set aside time to think clearly ...

Whatever voice Rush Limbaugh might have had that could help bring Americans together ...

Where is it ? Where is that voice ?

Valid arguments are being made by individuals on both the Left and the Right. Increasingly, I am finding Rush, O'Reilly, et al. as not much more than noise. They become more and more entrenched in a position so there is no longer any debate. Callers are screened, which to me is a first flag on any play they make.

The hour is very late and our whole way of life is in peril. We simply must be able not only to talk with each other, but to HEAR each other, and consider respectfully what another person is saying, and what compels them to speak, what motivates their message.

I do not believe the likes of Rush and Bill are much listening now - not to anything that is outside of what seems to me an increasingly narrow view, which seems to do no more than quickly dismiss anything else. In that way, many of us learn to do the same.

" Many Americans on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints, he said. You'd think that it's no more complex than good vs. evil. " - Aaron Brown

We are none of us ever going to agree on everything, but most of us agree on some things every day. In that way, open discussion is kept alive, and together we sort out what is most important and do what we can to change things.

Instead, these "position peddlers" are delivering a narcotic. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/
" Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts' ..."

Once again, I have to say that anyone who is receiving a paycheck in return for so-called "political discussion" is not to be trusted.

Keep for yourself some quiet time each day in which you can think clearly and draw your own conclusions - about EVERYthing.

how it is done ...

My hackles are up now that I have posted this a couple places.
So if something strange happens to me, draw your own conclusions ... : )
_______

The more I review what I can only describe as "political murders" in America, I continue to see one thing in common:

A "nobody" who is strung out on drugs - not marijuana; in fact marijuana hardly ever comes up.

Drugs to which the person "responsible" for the murders are addicted to are of the manufactured variety, and come from outside the U.S., with "approval" of the United States Government ( of a specific U.S. agency ). It is well known by now that certain U.S. Government agencies traffic in drugs, "drug for guns" exchanges [Iran Contra], supplying the manpower and necessary transportation, including airplanes and submarines.

The exact way in which the "hits" are accomplished vary widely at the bottom end, but the similarities of "coincidence" cry out for explanation of the mechanism(s) by which individuals are targeted. Hits do not always mean physical death to the person to be "eliminated" as evidenced in the case of Captain Jeffrey MacDonald, who remains today in FCI Cumberland, Maryland, for the murder of his wife and two daughters, a gruesome act that was committed by at least four other men February 17, 1970. MacDonald was silenced.
[ From first time I read "Fatal Vision" over two decades ago I was convinced of MacDonald's innocence. ]

At:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/stmt_beasley_1980-10-23.html
Helena Stoeckley's own words support the testimony of Dr. MacDonald, describing once again the "nobody" strung out on drugs scenario:

" Helena stated that Dr. MacDonald was indirectly involved with the deaths of his familey. She stated that he had cut several people off and refused to give them treatment for Drug adiction and that he would turn them into their Comanding Officers and this would cause them problems. No names was mentiond. She stated that Thee reason Dr MacDonad was not killed along with his familey that this would not have served the purpose. "
_

The Colby murder was somewhat more "sophisticated" but shows up another common thread: that William Colby was about to testify. Similar to Ron Brown, and a Senator from the upper Midwest whose name does not come to mind right now ... though these deaths add another common element, which is "mechanical failure" of an aircraft.
_

These murders are often made to appear to be "acts of random violence" like those of the biochemists - being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" like the case of Dr. Eugene Mallove, who " was brutally murdered at his parents home that he was checking in on after renters had moved out on May 14, 2004. "
- http://pesn.com/2005/06/02/9600104_Mallove_Murder_Suspect_Arrested/

" Because of his [Mallove] global high profile in the field of Cold Fusion and other alternative energy approaches, and his post as the founder and editor of Infinite-Energy magazine, his murder was considered by many to be probable foul play. " Once local law enforcement catches a "petty" crook such as McAvoy or Reilly, the case is "solved" and closed. No one need look any further.

" Both [McAvoy or Reilly] told police they had gone on a crack binge the week prior to the murder. " The way I read the "drill" is that somewhere in that binge, one of both of McAvoy and / or Reilly were prompted in some way to visit the home where Mallove would be found. I am convinced that such "prompts" begin as high-level assignments passed down from level to level, maybe to a cop on the "take" - to someone at the local level who knows the "two-bit" players who can be duped for a "score" to support their habit, who never know they are playing the role of "hit man" ... and because they are known street criminals, no one asks any more questions.

Sleeping With The Enemy

If one considers there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of
2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000

The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000

That means you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
our nation's capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control
laws in our nation, than if you were in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington.

[U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD as of today: 2222]

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail ...

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST


Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Ramona Bell was 47

Art Bell's beloved wife of fifteen years, Ramona, died unexpectedly last night after an asthma attack. At present, the exact cause of Mrs. Bell's death has not been determined. It apparently took place during her sleep. Until her death, Art and Ramona Bell had not been apart a day since they were married. Mrs. Bell had suffered from asthma for years, and took her normal steps to control the attack, which occurred sometime last night in Laughlin, Nevada where the Bells were taking a brief vacation. Ramona Bell was 47 years old.
Full Story
_______



I am one of millions who appreciate Art Bell for his pioneering broadcast work, for his continued courage and role in promoting open minds with an open mike, allowing us to talk freely of things for which some of us thought ourselves "over the edge" at times.

My sincere condolences to Art and to Ramona's mother.


JB

Who is counting ... ?

It has long been one of the most exhausted arguments used on behalf of the protection vs the abuse of First Amendment free speech rights—The shouting of “Fire!” in a crowded theatre...when in fact, there is no fire.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

in which Justice Holmes' exact quote is:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a

man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

The operative word here being “falsely”.

The urgency that gripped me to produce this report was akin to hearing that shout of “Fire” repeatedly within my own mind; with every bit of scorching data I would unearth about our election systems,

the deeper my probe would sink into the smoldering research, and the louder it would echo again....

Fire!!

It soon became apparent that nobody else in “the theatre” was similarly alarmed. Everyone seemed to be carrying on-- blithely munching their popcorn, absorbed in the movie. They needed to be alerted to the danger that beckoned. A stubborn calling had manifested itself right smack in the middle of my already hectic lifestyle, leaving me no choice but to comply.

Due to multiple professional commitments on my plate, I was forced to barrel through this project mostly during the midnight hours. Engrossed in combing through the archives while everyone else was sleeping, both figuratively and literally, I spent nine months of midnights to collate the blistering information contained herein. Always with the sound of the alarm bells clanging in my head, warning me that time was limited....

Get moving, hurry along...but don’t push.

Along the way, I was graciously facilitated by trusted volunteer assistants who would sift through, edit, and format the volumes of late night email files in preparation for mounting them onto the website. And of course the entire website build and design was largely the work of one indispensable volunteer friend and ally who seeks to remain “anonymous” at this point. (You know who you are!) Much gratitude is owed to these wonderfully talented and diligent ‘angels’ who helped me to organize this project through all the stages of its development. It is out of their sheer conviction and dedication to the cause of election reform that ‘whoscounting.net’ was able to debut in the format in which it exists today.

I know that numerous other sites exist detailing our election equipment flaws and failures and the like, a good number of which are, in fact, excellent. My goal in this undertaking was not to compete with or duplicate any of those, but rather to compile the bulk of this many-sided story into one single user-friendly space, chronicling the yarn in a non-academic and hopefully objective fashion..

My real goal however was to shout “Fire” in the proverbial crowded theatre, where there is indeed smoke rising from the rafters and sparks spotted in the loges.

And to shout it loudly. Forget about the movie, you can always rent the DVD later.

My other goal was to embody the spirit of the Town Crier, minus the velvet knickers, and plunk myself onto this bustling cyber street corner – clanging my virtual bell, crying out—Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

If we don’t immediately establish an efficient, practical method to begin correcting the immense electoral crisis plaguing the election systems in this country, the consequences could be grave. The entire cornerstone of our democracy-- the right to a private vote that is assured to be fairly and accurately counted; the right upon which all other rights are dependant-- is itself at risk of toppling.

http://www.whoscounting.net/