e shtunë, 21 korrik 2007


Senate committee passes bill to outlaw "fleeting" f-bombs

By Nate Anderson | Published: July 20, 2007 - 12:21PM CT

A recent decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals made the occasional f-bomb safe for network viewing, but some senators now want to ensure that even a single blue comment or image can be grounds for an FCC slapdown.

S. 1780, the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act, has just cleared the Senate Commerce Committee and is now on its way to the full Senate. The bill, only a few sentences long, makes it clear that the FCC has the ability to regulate even fleeting uses of indecent words and images.

The Second Circuit ruled earlier this year that such a policy change (the FCC formerly focused on material that "dwells" on indecent content) was "arbitrary and capricious." Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) then introduced the bill to give the FCC a good reason for its actions, and it found support from the two aging chairmen of the Senate Commerce Committee, Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens (R-AK).

During a committee meeting, Stevens told his colleagues, "Radio and broadcast TV are still the way most Americans get their news and entertainment. And whether sitting in a car with your children or in front of the TV, the American public should be able to expect that they will not be barraged with unexpected indecency, whether it is through an image or a word."

The bill would still allow the FCC to consider single words and images in context, and it does not issue any guidance on whether any particular words or images are indecent. Still, we're pretty sure Nicole Ritchie's "Have you ever tried to get cow sh-- out of a Prada purse? It's not so f------ simple" was the sort of thing senators had in mind as being ripe for censorship.

Filed under: , , ,


Tiny brain, normal life

French doctors are puzzling over the case of 44-year-old civil servant who has led a quite normal life -- but with an extraordinarily tiny brain.

In a case history published in next Saturday's Lancet, doctors led by Lionel Feuillet of the Hopital de la Timone in Marseille say the father-of-two was admitted to hospital after suffering mild weakness in his left leg.

Scans by computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed that the man's cerebral cavities, called ventricles, had massively expanded.

"The brain itself, meaning the grey matter and white matter, was completely crushed against the sides of the skull," Feuillet told AFP.

"The images were most unusual... the brain was virtually absent," he said.

The patient's medical history showed that at the age of six months, he suffered hydrocephalus, also called water on the brain, and needed an operation to drain this dangerous buildup of spinal fluid.

Neuropsychological testing revealed the man had an IQ of 75, with a verbal IQ of 84 and performance IQ of 70. The bulk of people in society have a minimum IQ of 85, although the benchmark and the way it is measured are sometimes contested.

Despite this, "the man has been able to lead a life that can be considered normal," said Feuillet. "Even if he has a slight intellectual handicap, this has not hampered his development or building social networks."

(c) 2007 AFP


Google's $4.6 billion plan for an open wireless Internet

Would that all kings were so benevolent. Google announced today it would set aside at least $4.6 billion to purchase a slice of the public airwaves in an upcoming government auction of radio spectrum. The company is imposing one condition on its money: It will only participate, it says, if the Federal Communications Commission requires that all bidders for the radio waves be forced to adhere to principles of Internet "openness."

This is huge news, though to understand its implications you've got to know what's been going on in the regulatory debate over the next wireless Internet. More than a decade ago, the government mandated that all TV broadcasters transmit their signals digitally, freeing up a huge slice of public airwaves for other uses. In January, the FCC will hold a public auction of the vacated radio spectrum -- it's known at the 700 MHz frequency -- and traditional communications companies such as AT&T and Verizon are salivating at the chance to grab up the space.

The 700 MHz airwaves will be used for data; wireless companies talk of a fast, robust, nationwide wireless Internet -- but that's exactly what's so worrying about the prospect of the spectrum going to the telecom firms, which have not generally favored openness on their networks. On today's cellphone networks, wireless companies won't let people run the applications or devices they choose -- all major carriers, for instance, prohibit their customers from adding Skype to their cellphones, and they frown upon letting you use phones that also do Wi-Fi (because if you're using Wi-Fi, you're not ringing up minutes on the cell data plan).

Over the last several months, Google, eBay (which owns Skype), and other Internet firms -- along with many consumer advocacy groups -- have lobbied the FCC to mandate that telecom firms clean up their act on the 700 MHz spectrum. You can think of it as the network neutrality debate for wireless.

As it has outlined in a letter to the FCC (PDF) and numerous times on its company blogs, Google wants the agency to require that any firm that bids for rights to the 700 MHz spectrum promise to: 1) let customers download and use any software on the network; 2) let customers use any device on the network; 3) sell wireless space to any third-party wireless provider at commercial rates; 4) allow the wireless network to interconnect with other Internet service providers.

A couple of weeks ago, Kevin Martin, the chairman of the FCC, released a draft version of rules for the auction that were widely interpreted as siding with Google. In fact, Martin's draft only went partway toward full openness -- it allowed for points 1 and 2 from above, but not points 3 and 4. And that's where the $4.6 billion comes in: Google is using its considerable wealth as bait to bring Martin all the way to full openness.

Telecom firms loathe these openness principles, and they've been lobbying Martin to reject Google's plan by arguing that any rules would make the spectrum less attractive to bidders -- and, therefore, will result in lower revenues for the government in an auction. Google's money eviscerates that argument: Google will put its billions in only if the FCC adopts all four principles of openness, CEO Eric Schmidt told Martin in a letter (PDF). And the government stands to make a lot more money at auction if Google participates than if it does not.

It's a brilliant strategy, one that puts wireless companies in a tough spot. We've long known that Google hired the smartest engineers in the world. Now we're seeing their public policy gurus aren't too shabby either.


look at fox news desperately trying to spin this one! libertarian mailing lists? they can do better than that!

Ron Paul leads ALL ‘08 candidates with over one-fourth of military contributions for Q2

Earlier, we reported military contributions among Republican presidential candidates place Ron Paul on top at 49.5%, with nearly as much as all Republicans combined.

A more complete compilation of statistics by Phreadom shows that presidential candidate Ron Paul leads all 2008 presidential candidates in military contributions from the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and war veterans. Presidential candidate Ron Paul leads with an impressive one-fourth* of all contributions this second quarter according to newly released data from the FEC.

Ron Paul currently has more cash-on-hand than John McCain this quarter, and this new information is indicative of Ron Paul’s success. It appears that our soldiers and war veterans have an affinity to, or inclination for Ron Paul’s non-intervention principle - defending our homeland and pursuing terrorists, but no nation-building.

Military contributions for Q2

Ron Paul 26.23%
Barack Obama 24.02%
John McCain 18.31%
Hillary Clinton 11.08%
Bill Richardson 5.59%Dollar Planes
Mitt Romney 4.05%
John Edwards 2.63%
Rudy Giuliani 2.44%
Mike Huckabee 1.84%
Tom Tancredo 1.63%
Duncan Hunter 1.05%
Joe Biden 0.84%
Mike Gravel 0.16%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
Dennis Kucinich 0.05%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Chris Dodd 0%
Jim Gilmore 0%
John Cox 0%

Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly and compiled by Phreadom. Visit phreadom.blogspot.com for more detail.

*Edit: Correction for Obama’s totals changes the order and brings him to second place in military contributions, passing McCain. Our apologies to Sen. Barack Obama. (7/19/07)

Sean Hannity experiences blowback live on the radio at the hands of Ron Paul supporter

The internet impacted the air waves and shocked commentator Sean Hannity last Wednesday, July 18th. He found himself experiencing cognitive dissonance when statistics published at The Spin Factor made it on his radio show:

Sean Hannity may be remembered for playing down statistics from FOX News’ own text messaging poll and asking loaded questions at the May 15th, 2007 South Carolina debate. He experienced blowback when a enthusiastic caller called in. From Vote Write In for Ron Paul 2008:

“Normally Paul supporters come right out of the gate, guns blazing, confronting Hannity on Ron Paul related issues (also known as common sense). This time was different. This Ron Paul supporter disguised himself as a man un-decided on which canditate [sic] he’d support, going so far as to calling Hannity a ‘great American’ like most of his boot-licking audience tends to do upon introducing themselves. Little did Hannity know, he was in store for a Ron Paul sucker punch.”

Hannity claims to favor the troops, and when told that a republican candidate had received the most contributions from military and veterans, it validated his belief that the military supports Republicans and the Iraq war. When the caller, Kylan, revealed Rep. Ron Paul was the recipient, Hannity had to resolve the conflict between his perception that troops favor the war and “want to win” and the implication by the FEC statistics that the troops favor Ron Paul’s non-interventionist policies. The result? If Hannity supports the troops he must support a withdrawal from Iraq. The only way out of this contradiction is to ignore the data and hang up.

Update: Suprisingly, FOX News eventually reported the story here.


Dear Media: Thank you for your honest reporting!

Cognitive Dissonance
Justifying Iraq war and escalation

Escalation of commitment


071907 UVSCTextbook1

MARIO RUIZ/Daily Herald Professor of Sociology at UVSC Ron Hammond kneels for a photo in front of a colleague's book case Thursday, July 19, 2007. Hammond is heading a protest against textbooks, not requiring students to purchase even his own textbook for his classes.

Friday, July 20, 2007
UVSC prof. quits books PDF | Print | E-mail

A college education is expensive. Students must pay tuition, feed and clothe themselves, gather supplies, load up with textbooks -- and it keeps getting worse.

One Utah Valley State College professor has decided to do something about the rising costs of textbooks. He has quit using them.

Sociology professor Ron Hammond, Ph.D, is staging what he calls a one-man protest.

"I think it's immoral because of the cost of it," Hammond said.

According to the government accountability office, textbook prices have risen at double the rate of inflation for the last two decades, coming in slightly behind tuition increases. The average first-time, full-time student at a public four-year school spent nearly $900 on books and supplies in 2004.

UVSC sophomore Kathleen Moore said she only took a couple of classes. Her total for books was $250. That's too much for her.

"I do think [textbooks] are more expensive than they should be," she said.

Other students are more abrasive.

"It's a rip-off, especially going out and buying the hard copy," said junior Sam Canyon.

Hammond was teaching a race relations class last year and had assigned a textbook that cost about $80. Unfortunately for the students, the publishing company released a new edition and none of the students could sell the book back.

"All these students had to eat that book," Hammond said.

That caused Hammond to re-think textbooks. Now, instead of assigning his students textbooks, Hammond assigns them reading material from journal articles and original research available on the Internet or in the library.

Since then, Hammond has gotten rid of all the books textbook companies had given him. He re-did all of his courses, basing his tests and quizzes on the new material, writing his own questions because he no longer has access to banks of questions that come with the book.

It took him all last year to re-write the material for his classes.

"It was worth it in the long run," Hammond said.

He even stopped using a textbook supplement he wrote.

Hammond said he would continue to tweak his courses to give the students the most bang for their buck and the best education he can present.

Hammond doesn't know if not using a textbook is better for the students academically.

"In a sense this is a field experiment. I'm learning as I go," he said.

Still there are some possible benefits. Hammond said he can teach students better because it offers flexibility and teaches students research skills.

"I want them to understand where information comes from," Hammond said. "It's a skill they're going to need."

Hammond said the culprit is not the bookstore. It's the companies.

Megan Laurie, spokeswoman for UVSC said the bookstore only keeps 5 cents for every textbook dollar brought in.

"There's really nothing that our bookstore could do to make it cheaper," Laurie said.

Hammond may only be one professor, but he thinks he'll make a difference.

Brittani Lusk can be reached at 344-2549 or at blusk@heraldextra.com.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page D1.


We the people - Chaplin speech remix

READ A BOOK N**GA! (hip hop parody)

By Keyonna Summers
Entertainment Editor

July 20, 2007, 11:30 p.m. - A new music video that aired today on Black Entertainment Television takes a satirical shot at the Hip-Hop generation, using vulgar terms and the N-word to encourage them to take pride in education, family and personal hygiene.

The lyrics to “Read A Book,” penned by D.C.-based poet Bomani “D’Mite” Armah, urges viewers to “raise your G... d.mn kids,” to “brush your G… d.mn teeth,” to “wear deodorant n…ga” and “f...k spinning rims.”

It also encourages listeners to “read a m…f…ing book, not a sports page, not a magazine, but a book n…ga, a f…ing book n…ga.”

“Let us know what you think,” Terrence 'J' Jenkins, host of BET’s 106 & Park, told viewers after an edited version of the video aired Friday.

Despite recent efforts by black leaders to ban the N-word and clean up rap lyrics, the nearly three-minute animated video is being lauded as one of the most innovative tools to reach young men and women.

"This is what you needed to make your mark. It's sad but true. If you have to add a m...f...r so the ignorant n..gas hear you, (as) long (as) they hear you," read one response on Armah's Myspace.com Web page.

Another viewer wrote: "This is the greatest parody ever conceived. Absolutely BRILLIANT!!!"

The video has received more than 413,000 views since posted on the popular video sharing Web site YouTube.com on June 30.

Armah, who makes it clear that he is not a rapper, did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.


$75,000 Offered For MD to Publicly Drink Vaccine Additives

Jock Doubleday, director of the California non-profit corporation Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc., has offered $75,000 to the first medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO who publicly drinks a mixture of standard vaccine additives.

The additives would be the same as those contained in the vaccines recommended for a 6-year-old according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and the dose would be body-weight calibrated. It would include, but not be limited to:

  • Thimerosal (a mercury derivative)
  • Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
  • Phenol (a disinfectant dye)
  • Aluminum
  • Benzethonium chloride (a disinfectant)
  • Formaldehyde (a preservative and disinfectant)

On August 1, 2007, if no one has taken the challenge, the offer will be increased to $90,000 and will increase at a rate of $5,000 per month until someone accepts.

Vaccination Liberation Press Release

Jock Doubleday’s Vaccination Liberation


Ron Paul Support is a Conspiracy, claims National Media

July 20th, 2007 . by Micah

Media AccuracyMajor media outlets have denied fund raising reports, rally attendance, and record breaking internet support as the work of a small secretive group of Ron Paul supporters conspiring to defraud the public. Is it time for them to give up this conspiracy theory before they lose credibility?

It has been revealed that fourteen percent of republican presidential campaign donors in the second quarter, donated to Ron Paul. He has placed first and second in many national online polls with respondents numbering into the tens of thousands. He has more money on hand than John McCain. His grassroots campaign boasts twenty thousand members and he has over 20,000 videos dedicated to him on YouTube.Com, dwarfing all other republican candidates. He sells out rallies wherever he attends and has won a straw poll in crucial New Hampshire. In fact, there is only one metric which measures his support to be on the same level as second tier candidates, national polls. National polls ask small groups of people, often less than one thousand, who they plan to support for the White House. In July of 2007 how can this be taken as a metric of anything besides name recognition when the election is over 12 months away.

Many pundits have taken his online popularity to be the work of “spammers”. One can only assume that these pundits have gone to the Ted Stevens’ school of Internet Learning. Spamming is when a small group of people with multiple IP Addresses, forged identities as it were, send unsolicited emails. Online Polls are soliciting a response from individuals, and most reputable ones filter attempts from forged IP Addresses. Winning an online poll means your campaign was the best capable of identifying the poll, disseminating information to your supporters, and motivating your supporters to participate. Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign has proven to be more agile and effective than any of the manufactured enthusiasm from other campaigns. The sheer volume of videos produced about the congressman, the amount of personally written comments on Ron Paul related news articles, and the number of unique hits received by his campaign’s website all rule out the idea that his support is the work of a small number of dedicated internet users. Ron Paul’s legitimate supporters have put Ron Paul’s war chest in third place among republicans, second place if you exclude Mitt Romney’s personal investment in his campaign. More Military and Veterans donated to Ron Paul than any other candidate. Most of his money came from small personal donations- the work of the many, not the few. These figures do not take into account the average five unpaid hours a week the Ron Paul supporter spends making signs, distributing literature, and operating phone banks.

For those who would still question Ron Paul’s chances due simply to national polls, consider this. National polling agencies only poll landlines. Many Ron Paul supporters do not use landlines, they are cell phone and VoIP users. No national polling would ever reach them. When Fox News had its post debate cell phone text message poll, Ron Paul came in second with twenty-five percent, trailing only Romney with twenty-nine percent. Many personalities on air stated disbelief in the accuracy of this poll, but surely they would not suggest that Ron Paul supporters had the thousands of extra cell phone plans and phones needed to skew a poll of this size.

Perhaps the lack of legitimate support reported by the media is an internal belief rather than an objective reality. Many in the media, such as Michelle Malkin, have claimed Ron Paul supporters are overzealous conspiracy theorists. It is Ironic that they then attribute all of Ron Paul’s support to a small group of people meeting in secret, rigging polls and colluding against the mainstream candidates. George Stephanopoulos and the New York Times have stated that Ron Paul “Will not be the next President”. Is this their opinion or their stated goal? Have they set themselves up for another “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment?


Fox News Text Poll:


Q2 Fund raising “Straw Poll”:


Ron Paul Spam Allegations:


Ron Paul 20/20:


ABC Host Tells Ron Paul he has No Chance to Win:



Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings

White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A01

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

e premte, 20 korrik 2007


The city is believed to predate the Harappan civilisation
By BBC News Online's Tom Housden

The remains of what has been described as a huge lost city may force historians and archaeologists to radically reconsider their view of ancient human history.
Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old.
The vast city - which is five miles long and two miles wide - is believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by more than 5,000 years.
The site was discovered by chance last year by oceanographers from India's National Institute of Ocean Technology conducting a survey of pollution.
Using sidescan sonar - which sends a beam of sound waves down to the bottom of the ocean they identified huge geometrical structures at a depth of 120ft.
Debris recovered from the site - including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old.

Lost civilisation

The city is believed to be even older than the ancient Harappan civilisation, which dates back around 4,000 years.
Marine archaeologists have used a technique known as sub-bottom profiling to show that the buildings remains stand on enormous foundations.
The whole model of the origins of civilisation will have to be remade from scratch Graham Hancock
Author and film-maker Graham Hancock - who has written extensively on the uncovering of ancient civilisations - told BBC News Online that the evidence was compelling:
"The [oceanographers] found that they were dealing with two large blocks of apparently man made structures.

"Cities on this scale are not known in the archaeological record until roughly 4,500 years ago when the first big cities begin to appear in Mesopotamia.

"Nothing else on the scale of the underwater cities of Cambay is known. The first cities of the historical period are as far away from these cities as we are today from the pyramids of Egypt," he said.

Chronological problem

This, Mr Hancock told BBC News Online, could have massive repercussions for our view of the ancient world.
Harappan remains have been found in India and Pakistan
"There's a huge chronological problem in this discovery. It means that the whole model of the origins of civilisation with which archaeologists have been working will have to be remade from scratch," he said.

However, archaeologist Justin Morris from the British Museum said more work would need to be undertaken before the site could be categorically said to belong to a 9,000 year old civilisation.

"Culturally speaking, in that part of the world there were no civilisations prior to about 2,500 BC. What's happening before then mainly consisted of small, village settlements," he told BBC News Online.

Dr Morris added that artefacts from the site would need to be very carefully analysed, and pointed out that the C14 carbon dating process is not without its error margins.

It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago

Although the first signs of a significant find came eight months ago, exploring the area has been extremely difficult because the remains lie in highly treacherous waters, with strong currents and rip tides.

The Indian Minister for Human Resources and ocean development said a group had been formed to oversee further studies in the area.

"We have to find out what happened then ... where and how this civilisation vanished," he said.


this is exactly why we should reject net neutrality type bills. what the government can regulate, it can control. learn from history, folks, and don't give in to the hype! ron paul voted against the so-called "net neutrality" bill for the same reason he voted against the so-called "patriot act". it is more orwelian double-speak that invites more big government where it ought not be--and it should fool no one. read the actual bill before you endorse it!

FF Classic: The Thought Police Have Arrived
Category: News and Politics

Hello Freedomphiles! Boy, has my Tittygate essay put me on some shitlists. Everyone and their mother wants to tell me why the FCC has a right to violate the First Amendment daily. So, once and for all, for anyone interested, I am going to take a few minutes to explain the where's and why's of the Supreme Court's justification for such actions, and of course, blow them into fucking smithereens.

Let's start at the beginning...

What we are talking about here is what the Supreme Court considers indecency. The legal difference between obscenity and indecency was defined in the 1973 case Miller v. California, which defined obscenity as "patently offensive" material, with no "significant scientific, literary, artistic, or political value." This is otherwise known as the SLAP standard. Now, indecent material would still be "patently offensive," but would have some SLAP value. This is the category that Stern fits into. So, "Fuck me" is out, but "Fuck the FCC" will just get you fined.

Historically, this definition of indecency has been used, according to Jonathan D. Wallace, co-author of Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace "to prosecute writers and publishers of controversial novels (including the works of Balzac, Tolstoy, Zola, and Joyce), along with early crusaders for women's sexual independence, abortion rights, and birth control." You know, those Down With Love girls.

Now, from the beginning, the rationale for censoring the airways has been the bizarre idea of "spectrum scarcity." The thinking goes that since the broadcast spectrum is a scarce resource, the government has the right to appropriate it, dole it out, and regulate content. This is the weakest of all arguments, as anyone whose been to even the first day of an economics class knows that all resources are necessarily scarce, including those to make books and newspapers.

This thinking provides perhaps justification to regulate the use of the airwaves (I disagree, but that's another Freedom File), but not the justification to offer lower First Amendment protections to its users. The argument, in a nutshell, is that since they took the airwaves to facilitate efficient use, it is now theirs, and they can regulate its content as well. As Wallace asks, "Why should technical distinctions be the basis for different treatment under the First Amendment? What would be the rationale, say, for regulating printed books more strictly than books on parchment or papyrus?"

The Supreme Court tried to clear this matter up a bit and gave themselves some sort of groundwork for the censoring function of the FCC in their flawed ruling on 1978's Pacifica Foundation v. FCC. Ironically, this case was over WBAI-FM's playing of George Carlin's seven dirty words monologue against FCC censorship.

Their ruling stated that the most prescient justification for the censoring ability was that radio was "pervasive," that "the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder." Never mind that we must first buy, then turn on, then tune any radio before we can receive these broadcasts, essentially the same thing as buying, opening, and reading a book. Or inviting someone into your home who turns out to be offensive to you. What do you do then? You kick the bastard out. In the case of radio, you use the opposable thumbs God gave you to turn the fucking dial.

But this justification is not new. It was used by King François I in the 1530s to destroy printers and ban printed books, as the danger of print to spread ideas quickly was threatening to him - print media was pervasive.

In his dissent to Pacifica v. FCC, Justice William Brennan rightly noted its rationale "could justify the banning from radio of a myriad of literary works, novels, poems and plays by the likes of Shakespeare, Joyce, Hemingway." Not only those literary works, but at the time current politically controversial items "such as the Nixon tapes." Even the Bible was not safe, he argued, as I Samuel 25:22, where King David says "So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." [Emphasis mine]

The Court was not swayed by such arguments, reason being their enemy, and were not overly concerned because the worst the FCC could do at the time was put a letter of sanction in Pacifica's file. Of course, this could become more pertinent when Pacifica tried to renew it's license for WBAI. Since that time, of course, the penalty has gone from a chiding letter to a $500,000 fine.

The majority opinion also argued, as many of my would-be detractors have, that since the "seven dirty words" rule was narrowly defined, broadcasters could easily find other words to use to make the same point, ignoring the fact that Carlin's point, which was political speech, could not have been made without using those seven words!

Enter Howard Stern, and the era of double-entendres and innuendo. Using the Court's definition of indecency and the "seven dirty words" rule, "shock jock" Stern and scores of imitators spoke frankly about sex without running afoul of the FCC.

But the FCC showed it's true stripes in response, revealing it wasn't really the word choice that got them, but the content. It wasn't the words they wanted to ban, but the thoughts. Even Stern's adherence to their newspeak did not protect him, because he was having unapproved thoughts. The FCC expanded it's indecency regulations in 1986 to include "patently offensive" language describing sexual or excretory acts or organs, and as a result, eventually fined Infinity, the show's syndicators, $2 million.

As a result of these confusing and arbitrary standards, stations don't know what will be deemed indecent and what will make it by. Could they play the Nixon tapes, filled with racial slurs and obscene language, or would that meet the SLAP test? "That is bound to have a chilling effect on programming, because broadcasters have to anticipate what the FCC will consider indecent, and even material with a serious point can run afoul of the rules," says Wallace.

This brings us to today's problem, kicked off by Tittygate, whereupon broadcasters, fearing these huge fines and FCC harassment, have gone to great lengths to avoid the wrath of these amped-up censors. Stern's show has been dropped from profitable markets, and Emmis Communications and Clear Channel have adopted a much stricter guideline and zero tolerance policy for their on-air talent because "federal guidelines on indecency are vague."

Vague enough to present a real threat to other industries, as well. First Amendment attorney Robert Corn-

Revere rightly deduces that "the pervasiveness doctrine empowers government to exert greater control over a medium of communication to the extent it is universally available and influential. By this logic, the printing press should be subject to intensive regulation, since few media are as pervasive as print. Such reasoning is antithetical to the First Amendment."

Indeed. And the bitter irony of it all is that the goal of all media is to reach a larger and larger audience, to become more and more pervasive. So, a necessary result of success is a weakening of their First Amendment rights. As Wendy McElroy, president and founder of iFeminists, said, "Taken to its logical conclusion, the pervasiveness argument would prohibit anyone standing on a public street from discussing...controversial matters. The open air might well transmit the discussion through the open windows of nearby houses, businesses, and apartments. One might reply, `Let them close the window.'"

Or turn the dial.

So, I reiterate. Fuck the FCC.

Until Next Time, Make Every Day a Good One!

- Rick


ok, i'm a little sick of these people thinking they know, without a doubt, that ron paul will *not* be the next president of the united states. and i'm equally sick of them throwing around this "racist newsletter" nonsense, which has been debunked by bloggers across the board. the piece almost seems determined to make paul look like a "fringe" candidate...but i'm hoping, at the very least, the publicity will do him good.

The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement
-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul

Published: July 22, 2007

Whipping westward across Manhattan in a limousine sent by Comedy Central’s “Daily Show,” Ron Paul, the 10-term Texas congressman and long-shot Republican presidential candidate, is being briefed. Paul has only the most tenuous familiarity with Comedy Central. He has never heard of “The Daily Show.” His press secretary, Jesse Benton, is trying to explain who its host, Jon Stewart, is. “He’s an affable gentleman,” Benton says, “and he’s very smart. What I’m getting from the pre-interview is, he’s sympathetic.”

Paul nods.

“GQ wants to profile you on Thursday,” Benton continues. “I think it’s worth doing.”

“GTU?” the candidate replies.

“GQ. It’s a men’s magazine.”

“Don’t know much about that,” Paul says.

Thin to the point of gauntness, polite to the point of daintiness, Ron Paul is a 71-year-old great-grandfather, a small-town doctor, a self-educated policy intellectual and a formidable stander on constitutional principle. In normal times, Paul might be — indeed, has been — the kind of person who is summoned onto cable television around April 15 to ventilate about whether the federal income tax violates the Constitution. But Paul has in recent weeks become a sensation in magazines he doesn’t read, on Web sites he has never visited and on television shows he has never watched.

Alone among Republican candidates for the presidency, Paul has always opposed the Iraq war. He blames “a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,” chief among them Vice President Dick Cheney and the former Bush advisers Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, for the debacle. On the assumption that a bad situation could get worse if the war spreads into Iran, he has a simple plan. It is: “Just leave.” During a May debate in South Carolina, he suggested the 9/11 attacks could be attributed to United States policy. “Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?” he asked, referring to one of Osama bin Laden’s communiqués. “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Rudolph Giuliani reacted by demanding a retraction, drawing gales of applause from the audience. But the incident helped Paul too. Overnight, he became the country’s most conspicuous antiwar Republican.

Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq did not come out of nowhere. He was against the first gulf war, the war in Kosovo and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which he called a “declaration of virtual war.” Although he voted after Sept. 11 to approve the use of force in Afghanistan and spend $40 billion in emergency appropriations, he has sounded less thrilled with those votes as time has passed. “I voted for the authority and the money,” he now says. “I thought it was misused.”

There is something homespun about Paul, reminiscent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” He communicates with his constituents through birthday cards, August barbecues and the cookbooks his wife puts together every election season, which mix photos of grandchildren, Gospel passages and neighbors’ recipes for Velveeta cheese fudge and Cherry Coke salad. He is listed in the phone book, and his constituents call him at home. But there is also something cosmopolitan and radical about him; his speeches can bring to mind the World Social Forum or the French international-affairs periodical Le Monde Diplomatique. Paul is surely the only congressman who would cite the assertion of the left-leaning Chennai-based daily The Hindu that “the world is being asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony.” The word “empire” crops up a lot in his speeches.

This side of Paul has made him the candidate of many people, on both the right and the left, who hope that something more consequential than a mere change of party will come out of the 2008 elections. He is particularly popular among the young and the wired. Except for Barack Obama, he is the most-viewed candidate on YouTube. He is the most “friended” Republican on MySpace.com. Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim. He is simultaneously planning his next Congressional race. But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” he says, “but ideas do.” Although he is still in the low single digits in polls, he says he has raised $2.4 million in the second quarter, enough to broaden the four-state campaign he originally planned into a national one.

Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. In late June, despite a life of antitax agitation and churchgoing, he was excluded from a Republican forum sponsored by Iowa antitax and Christian groups. His school of Republicanism, which had its last serious national airing in the Goldwater campaign of 1964, stands for a certain idea of the Constitution — the idea that much of the power asserted by modern presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the states. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both the Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn’t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn from them: Against gun control. For the sovereignty of states. And against foreign-policy adventures. Paul was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988. But his is a less exuberant libertarianism than you find, say, in the pages of Reason magazine.

Christopher Caldwell, a contributing writer, last wrote for the magazine about Turkish immigrants in Germany.


7/19/07 Thom Hartmann interviews Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts, old-school republican and former Reagan official known to be "father of Reaganomics" wrote an op-ed, "Impeach Now Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy," on 7/16/07. Which prompted Thom to interview him. He argues that we are very, very close to a scenario where the Bush administration could instate a dictatorial police state yes, in America.

This item is part of the collection: Open Source Audio

Author: Whiterosesociety.org, the Thom Hartmann show
Keywords: Paul Craig Roberts dictatorship police state America impeach bush cheney executive orders

Individual Files

Movie FilesQuickTime


"All Together Now" -- Kubby endorses Paul
POC Thomas L. Knapp


Fort Bragg, CA -- Citing overwhelming support from his own party's members and lackluster response to Libertarian presidential campaigns, Steve Kubby today endorsed US Representative Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nomination. Kubby, a candidate in his own party's presidential contest, made the endorsement in an interview from his home in Mendocino County, California.

"I am not, and have never been, a Republican," says Kubby, 60, best known for his work for cannabis legalization and on behalf of medical marijuana patients. "For me, the Libertarian Party has always been, and remains, our last best hope for achieving freedom through the American political process. And until recently my position was that the Libertarian Party needed to stick to its own guns, stake out its own territory. But sometimes a special situation comes along."

Recent polling shows Paul garnering the support of about 70% of LP members -- and the LP's front-runners, including Kubby, clustered together in the 2-3% range among those same members. That polling, Paul's much higher media profile, and fundraising reports showing that Paul has raised nearly 100 times as much money as any of his Libertarian competitors, convinced Kubby that this is just such a situation.

"I'm still running for president," says Kubby. "My campaign's first television commercial will debut shortly. I'm continuing to debate my opponents, attend public events as a candidate, and appear on talk radio to make my case. There are important things that need to be said, and I'm saying them. Dr. Paul and I disagree on some issues that I want to skyline, and I firmly believe that I'm the best candidate to represent the party next November. But when 70% of your own party believes so strongly in a candidate that they're willing to cross party lines to support him at least until he's out of the running, you owe it to them to back their play."

Kubby states that if his fellow freedom activists' long-shot bet pays off and Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee, he will withdraw, ask the party to nominate "None of the Above" at its national convention, and work as a volunteer on Paul's general election campaign. "And I'm urging my fellow Libertarians to approach this in the same way," he says. "But at the same time, I'll continue preparing to give the LP the best presidential campaign I can give it if that doesn't work out."

about 400 words

Web references:

Source interview

Kubby for President

Ron Paul 2008:


Ron Paul Factor: Polling Data Flawed

The web surfers love him more than any other 2008 Presidential candidate. Ron Paul is the most sought after candidate featured by Gambling911.com. The oddsmakers have responded by maintaining him at 15 to 1 odds of winning (slashed from 200 to 1). Ron Paul just happens to be the only candidate who supports legalizing online poker.

"When it comes to politics, the oddsmakers have been far more accurate than the polls," explains Gambling911.com Senior Editor, Payton O'Brien.

Ron Paul also has more campaign money in his coffers than John McCain.

Gambling911.com Special Contributor, Jennifer Reynolds, might know why. She has come out with fisticuffs flying against Pajamas Media (PM), which Ms. Reynolds says "cannot be a credible source of polling data".

"They claim that because the USA Today ran a poll of a mere 394 persons and Ron Paul did not receive support, that gives PM no choice but to not include Dr. Paul for the forthcoming period," Reynolds said.

Her article appears in its entirety below.


By Leaving Ron Paul Out as a Choice Pajamas Media Cannot be Credible Source of Polling Data.

Pajamas Media (PM) has been running a weekly Presidential Straw Poll on their website. Every week that Ron Paul has been listed he has come out on top.
(Scroll through the weekly results to see the numbers.)

Last week, in fact, he was leading with 54.7% of the vote and Fred Thomson received 25.1%. This week PM decided not to include Ron Paul as a choice and surprise, surprise, Fred Thomson jumped all the way up to 54.7%. That sounds remarkable you say. Why would they do that? How can any result be credible if they don't include all of the candidates? Their response is nothing short of astounding. They claim that because the USA Today ran a poll of a mere 394 persons and Ron Paul did not receive support, that gives PM no choice but to not include Dr. Paul for the forthcoming period.

So, question for you, PM: Do you or do you not believe in your own straw polls? If so, then why would you leave out the candidate who has won your poll by a large margin every time you have listed him? If not, then why are you wasting everyone's time. You might as well just have announced that your own polls mean nothing at all and we should all stop reading your website and go to USA Today. Well, you just may find that a lot of Ron Paul supporters will stop reading both.

Even the USA Today admits that because their sample size is so tiny that they have a margin of error of +/-5 percentage points: Which could mean Ron Paul has FIVE percent of the vote. But that wouldn't give PM a reason to exclude Ron Paul.

Now that PM has removed the top candidate their polls cannot be considered scientific or have any kind of reliability. At this point their straw polls are no more useful than a blogger who puts a poll into a blog response.

Ron Paul discusses Iraq, Terrorism and Barry Manilow?

To be fair, Pajamas Media also claimed to have dropped Jim Gilmore from their poll because he too did not reach one percent in the USA Today poll. However, Jim Gilmore has also dropped out of the Presidential race so it is hardly a fair comparison.

PM also had the unmitigated gall to claim that " 'targeted' voting by Paul supporters on this and other open polls may even be hurting their candidate because the public is turned off by his supporter's behavior." What behavior? Voting in a poll? Of course Ron Paul supporters are targeting their votes to their candidate. That is what a poll is all about. You don't vote for the other guy when they ask you who you want to be President. You vote for your candidate. Are you claiming that because Ron Paul is receiving support, people will not vote for him in national polls? That doesn't make any sense at all. So what is a lonely Ron Paul supporter supposed to do? It seems they are darned if they do and darned if they don't. If you vote for your candidate you are a "turn off" and are disturbing the "public", on the other hand, if you don't vote for him, then he obviously has no support and should not be discussed. PM admits that their "evidence" for this assertion is purely anecdotal based on some email complaints (supporters for other candidates who don't like seeing their guy lose, perhaps?). Well, I bet they will be receiving a few more anecdotes after this move.

PM claims that they are pulling this stunt because they have to: They have established rules that they must follow. So, I suppose these rules go something like this: if some polling company uses terrible polling methods and only asks 394 people, and that poll gets skewed somehow we are bound to use their statistically insignificant numbers to decide who will be allowed to participate in our poll. We will make sure we don't let anything like democracy get in the way of our methods. For sure we will not bother with science. And we darn sure will use any excuse we can to keep Ron Paul out of our polls. His supporters keep getting in the way of our results!

Shame on you PM and all the other "pollsters" out there that seem to think it is their job to interpret what polling support means. We are seeing a repeat of the Sean Hannity episode during the third debate. Before the polling numbers came in, Hannity claimed that Ron Paul had just lost the entire election and should drop out immediately. Red-faced, he had to pull his best spin job, when Fox's own polling numbers came in and Ron Paul was in the lead. What else could he do but claim the numbers had to be faked? Miraculously, as Mitt Romney pulled to a slight lead, Fox's polling numbers once again gained credibility.

By showing that they have no interest in actual facts in their weekly straw poll, Pajamas Media has just cast doubt on the impartiality or factual content of the rest of their website. You decide.

One would hope that this was just an error. A mistake by a well-meaning employee. As soon as rational heads prevail, PM will once again include Ron Paul. However, they may have lost quite a few viewers by then. Anytime pollsters ignore their own data in order to come to a pre-determined conclusion, results get skewed. It seems a lot of results have been skewed lately.

As Gandhi once said:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." It seems as if Ron Paul is in between stages two and three right now, hopefully on his way to number four.


Jennifer Reynolds, Gambling911.com

Originally published July 18, 2007 9:47 am ET



Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Jump to Comments

Global Research, July 20, 2007

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.

In substance, the Executive Order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq” provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of “certain persons” who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

“I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.”

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to “blocking property” of US citizens and nationals. It targets those “Certain Persons” in America who oppose the Bush Administration’s “peace and stability” program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those “Certain Persons” who are “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction”, or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq’s oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush’s program of “political reform in Iraq”, in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi “government” installed by the occupation forces.

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement.

Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as “an authority to use financial sanctions”, there has virtually no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution..

Broader implications

The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define “who are the criminals” when in fact they they are the criminals.

This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of “anti-terrorist” legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government in the case of an impending “national emergency”.

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. The executive order combined with the existing anti terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a critique of the US-led war, etc.

In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a “Catastrophic Emergency” (Second 9/11 terrorist attack.

On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its National Intelligence Estimate which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which would according to NSPD 51 immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government.

NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.

The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a “Catastrophic emergency” as envisaged under NSPD 51. It goes one step further in “criminalizing” all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and “Homeland Security” agenda.


Message to the Congress of the US Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act + Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq by George Bush

The Legal Pervert’s Parade: Executive Privilege Über Alles + Bringing It All Back Home: New Bush Order Could Criminalize Dissent by Chris Floyd

The Dogs of Connaught by Glitzqueen

Michel Chossudovsky
is the author of the international best America’s “War on Terrorism” Second Edition, Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.

To order Chossudovsky’s book America’s “War on Terrorism”, click here

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377

Arkivi i blogut