Hoaxfest re: Intel Inside logo || +RIAA =RICO || Apple droppings ||

js: its a giant lie: the new logos are quite similar, it is sickening that
lies and ANTI-NEWS can get a tsunami of "coverage" from every damn website
....
PUKE INSIDE is the logo for the USA ....AFAIK

MacDailyNews - Apple and Mac News - Welcome Home: "Think Different: Intel plans to 'Leap ahead' by axing 'Intel Inside,' 'Pentium,' dropped 'e' in logo
Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 10:32 PM EST

Intel's Chief Marketing Officer Eric B. Kim and CEO Paul S. Otellini are planning a sharp departure for Intel. Essentially, they are planning to blow up Intel's brand, the fifth-best-known in the world, according to BusinessWeek. Kim and Otellini are planning to do away with Intel Inside, the Pentium brand, and the widely recognized dropped 'e' in Intel's corporate logo. Former Intel CEO Andy Grove approves, saying that the plan, 'strikes me as one of the best manifestations incorporating Intel values of risk-taking, discipline, and results orientation I have ever seen here. I, for one, fully support it,' according to BusinessWeek. 'Otellini will unveil the new strategy and new products on Jan. 5, at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Central to the effort will be the first new corporate logo in more than three decades and a $2.5 billion advertising and marketing blitz, BusinessWeek has learned.'"
-------------

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Re:ex parte(Score:5, Interesting) by Husgaard (858362) on Thursday December 29, @09:18PM (#14362377) You US people are lucky that ex parte decisions are only allowed for giving the identity of someone with a certain IP address.A few years ago, the US government bullied my country into making new law under the threat of a trade war.

This new legislation allows copyright holders to obtain an "ex parte" court order to enter and search private homes without informing the people living in these private homes if the copyright holder can show that it is "probable" that someone living there has infringed on a copyright. There is no requirement that the police be involved in such searches of private homes (first time this has been allowed in my country), and the law gives the copyright holder a right to be present at the search (never before have the other side in a civil case been allowed to be present during a search of a private home in my country).

This has regularly been abused. In very few cases the "evidence" found in such searches has ever been used in a court of law. Instead most cases have been settled before court by the people searched in fear of the copyright holders releasing information on what was found during the search (legal or not).

I used to have a hard time understanding why some people were thinking the US was imperialistic and why the US had to be opposed in any way possible, but no longer.
Tomorrow it may be my door that the US entertainment industry kicks down.

Does somebody want to take a guess if I still like the US?
------------------------------------------

Re:ex parte(Score:5, Insightful) by cnerd2025 (903423) <andrew...elgert@@@gmail...com> on Thursday December 29, @11:01PM (#14362759)

Sorry for looking out for our own interests. Oh, wait, Denmark and the EU does the same thing. And the threat of "trade war"? Is Europe really so arrogant it thinks it has some "God-given" right to trade with the US? We can trade with or without whomever we wish and cease at any time.

If you read even the description, you'd realize that the "ex parte" order is really "ex parte Doe", used to execute the Writ of Habeas Corpus. "Ex Parte" is generally illegal in the US, and should be. This "ex parte Doe" means that the Doe, in this case the accused, believes that he or she is being held without legal cause. "Ex parte" basically means that one party is using an unfair advantage over another and thus justice is not being served.

I'm no fan of the entertainmaint industry. However, keep something in mind, friend: every state, be it municipal, regional, national, or supranational, has the right to look out for itself. The EU sure does. If you have beef with how the US executes trade, then do something about it. We aren't holding a gun to your head to force something upon you. You elected the leaders who passed your laws. We didn't set up some revolution in Copenhagen or Brussels to execute our will. Your government chose that trade with the US was more important. If you dislike what your government does, then elect new people. And if you dislike the entertainment industry, then don't buy their things. You didn't make any coherent argument against them. In the US, the RIAA oversteps its legal rights, and therefore legal injunctions must be placed on them. But they are a trade union, and they do have some legal rights. Your arguments place them in no violation of yours or anyone else's rights, nor the overstepping of their rights.

Now you make some very very incoherent arguments about the US "breaking down your door". I don't know how it works in Europe, but in the US, the police [not really, BOZO] run all searches and seizures. And issuance of search and seizure warrants are Ex Parte, for good reason. Entertainment industry thugs don't just break and enter, searching for "copyright violations". That is strictly against the US Constitution.[brain much?]

Please, I'm tired of people blaming the US for this or that or the other thing, when the real problem lies in the peoples' own country. We have messed up lots of stuff, but to bitch at us just means that you're too lazy to do something about it.

--------------------

Re:Is this so unreasonable?

(Score:5, Interesting)

by Spock the Baptist (455355) on Thursday December 29, @07:30PM (#14361883)
(Last Journal: Friday October 21, @03:00AM)

Now, personally I think the US "everyone pays their own fees" system sucks, because it's wide open to abuse by large and well-funded organisations in this sort of context, but that's a separate problem.

The real problem with the state of civil litigation is that corporations are allow to act as a "person". It's a matter of an inequity of resources. A corporation typically has enormous financial, and legal resources compared to an individual.

The real solution is to treat corporations as the commercial organizational entities that they truly are, rather than as persons. For that matter governmental organizational entities also ought to be treated as such.

There needs to be a change to the civil standard between individuals from *proof by a preponderance of evidence* to a more rigorous standard. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too strong a standard a civil standard between individuals, or between organizational entities. In a civil case between an organizational entity, and an individual where the organizational entity is the plaintiff, then the *reasonable doubt* standard ought to hold.

Part of the reason for the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases is to prevent malicious prosecution. A high standard for burden of proof in criminal cases reduces the potential for false witness to be used as a means to 'get even with', harass, or intimidate individuals. The high standard lessens the potential impact of 'frame ups'.

==================
Remember, it's the legal system, not the justice system.
----------------

This always happens....

(Score:5, Insightful)

by Djarum (250450) on Thursday December 29, @09:29PM (#14362425)

Around Thanksgiving I was having this exact idea while talking to a friend of mine.
I am quite a law buff and I was arguing that the "ex parte" orders were illegal and if someone were to challenge them they would win. The counter that "well the person is breaking the law", you would have to remember that even though you have proof of a crime you can not arrest nor charge another.

Lets say your neighbour is making drugs next door. You see crackheads walking in and out of the house. There is weird chemical smells, and empty bottles of chemicals around. Hell lets even say he tried to sell you some and have it on video tape. Can you go across the street, knock down his door, arrest and charge him with a crime?

No, of course not. You call whatever Backwoods Nazi Law Enforcement Agency you have, they will conduct their own investagation, and then if they have enough evedence they knock down his door, arrest and charge him.

Now if the RIAA would want to follow the laws put into place in the United States they would report the person to the FBI's Copyright Infringement division and let them do their own investigation and charge the person with a crime. Most likely the FBI would take a look at the 13 year old with 300 mp3's on their drive and file it away far, far away.

The person that said that the RIAA should be charged under the RICO Act is indeed onto something. It is a form of racketeering. Also the RIAA should have to be forced to show the actual loss in revenue from each song, and where do they come up with the numbers they sue people for.
////////////////////////////////////////

"Only one major computer company focuses mainly on the non-IT part of the computing world: Apple Computer. This is partly because Apple failed to make inroads in corporations, but it's also because it prefers to aim its products at actual users, not intermediary buyers," Mossberg writes. "Some of you wonder why reviewers like me, writing for the non-IT part of the world, have consistently praised Apple products in recent years. One reason is that they are good. Another is that they have been unaffected (so far) by the plague of viruses and spyware that makes Windows users miserable. But an underlying reason is the focus on individual users... In my view, the world would be better off if the biggest computer companies started catering more to the non-IT part of the market, where most computers live."

Full article here.

==========================

Q's & A's to the posters who don't bother to w

(Score:5, Informative)

by maggard (5579) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Friday December 30, @03:29PM (#14367135)
(http://www.michaelmaggard.com/)

Since most of the posters seem woefully under-informed (you DID watch the video before posting?) here are responses to a few of the silly comments that have already come up:

• Q: Why stop these US$100 laptops from being sold?
  A: They're not. Quantas, their manufacturer, is free to sell the same item to anyone. However those commercial versions cost will be closer to US$200.

• Q: Why is this only for 3rd World places?
  A: It's not, the State of Massachusetts and others are already committed to large purchases. Why not get your community involved?

• Q: Why insist on targeted distribution?
  A: Because all the research shows that 'seeding' 1 per 5 kids or whatever doesn't have the same network effect (figuratively & literally) that ubiquitous use in an area does.

• Q: Why do these kids need laptops? Why not food/water/medicine?
  A: They need all of those, and those are vital things to see they get. But once those immediate needs are met the long term goal of providing an education is what will help these kids and their communities be self-sufficient, indeed able to assist other neighboring communities.

• Q: Where's the software for this?
  A: It's Redhat Linux, this is /., are you serious? OK, less inflammatory answer: With a standard cheap platform out there individuals, organizations, governments, and the communities receiving these will be able to develop what they can take advantage of.

• Q: So what's to keep unscrupulous folks from buying these out the back door of warehouses?
  A: First the local communities will likely look down on this theft of their resources pretty intensely. Second the goal is to make any trade in these universally unsavory. Will it be 100% effective? No. But this is an easy issue to rally behind and the $100 models will be distinctive from their commercial kin.

How The U.S. Government Undermined the Internet || Pixel Advt Hoax? || and more

based upon: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/29/us_undermines_internet/

How The U.S. Government Undermined the Internet: "Yes, 2005 was a bad year.
(Score:5, Insightful)
by twitter (104583) Alter Relationship on Friday December 30, @10:10AM (#14365010)
(Last Journal: Thursday January 27, @07:41PM)
Yea, never mind things like the Tsunami or Katrina or in the U.S. all of the controversies in government... I'm sure when I'm 85 years old this is exactly what I'll remember about 2005.

Freedom of speech is important. I'm from New Orleans and still live in Louisiana. That ICANN is handing portions of the Internet over to government censors bothers me, and I consider it a large problem. Is my perspective warped? No. Without free speech, everyday can be like Katrina because your government can do whatever it wants to you. Just ask people from the former Soviet states what government housing and shopping are like.

Other disturbing US trends include re-centralization of telco into less than friendly hands. The destruction of smaller ISP continues. Blatant anti-competitive behavior by the remainder is tollerated and even encouraged. 2005 was another bad year for the world of ends.--
Friends don't help friends install MS junk."
-----------------

Read The Guidelines

(Score:5, Informative)

by N8F8 (4562) on Friday December 30, @08:44AM (#14364435)

From CP-1: Internet Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (ccTLD Administration and Delegation) [icann.org] (a) Delegation of a New Top Level Domain. Delegation of a new top level domain requires the completion of a number of procedures, including the identification of a TLD manager with the requisite skills and authority to operate the TLD appropriately. The desires of the government of a country with regard to delegation of a ccTLD are taken very seriously. The IANA will make them a major consideration in any TLD delegation/transfer discussions.
--------------

Who wants to eat crow?

(Score:5, Insightful)

by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday December 30, @08:47AM (#14364460)
(http://dadasays.blogspot.com/)

I've said from the beginning that DNS is a government mechanism for censorship -- it was, it is and it will continue to be. The typical authoritarian response (from slashdotters no less) is that other countries can run their own DNS TLD's, but this will just lead to multiple censors, not real freedom.

Regulation does not help the needy or the poor. It does not help those who can not do something for themselves. Regulation does not make a safer or better product, and it does not create a cheaper marketplace.

Regulation gives those in power the ability to put friends, family and cronies into high paying monopolistic jobs, determine which companies can enter a market and prevent everyone else from competing or making a better product.

Those who know me (even if you don't like me) know I am anti-DNS. I don't have a free market solution YET, but I think about it every day. DNS will be the fall of the Internet, until there is a decentralized version, and I believe that Google or another major search company will find a way to replace the central authority version.

I know we need DNS today -- links, bookmarks, advertising, all that. I also know we needed coal burning stoves just 40 years ago in some parts of the U.S. Without government, society tries to find ways to become more free by competing with others. Everyone wants a profit, but we believe we'll earn more by underpricing our competition and offering a better product. With government, society tries to find ways around the bureaucracy, red tape and restrictions. We have markets that have an excessively high cost of entry, but it is not always because of the equipment needed -- many markets are expensive because of government regulations and restrictions.

In the end, our freedoms are destroyed, our hard work is overtaxed and our children are left with the burden of paying off our mistakes.
-----------------

Re:Who wants to eat crow?

(Score:5, Insightful)

by Hiro Antagonist (310179) on Friday December 30, @09:43AM (#14364811)
(Last Journal: Thursday October 10, @09:56AM)

I think you need to better qualify your statements; the 'regulation' of the FDA did indeed help the needy and the poor, as did the 'regulation' of labor (minimum wage, limits on working hours, safety regulations). Sure, both have their problems, but the pre-FDA and pre-labor law US was not a fun place to live unless you were one of the wealthy, and if you weren't, even a lifetime of hard work and frugality wouldn't prepare you for retirement.

Not to say that all regulation is good, mind you, but there are many instances where our government did its job and represented The People, all those tired and poor masses, and helped America acheive a better standard of living; lassiez-faire capitalists seem to forget that, and also seem to forget that a 'free market' only exists on a level economic playing field -- get some ill-behaved 800lb gorillas-of-industry out there, and the little guy needs some help on his team, and fast.
-------------------------

Bigger picture

(Score:5, Insightful)

by PaulModz (942002) on Friday December 30, @10:40AM (#14365217)

If the United States government had taken similar steps five years ago, it would likely have been perceived quite differently. Whatever your politics, you have to admit that the world's perception of the United States and it's government hasn't changed this drastically since World War II. Even our strongest allies no longer trust our good intentions.

How do you think World War II and the post-war period would have played out if Curtis LeMay and Douglas MacArthur had been in charge instead of FDR, Marshall and Eisenhower? Most historians agree that the Cuban Missile Crisis would have resulted in the Global Thermonuclear War if Kennedy has listened to LeMay and invaded Cuba. Damn Massachusetts liberals.

Of course, if Truman had listened to MacArthur during the Korean War, we wouldn't have made it to 1962.

I'm looking around, and I don't see a new FDR, JFK, or Eisenhower waiting in the wings. Or maybe they are there, and the polarization of American politics is silencing the moderate voices of reason.

We've now been fighting the War on Terrorism longer than we fought WWII, how do you think the results stack up? If George Bush had been president during the Cuban Missile Crisis, do you think he would have listened to LeMay and invaded Cuba?
-----------------
//////////////

Browser appliance

(Score:5, Informative)

by QuaintRealist (905302) <quaintrealist&gmail,com> on Friday December 30, @07:54AM (#14364191)
(Last Journal: Friday December 09, @02:26PM)

If you use Windows, go get the vmware browser appliance and use it - connecting to the internet through a virtual machine is like wearing gloves in the OR - it's just common sense.

http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/vm/browserapp.html [vmware.com]
-------------

MOD PARENT UP

(Score:5, Informative)

by brunes69 (86786) <.gro.daetsriek. .ta. .todhsals.> on Friday December 30, @08:07AM (#14364256)
(http://www.keirstead.org/)

If all you are doing is browsing the web, there is absolutely no reason to not do it in a sandbox. In fact, I don't get why all browsers run in sandboxes. Why do they *ever* need access to the host OS? If they need to save downloaded files, they can do so via a mounted share. At least in a sandbox they cannot execute privilidged code, at most they could infect executabes on said share.
================

Re:Sorry to say it got me

(Score:5, Informative)

by molnarcs (675885) <molnarcs@gmail . c om> on Friday December 30, @08:54AM (#14364518)
(http://www.tftpanel.hu/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 17, @01:06PM)

Never ever visit astalavista from windows, not even in Firefox - even using firefox, free-av catched ~10 viruses that tried to execute while only visiting the site, and searching for my lost cd key (well, lost CD to be precise, taht came with my TV card, with the only app that worked for me).

--
FreeBSD stuff (docs, wallpapers, ascii, etc.) [unideb.hu]
------------------

Windows Major Foul-Up

(Score:5, Insightful)

by spellraiser (764337) <tharfagreinir.gmail@com> on Friday December 30, @08:19AM (#14364327)
(Last Journal: Wednesday January 12, @09:10AM)

Larry Seltzer has a concise column [eweek.com] about this exploit, where he doesn't exactly pull the punches on Microsoft. The most interesting piece of information there is this:

The problem with the WMF (Windows Metafile) file format turns out to be one of those careless things Microsoft did years ago with little or no consideration for the security consequences.

Almost all exploits you read about are buffer overflows of some kind, but not this one. WMF files are allowed to register a callback function, meaning that they are allowed to execute code, and this is what is being exploited in the WMF bug.

I find this mind-boggling to the point of absurdity. Regardless of any supposed benefit gained by this, allowing a data file to execute arbitrary code upon it being viewed is simply begging for an exploit like this. No matter whan spin Microsoft will try to put on this one, it makes them look bad. Extremely bad.

----------

Re:Just goes to show...

(Score:5, Insightful)

by liquidpele (663430) on Friday December 30, @12:19AM (#14363041)
(Last Journal: Friday October 24, @09:59AM)

This reminds me of the guy who invented the pet rock. I mean, he got rich, but what a bunch of morons that *bought* a freakin rock! Although the look of the page is cool, I don't see this working for many more people.

--
"While I'm all for porn and violence, let's not pretend that it somehow builds character and prepares you for life"

-----------------

Like PT Barnum said...

(Score:5, Funny)

by Stickerboy (61554) on Friday December 30, @12:04AM (#14362989)
(http://slashdot.org/)

...there's a sucker born every minute.

Or in this case, at least 10,000 in 4 months
-----------------

Different Perspective

(Score:5, Interesting)

by matr0x_x (919985) on Friday December 30, @12:22AM (#14363058)
(http://www.mac-poker.net/)

OK - I see all these people asking "why the heck would someone pay to advertise on that?" I paid for an advertisement to my http://www.mac-poker.net/ [mac-poker.net]Mac Poker site early on - and it brought in TONS of traffic. Mind you the traffic was "silly traffic" (aka it was not targetted and most of it was "browsers" clicking a random pixel) but it was still worth it. Now, I got in at about 80K when the site was still hot hot hot. After about 200K there were two many pixels to click and my clicks went down, and after 500K the sites traffic dropped drastically.--
Want to play poker on your Mac? Mac Online Poker [mac-poker.net]

---

I call hoax

(Score:5, Interesting)

by RajivSLK (398494) on Friday December 30, @12:54AM (#14363162)

Alex Tew, a 21-year-old student from a small town in England, earned a cool million dollars in four months on the Internet.

I don't believe it. There is no verification that anyone actually paid him anything. I think it's all an ingenious hoax to get the news media (who are known for not verifying anything) to run this story around the world. A stunt to drive traffic to his site and try to earn some money. Ingenious really
-----------

Re:I call hoax

(Score:5, Insightful)

by Animats (122034) on Friday December 30, @01:59AM (#14363350)
(http://www.animats.com)

Agreed. The going rate for banner ad impressions is about $100 per million impressions, and that's for a 486*60 pixel ad with decent placement. This guy would charge $30,000 for a standard sized banner. So he'd have to get 300 million hits to be competitive. No way.

And his is an ad-cluttered site. You probably have to derate the price by a factor of 5 or so. At which point you've reached the English-speaking population of the planet as the breakeven point.

---------------

The internet hulla hoop?

(Score:5, Insightful)

by drunkgoat (927967) on Friday December 30, @12:26AM (#14363070)

Am I the only one who thinks this site has been blown way out of proportion? Sure the creator promises that your ad will be in place until 2010, but honestly, who is going to view that page more than once ? Especially since in the FAQ it states that you are not allowed to modify your images once they have been posted. This page is going to be stagnet for the next 5 years and the visitor numbers will drop substantialy after the first few months.
-------------

Which Wolf Will You Feed in 2006?

Which Wolf Will You Feed in 2006?: "An elder Cherokee Native American was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said to them, “A fight is going on inside me. It is a terrible fight, and it is between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, pride, and superiority. The other wolf stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside of you and every other person too.” The children thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?” The old Cherokee simply replied: “The one I feed.”

============================
It got so blatant that a former NSA agent who quit in disgust over use of the agency to spy on Americans, told Thompson, "We're no longer in the business of tracking our enemies. We're spying on everyday Americans."

And, when there's treason afoot, one can hardly leave out the vicious and wacky Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. A couple of years ago, Rumsfeld had this great idea for not only spying on Americans, but building a profile on every citizen who travels, uses credit cards, talks on the telephone or works or plays on a computer.

He called his new toy the "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) Program, and put the disgraced Iran-Contra felon John Poindexter in charge of it. When a furious Congress killed the program, Rumsfeld said, "Fine. They can have the name." He then moved it to the Pentagon's covert "black bag" program, out of Congressional sight or oversight, and renamed it the "Terrorist Information Awareness" (TIA) system. Thompson says the program is "alive and well and collecting data in real time on Americans at a computer center located at 3801 Fairfax Drive in Arlington, Virginia."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sheila_s_051230_go_to_the_light_21.htm
=================
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_charles__051230_terrorists_in_high_p.htm
.../... It was widely known that Saddam Hussein had little war making capabilities; and he certainly did not pose a credible threat to the United States, Israel, or any Middle Eastern Country. U.N. weapons inspectors such as Scott Ritter made this fact known long before the invasion began. Saddam Hussein was the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Boogey Man necessary to sell the American people on Bush’s illegitimate invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Likewise, Osama Bin Laden was on the C.I.A. payroll. And like Saddam Hussein, he was another Boogey Man created to sell the American people on the invasion of Afghanistan. Based upon the evidence, it is unlikely that Bin Laden or any other Muslim had anything to do with the events of September 11. That, too, was in all probability another cruel hoax perpetrated on the American people by those who stood to make billions of dollars by plundering Afghanistan and Iraq. It also explains why so little effort has been spent finding Bin Laden, the supposed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

The events of 9/11 were, I contend, an inside job. The findings of the 9/11 truth commission defy the laws of physics and ignore the most relevant physical evidence. They are a work of phantasmagoric fiction that requires us to believe the fantastic—that tall buildings can fall at free fall speed within their own footprint, for example. Or that small fires can melt steel pillars and cause massive sky scrapers to collapse. But that is another story.

What is beyond dispute, however, is that the events of 9/11 set off a chain reaction of cause and effect in the Middle East. Soon after the U.S. bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, Unocal (recently merged with Chevron) had established a major oil pipeline through Afghanistan—a territory ruled by war lords hostile to U.S. imperialism. Soon the money from the plunder of Afghanistan was filling the corporate coffers with black gold. What is the loss of a few thousand innocent civilians when there is money to be made? Let them live in the Stone Age we have created for them.

I fully understand what a profound and potentially shocking statement that is to those who have been deceived by the ‘official’ history of the United States. It would require that members of the Bush regime were knowingly complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens. It might even require that they actually orchestrated those events as a pretext to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, even though neither country had anything to do with 9/11. As testimony to the commercial media’s proficiency at deception, forty-two percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Never mind that there isn’t a shred of evidence to substantiate that claim. It is a matter of faith. When Bush and his minions repeat those stale lies over and over and the media repeatedly broadcasts them, the ill informed can be made to believe anything. The bigger the lie, the more readily it is believed. The official version of the events of 9/11 could not take root in the public conscience without the complicity of the corporate media. Make no mistake: the commercial media is a vital and potent component of the Pentagon’s superb propaganda machine.

In reality, the neocon agenda of global domination is the blueprint for the events of 9/11, as revealed in the ‘Project for the New American Century’ and ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’. Both of these revealing documents are online for public perusal. Reading them is imperative to understanding not only America’s veiled history, but also current events. They offer considerable insight into future military interventions. It is no irony that these documents, which call for regime change in Iraq and a host of other countries was authored by the very same people who are serving in the current Bush regime. They are the same people who stand to benefit financially and politically from the plunder and occupation of Iraq, as well as the rest of the world.

Subsequent to the events of 9/11, the neocon brain trust declared that a catalyzing event was needed to galvanize the American people to back a plan of U.S. global domination—a New Pearl Harbor. On the morning of September 12, 2001, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, called for an immediate attack on Iraq, and Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney repeatedly referred to the events of 9/11 as “an opportunity.” George Bush declared that he “hit the trifecta.” The Bush people could hardly contain their glee. These statements of fact reveal much about the kind of people who are running the country. It should also make clear that in America there is no separation of commercial media and state—the two are as inseparable as newlyweds on a honeymoon.

As unthinkable as it be to some, the wanton murder of American citizens by the government is not without precedent. America’s dark history is brimming with examples. Two well documented cases illustrate my point. In 2000 Robert Stinnett published a book entitled ‘Day of Deceit: the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor.’ In his book Stinnett paints an ugly picture that lead up to the American entrance into World War Two. Citing extensively from thousands of previously classified documents, Stinnett demonstrates that Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew about the invasion of Pearl Harbor a year before it happened. The newly declassified Pentagon documents reveal that U.S. naval ships and air craft were ordered to stand by and allow the attack to happen. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked by a popular American president who allowed American military personnel to be slaughtered by foreign invaders. Roosevelt’s tactic was wildly successful. The day before the attack only sixteen percent of Americans polled favored entry into the war. The following day, more than a million men signed up for the military. In effect, as commander-in chief, Roosevelt presided over a treasonous act of murder against his own military. But, like so many other events in American history, none of this is revealed in the ‘official’ version of written history. These events bear an uncanny similarity to the events of 9/11.

More recently, in the prelude to the U.S. entrance into the Viet Nam war, a phantom attack on two U.S. destroyers cruising the Gulf of Tonkin was staged by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. The bogus attack occurred early in August, 1964. That evening President Lyndon Johnson went on television giving the grim details of the non-attack. Later, however, it was revealed that navy commander James Stockdale flew cover over the Gulf of Tonkin that night. Stockdale disclosed that U.S. ships were firing at phantom targets—targets that didn’t exist. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident that drew the U.S. into the quagmire of Viet Nam simply didn’t happen. Johnson, as presidents so often do, lied to the American people. The result was the rapid passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was the sole legal basis for the Viet Nam War. As a result of Johnson’s lie, three million Vietnamese people and fifty eight thousand U.S. soldiers died.

The neocons, with their corporate handlers and their equally complicit counterparts, the neoliberals, are in fact a shadow government that runs America. They have names like Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, Kristol, Dulles, Kennedy and Rockefeller; Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, General Electric, Unocal, Shell Oil and Boeing. Democracy, freedom, liberty, organized labor, peace, and social justice are their avowed enemies. Their crooked, talonous fingers dig deep into the profits of war, while simultaneously clutching the broken spines of the moldering corpses they produce. They are the grim reapers of unrepentant capitalism run amok.

George Bush got his anxiously awaited war on Iraq. Halliburton, Bechtel, and other corporations are raking in billions. It is easy money for the war profiteers who risk nothing and gain everything. It is our tax money that is subsidizing their obscene profits. Layers of our civil liberties were quietly repealed. It is our sons and daughters who die for the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton and Bechtel. They are America’s shadow government—the unseen hands pulling the strings of atrocity. Someone has to tell our children what they are dying for. This is George Bush’s noble cause.

Unless we stop them, their grim work is not done. It will never be done until there is nothing left to defile. There will be countless millions more corpses, broken lives and torn families to follow. Even more ghastly attacks on unwitting American citizens will be fabricated; and fools will play along with them. The flags will come out and Nationalism will spread like a lethal virus across the land. Dissenters will be denounced and imprisoned. These acts of contrived terrorism will be the pretext for the invasion and occupation of other sovereign nations. They will be the pretext for feeding the war machine the blood and the bones of our babies. You see, there are terrorists lurking in high places. They are in the Whitehouse. They are the enablers in Congress who serve the corporate interest, rather than justice. They are hidden behind the beckoning smiles of news anchor men and anchor women. They operate in the dark smoky recesses of corporate board rooms, out of public view. Their tentacles reach into every aspect of our lives. They lie concealed in the stinking breath of the Rush Limbaughs of this world in their awful ability to persuade. They are not on our side.

We must resist them at all cost. We must inform ourselves. Speak truth to power. Let them know that we see through their masks. Do not accept this. Organize. Organize. Organize.

Charles Sullivan is a furniture maker, photographer, and free lance writer residing in the eastern panhandle of West Virgina. He welcomes your comments at earthdog@highstream.net

Contact Author

If George W. Bush Had Not Been An Un-American Un-President ...

If George W. Bush Had Not Been An Un-American Un-President ...: "If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have been elected by the greatest number of citizens voting for a candidate in the presidential election, or at least the greatest number of electoral votes cast based upon the popular vote; he would not have been put in office by an election rigged by his supporters who manufacture and operate the electronic voting machines, with no paper trail to audit."

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have led the international community to condemn any actions even vaguely resembling torture as patently inhuman and un-American; he would not have had the man who would be his attorney general torture logic and language and his vice president speak passionately before Congress and the public in pathetic attempts to justify and identify barbaric practices as anything but torture, which not only offends any being remotely human but also tends to yield information that those being interrogated just believe their tormentors want to hear.

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have championed the precious civil liberties that each of us as Americans is supposed to enjoy, that every human being deserves to exercise (as the administration repeatedly gives lip service to when waging war overseas), and that our sworn enemies swear to extinguish in the U.S. and the world; he would not have defied the explicit laws of the land, written by the legislative branch and equally rightly overseen by the judicial branch, in that most-American of institutions -- the system of checks and balances -- and he would have never even dreamed of employing the most powerful intelligence operations the world has ever known to go on fishing expeditions through untold millions of personal and business communications, almost all of which were made by innocent citizens thinking, naively, that their privacy would never be invaded except by court order, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to our once-respected Constitution.

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have kept the international coalition formed in the wake of our tragedy of 9/11 together, hunting down those who actually attacked us and rebuilding societies we had to tear apart to root them out; he would not have squandered international good will, thumbing his nose at our traditional and new allies, calling them names, and feeding them -- and the American public and Congress -- "cherry picked intelligence," half truths, and outright lies in order to lead our nation to war against a nation that never attacked us -- for reasons that range from the discredited or imperialistic to petty or, most charitably, overly idealistic -- stretching our forces to the breaking point and, as a consequence of scandalously poor planning, setting in motion a chain of potentially catastrophic events in a strategically vital area of the world over which we have precious little control.

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have done everything in his power to prevent the drowning of an American city or at least have done everything in his power to save its inundated survivors and rebuild its vital, storied region; he and his subordinates would not have installed in positions responsible for not only that but also other concerns vital to America (such as protection vs. an avian influenza pandemic or a bioterrorist attack) cronies whose only "qualifications" for the jobs, often taken at the expense of renowned experts in the fields, were their purely political connections.

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have focused on helping our fellow citizens most in need -- the grassroots of our economy, to be perfectly dispassionate about it -- including any and all of us when facing medical catastrophe; he would not have concentrated on enriching those already rich, tried to gut Social Security, promoted legislation that benefits drug and insurance companies more than the seniors it was purported to help, and sent his vice president to cast the tie-breaking vote cutting off help for those less fortunate than most (let alone those in the president's inner circle).

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have practiced fiscal responsibility, balancing budgets and continuing to amass surpluses for our treasury, as did his predecessor; he would not have put this country unnecessarily deeper in debt, particularly to foreign powers.

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have encouraged legislation protecting our irreplaceable American heritage of land, air, and water; he would not have done everything he could to exploit the priceless treasures of our nation as a whole for the short-term greed of a few.

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have demanded the resignation of anyone in his administration who revealed the identity of an intelligence agent, and thus her operatives and contacts overseas, fighting terrorism, and encouraged whistleblowers to come forth and help root out inefficiency and corruption at all levels of government; he would not have fostered a climate of stonewalling and antagonism towards those who speak the sometimes uncomfortable truth, vital to our national security.

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then he would have nominated for the Supreme Court those whose primary mission in public life was to protect the powerless from the powerful; he would not have nominated those whose professional life was devoted to serving the powerful, at the expense of the powerless.

If George W. Bush had not been an un-American un-President, then his popularity might be growing, not shrinking, as he became respected for standing up for what is best in America; he would probably not be increasingly mentioned in terms of impeachment on a variety of high crimes and misdemeanors (far more serious than Oval Office hankie pankie).

So as the GOP rats increasingly desert the sinking Bush ship of state, allow me to wish you a happy midterm congressional election year of 2006. And remember, it takes a village -- or at least a majority in one house of Congress -- to raise a subpoena.

###

Douglas Drenkow is a researcher, writer, and political commentator living in the greater Los Angeles area. His essays appear regularly in OpEdNews, Comments From Left Field, GordonTalk, and his own site -- Progressive Thinking -- and have been linked or quoted throughout the Internet, as by BuzzFlash, SmirkingChimp, UPI, and BBC News World Edition. In addition to his writing online, Drenkow has delivered commentary in print, on the radio, and on television in the Los Angeles area; he is a frequent guest and an occasional guest host/producer for "NewsRap," the community access TV talk show hosted by Barry Gordon, former candidate for Congress and president of the Screen Actors Guild. You may e-mail Doug at progressivethinking@att.net.

Contact Author

==============================================================