jazzoLOG: Is Savagery Good For America?    
 Is Savagery Good For America?34 comments
picture22 Sep 2006 @ 09:40, by Richard Carlson

If we are too busy, if we are carried away every day by our projects, our uncertainty, our craving, how can we have the time to stop and look deeply into the situation---our own situation, the situation of our beloved one, the situation of our family and of our community, and the situation of our nation and of the other nations?

---Thich Nhat Hanh

Negotiations then turned to the amount of time that a detainee's suffering must last before the tactic amounted to a war crime. Administration officials wanted "prolonged" mental or physical symptoms, while the senators wanted something milder. They settled on "serious and nontransitory mental harm, which need not be prolonged."

---from The Seattle Times edition of the LA Times story by Julian E. Barnes and Richard Simon

The Bush administration had to empty its secret prisons and transfer terror suspects to the military-run detention centre at Guantánamo this month in part because CIA interrogators had refused to carry out further interrogations and run the secret facilities, according to former CIA officials and people close to the programme.

---from Financial Times (London)
September 20, 2006

Photo of Bush demanding torture (or "alternative" interrogation) by Khue Bui for Newsweek
September 25th issue

I can't recall a morning when the headlines were more confusing and even contradictory. The LA Times says "Bush Bows to Senators on Detainees." [link] The Washington Post says, in editorial, "The Abuse Can Continue; Senators won't authorize torture, but they won't prevent it, either." [link] Bloomberg has it that "President to Define Prisoner Abuse in Agreement With Senators By James Rowley
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush would be able to write secret rules on how to treat suspected terrorists during interrogations under an agreement the administration worked out with dissenting Republican senators." The New York Times editorial says, "Here is a way to measure how seriously President Bush was willing to compromise on the military tribunals bill: Less than an hour after an agreement was announced yesterday with three leading Republican senators, the White House was already laying a path to wiggle out of its one real concession.
About the only thing that Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham had to show for their defiance was Mr. Bush’s agreement to drop his insistence on allowing prosecutors of suspected terrorists to introduce classified evidence kept secret from the defendant. The White House agreed to abide by the rules of courts-martial, which bar secret evidence." [link]

The bottom line of course is to get some kind of legislation before the election in November to protect the Bush-Cheney gang from prosecution under our own War Crimes Act. Should the Democrats win control of either House or both and regain subpoena power in committee, the business-as-usual of spreading the neo-Con brand freedom might be slowed down a mite. Incidentally, Robert Kennedy Jr. unblinkingly expands his campaign about the "e-government revolution" (that's a Diebold Electronic Elections Systems slogan by the way) in the October 5th issue of Rolling Stone, now online. [link]

But let me ask you this: what does it take to reduce a relatively civilized population to a condition of animal savagery? And if it happens, is that necessarily a bad thing? Animals are creatures of nature with instincts of survival. Savages are people with traditions of tribal gathering, hunting, celebration and warfare that perhaps are closer to nature than citified people. The Wild West was tamed sometimes in savage ways to show who was boss. Is this not how the world always has been? Is this how things really are?

There were reports the last few days about bodies found strewn around Iraq. They show signs of "alternate interrogation" techniques, some of which perhaps caused death. Acid was poured on the people. Electric drills were employed to illicit information. Hot wires burned them. If they die from this...and everyone finds out they did...what lesson does the population learn? Now the United States revives its tradition of getting tough. I'm sure my military friends, particularly from VietNam, will tell me we've always done this stuff, only it's been secret. Yeah, we've got to credit Bush for going public about it...although the photos from our "detention" centers may have had something to do with it. But is all this good for democracy and freedom?

I'd like a clean election this time to find out how Americans really feel about all this. I know there may be too much power and money involved to allow a clean election, but I'd really like to find out. Are we now the tough guys, the fearless rangers, the hanging judges the rest of the world must respect...or else? Are public executions good for the village morale? Is it invigorating and disciplinary at once for the tribe to see the enemy intestines dragged out of his body and into the campfire? Are we ready to enjoy the enemy torn apart by hungry animals in the stadium? Is it all really only a pep rally, with bonfire, before the homecoming game?

What happens to a civilization that goes this way? What does history tell us? Does it matter...when we are on a courageous path of creating our own reality? I have a friend who retired this year. He's a soldier who saw action and suffered from it. He's given his civilian career in a very helpful way to others, but he's maintained a hard edge about life. He knows how to survive and fishes and hunts and always has a weapon on hand. He doesn't take a walk in the woods without a handgun. He's fed up with government and will not be surprised if his pension and other funding vanish. He has a plan: he will live in a cave...and if necessary, eat other humans. He's kidding of course...or is he?

For a lighter view, here's Molly Ivins on Wednesday~~~

A tortured debate
September 20, 2006

AUSTIN, Texas -- Some country is about to have a Senate debate on a bill to legalize torture. How weird is that?

I'd like to thank Sens. John McCain, Lindsay Graham -- a former military lawyer -- and John Warner of Virginia. I will always think fondly of John Warner for this one reason: Forty years ago, this country was involved in an unprovoked and unnecessary war. It ended so badly the vets finally had to hold their own homecoming parade, years after they came home. The only member of Congress who attended was John Warner.

A debate on torture. I don't know -- what do you think? I guess we have to define it, first. The White House has already specified "water boarding," making some guy think he's drowning for long periods, as a perfectly good interrogation technique. Maybe, but it was also a great favorite of the Gestapo and has been described and condemned in thousands of memoirs and novels in highly unpleasant terms.

I don't think we can give it a good name again, and I personally kind of don't like being identified with the Gestapo. How icky. (Somewhere inside me, a small voice is shrieking, "Are you insane?")

The safe position is, "Torture doesn't work."

Well, actually, it works to this extent -- anybody can be tortured into telling anything that's true and anything that's not true. The more people are tortured, the more they make up to please the torturer. Then the torturer has to figure out when the vic started lying. Since our torturers are, in George Bush's immortal phrase, "professionals" and this whole legislative fight is over making torture legal so the "professionals" can't later be charged with breaking the Geneva Conventions, Bush has vowed to end "the program" completely if he doesn't get what he wants. (The same thin voice is shrieking, "Professional torturers trained with my tax money?")

Bush's problem is that despite repeated warnings, he went ahead with "the program" without waiting for Congress to provide a fig leaf of legality. Actually, we have been torturing prisoners at Gitmo, prisons in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan for years.

Since only seven of the several hundred prisoners at Gitmo have ever been charged with anything, we face the unhappy prospect that the rest of them are innocent. And will sue. That's going to be quite an expensive settlement. The Canadian upon whom we practiced "rendition," sending him to Syria for 10 months of torture, will doubtlessly be first on the legal docket. I wonder how high up the chain of command a civil suit can go? Any old war criminals wandering around?

I was interested to find that the Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition is so in favor of torture he told McCain that the senator either supports the torture bill or he can forget about the evangelical Christian vote. I'd like to see an evangelical vote on that one. I don't know how Sheldon defines traditional values, but deliberately inflicting terrible physical pain or stress on someone who is completely helpless strikes me as ... well, torture. And, um, wrong. And I've smoked dope! Boy, everything those conservatives tell us about the terrible moral values of us liberals must be true after all.

Now, in addition to the slightly surreal awakening to find we live in a country that's having a serious debate on a torture bill, can we do anything about it? The answer is: We better. We better do something about it. Now, right away. What do we do? The answer is: anything ... phone, fax, e-mail, mail, demonstrate -- go stand outside their offices or the nearest federal building in the cold and sing hymns or shout rude slogans, chant or make a speech, or start attacking federal property, like a postal box, so they have to arrest you. Gather peacefully and make a lot of noise. Get publicity, too.

How will you feel if you didn't do something? "Well, honey, when the United States decided to adopt torture as an official policy, I was dipping the dog for ticks."

As Ann Richards used to say, "I don't want my tombstone to read: 'She kept a clean house.'"

To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

For statistics about torture and how well it works, here are 2 links to current Newsweek articles~~~


[< Back] [jazzoLOG]



22 Sep 2006 @ 21:00 by vaxen : Torture...
got Jesus to heaven, didn't it? ;) Of course savagery is good for America! Congress just gave the ''military'' 70 billion more Thalers to do with what they want. Must be good...

"To be a master marketer, remind yourself again---
A gifted product is mightier than a gifted pen." --- anonymous copywriter

Shana Tova Richard.

PS: They're hiring. *hint-hint*  

22 Sep 2006 @ 22:15 by jobrown : This Must Be "Good"! ; )
why else waist time with it? Seems to work "just fine"!...and "nobody" protests, co'z if thwey do we just torture and terrorize them -untill we spent too much money playing -and go for the kill, instead! This is Business As Usual, "the way it's always been" ....

... an' BTW, show me the (four'legged/winged/sacled) Animal that would take ANY pleasure in doing anything like this! The cruelest of torture in Animal Kingdom is the Cat, toying with its catch!...( and, yes, I still do love my cats.I just don't let them toy with anything those few occasions when one of them captures something (as you know HouseCats always brings their Catch Home to "show" Mom & Dad!... That's when we remove the poor victim and let it free again. )
THIS -on the other hand seems a liiiitle different: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1655652.ece

Wake up as many peace and freedom loving individuals as possible and more " 'No'-to-the-s---" - energy is being put out there. Synergy!  

23 Sep 2006 @ 09:49 by jazzolog : The Torture Of Jesus
Generally we Christians don't celebrate the cross or crucifixion. We realize it was a typical method of Roman political control and humiliation. The slow death was from exposure and the collapse of the internal organs. It could take days to kill someone like that. What we celebrate is not so much that Christ overcame the cross, but that he overcame his own human nature during his life. He rose and we endeavor to follow. Most religions seem to believe that getting a discipline on this wild nature is the name of the game, the "reason" we're here...or at least a worthy pastime.

Blue's example of the housecat and its "toying" nature is a good one. To let the bird or chipmunk go usually isn't enough, because the delicacy of the caught creature probably has been injured beyond repair by initial contact with fang or claw. Can we change the cat's nature so we'll feel better? Is that God's dilemma about us? I appreciate her link to the Independent article. More and more testimony of what has been done to these people, in the formerly good name of the United States of America, is amassing.


23 Sep 2006 @ 16:17 by vaxen : Oh?
Overcame his own ''human nature?'' I thought that was what was being celebrated vis a vis his realisation of oneness with G...

Of course it is just a reworking and conjoining of several old myths. The Osirian and that of Damuzzi or Tammuz.

Have you ever met the transcended one? I am told "He lives." Did you know that the so called -historic- Yeshua could not possibly have been Jewish according to modern Halacha? I mean, Gabriel wasn't/isn't ''Jewish'' and Miryam already had a husband (I won't go into what that makes her) so our little darling is known as a ''Mamzer.'' Cute, eh?

Here is something you may enjoy:

The following article created shockwaves through the Internet in the summer of 2006. It was widely circulated and forwarded and even turned into a short film! The article was a satirical look at how Organized Religion sometimes worked.

Written by Reverend James Huber, who describes himself as a "theist and a humanist with slight pantheistic tendencies", the story described the conversation between the protaganist and two people who knock on his door to invite him to join them in "Kissing Hank’s Butt".

Here is a link to the sanitized version of the story:


Here are some additional Related Links:

The original Story (warning: some inappropriate words):


25 Sep 2006 @ 09:52 by jazzolog : One Week Left
Congress will recess through October for November elections at the end of this week. Anticipating some changes in the Republican majority that may result, despite an increasingly flawed electronic election system here, Congressional leaders have to make difficult choices as to what legislation to push through. At the top of the list, it seems, is the Torture Bill. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/washington/25cong.html?hp&ex=1159156800&en=345823cf966c55e0&ei=5094&partner=homepage Senator McCain went on television yesterday to make the "compromise" look as good as he could http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/ftn/main2036360.shtml , even as the White House's own National Intelligence Estimate declared Bush's Terror War has made matters much worse around the world http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm?ls . Brent Budowsky, a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit, takes McCain to task this morning for continuing to try to cooperate with this president http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/john-mccain-the-straight_b_30152.html .

The news media lined up over the weekend in predictable fashion for or against the use of torture as official US policy. What members of Congress and the military have to say this week should tell a story to which hopefully voters will be paying attention. Arlen Specter is among the first. "The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee says the compromise deal on terrorism-detainee legislation reached last week 'has to be changed,' and that he will 'vigorously oppose' a section of the bill that strips the detainees of their right to appeal to the federal courts." He's talking about habeas corpus, which of course is the very cornerstone of our system of justice. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060924-113622-6778r.htm

Writing in The New York Times this morning Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, titles his piece along the lines of the Golden Rule~~~

The New York Times
September 25, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Do Unto Your Enemy...

IN 2002, I attended the Infantry Officer Basic Course at Fort Benning, Ga. At “the Schoolhouse,” every new Army infantry officer spent six months studying the basics of his craft, including the rules of war.

I remember a seasoned senior officer explaining the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He said, “When an enemy fighter knows he’ll be treated well by United States forces if he is captured, he is more likely to give up.”

A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency.

But those days are over. America’s moral standing has eroded, thanks to its flawed rationale for war and scandals like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Haditha. The last thing we can afford now is to leave Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions open to reinterpretation, as President Bush proposed to do and can still do under the compromise bill that emerged last week.

Blurring the lines on the letter of Article 3 — it governs the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibiting “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment” — will only make our troops’ tough fight even tougher. It will undermine the power of all the Geneva Conventions, immediately endanger American troops captured by the enemy and create a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

But the fight over Article 3 concerns not only Al Qaeda and the war in Iraq. It also affects future wars, because when we lower the bar for the treatment of our prisoners, other countries feel justified in doing the same. Four years ago in Liberia, in an attempt to preserve his corrupt authority, President Charles Taylor adopted the Bush administration’s phrase “unlawful combatants” to describe prisoners he wished to try outside of civilian courts. Today Mr. Taylor stands before The Hague accused of war crimes.

It is not hard to imagine that one of our Special Forces soldiers might one day be captured by Iranian forces while investigating a potential nuclear weapons program. What is to stop that soldier from being water-boarded, locked in a cold room for days without sleep as Iranian pop music blares all around him — and finally sentenced to die without a fair trial or the right to see the evidence against him?

If America continues to erode the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, we will cede the ground upon which to prosecute dictators and warlords. We will also become unable to protect our troops if they are perceived as being no more bound by the rule of law than dictators and warlords themselves.

The question facing America is not whether to continue fighting our enemies in Iraq and beyond but how to do it best. My soldiers and I learned the hard way that policy at the point of a gun cannot, by itself, create democracy. The success of America’s fight against terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options.

Several Republican combat veterans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Senators Lindsay Graham, John McCain and John Warner, have recognized that the president’s stance on Article 3 is a threat to our troops and to our interests. It would be insulting for the president to assume he knows more about war than they do.

But the compromise the president struck with the senators last week leaves the most significant questions unresolved. The veterans must hold their ground — and the White House must recognize that our troops need all the moral authority they can get.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Yesterday Ariel Dorfman, a Chilean American writer and professor at Duke University, contributed a more personal view of what torture produces in human terms from her memories of fleeing the coup that toppled Allende. It's here in The Washington Post~~~

25 Sep 2006 @ 10:45 by vaxen : The ploy...
"I don't have time to mince words about this. This is subjugation," William Gheen, a spokesman for Americans for Legal Immigration, told WND Wednesday.


But, of course, it's much easier to watch the horse and pony show going on in Washington with all the hullabaloo about nothing at all. The writing is on the wall but you just won't see it. Welcome to the new North American Union. And all your soldiers are where? America, you deserve what is coming down the pike! Good riddance.  

25 Sep 2006 @ 15:14 by jazzolog : And Just Think...
torture upon dissidents...er, domestic terrorists...will be legal.  

25 Sep 2006 @ 15:23 by vaxen : Yes!
They are very good at hiding it but it still goes on right now. Of course that may effect, detri-mentally, the process of 'bonding'...

$80,000.00 per prisoner as it stands now.
Is it any wonder that the United States -
houses the largest prison population in the world?
Redemption is nigh...
There was weeping and gnashing of teeth
as the 'bond' market plumetted.


My old WWII German MP 44 stands at the ready... well oiled and ready to rock. Lock and load my pretties! ;)  

28 Sep 2006 @ 09:01 by jazzolog : The Healthy Man Does Not Torture

The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.

---Carl Jung

Brave men do not gather by thousands to torture and murder a single individual, so gagged and bound he cannot make even feeble resistance or defense.

---Ida B. Wells

The coward wretch whose hand and heart
Can bear to torture aught below,
Is ever first to quail and start
From the slightest pain or equal foe.

---Bertrand Russell

The New York Times
September 28, 2006
Rushing Off a Cliff

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.


28 Sep 2006 @ 15:22 by jazzolog : Hope This Makes You More SECURE
Remarks by President Bush After Meeting With Republican Senate Conference
Thursday September 28, 10:37 am ET

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a transcript of remarks by President Bush after meeting with Republican Senate Conference:

United States Capitol
9:16 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I just had a really constructive and interesting session with Republican members of the United States Senate. I'm impressed by the leadership here in the Senate. I'm impressed by the caliber of people that serve our country.

I want to congratulate the House for passing a very vital piece of legislation that will give us the tools necessary to protect the American people, and that's the Hamdan legislation. That's the legislation that will give us the capacity to be able to interrogate high-valued detainees, and at the same time, give us the capacity to try people who -- in our military tribunals.

In speaking to the Senate, I urged them to get this legislation to my desk as soon as possible. Senator Frist and Senator McConnell committed to that end. The American people need to know we're working together to win this war on terror. Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people from further attack. And we cannot be able to tell the American people we're doing our full job unless we have the tools necessary to do so. And this legislation passed in the House yesterday is a part of making sure that we do have the capacity to protect you.

Our most solemn job is the security of this country. People shouldn't forget there's still an enemy out there that wants to do harm to the United States. And therefore a lot of my discussion with the members of the Senate was to remind them of this solemn responsibility. And so I look forward to you passing good legislation, Senators. Thank you for having me. Appreciate your time.

END 9:18 A.M. EDT

Source: White House Press Office

28 Sep 2006 @ 18:41 by vaxen : Yup...
there sure is Washington! You better beware! DONT TREAD ON ME! Remember that, traitors? You will, guarantee!

"Americans were inventors and technicians without precedent, entrepreneurs unlocked from traditional controls, dreamers, confidence men, flim-flam artists. There never was a social stew quite like it."

Hobbes or Locke? Sparta/Prussia or Athens? The lie of the State Sponsored Corporate Government (Legal fictions?!) or freedom?

"By standards of the time, America was utopia already. No grinding poverty, no dangerous national enemies, no indigenous tradition beyond a general spirit of exuberant optimism, a belief the land had been touched by destiny, a conviction Americans could accomplish anything. John Jay wrote to Jefferson in 1787, "The enterprise of our country is inconceivable"—inconceivable, that is, to the British, Germans, and French, who were accustomed to keeping the common population on a leash. Our colonial government was the creation of the Crown, of course, but soon a fantastic idea began to circulate, a belief that people might create or destroy governments at their will." http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1l.htm

To reiderate: "Our colonial government was the creation of the Crown, of course, but soon a fantastic idea began to circulate, a belief that people might create or destroy governments at their will." --- JTG  

28 Sep 2006 @ 18:43 by vaxen : PS:
By ''Crown'' we mean ''British Mercantilism (aka ALexander Hamilton and the Federalists/ a new 'rock' band?!)." What Ronnie Hubbard called, tongue in cheek, 'Mercab.'

Think, jazzolog, your life and the lives of those you love depends upon it now more than ever!

Precint Captain? For what legal fiction?  

28 Sep 2006 @ 20:38 by jazzolog : Senate Blows Off Specter And Gropes Bush
We know she's ready for the next level~~~


29 Sep 2006 @ 09:53 by jazzolog : US Congress:


29 Sep 2006 @ 09:54 by jazzolog : Not Mutilated?


29 Sep 2006 @ 09:55 by jazzolog : Not Raped?


29 Sep 2006 @ 09:56 by jazzolog : OK Then!


29 Sep 2006 @ 09:58 by jazzolog : Detained Since 9/11?


29 Sep 2006 @ 09:58 by jazzolog : Hey, Shit Happens!


29 Sep 2006 @ 21:19 by b : Fuckin Ay!
And it doesn't always flow down, sometimes it splatters.  

30 Sep 2006 @ 08:33 by jazzolog : In Case I Disappear
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 29 September 2006

I have been told a thousand times at least, in the years I have spent reporting on the astonishing and repugnant abuses, lies and failures of the Bush administration, to watch my back. "Be careful," people always tell me. "These people are capable of anything. Stay off small planes, make sure you aren't being followed." A running joke between my mother and me is that she has a "safe room" set up for me in her cabin in the woods, in the event I have to flee because of something I wrote or said.

I always laughed and shook my head whenever I heard this stuff. Extreme paranoia wrapped in the tinfoil of conspiracy, I thought. This is still America, and these Bush fools will soon pass into history, I thought. I am a citizen, and the First Amendment hasn't yet been red-lined, I thought.

Matters are different now.

It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy.

So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.

Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.

Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.

It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on Wednesday, "Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place."

It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions on judicial review over the legislation itself.

The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.

Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.

Underneath all this is the definition of "enemy combatant" that has been established by this legislation. An "enemy combatant" is now no longer just someone captured "during an armed conflict" against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an "enemy combatant" anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

Consider that language a moment. "Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called "War on Terror."

If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.

By writing this essay, I could be deemed an "enemy combatant." It's that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I'm not laughing anymore.

In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.

That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you.





and on the other side~~~


30 Sep 2006 @ 16:03 by vaxen : The law?
So, challenge it. Cause ''it'' was passed! Bye Bye to the ''body of evidence.''

One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.

Brutus asserted that the Supreme Court envisioned under the Constitution would become a source of massive abuse because they were beyond the control "both of the people and the legislature," and not subject to being "corrected by any power above them." As a result, he objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny.

He further warned that the new government would not be restricted in its taxing power, and that the legislatures war power was highly dangerous: "the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty."

He also objected to the very notion that a republican form of government can work well over such a vast territory, even the relatively small terrority as compared with today's US:

History furnishes no example of a free republic, anything like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. See his archive (http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=Galles) . Discuss this article on the blog (http://blog.mises.org/archives/005682.asp) .

Ever hear of the Fuhrer Prinzip? And just who was it put our Dolphy in 'power?' And why? The 'birds eye' view is? You were born free. Only the surface has changed and it is a composite of lies. The black robed tinkers cannot make laws! Fight them tooth and nail...  

1 Oct 2006 @ 08:40 by jazzolog : The Heroes Of Abu Ghraib
Yesterday was Hero Day at the OU Parents Weekend football game here in Athens. Reportedly OU ROTC students were to demonstrate paintball target practice on each other through the game.


1 Oct 2006 @ 09:08 by jazzolog : I Was Wondering If Someone Would Notice

Uncomfortably Numb to Torture
As America's politicians, media and citizens get used to wartime abuses, Bush's horrific policies get a pass.
By JoAnn Wypijewski
JOANN WYPIJEWSKI covered the Abu Ghraib trials at Ft. Hood, Texas, for Harper's magazine.
September 30, 2006

A YEAR AGO this week, a military jury convicted Army Reserve Pfc. Lynndie R. England of maltreating detainees. The face of the Abu Ghraib scandal, England is forever fixed in photographs as the girl with the bowl cut and the pixie smile who pointed at Iraqi prisoners while they were forced to masturbate and who held a writhing, naked man by a leash. Before sentencing, the Army prosecutor thundered: "Who can think of a person who has disgraced this uniform more? Who has held the U.S. military up for more dishonor?"

Indeed, it was that uniform — not the breach of immutable standards of decency held by this nation — that put England in the dock and eventually in prison. It was that uniform and nothing else, because if England and the others charged in the scandal had been civilian interrogators instead of military police, they would be among the privileged torturers whom President Bush and members of both parties in Congress are determined to keep on the job and to shield from future prosecution.

Abu Ghraib has become shorthand for the kind of abhorrent behavior that, in the latest discussion about interrogation techniques, nobody ventures to allow. In that sense, Abu Ghraib is the new American standard, a negative one, marking the line that must not be crossed. A positive standard — that is, humane treatment of unarmed prisoners — being inconceivable, debate turns on permissible degrees of inhumanity; "rough stuff," as New York Times columnist David Brooks and others justifying pain say lightly.

So here is the bitter joke: England, the public emblem of torture, was convicted for nothing so awful as what the president and his flank have chosen to protect. Her crime was to smile, to pose, to jeer at naked, powerless men, and to fail to stop their humiliations or to report them afterward. She did not shackle men in stress positions, strip them of their clothes, deny them sleep, force them to stand for hours or days, douse them with icy water, deprive them of heat or food or subject them to incessant noise or screaming.

Despite Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's compromise, none of those brutalities is expressly outlawed in the legislation that Congress just passed and the president is about to sign.

Such brutalities were regular fare at Abu Ghraib because interrogation, by civilian and military personnel, was regular fare. But interrogation was largely sidestepped in the Abu Ghraib trials, in which prosecutors focused on what soldiers did for "fun," for "laughs," with common criminals "of no value" to U.S. intelligence. The infamous pyramid and sexual mortifications were not part of interrogations, so these formed the centerpiece of criminal charges. The daily application of fear and cold and want and pain — what Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., the putative ringleader of the scandal at Abu Ghraib, called his job of "terrorizing prisoners" — was an accompaniment to questioning, so it went unpunished.

"We just humiliated them," England said; it could have been worse. For many detainees, it was. Two days before England was photographed laughing at prisoners, Manadel Jamadi died in a shower stall at Abu Ghraib. Army investigators found that he entered the stall under his own power with civilian interrogators said to be from the CIA. Later, soldiers smiled in pictures with his corpse. The interrogators had vanished, and no one was charged.

Congress would never justify murder by interrogators, but it hasn't insisted that anyone be held accountable for Jamadi's death either. There's a similar indifference to accountability in the one case in the Abu Ghraib scandal unavoidably linked to interrogation.

The Army never took a sworn statement from the prisoner who was forced to stand atop a box, draped in a hood and cape and told he would get a shock if he moved. Then the Army conveniently lost him, and though the MPs who improvised his ghoulish torment went to prison, the civilian interrogator who the MPs said instructed them to keep the prisoner awake was never charged. Take away the bogus wires and the iconic costume and this is the kind of treatment the president says is absolutely necessary for our safety.

The bold opposition wags a finger but leaves it to the president to set the rules. Where is the outrage? Like England and the others who went from good to bad, or bad to worse, through acquaintance with cruelty, finally accommodating themselves to it or even administering it, the citizenry, the media and the politicians have become insensible to horror.

Years of conditioning to abuse and war have had a numbing effect. So the president's advocacy of an "alternate set of procedures" for detainees gets a pass. The Democrats' official response, a pass. The McCain compromise, a pass masquerading as courageous dissent. Public reaction to legislating indefinite detention, the admissibility of hearsay, prosecutions based on torture, a pass.

As at Abu Ghraib, up is down, day is night.

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times


1 Oct 2006 @ 16:49 by vaxen : Threat Assessment 101...
Scandal-Rocked Congress Adjourns to Campaign for Re-Election
Leaving behind a pile of unfinished work, members of the scandal-rocked US Congress adjourned and went home on Saturday to ask voters to re-elect them in five weeks.


If you really are a Christian then tell your like minded (Let the mind that was in Christos be in you) to go along with you to the 'money changers Temple' and throw them all out like the den of thieves and vipers that they are! Vote? With Diebold and Company hard on the trails voting is a joke! In fact America is a terrible joke!

Since way before Vietnam that ''uniform'' invoked nothing but disgust from those who really know what it means and how it degrades the freedom and sanctity of human beings everywhere. But, then, it isn't only the Armies' one-form that invokes disgust from freedom seeking people everywhere including here in the good old! Good old what?

Did you sign the Constitution? Hobbes or Locke? Does the word Revolt make you cower in fear or make your blood sing? Is Hamilton your hero? Lincoln? Bush? Ever read the AntiFederalist papers ? Lots to think about, eh jazzolog? Lots to do! Be, Do, Have...

Is anything these poppets offer worth having? Debt based currency backed up by nothing but more debt and ceaseless and endless lies...

Thanks for the articles within articles within articles... Articles of faith? Of conscience?

I vote for complete and utter disregard for the lot of them and for the District wherein they plunder and scheme...

You have the right to remain silent.
"Power comes from the end of a gun." --- that little red book

The U.S. Department of Defense's annual report to Congress, "Military Power of the People's Republic of China, 2006," shows that threat inflation remains a growth industry in Washington. Though the report is written in a careful tone, its message is that China is a growing military threat to the United States. Subheads in Chapter Five, "Force Modernization Goals and Trends," point to "Emerging Area Denial Capability," "Building Capacity for Precision Strike," and "Improving Expeditionary Operations." One can almost hear the threat inflation engines pumping away, puffing the dragon up to a fearsome size.


5 Oct 2006 @ 09:59 by triggs : x

6 Oct 2006 @ 15:41 by triggs : x

6 Oct 2006 @ 17:43 by vaxen : Right...
Anybody ''running'' should keep on running because sooner or later we are going to catch up with ''them.'' Then they will have to ''pay'' the fiddler... while they dance at the end of a rope.

Green you say? Ha! The only thing green about these swindlers is their teeth!

World Banks' dirty little secrets.


6 Oct 2006 @ 19:23 by hgoodgame : And more 'news'
This out today -

October 06, 2006
Marine: Gitmo guards bragged about abuses
By Thomas Watkins
Associated Press

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. — Guards at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba, bragged about beating detainees and described it as common practice, a Marine Corps sergeant said in a sworn statement obtained by The Associated Press.

The two-page statement was sent Wednesday to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense by a high-ranking Marine Corps defense lawyer.

The lawyer sent the statement on behalf of a paralegal who said men she met on Sept. 23 at a bar on the base identified themselves to her as guards. The woman, whose name was blacked out, said she spent about an hour talking with them. No one was in uniform, she said.

A 19-year-old sailor referred to only as Bo “told the other guards and me about him beating different detainees being held in the prison,” the statement said.

“One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee’s head into the cell door. Bo said that his actions were known by others,” but that he was never punished, the statement said. The paralegal was identified in the affidavit as a sergeant working on an unidentified Guantanamo-related case.

The statement was provided to the AP on Thursday night by Lt. Col. Colby Vokey. He is the Marine Corps’ defense coordinator for the western United States and based at Camp Pendleton.

A Guantanamo Bay spokesman said the base would cooperate with any Pentagon investigation. A Pentagon spokesman declined immediate comment. A call to the inspector general’s office was not immediately returned.

Other guards “also told their own stories of abuse towards the detainees” that included hitting them, denying them water and “removing privileges for no reason.”

“About 5 others in the group admitted hitting detainees” and that included “punching in the face,” the affidavit said.

“From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice,” the sergeant wrote. “Everyone in the group laughed at the others stories of beating detainees.”

Vokey called for an investigation, saying the abuse alleged in the affidavit “is offensive and violates United States and international law.”

U.S. Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand condemned abuse or harassment of detainees and said he would cooperate fully with the inspector general.

“The mission of the Joint Task Force is the safe and humane care and custody of detained enemy combatants,” he said.

Guantanamo was internationally condemned shortly after it opened more than four years ago when pictures captured prisoners kneeling, shackled and being herded into wire cages. That was followed by reports of prisoner abuse, heavy-handed interrogations, hunger strikes and suicides.

U.S. military investigators said in July 2005 they confirmed abusive and degrading treatment of a suspected terrorist at Guantanamo Bay that included forcing him to wear a bra, dance with another man and behave like a dog.

However, the chief investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, said “no torture occurred” during the interrogation of Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Last month, U.N. human rights investigators criticized the United States for failing to take steps to close Guantanamo Bay, home to 450 detainees, including 14 terrorist suspects who had been kept in secret CIA prisons around the world.

Described as the most dangerous of America’s “war on terror” prisoners, fewer than a dozen inmates have been charged with crimes.

AP Writer Robert Jablon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

6 Oct 2006 @ 20:05 by triggs : x

7 Oct 2006 @ 02:17 by jobrown : The 'Good Thing'about Savagery
might be that Americans -several generations deep- can really see and feel how it feels when Someone just comes and reeeks havock, raping everone in sight taking everything in sight (etc) "in-the-Name-of ----" most likely some sanctimonious ridiculous "God's Chosen"/
"Jesus' Bloodline" and other equally stupid justifications for all the EVILS/Genocides!!!
Most so called Americans -with other than Its Indigenous Peoples- as their Forefathers, have never really cared to think how it must have felt for America's Native People!... Still today, most Non-Original- Americans consider this as Their Rightful Land!...
Had they NOT taken it all by evil force, but accepted the Warm Welcome to share the Bounty of the Lands, offered by most of the Native Tribes, then it would have been very different (Karmic) situation, had it not?
And it is very good indeed that Europeans as well,to get to see and feel this rape and how it affects one!... "...third and fourth generation...." ( meaning :TILL it is DEALT with in accordence to the Laws of Karma /Cosmic Consequencies. There will not be Peace in these Lands, be it England,USA, France, Holland, Spain, etc,etc before the Generation alive TODAY will acknowledge the horrible evils done by our/their Forefathers on Innocent People (all over the World) and change the way they treat the little fragment of Original Population in each given STOLEN Country!

I don't understand what is so difficult about this for people to see and take to Heart! ??? LIFE is ALWAYS more than our Socio-Political events Of The Day!  

7 Oct 2006 @ 10:15 by jazzolog : Greed Teeth
It's increasingly clear to me our dear friend Vax could have a hugely lucrative career writing Republican attack ads. Hey, I only wish Democrats would put some of the teeth into their campaigns that the Greens do!


Blueboy's comment inspires me to share a new study reported in the London Times today. See if you can get into this "ultimatum game." It tells much about savagery...including Jack Nicholson's portayal in the new Scorsese crime classic~~~

The Times October 07, 2006
Why say no to free money? It's neuro-economics, stupid
By Mark Henderson

Studies show how the brain lets the emotions override common sense when reaching some tough decisions. Our correspondent reports on the 'ultimatum game'

IMAGINE that you are sitting next to a complete stranger who has been given £10 to share between the two of you. He must choose how much to keep for himself and how much to give to you.

He can be as selfish or as generous as he likes, with one proviso: if you refuse his offer, neither of you gets any money at all. What would it take for you to turn him down?

This is the scenario known to economists as the ultimatum game. Now the way we play it is generating remarkable insights into how the human brain drives financial decisionmaking, social interactions and even the supremely irrational behaviour of suicide bombers and gangland killers.

According to standard economic theory, you should cheerfully accept anything you are given. People are assumed to be motivated chiefly by rational self-interest, and refusing any offer, however low, is tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yet in practice derisory offers are declined all the time. Indeed, if the sum is less than £2.50, four out of five of us tell the selfish so-and-so to get lost. We get so angry at his deliberate unfairness that we are prepared to incur a cost to ourselves, purely to punish him.

Homo sapiens is clearly not Homo economicus, the ultra-rational being imagined by many professional economists.

An emerging fusion of economics, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience — neuro-economics in the jargon — is now starting to tell us why this is so.

Scientists yesterday published new evidence in the journal Science, showing not only how the brain makes difficult decisions but also that our choices can be changed when a critical part of the brain is switched off with magnets.

The researchers, Ernst Fehr and Daria Knoch, of the University of Zurich, used a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation to tire out and thus temporarily suppress a part of the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Functional magnetic resonance imaging scans show that this is particularly active when people play the ultimatum game.

When the right DLPFC is shut down, the way they play starts to change. When given a low offer, they still feel it is deeply unfair. But, instead of rejecting it as they usually would, their selfish, ultra-rational side wins out over their emotional reaction against the other player’s meanness. They accept any amount of cash, however small.

The implication is not that the DLPFC is generating a sense of injustice — that was still there even when the region was knocked out. Rather, it seems to be more like an executive decision-maker, balancing the claims of emotion and reason.

“It is as if it is the referee that enforces fairness, and overrides narrow self-interest,” said David Laibson, Professor of Economics at Harvard University.

The results tend to support a very different theory of human behaviour from that favoured by classical economists. Our decisions seem not to be determined mainly by reason, but by a continuous battle between two sides of our psyches that are rooted in different mental circuits.

One of these is rational, controlled by the cortex — the cauliflower-like outer section of the brain where reasoning takes place, which is uniquely developed in humans. The other, however, is emotional, governed by the limbic system — the deeper-lying brain structures such as the amygdala that are much closer in character to the brains of other mammals.

George Loewenstein, Professor of Economics and Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, and one of the pioneers of neuro-economics, said: “The new science of neuro-economics is lending support to a very ancient view of human behaviour. That is the idea that there is a conflict and interaction between passion, and reason and self-interest.

“The now standard view of people as rational maximisers of self-interest is a very recent view. Neuroscience is telling us that that was a bit of a diversion. The rational side is a process that sometimes overrides the dominant interest on human behaviour, which is the passionate side.”

Interestingly, the DLPFC does not develop fully until early adulthood, offering a possible explanation for adolescent selfishness — the “Kevin the teenager” phenomenon.

Why might the brain want to overrule self-interest in the first place? Colin Camerer, Professor of Business Economics at the California Institute of Technology, says that it probably evolved that way.

If we always accepted low offers for the sake of tiny gains, we would rapidly get a reputation as a soft touch. Everybody else would try to bilk us at every turn. By acting apparently against our interests, we do better in the long run. Our ancestors were better at surviving if they were bloody-minded. Professor Camerer explained: “Emotion is nature’s way of letting people know that if you’re treated badly you’ll do something about it.”

Professor Laibson said: “One prospect is that, as we understand this brain research, we will be able to go beyond tweaking the classical model and develop a much richer understanding of how people make choices.”

What is starting to emerge is a more accurate — and recognisable — picture of human nature than classical economic theory provided. In many ways, it is a positive one, helping to explain the human capacity for kindness and co-operation, and the centrality of fairness to social norms. We are not acquisitive automatons conditioned always to follow narrow self-interest.

But it also has a dark side. The depth with which we feel injustice, and the way we respond to it emotionally, rather than rationally, may also underlie extreme reactions to perceived wrongs. The gang leader who has a rival murdered over a slight to his honour and the fundamentalist who takes out his grievance against the West by becoming a suicide bomber are both particularly high-stakes players of the ultimatum game.

Professor Loewenstein said: “In a sense, suicide bombers are playing a version of the ultimatum game. Their sense of injustice is such that they are willing to pay the highest possible cost. For models of behaviour which assume that self-interest is all important, it has always been a mystery why people go to war or sacrifice themselves for their nation, their religion, or even for abstract principles. To explain these types of behaviours, we need to take account of how human actions are governed by emotion.”

Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd

7 Oct 2006 @ 15:46 by jobrown : Way
It let's us know how "insightful" the Bozo's "scientists" dare to be today!... ( I always find it slightly amuzing when we read in the Offical Sources how "Science have recently discovered this & this MIGHT be so & so" and the whole World of Commons have always known it to that way-through EVERY-day observance & even by own experience!
I could poke holes in this "ScientificStudy" right now, but I'm not gonna waste anybody's time in proving them anything! ; )....as if they would see it here on NCN anyway!heheheheheh... But I do want to say a few VITAL things about it -and, please, Jazzo, this is not an attack on you for posting something that does need our attention, but I cannot allow sheer IDIOCY go 100% unquestioned! ; )

The Brain itself is nothing more than a radio-receiver-on-your Gran' Ma's consoll in the "Fine-room -"Salon".
The MIND/Soul, the ME(-identity) or in Modern lingo; our Psyche is thee Receiver AND the Sender and the Universe holds ALL the differnt BroadCasts/Programs -at different frequencies.... this would include ALL emotional-feeling "stuff"...
Besides, TELEPATHY has NEVER left us/gone /disappeared/ stopped from being (active 24/7!)!!!.... Does the Bozo'a "Scientists" know this?... or are they just too busy with Pseudo-science ???... Then again; might be just as good to keep them busy with Non-relevants. ;)
What are they relly proving? Nothing.
The good thing is, they just now let me/us know, what they obviously learned som sixty -or a hundred (?) years ago: that with Magnetics they can interfere -as in hinder us - with our Receivers/Brains to perceive the Events/ Info of what their evil Psyches were up to!Then again; how long did that work? How long have humans opted for "REAL Justice -or else" -and THIS is what they fear, more than anything: when ALL "Commons" catch on to their lies; their "Smokescreens" of lies/deceit, the people -an masse- will be furious, take out to the streets and "ALL" become "suicide bombers" before opting to settle for the crumbs falling down, by mistake, I might add, from their tables, (-or as Reagan put it: "TRICKLE-down-economy....supposedly making "you" wealthy -despite their Game being rigged directing ALL the Wealth right back to their hands!... filled to a collapsing point with STOLEN GOODS!!!...Plus so much more we could say! : )

Thanks Jazzo. This WILL open a few more people's eyes, I'm sure.
Have a Lovely weekend! Thumbs Up for YOU, Jazzo!
Bb. A-d  

20 Oct 2006 @ 09:17 by jazzolog : Tuesday Bush Signed Torture---In Spades


Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
24 Nov 2008 @ 10:57: American Justice: Any Hope?
24 Jun 2008 @ 11:43: George
20 Mar 2008 @ 10:13: Barack Obama: Rock Church, Rock
11 Jan 2008 @ 10:07: Full Frontal Feminism
7 Nov 2007 @ 21:08: Blackwater, Blackwater Run Down Through The Land, Part 2
29 Sep 2007 @ 12:38: "Black Waters, Black Waters Run Down Through The Land"
4 Jul 2007 @ 10:50: Justice Texas Style
7 Apr 2007 @ 11:05: There Are No Conspiracies
20 Feb 2007 @ 10:50: Hot Internet Discourse
7 Dec 2006 @ 11:03: Our Beautiful Planet And The Little States Upon It

[< Back] [jazzoLOG] [PermaLink]?