Ramana darshan

 

happy shivarathri

om namah shivaya

Mad World

 

zen quote

 

spiritual quote

 

What is A me or An i - The i-concept

from Binduji


Dear friends,
>
>
>
> Namaste ----
>
>
>
> What is "A me" how can a "me" be separate from all else. hence all is
> happening to no one named "me" .. it is ALL happening "AS" existence; this
> does not mean that what seems to be happening to what seems to be me is or
> can be separated from the whole i.e. my seeming existence or seeming
> specialness is no more or less important than a mote of dust or the earth
> itself .
>
>
>
> All these beings are modes of the light of the conscious Self (what the
> yogis call the ParaAtma or supreme Self or Krishna\Siva\Visnu ) appearing
as
> such due to the light of said Self shining thru the layers (Vasanas) or
> construct of experience that the mind likes to call "me - i" .. This, let
us
> call it modulating principal (karma in yogic terms) makes a being what it
is
> but it is not the being; nor does the karma belong to the being it merely
> modulates the experience of existence that the Self in back of the mind of
a
> given being is having thru that mind or being much like light is changed
by
> colored plastic when shone thru it. it is the same light but colored by
the
> plastic . lookup prism @ wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism
>
> The mind could be likened to a prism -
>
>
>
> This pic is from Pink-floyds Dark side of the moon album cover..
>
>
>
> See full size image or
>
>
>
> The same principal at the root of the mind operates to modulate the
> configuration of the cells of the various bodies (e.g. mental, emotional,
> and gross physical bodies etc..) thusly the body takes on the size, shape
> and health paradigm of the Karmic mind and the life experience of that
> configuration goes to maintain that configuration.
>
>
>
> The "me" then (regardless as to which being or species it is, or of
whether
> or not the "me" or "I" is a concept only) is a mode of the Self but is
not
> the entire Self nor does its existence connote any separate "i" existing
as
> "me"; rather the existence of a "me" or "i" verifies the existence of The
> Self. Else who can it be that is conscious in the absence of "i" ?
>
>
>
> In this way the Self is conscious "AS" all beings-plural as they are modes
> of That super-conscient Oneness. (Krishna has said: "I am the field and
the
> actor in all fields") or again it has been said That Siva is free in ALL
> modes of His own consciousness.
>
>
>
> The statement that "He is free in ALL modes of His own consciousness has
> been taken to mean that the free\enlightened (Jivan-Mukta) is free in the
> three states of HIS own consciousness vis: waking, dream, and deep sleep;
> (as if Jiva had any consciousness to begin with that could be free) No,
the
> foregoing is an oxymoron since the Jiva has no self who could have a mode
of
> consciousness of his own. The idea then of the freedom of the Jiva or
> enlightenment cannot be realized by said Jiva.
>
>
>
> The fact is that The Self (Krishna\Siva\ God etc) is free in all beings as
> they are modes of HIS consciousness. so then instead of thinking how
> wonderful it is that this or that is happening to a "me" how about
> entertaining the idea that all modes (beings and configurations of
> consciousness) are awesome and acceptable, even wondrous in The Self: e.g.
> accept all beings events and things with even-mindedness (i.e. to put it
in
> Buddhist terms: Develop the bodhi-chitta or consciousness that All is The
> Self).
>
>
>
> When you know you don't know .. when you know it is not you who knows -
when
> you know you cannot know - when the knowing is inexpressible and
unthinkable
> -- the knowledge that The Self alone knows appears "as" the mind.
>
>
>
> With love and respect,
bindu

Oh Canada

In 2003, Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Minister John Howard deliver largely identical speeches urging their nations to join George W. Bush's Coalition of the Willing to go to war with Iraq.

NY Mother Faces Loss of Foreclosed Home

Earlier this year, Jocelyn Voltaire of Queens, New York lost her oldest son in Iraq. An auction is scheduled for today to sell her foreclosed home. Since news of her story broke, a grassroots effort has sprung up to help.

Original Transcript

Re: Taxes

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks

by Ellen Brown

"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."

– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s



The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a "government takeover," but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:

"The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs."2

This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly "the lender of last resort" created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:

"The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters."

Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):

"The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable."

"To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable" means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered "risk-free" for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, "Bailout Bedlam," webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)

In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:

"The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank."3

If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?

Not Private and Not for Profit?

The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a "lender of last resort" to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states:

* "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

* "[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

* "The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury."5

So let’s review:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."

Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to "expand the money supply" (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called "open market operations" because the Fed buys the bonds on the "open market" from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the "reserves" that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as "fractional reserve" lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve "a total money-making machine." He wrote:

"When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check."

3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered "for profit" corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their "reserves." The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in "reserve" can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total "loans and leases in bank credit" as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ -- for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

Time to Change the Statute?

According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:

"[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute."

As we know from watching the business news, "oversight" basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it "can alter its responsibilities by statute." It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.

If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly "federal" Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, and Forbidden Medicine. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com .

I Hate Beauty (sort of...)

Why I Hate Beauty

Men are barraged with images of extraordinarily beautiful and unobtainable women in the media, making it difficult for them to desire the ordinarily beautiful.

By: Michael Levine, Hara Estroff Marano

Poets rave about beauty. Brave men have started wars over beauty. Women the world over strive for it. Scholars devote their lives to deconstructing our impulse to obtain it. Ordinary mortals erect temples to beauty. In just about every way imaginable, the world honors physical beauty. But I hate beauty.

I live in what is likely the beauty capital of the world and have the enviable fortune to work with some of the most beautiful women in it. With their smooth bodies and supple waists, these women are the very picture of youth and attractiveness. Not only are they exemplars of nature's design for detonating desire in men, but they stir yearnings for companionship that date back to ancestral mating dances. Still, beauty is driving me nuts, and although I'm a successful red-blooded American male, divorced and available, it is beauty alone that is keeping me single and lonely.

It is scant solace that science is on my side. I seem to have a confirmed case of the contrast effect. It doesn't make me any happier knowing it's afflicting lots of others too.

As an author of books on marketing, I have long known about the contrast effect. It is a principle of perception whereby the differences between two things are exaggerated depending on the order in which those things are presented. If you lift a light object and then a heavy object, you will judge the second object heavier than if you had lifted it first or solo.

Psychologists Sara Gutierres, Ph.D., and Douglas Kenrick, Ph.D., both of Arizona State University, demonstrated that the contrast effect operates powerfully in the sphere of person-to-person attraction as well. In a series of studies over the past two decades, they have shown that, more than any of us might suspect, judgments of attractiveness (of ourselves and of others) depend on the situation in which we find ourselves. For example, a woman of average attractiveness seems a lot less attractive than she actually is if a viewer has first seen a highly attractive woman. If a man is talking to a beautiful female at a cocktail party and is then joined by a less attractive one, the second woman will seem relatively unattractive.

The contrast principle also works in reverse. A woman of average attractiveness will seem more attractive than she is if she enters a room of unattractive women. In other words, context counts.

In their very first set of studies, which have been expanded and refined over the years to determine the exact circumstances under which the findings apply and their effects on both men and women, Gutierres and Kenrick asked male college dormitory residents to rate the photo of a potential blind date. (The photos had been previously rated by other males to be of average attractiveness.) If the men were watching an episode of Charlie's Angels when shown the photo, the blind date was rated less desirable than she was by males watching a different show. The initial impressions of romantic partners—women who were actually available to them and likely to be interested in them—were so adversely affected that the men didn't even want to bother.

Since these studies, the researchers have found that the contrast effect influences not only our evaluations of strangers but also our views of our own mates. And it sways self-assessments of attractiveness too.

Source

Meditation changes temperatures:

Harvard Gazette report on Tibetan monks who can heat up their bodies at will
September 25, 2008 — Stefan Fobes


Buddhist monk meditating
A Buddhist monk has his vital signs measured as he prepares to enter an advanced state of meditation in Normandy, France. During meditation, the monk’s body produces enough heat to dry cold, wet sheets put over his shoulders in a frigid room (Photo courtesy of Herbert Benson).

Mind controls body in extreme experiments
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

In a monastery in northern India, thinly clad Tibetan monks sat quietly in a room where the temperature was a chilly 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Using a yoga technique known as g Tum-mo, they entered a state of deep meditation. Other monks soaked 3-by-6-foot sheets in cold water (49 degrees) and placed them over the meditators’ shoulders. For untrained people, such frigid wrappings would produce uncontrolled shivering.

If body temperatures continue to drop under these conditions, death can result. But it was not long before steam began rising from the sheets. As a result of body heat produced by the monks during meditation, the sheets dried in about an hour.

Attendants removed the sheets, then covered the meditators with a second chilled, wet wrapping. Each monk was required to dry three sheets over a period of several hours.

Source

US Banking Collapse a 'Controlled Demolition'

What does the rest of the world know that we don't? The United States Dollar is dead.

While we are being jerked around by the mainstream media here at home, the rest of the world has already drawn the final conclusion for us, and what they are saying about us isn't pretty.

We are in the middle of a crisis much larger than most Americans could imagine, a portion of America can't even handle it, for that matter. The Bailout was an awful idea, and the majority of Americans realized that. There is even a provision that would grant Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson dictatorial powers, and that is obviously insane, but here we are debating it. It's like asking a dead man whether he wants to be buried or cremated; it's a non issue and Congress is just playing a game to distract the American people. We need to move ahead, and we should begin with taking our country back from the tyrants.

Hank Paulson has already taken control of the US banking system; journalist and expert economist Max Keiser compares Paulson to the 9/11 hijackers, calling him a financial terrorist. Keiser has been making his rounds on international broadcasts, including France 24 and Press TV where he compares the collapse of the US banking system to WTC 7 - "a controlled demolition."

Source

Dan Rather explains compromised corporate journalism

Perhaps this video will open the eyes of those who used to watch this man try to tell the truth.

Joe Biden on Fire

This is awesome -- Joe Biden just tears John McCain and Sarah Palin apart for completely ignoring every single major economic issue facing America and for offering nothing but sarcastic personal attacks.

youtube

Out of Iraq by 2011...yeah right

By the wonderful Bebichan

Suggestions that America will be out of Iraq by 2011 have started spreading through the media. This just shocks and amazes me since everyone thinks that 2011 is an early exit for the US troops that have suffered enough in a country that showed them no welcome and will not mourn their exit.

The plans that were made for the Iraqi Invasion had no intention of involving some form of an exit-since the elimination of Iraq's only hope.

America started with their first invasion plan which I have entitled "Plan A-quickie-coup-cum-invasion" this suggested that America would be in and out of Iraq in three days, that was bound to fail as soon as someone mentioned "three days". There was no way the neo-con administration would achieve all it wanted to in such a short period. A man named Falah Aljibury was put in charge of-under Saddam's nose- interviewing Baa'thists for the part of Iraq's next Dictator. It was simple and straight forward-Put the puppet dictator in charge and say that Iraq is being Liberated-everybody is to stay in office and everything is to stay the same...that everything being "the oil ministry".


After it became obvious that it wouldn't be possible to gain the control that was required over Iraq in three days, the next plan came into sight-"Plan B-the Corporate Invasion (a free market Miracle plan)". This plan ordered all state owned companies-basically anything worth having in Iraq-be privatized and later be open for foreign...(American)...ownership. This changed the 3-day idea to about a Years invasion, with no exit plan and only one aim-"Privatization, asset sales, leases and management contracts, especially those in the oil and supporting industries". This made it clear that even if America didn't invade for the Oil-they sure as hell weren't leaving without it! And so began on the 17th of March 2003:

Operation Iraqi Liberation-O.I.L.

The starting idea for this was perfect and worked with helping Iraqi people to restore their country-and this is all that was wrong with it. The plan started off flawless...beautiful if i may say so myself...General Jay Garner was put in charge of post-invasion Iraq and was to arrange elections, work on domestic problems and draft plans for the economy. He had a major plan of his own and that was to ignore the Oil agenda as started by the Bush Administration: "It's their country...their oil." Garner had about 20 years of experience behind him working with the Iraqis, he was known by the Iraqi people and had an understanding of the culture and system in Iraq-which is a vital thing that the people who were later in charge lacked. The first things Garner was noted saying as he crossed the Iraqi border into Iraq was: "You prevent the epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine and you try to get elections going".
Garner knew that Iraq was filled with about 150 or so tribes (Sunni, Shi'aa and Kurdish) and that each of these tribal leaders had to be part of the decision making process post invasion-as these were the tribes that would clash and collide if they weren't involved. There was a 90 day plan to hold out meeting from the grass roots of Iraqi society...amongst these tribal leaders...to start negotiations and begin assembling things that all of them would agree on and accept, basically putting Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people.
After those 90 days elections would be held, and the people could vote on who they wanted to run their country. To further this plan, ministry officials would be kept intact-(since they had the most knowledge of running their ministry's), the army (which amounted up to about 500,000 men) would be used to secure the borders and work along side the American/British armies in policing the streets-effectively introducing a state of martial law on Iraq. Martial law seems a bit rash, but it would have prevented the outbreak of two things that were the start of the catastrophe we have in Iraq today: Crime and looting. All in all there would be no over all "debaathification" of Iraq. Post 90-days when the elections had been held and a new government was kept in tact, the country would not have run riot and the government would have found it a lot easier to take complete control. However, the idea of putting the future of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people was absurd to the Bush administration-and meant that their agenda would not be effectively carried out.

Of course, you cannot start an agenda trying to rob the people of their assets if you have them negotiating and starting a peaceful democratic future on their own...you have to get them divided and hating each other, divided and killing each other.

The Oil Agenda
And so, Jay Garner-Iraq's only hope- was replaced by a Paul Bremer-the mind behind the catastrophe. Here we have a nobody, with no experience, and no brains, drafting the post-Invasion Iraq plan.
So here we have an ignorant man who thought that anybody hired under the Saddam regime was a terrorist-and his aim was to get rid of them all "anyone who would remind the Iraqi people of Saddam's evil leadership"- doing us a favor in his opinion. However, what he ended up doing was getting rid of people who only worked for things linked to Saddam's leadership because that was their only option and their only way of making money, and people that worked for "things to do with the Saddam Regime" formed a huge amount of the population.
Bremer's first move was to eliminate this "foolish" idda of getting Iraqi tribal leaders involved in negotiations and instead he formed his own puppet government-filled with criminals and terrorists of course- National election would have to wait until 2005-thus delaying any form of an exit which would have started rolling much much sooner had the Garner plan been used. This delay would allow just enough time for meddling in the economic sides of things, namely oil. When the Brit's occupied Iraq, they learnt one thing that was overlooked by this occupation, "you don't have to give Iraq to the Iraqi's...but then, as the British learned, you'd better expect them to shoot at you". Denying the Iraqi's freedom of Elections, was the birth of terrorist organizations. The Shi'a people formed the "Mahdi Army" in Najaf and were some of the first enemies of Bremer and the Bush administration. Religious leaders in the Najaf province where this all started were able to tame any kind of violence...But Bush decided that taunting people was the best way to go, "Bring 'em on" he said...and so they did. Order 2 consisted of firing the army of 400,000-500,000 armed men and leaving them to take to the streets angry, moneyless, no compensation for the loss of their jobs and nothing to feed their families with. Mass protests broke out across Baghdad and Iraqi soldiers threatened violence if they didn't 1. get their Jobs back or 2. get some form of compensation. Of course these demands were not met, and so the insurgency thrived. See the idea that Bremer had in his mind was that these people don't want to work with America and will only turn against them-the reality was that the army was awaiting commands from the American army so that they could help.

After this the main aim was the introduction of laws that would mean any future government could not undo any changes made by the occupiers after the occupation ended-if it ever will. Iraq's banks were sold of to foreign companies, assets were dispersed amongst-again-foreign companies and everyone got a piece of the Iraqi pie, except for the Iraqi's. Trading laws eliminating tariffs and quotas were introduced-which led all Iraqi run businesses to go bankrupt-no free market nation in the world would do this, and yet to Bremer it seemed like the perfect idea. Unemployment soared to over 80% and the people were hungry.

"You've got 15 million people without food, but does anyone care? ...All they tell you is that "Saddam is gone and you should be happy!" Well thank you very much and that's all good- but tomorrow you need to eat and feed your family"(Iraqi Citizen).



To sum this all up: The insurgency was created by poor tactics and plans generated by an administration that was packed with ignorance and cared for nothing but their money-making agenda, there was no intention for an exit until those plans were secured and it was final. Even with the elections in place at the moment in the USA and the hope that if Obama gets the presidency the troops will go home...everyone is over looking the fact that a mess was created and Iraq is still a disaster. A withdrawal plan 5 years ago if there weren't any "agenda's" to rob the Iraqi's of everything, would have been feasible. But since that agenda took over, it brought with it disaster, making it apparent that an exit within the next 3 years is perhaps doable but absolutely insane. Rather than trying to create a whole exit plan after one administration screwed up-how about eliminating that "OIL" agenda and doing what should have been done in the beginning: Put Iraq's future in the hands of the Iraqis. Selling off Iraqi companies and taking control of Iraqi oil-which is what is in the plans-will mean there will be no official exit, insurgencies will continue and Iraq will stay as it is. The exit plan for 2011 includes the following: "If Iraq still needs America post 2011, they have to remain there". So there is a small print, and a vital one at that, because as it stands Iraq DOES need America....just perhaps an America without an agenda that fits their own needs. If that agenda is eliminated there will be hope for a 2011 exit...but I just can't see that happening as things stand.


Sources
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20030823_CPAORD_2_Dissolution_of_Entities_with_Annex_A.pdf


http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/23/sprj.nitop.army.dissolve/

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/12/1052591733712.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7185276.stm

Greg Palast- "Armed Madhouse"

Weed saves lives

Killing bacteria with cannabis

By Yun Xie | Published: August 26, 2008 - 03:31PM CT

Pharmacists and chemists have found another use for the multipurpose cannabis as a source of antibacterial chemicals for multidrug resistant bacteria. Ironically, inhaling cannabis is known to damage the lung's ability to fend off invading pathogens, but the ingredients in cannabis, particularly the cannabinoids, have antiseptic properties. Although scattered research has been conducted since the 1950s, no comprehensive study existed that relates the structure of cannabinoids with antibacterial activity. Giovanni Appendino, Simon Gibbons, and coworkers attempted to remedy that problem by examining the activity of five common cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives.

Five of the most common cannabinoids.

All five cannabinoids (THC, CBD, CBG, CBC, and CBN) were potent against bacteria. Notably, they performed well against bacteria that were known to be multidrug resistant, like the strains of MRSA that plagued U.K. hospitals. CBD and CBG have the most potential for consumer use because they are nonpsychotropic.

Besides identifying antibacterial capability, the researchers wanted to figure out why these cannabinoids are so good at killing bacteria. They obviously are very effective at specifically targeting some vital process in the bacteria. Unfortunately, even after extensive work at modifying the cannabinoids and comparing their activities, that targeting mechanism remains a mystery. The scientists were able to figure out that the position of the n-pentyl chain (orange) relative to the terpenoid moiety (blue) serves to control lipid affinity.

These cannabinoids are promising enough to warrant rigorous clinical trials. They are applicable as topical antiseptics, biodegradable antibacterial compounds for cosmetics, and systematic antibacterial agents.

source

Richard Dawkins Debates Alister Mcgrath

This is an interview cut from a Dawkins documentary. Very good stuff. Has real debate not muddled by fundamentalist nonesense or dogmatic twaddle. Enjoy.

Converting gas-powered cars to electric

* Story Highlights
* Switching his truck to an electric engine saved one man about $700 in four months
* As gas prices rose, sales tripled for one conversion parts dealer
* Some converters are fed up with spending money on gas, foreign oil
* Others like the environmental bonus of going electric

By Curt Merrill
CNN

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Larry Horsley loves that he doesn't buy much gas, even though he drives his '95 Chevy S-10 back and forth to work each day.

Horsley, a self-described do-it-yourselfer, simply plugs his truck into an electric wall outlet in his Douglasville, Georgia, garage and charges it overnight, instead of buying gasoline refined from mostly imported oil.

"If I can keep a dollar from going overseas, I'll spend two dollars," he said. The whole conversion, including the truck, cost him about $12,000, which parts dealers say is about standard.

Another Atlanta-area tinkerer, David Kennington, converted his Honda Civic del Sol from gasoline to electric for a different reason: "I'm a raging greenie," he said.

Both Horsley and Kennington are fed up. They're among a growing number of Americans who are refusing to wait for big-car manufacturers to deliver mainstream electric vehicles, called EVs. Not only have they rebelled against the status quo by ripping out their gas-guzzling engines and replacing them with zero-emission electric motors, they say just about anyone can do it.

Another electric DYI-er in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, Bob Batson, has formed a company called Electric Vehicles of America that sells vehicle parts for other anti-gasoline rebels looking to convert.

Batson said business has more than tripled in the past year. "Sales trends are definitely up as the price of gasoline goes up," he said.

60 mph on 20 batteries

Outside his metal roofing business, Horsley opened up the hood of his converted Chevy truck to show how he did it. How do the engines work? We explain »

The entire process is "basically straightforward," he said, after four months driving it on electric.

"Anyone who has basic mechanical skills can build one of these," Horsley said. "But it takes time," he said, about three months. Most of that period was spent waiting for the parts to be shipped.

He's got the motor of his maroon S-10 pickup set up to run on 20 six-volt batteries, the same kind used in golf carts. The motor connects to an existing manual transmission to propel the truck up to 60 mph.

Horsley removed the vehicle's radiator to make room under the hood for a few of the batteries. The rest are concealed in the back, under the pickup's bed.

Other components such as a fuel injector were replaced with their electric counterparts and some, like the exhaust system, were removed completely.

Horsley started the conversion amid cool temperatures in January, so he didn't install air conditioning. But in August, sweltering in Georgia's brutal 90-degree heat and humidity, Horsley calls that decision a mistake -- one he won't make next time.

He said his wife won't let him convert her car, but he's looking for another used truck to convert.

The truck can travel about 40 miles without damaging the lead-acid batteries before the vehicle needs recharging, Horsley said. But he said 40 miles is enough to get to and from work and run errands around town.

While limited range is the main disadvantage of electric vehicles, most people don't need to drive very far on a regular basis, said Batson.

"What people don't always realize is that the average person only drives 20 miles per day," he said.

Cost versus savings

For his part, Kennington describes his sports-car red Honda as a "science experiment." He first converted the two-seater into an electric vehicle four years ago and has been tinkering with it ever since. He's swapped out components and tried multiple battery configurations.

With his current nine-battery setup Kennington gets about 20 miles per charge, so he only drives it on short trips a couple times a week from his Austell, Georgia, home.

"I did it for the learning experience," he said.

Kennington said he's waiting for better battery technologies, like nickel-metal-hydride and lithium-ion, to become more affordable. Those batteries can provide more power with less weight for increased range, but currently cost $10,000 to $20,000 per set, compared with about $2,000 for lead acid batteries, he said.

"I hope at some point that I will be able to drive it on a more regular basis and that it will be more useful," he said. "Do I expect it to someday to be my only car? No."

He said most people who own electric cars also have a gasoline or hybrid vehicle for longer trips.

Kennington is president of the EV Club of the South, a group of electric vehicle owners and enthusiasts. He said interest in EVs is directly tied to gas prices.

"When gas goes up, more people call me and more people come to the meetings," he said.

Horsley estimated that he has saved $700 since switching to electric four months ago. He's quick to point out that that's just the savings on gas. He also doesn't have to pay for oil or filter changes, since there is no engine oil or fuel filters to change.

"I was originally skeptical," he said. "But now I'm convinced."

Toronto High School Under Attack

OSSTF's Toronto district approves debate request by 2 teachers
Last Updated: Thursday, January 18, 2007 | 10:51 AM ET
CBC News

A decision approving a request by two Toronto high school teachers to have a union debate on whether to condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinians has come under fire by human rights groups.

The motion, set to be debated later Thursday, was brought by English teacher and Jewish activist Jason Kunin, who has often criticized the Israeli government, and Hyssam Hulays, a computer science teacher.

It was approved by the Toronto district of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, and is being opposed by B'nai Brith and the Jewish Defence League.

"The level of discourse has been just incredibly low and vile," district union president Doug Jolliffe told the Canadian Press about approving the debate. "But to turn and say we cannot have any kind of discussions on this…. It's not Holocaust denial, where there is no argument to be made."

It speaks of "Israel's continued violation of the human rights of Palestinians," and asks the union to create classroom materials on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to support an international boycott of Israel.

B'nai Brith has launched an e-mail campaign calling on teachers and others to contact the union local and urge it to drop the motion. The Jewish Defence League says it will picket the meeting.

B'nai Brith members worry anti-Israeli sentiment could turn anti-Semitic and find its way into the classrooms.

They say the motion ignores human-rights abuses in other countries and there's no condemnation of Palestinian violence.

B'nai Brith executive director Frank Dimant told CBC News the resolution is about "bringing hate into the classroom.

"This is not an opportunity to discuss. This is bringing propaganda into the classroom. And I think propaganda has no place in Canadian classrooms."

The motion also calls on the union to ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper to criticize Israel's "aggression" against Gaza and Lebanon, and end sanctions against the Palestinians' Hamas government.

Neither Kunin nor Hulays returned calls to their schools on Wednesday.

Hiroshima Peace Declaration 2008

Tehran Times Political desk

TEHRAN - On the 63rd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, solemn ceremonies were held today in Hiroshima and other cities in memory of the victims of the tragedy and to encourage people to work for world peace and nuclear disarmament.

Thousands of people, including Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda and elderly hibakusha (atomic bombing survivors), attended the ceremony at Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park.

Following is the complete text of Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba’s Hiroshima Peace Declaration 2008:

Another August 6, and the horrors of 63 years ago arise undiminished in the minds of our hibakusha, whose average age now exceeds 75. “Water, please!” “Help me!” “Mommy!” -- On this day, we, too, etch in our hearts the voices, faces and forms that vanished in the hell no hibakusha can ever forget, renewing our determination that “No one else should ever suffer as we did.”

Because the effects of that atomic bomb, still eating away at the minds and bodies of the hibakusha, have for decades been so underestimated, a complete picture of the damage has yet to emerge. Most severely neglected have been the emotional injuries. Therefore, the city of Hiroshima is initiating a two-year scientific exploration of the psychological impact of the A-bomb experience.

This study should teach us the grave import of the truth, born of tragedy and suffering, that “the only role for nuclear weapons is to be abolished.”

This truth received strong support from a report compiled last November by the city of Hiroshima. Scientists and other nuclear-related experts exploring the damage from a postulated nuclear attack found once again that the only way to protect citizens from such an attack is the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This is precisely why the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Court of Justice advisory opinion state clearly that all nations are obligated to engage in good-faith negotiations leading to complete nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, even leaders previously central to creating and implementing U.S. nuclear policy are now repeatedly demanding a world without nuclear weapons.

We who seek the abolition of nuclear weapons are the majority. United Cities and Local Governments, which represents the majority of the Earth’s population, has endorsed the Mayors for Peace campaign. One hundred and ninety states have ratified the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. One hundred and thirteen countries and regions have signed nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. Last year, 170 countries voted in favor of Japan’s UN resolution calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Only three countries, the U.S. among them, opposed this resolution. We can only hope that the president of the United States elected this November will listen conscientiously to the majority, for whom the top priority is human survival.

To achieve the will of the majority by 2020, Mayors for Peace, now with 2,368 city members worldwide, proposed in April of this year a Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol to supplement the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This Protocol calls for an immediate halt to all efforts, including by nuclear-weapon states, to obtain or deploy nuclear weapons, with a legal ban on all acquisition or use to follow by 2015. Thus, it draws a concrete road map to a nuclear-weapon-free world. Now, with our destination and the map to that destination clear, all we need is the strong will and capacity to act to guard the future for our children.

World citizens and like-minded nations have achieved treaties banning anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. Meanwhile, the most effective measures against global warming are coming from cities. Citizens cooperating at the city level can solve the problems of the human family because cities are home to the majority of the world’s population, cities do not have militaries, and cities have built genuine partnerships around the world based on mutual understanding and trust.

The Japanese Constitution is an appropriate point of departure for a “paradigm shift” toward modeling the world on intercity relationships. I hereby call on the Japanese government to fiercely defend our Constitution, press all governments to adopt the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol, and play a leading role in the effort to abolish nuclear weapons. I further request greater generosity in designating A-bomb illnesses and in relief measures appropriate to the current situations of our aging hibakusha, including those exposed in “black rain areas” and those living overseas.

Next month the G8 Speakers’ Meeting will, for the first time, take place in Japan. I fervently hope that Hiroshima’s hosting of this meeting will help our “hibakusha philosophy” spread throughout the world.

Now, on the occasion of this 63rd anniversary Peace Memorial Ceremony, we offer our heartfelt lamentations for the souls of the atomic bomb victims and, in concert with the city of Nagasaki and with citizens around the world, pledge to do everything in our power to accomplish the total eradication of nuclear weapons.

Tadatoshi Akiba

Mayor of the City of Hiroshima