Dog treat recipes mega meaties

title:Dog Treat Recipes - Mega Meaties

author:Justin Bryce

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_222.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Mega Meaties

Category: Meaty Treats

Serves: 30 Treats

Preparation Time: 10 minutes

Cooking Time: 45 minutes

Healthy Hint:

If your pup is watching his weight, you know, getting a little big on the waist line or just a little heavy to live the best life, then why not use Chicken or Beef broth instead of the stock. Try to find some low-sodium or light dog treat recipes as they contain fewer calories but keep all of the flavour locked in so your dog will love them.


- 1.3 Ltrs (5 1/2 cups) of whole wheat flour

- 120 ml (1/2 cup) of buck wheat flour

- 360 ml (1 1/2 cups) of cornmeal

- 480 ml (2 cups) wheat germ

- 120 ml (1/2 cup) dry milk

- 1 package of yeast, dissolved

- 250 ml (1 cup) chicken stock or broth

- 250 ml (1 cup) beef stock or broth

- 1 egg

Preparation & Cooking:

1. To start with you will need to combine all of the dry ingredients in a large bowl and then mix in the yeast and broths.

2. Then knead the mix until you a stiff dough is formed.

3. Then grab your rolling pin and roll the mixture out into a 1/4 inch thickness.

4. Then, with your cookie cutters, you might want to get some dog themed one's, cut out your cookies.

5. Get yourself a baking tray and grease it lightly and then lay out your cookies with about 2 cm's between each one.

6. Pop them in the oven and let them bake for about 45 minutes at 180°C (300°F).

7. Turn off the heat and allow them to cool overnight in the oven. Don't take them out as the heat will continue to cook them for a while and will add that special something that your dog will love.

Remember to never serve them hot to your dog, you might just burn his tounge and then you will be up for a visit to the Vets.

An alternative to nazism

title:An Alternative to Nazism

author:Andy Carloff

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_112.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



This one is for Renita...


When speaking of Nazism, and the ranks that have existed under the ideas of anti-Semitism, one typically also includes others, such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Pride militants, the "Creativity" Movement, among other groups that are of a nationalist and racialist opinion. When I speak of Nazism, I am referring to those who have a particular anti-Semitism and have organized themselves into this movement. While the original National Socialist Party by Adolf Hitler has been expunged by a coalition of Allied forces, the ideas that formed the basis of this party still exist today. Today, the anti-Semite and Nazi thoughts, converting new individuals and dissipating from older generations, have been organized into various parties. They can be found in different chapters throughout different cities, the various collectives of individuals who hope, either through propaganda or protest, to convince the rest of the white population that they are oppressed. In this piece, I am going to offer an alternative to Nazi ideology. By this, I mean I am going to justify an opposing theory, one of tolerance, rather than one of intolerance and persecution.

The Essence of Nazism

"The Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end spying on the unsuspicious German girl he plans to seduce. He wants to contaminate her blood and remove her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew hates the white race and wants to lower its cultural level so that the Jews might dominate."

-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1925)

The essence of Nazism is to befriend another by the color of their skin, to ostracize another because of the parents that brought them into the world; it is make allies and enemies on account of the one aspect of their life they could not control, who their parents were. The only part of life a man or woman cannot alter or change is whom their parents are, what racial background they are descended from. They may be born into the slums of poverty, the thresholds of political oppression, the bitter and unjust yolk of slavery. Yes, they may be born into some other things they cannot control, but they are still given a chance to overthrow even the most difficult obstacles; yet, as to their race, nothing they can do will change it. Asside from a man's race, how they feel about it is also what anti-Semites and Nazis will judge. A white man who befriends black or asian men and women will be called a "race traitor." Upon these two traits of character come the method of judgment: race and sentiments on the importance of race.

As to a man's intelligence, his wit, his strength, his courage, his boldness, interest in goodness and appeal to justice, Nazism offers no desire. Furthermore, it has made the statement that all good qualities can be found in the Aryan race, the white race, the "pure" race. Those desirable characteristics that have intrinsic value, the search for goodness and thoughtfulness, Nazism claims that they can be only be found within those of the Aryan race. The debased qualities, cruelty, malice, ignorance, apathy, nihilism, greed, those qualities we find in those we hate and in those who have done us wrong, Nazism has applied them to those of a different race. Those of the Jewish ethnicity, it has called them the destroyer of culture, the conspirator against equity, the enemy of the good, common people. Those who have descended from the African race have been called bruttish, ignorant, violators of women, and holding an indecent disrespect for all that is sacred. Of those whose race developed and grew in Asia, they have been called the deceivers, thieves to the good spirit of Democracy, culprits against the strength of the people. There is no doubt that these are despisable attributes; no good person will have these qualities, but will deplore them. The tenets of Nazism agree, but they have gone one step further, in accusing the non-white races of holding these attributes. The genetic characteristics are indicative of moral and personal qualities, so they have advanced.

The races of the world, as diverse as they are, representing a variety of cultures and ideas, have been targeted by the soldiers of Nazism. They have been called the ones responsible for the problems of the world. So, it is that the duty of every Nazi has been to convince the world that it is only right to fight the other races.

"The whole organization of education, and training which the People's State is to build up must take as its crowning task the work of instilling into the hearts and brains of the youth entrusted to it the racial instinct and understanding of the racial idea. No boy or girl must leave school without having attained a clear insight into the meaning of racial purity and the importance of maintaining the racial blood unadulterated. Thus the first indispensable condition for the preservation of our race will have been established and thus the future cultural progress of our people will be assured."

-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1925)

Does the Evidence Exist?

Can the claims that have been applied by Nazi ideology be confirmed? Of the Jewish race -- are they a particularly cruel and bitter people? I can find no evidence that supports this conclusion, and as my experience in the world grows, I am constantly observing otherwise. Baruch Spinoza, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Franz Kafka, all writers, philosophers, psychologists, scientists, were also all Jewish, either ethnically or culturally or religiously. I certainly cannot say that I agree with all the words spoken or written by these individuals, I understand that Spinoza genuinely sought out the truth, that Freud applied a new and innovating method of psychology, that Einstein's theories revolutionized physics, and that Kafka's contribution to literature was considerable. I have yet to discover a single source that attributed these figures with being merciless or thoughtless, and none either that would attribute them with these characteristics because of their ethnicity.

Of the African race -- are the White Supremacists justified in asserting that they are a barbaric and unrefined manner? In all my experience and observation, I have found that good qualities and bad qualities never develop out of one's racial background. In my travels across the United States, I have found depravity and cruelty in those of every descent, and I have found eternal comradery and brotherhood with people of every skin color. A strong sense of family and security existed among these friends of mine, and I felt safe among them, whatever race they happened to be. Whatever the differences we have, of culture or preference or background, I come nothing short of being confirmed that kinship is an emotion that knows no race. At times like those, I wondered how a Nazi could have developed their ideology. And the answer comes to me. It was from propaganda, from another person's writing, not from actual observation, but from another person, whose observation was either limited or non-existant. So it would be, that a man can find goodness, and cruelty, in every race, had he employed the philosophy of observation. Lewis Latimer, W. E.B. Dubois, Roland Hayes, and Dr. Charles Richard Drew are all African in descent, but have contributed towards society in remarkable ways. Latimer pioneered the electrical and lightbulb industry, working with Edison. W. E.B. Dubois was a scholar and a visionary. Roland Hayes was a composer and an artist to life. Dr. Charles Richard Drew offered the knowledge of blood preservation and tranfusions, his work saving hundreds of millions of lives. In my understanding of the character of these men, I have found nothing to persuade me that they were of a corrupt or degenerate nature, nothing to convince me that they were particularly brutal or thoughtless.

Those who have descended from the Asian peoples -- is it justified that the National Socialist Party opposed them, their culture, and their rights and liberty? The Nazi followers have argued that the races coming from the continent of Asia are greedy, brutal, and hold no consideration for others. Those with racialist attitudes will hold distrust and animosity towards others based on their appearance, and so it is, that the Nazi movement has made an enemy out of the world's peoples. As I explained before, the attitudes a Nazi develops towards these other races is because of propaganda, because social attitudes that he was imbedded with. But to these claims, are they just? Was Lao Tzu thoughtless, careless with his observations, merciless? What of Sidartha Gautama or Confucius? It was the imperative of all of these philosophers to develop a method of society and living that would minimize suffering, not only of humans, but of all life. With millions of followers for every one of these philosophies, it can hardly be argued that these people are of a debased, inhumane nature. But then again, the fact that there are millions to serve in murder and execution squads, during the revolutions and counter-revolutions across Asia, the various religious wars between the different groups -- it proves just what I have asserted: that good and bad qualities can be found in all, despite racial background. One's parents do not determine the moral qualities of the offspring. Experience, observation, and demonstration prove that beyond a doubt.

I contend this... That no civilization was brought to rubble because of the loss of a "pure race," that no person is of a heartless or mindless character because of their ethnic background; the love of a person does not change because of the color of their skin, the pain and misery of an individual are not less or more because of heritage -- a treacher, brutal act is not pardoned or explained by the criminal's background; a beautiful, merciful act is not less poetic or less sincere because of the one reason that Nazis have applied. Every person is different in all sorts of ways, but physical appearance does not determine the moral sentiments, the mental strength, the kindness or villany of a person -- only actions do.

An Alternative

There is never a vice so destructive, that alternatives can't be found -- no act so merciless, that a change of heart and ammends are impossible. To Nazism, I state that the alternative exists. To those who have sided with the Nazi regime, the White Power and White Pride movement, the Ku Klux Klan, those who have emboddied Racist ideals, I offer them an alternative: to throw off the shackles of cultural prejudice and discrimination, and to adhere to justice, goodness, and charity among all living people. To walk with the knowledge that it is an act of duty to liberate the oppressed, not to walk with the lie that the white race is superior. To understand, inspire, hope, with a passion for improving the lives of all people. To allievate poverty, to end misery, to fight hunger, to do all that can be done to help the lives of all people, no matter what skin color they have.

The Anti-War sentiment, to live with the wisdom that killing people and destorying cities is but the epitome of barbarism. To believe that war is wrong is to affirm the very basic tenet of Humanitarianism: that to live by rapine and mayhem, to make your living off the pain and misery of others, is but the greatest injustice.

The Anarchist position... To understand and act, so that everyone's personal liberty is respected, that everyone is granted their right to opinion, through speech and thought. To hold that all political decision-making ability belongs to the people and the people alone, that military suppression of the population is a violation of truth and justice -- that is Anarchism.

Among all the alternatives that one could pose to the ideology of Nazism, there is one that stands out among the rest... To stand with the strength, the boldness, the courage, and oppose all forms of Racism and Sexism. To affirm to yourself that no man is made better or worse by his race, that no person should be denied freedom or rights because of their gender, and to stand by this and fight for it is a sign of goodness in character, an personal omen of genuine affection for the condition of mankind. The alternatives exist and I have presented them. To those who hold a grudge against the races of the planet, they must now show that they are strong enough to change.

"No League of Nations, or of individuals, can avail, without a change of heart. Reformers of all classes must recognize that it is useless to preach peace by itself, or socialism by itself, or anti-vivisection by itself, or vegetarianism by itself, or kindness to animals by itself. The cause of each and all of the evils that afflict the world is the same the general lack of humanity, the lack of the knowledge that all sentient life is akin, and that he who injures a fellow-being is in fact doing injury to himself. The prospects of a happier society are wrapped up in this despised and neglected truth, the very statement of which, at the present time, must (I well know) appear ridiculous to the accepted instructors of the people."

-- Henry Stephens-Shakespeare Salt, The Savour of Salt: A Henry Salt Anthology

Ignorance never set anyone free...

www. punkerslut. com

For Life,


Give your enemy the keys to your house

title:Give Your Enemy the Keys to Your House

author:Scott Bianchi

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_219.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Everybody has an enemy, or someone they just do not like or trust. We are going to try a new exercise and give the keys to ours house, cars, and bank account numbers to our biggest enemy. Sounds like a brilliant idea, right? It must be brilliant, our government is doing just that. http://www. cnn. com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port. security/index. html

I have been critical in the past about our government and our politicians in the past. I will continue to be as long as our country is run the same way. We are just four and a half years removed from two planes destroying two buildings, killing thousands of people, and ruining the lives of the people left behind. Those terrorists were of an Arabian background. Obviously not all people can be grouped together but there is a difference between sitting next to one on a bus and allowing our ports to be run by them.

In the article, Bush said he didn’t hear anyone complaining that England was running one of our ports. While it is understandable why we would let England run a port, I do not agree with that either. Why wouldn’t we run our own ports? Why do we need other countries running our ports if they are so important? China, a communist country, is running a dock in Los Angles? Does that make sense to anyone either?

It amazes me what politicians come up with and how they can justify it. I am sure that most people did not know that many of our bombs and tools for defending our country are built in China as well. Yes, our government has contracted with a communist country to build weapons we need to defend ourselves in the event of a war. My question is, who is most likely to attack us besides the terrorists? My answer is, a communist country such as China.

Of course every politician that is hoping to become President in 2008 will jump all over this situation to bring light to themselves. While this is a good reason to criticize the Bush administration I think they will have other motives. As voters we really need to begin seeing through all of this garbage. We have to make much better decisions in choosing the leaders of our country. Common sense would indicate that you would not give up control of our six biggest ports to a country that is well-known for supporting terrorism in the past.

As voters we need to regain control of the country and begin making a difference in how our country is governed. I will continue to make this plea over the coming years through many different articles. Hopefully by the next Presidential election people will be seeing things differently. If you do not like the candidates in the 2008 election you can always feel free to write my name in on the ballot, I know I could do a better job.

The more things change

title:The More Things Change

author:Gary Whittaker

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_173.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



That's what Canadian Liberal-supporters are saying! The Conservatives won 122 seats, only 33 shy of a majority government, making them the minority government of choice. They also won the popular vote at 36.25%. Some more key points were that Quebec was almost all Bloc Quebecois and Alberta/Saskatchewan almost all Conservative. For more detail check out http://www. cbc. ca/canadavotes/electionnight/index. html.

If the critics are right, Canadians may have an opportunity to chance their pacifist reputation if the government may look to remove a woman's right for choice, reverse the trend that was about to make gay marriage legal across Canada and join the United State's Coalition of the Willing. Americans have not been happy with Canada of late with Paul Martin's verbal attacks in his re-election campaigns, and previously during the lumber disputes. They see this election of a "Pro-American" Prime Minister as a sign that Canadians do not subscribe to the former Prime Minister's anti-American positions.

Speaking of Paul Martin, I think the happiest man in Canada after the election was not Stephen Harper, (who actually seems to have an aversion to the media spotlight), but Mr. Jean Chretien. Paul Martin's legacy will be the punch line to many jokes in Parliament over the next few years. Here is a man that used his political power to push Jean Chretien from office before he was ready to go. He then called for what was latter to be termed "the Gommery Report" to look into the sponsorship scandal under the Chretien only to have it completely backfire and be the cause for both him being ousted from the Prime Minister-ship and for Jean Chretien to come off looking like a light version of Pierre Trudeau. He wanted to destroy Jean Chretien but was instead brought down by a machine of his own making.

Meanwhile, voter turnout was up almost 4%, as 65% of the eligible population performed their civic duty to vote for a party that would do nothing for them. For that, I am most disappointed, but 35% of people not voting is on par with the total amount of votes that each of the top two parties received. If you want there to be a change, we must find a way to really tap into the disenfranchised in order to organize and mobilize for action. The trend for the last few elections is that voter turnout has been decreasing over the last few elections (steady decline since the Conservatives were last in power!). First time voters continue to be strong, but the rest of the people were upset when their elected members drove up the national debt and killed small business with Free Trade, and none of the Liberals lies and false promises ever did anything to motivate them to go vote again.

How can we make a change by not voting you ask? Let's look back into when George Bush got his brother to fix the election against Al Gore. The Democrat's took a look at the low voter turnout and looked to minorities in order to secure their vote when they sent Senator John Kerry. They made sure that their platform and issues were specific to the needs of those minorities and it help mobilize many communities to go out and vote. Sure, it didn't work, but that is mostly due to the fact that Americans were more concerned about the War on Terror than social services, and they honestly thought they would have won by now, or that there was going to be a lot less casualties. They also have all of the media restricting negative information which further polarized those in Hollywood who were against George Bush and made them look like radicals who overstated their position.

Tenwebzine wants to grab your vote in 2010! We think that if we can show that we can mobilize a large group of Canadians in the next few years to go against what we firmly believe to be the direction that Mr. Harper will direct us towards during his reign, then we can make a difference. Show us your commitment by signing up to our Newsletter. Here are some of the policies that we believe in:

Pro-Choice: We are not pro-Abortionists, but we believe that the Federal Government does not have a place in those decisions. A woman has the right to choose if she will give up at least 9 months of her life to birth a child. The government has done a poor job in ensuring equal pay for women, and an even worse job with the after-birth care and social services that are available to women in need.

Gun Control: Criminals do not legally buy guns, so people who think that gun control will reduce violent crimes are wrong. Gang violence is increasing (most recently in Toronto), but you can be sure that almost none of their guns are registered. That means that gun control laws have NO impact on the violent crimes that are happening today. What tough gun control laws do is install a climate of non-violence in Canadian Culture. We do not allow guns to everyone, and there is a limited to the type of weapon you can have. You do not need an Uzi to go hunting!

Gay Marriage: No one can or should force any religious organization to accept gay marriage, but there should be legal rights of any two people decide to share their lives together. Hetero-sexual marriages do not work. Approx 40% of non-gay marriages in North America will end in divorce, so why should heteros corner the market in misery? Do we try to stop gold diggers from marrying millionaire's? Do we want to stop shotgun or even drive-through weddings? We say, allow them the opportunity to be as unhappy as any other married man or woman.

Legalizing Marijuana: As the hip-hop culture has planted roots into the mainstream, and some of the old-school hippies have returned to their earlier habits for their glaucoma, the surge to make marijuana legal is increasing taking the National scale. We are going to go buck this new popular yet counter-culture trend and be against legalizing dope. While we may lose a lot of our support base by this stance, we just don't think that we need more substances that can be purchases legally that lowers ones ability to think clearly. Sure, alcohol and tobacco are bad for you too, worse than pot even, but you know what, it's already out there and our culture is well adjusted to it. We can only hope that as we create more tobacco free zones, that the trend will come to include marijuana as well.

We expect this to expand great and be updated depending on the actions and positions that will be taken by our new Canadian government, so stay tuned or join our newsletter to get updates via email!

The bitch the bad the bugs and a bottle of dettol a uk news review

title:The Bitch, the Bad, the Bugs, and a Bottle of Dettol! A UK News Review.

author:Michael Knell

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_213.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Well Darlings,

Here I am bashing away at the keyboard again, so you know it's not me that's got that Ј50,000,000. As I write this the police have just issued the first e-fit of one of the suspects. I haven't seen it yet, but I can imagine the grin stretches from ear to ear. Which won't be the case for any elderly people finding themselves in a residential care home or a community hospital right now - that is unless it's one for the bewildered. A group of medical "experts" have concluded that care homes should be able to "opt out" of trying to save the lives of elderly patients because of "the likely low chance of success". You can probably hear the scramble right now for opting out - most of them will do anything to save a few bob!

Every year hotel and guest house owners are forced by law to spend untold amounts of money to ensure their premises are up to the very latest safety specifications in an attempt to save (we're told) thirty lives a year. It's a figure that, search as I may, I can't find substantiated anywhere, but I won't argue with it except to say that if it is correct it accounts for an infinitesimally small percentage of all hotel users. Of course, that is no reason to be complacent; it is something that does need addressing. But my point here is that whilst hoteliers are forced by law to spend money in an attempt to save just thirty lives, these medical "experts" are calling for money to be saved on the elderly that will likely result in many more than thirty people a year dying simply because "the odds" of saving them are low.

But where do odds come into it? Once every single life was precious, and we fought to save it. If we are going to evaluate life on odds then the odds of a fatal accident happening to someone in a hotel are too infinitesimally small to consider - unlike the odds of successfully resuscitating more than thirty elderly people in care which must be far, far greater. So if we are working on odds - where does common sense tell you the money should be spent?

Not all elderly people are wishing to be out of it and would welcome death - most enjoy their lives enough to wish to hold on to it for as long as possible. Nevertheless these "experts" consider that an attempt to save elderly people in care is wasting money. I find that disgusting, and only one short step away from suggesting that people should be disposed of, perhaps given a lethal injection, when they become old and in need of care. I mean, just look how much money that would save!

With few exceptions, the care provided for our elderly in this country is appalling! We take away their homes, their life-savings, their rights, and their dignity - and now, having got all that, there are some who are calling to take away their right to life! It makes one ashamed to be British!

Here, in the UK, the latest figures show the number of deaths attributable to the so-called hospital super-bug, MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus), has increased by nearly a quarter. It is now six times more likely to be a factor in the deaths of people in NHS hospitals than anywhere else. Source: The Office for National Statistics. Perhaps our medical "experts" would be better employed trying to kill this bug, rather than our old folk!

And when it comes to our hospitals, the British Medical Association reports that the chances of someone developing a potentially fatal illness simply through checking into a hospital ward are amongst the highest in the world. Folks, think Third World here! Some facts out there today: up to one in 10 patients catches an infection in a British hospital (In England alone, 300,000 patients annually pick up an infection in hospital, resulting in anything from pain and severe chronic illness to permanent disability, or death); around 5,000 patients die each year from the infections they acquired in hospital; up to 34,000 patients a year may die because of a medical mistake; and there are now almost one million incidents and lapses each year in hospital care. Not good reading, is it?

I wonder if some of those same medical "experts" I mentioned earlier, their odds, or their money-saving ideas had anything to do with the switching off of the life-saving equipment for Brian Paolo from Handforth, near Wilmslow, in Cheshire? Full marks to Brian who, after the idiot "experts" turned off the life-support machine and took the tubes out of his neck to let him die, made a full recovery and within ten days was discharged from hospital and giving his daughter away at her wedding.

There's few things more worrying in this world than "experts", are there? They seem to be at the root of most of life's disasters!

And whilst our NHS is penny-pinching here to the extent of wanting to allow people to die unnecessarily, it seems in Germany they must have money to spare. A free clinic has been set up at the Schwabing Hospital in the Bavarian capital with "experts" on hand to advise people on how to cope with a broken heart, and with being single. Apparently it is being aimed primarily at love-sick teenagers. Well, from all the broken-hearted dramas I've seen in my lifetime, if these "experts" aren't expert now, then they soon will be! When it comes to spilling the beans after a break-up, there's nothing to beat teenagers. They'll do it anywhere and everywhere they can. This clinic is going to be extremely busy!

Finally, before I go I must just mention Edinburgh. This is the latest of a whole line of towns and cities to be actively promoting their gay side. The Scottish capital was the centre of Scotland's lesbian and gay fight for equality, and now to commemorate that a historical walk has been launched that will guide visitors around the city pinpointing where the key events took place by taking in the sites of the first Pride rallies, the demonstrations and the protests, and the areas where gay and lesbian people were attacked. The walks are soon to be followed by an exhibition dedicated to the fight for equality and gay rights. Scotland's gay scene enjoys being advertised by the UK and Scottish tourist board, Visit Scotland and Visit Britain.

Ellen Galford has reportedly told the BBC, "Edinburgh itself - once a byword for a particularly narrow and hard-hearted puritanism - has undergone an incredible transformation into a vibrant, cosmopolitan, civilised city that LGBT people actively want to live in or to visit.”

For anyone who doesn't know Ellen, she was born in the States and, following a very short marriage, moved to the UK in 1971. She came out as a lesbian in the mid-1970s, and since moving here has lived in London, Glasgow and Edinburgh. A prolific author of world renown, her book: The Dyke and the Dybbuk won the Lambda Literary Award in 1993.

See you all next week, Cherubs. Meanwhile do remember: if you are visiting someone in hospital don't take fruit or a flowers.

Love is... A bottle of Dettol!

"The Bitch!" 24/02/06.

Physics and the bible both suggest natural causes for global warming part 2

title:Physics and the Bible Both Suggest Natural Causes for Global Warming (Part 2)

author:Lisa J. Lehr

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_70.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



What the Bible says that could be applied to global warming.

The book of Romans contains a wealth of wisdom for the Creation scientist and anyone else wanting to learn something about the natural world. Chapter 1 is a good starting place, as it explains how nature (Creation) so clearly reveals God that to deny His existence is insane.

In chapter 8, we read that “creation groans.” The earth, and everything on it, is in a state of decay. Think about it. Everything gets older, and there is no reversal of that process. Rocks are broken into smaller rocks, which become pebbles, and eventually sand. No one but God can create a monolith like Half Dome.

In context, Scripture is telling us that in this earthly existence, life is about death. Our hope is in eternal life.

How global warming supports a young earth theory

Given the accelerating speed at which changes have been observed, it is logical to conclude that the earth is merely a few thousand rather than millions of years old.

Consider this model. Most creationists estimate, using Old Testament genealogy, that the earth is approximately 6000 to 10,000 years old. Let’s choose a middle figure of 8,000 years.

The life expectancy of a person is currently somewhere in the seventies. Let’s round it to 80. That means a person now 80 years old has lived—according to young earth theory—roughly one percent of the earth’s life. One percent is a small, but significant, portion.

In contrast, if the earth is, say, 80 million years old, a person’s life is one ten-thousandth of one percent of the earth’s life. If the earth is older than that…well, do the math. According to that model, it is mathematically immensely less likely that significant change could have occurred within our lifetimes. Stated another way, the longer the earth has been here, the less probable it is that measurable warming could have occurred all within the last century or two.

Global warming proponents will say that virtually all global warming has happened since the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, the United States, for example, has less than five percent of the world’s population while producing over 25% of carbon emissions. If, in fact, most global warming has occurred in the last one or two centuries, it would explain its measurable increase within our lifetimes.

But, as we have seen, global warming will occur with or without humans and their machines. If plants and animals have been here for millions of years, living, dying, and decaying, and if intelligent life has been around for a few million years, using wood and peat for heat and cooking… the math just doesn’t work.

It’s also important to remember that accurate meteorological records are a fairly modern development as well. In other words, it would be very difficult to compare recent weather changes with long-term patterns—over hundreds of years, not to mention thousands or millions.

Why is it so important to know the truth about global warming?

Global warming proponents call for a replacement of fossil fuels with biomass, windpower, and other renewable resources.

Proposed government policies to limit CO2 emissions would cause real, severe, and worldwide economic damage. Anything that inhibits energy supply reduces economic activity. Proposed taxes on fossil fuels would raise product prices, drive companies out of business, and eliminate jobs. Some industries would be forced to move from the United States and other industrialized nations to other places where emission constraints did not exist or were not enforced. (Could this, in turn, increase CO2 emissions?)

Such global economic disruption would be devastating to developing countries, where people now close to starvation would, simply, starve.

What should we do about it?

Assuming global warming is real, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Studies involving such plants as beneficial soil fungi, soybeans, wheat, scrub oak, and trees have shown that elevated CO2 concentrations have positive ecological ramifications like nutrient and water use efficiency. More efficient agriculture would benefit everyone in a rapidly expanding global population—especially those in developing countries. Wild and domestic animals will benefit as well.

Certainly, it is always best to be as environmentally responsible—using as few resources and generating as little waste—as possible. Beyond that, it is unlikely that any human activity is significantly contributing to global warming. By far the most environmentally and socially responsible course of action is to explore and exploit the positive results of global warming while supporting developing countries in their goal of becoming economically independent.

This study makes me wonder a number of things: How did the global warming scare get started? Why would people in power want us to believe in it? Why do scientists go along with it, when they must know better? It kind of brings to mind George Orwell’s 1984….

Slobodan milosevic found dead

title:Slobodan Milosevic Found Dead

author:Salim Jordan

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_232.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president who was currently being tried for war crimes, has been found dead in his prison cell. The 64 year old was being held at a detention center outside The Hague, and initial reports suggest that he died of natural causes. He had a history of illnesses and heart problems leading up to his death on Saturday. The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia has issued a statement saying that a full investigation is underway.

Slobodan Milosevic had been in custody since his extradition from former Yugoslavia in 2001. He faced several charges of genocide and war crimes for his role in the Balkan conflict during the 1990's. His trial has been a bumpy ride, with legal and political turmoil. He refused to acknowledge the authority of the tribunal in The Hague, and chose to conduct his own defense. The former president's ill health had slowed the legal process down considerably, especially since 2004. Statisticians said the actual trial proceedings had lasted barely one year in terms of court time, since 2001.

Reactions to his death seem to be focused on a sense of injustice. Ben Bot, the Dutch foreign minister, interviewed by Dutch media at an EU meeting in Salzburg, Austria, said: "It is sad for his victims ... and for the fact that the process cannot be completed. It would have been better, also from the perspective of history, if the law had run its course."

A few reactions have come in the form of criticism for the tribunal process. Milica Pesic, a former Serbian television news presenter, told CNN: "People here are asking if they took his health problems seriously enough."

Milosevic had recently requested the tribunal to allow him to go to Moscow for medical treatment. Lord Ashdown, the British politician and former High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina who gave evidence against Milosevic, said he suspected that was a "politically motivated" move.

Lord Ashdown described Milosevic as "charismatic and intelligent" but said, "He had an amazing capacity to tell a lie with a straight face."

Milosevic was born August 20, 1941. He served as President of Serbia from 1989 to 1997 and then President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1997 to 2000. He was one of the key figures in the Yugoslav wars and became the first sitting head of state to be indicted for alleged war crimes. He is survived by his wife Mirjana, his son Marko, and his daughter Marija.

Local elected officials the end of an era

title:Local Elected Officials - The End Of An Era

author:Al Arnold

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_159.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



We all know of at least one local elected official, who seems to have been around forever. At some point in time that person finally decides to retire. Their name will not be on the ballot.

One of those local icons was retiring this year from my County Board.

This particular gentleman gave me one of my all time favorite “keepsake” remarks. A “keepsake” remark is one of those statements that you never forget. It is forever burned in your memory.

This particular “keepsake” remark came during County Board budget deliberations five years ago. I was attempting to remove from the budget, all funds earmarked for the D. A.R. E. program. I stated I was not opposed to drug education programs, I was just opposed to this particular drug education program. I had read the D. A.R. E. material when my son had gone through the program. I stated I was opposed to D. A.R. E. because I believed that it lied to the kids, about the effects of some drugs.

This local elected icon, the Chairman of the Law Enforcement Committee, a long time Public Safety employee as a police officer then Sheriff, stood to the floor, shook his finger at me and loudly proclaimed, “Of course we lie to the kids, how else are we going to get through to them?”

Five years, and I am still speechless. I was never able to come up with a rebuttal. I still can't. How can you rebut that remark?

While my political career took a twist and I had to resign from the County Board, this political icon became the new Chairman of the County Board. This public servant held various elected offices for 35 years.

I wonder how many other people he served with over those 35 years? How many “keepsake” remarks did he give to those people? How many “keepsake” remarks has he heard?

How many other public servants across the country, have spent the past 30 plus years, putting their name on the ballot every two years, sometimes serving on multiple local boards simultaneously? How many of those “races” were un-opposed? But, most of all, what drives someone to serve for 35 years of low pay, phone calls at home at all times of the day, interruptions at a restaurant dinner with your spouse and harassment in bars?

The next time I saw him, I was going to ask him some of these questions. But, shortly after announcing he would no longer run for office, he died of a sudden heart attack.

When you see your local political icon, ask them these questions before it is too late. I bet you will enjoy their answers. They might even give you a “keepsake” remark. They are all very, very interesting characters.

Ole! Thanks for the memories.

Copyright 2006 Al Arnold

Mayor villaraigosa and the truth about cats and dogs

title:Mayor Villaraigosa and the Truth about Cats and Dogs

author:Charlotte Laws

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_73.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



The earth is starting to tremble in the Los Angeles animal community because Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has refused to honor his January 2005 campaign promise to fire the General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services Guerdon Stuckey, and this broken promise has drawn attention to a potential scandal involving a loss of $1.1 million to the city over the next three years. Even fiscally responsible Angelenos who don't care about cats and dogs can be officially outraged.

Animal advocates might have let the mayor out of the doghouse on his pledge if Stuckey had reformed the department, fostered relationships with the community and saved animal lives. But according to an October 27, 2005 L. A. CityBeat article, a poorly negotiated contract by Stuckey for a spay-neuter van "may have robbed the city of half its needed spay-neuter services" and will endanger animal lives.

Due to a shortage of van operating hours combined with the high spay-neuter quota, anesthetized animals will have to be whipped on and off the operating table at great risk to their health. The District Attorney has been asked to investigate.

Many animal community moderates--such as the dignified and caring former L. A. Animal Commissioner Erika Brunson--who were originally unwilling to jump on the clamorous "we want Stuckey fired" bandwagon, are now steering their own wagons through the streets picking up angry passers-by, such as the fiscally responsible crowd.

The "Reasons to fire Stuckey Email Series" has been circulating for months. Reason number 61 warns the Democratic mayor--who may hope to land in the Governor's office someday—that animal advocates will begin cc'ing the California Republican Party with their complaints. Villaraigosa could be one misstep away from tarnishing his dapper suit with controversies much like those that haunted the Hahn administration.

The mayor says he has decided not to fire Stuckey at this time because the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)—a "direct action" animal rights group that has not injured a human or animal since its inception in 1972–recently planted a smoke bomb at Stuckey's apartment building, making him look like a victim. He says he will not fire an employee who is being threatened or vandalized.

It is understandable that the mayor would want to protect city workers. But in an attempt to be tough on crime, Villaraigosa is being weak on his convictions. If he truly believes Stuckey should be fired, why is he allowing himself to be controlled by the Los Angeles ALF?

If Villaraigosa intends to be a strong leader, he must do what he feels to be right, despite the acts of a few on the "fringe." Democratic leaders did not turn away from unions, in spite of the fact that there were 2193 incidents of union violence against people and property in this country between 1991 and 2001, including those related to bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries.

Republicans did not become pro-choice after doctors who performed abortion operations were killed. According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been 13,256 "incidents" against abortion clinics or doctors since 1977, including seven murders, 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, and 41 bombings. The pro-life movement remains firm in its beliefs.

Despite media hype that makes it seem scary, the ALF's credo prohibits injury to humans and animals. The ALF recently took credit for sending cabs, pizzas and prostitutes to the home of an unsuspecting animal services veterinarian. Although one may disapprove of these tactics, they resemble high school pranks more than crimes.

Villaraigosa's new "ALF policy" is good news for those city employees who fear job termination. Anyone whose porch falls victim to a puff of smoke cannot be fired. At-risk employees who fail to command the attention of the ALF might be tempted to place a suspicious package on their own doorstep.

The City Council has become so concerned about the ALF and the L. A. protest group called the Animal Defense League that it has approved a plan which provides taxpayer dollars for surveillance equipment at the private homes of animal services employees. With high tech cameras, these workers can weed out door-to-door salesmen and pesky in-laws—again on the taxpayer's dime--under the pretense that the big bad wolf, also known as the animal activist, might show up with a feral cat flyer, order them a fake cab or protest on the sidewalk with a sign. Although city workers have a right to feel safe, this measure amounts to another questionable use of limited resources for a city that had 31,000 violent crimes last year.

The mayor continues to react to the "ALF threat." He recently removed Erika Brunson from the Los Angeles Animal Commission and replaced her with surveillance expert Glenn S. Brown. The Commission, which is endorsed by the humane community, provides a compassionate and intelligent voice for the powerless victims of our public shelters: the animals The current commissioners—except for Mr. Brown--may not be experts on installing cameras to detect fake pizza deliveries, but they are experts on how to combat the violence perpetrated against the dogs, cats and other animals that we have a responsibility to protect.

If Mayor Villaraigosa fails to honor his promise to fire Mr. Stuckey and to hire a compassionate and experienced General Manager who can implement a no-kill plan and reform the department, he may find that the animal community is politically-speaking, more bite than bark. A decision to retain Stuckey is likely to become a permanent smudge on Villaraigosa's finely tailored lapel.

The animal community expects the mayor to do the right thing. But in case he doesn't, they have forwarded this article to the Republican Party.

Fannie mae gives minimal assistance to hurricane katrina victims

title:Fannie Mae Gives Minimal Assistance to Hurricane Katrina Victims

author:Askme Blax

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_38.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the leading sources of mortgage funding in the United States and, quite frankly, will ultimately profit the most from the Hurricane Katrina tragedy which caused over one million people to become homeless. Because these two corporations buy mortgages from lenders that follow their guidelines, both Fannie and Freddie borrow trillions of dollars cheaply.

Freddie Mac gave $10,000,000 towards the effort to help stabilize the lives of the victims devastated by Hurricane Katrina. But Fannie Mae's generosity towards this primarily poor and African American group of victims is a meager $1,000,000; this amounts to less than $1.00 a piece. But, maybe Fannie Mae doesn't care about Black people. Perhaps their pattern of giving doesn't warrant this conclusion. You decide.

Taking a look at Fannie's track record on giving, as well as the programs and partnerships it forms, we find that the 9/11 tragedy, which hit right in the heart of the Wall Street financial hub of New York, motivated Fannie to donate $5 million. This year, Fannie gave $1 million to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Fannie donated $1 million to the National American Indian Housing Council. Further, Fannie Mae has pledged $1.25 billion over the next 10 years to assist Indian housing. Also to note is Fannie Mae's "House Orange County" investment plan implemented out of its partnership office in California. This was a five-year, $6 billion effort by the company to help 60,000 financially well-off Orange County families obtain affordable housing. This generous offer was extended to first-time home buying educators whose incomes were no MORE than 120% of the area's median income. At the time, the median income for a family of 3 was $98,897.

Fannie is a company that spends millions of dollars each year in radio and print advertisements, boasts of its annual sponsorship to 'Help-The-Homeless' and earns over $1,000,000 a day. Fannie ought to put its money where its mouth is!

Instead of actually helping the homeless, Fannie has consistently helped only itself -- looking after its own public image, buying more and more political power and snowing its stockholders. Through its charitable organization, the Fannie Mae Foundation, Fannie gave $34.8 million in grants to other organizations whose stated mission was to empower folks by helping them purchase homes. But upon closer scrutiny, in the same year that $34.8 was granted, Fannie spent $44 million on television and radio ads to tell people about it.

Hurricane Katrina has been reported as the most devastating disaster in the U. S. and has caused the largest number of victims by a single event in U. S. history. A company that sponsors an annual Help the Homeless charity should put a lot more money towards an effort to help such a large group of instantly homeless people to become stable.

Perhaps they cannot afford to donate to the suffering Blacks hit by Hurricane Katrina after last year’s payments of $15-million to ex-CEO Frank Raines and, several years prior, a $27-million severance package to his predecessor. Fannie made at least $2,000,000 in campaign contributions in the past few elections, putting them just after Microsoft in the list of top ten corporate donors of 'soft money'.

Granted, Fannie Mae's disaster relief provisions will help borrowers by suspending mortgage payments for up to three months. But, this assistance is provided on a case-by-case basis with decisions made based on the victim's uninsured losses, extended unemployment and extraordinary expenses related to the storm that affect a homeowner's ability to make the mortgage payment.

Copyright 2005 - AskBlax

Middle east peace is an oxymoron

title:Middle East Peace Is An Oxymoron

author:David G. Hallstrom, Sr.

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_144.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



The phrase Middle East and the word peace are so contradictory that when put together they become an oxymoron. An oxymoron, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "a rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined". There are very few things in this world that are more contradictory than the words "Middle East peace."

As long as there are Christians and Jews in this world, the fundamentalist Islamic Arabs will never allow peace. The Koran states, under 5:54, "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them.", under 8:39, "Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.", under 9:123, "Believers: Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you.", under 2:191, "Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out.", Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it.". As long as there are Muslims that believe in these orders, there can not and will not be 'Middle East peace'.

Even if the fundmentalist Islamics managed to destroy every Christian and Jew in the world, there would still not be peace in the Middle East. Islam has several sects, ie: Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Kahrijite, Wahhabi, Nizari (also known as "Assassins") and more. Many sects believe that followers of other sects are non believers because they follow the wrong sect. The only thing that keeps them from destroying each other is the old saying, 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'. As long as there are Christians and Jews to hate, they will, pretty much, leave each other alone.

Ever since the State Of Israel was recognized by the United Nations, the Arab countries have been trying to "push Israel into the sea". Many Arab leaders have publicly stated that "they will not be satisfied untill Israel no longer exists". Many Arab leaders openly support the Palestinian terrorists that use homicide bombers, car bombs and rockets to maim and kill innocent Jewish women and children. They even consider the killing of Westerners an added bonus. Since many fundamentalists believe that "unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell" and that "the idolators are unclean", they believe that 'unbelievers' and 'hypocrites' are less than human and that their lives are worthless. The fundamentalists believe that it is their duty to punish the unbelievers wherever they find them.

I realize that not all Muslims are fundamentalists and that many Muslims would embrace peace. The problem is that the fundamentalists are so harsh and so ruthless that most peace seeking Muslims in the Arab world are afraid to cross them, afraid that they will be considered 'friends' of the unbelievers or 'hypocrites' and punished accordingly. Therefore, they keep quiet and the fundamentalists continue to rule the Arab world. The few Arabs that do attempt to stand up for true peace usually end up in prison or dead.

Some Arab countries are considered to have secular governments, ie: Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and, as such, would presumably be free of fundamentalism interference. The fact is, none of these governments could stay in power without the assistance of, or at least the tacit approval of, the fundamentalists. Each of these countries is rife with fundamentalism, note all of the homicide bombers and terrorists that are exported from these countries. If the leaders of these countries did not have the approval of the fundamentalists, they would be assassinated and new leaders would be elected or installed. Saudi Arabia claims to be our friend and ally, yet many of their religious schools preach terrorism and a large number of terrorist leaders come from that country. Egypt has a signed peace accord with Israel, yet arms are smuggled in to the Palestinians every day from Egypt. Syria is the largest supporter of the Hezbollah group and is also one of the largest exporters of terrorists into Iraq.

The United States has been trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arab people for decades. We provide aid in the form of money, we gave Arafat huge sums of money in order to 'help' the Palestinians and he kept most of it for himself, we gave Hussein money to help feed his people and he used it to line his pockets and to pay the families of homicide bombers and we give billions of dollars in aid to Egypt and although they talk peace they still support terrorism. We pour money by the bucket full into Iraq and they elect an Islamic based government instead of a secular government. In addition, we pressure Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East, to give up land and security in the name of peace, even though we know that the Islamic fundamentalists will never make peace with Israel.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that the fundamentalists will ever allow the United States to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arab people. We can and probably should make them fear us. We can't and won't make them love us. The fundamentalists will never allow their people to love us any more than they will allow 'Middle East peace'. It goes against their religious principles. They are fanatics and will fight to their last breath. As far as they are concerned if they die, fighting us, they will go to Paradise. If they live they can go on fighting the 'unbelievers' and 'hypocrites' thereby fulfilling Allah's wishes.

Conflict management parisian style part 2

title:Conflict Management – Parisian Style (part 2)

author:Harrison Monarth

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_154.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16




Toxic Rhetoric Leads to Poisoned Communication Climate

A leader’s inability to choose an appropriate communication strategy in a conflict situation can have disastrous consequences, as witnessed by the French riots.

Instead of using language that could calm heated attitudes and discourage further violence, Nicolas Sarcozy chose to declare war on the young rioters and challenged them anew by announcing, "I will fight them in the back alleys of the suburbs!” To no big surprise, the rioting teenagers accepted the challenge and increased their attacks on suburbia with Sarcozy’s rhetoric providing the fuel of hatred and desperation.

What lesson can business leaders learn from the French Interior Ministers communication strategy?

Irreversible Damage

All communication, whether intentional or unintentional, is irreversible. We often wish that we could take something back we’ve said, and rephrase or rethink our language. But that is of course impossible. While retractions, apologies and explanations serve as attempts to “smooth things over”, once a damaging or toxic remark has been uttered, it has already hit its target without any chance of being recovered. The impression is created, the message received. Such is the power of words. Hence the value of the old saying, “think before you speak.”

While most of us do not carry the burden of running a country, important communication lessons can be extracted from the leaders that are directly involved in France’s unrest.

Lessons in Conflict

Conflict is a part of life, as it represents a struggle to have one’s needs and goals met. This is instinctive for most humans and whenever we face a barrier in our quest to have our needs met, we have certain options. Submit to the circumstances and suffer silently; speak up, assert ourselves and argue for our position; or take action to change our situation and fight for what we believe in.

The worst strategy in any conflict situation is to insult your opponents, tell them they are wrong and promise to squash them. To try and press a lid onto a boiling pot of water brings about predictable results every time. It’s the same with communication during conflict.

Rather than applying counter-pressure, smart leaders seek to release tension and de-escalate conflict by adopting a collaborative communication style, focusing on facts while diverting the focus from often heightened emotions.

In the case of the French riots, Interior Minister Sarcozy should have immediately addressed the rioting youths by acknowledging their frustrations and letting them know that he understands their pain and struggles.

Further, instead of publicly insulting the protesters and labeling them as “scum”, he could have avoided an increase in rioting, by clearly and demonstratively communicating his commitment to promptly launch an investigation into the deaths of the two immigrant teenagers that sparked the rioting.

A conciliatory next step in his conflict communication could have been to address the need to evaluate housing, unemployment and infrastructure in impoverished suburban neighborhoods throughout the country.

The first and most important step in any conflict situation is to consider and understand where the other side is coming from. That consideration has to be stated as clearly and sincerely as possible. Your opponents, particularly in a potentially explosive situation, have to understand that you are genuinely interested in considering the issues from their perspective. This will aid you tremendously in calming emotions and focusing on resolving conflicting goals when communicating during a crisis.

Our Communication Options in Conflict Situations

Whenever we are faced with a crisis, it is important that we remember that we have options in the way we respond to the situation. Here are some of the more productive strategies you can use in place of the ones that tend to escalate a conflict rather than contribute to resolving it:

• Instead of resorting to personal attacks and insults, focus on making the issues the center of discussion.

• Instead of trying to make your point with emotionally laden rhetoric in an already emotionally heated climate, argue with reason and rational thought, sticking to facts and telling the truth.

• Instead of focusing on winning your argument at any cost, offer ideas on how both sides can collaborate to find solutions to contentious issues.

• Instead of pressuring your opposition, work to persuade them with logic and simple language.

• Instead of pushing the other side into a corner with no way out, give them an opportunity to change their position without losing face.

• Instead of “digging in your heels” when you argue your point of view, leave open the possibility of genuinely considering an alternative, mutually acceptable, solution.

• Instead of thinking and speaking in limitations, adopt an attitude of possibility and collaborative creativity.

• Instead of refusing to listen to your opposition’s arguments, show sincere interest and appreciation for their point of view by active listening and asking clarifying questions.

Mind Your Language

Leaders are always on record. Interior Minister Sarcozy may become painfully aware of this fact, as his counterproductive rhetoric during the riots may come back to haunt him during his effort to replace Jacques Chirac as President of France.

As arrogant leadership rhetoric is an unfortunate but pervasive trait suffered by employees and citizens the world over, it is a universal liability leaders of organizations and countries everywhere must guard against.

Particularly in a conflict situation, people look to leaders for answers. They look for direction, optimism, hope and comfort in the leader’s words. Thus, when a leader contributes to escalating a conflict with careless rhetoric rather than resolve it, his credibility suffers and people’s faith in his leadership may be irreversibly damaged.

To avoid such a fate in my own communication with others, I always think of my dear Mother’s words from childhood:

“Watch your language, young man.”

And I do.

Copyright 2006 Harrison Monarth

Social security rant

title:Social Security Rant

author:Hank Bohannon

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_18.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



As the Baby Boomer Generation continue to get older, one of the hot topics will continue to be Social Security. Critics claim that Social Security is going bankrupt, and that it needs to be privatized as soon as possible, or people will lose their benefits. This rant examines if Social Security needs to be privatized, and if it is actually going broke.

Thanks to various search engines, and thanks to the Information Superhighway, there is much data to suggest that Social Security—even at the going rate—will be able to pay full benefits at least until 2032, and some research indicates it could survive as long as 2042. Also, seventy-five percent of Social Security funding comes from the payroll tax, which guarantees that Social Security will never go broke. The trick is—in about thirty or forty years, to come up with a system to make up the other twenty-five percent. Those who like to crunch numbers, and those who are familiar with the mathematical formula claim that a raise in the payroll tax by two percent—one percent by the employer, and one percent by the employee, will guarantee the survival of Social Security until the Second Coming. Analysts like to stress the fact that a tax increase—no matter how meager it may or may not be, is not the only solution. With the advancement of technology and medical science, people are living longer than they ever have before. Also, various amounts of disease have been quelled. About ninety years ago, the number one killer in the world was Spanish Influenza. Today, the flu is no longer a serious threat. Also, polio used to be a scourge on society, but these days, that disease has been virtually eradicated off the face of the planet. Thus, it makes sense that the retirement age will—and should—be raised to about 70. Actually, seventy years of age is not old. In fact, it is about the average age, in this country, and well below the average in many industrialized nations in the world.

Of course claiming that Social Security is under-funded is not telling the whole story. Let us look at the facts. So far, on this war on terror, the United States has spent over 300 billion dollars. If that amount is divided by the present population, that equals to about a thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country. Also, do not forget about the hundreds of millions of dollars that “loaned” to other countries in the world. Instead of saying, “Social Security is going broke because of the population”, the correct statement should be, “the president believes that there are more important things to spend money on rather than insuring that benefits will be around for years to come.”

Whenever Social Security Reform is mentioned, there are always a select few that love to clamor that the system should be privatized. Statistically we know that people spend more than they save. If Social Security should be privatized, what about the millions of people that do not have a bank account? Should those people automatically receive an account? And who is going to make sure that these people get an account--the federal government? That would defeat the purpose of privatizing Social Security in the first place. It’s kind of like saying, “let’s fix our brakes so we can take the car to the mechanic so he can fix the brakes.”

I could do a lot of research and list a lot of data and list a lot of references, or I could use history and common sense to prove that Social Security should never be put in the hands of a private institution. It is certainly true that there have been many government scandals that have cost the taxpayer billions throughout the history of this country. The failure of the Savings and Loans is one example, and the list is quite lengthy. Also, there have been many scandals in the private realm that has wiped out the life savings of countless people. Enron is just one example in a list that I am sure is exhaustive. Thus, the conclusion is that history shows that it government bureaucracy is safer than the private realm, thus leave Social Security alone.

When rules fail

title:When Rules Fail

author:Darren Robinson

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_190.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



When disaster strikes, why does law and order break down almost immediately?

Whether it is a natural or man-made event, why do the people in the vicinity sudenly act as though laws don't exist ? During electricity failures some cities experience looting. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina there was intimidation and shootings. Race and poverty-related riots occur frequently in major cities. One minute the citizens obey the laws and then something triggers the citizens to disregard the law.

Could it be that laws are only tolerated and functional in a society when everything is peaceful and properous ? Is a large percentage of the population secretly desiring to steal and maim, but only act upon their depraved impulses when authorities are distracted and they are likely to avoid punishment ?

When the World Trade Center towers collapsed and the streets were full of dust and panic, did the authorities prosecute those who jay - walked or stole drinks from shops ? Were child-care workers who commandeered shopping trolleys to take the children to safety charged with a crime ? Are laws against theft less valid during an upheaval? Is it the law (and the likelihood of enforcement and punishment) that is deficient, or are people the problem ? The teenager who stole a bus in New Orleans and drove dozens of hurricane refugees to safety was initially arrested, but quickly released and forgiven by authorities.

The only possible explanation is that laws do not apply equally to all people and do not apply equally through all circumstances. When legislation is passed and proclaimed, the politicans neglect to tell us WHO is exempt and WHEN they are exempt.

Why doesn't the law itself enshrine exceptions eg "It's illegal to steal a bus, but we'll turn a blind eye if it's for a good cause." ? Or "It's illegal to loot clothing from a shop, but if the streets are knee-deep in water, we won't investigate too thoroughly."

Are citizens assumed to be intelligent enough or cunning enough to know when a law doesn't apply on a particular day? If so, then good citizens who obey every law may find themselves at a disadvantage when trouble strikes.

Survival requirements, poverty, and a desire to acquire possessions, in combination with a reduced likelihood of being caught, seem to be the main motivators for a person who is deciding whether or not to break a law.

World war 3 nostradamus prediction when shall it be

title:World War 3 | Nostradamus Prediction when shall it be

author:Vijay Kumar

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_25.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



World War 3: When shall it be?

World War 3 shall result owing to breaking down of the basic fabric of the society. World War 3 is not a making of a day; week or years... it has been in reckoning since long. It shall be the last folly of mankind... the last war of this era. It shall be the end of science as we know it today.

World War 3 shall be different from World War I and World War II. The earlier World Wars were fought for establishing the supremacy of one country over the other. World War 3 shall be a fight to the finish between Christianity and Islam.

Quran, the holy book of Islamic dharma predicts complete annihilation of the Muslim (Islamic) community after the year 2000. In the cosmic system established by God there is no place for fundamentalists. Bible also predicts the end of the Vatican after year 2000.

Both communities are primarily fundamentalists by nature... the practitioners of Islamic dharma do not hide this fact. On the contrary the Christians do not advertise their principles of life but the atrocities being committed by USA and its allies worldwide is a known fact. Both the communities are predicted by Nostradamus to get annihilated in the World War 3.

World war 3 shall be a fight between Dharma (moral values) and Adharma (wicked tendencies). None all over the world shall be able to escape the effects of World War 3. The catastrophe shall be of such a magnitude that 1200 million people will vanish in World War 3.

After World War 3 the population of the world shall be limited to 4800 million. Primarily, India and China would not be aggressively involved in World War 3. With a combined population of about 2000 million... it shall mean that apart from India and China... the whole world would be badly affected by World War 3.

As envisaged by the famous physicist Einstein... the fourth World War would be fought with stones and uprooted trees. He was correct for the World War 3 would signal the end of science as it is today. Life will have a new beginning... a new meaning after World War 3!

World War 3 would signify that life would have come full circle... it was about 3500 years before that Lord Krishna came and gave life a new meaning. Presently everyone is awaiting the advent of Bhagwan Kalki... one who shall deliver the mankind from the presently existing ills and announce the end of the Kali Yuga (the metal age).

Kali Yuga (the present metal age) has been termed as a period in the history of mankind when human being stoops so low in morality that it becomes difficult to differentiate animals from human beings! The humanity is presently passing through the last phase of Kali Yuga... and this is the time when a Yuga Avatar (Incarnation of God the Almighty) of the level of Lord Krishna descends on Mother Earth and saves the mankind!

World War 3 and the aftermath shall be period of reckoning for the mankind... all the efforts... all the discoveries and inventions of the past few hundred years would get washed down the drain. The end of Kali Yuga shall announce the start of Sat Yuga (the golden period).

Nostradamus in his prophecies had rightly predicted the start of the World War 3 around the end of 1998. The World War 3 did not happen. Why? As the prayers all over the world increased... the happening got delayed... who is interested in a Holocaust of the magnitude of almost thousands times that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Based on the predictions of Nostradamus as of now... World War 3 is most likely to happen around 2011~2012. Until then both the communities... the Christians and the followers of the Islamic dharma are silently in preparation.

A rise in the level of waters around 10~12 feet in the seas and the oceans is predicted in World War 3. The radio active vapors would result in melting of the Arctic ice on an unprecedented scale. World War 3 would result in countries like Australia almost getting wiped out from the face of the Earth. World War 3 would result in waves raising to a height of upto 1000 feet... something unheard of!

The infliction by World War 3 would we phenomenal, unthinkable for the human being has indulged destroying the balance of nature. Now it is the fury of the nature everyone shall face! World War 3 would be remembered for the times to come for it shall mean the end of the dark era and the start of Sat Yuga (the golden period).

It has always been a cat and dog fight between the Christianity and the Islamic dharma. Unable to contain self both the communities would try to annihilate the other in World War 3. The results would be catastrophic for the entire mankind.

One may or may not indulge in World War 3 but every living being shall face the music of the World War 3. The doctrine of mass Karma confirms this. A citizen may or may not have acted indifferently but for the acts of the executive president... the total country shall suffer or gain for we have elected him of our own free will.

The people of Australia may not have faulted to the extent that the World War 3 spells complete doom for the entire country. Their support to USA as an ally shall be the cause of their suffering. Even though not directly involved in World War 3 but surrounded from all sides by the sea... this country shall suffer the most.

In World War 3 and the aftermath who shall survive is a tricky question? The doctrine of mass Karma shall see to it that those with Punya Karma (good Karma) in their balance shall survive and human beings having a negative balance of Karma shall perish. Justice delayed but not denied!

The end of World War 3 shall see India becoming superpower number-one. China shall follow as superpower number two. It is inevitable... none can change the consequences for it is the Karma of the people of that country that shall decide the fate in their favor.

Glory is to World War 3 predictions by Nostradamus which shall hold well in the end!

How to tackle the aclu and win is the intelligent design program religion

title:How To Tackle The ACLU And Win: Is The "Intelligent Design" Program "Religion?"

author:Carson C. Day

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_58.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



The futile, but never-ending debate over which account of human origins may or may not be taught in public schools, drones on yet again. Most American Christians continue to fight the less-than-good fight, oblivious to the fairly obvious point that the Bible commands God's people, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers." This clearly requires Christians to avoid having their children taught by pagans -- meaning that God requires them to avoid sending their children to public schools. This is a sinful, but common, practice among baptized households.

So then, having said our mind on the subject, we move onto the questions of logic as they pop up in the debate. Several of the proponents of Mr. Darwin's views have recently alleged that the doctrine of intelligent design ought not be taught in public schools because it presents an inherently "religious" view. Several ways to nullify the intended effectiveness of this claim come to mind.

First, we should like to note that no consensus exists among philosophers as to how one might distinguish a religion from a philosophy. Some would accept the claim that religions come with rituals or ceremonies, while philosophies do not. But variants of ancient Orphism, Pythagoreanism and Neo-Platonism come with mystical symbols and opaque rituals -- some of which symbols were taken up by later forms of Kabbala -- and these ancient views are usually construed as philosophies, not religions. And, quite curiously, one of the more interesting philosophies of the ancient world, taught by one "Anaximander" (ca. 550 B. C.), contained most of the central postulates native to the views of a certain -- you guessed it -- "Charlie Darwin."

Second, "religions" are person-relative. This means that no particular view (by itself) may properly count as "religion," since what one does or does not DO WITH THE BELIEFS in question has an important bearing on the point at hand. If no ceremony or ritual of any kind attends the view in question, this makes it hard to justify the "religion" claim. For [counter-] instance, Aristotle believed in "intelligent design," but very few would call his worldview "religious," though his ideas do tend to show up in university philosophy courses quite a bit. Also, many of the French "Enlightment" Deists were quite arguably nonreligious -- if not irreligious -- persons, even though they affirmed "intelligent design."

Third -- and we need to keep beating this drum -- almost every scientist prior to 1830 believed in intelligent design. And the majority of scientists kept believing in it until around 1870 or so. When Darwin published his "Origin of Species" (1859), he met with his hottest disputes from other scientists like Robert Owen, not from ecclesiastical authorities (though much of that came later). Are we really to believe the implicate of the claim above, namely, that no real science occured until after 1830 because most of the guys doing "science" at the time were really just doing "religion disguised as science?" Isaac Newton even wrote a book on Bible prophecy. Does that make him a "non-scientific quack?" Of course not.

Fourth, if such persons as the claimant who says, "Intelligent design is religion," fail to offer a cogent defintion of what religion is, then his claim falters as an entirely arbitrary indictment. On the other hand, if any of these yokels ever actually get around to offering a definition of "religion," it will inherently entangle them in real problems, since many features of "religion" also show up in evolutionary views.

For instance,

1. Evolutionary biology depends on the grand miracles of the "Big Bang" and "abiogenesis," and other miraculous leaps from one kind of thing to another -- which have not been observed.

2. Evolutionary cosmology (as taught in astronomy courses everywhere) forms an entire worldview, a required way of looking at the world through the lenses of naturalistic, subtle change as the ultimate cause of everything.

3. Evolutionary biology has major tenets -- adaptation, natural selection, micromutation, survival of the fittest, etc.

4. Evolutionary biology requires beliefs in what cannot and have not been observed - the unseen. This is why evolutionary literature contains the ubiquitous refrain -- "we cannot observe evolution happening today because it occurs so slowly."

5. Those communities which regard it as true employ a unique vocabulary to express those beliefs.

6. Evolutionary biology and cosmology imply certain answers -- and logically forbid others -- to the grand questions of life, "What kind of world is this?" (metaphysics), "How do we know what we know?" (epistemology), "What is the nature of humanity?" (philosophical or religious anthropology), "What is proper human behavior?" (ethics), etc., etc. Thus, by any defintion of religion I can imagine, if "intelligent design" counts as religion, how much more will evolutionary views be painted with the same brush?

So it seems appropriate here to finish our answer to the original question with a phrase from a game traditionally beloved by mathematicians:

"Check mate."

Mistreatment and misgovernment of the poor in developed countries

title:Mistreatment And Misgovernment Of The Poor In Developed Countries

author:Vincent Wilmot

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_150.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Misgoverning the poor.

The poor in developed countries like the USA and UK, honest and dishonest alike, are handled only by the non-street-wise middle class who run government departments and other bodies - ensuring that the poor are generally badly mistreated and misgoverned.

Of course the poor in developed countries are a minority so that democratic political parties may easily see their votes as unneccessary, yet the poor are a socially significant minority whose misgovernment can seriously undermine society.

Mishousing the poor.

Often the poor are housed badly as when new social housing is produced in areas of severe affordable housing shortage like London, it is often produced in the form of very big estates with hundreds or even thousands of rented homes - generally with a view to hopefully making some scale cost savings, although that does not always result. Such big social housing renting estates easily incline to being tenanted badly and managed badly. Like private slums (and they do tend to become social housing slums over time), they often concentrate problem households including criminals in excluded sub-societies. The large numbers of children and youths brought together will tend to forming gangs that may be a mere nuisance or become more seriously criminal. Of course these problems are not confined only to big estates, wherever there are concentrations of poor families then children with little indoors will take to the streets and form street-gang sub-cultures.

Developed countries' social exclusion policies, by government and by social housing landlords and other bodies, will hence often need to especially address areas housing large numbers of low-income families. However, those expected to produce such social inclusion policies will generally be educated professionals with little or no experience of living in social exclusion housing, and they may commonly have correct general theories but often be missing the correct practical detail needed. Consultation with less educated low-incomed renters themselves is likely to help only to a limited extent, and those dealing with social exclusion housing need to find the tiny handful of street-wise affordable housing professionals who somehow do happen to have substantial experience of themselves living in and raising a family in such low-income housing.

The UK is now making some limited attempts to copy the equally limited US Hope VI scheme to convert big bad estate areas to a mix of the unemployed, low-income earners and the better-off. But this sort of housing inclusion move needs other non-housing inclusion policies to be also addressed at the same time or they are doomed to failure. The poor will have some good ideas on practical solutions, but poor housing areas are also likely to have an occasional housing professional resident. It is undoubtedly preferable if all big new housing developments are tenanted more reasonably, as by including a mix of some affordable rent units, some sale units and some market rent or near market rent units. Existing big social housing renting estates will often need to be made mixed tenure and often also need to have the proportion of unemployed households reduced.

The management and policing of poor housing areas is often inappropriate, basically taking them as no-go areas, and it also often attracts inappropriate solutions. Some support heavy police presence and/or continuous CCTV camera use, while others oppose both police presence and CCTV cameras as 'police-state' intrusion. But most tenants in such areas favour a practical position of both being always available but with just sufficient police presence when needed and with CCTV cameras to be used only some of the time as needed. On both police and CCTV cameras, the extremes of 100% and 0% are generally not acceptable - the right balanced uses of both is what is wanted and needed.

Tenants can easily feel stuck in a big bad poor housing estate, especially bad for children, if there is a local shortage of affordable housing as in London. A transfer request may get the reply "in about 30 years time", and they may be unemployed and/or unskilled. Realistic transfer alternatives really need to be found in these circumstances. And a family with young children having to , or deciding to, stay on a big poor housing estate should be advised to try to avoid their children making friends with other local children, as by not using the local schools.

Miseducating the poor.

Governments tend to treating older children like adults for school attendance, bad behaviour and crime - but treating them completely as babies for state money. Older children will act adult whatever governments want, and poor children often take over the streets and most schools - and they increasingly teach successfully a pro-crime anti-learning anti-government lifestyle that will threaten democracy if not properly addressed soon. Older children need a much more consistent set of policies from governments, treating secondary school children more like adults for everything and one MUST is some pay for school attendance - if necessary taking it from other family welfare payouts. This will most directly affect poor children especially, but will be better for all.

The many unneccessary problems of the honest poor may also include eg having only black-and-white TV with few channels - for which the UK has a mandatory license fee and not buying that brings criminal prosecution (for being poor and not dishonest ?) - and even those having such license are still harassed 'as possible-evaders of the dearer colour TV license'. And eg if the honest poor's children have no passports because they are expensive then they cannot accept an offer of a free foreign holiday.

Policing of the poor is often unhelpful to them rearing their children to become honest citizens, with a real need for police to greatly increase catch-rates for the main crimes of their young children - street vandalism and shoplifting. Even a big improvement in one of those would be a great help. Of course street vandalism needs many more police on the streets. And shoplifting needs an extensive police-run shop CCTV system for smaller stores. It is catching child crimes early that needs big improvement, not necessarily jailing children or parents.

Attempts at inclusion of the poor.

Many non-street-wise middle-class professional 'experts' may claim that poverty is fine for children as long as they have love - but poverty and social exclusion always do some damage and good government should try to help minimise it if possible. But affluent country governments have been increasing legal constraints and sticks to beat poor children and poor parents - as towards making parents smacking their children illegal. It is largely poor parents who smack their children for misbehaving mostly over having no money to buy treats to reward good child behaviour ?! Increasing sticks for poor parents on parenting, looks like a plan to take away all their children and put them in government 'care' - a disaster tried and failed before in many countries ! But middle-class run governments just cannot understand how to best deal with the poor.

In developed countries like the USA and UK, the poor and other minorities may effectively be excluded from obtaining reasonable work, education, or holidays etcetera or generally equal opportunity and fair treatment - and at the extreme a society may treat some minorities as social Lepers and/or social or political Scapegoats. This sort of social exclusion harms those concerned, and making them anti-social also harms all of society greatly. But can middle-class run governments ever learn how to best deal with the poor ? Increasing their oppression only fires increasing backlashes, but democratic political parties in affluent countries mostly continue to ignore these major issues.

If developed middle-class government cannot find a way to better govern the poor and other minorities, then maybe modern government needs less middle-class officials. Maybe a third of politicians should not be elected, but instead be randomly selected from elector lists - but can any middle-class politician such a constitutional change that might cost them their very profitable job ?

Copyright 2006 Vincent Wilmot

A new science for a new climate

title:A New Science For A New Climate

author:Jacob Fiennes

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_139.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



At first glance it’s hard to imagine how the proliferation of human activity upon the environment has been a major factor in climate change given that climate change alone is nothing new. Over two million years the earth’s history has seen enormous changes. Indeed, in the last ten thousand years the warming and cooling of the earth has been on a larger scale that what we see today.

The climate is however very changeable these days. Getting the politics right has been half the fight. Unfortunately, the right policy has been held at bay partially by having the right knowledge of what’s happening to the climate. The climate changes we see today are the result of only a century and a half of study, peanuts in comparison the huge shifts over the earths history.

The recent UN Climate Change Conference sought to put in place a policy to take over the Kyoto protocol. At its core were some recently publicised results:

The warming trend on the earth’s surface has been taking place since the early part of the twentieth century. The last ten years have been the warmest of that millennium.

There have been rapid signs of melting the Arctic circle. The sea ice there has fallen by around eight percent over thirty years.

The old inconsistency in the data between the temperature rise in the atmosphere and on the planets surface seems to have levelled out. They appear to rise in parallel.

The Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California noted that the ocean has been warming at different depths for over 65 years. These results match the predictions that warming has been induced more by greenhouse gases that as a result of small changes in the suns heat output.

There has been an observed and recorded link between the sea surface temperature and the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, typhoons and hurricanes.

The existing computer models of the change in ocean currents, in particular in the North Atlantic, are correct.

There are however still some unknowns. For example the solar hypothesis is now known to be a lesser contributor, the miniscule changes in the suns heat output over its eleven year sunspot cycle is adding to the mix. Also, the aerosol emissions from sulphurous fuel promote the formation of clouds, and as a consequence the sunlight reflected from the earths surface increases, effectively opposing the greenhouse gas effect.

Some even argue for the benefits of global warming, which include for example the opening up of new shipping lanes in the artic as the ice recedes, new oil drilling opportunities and longer harvest periods in Canada and Russia.

It seems climate change is inevitable and the small economic ideas such as banning coal subsidies bear little fruit as a means of curbing the problem. More than ever, political will must be demonstrated at first to show to industry and populations that it is even an issue. More importantly perhaps, the will of the politicians must be met with achievable methods from the technological and scientific community.

Professor Socolow is leading the way with what he calls “stabilisation wedges”. On a graph of climate change, the space between the trend line and the stability line is known as the “stabilisation triangle’. By dividing these triangles into wedges and assigning realistic goals to each wedge the massive problem is given a usable and effective solution.

The goals to assign to the wedges range from greater overall efficiencies, the decarbonisation of electricity, fuel displacement by low carbon electricity, methane management, and natural carbon sinks. By further subdividing each wedge into sub wedges, such as decarbonised electricity being subdivided into nuclear power, renewable energy, natural gas as an alternative to coal, and the storage of carbon dioxide – these problems are confounded into what everyone has been looking for. A short list of solutions that together will balance the problem.

It seems the technology for all this exists. It is merely in need of refinement. For example the management of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels could be dealt with through further carbon sequestration. A couple of power plants already employ this particular technique to good effect. The carbon dioxide is extracted at the source and is injected into porous rocks deep underground to prevent it escaping into the atmosphere.

Steam reformation is another technique. It is, in essence, a pre-emptive technique that reacts the fuel used with water to yield hydrogen. The hydrogen output is burnt to create electricity.

Of all the possibilities of reworking and inventing technologies, perhaps the best idea is the oldest idea. Replanting programmes. The idea of photosynthesis to combine carbon dioxide with water and sunlight is a relatively cheap and exponential idea and would be hugely effective.

Don t expel jews from gaza

title:Don't Expel Jews from Gaza!

author:David Ben-Ariel

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_3.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



The following photos and words are shared with us from Israeli Yuval Zaliouk (who is from Haifa but also has a home near Toledo, Ohio). See for yourself how the Israelis, by the grace of God, have made the desert blossom as a rose, and how Sharon and Bush coldheartedly intend on uprooting such productive Israeli citizens and turning their labors of love, their blood, sweat and tears over to their sworn enemies! It's an outrage that must be stopped, so help us God!

Imagine - God forbid - Bush blathering we can no longer prevent illegal aliens from taking over the Southwest, so in order to have "peace" with Mexico, we must expel the law-abiding and productive Americans living there and surrender their homes and property and businesses to Mexicans before they start terrorizing the rest of the United States to create their new homeland called Atzlan. After all, we seized those territories with superior force and must now return them to right an alleged wrong. Don't be surprised if the madness goes that far, as part of the curse we're suffering for disobedience to our Great Creator God (Deut. 28:43, Dan. 9:11).

Now, adding insult to injury, is Condi the zombie Rice (blindly following Bush's Judenrein policies) calling for the Israeli army (whose purpose is to protect Israelis) to destroy the homes and businesses of the thriving Jewish community around Gaza and pay their sworn enemies, their "peace partners" who refuse to have any Jews in their neighborhood (Israel has lots less land, but where's the peace?), the Nazi-Muslims to clean up the mess and gloat all the while about having driven the Jews out!

May God bless Bush and Rice to come to their spiritual senses, to read and heed the Bible that only recognizes the Promised Land of ISRAEL, and stop rewarding terrorism by pimping "Palestine" and calling for violence against the Jews of Gaza. - DBA

Dear friends,

The biggest outrage of all is the flippant arrogance of all those in Israel who support the eviction and deportation of 8000 fellow citizens from Gush Katif, without ever having set foot in Gush Katif to see for themselves the haven that has been created there.

Sitting in Israel's center, such as Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, or in the comfort of other countries, they have the audacity, chutzpa, nay, malice, to determine the fate of the most dedicated modern-time vanguards Israel has produced in recent times.

I had the greatest privilege of visiting Gush Katif last month. I was honored to meet the diligent, tenacious, dedicated, ingenious and courageous people who live there. Every Israeli, every Jew, and all those who seek justice, Jewish or not, must be deeply proud and grateful for what these incredible people have created.

For all of you, my readers, I posted the photos I took during my visit. You will find them in:

http://yz. smugmug. com/gallery/551885 Beautiful photos of Gush Katif

What you will see is the wonderful hospitable family of Nissim and Nurit in Ganei Tal where I stayed. Their children Stav and Nadav. Their unbelievable greenhouses in which they produce the best tomatoes ever, which they pack and ship to markets in Europe.

Pay attention to the paradise these people created in what used to be nothing but Saharan sand dunes. You will see the prosperous communities, the lawns, flowers and the trees miraculously grown by these industrious people.

You will also see the Memorial Day ceremony and exhibition in memory of those family members who were murdered by terrorist villains. Pay attention to the concrete blocks erected to protect the people from Arab snipers.

There are 5 folders with total of 68 photos to flip through.

I hope my photos will add a dimension to your considerations. The eviction of these excellent people must be opposed with all legitimate means. Their fate is our fate and their fall is a victory for terror. If you love Israel, if you believe in Zionism, raise your voice. Help stop the injustice.

A republican jew no it s not an oxymoron

title:A Republican Jew (No, It's Not An Oxymoron)

author:Warren R. Graham

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_180.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



In the wake of the 2004 U. S. Presidential Election, and the news that approximately 24% of American Jews (an increased, but still relatively small percentage) voted for George W. Bush, it is, I believe, an appropriate time to examine (not for the first time, of course) the phenomenon of longstanding blind Jewish loyalty to the Democratic Party,

I was raised in a time and a place (the New York Metropolitan Area of the 1960's) in which Jews were Democrats, period. Rabbis routinely preached politically liberal values from the pulpit and, although, in retrospect, some in the pews must have harbored some resentment for that, the consensus was so overwhelming that most, if not all, of those who dissented, did so privately, and chose to be silent. Astonishingly, not that much has changed. In those days, the only Jewish conservative I had even heard of was Norman Podhoretz, and he was roundly vilified by the Northeastern, liberal Jewish intelligentsia for bucking the tide. The prevailing attitude, I may say, without much exaggeration, was that voting Democratic was de'orraitah (Aramaic for from the Torah).

Even today, there is an attitude which I sense in the American Jewish Community in which the suggestion that one might consider support for the Republican Party, is considered fundamentally "un-Jewish." After all, the unspoken reasoning goes, the Democratic Party is the party of "working families" (whatever that means), and social justice, while the Republican Party is an uneasy alliance of wealthy, coupon-clipping, Daughter of the American Revolution, Mayflower-landing Wasps, on the one hand and trailer-trash, ignorant, fundamentalist Christian yahoos, who would ban abortion, start the school day with a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers," and shoot--with automatic assault weapons, of course--all homosexuals on sight, on the other. (I can fairly visualize liberals reading this and nodding in agreement).

During the course of the recent and very contentious presidential campaign, many of my Jewish friends and family members expressed their pro-Democratic leanings in terms of their fear of domination of this country by Christian Fundamentalists. There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that such fear is well founded, except that many Christian Evangelicals supported George W. Bush, because, I presume, he is known to be a man of deeply-held Christian faith. I know that many Jews, four years ago, were attracted by the presence of Joe Lieberman, a committed Jew, on the Democratic ticket. I don't think I ever heard anyone suggest that we were in danger of a mandatory "Daf Yomi" (daily Talmud study), compulsory donning of tzitzis and forced consumption of P'tchah (believe me, you don't want to know what that is). Parenthetically, the fear of Christian Fundamentalists also negates, in the minds of many Jews, the attractiveness of President Bush as a strong supporter of Israel. Evangelicals, they say, support Israel only because of Jesus-based Messianic zeal, which requires, in their prophecies, that the Jews prevail in Israel as a prelude to the Second Coming.

In a world in which Israel has precious few reliable friends and allies, I believe we should be grateful for those we have, and treasure them. Let the "End of Days" take care of themselves.

For the most part, in any case, I don't "vote Israel" in presidential elections. In a rare exception, I did do so in 1992, when I voted for Bill Clinton, having been very disappointed in Bush Sr.'s statements and relationship with Israel, and my antipathy toward James Baker, in particular, who was reputed to say of the American Jews: "F---- 'em! They didn't vote for us, anyway." Baker strongly denies having said this, but I have my doubts. In this recent election, Bush Jr. has a strong positive track record on Israel, and many commentators observed that Kerry, while having an excellent pro-Israel voting record, was, in his zeal to "mend fences" with European Allies, likely to put untoward pressure on Israel to make risky concessions. We will, of course, never know about Kerry's policy toward Israel. Nevertheless, I considered Israel to be largely a neutral issue as between the candidates. I had, however, many other good reasons to support Bush, so that the Israel issue did not resonate much with me this time around. This, however, did appear to increase, albeit slightly, Jewish support for Bush in this election. Interestingly, support for Republicans has increased dramatically in the Orthodox community, to the point where Republicans can now boast majority support there. This is of limited value in presidential elections in which the Orthodox population centers tend to be found in "blue" states (where, as I am fond of saying, the Democrats could run Joe Stalin without much risk), and are, at least currently, insufficient to turn the tide. But this is a highly relevant development for State and Local elections. Much of the Orthodox support for the Republican Party is based, not only on Bush's support for Israel, but on the Orthodox empathy for some of the social agenda items, such as, for example, opposition to gay marriage, which, ironically, is precisely what motivates much of the non-Orthodox Jewish Community to eschew the G. O.P.

The irony of the continued Jewish commitment to the Democrats is that many Jews are no longer voting either their philosophies or their pocketbooks. In the course of my discussions recently with many Jewish Democrats, it has become apparent, on an issue-by-issue basis, that they had much more in common with the Republican Party, both on the domestic and foreign policy fronts. Many support reduction, or at least containment of expensive social programs, and see that many have been wasteful failures. Many support the war on terror, and even the policy in Iraq, although they are distressed at the profound errors which have been made in its implementation (so am I). Many support tax relief and oppose multi-lateral foreign policy decision-making. These are all core values of the Republican Party. The social agenda which frightens many of them (and with which I, myself, mostly disagree) is, in the opinion of this writer, not shared by a high enough percentage of Americans to be a real threat. If it ever becomes so, it won't matter what party is in power. Ultimately, we have no choice but to rely on the Constitution to protect us. I know that some fear the appointment of right-wing judges to the Federal judiciary and Supreme Court in particular, as a danger. But I take much comfort in the fact that the protections afforded by the Constitution have served us well for many years, under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Roe v. Wade, the seminal abortion rights decision, was, after all, penned by Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee. Besides, the confirmation system is such that "extreme" judges simply don't get appointed….anybody remember Robert Bork? Historical evidence strongly suggests that Federal Judges, with lifetime tenure, tend to rise above the political motives of their proponents, once they are in the job.

It has been 93 years since the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. FDR has been dead for 59 years; Emma Goldman, for even longer. We have effective labor laws and civil rights protections in this Country. Those issues and people should not be trivialized. They were important in their time, but America is not the same country anymore. Jews are not an ostracized underclass. We are, in fact, very much entrenched into the mainstream structure and, I daresay, the power elite in this Country. And yes, I know that the same was true, to an extent in Germany. But I believe that, as much as we must be vigilant and wary of our enemies, who are real, we ought not to conduct ourselves in America as though a pogrom were right around the corner. That would be an insult to a country we love and which has been very good to us.

Thus, although we should always consider social justice and values beyond our own parochial interests, our voting patterns should not be reflexive, Pavlovian responses; rather, they should be reasoned measures, predicated on our beliefs. Those Jews who truly support the weltanschauung of the Democratic party should continue to vote accordingly. But voting Democrat is NOT de'orraitah. It is not a sufficient reason to do so because Bubbie and Zaydie did it. I look forward to the day in which Jewish support will be based on issues, not on mere party affiliation.

Reprinted From the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, December 2004

Spin cycle

title:Spin Cycle

author:J Square Humboldt

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_130.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



It's possible that a seminal moment in the history of electronic news occurred when a comedian confronted commentators ...

Not long after Jon Stewart --- host of the Comedy Central cable channel's amusing newscast, The Daily Show --- appeared on CNN's staid Crossfire and roundly scorched its principals in a well-publicized confrontation over journalistic integrity (or the lack thereof), the news network announced that Crossfire was being cancelled. Ostensibly, the network said this move was due to the departure of conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. However, he wasn't the original 'right-wing' representative on that show and there were surely more of that flock who would have willingly stepped into the position. CNN has probably assembled a litany of rationalizations for their decision to dump the program, but none of them will dare to broach the actual undertone of perception that would trump anything on their list:

In this day an age in the USA, a comedy show is more adept than a news show at presenting current events.

The crux of the matter is that contemporary electronic journalism is just as subject to the Prime Tenet of Marketing as any sales campaign would be, ie - to be successful, it is imperative to 'sell the sizzle and not the steak.'

Viewing this contention from another angle, respected newsman Ted Koeppel almost saw his redoubtable Nightline program shelved in favor of yet another late-night talk show featuring a comedian. Now that he's retiring, it's notable that the program will shift directions anyway, seemingly to assume a 'lighter' appearance in presentation to presumably better compete with the entertainers.

The sorrowful corollary of this point is that not only do the news operations overly heed the 'sizzle' mantra, so do many of the organizations who feed them their details. In the battle for dominance and perception, 'spin' is paramount.

Slanting a report to influence its perception has been in existence since the dawn of time, when Reporterpithicus --- or whatever version of man existed back then --- first related to someone else what someone told him. The tendency to spin has now evolved to where it has innately seeped into a troubling number of major news organizations. Anyone who has viewed a moment of Fox News can see for themselves how blatantly they have embraced this trend to promote their conservative leanings. MSNBC seems to be unusually beholden to the corporate world. CNN appears to abide the techniques of spin so as to not have their ratings erode any further.

Such policies clearly resonate in the minds and actions of their reporters in the field. Most seem to blithely absorb the spin given them by corporate and government spokesmen, given the bulk of milquetoast questions that now populate press conferences. Such practices and policies allow the Tucker Carlsons, Bill O'Reillys and Robert Novaks of the world to run amok, apparently encouraged to talk over any dissenting viewpoint as if they were thinly-veiled Jerry Springer clones in a stodgier setting.

Add the consideration that so many of those corporate and government spokesmen are so singly simple-minded about the message they're spinning, and it's no wonder a comedy offering like The Daily Show has risen in pop credibility to a level of perception that rivals the news programs. With so many thin platforms of substance just waiting to be skewered, Jon Stewart and his staff gladly accept a veritable cornucopia of material with every day's harvest of sound bites. The punch lines contained therein seem to literally grab them by the lapels and insist to be written.

If you want to confirm that point, watch an episode and see how many times Mr Stewart merely needs to raise his eyebrows after a sound bite in order to draw guffaws.

Toss in the fact that Comedy Central's video-to-mobile service is better defined for content than any of the news organizations, and The Daily Show is further cementing its image as the 'cool' news outlet for the younger set of voting age.

It's notable that, in late-20th century American politics, when media 'cool' was on the ascent, Democrats won elections. It was true for John F Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and if that party could ever find a leader, it might be true again.

One would think the Republicans might take a hint and go back to the straight talk that struck enough of a nerve with voters to put them in the majority. Currently, that would advisably include an element of fallibility and contrition over recent policies and events. It remains to be seen if anyone in that camp is forthright enough to admit as much.

Otherwise, it's all but inevitable that the obfuscation of news spin and comedy fodder will further lower the quality of daily electronic information to a series of straight lines that grew from Chevy Chase's Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live portraying Gerald Ford as a bumbler and has now progressed to the possibility of The Daily Show becoming an A-list stop on the itinerary of any legitimate candidate.

With all due respect to that excellent comedy series, if such a thing ever happened, it wouldn't be breaking news. It would be broken news.

Top 10 proven oil reserve countries

title:Top 10 - Proven Oil Reserve Countries

author:Austin Culley

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_1.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



This is a list of countries with proven reachable oil reserves in billions of barrels, and is a rough estimate based on the ability to recover the oil by current technological and economical means.

Saudi Arabia - 262

Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of petroleum in the world, and plays a leading role in OPEC, which stands for The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries; an international organization made up of eleven oil producing nations.

Canada - 180

Canada's Athabasca Oil Sands Project is what puts Canada on the map in this list. Current surface mining techniques and in-situ methods to extract bitumen from the oil sands make for an overwhelmingly positive future for Canada's oil industry.

Iran - 126

Iran's economy relies heavily on oil export revenues, and as oil prices rise, Iran's economy improves. Iran is in the process of diversifying by investing some of it's oil reserves into other areas, such as petrochemicals; and is in the process of creating more favorable climates for foreign investment.

Iraq - 115

According to oil industry experts, new exploration may raise Iraq's reserves up to 300 billion barrels. This has created global foreign interest to re-establish within the country. The US, UK, France, China, Russia, and Japan all vie for major concessions complicated by unrest in the post-Saddam Hussein era.

Kuwait - 102

Though the loss has been estimated at 2% of total oil reserves, Kuwait has recovered fully from the invasion of Iraq. The KPC, or Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, has grown to become one of the ten largest oil companies in the world.

U. A.E. - 98

At one time an underdeveloped region, by 1985 the United Arab Emirates had the highest per capita income in the world. The largest areas of petroleum production occur in two of the seven constituent parts of the UAE; these being Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi qualifies as a oil state in the same sense as Kuwait.

Venezuela - 77

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter in the world, and a founding member of OPEC. Oil output has been hampered at times due to protest and controversy, but the country remains an active contributor to the world supply of oil.

Russia - 60

Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. The country is the world's largest exporter of natural gas and the second largest oil exporter. Reorganization of the Russian Energy Sector has shown improvements in the industry over the last few years.

Libya - 39

Though sanctions against Libya had been removed by United States President Bush and also by The United Nations, some Libyan authorities caution foreign optimism about prospects in the country's socialist driven economy. Nonetheless, the removal of sanctions allows Libya to drive forward.

Nigeria - 35

Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa, and is a major oil supplier to both the United States and Western Europe. Proven oil reserves are expected to be expanded to 40 billion barrels by the year 2010.

The philadelphia experiment new evidence surfaces 4

title:The Philadelphia Experiment: New Evidence Surfaces 4

author:Bill Knell

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_37.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



It’s taken me some time to be able to write this article. That’s because I am in awe of the time travel prophecy that came my way just a year and a half ago. I shouldn’t be because it’s happened before. I clearly remember sitting in a quiet room in the late 1980s when Preston Nichols, Al Bielek and Duncan Cameron spoke of a cataclysmic event that would occur sometime in the future of New York City. As my video camcorder captured their every word, I remember how reluctant they were to talk about it. Their reluctance seemed almost dutiful and preprogrammed. Watching that video today, I know they were describing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

To recap from previous articles: On February 12, 2004, a woman that I’ll refer to as Virginia was joined by her husband and two friends to clean out a small room that existed on the second floor of their newly purchased retirement home in Maryland. The eighty-five year old house needed an interior facelift. With Contractor work set to begin shortly, the four had the task of removing items from a smaller room that was going to become part of a larger open area when everything was completed.

As the small group of people prepared the items for removal, they suddenly felt sick to their stomachs. A green mist appeared in the room accompanied by the form of a man and the odor of over-heated circuitry. He looked like a sailor wearing a long out of date naval uniform. Before anyone could react, the sailor looked at the group and said, “2005. Watch out for 2005! They’re playing with your future!” After that, the Sailor faded into the wall and the green mist quickly dissipated. All agreed later that they had heard his voice and everyone heard the same thing. They described the Sailor’s voice as deep and full, but sounding a bit muffled.

Despite the seemingly over-dramatic words and manner of the misty sailor, it would be a mistake to dismiss the incident out of hand. I have carefully researched this event as time and finances have allowed since it first occurred over a year ago. My investigations have leaded me to believe that it’s not a work of fiction and likely occurred as reported. Although I have dutifully reported the progress of my investigation through follow-up articles, I have not turned the entire situation into some sort of carnival atmosphere. I knew that this event would somehow play out and now it has.

Hurricane Katrina was more then just a weather event; it was a catastrophe of almost unprecedented proportions. Was that the nature of the sailor’s warning? It’s hard to say because there doesn’t seem to be any direct connection between the two events, at least on the surface. Digging deeper has uncovered some disturbing facts that we all may want to consider before drawing any final conclusions.

The manipulation of weather has long been a priority for the United States. One need only look at HAARP (High frequency Active Auroral Research Program). The notorious HARRP array in Alaska is said to have the ability to bounce electromagnetic beams off the upper atmosphere and focus them for the purpose of heating the ionosphere. Although touted as the building block for an advanced military communication and tracking system, there can be no doubt that HAARP has the ability to cause some type of weather changes. It may be no accident that HAARP is also a direct descendent of ELF and Radiosonde research.

ELF is a special low frequency radio system used to allow for communication with submarines deep under the sea. The Radiosonde is a radio sounding device. These devices are used by the National Weather Service and often placed on weather balloons. HAARP, ELF and Radiosonde devices have long been connected to research that goes hand in hand with the Philadelphia Experiment technologies. The mind control aspect of the Philadelphia Experiment was said to have involved the use of microwave, Radiosonde and other technologies that could have preceded or coincided with the development of ELF and HAARP.

The technology used for the invisibility effect achieved during the original P. E. experiments affected the minds of those involved. This left the door wide open to explore the possible use of that technology for mind control. Imagine the military or political benefits that could be derived from the successful deployment of mind control devices? However, those devices would only be as good as their ability to operate over a widespread area. The development of additional technologies to assure that would be possible may have also assisted in the discovery and deployment of things like ELF, HAARP and Radiosondes. However, there can be no doubt that the use of these technologies to control weather would be equally as beneficial from a political or military standpoint.

Weather manipulation can provide obvious benefits in terms of record harvests, national revenues and tourism. The danger, however, is the same one that exists with time travel. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You cannot attempt to alter the past or future without the potential of doing serious damage to yourself or others. That’s because we do not yet possess the ability to fully manipulate time. To do that, we would have to have a complete database of its ebb and flow. Most would concede the implausibility of being able to create such a concise record. However, that would not stop us and probably has not stopped us from attempting to control weather or time. Our Space Program provides a good model for this.

Once we discovered that the technologies to take us out into Space could be developed, we went ahead full throttle. As with Time Travel and Weather Control technologies, the potential political, economic and military benefits derived from diversified missile and rocket projects were just tempting to ignore. No one was concerned about being able to control how many missiles were eventually deployed, the amount of space junk that would end up in orbit or the number of people who might die during space missions. Worrying about all that would come later.

Despite the horrendous damage we might due to our planet in trying to control the weather, I have no doubt that such considerations play a secondary role. I am certain that many scientists have convinced themselves that we now know enough about our ecosystem to be able to predict almost any potential problem with weather control. Likewise, the scientists and engineers working on time travel projects have likely adopted the popular theory that says that Time is actually a big circle with no beginning or end. That would allow for movement anywhere within that circle. Any changes would merely become part of the norm, despite the fact that large numbers of people, places or things may be permanently altered or simply cease to exist.

Acceptance of the big circle theory when it comes to Time Travel may have opened a Pandora’s Box that can never be closed. It might not be unreasonable to suggest that the government would use available weather alteration technologies to cause what seems like a catastrophe to fix or prevent a problem created or detected by their Time Travel program. Such a problem could end up being ten times worse then the disaster they may have caused to fix or prevent it.

Most people think in the now. When considering the past, present or future, they do so in relation to the reality they know. Suppose it were possible to consider any number of possible realities, choose one and replace those less desirable? The problem is that accomplishing that switch may come with unforeseen consequences. When it comes to time travel, little problems can quickly become big ones requiring more then just a little tweaking of a desired time line.

Because New Orleans is one of America’s largest ports, it’s not unreasonable to consider the possibility that something terrible may have happened requiring a PE-style time travel fix and subsequent alteration of the present as a preventative measure. There could have been a dirty bomb or biological attack by terrorists bringing something into that port. A hurricane might have been just the distraction needed for U. S. Authorities to deal with the threat in a quiet way.

Less then a year ago there was a story on the major cable news networks of a cargo ship carrying something dangerous on board. The ship was headed toward the east coast of the U. S. The last I heard was that the Coast Guard was going to intercept the ship far offshore because they had word of a credible threat. Following those reports, the story and the ship just vanished. Nothing more was said. I went to the CNN and Fox News websites looking for the story that both networks had reported. The story was gone. This is not conjecture or guesswork, it’s fact.

Hurricane Katrina and the possibilities it has provided as a fulfillment of the time traveling sailor’s prophecy is something we should all carefully consider. For me, the shoe fits and fits very well. We can only hope that the next warning we receive will be one that allows us to take some preventative action. The very nature and dramatic accent of the 2004 warning leaves me with the sinking feeling that it was motivated more by desperation, then the hope that anyone had the ability to stop what was coming.

NOTE: You can read the previous three articles on this subject at http://www. ufoguy. com

Do we teach our children to lie

title:Do We Teach Our Children to Lie?

author:Casey Dawes

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_68.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



As I write this, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice Presidential Chief of Staff under President Bush has been indicted under five counts of lying, perjury and obstructing justice. I do want us to be clear on the meaning of the word "indicted." It doesn't mean convicted or proved. It means there is a formal charge against someone for committing a serious criminal offense.

There are many ways in which we lie.

In 1837, Hans Christian Anderson published a fairy tale called "The Emperor's New Clothes." In it, the emperor is duped by con men into believing that invisible thread would make beautiful clothes. He convinces himself to disbelieve his eyes; his vanity makes him oblivious to the truth. Everyone around him, afraid or wishing to gain favor, tells him to his face that the clothes are beautiful. Privately, they wonder that they can't see what the emperor can see, or laugh at his vanity. It isn't until the emperor is parading through town in his underwear that a child loudly and rightly declares that the emperor has no clothes.

Teaching Children to Lie

In the Anderson fable, the mother tries to shush the child before his words reach the emperor's ears. She is afraid of what will befall her child and herself for offending so mighty a man, regardless of where the truth lies.

And so we teach our own children to lie in many ways. See if you can relate to any of the following as happening to you as a child or, perhaps, something you told your own children.

• You call someone old, fat, ugly or some other "not nice" phrase and you are told people don't say things like that.

• Your parent's tell you to tell the person on the phone that they aren't home.

• Telling the truth about something you did caused your parents to severely punish you.

• You told the teacher you "forgot" your homework when you didn't do it because you knew you'd get a second chance.

• When someone else was blamed for something you did, you kept quiet.

• Someone who didn't like you lied about what you did.

• Someone in authority did something wrong and you were told that it didn't matter because he/she was in charge.

• You were told not to tell the truth because something bad would happen to you.

Each time something like this happens, our children die a little more inside. Their sense of right and wrong is altered and they begin to operate from a defensive mode, not a truth-telling mode.

As we grow, our lies become more elaborate and consistent. Yet each time we lie, either through omission or commission, we move away from the innocence that is our natural gift as children.

Next time you are tempted to tell your child or grandchild that it's o. k. to avoid the truth in certain circumstances, think about the long-term results of teaching a child to lie.

I wonder what Scooter's parents taught him.

Refugee v evacuee languaging the hurricane disaster

title:Refugee v. Evacuee: Languaging the Hurricane Disaster

author:Susan Dunn, MA, The EQ Coach

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_33.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Language is a behavior potentially under our control, and a powerful loop: it’s how we act upon the world, and how the world acts upon us. It’s how we express our thoughts and feelings, and it also influences our thoughts and feelings. It is probably not possible to have a feeling without a thought, and that thought is framed in words – coming from within our heads, or from the words of others.

Barring physical force, language is how we get what we want, influence, motivate, inspire, forbid, gain sympathy or support, incite, value or devalue, and make it happen – in other words, how we move the world, and ourselves.

Having a word for something allows us to "know" it and gives us a sense of power over it. It allows us to know "it" from "something else," and to choose strategies for dealing with it.

Language is the power of “naming,” and this is the power of the secret, or the name of Yahweh. Something must be very powerful not to have a name, and we must be very unpowerful not to know it, or not to be able to use it. Who gets to say it, i. e., who gets to "know" it, is dictated by the powers that be.

It's a great moment in a baby's life when he learns the word "no." Instead of pushing the thing away, averting his eyes, screaming, crying, or hitting, he can utter the word "NO" and -- at least some of the time -- the thing of offense will go away.

That's power.

The power of language.

And when we can name that our anger is coming from fear (instead of just a mish mash or feelings or pounding temples), then we can deal with it and move forward, empowered. Anger, as they say, is a good way of knowing what we want, though not a good way of getting it.

Those of us who have lived through the “sexist” revolution in the US (in terms of "all men are created equal," and “[s]he”) know the power of language and how it both influences and is influenced by feelings, attitudes and values.

You may also have experienced this if you decided, after assertiveness training in the 70s, to quit using the word “but” and to substitute “and” in each instance. It may have taken you a full year to quit thinking “but” automatically, but chances are you noticed a difference in your thinking and behavior after you became mindful of a habit, and changed it.


Consider how you and those around you are talking about the events around Hurricane Katrina. What happened is this: Hurricane Katrina is the third most intense hurricane to make landall in the US. Early in the morning of August 29. 2005, the eyewalls of Katrina grazed by New Orleans, Louisiana and made landfall in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.

Those are the facts. The rest, as with the reporting of any event, can be, and usually is interpreted, reported, elaborated upon, commented upon, embellished, reported falsely, lied about, exaggerated, down-played, assigned emotional meaning, given value judgments, and so forth. It can also be “used” for various purposes, depending upon the one reporting – for sympathy, for outrage, for money, to incite action, to disparage, for support, to criticize and blame, and any number of other purposes.

The words we use in reporting about the hurricane personally, as a nation, and as a world, will be influential. Who dictates this language? The media? The leaders? You and I? The words used will shape your thinking, so pay attention and accept or reject it, but recognize your ability to choose and be mindful or both what you take in, and what you put out.

According to the Global Language Monitor ( http://www. languagemonitor. com/ ), a fascinating website, here's the way it's being played in global reporting, in order of word/term usage:

Disaster is being used most often. Then Biblical. (The London Times reported " ...a town of 6,800 where corpses lie amid a scene of Biblical devastation".)

Next is global warming. (Der Spiegel reported: "...German Environmental Minister Jrgen Trittin remains stolid in his assertion that Hurricane Katrina is linked to global warming and America's refusal to reduce emissions.")

Next, in this order, are Hiroshima/nuclear destruction, catastrophe, holocaust, apocalypse, and end of the world.

What do you think about these different terms? What are the connotations? What emotional overtones do they have, i. e., how do you react to them? How do they make you feel? What is “factual” and what is “descriptive”? As you sort through the data, are you discriminating the fact from the embellishment and commentary? Are you considering the possible biases of those reporting?

Are the survivors of the hurricane evacuees, refugees, or survivors of the hurricane? What difference does it make which term you use? Evaluate your emotional reaction to each. Various emotionally loaded terms are being used in order to manipulate your reactions.

Why not take some time today to apply this think/feel paradigm today as you speak and listen to those around you.

Is your word choice emotionally loaded? Incendiary, for instance ("Just try touching that television one more time and you're grounded for a week.") or depressing ("There's no use even talking about it. There's nothing you can do about it.")

Is it passive? ("I'd sure like a new computer but I guess you'd never give me one.")

Is it intimidating, designed to scare and silence the other ("If I'd wanted your opinion I would have asked for it in the first place. Just stay out of it."

Is it victim language? (“This always happens to me because I’m a star-bellief sneech?”)

Is it politically correct, aka neutral of emotion and value judgments? Do you want it to be?

From your first smile as an infant, and the first time you uttered “Ma ma” you were learning how to work the world with language. And the first time your Mama said “Good boy” to you, when you ate your peas and you did, you were being worked on by language. It’s a powerful tool. Use it wisely.

Uk news reviewed by the bitch a weekly column

title:UK News reviewed by The Bitch! (a weekly column).

author:Michael Knell

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_77.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Well darlings,

That's the season over again for another year in Blackpool and the preliminary autopsies are already out. It seems it hasn't been a disaster, but it certainly hasn't been that good either. The council and Blackpool Tourism have come under a lot of criticism for not doing enough to attract new blood to the resort, with their TV advertising campaign described as being "too little, too late". And, as many of the hoteliers say they seem to be surviving only because of their returning regulars, it's been suggested that the old shows like Eclipse, Mystique and Hot Ice are in dire need of replacing as their customers "have seen them more times than they care to remember."

Other complaints include hotel guests remarking that the town is dirtier than before, and at weekends particularly the atmosphere in the town centre is quite threatening - a frequent complaint that apparently doesn't just come from senior citizens. There is a feeling too that whilst hoteliers are raising their standards year on year this is not being matched by the council, and a common theme throughout seems to be a call for: "better attractions, not second class shows," and: "a clean up of the yob factor, so that visitors feel safe walking around Blackpool." And I've also found that from many, many businesses, not just the hoteliers, there seems to be utter despair at the amount of bad publicity the town has suffered recently through all the negative television serials, soaps, and documentaries that have been aired.

All in all it doesn't make good reading, does it? And, as if that wasn't bad enough, we have the actor Mark Jones, who played the summer season opposite David Essex at the Opera House in Boogie Nights 2, describing Blackpool as "the tackiest dump I've ever had the misfortune of visiting", and telling the world and its partner on his web site that: "I've never been to a town that I have found as dirty, unappealing, run-down, nasty, ugly, over-priced, under-maintained and foul-smelling in my life. I hated the place with a passion. I have never felt so threatened in any other town. I have come out of venues in city centres on a Friday or Saturday night all across England, where people have been drunk or unpleasant, but never felt as in danger as in Blackpool." He also claims that he was twice "started on" by troublemakers for no apparent reason whilst staying here, and that his wife had been attacked too. That's nice! That's a real cherry for the top, isn't it?

Jane Seddon, head of tourism for Blackpool, has replied to the criticism with: "While we're not saying Blackpool doesn't have problems, he seems to have missed the point of the massive regeneration programme." Really? Are you sure it is not you who is missing the point, Jane? Blackpool really cannot keep on excusing every fault and every criticism with: "Wait until you see what's coming with the regeneration!"

Throughout my working life I had a policy: If there was a complaint, then I wanted an answer - and if anybody ever came back to me with an excuse instead of an answer, I sacked them. It was simple - but it was effective! Perhaps it's a policy that should be adopted in Blackpool.

If our streets are dirty, then they are dirty - enough people have said so - and this year, after an improvement last year, I too feel they have been dirty again. And "under-maintained and foul-smelling" must be a fair criticism when you consider the many drains around the Dickson Road area (and this is only one area that I know of - how many more are there likely to be?) that have not been cleaned properly in the past four years. Some have been thoroughly blocked for all that time, full to the brim with dirt that produces enough sustenance for the plants and grass springing up in them annually. To my knowledge the council were informed of the problem four years ago and again two years ago - and I would be very surprised if there had been no other complaints in all that time. No doubt our stinking drains will be solved by the regeneration plans too. Marvellous - I can't wait!

As for attacks, threatening behaviour and the yob factor, we were led to believe that the police were getting on top of this with the latest released figures showing a remarkable fall in those types of crime all across Lancashire and especially in the Blackpool area - however, this good news seems to have done little to address the perceptions of our guests. A lot more obviously needs to be done. Last year the damage inflicted around the Church Street area was truly astounding, with broken windows to be seen every week. On one night there were nine smashed at the Winter Gardens alone, with a load more put in further up the street near the Syndicate. My own observations in the mornings suggest there does appear to have been less damage, fewer broken windows and a lot less blood and gore on the pavements in this part of the town over the past few months, so I think there probably has been some improvement, albeit nowhere near enough to keep the holidaymakers that we need happy.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - and so is the road to Blackpool. When I look at some of the ideas there are for the resort, I think: that looks really spectacular - but who is going to look after it all? Will it be the same people we have now? The ones that don't seem to be able to organise simple street and drain cleaning of a reasonable quality? The ones who can't maintain law and order to a standard that visitors to the town find acceptable? The ones whose idea of planning has so often been unbelievable, and not without consequences? And the ones who floundered over organising something as simple as a pedestrianisation project? Will some of them be the very ones that are responsible for the way the town is today? And then I think: what a waste this could all turn out to be - this regeneration could become the biggest White Elephant the country has ever seen.

The new buildings, roads, parks, retail centres, covered walkways, flashy lights and all those pretty and impressive arty-farty things will mean nothing, nothing at all, if the people who run the town can't get their act together and maintain certain expected standards throughout the resort. Excuses will never make people come to Blackpool - answers will!

If the problems we have now are merely relocated into a rebuilt and state-of-the-art Blackpool then we will have gained nothing. "I've never felt so threatened in such a beautiful place before," will do little to kick-start the tourist industry; blood, vomit and broken windows tell the same story no matter how impressive the area - and if the streets and drains, new or old, are not receiving proper maintenance and cleaning they will only go to ensure the resort continues to keep its dirty image and reputation.

Folks, I don't doubt the good intentions of those charged with looking after Blackpool, and I do know how dedicated some of them are and how hard they work at the task, but I see so much around me that makes me question their abilities - and with so much at stake, I find that worrying.

On a lighter note: I have seen quite a few good shows at our Grand Theatre, and at the Opera House, since I've been here so I don't go along with all our shows being second-rate, but I'll agree we could do with a lot more good ones - we do get some that are a bit village hall. Although only a one-nighter The Joan Rivers Farewell Tour at the Opera House was excellent entertainment (if you are into Joan, and I am) and, considering it was November 5th with all those fireworks parties and the last weekend of the lights, it was quite well supported. No doubt when we get those 20 million people visiting us again, as everything is apparently being based on, our theatres will be in a position to host even bigger and better shows than they do at present.

Once upon a time (no, this isn't a fairy story - it's a story by a fairy) and that was a long, long time ago, I used to go to the theatre more frequently, often travelling miles to see something new. I would see a lot of good shows, a lot of mediocre shows, and, even though what constitutes the merit of a show is often purely subjective, a few that were absolutely and undeniably appalling. But there is one that will always stay in my mind. I turned up at the Theatre Royal in Bath, having found a show I hadn't seen before and pre-booked the tickets. I had no idea what the show was about, so when the tabs parted and there was no set, just a fat old man bathed in the spotlight and sitting in an armchair with a bottle of drink and a packet of cigarettes on a card table beside him, I wondered if I ought to leave straightaway. To this day I have no idea who the man was, he was certainly nobody famous that I'd heard of (he could have been a double for the way Orson Welles looked later in life), but he sat there for the complete performance just telling us stories - and I was totally enthralled. The whole audience was too; simply mesmerised. At the end we refused to let him go. He received a standing ovation and was forced to do numerous curtain calls.

I only mention this because I believe it makes the point that you don't necessarily need a big name or a lavish production to have a really good and entertaining show - you just need a good show. Perhaps sometimes we can all be bit guilty, and I include myself in this, of too easily dismissing a show as being second-rate merely because it hasn't done the West End, or we are unfamiliar with the name. I'm sure there must be many pleasant surprises out there - if only we would give them a chance.

And finally, another case of political correctness gone mad: a picture of a groom signing the register with a young bride, and another of Romeo and Juliet on a swing, have been removed from the Liverpool register office in case they should offend gay couples tying the knot now that civil partnership ceremonies are to be held there.

It's another case of ban, ban, ban. These PC people want to ban everything "in case it should offend" - including Christmas! What the hell is wrong with "add and enjoy"? Would it not have been more appropriate to have added a couple of pictures - say, of some gay and lesbian couples? That, at the very least, would have shown how well society had progressed.

As long as we allow these PC people, these control freaks, to continue banning things "in case it offends someone" we shall never understand, appreciate, or enjoy all our cultural differences, and we promote resentment. The answer to harmony lies in inclusion - not in exclusion!

See you all next week...

"The Bitch!" 12/11/05.

Who really hates our freedom

title:Who Really Hates Our Freedom

author:Marc Stevens

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_28.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



While flipping through some TV channels, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few moments of a smirking politician rambling on about freedom and liberty. What a tragic comedy. The fact politicians still have a market to spew their crap is a testament to the lack of thought of the average viewer of such pretended "news" programs.

A few minutes of thought and any literate person of any degree of intelligence would dismiss politicians as con men. However, has any "journalist" on television, radio or in print ever confronted a politician by asking him exactly what he means by freedom? Can you imagine the look on a bureaucrat's face if he was asked to define freedom or liberty?

I’m going to demonstrate how easy it is to prove government is incompatible with freedom or the protection of freedom.

I’ll define the word freedom. And so I’m not accused of being biased, I’ll use only "legal" definitions: "Liberty; absence of restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 499. Look at the last word, "restraint." Liberty is "Absence of servitude and restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 734. And "free" means: "Without restraint or coercion..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 498.

Now let's define what governments do, viz., they govern:

"To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.

It's correct to say freedom is "Liberty; [an] absence of" government. If there’s government, there’s "restraint" and therefore, no freedom. By definition, and in practice, government is anti-freedom. Keep in mind any slave had the freedom to do what his master ordered or allowed him to do; he was none the less a slave.

I know, statists (with not a shred of evidence of course) will shout government is there for protection and they're the only men and women who can. That’s nonsense, as everyone with even the slightest knowledge of government should already know. There is no duty to protect anyone. And any lawyer claiming otherwise is either lying or was asleep during that part of law school. Like I say; if you doubt me, then sue the police or the "state" for failing to protect you. A team of "state" lawyers will file a motion for a failure to state a claim.

Statists argue there has to be political "laws" i. e., "restraint." Fine, then explain exactly how politicians protect freedom. Accepting such nonsense for sake of argument, statists argue themselves right out of business because it cannot be said, with a straight face, that "states" are protecting freedom and liberty because freedom and liberty do not exist when there is "restraint [and] coercion." The "restraint [and] coercion" is another reason there is no duty to protect anyone.

Statists also support the use of violence to provide and pay for a service. Statists believe it's OK to kill people to make them pay for a service that's never provided. If you doubt this, then refuse to pay taxes. A good one to not pay, if you want to demonstrate a politician's intent to kill, is the vehicle license tax. Go ahead and drive around without a tax plate on your car. See what happens when you peacefully continue to drive when the local revenue cutter puts his emergency lights on.

When NORMAL men and women provide services, even the service of protecting freedom, they do not exercise "restraint or coercion" in providing their services to their customers, thereby destroying freedom. They would not only offer their services on a mutually voluntary basis, they would not restrain us of our freedom in order to protect it i. e., they would not take away that which they want to protect.

By definition the protection of freedom cannot involve "restraint or coercion". And yet, this describes exactly how men and women doing business as a government operate. They coerce us to pay them for protection they have no obligation or intention of providing and they restrain us in millions of ways; restraint that clearly has nothing to do with protection. These smirking politicians destroy the very freedom they lie about protecting. It reminds me of the law of diminishing returns. Wouldn’t it be accurate that if we’re supposed to be paying government to protect our freedoms, then shouldn’t the cost go down at the same rate our freedoms are destroyed? The less to protect, the lower the cost.

Look at the sales pitch these parasites spew: "we must take your freedom away in order to protect it." How do you protect what doesn’t exist? Why is this nonsense accepted? Again, because politicians will have you killed if you don’t.

So what "freedom" was this guy talking about? If you’re restraining and coercing, which is what governments do, then you’re unquestionably not protecting freedom because the "restraint [and] coercion" destroyed it.

They "hate us because of our freedom"? What a crock. I’ll tell you who really hates freedom: anyone who uses and advocates the use of restraint and coercion. In other words, anyone, regardless of their "nationality" and, or religious beliefs, who refuses to interact with you on a voluntary basis hates freedom.

Let those smirking politicians spin that.

Marc Stevens is the author of Adventures in Legal Land, the controversial and humorous book exposing the government hoax, order your copy today at www. adventuresinlegalland. com.

Gun control will solve nothing

title:Gun Control Will Solve Nothing

author:Jason Vines

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_43.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Statistics from the National Federation of State High School Associations reveal that, in 1999, 15 students perished while playing in high school football games. This fact received little to no coverage in the national media. Angry parents did not parade into Washington, D. C., in order to demand stricter regulation of high school football. Politicos feigning intense anguish did not bemoan football’s domination of most learning institutions’ sports programs. The large majority of this country’s citizens watched their favorite high school football teams oblivious to the blood that soaked the pigskin and dripped onto America’s playing fields.

Conversely, when 15 students died from gunshot wounds during the 1998-1999 school year, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate, the national media evangelized endlessly about the evils of guns. Apparently forgetting that many of the kid killers, such as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had obtained their weapons illegally, hordes of crusaders seethed that if guns weren’t legal and available, the school murders wouldn’t have happened. A few local governments, hoping to score political points, filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers, blaming them for the orgy of death and violence that seemed to have consumed America’s school system.

Why did 15 deaths related to high school football inspire scant attention, while 15 deaths resulting from gun violence kindled nationwide apoplexy?

Many right-wingers would simply answer, “Because the gun grabbers want to seize our weapons, they will ignore any fact that stands in their way!” These conservatives believe leftists across America want to confiscate firearms for the sole purpose of extending government control over the citizenry. But really, the notion that an enormous conspiracy, in which common liberals from all regions of the country participate, exists to subjugate the American people, is patently absurd. Most Americans care too little about politics and government to sustain such a far-reaching plot. Instead, the average gun control advocate honestly does believe that laws tightly regulating firearms, if not outright banning them, would reduce the number of Americans who die as a consequence of criminal attacks.

Gun control advocates amongst the populace acquire their ideas about firearms from news personalities and government officials who use guns as convenient scapegoats for this country’s high crime rate in order to avoid having to search for genuine causes and solutions. Whenever an event such as a school shooting occurs, the personalities and officials shamelessly exploit the opportunity to vilify guns and the individuals who own them. The real interest here is not to save lives, but to exacerbate public opinion against guns. That is why the whole world mourned the tragic deaths of 15 students from gunshot wounds during the 1998-1999 school year, but few people, if anyone, seemed to care that 15 high school football players died in 1999.

The truth about guns is that they save far more lives than they take. According to the Fall 1995 issue of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves an average of 2.5 million times per year, and only in less than 8 percent of these occurrences will citizens actually need to fire their guns, because most criminals will flee at the sight of a firearm. Of the 2.5 million annual instances of self-defense, 200,000 are cases of women defending themselves from sexual abuse. In contrast, accidental deaths, suicides, and homicides involving guns number, on average, less than 40,000 every year. This means that American citizens usually employ guns to defend themselves over 60 percent more times yearly than they do to kill, intentionally or otherwise.

According to the August 28, 1996, issue of The Wall Street Journal, states with looser gun control laws experience less crime than states with tougher laws. For example, in states that had begun to permit concealed weapons in the early 90’s, the murder rates fell by an average of 8.5 percent, the rape rates by 5 percent, the aggravated assault rates by 7 percent, and the robbery rates by 3 percent. Extrapolating from these data, if states that forbade concealed weapons instead allowed them, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 11,000 robberies annually would not have taken place.

The story of Australia demonstrates what could happen in the United States if the American government were to ban guns. After a nut conducted a particularly brutal massacre in the mid-90’s, Australia enacted laws disallowing personal firearms. By the end of 1997, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, crime had increased. The homicide rate rose by 3.2 percent, the assault rate by 8.6 percent, the armed robbery rate by 44 percent, the unarmed robbery rate by 21 percent, the unlawful entry rate by 3.9 percent, and the car theft rate by 6.1 percent. Even supposing that Australia’s new gun laws did not directly cause the increase in crime, the laws certainly did nothing to help matters.

Because guns are not the forces for evil the media and the government claim they are, no reason exists to forbid or to constrict the right to bear arms for law-abiding American citizens. Restrictions of freedom are only necessary and proper when their design is to prevent individuals from harming other people, which outlawing guns would not accomplish. Indeed, all the criminalization of guns would do is leave the average American defenseless against murderers and thieves who would retain their own guns, in natural contrivance of the law.

Rather than inhibiting freedom, the United States should err on the side of liberty, as per the Constitution, and allow its citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights as they have over the first 200 years of American history. (Contrary to the notion that the Second Amendment does not grant individuals the right to bear arms, the Supreme Court ruled in its 1990 decision U. S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez that the Second Amendment applies to “persons who are a part of a national community.”) As Thomas Jefferson, one of the most intelligent Founding Fathers, said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Sheik palazzi warns president bush and pm sharon

title:Sheik Palazzi warns President Bush and PM Sharon

author:David Ben-Ariel

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_16.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



It's pretty bad when a Zionist Muslim - one in a million - has to be used of God to warn our professing Christian president who is sinning against God, Israel and the United States with his wicked enabling of the dismembering of the Promised Land of Israel, preparing the way for it to be perverted into "Palestine," and clearing the way for EU "peacekeepers" who will brutally betray both Arabs and Jews! - DBA

(Used with permission)

Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi Final Warning to U. S. President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon:

Your Gush Katif Juden Expulsion and Pogrom-in-Progress now underway are "Serious Crimes" and "Severe Sins" rapidly calling down Divine Wrath on the United States and Israel, and on the "Quartet"/"Sextet" Road Map Nations (Egypt, E. U., Russia, "Saudi" Arabia" & U. N. member countries) collaborating with You in this Act of Global Rebellion Against God

(P. S. Stop sponsoring Israel Government Instigated Massacres of Arabs such as the Potemkin Village Atrocities in Shfaram and Shilo to draw Attention away from Israel Government Aktions now underway against Your Own People in Gush Katif. As U. S. President Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time" -- even in Israel. And you don't fool me.)

LIBERATED YERUSHALIYIM, D. C. (David's Capital), Liberated Israelite Tribal Territories of Yehudah and Binyamin, Kingdom of David and Shlomo, United Israelite Kingdom of Yehudah and Yosef, Yom Chamishi, 13 Av, 5765, (Gregorian Date: August 18th, 2005), (Hijri Date: 12 Rajab, 1426), Root & Branch Information Services [www. rb. org. il]:

"Severe Sin" -- Bush/Sharon Gush Katif Pogrom and Juden Deportation "Serious Crimes" and "Severe Sins".

"Open Rebellion" -- Deportation Rubber Stamping U. S. Congress and Israeli Knesset in State of "Open Rebellion" against God of Israel.

"Never Again"? -- Legalized Asset Theft of billions of dollars of Currently-Being-Deported Gush Katif Jewish Pioneer homes, farms and businesses, compensation (if at all) of owners forced to sell assets at fraction of real value and transfer of those assets to World Bank for sale to prospective buyers (such as Wye Plantation owning Aspen Institute) replay of early 1930's Nazi German Legalized Asset Theft (Arianisierung Gesetze/Arianization "Laws") forcing To-Be-Deported German Jews to "sell" assets at fraction of real value.

"$.$. $piritual Heirs" -- World Bank (founded 1944; headquarters, Washington, D. C.) $.$. $piritual Heirs of Bank for International Settlements (B. I.S.) (founded 1930; headquarters, Basel, Switzerland), which operated during World War Two with a U. S. President (Thomas McKittrick) and Nazi German General Director (Paul Hechler) "legally" transferring stolen Jewish assets out of Nazi Germany to Argentina and other countries (including gold from teeth of Jews, mass murdered in Nazi Death Camps, melted down to ingots by Nazi German Reichsbank).

"Nazi German/Saudi Wahhabi Collaborators" -- Nazi German Collaborating Union Banking Corporation Director Grandpa Prescott Bush betrayed the Jews of Germany and Europe (and all Americans fighting Hitler) for profits during World War Two. Grandpa Prescott's son, Saudi Wahhabi Collaborating U. S. Shadow President George H. W. Bush and Grandson, U. S. President George W. Bush, betray the Jews of Israel (and all Americans fighting Saudi sponsored Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood) today for almost 100% U. S. tax free Saudi oil profits.

"Fallen Vichy Israel?" -- Israeli "leader"ship today starting to smell like French "leader"ship of late 1930s. Will Prime Minister Ariel Sharon soon star as Modern Marshal Henri Philippe Petain (with Shimon Peres playing Pierre Laval) in "Fallen Vichy Israel"?

"Divinely Decreed Devastation" -- Divinely Decreed Devastation "rapidly accelerating descent" on nations -- and their "leaders" -- supporting current Gush Katif Juden Deportation and Legalized Asset Theft as punishment for these sins.

"Thus says the Lord" -- "Thus says the Lord God: It shall come to pass in that day, that things shall come into your (Gog's) mind, and you shall device an evil device [Quartet/Sextet Roadmap]; and you shall say: 'I will go up against the Land (of Israel) of unwalled villages; I will come upon them who are at quiet, who dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates; to take the spoil and to take the prey'; to turn your hand against the waste places (Gush Katif currently, Judea and Samaria soon) which are now inhabited, and against the People (of Israel) who are gathered out of the nations, who have gotten cattle and goods, who dwell in the middle of the earth. Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the magnates thereof, shall say to you (Gog): 'Do you come to take the spoil? Have you assembled your company to take the prey? To carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take great spoil?'" [Yehezkel/Ezekiel 38:10-13]

The macro and micro worlds of thea alexander

title:The Macro and Micro Worlds of Thea Alexander

author:David Snape

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_172.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16



Thea Alexander wrote a book called 2150 AD, originally published in 1976. She describes a fascinating world that includes two parts consisting of the Macro World and the Micro World.

In the Macro world there was harmony, cooperation, and everyone respected everyone else and did their best to be good and kind to each other. In contrast, the micro world was smaller and isolated from the macro world. It was ruled by oppression, mind control tactics and keeping the public in ignorance of current events.

Nothing in our modern world completely bears resemblance to the Macro world but it is easy to see how the Chinese Communist Party and other repressive regimes are accurate reflections of the rulers of the micro world.

In China, the news is censored and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. To make sure that everything and everyone stays in line, there is an extensive system of 'forced re-education through labor' camps. One might question how one is 're-educated' through forced labor. Such a phrase would seem the height of oxymoronic prose.

Perhaps a more appropriate term would be, "mind control through forced labor". It is interesting to note that a person can be sent to a forced labor camp for up to three years without a court conviction or court order in China. Not that it would matter much, the judiciary in China is dictated to by the Chinese Communist Party. In such a system, justice is scarce.

Much like the Micro world in Thea Alexander's book, if you were to ask the average Chinese person if they lived in a repressive society, they most likely would say,"no". Some might say so because they fully believe the CCP's propaganda which is broadcast everywhere. Most might say so out of total fear. To say anything against the Chinese Communist Party is risking arrest, torture, forced labor and possibly death.

That is similar to how the Micro world leaders maintained absolute control in Thea's book. That is how the Chinese Communist Party does it in the real world, today. There are many groups and individuals persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party. A a recent web search for "persecution in China' yielded 2,150,000 results.

The Clearwisdom website does a good job of documenting the abuses of the Chinese Communist Party against Falun Gong practitioners. The Falun Gong practitioners are peaceful and non-violent. They simply wish to meditate and believe in Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance. Yet the irrational need to control what people think in the confines of their own minds seems to have always been a priority for the Chinese Communist Party.

The Macro world was a world of beauty, harmony, peace and cooperation. The Micro world was a world of control and oppression with inhabitants that either did not realize, tried to forget or would not dare to speak the truth for fear of their lives and worse. Which type of world would you rather live in and support?

[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]