WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- It's hard to get much more all-American than Dick Clark, and it's hard to find a more all-American town than Branson, Missouri. However, a complaint filed by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) alleges that American workers at Dick Clark's American Bandstand Grill (AB Grill) in Branson are being discriminated against when it comes to hiring in favor of illegal alien workers. AB Grill, founded by the legendary American Bandstand emcee's production company, was recently purchased by another American success story, Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins.
IRLI, as the only public interest law firm in the United States devoted exclusively to protecting the rights and interests of U.S. Citizens in immigration-related matters, filed a complaint on November 28, 2007, with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices of the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of a former employee of the AB Grill who was fired because he threatened to expose this self proclaimed all-American establishment. This employee threatened to notify federal immigration authorities of the blatant violations of federal immigration laws.
"American workers, all across the country, have suffered job loss, lost wages and overt discrimination as a result of large-scale illegal immigration and a consistent failure of the federal government to hold employers accountable," noted Sharma Hammond, IRLI staff attorney. "What makes this case particularly deplorable is that the discrimination is being practiced by a company and in a town that have prospered by portraying themselves as icons of American culture and values."
The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits not only the employment of unauthorized aliens, but also makes it unlawful for companies such as AB Grill to fire citizens and legal workers in favor of unauthorized alien workers. The complaint filed by IRLI seeks back pay wages for the former employee who endured this unlawful termination, modest attorney fees and a requirement that the AB Grill enroll in the on-line E-Verify Program (formerly the Basic Pilot Program) - to verify that all future employees will be legal workers.
"In 1957, the American Bandstand television program gave us the Hand Jive," noted Mike Hethmon, general counsel for IRLI. "Fifty years later, the American Bandstand Grill is just feeding us a lot of offensive jive about not being able to find legal workers to fill jobs in the restaurant, when even a Missouri mule could figure out that they are trying to pad their profits by hiring illegal aliens. Eventually the law catches them."
Source: Immigration Reform Law Institute
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Rena J. Comisac and Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana Timothy Morrison announced today that Kyle Milbourn of Muncie, Ind., was indicted by a federal grand jury for a hate crime stemming from a cross-burning last year that was directed at a woman and her three biracial children.
Milbourn was charged with one count of interfering with the housing rights of another person; one count of conspiring to interfere with civil rights; one count of using fire during the commission of a felony; and one count of witness tampering. If convicted, Milbourn faces a maximum punishment of 40 years of imprisonment and a $1,000,000 fine.
According to the indictment, on or about March 6, 2006, Milbourn and another individual built an eight-foot wooden cross, erected it in front of the victims' home, doused it with gasoline, and set it on fire. Milbourn did this with the intent to interfere with the victims' rights under the Fair Housing Act.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Charlie Rownd investigated this case. The case will be prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christina McKee from the U.S. Attorney's Office and Trial Attorney Betsy Biffl from the Civil Rights Division.
The charges set forth in an indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Web Site: http://www.usdoj.gov/
8-17-05 (Santa Ana, California). Skylar Deleon, 26, and his wife, Jennifer Henderson Deleon, 24, will stand trial for the murders of a wealthy California couple who were tied to the anchor of their yacht and thrown overboard alive. Deleon starred in the “Power Rangers” TV series. Allegedly, a 40-year old Crips street gang member and ex-prison guard were enlisted to carry out the plot after seeing the yacht for sale in a boating magazine. The Deleons are accused of posing as interested buyers and convincing the couple to take the boat on a test run. Then, they were attacked with a stun gun, handcuffed, and gagged with duct tape. After signing over power of attorney, they were tied to the boat’s anchor and thrown overboard.
[U.S. | Entertainment | Crime | Daily News Bytes]
The Comeback of Bald Eagles No Longer Endangered Species
(6/10/04). The national bird has made a comeback in the last few decades, after being on the verge of extinction from vast DDT poisoning in the 60s and 70s that thinned their eggshells and crashed their birth rate, destruction of their habitats with the growth of the country, contamination of waterways and food sources, and shootings by ranchers trying to protect their sheep. They can now be found nesting in places like Llano, Texas, where it was a rarity to see them that far west. Although, DDT pesticide is outlawed in the U.S., it is still used on South American crops, which may have contributed to their return to U.S. skies. In 1997, they were down-listed from the federally endangered species list. Endangered species are those that are in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Threatened species are likely to become endangered in the near future.
According to Environmental Defense, a New York-based conservation group . . . [click here for complete article, no charge]
|
|
Us troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, 120 other nations & now Liberia?
by Travis Patriot
Submitted: 01-Aug-03
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://PatriotStudios.Tripod.com
|
Us troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as about 120 other nations around the world & now Liberia? (Friday 01 Aug 2003) Didn’t the founding fathers like George Washington & John Quincy Adams warn us that America should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy or slay? Did George Washington not say that America should have only temporary alliances & not get involved permanently with nations for fear of being dragged into foreign & often civil wars abroad? The only way that we will prevent repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn our own history so please read the articles below. A few good articles that I found on Google with the key words “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy” http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1179 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/monsters.htm http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/AmericaLoveIt.htm Why is the US the one who has to go into Liberia? Maybe it is because the US federal government undermined UN credibility & power by asking their permission & then going against the nations of the world to wage an illegal war in their neighborhood! Attacking foreign nations is a violation of international law & if we can do it then anyone can. What an example for us to show the world. Injustice motivates men to violence “terrorism” & the people of the world see our injustices. We openly thumbed our nose – or gave the finger - to the countries of the world & attacked a sovereign nation against their warnings – daring them to do anything about it like a bully. And by doing so, we proved the UN powerless. We cut the “you know what” off of the UN & now we are being called upon to be the world’s police. We undermined the police & now we have to be the police. Well, this is a job for the UN & we should be strengthening them & not undermining the UN. Our brave men & women in the armed forces are neither policemen nor peace keepers. They should not be put in harms way unless there is an immediate – clear & present – danger to the US. And first strikes are out of the question. If you strike you neighbor first, you are not defending one self but committing premeditated murder! Slaying monsters abroad is a violation of international law & makes us international criminals! Attacking sovereign small & weak nations in open violation of international law has also proved to the world that weapons of mass destruction are the only way to detour the US! We proved this by not attacking a more serious threat called North Korea – who dared us to attack & instead we attacked Iraq & settled the president’s father’s old score. We lynched or tried to lynch the leader of Iraq & inadvertently fueled the world’s desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction for deterrence against the imperialist US. Imperialist because we occupy over ½ the globe, have a first strike policy, a nuclear contingency plan to attack countries who may interfere with us operating abroad, openly violate international law, & tress pass abroad at will. The solution to other countries being able to detour the US from trespassing & getting involved in their business? WOM of course! Let’s stay at home & take care of our own! Defend the Nation not Police the world making enemies abroad! Let’s stay out of civil wars & we certainly don’t need allies like Israel with her eternal wars. Read what George Washington said about such allies. The cycle of violence has no end, the un-winnable federal war on terror has no end & is bankrupting the States as well! Solution: How do we stay at home & guard our borders with out making enemies abroad when entire political careers are dependent upon the federal war on drugs & the federal war on terror? Vote 3rd Party & put them out of a job because these career politicians are corrupt beyond repair. They are not loyal to the Constitution but to their Party & Careers! The State & Federal Career Politicians both willingly & knowingly allow the other to violate the Constitution. Travis Patriot “A Patriot is Loyal to the Constitution! Not a Party or Career!” http://www.cafeshops.com/terrormotive http://PatriotStudios.Tripod.com http://www.cafeshops.com/TravisPatriot The Fears of the Anti-Federalists have become reality. Please read Federalism Revealed. Explore the Entrepreneur Catalogue for unique gifts! http://EntrepreneurCatalog.tripod.com
Travis Patriot may be contacted at http://FederalismRevealed.tripod.com TravisPatriot@hotmail.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Copyright Usage: |
Martha: Be A Good Girl and Act Your Age!
by Bill Knell
Submitted: 21-Jun-03
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://billknell.tripod.com/life/life.html
|
After almost a year of digging the dirt on the decoration diva, the Securities and Exchange Commission lowered the boom on Martha Stewart with criminal charges and a civil case. What amazes me is how the news media has jumped on their bandwagon, with shovels in hand, ready to bury good ole Martha. Meanwhile, they’re busy making a hero out of a guy who had to cut off his own arm to survive because he was fool enough to go mountain climbing by himself! They use words like “inspirational” and “heroic” to describe 27 year old Aron Ralston, but call sixty-two year old Martha Stewart the “goddess of greed.” Could this be yet another case of the news media trying a little social engineering? In terms of what the government’s doing, the message that most intelligent people are getting from Martha Stewart’s legal problems is, “Tell the FBI and the SEC what they want to hear or go to jail!” And they haven’t been shy about it. Government lawyers and spokespeople have been busy doing interview after interview saying things like, “We didn’t get the answers we wanted” and “Martha Stewart didn’t confirm what we believe to be true.” Well get out the crying towel, guys, and excuse her if she didn’t want to help you dump her in jail! Then they went and told her partner in the alleged stock fraud situation that he would never trade stocks again and would likely go to jail if he didn’t cooperate. It was no surprise that he did. But it all goes deeper then that. Martha was once a stock broker herself. Anyone who has been a stock broker knows that the SEC is more then just a Big Brother agency, it’s a ’do as they please’ potentate that has absolute power over everything in the world of trading. But it’s also a mostly male, good ole boys network of Ivy League brats who are living the good life because of capitalism, while following the outdated notions of university-style socialism. I don’t imagine they liked being told NO by a sixty-something female who has managed to crawl her way out of poverty in Nutley, New Jersey and become a self-made woman worth billions! Most of them are where there are because they lacked the talent to become successful brokers. The FBI is no better. After combing the woods of North Carolina for years and spending millions of dollars to find Atlantic Park bombing suspect Eric Rudolf with no success, a sharp off-duty police officer gets the guy and they take the credit for it. Add to that the fact that we still see no sign of several terrorists they claim are roaming the USA, but can’t seem to find, and you have a scenario that opens the door for getting some positive publicity any way they can. So along comes Martha. Although a decorative hero to millions of America women, she probably made an easy target because Martha wanted things her way. It’s alright when male CEO’s bilk corporate treasuries of billions of dollars or use ’just this side of legal’ methods to destroy companies that employ thousands of people, but those darn women CEOs had better know their place! I doubt that the SEC or FBI boys gave much thought to the millions of people who have benefited from Martha’s wealth while swapping tennis conquest stories at hundred dollar lunches or discussing how many miles they can run or weight they can press during intermission at Lincoln Center. Martha’s company has a direct influence on the income of millions of people. Those who sell her books, buy ads in her magazine to sell their own products, people who can remain at their jobs because their store sells her merchandise and makes money. Does this make her greedy? Maybe the media and the government believe that Americans are schismatic enough to join the GET MARTHA club because she’s older and a woman? If she were some wealthy man who dressed the way they expected, had five or ten ex-wives and a couple of girlfriends who were models, you can bet there would have been no charges in this case. What message is the government and media really sending to America? The government is telling you that it’s O.K. to be rich, but not alright to be a self-made woman who doesn’t fit the Betty Crocker image. The media is telling us that greed is good if you’re a young entrepreneur-type, but older women with an attitude had better watch out! Is that the message we want delivered to our kids? The real message that Americans should be receiving from the Martha Stewart case is WATCH OUT! If they can do it to her, imagine what they can do to you.
Bill Knell may be contacted at http://billknell.tripod.com/life/life.html billknell@cox.net. Click here to view more of their articles. Copyright Usage: |
Buyer Beware: Clothing You Buy May Inform On You
by Marc J. Lane
Submitted: 16-Apr-03
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://www.marcjlane.com
|
Management strategists are touting a miraculous new computer system that promises to revolutionize the way manufacturers and retailers track consumer goods from factory to cash register. But pranksters and profiteers could co-opt the technology to shadow customers and record their every move — a chilling prospect that business must anticipate and prevent. The concern surrounds radio frequency identification, or RFID, a 21st-century digital marvel that involves a grain-sized microchip attached to a microscopic antenna that is "printed" on a clothing label, a can of tuna, a banana or virtually any other consumer item. The chip broadcasts a unique identifier to a radio-wave sensor that relays the transmission to a computer, which decodes and processes the data. And the manufacturer or retailer can see which goods of which size, style, color or weight have been assembled, packaged, sold or shipped. A new believer in RFID technology is Italian clothier Benetton Group SpA, which will soon be sewing "smart" labels into every garment it sells in its high-end Sisley line. By learning exactly which item is coming from an offshore factory, is held at a warehouse or is displayed on this or that store shelf, Benetton will manage its supply chain more efficiently than ever. Orders from its 5,000 independently owned stores in 120 countries will be more accurate, and deliveries speedier. The company follows luxury clothing retailer Prada Group, another Italian firm, which has already introduced RFID inventory tags. And Procter & Gamble Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and U.K.-based supermarket chain Tesco plc are all pursuing a smart-tag strategy for restocking, anti-theft and even anti-counterfeiting purposes. Retailers predict that the breakthrough technology, which is widely used for tracking component parts through the manufacturing process at Dell Computer Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and Ford Motor Co., may one day render bar codes obsolete. It's faster, more reliable and doesn't require that merchandise be unpacked and hand-checked. It can also be used legitimately by business managers, who maintain detailed information about a loyal customer's buying habits to spur further sales when she makes a purchase. So, for example, when a salesperson sees that a customer bought a size 8 gray cashmere sweater last year, she can be offered the beautiful red one that just came in. But the eerie possibility looms large that unauthorized marketers, unwelcome infomediaries or crooked opportunists might exploit RFID's snoop potential to the hilt. After all, chips can follow shoppers home, record their movements and transmit personal information about them to cyber-intruders who surreptitiously gather, and even share, dossiers on them. Benetton has pledged to disable its chips at the point of sale. But other vendors haven't. And RFID can betray every factoid of our existence — what we wear, what we eat, what medicines we take, what we read, where we go and how we get there. Since any purchases we make may eventually be catalogued and tracked, each of our lives may soon be a perpetually open book, to be read by marketers, stalkers and hackers. RFID tags belong in factories and stores everywhere, checking the routing of pallets and crates. But when smart tags are used on consumer goods, a business owes its customers a duty of disclosure. They're entitled to know if tags are embedded in the merchandise they're buying. And unless they want to themselves to the retailer by opting into a brand loyalty program, RFID tags should be automatically disabled at the checkout counter. The threat to privacy demands no less.
Marc J. Lane may be contacted at http://www.marcjlane.com mlane@marcjlane.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Marc is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Northwestern University and an Adjunct Professor of Business at the University of Illinois. His practice areas include Individual Taxation, Corporate Tax Planning, Business Tax Planning, Estate Planning, Investments, Retirement Planning,Elder Law, International Trade, Business Law, and Wills, Trusts and Estates. Additional articles, case studies, and a free email newsletter are available at www.marcjlane.com.
Copyright Usage: |
Ten Great Books by Black Authors for Black History Month
by Susan Dunn
Submitted: 20-Feb-03
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://www.susandunn.cc
|
To learn about a culture, read their great writers. They can express for us we can't always ourselves. Here are some suggestions from encarta.msn.com for Black history month or any time. 1. "The Marrow of Tradition," by Charles Chestnutt. Explores the repercussions of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court case of 1896 that established "separate but equal" as the law of the land. 2. "The Autobiography of an ex-Colored Man," by James Weldon Johnson, outstanding fiction about a Black artist who passes as white. 3. "Their Eyes Were Watching God," by Zora Neale Hurston, considered the first Black feminist writer. 4. "Native Son," by Richard Wright, "still has the capacity to shock today," says the review. 5. "Invisible Man," by Ralph Ellison, a landmark of American literature. His first book, it remained on the bestseller list for 16 weeks and won the National Book Award for Fiction. 6. "Mumbo Jumbo," by Ishmael Reed, called "an idiosyncratic celebration of multiculturism," it takes a lot of swings at Western culture. 7. "Dahlgren," by Samuel Delaney, is one of the best-selling science fiction books of all time. It's "a sprawling exploration of gender, art, race, identity and much more," says the reviewer. 8. "The Color of Purple," by Alice Walker, a winner of the Pulitzer Price for fiction and the American Book Award. 9. "Beloved," by Toni Morrison, ; best seller and winner of the Pulitzer prize for fiction. 10. "Devil in a Blue Dress," by William Mosley, a mystery in the classic tradition, mixes "the hard-boiled poetry of Raymond Chandler with the racial realism of Richard Wright to explosive effect," says the Barnes and Noble review. Source: encarta.msn.com.
Susan Dunn may be contacted at http://www.susandunn.cc sdunn@susandunn.cc. Click here to view more of their articles. Copyright Usage: |
The Rhetoric of Saddam Hussein. Speeches of Deception
by Salomon Ruysdael
Submitted: 10-Feb-03
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: none
|
The use of rhetoric to persuade the masses has been a device long since used by figures great and small to achieve their goals of both triumph and disaster. Nowhere is this clearer than with Saddam Hussein. In particular, his use of rhetoric is important in understanding how he rose to power. There are two fundametally different kinds of speakers: those who use reasoning, and those who speak from the heart. The speaker who uses reason implements the use of facts and statistics to create a strong and powerful speech, minimizing error. The speaker from the heart, on the other hand, directs his speech to the listeners’ emotions, often igniting a plethora of responses from within the individual. Saddam Hussein is the latter who indeed speaks to the masses on an emotional level, which creates a tight unity among the Iraqi people. His extraordinary ability to create spectacle, manipulate language, and reinvent ideas allowes him to control the masses and to rise to power despite the ugly truths that were masked behind his rhetoric. One example of why Saddam Hussein’s rhetoric is so successful is his use of spectacle. Saddam's Baath Party uses various forms spectacle to make their rhetoric stand out. In studying these points it can be seen how Saddam Hussein manipulates language to achieve his ultimate goal of purity and perfection. Inborn dignity centers on the idea that all human beings have a basic dignity, that they are born with and that it should be respected by others. Yet Saddam Hussein perverts this doctrine so only the Arab race has inborn dignity. Thus Arabs’ inborn dignity is a superiority rather than a commonality and everyone else is inferior. After the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, there are especially strong emotional needs that this compensatory doctrine of an inborn superiority could gratify. Another aspect of Saddam Hussein’s unification rhetoric is his use of projection devices. This term, related to psychoanalysis, involves the projection of the problem onto another group or individual. On a social level, this term is called a scapegoat. The Iraqi economy, a seemingly domestic problem, is blamed on the international Jew. Saddam Hussein’s use of rhetoric here is to displace the issue at hand to something irrelevant. This is especially appealing to the middle class, who is encouraged to feel that they could conduct their businesses without any basic change whatever, once the businessmen of a different ‘religion’ were eliminated. Next in this rhetorical process is a means of symbolic rebirth. Once the problem is blamed on the Jews, Saddam Hussein has to advocate their elimination and promise the Iraqi people a better life. He offers his people a positive vision of the future in order to unite them against this common enemy. The projective device of the scapegoat, coupled with the Saddam Hussein´s doctrine of inborn national superiority, provides its followers with a ‘positive’ view of life. They can again get the feel of moving forward towards a goal. The idea of commercial use can be seen in Saddam Hussein’s attempt to offer a non-economic interpretation of the economic ills in Iraq. He is able to sell his rhetoric to Iraqis without even addressing issues pertaining to the economy. As such, it serves with maximum efficiency in deflecting the attention from the economic factors involved in modern conflict; hence by attacking Jew finance instead of finance, it can stimulate an enthusiastic movement that left ‘Arab’ finance in control. All of these features lead to a unifying voice for the entire nation and gives Saddam Hussein seemingly immeasurable power over his people. The use of Unification Rhetoric (U.R.) contributed to making Saddam Hussein a powerful speaker. Under U.R. there are three points that explain how this is done. The first is a geographical materialization of Saddam Hussein’s ideology. Saddam Hussein points to Jerusalem. Jerusalem symbolizes a geographical Arab aspiration. Saddam Hussein’s idea of “all roads lead to Jerusalem” is an attempt to unify the Arab people. This give his people a physical location in an effort to understand what it means to be Arab nationalist. Another principal under U.R. is the idea of “the common enemy”. Otherwise known as the international Jew or Zionists. Saddam Hussein labels the enemy as an ‘ultimate evil’ in order to unite the masses against a common evil. Having this common enemy is a great tool for Saddam Hussein to use to appeal to the emotions of the Iraqi people. It is the role of the leader to create the rhetoric that unifies people against the common enemy. Saddam Hussein’s rhetoric is not only powerful against his people but is also powerful against those who rejects his ideas. His ‘conspiracy theory’ turns all those against anyone who do not see the way he do. Simple yet effective, anyone opposes to him is part of the conspiracy and therefore against the Iraq cause. For Saddam Hussein there are only two possibilities: either he remains Iraq and the Arab nations or he comes under the thumb of the Jews. Saddam Hussein deliveres so two options, and two options only to the Arab people. Either you are Iraqi and Arab or you are controlled by the Jews. Through this example, it is clear that the Arabs could be under control of the Jews and as a result have to band together to make their nation strong. This type of rhetoric allowes the decision his listeners have to make easy, with a clear and concise end-result. The third section under U.R. is the Parliamentary attacks that Saddam Hussein lead through speeches and rallies, which make him a more powerful and respected leader. Saddam Hussein believes his people need to speak with one voice and they all need to be on the same page. In these attacks it can be seen that Saddam Hussein is taking the attacks on Capitalism and transposing the problems onto the Jews. Saddam Hussein’s rhetoric also becomes successful due to his totalizing vision. Saddam Hussein proposes an all-encompassing plan that appeares to offer a solution to all of Iraq’s problems. His ideology is a complete worldview, meant to explain anything that is encountered. Saddam Hussein’s ability to convince the masses of his totalizing vision brings unity to the Iraqi people and is largely bases on the irradiation of what he calls ‘the ultimate evil.’ Jews are the Iraqi nation's true enemy. Saddam Hussein’s all encompassing worldview is meant to be the answer to any possible question. All fingers are pointed at the Jews for Iraq’s problems and their extermination is part of Saddam Hussein’s totalizing vision for a pure Arab Nation. In addition to his use of spectacle and a totalizing vision, Saddam Hussein uses the power of religion to make his rhetoric successful. Saddam's Baath Party is officially secular, but in 1993 he launched "the grand faith campaign" in what is seen as a bid to win the loyalty of Iraqis who had turned to religion after losing loved ones in war and as their economy suffered under sanctions. The Iraqi leader's words often mix the historical with the religious. Saddam refers often to the eight-year war with Iran, which claimed 1 million lives on both sides, al-Qadissiya - the name of the decisive battle in which the Arab Muslim army inflicted a huge defeat on Persia in 637. He depicts the Gulf War as the victorious Um Al Maarek, or "mother of all battles". A deconstruction of religion proved to be a key influence in making his rhetoric stand out. In this sense, Saddam Hussein turns religion on its head. He turns the power of religion and uses it for secular goals. He make the sacred unsacred and the holy impure. His control of religious power and religious rhetoric proves to be a key ingredient for his success as a speaker. Saddam himself is sometimes calls “Rasul al-Arab”, or "prophet of the Arabs", and “Seif al-Arab”, or "sword of the Arabs". The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and hence to the heart of the broad masses. Saddam Hussein’s ability to use rhetoric instills in him the ability to execute his totalizing vision, mastering the art of manipulation and persuasion. Appealing to a person’s emotions is crucial in order to convince or persuade them towards certain ideas or to initiate a certain response. Saddam Hussein’s ability to create spectacle, manipulate language, and reinvent ideas are key factors to his success as a speaker and ultimately aided him in his rise to power.
Salomon Ruysdael may be contacted at salomon.ruysdael@tiscali.de. Click here to view more of their articles. Copyright Usage: |
Thoughts Born of Tragedy... Our War On Terrorism
by Thom Reece
Submitted: 11-Oct-02
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://www.e-comprofits.com
|
Thoughts Born of Tragedy... Our War On Terrorism
by Thom Reece
Submitted: 11-Oct-02
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://www.e-comprofits.com
|
Peace In The Middle East
by Jenka X
Submitted: 26-Apr-02
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: none
|
Before I make my point, I want to make it clear that I have no political affiliations, nor do I suffer from any divided loyalty between my Country and any Ancestral Homeland, so my perspective, other than as it relates to my personal survival, is rather detached and, therefore, hopefully clearheaded. Being of sound mind, I would prefer that my Country devote its energies to securing our borders, rather than invading the world in search of terrorist needles in countless haystacks. However, since it appears that the U.S. has been unanimously (albeit grudgingly) dubbed the "Leader of the Free World", I feel entitled, as one of its citizens, to rate its success in the Middle East, particularly the Israeli/Palestinian fiasco. Even a child has no trouble understanding that if something does not work, you stop doing it. Yet, we adults, persist in imagining the world we want, rather than dealing with the world that is. We seem to be acting like "know-it-all" teenagers, demanding our way and unfortunately getting it because of our mighty dollar. It is this kind of attitude which has, in great measure, contributed to extending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians for over 50 years. I suggest that the Jews have almost as much to fear from naive American foreign policy, as they do from Arabs. We seem to think that if something works for us, it is good enough for the rest of the world. We refuse to accept the fact that not all cultures want what we Americans want, nor do they define "civilized" behavior in the same way. Arabs do not negotiate! To them, compromise is a sign of weakness. Every time Israel offers peace terms, it only confirms the Arabs' belief that they are close to winning and boosts their determination to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth. This is not just a conflict between Jews and Palestinians. The Palestinians are just the pawns being used by the rest of the Arab Nations to "feel" us out. We can either stick our necks in the sand and wait to have our plumes shot off, or we can look the situation square in the eye, which is the only way to figure out a successful strategy. Had we been smart enough to let the Jews deal with the Arabs in a way that Arabs understand and respect, the conflict would have been over years ago. We have done Israel a great disservice and must share responsibility for the killing of many people, on both sides, because of our interference. At this point, it is obvious to anyone with psychology 101 under their belt, that the Palestinians are bent on self-destruction and are doing everything in their power to get wiped out as a Nation. The claims of love of peace and epic tales of victimization, from each side against the other, have to be stopped. By giving both parties so much prime air time, We are allowing their propaganda to polarize our own Nation. We have no business taking sides, because there are no clear victims in this situation. Both parties are equal contributors to prolonging this mess. No one who loves peace would be willing to carry a gun. Love of peace requires a commitment to the death. Meaning that a peaceful person would rather allow himself to be killed than to raise a hand against another. Obviously, neither group qualifies to be called peaceful. In a situation like that, the tradition of "Might is Right" is the logical and swift form of resolution. So why do we keep pressuring Israel to give up the territories it has conquered twice, and already given up once, only to find that instead of the promised peace, it again provided its enemies with strategic locations from which to terrorize the Israeli population? No doubt we feel justified because we suffer from not only a serious dose of sentimentality regarding the plight of the Palestinians, but selective memory as well. After all, did we return Texas and California to Mexico? The Palestinians are not the only ones to lose their territory. Remember the Jews? Here is my recommendation for resolving this conflict, once and for all: 1) I would declare Jerusalem an International City/State. To insure its tranquility and Universal acceptance, it should become the new headquarters of the United Nations. 2)Israel should permanently annex all of what is now considered Palestine. Let the United Nations whine and condemn all it wants. It no longer has the moral authority to judge, having betrayed beyond repair, the ideals which gave birth to that forum. 3) The Palestinians should be offered two options. Become Israeli citizens or sell their property to the Israeli government and leave. Even if those who choose to stay, do so in order to continue terrorist activities, at least Israel would have the autonomy to deal with them as criminals rather than "freedom fighters." 4) I would encourage Palestinians to relocate to Jordan and provide Jordan with sufficient funds to help these refugees rebuild their lives. I would also let all Arab Nations know that an attack on Israel will be construed as a direct attack on the U.S. and swiftly dealt with. Our fear of losing their oil may be more fear than fact. After all, where would they get their money if they did not sell their oil? Are we not the major consumer of their product? But, even if the worse case scenario were to happen, perhaps that is just what we, as a Nation, need in order to, finally, focus our efforts on alternative sources of energy. Would we not, then, regain the upper hand and be able to legislate from a position of integrity rather than compromise what we want to stand for as a Nation and have to relinquish our ideals for a few barrels of crude?
Jenka X may be contacted at http://www.jenkapublications.com heaven@jenkapublications.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Her bio can be viewed at: http://www.pageonelit.com/interviews/Jenka.html Copyright Usage: |
When Lawyers Need To Reveal Their Clients' Secrets
by Marc J. Lane
Submitted: 09-Apr-02
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://www.marcjlane.com
|
The American Bar Association's governing body recently met in Chicago and blundered badly. The House of Delegates decisively rejected a proposed ethics rule which would have permitted a lawyer to blow the whistle on a client who plans to use the lawyer's services to perpetrate a fraud. The 225-to-151 vote killed a provision in a proposed overhaul of the Association's code of professional conduct. And, once the delegates announced their lopsided, but wrongheaded vote, leaders of the reform effort had no choice but to withdraw a companion provision, which would have carved out an important exception to the attorney-client privilege to mitigate a financial loss resulting from a client's fraud. Everyone agrees that preserving client confidences is indispensable to the fair administration of justice. If a client is afraid to tell his lawyer all he needs to know, the lawyer can't possibly represent his interests as vigorously as he should or mount the most effective defense. But a client who is out to hurt people forfeits his right to secrecy. And a lawyer should have a right to speak out when he thinks his client is about to commit a crime, lest he become an unwilling accomplice. Fortunately, the ABA's rules aren't binding on lawyers. Their conduct is regulated by the states. And 41 U.S. jurisdictions, Illinois among them, have already adopted a common-sense fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The Illinois rule - - the right rule, I'm persuaded - - lets lawyers here turn their clients in if they believe they're about to commit a crime. But states are likely to pay deference to the ABA's ethics rules when they enact new laws and issue new rules controlling lawyers' conduct. And since crooks can easily exploit their victims across state lines, one more-or-less uniform standard - - policing all lawyers and protecting all the rest of us - - is really what's needed. Opponents of the fraud exception talk a good game. They express concern that the whistle might be blown too often because lawyers can misunderstand their clients' intent. They fear that clients won't trust their lawyers as much as they should and might withhold the information lawyers need to do their jobs. And they predict that lawyers might have less opportunity than ever to talk their clients into doing the right thing. But too much of the House of Delegates' decision was driven by self-interest and self-defense. The ABA sees the ban against disclosing confidential information as a shield which protects lawyers from claims that they should have taken steps to safeguard the public from their clients' fraud. And the ABA isn't eager to impose new duties on lawyers, particularly duties that might open them up to more lawsuits. But lawyers are public citizens. And their responsibility to the public won't tolerate their standing silent when their talents and judgment are misused to commit fraud. The ABA's commission that drafted the 281-page ethics proposal is considering resubmitting it when the Association meets again next month. Let's hope that it does, and urge the ABA's membership to get behind real ethics reform.
Marc J. Lane may be contacted at http://www.marcjlane.com mlane@marcjlane.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Marc is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Northwestern University and an Adjunct Professor of Business at the University of Illinois. His practice areas include Individual Taxation, Corporate Tax Planning, Business Tax Planning, Estate Planning, Investments, Retirement Planning,Elder Law, International Trade, Business Law, and Wills, Trusts and Estates. Additional articles, case studies, and a free email newsletter are available at www.marcjlane.com.
Copyright Usage: |
Tax Breaks Must Now Lead To Tax Code Simplification
by Marc J. Lane
Submitted: 01-Apr-02
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://www.marcjlane.com
|
President George W. Bush should be congratulated on the stunningly swift passage of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. He's already built on his success by seeking billions of dollars in new tax breaks to spur America's small businesses. Here's hoping the president's victory will also bolster his move to simplify the tax code. Mr. Bush didn't get all he wanted out of the tax bill that became law last month. The GOP backed off on repealing the corporate alternative minimum tax and accelerating the personal income tax cuts approved by Congress last year. But the Democrats gave ground, too. They reluctantly agreed they wouldn't press for health insurance benefits for those who lost them because of the terrorist attacks or the economic downturn. Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle joined forces and hammered out a stripped-down stimulus package that combines extended unemployment benefits for millions of Americans with billions of dollars in business tax breaks. After three aborted attempts by Republicans to enact much bigger tax cuts, the bill was passed within 24 hours by overwhelming majorities in both houses and was immediately signed by President Bush, who can legitimately claim a healthy share of the credit. There's a lesson to be learned, and it's easy to state: Although partisans will fight to the death over issues that divide them, they'll quickly build coalitions once they meet on common ground. With that common-sense thesis in mind, I enthusiastically support the president's commitment to a simpler tax system. But simplifying the tax code has been anything but simple. In seeking to prevent aggressive taxpayers from gaming the system, Congress and the Internal Revenue Service have gone too far and hurt the rest of us. And, too often, social engineers and special interest groups have championed their pet tax subsidies at our expense. That's why, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recently promised a group of Chicago business leaders that the Bush administration will develop proposals to simplify the tax code, they urged him on. As that effort gains steam, I hope the secretary considers three proposals that rank high on my personal list: Reform the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The point of this tax was to make sure that high-income individuals pay income tax, no matter how sharp their tax planners are. But the AMT is out of hand. By 2012, 34% of all taxpayers might be victimized by it. Let's index it for inflation so that only those who abuse the tax laws feel its wrath. Or, better yet, let's scrap the AMT altogether. Revisit capital gains. Long-term capital gains can be taxed at six different rates. Let's select one of them. Standardize savings incentives. Apart from employer-sponsored accounts, people can salt away money in individual retirement accounts, Roth IRAs, Coverdell education savings accounts and Keogh plans. Each has its own rules on eligibility, contributions and withdrawals. Using most of the same rules for all kinds of tax-favored savings accounts would simplify tax planning for retirement. Some commentators are skeptical about Mr. O'Neill's resolve to simplify the tax code. They point to the administration's budget proposals and complain that, under his watch, the Treasury Department has actually made tax compliance tougher. The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend 6.1 billion hours every year on federal tax compliance. There's no debate that the lion's share of that effort needs to be redirected toward increased productivity. Along with most other Americans, I'm counting on Mr. O'Neill to help make that happen.
Marc J. Lane may be contacted at http://www.marcjlane.com mlane@marcjlane.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Marc is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Northwestern University and an Adjunct Professor of Business at the University of Illinois. His practice areas include Individual Taxation, Corporate Tax Planning, Business Tax Planning, Estate Planning, Investments, Retirement Planning,Elder Law, International Trade, Business Law, and Wills, Trusts and Estates. Additional articles, case studies, and a free email newsletter are available at www.marcjlane.com.
Copyright Usage: |
Bioterrorism: Which weapon are terrorists likely to use?
by Nathalie Hopkins
Submitted: 28-Mar-02
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
|
It's impossible to predict with any degree of certainty what approach a terrorist group might use to launch a chemical or biological attack. This is what makes it such a frightening threat. It can be anywhere, anytime and in any number of forms. However, there are some clues available to us which can help us understand a little more about the most likely approach. Nerve agents (like Sarin) and vesicant agents (like Mustard gas) are relatively difficult to produce. The Chemical Weapons Convention makes it hard to buy these agents and the ingredients needed to produce them. This probably rules these two categories out. On the other hand, a chemical such as phosgene (a choking agent), is easy to find and produce. However, choking agents are volatile and therefore disperse quickly in the air. This means that the terrorists would have to deliver it in a high concentration to have the effect of maximum impact they'd be aiming for. A possible scenario in this case would be to blow up a tanker full of the gas (or a chemicals plant) in a busy area. This, however, introduces complications for the terrorists. They would need to smuggle a large bomb into a chemical plant or drive a tanker full of toxic chemicals into a densely populated area and then blow it up. With the nation on high alert, one would expect that such attacks would be very difficult to execute. It's possible that terrorists would use anthrax in an attack. If so, a conceivable approach would be the use of a crop-duster. Why? Because anthrax isn't contagious (it doesn't spread easily from person to person) like most other biological agents. This means that they would need to directly spread the bacteria onto as many people as possible. However, while the thought of anthrax being poured down onto a city from a passing airplane is chilling, it's unlikely to happen. It would take a lot of time to release significant amounts of anthrax using this approach, and the US Air Force would eliminate the threat very quickly. It's worth remembering that you would need to inhale large amounts of anthrax before it becomes fatal. To put things in perspective, wool sorters inhale up to 700 anthrax spores every hour without any consequences - in order for anthrax to reach lethal levels, you'd need to inhale up to 10,000 spores with every breath. If the terrorists were to use anthrax, they would most likely release it inside a building where a dense concentration of the agent can be more easily achieved. While this approach would create considerable fear and panic, the casualties would be minimized because those affected could get immediate medical treatment. Again, such an attack would be quite difficult to trigger off. Another, perhaps more likely, scenario is that the terrorists would initiate the spread of a contagious disease. This would most likely happen unnoticed. Only when more and more people start exhibiting the same symptoms would the alarm be raised. By then the disease may have spread very considerably. If there's no treatment available for the disease, or if it were a new, more resistant strain of an existing disease, then the fear, panic and death objectives of the terrorist would be achieved. Smallpox would appear to be a prime candidate in this category. However, there are only two living samples of smallpox available in the world. One in a secure laboratory the US and one in Russia. Even though there are some concerns over security at the Russian laboratory, it's still unlikely that the terrorists will attempt to steal the sample and launch a smallpox attack. It's more likely that they would take the easier route and spread a contagious disease like bubonic plague. Such an attack would be cheap and easy to launch and would create considerable panic among the general population. While the effects of such an attack would be very traumatic, the emergency services should be able to move quite quickly to get the situation under control. Experience tells us that, whatever approach the terrorists use, two things are sure: they will aim to create maximum fear and intimidation and they will aim for a target where they can cause maximum symbolic and material destruction. That is, after all, the nature of terrorism.
Nathalie Hopkins may be contacted at http://www.chemical-biological-attack-survival-guide.com/ nathalie@bizzydays.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Copyright Usage: |
Bioterrorism: Humanity Faces Into A Terrifying New Era
by Nathalie Hopkins
Submitted: 28-Mar-02
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
|
Last May, doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore were surprised when they found themselves treating a man with a little known disease called Glanders. This is a disease that normally only infects mules and horses, and is so rare in humans that the last time anyone was treated for it was in 1948. It turns out that the sick man was part of a team of US army scientists involved in developing a human vaccine against Glanders. But why develop a vaccine against a disease which hasn't infected a human being in over 50 years and for which there's no record of a human epidemic ever having taken place? Why endanger the lives of a team of top scientists to develop something which has no obvious practical use? The answer to those questions reveals an ominous insight into what the future may have in store for humankind. It turns out that Glanders has a history of use as a biological weapon. The Germans used it during the First World War to infect Russian horses. Japan also used it in its war with China. However, it was only during the late 1940's that the real potential of Glanders as a biological weapon was discovered. Scientists realized that, when Glanders bacteria was taken out of its natural environment and delivered by aerosol it had a higher kill rate than Anthrax and even Smallpox. In short, Glanders is a very effective and very deadly weapon. BUT ISN'T IT AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW TO DEVELOP BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS? Yes. Most of the world's nations are signatories to international treaties that forbid the development of biological weapons. However, despite this, a great number of countries - western democracies included - continue to do so. Basically, the international treaties on the development of biological weapons contain loopholes that allow any country to continue creating these killer diseases without reproach. While nations are forbidden from developing weapons to use against others in war, they are permitted to develop vaccines against such weapons. However, in order to develop vaccines, you need a thorough knowledge of the disease. Are you starting to get the picture? In a nutshell, nations continue developing biological weapons under the pretext of needing to do so in order to develop effective treatments. You may think, okay, that's a justifiable reason. Maybe it is. That's open to debate. The point is, whether justified or not, a great number of countries are actively developing biological weapons - and the means to deliver them - thus rendering all existing international treaties as worthless as the paper they are written on. THE 'CATCH 22' THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL. While stockpiling biological weapons is banned under international treaty, scientists are creating new diseases that are so virulent that just a very small amount would be capable of killing millions. The justification, as we've just seen, for having that 'small amount' is that it's needed to create effective vaccines. Once vaccines are created, however, ever more deadly diseases are developed, again under the pretext that vaccines need to remain ahead of the threat. This is a 'catch 22' situation that is driving humanity at ever-increasing velocity into a terrifying new era of 'disease warfare'. And that still doesn't cast light on the true scale of the horror that is being envisaged in laboratories around the world. Recently, for example, a British biological warfare research laboratory in Wiltshire, England admitted to having developed a vaccine for a new form of gangrene that rots the human body as the afflicted person lives on in agony. This same laboratory has also developed vaccines against virulent forms of Smallpox, Plague and Anthrax - for which they've also developed weapons. The only conclusion to draw from that is that this gangrenous disease has also been developed into a weapon of war. WARFARE ENTERS THE REALM OF SCIENCE-FICTION. The picture becomes even more terrifying when genetics are introduced to the equation, as is now the case. Scientists are experimenting with genetic engineering to develop new strains of biological weapons like Smallpox and Anthrax that will be resistant to all antibiotics, thus removing any hope of cure for those afflicted. There's even been suggestions that these diseases - and others - can be engineered in such a way as to be able to attack certain sections of a given population (people of a particular race, color, origin, etc.) so that only that targeted section of the population would be affected. This is not science-fiction. This is the terrifying reality of today's world. SO WHERE DOES IT ALL END? Unfortunately, the reality is that the development of biological weapons shows no sign of abating. The opposite is closer to the truth as the race to develop biological weapons of mass destruction continues to gain pace. As long as these weapons remain confined to the laboratory, we have little to fear. However, as soon as disease is used by one single despot, dictator or terrorist in an act of aggression, the potential to trigger a chain-reaction of attacks involving killer diseases is very easy to envisage. The questions are: who will throw the first stone, when and at whom..?
Nathalie Hopkins may be contacted at http://www.chemical-biological-attack-survival-guide.com/ nathalie@bizzydays.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Copyright Usage: |
SOMEBODY'S GOTTA SAY THIS STUFF
by Slipten Fell
Submitted: 24-Jan-02
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://home.att.net/~bigbob728/wsb/index.html
|
"Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow man". This is something my mother would say often to describe anything from co-workers to wearing your seatbelt. Never has this been more apparent to me then when I watch or read the news. If you were to analyze any event or situation in the world today and create the most absurd, the most ludicrous (thanks Mike Tyson), the most preposterous ideas you could imagine about that situation or event, I guarantee that not only will that be someone's opinion, but that that person will be on television spouting forth this nonsense for all to see and hear. It never fails. This space is dedicated to my opinions and I am certain that some of you may find them to be absurd or ludicrous or perhaps, preposterous. To you I say; "See you on T.V." Let me begin by disspelling the myth that terrorists are fighting some 'Holy War' in an effort to remove 'infidels' from their homelands. One does not have to be a scholar to realize that every act of terrorism has exactly the opposite effect. For example, Afghanistan is now teeming with foreign troops, more are on the way and Osama bin Laden and his ilk are forced to flee! Because the United States has learned some valuable lessons in Iraq, Iran, Libya etc., there will no doubt be a puppet government set up there before too long despite all the protest to the contrary. I think it won't be long before english is the official language of Afghanistan and all afghanis are working for a United States based corporation at slave wages! This will last until somebody doesn't get his cut of the profits and 'blows the whistle', at which point there will be much media attention and a suspension of the activity until said media attention dies down. At that point it's back to business as usual. The huge reality behind what Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders are doing is that it is not much different than what has gone on here in the USA with the KKK and other hate groups. The premise is this; One guy, usually rich, has a huge grudge, usually unfounded, against a group of people. He then rounds up a group of poor, ignorant individuals and buys their trust. In the case of the KKK it's beer and cheap women. With Al Queada it's probably food, beer and cheap women. Once trust is gained, the ignorants are made to feel superior and told that they are not only worthy but more worthy of whatever it is they seek or lack. After a healthy dose of this type of disinformation the negative propaganda begins and it is relentless because they don't want the ignorants to remember that their own ideals have been obscured. Eventually the brainwashing advances enough that the ignorants are ready to be trained to do the cowardly leader's bidding (the leaders never endanger themselves). This always involves the killing of those who think differently, usually innocent people who have done nothing to deserve this fate. It should be noted that it is not very difficult to incite the ignorant as violence is their only recourse. Intellect is not an attribute of the ignorant. This is the parallel I was trying to make between terrorism and hate groups. Enough of that. I keep hearing about martyrdom and how these suicide attackers are guaranteed a high standing in the afterlife. Why then are these leaders not the first to go? If they are all of one mind, couldn't any of them lead? The ones with the money could just turn it over and be on their glorious way! What about these Psychics and Mediums that can talk to the dead? Why don't they channel some of these suicide killers? Let's hear what they have to say from the afterlife. I bet we wouldn't be able to discern anything they had to say over the screaming and hollering. Perhaps Israel is on to something with this policy of overretaliation. Perhaps the only way to end terrorism is to make the consequences so extreme as to make terrorism itself distasteful to those that would employ it. Maybe? Who knows for sure? On to something else...What about this painting of the Madonna covered in dung? There are people who actually think that this is art! They say art is supposed to inspire a reaction in the beholder. That reaction can be many things, disgust and outrage among them. To those people I must ask this; Would it still be art if it were a portrait of your mother covered in dung? Would it be even more artistic if it were you, not a portrait of you, covered in dung? Is uproarious laughter one of the reactions that makes for good art? I don't see why not. The National Endowment for the Arts has become a big, open Purse for lazy, talentless loafers who didn't have the brains to pass real college courses. I'm sure there are some worthy recipients of these endowments but the whole thing should be dismantled until the wine-sipping, cheese and strawberry crowd that run it with their pointless points of view can be replaced by people who will be more responsible with the taxpayers' money!
Slipten Fell may be contacted at http://home.att.net/~bigbob728 bigbob728@att.net. Click here to view more of their articles. Copyright Usage: |
The People Who Hide Behind Religion
by Jan Andersen
Submitted: 12-Sep-01
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: none
|
I was just beginning this article, when news broke on TV about the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. As I watched the horror unfold, through live pictures being transmitted from the devastating scene, it was hard to comprehend the psyche of the barbarians responsible for such a stunt and it is impossible to find words strong enough to describe the savage cruelty of the person or persons responsible. The staging of such a co-ordinated and brutal terrorist attack on innocent people totally defies reason and does nothing other than confirm that the perpetrators of this type of heinous crime should not be allowed to breed. I’m sorry but anyone who feels that they can justify killing innocent people in pursuit of their cause, not least of all children, is mentally unstable. We see it in Ireland from the sick minds behind the IRA -led murders, we see it in the Middle East on a daily basis, we’ve seen it in South Africa, we’ve seen it in Kosovo and now we are witnessing it in America. How these sick sectarian groups they believe that they will obtain support through these irrational and monstrous acts just proves that they do not have a humanitarian bone in their bodies. I have not been able to think or talk about anything else other than what I saw on TV today. My heart goes out not only to the victims and the bereaved families of those who lost their lives, but to the whole of America. As our Prime Minister said yesterday, “We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with America as a nation”. In theory, I believe that revenge should be served up cold and yet how do you reason with people like this? If it were a case of dealing with one or two people, it would be a lot easier and yet you only need to watch the scenes of jubilation in the Palestinian community to realise that we are dealing with hundreds, not just an individual. Violence breeds and these people are passing on their values to their children. Perhaps castration is the answer, I don’t know. As President Bush said, “The US will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harboured them.” Now I may be a little naïve, but I was always led to believe that being religious, irrespective of whether you followed the teachings of Holy Bible or the Holy Qur’an, meant sharing traditional values such as a united vision of love, understanding, selflessness, compassion and working towards peace. Islamic ideology, for example, states that “God is equally just to all human beings, irrespective of their race, nationality or religion” and that “Differences of belief and interpretation must be tolerated. Responding by physical violence is alien to the teachings of Islam.” Funny, I hadn’t noticed and yet I can’t help feeling terribly sorry for the genuinely good, righteous and war-abhorring Muslim citizens, who condemn acts of violence and retaliation as much as the rest of us. This hypocrisy is not just confined to Islamic groups. My uncle, a retired vicar, told me that some of the most duplicitous people he knew in his parish were regular churchgoers and some of the most Christian were those who never attended church. His definition of being a Christian was serving humanity and possessing all those attributes that I mentioned above. He told me that had met many people who tried to justify their abominable behaviour during the week by praying for forgiveness in church every Sunday. Is that being religious? There are many good, Christian people who do attend church, but unfortunately the actions of these subnormal groups do nothing to promote the teachings of God. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Archbishop of Canterbury recently bemoaned the fact that nobody seemed interested in attending church anymore, claiming that modern day society worshipped material possessions instead of God. However, you only need to witness yesterday’s atrocities to understand why so many people have lost faith in an institution whose teachings are blatantly mocked, through mindless carnage and, as Tony Blair said, “a total disregard for the sanctity of life”. Personally, I have no respect for anyone who promotes violence of any sort; for those who give money to help supply arms to the IRA, for example, or those who react joyously to news of bombings, shootings or any act of terrorism that kills or maims innocent citizens. What’s the answer? I don’t know. If I did, I would be the world’s greatest leader and the events of yesterday would never have occurred. ************* Below are some links to help parents to help their children understand crises of this nature: Talking with Kids About the News http://www.talkingwithkids.org/television/twk-news.html Helping Children Understand Crisis and Trauma http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/news/v1art1.html Talking to Children about Violence http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/famlife/news/news4-21.htm How to Talk to Your Children About the News http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/news.html Helping Children Handle Disaster-Related Anxiety http://www.medscape.com/MedscapeWire/2001/09/medwire0913.child.html
Jan Andersen may be contacted at http://www.mothersover40.com worldwriteruk@hotmail.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Jan specialises in humorous, satirical and thought-provoking articles, essays and columns on diverse topics, from relationships, parenting and women's issues, to psychology, health and social issues. She also owns and run Mothers Over 40, an inspirational and supportive site for older parents and those considering midlife pregnancy. www.mothersover40.com http://worldwriter.homestead.com Copyright Usage: |
The Countess of Wessex Was Hoodwinked
by Jan Andersen
Submitted: 22-Apr-01
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
More Details at: http://funnyladywriter.homestead.com/articlesophie.html
|
Personally, I sympathise with the Countess of Wessex, formerly Sophie Rhys-Jones. Unmistakably, she was duped by some money-grabbing lowlife, masquerading as an Arab Sheikh, whose prime intention was to create a bit of sadistic sensationalism and earn a few bucks at the same time. I wonder how many of us, lured into a similar situation of trust and subsequent unscrupulous grilling, would divulge our real feelings and thoughts about our friends and members of our own families? You only need to listen to customers chatting in the supermarket queue, for example, to know that each and every one of us occasionally has cause to belittle someone else. Nobody can be nice all the time and nobody can say that they have never criticised someone else. That would be the same as admitting that they condoned the behaviour of a child murderer, because there are some actions in this world that cannot warrant anything other than criticism. There is no difference between those who have spiteful thoughts and remain silent and those who express their malevolent thoughts verbally. Personally, I think the two-faced attitude of those who keep their real thoughts to themselves is far worse than coming clean. At least you know where you stand with outspoken friends and acquaintances. Even if the allegations about her disparaging comments were true, The Countess of Wessex would be perfectly correct in her judgements. The Queen is an old dear and William Hague looks like a baby who’s been injected with large quantities of human growth hormone. However, I’m not part of the Royal Family, so I can say that can’t I? I call my Gran an old dear, but it’s an endearing term and is certainly not the same as referring to someone as an old bag. The Countess is perfectly entitled to her opinions, as indeed are we all. As John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) said, “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” What also has to be taken into account is the adeptness of some papers to grossly distort and exaggerate the truth. And often, much of what is set in print is entirely untrue. Fortunately, unless we are high profile celebrities or members of the Royal Family, we do not have our opinions published by the media for the world to see. I admire Sophie for been forthright and honest, rather than hiding behind this false veneer of stomach-churning, goody-two-shoes’ congeniality that we see of so many stars. During many a chat show interview, I have observed the body language of the star guests and can clearly detect their insincerity. I think, “Oh please! Cut the crap and just admit that you don’t like the guy”, or whoever or whatever the subject of the host’s interview happens to be. The high-profile people that I most admire are those who are not afraid to be controversial and refuse to be anything but themselves, irrespective of the situation. This is why the stars who received my vote on Celebrity Big Brother were Vanessa Feltz and Jack Dee. They weren’t out to try and impress people and to grab votes by gingerly stepping on eggshells and tailoring their behaviour to hopefully enhance their popularity and future career opportunities. Some might argue that if you are privileged enough to be part of the Royal Family, then it is your duty to exercise restraint and diplomacy when asked for your personal opinions on certain people or issues. However, if that were the case, then Princess Diana would not have spoken out about land mines, the Prince of Wales would not have expressed his concerns about genetically modified foods and many other worthy causes would not have been given much-needed attention. Whenever a public figure is asked for their views on a particular person and they say, “No comment”, well, we all know how that is interpreted, don’t we? It’s also not what we want to hear. We want to know the truth and we want to know that celebrities are normal people with normal feelings, normal likes and normal dislikes. There appears to be this mentality of building people up and then proceeding to knock them off of their pedestal once they reach the untouchable, superstar status. As soon as they attempt to engage in everyday activities, as would Mr or Ms Average, some photographer from the gutter press camps out behind a tree for two days and then pictures the idol in a compromising position. The photographer then scurries off to his dark room and, with crafty dexterity, magnifies the imperfection ten thousand times ready to splash on the front page of the following day’s major tabloids, along with some bitchy editorial. If, for example, they have attempted to take a well-earned break with their latest partner, you can guarantee that however remote their foreign hideaway might initially seem, a revealing photo will be emblazoned across news stands the following day, showing the idol wearing not a lot and displaying, unspeakably, a miniscule blob of cellulite. When they’re not busy sneaking up on unsuspecting celebs trying to conduct the private life to which the rest of us mere mortals are entitled, these media reptiles are digging up some misdemeanour from a whiter-than-white superstar’s past. And if they don’t unearth anything seedy enough, they make it up. It is a sad fact, however, that this unscrupulous behaviour is fuelled by the public’s enjoyment of reading such tripe. Not only does it make Mr or Miss Ordinary feel better about themselves, but it demonstrates how jealousy of others’ success, wealth and beauty can promote enjoyment of an accomplished star’s imperfections and public disgrace. There must be some misguided people who are under the impression that popular famous people are godlike, superhuman entities, who don’t have bad hair days, skin problems or dental plaque and only ever have lumps and bumps in the acceptable places. I presume, therefore, that the press feel it is their duty to enlighten these poor, ill-advised citizens and present the truth to them in all of its stark glory. What I would say to those who condemn is, “take at look at yourselves.” If everyone concentrated on making the most of their own gifts instead of using their energy to attack and belittle others, then they too would flourish. Successful, attractive, wealthy and well-known people probably look less than perfect first thing in the morning, they break out in the occasional spot, suffer from pre-menstrual tension, have hang-ups about their bodies, suffer identity crises and have relationship problems. They also have personal opinions, good or bad, about their own friends, family, work colleagues and others with whom they come into contact. Above all, they have feelings, just like you or I and they should not be slated for any attributes with which they were born or have worked extremely hard to achieve. And, as Jack Dee proved in Celebrity Big Brother, even famous people fart.
Jan Andersen may be contacted at http://www.mothersover40.com worldwriteruk@hotmail.com. Click here to view more of their articles. Jan specialises in humorous, satirical and thought-provoking articles, essays and columns on diverse topics, from relationships, parenting and women's issues, to psychology, health and social issues. She also owns and run Mothers Over 40, an inspirational and supportive site for older parents and those considering midlife pregnancy. www.mothersover40.com http://worldwriter.homestead.com Copyright Usage: |
The Link Between Flies and Men
by Jan Andersen
Submitted: 16-Feb-01
article
Authorized - NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION BEFORE USING. Already granted to Publisher's Toolbox Subscribers.
Category: News:Current Events
|
I have just read a report about the human genome project (the complete set of genetic instructions) and how it has been established that humans may have as few as 38,000 genes, when it was previously believed that we had in the region of 140,000. The report went on to discuss the similarities between the genetic makeup of parasites, flies, yeast and humans. Of course, I've always been able to see the clear link between flies and men. It might explain, for example, why some of them walk all over you and treat you like shit, not to mention buzzing around you when they're not wanted, putting their feelers all over you and taking an unhealthy interest in all manner of garbage. It has been discovered that the "hox" genes used to lay down the blueprint of the human embryo are almost identical to those used by a fly. It has been suggested, therefore, that these human "hox" genes could be used to grow a normal fly. Hence, the movie "The Fly" wasn't as far-fetched as it seemed at the time of its creation and makes me ponder over the possibility that this hox gene experiment has already been conducted. The fact that my old Maths' master appeared to have compound eyes is slightly worrying. He could see all 35 of his reluctant pupils simultaneously and had two, unruly tufts of hair on the top of his head that could easily have been mistaken for antennae. I remember likening my intellectual snob of an ex-husband to an asexual invertebrate once, not realising that there was some scientific basis in that comparison. Apparently, 60% of our genes are copies of those found in worms. Delightful. That explains why he was so cold blooded and spent all of his spare time digging holes in the garden. Oh, and if you chopped him in half, you wouldn't know which end was his head and which was his arse. I've known many spineless wonders |
DverCITY Magazine