STOP ABUSING OUR MARINES!

We realize that when it comes to freedom of the press, the USA has fallen to Number 53 in the world — tied with our fascist homies in Croatia and the islanders of the Kingdom of Tonga! — but do we have to make is so damned obvious?

Another Marine stationed in Iraq has sent us a screenshot of what happens when you need some hot news on Macaca and Foley:

forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com) is categorized as (Personal Pages) ALL SITES YOU VISIT ARE LOGGED AND FILED.

Nice little threat at the end, too. Asswipes.

Notice the other browser tabs. Two actual “personal pages” that rah-rah for Bush (What’s her name, the wannabe Coulter, and Hugh Hewitt) show up just fine, as our Marine Operative confirms. But “Talking Points Memo,” which is apparently one of the “left leaning” sites one hears so much about these days, is prohibited.

Writes the Corporal: “I think that this kind of censoring is a big deal. I can understand blocking porn, music and movies, and blatantly illegal sites, but blocking sites that some higher up just doesn’t agree with is disgusting. They are blocking a huge portion of voters from information that will help them determine which side to vote for. Because of this, the only news we get is from the big corporations or conservative based sites.”

EARLIER: BREAKING … U.S. MILITARY IN IRAQ MAYBE BLOCKS WONKETTE

Pa. Man's Letter Brings Secret Service

BETHLEHEM, Pa. -- An elderly man who wrote in a letter to the editor about Saddam Hussein's execution that "they hanged the wrong man" got a visit from Secret Service agents concerned he was threatening President Bush.

The letter by Dan Tilli, 81, was published in Monday's edition of The Express-Times of Easton, Pa. It ended with the line, "I still believe they hanged the wrong man."

Tilli said the statement was not a threat. "I didn't say who _ I could've meant (Osama) bin Laden," he said Friday.

Two Secret Service agents questioned Tilli at his Bethlehem apartment Thursday, briefly searching the place and taking pictures of him, he said.

The Secret Service confirmed the encounter. Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia office, said it was the agency's duty to investigate.

The agents almost immediately decided Tilli was not a threat, Slama said

"We have no further interest in Dan," he said.

Tilli said the agents appeared more relaxed when he dug out a scrapbook containing more than 200 letters that he has written over the years, almost all on political topics.

"He said, 'Keep writing, but just don't make no threats,'" Tilli said of one of the agents.

It wasn't Tilli's first run-in with the federal government over his letter writing. Two FBI agents from Allentown showed up at his home last year about a letter he wrote advocating a civil war to unseat Bush, he said.

Source: Washington Post

The Goal Is Freedom: "Congressional Generosity" and the Power to Tax

January 19, 2007

by Sheldon Richman

Every now and then we get a glimpse into what government officials really think about our rights to life, liberty, and property. The U.S. Justice Department recently provided such a glimpse in a controversial tax case, Murphy v. IRS.

How revealing it is! Did you know that if the government abstains from taxing all your income, you should be grateful for this "congressional generosity"?

To recap the case, Marrita Murphy was awarded $70,000 in compensatory damages for the mental distress and loss of reputation she claimed to have suffered after she acted as a whistleblower against her employer, the New York Air National Guard. She paid about $20,000 in federal income taxes on that money, but later asked for a refund on grounds that the damage award should have been excluded from her gross income under §104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the U.S. Code), which states:

gross income does not include --

. . . (2) the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages) received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness . . . .

The IRS rejected the request for a refund because her injuries were nonphysical and the section specifies "physical injuries." When she sued in federal district court she lost.

Murphy appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She argued that the compensation was covered by §104(a)(2) but if not, then the section is unconstitutional because it would permit the taxation of money that is not included in the constitutional and statutory meaning of "income."

The government rebutted that Murphy's injuries were nonphysical -- and hence not included in §104(a)(2) -- and that IRS policy was consistent with the concept of "income" as used since the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913.

In August a three-judge panel stunned the government by ruling in Murphy's favor that §104(a)(2) is unconstitutional: "[T]he framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury -- including a nonphysical injury -- to be income." (The opinion is here [pdf]. Point of historical fact: the Amendment did not delegate to the government the power to tax wages and other income. According to the courts, it always had that power. See "Is the Income Tax Unconstitutional?")

Before anyone could recover from the shock of having part of the tax code declared unconstitutional, the judges shook the tax world again. In October the Bush administration's Department of Justice petitioned to have the case heard by the circuit court's entire complement of judges (en banc). However, before the court could rule on the petition, the original three judges announced they would rehear the case themselves. Tax watchers couldn't remember when this kind of thing last happened and speculated that the panel realized it had erred and wanted to reverse itself rather than be reversed.

The case will be reheard in April. The glimpse into the Justice Department's thinking is provided by its 19-page petition (pdf) for rehearing, which details its grounds for believing the court wrongly decided the case. The petition is revealing and chilling.


read more . . .

Tax the Rich, End the War

By Nicholas von Hoffman, The Nation
Posted on January 12, 2007, Printed on January 15, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/46521/

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more," cries George W. Bush, the downmarket, twangy version of Shakespeare's Henry V. But that king, on stage and off, was a war leader who actually fought in the battles he asked other men to die in. Regardless, the President is moving to commit more of our soldiers and more of our money to try one more time to win the war in Iraq.

This latest "surge" against the unseen enemy, the umpteenth of its kind, is to be called A New Way Forward. New Way Forward is not to be confused with the February 2006 Operation Together Forward.

It demands some concentration to keep straight the names of our various operations, strikes, offensives, surges and initiatives in Iraq. Among others, we have had over the long weary years Operation Southern Focus, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Ivy Needle, Operation Longstreet, Operation Chamberlain (what was that about?), Operation Sweeney (who was Sweeney?), Operation OK Corral, Operation Eagle Curtain, Operation All American Tiger, Operation Ivy Cyclone, Operation Boothill, Operation Bulldog Mammoth, Operation Panther Squeeze, Operation Red Dawn, Operation Arrowhead Blizzard, Operation Rifles Fury, Operation Rock Slide, Operation Tomahawk, Operation Rocket Man, Operation Rocketman III (no record of a Rocketman II), Operation Warhorse Whirlwind, Operation Centaur Rodeo, Operation Lancer Lightning, Operation Wolfpack Crunch, Operation Rapier Thrust, Operation Spring Clean Up, Operation Phantom Fury, Operation Steel Curtain, Operation Swarmer and Operation Giuliani.

There has been more than one "sweep" operation, as in Operation Tiger Clean Sweep, Operation Industrial Sweep, Operation Market Sweep, Operation Rifle Sweep and Operation Ripper Sweep. Also favored have been the "iron" operations, as in Operation Iron Hammer, Operation Iron Promise, Operation Iron Grip, Operation Iron Force, Operation Iron Resolve, Operation Iron Saber, Operation Iron Bullet and Operation Iron Justice.

Why there should be an Operation Giuliani but not one named after other noncombatant, civilian heroes is a puzzle. Perhaps with the new, contemplated "surge" there may be an Operation Iron Rumsfeld, Operation Rifle Rice or an Operation Cheney Sweep.

The President has not been talking about how Operation New Way Forward is to be paid for. Some of it will be paid for in our young people's lives, of course, but as for the money... Congress is to appropriate it, the Treasury Department is to borrow it from China and Mr. Bush will spend it.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic hero of the hour, says that she will resist sending more troops to Iraq. But, though the new House Speaker has a lot going for her, she will not be able to block this escalation of the war effort. There are not enough votes in Congress for something so drastic.

For the same reason, yet more drastic measures are yet more out of reach, so those who, like Cindy Sheehan, hope that the much-spoken-of power of the purse will be used to force the President to end the war are going to be disappointed. The Democrats, scared that the Republicans will attack them as national-defense weenies, twinkies and cupcakes, will make sure nobody can say they failed to support the troops by failing to send more troops.

In this case the power of the purse turns out to be useless. Or does it? Another, indirect way is there for the taking. It is a way that shelters the Democrats from being called soft on the war on terror, closet pacifists and defeatists.

The Democrats can tax our way out of the war. This would be a Victory Over Terror tax to be levied on incomes of $5 million a year or more. It should be a surcharge of 20 percent over and above what people in that rarified income bracket are already paying. It should be levied on all income, regardless of what form it takes, so it would include stock options, jet plane rides, company-paid-for health and life insurance, retirement programs, golden parachutes, the use of apartments in Paris, cars and drivers.

The people in this stratospheric income category have enjoyed the big tax cuts that have gone into effect while the nation has been attacked and been at war. Individuals making $1.25 million a year have gotten tax cuts of almost 20 percent, but many of these would be spared paying the Victory Over Terror tax, which only cuts in at the $5 million level.

Needless to say, those paying this tax do not represent the Democrats' voter base. As these things go, this is politically pain-free. The tax is aimed at war profiteers, overpaid CEOs and grossly fat cats in general, most of whom carry a lot of weight at the White House. If there is any group of people in the world whom George Bush listens to, it is this bunch of billionaires. Call this a backdoor use of the power of the purse. And since the surcharge expires when the war on terror is won or declared over, those taxed will have a powerful incentive to tell the President it is time to get a move on.

Source

Official Attacks Top Law Firms Over Detainees
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.

“This is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. “It’s possible that lawyers willing to undertake what has been long viewed as an admirable chore will decline to do so for fear of antagonizing important clients.

“We have a senior government official suggesting that representing these people somehow compromises American interests, and he even names the firms, giving a target to corporate America.”

Mr. Stimson made his remarks in an interview on Thursday with Federal News Radio, a local Washington-based station that is aimed at an audience of government employees.

The same point appeared Friday on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, where Robert L. Pollock, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, cited the list of law firms and quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. official” as saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.”

In his radio interview, Mr. Stimson said: “I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking.” The F.O.I.A. reference was to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Monica Crowley, a conservative syndicated talk show host, asking for the names of all the lawyers and law firms representing Guantánamo detainees in federal court cases.

Mr. Stimson, who is himself a lawyer, then went on to name more than a dozen of the firms listed on the 14-page report provided to Ms. Crowley, describing them as “the major law firms in this country.” He said, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”

Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.”

In an interview on Friday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he had no problem with the current system of representation. “Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,” he said.

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon had any official comment, but officials sought to distance themselves from Mr. Stimson’s view. His comments “do not represent the views of the Defense Department or the thinking of its leadership,” a senior Pentagon official said. He would not allow his name to be used, seemingly to lessen the force of his rebuke. Mr. Stimson did not return a call on Friday seeking comment.

The role of major law firms agreeing to take on the cases of Guantánamo prisoners challenging their detentions in federal courts has hardly been a secret and has been the subject of many news articles that have generally cast their efforts in a favorable light. Michael Ratner, who heads the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based human rights group that is coordinating the legal representation for the Guantánamo detainees, said about 500 lawyers from about 120 law firms had volunteered their services to represent Guantánamo prisoners.

When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson replied: “It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.”

Lawyers expressed outrage at that, asserting that they are not being paid and that Mr. Stimson had tried to suggest they were by innuendo. Of the approximately 500 lawyers coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights, no one is being paid, Mr. Ratner said. One Washington law firm, Shearman & Sterling, which has represented Kuwaiti detainees, has received money from the families of the prisoners, but Thomas Wilner, a lawyer there, said they had donated all of it to charities related to the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Mr. Ratner said that there were two other defense lawyers not under his group’s umbrella and that he did not know whether they were paid.

Christopher Moore, a lawyer at the New York firm Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton who represented an Uzbeki detainee who has since been released, said: “We believe in the concept of justice and that every person is entitled to counsel. Any suggestion that our representation was anything other than a pro bono basis is untrue and unprofessional.” Mr. Moore said he had made four trips to Guantánamo and one to Albania at the firm’s expense, to see his client freed.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to President Bush on Friday asking him to disavow Mr. Stimson’s remarks.

Mr. Stimson, who was a Navy lawyer, graduated from George Mason University Law School. In a 2006 interview with the magazine of Kenyon College, his alma mater, Mr. Stimson said that he was learning “to choose my words carefully because I am a public figure on a very, very controversial topic.”

Source: NYTimes

Six Years After Florida, Where Are We?
Warning! Adult Content, Shocking Material

Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News

Washington, DC Understanding Florida 2000 is central to understanding where we stand today as a nation. Al Gore’s clear victory in the popular vote was obscured immediately by the last minute drama of the Florida vote count. The extended melodramatics of the post election period further confused and confounded the fundamental problems with that election.

The birth of a lie. The last shall be first by media acclamation and judicial ratification.

Rather than focus on the at least 50 thousand plus black Floridians who were summarily removed from state registration rolls due to a faulty felon purge computer program (citizens who had every right to vote), we had to endure the endless discussion of a few hundred flawed ballot in a retirement community.

Instead of focusing on the over 20,000 invalidated presidential ballots in Duval County, which came almost exclusively from Democratic precincts, and the tens of thousands more mostly minority ballots that were arbitrarily tossed out by so-called election judges, we had to endure a dyspeptic Judge from Leon County who told the lawyers he had plenty of time when he knew time was of the essence.

And when the votes were finally being recounted in Miami Dade, instead of focusing on a preppy riot by Republican Congressional staffers flown in just for that event; a riot that ended the vote count, we were diverted to minutiae. Even though knowing their identity would have been a huge story, no one bothered to tell us who these scary folks were.

Click for big version
Washington DC based Republican Congressional staffer show up at Miami Dade County Board of Elections and stage the preppy riot that lead the board of elections to suspend its Presidential vote recount. These Republican operatives helped change history.

What was the grand plan to prevent any more elections like Florida 2000? Lets all vote on computerized voting machines, really complicated machines. Everybody knows you can’t cheat with a computer. We’ll even spend billions to buy states and counties voting machines from vendors with strong Republican ties. And even better, we’ll set up an Election Assistance Commission that focuses almost exclusively on voting technology while totally ignoring race and class bias plus political dirty tricks, the real problems with Florida 2000…a bipartisan effort.

The Sorry Record of Questionable Elections

When a solution fails to match the problem in question, the problem persists. In 2002, Max Cleland and Barnes went from substantial pre-election leads to substantial post election deficits (last minute swings between 9% and 16%). Quite a surprise: two reversals like that in the same state, on the same day, from the same party, and both very well liked public officials. The other surprise is that five thousand voting machines in densely populated, Democratic Counties were secretly modified just before the election. According to whistleblower Chris Hood, this was done the orders of the president of the voting machine company, Diebold, Inc., who told the contractor making the changes to make the change without notifying the county authorities.

Shouldn’t this have been a clue? Apparently it wasn’t. We rolled into 2004 with few lessons learned. The Kerry campaign placed thousands of lawyers in place around the country to spot election fraud. The most substantive result of the effort was the production of this empirical study of a major county in Washington State by attorney Paul Lehto, one of the Kerry poll watching lawyers. There was no challenge. Of course, the Libertarians and Greens were more than willing to cry foul and note the emperor had no clothes in Ohio, to their great credit.

The 2004 election produced a major anomaly, one that will not go away. The truth emerged about how the candidates had been tracked by the National Exit Polls. These showed a Kerry victory. They were not for on air use but ended up being broad case anyway. The mathematical odds are overwhelmingly in favor of a Kerry win. Nobody bothered to tell the American people. The topic has never been seriously discussed by the mainstream media. It’s all there in black and white. There’s even a free Excel interactive program that allows you to enter your own assumptions to force a Bush win. It’s very difficult

2000, 2002, 2004…still asleep at the switch.

The persistent set of machine mal functions from 2000 forward developed as a theme – surprise or last minute victories by Republicans amidst questions about undervotes, over votes, machine problems, long lines, confusing voting instructions, etc, etc. The machine manufacturers and elections officials who enable them offer sanctimonious explanations which usually blamed voters.

Human error is their theme. By the way, this is the same set of lies told by the apologists for spoiled ballots, which were almost always in predominantly minority precincts. Back then it was a thinly veiled racist meme – the uneducated voter just didn’t know how to mark a ballot. This was a lie and the vile assertion was dismissed once and for all in a moment of scholarly brilliance. Now we’re back to the not so swift old voter in the case of the latest excuse for 18,000 ballots for Congress lost in the race for the seat vacated by Bush Secretary of State Kathleen Harris.

Georgia 2002 was the warning shot that Florida 2000 was no coincidence. The loss of a victory for a second time in 2004 was the outcome of a failure to heed that warnings. Subsequent unbelievable results like the Ohio Special Measures election with a 20-40% reversal of reliable pre-election polls, and the lost of one in seven votes in Sarasota County, the strong hold for the losing candidate, are the world as will know it in elections to come as long as those in power fail to recognize that machine foul ups are just an updated version spoiled ballots. They have a consistent outcome. Democrats lose.

The Prospects for Real Reform the New Congress

Plan A: Home grown. Action on elections is a hot item in this Congress. At the opening, Representative Rush Holt, Dem, NJ stood to raise a point of order that will allow hearings on the Florida 13th race, a bold move at this point. The legislative remedies don’t match this boldness: tinkering around the edges with no one willing to say the “F” word – FRAUD. Meaningful reform is not readily apparent in any current form. The hope is that the Jennings Election Contest, a very strong case, will generate a serious wake up call to all who favor fair and inclusive elections. It may just do that if Christine Jennings and her attorney Kendall Coffee get a fair hearing.

Plan B: Globalism to the rescue. How hard is it to set up a voting system, let alone an efficient voting system? Not very hard, if you use India as an example. The nation adopted a low tech electronic voting and reporting system that serves more than 600 million voters . That’s a lot of citizens exercising the franchise. But in India the stakes are very high. The political factions there take their politics very seriously. There is a history of violence surrounding elections. There were some problems but the Indian approach looks like a success. So here you are, $300 (US) a piece – tested in the killing fields of no nonsense politics in the world’s largest democracy, and, if we fail to change our laws, the last hope the United States has for free and fair elections: INDIA’S EVM.

Click for big version
India’s election commission makes the case for the low tech by design EVM (electronic voting machine). If we can’t get election fraud recognized as a real event and a remedy through Hand Counted Paper Ballots, we can always just swallow our price and adopt a model that works.

W pushes envelope on U.S. spying

New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

President Bush added a "signing statement" in recently passed postal reform bill that may give him new powers to pry into your mail - without a warrant. WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned. The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions. That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it. Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise. "Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill. Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail. "The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington. "The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said. "You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known." A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into." Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances." Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection." White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming any new authority. "In certain circumstances - such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' - the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said. Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" which could refer to an imminent danger or a longstanding state of emergency. Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime. But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed. Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.

Cultural Differences Complicate a Georgia Drug Sting Operation

ROME, Ga., July 29 - When they charged 49 convenience store clerks and owners in rural northwest Georgia with selling materials used to make methamphetamine, federal prosecutors declared that they had conclusive evidence. Hidden microphones and cameras, they said, had caught the workers acknowledging that the products would be used to make the drug. But weeks of court motions have produced many questions. Forty-four of the defendants are Indian immigrants - 32, mostly unrelated, are named Patel - and many spoke little more than the kind of transactional English mocked in sitcoms. So when a government informant told store clerks that he needed the cold medicine, matches and camping fuel to "finish up a cook," some of them said they figured he must have meant something about barbecue.

Malvika Patel, left, and her husband, Chirag, in Ringgold, Ga. Ms. Patel spent three days in jail in a drug case before being cleared. The authorities had accused her of selling a medicine used to make methamphetamine.

The case of Operation Meth Merchant illustrates another difficulty for law enforcement officials fighting methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug that can be made with ordinary grocery store items.

Many states, including Georgia, have recently enacted laws restricting the sale of common cold medicines like Sudafed, and nationwide, the police are telling merchants to be suspicious of sales of charcoal, coffee filters, aluminum foil and Kitty Litter. Walgreens agreed this week to pay $1.3 million for failing to monitor the sale of over-the-counter cold medicine that was bought by a methamphetamine dealer in Texas.

But the case here is also complicated by culture. Prosecutors have had to drop charges against one defendant they misidentified, presuming that the Indian woman inside the store must be the same Indian woman whose name appeared on the registration for a van parked outside, and lawyers have gathered evidence arguing that another defendant is the wrong Patel.

The biggest problem, defense lawyers say, is the language barrier between an immigrant store clerk and the undercover informants who used drug slang or quick asides to convey that they were planning to make methamphetamine.

"They're not really paying attention to what they're being told," said Steve Sadow, one of the lawyers. "Their business is: I ring it up, you leave, I've done my job. Call it language or idiom or culture, I'm not sure you're able to show they know there's anything wrong with what they're doing."

For the Indians, their lives largely limited to store and home, it is as if they have fallen through a looking glass into a world they were content to keep on the other side of the cash register.

"This is the first time I heard this - I don't know how to pronounce - this meta-meta something," said Hajira Ahmed, whose husband is in jail pending charges that he sold cold medicine and antifreeze at their convenience store on a winding road near the Tennessee border.

But David Nahmias, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, said the evidence showed that the clerks knew that the informants posing as customers planned to make drugs. Federal law makes it illegal to sell products knowing, or with reason to believe, that they will be used to produce drugs. In these cases, lawyers say, defendants face up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

In one instance, Mr. Nahmias said, a store owner in Whitfield County pulled out a business card from a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent and told the informant that he was supposed to contact the agent if someone requested large amounts of the materials. When the informant asked if he would call, Mr. Nahmias said, the owner replied, "No, you are my customer."

"It's not that they should have known," Mr. Nahmias said. "In virtually or maybe all of the cases, they did know."

Like many prosecutors, Mr. Nahmias describes methamphetamine, a highly potent drug that can be injected, ingested or inhaled, as the biggest drug problem in his district. While only about a third of the meth here is made in small labs - the majority of the drug used in this country comes from so-called superlabs in Mexico - those small labs can be highly explosive, posing a danger to children, the environment and the police departments that are forced to clean them up. Their sources, he said, are local convenience stores.

read more > > >

Former U.S. Detainee in Iraq Recalls Torment

American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.

The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.

Detainee 200343 was among thousands of people who have been held and released by the American military in Iraq, and his account of his ordeal has provided one of the few detailed views of the Pentagon’s detention operations since the abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib. Yet in many respects his case is unusual.

The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.

But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military, which was unaware that Mr. Vance was an informer, according to officials and military documents.

At Camp Cropper, he took notes on his imprisonment and smuggled them out in a Bible.

“Sick, very. Vomited,” he wrote July 3. The next day: “Told no more phone calls til leave.”

Nathan Ertel, the American held with Mr. Vance, brought away military records that shed further light on the detention camp and its secretive tribunals. Those records include a legal memorandum explicitly denying detainees the right to a lawyer at detention hearings to determine whether they should be released or held indefinitely, perhaps for prosecution.

The story told through those records and interviews illuminates the haphazard system of detention and prosecution that has evolved in Iraq, where detainees are often held for long periods without charges or legal representation, and where the authorities struggle to sort through the endless stream of detainees to identify those who pose real threats.

“Even Saddam Hussein had more legal counsel than I ever had,” said Mr. Vance, who said he planned to sue the former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, on grounds that his constitutional rights had been violated. “While we were detained, we wrote a letter to the camp commandant stating that the same democratic ideals we are trying to instill in the fledgling democratic country of Iraq, from simple due process to the Magna Carta, we are absolutely, positively refusing to follow ourselves.”

A spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s detention operations in Iraq, First Lt. Lea Ann Fracasso, said in written answers to questions that the men had been “treated fair and humanely,” and that there was no record of either man complaining about their treatment.

Held as ‘a Threat’

She said officials did not reach Mr. Vance’s contact at the F.B.I. until he had been in custody for three weeks. Even so, she said, officials determined that he “posed a threat” and decided to continue holding him. He was released two months later, Lieutenant Fracasso said, based on a “subsequent re-examination of his case,” and his stated plans to leave Iraq.

Mr. Ertel, 30, a contract manager who knew Mr. Vance from an earlier job in Iraq, was released more quickly.

Mr. Vance went to Iraq in 2004, first to work for a Washington-based company. He later joined a small Baghdad-based security company where, he said, “things started looking weird to me.” He said that the company, which was protecting American reconstruction organizations, had hired guards from a sheik in Basra and that many of them turned out to be members of militias whom the clients did not want around.

Mr. Vance said the company had a growing cache of weapons it was selling to suspicious customers, including a steady flow of officials from the Iraqi Interior Ministry. The ministry had ties to violent militias and death squads. He said he had also witnessed another employee giving American soldiers liquor in exchange for bullets and weapon repairs.

Read more

Do you know what 'inalienable rights' are?

If you can't, bang go your hopes of living the American dream. You will never become a US citizen.

At least, you are going to find it harder to do so, since Thursday. Those three brainteasers appear on a new list of 144 sample questions put out by the federal government that will form the basis of a revised test for anyone seeking to turn themselves into naturalised Americans.

It is the culmination of a five-year struggle to update the citizenship test, which was laid down in 1986 and has remained virtually untouched since. That exam contains 96 questions, mostly of a more amenable nature, such as: What are the colours of our flag? Who was Martin Luther King Jnr? When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

The new list has provoked a heated debate about the nature of citizenship exams and what they are seeking to achieve. Immigrants' rights groups fear that by adding a raft of about 80 new questions, including sections on geography (What is the longest river in the US?), more probing questions on key historical periods (Name one war fought by the US in the 1800s) and highly conceptual queries (What is the rule of law?), will merely erect a new barrier to participation.

Daunting
About 600 000 people become naturalised US citizens every year, but the worry is that many could be put off by the new questions. "Our main concern is that the test does not become even more daunting an obstacle to citizenship than it is right now," said Fred Tsao, of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

Tsao pointed out that in addition to the stress of having to pass the exam, there is the financial hurdle: naturalisation currently costs $400 to complete, and may rise to $800 under current proposals.

His group and other immigration organisations like it have taken to calling the citizenship test "the second wall". The first wall is the physical structure being erected along 1 120km of Mexican border, to keep out illegal immigrants. This second wall, the groups contend, is a barrier to full participation by legal immigrants who have lived and worked in the US for at least five years.

But the phrase is disputed by the US citizenship and immigration service. "I absolutely hate that term," said Chris Ratigan, an official within the service. "We are trying to build a wider bridge to citizenship. When someone decides to become an American citizen -- and what a wonderful decision that is -- we want them to feel that after they raise their hand and take the oath to America they are fully ready to participate in this country."

Under the old test, Ratigan said, there was great inequality about how it was administered. One state might ask only easy questions such as "Who is the president of the US today?", while other states would set the harder ones such as "Who said, 'Give me liberty or give me death?'" (Answer: Patrick Henry in 1775.) The pass rate -- running at present at 84% on the first sitting of the test and 95% in second and third sittings -- would show large local fluctuations as a result.

Under the new system, questions will be weighted according to their difficulty, so that no matter where in the country one is taking the test, one's chances of success would be equal.

So how will the new test go down? It will be piloted next year on 5 000 volunteers going for citizenship in 10 states across the country, to reflect the range of likely applicants. After feedback, the list will be whittled down to the best 100. Applicants will have to answer correctly six out of 10 randomly selected questions.

On the streets of New York, the pilot questions received a varied response. Josh, a businessman, found several questions easy. He knew the president has to be older than 35, that the tallest mountain is Mount McKinley, that the Mississippi is the longest river and that the early 19th-century war was the Spanish-American war of 1812. However, he was stumped by the question "What group of essays supported passage of the US Constitution?" (Answer: the Federalist papers.)

Edwin, a security guard from Puerto Rico, was stumped by several questions. Asked "What does 'We the people' mean in the Constitution?", he replied: "You got me, man. We never learnt that stuff in school."

If Edwin is remotely representative of the nation -- and he was just one man plucked from a New York street -- then the immigration service appears to be pitching its exam beyond its reach. However, he did get one question almost right. Asked "Who is the speaker-elect of the House of Representatives?", he said: "I know somebody was elected from California. Can't remember her name, but I know Bush ain't too happy about it."

The questions and help for those who need it

The questions
1. What does "we the people" mean in the Constitution?
2. Name one example of checks and balances.
3. How old must a president be?
4. What territory did the US buy from France in 1803?
5. Name one thing only the federal government can do.
6. What is the current minimum wage in the US?
7. Who is the Attorney General now?
8. Who governs the people in a self-governed country?
9. What is the "rule of law"?
10. What are "inalienable rights"?
11. Name one responsibility that is only for US citizens.
12. When is the last day you can send in federal income-tax forms?
13. Name one thing Benjamin Franklin is famous for.
14. Name one famous battle from the Revolutionary War.
15. Name one of the writers of the Federalist papers.
16. What group of essays supported the passage of the US Constitution?
17. What did Susan B Anthony do?
18. Who was president during World War I?
19. Where is the Grand Canyon?
20. What is the tallest mountain in the US?

Acceptable answers
1. The power of government comes from the people.
2. The president vetoes a Bill; Congress can confirm or not confirm a president's nomination; Congress approves the president's budget; the Supreme Court strikes down a law.
3. 35.
4. West of the Mississippi; the western US; the Louisiana territory.
5. Print money; declare war; create an army; make treaties.
6. $5.15.
7. Alberto Gonzales.
8. The people govern themselves; the government elected by the people.
9. Everyone must obey the law; leaders must obey the law; the government must obey the law.
10. Individual rights with which people are born.
11. Vote; serve on a jury.
12. By April 15 of every year; by April 15; April 15.
13. US diplomat; oldest member of the Constitutional Convention; first Postmaster General of the United States; writer of Poor Richard's Almanac.
14. Lexington and Concord; Trenton; Princeton; Saratoga; Cowpens; Yorktown; Bunker Hill.
15. James Madison; Alexander Hamilton; John Jay.
16. The Federalist papers
17. She fought for women's rights.
18. Woodrow Wilson.
19 Arizona; the Southwest; along on the Colorado River.
20. Mount McKinley or Denali

Source

Zombies arrested in downtown Minneapolis (July 25)

Jamie Lee Jones

Jessica Rae Baribeau

Jake Benjamin Sternberg

Christian Alexander Utne

Marie Katyanne Kibbe

Raphi Rechitsky

'Zombies' file lawsuit against city of Minneapolis

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - A group of zombies have risen up to claim the city of Minneapolis and Hennepin County violated their free rights and discriminated against them.

The six adults and one juvenile who were arrested while impersonating the undead in July filed their lawsuit Thursday.

The ragged group were arrested for "simulating weapons of mass destruction" during a dance party near the Minneapolis entertainment district.

Police alleged that wires protruding from the zombie's backpacks could have been bombs or were meant to imitate bombs. It was later learned the wires were actually radios.

The adult zombies were jailed for two days before police and city attorneys said there was not enough evidence to charge them.

The lawsuit claims the zombie event was intended to "satirize contemporary commercial culture" and the arrests violated the partygoers rights to free speech.

City officials did not return a call to the St. Paul Pioneer Press seeking comment on Wednesday. City offices were closed on Thanksgiving.

Source

Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech

MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.

Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens' ability to express themselves and their faith.

Last night's event, held at the Radisson Hotel-Center of New Hampshire, honored a Lakes Region newspaper and a former speaker of the House for work in favor of free expression.

The Citizen of Laconia was given the Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award, which is named after the longtime President and Publisher of the Union Leader Corporation, owner of New Hampshire's statewide newspaper.

The Citizen scrutinized the Newfound Area School Board beginning last year over a series of e-mail discussions held before public meetings. It also used the right-to-know law to uncover costly decisions by the town of Tilton this year.

Executive Editor John Howe said the decision to pursue the stories led to at least one advertiser canceling its business with the paper.

"We try to practice what we preach, even if it costs us business," Howe said. "And it has and it will in the future.

Also honored was Marshall Cobleigh, former House speaker and a longtime aide to former Gov. Meldrim Thomson.

Cobleigh introduced an amendment to the state Constitution defending free speech. He also helped shepherd the state's 1967 right-to-know law through the Legislature.

Gingrich's speech focused on the First Amendment, but in an interview beforehand, he also hit upon wide-ranging topics.

• Gingrich said America has "failed" in Iraq over the past three years and urged a new approach to winning the conflict. The U.S. needs to engage Syria and Iran and increase investment to train the Iraqi army and a national police force, he said. "How does a defeat for America make us safer?" Gingrich said. "I would look at an entirely new strategy." He added: "We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want."
• Political parties in Presidential primary states should host events that invite candidates from both parties to discuss issues, said Gingrich, who criticized the sharpness of today's politics.
• Gingrich said voters unhappy with the war, the response to Hurricane Katrina and pork barrel spending were the main drive behind the GOP's rejection at the polls. But he argued Republicans would have retained the Senate and just narrowly lost the House if President Bush had announced the departure of embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before, instead of after, the election.
• Gingrich said he will not decide whether he is running for President until September 2007.

The event last night was sponsored by the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications. The school was founded in 1999 to promote journalism and other forms of communication.

Minnesota voters send first Muslim to Capitol Hill

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota
(CNN) -- In a political first, a Muslim has been elected to serve in the U.S. Congress.

Keith Ellison, a Minnesota state legislator and lawyer, reached the political milestone by defeating two other candidates in Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, which covers the Minneapolis area.

His victory was part of the Democratic wave that seized control of the House of Representatives from the Republicans.

Ellison won 56 percent of the vote, defeating Republican Alan Fine and the Independence Party's Tammy Lee, both of whom garnered 21 percent of the vote. A Green Party candidate received 2 percent.

With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Ellison received 135,519 votes, Fine 51,896, and Lee, 51,250.

Ellison is also the first African-American from Minnesota to be elected to the U.S. House. He ran on the Democratic-Farmer-Labor ticket in a district that is heavily liberal.

Members of that party, a uniquely Minnesotan movement, describe the DFL as the state chapter of the Democratic Party.

Ellison's winning platform

Ellison's views reflect Democratic ideals and discontent. (Watch what Ellison said about Katrina victims, abortion and insurance for the poor -- 2:38)

He is opposed to the war in Iraq and on his Web site, he has called "for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

"I opposed the war before it began. I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."

His religious message is one of inclusiveness.

Regarding his Muslim faith, he said, "people draw strength and moral courage from a variety of religious traditions."

"Mine have come from both Catholicism and Islam. I was raised Catholic and later became a Muslim while attending Wayne State University. I am inspired by the Quran's message of an encompassing divine love, and a deep faith guides my life every day."

Ellison's position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is supportive of the two-state solution and the road map to peace process. He has been critical of the Hamas movement.

"Peace is necessary for both Israeli and Palestinian people, and I wholeheartedly support peace movements in Israel and throughout the region," he said in a statement on his Web site.

He was endorsed by the Twin Cities newspaper, the American Jewish World, which said, "In Ellison, we have a moderate Muslim who extends his hand in friendship to the Jewish community and supports the security of the State of Israel."

Ellison is pro-choice and pro-labor, and supports "universal single payer health care" -- long popular stances among liberals.

The seat Ellison won had been held by Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, the longtime Democratic incumbent, whose retirement sparked a wide-open race. Sabo won 70 percent of the vote for the House seat in 2004.

Source

The Votes Are In! And I Didn't Win. :(

BUT, I got 11.4% of the vote. Not so bad, considering I barely campaigned. Something about breaking up with a husband and having the previous husband die that just takes the thrill out of it. LOL And, I didn't believe I would win. Between my late entry into the race and the local papers hatred of Libertarians that turned the race into "the evil Libertarians against the good Dems/Reps", there was little chance of my swaying the majority.

Here are the results:

NP - Michael J. Wallace	26340	27.42
NP - Bernard L. Stewart	24264	25.26
NP - Jacob Eapen	24096	25.08
NP - Gwen S Todd	10795	11.24
NP - Steve Strayer	10228	10.65
Write-in	335	0.35

Stay tuned. I already have my candidate info site for the next run and have learned a lot about what to expect. Watch this space for me to be the WINNER of the race next time around.

Not Child Left Behind . . .just suspended and humiliated

Fourth Grader Suspended After Refusing to Answer Exam Question

By David Evans

Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Tyler Stoken was a well-behaved fourth grader who enjoyed school, earned A's and B's and performed well on standardized tests.

In May 2005, he'd completed five of the six days of the Washington State Assessment of Student Learning exam, called WASL, part of the state's No Child Left Behind test.

Then Tyler came upon this question: ``While looking out the window one day at school, you notice the principal flying in the air. In several paragraphs, write a story telling what happens.''

The nine-year-old was afraid to answer the question about his principal, Olivia McCarthy. ``I didn't want to make fun of her,'' he says, explaining he was taught to write the first thing that entered his mind on the state writing test.

In this case, Tyler's initial thoughts would have been embarrassing and mean. So even after repeated requests by school personnel, and ultimately the principal herself, Tyler left the answer space blank. ``He didn't want them to know what he was thinking, that she was a witch on a broomstick,'' says Tyler's mother, Amanda Wolfe, sitting next to her son in the family's ranch home three blocks from Central Park Elementary School in Aberdeen, Washington.

Because Tyler didn't answer the question, McCarthy suspended him for five days. He recalls the principal reprimanding him by saying his test score could bring down the entire school's performance.

``Good job, bud, you've ruined it for everyone in the school, the teachers and the school,'' Tyler says McCarthy told him.

`He Cried'

Aberdeen School District Superintendent Martin Kay ordered an investigation. ``My suspension was for refusal to comply with a reasonable request, and to teach Tyler that that could harm him in the future,'' McCarthy told an investigator. ``I never, for a second, questioned my actions.''

Tyler, who's 4 feet (1.2 meters) tall and weighs 70 pounds (32 kilograms), hasn't been the same since, his mother says.

``He liked the principal before this,'' she says. ``He cried. He didn't understand why she'd done this to him.''

Now, Tyler blows up at the drop of a hat, his mother says. ``They created a monster. He'll never take that test again, even if I have to take him to another state,'' she says.

Tyler's attitude about school changed. He became shyer. He's afraid of all tests and doesn't do as well in classes anymore, his mother says.

`Blatant Defiance'

McCarthy's May 6, 2005, letter to Tyler's mother detailed her son's suspension. ``The fact that Tyler chose to simply refuse to work on the WASL after many reasonable requests is none other than blatant defiance and insubordination,'' McCarthy wrote.

In the letter, she accused Tyler of bringing down the average score of the other 10 students in his class. ``As we have worked so hard this year to improve our writing skills, this is a particularly egregious wound,'' McCarthy wrote.

Her accusation was wrong, state regulations show. There is no averaging of the writing scores. Each student either meets or fails the state standard.

Tita Mallory, director of curriculum and assessment for the Aberdeen School District, says school officials feel tremendous pressure because of the high-stakes tests.

While there's no academic effect on elementary school children taking the exams, there can be repercussions for school administrators. When schools repeatedly fail to show adequate yearly progress, as defined by No Child, the principal can be fired.

``In many ways, there's too much emphasis on the test,'' Mallory says. ``I don't want that kind of pressure on our kids.''

Out of 74,184 fourth graders taking the WASL test last year, 42.3 percent failed to meet the state standard for writing.

Juanita Doyon, director of Mothers Against WASL and author of, ``Not With Our Kids You Don't! Ten Strategies to Save Our Schools'' (Heinemann, 144 pages, $14.95), says Tyler's experience is representative of what's wrong with tests like the WASL.

``They took a student who loved his school and crushed his spirit,'' Doyon, 46, says.

``We've elevated test scores to be the most important part of school. The principal and teachers are so pressured by the test that they've lost good sense in dealing with children.''

To contact the reporter for this story: David Evans in Los Angeles at davidevans@bloomberg.net

From Swami Beyondananda's Newsletter 11-2-06

No Story, No World ...New Story, New World

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

In her book, Butterfly, Norie Huddle offers a powerful biological metaphor about the caterpillar' s metamorphosis into a butterfly. Inside the cocoon, new cells -- called, appropriately "imaginal cells" -- begin to pop up. Initially, these cells are recognized as "not the caterpillar" and are attacked. At some point, there are enough imaginal cells that they begin to communicate with each other and cluster together in communities. Although the caterpillar organism is still attacking these cells, the new cells become stronger and eventually and inevitably, the imaginal cells become the butterfly. So, you may be asking as you read or watch the news, where's the butterfly? Or, as the Swami has said, "Will the new age get here before old age does?"

And certainly, on the surface it's all caterpillar out there. But just as there is a moment where the field shifts from caterpillar to butterfly, I can assure you that the imaginal cells are popping up everywhere and beginning to cluster and communicate. And just as sure as a caterpillar never says, "You know, I'm not sure about this flying butterfly thing so I think I'll just go back to being a crawly caterpillar, " the process of evolution is a one-way street leading onward and upward.

In my travels to just about every region in the country over the past two years, I've seen this awakening and "up-wising." On one hand, those who allow themselves to see are facing the awful truth of how we've been betrayed by our leaders and institutions. On the other, people are also embracing the awesome opportunity as they see things as they can be, were we to actualize our human potential. It can be an emotional roller coaster to go from one extreme to the other, wondering how long it will take for a critical mass of citizens to awaken to the "critical mess." One thing is for certain, though. We can't get there from "here" when "here" means continuing to do what we've always done.

We Can't Get There From Here Unless We Find a New "Here"

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, a problem can never be solved at the level it was created. So it should come as no surprise as we shift from the Newtonian world view of force vs. opposing force, that we recognize that the dualistic political parties and cultural forces will only keep us stuck doing what we've been doing. Neither of the dominant dominator stories -- dogmatic religion or cynical materialism -- will be able to help us achieve this new emergent phase. A new story is needed, one that encompasses the spiritual and the material, that celebrates the individual and yet honors community, that anchors us with all that is precious in the past and also points us where none have gone before.

Thanks to a combination of intention and graceful good fortune, I am working with cellular biologist Bruce Lipton (The Biology of Belief) on a book that offers a new story based on the latest understandings of biology and quantum physics, and -- not coincidentally -- consistent with the teachings of the great spiritual masters. Boiled down, the message is this: "Just as our body is a harmonious community of 50 trillion cells, we humans are a 6.5 billion cell community on the surface of the earth. Since nature tells us that patterns repeat at higher levels of complexity -- from cell to organ to organism to planet -- what works under our skin is very likely to work in our human community as well."

On a purely biochemical level, the cell, the organism and the planet all need the same things: Clean water, nutrients and oxygen. Should any of these be compromised on any level, from cellular to planetary, life itself is threatened. On the psychological, social and spiritual level, harmony works better than disharmony. Throughout the recorded history of civilization, we have suspected this is true. It's what just about every religion or spiritual path has at its root, some version of the Golden Rule. Over millennia, we humans have been "content" to -- in the words of Alan Watts -- worship the finger instead of noting where the finger is pointing. But now, the dysfunctionality has gotten so profound and destructive to the entire planet, that we must finally turn to living those truths our teachers have been patiently trying to teach us for centuries. Put bluntly, unless we consciously choose to play "the world game," the "end-of-the- world" game will play itself out.

And the Good News Is ... the Bad News IS The Good News This bad news is good news indeed. It means we humans can no longer survive at this level of consciousness, and must metamorphose into something greater. The good news is that "truth" is inclusive, that Jesus and Einstein were both right, that we are indeed "all in this together, here to re-grow the Garden and have a heaven of a time doing it." Yes, it is easier said than done. However, we must say it before we can do it. And instead of the stories we've been telling ourselves -- either we are helpless children who can only be saved by divine intervention, or that we're even more helpless isolated entities stuck in an uncaring and random universe -- we need an empowering and enlightening story that encompasses science and spirit.

Getting back to those imaginal cells, what finally brings forth the new organism is the growing coherence of a new field. On the human level, the foundation of that coherence is a new story. Think about all the good work and well-intentioned organizations in this country and around the world. Consider those who understand and are working for environmental health, personal wellness, universal spiritual awareness without dogma, social and economic justice, sustainable business, enlightened education of our children, non lethal forms of problem-solving, etc., etc., etc. All of these great causes ...

And yet, it seems like so many of these well-meaning organizations are overworked and underfunded, seemingly in competition with one another for limited resource, and far too often disheartened and discouraged. A coherent and unifying story of what the "butterfly" looks like when it's up and flying can help us see how all of this work fits together, and how we can prioritize and move forward. It's my profound hope and intention that this book, The American Evolution, and the accompanying website will help transform the imaginal field of dreams into reality.

Army monitors soldiers' blogs, Web sites
Oversight operation checks for anything that may compromise security

RICHMOND, Va. - From the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan to here at home, soldiers blogging about military life are under the watchful eye of some of their own.

A Virginia-based operation, the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell, monitors official and unofficial blogs and other Web sites for anything that may compromise security. The team scans for official documents, personal contact information and pictures of weapons or entrances to camps.

In some cases, that information can be detrimental, said Lt. Col. Stephen Warnock, team leader and battalion commander of a Manassas-based Virginia National Guard unit working on the operation.

In one incident, a blogger was describing his duties as a guard, providing pictures of his post and discussing how to exploit its vulnerabilities. Other soldiers posted photos of an Army weapons system that was damaged by enemy attack, and another showed personal information that could have endangered his family.

"We are a nation at war," Warnock said by e-mail. "The less the enemy knows, the better it is for our soldiers."

In the early years of operations in the Middle East, no official oversight governed Web sites that sprung up to keep the families of those deployed informed about their daily lives.

The oversight mission, made up of active-duty soldiers and contractors, as well as Guard and Reserve members from Maryland, Texas and Washington state, began in 2002 and was expanded in August 2005 to include sites in the public domain, including blogs.

The Army will not disclose the methods or tools being used to find and monitor the sites. Nor will it reveal the size of the operation or the contractors involved. The Defense Department has a similar program, the Joint Web Risk Assessment Cell, but the Army program is apparently the only operation that monitors nonmilitary sites.

Now soldiers wishing to blog while deployed are required to register their sites with their commanding officers, who monitor the sites quarterly, according to a four-page document of guidelines published in April 2005 by Multi-National Corps-Iraq.

Spc. Jean-Paul Borda, who has indexed thousands of military blogs for a site called Milblogging.com, said in an e-mail interview that the military still is adapting to changing technology.

"This is a new media — Blogging. Podcasting. Online videos," wrote Borda, 32, of Dallas, who kept a blog while he was deployed in Afghanistan with the Virginia National Guard. "The military is doing what it feels necessary to ensure the safety of the troops."

Warnock said the Web risk assessment team has reviewed hundreds of thousands of sites every month, sometimes e-mailing or calling soldiers asking them to take material down. If the blogger doesn't comply with the request, the team can work with the soldier's commanders to fix the problem — that is, if the blogger doesn't post anonymously.

"We are not a law enforcement or intelligence agency. Nor are we political correctness enforcers," Warnock said. "We are simply trying to identify harmful Internet content and make the authors aware of the possible misuse of the information by groups who may want to damage United States interests."

Some bloggers say the guidelines are too ambiguous — a sentiment that has led others to pre-emptively shut down or alter their blogs.

"It's impossible to determine when something crosses the line from not a violation to a violation. It's like trying to define what pornography is or bad taste in music," said Spc. Jason Hartley, 32, who says he was demoted from sergeant and fined for reposting a blog he created while deployed to Iraq with the New York Army National Guard.

According to Hartley, the Army had forced him to stop the blog even before the oversight operation existed, citing pictures he had posted of Iraqi detainees and discussions of how he loaded a weapon and the route his unit took to get to Iraq.

Warnock contended that soldiers should not be discouraged from blogging altogether.

Military bloggers "are simply expressing themselves in a wide open forum and want to share their life-changing experiences with the rest of the world," Warnock said. "Giving soldiers an outlet for free expression is good. American soldiers are not shy about giving their opinions and nothing the Web Risk Cell does dampens that trait."

Matthew Currier Burden, 39, a former intelligence officer who wrote "The Blog of War," a collection of entries from bloggers who served in the war, said soldiers' Web sites can go a long way toward portraying positive aspects of the war and other "stories that need to get told."

But he said it's legitimate to fear that some information could be used the wrong way.

"The enemy knows the value of the blogs," Burden said. "The biggest thing that we fear is battle damage assessment from the enemy. We want to deny them that."

Source: msnbc.msn.com

I got a call from the newspaper reporter, Angela Woodall, who is covering the election for the Argus. She wanted to know why I hadn't filed a financial statement. Well, because I didn't raise any money and I haven't spent any money. It isn't a crime, in fact the guy who registered me explained that I didn't need to spend a lot of money. I've campaign word of mouth, but I don't hold any real illusions about my chances. She pointed out that two of the incumbants had raised large sums for publicity. Well good on them. I guess having a couple of challengers has helped the local economy. LOL

But I also got an answer to a question that had been bothering me and which I had posted in my column last week. Why did she make such a big deal of my political party when it's for a non-partisan position. Well, the answer friends is that she doesn't like Libertarians and felt that the public knowing I am Libertarian was more important than their knowing any thing else. She doesn't even know what party the other candidates are, that didn't matter to her. As long as she could expose me and the other challenger as Libertarian and expose the Libertarian Party for trying to take over.

So much for unbiased reporting, my loves. Don't know what her issue is, but she came out and admitted she "outed" me on purpose. It wasn't my imagination. And she admitted that she knew that identifying me as a Libertarian (California has a few Greens they tolerate, but has no use for Libertarians, to hear her tell it.) damaged me more than her revealing my religious background. (former Mormon, former Wiccan)

As I told her in the original interview, I have no illusions about winning. This is a test run. I've been interested in running for office for years and the time was right for a tryout. I think I would be an excellent asset the hospital and a chance for the public to actually know what goes on there behind the closed doors where all the decisions are illegally made and I know that I'm new and, as if that weren't enough, the local reporter covering doesn't want the party I am affliated to to win.

Just thought you all might like to know that you can count on your local paper to protect you.

Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to water-boarding

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed that U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al-Qaida suspects to a controversial interrogation technique called "water-boarding," which creates a sensation of drowning.

Cheney indicated that the Bush administration doesn't regard water-boarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney said at one point in an interview.

Cheney's comments, in a White House interview on Tuesday with a conservative radio talk show host, appeared to reflect the Bush administration's view that the president has the constitutional power to do whatever he deems necessary to fight terrorism.

The U.S. Army, senior Republican lawmakers, human rights experts and many experts on the laws of war, however, consider water-boarding cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that's banned by U.S. law and by international treaties that prohibit torture. Some intelligence professionals argue that it often provides false or misleading information because many subjects will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear to make the water-boarding stop.

Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have said that a law Bush signed last month prohibits water-boarding. The three are the sponsors of the Military Commissions Act, which authorized the administration to continue its interrogations of enemy combatants.

The radio interview Tuesday was the first time that a senior Bush administration official has confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding against important al-Qaida suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mohammad was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003, and turned over to the CIA.

Water-boarding means holding a person's head under water or pouring water on cloth or cellophane placed over the nose and mouth to simulate drowning until the subject agrees to talk or confess.

Lee Ann McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, denied that Cheney confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding or endorsed the technique.

"What the vice president was referring to was an interrogation program without torture," she said. "The vice president never goes into what may or may not be techniques or methods of questioning."

In the interview on Tuesday, Scott Hennen of WDAY Radio in Fargo, N.D., told Cheney that listeners had asked him to "let the vice president know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives."

"Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?" Hennen said.

"I do agree," Cheney replied, according to a transcript of the interview released Wednesday. "And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation."

Cheney added that Mohammed had provided "enormously valuable information about how many (al-Qaida members) there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth. We've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that."

"Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" asked Hennen.

"It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president `for torture.' We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in," Cheney replied. "We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that."

The interview transcript was posted on the White House Web site. Interview of the Vice President by Scott Hennen, WDAY.

CIA spokeswoman Michelle Neff said, "While we do not discuss specific interrogation methods, the techniques we use have been reviewed by the Department of Justice and are in keeping with our laws and treaty obligations. We neither conduct nor condone torture."