Love

Love is the only sword that cleaves things together
Love is the best assault for defense purposes
Love is the magnificent force that forges everything
The economics of love will unleash heaven
Love will warm up hell as well
Lovely is all that is, especially before it started to take chances
Love is livelier than whatever radiation existing
From love one never gets enough while it is meant to channel through
Thus, to commit love is to propagate sanctity

Happy joyful life, blessed by... whatsoever

Listen, we in the western world should be happy with the fact that we are born overhere instead of somewhere else where child mortality is more common than survival after five years of lifetime. We are the lucky ones. Only we don't know that until we get educated, and start to be interested in global problematics. Then we can decide to trod the exploiting path or the administering path, albeit that there are other more locally addressed paths as well, while we cannot be all that involved in international matters.

The White House has an interesting website which contains lots of information about your presidency, and it keeps records of the past. This is very nice, because one can return to different eras that might shed some more light on the choices that were made then, which can be compared to our present hindsight knowledge.
I retrieved a radio addressing to the nation which was produced (? text writers andthelike) by Laura Bush instead of her husband. Why she replaced him I did not find out right away, but it was for the first time the president left his weekly address to the nation to his spouse.
Now, she is a wholehearted woman. She addressed all the school children after 9/11 reassuring them that their teachers are there to protect them against evildoers and so on. But now (November 17th 2001) she visited Afghanistan, where she met Hamid Karzai (bytheway former associate of the Halliburton company), and went horrified by the evil conduct of "the terrorists and the Taliban" imposed over this country. Reading her resume I found she gained "a bachelor of science degree in education from Southern Methodist University in 1968", and after that "a master of library science degree from the University of Texas" in 1973, so she must have some knowledge about what is going on in the world, I presume.
So she was abhorred about what she encountered in Afghanistan, while she started her addressing to the nation with "I'm delivering this week's radio address to kick off a world-wide effort to focus on the brutality against women and children by the al-Qaida terrorist network and the regime it supports in Afghanistan, the Taliban."
Now for sure that is a serious issue. She continues "Long before the current war began, the Taliban and its terrorist allies were making the lives of children and women in Afghanistan miserable. Seventy percent of the Afghan people are malnourished. One in every four children won't live past the age of five because health care is not available. Women have been denied access to doctors when they're sick. Life under the Taliban is so hard and repressive, even small displays of joy are outlawed -- children aren't allowed to fly kites; their mothers face beatings for laughing out loud. Women cannot work outside the home, or even leave their homes by themselves." You cannot imagine how bad these guys must be to deny basic human rights to their kin.
"The severe repression and brutality against women in Afghanistan is not a matter of legitimate religious practice. Muslims around the world have condemned the brutal degradation of women and children by the Taliban regime. The poverty, poor health, and illiteracy that the terrorists and the Taliban have imposed on women in Afghanistan do not conform with the treatment of women in most of the Islamic world, where women make important contributions in their societies. Only the terrorists and the Taliban forbid education to women. Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's fingernails for wearing nail polish. The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control."
Hey, wait a minute, she is comparing the situation in Afghanistan to other islamic traditions elsewhere, thereby stating that what happens overhere is an exception. She is right, although for the wrong reasons. And she keeps on repeating the words 'terrorists' and 'Taliban' in one breathe. But she forgot to look in history books, "as a public school librarian". She could have known this country was not only one of the poorest on earth, but also that there was a civil war going on for at least 35 years (almost an average lifetime overthere). And that the Taliban were restoring order after this incredible long time of turmoil.
The Taliban had some cultural ideas about what a society should look like. One must start somewhere rebuilding a society. It never happened in history that one entity could control the entirety of Afghanistan, but the Taliban almost managed to do such a thing.
What is more, the Taliban were backed up by the United States, in cooperation with the Pakistan secret service ISI. That was when the Soviets so called invaded Afghanistan which was not serving the interests of the United States. The Taliban were happy in showing their 'made in the USA' weaponry. But they were betrayed by your glorious country as soon as the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. The Soviets could not master the entire country either, if that ever was their commitment.
Laura Bush continues in her radioed address to the nation: "Civilized people throughout the world are speaking out in horror -- not only because our hearts break for the women and children in Afghanistan, but also because in Afghanistan we see the world the terrorists would like to impose on the rest of us."
Yes, the Taliban are exerting a lot of power on the rest of humanity. They are capable of doing that. We should stand up and protest against such inhumane policies.
"Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. [...] Yet the terrorists who helped rule that country now plot and plan in many countries. And they must be stopped. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."
This is sheer propagandic talk that Laura Bush cannot have made up by herself. But, hey, time is up (because of the 'messages'*): "In America, next week brings Thanksgiving. After the events of the last few months, we'll be holding our families even closer. And we will be especially thankful for all the blessings of American life. I hope Americans will join our family in working to insure that dignity and opportunity will be secured for all the women and children of Afghanistan.
Have a wonderful holiday, and thank you for listening. " concludes her address to the nation.
Now, she is a wholehearted woman. But what was the exact contribution of the rest of your nation to Afghan welfare? And on what basis was this administered? There were indeed individuals that tried to contribute on humane grounds. But generally speaking your enterprises stood in queue to get contracts. The more is destroyed the more can be build up again. The issue of the oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea is still on some agendas. But the women are still marginalized overthere. With your consent.

* the 'messages' refers to the commercial advertisements that continue to terrorize the television watcher when one tries to attend the programmed broadcasting inbetween. It might be the case that the broadcasting company has to earn money to continue doing their job, but for instance in the United States one is literally confronted with advertorial bullshit, surrounded by advertisement messages which together are very indicative of USA's current economic welfare state of being.

Religious lunacy

Well, I might be a heretic, or even an atheist, and that is why I stumbled over this article in Newsweek this morning. Apart from the fact that Newsweek might be read by the lesser intellectual body of your United States, something really horrifying came to my understanding.
Of the persons that participated in the Newsweek poll 91% admitted they believe in God (of which 82% is in some way Christian).
The horrifying part is that:
"Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view."
Are you out of your minds? Of course I already thought so, as might be clear to you already if you read my previous posts carefully.
Is it that God is putting your faith to the test by putting all those fossils and other remnants into geological formations? Or can't you grasp the carbon dating technique, or do you regard this as the works of the devil himself while it tries to prove that what the bible tells you in the literary sense is false? When you read the bible while regarding any God whatsoever as non-existent you will be able to see how cruel mankind (whatsinaname) really can be.
Are you this god-riddenly insane people that want to spread 'wisdom' throughout the rest of the world, be it or be it not by force if you regard this a necessity? It is you who should be put away behind bars until declared sane if you even think you are entitled to do this. You are a clear and present danger to humanity.
All of you? No, while Newsweek continues: "Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma." There is some hope here, while the tolerance to atheists might be increasing, and 49 percent think they know an atheist personally. "Sixty-one percent of the under-30 cohort view society as more accepting of atheists (compared to 40 percent of the Americans 50 and older)."
Unfortunately we will have to wait some more decades before we can really trust you while right now you are slaughtering and imprisoning innocent people (for what?) with the bible in your bloody hands. You must be berserk. Your president, of which we know he is a firm believer, not only in God, but also in your judicial system ("While many of the letters are directed to the Governor, they are stamped as received at the General Counsel's office and there is no indication that the Governor reviewed them"), has the feeble mindedness in being reluctant to close down the extrajudicial torturing camp Guantánamo Bay, because he declares its inmates as dangerous (yes, they must be really angry at you by now), even before they are tried, though not according to US laws because these creatures cannot be given the same rights as 'real' americans, while he swore three times in a row to bring them to justice. So what is 'justice', how many are there of them? How much more stupidity will be fatal for good governance in your country?
Not only your war efforts, but your corrupt management as well are bringing your economy to the brink of sheer bankruptcy. How are you going to react to this as the starving vultures you will find yourselves to be, with all that first amendment self protective weaponry right at hand? Are you going to slaughter yourselves, or will you find yourselves plundering any nation that has to be proved to what democracy really means?
You may find that your computer systems cannot manage the amount of potential terrorists any longer. Someone should stand up and kill your presidency before it is too late.

Modern day massacre

"I don't consider it a credible report" says one of the most giant mass murderers of recent times about the estimates lied down in a report published by the Lancet on the death tolls arisen from western intervention in Iraq. "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq" refutes the opening statement of this article, while it is spoken by a professional on the subject of elaborative investigation. It is perhaps this distinction between professionalism that lies at the core of the problem of rogue democracy. Policies should be based on facts, or credible estimates, instead of mumbojumbo statistics from so called 'intelligence', that by no means can be verified by any parliament whatsoever.

The western world has some supremacy of military strength, but their tactics are based on cowardice. It may be true that modern day warfare reduces risks for 'friendly' soldiers, and that its aim is to administer annihilation on the opposite side. But the cowardice lies in the fact that when enemy fire is suspected, first heavy bombardments take place before a single soldier dares to investigate if there was hostility to be found indeed. Afterwards figures might explain these rogue actions away as 'collateral damage', which does not figure out the amount of casualties, if possible to retrieve this from the rubble.

But, at least two heads of government have ordered to go to war on false grounds, and close their eyes for the destruction they have administered, while in open honesty believing they are saviours of humanity and examples of righteous decisionmaking. They fought for democracy and a free world, but never succeeded in doing this. They instead are the frauds that should be captured, tried, and hanged by the neck for their atrocities. Their credibility has been lost, if it ever was there.

Mind you, we are facing here a death toll of 550 persons a day, since this conflict started in 2003.
And we must not forget these figures exclude casualties in Afghanistan and thereabouts.

Who the f___ do you think you are?

In the past the term 'Republican' may have been standing for some quality, but today (so it seems) it has been really inflated to mean a paranoid selfish operating deviated narrow minded bunch of morons, which without any scrutiny (so it seems again) dare to think they stand above any law. To my opinion you cannot read (or even understand) laws apparently, and when some wise guy points you to juridical barricades you just step over them by presidential decree, and/or try to amend the law by parliamentary majority, which renders your law system one of the most corrupt around the globe.
No wonder there are plenty of 'enemy combatants' found to be on the face of this earth, which is spoiled, by the way, in overrepresented fashion by you as a community, while not even in statistics is token into account your emissions, pollution and other collateral damage administered by your war effort machine over the entire planet, for whatsoever reason.
As long as you condone the death penalty your political elite should not trust themselves in safety while they mistake themselves for righteous innocent christians.
GW Bush himself is a strong believer in the law. He approved of executions by blind trust in your law system, back in the good old times he was just (unjustly maybe) a Texan Governor that had the chance to look over the border with Mexico which comprised his only understanding of the term 'abroad' when he entered presidential office (for whatsoever reasons).

So, what am I talking about over here?

Firstly, my previous post mentioned a spy plane incident, which was of importance to you because on board computer systems might have contained strategical information that you certainly did not want to share with any other party.
Read the sequences of events here, and be astonished about the stupidity of your so called democratically elected government.

Secondly, the main issue in this blog entry addresses yet another New York Times article concerning notably clandestinely city police operations abroad meant to pacify the notably Republican National Convention to be held in 2004. Now, this was during the first term of the Bush jr administration.
"In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with police departments in other cities." Now that is a relief...
"Police records indicate that in addition to sharing information with other police departments, New York undercover officers were active themselves in at least 15 places outside New York — including California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Washington, D.C. — and in Europe." This must be the international states police...

The Handschu Authority, installed in 1985 to prevent over-excessive NYPD monitoring of behaviour and activities beyond the scope of what regular policing should be concentrating on, thus there to approve of new initiatives planned, or taken, has been deprived of barring investigation on certain (expected to be) politically motivated activities since the 9/11 incident took place. But a senior police official still must determine that there is some indication of illegal activity before any inquiry whatsoever might be undertaken. 'Illegal' means against the law. "In the records reviewed by The Times, some of the police intelligence concerned people and groups bent on causing trouble, but the bulk of the reports covered the plans and views of people with no obvious intention of breaking the law." "“We also prepared to contend with a relatively small group of self-described anarchists who vowed to prevent delegates from participating in the convention or otherwise disrupt the convention by various means, including vandalism,”" might be held as just an example to the lawlessness of the supposedly threatening party to be scrutinized in full extent...
With law bending and law twisting agencies practically no assurance can be given about the restrictive capacity of the Handschu Authority (and thus on the Fourth Amendment of your Constitution). Examine this to the bottom, I should say while this is one of your domestic problems.

Moreover, the NY Times article states: "In another initiative, detectives were stationed in Europe and the Middle East to quickly funnel information back to New York.", now what is this all about? Don't you have sufficient CIA 'intelligence' or whatever?

You go screw your own country (even further) but don't you dare to screw ours as well.

Just in time

Now what did I encounter this morning? Your present Secretary of Defense has (had) a somewhat different line of thought about the Guantánamo project your government is still conducting. He even seems to have used words like "legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate" abroad. You can read this on the New York Times website.
One may say that one should not believe everything that can be read in the papers, but this news item seems credible enough to me.

Appearently he addressed this Guantánamo case because your President uttered on June 14, 2006 during a press conference that he would "like to close Guantánamo", however that your government was holding some "dam dangerous" people (no doubt about it?) over there, thus first "that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. And the best way to handle -- in my judgment, handle these types of people is through our military courts.", explaining his further silence on the matter, while waiting for a decision made up on what grounds whatsoever by your Supreme Court, that by no accident is manned whenever a vacancy occurred by acquaintances of your Presidents mob. We call this nepotism over here, which is one of the many techniques of the corruption trade.

Furthermore (the NYTimes.com article continues), some "administration lawyers are deeply reluctant to move terrorism suspects to American soil because it could increase their constitutional and statutory rights — and invite an explosion of civil litigation. Guantánamo was chosen because it was an American military facility but not on American soil." but this rhetoric is outlawed because it denies justice even more to the Guantánamo detainees that should be brought to justice, as your President stated shortly after 9/11.
"One widely discussed alternative would move the prisoners to military brigs in the United States, where they would remain in the custody of the Pentagon and would be subject to trial under military proceedings. There is widespread agreement, however, that moving any detainees or legal proceedings to American territory could bring significant complications. [...] The solution may eventually require a new act of Congress establishing legal standing for the detainees and new rules for their trial and incarceration if brought to the United States." the NY Times article explains...

While Gates addressed the notion of eliminating Guantánamo as an extra-judicial tool to handle newly definable assumed to be perpetrator people, he still has approved to building a "courthouse and detention complex at Guantánamo" at one-tenth of the cost" "after he argued that the large and expensive project would leave the impression of a long-lasting American detainee operation there and that the money could be more effectively spent elsewhere by the Pentagon." How nice of your Secretary of Defense!
"The outcome suggests that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gonzales remain committed to a detention plan that has become one of the most controversial elements of the administration’s counterterrorism program."

Do you remember: shortly after 9/11 some relentless bombarding and invasion of a specific nation started, without a shred of legal evidence (provided) about identities of presumed perpetrators of that abhorrent event. So justice seems to have been bend, or twisted out of special interests, it seems to me.
Do you remember as well, before 9/11 there was this incident where one tiny piece of American soil (spy plane) landed on a Chinese island, where pandemonium was created about by your government that could have been resulting in diplomacy by different means (Von Clausewitz) if only the Chinese were not gentle enough to handle this politely. Was that leadership leading you anywhere? You should have been warned by then...

Evidence? What evidence?

Now, what I did last week was writing a letter to your Department of Defense, while they were so kind to publish an accounting of a tribunal hearing to establish the 'enemy combatant' status of some guy called Sheikh Mohamed, which was abducted and mistreated for the last three and a half years, which might lead to a distorted state of mind as we all can imagine, except seemingly most of the inhabitants of the US of fucking A it seems to me from overhere.
Here is the letter, of which I presume your red tape is deciding in what catagory of hostility it should be placed:

About transcript_isn10024.pdf

The hearing was meant to establish if person x should be held for an enemy combatant according to the subversive US laws that override regular justice while administered abroad. The so called 'detainee' acknowledges this, but states that according to both the US and to the fraction he says to belong to (though differently than accused of) the language of war is spoken on both sides, thus he should be held as an enemy combatant. While denying almost any accusation made, allegedly substantiated by witnesses that do not seem to be of importance to this tribunal, one of the core pieces of material lays down confessions (in perfect english) that seem to be far reaching but may be inconsistent to what the detainee/defendant stated earlier. While parts of the accounted text is [redacted] it contains at the end a long monologue of the detainee (on one occasion [redacted] as well) that sheds enough light on the motives of the detainee to make him susceptible to regular justice instead of hidden tribunal handling (which is in fact an illegal way of handling matters).

It is difficult to ascertain truthfully accounts in this report while it might be that
a) the defendant/detainee not quite fully comprehends the english tongue (being responsible we should be all, but in legal terms it is meant to be a core role, while at the same time he states that all warring parties are responsible for choosing the illegimate though condoned 'war language' ie killing individuals), which makes him part of the list of confessions maybe, but not to be proved major accomplisher;
b) the defendant/detainee made up these statements fed by three and a half years of (not very substantiated; psychological effects cannot be ruled out here) interrogations, written down by an external party while it is in straightforward english, while the rest of his statements are clearly not;
c) the defendant/detainee was not part in this confession list at all while the report might be fabricated consisting of partly truthfully recorded material, and partly inserted material;
d) the report only contains 'unclassified' information while classified information is defined as not meant to be made public while concerning intelligence issues and operations, which in itself cannot be verified, not to speak about the extrajudicial process this account is part of.

Although it is very nice to publish this account (some civility left) the question is who will read it, and what can be concluded from it. My point is that this is not a genuine confession, as it might have been fabricated, although some Congress members attended the hearing via a video link I read somewhere...
You know, when I am angry I will not hesitate to do stupid things as well, and when I am brainwashed I will do what is to be expected (why wasn't this hearing organized three years ago?). The hearing might be establishing the mans status as an enemy combatant, while he is hating the US Government so much that he is even proud of it, and he has plenty of reasons. When you read the account you will see that almost every accusation made is refuted by the man, which makes your anti terror organization look like a bunch of amateurs, while your 'intelligence' is still seen as cause of action on your part. You screw up every internationally agreed on legislature to operate on corrupt information fed to you by your 'intelligence'.

Now, if I were attacked by some body out of wrong reasons, or no intelligable reason at all, does that make me an enemy combatant, or should that body of aggression earn that status? Your country has a long history in screwing up things abroad for selfish reasons while you praise the lord and god blesses america, my ass!

I am here

Right, where was I? In the midst of trying to create and / or finding a job. My previous posting suggested I was creating one already in an environment which could be a platform to generate money necessary to be getting payed at all. Well, it turned out that this multimedia business was managed by a very utilitarian person with lots of ideas, practices, and plans, but without the will to listen very well (or a subversive game was played). The things I did there were of no importance to him, but he let me do it, as being unpayed. Although he invested in material, his main aim was that work done might be of use. Well, installing a computer network overthere was far beyond his imagination capabilities I suppose... I don't know what was going on there but I started noticing some strange remapping of earlier plans what made me nervous and suddenly suspicious, so I left.

It made me sadder but wiser (I presume) but my time spent there did not help me in the least. Down I went in a psychological turmoil. Then some psychologist suggested to me that when people tend to have high adrenaline (sorry: epinephrine is the AngloSaxon term) levels all the time during a long stretch of time people around you may not tolerate this very long while your behaviour may be extra dynamic (though not aggressive), and Uselve might becoming to suffer a deep crisis and eventually heart failure. It did not come to this however, but concentration on normal life went a bit difficult.
I completely forgot this epinephrine theorem but the symptoms returned this year, and perhaps resulted in me being sacked once more. Yes! I found a job, cleaning living areas and bushes from excessive littering, which was very appeasing to my mind and soul, and I needed this clearly, my being being terrorized by anger mostly triggered by international politics, not in the least that administered by the United States of AssasSins. Yes, although U were attacked (or might have been attacked) by a foreign entity of which almost no shred of convincing evidence seemed to have been necessary to fuck up (at least) two entire countries it never lead to intelligible actions that even meet commonly agreed on civilized standards by far.
That is why I will use this SOUND domain to redirect U from here, before we all plunge in too deep a mess.