 |
Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
2009 War - Killing And Death = 50 pictures from an ugly decade on planet earth
Mood:
 caffeinated
Now Playing: 50 Photos - War is the Word
Topic: WAR
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/the_decade_in_news_photographs.html 
Call it what you will, "the noughties", "the two-thousands" or something else, the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2009) is now over. Looking back on the past ten years through news photographs, it becomes clear that it was a dramatic, often brutal decade. Natural disasters, terrorist attacks and wars were by far the most dominant theme. Ten years ago, Bill Clinton was ending his final term in office, very few had ever heard of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein still ruled Iraq - all that and much more has changed in the intervening time. It's really an impossible task to sum up ten years in a handful of photographs, but below is my best attempt at a look back at the last decade - feel free to let me know what I missed in the comments below.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:02 AM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 30 December 2009 10:48 AM PST
Monday, 28 December 2009
SENATOR DEMINT (R) BLOCKS TSA NOMINEE
Mood:
 loud
Now Playing: Anti Union Senator Demint is dragging feet and allowing a lack of leadership in the PHONEY war on terror
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT
Thanks to GOP Obstructionists, TSA Has Little Money, No One In Charge Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly December 29, 2009. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144848/thanks_to_gop_obstructionists%2C_tsa_has_little_money%2C_no_one_in_charge_ Senator DEMINT BLOCKS TSA NOMINEE.... A few weeks ago, there was a mildly embarrassing dust-up over the Transportation Security Administration posting materials online that, if manipulated, revealed sensitive security information. When "The Daily Show" did a segment on this, Jon Stewart highlighted the fact that the TSA doesn't actually have an administrator. What Stewart didn't mention is why. An attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration -- if there were one. Instead, the post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has held up President Barack Obama's nominee in an effort to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union.
President Obama nominated Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent and a counterterrorism expert, to head the TSA a few months ago. Southers is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence, and the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Two Senate committees considered the nomination, and easily approved Southers with bipartisan support. But the Senate hasn't been able to vote on the nomination because DeMint hates unions, and isn't sure if Southers might allow TSA workers to organize. Without that guarantee, DeMint not only opposes Southers' nomination, but prefers to leave the Transportation Security Administration without a permanent administrator. This realization, in the wake of the attempted terrorism on Christmas, should make DeMint back down. It hasn't -- he still supports blocking Southers' nomination until he knows TSA workers won't unionize. The terrorist threat is bad, but the threat of collective bargaining is the real danger. Also note, congressional Republicans also opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems. The GOP is desperate to politicize the attempted terrorism. That's probably not a good idea.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PST
Saturday, 26 December 2009
Wall of Hate in the Holy Land
Mood:
 crushed out
Now Playing: Who Would Jesus Bomb?
Topic: HUMANITY
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:15 AM PST
Thursday, 24 December 2009
911 truth - did the cockpit door even open?
Mood:
 amorous
Now Playing: Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 "Hijack"
Topic: 911 TRUTH
copied from Portland Indy Media http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/12/396334.shtml greetings citizens,
I ran across this article (via no lies radio (link below) and thought I'd pass it on. Other interesting research in article: NTSB didn't have the required standard info on flight recorder AND evidence of pentagon airliner low altitude "flyover" timed with explosion...
rockcreekfreepress.com/ by Sheila Casey 12-15-2009
http://www.noliesradio.com/ |
The Rock Creek Free Press: A fiercely independent newspaper, not afraid to print the truth.
Contact us at: editor@RockCreekFreePress.com
Dec 15 2009
Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 "Hijack"
Flight Data Recorder By Sheila Casey / Rock Creek Free Press / www.rockcreekfreepress.com
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reported that the data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.
The FDR is one of two "black boxes" in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77's 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight.
Accident investigators monitor the cockpit door with the FDR because it may yield clues to pilot error in a crash. The FDR begins recording once the pilots are in their seats and readying for takeoff, and the plane cannot take off unless the FDR is working.
The official story about flight 77 is that five Muslim terrorists brandishing box cutters forced their way into the cockpit and herded two pilots, four flight attendants and all the passengers to the back of the plane. This story came into being via Ted Olson, US Solicitor General, who told CNN — that he received two phone calls from his wife Barbara Olson, a passenger on the doomed flight. Ted Olson's story changed several times. Sometimes he claimed that the calls from his wife were made from seat back phones, other times that she used her cell phone.
According to American Airlines customer service, the American Airlines maintenance manual for that aircraft, and American Airlines Captain Ralph Kolstad, seatback phones on 757s had been deactivated prior to 9/11/01. (They were later removed entirely, as they never worked well.)
Barbara Olson couldn't have used a cell phone either: numerous 9/11 researchers, most notably David Ray Griffin, have pointed out that cell phones did not work on airplanes on 9/11. The speed and altitude of a commercial airliner both present overwhelming obstacles to a cell phone's need to lock onto a cell tower and then hand off to another tower in a new location.
It was the FBI that revealed the evidence that decisively disproves Ted Olson's story. In the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI presented a report on the cell phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. Their report on AA77 shows that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, but that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. So Ted Olson either lied about receiving calls from his wife or was deceived into believing he received calls from her.
According to the UK Telegraph, Barbara Olson delayed her flight on 9/11 so that she could have breakfast with her husband on his birthday. That delay put her on the doomed flight. Ted Olson remarried in 2006 to tax attorney Lady Booth, whom he reportedly met the year after Barbara died.
There are numerous oddities and contradictions about AA77's black boxes.
The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.
While it was widely reported in the media that the FDR for AA77 was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier. In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.
Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB's own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.
Structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer claimed that he personally found AA77's black box on 9/11. But in the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Kilsheimer is quoted as saying, "I stood on a pile of debris that we later found contained the black box ... "
Kilsheimer's story changes again in August 2007 in a piece done by the History Channel, "The 9/11 Conspiracies," where he claims "I tripped over something; it was the black box."
In earlier work, Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) has determined that the same data set provided by the NTSB shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon, based on an altimeter that uses air pressure to calibrate altitude.
As reported in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press, Citizen Investigation Team, citizen journalists from southern California, has collected evidence from 14 eyewitnesses that shows that the plane seen that morning near the Pentagon did not hit the building, but flew over it at the moment explosives detonated in the Pentagon, leading observers to conclude that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon.
Questions about what happened at the Pentagon have intrigued 9/11 researchers for years, beginning with photos from the alleged crash scene which do not show the wreckage of a plane.
This new evidence, showing that the cockpit door never opened during flight, is another nail in the coffin of the official story about flight 77. Clearly, if the cockpit door never opened, then hijackers did not storm the cockpit and herd the pilots to the back of the plane. The data, which originated from the government, does not support the government's story.
Why would the government release data which contradicts its own version of events? It is possible they were just sloppy, or that they never anticipated that anyone would parse the data as carefully as Pilots for 9/11 Truth have. They may have also felt secure, that regardless of what damning revelations were contained in the FDR data, no mainstream media outlet would give them ink or air time, keeping the official story intact for the vast majority of Americans who receive their news from mainstream sources.
Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, stated: "We have not located any independently verified data which confirms the government's story. The FBI and NTSB refuse to comment." Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe who are investigating the government's claims about the attacks of 9/11.
Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams. |
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:49 PM PST
Updated: Thursday, 24 December 2009 1:01 PM PST
Sunday, 20 December 2009
portland independent media rose peace sign
Mood:
 hug me
Now Playing: ZEN
Topic: SMILE SMILE SMILE
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 1:29 AM PST
common Dreams Top Stories on 12.20.09
Mood:
 lucky
Now Playing: Links from Common Dreams
Topic: ANYBODY * ANYDAY
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PST
Thursday, 17 December 2009
38 billion - Guess what America - You got took!
Mood:
 celebratory
Now Playing: Citigroup Gets Huge New $38 Billion Bailout, Wiping Out All Of The Taxpayer's "Profits"
Topic: CORPORATE CRAP
Citigroup Gets Huge New $38 Billion Bailout, Wiping Out All Of The Taxpayer's "Profits" The Treasury may have made some silly paper "profit" on its bailout of Citigroup (C) but the taxpayer may not get much of anything. The Washington Post reports that as part of the bank's TARP payback agreement, it's quietly been given a $38 billion tax break by the IRS. Seriously. The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors. While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits. So what specifically happened? Citigroup was required to replace its federal aid with an equal amount of money from private investors, more than any other bank. The government concluded that Citigroup needed the IRS ruling because a reduction in the value of its tax breaks would have eroded its capital, forcing the company to raise more money, officials said. Federal tax law lets companies reduce taxable income in a good year by the amount of losses in bad years. But the law limits the transfer of those benefits to new ownership as a way of preventing profitable companies from buying losers to avoid taxes. Under the law, the government's sale of its 34 percent stake in Citigroup, combined with the company's recent sales of stock to raise money, qualified as a change in ownership. This is actually an issue that's been talked about for a while. Mike Mayo and Rolfe Winkler have been banging the drum on this, warning that the eorsion of these tax credits would eat into Citi's coming quarterly earnings, big-time. But apparently they didn't count on the generosity of Uncle Sam once again. Read the whole story >>
U.S. gave up billions in tax money in deal for Citigroup's bailout repayment
DEAL MADE TO RECOVER BAILOUT
Firms exempted from rule when U.S. sells its stake
By Binyamin Appelbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009; A01
The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis. The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors. While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits. The IRS, an arm of the Treasury Department, has changed a number of rules during the financial crisis to reduce the tax burden on financial firms. The rule changed Friday also was altered last fall by the Bush administration to encourage mergers, letting Wells Fargo cut billions of dollars from its tax bill by buying the ailing Wachovia. "The government is consciously forfeiting future tax revenues. It's another form of assistance, maybe not as obvious as direct assistance but certainly another form," said Robert Willens, an expert on tax accounting who runs a firm of the same name. "I've been doing taxes for almost 40 years, and I've never seen anything like this, where the IRS and Treasury acted unilaterally on so many fronts." Treasury officials said the most recent change was part of a broader decision initially made last year to shelter companies that accepted federal aid under the Troubled Assets Relief Program from the normal consequences of such an investment. Officials also said the ruling benefited taxpayers because it made shares in Citigroup more valuable and asserted that without the ruling, Citigroup could not have repaid the government at this time. "This rule was designed to stop corporate raiders from using loss corporations to evade taxes, and was never intended to address the unprecedented situation where the government owned shares in banks," Treasury spokeswoman Nayyera Haq said. "And it was certainly not written to prevent the government from selling its shares for a profit." Congress, concerned that Treasury was rewriting tax laws, passed legislation earlier this year that reversed the ruling that benefited Wells Fargo and restricted the ability of the IRS to make further changes. A Democratic aide to the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees federal tax policy, said the Obama administration had the legal authority to issue the new exception, but Republican aides to the committee said they were reviewing the issue. A senior Republican staffer also questioned the government's rationale. "You're manipulating tax rules so that the market value of the stock is higher than it would be under current law," said the aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "It inflates the returns that they're showing from TARP and that looks good for them." The administration and some of the nation's largest banks have hastened to part company in recent weeks. Bank of America, followed by Citigroup and Wells Fargo, agreed to repay federal aid. While the healthiest banks escaped earlier this year, the new round of departures involves banks still facing serious financial problems. The banks say the strings attached to the bailout, including limits on executive compensation, have restricted their ability to compete and return to health. Executives also have chafed under the stigma of living on the federal dole. President Obama chided bankers at the White House on Monday for not trying hard enough to make small-business loans. The Obama administration also is eager to wind down a program that has become one of its largest political liabilities. Officials defend the program as necessary and effective, but the president has acknowledged that the bailout is "wildly unpopular" and officials have been at pains to say they do not enjoy helping banks. Federal regulators initially told Citigroup and other troubled banks that they would be required to hold on to the federal aid for some time as they return to health. But in recent months, the government switched to pushing the companies to repay the money as soon as possible. All nine firms that took federal money last October now have approved plans to pay it back. This urgency has come despite the lingering concerns of many financial experts about the companies' health. These analysts said they worry that the firms could face rising losses next year as high unemployment and economic weakness continue to drive great numbers of borrowers into default. "They are rolling the dice big time," said Christopher Whalen, a financial analyst with Institutional Risk Analytics. "My fear is that the banks will definitely have to raise a lot more capital next year. The question is from whom and on what terms." The Citigroup repayment deal required significant sacrifices by both sides, underscoring the mutual determination to get it done. Citigroup was required to replace its federal aid with an equal amount of money from private investors, more than any other bank. The government concluded that Citigroup needed the IRS ruling because a reduction in the value of its tax breaks would have eroded its capital, forcing the company to raise more money, officials said. Federal tax law lets companies reduce taxable income in a good year by the amount of losses in bad years. But the law limits the transfer of those benefits to new ownership as a way of preventing profitable companies from buying losers to avoid taxes. Under the law, the government's sale of its 34 percent stake in Citigroup, combined with the company's recent sales of stock to raise money, qualified as a change in ownership. The IRS notice issued Friday saves Citigroup from the consequences by stipulating that the government's share sale does not count toward the definition of an ownership change. The company, which pushed for the ruling, did not return calls for comment. At the end of the third quarter, Citigroup said that the value of its past losses was about $38 billion, allowing it to avoid taxes on its next $38 billion in profits. Under normal IRS rules, a change in control would sharply reduce the amount of profits that Citigroup could shelter from taxes in any given year, making it much more difficult for Citigroup to realize the entire benefit before the tax breaks expired. The precise value of the IRS ruling depends on Citigroup's future profitability and other factors, but two accounting experts said it was fair to estimate that Citigroup would save at least several billion dollars as a result. Treasury acknowledged that the tax break was significant, but a senior official said the benefit was unavoidable. Either the government changed the rules and parted ways with Citigroup or the company kept the government as a shareholder and kept the tax break anyway. "The choice is whether Treasury sells or doesn't sell," the official said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504534_pf.html hahaha!
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:06 PM PST
Updated: Thursday, 17 December 2009 5:10 PM PST
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
All the videos I made in the last 30 days - Filming for Peace and Justice
Mood:
 energetic
Now Playing: Joe Anybody Presents: 32 days and 36 video's in 2009
Topic: MEDIA
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 8:02 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 8:04 PM PST
Genetic Engineers in Germany Destroy Dandelion
Mood:
crushed out
Now Playing: GM crops and mad science is screwing the planet and all you live on it
Topic: ENVIRONMENTAL
Genetic Engineers in Germany Destroy Dandelionauthor: Jesse R. Taylor ............................................................................................................ | Genetic engineers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology have created a mutated form of the dandelion that contains 500 times more latex than the naturally occurring variety, as well as producing high amounts of artificial sweetener. This will have terrible effects as one of the most useful edible and medicinal plants becomes genetically contaminated by the the toxic and inedible mutant. |
The dandelion is a beautiful plant which is very beneficial to soil health; it is also one of the most useful edible and medicinal plants. The highly nutritious greens and flowers can be eaten raw in salads, or cooked. According to the USDA, a serving of uncooked dandelion leaves contains 280 percent of an adult's daily requirement of beta carotene as well as more than half the requirement of vitamin C. Dandelions are also rich in vitamin A. The roots make a delicious coffee substitute when roasted or can be boiled for 20-30 minutes for munching. The flowers can be used to make a delicious wine. The raw roots can be used as a mild laxative and diuretic, and the greens are known to help detoxify blood and stimulate the liver. Many other animals also eat dandelion -- it's an extremely important wildlife food.
Genetic engineers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology have recently created a mutant variety of the dandelion, which will create 500 times as much latex in it's sap so that they can use it to make rubber. Unfortunately, this will render the plant inedible, or at least extremely unpalatable -- and possibly toxic. It is also being engineered to create high levels of inulin, an artificial sweetener.
When this mutated variety is released into the wild, it cross-pollinates with natural varieties. Dandelions, due to the nature of their wind-carried seeds and ability to thrive in damaged ecosystems, rapidly spread over wide areas with genes from remote populations regularly intermingling. This mutant variety will quickly infect the entire planet with it's toxic genes, rendering a plant that has been used by humans and animals for thousands of years into an inedible rubber factory. The earth will permanently loose one of it's most magnificent species, so that we can have cheap rubber gloves and condoms, satisfying the greed of a few short-sighted agribusiness executives. |
homepage: http://www.sporecollective.org
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:21 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 7:24 PM PST
Monday, 14 December 2009
Are you a Democrat
Mood:
hug me
Now Playing: Podcast by Joe Anybody reading this text about Hope & Change
Topic: POLITICS
http://zebra3report.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/podcastjoeanybodynumber8.mp3 The link at he top is myself reading the following article. It is a download and about 8 minutes long. Right click on the link at the top and then choose the option "save target as" REPOSTING FROM: http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2009/12/are-you-democrat.html Are you a Democrat? Well, if you are, I have some questions for you. It occurs to me that somewhere in the last decade (maybe longer),the differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have been blurred. I'm going to try to
break down why I believe the two political parties find themselves not only similar to each other, but in all actuality, mirror images. Let me begin by bringing up a few points about our touted two-party system.
There are those that seem to believe that the two party system is exactly what our founding fathers envisioned when they crafted our republic. The fact is that many of the founding fathers were opposed to political parties altogether. In fact, the two
political parties that are now dominant didn't exist until the mid nineteenth century. In our history, political parties have come and gone, and the republic continued to thrive. In fact, according to a recent show on the History channel;
“The framers of the Constitution of the United States made no provision in the governmental structure for the functioning of political parties because they believed that parties were a source of corruption and an impediment to the freedom of people to judge issues on their merits. James Madison argued in his “Federalist Paper #10” against a system in which “factions” (his word for parties) might be able to seize control of the government). George Washington, in accordance with the thinking of his fellow Founding Fathers, included in his cabinet men of diverse political philosophies and policies”
.
The problem with using the words of our founding fathers to justify anything political in this country is that politicians are adept at taking portions of what’s been said and using the words of great Americans completely out of context. One only has to look at Barack Obama’s speech the other day when he accepted the Nobel Prize for Peace. In that speech he said;
“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
Barack Obama then attempted to justify his actions by invoking what had been said by Martin Luther King, a man he tries to emulate, but apparently doesn’t understand.
“I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.”
I’m not at all surprised that Barack Obama invokes MLK to justify his actions. Some will see this as an attempt to bring reason and idealism to his recent decisions. People will see what they want to see. Sadly, there is nothing idealistic in what Obama is doing in Afghanistan or the rhetoric he uses against Iran. There is nothing altruistic about occupying seven new military bases in Columbia, just as there is nothing commendable about supporting the rigged elections in Honduras that installed a right-wing illegitimate regime.
As we close out another year, I am reminded of the promises that Senator Obama made when he campaigned for the presidency. When, during the campaign, I wrote about the corporations that spent millions to support Obama through “bundling” (Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and other investment houses), I was told in comments that this was just politics as usual and that Obama was just “playing the game” to get elected and that I was a Republican troll that was trying to put him in a bad light. When I mentioned that he refused to take nuclear weapons “off the table” and that he wanted to expand the war in Afghanistan, I was called a liar.
I remember blasting him for failing to vote against the FISA bill that would give the telecom’s immunity for providing wiretaps to the Federal government. Still, I was told over and over again in comments that he was better than McCain.
Sometimes I wonder if he is indeed better than McCain. At least if McCain had won the election the American people would understand what kind of man was running the country. The most troubling thing about Obama is that there are people out there that still believe that behind the decisions to expand the war in Afghanistan while rattling the saber’s against Iran and reviving the 5th Fleet for duty in Latin America and propping up right wing governments there, that deep inside of Obama, there is this liberal, moral man that we have yet to see.
During the campaign, Obama promised that military commissions would cease, that Guantanamo would be closed within the year, that secret CIA prisons would be closed and extraordinary renditions would cease. Guantanamo is still open, the CIA prisons are still operating at Bhagram Airbase and other locations are still open and people are still spirited away to foreign prisons. People are still dying in Iraq; we have just allocated 1.4 Trillion dollars for the defense budget which includes the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the 16 intelligence agencies that the military operates. We have military bases in 177 countries with more opening every day.
Make no mistake, Obama is counting on military means to insure the continuing supply of oil and to keep China and Russia encircled. One may ask why NATO still exists and keeps expanding long after the Warsaw Pact has become a footnote in the history books. You may like to believe that in the 21st Century the world would be a more civilized place, but peace will continue to be an elusive thing as long as we rely on brute force to implement our foreign policy.
Our War/Peace President and his administration refused to sign the Land Mine Treaty that has been signed by 157 other nations . This is a very interesting development in that landmines are responsible for thousands of innocents being injured every year. From nuclear weapons, depleted uranium, cluster bombs and landmines, there seems to be no weapon that the United States won’t embrace.
For those that believe we are better off with the “progressive” Obama in office, it’s time to think again. The sad part of this charade is that in 2012, if we survive until then, the Republicans will run a candidate that will be more unacceptable than Obama. The Congressional critters will continue to be funded by corporate America, and there will be no change on the horizon. I could say that the Republicans and Democrat have long outlived their usefulness, but that will be met with skepticism and disbelief by a majority of Americans that believe these two co-opted political parties still represent real democracy, if indeed they ever did.
Maybe in the near future enough people will take the time out of their busy lives and envision a future where the Democrats and Republicans have been relegated to the dust bin of history. Think of a time when we can vote for individuals with vision instead of voting for a political brand. Change will not be broadcast through our media that has a deep working relationship with the two major political parties and their corporate overlords. Real change will come from the voices of reason found in communities. If ever this country needed to listen for answers, it’s now.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 10:25 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 15 December 2009 12:15 AM PST
Newer | Latest | Older
|
|
