TN9 Info

Research performed on healthy, premenopausal women in the Netherlands established that Yaz, Yasmin, and Ocella (generic Yaz) suffered an enhanced risk of venous thrombosis as compared to non-users. The risks were increased as high as five times with birth control pills. These reports were published in August 2009. This was simply the beginning of the contention surrounding Yaz, Yasmin, and Ocella and the consequent lawsuits to come regarding Yaz side effects.

Mass Tort is simply civil lawsuit that encompasses a number of complainants. This legal action is taken against one or more corporate defendants in court. Unlike a class action where a group of people take it upon themselves to bring forth litigation collectively, in mass tort the original plaintiffs and law firms use mass media resources to reach other possible plaintiffs that they would not ordinarily find. Those TV ads and newspaper solicitations inquiring if you are a loved one have been effected by a particular product are the result of mass tort status.

Little know birth control side effects such as stroke-related vision loss and seizures have also been reported as a result of using Ocella, Yasmin and Yaz. With the clinical studies available on the internet, it is more crucial than ever to arm yourself with knowledge before resolving if a pharaceutical is right for you. Something as ubiquitous as ‘the pill’ can cause serious damage or even kill you if you are not careful.

Comments Off

Rush is right! The government’s stepped up bid to regulate broadcast television content is indeed frightening. Limbaugh made his comments during one of his regular radio broadcasts last year. Those remarks were in response to the FCC’s crackdown on broadcast indecency and Congress’ threats to hand out much larger fines to broadcasters for such violations, in the wake of Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl halftime show last February.

Limbaugh is the not only media personality alarmed by this intensified government scrutiny of television content. At the beginning of his news program on CNN during that same time frame, Aaron Brown said he thought the only thing worse than Jackson’s Super Bowl debacle is the fact that the government is now getting involved in trying to prevent similar incidents in the future. Amen, Aaron!

Television, like any other business in a capitalistic society like ours, is and should be governed by the marketplace and the laws of supply and demand. I would love to see more family-friendly television programming. However, if there were truly a great demand for it, there would naturally be a lot more of it in existence (as well as a lot less of the offensive stuff). The folks who are pushing the hardest for greater government intervention to make TV more family-friendly will assert that they are in the majority of viewers and listeners in the U.S. However, the facts belie this assertion.

Of the seven broadcast networks, PAX, widely recognized as the most family-friendly, is last in the ratings. It’s not just last, it is dead last! PAX gets about one-fourth of the audience of the sixth place network! Even in places that don’t have a local PAX affiliate, it is usually available as a cable channel. However, it’s not even among the 30 top-rated cable channels. On the other hand, some of the TV shows and cable networks with the most controversial material get the highest ratings. Go figure.

In reality, those who are clamoring the loudest for TV to “clean up its act” know they are in the minority. Instead of tuning their TVs to PAX or one of the other tamer channels (as I do) or even turning their TVs completely off, they go running to the government to force their tastes on everyone else. Oddly enough, most of these people consider themselves conservatives. Funny, I thought conservatives disdained government intervention in favor of allowing the marketplace to take its course. Where did I ever get such a silly idea?

What these people seemingly don’t realize is that their efforts could very well backfire on them and all the rest of us. Broadcasters have generally submitted to the concepts of the V-chip and content ratings to help parents regulate their children’s TV viewing in their homes. After all, isn’t that what all of this hoopla is about? They have also meekly accepted reasonable fines from time to time for indecent broadcasts. However, the vocal minority is now demanding that the FCC and Congress play hardball, i.e., impose very large and numerous fines as well as revoking the licenses of stations found guilty of indecent broadcasts. In response to this demand, there are now bills circulating in both houses of Congress that would increase fines to the range of $250,000 to $3 million per violation along with threatening license revocation for habitual offenders.

Many people forget that the FCC and Congress are not the final arbiters of these matters. The courts are. In the past, the courts have vigorously defended the First Amendment and I believe they will continue this trend. By playing hardball, the FCC and Congress will leave broadcasters with no other option but to take them to court. Even though the courts have, in the past, upheld the FCC’s reasonable jurisdiction over broadcast TV, things could change if the government’s newly attempted heavy-handed penalties are challenged. Long ago, the courts stripped away the government’s “right” to regulate indecency on cable and satellite channels. If the government decides it really wants to play hardball with broadcasters, it could ultimately lose any jurisdiction over broadcast content as well.

But let’s suppose the government’s more restrictive regulations are upheld by the courts. That’s definitely a possibility. However, because of the greatly increase fines and the possibility of license revocation, the courts will likely force the FCC to be more specific and draw up more detailed indecency guidelines. They are currently vague, to say the least.

I’ll use the following illustration to demonstrate how vague the FCC’s current guidelines really are. Let’s suppose that none of the roads or highways we all drive on everyday had posted speed limits. Instead, let’s suppose they just had signs warning us not to drive too fast. Then let’s suppose that the police were allowed to subjectively write tickets whenever they thought someone was driving too fast, but would never actually define what they thought “too fast” really was. That’s similar to how the FCC operates. It doesn’t provide any specific guidelines and only investigates a claim of indecency when someone files a complaint. It never explicitly states what a broadcaster can and cannot do.

Now, going back to our speeding analogy, let’s suppose that we (along with the courts) tolerated this kind of speed enforcement because the fines were relatively small and no one’s license was ever revoked. However, what do you think would happen if the governing authority decided to greatly increase the fines for speeding and allow the possibility of license revocations for such violations, without giving us specific speed limits? We would not stand still for such a thing and neither would the courts. Posted speed limits would be mandated.

With the FCC forced to write more specific rules governing indecency, it could find itself in a very precarious position. If, for example, the FCC strictly forbids specific words from being used and/or specific body parts from being shown on broadcast TV, it will invite another court battle that it will probably lose. However, if it explicitly lists situations in which certain words can be used and/or certain body parts can be shown, broadcasters will begin to find loopholes in these rules and exploit them. We all know that the more specific a law or rule is, the easier it is to find loopholes in it.

The bottom line is that more aggressive enforcement of indecency regulations on broadcast TV and radio could backfire and actually lead to even racier content. Members of Congress would be advised to look before they leap.

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

Comments Off

I’ve learned three things this week.

First, the President is a very intelligent man.

I learned that from his latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, who has known the president for a long time and remains close to him to this day. She was not approved by the Senate for saying that. In fact, she was not given due cordiality by the Senate. It was more like, “What the hell are you doing over here? Get your pretty butt back to the Whitehouse.” She was not treated as a human being by the nonhuman element of our representation in Washington.

I instantly liked Miss. Miers. She is the nice lady next door. I didn’t know she existed, she is so quiet. I found that she is very sweet and I could see why she was nominated. She was not part of the Washington crowd even though she lives there. She was fresh and would have been one heck of a justice. (President Bush said so.) She would have brought cookies to the boring justice meetings.

A justice to the court does not have to have law or judge credentials. He or she needs to know only how to take the advice of the zillion law clerks working for the court. She wouldn’t even have to know how to write. The clerks do all of that. Hell, I could be a justice of the Supreme Court with one hand tied behind my back (hint, hint).

I hope the next nominee will not even be an attorney (but an engineer). Go get ‘em George.

Second, God is a Democrat.

I have to apologize to the President. Before his first term I told my wife, “He is not smart enough nor does he have the experience to be president.” Well, he lost the first election but the Supreme Court gave it to him anyway and that is why I know that God is a Democrat.

Ever since Florida went for President Bush, God has been blasting the state with hurricanes and floods of unprecedented fury. (God may have started early knowing how the election was going to turn out before hand. I also have it on good authority that an angel made a coordinate error with the earthquake that caused the recent tsunami. God said, “Now look what you’ve done! It was supposed to clobber Florida.”)

I was impressed with Father Bush. I though that he would be one of the great presidents of our country. He was a very nice fellow, but he did not impress our people with his first term and he lost his chance to a second term. I thought that his son would fare worse, but I was wrong. He won the second term by an electoral landslide perhaps showing that the average voter is a nincompoop. But what could they do. The alternative was Carey.

Third, the Cabal

We can thank Lawrence B. Wilkerson for the “Cabal.” In his article “Power Runs Amok in the Cheney Cabal” (which was carried by the local rag out here in Idaho) it said that a small group in the Whitehouse led by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was making all the decisions during the first term of President Bush not following the 1947 National Security Act as the congress intended.

They were very sneaky, excluding from decision making Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and other important White House critters, sometimes working with the president, sometimes not. (Cheney, who was held in high regard by the populace during Bush War I lost all of his prestige because of Bush War II.)

I already knew that the above was going on. Who didn’t? But the word “cabal” interested me. Jon Stewart said on the “Daily Show” that he didn’t know that cabals existed outside of Jewry. That spiked my interest even more. I found the word easily in my dictionary once I knew I had the correct spelling. It is the fifth entry in the “Cs.” A “cabal” is a sneaky group of people usurping power in public affairs. (I thought it would be easier if I put it in my words.)

Now we know the Bush War II shenanigans were created by a cabal. Does that make things any better for you? It doesn’t for me!

How to tell a Democrat from a Republican

I decided that anyone that might read this far down the page (nobody likes amateurs writing about politics)might want to know how to tell a Republican from a Democrat.

When I was a boy, I use to go to all of the Jackson Day outings with the local Democrat Club of which my father was President. At the picnic everybody would push, pie, cake, and chicken, etc., to their neighbors. “Have a slice of this!” “Won’t you have a piece of this chicken?”

Dad drifted away from the Democratic Party because he didn’t like the tactics of the Kennedy Family. I became an independent having a wishy washy tendency. I even married a republican. (Not knowing she was a Republican, of course.)

Anyway, when I was teaching engineering at Iowa State University, a friend and professor invited me to a Republican Party dinner in Nevada (neh vey da) Iowa. I piled my wife in the car and we went to the dinner knowing that my pioneer grandmother was rolling in her grave.

The tables were set and there was a nice piece of pie by each plate. We were early and set down at an empty table. Soon the other attendees arrived. To by surprise, they all started to grab the pieces of pie and move them by their plate. That made it easy to decide exactly which piece of pie to choose. As other guest arrived, they had to give up pieces of pie, but did so only if they had to. Some ate several pieces of pie.

I had discovered the difference between Republicans and Democrats. A Democrat wants everybody to have a piece of the pie. Each Republican wants the whole pie for himself.

Now you know why I’m an Independent!

John T. Jones, Ph.D. (tjbooks@hotmail.com)is a retired R&D engineer and VP of a Fortune 500 company. He is author of detective & western novels, nonfiction (business, scientific, engineering), poetry, etc. Former editor of international trade magazine.

More info: http://www.tjbooks.com

Business web site: http://www.bookfindhelp.com (wealth-success books / flagpoles)

Comments Off

THE GREEN CURTAIN

From the Pillars of Hercules in the Atlantic to the Indonesia Archipelago in the Pacific, a vile and putrid Green Curtain threatens its descent to enshroud and enslave a vast swath of earth’s inhabitants. An Islamic Empire, the resurrection of the Moslem Caliphate, envelopes “with greater economic and military and political power . . . able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction . . . destroy Israel . . . intimidate Europe . . . assault the American people . . . and blackmail our government into isolation.” (Remarks by President Bush before the National Endowment for Democracy on the War on Terror, October, 2005).

“We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity . . . We will not tire, or rest . . . we will see freedom’s victory . . . we must stop them . . . we will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory . . . there is no peace without victory . . . we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory!

“The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia . . . they are fanatical and extreme . . . utterly committed . . . As Zarqawi has vowed, ‘We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life’ . . . we must stop them before their crimes can multiply!” (Excerpts from Bush’s speech.)

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html)

THE WAR AGAINST HUMANITY

The battle lines are clearly drawn; the identity of the implacable foe utterly delineated; the sinister intentions and methodologies of this cowardly lot have been, by our President, exposed before the whole world for what they really are: THE HERETICS OF ISLAM!

Furthermore, “these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions (as quoted by Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda’s leader): ‘(We) dedicate our resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of (our) lands . . . The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries (viz. Western Civilization vs. Islamic Civilization) . . . It’s either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation!” (OBL).

The President likened “Radical Islam’s . . . war against humanity” (i.e., the “civilized world”) to the struggle against fanatical despots like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Potbranding them all as “EVIL MEN, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience.”

Theirs is a “murderous ideology . . . the great challenge of our new century!” They are the killers of “Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Margaret Hassan and of Theo Van Gogh.” They justify their random killings ” . . . because I believe you are an infidel.”

They hide behind the “veneer of religious rhetoric . . . (they wish to) rule the soul itself . . . While promising a future of justice and holiness.” Indeed, the President’s religious definitions/expressions swirl throughout his entire speech: “The excuses for violence (range from) the Israeli presence on the West Bank . . . the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia . . . the defeat of the Taliban . . . or the CRUSADES of a thousand years ago.”

COMMUNISM’S IDEOLOGY WAS DEFEATEDSO WILL THEIRSWITH AN “IRON FIST”

President Bush asserts that we have been at war for the past quarter of a century against this ubiquitous foe. He likens the present struggle against “Islamo-fascism, Islamic radicalism, militant Jihadism” to the “ideology of communism . . . gulags . . . the Cultural Revolution . . . and the killing fields.” The victory the West won against the by-gone “totalitarian aims” of communism, will repeat its triumph over “the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle.”

Not only do those who aspire to the resuscitation of the Caliphate wish to expunge the West’s influences from the “broader Middle East,” they, according to Bush, “regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity.” Iraq has becomefor better or worsethe “central front” in America’s War on Terror. If the “militants” persist in Iraq, they will “rally the Muslim masses . . . overthrow all moderate governments in the region . . . and establish a radical Islamic empire” (i.e., the Caliphate).

But, again, as the communists suffered defeat, even so, they who claim that Americans are “the most cowardly of God’s creatures” (i.e., Mr. Zarqawi) shall likewise “condemn themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse . . . because free peoples will own the future.” No, the US will not leave a “vacuum” in Iraq for their dastardly aims to multiply . . . they will be crushed by Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, OPERATION IRON FURY, OPERATION IRON FIST . . . ad nausea, ad infinitum.

OPERATION IRON FIST IS BIGGER THAN IRAQ

Alas! The US military has no end in announcing yet another operation to smash the burgeoning insurgency now, according to CNN (October 15, 2005), flush with some 200,000 militants . . . wherein some 10,000 have been slain, 30,000 imprisoned and some 300 to 400 infractions occur each week! Iron-Bullet, Fist, Force, Fury, Grip, Hammer, Justice, Promise, Resolve, Saber . . . and the list continues to grow! (List of Military Operations and Non-Military Operations) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_missions,_operations,_and_projects#Second_Invasion_of_Iraq)

In addition to this “must win” aforementioned iron resolvea sort of “Triumph of the Will”-style determinationepitomized by President Bush himself, those “helpers and enablers” of the would-be Caliphate, SYRIA and IRAN, shall NOT go unpunished . . .

” . . . authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting American and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, on the Jews . . . we’re determined (against Syrian and Iran) to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes . . . STATE-SPONSORS like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they DESERVE NO PATIENCE FROM THE VICTIMS OF TERROR. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, BECAUSE THEY’RE EQUALLY AS GUILTY OF MURDER (Applause from audience). Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization . . . and the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.”

Be it abundantly clear to the entire world: SYRIA and IRAN, the enemies of civilization, shall be “held to account” . . . they are the “enemies of civilization . . . “THEY’RE EQUALLY GUILTY OF MURDER!”

Not only is Bush determined to extinguish the spiritual aspirations of Caliphate from the OBL’s of the world, and not only will he prohibit their acquisitions of any state, but he most certainly will in accordance with his military plan and “offensive operations . . . clear out enemy forces” from those states which “collaborate with terrorists!”

Listenfirst SYRIA is mentioned, then IRAN . . . is that coincidental? I think notfor it is in that precise order that “freedom” and “democracy” shall extend her grip on the region!

The “enemy” shall be denied “control of any nation!” For this very reason was the Taliban ousted from Afghanistan; and, it is for this very reason why the US co-labors with Musharraf “to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan.”

To achieve all the above stated goals, the noble extensions of DEMOCRACY and HOPE shall be spread across the broader Middle East.

DENYING JIHADISTS RECRUITS THROUGH DEMOCRACY

Yes, we shall “deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East . . . there’s no alternative . . . OUR FUTURE AND THE FUTURE OF THAT REGION ARE LINKED . . . America is making this stand!”

Indeed, as Condi Rice clearly enunciated American foreign policy in February of 2005 at the American University in Cairo:

“For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East and we achieved neither.

“Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people” (American University Cairo, Feb. 9, 2005).

No longer will Middle East despots receive a polite nod from their Western patrons; instead, they shall be vanquished from their dictatorial ways, from their absolutist and tribal monarchiesonce and for all!

Yes, a “different course” - altogether different! What you are witnessing here is an all out diplomatic-military effort to radically alter the course of Middle Eastern history/culture through the aggressive propagation of “democracy”for “Wars are not won without sacrifice — and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.”

This war, according to Bush, is fought on two levels, two primary fronts: The terrestrial (earthly/military) and the psychological (ideological battle for the minds and hearts of the people). Notwithstanding the overt attempt to persuade the world that such be the case, there is anotherthough it be deeply embedded within the rhetoric of his doctrine discharged before the National Endowment for Democracy: The CELESTIAL!

THE SPIRITUAL CONFRONTATION OF THE AGES

“Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very serious(ly)and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.” There is, most definitely, religious symbolism and tone throughout the President’s impassioned pleas for “freedom and democracy.” To conclude otherwise misses the entire significance of the speechits raison d’tre. To bestir, persuade, and enflame the conscience to sacrifice in defeating this global contagionhe must couch the parameters of the conflict in terms of spirituality! For . . .

“These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus . . . Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism . . . ‘Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person’ (Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran).”

Here is one who decisively marshals the resistance of his implacable foe at the very root of their strength: The Spirit! It is mandatory that he split Islamacclaim the foundations of Mohammed are predicated upon PEACE!

Naturally, and historically, the foundations of Islam, and the emergence of the Caliphate wrought the separation of the Sunni and the Shiite sects of Islam:

“The rulership of Islam; caliph, the spiritual head and temporal ruler of the Islamic state. In principle, Islam is theocratic: when Muhammad the Prophet died, a caliph [Arab.,=successor] was chosen to rule in his place. The caliph had temporal and spiritual authority but was not permitted prophetic power; this was reserved for Muhammad. The caliph could not, therefore, exercise authority in matters of religious doctrine. The first caliph was Abu Bakr . He was succeeded by Umar , Uthman , and Ali . Sunni Muslims recognize these first four, or Rashidun (the rightly guided), caliphs. Shiites , however, recognize Ali as the first caliph. After Ali’s death, Muawiya became caliph and founded the Umayyad dynasty (661-750), chiefly by force of arms. Its capital was Damascus. In 750 the Abbasid family, descended from the Prophet’s uncle, led a coalition that defeated (749-50) the Umayyad family.” (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/caliphat.asp).

But, one thing is altogether certainIslam’s religious tolerance, though incessantly touted as widespread and obviouswas and is hardly the case! All the rhetoric to the contrary, Islam’s toleration of Christian, Jew, Hindu, or of Buddhism/Confucius, is NOT borne out in the record. That is precisely why Bush’s appeal to “religious freedom” (and he knows exactly how this “sounds” in the Westsecular and/or religious) does NOT play out in Islam:

“We’re standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We’re making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)

Does he know what he is saying? He most assuredly does! Imagine the sound of “religious freedom” and “equal rights for women” in the ear of Islam? Is he aware how this reverberates within the hearts and souls of all who aspire for the Caliphate? He certainly does.

Does such rhetoric enflame the masses of those who oppose his policies in the Middle Eastthough they are altruistic and even noble in their essence? Could he have left this out of his speech without compromising his persuasions for “democracy and freedom” for all Islamic peoplesespecially in the Middle East? Perhaps? But I doubtbesides, he MUST galvanize the West’s opposition to the tyrannical evil who opposes themand there is no greater appeal (certainly not the ideology of democracy) that will heighten the confrontation against another “evil empire” than the call to RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

The very first phrase and article of our beloved Constitution enshrines it: FREEDOM OF RELIGION! Barbara Walters interview with Saudi’s King Abdullah skirted the issue of religious freedomlest the “progressive king” (keeper of the shrines of Islam) should be unfavorably embarrassed!

Indeed ABC headlines the article regarding the civil rights of Saudi’s women, but tip-toes around the more inflammatory issue of religious freedom; instead, we read this artful insinuation into the text of the story:

“In the two months since becoming Saudi Arabia’s new monarch, King Abdullah has continued to walk a diplomatic tightrope, assuring the West - particularly the United States - of his country’s commitment to reform and assuring domestic religious leaders of his commitment to Islamic law and tradition.” (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/International/story?id=1207382&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

King Abdullah knows full well that it is mandatory to placate “domestic religious leaders of his commitment to Islamic law and tradition!” And, what might that “Islamic law and tradition” dictate:

“Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice.” (Note: This little “tidbit” of information is propagated by the US State Department:
(http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm)

Can the Saudis have it both waysbe an alleged ally of the US in the War on Terror (as President Bush claims they are) while prohibiting “freedom of religion?” “We’re encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people.” In that very paragraph of his speech Bush touts the concept of religious freedom!

SOCIALISM & ISLAM HAVE A COMMON FOE

The worldthat is, the Western Worldreeled under the religious and social reverberations of the Reformation in the 1400-1500s. Few realize the profound socio-political upheavals wrought by the first manifestations wrought by religious freedom as a result of the breakup of Catholicism’s monopoly. One forgets the brutal suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt. Thomas Munzer, who experimented with a “new spiritual kingdom,” was perhaps the first in the relatively modern era to embrace communist theory and practice!

“He denounced established governments, and advocated common ownership of the means of life. After a tour in south Germany be returned to Mulhausen, overthrew the governing body of the city, and established a communistic theocracy. The Peasants’ War had already broken out in various parts of Germany; and as the peasantry around Mulhausen was imbued with Munzer’s teaching, he collected a large body of men to plunder the surrounding country. He established his camp at Frankenhausen; but on the 15th of May 1525 the peasants were dispersed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse, who captured Munzer and executed him on the 27th at Mulhausen.”
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MU/MUNZER_THOMAS.htm

From here the West waited until the French Revolution to experiment with capitalism’s alleged opposite (now taking root in America)and a “Tale of Two Cities” could not have been told so well! Socialism’s rebirth caved to dictatorship (Napoleon) and to ultimate monarchy again.

Never totally lost in the consciousness of thinkerscommunism lurched forward and Marxist Socialism/Communism became the dominant Socialist philosophy (overcoming all Christian attempts at the sameJoshua Muravchick’s article: Socialism vs. Religion, details the struggle and the final victory over theism http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17291/article_detail.asp).

Finally, Socialism’s paradox (National Socialism and Communist Socialism) culminated in World War II and the Cold War. Finally, the “Evil Empire” imploded. Thus, with the violent conclusion of National Socialism, and the ignoble demise of Communist-Stalinism, as well as the birth of Chinese Neo-Communism (Party-Controlled Capitalism), the world appeared restful. Alas! One last bastion of true socialism persists (aside from North Korea/Cuba): The oligarchs of the Middle East!

“Baath(ist) Socialism in Iraq, Syria, and Libya incorporate a toxic amalgam of Islam and Socialism similar to the German Nazi combination of new age neo-paganism and socialism. Islamic nations have no defined concept of separation of powers, an independent judiciary, private property, free enterprise, free speech or free press.

“Non-Islamic minorities, called ‘Dhimmis,’ are allowed to live at the whim of the state as long as they submit to second-class status and pay a yearly extortion. This way they are allowed, in most cases, to live yet another year without converting to Islam. Islamic defenders refer to this system as an example of Islamic tolerance.”
(Free Republic– http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/565936/posts)

It is no small secret that Baathist Socialism and the Left, in general, share a common consternation towards the American New World Order Systema system wherein the rich get richer and the poor, poorerwhere the “disparity of wealth” continues unabated; NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THE RHETORIC TO THE CONTRARY!

In his classic text, “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” David Horowitz provides a damning critique of America’s Leftextrapolating their connivance with radical Islam and likening it to the Hitler-Stalin Pact of the 20th Century. In other words: They will stop at no lengths to attack Babylon the Great!

I have meandered all over the socio-political mapwithout going into elaborate detail/referenceshighlighting the American Left (world Left) and Islam (seemingly poles apart), who have purposefully and/or unwittingly ascribed to the old Arab dictum: The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

What Horowitz fails to calculate is the simple fact America’s Left is not monolithic, nor is its Right (though I’m sure he gives mental ascent to this troubling thought). However, both Left and Right in Americana are loathe to outrage over the wishy-washy centera center whose pompous protestations are adjudged by both as unworthy in galvanizing any base.

THIS CRUSADE…THIS WAR ON TERRORISM

I have presented before you a decisively religious understanding on the part of our President in his efforts to “stay the course” and rally American public opinion to his cause. Without projecting the tone and substance of this debate within the nomenclature of evangelical rhetoriclet alone ideological terminologythe American public will NOT persist in the efforts of the one who (along with America’s representatives) first announced immediately after 9/11:

“They have attacked America because we are freedom’s home and defender; this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while, but we will rid the world of the evil-doers.” - President George W. Bush (September 16, 2001)

“We are coming after you. God may have mercy on you, but we won’t,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

“Bomb the hell out of them. If there’s collateral damage, so be it. They certainly found our civilians to be expendable,” Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).

“Deputy Secretary of Defense (Now President of the World Bank) Paul Wolfowitz says that we are going to ‘end states’ that sponsor terrorism, and our entire government puts the world on notice that everyone must ‘choose sides,’ that we no longer differentiate between terrorists and the countries they may live in, and that they are either ‘with us or against us’” (Ramzi Kysia, The Last Crusade
http://www.bodydharma.org/choices/violence/kysia.html).

. . . View full article at http://www.the-tribulation-network.com

Doug is a member of the “Last Days Network” . . . a group of evangelical pundits providing news and analysis on Religion in Politics. “Applied Biblical prophecy,” apostasy and deception, the impact of the New American World Order System, and the influence of the Religious Right and Left upon American culture–are topics discussed by the group. He is an educator in the public schools (California) and an administrator.

Comments Off

You have probably heard of the Sarbaines Oxley Law (SOX) on corporate governance to make corporations totally transparent. And the voters and investors wanted this law so they could know which companies to invest in so they could make 20% per year on their money, which they damn well feel entitled to. The issues is that those corporations abroad do not have to follow those laws and therefore are able to scan and study all that financial data to beat American Companies in the market place.

Then the foreign companies can know where the best markets are, which sectors are most profitable and where the American companies are expanding; both market segments and sectors. It would be like inviting your opposing football team into your locker room and opening up the playbook for them, offering them some tea during halftime and before the game, but only for three hours.

A recent good example of this is Honda and Toyota, kicking General Motors butts. General Motors admits they cannot compete and each time the Japanese attack with a typhoon into their most profitable markets; GM has to readjust its strategy. But not before telling the world and the competition what that strategy is; 28,000 employees will be losing their jobs since GM can no longer run redline anymore under the SOX rules.

At Davos; Carly Fiorina former CEO of Hewlett Packard discussed the new boardroom where they spent two-thirds of the time talking to their lawyers and accountants and only one-third on strategic planning. Often making business decisions based on rules and over regulation than what was best for the company and consumer. SOX has done more to harm America and American Consumers and employees than any other single factor of any time period in our nations history; including 9-11.

Well Senator Sarbaines will not be running for re-election, but will keep his pension, while 28,000 autoworkers will hit the unemployment lines. And as for GM’s under funded pensions? Hey, I wouldn’t count on it. Thanks for nothing you worthless politicians. You sold us out to foreign competitors and stifled our innovative spirit and you won’t even admit you made a mistake? My god what kind of a human would do that to the country that gave them so much. Think about it.

“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

Comments Off

One third of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort and are expelled from a woman’s body. We do not have funerals or mourn these embryos. Could it be that they are not really “babies” yet? Only when it is convenient do people call these clumps of cells, babies or fetuses. They are not fetuses. Stem cells are retrieved when the embryo is about five days old. There is a big difference between an embryo and a fetus. The thought of not using a five day old clump of cells that is going to be thrown away is irrational. It is not a person. Yes, it is life but so is a cow headed for the slaughterhouse or a stalk of corn.

The biological clump of cells used in embryonic stem cell research is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. It has no nervous system and is not able to experience any senses or feelings, that means no soul. It has no plans to become a human. What it does have is the potential to cure diseases for millions of people. It is just a possible cure but we need to find out and to do that we need to fund research.

In the fertility clinics around the country, extra embryos are sitting in freezers awaiting disposal, if not kept for the possible creation of a sibling. Many couples opt for disposal instead of having that embryo used to create a child for someone else because they do not want their child raised by someone else.

Multiple embryos are created to insure that at least one is viable. Shouldn’t these embryos be used to help others instead of being trown away? What is the possible benefit of throwing them away instead of using them for research? Does a five day old clump of cells have the same moral value as a child?

Stem cells are cells that can replicate themselves and also generate more specialized cells as they multiply. Stem cells occur at all stages of human development from embryo to adult, but their versatility and abundance gradually decrease with age. While embryonic stem cells may become any of the 200 different types of specialized cells that make up the body. An embryonic stem cell could become a cardiac muscle cell, nerve tissue, connective tissue, bone marrow, a skin cell, blood components, part of the digestive tract, etc. Adult stem cells appear to be less versatile than embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells could possibly be used for organ transplants. People are dying waiting for transplant organs all of the time.

To put it bluntly, why would anyone rather a few cells be thrown away in a bio-bag as opposed to helping another human being live to his or her potential?

Jackie Wellman - author of Spiritual Clarity,
http://www.hoppy.bravehost.com,
http://spiritualclarity.blogspot.com

Comments Off

It is undeniable that Cambodia is changing. When I arrived in Cambodia in 1995, one in three Cambodians I met carried a weapon. Arms were for many the only way to ensure security. Yet, in the decennium I live in Cambodia, I have never seen one used against me or anybody, except for one: a policeman shot some game in the forest but didn’t catch it.

I’ve collected weapons. 5 years ago, I travelled to Dey Krohom village in Kratie province along roads which the year after were de-mined because the road was part of what once was the National road from Phnom Penh to Kratie and Stoeung Treng and is was going to be rebuilt into what Cambodians cal a “speedway”. I’ve seen the mines when a year later, I travelled the same road again to inspect my development projects.

Each one might have killed me. Do you know that mines tend to float under the soil and move where no-one expects any mines.

>From 2000 to 2004, I worked for the EU ASAC, an EU weapons management programme for establishing weapons security to the country. My job was to help collect weapons from the civilian population which was only a small part of a much more encompassing programme. My job also included implementing police support regarding to security as a complement to the weapons collection.

The programme was implemented on the request and with the full support of the Cambodian government. Next week, the government will destroy some 8,000 weapons and thus bring the total of destroyed weapons since the start of the EU peace plan to more than 175,000 weapons.

These weapons include not only weapons from the civilian population, but also military surpluses. Some argue that it is the oldest weapons that were destroyed, but all of the weapons in the destruction were usable. Being usable - if only for spare parts -, they could be sold on the black market and used in other conflicts in the region.

By destroying those weapons, the Cambodian people acts as true Buddhists, choosing for Peace in the Region. “Put down your weapon, take up the Dharma” edified the Buddhist Teachers. And that is what Cambodians are doing.

The EU has been the initiator of the multi-facetted peace programme. Two Japanese organisations are fulfilling the promises of European initiators: if you make peace development will come. Cambodian people have turned their weapons. JSAC and JCCP, two Japanese organisation now offer development projects to the villages, communes and districts that have surrendered all their weapons and are proven weapons-free. Clean water wells are in some places the highest priorities, elsewhere schools or school toilets were built.

The principle of the weapons collection project was not to pay for the weapons, but to offer community-owned projects instead. Every weapon that was collected from the civilian population had to be destroyed and was.

The military surplus weapons are those that are left over from the EU ASAC Weapons Registration and Safe Storage project. Here safe storage buildings for weapons and computerised registration system have been provided to the Cambodian Army and Gendarmerie.

The weapons are destroyed in public ceremonies in the presence of the population. These ceremonies are called “Flames of Peace.” EU, Cambodian or Japanese experts count the weapons as part of the process and check that no more ammunition remains in the weapon that could turn the celebration into a tragedy.

The EU assistance programme has also supported the National Committee for weapons management, the draft of a new arms law and oversees the implementation of that law.

Next week, two of those bonfires take place in Cambodia. On Monday 26 September, 3,430 weapons will be burned ceremoniously in Siem Reap province with Japanese support and on Tuesday about 4,500 in Sihanoukville with European support.

The Japanese destruction ceremony will take place in Angkor Chum district, there where the people have turned them in. The ceremony in Sihanoukville will take place on Ochheuteal Beach and is open to any visitor. If you happen to be in Sihanoukville, this is a unique occasion to witness the Cambodian contribution to peace building.

Comments Off

Clint Eastwood recently plunged into the murky political pond with his statement, “Extremism is so easy. You’ve got your position, and that’s it. It doesn’t take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.”

Is it easy to be an extremist, and is the political scale truly circular, so that the “far right” clasps hands with the “far left”? Does the left-right continuum serve as a constructive paradigm upon which society can be structured?

Today’s “extremists” are in good company: Jesus, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Baruch Spinoza all bore this label at one time. Jan De Witt and his brother Cornelius17th Century Dutch politicianswere hacked to death by the populace, largely due to their “radical” and “unsavory” political perspective. Their crime? They were proponents of democracy. Their body parts were displayed in storefronts all over town.

Who shall we call extreme? The vigilantes who did the lynching? The shopkeepers who showcased the body parts? Or the De Witts with their pro-democracy stance?

Do “extreme” beliefs emanate from a mechanical thought process, as Eastwood suggests, rather than an intense philosophical journey? It arguably requires reflection and hypercritical analysis to defend ones theories against the cloned, echoed and mass produced opinion of the common folk; it requires conviction to risk social ostracism and other forms of retaliation.

The “approved” or popular view is more likely to be perfunctory. Why think when one can plagiarize? Why go out on a limb when one can cling onto the tree or never climb in the first place?

Eastwood may view those on the “far right” and “far left” as moralistically shrill, as manifesting a tone level of fear and anger. Perhaps this is how the “right” and “left” overlap or come full circle in his mind. But this is a gross generalization, since the “extremes” are subjective and the political continuum fallacious.

Suppose we accept the commonly accepted paradigm of a left to right political continuum, as Eastwood offers. If we define the “left” as the group that protects the voiceless, the powerless, and the forgotten, then the natural progression would be to protect the truly voiceless - animals and nature.

Nonhumans are excluded from our political system, without representation. They have no standing in court; yet corporations do. In fact, nonhumans are virtually omitted from the conversation in our anthropocentric and speciesist society.

A move “left” arguably means to move away from Democracy–which is really just a rule by the elite (humans)–to an Omniocracy (which I describe as a government of, by and for all living beings). The European Union has added nonhumans to their Constitution, as have Switzerland and Germany. New Zealand, India and Reggio Emilio, Italy have outlawed using animals in ways we normally think acceptable in the U.S. (boiling lobsters alive, keeping fish in small bowls, vivisection, etc.).

We are trailing behind other nations, but it would be difficult to sell a Constitutional amendment to our “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” country at this time. It would be easier to convince certain states. You may be thinking what would stuffing a few extra words in a state Constitution really do. Well, words are a powerful tool and an important start.

Lastly, does this move to the left spit us out on right? Probably. One could argue that traditional “right” politics prompts a gap between the rich and poor, thus culminates in the rule by a few, such as corporations. To implement policies that foster the idea that nonhuman species have value “in and of themselves,” a “top down” government or rule by a few (although not corporations) again seems required.

People are self-interested (as are all species) thus cannot be expected to vote against their desires. Legislators, however, are different (or should be) because they attain self-worth from helping others, being fair and inclusive, and consulting the “big picture.” There will naturally be conflicts of interest between species and individuals; but government’s jobin an omniocracy as in our current system– will be to mediate and arbitrate these “disputes.”

We are taught democracy is the most inclusive, just and beneficent political system in the world. It is time to re-evaluate. Successful ideas advance through three stages: first ridicule, then discussion, finally adoption. I say we begin the discussion to which Eastwood’s words have provided a starting point.

The Clint Eastwood quote is posted on Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown’s blog and is taken from Feb 28, 2005 issue of Time Magazine. Charlotte Laws explores this topic in greater depth on the blog.

Charlotte Laws, Ph.D. is a member of the Greater Valley Glen Council and the President of the League for Earth and Animal Protection (LEAP). Her website is http://www.CharlotteLaws.org

Comments Off

As the death toll in the avalanche-hit Jammu and Kashmir is increasing day by day, the security forces have recovered the bodies of few terrorists who had taken shelter in the foothills of Pir Panjal mountain ranges to escape the clutches of security forces. Little did these terrorists know that they wouldn’t be able to escape Nature’s fury even if they hide from the army.These terrorists were also buried alive with hundreds of other civilians in the avalanches that stuck in a big way in three Qazigund villages situated in the foothills of Pir Panjal.

Though the army in Kashmir is not confirming these reports, however the sources told The Statesman that a few bodies with weapons and AK-series guns were recovered from the areas in Kapran which had come under heavy snow. Kapran in South Kashmir is heavily militancy-infested area and it touches the areas in the South of Pir Panjal.

“Yes, we have also heard these reports that few bodies of terrorists have been recovered but there is no confirmation as yet,” said Colonel Batra, the Public Relations Office, 15 Corp of Indian Army based in Badami Bagh, Srinagar.

Yes, we have also heard these reports that few bodies of terrorists have been recovered but there is no confirmation as yet,” said Colonel Batra, the Public Relations Office, 15 Corp of Indian Army based in Badami Bagh, Srinagar.

Not only that, five terrorists who were rescued by the Indian army in its rescue and search operations from the area, have also surrendered after seeing the humanitarian work of the forces. The Union Defence minister Mr Pranab Mukherjee told the media at the technical airport late last evening that this was significant as they were moved by the work being done by the army for the people.

Source:
http://www.himalayanaffairs.org/articledetails.asp?id=145

Vivek Suri, Freelance Journalist

http://www.himalayanaffairs.org

http://www.himalayanaffairs.org/articledetails.asp?id=145

Comments Off

Mesothelioma is a scarce cancer of the tissue that lines the body’s internal organs. Almost two thousand brand new cases are pinpointed every year in the whole US. Of this group, nearly three fourths of occurrences involve the sac that protects the lungs, referred to as the pleura. This is known as pleural mesothelioma. In almost 10 to twenty percent of instances, mesothelioma cancer could affect the tissue that encompasses abdominal organs, called the peritoneal membrane, causing what is then recognized as peritoneal mesothelioma.

Being introduced to asbestos is absolutely the largest influencing factor for this rare disease. Following exposure to asbestos, the delay to progression of the mesothelioma disease could be two to four decades. As a result of occupational exposure, malignant mesothelioma is nearly 3 times more likely in men, than in women. Because the amount of instances goes up with your age, there are about ten times more instances in the males more than age 64 than in the men in their midlife.

Being diagnosed with Cancer of the mesothelium is a weighty sickness, that, at the moment, has a very low percentage of lasting continuance. However, if it is diagnosed soon, treatments are then in existence that will significantly prolong the patient’s life. Cutting edge approaches continue to be and are being tested through clinical trials.

Comments Off