and that occured during their reign. it would stand to reason then that after their downfall, American forces would have either found stashed quantities or the market would have reflected the surge of supply. I cannot find evidence of either happening. In 2001 a 12 member team from the UN Drug Control program searched the producing areas of Afghanistan and found so few poppies that they did not expect any opium to emerge from Afghanistan that year, according to Bernard Frahi, the regional director for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In November 2003, US drug czar John Walter stated, "Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is a major and growing problem," said Walters. "Drug cultivation and trafficking are undermining the rule of law and putting money in the pocket of terrorists. The drug trade is hindering the ability of the Afghan people to rebuild their country and rejoin the international community. It is in the interest of all nations, including our European partners, to help the Karzai government fight the drug trade." Walters then started Operation Containment to staunch the flow of opium.

Last years production was about 4000 tons. What isn't being said is that the US needs the warlords to help contain the Tailban and al-qaeda, and so they turn a blind eye. The other real possibility is that the US is allowing it to happen knowing that the immediate consequence are well armed warlords, and that in the long run it will wreak economic havoc. Currently the opium trade is half of Afghanistans GDP. To learn the long term economic consequences, read Loretta Napoleoni's book, Terror Incorporated. The trail of history that points to US condoning and probably participating in this type of activity dates back to the Viet Nam conflict.

And who was the guy in charge for the US in all this? This very same Zalmay Khalilzad that Bush wants to appoint ambassador to Iraq. Now I ask, even with the soldiers on the ground, wouldn't it be possible to napalm all these fields? I have to think so. A couple unmanned drones can locate the fields, and then a little planning to guarantee man power and a little chopper air cover, and I have to think that a couple sqauds with flame throwers could pretty much eradicate the poppy crop. Instead, under Zalmay Khalilzad, the poppy crop has grown exponentially, and will continue to do so. So can you imagine what he will do in Iraq?

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Sobering words, aren't they? Our current administration has this word "fascism" thrown at them frequently these days, so lets investigate, on the basis of this definition, how true that is.

First, the centralization of authority. In America that would entail changing the relationship towards our founding documents, particularly the Constitution that outlines the authority of the various branches of government. We have seen numerous examples of the violations of civil rights, and in the Patriot Act, there are flagrant contradictions to the Bill of Rights. Let's look briefly at the current phenomena of the Right Wing to press for up or down votes of judicial nominees of the president. That clearly steps away from the Constitutional clause that states the Senates job is to advise and consent. If one party controls the Senate, than debate is done away with and there can effectively be one party rule. That is anti-American and anti-Constitutional. This ends up putting all the power in the executive brach, as the Senate is neither appointing or debating, but simply rubber stamping. The judicial branch then are simply appointed minions. That leaves the house of Representatives as the only non-centralized balance of power. Unless of course the afore mentioned one party controls things there as well. Then legislative matters are either stalemated or follow the dictates of the executive branch. But wait, you say! The President in America can only serve two terms, thus eliminating the possibility of a fascist take over. Then you might be interested to know that the Republican, a term used loosely, controlled House has introduced, on February 17, 2005, House Joint Resolution 24, which seeks to eliminate the tenure of the Presidency. That could effectively pave the way for a dictator, which on July 27, 2001 Bush himself said would be easier than being president. Wake up sheeple! We have a rubber stamp Senate, a judiciary that is leaning farther fascist with every undebated nomination, and a House that is looking to change the Constitution to allow for a dictator. Were it not for the fact that in the 2000 election it is well known that the court refused the count of thousands of votes that would have given Florida to Gore, and the 2004 Ohio election result that was contested by several Senators, it becomes apparent that relying on elections that are doubtful is not the security it once was. So the trend toward centralized authority is becoming clearer every day. Another area in which we see this centralization is in the intel sector. Using 9.11 as the jump off point, and rightly manifesting the need for better inter-agency communications, the administration has brought all the intel agencies under one head, that of the convicted criminal John Negroponte. Negroponte alone briefs the president every morning despite warnings from others that doing so would be limiting. If one takes the Downing Street memo language, it is obvious how they can now fix the facts to support their ideology.

"Stringent socioeconomic controls." If one studies the fascist governments of the past, it is obvious they are stridently anti-union. That is where you first start, as it gives power back to the corporations, and hence the few, but it also gives the power for controlling the economic aspect back from a contract to again, the few. It is an oft stated reality for the last 20 years at least that wages have stagnated at best, and lost ground in may cases. More later!

Back to these socioeconomic controls. I apparently started on the economic ones. For now I'll pass on where I was going with unions, but a little study will corroborate what I was saying. Let's focus on the Bush budget. The 2005 budget allowed for growth in only one sector: the military. Everything else was slashed or held to 1%, which doesn't even match inflation. What this shows us is a very strident control of economic factors designed to eliminate all domestic programs that either directly help citizens or regulate industries. Amazingly, they even cut veterans benefits. Farmers subsides were slashed. Education across the board was either cut or unchanged, which leaves the touted NCLB Act seriously underfunded, yet under mandates to improve performance or face further federal cuts. More centralization. With tax cuts going to the very rich and large corporations while military action is being conducted on two fronts, the obvious problem will be the ballooning deficit. Who will be saddled with that deficit? And under stagnated wages that burden becomes bigger and bigger every day. Hence, our compassionate president can tell a single working mother that only in America can someone work three jobs! Just to make ends meet! Which is right where they want working Americans: barely able to make ends meet. The one area where this was countered was in the union movement. Although it has it's own corruptions, the union provided a decent wage and benefit package that allowed one to achieve the American dream. Because there has been serious effort to disable the unions, we have the situations we do in regards to labor and safety laws being overturned, as well as the above mentioned wage stagnation. Mixed in with this is allowing huge amounts of illegal immigrants to work, which allows employers to pay a low wage with no benefits, and get no complaints. This move swells to fill the ranks of workers with those who will wotk for less, and undermine for a long time to come the ability of an American worker to make a decent living. It isn't that there is a shortage of money. Corporate profits and CEO compensation packages remain at all time lucrative highs, while the gap between their wages and those who actually make the wealth possible grows even greater. These are some of the economic controls that this administration uses. Which almost seems contradictory, in that the authorization doesn't seem to be in the law as opposed to corporations. However, let's look at example for the recent change in tort reform laws. This makes it harder for the average person to sue a company if there's negligence on the part of the company. This law defers all suits to the federal courts, which rarely hears these types of cases any way. And with judges like William Pryor and Janice Brown who consistently rule on behalf of the corporations, who in turn support theses justices, it matters little if your case is heard or not. Another form of law that is used to protect big business at the expense of the citizen are the changes in bankruptcy law. Centralization occurs here because the wealth of the authorities, which are few in number, is protected by law at the expense of the citizens. According to our Declaration of Independence, we are supposed to be governed of the people, by the people, for the people.

Now lets look at the social controls. This is where the Christian camp joins the fascist camp. Very strict controls. Like the Texas legislature wanting to prohibit cheerleader dance routines. Or outlawing gay marriage. Or take for example Spokane Mayor Jim West's legislative actions while he was a Washington representative. He wanted to outlaw sodomy. On top of that, if you knew someone was sodomizing, and you didn't report it, you were just as liable. Essentially, if the Christian fascist brigade has their way, the Bible will become the standard of culture. Imagine what that will do to TV, and movies alone. let alone music. Or books. It will eliminate birth control and abortion. It will alter education. No longer will a "liberal" arts degree be available. Mind you, all these things happen right now. The Christian camp wants Roe V. Wade struck down. No secret there. They want birth control stopped. Dr. David Hagar of the FDA was seeing to that. Meanwhile he anally raped(sodomized) his own wife. That story is widely available, and reported by nation Magazine. Ah, this good Christian man is divorced! Christians regularly burn books and other media forms as expressions of self-righteousness. They don't like Tele Tubbies or SpongeBob. I can well imagine what they think of soap operas. Not to mention Will and Grace. Basically, the culture would be under the dominion of a hierarchal, patriarchal, dualistic philosophy. Is that American? Remember, the key word is control, issued from the top. That is neither freedom or liberty. This marriage of the religious conservatives and the fascists is easy to see in the news these days. Do a Google Alrt on Pat Robertson. You'll see the periodic stories of various politicians that Pat Robertson has garnered support for by using his position as an evangelist to political ends. He urges financial support of politicians in Oklahoma as well as his own home state, and possibly others. So they definitely have a close relationship, yet their own aspirations for the White House. This is where they will collide with the fascists in office.

Many people wouldn't admit to a suppresion of the opposition in this country. Censorship is another matter. We have heard recently in the news of how our government has disapperaed people. Look at the stories of released detaineees of the conflict in Iraq. Many have been taken and held without charge, half way across the world! The Patriot Act gives such powers to our current administration, and we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So suppression is happening. Terror is definitely an American government tool used against those who don't step in line, as our foreign policy in Latin America has demonstrated for the last 30 years. How am I too feel though when a government has power to snoop through business records and library records without obtaining a warrant or even notifying me? That I'm free? I would venture to say that a population under this rule would feel terror. However, I feel that the suppression in this country happens mostly through the censorship mode.

Media is an issue. Hoo boy, where to start? Let's look at the Downing Street memo that is a current buzz. I think it isn't such a buzz, as in other blogs I have mentioned the PNAC who stated that Iraq was their target in a report published in 2000. So the DSM is really just a confirmation, not really a smoking gun. But yet, it has taken weeks before it became anything at all close to covered in the mainstream media(MSM). Why is that? Well, one of the issues that Dennis Kucinich thought was important during his run for President was the poor coverage of the media. So much so that he verbally bitch slapped Ted Koppel for wasting 12 minutes of their debate time on non-issues. The next day, ABC pulled their correspondent from Kucinich's campaigne. Shocked? Heavens no. What has happened to American media is ownership. You'll notice the links on my blog. There are others out there as well that demonstrate how the ownership of media has boiled down to basically 6 companies. Some of which openly endorsed Bush or openly attacked Kerry during the run for president. Whoa! What sort of info are you getting from sources that are allowed to buy up as many media outlets they want because the admin changes the FCC rules, and then in turn help out that same admin by giving to their campaigns. FOX is a great example. Check out Media Matters(www.mediamatters.org) to find out what the FOX folk spin out. These days much of it is blatant lies. I already detailed Pat Robertsons grossly misleading statements on that channel. And FOX owner R. Murdoch is a big supporter of Bush. Or take the Times story about the abuser of the Koran. As it turned out, abuse was admitted. it was also corroborated by the Red Cross. I'm sure Amnesty International would agree. And the Pentagon had returned the story to Time for printing 10 days before it was published without mentioning this particular issue. But the admin jumped all over Time, and the loud sqeuaky wheels in the House and Senate jump on the bandwagon and demand retractions. And Time tucks it's tail and complies when what they printed was the truth. The main reason for the retraction was they acknowledged using an anonymous source, and a single one at that. But they also didn't stand up for the rest of the article. If one peruses the PNAC report, you will see that they also want to control the internet. Such moves are already underway. The FCC is being encouraged allow broadband to be controlled by corporations instead of municipalities. This has what effect? Ah, control. hell, if the tree next to my house comes down, I'm off line. If the metaphorical tree comes down, then various servers suddenly shut down web sites and blogs that are critical of the administration. Think that's impossible? Pick up the book Weapons of Mass Deception. In there the authors(one is John Stauber) talk about a web site that a certain mujhaddeen group ran that was incensed over Ann Coulters usual thoutless comments. I looked it up. Sure enough, there it was. I can't find it now though. My suspicion is that the military is using it's abilites to keep these guys off line. That is however, unfounded. It could be simply that they live in an area where lectricity is more a luxury than the normal. Whatever happened to Boxfrog e-mail server? I can't find out info about them either. Theirs was a secure e-mail home. The posts were routed through several centers to avoid being traced. It was suddenly gone. These things are small little ripples. But if you are looking at your glass on the table, and you start to see small ripples, that means an earthquake is starting. It is time to act now, and guarantee that we maintain our right to free speech. This is just an inkling of what is happening to the media. Again. link to Free Press and see what they have to say. Get involved. Otherwise the large corporations will own it all, charge what they want, and restrict what you get. It's already happening, as I hope you have seen.

Last, we need to cover belligerent nationalism. Who, the US? Another popular word I read in various web siyes from over seas is the word "imperalism".