Iran election results predictable: contested and violent [w/vid]

I hate to say this, but I told you so.

Every step of the Iranian election process was predictable -- the high turnout, the Iranian-government blocked participation, the suspicious election results, and the violent response.

Friday's election in Iran is indeed a large step forward in the political participation of Iranians both abroad and within their country, as indicated by estimates placing overall participation at upwards of 80% of the electorate, with international participation by Iranians abroad increasing 300%.

The run-up to the election was extremely exciting, especially to the rest of the world that witnessed the social fervor that swept across Iran as the younger and well-educated populace became involved. Also, challengers to Ahmadinejad dared to use English U.S. slogans, such as "Change" (used incessantly in the recent U.S. elections) in a country whose government has long promoted an anti-American position.

There were other remarkable "westernized" election procedures, such as a televised debate between Ahmadinejad and his leading challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh.

However -- little that has happened amidst the turmoil in the past three days has surprised me, and I hope that few others were either. Mousavi's campaign really took off in the last few days before elections, and his high-tech campaign (using Internet sites like Facebook and 21st century communication tools like mass-text messaging) was well utilized by the increasingly educated and more pro-western college-age youth and other supporters of Ahmadinejad's opponents.

But as predicted, the Iranian government limited Internet access to social networking sites in the few days before the election. And they shut down all text-messaging within the country. And there were reports of polling stations turning away would-be voters. And no independent monitors were allowed inside the polling stations.

What did the world expect from a country controlled by the elderly and extremely conservative Islamic religious leaders?! (View a BBC exploration into Iran's system of government)

Listen to this day-old CNN report in which Ahmadinejad is questioned by CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour. One must bear in mind that his quotes are indeed translated, but given the dire situation in his country, President-elect Ahmadinejad seems ridiculously flippant, overly praiseful, and sounds like an idiot puppet. He purposely refrains from ensuring the safety of opponent, and his reference to the odd traffic accident to me sounded a bit ominous.

Even if the elections weren't rigged and Ahmadinejad wasn't the puppet of the ruling religious elite, one would think that he would at least acknowledge that Iran IS NOT the most secure and stable country in the world.

The fact that there are four distinct parties involved in the riots -- Ahmadinejad's civilian supporters, Ahmadinejad's civilians opponents, Iran's religiously-controlled government, and the armed police and military encharged with keeping order -- provide a curious and dangerous imbalance.

I would hazard a guess that the majority of Ahmadinejad's opponents are younger and more liberal, more of the recent college graduates -- they will have learned of the effects of a 30% unemployment rate coupled with high inflation rates. They will be more familiar with the West and the economic and political difficulties that Iran faces in the world should they continue on their isolationist path. They will possibly even include less-religious individuals and those who believe in a more honest and transparent religious rule -- not that which is currently in place and holds its power through cover-ups, deceit, and unspoken fear.

I would also postulate that Admadinejad's supporters are the more conservative, more old-school Islam, more fearful of opposing their "beloved government" lest they or their loved ones be harmed, and fearful of any change -- they probably remember the 1979 revolution.

We shall see how far this fiasco continues. Let us hope that the Iranian people's fervor and energy so witnessed by the world in these past few days stirs itself into a more stable and respectable government, and not a bloody repeat of the 1979 revolution.


Here are a few concerning videos uploaded onto YouTube that I consider a few of the most informative:

A BBC and Associated Press Report



Huge crowds protest the election results. The crowd is orderly, but things could easily turn very nasty.



A compilation of still images -- Please note that the pictures are more graphic.

White House Alters Scientific Evidence; Commits Fraud

Even in July 2008, when the extreme negative effects of global warming are well established and accepted as scientific fact, Cheney and the Bush Administration are trying to downplay the environmental report indicating such -- even going so far as to physically alter scientific documents and government agency findings before they are released.

Unfortunately, these actions are nothing new. As early as 2002, there were documented instances in which White House officials altered a government climate research draft, and in the following document, Phillip Cooney, then the White House chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality (formerly a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute), severely edited findings warning of extreme consequences to finally be no more than suggestions of possibilities.

View the drafts appearing in Sierra Magazine here.

View the drafts uncovered by the New York Times here.

After his editing became highly publicized, Cooney resigned and joined ExxonMobil.

One of the individuals at the center of outing Cooney's actions and brining the Bush Administration's desires to alter and restrict scientific findings on global warming was Rick Piltz -- a former senior associate on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program who resigned in 2005 in protest to interference in the program's reports.

The news blitz sparked by his resignation and by his congressional testimony on the matter has created much headway in exposing the scientific fraud being commited by the Executive Branch of the American government.

Read Piltz's memo describing his reasons for resignation here.

Read Piltz's testimony before the U.S. Congressional hearing here.

However, despite the continuing legal battles and negative publicity, it is surprising that the Bush Administration continues to try and alter public scientific documents on climate change. Even more surprising is that their actions are really not widely reported and realized. Unfortunately, probably due in part to the lack of general knowledge of the administration's action, it is entirely plausible that the White House's fraudulent activities aren't relegated to just climate change documents.

According to the deposition of Jason K. Burnett, a senior advisor on climate change at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Vice President Dick Cheney and "the Council on Environmental Quality were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning)... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change." According to CNN, Cheney's office pushed for major deletions out of fear that the information, if released, would make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gasses."

Why the same legal ramifications are not in place for Cheney and his office as they are for Cooney, one can only guess.

What's more frustrating is that, even when faced with unalterable and undeniable evidence, the White House refused to act on the effects of global warming.

In a recent Supreme Court decision (ironically staffed by conservative judges, a couple of whom were themselves appointed by President Bush), the Court ruled 5-4 that if the EPA were to find evidence that global warming did indeed pose a threat to the public health and future of humans as whole, that the EPA under the White House must act to enforce restrictions on the harm.

(The Supreme Court, as the Judicial branch of United States Government, tells the President's Office, known as the executive branch, what laws to enforce and how. The White House is obligated to follow the Court's directions.)

In a surprise twist, the White House refused to act on the EPA's warnings -- by NOT OPENING THE EMAIL sent by the EPA. They simply refused to read it because if they did, they would be legally obligated to act.

According to the New York Times, "The White House succesfully put pressure on the EPA to elimate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation. including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years."

The obstinacy of the Bush Administration is simply amazing.

Gas Prices: Get Used to Them

Americans should realize by now that gas prices aren't going down anytime soon. Instability in the Middle East as a whole is increasing and is not headed towards a resolution short of a violent collision of ideas, ideals, religion, and cultures.

America's untapped oil resources in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, nor the offshore oil reserves, nor even the Green River Valley have anywhere near enough oil to assist the American dependence on oil -- what's more is that it would take at least 5-10 years for ANY of the domestic oil to even hit the market. As such, if the intention is to lower the current prices at the pump, any new domestic exploration and drilling would be ineffective.

President Bush and John McCain have good intentions in attempting to relieve America's dependable on foreign oil, but what what must be done to solve the problem is to relieve America's dependence on oil in general -- its usage is simply unsustainable.

As worldwide oil consumption increases year after year, with the United States being no exception, one must be conscious of the fact that oil takes millions of years to form -- and that it is not a renewable resource. One day it will run out. One day, humans will be forced to find an alternative; why not start now?

Nancy Pelosi, to her credit, has fought against offshore oil drilling since she joined congress in 1987. Disappointingly, however, she has an ill-rationed plan to lower the current gas prices: to release some or all of the 700 million barrels in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush counters that doing so would harm America's national security -- to good reason. The oil reserve is in place to protect against a national emergency, such as another terrorist attack or a natural disaster. It is not in place to ease gas prices for the average consumer, especially when the prices are simply a reflection of a sinking American and world economies and current events.

As of spring 2007, the United States uses near 21 million barrels of oil PER DAY. If America had to suddenly depend solely on the Strategic Oil Reserve, it would last for only one month. Gas prices reaching $4 a gallon is no justification for opening the emergency kit. The current situation is a grave problem, but it is not a national emergency.

So what is the answer? It is not a simple one, and is not one that is likely to appease the many Americans complaining of the high gas prices and the subsequent rise in the cost if living: to reduce America's dependency on oil and to increase our abilities to utilize American ingenuity and creativity to find and implement alternative forms of energy.

Gas prices aren't going anywhere, and Americans should get used to them now -- if not now, then when? Besides, Americans should still consider themselves lucky: consider these per-gallon prices from around the world.

Even the supermajors (commonly known as Big Oil -- Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Total) know that the future for oil is bleak and will require ever-advancing technologies to simply locate and produce it. Perhaps they might place some of their record-breaking profits towards the development of new, alternative, and sustainable energy, leading the world not simply in oil production and profits, but in energy production for the betterment of civilization and mankind as a whole.

Alternative sources of energy won't instantly solve the problem -- it has taken America decades to dig itself into this dependancy, and we won't easily nor quickly dig ourselves out.

We should look at using a multitude of different sources for our energy; each region of the United States has different natural resources and a different climate, and there is no miracle energy cure. As such, American's should consider utilizing many different sources at once, or have transportation devices uniquely suited to certain regions (i.e. solar power out west, wind power on the coast, etc.).

Times are a-changin' people. Get used to it.

Corn Syrup Industry Fighting to Regain Consumers

It is a well-established fact, at least in the health-food arenas, that corn syrup and its stickier twin, high fructose corn syrup, is bad news. Studies have linked corn syrup to a multitude of health problems as well to environmental damage from the overgrowing of the corn that is used to prude the sweet syrup.

Because this information is being disseminated quickly and more and more people are becoming aware of it, the Corn Refiners Association found itself facing the possibility of decreasing profits and an unfavorable outlook on their industry.

As a result, they are “launching a major advertising and public relations campaign designed to rehabilitate the reputation of high fructose corn syrup.”

HFCS has been linked by many scientists to the nation's obesity epidemic.

The group is spending $20 million to $30 million on the campaign, including running full-page ads in more than a dozen major newspapers, claiming that the product is no worse for you than sugar. The ad, which features a stalk of corn, carries the headline: 'And Now a Little Food for Thought.'

The Corn Refiners Association "has been trying to counter the bad publicity around HFCS since 2004," but concluded it "could no longer afford to rely on simple grass-roots marketing tactics such as talking with nutritionists and doctors."

Meanwhile, in June a nearly $5 billion merger of Corn Products International and Bunge Ltd. signaled that corn manufacturers mean business. Revenues were expected to increase 29 percent in 2008 to reach $4 billion.

(Noted by Mercola.com, PRWatch, and the Organic Consumers Association Mercola.com)

 

Some of the health-related problems that corn syrup can cause or contribute to are diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, an increase in LDL (the bad cholesterol), and liver disease. Interestingly, some people’s bodies can crave the sweetness, thus leading people to eat more of a food than they intended, which only increases the amount of corn syrup that they consume

The average American consumes almost 2 ounces of corn syrup per day (as documented by the Corn Refiners Association). Although it may not seem like much, consider that given the high-intensity of the fructose in the mixture, and the fact that high fructose corn syrup is easily and quickly metabolized into fat (over the rate of other sugars), even a little amount can have lasting impacts. And at that rate, the average American consumes almost 6 GALLONS of the stuff every year.

So next time that you’re buying your food in the grocery store, take care and look on the labels of your food. Check the ingredients – and don’t assume that corn syrup won’t be in it – it appears in everything from salad dressing to yogurt to breadcrumbs.

 

For more information, visit:

How High Fructose Corn Syrup Damages Your Body

High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Not so Sweet for the Planet

High-fructose corn syrup: Why is it so bad for me?

E-Waste: The Quiet Catastrophe

TIME magazine recently published an online article about E-waste and the abhorrent conditions that it creates. Most people, as indicated in the article, stereotype the electronics industries as "clean" and "environmentally friendly;" after all, just think of all the paper that the digital age saves! Or so they say.

As the digital age progress and newer and faster; better, electronics debut, the consumerist culture in industrialized nations discards their older electronics -- now at an ever-growing rate.

Just what happens to the computers, old mp3 players, cell phones, and other devices that we discard? Just try getting rid of your old CRT computer monitor (those really BIG ones that have been mostly replaced by the flat-panel LCD ones) at your local recycling center or even in trash. It's considered toxic waste.

The United States has a horrible tendency to ship their waste overseas to countries that will take it -- mainly those with largely impoverished sections, as they will do practically anything for U.S. dollars.

In the YouTube video below, Michael Zhao describes and shows us some of the footage from these countries and describes the paths that our trash takes. A journalist with ties to the Asia Society (which is "working to strengthen relationships and promote understanding among the people, leaders, and institutions of Asia and the United States), Zhao visited firsthand one of the small Chinese towns that has been ravaged by their own industry: E-Waste processing.

In those towns, one might imagine a factory-like building in which workers come to disassemble electronic waste in a controlled and safe environment; but that is not the case. Without clothing protection, eye goggles, or even a mask, the town's citizens burn leftover parts on home stoves, attempting to salvage the tiny amounts of gold within the product.

The toxic fumes are simply inhaled by the workers. Their town is surrounded by mountains of trash. Their waterways are BLACK, like sludge; full of dumped toxic waste. And yet the workers continue to welcome E-Waste imports, for it is a small yet steady stream of much-needed money.

I would agree with some critiques that the United States electronics companies that ship the waste to these impoverished countries are guilty of long-range dumping. They simply export the toxic waste to a location far from their own, and leave the mess for the poor to clean up.

Why? Because it costs less to ship the trash halfway around the world and pay people to take it, rather than dispose of it as best as possible here in the United States.

As an American citizen, I am glad that the toxic waste is not dumped in my country (and am somewhat somewhat guilty myself -- having written this post from my Dell laptop amidst a host of other elctronics), but we have NO RIGHT to expect the rest of the world to deal with our garbage. Even if it is "their" country rather than ours, it is still "our" world -- and our only one at that.

In 1989, the United Nations adopted a treaty to control the stream of hazardous waste that was then flowing from wealthy countries to impoverished ones (See the "Basel Convention on the Control of Trans boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal). But there is one problem: the United States (one of the main exporters) never agreed to it, and poor importer countries (like China) continue to accept the waste for the few dollars that accompany it.

 

This disgusting irrelevance for the environment and for our fellow humans, this love for the bottom line, and this irresponsible industry behavior is abhorrent! I don't know what can be done, especially with so much toxic waste-to-be still in American households, but we must end the dumping  -- yesterday.

 

WATCH THE BELOW VIDEO FOR MORE INFORMATION:

The TIME article referenced above is available here: Your Laptop's Dirty Little Secret

TIME's 10 Things to Like about $4 Gasoline

Humans are an extremely adaptable species. Although we're lazy and like comfort and convenience, we adapt to changes in our environment as best we can.

So when gas prices rise (as they are currently), it won't take long for us to change our ways to accommodate -- and those changes may be for the better.

Read TIME Magazine's 10 Things to Like About $4 Gas.

I have long held the view that, although the higher prices may cause a pinch in lifestyle, America needs more expensive gasoline. Honestly, we have nothing to complain about -- Great Britain has long had gasoline at over $8 a gallon, and Australia has been enduring $12 a gallon for quite a while.

Understandably, most American's disagree with me on this (some vehemently) -- but there is validity to the idea, as evidenced by the topics covered in the TIME article (over 3000 America lives have been saved THIS YEAR through decreased pollution and traffic deaths!).

The higher the prices, the less we drive. The less we drive, the fewer pollutants in the air. The less we drive, the fewer natural resources consumed for our convenience -- meaning that they will last longer. The less we drive, the more we take public transportation, bike, or walk -- resulting in better transportation (improvements stem from the additional demand and the additional revenue) and better health for the community (through more exercise and less pollution).

One could even make the argument that higher-priced gas is actually GOOD for the economy. It definitely has and is dropping stock prices (I look at my portfolio and wince) and home values, but that drop provides time for a much-needed rebalancing of the economy.

Everything requires checks and balances, and the American economy has been growing too fast for it to be rooted in stability -- we have shipped our jobs overseas (that are starting to return as shipping prices increase), the economy is based on speculation (stocks) rather than industry (again, solved by returning jobs), which results in a weaker dollar. As the dollar weakens, the remaining United States industries are bought (through stocks + real estate) by foreign companies and even foreign governments (China owns a surprising stake in some U.S. corporations). Does this sound anything like Ron Paul? If it does, just remember that the dire warnings he gave -- at which most of America scoffed -- are all becoming reality.

I could go on, but I will leave my complex ramblings for another day. In conclusion, I view rising prices as bad: short term, but good: long term.

I just hope that America hasn't grown too quickly since its last resettling that we can quickly bounce back into self-reliance and productivity -- and not more towards the 10% unemployment rate towards which we're currently headed.

Proper Patriotic Etiquette

Fittingly in honor of Independence Day 2008, I will dedicate this entry to the proper etiquette of flying the American Flag, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and singing the National Anthem.

I just returned from my town's annual Downtown Independance Day Parade, and am dissapointed in the number of people that simply stood by and watched as the symbol of their nation traveled by and their national anthem was played. Were they not taught to place their hand over their heart?

Interestingly, despite how "in vogue" being patriotic is these days, at every single public venue that plays the national anthem or recites the Pledge, I see the vast majority of the crowd improperly standing at attention with their hands at their sides or clasped in front of them. Throughout my neigborhood, many people improperly fly the flag unlit at night, and across the country I see American citicens improperly using the American flag in their clothing.

There are those that may claim it's use as clothing is simply an expression of innocent patriotism, but it is being "used as decoration;" a blatant violation of the official Flag Code.

"There's a CODE?!" you may ask. Yes, there is indeed. On June 22, 1942, Congress passed a resolution that was later amended to become Public Law 829, 77th Congress, 2nd Session. In it was contained specific rules and conduct in regards to the use and display of the American flag, and proper conduct during the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegience. It is actually a federal law!

Granted, there are no official penalties in place for violating the law; it is more an official guideline. Still, as proud American citizens, we should follow it and show the flag due respect – after all, it represents more than anything else our nation as a whole, and indeed its citizens themselves: us.

I understand that people are trying to show their love of country (and all the more power to showing one’s pride), but it is downright disrespectful to present the flag in an improper manner. When addressing a person of status, we use a term of respect: Mr. President, Your Honor, Ms. Senator, etc. Should not we follow the correct forms of address to the very symbol of our nation?

I call everyone to pay attention, to (correctly) fly the flag with pride, to address the flag with respect, and to educate others!

You may visit USFlag.org to read the full Flag Code, including details on its address and presentation etiquette, or scroll down to read some items that I’ve copied to this post.

To all of America, I hope that you have a wonderful, safe, and inspiring Independence Day!

--Editor, The Threshold

The Flag Code:

The Flag Code, which formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag, also contains specific instructions on how the flag is not to be used. They are:

• The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
• The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.
• The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
• The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.
• The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.
• The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

Parading and Saluting the Flag

When carried in a procession, the flag should be to the right of the marchers. When other flags are carried, the flag of the United States may be centered in front of the others or carried to their right. When the flag passes in a procession, or when it is hoisted or lowered, all should face the flag and salute.

Patriotic Saluting:

To salute, all persons come to attention. Those in uniform give the appropriate formal salute. Citizens not in uniform salute by placing their right hand over the heart and men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart. Members of organizations in formation salute upon command of the person in charge.

The Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem:

The pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting.
When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note. The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music.

-Special thanks to www.usflag.org for the use of their flag etiquette informtaion-

The American Economy: Ron Paul Had a Point

We all watched as Ron Paul became the Dark Horse Republican presidential candidate, yet never seemed to make it into the mainstream political arena.

His campaign seemed a joke to many, his opinions were laughed off, and yet he set campign fundraising records and his supporters vehemntly stood behind him.

But just what was it that caused him to be so popular? The letter that he wrote to his supporters, entitled "A Word From Ron Paul" (appearing on Forbes.com of all places), addressed just that.

I have personally come across many people who did and still view Paul as a kook, way out in Libertarian field. Unfortunately, because he has a few radical theories (such as abolishing the income tax and the IRS altogether), all of his theories are imediately rejected by the impatient and assuming media and Amiercan society.

Everyone who does not like Ron Paul, everyone who thinks him a kook, everyone who views him as undermining the Republican base, (as well as his supporters) should read his letter.

Honestly, if you read it through, most if not all of his opinions make sense and are well-founded ideas. Paul was educated at Duke University's School of Medicine and has spent over 15 years in the U.S. House of Representatives -- things that one does not accomplish by being dumb.

This posting is not meant to be a "YAY RON PAUL!" article, but I mean to call attention to some of his policy theories.

In these days of gas at $4.25/gallon, National Deby increasing by over $1,000,000 a minute, a falling Dollar, a stockmarket in freefall (June '08 was the worst-performing June since the Great Depression), and ongoing military conflicts in the unstable Middle East, we would all be wise to listen and consider all opinions -- no matter how strange they may seem.

I close with a quote from his letter:

" Unless we embrace fundamental reforms, we will be caught in a financial storm that will humble this great country as no foreign enemy ever could. However, we can find safe harbor in our ideals. Reclaiming our historic legacy of principled commitment to liberty will, once again, unleash the innovative spirit that propelled our nation to heights of prosperity never before achieved in human history."    -- Ron Paul

Read the Forbes.com article here.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, 9/11, and Iraq

It is imperative that every caring and concerned United States citizen read about and watch “The Dark Side,” an hour-long documentary done by PBS’s award-winning Frontline. Originally aired on June 20, 2006, “The Dark Side” delves into the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and the White House’s response to the tragedy. This is not another conspiracy theory “documentary,” but an actual report done by professional journalists.

Much of America and the world regard Bush and his administration as a blemish in history, incompetent, or downright evil. It is important that, whatever one’s political views are, they be based on facts and true information, not just on the latest overblown news story or political misinformation.

Today, much of the negative publicity surrounding President Bush is focused on the wrong person or persons. Without excusing the mistakes that he has made, President Bush’s current legacy of misjudgment and failure (as he is viewed by most) is unfairly attributed to him alone.

Upon election in 2000, Mr. Bush found himself an inexperienced and uneducated President and a Commander in Chief of the world’s most powerful nation. Wisely, he surrounded himself with political, military, strategy, and intelligence heavy-weights, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colon Powel (all hardened veterans of past administrations).

Going in, Bush’s cabinet appeared powerful and experienced. What resulted from it, however, were world-changing decisions that stemmed from power struggles, distrust, over-confidence, and interpersonal communications meltdowns.

Is it surprising to know that Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice-president in American history? Or that while serving for 10 years in congress, Cheney dealt heavily in “Intelligence Maters” (as in the CIA)? Perhaps most surprising is the fact that Bush originally relied on George Tenet’s and Colon Powel’s advice to enter Afghanistan, and was later convinced by Cheney and Rumsfeld (who were desperately grasping for power) to enter Iraq.

Through Frontline’s documentary, it becomes clear that the events of the past seven years are events that occur when an inexperienced person is placed in a position of great power, and listens to only those closest to him.

Perhaps the Bush administration means well, and through all its secrecy, mistakes, and apparent “aloofness” to world opinion, is simply a victim of seemingly good decisions that went bad.

Contained in the Frontline show are interviews, facts, and quotes that can be chilling, infuriating, and damning. Although the perception of the Bush administration as a whole may not change, after viewing “The Dark Side” it is almost guaranteed that the blame resting on Mr. Bush will shift to others in the Executive branch.

Each and every person needs to watch “The Dark Side” to understand the actual events of post-9/11 America, and the real story behind the war in Iraq.

Watch Frontline’s The Dark Side on PBS.com now.

Newsflash! Repeated, Severe Blunt Trauma to the Head Causes Brain Damage!

In a June 15 article appearing in the New York Times, doctors at the University of Pittsburgh and West Virginia University have added their consensus to the growing “theory” that NFL players – especially linemen – can experience extensive, irreversible brain injuries as a result of their professional career.

After the death of 36 year old Justin Strzelczyk in 2004 – a Steelers offensive lineman, doctors were able to examine his brain for possible damage sustained during his years in the NFL. Damage was indeed discovered, at levels rivaling boxers and 80 year olds suffering from Alzheimer’s-like dementia. The findings were not unique, however, and were eerily similar to the studied brains of other NFL players.

Such brain damage is presumed responsible for the deaths of some NFL players, like Justin Strzelczyk. He died when his pickup hit a tanker truck and exploded, following a 40-mile long high-speed police chase. Andre Waters, a defensive back with the Philadelphia Eagles, committed suicide at the age of 44 after a long bout with depression. Mike Webster, age 50, killed himself after a long bout of mental illness, and Terry Long, a Steelers lineman, ended his life by drinking antifreeze.

Some players have even come forward to discuss their problems, as did New England Patriots Ted Johnson, and Dallas Cowboy quarterback Troy Aikman in his 2006 book Head Games: Football’s Concussion Crisis. Although some players are well aware of the dangers of the sport, apparently the NFL commission is not.

The findings by the University doctors will be presented along with other similar studies today in Chicago during the NFL’s first meeting on concussion management. Such a meeting is surprising, and perhaps signals a reversal of the NFL’s positions of brain damage in its players. Historically, the NFL has downplayed and even dismissed similar findings of brain damage. NFL medical advisor Elliot Pellman went so far as to call some findings “speculative and unscientific.”

Perhaps the NFL will finally wake up and realize the havoc their sport causes to their players. The solution to such serious problems may still be unknown, but the NFL commission is surely not opposed to bettering the lives of their players. Once the brain-damage theory is more widely accepted, football and the NFL will surely be subject to bad publicity. However, the NFL commission must embrace a search more a safer game, favoring the safety of their players over their personal profits from the success of their game.

Imagine – repeated contusions to the head can actually be harmful!

The "Bionic Hornet" - Israel's Newest Weapon

Note: Although the "Bionic Hornet" was announced to news media many months ago, it was not covered by much of the mainstream U.S. media, and is still a newsworthy item.

As if straight from Frank Herbert's Dune, the Israeli military (surely in conjunction with the Pentagon) has announced plans to create what they are calling a "bionic hornet." A robotic device the size of a normal flying, stinging insect, the device will be capable of chasing, photographing, and killing its "target." Similar to the flying darts in sci-fi books and movies (such as the hunter-seeker in Dune), the futuristic weapon is estimated to be created as soon as 2009.

The device is heralded by some as the new "super weapon" that will increase efficiency and efficacy of military actions and spy agencies, as well as tremendously reduce the "collateral damage" created through rocket attacks and stray bullets. The "bionic bug" will be especially useful in fighting in urban combat zones, similar to terrorist situations, hostage situation, and (not stated but nonetheless implied) assassination attempts.

Israel especially will have great use for the little "insects;" they claim the device will greatly aid them in countering terrorism attacks. However, to many, the concept of human- or AI-controlled lethal bugs is little more than completely terrifying.

What is concerning, however, are the choice words stated by Shimon Peres, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, when talking about the bug:

"The research integrates nanotechnology into Israel's security department and will find creative solutions to problems the army has been unable to address."

The stressed ambiguity is particularly curious. Just what kind of "creative solutions" are available to the Jewish state, backed by the world's only hyper-power? And just what can be classified as a "problem," to be dealt with the 'creative solutions?" Answers to such questions go, needless to say, answered insufficiently by either Israel or the United States.

Such disturbing information is topped by the terrifying thoughts of events should any number of "bionic hornets" fall into the hands of a terrorist or rouge nation-state; the events could be catastrophic. Is it even possible to shield oneself or others from a "smart weapon" that looks, sounds, and acts like a bug, and is guided by human or artificial intelligence?

Inevitably, as with all other weapons and weapon systems throughout history, confining such advanced and powerful tools to those persons and countries "responsible" enough to control them will prove to be impossible; military-technology proliferation is unstoppable. Complicating the situation is the argument that even Israel and the United States themselves are too irresponsible to wield such a weapon.

Original news item printed November 17, 2006; Reuters.