McCAIN McDonalds and ABLE (OBAMA)

McCAIN McDonalds and ABLE (OBAMA)

John McCain has within hours picked a right wing conservative extremist as his Vice-president running mate one heart beat away from the presidency of the United States. In what is purely a political move to satisfy the Republican party’s very vocal and active right wing he picked the governor of Alaska (one of the most unusual untypical and corrupt states in the United States).

John McCain has made himself the poster boy in an attempt to unite all factions right of center within the Republican Party with all the delusionary pretenses of alleged reformism, his party is heir to the business as usual party as Republicans who have been in control of Washington.
.
As Satan himself John McCain has created himself as all things to all people obscured in the rhetoric of Republican Party ads based on distortions of Barack Obama the Democratic Party and certainly the issues.

What the American people need are leadership education and discussion on the issues relating to that alone the Republican party has dismally and sadly failed it is a fast food of form without healthy substance.

For the most part McCain Supporters know relatively little if not nothing about John McCain!

My first windfall related to the 2008 presidential election was when I won $10 from a McCain supporter who wrongly thought McCain had been the governor of Arizona when that was the farthest thing from the truth, and undoubtedly they will say he single handed would of won the pointless war against Vietnam and the Vietnamese if only those weak bleeding heart liberals would of not been communist sympathizers and dupes because of course in their world of propaganda everything is white and black, good and evil.

American politics, religion, and philosophy is shallow for the most part because there is relatively no profit where there is no money and profits to be made.

Many Christians, Catholics, don’t even know their own bibles so as to distinguish good theology from bad, or Protestant biblical verse from Catholic ones.

They can not distinguish “thou shall not kill” from “thou shall not murder” nor actually make sense of it all in the twisted world of an intellect that for the most part stops developing when free public or parochial education ends.

One of my neighborhood postmen insisted that the right to life extended to undeveloped unborn fetuses but not to those fetuses which were born ill prepared for this world and were sentenced to be executed and death by the state.

So he and many say they can not vote for Barack Obama because Obama supports women rights to choose for themselves whether to have an abortion or not, and in that generally the Democratic Party opposes the death penalty.

“The Democratic party platform *** includes one particularly significant change from the platforms adopted by the party conventions of 1992, 1996 and 2000. During the platform-writing process, the drafting committee quietly removed the section of the document that endorsed capital punishment. Thus, for the first time since the 1980s, Democrats will not be campaigning on a pro-death penalty program.” (Published on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 by The Nation No Longer Pushing the Death Penalty
by John Nichols)

Clearly when people can claim to be “Pro-Life” when it regards the narrow religious views of rightist political interests but not when it comes to executions, war, and poverty there is a measure of hypocrisy involved that must be labeled and condemned as such.

McCain (as in Cain and Able) clearly is not a pro-life candidate when he as an Air Force pilot during the US war against Vietnamese people had no qualm at bombing thousands of innocent civilians by the push of a button from his death machine flying at high speed passing the real world at high speed.

What are the main questions related to candidiates?

Am I my brother’s keeper?
Am I providing leadership?
Am I facilitating understanding?
Am I honest?

To all these questions I have to say that John McCain represents the fast food of this year’s 2008 presidential elections of empty calories without substance.

---------------------------------------------------------------
“He McCain) flew bombing missions as an attack aircraft pilot, but he was not a "fighter pilot." (The error has appeared in numerous other Times articles the past dozen years, most recently on April 9 and on Dec. 15, 2007.)” (Huffington Post, August 12, 2008 10:38 AM, New York Times Revises McCain's Military Record With Correction, Jason Linkins).

“Navy pilot John Sidney McCain III should have never been allowed to graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school. He was a below average student and a lousy pilot. Had his father and grandfather not been famous four star U.S. Navy admirals, McCain III would have never been allowed in the cockpit of a military aircraft.

His father John S. "Junior" McCain was commander of U.S. forces in Europe later becoming commander of American forces in Vietnam while McCain III was being held prisoner of war. McCain III's grandfather John S. McCain, Sr. commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.

During his relative short stunt on flight status, McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents and one in combat.”

What will he do with the USA as his aircraft?

What sort of Manchurian candidiate is he?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Little-Known Palin May Be Benefit or Bust for McCain's Campaign

Heidi PrzybylaSat Aug 30, 12:01 AM ET


Aug. 30 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain's decision to pass up conventional candidates and pick little-known, first-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the Republican ticket may appeal to undecided voters McCain needs to win. It also may blunt McCain's charges that Democrat Barack Obama isn't experienced enough for the White House.

Palin, 44, who wasn't high on conventional-wisdom rankings of potential vice presidential candidates, may soothe social conservatives in her own party and may appeal to some disappointed Hillary Clinton backers. She's younger than Obama, who is 47, and has served less than half of her first term as governor.

``It's either a grand-slam home run or it'll turn out to be a bust,'' said Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington. The answer will be clear over the next few days, he said.

Palin opposes abortion rights and supports gun ownership, two core Republican issues. She also has no ties to George W. Bush, an advantage as McCain seeks to distance himself from the unpopular president.

Palin, who has a background in energy policy, was elected governor in 2006 by challenging Alaska's Republican leadership and vowing to clean up a government corruption scandal.

``As governor, I've stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-old-boy network,'' she said at a rally yesterday in Dayton, Ohio, where she was introduced by McCain.

``She's exactly who this country needs to help me fight the same old Washington politics,'' McCain said.

`Off the Table'

Former Senator Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat and leading Obama advocate, said McCain's selection will make it more difficult for the Arizona senator to fault Obama for a lack of experience.

``It takes the whole experience issue off the table,'' Daschle said.

The next few days will be a critical test for Palin as the media and critics dig through her record, said Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

``Palin will face intense scrutiny by the media and by voters who need assurance that she is ready to assume the presidency at a moment's notice, if necessary,'' Panagopoulos said.

McCain's choice was applauded by social conservatives.

``We have a pro-life, pro-family ticket,'' said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America. ``It's going to galvanize conservative evangelicals across the country.''

Skittish About McCain

Abortion foes have been skittish about McCain, who supports stem-cell research and has said he wants to broaden the party's plank on abortion to include exceptions in cases of rape and when the life of the mother is at risk.

Palin is a member of Feminists for Life, a group that works to make health-care and child-care resources available to ``pregnant or parenting students,'' according to the group's Web site.

``All the conservatives are happy, yet she kind of offers a working-class Republican ethos, which we wouldn't have gotten with Mitt Romney,'' said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University in Houston.

McCain's selection of Palin is also aimed at wooing female supporters of Clinton, some of whom have been reluctant to line up behind Obama after a protracted primary battle.

Palin is the second woman to be chosen as a major-party nominee for vice president. The first, then-Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New York, was nominated by the Democrats in 1984.

`Glass Ceiling'

``Many Hillary Clinton supporters are desperate to break the glass ceiling for women,'' said Brinkley.

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano said McCain shouldn't assume women will vote Republican just because a female is on the ticket.

``The burden of proof, if anything, is a little bit higher, so I think there is a little miscalculation on that assumption,'' Napolitano said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Conversations with Judy Woodruff.''

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi highlighted Palin's anti-abortion stance.

``She shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies,'' Pelosi said in a statement.

Energy industry groups lauded Palin's selection, saying it reopened the possibility the U.S. could begin allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Record Prices

McCain has said he opposes opening the refuge to drilling, although new emphasis has been placed on domestic oil production as prices reached records this summer. Oil hit a record $147.27 on July 11.

Palin, a former beauty queen, high school basketball star and television sportscaster, began her political career in the 1990s as a city councilwoman and then mayor in her home town of Wasilla. The town's estimated population in 2007 was 9,780, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Considered a rising political star by state Republican leaders, she was appointed in 2003 to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a significant body in the energy-rich state.

Her biggest test may be proving her intellect, said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at Washington's Brookings Institution.

``Since we all know there's nothing there in terms of national security, does she have the intellectual ability to get up to speed quickly?'' he said. ``We're going to have to get a feel for how smart she is.''

To contact the reporters this story: Heidi Przybyla in Denver at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net .

Super Delegates Nominate Hillary Clinton

Super Delegates Nominate Hillary Clinton

The title some what fictitious but the reality of possibilities is not very far from the truth.

With all the misplaced enthusiasm of adolescent perceptions in a political reality stating the world is what it is supposed to be (but is not so don’t hold your breath) the world is held captive in the turmoil generated by a corporate media that seems to hold little value in truth.

To judge the world by the headlines of the corporate media and most others that maintain those views which hold us prisoner to falsehood:

Thinking that “Barack Obama has locked up the Democratic Party nomination for the 2008 Presidential election” in what is misplaced because in truth that is the farthest thing from the truth unless you support the business as usual crowd for maintaining the status quo.

“Barack Obama has locked up the Democratic Party nomination for the 2008 Presidential election “

Is that really so? Is that way the Democratic Party will do it? Or is that what some would have us think in what is the jockeying for positioning related to the final voting.

One Super delegate offered his vote for sale for supposed altruistic reasons I am sure he is not the only one.

What all the wonderful over paid, over educated, over played, over valued, and worthless spin doctors and pundits (mainly of the mainstream corporate media) fail to state is that due to the brilliance of the National Democratic Party and its rules:

Super delegates on which Barack Obama is based can vote for whom ever they feel like in views that can change as often as those delegates can change their mind in preference up until the moment they vote at the National Democratic Party Convention for as long as it takes to reach a successful conclusion.

Imagine the possible headlines:

“Super delegates nominate FDR to run again with Bonzo as his running mate, as FDR is brought back to life due to advanced DNA cloning”

I do not agree with the super delegate system but as a realistic observer I am cognizant of it as a reality of real circumstances not imagined ones.

In theory the super delegates do not have to vote for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

So why have so many mainstream media sources chosen to illuminate us with such falsehoods, to simplify the political landscape so we can receive their simplified views in what is once again dumb and dumber?

Surely they will rationalize truthfully that most likely delegates will do this and that but not once will they challenge the underpinnings of on which all that political trash and waste is based!

Why is it that the most complicated country in the world embroiled in every corner of the world with the most subversive of intrigues is summarized into the most simplistic of explanations that most of the time is simply untrue and false, unethical and immoral?

Let us ask what Jesus would do!
Let us ask what Buddha would say!
Let us ask what ET would say and do!

But most of all let us ask why has America declined to such a low point of ignorant discussion as is maintain in the mainstream media.

The fact of the matter is that without super delegates neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has enough support to be nominated as the rules currently stand. As Barack Obama has 1,765½ delegates (52%) and Hillary Clinton 1,639½ (48%) with approx 690 super delegates deciding the outcome as it now stands though that means the Democratic Party is not expressing the will of the people but the established circles of power..

But who says that being democratic or republican means one is supposed to be fair and egalitarian?

But do I hear anyone except myself discussing or calling for the elimination of the super delegate system?

NOOOOOO!

The fact of the matter remains that if the super delegates decide in convention to change their votes to support Hillary Clinton she will become the Democratic Party’s nominee albeit one without a full mandate from the people just like Barack Obama will not have a mandate of the people if he was nominated on which grounds I oppose them as weak wasteful candidates currently destined for defeat.

CENSORSHIP AND SPAM by Andrew Stergiou

CENSORSHIP AND SPAM by Andrew Stergiou

In the United States where threat of any major corporation being nationalized has not existed in any serious form for many years the dialogue of right wing politics centers on the Republican Party and to a lesser degree the Democratic Party not on a specifically nationalist political party. Nationalism discredited after World War II has not been the central focus of American policy because the central focus has been management, expansion, perpetuation, and use of the power and resources acquired at the end of World War II on behalf of the multi-national corporations which represent those interests.

Here in the US corporations face different degrees of regulation, taxation, inspection, even investigation but never nationalization whereas in other countries often rightist politics centers on some Nationalist Party platform and principles as the government is yoked allegedly for national concerns not international global corporate monopoly interests.

So the dynamics of American political interests often different is the product of a different experience.

Major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have often required subscribers to agree to binding terms which require such subscribers to comply with all laws federal, state, local, and foreign
in what is an impossible legal nightmare that can not every be complied with for to obey the laws of one local despot is to violate the laws of another. In times of war the problems only would get worse as the competition escalates into out right belligerency where such country often demand blind obedience under the harsh penalties of law (death by firing squad).

“intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law” (Yahoo Terms of Service governing subscriber conduct )

For years these Internet Services providers have been playing fast and loose in the United States with the average citizens rights just as they have aided in censorship of the peoples of other countries such the “Peoples Republic of China”. These ISPs impose demand and receipt of concessions as it suits their purposes regardless of the practical legal aspects they imply to average people but those double standards have been catching up to Yahoo and other ISPs:

Yahoo finally “Weighs in on Free Speech in China June 14, 2007 By DIKKY SINN

Associated Press Writer” not because they are in any real way altruistic but because of practical reasons that they were sued not in China but the United Stated in a prima facie comity of law that has grand international implications and respect but the matter will not end there.


Yahoo stated: that companies operating in China must comply with Chinese law or risk having their employees face civil or criminal penalties.” But then found itself in contravention of laws in others countries and sued in the United States


BUT YAHOO HAS NOT CHANGED ITS POLICY REQUIRING THAT SUBSCRIBERS OBEY THE AFOREMENTIONED Terms of SERVICE


“intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law”

Yahoo Terms of Service governing subscriber conduct

In whitewash and public relations Ploy to deflect criticism and legal complaints Yahoo insincerely lied in expressing its views when it said:

“China should not punish people for expressing their political views on the Internet” (APS DIKKY SINN Hong Kong)


When those statements resulted “a day after the mother of a Chinese reporter announced she was suing the U.S. company for helping officials imprison her son.” (Ibid.)


Yahoo criticized China in a brief statement that didn't specifically mention the case of jailed journalist Shi Tao, whose mother visited Hong Kong on Sunday. “(APS DIKKY SINN Hong Kong)

Though “The company has acknowledged sharing information about Shi with Chinese authorities” (APS DIKKY SINN Hong Kong)


Yahoo says it is dismayed that citizens in China have been imprisoned for expressing their political views on the Internet," the company said in the statement faxed to The Associated Press, which asked Yahoo to comment on Shi's lawsuit.”:


BUT The Internet company, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., also said it has told China that it condemns "punishment of any activity internationally recognized as free expression.


When in actually in the United States zealous yahoo administrators have used their administrative power under the guise of enforcing their terms and conditions of service to punitively treat some subscribers without explanation of that service providers actions beyond some vague references to chapter verse and fine print that they themselves can not comply with namely the aforementioned obedience to what they require subscribers to not:

“intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law”

“Companies operating in China have to satisfy a government that restricts what searchers on the Chinese Internet can see, and what information they have access to -- the trade-off for entry into a lucrative market of some 110 million users.” (APS DIKKY SINN Hong Kong)

“Contrary to this public misperception, however, the grim reality of censorship and deception by the regime has not improved; instead the regime has managed to battle this new era of information technology through building the world’s most sophisticated Internet firewall system and by further tightening its vice-like grip on all media outlets in China. “ (SARS: Unmasking Censorship in China Erping Zhang 8/11/2003)

ON THE OTHER HAND YAHOO AND ALL OTHER MAJOR INTERNET PROVIDERS SEEMINGLY CAN NOT CONTROL THE PROLIFERATION OF SPAM ABUSE FROM THOSE COMMERCIAL ENTITIES THEY CATER TO.IN WHICH CASE THEY VIOLATE US LAW BY FACILIATATING AND ACTING IN CONCERT WITH CRIMINALS.

In closing it seems that Internet Services Providers are faced ironically with the paradox of either having to institute consistent policies that support users rights as user friendly in reverting back in policy to the dawn of the internet sans all the legal mumbo jumbo all to present today online which was drafted by their incompetent uncaring callous corporate legal counsel, or to accommodate every country in the world and or be found guilty of those same countries and policies that they cater to.

Andrew Stergiou An "internet pioneer" my passport is ready but who will call
universal copyright (c) 2004-2007 Andrew Stergiou


http://templeofreason.org http://zito.biz http://mplf.org http://ularts.net http://pushedpawn.org http://garagemusicstudios.com http://blog.360.yahoo.com/andrew_zito http://andrewstergiou.podomatic.com http://andrewstergiou.com http://springtimeforhitler.blogspot.com

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=84572706

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=110634662

Pass a Clean Miniumum Wage Bill - UFCW

Pass a Clean Miniumum Wage Bill - UFCWPass a Clean Miniumum Wage Bill

Yes, they did it again. The Senate defeated a clean minimum wage increase that is nearly 10 years overdue.

A majority of senators—54—voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 without handing out more business tax breaks. But the mostly Republican opponents of a clean minimum wage increase filibustered the measure, and it takes 60 votes to end debate on a filibustered bill. Now the Senate will take up a minimum wage bill that includes tax breaks and other giveaways President Bush wants—and it’s expected to pass.

So, once again, millions of minimum wage workers have to wait for a raise while the House (which passed a clean minimum wage increase) and Senate work out the differences between their versions of the legislation.Low-wage workers have been at the back of the line long enough.
Tell your U.S. representative and senators to pass a CLEAN minimum wage increase with no more business handouts.

Tuesday night, in his State of the Union Address, President Bush claimed the economy “is on the move” and growing. Not for minimum wage workers, that’s for sure. The real buying power of their paychecks is at the lowest point in more than 50 years. Today, a full-time minimum wage worker makes just $206 a week, $10,712 a year—far below the poverty line for even a small family.

Businesses have gotten $300 billion in tax breaks since the last time minimum wage workers got a raise. It’s time to demand a clean minimum wage increase.

Tell your U.S. representative and senators to pass a clean minimum wage increase with no more business handouts.

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): Your Congressperson Your Senators Below is the sample letter:Subject: Pass a Clean Minimum Wage BillDear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],I urge you to raise the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour with no strings attached and no more business tax breaks. Since minimum wage workers last got a raise nearly 10 years ago, businesses have gotten $300 billion in tax breaks. Members of Congress have taken nine pay raises in that time, worth $31,600 per member. That's three times the entire year's pay at the minimum wage. I am extremely disappointed that the U.S. Senate did not overcome the filibuster to pass a clean minimum wage bill, which the House has approved. Now, millions of minimum wage workers have to wait even longer for a raise while the House and Senate work out the differences between the two versions of the legislation. Low-wage workers have been at the back of the line long enough. We elected the 110th Congress to work for working families. I urge you to act promptly to pass a clean minimum wage increase. Sincerely, Andrew Stergiou Take Action!Instructions: Click here to take action on this issue or choose the "Reply to Sender" option on your email program. Tell-A-Friend: Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. Tell-a-Friend! What's At Stake:

Campaign Expiration Date: February 24, 2007 If you received this message from a friend, you can

sign up for Voice Activated: The Worker Voice Activist Network of the UFCW.

TURMOIL AND CORRUPTION IN MEXICO by Andrew Stergiou

TURMOIL AND CORRUPTION IN MEXICO by Andrew Stergiou

Recently the I read as to how the Mexican Federal government has started cracking down by use of its military in a blog posting entitled “The Tyrant Will Fall” which I can whole heartedly sympathize with (as I hate all tyrants). Accompanied by photographs of the Mexican military Inspect[ing] vehicles for drugs, weapons, and people” that is not sufficient to suit all purposes. The posting continued saying “It seems that the Mexican Government is going to do what many Mexicans have been asking for since 1910” though one would ask why it continued if the people never wanted it. Surely someone wanted the corruption. Surely someone profited from the corruption, the drugs, the trafficking, etc, so continuing on to say that

• 
  “the Mexican Government is going to do what many Mexicans have been asking for since 1910” – get rid of the corrupt, greedy and criminal element that has only added to the woes of the oppressed.”
  


• “The new president, Calderon is being praised for his hardnosed crack down on the drug syndicates that virtually control all the politics along the US/[Mexican] border.“
  

But those familiar with the Humphrey Bogart movie Casablanca could not for get the scenes where the chief of the police raided the casino he patronized, regardless of the bribes he took, and crimes he committed, which is not to suggest the current or past presidents of Mexico committed any crimes as it is not necessarily a field I am expert in.

The blog continued saying that:

• “Today, there are 3000 troops in Tijuana enforcing the law. The local TJ Police have been disarmed and placed on suspension pending a stringent investigation that will leave many of the current police unemployed and possibly charged with crimes ranging from accepting bribes to murder. All police weapons were confiscated and are being tested for ballistic matches with crime scene evidence. Mexican] Military monitoring traffic and inspecting vehicles “


• In what appears at best to many as martial law, dictatorially imposed from above, so then we can ask who are the tyrants those imposing themselves as federal authorities exporting law and order dictatorially from Mexico City to the border regions, in it finds it self between a rock and a hard place to satisfy US public opinion, or those who actually represent success of what has existed there for decades.
  
  Though many state:
  
  “I must take my hat off to Calderon for this unprecedented action, it is a positive step towards solving one of the major problems facing Mexico and can serve as an example to other Latin American countries. It is also a sure fire way to prevent a revolution, which has been on the verge of occurring in the past few months because of what has happened in Oaxaca.”
  
  I must state that the federal government would have no credibility in their intervention locally if they did not put on the show, appearing to crack down on the local criminal elements, and corruption, besides harassing the local people. If the federales did not crack down on the local criminal elements, those elements are independent enough to represent a political challenge so if it is real I predict a split in the PAN.
  Also otherwise, the federal government would not appear to be acting fairly (not that local police care about appearances of fairness), but in that:
  What is said to be carried out to prevent a “revolution”, decried as “a revolution” but like in 1910 (as many radical movements), was merely necessary as changes to bring Mexico peacefully into the 21st century, not a banana republic of have and have-nots, but as a modern democratic state that all parties in Mexico denounces depending on who does what, but which in reality actually exists.
  Before I commented on that blog posting I had to check some of my facts (namely as to the results of the recent Mexican presidential elections, and I did) so sorry, if it offends anyone
  BUT:

The new president Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa has become the President of Mexico Incumbent, ahead of the National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, known by the acronym PAN, a conservative and Christian Democratic party and one of the three main political parties in Mexico) Serving a term of office that began on December 1, 2006 and expires on November 30, 2012.

• 
  The area in which PAN, the president, and Mexico’s last president, and the border criminal gangs draw political strength from the same exact Northern Mexican border region. Strangely the photos of a military crackdown show the military crack in the Tiajuana area, when in actuality the largest of the major criminal drug gangs in based in Juarez , so PAN, and the president appears to be cracking down on his own, so something is not what it appears.
  All those elements has the same political constituencies, and elements, which is said to be in the process of change, (in a perfect world) but though those elements are not the same exact elements, they are all dependent, and beholden, and in debt to each other: so there is no basis for changes which were claimed or suggested, as it all appears to be some kind of whitewash smokescreen cover-up to satisfy the political needs of the federal office so as to satisfy the US, and the north American public clamoring for change themselves.
  
  Mexico is again in turmoil and the simple people of workers and peasants are paying in blood, for what robs Mexico and its people of its future. PAN today often represents many of the same elements which represented reactionary elements opposing the Mexican Revolution of 1910. That revolution began due to the inflexibility of Mexican politics and static conditions that remain the same for most Mexicans hence the cause why they and other people in Central America risk coming to the USA as illegally. PAN also as noted represents many of those border areas which are traditional corrupted by the lucrative trafficking trade there. It also contains many maquiladoras form a lucrative business for the multinational corporations raping both the USA and Mexico.
  
  The Mexican revolution began with a call to arms made on 20 November 1910 by Francisco I. Madero, in what lasted until 1921. It is estimated that the war killed 900,000 of the 1910 population of 15 million. The president then did not live to see the fruit of that revolution as he was murdered in 1913, but what existed then, in the like of Generals Poncho Villa, and Emilio Zapata still exists today, in the soul of rebels that constitute the Zapatista movement.
  Today the Mexican opposition represents the majority of Mexicans not PAN, namely the:
  
  Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI) – under different names, at the local, state, and national levels for most of the 20th century. Although a part of the Socialist International, it is most often perceived as left of center, supporting a policy of mixed economy and nationalized industries, both of which are longstanding Mexican practices.
  
  Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, PRD) – a left of center party. Born as "National Democratic Front", a splinter group of the PRI, in the 1988 elections. Its first candidate and founder, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, lost the 1988 presidential election under dubious circumstances, which eventually helped the party consolidate itself. It is currently in power in the Federal District and in several other states.
  
  Labour Party (Partido del Trabajo, PT) – a far-left political party formed in 1990. It is often allied with the PRD for electoral purposes. Green Ecological Party of Mexico (Partido Verde Ecologista de México, PVEM) – a minor party with an environmental platform. During most of its existence the party has been controversially managed by a single family.
  Convergence (Convergencia, formerly Convergencia por la Democracia) – a minor party, formed in 1997.
  
  Social Democratic and Farmer Alternative (Alternativa Socialdemócrata y Campesina, also known simply as Alternativa) – a party formed by former members of the Social Democracy Party and the Cardenist Front of National Reconstruction. It was established in July 14, 2005.
  
  New Alliance (Nueva Alianza) – originally created by academics of the Autonomous Technical Institute of Mexico and members of the National Teachers Union. It was established in July 14, 2005.

Diversity is slowly coming to Mexico, though many may claim that Mexico (the only Latin American member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] since 1994), Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country.”:

Such elements falsely circulate misinformation stating 30-35% of of the population belongs to a middle class element, those economic groups are neither homogenous nor static, but dynamic with many different factions represented today in Mexican politics. That in other countries (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Chile etc), today again have come to assert some independence in changing their governments administrations. Which well occur time and time again until the lessons of history are really learned, though so many North Americans often do not and attempt to change things in retro mode of what existed but which does not exist in that what they say:

“As the only Latin American member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) since 1994, Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country.”

But all too often we have seen thing like that change over night (e.g. Cuba, Argentina) the thin margins of distinction are just that very thin lines.

“Populist”, “radical”, “reformist” change currently sweeping south America which I predict eventually will engulf in Mexico, radically affect Mexican politics, as the National interests of that country are best represented by those elements not compromised by international political interests, nor concerns of vested interests represented by the reactionary hierarchies of the church/Christianity.

Currently appearing in the media as the revelation of President Chavez of Venezula, while the reactionaries thinks pretentiously revolution is confined to Cuba, dictated in Cuba, and ruled over by Fidel Castro, in that they forget the radical Simone Bolivar and the historical movements of America de Sud, which hopefully will be resolved by the people of Mexico, not the gangs, generals, corporations, church, bureaucrats, or politicians.

~A~ XP

SCREW THE GRAMMYS: AN OPEN LETTER TO CARMINE D’AMICO by Andrew Stergiou

SCREW THE GRAMMYS: AN OPEN LETTER TO CARMINE D'AMICO by Andrew Stergiou
(Why are you being a jerk?)

Recently I received a message from Carmine D'Amico a distinguished notable musician acquaintance of mine of some accomplishment, that I had  a link to from my Yahoo 360 blog page (http://360.yahoo.com/andrew_zito), where he and I have linked blogs, by what yahoo refers to as "friends", though we have never met.

Actually now he has pissed me off, and I don't mind letting him know, since he started it by "shooting his mouth off" then deleted me from his list of complacent friends when I rebutted him, as he closed off his comments section to postings by me. So I will post this response on my blog as I found him to be intellectually gutless which I don't mind saying:

As a musician I have great respect for my hard working fellow musicians (as all musicians should), but add what musicians earn a living from isn't always from being a musician. Often the distinction as to weither or not they earn a living is based on how well connected. There are musicians who earn money as studio musicians, producers, side men, orchestra musicians, or even in bar bands, which requires, and all too often entails not mere musical ability by political clot. An often rowdy musician up on stage acting out that bad boy image, isn't exactly what you find off stage as then they are tame and well behaved, as they are too busy trying to get away with indulging themselves, habits etc..

Generally their earning power is based on political clot that can diminish when one makes comments that are found to other disliking, like what happened to the Dixie Chicks some years back  when they gave George W. Bush a few well earned blasts, or if they are sellouts they can parley themselves like Ronald Reagan,and so many super starts did.

Being that Carmine has much success, that according to his site releases includes winning 24 Grammy  awards.
Carmine D'Amico has played (performed) guitar for/with the likes of Frank Sinatra, the Rolling Stones, and Bill Crosby, his credentials might go on forever. Carmine played "guitar on 2 Marianne Faithful CDs, produced by Stones' guitarist Keith Richards." (Carmine's Blog), one can not deny his has been on the inside of the music world. Maybe he was there and got the inside story when Marianne Faithful allegedly "got the boys hooked on heroin" who knows.

In any case Carmine signed to Major Label at the age of 9 (Carmine site), which means he started working for that perhaps when he was 5 or 6, which means he has me beat by about 14-15 years considering I started playing when I was 19. Perhaps  In a way he reminds me of my granddad who started working making and fixing shoes when he was 6 years old, as part of the work ethics of southern European Mediterranean peoples have, working to eat, even when they don't have to. Working if we need money, working just for the heck of it, it does not matter we need to do something just to keep busy and to prevent insanity, in the curse of Saint Agnes, for which we bury ourselves in WORK even if there is no money involved.

I seem to remember this guy Carmine from down in the Little Italy Section of SOHO Manhattan back in the days on Spring Street before it became trendy, and there were Italians, in little Italy and you din't have to import them from Italy.  I seem to remember from his photo being in the window of Rudy's Music Shop on 48^th street in Manhattan. But what does all that mean? I have a brain? I am not losing it to senility? Who knows but I like, love, my memories, even when I don't like them because they are mine, and I am attached to what I am familiar with as mine.

I seem to recall some one else who was involved producing Grammy hits (like Cramine), and in that instance as he was only a 2-3 time Grammy winner he earned surprisingly a low $350 an hour as his standard rate for mercenary services to produce a major label record (according to him), as one would figure it might have been more, as there are many issues of royalties labeled producing fees, and the like that add up.

In any case a musician for the moment it was an honor to be communicating with Carmine and so as to say in his presence, BUT (and that is a big buttttt), but like all celebrity types with inflated egos I learned a long time ago in dealing people (who like getting their way like anyone else) it is a question of honesty, cause if they want to get their way that is one thing but if it goes against honesty and truth the are superficial and worthless which is how I peg Carmine.

So without pulling punches, and being as fair as possible, without being too nice I was very disappointed in receiving a message from Mister Carmine D'Amico as that message was very strange, regarding the war in Iraq and jingoistic rhetoric, though critically I have observed from a distance the sides involved as technically as of yet still I have not supported nor opposed the war in Iraq (you can see that right? Good!)

He wrote in short:

-------------Carmine D wrote:

> Do not Support Starbucks Cofee.Our Soldiers in Iraq,asked Starbucks for cofee,Starbucks said
> no.Whether you support the war ,or not,Men,and women are being killed (Our people,and the Iraqi
> people)for us, Carmine  

> Subject: Fw: NO COFFEE FOR THE MARINES ***The spelling errors are those of the person who  > emailed Carmine

Like the Marines in Iraq can not get Starfucks coffee if they wanted it I wrote back to Carmine saying:

What the heck are you saying sending out that message on Starbucks when: I found on the Starbucks web site

"Starbucks Donates to Military Personnel Starbucks, our customers and partners believe that it is critically important to support our men and women serving the United States. There are numerous examples of Starbucks Coffee Company and our partners supporting the troops. Each week Starbucks partners receive one free pound of coffee. Many partners have collected their free coffee and shipped numerous pounds of Starbucks coffee overseas. For instance, partners in our Atascadero, California store sent their weekly allotment of coffee to troops in Afghanistan so they would be able to enjoy a little taste of home. Our Customer Relations and Information Technology departments in Seattle donated thousands of pounds of coffee to the sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group and troops in Mosul, Iraq.

These are just a few of the many examples of our partners supporting the troops. We recognize and appreciate the very personal connection customers have with us and how they might miss their Starbucks Experience while serving overseas. Additionally, we are humbled that the troops request Starbucks coffee.

To enhance our partners' outstanding grassroots efforts in support of the U.S. military troops, Starbucks is honored to extend our relationship with the American Red Cross in order to provide more coffee to relief efforts during times of conflict. We are pleased to donate 50,000 lbs of coffee to the American Red Cross for distribution to those troops serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait. The Company is making this contribution through the American Red Cross as part of its long-term, ongoing commitment to share the comfort of coffee during times of crisis."

I wrote back to Carmine to say:
Carmine I don't know if you realize it but the military has attempted to use civilians (i.e. you and me) to influence things to their (policy wonkers) advantage by have paid propagandists hype issues, when in this case they as the "US MILITARY" can buy ship etc whatever they want.

In fact I was employed for a company that was a military supplier of their PXs, my family was in the military, and I have a $1000 that says there is no real basis to that concocted story you accidentally posted which in its demeaning manner trivialized the issues. in actuality for the duration of this undeclared war (another undeclared war, how many more undeclared wars) I have not either been for or against it hoping that it exposes the crazy politics of this country as the sides argue, I have succeeded but now add that the administration has been the most underhanded and dishonest, as Saddam Hussein was a friend of the US establishment then for merely money he wasn't. Tell me one thing: What makes those establishment creeps any better than common criminals, nor beholding to a different standard, where RICO for me, is not RICO for them, and as they commit criminal acts every day in lying?

Like many Carmine did not bother to go to Starbucks website but instead he shot his mouth off, closed the conversation, withheld further comment, deleted me from his list of friends, to prevent me from commenting, after actually he was the one who made the public comment on the state of the nation but couldn't back it up.  If he likes I will give his sorry ass an opportunity to rebut anything said if he want to arrange an opportunity to telephone me where I can record the conversation for a pod cast until then I suppose we can call him a good musician who happens to act like a jerk.

 

Britain: police given unprecedented arrest and surveillance powers By Chris Marsden 5 January 2006 WSWS

Britain: police given unprecedented arrest and surveillance powers By Chris Marsden 5 January 2006 WSWS

Britain’s Labour government has given police unprecedented powers of arrest for any criminal offence whatsoever, even minor misdemeanours. Civil rights groups have denounced the new law as akin to a police-state measure.

The elimination of the distinction between “arrestable” and “non-arrestable” offences is part of the Serious and Organised Crime Act of 2005 and came into effect January 1.

Previously police only had the power to arrest those suspected of committing an offence carrying a sentence of at least five years in prison. Now, police are able to hold anyone they suspect of any offence, even something as minor as littering—giving them the power to harass and intimidate virtually at will. Officers will merely have to satisfy themselves of “a person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence,” and that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.”

Additionally, police are now allowed to photograph suspects on the street where they have been arrested or issued with a fixed penalty notice, rather than taking them back to a police station. This can be used to build up a digital photographic database using the simple expediency of charging someone with a minor violation, or even giving them a fixed penalty notice. The photo can be kept on file even if the person is found not guilty in court. DNA samples and fingerprints can also be kept.

Last year, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act was used to mount a major attack on freedom of speech, when Maya Evans was convicted for having staged an unauthorised antiwar protest near the Cenotaph war memorial—reading out the names of British soldiers who died in Iraq. The law was described by the Telegraph newspaper as “the biggest expansion in decades of police powers to deprive people of their liberty.”

Opposing the new powers of arrest, Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said they represented “a fundamental shift” in power from the public to the police and the state. “We don’t need to give the police carte blanche to go around throwing people in cells for things like dropping litter,” she said. “Anyone who gives a bit of backchat now risks being hauled off to a police station. Given the history of powers such as stop and search, there will also be the perception among ethnic minorities that they are being targeted.”

As an example of the police abusing their sweeping powers of arrest, Chakrabarti recalled the ejection from last year’s Labour conference of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang and his detention under the Terrorism Act. But this is only the most notorious example. In fact, more than 600 people were stopped and questioned under anti-terror legislation during the Labour Party conference. None were charged with any offence, but some were detained for merely wearing anti-Iraq-war T-shirts.

More than 10,000 people were stopped and searched by the Metropolitan Police in just two months following the July 7 terror bombs in London, with no one being arrested or charged for offences related to terrorism, the Guardian has reported. The figure reflect a five-fold increase for white people and a twelve-fold increase for Asian and black people.

Other new powers contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act include allowing the police to apply for “multi-premises” and “all-premises” warrants, repeated entry warrants and for extending the lifetime of warrants from one month to three months.

The sweeping character of the new law again gives the lie to the claim that the ongoing assault on fundamental civil liberties is made necessary by the threat of terrorism. Rather the “fight against terrorism” is one plank of a campaign to instil fear into the population in order to encourage acceptance of ever more draconian powers for the state.

The other plank is provided by claims that crime is out of control and cannot be fought by using what Prime Minister Tony Blair decried as “Dickensian” legislation. Home Office Minister Hazel Blears used the same type of rhetoric in her attempt to justify the new powers of arrest, insisting that they were necessary to create “a modern, efficient police service equipping frontline officers with the tools they need to fight modern crime effectively.”

Whatever excuse is given, the real targets of the repressive measures are the millions of working people who are suffering as a result of the pro-big business agenda of the government and are therefore seen as a growing social and political threat to the ruling elite.

In the run-up to Christmas, the Independent newspaper drew attention to another grave threat to civil liberties that highlights this fact.

Science editor Steve Connor wrote on December 22 that Britain is to become the first country in which the movements of all vehicles are recorded. By March, a new national surveillance system will be set up using a network of thousands of CCTV cameras that will be equipped to automatically read every passing number plate. Records of all 35 million number-plated vehicles travelling on all main roads and motorways will then be held for years on a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London.

Connor writes that the scheme, which has never been subject to parliamentary approval, is being “orchestrated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and has the full backing of ministers who have sanctioned the spending of £24m this year on equipment.”

More than 50 local authorities have signed agreements allowing the police to convert existing traffic cameras to the new system and agreements are also being brokered with the Highways Agency, supermarkets and petrol station owners. MI5 will also be able to access the data.

British workers suffer the heaviest levels of electronic surveillance in the world. Britain accounts for one fifth of the world’s CCTV cameras, with well over 4 million in operation--one for every 14 people. City residents can expect to be captured on CCTV up to 300 times a day.

See Britain World Video Surveillance Capital