Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Au - Verbs

Au Myspace

Au - Verbs password:

Experimental,Pop, Noise


Pay attention to the very last 5 seconds.


Im not saying it's going to happen for sure but

if it does, we all can say I told you so.

Report: U.S. Will Attack Iran

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:40 PM

By: Newsmax Staff

Israel’s Army Radio is reporting that President Bush intends to launch a military strike against Iran before the end of his term.

The Army Radio, a network operated by the Israeli Defense Forces, quoted a government source in Jerusalem. The source disclosed that a senior official close to Bush said in a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believed military action against Iran was now called for.

Bush concluded a trip to Israel last week, where he said, "The objective of the United States must be to . . . support our strongest ally and friend in the Middle East.”

The Radio report, which was quoted by the Jerusalem Post, disclosed that the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had seized virtual control of the country, was encouraging an American attack.

Hezbollah’s aggression in Lebanon is seen as evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s growing influence, and the U.S. official said that in Bush’s view, “the disease must be treated, not its symptoms,” according to the Post.

The White House on Tuesday denied the Army Radio report, saying in a statement: “As the president has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard.”

However, numerous signs point to a U.S. strike on Iran in the near future:

# A leading member of America’s Jewish community told Newsmax in April that a military strike on Iran was likely and that Vice President Cheney’s March trip through the Middle East came in preparation for the U.S. attack.

# The Air Force recently declared the B-2 bomber fleet — a critical weapons system in any U.S. attack on Iran — as airworthy again. The Air Force had halted B-2 flights after a February crash in Guam. As Newsmax reported, the Air Force has refitted its stealth bombers to carry 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs, needed to destroy Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities.

# A second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, joined the carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf in May, carrying far more weaponry and ammunition than on previous deployments.

# Israel is gearing up for war. In April, it conducted its largest homeland military exercises ever. The Jewish-American source said Israel is “preparing for heavy casualties,” expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution following the U.S. attack.

# Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s highest-ranking officials.

# The USS Ross, an Aegis-class destroyer, has taken up station off the coast of Lebanon. Military observers speculate it is there to help defend Israel from missile attacks.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a recent Pentagon briefing that the Iranians are systematically importing and training Shiite militia fighters, who slip back across the Iraqi border to kill American troops.

And Israeli intelligence has predicted that Iran will acquire its first nuclear device in 2009, much earlier than previous U.S. estimates.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved


Walmart fails to support the people upon whom they have the greatest impact on, their workers. Two of many allegations against them are listed below.

Walmart costs state and national government money. A congressional study discovered that for a 200-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. This typical Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, which averages out to $2,103 for each Wal-Mart employee. It all adds up to an annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million U.S. employees. That's not counting the burden Wal-Mart places on state and local governments.

Vice president for benefits, Susan Chambers, recently released a memo to the board of directors saying "the cost of an associate with seven years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an associate with one year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity. Moreover, because we pay an associate more in salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases, we are pricing that associate out of the labor market, increasing the likelihood that he or she will stay with Wal-Mart." This can be seen as applying pressure to fire more senior members of the walmart staff, and eliminate any benefits they may receive.1

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is generous with gifts to charitable organizations, and donates an impressive percentage of profits to commendable causes. This company has acted with a disregard for the fact that their business has undermined the communities in which they operate. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has major instances of operating with disregard for the wellbeing of it's employees. There are major tensions between their organized workforce, and the company management that have yet to be addressed adequately. They have inadequate oversight of their supply chain, which enables the abuse of their subcontracted labor force. This company is accused of exploiting the rights of native peoples. Such actions can lead to making tribal lands unusable, and undermine traditional ways of life. This company's goods are a risk to the wellbeing of its customers, and this risk taking shows a certain disregard for the humanity of those they profess to serve. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. tends to hide or at least fail to publicize their social and environmental standards. This means it is up to us to dig up their misbehaviors. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. hide their political actions, and have a poor record of supporting progressive policies.


Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Shh / Peaceful

Destroyer - Trouble in Dreams

Timothy Leary - Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out

Nurse With Wound - Acts of Senseless Beauty

old man take a look at my life, i'm a lot like you

The former Times editor Robert Thomson was named managing editor of the Wall Street Journal today as Rupert Murdoch tightened control of the management of the world's top selling business newspaper.

Thomson's new role is the top editorial position at the Journal. He replaces Marcus Brauchli who quit last month amid signs of discontent over the speed of changes at the paper since it was taken over by Murdoch's News Corporation in December.

News Corp said the appointment had the unanimous approval of a committee set up to safeguard the editorial independence of the Journal. The committee had objected to a lack of consultation when Brauchli resigned.

"Mr Thomson's outstanding career as a financial journalist, foreign correspondent and editor equips him perfectly for the position," said Murdoch.

Thomson, 47, is an Australian compatriot of Murdoch and he has been a loyal lieutenant of the press baron for six years.

At the end of last year, Thomson moved from London to become publisher of the Journal. His new role gives him formal control of its newsroom, which, according to the paper's journalists, he was effectively overseeing anyway. He will also be editor-in-chief of Dow Jones' newswires service.

Murdoch's $5.2bn takeover of the Dow Jones group was highly contentious throughout last year as the Journal's founding Bancroft family struggled to agree on whether to sell up.

Since the deal was sealed, Murdoch has made it clear that he wants the paper to diversify away from its business roots to compete with mainstream publications such as the New York Times. A sports page has begun appearing in the Journal and plans are underway for a glossy magazine.

Thomson can boast a depth of experience in business coverage - prior to joining the Times in 2002, he headed the US edition of the Financial Times. He has also served as a correspondent in Beijing and Tokyo, having begun his career as a copy boy at the Herald in Melbourne in 1979.

Murdoch has wasted little time in inserting handpicked people to run the Journal. Les Hinton, a former boss of Murdoch's UK papers, is now chief executive of Dow Jones.

In an attempt to rebuild bridges with the editorial committee formed as a condition of News Corp's takeover, Hinton expressed regret for failing to consult the body when Thomson's predecessor left.

"In hindsight, we recognise it would have been more appropriate to have advised the committee in advance of reaching an agreement with Mr Brauchli," said Hinton. "We have apologised to the committee members."

Monday, May 19, 2008


Stop-motion meets street art and a strange child is born to Argentine street artist, Blu.

The fox speaks to his wife who is not quite sure

Space Art - Play Back,LP,1980,France

Space Art is a French band that was formed by two friends in Paris in 1977. The group consisted of Dominique Perrier on keyboards and Roger Rizzitelli on drums. Their first (self-titled) of three albums was released in the same year as Jean-Michel Jarre’s, “Oxygene.” Knowledgeable Jarre fans will recognize the names, because both went along on the 1981 China tour. Dominique Perrier has since played keyboards on most Jarre albums and live performances and is sometimes credited with artistic collaboration - small wonder, as their styles are very much compatible. But as this and the other albums show, Space Art is not a mere clone and has a distinctive style of its own. This is due in large part to the heavy drums very well employed by Roger Rizzitelli (highly inspired by bands such as Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Soft Machine, etc). It was all about experimenting with new sounds on new machines. They specialize in a certain set of highly tragic/dramatic chords. on their third LP they seem to appeal much the late 70s Kraftwerk sound ,providing a nice example of cosmic synth pop mixed with pseudo disco ,electronic games tunes and pure mid 70s space music.

Space Art - Play Back,LP,1980,France

On the road

add me

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Icebox in the alley

Old news but...

Consortium, October 19, 2006
Title: “Who Is ‘Any Person’ in Tribunal Law?”
Author: Robert Parry

Consortium, February 3, 2007
Title: “Still No Habeas Rights for You”
Author: Robert Parry

Common Dreams, February 2, 2007
Title: “Repeal the Military Commissions Act and Restore the Most
American Human Right”
Author: Thom Hartmann

Student Researchers: Bryce Cook and Julie Bickel
Faculty Evaluator: Andrew Roth, Ph.D.

With the approval of Congress and no outcry from corporate media, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. While media, including a lead editorial in the New York Times October 19, have given false comfort that we, as American citizens, will not be the victims of the draconian measures legalized by this Act—such as military roundups and life-long detention with no rights or constitutional protections—Robert Parry points to text in the MCA that allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for “any person” regardless of American citizenship. The MCA effectively does away with habeas corpus rights for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” The judgment on who is deemed an “enemy combatant” is solely at the discretion of President Bush.
The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge governmental power of arrest and detention through the use of habeas corpus laws, considered to be the most critical parts of the Magna Carta which was signed by King John in 1215.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #84 in August of 1788:

The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. The practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British eighteenth-century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:

“To bereave a man of life” says he, “or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”

While it is true that some parts of the MCA target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to US citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with non-citizen residents and foreigners.
Section 950q of the MCA states that, “Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter [of the MCA] who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission.”1
Section 950v. “Crimes Triable by Military Commissions” (26) of the MCA seems to specifically target American citizens by stating that, “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”1
“Who,” warns Parry, “has ‘an allegiance or duty to the United States’ if not an American citizen?”
Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.
Section 950j of the law further states that once a person is detained, “ not withstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision) no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”1
Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights, such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail, and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment,” would seem to be beyond a detainee’s reach as well.
Parry warns that, “In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel ‘star chamber’ system for the prosecution, imprisonment, and possible execution of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic.
“Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called unlawful enemy combatants, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for ‘any person’—American citizen or otherwise—who crosses some ill-defined line.”
In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales opined at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, 2007, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended.”
More important than its sophomoric nature, Parry warns, is that Gonzales’s statement suggests he is still searching for arguments to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to the President’s executive powers that Bush’s neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during “time of war.”

1. “Military Commissions Act of 2006” Public Law 109-366, 109th Congress. See raspberryubl366.109.
The Consortium series on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 pointed out that the law’s broad language seems to apply to both US citizens and non-citizens, contrary to some reassuring comments in the major news media that the law only denies habeas corpus rights to non-citizens. The law’s application to “any person” who aids and abets a wide variety of crimes related to terrorism—and the law’s provisions stripping away the jurisdiction of civilian courts—could apparently thrust anyone into the legal limbo of the military commissions where their rights are tightly constrained and their cases could languish indefinitely.
Despite the widespread distribution of our articles on the Internet, the major US news media continues to ignore the troubling “any person” language tucked in toward the end of the statute. To my knowledge, for instance, no major news organization has explained why, if the law is supposed to apply only to non-citizens, one section specifically targets “any person [who] in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States.” Indeed, the “any person” language in sections dealing with a wide array of crimes, including traditional offenses such as spying, suggests that a parallel legal system has been created outside the parameters of the US Constitution.
Since publication of the articles, the Democrats won control of both the House and Senate—and some prominent Democrats, such as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, have voiced their intent to revise the law with the goal of restoring habeas corpus and other rights. However, other Democrats appear hesitant, fearing that any attempt to change the law would open them to charges that they are “soft on terrorism” and that Republicans would torpedo the reform legislation anyway. Outside of Congress, pro-Constitution groups have made reform of the Military Commissions Act a high priority. For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union organized a national protest rally against the law. But the public’s lack of a clear understanding of the law’s scope has undercut efforts to build a popular movement for repeal or revision of the law.
To learn more about the movement to rewrite the Military Commissions Act, readers can contact the ACLU at