Thursday, May 31, 2007
The Ultimate Killer Weapon
Converting sound to microwaves
In 1973, Joseph C. Sharp, an experimental psychologist at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research performed an experiment that was pivotal to the development of the torture equipment being shipped to Iraq today. He had James Lin set up equipment in his laboratory which converted the shape of sound waves into microwave radiation that enabled him to hear himself vocalize the names of the numbers from one to ten in his head, by-passing the mechanism of his own ears. This particular experiment was never published but is mentioned in Lin’s book, Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications, published in 1978 .
The experiment has been confirmed in US Patent 6 587 729, “Apparatus for Audibly Communicating Speech Using the Radio Frequency Hearing Effect” . This patent is for an improved version of the apparatus used in the 1973 laboratory experiment, issued on July 1, 2003 and assigned to the Secretary of the Air Force. It provides scientific evidence that it is possible to hear threatening voices in one’s head without suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
Why has this patent been published openly at a time when the US Government is practicing a degree of secrecy that rivals Stalin’s Kremlin? I have no satisfactory answer, except to say that the apparatus in the patent has already been superseded by equipment that achieves the same effect by far more sophisticated means. It blocks the normal processes of memory and thought by remote electronic means, while at the same time supplying false, distorted and/or unpleasant memories and suggestions by means of a process called “synthetic telepathy”. The equipment that produces synthetic telepathy is sometimes referred to as “influence technology”.
While voices and visions, daydreams and nightmares are the most astonishing manifestations of this weapon system, it is also capable of crippling the human subject by limiting his/her normal range of movement, causing acute pain the equivalent of major organ failure or even death, and interfering with normal functioning of any of the human senses. In other words, any of the tortures with which the words Guantanamo Bay have become synonymous can be achieved by remote, electronic means.
Instruments of torture
Influence technology is also capable of persuading the subjects that their mind is being read, that their intellectual property is being plundered, and can even motivate suicide or the murder of family, friends, and co-workers. During the years of the so-called “War on Drugs” (which preceded the “War on Terrorism”), letters that the involuntary human subjects had written or were about to receive regularly vanished from the mail, as though the government had a huge covert operation through post offices across the country. When George Herbert Walker Bush became president (in1989), the incidence of co-worker killings in the post offices became so great that the expression “going postal” began to replace the commonly used expression of “going crazy”. The killing of co-workers in other workplaces began to command more media attention too .
I estimate that the cost of imprisoning a human being in his/her own body and applying unremitting torture is US$5 000 000 to $10 000 000 a year (see below).
By “unremitting torture” I mean exactly that. Because there is no visible evidence left by this new torture equipment such as damage to the skin, it is possible to torture the involuntary human subjects for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This can be done and is being done even on Christmas and Easter .
I arrived at my estimate on the cost of testing/using electromagnetic weapons on a human subject by visiting a cable TV channel that specializes in the sale of goods over the air 24 hours a day. I questioned the number of technical staff required, their working hours and salary range; also the number of back-up personnel required to prepare the programming for broadcast. I did not inquire about the cost of electronics and the schedule by which it is depreciated. I have estimated a cost for depreciation that is included in my estimate of the cost of torturing one involuntary human subject for one year.
Torture is a labor-intensive business. What objective would justify this investment? Could it be something as insane as to rule the world by enslaving the democratic governments of the more populous countries? This objective is certainly consistent with the United States’ disdain for, and hostility toward, the United Nations, the international conventions and covenants it has ratified in the past and customary international law .
On 1 March 2001, the Marine Corps announced a new non-lethal weapon, “active denial technology”. It produces enormous pain by allegedly boiling the molecules of water in the human skin without damaging the skin itself. As described in an article published in New Scientist, it employs pulsed electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz with a range of about 600 meters . There have been several new reports in the magazine in 2005, including one published in July , describing volunteers taking part in tests to determine how safe the Active Denial System (ADS) weapon would be if used in real crowd-control. The ADS weapon’s beam was reported to cause pain within 2 to 3 seconds, and becomes “intolerable after less than 5 seconds”.
Active denial technology is the cornerstone of the system employed to torture 2 000 persons in the privacy of their own homes, not only in the United States but around the world, wherever countries have signed Status of Forces Agreements with the United States . Allegations of torture were first received from countries with which the United States has a special intelligence-sharing relationship i.e. the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Then reports began to arrive from the conquered countries where the United States still has large numbers of troops stationed, i.e. Germany and Japan. When France rejoined the military arm of NATO in the late 90s, we began to receive allegations of torture in France. Very recently we have begun to receive allegations of torture from India, where American companies have begun to outsource, not only help lines, but also programming .
And then there is the case of Russia, where the involuntary, human subjects of torture experiments appear to be both numerous and well organized. I have been told reliably that every Russian scientist who could speak English has now found a home in an American university or government laboratory. This is plausible, considering the frequently voiced American worry that Soviet era experts in nuclear weaponry and biological warfare might find employment in Iran.
Amazingly incredible ... flipping unbelievable!!
More bio-electromagnetic shocks
Posted by Unknown at Thursday, May 31, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
The Inauguration of Illegitimacy
On the 29th of May, 2007, the bovine Caligula that tyrannizes Nigeria at the moment; in association with the thieves that rule us, their camp followers and retinue of sycophants will convoke all resources at their disposal to ensure the successful inauguration of illegitimacy. On this black Monday (Tuesday), Nigerians will watch in an admixture of civic timidity and postural inaction, as Umaru Yar adua, dressed in the borrowed robes of congenital illegitimacy is sworn in to the presidency on a stolen mandate. On this day, monumental fraud will be installed as the basis of our national legitimacy. It will be a black Monday (Tuesday). On this godforsaken day, Nigerians will once again witness the triumph of audacious impunity. We will complain to our pillows, make noise in the beer parlours, and go back to our various holes with our heads bowed, as our rendezvous with greatness is once more postponed indefinitely; buried once more by the treacherous debauchery and visionlessness of a mad emperor awaiting the resurrection that can only be engineered by the righteous anger of an oppressed people.
Rhapsody in blue
Homeland Security to approve job applications
US citizens who apply for a job will need prior approval from Department of Homeland Security under the terms immigration bill passed by the Senate this week.
American Civil Liberties Union pointed out that the DHS's Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) is error plagued and if the department makes a mistake in determining work eligibility, there will be virtually no way to challenge the error or recover lost wages due to the bill’s prohibitions on judicial review.
Even current employees will need to obtain eligibility approval from the DHS Within 60 days of the Immigration Reform Act of 2006 becoming law.
p 201, line 22:
(A) CRITICAL EMPLOYERS.—As of the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, the Secretary may require
any employer or class of employers to participate in the System with respect to employees hired prior to, on, or after such date of enactment if the Secretary designates such employer or class of employers, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, as a critical employer based on critical infrastructure, national security, or homeland security needs.
Just think of all the possible scenarios ... living in bondage? You be the judge.
America's foremost troglodyte
One can be revolted - but not surprised - at the spectacle of Bush and Blair, the Laurel and Hardy of the War on Terror, congratulating each other on their strategic vision from the White House lawn. But whose bright idea was it to let Richard Perle, the US hawk known as the 'prince of darkness', make a PBS documentary arguing that the world needs more military 'interventions'? And what explains the ubiquitous media presence of John Bolton, the troglodyte former US ambassador to the UN?
Only last week Bolton was interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme. Listening to that conversation was a grim experience that was not unlike being trapped with the Kevin Spacey serial killer character from Seven.
It wasn't just that Bolton's arguments were bizarre and illogical to the point of insanity, such as his description of Humphrys and the millionaire philanthrophist George Soros as members of the 'extreme left'. Or his ludicrous assertion that the invasion of Iraq has laid the basis for a more stable and peaceful Middle East. It wasn't even his fanaticism, his arrogance and his utter contempt for the opinions of the non-American world. What is striking about Bolton is the savagery and homicidal intent that shows through the statesmanlike patter.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
If this is 'freedom and democracy', what is tyranny?
Disinformation is being fed to the media that Iran is responsible for attacks on US troops in Iraq. This disinformation is routinely reported without skepticism by the American media in the face of challenges from experts. For example, a recent British report concludes: "few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency."
While the Cheney/AEI conspirators strive to whip up American anger at Iran with lies and disinformation, they are doing everything possible to provoke Iran. The warmongers have planted the story in the media that the US is conducting covert operations against Iran. The US Navy is conducting "exercises" off Iran’s coast. The US military in Iraq has violated diplomatic privilege and kidnapped Iranian officials in Iraq despite protests from the Iraqi and Iranian governments. The US government is stirring up more trouble in Lebanon by setting extremist Sunnis against Iran’s Hezbollah ally. In short, the US government is doing everything possible to start a war with Iran. Bombing Iran, perhaps after a contrived "false flag" operation, is the next step.
Bush continues to tell his favorite lies that he is bringing "freedom and democracy to Iraq" and that Muslims hate us because of our "freedom and democracy." He continues to make these inane assertions even as he ignores the will of the American people and destroys habeas corpus, the foundation of civil liberty.
Bush ignores the will of the people as expressed in last November’s congressional elections and as expressed in opinion polls. The New York Times/CBS News poll released May 24 shows another sharp drop in public support for Bush and his war. America is "seriously off on the wrong track" was the response of 72 percent of the public.
President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government’s policy than inmates in a gulag would have.
What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy" while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush’s America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?
35 million Nigerians couldn't have voted, Q.E.D
FORMULAR: AIVT X TVC ÷ NOPUN = VT
AIVT – is Average Individual Voting Time (time taken by a Voter through Voting process at their turn in queue (i.e. from having their name checked by the Presiding Officer in the Voter list; collecting ballot papers of Reps, Senate and Presidential; moving to the polling booth; ascertain Candidates; thumping the ballots; wrapping and dropping in the Ballot Box; coming back for indelible ink to taking back their voter card (my AIVT is 2 minutes after several practical reconstruction of voting process).
TVC – is Total Vote Cast, which is 35,365,752 by INEC, Ref: Thisday Newspaper of 29th April.
NOPUN – is Number Of Polling Units in Nigeria, which is 120,000 units.
VT – is Voting Time
Lets apply AIVT X TVC ÷ NOPUN
Therefore: 2 Minutes x 35,365,752 = 70,731,504 minutes
70,731,504 minutes / 120,000 Polling Units = 589.4292minutes (9.82 hourrs) for each polling unit
This means it would have taken 9.8 hrs of non-stop or perhaps automated voting in all the 120,000 polling units to arrive at INEC’s figures. And INEC’s official time allotted for voting was from 10am to 5pm which is 7 hrs. Therefore, 9.8 hrs – 7 hrs = 2.8 hrs, isn't this official cheating by INEC?
Figures of official voting for 7 hrs = 25,200,000 but INEC got 35,365,752 Votes. There is difference of 10,165,752 votes. How? This computation does not include void votes it is based on hitch free, smooth like automated voting of one person at 2 minutes interval for 7 hrs in all the 120,000 polling units in the country. It also discounted scuffles at polling stations, party agents challenged to voters’ eligibility, running away with ballot boxes as witnessed, police intervention, weather (e.g rain, storm, and any other natural disturbances), late arrival of materials – but just in the Sprit of all things being equal!
AIVT at 3 minutes will give you 14 hrs of voting time as against 7 hrs of INEC with TVC of only 16,800,000 as against INEC’s 35,365,752. A whooping difference of 18,565,752.These marked differences must have been through other means but certainly not through normal voting.
Follow the flow here
Nigeria's US Ambassador rebuffs AIPAC
George Obiozor, the Nigerian Ambassador to the United States was asked by the head of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) if he would attend its annual gala dinner March 13. AIPAC is the second most important political lobby in the United States, uniting both Democrats and Republicans. Each year they have their Policy Conference. Key American and Israeli elected officials and thinkers addressed the plenary sessions, and the top leadership of Congress was on hand at the Gala Banquet -- a one-of-a-kind celebration which annually draws half of the Senate and a third of the House.
Every major lobbyist in Washington attends as does a large proportion of the diplomatic corps. The head of AIPAC called Obiozor personally to check if he would attend the gala. George promised he would be there and a place was set for him at the main table (Ambassador Obiozor was Nigerian Ambassador to Israel before he came to the US). Obiozor did not show up for the gala. He didn’t call. He sent no message.
The AIPAC officials were embarrassed by Obiozor’s unexplained absence as his place at the head table remained empty. When we asked him why he didn’t go he said “I don’t work for them. Why should I go? Who cares what they think?”
Now, that's the stuff real men are made of!
Friday, May 25, 2007
Flying saucers and spy cameras
It looks more like the latest in saucepan technology than the future of crime fighting.
But police are confident that this miniature remote- controlled helicopter will be an invaluable weapon in the war against wrongdoers.
The Microdrone, measuring only 2ft between the tips of its eight rotor blades, was originally designed for military reconnaissance.
Look at what so-called civilized societies have been reduced to ... soon we won't be able to take a crap in our own bathrooms! Can you imagine what some half bored to death bobby would be doing with his new video game? The despicable irony of it all! Where does government really get off?! This is as lunatic as it gets!!
Come take a look
Iran interest rate cut sparks panic selling
Iran's financial system suffered a fresh jolt yesterday with panic selling on the stock market after the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, abruptly ordered banks to cut interest rates sharply, despite surging inflation.
The order, which Mr Ahmadinejad issued by telephone during a visit to Belarus and which flew in the face of expert advice - has triggered warnings of a financial crisis and spiralling corruption amid fears of a capital flight from the country's lending institutions.
... and would these banks happen to be European and American banks??
Go here to spread sheet
The Marriage Industrial Complex
If you've been to a wedding in the past few years (or have staged one yourself), you won't be surprised to learn that weddings are a booming business. Last year, the average American ceremony cost $27,852; the average dress, $1,025. If such figures don't shock you (and keep in mind, the numbers are far higher in pricey cities such as New York and San Francisco), maybe a few comparisons will: The median household income in the United States is $46,326 and a 5 percent down payment on a $500,000 condominium is $25,000.
Even more disturbing, perhaps, is how quickly and effortlessly the $161 billion wedding industry seems to have insinuated itself into every corner of the culture -- and how impossible it has become to escape its trappings, from diamond rings (which, before the 1930s, were not a de facto wedding accouterment) to wedding planners, bridal registries and glossy magazines that perpetuate weddings as fairy-tale fantasies. In fact, the extravagant, over-the-top gala has become such a fixture of American life that most people don't question it anymore. And why should they? If marriage is supposed to be a sacred undertaking that happens once in a lifetime, why shouldn't you do it wearing Vera Wang?
At the beginning of "One Perfect Day" you point out that marriage used to signal that you were becoming an adult or herald the start of your sex life as well as your departure from the family home. Now that we do all of these things before marriage, do you think it's the extravagant ceremony itself that has become the rite of passage?
Precisely. It's amazing the number of people who say, "If we can get through this, we can get through anything," or "This is the first challenge of our married life together." And you think, "Jeez, you have no idea what you've got coming!" It's not like it's a death in the family or anything like that.
This is sort of a psychoanalytic argument, but I think that people need for a wedding to feel traumatic. Because it used to be a traumatic transition. You left your parental home. If you look at documents -- diaries or letters from women in 19th century rural America getting married -- leaving their mother was a very, very big deal. Wrenching away from your birth family was a very big deal. Now, most of us have done that years earlier. And to some degree, even those people who are living at home are still leading more independent lives.
But I think that people still need to feel that this transition is a viscerally affecting experience. Because being married is very different from not being married. I don't mean that if you get married tomorrow, suddenly your life is going to be different the next day. But it is a different commitment, as anybody who is going through a divorce will tell you. It's much harder to break up a marriage than it is to break up a nonmarital partnership. So I think people need the sense of "Wow! Something really big has just happened."
The purpose of honeymoons has evolved in a similar way, hasn't it? You point out that they used to be a chance to visit the bride's relatives and friends, and then they were all about sexual intimacy ...
Yeah, and now, if you talk to any couples or look on the Knot.com, you see that people perceive the honeymoon as a time when they can recover from the stress of planning the wedding!
Straight to the source
I think the world is going through a paranoid shift.
There are more than a few questions we choose not to answer or confront,
ominous signs we’d rather ignore and critical coincidences that are branded
conspiracy theories. There is so much going on and not a prayer in hell, global
disruptions will go away any time soon. The feeling is that America
endangers the world with its wild quest for global dominance and territory,
especially today. All around the world, people believe she will do anything,
including blowing up our world to assert its leadership position. Quite a good
few are forever suspicious of her pronouncements. I am yet to find one
international conflict that does not have an American imprint on it. We find
her finger prints all over the place, from the financial to the political, war
and technology. But it is her technological advancements and an entrenched tendency
to conceal, most times, the negative impact of its researches on society that concerns
me the most here.
Why is America building and developing
better and more nuclear warheads? How much more can she possibly have? What
ever for? She already has enough to blow our world up several times over! The
foregoing questions may all be very pertinent but it isn’t always the
end-product of technology, the finished goods, which cause the greatest
damaged. Most finished goods do exactly what they are programmed to do; they
are all tested and controlled devices. It is the researches that produce these
finished goods which endanger humanity the most. There may be accurate
predictions on risk, damage and containment but even when accurate, they are
still essentially predictions and predictions do go wrong. Researches are bulk
experiments and experiments are based on educated guesses. There was a time
when the negative impacts of these researches on society were minimal and
tolerable laid next to the usefulness of their end-products; products that do
sometimes bring immense value to society. Not so today, what we find are that
technological advancements and researches have become a nightmare with no
useful purpose for the greater part of humanity. Funding for researches in
medicine, agriculture, physics and engineering only come when their
end-products are applied to frivolous uses or are excitingly dangerous and
decadent, and targeted at upscale markets. It is big business and profit that
persuades a fat grant or donations. I do not know words, today, that are more
cosmetic than donations and grants.
My concern affects me deeply and is what I call
technological eruptions. The growing trend in technological flexibility that
produces a universally rampant application, some ingeniously manipulated, and
which may and does lead to societal and environmental disasters. The biggest
culprits in this arena, surprisingly, is not the individual who experiments in
his private laboratory or garage workshop, no, his affinity to family and concerns
for his safety and well-being are immediate and visible. It is governments that
are the chief culprits here. They are, by their own leanings, detached and
maintain, at every given time, the materials and wherewithal to contain any
outbreaks that may occur in respect of faulty researches, for themselves and
families; they have immunized themselves against such gruesome disasters. They have
their eyes on things and know from information made available to them in
advance, the extent of risks involved and what the likely impact and damage will
be. They go to bed at night soundly, fortified by the knowledge that some vial
of antidote stands on the dresser. We, ordinary folks, go to bed at night in
the ignorant belief that our governments will act responsibly and when
inadvertently things do go wrong they would be man enough to say so and
evacuate us. This does not happen
because it exposes a dirty underbelly and admits to the fact that government was
irresponsible. The natural reaction is a cover-up.
Victoria Revay’s posts have had a telling effect on
me these past days and the most recent to awake a rude reality in me was some
kind of mysterious viral attack that contaminated and stunted tomatoes. There
are also several other mysterious stuff killing off marine and field life and
the general impression is that our earth is slowly dying. The first time I
checked it was bees dying and last time I heard it was fishes, now tomatoes. Add
‘natural’ disasters, melting ice caps, the ozone layer, pollution, AIDS …
that’s one fiery hell folks. What’s going on? Would we even know if a
biological or chemical attack was in progress? Of course not, because our
responsive and responsible governments wouldn’t want to throw us into a
frenzied panic. It is a critical coincidence for me that these occurrences are
happening at a time breakthroughs are being announced in hybrid germination and
botanical cloning. Rice that produces human proteins, better strain this and
better strain that. We are ever so quick to attribute most ‘natural’ occurrences
or phenomena to global warming et al but even if they are, it would not only be
a critical coincidence but a critical condition. Still, about the only things
worth a look-see by so-called responsible and responsive governments are
defense contracts and deployment. There is a serious deterioration in national
awareness and our civic responsibilities which include calling our governments
to order; a complete disconnect that shields them from probity. There are no
monitors that enable the effective scrutiny of government research or the
application of our money in that direction. What comes up against our
inquisitive probe is that vague and non-definitive stamp called ‘Top Secret’; a
shield that encases these experiments and their fall-outs in an impregnable fog
and shrouds their activities in mystery.
It is this mystery and the ‘lawful’ excuses which
government has so artful brought us to craft into laws that deny us true knowledge of the actual state of affairs in government research laboratories and to what uses their end-products will be applied or are being applied. These days we only seem to
learn about them when they are already operational and in the field. No longer
do we witness the fanfare and ceremonies that announce and celebrate these
breakthroughs. This absence can only be due to the fact that government
research has become intensively clandestine and of no value to their immediate
society. Inventors, researchers and whole clinical units are hostages that live
and expire on some industrial complex. Today, technological advances are geared
towards warfare and they come in all descriptions; bacterial, chemical,
nuclear, biological, technological and even cosmological. The deaths they usher
in are mere conventions that advertise and surge a frenzy for the acquisition
and use of that latest innovation on display; a display which rewards its
manufacturers with increased sales and profit. And would those individuals that
own and operate these innovations happen to be the richest men on our planet or
the fore-runners of a new world order? You decide. Yes or no, one fact stands
out glaringly, these innovations are all devices that run to one end, to wit; monitor,
control and contain targeted social units. Isn’t it such a critical coincidence
that we are still all here?
Hamburg- A leading expert in Germany has spawned a major scientific debate by claiming that trees put millions of tons of methane into the atmosphere every year exacerbating the greenhouse effect. Amid controversy, Dr Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry has reaffirmed findings by his team in Mainz, Germany, in January 2006 that they had detected methane exhaled from living
"I am 100 per cent confident that plants emit methane," he told Chemistry World magazine, insisting that as yet unpublished research would confirm his findings once and for all.
Keppler's unexpected discovery has caused heated debate among biologists and atmospheric chemists. Though bacteria in soil or decaying matter produce methane in anaerobic conditions, there seems to be no reason or mechanism for living plants to emit the gas in an oxygen-rich environment.
The implications of the findings are worrying: on a global scale, Keppler estimated, methane emissions from plants and trees could amount to hundreds of millions of tonnes a year, throwing scientists' understanding of the greenhouse gas's sources and sinks way off kilter.
But many researchers have queried the global impact, suggesting that Keppler's scale-up calculations, based on methane emission per unit of metabolically active mass of plant, were a gross overestimate.
Yet until recently, no published research has questioned Keppler's central discovery that plants can emit methane in the first place.
All the leafy stuff here
Friday, May 18, 2007
What is this thing called marriage?
“Beliefs are chains used to enslave free minds. No chains of steel ever bound a mind tighter than chains made of beliefs. While a man may willfully struggle against chains of steel which he can see and feel, few can see or realize the need to struggle against chains made of their beliefs, and many a slave was kept a slave by the belief they were somehow free.”
It was Victoria Revay’s highlighted post that set up these reflections. I should say provoked because in marriage, the male partner has become severely diminished. He is diminished by the Church, the State and that very community to which he proclaims himself king. Women and those laws that secure them in marriage have been known to bring down kings and presidents. The very basis for a man/woman relationship disables him; a thing called ‘love’ that is ever elusive and so completely partial to womanhood. Even the expression ‘she’s the weaker sex’ is designed to empty her male partner of self-worth and composure. It’s quite like saying you can play Hercules but leave the serious thinking to me. Why do men have to be anything less than who they are in the presence of a lady? Sweetheart, will you marry me? Well, get on your knees and beg like every other man does! A proposition, an offer and a response that belittles my affection for her, even in jest.
This man/woman thing has become such a fetish and marriage clearly some factory. Most times we find ourselves thinking like business men minding some corporate account. I hope I can make enough money to keep her happy and make her stay. I hope she won’t give me a bunch of kids to crawl all over the peace and quiet of my home and empty my pockets.. You get home and there’s a big grin and a warm hug, you start to worry, you know something is not right here. You don’t really know how but you do, then she tells you (still wearing that seductive grin) “Laura got a new car today. David is such a prince!” David would be your next door neighbor. Uh! There’s that headache again. Look at how she’s throwing away my money already, I’ll be damned if I get her that new car! She’s pregnant again!? I’m never going to let her know I have some money. Sh#t! She’s taken over my damned home; where are my f#@king stockings?!! This migraine is killing me. God! I need a drink! My friend would always say “Women are not emancipating they are taking over.” But why that curve, what’s the competition? Taking over what? Then he says stuff like they’ve got our cash in the bank, they’ve got our homes, the cars, jewelries … you know, like they stole the stuff in the first place. And I tell him; no, they don’t, you gave it to them! Clearly, the ownership issue is most overwhelming here and marriage a most expensive venture almost always from the man’s perspective.
Just sit next to any two guys at a pub or buy the lost looking man a drink and then listen to his woes; it’s spelt w-o-m-a-n. And it cuts both ways, ditto the woman; her problems are spelt m-a-n! But when and how did it get like this? It has become like electricity on the boil; so much hurt and dead chemistry, stress. Why are ladies such a trophy? Why do they get all the attention (the flowers, diamond rings, cars and even homes)? Why is it the more ‘love’ you show some woman the sooner she goes off whining to her friends that you’re never home? Why do they consider every show of affection in marriage a bribe intended to shield some soon to be discovered ‘misconduct’? Why is marriage such a business transaction? Why do people feel this incredible urge to compel and regulate that union? And what are all the ceremonies that surround marriage about? It’s all so extensive and tedious! Why does the modern man still thrive on the formalities and superstitions of an unenlightened age and subject my present being to the laws of an uncultured era which ran amok centuries ago; a time when men bought women off the shelf, kept them like any other household possession and beheaded them for adultery. Why must marriage make some woman my possession or Ego her prisoner? Why can’t we both just walk away from a bad union the same way we came into that relationship? Why has it all of a sudden become everybody’s business what we get up to as two consenting adults?
What is this thing called marriage? What defines it? Is it the consummation of an affair in church or the act of wrapping some blink-blink and expensive metal around the finger? Does it endure by legal fiat or for fear of the punishment that follows? What is the State’s or Church’s business in a relationship between two consenting adults whereas a crime has not been committed or indulged in? Why should the Church’s role exceed the customary role of offering its blessings to the consummation of a union? Today, I’m being told how many kids I can have, how many wives I can marry or can marry me and how many affairs two consenting adults can possibly have, and who with, in and outside marriage.
Sex between two consenting adults is purely a natural function, like eating or sleeping! It is a vital input in the determination and desire for a permanent union, in addition of course, to other intrinsic and external factors. There is an animal instinct, natural and inherent in all humans, to explore and sex is that plant which buds fondness and ‘love’ to bond into some form of relationship. The folly in regulating the ensuing union is that, by its very intensity, it is more a thing of the heart than the head. In such a situation, regulatory laws can only be an entrapment. You simply can’t get punished for playing a little harder than others! When it does become a thing of the head, the glow is diminished with the passion and ‘love’ in it, the very intensity that drives and sustains it, gets buried as calculated and measured responses take over. Those creative instincts which flavor a natural relationship get encumbered. The fire dies for the cat and mouse game to begin. How is it that the State doesn’t tell me who to marry but determines when a partner can leave or who he/she can be with during marriage? Promiscuity ought to be the proof-finale of a failed marriage and not grounds for getting out of it with the richer partner’s take. It should be the act to trigger a no-fault separation and the very conduct that shows I’ve walked!
What laws do is to conceal those natural reflexes that show and tell to help in that decision to commit and continue or not, in the said relationship. It takes away one’s observation post as partners are subdued and compelled under the threat of punishment to fake good behavior. It leads to diabolical contrivances, murder and suicide, for both parties. In truth, it’s the incentive that brings about the desire to profit from an ill-considered indulgence, that is what marriage is, in its entire nakedness, the indulgence of both parties in another.
Yes, we may bring issues of child support and custody before the courts but only as far as it leads to the equitable dispensation of that matter for the child. Not as grounds that try to evidence and fault my role in that relationship. It should extend only to the conveniences that best serve the child and considerations which provide a better home for that child. Why should promiscuity be held against me whereas it’s the pull of my natural instincts that drives me away from a foolish union? The consideration ought to be who is best suited to provide a better home for the child given their resources, safety and well-being of that said child. Marriage is the illusion of a perfect union and partners; a fairy tale. To persist in it, without comfort, is illusionary but true joy comes, married or not, from that fusion of comfort and affection; the warmth in being together, true love. The man and woman that find it have found an uncommon thing and shall know no greater joy but the presence of God.
Posted by Unknown at Friday, May 18, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Falwell fell in a well,
from grace to grass he now dwells.
Surging the Jews to murderous hatred, he did,
judging those in Gaza gated.
Sacks of dollars he gathered
to collar those who lack but mattered.
That he reaped what he sowed
was that the Devil has no soul.
Satan bore him no presents
as that which he resents
was in his presence;
for all that hate to Hades you must go!
Perhaps bombs will fall or fail
but his call is the nail
in a well without tombs!
Putin: Separating Europe from America
Only the personal press of the U.S. secretary of state and Russian president was present at their meeting. I saw Rice only when she was on her way out of the presidential residence. She was a little unsteady on the feet about the hour-long talks with the president. But not because she was exhausted by that difficult conversation.
No, Condy came staggering out of the residence at Novo-Ogarevo for a single reason: She was wearing such high high heels that she couldn't keep herself up there. She was wearing a subdued pantsuit. Together, they looked (to) me as if they had been borrowed from the set of a film about a naughty schoolgirl…
Rice looked pretty unhappy when she emerged, partially, probably, because of the several meters of steps she had to traverse in front of journalists to reach her car. And partially, obviously, because her conversation with the president gave her no reason for festivities either.
Several minutes later, Putin met with the German foreign minister, who had to wait in his car a little while Rice's Chevrolet Cabriolet pulled out. Russian protocol managers were so strict in showing the driver of the Chevrolet, and the minibus following it, that they were no longer in the right place that it became obvious that Rice was not a welcome guest at Novo-Ogarevo.
Chicken periperi served hot here
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Hookers, spies and loads of cash...how BP spent £45m to win 'Wild East' oil rights
UK Daily Mail
Sunday May 13, 2007
Comment: This story appeared early today on the Daily Mail website. It has since been pulled without explanation. If correct, this story could bring down the entire British government which is probably why it was immediately subject to a D notice - a British government order to censor a story.
BP executives working for Lord Browne spent millions of pounds on champagne-fuelled sex parties to help secure lucrative international oil contracts.
The company also worked with MI6 to help bring about changes in foreign governments, according to an astonishing account of life inside the oil giant.
Les Abrahams, who led BP's successful bid for a multi-million-pound deal with one of the former Soviet republics, today claims that Browne - who was forced to resign as chief executive last month after the collapse of legal proceedings against The Mail on Sunday - presided over an "anything goes" regime of sexual licence, spying and financial sweeteners.
The hospitality continued in London, where prostitutes were hired on the BP credit card to entertain visiting Azerbaijanis.
Mr Abrahams, an engineer by training, joined BP in 1991, just as the disintegration of the Soviet Union had triggered a "new gold rush" by oil multi-nationals seeking a share of the 200 billion barrels of oil reserves beneath the Caspian Sea.
While employed by BP, Mr Abrahams says he was persuaded to work for MI6 by John Scarlett, now head of the service but then its head of station in Moscow.
He says he was passing information to Scarlett in faxes and at one-to-one meetings in the Russian capital.
He also claims that BP was working closely with MI6 at the highest levels to help it to win business in the region and influence the political complexion of governments.
Mr Abrahams worked for BP's XFI unit - Exploring Frontiers International - which specialises in opening new markets in often unstable parts of the world.
He said Lord Browne, then BP's head of exploration, allocated a budget of £45 million to cover the first year's costs of the Baku operation.
Posted by Unknown at Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
At What Price, Democracy?
From the United States
to Scotland, to Turkey to Syria
to Israel and from Zimbabwe to Nigeria; they are all examples of
Democracy gone awry. A growing culture of impunity that rises against the
pursuit of liberty and true freedom. The substance of democracy that defines
its character is the mandate of a people, freely expressed and made sovereign. It
is from this sovereignty that every nation acquires its democratic being and
legitimacy. This sovereignty upon installation is made explicit by a people’s
constitution and sustained by the rule of law that is derived there-from. The
well-being of its existence and longevity is nurtured by a people’s desire and
a collective wish to be bound by its tenets. Put another way, democracy is the
expressed wish of a people for the kind of government they desire and the laws
under which they have elected to live.
Consequently therefore, it follows that the
expression of such a mandate must flow from the people and the stream through
which this mandate flows is the ballot box. It is precisely for this reason
that we regard the duty to vote as a civic responsibility. Under any true
democratic dispensation those rights, to vote and be voted for, are sacred. The
denial of those rights extinguishes democracy, we cannot pretend to have
democracy in place whereas those rights are not guaranteed and made manifest.
There can be no justification for its absence in any normal democratic setting
because without that presence democracy does not exist. The foregoing
deductions are what has made the Bush administration’s commentaries on the
state of Nigeria’s
recent elections most ominous. And one must wonder at what the future portends
for democracy with such reckless denunciations coming, as it were, from the
bastion of global democratic expression.
Nigeria’s presidential elections
were purportedly won by Umaru Musa Yar’Adua of the ruling PDP, a known favorite
incumbent president and younger brother to a late Nigerian army General, who
served as Obasanjo’s second-in-command in the seventies under a military
regime. I have severally told my friends that had Pat Utomi not ran for the
presidential elections, I would most probably have voted for a Yar’Adua
presidency. Yar’Adua has maintained a studiously committed approach to the
development of his home state, Katsina. Extremely reserved and introverted, he
has stayed away from the political limelight all through his tenure and never
for once joined in the then fashionable glee of shuttling abroad at the
flimsiest excuse, as most of his governor colleagues were inclined to do. He
was also about the only governor that did not grow rosy cheeks while in office
and it is on record that his health progressively deteriorated from the rigors
of office to which he applied himself. He was clearly not materialistic but
devoted to serving his people well. He was clearly, for me, a man I could live
with as president; he is also Nigeria’s
first postwar president-elect to flaunt the credentials of a degree holder.
But the foregoing not withstanding, I still had my
reservations about his ability to be a performing president. I knew that being
president of my country was not comparable to being a governor to some state. I
worried about his deteriorating health and the rigors that would be imposed on
him as president. I had a good measure of doubt about his mild nature and his
ability to contain the hawks in the corridors of power. I was deeply concerned that
he would be held hostage in power and to our incumbent president. And in all, I
could place better candidates besides him. Putting it all together, he just
didn’t make my ticket but there is probably no denying the fact that he is a
good man. The truth, for me, was that I found better men besides him.
Ordinarily too, and without party and presidential interference, the man may
have won the elections on a level playing field but that didn’t happen. The
playing field was not level but ridiculously tilted in his favor; Elections
2007 was a convoluted mess. So much so that even the Bush administration tagged
it a “seriously flawed” process. It will never suffice that even the good man
should be rigged into office and that should not be the price good Nigerians
have to pay for a good president. Good or bad, each man must be subjected to the
fullest test of the Nigerian ballot. This is precisely why, under all true
democracies, a people are only as good as the leaders they elect into office.
Studying the said text of the Bush administration’s
release on that election, raises infinite questions as to the state of global
democracy today and it may indeed be a revelation as to how it became so
terribly polluted. It reveals a malignant contamination that poisons
democracy’s well-being in the comity of nations to disfigure its character and
essence. When the Bush administration says “Analysis of the process by most
international observers does not conform to what Nigeria’s electoral commission has
reported.” and that “There are credible reports of malfeasance and vote rigging
in some constituencies.” what is it, in fact, implying? To start with, to say
there were reports of malfeasance and rigging in some constituencies is a huge joke.
It occurred in virtually all constituencies. The implication from a standard
point of view would be that Nigeria’s
electoral commission lied about the conduct of that electoral process. Clearly,
to lie about the conduct of any process impairs the context and delivery of
that same process to disable credibility. Whereas this is so, it can be no
surprise that “Overall, the process was seriously flawed.” Now, for an
electoral process to be seriously flawed, overall, is only to say one thing and
it is that the process failed woefully. For the Bush administration to
acknowledge this fact and yet be “prepared to work with Nigeria’s next
administration …” come May 29 this year is not to exhibit a sense of regret or
to do Nigerians any favor. To the contrary, it is to conspire with those who
seek to nail us to the boots of tyranny and serfdom. It is a statement that
instigates the very rejection of that concept called democracy and which forces
one to wonder how the Bush administration can find the nerve to go on a global
crusade extolling the good virtues of democracy and campaigning for its
installation around the world. Nothing in its release exhibits a commitment to
or willingness for the pursuit of that relief which is a government for the
people, of the people and by the people. The realization at best is one of
betrayal. How can there be joy to any democratic transition that flows from a
“seriously flawed” electoral process? How can anyone possibly derive happiness
from it? Or is it to say that the price a nation ought to pay for a ‘historic democratic
transition’ should be the giving up of those civic responsibilities and values
that convey democracy’s essence and by which its character is defined?
Conclusively therefore, it is patently absurd for the
Bush administration to say “we look forward to helping it (Nigeria) implement international recommendations
for improving the preparation, administration, and conduct of future elections
I would most certainly think and hope not. Its utterances are sufficient proof
already that its concerns are not one that pertains to the Nigerian people. Where
was the Bush administration, its excellent bilateral relations and its promotion
of peace and security when hundreds of innocent Nigerians perished during the
recent elections? Where was it Elections 2003? It is not hopeful to expect that
an administration which advocates the installation of a “seriously flawed” electoral
process (flawed, in the extreme sense that it denied the majority of Nigerians
the right to vote and be voted for; the very essence of democracy) as the
alternative to an appropriate democratic transition can supervise or nurture
democracy because its reasoning and concept of democracy are seriously flawed
in itself and without depth by the very virtue of its own pronouncements. The
price for democratic continuity can never be at the expense of democracy itself;
it is only an administration such as Mr. Bush’s is that could wish it were.
With Giuliani's name inscribed in the 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 diamond-and-gold rings, memorabilia and baseball experts say they are collectively worth a minimum of $200,000. The Yankees say that Giuliani did pay for his rings—but only $16,000, and years after he had left office. Anyone paying for the rings is as unusual as a mayor getting one, since neither the Yankees nor any other recent champion have sold rings to virtually anyone. The meager payment, however, is less than half of the replacement value of the rings, and that's a fraction of the market price, especially with the added value of Giuliani's name.
What's more troubling is that Giuliani's receipt of the rings may be a serious breach of the law, and one that could still be prosecuted. New York officials are barred from taking a gift of greater than $50 value from anyone doing business with the city, and under Giuliani, that statute was enforced aggressively against others. His administration forced a fire department chief, for example, to retire, forfeit $93,105 in salary, and pay a $6,000 fine for taking Broadway tickets to two shows and a free week in a ski condo from a city vendor. The city's Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) has applied the gift rule to discounts as well, unless the cheaper rate "is available generally to all government employees." When a buildings department deputy commissioner was indicted in 2000 for taking Mets and Rangers tickets, as well as a family trip to Florida, from a vendor, an outraged Giuliani denounced his conduct as "reprehensible," particularly "at high levels in city agencies," and said that such officials had to be "singled out" and "used as examples."
And there's another, more recent, and closer-to-home example of arrogant nondisclosure noted publicly by Giuliani. When former police commissioner Bernard Kerik pled guilty last year to charges involving a city contractor's gift to him of a $165,000 apartment renovation, Giuliani said that Kerik had "acknowledged his violations." As part of a $221,000 plea deal, Kerik agreed to pay a $10,000 fine to the COIB for accepting and then failing to accurately disclose the renovations. Not only are Kerik and Giuliani's concealed gifts of similar value, but Kerik, like Giuliani, made a partial payment for the renovations—$17,800, far less than full value.
More ominous for Giuliani, Kerik's prosecution came eight years after the renovation of his apartment began, an indication that the ordinary statute of limitations doesn't apply to the continuing reporting requirements of the COIB. In addition, Giuliani reportedly paid the Yankees as recently as 2004 for one of the rings, another reason why an investigation might still be timely. It is also a violation of state unlawful-gratuity statutes for a public official to "solicit, accept, or agree to accept any benefit" from a business like the Yankees, which leases the stadium from the city.
Steaming hot sauce here
The Sales of Justice
The haunting whisper in the courthouse corridors of Brooklyn was heard for so many decades it became an axiom, as unchallenged as it was unproven.
It wasn't just that a case could be fixed. The darker secret was that the bench itself had been bought, that its polyester black robes were on a perpetual special-sale rack, that smarmy party bosses, ensconced at 16 Court Street across from the supreme court they ruled, demanded cash tribute to "make" a judge. The district attorney, Joe Hynes, who first heard the rumor 36 years ago when he was a young prosecutor running the office's rackets bureau, said in 2003 that he'd have to be "naive to think it didn't happen," that it was "common street talk that this has been going on for eons."
Hot chili sauce here
Saturday, May 05, 2007
In one of my write-ups (Democracy, Power and Terror) I had stated:
Democracy is the air that I breathe and God with the golden opportunities of a free world is my best reason for living. The freedoms of Democracy are its pulse and the individual's right of way in life, deduct from them and the scale of power tilts away from the people. Its joy are the rule of law, civil liberties, equal opportunities and freedoms that let people be the best they can be, in its celebration of life. Sadly, all over the world today, laws are getting increasingly discriminatory and offensive as people are fitted into tagged boxes; religion, nationality, sex, color, wealth and even by cash carried, weight and preferences. Unusual laws are in place, which appear to severely impair free speech, freedom of worship, association, movement and assembly, property and privacy laws, the freedoms of Democracy. Domestic policies place ordinary citizens and visitors under the microscope, innovative electronic surveillance, enriched data pools, exceptionable laws and every conceivable prying device are being infused to bolster an already intense security watch and invade privacies. People are petrified and driven into a chronic sense of insecurity that allow governments and their representatives to pass convenient laws that wash away freedoms and liberties, our right to ask hard questions and are difficult to reverse. There is no locomotion for the common man.
The McCain-Feingold Act which is made in America, to deal with politically incorrect speech, is a solid sucker punch that knocks out their first amendment and a bad example of how to gag citizens that may have inspired tyrannical leadership around the globe. America must understand that to many people she is the very definition of democracy and to quite a decent few, God's own country.
I have continued to note, to my complete chagrin, America’s global double-speak in matters that strongly affect and alter democracy’s character. The latest of these inconsiderate outbursts came by way of the Bush administration’s press release on Nigeria’s recent elections. In that release Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman at Washington noted on behalf of the Bush administration that:
"Analysis of the process by most international observers does not
conform to what Nigeria's national electoral commission has reported.
There are credible reports of malfeasance and vote rigging in some
constituencies. The scope of violence that occurred also was
regrettable. Overall, the process was seriously flawed."
“Whatever the outcome of legal challenges to the electoral results,
we are encouraged that on May 29 Nigeria will experience its first
civilian-to-civilian transfer of power.
The United States is prepared to work with Nigeria's next administration in building upon our excellent bilateral relations ...”
It is unbearable to hear an administration that purportedly claims to have emanated from a due democratic process issue such a disclaimer on democracy. In its barest form, it is a statement that makes an orphan out of democracy. It is a most blatant disavowal of the individual’s inalienable right to vote and be voted for. It is a statement designed to take away my oxygen and asphyxiate me; a stand-up poke in the eye for democracy. A crucifixion of America’s founding fathers and their intent that the individual be the master of his destiny in the continuing search for liberty. It is everything the American state stands against and in the final analysis, a lie told by the Bush administration that betrays the real objective of its continuing quest in Iraq and other nations to which it pretends to bring the real fruits of true democracy.
The following article in National Security Network best captures the body and soul of the Bush administration’s hypocrisy:
Since America was founded, it has been a beacon for those around the world who struggle for democracy, human rights, and respect for the rule of law. Promoting democracy has consistently made America safer and increased its standing in the world. When leaders show through both word and deed that they genuinely respect these values, they provide hope for those who struggle against tyranny and opportunities for winning support (for) America’s foreign policy goals. Democracy promotion takes away the terrorists’ most valuable recruiting tool. Moreover, even the poorest democracies outperform poor autocracies on most indicators of social well-being (life-expectancy, literacy rates, agricultural yields, etc.), and democracies are far less likely than autocracies to experience severe economic catastrophes. Democracy promotion has always been and should continue to be a central element of American foreign policy.
THE BUSH RECORD
When it comes to democracy and human rights, the Bush administration has substituted rhetoric for action. The administration promised to free Afghanistan from the Taliban, but a lack of will and resources has allowed the Taliban and other extremist Islamic parties to regain ground in large areas of the country. In Iraq, President Bush pledged to bring democracy and freedom, but the administration’s recklessness and poor planning has made Iraq a hotbed of insurgency and a haven for terrorists. Closer to home, the U.S. did little in Haiti to discourage the elected government’s violent overthrow, and even less to stop the resulting instability and violence. Meanwhile, the administration has corrupted America’s moral authority and ability to lead in the world by condoning torture as an interrogation tool and by allowing suspected terrorists to be imprisoned with no effort to corroborate charges that are often based on flimsy evidence.
Moreover, the Bush administration has often rewarded autocratic and repressive states with greater foreign assistance than it has provided to democratic states. Such behavior leaves America vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and undermines its ability to lead effectively. In sharp contrast to its pro-democracy rhetoric, the Bush administration has looked the other way while authoritarian governments in Russia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and elsewhere have used the ‘war on terror’ as an excuse for repressing dissent and democratic change. Strategic considerations may legitimately require some cooperation with unsavory regimes, but the United States must not shy away from public or private criticism of undemocratic governments. It must be U.S. policy to support and protect the courageous reformers who risk their lives to promote democracy and human rights.
Does one really need to say more?