Liveleak.com Rss Feed -

Hafez al-Assad vs. Saddam Hussein (1991 article)

m16carbine — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:07:17 -0400

Extract from Damascus Courts the West: Syrian Politics, 1989-1991 , pp. 3-6, by Daniel Pipes. Today, the author of the 1991 article currently prefers Assad Jr. to his alternative. Hafez al-Assad vs. Saddam Hussein (1991) Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein have much in common. They are about the same age (Saddam was born in 1937, Assad in 1930) and come from minority backgrounds. Both grew up in an impoverished countryside with a twentieth century tradition of exporting people to the cities. Both experienced Egyptian prisons and have effectively ruled their countries since about the same year (1972 for Saddam, 1969 for Assad). Both imposed an extreme centralization, to create a stable order where turmoil had previously prevailed. Both are far more interested in building their militaries than their countries. Each of them looked to Moscow for primary support, but on occasion wooed the U.S. government. Both rely extensively on the terrorist instrument. They have claimed to represent the Palestinians and sought to control weak neighbors. In personality, they share vaulting ambitions, a passion for secrecy, and a Manichean outlook that divides the world into agents and enemies. Both tend toward brinkmanship and a readiness to sacrifice the interests of their countries for personal and ethnic interests. Their political systems rely to a strikingly parallel degree on Ba'ath Party control, the pervasive use of informants, and brutality. (Middle East Watch found torture in Iraq to be "used routinely"; Amnesty International has termed the Syrian jails "almost a research center for torture.") Though life in Syria is an iota better,^ the two dictatorships in the Fertile Crescent are about as similar as any pair of governments on the planet. The two men also differ profoundly. Where Saddam revels in brutality for its own sake, Assad resorts to it as an instrument of power. The one kills with his own hands, the other keeps his distance from such unpleasantries. Saddam's ambitions know no limit: he seeks to become both the greatest leader in Iraqi history and a giant on the world stage; his dreams of glory distort practical decisionmaking. In contrast, Assad knows his limitations and acts within their parameters: the conquest of Lebanon and the perpetuation of Alawi rule are quite enough for him for now, thank you. Saddam's overt aggression makes him enemies everywhere; Assad's is cloaked in an ambiguity which allows hostile states the luxury of ignoring his trespasses. Both leaders follow policies which the outside world often finds difficult to understand, but while Saddam confuses observers through stupidity, Assad does so through subtlety. While Saddam and Assad both engage in international brinkmanship, only Assad can reliably locate the brink. Saddam displays an increasingly uncontrollable streak of impatience and has a terrible sense of timing (the invasion of Kuwait could not have occurred at a worse moment from the Iraqi point of view); Assad is infinitely deliberate and has a most refined timing (the seizure of Beirut in October 1990, fifteen years after Syrian military involvement in Lebanon began, was a political masterpiece). More broadly, Saddam Hussein showed in 1990-91 that he may be one of the worst strategists and tacticians of history; in contrast, Assad rightly prides himself on his skills as a military planner. Like his adopted namesake, the lion, Assad is a patient operator. He probes his opponents' weaknesses, waits for the right moment, chooses the most advantageous field of battle, and strikes. In this way, Assad has defeated one enemy after another-the Muslim Brethren, Lebanese militias, American troops in Beirut, Israelis in south Lebanon, and Iraqi armed forces. Observers are in agreement as to his impressive skills. Thus, Annie Laurent and Antoine Basbous see his main characteristics as "patience and a taste for secrecy." Dov Tamari concludes that "the Syrian regime has demonstrated patience and restraint on the one hand, persistence and stubbornness on the other." Imagine-to take this comparison one step further-that Assad ruled in Baghdad, and that he wanted to bring Kuwait, with all its wealth and coastline, under his control. What would he have done differently from Saddam? Everything. He would have prepared the way years ahead of time by hosting Kuwaiti dissident movements in Baghdad and laying repeated but elliptical claims to Kuwait. When the time was right, he would have solicited an invitation from bona fide Kuwaiti leaders to send Iraqi troops into Kuwait. Rather than seize the whole country, he would have taken only some slices of it (the Rumayla oil field, Bubiyan and Warba Islands) and worked to get his allies and agents into power. The outside world would surely have protested, but Assad's salami tactics would have allowed him to take Kuwait without sustained armed opposition. In the end, just as everyone acquiesced to his seizure of Lebanon, so they would have gone along with his control over Kuwait. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also extracted an interesting 2005 interview with Der Spiegel where Bashar al-Assad discusses Saddam and the differences with his father. It's also interesting in showing the difficult situation Bashar inherited from his father, and his allusions to the Algerian Civil War (1991-2002) , which is similar to how he views his current crisis. SPIEGEL: Mr. President, there are tentative movements toward democracy here and there in the Arab world. But there is little evidence of that in Syria. Why not? Assad: Well, it just happens that the Arab states develop at different rates and under different historical conditions. Egypt, for example, has not experienced as many coups as Syria. Besides, Cairo signed a peace treaty with Israel, whereas we remain in neither a state of war nor a state of peace with Israel. Incidentally, our development only began a few years ago, so of course expectations will vary widely. But the main issue is that we in Syria have at least opened up a dialogue about it. SPIEGEL: But it's taking longer than many would like. Assad: The pace of our development depends upon the challenges that we must face, which we cannot always influence. For example, we have to deal with foreign powers meddling in our internal affairs. SPIEGEL: You mean the Americans' demands for more democracy and for putting an end to support for terrorists? Assad: The more meddling there is, the slower the pace of development in Syria. After all, the democratic process should pervade the entire country. Naturally, the unresolved Middle East conflict also slows down development. And then there is the question of what should be our greatest priority -- political development or economic growth. SPIEGEL: Are they mutually exclusive? Assad: There is a tremendous gulf between the two objectives. To promote growth, we urgently need help from the European Union. For many of the Syrians I meet, poverty is a far greater concern than the outlook for a democratic constitution. Besides, there is also terrorism, which stands in the way of democratic development. We simply have to act as quickly as possible to keep things moving forward. SPIEGEL: But you don't exactly make it easy for your fellow Syrians. Political parties are permitted, but they are immediately prohibited as soon as they form, while members of the opposition are arrested. Assad: But you've been talking to opposition leaders in our country. If we were to arrest them all, there wouldn't be enough space in our prisons. SPIEGEL: Most members of the opposition with whom we spoke have spent many years in prison. Assad: But now they're out again. You can't simply equate the situation in the West with the situation in our country. Take religion, for example. In Great Britain, an author published a book in which he claimed that Jesus Christ had children. Such statements don't trigger civil unrest and bloodshed in Europe. But write similar statements about Islam in Syria and you might see bloody uprisings. SPIEGEL: What does that have to do with real opposition in Syria? Assad: When we put someone on trial, we're not trying him as a person. Instead, what concerns us is that he does not attack the population's religious and ethnic structure. The umbrella of stability must not be damaged. We gave the go-ahead for the formation of parties two months ago, and we are currently taking a very close look at these parties. I certainly don't dispute the contention that we do not have a well-developed system of political parties yet. I simply wanted to show you where we have to be cautious. SPIEGEL: What exactly are you afraid of? Assad: Developments like those in Algeria since 1991. At that time, the government misjudged the people, and the Islamists threatened to assume power. To this day, the Algerians are paying the price for this miscalculation with their own blood. SPIEGEL: Look at the example of Riad Seif, a self-made businessman and member of the Syrian National Assembly. He criticized the omnipotence of the monopoly and was sentenced to five years in prison. Assad: He questioned the unity of the nation, and we happen to have a law that calls for penalties for those who assail the mosaic of the various ethnic and religious groups. SPIEGEL: Wasn't Seif merely questioning the distribution of power? Assad: No, no one is put on trial for attacking me personally. But assaulting the composition of Syrian society is simply too explosive. SPIEGEL: Journalists, too, are prevented from doing their work and sometimes even thrown in prison. When will you have true freedom of the press? Assad: We have never locked up anyone because of his personal opinion. SPIEGEL: A correspondent for a large Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, was recently sent to prison for several months. Assad: That's a different issue. Under Syrian law, a journalist is not allowed to report on military matters. This may be wrong or right, but that's just the way it is. SPIEGEL: You said that fighting poverty is more important than democracy. Does this mean that you intend to emulate the Chinese model: economic liberalization without political reforms? Assad: When I say that the economy takes priority, it certainly doesn't mean that we relegate political reforms to the back seat. The economy may have taken priority in the last five years -- that's because it is important to improve the general standard of living. It's a dangerous thing when someone gets up in the morning and has nothing to eat. If I say to that person, "I intend to allow you to have political parties," how will he responsd? We don't care if this is the Chinese model or something else. Our actions reflect the needs of our country. SPIEGEL: When will there be a recognizable democratic multiparty system in Syria? Assad: It took us five years to achieve a societal dialogue. Now we are in the second phase, in which we begin discussing parties. It won't happen that quickly. For example, the same process took three years in Morocco. SPIEGEL: Will it happen before the 2007 general election? Assad: It's very likely, but you just can't make long-term predictions in our corner of the world. I cannot afford to make mistakes. Instead of jumping forward too quickly and possibly falling on our faces, we prefer to divide our tasks into smaller steps. SPIEGEL: How do you propose to prevent the Algerian model -- the formation of religious parties that are democratically elected, but then act undemocratically? Assad: Once again, we cannot apply Western standards to development in the Orient. In Germany, you may have a religious Christian party, the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), but it has effectively assimilated itself into the fabric of the country. In return, your history prevents you from having any large nationalist parties. Our experience has shown us that the situation in Syria became stable because the entire society is secular. We must preserve that. SPIEGEL: In many of his speeches, United States President George W. Bush has complained that freedom must all too often take a back seat to stability. Do you feel he is addressing you with these comments? Assad: Freedom and democracy are nothing but instruments, just like stability. The goal is called progress and growth. Anyone who puts freedom ahead of stability is hurting growth. Besides, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Iraq aren't exactly models of freedom. SPIEGEL: Washington sees you as a sort of "Saddam-light." Assad: There were real hostilities between the regime of Saddam Hussein and that of my father. Fifteen thousand Syrians lost their lives in these conflicts. Whereas I involve people from outside the party in the decision-making process, Saddam only permitted his own opinion. If we had taken the approach Saddam took in Iraq, I wouldn't feel safe walking on the street with my wife and children. Saddam was constantly in hiding. The fact that there are people who criticize me doesn't mean that people hate me. SPIEGEL: Your father supported the first President Bush in the 1991 Gulf War. You, on the other hand, were a vocal critic of the war in 2003. Assad: The first war was about the liberation of an Arab people suffering under occupation. The more recent war led to the occupation of an Arab country. There's a huge difference. SPIEGEL: Do you sympathize with the insurgents who are fighting the occupation troops and the new government in Iraq? Assad: There are terrorist operations in Iraq that claim the lives of innocent people; those we reject categorically. But there is also a resistance movement, and that's a different issue altogether -- a completely normal issue. SPIEGEL: Are suicide attacks a legitimate weapon against the occupation forces? Assad: Even the religious scholars disagree on that question, but I have the impression that most are in favor of these attacks. But this is a hypothetical debate. A person who is absolutely determined to blow himself up isn't about to ask you or me for our opinion. This debate is a waste of time. SPIEGEL: The American government has accused you of facilitating access to Iraq through Syria for the insurgents. Assad: It also accused Saddam of having weapons of mass destruction. But seriously, if you ask Americans whether they've been successful at sealing the border with Mexico, they'll tell you that it's a very difficult proposition. We've made it very clear to the Americans that it's impossible to completely control our border with Iraq. But we also tell them that the war itself is what's causing the chaos. It's not exactly fair to make a mistake yourself and then start blaming others for it. SPIEGEL: The American government has classified Syria as a "rogue nation." Are you concerned that Washington plans to remove you from office? Assad: Look at the results of regime change in Iraq. You can't possibly claim that it was successful.

Toxoplasmosis - Do you have a brain parasite influencing your behaviour?

passive_observer — Sun, 12 May 2013 00:53:13 -0400

Toxoplasmosis gondii is a parasite which is spread by cat faeces and consumption of raw meat, forming permanent cysts in the human brain; it rewires the brain of its victim, making women promiscuous and men impulsive and fearless, causes sluggish reaction times, an increased chance of car crashes and bends the minds of rats to become sexually attracted to cat urine. But don't worry, it's not all bad - the US military would like to weaponize it. 16:15 "Here's something terrifying but not surprising; someone who knows about Toxo and the behavioural stuff is, the US military - they're interested in Toxo, um, they're officially intrigued and I would think they would be intrigued studying a parasite that makes mammals perhaps do things that everything in their fibre tells them not to because it's dangerous and ridiculous and stupid and don't do it ... and suddenly with this parasite on board it's a little more likely that you go and do it." Studies show that people who are Rh negative blood type and infected with Toxoplasmosis, have a higher level of intelligence than the uninfected; on the other hand, Rh positive individuals who are infected tend to have a lower IQ than the uninfected. Toxoplasmosis-Associated Difference in Intelligence and Personality in Men Depends on Their Rhesus Blood Group but Not ABO Blood Group. Infection is common. Wiki blurb: Toxoplasmosis is a parasitic disease caused by the protozoan Toxoplasma gondii . The parasite infects most genera of warm-blooded animals, including humans, but the primary host is the felid (cat) family . Animals are infected by eating infected meat, by ingestion of feces of a cat that has itself recently been infected, or by transmission from mother to fetus. Cats are the primary source of infection to human hosts, although contact with raw meat, especially pork, is a more significant source of human infections in some countries. Fecal contamination of hands is a significant risk factor. Nicolle and Manceaux first described the organism in 1908, after they observed the parasites in the blood, spleen, and liver of a North African rodent, Ctenodactylus gondii. The parasite was named Toxoplasma (arclike form) gondii (after the rodent) in 1909. In 1923, Janku reported parasitic cysts in the retina of an infant who had hydrocephalus, seizures, and unilateral microphthalmia. Wolf, Cowan, and Paige (1937-1939) determined these findings represented the syndrome of severe congenital T. gondii infection. Up to a third of the world's human population is estimated to carry a Toxoplasma infection. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes the overall seroprevalence in the United States as determined with specimens collected by the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey ( NHANES ) between 1999 and 2004 was found to be 10.8%, with seroprevalence among women of childbearing age (15 to 44 years) 11%. Another study placed seroprevalence in the US at 22.5%. The same study claimed a seroprevalence of 75% in El Salvador. Official assessment in Great Britain places the number of infections at about 350,000 a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis Robert Maurice Sapolsky (born 1957) is an American neuroendocrinologist , professor of biology, neuroscience, and neurosurgery at Stanford University , researcher and author. He is currently Professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences and, by courtesy, Neurosurgery, at Stanford University. ------ Terrifying or amazing, you decide:

Max Headroom

MAKMAK — Sat, 11 May 2013 21:20:06 -0400

On a night twenty six years ago when two Chicago television stations' broadcasts were interrupted by the someone posing as the fictional computer generated host "Max Headroom." But of all the faces available to hide behind, why Max Headroom's? What was it about a disembodied computer program that appealed to the Chicago signal hijacker? The character of Max Headroom was conceived in 1984 as a futuristic, computer-generated, artificially-intelligent television host who introduced music videos in the U.K. Actor Matt Frewer portrayed Max with the help of heavy video and audio processing, along with cosmetic prosthetics that sharpened the features of the actor's already angular face into something resembling a crude computerized line drawing. In personality, Max was a satirical exaggeration of television's worst tendencies and excesses in the 1980s. Reduced to literally nothing but a talking head, Max was arrogant, fixated on consumer culture and popular media, totally lacking in introspection, and, of course, markedly American. By 1987 Max was starring in a weekly, visually-striking, urban post-apocalpytic sci-fi series on ABC. I never missed an episode, and I have no doubt that my professional interest in media studies and criticism was ignited by the show. Ostensibly, "Max Headroom" was about a courageous television news reporter, Edison Carter, and his attempts to break big stories with the help of his news director and producer at his network, Network 23. But that tells you very little about what the series actually did. The plot was just a tissue-thin excuse to give voice to a creeping sense of uneasiness about mass media's role in a society where state and private interests seemed to be increasingly muddled. Each episode began with a curious reminder that what viewers were about to witness was just "20 minutes into the future." That is to say, much closer than you might imagine. Indeed, the striking thing about watching an episode of "Max Headroom" today is how much of the show's prophetic daydreaming about technology seems to have been perfectly accurate. The world of "Max Headroom" is one in which information circulates through a single global computer network. Edison Carter's producer guides him remotely through urban landscapes by drawing upon a database of instantly available satellite imagery and detailed maps. Computers and televisions are fused into the same device, and everyone has one. It all seems like such a bright future. So why is everything on the show so dark all the time? The truly dystopian element of "Max Headroom" was that its weekly nightmarish scenarios were so uncanny, so unsettlingly familiar, plausible, and hideously distorted all at once. In this world, political elections are determined by television ratings, and every network sponsors a corresponding political candidate. (Imagine!) The police act on the orders of private corporations. If there even is a state, it is indistinguishable from a web of private contractors and global businesses. Your rights as a citizen are measured by your credit rating, and credit fraud is one of the most serious crimes. People who refuse to have their lives tracked and recorded in computer records live as quasi-fugitives. Every wonderful new technology of convenience seemed to constrain its users' liberties more and more strictly. The social criticism wasn't exactly subtle. Even more explicit were "Max Headroom's" pointed jabs at mass media. In one episode, "Dream Thieves," a new start-up cable network discovers a way to finally cut the burdensome cost of producing original content. Using newly developed medical technology, the company simply harvests fantasies and dreams directly from the minds of poor people for rebroadcast to audiences. (Is there any better way to describe the worst aspects of "reality TV" or YouTube?) The dream harvesting machine happens to be located in the ruins of an abandoned movie theater. As one of the harvestees remarks, " ronical, isn't it? People used to come here to get their dreams. Now they come here to give them up." Perhaps most disturbing of all was the show's explanation for how the strangely charming, irrepressible character of Max Headroom was created. One day the reporter Edison Carter finds evidence that his network is airing dangerous content that literally kills viewers. Before he can break the story, Carter is knocked unconscious and brought before Network 23 President Ned Grossberg (brilliantly played by the late Charles Rocket). Grossberg demands to know definitively whether or not Carter saw proof of the network's mass mediated manslaughter, and orders that the reporter's mind be digitally copied and reviewed. The process takes longer than President Grossberg can stand to wait, so the network president orders that his star reporter be killed. The killing is botched, and Carter's digital copy becomes "Max Headroom," takes up residence in the network's computers, breaks into live broadcasts and mocks the network on air and becomes a regular feature of Network 23. The profoundly dark conclusion to this origin story is that Carter recovers from his injuries... and goes back to work for the company that tried to kill him. Why? Because if he's truly committed to his journalistic mission of publicizing the truth, then he can't do without the institutional backing of a thoroughly corrupt global television network. But if Edison Carter is hopelessly trapped by a corrupt system, then what of Max? At first glance, Max is a kind of superhero for the computer age. As Professor Donna Haraway shrewdly observed in 1988, this digitized consciousness is uniquely capable of perceiving the world's developing global network of interconnected public and private powers precisely because he is liberated from the constraints of a human body. Without flesh that can be subjected to discipline, Max has no reason to repress lewd passing thoughts, childish associations or shockingly bold criticism of the company upon whose computer networks he depends for his survival. The ultimate shock jock, audiences idolized and envied Max for his apparently unlimited irreverence, his ability say anything about his boss and get away with it. No wonder his face seemed appropriate for an act of broadcast hacking. But that's not the whole story. The reason Network 23 allowed Max Headroom on the air was precisely because audiences identified with his disdain for his own conditions. And thanks to Max's popularity, Network 23 became the most watched and most profitable network on the planet. Even the freest person in the world cannot bring down something so perverse as a company that manages to profit and grow stronger from acts of disobedience. Indeed, since the Chicago signal hijackings of 1988, America's television and movie industry has deftly co-opted the sympathetically subversive character of the brave but slightly nerdy pirate broadcaster who hijacks radio and television with the right technology and a hacker's ingenuity. Think of the simultaneously terrifying and truly funny appearance of Jack Nicholson's Joker breaking into television broadcasts with an "advertisement" for poisoned cosmetics in Batman (1989). Think of Christian Slater's portrayal of a quiet high school student who finds an outlet for his anxieties and frustrations by taking to the airwaves with his own radio talk show in Pump Up the Volume (1990). Or Hackers (1995). And so on. By now, this character has appeared in so many forms, it's practically a boring clich'e. (The above article is 'On Max Headroom' by Brian Horne) Max Headroom's advice on how to look macho: Here's 'Max Headroom - 20 Minutes into the Future' - it's the entire 1-hour TV movie:

MANDATORY RFID CHIPS TO REPLACE FOOD STAMPS & WELFARE ATM DEBIT CARDS !!!

AntiPropagaanda — Sat, 11 May 2013 20:53:28 -0400

MANDATORY RFID CHIPS TO REPLACE FOOD STAMPS & WELFARE ATM DEBIT CARDS !!! Analysis of Alternatives for Implementing a Cash Value Voucher Program Food Stamps To Be Ended Unless Microchipped!! Food stamp welfare individuals must soon be chipped "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17) In a little while, the above scene in Revelation 13 will become a global reality. People can no longer buy or sell without the mark of the beast. And sometimes that would mean no longer being able to eat! The USDA is now considering biometric identification for all individuals who will want to benefit from their Food and Nutrition Services. The RFID chip may just soon be a must for everyone who does not want to starve! The following is an excerpt of the executive summary of the FINAL REPORT of the Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program: Biometric identification technology provides automated methods to identify a person based on physical characteristics-such as fingerprints, hand shape, and characteristics of the eyes and face-as well as behavioral characteristics-including signatures and voice patterns. Already operational in some states Biometric identification systems are currently operational at some level in Arizona, California (under county initiative, first by Los Angeles County), Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Finger imaging is the principal form of technology used in all eight States, though alternative technologies have simultaneously undergone trials in Massachusetts (facial recognition) and Illinois (retinal scanning). By the end of 2000, new systems are expected to be in place in California (statewide unified system), Delaware, and North Carolina. Other States are currently in the initial planning stages, including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. However, there is little information available at this point regarding the specific course and trajectory these States will follow in terms of system types, implementation schedules, and the benefit programs in which they will implement the new requirement. The States planned for implementation of their biometric identification systems in response to a wide variety of factors and considerations idiosyncratic to each State environment. Some States reported that their respective legislative mandates, which prescribed specific dates by which biometric systems were required to be in place, allowed insufficient time for development and planning. The States developed and followed implementation schedules in accordance with internal priorities and considerations. The States uniformly described their implementation processes as largely uneventful, though they encountered a variety of minor implementation issues, most of which were associated with the logistical difficulties of mobilizing and managing such a complex initiative. Preparing staff for the implementation of the biometric systems, both philosophically and operationally, took different forms, priorities, and levels of effort in the States. At implementation, advance notification to clients and/or the general public about new biometric client identification procedures was considered important by all State representatives. The objective of providing advance notification was to inform and prepare clients for the additional application or recertification step (i.e., to explain the requirement and who is required to submit, and to address client concerns), as well as to accelerate enrollment of the existing caseload. All States prepared informational mailings to clients advising them of the new requirement. Some States reported developing additional outreach media including multilingual (English and Spanish) videos, posters, and brochures for viewing and distribution in the local office. Most of the States also identified various outlets in the community through which they informed the general public in advance about the implementation of biometric client identification procedures. Program outcomes The evaluations of finger imaging systems conducted by six States have produced the following findings. A small number of duplicate applications (approximately 1 duplicate for every 5,000 cases) have been detected by finger imaging systems. Finger-imaging systems appear to detect more fraud in statewide implementations than in regional pilot systems. Additional matches have been found by interstate comparisons of finger-image data. Institution of a finger-imaging requirement can produce a significant, short-term reduction in caseload, because some existing clients refuse to comply with the requirement. The number of refusals depends on the implementation procedures and appears to be lower when finger imaging is incorporated into the recertification process. The most carefully controlled estimate of non-compliance among existing clients suggests that introduction of a finger-imaging requirement reduces participation by approximately 1.3%. However, this estimate reflects both reduced fraud and deterrence of eligible individuals and households. R.F.I.D. Chip - First official TV Commercial I dare you to go to the WIC website, or the EBT website or the SNAP/Food stamp website or the Grocery Manufacturers of america,the food and drug admins, etc. etc. Go to there search field browser and type in RFID,or biometric and WATCH what pops up. I also have Government Links to show the validity of this video. Go Google this entire sentence..... "Planned Nationwide Usage of the biometric information sharing capability by fiscal year 2009-2013? As well as these below. -Go Google "The human robot operating system" PDF (Super Smoking Gun Proof) Go to FMI Dot Org. Type 2011 RFID in the search field Go to http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/ AND TYPE IN 2011 BIOMETRIC OR RFID Go to youtube and type in "Biometric ID Cards Replace Cash mark of the beast" Go to youtube and type in " louisana bans cash" Go Google "Biometrics dot gov Fingerprint recognition" Analysis of Alternatives for Implementing a Cash Value Voucher Program IBM RFID Commercial E Business THE MARK OF THE BEAST 666

Maddow Relentlessly Skewers GOP's 'Impeach Obama For Something, Anything' Effort: 'An Involuntary Tic'

dcmfox — Sat, 11 May 2013 20:06:34 -0400

by Meenal Vamburkar 10:00 pm, May 10th, 2013 Amid the news cycle surrounding Benghazi, there's been a bit of chatter about what some may call the "i-word." Meaning: impeachment. Struck by the Republican fixation with President Obama's potential impeachment, Rachel Maddow broached the topic on Friday, tearing into the "involuntary tic." Maddow chronicled various right-wing outlets that began whispering about impeachment nearly as soon as Obama was inaugurated. But it's not necessarily about something specific, she noted: They like "the idea of impeaching" him. From gay marriage to Fast and Furious , Maddow ran through a laundry list of stories that represented the "Impeach Obama for Something, Anything movement." It's "almost like an involuntary tic" how much those on the right enjoy talk about impeaching Obama, Maddow argued. And the latest reason is Benghazi, she noted, citing Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). Noting that the critics sometimes point to Obama's labeling the attack an act of terror and other times point to talking points, Maddow asserted the numerous ways the right has tried to paint the incident as a scandal. The reasoning depends on which hour of Fox News you're watching, she quipped. Going through each of the main criticisms, Maddow sought to take apart the arguments in a way to demonstrate that their outrage is overplayed. Today brought the most recent development: The report that the talking points were edited 12 times and scrubbed of references to terror. Coming to the end of her long-winded segment, Maddow finally arrived at the last criticism: "Why were you not prepared?" This question, she said, is valid and important - and addressed "damningly" by the Accountability Review Board's review. It was "brutal," she reminded, adding that Clinton accepted all the recommendations. The question of preparedness, she repeated, is being examined and acted upon. "But today," Maddow concluded, "all of a sudden, apparently, for some reason: 'Impeach! Impeach! We will figure out why later, let's just impeach!'" Take a look, via MSNBC:

Banking Mafia Exposed !!

omniradar — Thu, 09 May 2013 14:15:42 -0400

These are the very people trying to take over Syria & Iran & then impose a central banking system. and the very ones who stole lb6 billion of gold from Libya, the biggest physical robbery ever carried out ! The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (hereinafter - the Committee) is closely associated with supranational organisations like the Bank for International Settlements in Basel (BIS), which is often called the <>, the <> of central banks or the <>. The Committee's office is situated in the BIS building. At the end of 1974, following the disequilibrium of international currencies and banking markets caused by the collapse of the Herstatt Bank in West Germany, the heads of central banks in the G10 countries established the Committee under the auspices of the BIS to develop common international rules with regard to banking supervision. The Committee formulates common standards for banking supervision and recommendations for their implementation, on the assumption that national authorised bodies (first and foremost central banks) will push them forwards in their own countries. With regard to G10, this is the group of countries that signed a general agreement on borrowing with the IMF in 1962 (Belgium, Great Britain, West Germany, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, the USA and Japan). Switzerland, which was not a member of the IMF, joined in 1964, but the name of the group remained as before. Representatives from Luxembourg were also included in the Basel Committee from the very beginning and, from 2001, the Committee has included representatives from Spain. At present, the Committee includes representatives from central banks and national authorities on banking supervision from 27 countries (the 13 countries already mentioned along with Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa and Turkey, which all joined the Committee in 2009). Over almost four decades of its activities, the Committee has published tens of documents on different areas of activity, including general issues on the organisation of supervision, capital adequacy, all kinds of risk, the corporate governance of lending and borrowing organisations and so on. The Committee's key area of activity is the definition of standards on capital adequacy for banks. All of the Committee's documentation is centred around an incredibly simple ratio: equity : a bank's capital = capital adequacy ratio. Kabbalists of the money world are looking for this ratio's magic number, which would guarantee the stability of the banking system. In fact, the Committee is seeking to legitimise what is a crime. In Europe, a system of so-called partial, or incomplete, coverage of obligations by banks as borrowing and lending organisations has already existed for a long time (at least since the 18th century). Figuratively speaking, this system allows banks to make money <>. For example, for every 1 dollar of lawful money that depositors place in a deposit account, banks are allowed to release 5 or 10 dollars of non-cash (credit) money by way of credit. This used to be called counterfeiting and was strictly punishable by law. Nowadays, it is called the <> or <> of banking, legalised by national laws, and in economic textbooks it is known as the <>. The principle of <> coverage (reservation) is <> by a supranational structure called the <>, which lends the principle an appearance of respectability. No cunning standards and formulae will remove the main effect of the <> coverage (reservation) of obligations - the banking crises. In the almost four decades that the Committee has existed, the world has been witness to a countless number of banking failures and crises. In order to prevent such problems, obligations need to be covered 100 percent, but then banks would be deprived of the opportunity to engage in their own <>. There is a strict taboo on the honest and frank discussion of <> reservation both in central banks and the Committee: they are trying to convince the public that it is possible to invent a <> for capital adequacy so that banks can continue to make money <> as before. This is outright deception. Basel I and Basel II - straws for the drowning Up to the end of 2012, two fundamental documents had been implemented by the Committee that defined the <> for capital adequacy and recommended that this formula be used by national authorities on banking supervision - Basel I and Basel II. The first of these came into existence in 1988 and had the very respectable name of the <> (Basel I). This agreement defined the minimum capital adequacy ratio as 8 percent, calculated as the ratio of equity (regulated by the supervisory authority) to risk weighted assets. Only credit risks are taken into account (although a bank's capital can be made up of investments as well as credits). In fact, the Committee gave the go-ahead for a financial-monetary orgy, respectfully called <> in economic textbooks. The markets began to <>, the <> began to burst and the real economy and ordinary people suffered the most. To date, more than 100 countries in the world adhere to the rules of Basel I, according to the official declaration. At the turn of the century, a new version of the standard began to be prepared called Basel II, which was to start in 2004. The new version contained extremely feeble attempts to take account of new banking risks (besides credit risks), especially in view of the rapid development of derivatives markets, the emergence of hedge funds and other institutional speculators, with which banks were extremely closely linked. At the height of implementing the new standard, the financial crisis of 2007-2009 broke out. It once again demonstrated that the Basel standards are no more than a fig leaf covering the tyranny of the world's usurers. Basel II was unable to cure the world's moneylenders of their greed, the global banking giant Lehman Brothers sank to the depths in front of everybody's eyes and, in order to save others, America was forced to spend upwards of three trillion dollars from the public purse, with Europe spending about the same. There were even attempts to prove that it was the implementation of Basel II that had caused the start of the financial crisis, since in order to make up for the lack of equity, banks decided to use extremely risky methods to attract capital and had to go as far as falsification and outright deception (accounting offences, the use of off-balance sheet transactions, etc.). During the financial crisis, the Committee began to spasmodically introduce changes and amendments to the Basel II standard. The features of Basel III At long last, a new document emerged called Basel III. Proposals for Basel III were approved at the G20 Summit in Seoul in November 2010. Participants at the Summit also approved the timeline for the phased implementation of the standard. 1 January 2013 was given as the start date. The new document is exceedingly complex and voluminous, numbering nearly 800 pages. I would like to draw your attention to the following features: 1. The timeline for implementing the standard stretches to 2018; in other words, the standard is not <>, it gives banks enough time for manoeuvre; 2. The bar for the capital adequacy ratio of banks was raised, but not so much that it would avoid new crises; 3. The role of the <> in the assessment of banks by supervisory authorities was increased; and 4. Within equity, a special role has been given to gold as a financial asset. In my opinion, the last feature is the most important; it is a high-quality innovation that distinguishes Basel III from Basel II. In previous Basel standards, only cash (which comes under the heading of <> in all countries) and government debt securities - Ministry of Finance and Treasury bonds - were regarded as high-quality equity. Moreover, this did not include all bonds, only those given the highest rating by leading international rating agencies. For a long time, the highest quality form of equity was considered to be US Treasury bonds. In other words, the banks in those countries that took part in Basel I and Basel II must have been helping Uncle Sam by purchasing US bonds and covering up the holes in the US budget, thereby supporting the US dollar and working against gold as the main rival to <>. <>: the partial rehabilitation of gold Before the 1970s, when the Bretton-Woods currency system existed in the world and there were not yet any <> standards, everything was different. Banks were principally valued in terms of the amount of gold in their equity. The more gold there was relative to the total amount of capital and the total amount of assets, the safer the bank was believed to be. It was all simple, clear and logical. However, those good old times came to an end with the collapse of the gold standard and the IMF's decision to carry out a full and final demonetisation of gold. Gold was demoted to a run-of-the-mill exchange commodity like oil, wheat or coffee. As a last resort, banks could use gold as an investment medium, but the metal stopped being regarded as a valuable financial asset. Up to now, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has stored the gold in its <>, so to speak. On the whole, the rules of the game were such that there was no benefit in banks hoarding their gold. At best, bankers regarded the yellow metal with the eyes of speculators buying and selling gold to make short-term profits. Basel III has raised the status of gold dramatically. New rules have been provided to transfer gold to a bank's tier 1 capital at 100 percent of its value. Banks now have the opportunity to replace their paper assets (primarily US Treasury bonds) with gold. Experts have calculated that such a practice will create additional demand for the precious metal to the extent of at least 1700 tonnes. There have been even higher estimations of up to 3000 tonnes. A number of experts believe that the development of Basel III was carried out with powerful lobbying from the Rothschilds, who have an interest in restoring the monetary status of gold in the world. For the last two centuries, the Rothschilds have had control over the main gold reserves, been involved in the extraction of gold and are <> in the precious metals market. In September 2012, before the Basel Committee's new standard had even come into force, the heads of one of the world's largest banks, Deutsche Bank AG, which falls within the Rothschilds' sphere of influence, made a public statement that gold had again been transformed from a commodity into money. The statement caused a painful reaction on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, first and foremost in the US Federal Reserve System. The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, once again issued a standard statement that gold was far from the best type of money. It is not difficult to see that Basel III is a blow to the US dollar and the American economy. America's reaction was sufficiently prompt and harsh. At the end of last year, America's monetary and financial regulators (the Federal Reserve system, the Deposit Insurance Agency and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency) reported that they had been sent a petition by leading American banks stating that the new Basel standards were crippling for lending and borrowing organisations. After this, the Federal Reserve System and other US financial regulators went to the Committee and announced that the introduction of Basel III in America was being postponed, and no date for transition to the new standard was given. At this point, European banks started to feel anxious, believing that if they began the transition to the new standard, they would find themselves uncompetitive in comparison with American banks. Therefore, they also refused to shift to Basel -III. So who exactly has embraced Basel III since 1 January 2013? The list is not very long, with a total of 11 countries in all: Australia, Hong Kong, Canada, China, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Switzerland, South Africa and Japan. It is also possible to add India here, which announced it would be joining Basel III from 1 April 2013. It is remarkable that the list contains just four countries from the <> zone: Australia, Canada, Switzerland and Japan. Turkey's absence from the list is mysterious. The country actively encourages the wide use of gold in banking operations, and the proportion of gold in the equity and assets of Turkey's banks compared with other countries is high. In reality, the Turkish banking sector is completely ready to implement the Basel III standards. As the London newspaper the Financial Times observed, the policy of the governor of the Central Bank of Turkey, Erdem Basci, has yielded impressive results for Turkish banks: they have attracted 8.3 billion US dollars in new deposits through gold programmes over the last 12 months and are now able to channel these resources into lending. One can observe that nearly all the leading gold producers are on the list given above: China, South Africa, Canada and Australia. A number of the countries on the list are leading importers of gold (China, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and India). China, which has been included on the list of <> leaders, has long been hinting at the possibility of transforming the Yuan into a gold standard. Switzerland, meanwhile, is pushing forward a project to introduce a parallel currency within the country in the form of a gold franc. <>: banks' U-turn on gold The implementation of the new Basel rules could lead to a radical change in the positions of individual countries' banks in the global financial system. To begin with, it is expected that the positions of Chinese banks will become stronger, bearing in mind that for several years in succession, China has ranked first in the world in terms of the volume of gold both extracted and imported. The positions of those banks that bravely embraced Basel III will also become stronger, since the price of gold over the last 12 years has shown an unprecedentedly high growth rate - an average of 17 percent per year. In 2012, a troy ounce of gold cost 1700 dollars. According to many gold traders, meanwhile, the <> (<>) value of metal is at a level of no less than 5000 dollars. Whoever managed to get on the <> by buying low-cost tickets will be much more likely to find themselves on the global financial Olympus tomorrow. Even those banks that have still not entered the zone of Basel III activities understand that their future depends on how quickly they will be able to turn towards gold. IMF and World Gold Council statistics do not give a clear picture of gold purchases by the entire banking sector. However, there are statistics for the purchase and sale activities of central banks in the gold market. Following the collapse of the Bretton-Woods currency system, central banks across the world sold more gold than they bought for more than three decades. After the recently concluded financial crisis, the situation changed dramatically. In 2011, net purchases of gold by the world's central banks amounted to 457 tonnes. This is more than 10 percent of the total demand for precious metals on the world market (4400 tonnes). During the 15 years preceding the crisis, meanwhile, net purchases totalled an average of 400 tonnes per year. Thus, the central banks made a sharp about turn and started to purchase gold in the kinds of volumes that had not been observed since the 1960s. Last year was a record year in terms of the amount of net purchases of gold by the world's central banks since 1964. According to preliminary data released by the World Gold Council, a new record will also be set in 2012: the net purchase of gold by the world's central banks rose to 536 tonnes. With regard to commercial banks, before the introduction of the Basel III standard they only saw gold as a way to increase their own profits through speculation and/or investment, but they had no incentive to establish their own considerable reserves of precious metals. I think their attitude to gold is going to change in 2013, they will buy it for themselves with a view to improving the sustainability of their business and attracting clients. The validation of the Basel III standards in a number of countries in 2013 is a serious indication that gold has returned to the world of money. We are not yet talking about the classical gold standard, of course, whereby banks are able to freely exchange paper money for metal. But metal may become more widely used to cover banks' liabilities and be a financial asset of the <>. Who knows, maybe in the future, when banks have accumulated enough gold, the issue of the reinstatement of the gold standard will be put back on the agenda...

Ring of Fire Eclipse Today

joe prole — Thu, 09 May 2013 11:21:16 -0400

An annular eclipse of the sun - what some are calling a ring of fire eclipse - will take place over Australia and the Pacific Ocean on May 9 or 10, 2013 (the difference in date depends on whether you are east or west of the International Date Line). However, to see it, you have to reside somewhere along the long yet narrow track that is 13,300 kilometers long and only about 200 kilometers wide. Outside the extremely narrow path of the ring of fire eclipse, a much larger area of the world will get to see a partial eclipse of the sun. http://earthsky.org/tonight/solar-eclipse-over-wide-stretch-of-pacific-ocean-on-may-910 The online Slooh Space Camera will host a free webcast featuring live views of the eclipse today, beginning at 5:30 p.m. EDT (2130 GMT). You can watch it live on SPACE.com , courtesy of Slooh. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/09/ring-fire-solar-eclipse-today-how-to-watch-live/ NASA Animation Brief Explanation Full Story (13 min.) Map of Visual Path

Being a productive Muslim..

aydeo — Wed, 08 May 2013 17:41:12 -0400

Seems it is all depends on your morning prayer... Translated to English & Hebrew and taken from the Islam channel, Almost all items in Hebrew - http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePerfectIslam?feature=watch

Anonymous - #Operation American Freedom

Marcux — Wed, 08 May 2013 13:29:08 -0400

Published on Jan 21, 2013 The United States Government is seeking to end the constitution; this will endanger thee American people and we will not stand by and watch while this government of deception prepares to rip away from us all of the freedoms that our forefathers granted us, the freedoms that were fought for, bled for, that our ancestors died for. We must ensure that blood was not shed in vein, that their lives were indeed lost for a great nation that is not yet lost. We refuse to let the United States government destroy our way of life. The United States Government insists on labeling us as terrorists. The question is, "who do we terrorize?". Is it probable that the United States government is truly afraid of we, the people? Nevertheless, The time for action is now. It is time to remind the government that we, the American people are the ones who hold the power of this country, not them. thee American people have realized, that the current government is no longer functional, Our economy is unstable, our representatives uncooperative, and our system, destroyed, We are not calling upon the collective to de face or use a distributed denial of service attack on a United States government agency website, or affiliate. We are not calling upon the people to once again occupy a city or protest in front of a local building, This has not brought on us any legislative change or alternate law. It has only brought us bloodshed and false criticism. For the last 12 years, voting has been useless. Corporations and lobbyists are the true leaders of this country and are the ones with the power to control our lives, To rebuild our government , we must first destroy it.Our time for democracy is here, Our time for resolution is here, This is America's time for revolution, To restore our constitutional rights, to once again, be free Therefore, Anonymous along with thee American people have decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms. We call upon the Citizens of the United States to stand beside us in overthrowing this corrupted body and call upon a new era. We refuse to be a police state, we refuse to be brutalized and dehumanized by the very people our tax dollars fund to protect our cities and streets, we will not allow the government to control our destiny, our right to build a life for ourselves. We demand freedom from government control, taxation, repossession and death. You will not come to our doors and take our guns, our property, you will not force the citizens of this great country to participate in the unlawful act of government mandated healthcare. We the people refuse to put in your control our health, our bodies, our minds, our lives. We will not grant permission for the government to deploy drones over our homes and communities. We must end the federal reserve. A private central bank should not issue our currency, set interest rates and run our economy. Rather, we need to return control over the currency to the American people where it belongs. You, the United States government have overstepped your privileges for the last time. Our peaceful actions, patience and restraint have been demonstrated as we watched and waited for our Congress and Representatives to speak for the American citizens and protect us from the tyrant that sits in the oval office and happily strips the American people of our rights, one by one, executive order by executive order. We have waited long enough. The Declaration of Independence establishes the supremacy of the People and the Right and Duty to defend the Rights of the People over the Acts of the Government. Our Constitution provides for as many protections as possible to ensure that the Government is subservient to the People and only exists for the purpose of serving the People. However, should these protections fail it is up to the People to rise up against the Government and to put the Government back in it's place. In this capacity, the People act as the fourth branch of government to take control and to override their decisions that violate the Fundamental Rights of the People to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. By what means do the People exercise their authority over the Government? That depends on how resistant the Government is to complying with the Will of the People. In the case of the Declaration of Independence, it meant declaring war on the Government and overthrowing them. This is obviously a last resort after taking other steps less harsh. Have we not tried? It is clearly the Right and the Duty of the American people to overthrow the Government in order to restore the United States as a government to serve the People. This is clearly established in historical precedent. This is that time. We have exhausted every other option. Our government has ignored us. Reupload Anonymous is for Freedom http://www.facebook.com/OffiziellAnon... We are Anonymous, We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

Giant Swamp Rats Are Literally Eating Louisiana

Detroit Iron — Wed, 08 May 2013 07:28:53 -0400

On the southern edge of Louisiana, there is almost as much water as land. You can't drive to anyone's house, you have to travel by boat, and sometimes there are hours of water between neighbors. It takes a special breed to make a home here, in the swamp , amongst the mosquitos and almost annual hurricanes . But those who do call it home, love it. They see a magical space of strange stillness and subtle rippling greens and grays where time worries no one and the freedom of the water is at your doorstep. But this Huck Finn way of life is being attacked on multiple fronts. Climate change's stronger storms are beating away at the fragile coastline, and the oil and gas industries are scarring the skyline while luring younger generations away from the local farming and fishing way of life. As if that weren't enough, 20-pound, semi-aquatic rodents, called nutria, which are native to Argentina, are taking over the marshes, devouring the native plants that hold the soil in place, and causing massive coastal erosion. Chris Metzier, an independent documentary filmmaker, has spent months in these swamps on the front lines of this battle, filming his upcoming documentary Rodents of Unusual Size . He sat down with me recently to talk about nutria and the interesting people who are fighting them to save their way of life. TakePart: How would you describe nutria, and how did they end up in Louisiana? Chris Metzier: Nutria are something like a cross between a beaver and a New York sewer rat. They were first brought to Louisiana in the 1930s in order to be farmed for their fur, which was growing in popularity. No one knows exactly how they escaped into the wild. Maybe someone let them go when the fur industry was failing, or perhaps it was the work of a hurricane that tore apart a barn they were being kept in. One way or another, they escaped into the swamps and have just gone crazy. This part of Louisiana is just like a big playground for them. And they can breed within months of being born and have multiple litters a year. There are now about five million nutria in this part of Louisiana. There are nutria in other parts of the country, as well, but nowhere have they made themselves quite so much at home as in Louisiana. That's great for nutria, I guess, but they eat everything that grows, and without plants holding the soil in place, it is eroding away at record speeds-about 40 square miles per year, for several decades now. What kind of steps have been taken to try and control nutria? Well, a campaign was started a while back to try and get people to eat them. They had celebrity chefs come up with gourmet nutria dishes and everything. And they really don't taste bad; I've had nutria slim jims and jambalaya, and it's quite tasty. I think people would like it if they didn't know it was a swamp rat. But tell them that, and there's no way they are going to finish their dinner. So that program failed, and now in the last six years or so, there has been a program in place that offers trappers five dollars for every nutria tail they bring in. It's decent money for farmers or fishermen, who only have seasonal income and, for now at least, it is keeping the population somewhat in check. How is the nutria fur industry faring? The nutria fur industry has stuck around over the years, specifically for exporting to other countries. It's very small compared to what it was before. But a group of young people have now come together, saying they know that people haven't liked fur recently, because they see it as cruel to animals or just don't think it's fashionable. So they are trying to reframe the debate in terms of nutria fur. This is a sustainable way to get fur; these animals are already being killed because they are an invasive species. This fur was prized in the past, so can we come up with desirable pieces of fashion and get people to wear them? Some of the world's top-end designers have embraced it. Nutria has been worn on the catwalks of Milan, Paris, and New York. This group of artists and designers in Louisiana are trying to get the message out that some fur can be environmentally friendly and beneficial to the ecosystem it comes from. It's really taken off in Brooklyn, where people want to wear fur but don't want to feel guilty doing it. This is a way to reuse the rest of the animal that is already being killed to save the wetlands. Do you have a favorite character from your time down in the swamps? Absolutely. The place is busting at the seams with interesting people, so it's always hard to pick one. But, there's a gentleman named Thomas we spent hours talking to. He is someone who has lived such a strange and interesting life, and so thoughtful and warm that he leaps off the screen at you. He has such a melodic way of talking, you just want to hear the stories he tells. Whether it's surviving a hurricane in the '50s that killed 18 of his friends and family or the pet albino nutria he had for several years that he would walk around on a leash. He is a guy that gets stir crazy inside and is all about being outside; he is so intertwined as a person with the land around him. People in this area are so aware of life and death, they know that you just gotta seize it as much as possible and live a vibrant, but respectful life. Do you address climate change as you tell the story? Climate change will definitely be discussed. Many people are very conservative in this region, but also quite libertarian. People take facts for facts and they see climate change around them. While they might not be activists in protests, they understand it better than most. The two things that southernLouisiana depends on are farming and fishing, and the petroleum industry. A lot of young people leave communities to go work on the rigs because it provides so much more money than conventional careers in the area. But it is the fossil fuel industry that exacerbates the local environmental issues. Maybe this part of Louisiana could have made it even with all the nutria if not for climate change. The two together...I just don't know how these people who love their home so much are going to go on living here. Joanna M. Foster writes about the environment and energy for the New York Times , Popular Science and OnEarth Magazine among others. She has traveled extensively in Africa and India and is passionate about conservation and development issues, especially as they are impacted by climate change. She lives in Hoboken, New Jersey, but dreams of Kenya. http://news.yahoo.com/giant-swamp-rats-literally-eating-louisiana-questions-202344859.html

Four-Star General Smacks Down GOP Congressman Who Attempts To Walk Out During Testimony

dcmfox — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:46:01 -0400

By Andrew Kirell 5:48 pm, April 30th, 2013 House hearings are not exactly known for their fiery outbreaks. But last week, boy did it sure get hot up in there. In a rare show of verbal intensity, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno smacked down Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) when the politician attempted to walk out of the testimony after speaking his mind about an Army program he would like to cut. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee were Gen. Odierno and Army Secretary John McHugh . Hunter, a major in the Marine Corps Reserve whose constituency depends largely on the Navy , was grilling the two men on the Army's Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). Hunter had alleged that the two leaders had not properly responded to his office's complaints related to the program. Without going into all the inside-baseball details, the DCGS is a cloud-computing network established as a method to link intelligence sources to ground soldiers. After he scolded McHugh and Odierno for some time, the congressman thought he could then find the nearest exit without allowing the military men to respond directly to his accusations. While getting out out of his chair and motioning to leave the room, a baffled McHugh asked of Hunter: "May we respond? I think I heard a question. I don't want to respond if the gentleman's going to leave. Would you care to hear a brief response?" The congressman begrudgingly sat back down and told the pair that "we've been talking about this for about a year-and-a-half," so he needn't hear their response. This remark sent Gen. Odierno over the edge. "First off, I object to this," the general interrupted. "I'm tired of somebody telling me I don't care about our soldiers, that we don't respond." He then berated Hunter for trying to use "anecdotal evidence" to insult the Army. "You have a very powerful personality," Rep. Hunter fired back, "but that doesn't refute the facts that you have gaps in the capability." An increasingly irritated Odierno then tore into Hunter, claiming, "We have more capability today in intelligence than we've ever had." The congressman later interrupted Odierno to say: "If you don't let me say anything then we can't have a conversation." "Well, you weren't gonna let us say anything," the general replied. "Well, you're right," the congressman admitted. "But I have that prerogative when I'm sitting up here." "Well, I have a prerogative, too, and that's to answer a question or an accusation when it's made," Odierno concluded. Watch the incident below:

Dog hates grandpa's dancing

mtnmanx — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:10:46 -0400

Now grandpa's gotta change his depends.