Gemini Press

Any health information provided herein is for educational purposes only.
IT IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
EVALUATION OR TREATMENT BY A HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL.

Sat 7 Jan '06 Syndicated editorial: Jay Ambrose: Terrorism is no small threat

Response: Jay's back at work hammering the official line and, this time, fear-mongering.

Jay, the frequent purveyor of elite propaganda, begins this one by attempting to criticize an earlier piece by Paul Campos, who tried to put the terrorism issue into perspective (see below). Jay's particularly upset that Campos referred to one's risk of harm from terrorism as "microscopic."

That was perhaps a bit too strong a word, but when you look at it from the standpoint of the number of attacks here vs the number of people--285 million--it does make some sense. And Campos was pointing out that many more may be affected--all of us really--by domestic spying as an example of the surrender of liberty out of fear. This is where Jay comes in--to reinforce that fear.

"The terrorist threat is real and could destroy American civilization," he assures us. This certainty has been established, he says, "...as we are taught by focused, studious, empirically based investigation--by ... hard facts and expert analyses..." yada, yada. Not entertained for a moment by the Ambrosial brain cell, is the studious, empirically based work by many 9/11 investigators who 'teach' us that the official story of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.

This, of course, does not mean American civilization couldn't be destroyed by those who did pull off 9/11. But it does mean that the wolves are guarding the hen house (a major goal of the 9/11 inside job) and that we cannot be protected by the means Jay favors, which are the trappings of the fascist state.

The details of other 'terrorist' attacks are also in question: USS Cole, OK City bombing, and WTC 1. Looks like the FBI was involved in the latter two.

Before going on to paint his grim picture, Jay takes the trouble to mock those who "find President Bush a more frightening figure than Saddam Hussein." Such is the rhetorical tactic of debunking the truth by stating it as if it's patently and obviously ridiculous notion.

But consider: Even though Saddam had the $4 billion worth of chemical and bio WMD the US sold him prior to Gulf War 1, he didn't use them against Kuwait. Whereas, in the ensuing phonily contrived war, the US not only blew up all the WMD bunkers to destroy that evidence, exposing our soldiers in the process, but used a declared-illegal WMD itself in the form of Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions--to which the military also exposed our troops. "President" Bush repeated this war crime against humanity and Nature in Gulf 2, again exposing our troops.

Such considerations escape the Ambrosial brain cell, which prefers to quote "people who know what they are talking about," like Frank Gaffney, a former Defense Dept official. Jay loves officials. They never lie or regurgitate the approved spin--especially when they agree with Jay's misguided conception of what's going on in the world (or perhaps a 'guided' conception, if you get my drift).

What do we learn from Gaffney? He "...unblinkingly tells us that the free world is in a life-and-death struggle with Muslim extremists whose totalitarian ambitions must be countered if we don't want the United States to be finished as anything approximating the kind of nation it has been..." Quite a mouthful. Of what, I'm too polite to say (DON'T believe that :-) Of course, Gaffney doesn't blink, because propagandists are trained not to do so. Jay doesn't blink because he's either deluded or a ventriloquist dummy.

Even a cursory look, via mostly undisclosed history, reveals that if Jay were informed or being honest, he wouldn't want the US to be what it has been--a monstrous hypocrite that speaks of freedom and democracy, but scuttles same through global criminal corporate shenanigans whereby poverty, disease, war and terrorism are carefully nurtured.

We have the biggest and best terrorist training camp on the world right here, at Fort Benning, GA. It's known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (they sure know how to spin names, don't they? Like, the Clear Skies Act). This was formerly the School of the Americas, training ground for numerous death and terror squads deployed in South America to faciliate the corporate rape of natural resources, and the suppression of the interests of the people in favor of business. No better example than Iran-Contra.

Jay then regales us with a tale of potential horror--an "EMP" attack. This is "what you get when a nuke is exploded several hundred miles in the atmosphere." Boy! Those raghead, cave-dwelling terrorists have come a long way, haven't they? They've got a space program now! Not really, they're just going to "get hold of missiles and nuclear weaponry and shoot those missiles into the US atmosphere from freighters near our shores." Yikes!

But all this fanciful paranoid propaganda aside, who is the only terrorist nation ever to use nuclear weapons? Which terrorists have used them repeatedly since those first unnecessary test shots in Japan? Well, first the Israelis against Egypt, in the form of DU. The terrorist US military then repeated that crime four times--Gulf 1, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Gulf 2. Thousands of tons of highly deadly radioactive waste material from power plants with a half life of 4.5 billion years blown into dust. Afghanistan's groundwater is now contaminated. Iraqis are having Frankensteinian birth defects, and easily 250,000 American troops have been exposed.

Yet, Jay struts around with his peacock feathers in a twist about Muslim terrorists, admonishing us that we must fight the (contrived by the elite) war on terror with the same wide-eyed awareness and determination that have rescued us in other major conflicts."

Jay fails to mention that those other major conflicts were also the brainchildren and spawn of internationalists, many of whom posed as US citizens and patriots. All the war on terror is, is a major protection racket devised to ensure ongoing war profit and ease the implementation of Orwellian capitalist enslavement of the people.

And Jay is full of gas, like all 'reluctant' worshippers of war, which has become the foundation of our economy and national spirit.

Wed, 4 Jan '06 Article: The color of controversy

Response: The invisible may be more dangerous.

A Leominster resident is getting yellow water from the tap, which leaves a slimy film on tub, dog's water bowl, and coffee mugs. Authorities say it came from "a closed down water main gate," but are still looking into it.

But with due respect to the resident, you have to be suffering a serious lack of awareness to be drinking municipal water in the first place. Along with a clue, at least get a Brita.

This may be one of those good-from-bad events for this family, because even municipal water that looks OK carries a deadly agent you can't see (but can sometimes smell and taste)--chlorine.

Putting this poison into the water supply is one of the dumbest things we embrace in 'civilized' society. Chlorine is an indiscriminate bacteriacide. It's killing effect is equivalent to throwing the baby out with the yellow bathwater: Not all the bacteria in, on, and around us are bad. In fact, most are good.

But when you kill the good ones, guess what. The baddies come back quicker and have a field day. For example, we're supposed to have good bacteria on our skin. They produce a slightly acid environment that protects us from nasty bacteria. Chlorine showers and baths, anti-bacterial soap, and the madness of special lotions that "kill germs," increase, not decrease, our susceptibility to the overgrowth of harmful forms by upsetting the ecology.

On the inside, this suicide is even worse, because nasty forms can take over in the gut, and this can lead to almost any so-called disease you wish to mention. Our susceptibility to things like E coli and inflammatory bowel 'diseases' are increased, if not created, by a deficiency in normal gut bacteria.

We pat ourselves on the back for creating this wonderful civilized infrastructure, and then waste $billions on medical research looking for cures for the symptoms of ignorance.

Wed, 4 Jan '06 Syndicated editorial: Scripps Howard (SH): Technology cuts both ways.

Response: SH is becoming downright spiritual :-)

The pros and cons of technological impact are discussed.

Concerning the computer revolution, most Americans work longer and longer with wages being flat and everything frantically paced. "And is the virtual reality of staring at [computer] screens all day as satisfying as having a real life--the sun on your head, the smell of wet earth, etc?"

Also mentioned are privacy, international competition and biotech. Comments on the latter are most interesting: Expect further breakthroughs. But also expect more hype about the efficacy of new medicines, medical equipment and procedures. Noted is the billions spent by drug interests on marketing, "...but (amazingly!) not all of their assertions are true."

This helps to underscore, as I have stressed on many occasions, the questionable value of stem cell research, a highly expensive and polluting pursuit. When what we really need for most of the things targeted by such research, is to stop polluting ourselves in the first place.Wed, 4 Jan '06

Syndicated editorial: Paul Campos: Soldiers sacrifice while the rest of us spend

Response: Best mainstream editorial yet!

"Give me liberty or give me death." The familiar words of Patrick Henry have lost their charm in the new, trembling America, says Campos; an America that is more concerned with safe shopping than real freedom and civil liberties.

Campos quotes a couple of our brave leaders to make his point. John Cronyn of Texas, in response to Bush's illegal domestic spying said that "none of your civil liberties will matter much when your dead." Well, gee, isn't the point the manner in which we conduct our lives?

Trent Lott responded to same with, " I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that." He could probably use a taste of a high-security prison, and see how he likes those details.

So now, says Campos, Henry's words would go, "Give me a slight theoretical decrease in the already microscopic risk I face from terrorism. On second thought, forget about liberty." Indeed.

The stance of those brave leaders might have some merit if it were not for the fact that the war on terror is a contrived protection racket conjured up by the elite to further its agenda of implementing BigBro 1984 police-state society.

Campos doesn't stop there, but also makes the very good point about how much we ask of our soldiers to supposedly protect the cause of freedom and the Constitution, while we give those things up to cower behind our curtains here at home. A morally disgusting situation, he says. I agree.

And finally: "If the cultural conditions that enabled the Iraq war were to last long enough, the American military would gradually be transformed into a warrior caste that would view the people they were ordered to protect with well-deserved contempt."

Tue, 3 Jan '06 Syndicated editorial: Scripps Howard (SH): Iran's leader rattling world community with his comments

Response: Rattled it may need to be--but let's hope Ahmadinejad is not an elite operative.

The downside to Ahmadinejad's candor about Israel, a country born out of deception where it had no right to be, and which has since proceeded to murder Semitic people with impunity, is that it could help to justify a possible tactical-nuclear attack by the elite Axis of Evil--US/Israel--on its nuclear installations.

This could launch WW III, which is certainly on the elite's wish list. Thus, it's possible Ahmadinejad is a mole to generate animosity and set the stage for an event. But go here to see what may be the real motive for a US (or Israeli) attack on Iran.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad's words are being spun in the media to generate concern and fear that an "ill-educated, ill-mannered nutcase" might get nuclear weapons. Why should he not? Sharon, who could also be called a nutcase, has them. Why must Iran live under that shadow, as well as those of India and Pakistan?

You see, rather than dismantling all nukes (including power plants), the international community of "sane" nations would rather decide who should and should not have them. Much better, don't you think?

Besides, Ahmadinejad's remarks about removing Israel had more to do with the Zionist criminals than with Jews in general. He also denies the Holocaust--at least the official version of it. So do many scholars (who are being persecuted legally for thought crimes). But he has done the honest thing and asked for an international study on it to ascertain the facts.

The media doesn't mention that--only what a nuctase Ahmadinejad is for questioning the most politically correct, but comparatively minor, genocide in human history (70 million under Mao, 30 million in Russia, and probably 11 million Natives in America at the hands of the good Christians).

IF the Holocaust happened exactly as claimed, why the extreme reaction (like criminal charges against freedom of speech) from so many? Anyone with confidence would just shrug it off. Truth is, the powers that be fear an open study of Holocaust facts--too much good political leverage might be lost.

Tue, 3 Jan '06 Syndicated editorial: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Bolivia's new leader promises to vex US

Response: Things are getting better in South America (SA).

Evo Morales, an Indian elected president of Bolivia has said he intends to be "the US's worst nightmare." Well, hooray for that. Along with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, things may begin to shape up for people and the planet.

After decades of US corporate abuse in SA, including CIA murders of good leaders, Iran Contra, hypocritical clandestine participation in the drug trade, and setting assassins upon the place, trained at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, GA, to kill unionizers, who can blame any honest leader down there for a hefty dose of distrust of anything American?

This is a particularly good piece, because it relates Morales's intention not to oppose coca cultivation, although he has said he will not favor the processing and export of it as cocaine. The best part here is the admission that traditional US hypocrisy has had the effect of pounding on small farmers, and that successive US governments have ducked the real debate on the question of the wisdom of legalization.

Of course the elite don't want legalization. The thrive on the millions and billions of dollars the illegal trade they facilitate brings them, which can be used for all manner of covert black operations--such as assassinating leaders who are for the people.

Mon, 2 Jan '06 Syndicated editorial: Scripps Howard (SH): Shine the light on executive's pay

Response: Yet another quasi-enlightened Scripps Howard outing.

Business Week reported last year that average CEO pay was up another 15 percent in 2004 to $9.6 mil, with 40 of them taking home more than $20 million--before stock options. Average worker pay went up 2.9%.

Also spoken of are the underhanded tactics corps use to cover what they pay top execs, instead of clearly disclosing it in annual reports. Not mentioned is an interesting statistic: In 1986, the ratio of CEO to worker pay was 41 to 1. By 2003, it was 301 to 1.

And they tell you we can't raise minimum wage because it will cause inflation.

Mon, 2 Jan '06 Syndicated editorial: Dan Thomasson: Nobel winner joins war debate

Response: Not liking the sting of truth, is Dan.

Thomasson derides renowned playwright Harold Pinter's recent criticism of America and the war in Iraq. He calls it "common ranting." So it is, when speaking out against horrific crimes against humanity, one must maintain decorum and not lose composure, as Dan says Pinter did when he said," I put it to you that the United States is the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful, and ruthless it may be, but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own, and its most salable commodity is self-love."

Admittedly not the most tactful way of putting it, but with respect to much of our impact in the world and our attitude, pretty much on the mark.

Having launched two wars on contrived pretenses against Iraq, and another against Afghanistan, in which we have distributed as dust thousands of tons of waste from our nuclear power plants, we cover the brutal and ruthless parts before even getting started on the transgressions of the government. Indifferent and scornful can easily be covered with the government's stance on global warming and its rejection of the Geneva Convention.

When it comes to self love, what else can be said of a country that repeatedly says "America is the greatest country in the world"? It's almost a mantra. And we often imply we're the only free country on the planet. Well, think of America as a person, and think of the impression you'd make going up to people and saying, "I'm the greatest person in this room."

Dan is also upset about Pinter's suggestion that Bush and Blair should be taken away in handcuffs. As true as that is, Dan uses a very cheap tactic and says that people who abhor violence in Iraq advocate it in politics by saying such a thing. Weak, weak, weak, Dan. Advocating violence in politics is when Pat Robertson says we should assassinate Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, because he also tells the truth about the criminals who have usurped our government as pose as patriots.

Committing violence in politics is when the CIA has repeatedly torn down and set up governments to favor business; Corporate/US motives in South America being the unabated willingness to kill anyone to advance the elite agenda. Special note is that Colombia is a US puppet regime. Of course! That's where most of the drugs come from.

So, in the face of these and countless other crimes over the decades, critics are expected to "take the opportunity to raise the debate to a higher level of civility." On the contrary, Dan--I think it's way overdue and just about right--more like the good ol' 'merican ass-kickin' attitude we hypocritically adopt for entities demonized for political expediency, but whom we hobnob with, and do big business with, and sell horrific weapons to, and shake their hand before and after murder. Oh, I don't know...Saddam comes to mind. Suharto of Indonesia another.

Dan, take your call for civility and gently place it in a certain area of your anatomy that never sees sunlight. Thank you.

Sun, 1 Jan '05 Syndicated Editorial: Howard News Service: Bush's wartime power

Response: Oh yea, Brother, with permanent war declared.

The "Scripps" is missing here from Scripps Howard News Service. Probably a typo. But the good news is, it's off on a decent foot for the new year, if not the right one, with strong criticism of the BushCo push for fascist-state executive powers. Hopefully a harbinger of better things to come from these traditional editorial Bush supporters.

This piece discusses the presidential belief that its authorization to "wage war on al Qaeda" implied that the NSA can spy on Americans without a warrant--on the whim of a shift supervisor. The same administration 'logic' has been used with torture, detention without charges, and snubbing the Geneva Convention.

After saying such behavior "might" be illegal and unconstitutional, the piece finishes off by saying that if it is to allow such behavior, Congress must provide "specific ground rules, oversight, and checks and balances to protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties."

Most Americans don't realize there's no such thing as privacy any more. But it would be nice to put the clamp on the fascist program. Here's a quote from that apparently reformed international criminal Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch the society in all details. ...it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world."

Sat, 31 Dec '05 Syndicated editorial: Providence Journal (PJ): Stop warrantless snooping.

Response: And more.

The rationale given for unlimited snopping privilege is, of course, to catch the 'terrists.' But it is the same rhetoric given by the Nazis to implement the fascist state: You must reliquish inthe name of national security most of your fundamental liberties--that which many have died to protect.

And that's exactly the direction we're headed in.

Almost always left out of such discussions is the strong possibility that those who wish to impose fascism have created, and do create, the threats from which they promise to protect us. If that sounds familiar, it's because it's a variation on the old Mafia protection racket. Terrorism is the perfect example, and 9/11 was the staged event to change opinion (like Hitler's burning of his own Reichstag and blaming it on Polish terrorists)

PJ shames itself here with euphemism and avoidance. Euphemism, by saying Bush "ignored" the law. Nice word. If it were you or I, it would be a felony. Avoidance, by saying this activity must stop immediately. Tough sounding words substituting for, "The case should be prosecuted immediately, and the president impeached."

Finally, the solution is that the agency (NSA mainly) must go through a tribunal before spying. Well, we can see where that will probably lead--the stacking and/or corruption of that body to turn it into a mere formality that will make no effective difference.

Fri, 30 Dec '05 Syndicated editorial: Scripps Howard (SH) Limited freedom of information

Response: This editorial an example.

Hand it to SH. At least this traditionally Bush-kissing news service is taking BushCo to task on all the secrecy and refusal to release information under FOIA. But the 'consequences' for the president are said to be that it has "cost the president with the Congress, including his own Republicans, and the people.

Well and good. But SH doesn't venture to say what might be the reason for all the secrecy. Hmmm, what could it be? Oh, I don't know...the covering up of major crime? The gradual implementation of the fascist state?

Fri, 23 Dec '05 Article: Blogging on the rise

Response: Good things--when you have the time.

"Blog" arose from the shortening of the term 'WebLog,' an online journal where people can post comments and comment on postings. In this article, three blogs are mentioned. One interesting one is that of (recently former) Fitchburg City Councilor Ralph Romano, at itsmydime.blogspot.com.

The S&E refers to Ralph as "right-leaning." This is like referring to Ralph Reed or Jimmy Swaggart as religious-leaning. This ain't no lean, folks; this is both feet sunk in to the bedrock. Ralph's out to prove that BushCo is god, the war is good, America can do no wrong, and we gotta get those evil "terrists."

The blog, as well as Ralph's personal site, emphasize support for the neocon agenda. Lots of stars and stripes and the appearance of patriotism. The aim is to rationalize BushCo criminality as courageous and wise policy. It's all sort of Third-Reich in flavor.

Rule!: We don't question the Commander-in-Chief. Especially after he's lied us into war, because that's not supporting the troops (gotta love that argument). And there's no possibility that the ubiquitous cry of "National Security" is a means of covering up major crime and facilitating the creeping fascist state.

We are to have unquestioning faith that the government or its billionaire operatives are beneficent and would never lie to, oppress, or enslave us--even thought it has been proven that they've done so in the past (the flag-wavers, if forced to admit something, will then tell you it was for your own good). So just hand over the Constitution, boy! BigBro will watch you and watch over you.

One question: If the citizens are supposed to shut up and genuflect as the government incrementally rescinds liberties and privacy and constructs the spy-dominated police state, who's watching the watchers?

Of course, we can't put the whole blame on the manipulators, because collective cowardice and fear puts 'security' ahead of freedom. The terrible irony is the elite generally concoct the threats, and we buy the product. This is beyond the scope of Ralph's awareness--or else he's a conscious player.

There are links to some of the best venom slingers out there, such as the Queen oif Venom, Ann Coulter, BushCo cheerleader Sean Hannity, and even the noble Rush Limbaugh, the advocate of political assassination.

Propaganda techniques include such tactics as calling anyone who questions the government or Bush a traitor and a "Bush-hater" (this is true only as long as their people are in power. Otherwise the venom is directed at the administration). This implies that somehow, with no cause, the person just decided to hate an innocent man. But these rhetoricians are, of course, quite rational, and not spontaneous Bush lovers.

They are also not spontaneous lovers of Zionaziville, aka Zionist Israel, which spies on the US, infiltrates the government with hawkish operatives (Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz), harbors a huge nuclear arsenal, and daily murders Palestinians.

There's a link to the "Queen of all Evil," who's very good at common techniques of rhetoricians who attempt to defend the indefensible. As with many rightist venues, you'll find hateful sarcasm, name calling, clever rhetoric and even a little obscenity. One technique is to state the truth as if it's not. For example, "Bush 'lied' us into war." In this case, though, the quotes implying the falseness of the word "lie" are valid on one level: It's much too mild a word for what elite operatives do to concoct wars.

In this case, there was supporting Saddam when he was at his worst, with huge loans, weapons sales, and by removing Iraq from the list of countries that support terror (my, how convenience changes posture). Previously, we sold $4 billion dollars worth of bio/chem WMD to The Butcher leading right up to Gulf War 1, which was kicked off with the conspiratorial lie about Iraqi soldiers killing babies by stealing their incubators.

Ralph and his ilk don't seem to consider any such history, but just look for ways to spin deceit and crime as good American, patriotic policy.

Another tactic is to cry about the biased and censored "Western media." We are to believe that the media, which are owned now by a handful of giant corporations, some of who profit mightily from war (GE for example, which owns NBC) have it in for Bush and mislead Americans about how bad things are in Iraq.

After NYT 'reporter' Judith Miller all but sucked the lips off Dubya on the WMD lies, hobnobbing with the slimeball hustler Ahmad Chalabi, the flag-wavers can complain about the media? If we had a truly investigative media, there would have been no war (since there was no genuine cause), and BushCo would be in chains now for a laundry list of crimes against humanity and Nature.

BushCo should spend the rest of their lives in jail, if for nothing else, using tons of Depleted Uranium munitions in four wars, contaminating areas of the world forever. And, during Gulf 1, unnecessarily exposing hundreds of thousands of our soldiers to radioactive, chemical, and biological elements. Radical Communion will be doing a special series on this in January '06, and repeating it down the road.

One particularly cheap tactic used on Ralph's blog is the placement of 9/11 imagery right next to an article that pretends to justify the Iraq war. As anyone with the least savvy knows, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. To be fair, the imagery does suggest that Osama did it--but then, this has not been proven (it was an inside job). But it also presents images intended to arouse hate for Arabs. Any way you look at it, it displays either malfeasant intent to deceive or deadly unawareness.

Another sign of unawareness is the habit of putting all arguments in partisan terms of Left, Right, Republican, Democrat. This indicates a serious lack of understanding of the elite and how they operate. Republicrat/Democan: two rotten sides of the same rotten apple, but putting on a great show pretending opposition. A centuries-old elite game.

There's no way you can argue with the flag-wavers, because they lack intellectual integrity. They choose to ignore deep politics and the facts of history ("wacko conspiracy theories"), preferring instead factual-sounding rhetoric, hyperbole, and programmed patriotic dogma. They're even now finding excuses for Bush spying illegally on Americans. And here's a great quote from a gunslinging, ass-kicking 'merikan military blog named "Blackfive" ranting about how good the war is: "Oh and if some dumbass lefty says something stupid today, take advantage and vent, it's soothing, kinda like walking on baby ducks..."

It is astounding how much criminal and scandalous behavior BushCo can get away with and still be standing politically. One sign put it into perspective, that said: "Will someone please give him a blowjob so we can impeach him?"

But the tide is slowly turning, and as more and more info comes out, it will be fun to hear the last desperate gurgles of people like Ralph as they drown in the wave of truth.

Wed 28 Dec '05 Syndicated editorial: Scripps Howard (SH): Anti-terrorism measures could save your life

Response: SH BS as we know and love it. Buckle under to the protection racket, folks.

This is basically a fear-mongering piece, all about just who the bad guys are. It's written in ironic tone (like, you don't want our European friends to think we're cowboys, so let's let up on Patriot). It's intended to create more fear, playing on the need for security in order to facilitate the surrender of civil liberty. The intent is exactly what the fascists use when trying to implement the police state.

Hey, who cares if some nosy FBI agent finds out you rented a Harlequin Romance at the library?

Also built in is excuse for the presiden't impeachable spying offense, not to mention an apology for torture (here called "squeezing" and "coercing") of captured "terrorists." It mentions the many terrorists we've "slowly but surely" captured over the past few years, but fails to mention that, according to the official line in terror, there is an infinite supply of them.

Of course, the 9/11 ploy is used to boost fear and enforce the argument. Not a peep about the many holes oin the official story, the errors and omissions in the Commission Report, or the many questions as to who it was that carried out the attacks.

All in all, Scripps Howard BS in all its glory

Wed 28 Dec '05 Article: City's snow removal budget facing shortfall

Response: What a shocker!

Where's the money? Nothing is ever said about where our money might be going--for example, that it is being stolen by the billions via the federal government. Here's one example (but phony war is another means).

Nope, we're just corks on the water of economic fancy. How about the few hundred billion we're spending on phony wars. Rather than question and rein in the warmongers, local pols would rather plant bricks in the ground honoring the dead.

Moreover, with a potentially severe energy crunch impending, foretold by analysts and ever-increasing petroleum prices, city fathers and officials have proceeded apace with their "economic growth and development" and consumer-orgy plans to UPSCALE Fitchburg and the area with UPSCALE retail outfits--bars, restaraunts, boutiques, malls, and so on.

Why, in their wisdom, they even want to widen and build more roads in order to require even more plowing. Nothing is ever said about calling a halt to growth, the Holy Grail of debt-based economics. No one ever heard of prosperous stability. Never-ending growth in finite space is god.

So we'll go on bravely trying to solve problems locally that don't originate locally. The solution, as always, is to shuffle budgets and "pinch" next year's funds. Oh yes, do the credit-card thing, rather than get a clue and stand up to federal tyranny.

And they haven't gotten to the point of facing up to the fact that local behavior has a global impact.

Wed 28 Dec '05 Article: Tony Dungy recalls son as fun-loving teen with compassionate heart

Response: In this apparent suicide, a major question should be asked.

Dungy, coach of Indianapolis Colts, has lost his son, who was only 18. Authorites are thinking it was a suicide. If so, what could make this wonderful kid, who was looking forward to being on the field if the Colts go all the way, take his life?

Here's the question: was the boy on any psychotropic drugs, especially anti-depressants, such as Paxil, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, and so on? Because those drugs cause brain damage, can easily cause random violence and suicidal thoughts, and would explain the anomaly in this boy's case.

Mon, 26 Dec '05 S&E editorial: Get used to high prices at the pump

Response: But S&E pumps 'stuff' atcha real cheap.

One can almost feel the pain in the S&E newsroom at being forced to admit what it has ignored for years, in spite of receiving many communications on the matter. Instead of meeting the issue head on, S&E has traditionally chosen to take advantage of price fluctuations to shower us with a number of shallow articles and editorials that interview people on the street and at the pump to report on the impact of high gas prices.

It's not much different this outing, except that there's no optimism about eventual price drop as in the past.

Nothing is ever mentioned of the potential, impending catacysmic energy event--serious decline in supply (whether real or concocted). S&E has chosen instead tio cheerlead the energy-intensive and wasting consumer orgy and UPSCALE retail revolution planned for Fitchburg that has been giving the mayor, certain city councilors, and Jeff McMenemy wet dreams.

But even in its grudging admission, the paper hands us nonsense. How's this: "When fuel prices increase, the national price of oil is reflected by the cost of crude oil per barrel..." Who writes this stuff? It's the other way round. That is, the price increase reflects the increase in barrel price.

To support the wet dream, the paper offers us 'real life:' People said they had no choice but to pay with the holidays coming. And a 'consumer' is quoted at the pump saying, "Even if it was three dollars a gallon, people will travel for the holidays. The price of gas isn't going to stop anyone."

Yet even more incisive: It's something you have no control over. You can't change it, you've gotta live your life. People won't change plans because of this." "He's right," echoes the wet dreamer.

Well, that's it, isn't it. Not only will the spoiled selfish brats not give up a thing (as long as they can afford it, which is why I was praying for 4-5 dollars by this year's end), they won't lift a finger to do anything about it. They just go shopping, as encouraged by Dubya after 9/11.

S&E echoes the 'we're helpless' sentiment and blames the whole mess on "our representatives in Washington" who leave us at the whim of Middle East oil companies. It's good that the paper forgets who it is that's sleeping and letting the government be usurped by criminals.

But to top off its misinformed performance on this whole issue, the paper includes nuclear power in its list of life-saving alternatives. This is the absolute dumbest of ideas:
Nuclear is a fallacious solution
Nuclear energy very expensive
Nuclear waste nightmare

Maybe someone will run the paper out of town and turn the building into the region's nuke waste dump.

Mon, 26 Dec '05 Article: Fed AIDS chief says companies don't have an incentive to develop vaccine

Response: Two sets of criminal/idiot pundits in mutual disagreement.

Chief says companies don't have incentive because there isn't enough profit potential, and so they'll wait til the governnment (us) pays the reseearch tab, then pick up the profits on the production end. That sounds like the greedmonger way.
But the idea was met with denial from a Big Pharma spokesman who said 15 potential vaccines are in the works, and that "vaccine reseearch is crucial to controlling the AIDS pandemic, yada, yada..." We should all be impressed with the good-heartedness of Pharma.

Surprisingly, it's said here that the "challenge" with an HIV vaccine is that vaccine "hypothesis" relies on the very immune function allegedly destroyed by HIV to begin with. Catch yer 22. This has "bred some frustration." Meaning the in-the-box-heads are stumped to come up with a rationale for whatever poison they cauldron up to assault the human body with.

Not mentioned is that HIV/AIDS itself is also a hypothesis, and has not been proven.

After that, there's the issue of HIV strain mutation, which could render a huge vaccine batch useless. After that, there is the question of whether vaccines per se are rational, and not even more dangerous than the so-called diseases they are said to prevent.

Thu, 22 Dec '05 Syndicated editorial: Scripps Howard: Washington's worshippers of big money

Response: Nice of SH to take notice, even if inadequately.

Picking on the Christian fundamentalists such as Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed, (who are, nevertheless most deserving), SH says that high-level public-sector work is "increasingly seen as simply another way to strike it rich."

Well glory halle, what a revelation, eh?

"Increasingly" is an interesting word too, because it would seem to imply that a certain level has been OK, but now it's getting past the point of tolerance.

Too bad SH couldn't see this factor playing into the contrivances to get the Iraq war going, which it ignorantly and obediently supported while putting down progressive voices who could see right through BushCo.

Why? Because we have so much history that reveals the pattern, and Washington has been about making people rich for a couple of hundred years.

SH does a great disservice journalistically by making it sound like "Look what's going on These Days."

Thu, 22 Dec '05 Article: Councilor has had enough of politics

Response: Not hard to understand.

Leominster City Councilor John Salvatelli is stepping down after 10 years if unflagging service to the city. My hat is off to my friend Johnny "Sagoopa." There is one aspect/comment though, that deserves a look.

John talks about always doing what's right for Leominster, and not playing politics. This certainly sounds right, but one of the biggest snafus in local politics, is being insufficiently concerned about, even oblivious to, the bigger picture--the federal and global economic, fiscal and environmental ambience in which we have to function as a community. There is also responsibility to the global picture: Is what we're doing as a community the best thing for our source of life? Is it fair to people in other places and countries?

Most of the time, we're trying to solve problems locally that don't originate locally.

Perhaps the best example of this is the local struggle for funds--schools, police, roads, and so on. While the local pundits scratch their heads, many $billions are being stolen because we are not paying sufficient attention--as a collective LOCAL POLITICAL ENTITY to what's going on at the federal and international levels.

Some might argue that, jeez, we have enough to think about. But as long as we ignore the bigger influence, we will be all the more assaulted by the effects of its criminalization.

Wed, 21 Dec '05 Article: Multi-state plan targets power plant emissions

Response: What a huge and suicidal joke.

Here it is folks, the power plants spewing life-choking CO2 into the air have agreed to stabilize emissions (121 million tons/year) by 2009 and thru 2015, then cut emissions by a whopping 10% by the year 2019. Don't strain yourself, boys!

Gee, I guess we have to be grateful for small things.

Wed, 21 Dec '05 Article: Yellow ribbons honor soldiers

Response: Here we go loop-de-loo...

This article is about the effort of some young students to honor a local soldier who is home for the holidays. This is very good. But we continue to insist collectively that it is better to honor soldiers with ribbons, ceremonies and bricks in the ground than to do our freaking homework and make sure they are not sent into battle on false pretenses to serve special and vested interests.

This just absolutely blows my mind.

Mon, 19 Dec '05 Syndicated editorial: Iran's dangerous delusion

Response: Accusing others of what you are doing--the elite have it down pat.

Iran's president Ahmadijenad is garnering criticism for telling the truth about the Mid-East conflict and it's source. He also questions the political tool that is the untouchable Holocaust tale, which is being suspiciously defended against any questioning by abusing and threatening free thought and speech--and, in Germany, even prosecuting thought. A completely outrageous legal process perpetrated without internal and/or international protest.

Please recall, says Ahmadijenad, that IF the Holocaust is true, then Europeans killed the Jews, so whay make Palestine pay for that? Put Israel (Zionaziville) in Europe, he says. You gotta love his guy's wit! I can't think of a more perfect solution. One thing he leaves out is that elite Jews financed and supported--indeed, were instrumental in creating-- the Third Reich.

Regarding the famous holocaust tale, no one asks why it has become so politically correct and sanctified, when it languishes at least at fourth on the all-time list of bad holocausts. 70 million in China under Mao; probably 30 million in USSR; and at least 7, probably closer to 11, million in Natives in America at the hands of the Christian settlers building the great free nation.

Apparently, none of those deads folks deserve any remembrance, compassion, and so on--only the dead Jews.

Iran, then, is "delusional" for telling the truth, and is to be held in contempt for being 'hostile' to a country that was born of hostility and continues it to this day, all the while waving from behind the banner of the Holocaust. This is like blaming Americans for being hostile to the old USSR.

So it's just another crazy Muslim, you see?

The best part is the assertion that such a "volatile and delusionary" regime must not be allowed to get nuke weapons. This is because enough volatile and delusionary regimes already have them, including Zionaziville and United Snakes (the only one who has proven that it will use them, and who has, in effect, used them recently in four wars in the form of Depleted Uranium munitions).

If hypocrisy had a stink to it, we'd all be wearing gas masks.

The nonsense in this piece is a psyops hook for support for the yearning desire of Zionaziville and the United Snakes to pop Iran with a few well-placed nukes to further establish Israeli military hegemony in the region, among other things--maybe start WW III, for example.

Sun, 18 Dec '05 Headline: Residents torn over override idea

Response: Clumsy headline for poorly described problem

It's just amazing. Congress is about to authorize another $100 billion dollars for criminal travesties in Afghanistan and Iraq based on lies and treachery. Meanwhile, residents and local officials and pundits sit around scratching their heads over where's the money.

Pardon my sarcastic exasperation, but this level of ostrich-style obliviousness and lack of vision boggles the mind.

And by the way, this piece is "The Real Scoop" by the S&E...

Sat, 17 Dec '05 Syndicated editorial: Scripps Howard: Sobering tales of death, torture from Saddam's regime

Response: Sobering dose of massive hypocrisy and government propaganda.

Of course, with BushCo on the ropes of its ring of lies and corruption, reinforcement of the Big-Bad-Saddam excuse for acting like him becomes necessary. Gee, where's Ann Coulter when you need her bullshit?

Just some of many important facts omitted from the propaganda:
1) When Saddam (a CIA asset) was at his worst, he was our good friend. After he gassed the Iranians (and Kurds by accident), we went and shook his hand, and then proceeded to remove Iraq from the list of countries that support terrorism.
2) Billions of dollars worth of illegal chemical and biological WMD were sold to Saddam right up until Gulf 1 by the United States. The war was contrived, and the blasting of storage bunkers was a convenient way to remove the evidence.
3) After killing well over a million Iraqis in horrific fashion, and after perpetrating and defending torture ourselves (and even flying people all over the world to do it), it takes some reall gall to point the finger.

Sat, 17 Dec '05 Article: Romano is ready for a change

Response: We can hope...

Fitchburg City Councilor Ralph Romano and I had a bit of a heated exchange in the paper a couple of years ago when he took indignant exception to my opposition to BushCo and the criminal devastation of Iraq. I'm not sure if he's seen the light even now, but this article states, "Growth has always been the centerpiece of Romano's platform."

Not hard to imagine we'd be at odds again. Ongoing growth, especially within the self-devouring bosom of capitalism, is suicidal. Given finite space and resources. And given that it is usually greed-based and heavily dependent upon rampant pollution, ballooning trade deficit, and earth in liquidation. But the councilor, who is stepping down, is certainly not alone among the bevy of local growth-mongers who apparently cannot see the similarity of growth to a drug addiction.

Click here for a quick look at what the retail-orgy component of local growth is doing.

And another aspect (although this is about China, the same pricnciple holds).

Thus, Romano's quote: "Growth is the answer to so many of the city's problems" reveals the very nature of a self-destructive addiction: The substance is harmful, but more and more is needed to fend off the awful effects of it. Growth causes many more problems than it solves, and its temporary rush only covers up the fallout from outmoded and failing economic and fiscal policy.

So my hope for a change in Mr. Romano and many other local captains of industry, is that they begin to wake up to our extreme financial dependence upon the numerous things that harm people and our source of life.

Growth-mongers are the Neros of our time--except they're fiddling with our source of life.

Once again, I ask the question, and beg any pundit, local or otherwise, to answer: If prosperity depends upon eternal growth, yet space and resources are finite, what are we going to do for prosperity when space and resources run out?

Wed, 14 Dec '05 Article: Troops finding support, despite war's unpopularity

Response: So close and yet so far away.

The thrust of this one is that evn though people disapprove of the Iraq "war" they're supporting soldiers in greater numbers--or at least not reviling them as with Vietnam. People are learning, says MJ Peterson, a professor of polisci and UMass Amherst. The reason, posits the pundit, is that we've finally come to realize the troops aren't the decision-makers. This analysis leaves much to be desired.

First of all, no one reviled the Vietnam troops because they were perceived to be the ones who sent us to war. That's plain nonsense. Most people were repulsed by the enormous scale of the injustice, the stories of atrocities, and the blind allegiance to the criminal chain of command of a contrived war. These factors apply now in Iraq, but there's more of a media lid on it.

The piece quotes a poll that says Americans are now 45 percent opposed and 48 for. But it fails to mention that a shameful percentage of Americans, perhaps 40%, still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Now if you could get past that misperception, you'd still have the hurdle of getting people to look at the evidence that al Qaeda didn't have anything to do with it either--it was an inside job.

So we can see how far away the prof is from reality right off the bat.

But just as importantly, let's ask oursleves who is responsible for what the decision-makers do? That is, of whom is the government by, of, and for? Iraq, like most wars, is a war born of lies and criminality. All of those violate the Constitution and just plain morality. Are the troops not citizens? And are they not sworn to protect against domestic enemies? Thus, if they were really doing their sworn duty, they'd be heading for Washington right now to arrest most of the government.

We'd be much better off if the reason for more support of the troops was a creeping realization that we've let the government get way out of control in the maintenance of our fantasies about America the Great, and that the we, the people, bear the responsibilty--not the decision-makers alone.

Local vet "Bud Taylor" makes an odd remark, that it's the great visual media coverage of the war—what has "happened to bodies" that has really brought it home "as never before." What media is he talking about? Is it on this planet? The word that best describes the detailed visuals of our atrocities in Iraq is 'blackout.'

Mon, 12 Dec '05 Headline: Departing Sanderski sets sights high

Response: A good sign for Leominster.

Josh Sanderski has to be the youngest person ever to get elected to our School Committee. But not only did he have youth, but a tendency to ask tough questions and not to fold under the status quo and prevailng 'wisdom.'

The outspoken young man now intends to run for City Council. I, for one, can't wait to see the mental cobwebs in that place begin to disperse with the influx of new energy.

Although the issues he intends to address, affordable housing and poverty, are still symptoms of more fundamental problems, his propensity to question and seek creates the strong possibility that he'll begin to see the global deep politics, and take a step beyond conventional attitudes.

I hope he runs for at-large so I can vote for him. Maybe one day, mayor. So far, he's got my vote there, too.

Sun, 11 Dec '05 Article: Key to city's future may be historical buildings

Response: Finally revealed: One motive for Fitchburg City Councilor Straight's constant whining about crime and street drugs.

That is, a company owned by the Straightster and his father is near completion of the conversion of the upper floors of one old downtown building into 47 condos. See, here's the plan: Get people with higher-paying jobs who work closer to Boston to live here and worsen the overpopulation of our area in order to support the planned "upscale retail" orgy that is intended to "revitalize" Fitchburg's downtown.

This is what we call economic growth and development, folks. And it's damn good for ya, too. And good for the city. Whereas, T-shirts that say Stop Snitching, why, those are bad for the city says the mayor. Why? It's all about image, people.

Thus, it's easy to see how Straight has been so concerned about rabble and nasty-drug people on the street whose presence might offend the sensibilities of the much-preferred upscale folk. With such a sullied image, Fitchburg might not attract the upscalers, who are sure to indulge their disease-causing, but legal, hypocritical drug addictions in the comfort of upscale bars and restaraunts with all the blessings of aint-it-grand respectability.

Developer Christopher Iosua's quote puts it all in perspective: "I think there are quite a few consumers attracted to buildings with historical significance." Consumers, aka taxpayers, aka happily enslaved and indebted Conehead drones, is what people are. Implying, of course, that if you don't have the dough, you won't see the show, so get the hell outta Dodge, you low-life scum.

All this is, of course, one more reason why we have to throw people out of their homes to widen the road between Fitchburg and Mallsville (Leominster). Here's a more descriptive term for the dreams of the captains of industry: Upcreek Retail.

Sun, 11 Dec '05 Article: Q&A with John Souza

Response: Vision is not this bureaucrat's forte.

In this interview, the Leominster Planning Board Chairman reveals the lock-step, status-quo thinking he shares with area growthmongers. The trouble is, a black-and-white, facts-and-figures compartmentalized engineering brain is being applied to a situation requiring organic, creative, holistic thinking.

I stood before this man a couple of years ago during the public hearings on the proposed Rte 117 Wal-Mart development. I tried to suggest that the area may already be over-developed, and that, in any case, it makes no sense to forge ahead with energy-intensive projects with an impending crunch hanging over our heads. "Energy is not a concern," or something to that effect, was his reply.

As I tried to support my case, and to suggest that our local actions also have global implications, he then proceeded to shut me up.

Here's a man who has swallowed hook and line the Growth-is-God propaganda of debt-based economics. Souza: "There's one phrase that I like: 'When growth ceases, stagnation begins.'" There's the self-defining elephantiasis canard in a nutshell.

No one's ever heard of prosperous stability, or balance and harmony, you see. It's just more, more, more until we look like Boston, whose people are fleeing this way to the warm embrace of people like Souza until we turn this area into pavement and malls, and gain sufficient population density to appeal to the Smokey Bones crapfood restaraunt chain.

He makes a simplistic analogy that the city is a business that must develop its product, which is "the people the land we develop (sic)," or start going backwards. He then pays lip service to "managing it in a respectful way." I imagine that throwing people out of their homes to widen a street and flooding neighborhoods with traffic is what he refers to as respect.

Souza logic is, we must grow forever in our finite space, or die. He doesn't get it that our economy is manipulated to require growth as the answer to inflation and debt--creations of the banking masters who steal our wealth. To them, people like Mr Souza are ideal automatons, serving capitalist greed within the inadequate parameters of lip-service environmental concerns.

He cannot see that the growth of which he speaks is an addiction and the same as the cash you get from a credit card that gives you that sense of wealth--for a while. But there is a credit limit and the debt must be paid. In the case of eternal growth, the credit card is earth in liquidation, as we pile up the toxic suicidality demonstrated so clearly by the WTC collapse and New Orleans.

He then equivocates about the Board being "a board of permitted uses," not a body with the "power to just deny everything." Which means (which he doesn't say) that whatever is permitted, however stupid, must be approved. Only the "Zoning Board of Appeals is the board of non-permitted uses" and it can 'arbitrarily' say no. How illogical is that? The appeals board must also go by some guideline, such as the zoning law. And that is the real problem, not all the bureaucrats regimented by it.

Archive of Editorial Letters

Peter G. Tocci is a Holistic wellness consultant and health writer dba Associated Health Services in Leominster, Massachusetts.

Check out Holistic Health Information

Associated Health Services
978.537.6991

Gemini Press
978.537.2553

E-mail for both:
peter<at>geminipress<dot>com
Or Send S-mail:
Peter G. Tocci
22 Walker St. #2
Leominster, Mass. USA 01453

Home

Page Top