Tag Archives: government

iPad Killer? ViewSonic makes ViewPad 7 Official

ViewSonic, best known for computer screens and monitors, made its ViewPad 7 official. Its European counterpart announced the Viewpad 7 which … http://bit.ly/aIiHbY added by: itgrunts

Fourteen more US troops killed in Afghanistan: What are they dying for?

Another 14 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Saturday, with the death toll so far this year already rising to the level reached for all of 2010. A pair of roadside bombings took the lives of seven soldiers on Monday, five of them dying in a blast that tore apart a Humvee in which they were riding. Bomb blasts took the lives of four others in southern Afghanistan over the weekend, while three were killed in clashes with armed groups resisting the US-led occupation. These latest deaths bring US fatalities for the month to nearly 50, after the record 65 killed in July. NATO has announced that it is investigating yet another report of civilians killed in a US bombing. The air strike last Thursday hit children who were collecting scrap metal on a mountain in the province of Kunar, which borders Pakistan. A local police commander said that the six children killed by the US bombs were aged six to 12. Another child was seriously wounded. After a much-reported decline in US air strikes, attributed to orders from sacked US senior commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal that were designed to reduce civilian casualties, such strikes are back up again. According to figures released by the Air Force, US warplanes flew 5,500 “close air support” missions in June and July of 2010, compared to 4,600 in the same months last year. With the Obama administration's Afghanistan surge having brought US troops up to the full strength of nearly 100,000, together with another 40,000 troops from NATO and other allied countries, fighting has intensified and casualties among both US troops and Afghan civilians are up sharply. New revelations of rampant corruption and CIA payoffs to the US-backed Kabul government raise the inescapable question: What are they dying for? Among the bodies shipped back to the US through Dover Air Base in flag-draped coffins this past week was that of a 20-year-old from Elizabeth, New Jersey, Army Specialist Pedro Millet, who was killed by an improvised explosive device in southern Afghanistan. “I feel like someone ripped my heart out. I have no heart. My baby is gone,” the soldier's mother, Denise Meletiche, told reporters outside her home after making the painful journey from the base in Delaware. She said that her son had joined the Army without telling her, explaining only afterwards that he did it to get money to go to college. “I was against the Army,” she said. “I'm against war.” The soldier's stepfather said that Army recruiters had been allowed into Pedro's high school and enticed him into joining the military. “We're losing kids in a war, and what are they doing about it?” he said. “This is ridiculous.” What can justify such human sacrifices? Obama, like Bush before him, has tried to frighten the American people into supporting this brutal war by claiming it is necessary to defeat terrorism. This is just as much a lie coming out of the Democratic president's mouth as it was when uttered by his Republican predecessor. US military and intelligence officials have repeatedly acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members in all of Afghanistan–compared to 100,000 US troops. Moreover, the 91,000 classified documents released by WikiLeaks, most of them battlefield reports, make virtually no mention of American troops pursuing terrorists. On the contrary, they are fighting to suppress resistance to foreign occupation, a resistance that enjoys broad support from the Afghan people. A recent poll taken in Helmand and Kandahar provinces by the International Council on Security and Development, a London-based think tank, bears this out. It found that three quarters of the male population believed it was wrong to collaborate with the US-led occupation forces. Roughly the same share said that the Afghan government officials in the area were connected either to drug traffickers or to the armed groups opposing the occupation. These figures are essentially in sync with those reported by the Pentagon itself in the spring, indicating that less than a quarter of the people in the areas where US forces are battling to suppress Afghan resistance support the government of President Hamid Karzai. Another study released by the United Nations last January provided a vivid illustration of why Karzai and his cronies are so hated. It found that 52 percent of Afghan adults had been forced to pay at least one bribe to a public official in the previous 12 months, and that, collectively, Afghans had paid out $2.49 billion in bribes in 2009, an amount equal to nearly one-quarter of the country's gross domestic product. In a television interview broadcast at the beginning of this month, Obama admitted to the American people that “Nobody thinks that Afghanistan is going to be a model Jeffersonian democracy.” cont. added by: JanforGore

Kate Gosselin Dances in 2010 Emmys Opening Skit (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

OMG! Jimmy Fallon has unleashed the acting bug in non-dancer Kate Gosselin. added by: gmc1

A Civics Lesson for America the Ignorant

3 Terms that people throw around and don't know the meaning of: 1) Constitution – A very simple document that outlines the fundamentals of United States Doctrine. The Constitution’s main purpose is to protect the people from unlawful treatment by the Government. Simply stating that something is Unconstitutional is an easy accusation to make. To prove it usually leads to troubles with the user of the statement. There are only 26 Amendments to the original constitution so labeling so many things as Unconstitutional pretty much statistically makes most of the accusations false. For instance the freedom of speech only guarantees you freedom of persecution by the Government, and only the government. You can't say whatever you want to a private individual and not expect a backlash. You also can't make threats and false accusation. Those are superseded by the Justice System. 2) Socialism – Is a governmental system. Not economic. It has nothing to do with Free Trade or how a person can make money within their own country. Close to every modem nation in the world operates in a Socialist way today. Many people accuse the United States of becoming Socialist but they are either ignorant of the meaning or denying the last century. The United States is a Socialist country already. In fact the Public Education system is one of the largest and most successful Socialist programs in the history of civilization. Medicare is another example. Social Security is another one. Municipal road work. The Interstate System. The list goes on and on. Pretty much anything that the Government does for you with your tax dollars is Socialism. If you want to protest this stop drinking your town water. Stop driving on paved roads. Plow your own Interstate. Teach your own kids K-12. Socialism is meant so that you pay your Government in Taxes and they give you services in return. Nazis and Soviets weren't Socialist. They called themselves this for Propaganda because it's a “caring system”. They were in fact Totalitarian Fascist and Dictators. I'm not going to explain the meaning of the last two because if you can't understand that the US doesn't operate like that you can't understand the meaning's of these words. 3) Communism – This is purely an economic system. It has nothing to with the way the government governs the people. Communism is a flawed system in that it relies all on trust of the Government. In Communism the totaled income of the country is divided evenly amount the Citizens. There are no social classes, no tax brackets, and property is distributed among the people not bought and sold by individuals. It's great in theory but no Government seems to be able to handle the burden and trust needed to implement it. The Soviets butchered the system into punishing the people and reaping the benefits of the private sector's loss income. The United States will never be a Communist society. Financial regulations do not constitute communism. If pick pocketing wasn't a crime and the government suddenly enacted laws banning it would you cry Communism? No, the free trade system still exists you just have to change the way you make money. You can't steal it anymore. There are a plethora of other issues sparking across the nation today. But most are too stupid to even address. Hatred is strong in the nation today and it's disgusting. If we did have a Black Muslim Socialist President what exactly is wrong with that? Ask yourself that. Pull the words apart. Black = Skin Color Muslim = Branch of Judaism just like Christianity Socialist = Last 10 President fit in that realm President = Elected by the people. added by: PrivateBurke

MLK would have been on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard / King vs Beck: War of the Words

Beck accuses progressives of trying to rewrite history and implores his followers to read original sources, but a review of King's own words clearly shows that Beck's insistence that he and his followers are the custodians of King's dream and legacy is nothing more than a lie. – – – – Beck vs. MLK on the role of government in fighting poverty – – – – Beck: “Big government never lifts anybody out of poverty. It creates slaves, people who are dependent on the scraps from the government, the handouts.” King: “We will place the problems of the poor at the seat of government of the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind.” – – – – Beck vs. MLK on the redistribution of wealth – – – – Beck: “It's economic justice, which is socialism, which is forced redistribution of wealth, which is Marxism.” King: “Some will be called reds and Communists merely because they believe in economic justice and the brotherhood of man. But we shall overcome.” Beck mocked the idea that “evil rich people” don't “pay their fair share” in taxes, rips the “protected poor.” King's “American Dream”: “Property widely distributed” and “a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few.” – – – – Beck vs. MLK on the “fundamental transformation” of our country – – – – Beck declared that Obama “really is a Marxist” because he “believes in the redistribution of wealth.” King: “The movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society.” – – – – Beck vs. MLK on social justice – – – – Beck: “Civil rights marchers” weren't “crying for social justice” King: “We will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice.” Beck: “They have infiltrated our churches” and “confused the gospel with government-run programs.” King: “If America does not use her vast resources to end poverty … she too will go to hell.” More Detailed comparison at source link http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008250037#2 added by: Stoneyroad

Surgeons Remove 18 Heated Metal Nails Allegedly Hammered Into a Housemaid’s Body by Her Employers

Doctors remove nails allegedly hammered into maid by employers By Iqbal Athas, For CNN August 27, 2010 9:43 a.m. EDT Photo: An X-ray shows nails hammered into the body of a Sri Lankan maid. STORY HIGHLIGHTS * NEW: Doctors remove nails from the maid's body * She was attacked after complaining of being overworked * Sri Lankan officials are urging the Saudis to conduct an investigation * The victim is among thousands of Sri Lankan migrant workers Colombo, Sri Lanka (CNN) — Doctors at a Sri Lankan hospital operated for three hours Friday to remove 18 nails and metal particles allegedly hammered into the arms, legs and forehead of a maid by her Saudi employer. Dr. Kamal Weeratunga said the surgical team in the southern town of Kamburupitiya pulled nails ranging from about one to three inches from Lahadapurage Daneris Ariyawathie's body. He said doctors have not yet removed four small metal particles embedded in her muscles. “She is under heavy antibiotics but in a stable condition,” Weeratunga said. Sri Lankan officials, meanwhile, met with Saudi diplomats in Colombo to urge an investigation into the incident. “It was cruel treatment which should be roundly condemned,” said L.K. Ruhunuge of the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment. He said the Sri Lanka government has forwarded to Saudi authorities a detailed report on the incident including statements from Ariyawathie. Ariyawathie left Sri Lanka on March 25 to work as a housemaid in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia after the bureau registered her as a person obtaining a job from an officially recognized job agency. She was held down by her employer's wife while the employer hammered the heated nails, Ruhunuge told CNN. She apparently had complained to the couple that she was being overworked, Ruhunuge said. The nails were hammered into her arms and legs while one was on her forehead, he said. “Most of the wounds are superficial but five to 10 are somewhat deep,” said Dr. Prabath Gajadeera of the Base Hospital. “Luckily, none of the organs is affected. Only nerves and blood vessels are affected.” Ariyawathie, 49, is a mother of two children who were opposed to their mother's journey to Saudi Arabia for work. Several countries across the Middle East and Asia host significant numbers of migrant domestic workers, ranging from 196,000 in Singapore to about 1.5 million in Saudi Arabia, according to a report published earlier this year by Human Rights Watch. Many of the domestic workers are poor Asian women from Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Nepal. Widespread abuse has been documented by global human rights groups. Common complaints include unpaid wages, long working hours with no time for rest, and heavy debt burdens from exorbitant recruitment fees, said the Human Rights Watch report. Isolation and forced confinement contribute to psychological and physical abuse, sexual violence, forced labor, and trafficking, the report said. The abuse often goes unchecked because of a lack of government regulation and protective laws. Ruhunuge said the registration of the local job agency that placed Ariyawathie has been cancelled. “We have also asked [them] to pay compensation to the victim,” he added. “We want to bring those responsible for justice. We are doing our best in this regard,” he said. He said his office was ready to accompany Ariyawathie to Saudi Arabia to testify if a case is brought against her former employers. Ariyawathie's dream was to one day return to Sri Lanka and build a house with the money she saved. “We are looking at the possibility of helping her to do this,” Ruhunuge said. Karu Jayasuriya, deputy leader of the main opposition United National Party, visited Ariyawathie in the hospital and said he was appalled. “We want the government to raise this issue at the highest levels with the Saudi government. We cannot imagine that such crude and uncivilized things are happening to our workers,” he said. Saudi officials were not immediately available for comment. added by: EthicalVegan

Pro-War Conservatives Are A Walking Contradiction

It is a testament to the power of government propaganda that several generations of self-described conservatives have held as their core belief that war and militarism are consistent with limited, constitutional government. These conservatives think they are “defending freedom” by supporting every military adventure that the state concocts. They are not. Even just, defensive wars inevitably empower the state far beyond anything any strict constructionist would approve of. Prowar conservatives, in other words, are walking contradictions. They may pay lip service to limited constitutional government, but their prowar positions belie their rhetoric. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne said in his famous essay of that title. Statism, moreover, means central planning, heavy taxation, fascist or socialist economics, attacks on free speech and other civil liberties, and the suffocation and destruction of private enterprise. Classical liberals have always understood this, but conservatives never have. (Neoconservatives either don't understand it or don't care.) Thus, you have the celebrated neoconservative writer Victor Davis Hanson writing in the December 2, 2009, issue of Imprimis that antiwar activism and other “factors” that make people “reluctant” to resort to war are “lethal combinations” that supposedly threaten the existence of society. Hanson was merely repeating the conservative party line first enunciated by the self-proclaimed founder of the modern conservative (really neoconservative) movement, William F. Buckley Jr. Murray Rothbard quoted Buckley as saying in the January 25, 1952 issue of Commonweal magazine that the Cold War required that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. … [We must support] large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington. “We” must advocate the destruction of the free society in the name of defending the free society, said “Mr. Conservative,” a former CIA employee. In reality, antiwar “factors” are a threat only to the military/industrial/congressional complex, which profits from war; they are not a threat to society as a whole. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Seeing through the dense murk of such war propaganda is one of the purposes of my ten-week, online Mises Academy course on “The Political Economy of War,” which begins on September 21. Students will learn about the economics and politics of war from some of the giants of classical liberalism, such as Ludwig von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, Lionell Robbins, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Robert Higgs, and others. Among the topics to be discussed are * Why capitalism is the very opposite of war * The economic causes of war * Why nationalism is always a threat to peace and prosperity * Why Marx was wrong about war and imperialism, but the Austrian economists got it right * Why and how war is the health of the state, always ratcheting up governmental power at the expense of individual liberty and prosperity * The role of free trade in deterring war * The evils of military conscription * How war cripples a nation's economy, benefiting only a small group of war profiteers in the process * How the state employs the Fed to hide and disguise the costs of war * The role of statist intellectuals in promoting war precisely because they, too, understand that war is the health of the state * Why conservatives love war and the state * The dangerous myth that democracy promotes peace * Private alternatives to a massive “national-defense” establishment * What is a just war? Each class will consist of a 45–50 minute lecture followed by 45 minutes of Q&A with students. My lectures will cover the topics listed on the syllabus for the course, but will be more than rehashes of the readings that are listed — I will concentrate on both my understanding of the readings (and other literature) and my own research and writings. The importance of understanding the political economy of war is perhaps illustrated by this passage from Randolph Bourne's famous essay: War is a vast complex of life-destroying and life-crippling forces. If the State's chief function is war, then it is chiefly concerned with coordinating and developing the powers and techniques which make for destruction. And this means not only the actual and potential destruction of the enemy, but of the nation at home as well. For the very existence of a State in a system of States means that the nation lies always under a risk of war and invasion, and the calling away of energy into military pursuits means a crippling of the productive and life-enhancing processes of the national life. Ludwig von Mises expressed a similar sentiment in Human Action, when he wrote, Mises Academy: Tom DiLorenzo teaches The Political Economy of War What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor. Man curbs his innate instinct of aggression in order to cooperate with other human beings. The more he wants to improve his material well-being, the more he must expand the system of the division of labor. Concomitantly he must more and more restrict the sphere in which he resorts to military action. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war. … This philosophy is, of course, incompatible with statolatry.[1] These two quotes give one an indication of why those individuals who help the public to become reluctant to support war are more likely to be heroes of society as opposed to the “lethal combinations” of neoconservative folklore. http://mises.org/daily/4659 added by: shanklinmike

How to Stop the Government From Tracking Your Location (Illegally!)

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just decided that it was legal for the police to put a GPS tracking device on your car, sitting in your driveway, on your property. Here's how to protect yourself. To quickly summarize, the supreme court says that police can look through things that anyone in the public could come across, meaning, your driveway is freely accessible to the public, hence, the cops can shove a GPS locator onto your car. Then they can use it track you. Without a warrant. How do you stop this without combing over the underside—or perhaps even inside—of your car and finding the GPS tracker? With technology. Your first bet is probably to find out if someone is tracking you or not. You can turn here for cellphone and bug device detectors. But these aren't 100%, so if you're really paranoid and want to hide your location, you'll want to just go ahead and stop the trackers anyway. The first type is a GPS jammer, which is technically illegal to buy and use in the US, so keep that in mind. These types of GPS jammers plug into the cigarette lighter in your car, and will “prohibit GPS signal” up to 10 meters. Ten meters isn't too far, but it isn't super close either, so cars next to you might get some GPS interference as you drive down the road. This model is $33. There are handheld and higher-powered versions available for slightly more. Our friends at Brando have one too, for $50. If you're worried that someone is tracking your cellphone, there's a signal blocking bag for about $10 that you can shove your device into when not in use. You also have the cellphone-type trackers, which need to be stopped with a different device: a cellphone jammer. There are various portable versions, as well as ones that go into your car. These types of jammers are as illegal as the GPS ones, so again, know what you're getting into. Is it worth it to go to the potential legal troubles of owning and operating a GPS or cellphone jammer if you're not doing anything wrong? That's up to you to decide. But if you are doing something that you want to make sure the government doesn't know about and they're already surveilling you, it might already be too late to get one of these. [The Jammer Store] (not affiliated with the person known as J_Jammer) http://io9.com/5623081/how-to-stop-the-government-from-tracking-your-location added by: pjacobs51

US Govt May Back 9 GW of Coal Power Plants in India & South Africa, When It Should Support Renewables

photo: Duncan Harris via flickr Despite a Congressional mandate directing the Export-Import Bank of the United States to use 10% of its 2009-2010 financing towards renewable energy project, according to a US Government Accountability Office report the Bank will fall “well short of the 10% Congressional target”–as in only spending 2% on renewables. In fact right now in may back nearly 9 gigawatts of humungous coal-fired power plants in India and South Africa…. Read the full story on TreeHugger

Go here to read the rest:
US Govt May Back 9 GW of Coal Power Plants in India & South Africa, When It Should Support Renewables

Gulf Oil Spill: Rick Steiner Got BP Disaster Right From The Beginning, Warns…

I first spoke to Rick Steiner more than three months ago — about two weeks into the Deepwater Horizon disaster — after a source recommended I talk to him for a story I was writing about the spill as a teachable moment. Steiner is a marine conservationist and activist in Alaska who started studying oil spills when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, and never stopped. What Steiner said to me during that first interview was blunt, depressing — and struck me as having the ring of truth. Little did I know how true. “Government and industry will habitually understate the volume of the spill and the impact, and they will overstate the effectiveness of the cleanup and their response,” he told me at the time. “There's no such thing as an effective response. There's never been an effective response — ever — where more than 10 or 20 percent of the oil is ever recovered from the water. “Most of the oil that goes into the water in a major spill stays there,” he said. “And once the oil is in the water, the damage is done.” Steiner was also one of the first scientists to warn that much if not most of BP's oil was remaining underwater, forming giant and potentially deadly toxic plumes. I thought of Steiner last week, as I sat in a congressional hearing room listening to Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey question Bill Lehr, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lehr was one of the authors of an increasingly controversial federal report about the fate of BP's spilled oil that Obama administration officials misleadingly cited as evidence that the “vast majority” of the oil was essentially gone. Markey's persistent questioning eventually got Lehr to acknowledge that, contrary to the administration spin, most of the spill — including the oil that has been dispersed or dissolved into the water, or evaporated into the atmosphere — is still in the Gulf ecosystem. Then Markey got Lehr to recalculate what percentage of the spill BP had actually recovered, through skimming and burning. That amount: About 10 percent. In other words, Steiner was right. The other part of Steiner's prediction — that the government and BP would low-ball the volume of the spill — had already played out very publicly. BP and NOAA both opened with a 5,000 barrel a day estimate. NOAA officials stuck to that estimate for weeks, despite the fact that they had access to video feeds from the wellhead clearly showing how far off they were. More than two weeks after some of that video was made public, the government finally, grudgingly, upped its estimates to 12,000 to 19,000 barrels daily; then 20,000 to 40,000 barrels, then 35,000 to 60,000 barrels, before finalizing its estimate in early August at 62,000 barrels a day at the beginning of the spill, declining to 53,000 barrels a day toward the end. So it wasn't until early August, two weeks after the well was capped, that the public was officially clued in that BP's blowout had — by the end of June — become the largest accidental offshore oil spill in history; totaling almost 16 times the Exxon Valdez. I talked to Steiner again this week about where things stand now, what he expects will happen next, and what he hopes will come of it all. The first thing we talked about was that NOAA report. Steiner said it was obviously full of guesswork — and bad guesswork at that. “They shouldn't have even tried to issue these numbers right now,” he said. “I smell politics all over it. The only plausible explanation is they were in a rush to hang the 'Mission Accomplished' banner.” And Steiner suspects the 10 percent recovery rate for BP is actually overstated. The report based its conclusions on operational reports showing that 11.1 million gallons of oil were burned and 34.7 million gallons of oily water were recovered through skimming. But Steiner said the actual amount of oil recovered could be about half what the report claims. The oil-water mix, which officials evidently assumed was 20 percent oil, could well have been closer to 10 percent, he said. As for the burned oil figures, “they are simply coming from the BP contractors out there and then put into the Incident Command reports as gospel. As far as I know, there was no independent observation or estimation of those numbers.” And there's something else the government seems to have forgotten about when it comes to burning crude oil: “That's not technically removing it from the environment.” Steiner said. “It either went into the air as atmospheric emissions, and some of that is pretty toxic stuff, or there's a residue from burning crude that sinks to the ocean floor, sometimes in big thick mats.” Steiner had even more critiques of the report — and the response — but his central point was one of the same he made when I first spoke with him, back in May: Once the oil is in the water, the damage is done. “You just can't fix most of the damage caused in marine oil spills. You just can't do it.” (con't in comments) added by: samantha420