Scientist's correspondence against US institutions

by AL Wed Apr 23, 2003 16:24

> Wonder-Working Power
>
> By James Heflin, Valley Advocate
> April 17, 2003
>
> George W. Bush's January State of the Union address was, for the
most
> part, nothing out of the ordinary. But then my former governor
(yes,
> I'm a Texan) dropped an unusual phrase: "...there's power,
> wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of
the
> American people."
>
>
> That phrase was not mere wordsmithing. I know it well. I know
about
> polished church pews; I know about dress shoes that blistered my
young
> feet and the smooth heft of the hymnal. As the son of a Baptist
> minister, I know. I know about the exuberant, saloon-worthy
piano, the
> cat-eye-spectacled old ladies sliding "power" into one
syllable, and I
> know the rest of the phrase: "There is pow'r, pow'r,
wonder-working
> pow'r, in the blood, [men echo] in the blood, of the Lamb, [men
echo
> again] of the Lamb. There is pow'r, pow'r, wonder-working pow'r
in the
> precious blood of the Lamb."
>
>
> Bush was stealthily passing the message to the flock, to my
flock. The
> issues that have plagued that flock for a quarter century are
integral
> to understanding the second self-professed
"born-again" man in the
> White House, his political tactics and his war in Iraq.
>
>
> Its fans call it the "conservative resurgence." Its
detractors call it
> the "fundamentalist takeover." The astonishing fact is
that many,
> perhaps most, Southern Baptists are unaware that the foundation
of
> their faith has been officially pulled out from under them
through
> systematic, long-term political manipulation. The people of God
trust
> each other; when someone breaks the rules, they pray, they try
to
> reconcile. But the abandonment of civil behavior always trumps
good
> will.
>
>
> Two people, Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler (a former appeals
court
> judge), perhaps as far back as the '60s, created the plan to
transform
> a denomination. Like fundamentalists of every breed, they
started with
> a simple premise: We're right. Everyone else is wrong. God is on
our
> side, so what we do to those in our way is irrelevant, if our
right
> triumphs over their wrong. That the central, selfless directive
of
> Christianity is "do unto others as you would have them do
unto you" is
> a petty detail, imminently ignorable to God's self-appointed
chosen.
>
>
> The Southern Baptist Convention (currently around 16 million
strong) is
> a bottom-up institution, with autonomous congregations and a
> democratically elected leadership whose proclamations have not,
> historically, been binding. One crack in the democracy was
evident: The
> president appoints members to committees which hold sway over
> organizations like the Baptist press, Baptist seminaries and the
> missionary organization. The fundies (the decidedly
non-affectionate
> term applied to them by detractors) calculated that winning the
> convention presidency 10 years in a row could gain them
majorities on
> all committees and de facto control of all the national-level
bodies.
>
>
> The tactic was simple: Recruit like-minded pastors to scare
people
> about the evil of liberalism which, they assured their flocks,
was
> quietly taking over their institutions and diluting their
theology.
> Those who did not endorse the literal truth of every word of the
Bible
> – "Biblical inerrancy" – were on the slippery slope to
unbelief. You're
> with us or you're against us.
>
>
> They gained the presidency of the convention in 1979 with a
pastor
> named Adrian Rogers, bussing in supporters to the annual
convention to
> vote for their presidential candidate; the buses left just after
the
> vote. The fundamentalists have retained the Southern Baptist
presidency
> ever since. Their activities once they gained power were and are
> embarrassing to Christians who believe that ends can't justify
means.
>
>
> As soon as they could, the fundamentalists issued an ultimatum
to the
> heads of the Baptist Press, who, they claimed, were unfair in
their
> representations. When the two men refused to cease their
supposed
> criticism, they were unceremoniously fired.
>
>
> My father was a professor (a job considered somewhere in the
> neighborhood of heretic by the fundamentalists) at Southwestern
Baptist
> Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas when one of the most brazen moves
took
> place there in 1994. The enormously popular, longtime president
of the
> seminary, Russell Dilday, the day after receiving the highest
possible
> job evaluation from the fundamentalist Board of Trustees, was
fired,
> locked out of his office by those same fundamentalists: He was
too
> "moderate." The faculty was outraged. But the fundies
weren't
> interested in the will of a bunch of liberal academics too far
down the
> slippery slope to be saved. They were right, so the fate of the
wrong
> was of no interest. Not long after, my father (and many others)
left.
>
>
> My father was invited back to the seminary two years ago, but in
order
> to be considered, he had to go through a little formality, the
signing
> of a document. The pillar of Baptist belief is called the
"Baptist
> Faith and Message." In 1963, it was full of theological
freedoms, and
> not a binding creed. It established belief in a direct
connection
> between God and believer, the right of individuals to interpret
> scripture, and the primacy of Christ in the church.
>
>
> The fundamentalists have so changed the statement that many say
it
> abandons Baptist belief. The committee who rewrote it claim, in
the
> preamble, that it is now one of "doctrinal
accountability." In a
> denomination that exalts the individuality of belief, this
raises the
> question of who Baptists are now accountable to. Many say it
> establishes the primacy of the Bible itself, rather than
> Christ-centered biblical interpretation. It adds, as a central
premise
> of the faith, that women should "graciously submit" to
their husbands,
> and cannot become ministers.
>
>
> My father is in good company in refusing to endorse this
document. The
> enormity of the change it establishes was made clear in 2000:
Jerry
> Falwell, long to the right of Southern Baptists (and pretty much
the
> rest of the world), joined the convention, and the other
born-again
> President, Jimmy Carter, publicly renounced his 65-year
membership.
>
>
> The Bush administration's tactics and policies marry religious
and
> patriotic fundamentalism. It's an unholy union.
>
>
> Bush is in the White House despite losing the popular vote; that
has
> not stopped him from pursuing a black-and-white vision of the
world
> that ignores those who did not elect him. The administration's
> reasoning is classic fundamentalism: They know best. Those who
dare to
> question their vision are "irrelevant."
>
>
> The "with us or with the terrorists" political
fundamentalism has now
> expanded to include those who critique Bush's war in Iraq. When
Tom
> Daschle decried Bush's "miserable failure" at
diplomacy, Speaker of the
> House Dennis Hastert quickly responded that Daschle's words
"may not
> undermine the President as he leads us into war, and they may
not give
> comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close."
Patriotism is
> now a matter of total agreement with the White House or
treasonous
> disagreement. This in a land founded on the ultimate act of
dissent:
> revolution.
>
>
> Rather than considering himself the servant of the people, Bush,
it
> seems, considers himself God's chosen to make over the world.
The
> dropping of references for the ears of the Christian right is a
regular
> occurrence; the term "evildoers," derided by some as
not a real word,
> is quite real to the biblically informed, because it comes
straight
> from the Book of Psalms.
>
>
> Bush's extremism has led America to a frightening new state, one
where
> the highly praised term "leadership" means defying the
will of the
> people, not representing it. The administration creates
majorities to
> support its policies rather than creating policies to reflect
> majorities. The administration's international
"backing" for the war in
> Iraq is, in reality, a coalition of leaders who are
"willing" indeed:
> willing to defy the anti-war sentiment of, in some cases, 80 or
90
> percent of their countrymen. Still, it's comforting to know that
we
> wade into the quagmire of the Middle East with the full support
of
> Latvia and Eritrea.
>
>
> The confidence to ignore public opinion is easily acquired from
Bush's
> belief in a higher endorsement. Bush's autobiography is called A
Charge
> to Keep, a title borrowed from a hymn:
>
>
> A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify,
>
>
> A never-dying soul to save, and fit it for the sky.
>
>
> To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill;
>
>
> Oh may it all my pow'rs engage, to do my Master's will!
>
>
> The Southern Baptist fundamentalists conquered their
denomination; they
> have every reason to hope the Bush administration will make over
the
> world in their image.
>
>
> Bush speaks to them – often directly to them. He has surrounded
himself
> with Christian conservatives, relied on them politically since
early on
> in Texas. Combining their fervor with that of extremists of
different
> stripe, his administration has fashioned policies of
evangelistic zeal,
> ignoring cautionary advice from abroad and at home. And now that
zeal
> has engaged America in a war that quickly proved more
complicated and
> costly than Bush and people like Defense Policy Board chairman
(until
> recently) Richard Perle, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz
> ever planned. But Bush the believer forges ahead, convinced that
all
> costs, economic and human, are justified. Threats to Syria point
to the
> next step.
>
>
> Richard Land (president since 1988 of the Southern Baptist
Ethics and
> Religious Liberty Commission, Capitol Hill lobbyist, friend of
> Presidential advisor Karl Rove, and now Bush appointee to the
United
> States Commission on International Religious Freedom) told the
> Christian Science Monitor before his nomination, "In the
Reagan
> administration, they took our calls," but with Bush,
"sometimes they
> call us."
>
>
> The separation of church and state, long central to Baptists, is
of
> little interest to the fundamentalists: In 1998, Richard Land,
at a
> strategy meeting with Republicans and members of the religious
right,
> told the Republicans, "No more engagement. We want a
wedding ring, we
> want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage."
>
>
> George W. Bush, former heavy drinker and alleged cocaine user,
claims
> to have been brought to God in 1986 by Southern Baptist
evangelist
> Billy Graham. His 1993 pronouncement to an Austin-American
Statesman
> reporter that non-believers will go to hell infuriated a lot of
> non-believers, but cemented his now nearly infallible reputation
among
> Southern Baptist fundamentalists – a group that, perhaps more
than any
> other, helped Bush rise to power in Texas.
>
>
> In the '80s, Karl Rove advised nearly every Republican campaign
in
> Texas, before then a Democratic stronghold. A large factor in
> Republicanizing Texas politics was the courting of the religious
right,
> a specialty of Rove. He is a Christian of some sort, but he
refuses to
> discuss much of anything with reporters, especially the
specifics of
> his faith. Those specifics would clearly reveal much about the
man
> often dubbed "Bush's brain."
>
>
> The religious beliefs and affiliations of some of the other main
> players in the Bush administration are not often discussed. A
recent
> Newsweek article chronicles the centrality of religion at the
current
> White House, including the ever-present phenomenon of Bible
studies.
> Attorney General John Ashcroft is a Pentecostal Christian, an
extremely
> conservative, sometimes fundamentalist brand of faith, as
evidenced by
> his covering of nude statues in the Justice Department.
>
>
> Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, is Jewish; he
appears to
> be more cerebral neoconservative than religious fundamentalist.
Rove's
> office neighbor is Elliot Abrams, convicted of lying to Congress
in
> Iran-Contra days. He now handles Middle East policy for the
National
> Security Council, and he holds strong views: Not only has he
written in
> praise of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hard-right
policies,
> he's also written about the danger of dilution of the Jewish
people by
> assimilation.
>
>
> For many extremists, the heavily represented pro-Likud faction
has
> occasioned cries of "Jewish cabal." But current policy
is not so easily
> pinned down; it is a convergence of fundamentalisms, regardless
of the
> faiths involved.
>
>
> Rove is a talented matchmaker among the main powerbases of
Republican
> thought. The East Coast, mainly Jewish, neoconservatives and
southern
> Christian fundamentalists are easily reconciled. Many in the
Jewish
> community are wary of the proselytizing Christian contingent,
but the
> strong pro-Israeli bent of the fundamentalists (who nonetheless
are
> often, remarkably, anti-Semitic) has allowed an alliance between
the
> most extreme elements of both religions.
>
>
> Rove's real trick was getting the Christian fundamentalists to
dance
> with someone besides the one what brung them. Most dubious
business
> practices are at odds with Judaeo-Christian ethics, but the
> fundamentalist camp was seduced into trafficking with big
business by
> access to money and political power. The best example is Karl
Rove's
> securing of a $10-20,000 per month Enron consultancy for Ralph
Reed,
> former head of the Christian Coalition and senior advisor to the
Bush
> campaign. Reed is the embodiment of Rove's brand of
Republicanism: a
> man who can simultaneously endorse Christian and Jewish
fundamentalism
> and hop in bed with the purely profit-driven, secular business
world.
>
>
> Bush's own conversion seems sincere. He seems to be a true
believer,
> heavily influenced by the Republican powers that surround him;
only a
> man who believes he is ordained by God to lead America into a
grandiose
> struggle of (literally) Biblical proportions could stun
reporters with
> his state of, as a BBC reporter put it, "serenity" as
bombs began to
> fall on innocent Iraqis.
>
>
> America is without question the best friend Israel has, and Bush
is
> strengthening the ties; on the first day of Bush's war in Iraq,
plans
> surfaced for $10 billion in aid for Israel. This seemingly
suicidal
> timing in terms of already-hostile Arab reaction to the war
becomes
> clearer with some theological education.
>
>
> Many fundamentalists (and many moderates, too) live in constant
> expectation: At any moment, maybe the very next, a distant
trumpet
> might sound; the clouds might give way and the unimaginable,
shining
> visage of Jesus descend. Many Southern Baptists believe they are
part
> of the final generation on earth. Opinions differ about the pre-
and
> post-return details, but they often include an Anti-Christ. Many
> fundamentalists encourage unilateralism because that Anti-Christ
is
> expected, by current interpreters, to lead the European Union or
the
> United Nations.
>
>
> Another thing is clear to many literal interpreters of the
Bible:
> Israel – all of Israel, even the bits currently underneath the
> Palestinians – must belong to the Israelis before Jesus can
return.
> Obviously, a two-state peace settlement precludes that. Bush has
indeed
> endorsed a Palestinian state, but the day such a settlement is
signed,
> especially with E.U. or U.N. support, Bush's solid backing by
many
> fundamentalists will be in question.
>
>
> The alliance between Jewish and Christian fundamentalists
received a
> great boost when Bush called Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon,
> convicted in the '80s by his own government for standing by
while
> Lebanese Christians slaughtered hundreds of Palestinians,
"a man of
> peace."
>
>
> The administration's ties to the current Israeli government run
deep.
> Richard Perle is a major figure in the un-battle-tested royalty
of the
> armchair hawks (his nickname: Prince of Darkness). Perle just
resigned
> the chairmanship of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board because
of a
> conflict of interest. He was retained by Global Crossing to
advise them
> on a deal in need of approval by the Pentagon, for which he
would be
> paid $725,000, $600,000 of which was contingent on the success
of the
> deal. The less reported fact is that he will stay on as a member
of the
> board.
>
>
> In 1996, Perle advised Sharon's Likud party. His advice:
Israel's claim
> to the Palestinian territories is "legitimate and
noble"; Israel should
> abandon the Oslo Accords and retake the territories, even
though, as
> Perle's co-advisor Douglas Feith, now Underscretary of Defense
for
> Policy, later said, "the cost in blood would be high."
Feith called
> this a necessary "detoxification." More men of peace.
>
>
> In the early '90s, Paul Wolfowitz authored (with an unknown
degree of
> help from then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney) a security
strategy
> for the elder Bush that was striking in its implications. A
global
> American military presence would engage in pre-emptive wars to
keep
> ambitious rivals in check. Old alliances like NATO would be
ignored in
> favor of temporary coalitions of convenience. Bush Sr. had to
publicly
> back away from its extremity, and Cheney played a major role in
> revising the document.
>
>
> The original document evolved into a manifesto of sorts for a
> Wolfowitz-related group called the Project for the New American
> Century. In their version, which dates to early 2001, the
Project
> claims that the most receptive climate for their vision of
global
> American power would be in the aftermath of "some
catastrophic and
> catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." When bin Laden
unexpectedly
> provided just that, they were prepared.
>
>
> The current, freely available National Security Strategy of the
United
> States endorses the exact same ideas. Wolfowitz's call for a
permanent
> military presence in the Middle East explains Bush's insistence
on war
> at any cost better than the clear threat of Hussein's
ineffective
> drones, short-range missiles and supposed relationship with bin
Laden,
> who called Hussein an infidel.
>
>
> The Pope (not considered a Christian by many Southern Baptists),
most
> mainline Protestants and even some Southern Baptists decry the
war as
> unjust, un-Christian and dangerous. The unsurprising exception
is the
> Southern Baptist Convention leadership. Current president Jack
Graham
> (no relation to Billy) blessed the attack on Iraq as a just war
whose
> purpose is, of course, peace. Nevermind that preemptive (or, in
this
> case, preventive) war seems rather at odds with the peacemaking
Jesus
> blessed in the Bible.
>
>
> I despair for my people. Christianity calls for peacemaking and
> unconditional love for all humankind, not warmongering and
furthering
> the gap between rich and poor. Jesus' only recorded act of anger
was
> directed against the money-changers who set up shop outside the
temple;
> the business-driven Republican Party has likewise set up shop
outside
> the Southern Baptist church. Republicans will continue to profit
as
> long as Southern Baptists are willing to hoodwink themselves,
ignoring
> the disparity between Christian ends and Republican ends.
>
>
> I despair, too, for my country. The "us or them"
administration is
> sowing the seeds of hatred between America and the rest of the
world,
> and, most terribly, between Americans. Thank goodness Bush is
right
> about one thing: " ... there's power, wonder-working power,
in the
> goodness and idealism and faith of the American people."
>
>
> The Muslim fundamentalist bin Laden wants a holy war with Jewish
and
> Christian fundamentalists. With George Bush in charge, he's got
it.
>
>
> The issue is not, in the end, religious. It's not racial. It's
> philosophical: No matter what religion or political view
provides a
> starting point, the end destination of the march toward
absolutism is
> the willingness to cease caring about unbelievers as human
beings. That
> is a danger greater than any weapon of mass destruction.
>
>
> James Heflin is an arts writer at Massachussets' Valley
Advocate, where
> a version of this article originally appeared, and a musician in
the
> band the Mud Prophets.

by AL Wed Apr 23, 2003 16:35

Centcom.mil=United States Central Command

The site http://www.centcom.mil/galleries/galleries.asp contains all the US
briefings.

All the leaflets dropped over Iraq can be downloaded from http://www.centcom.mil/galleries/leaflets/showleaflets.asp .

Also transcripts/recordings of radio speeches
addressed to the Iraqi population are there, along with those playing cards.

By the way, the Central Command site is monitered by Echelon much more closely and in more specific detail than other non-military sites for those who fear about id tracing etc. And that's a good example of the proverbial "Democracy and Transparency" spin many westerners believe themselves to be in.

by Gaillimhed Wed Apr 23, 2003 16:39

as a scientist i applaud Dr. Amits integrity.
The shrub administration has done everything in its power to damage international scientific co-operation in the last three years. Foreign students are not welcome in US labs, US department heads are not allowed to discuss their work with foreign colleagues, and even if those colleagues operate in so called 'NATO-friendly' countries the same prohibition follows if there are 'non NATO scientists' working in those laboratories. much of the funding for the sciences is funneled through the dept of Defence, so they can gain control over who works on what, who publishes what, and exactly what is researched and how. Secrecy is fast becoming the order of the day, and the US defence dept witch hunt has already begun in earnest on US university campus's, with research being seized halted and redirected. Research funding has been re-organised to give more powers to the dept of defence in the realm of civilian science, ushering in an era of official secrecy and rivalry with non-US researchers rather than co-operation, which is the life blood of effective science.

by Raymond McInerney Wed Apr 23, 2003 18:09

Gaillimhed

Could you elaborate on the above comment. I know alot of Irish and British scientists that are working in science labs in the US.

by ExPat Wed Apr 23, 2003 18:49

Another poster commented:

"as a scientist i applaud Dr. Amits integrity"

So Dr. Amits works in, and pays taxs to, the Government of Isreal (whose plicies he says he hates) but expresses his "integrity" by not reviewing papers from U.S labs.

I think his "integrity" is pretty selective, particularly when it does not impact wallet.

by ??? Wed Apr 23, 2003 19:09

"So Dr. Amits works in, and pays taxs to, the Government of Isreal (whose plicies he says he hates) but expresses his "integrity" by not reviewing papers from U.S labs.

I think his "integrity" is pretty selective, particularly when it does not impact wallet."

So what do you suggest he do? Go on the dole and try and say something then? Take from the taxes instead of giving? Is that what you see as "integrity"? Explain, you muppet.

Hold on to some level of realism in your utopian visions. People who have some degree of influence are being rightly critisised for not saying anything against this war. Silence is consent.
Before you start swinging unfounded and childish claims check out this person for what he has done and for what he is doing. In what way do see his actions as protecting the input into his wallet? If anything, speaking as he has in an authoritarian state like Isreal put that into jeprody, as is already happening to many in the states (an action which is keeping so many silent, and therefore consenting to the US led war).

Get to grips with reality ExPat

by Hi Wed Apr 23, 2003 20:55

Well said, ???

by ExPat Wed Apr 23, 2003 22:42

In reply to ???

If you read the article you would see that he also has a job in Rome. He can speak out against anything he likes and his actions against American students may be valid, it is his inconsistency in not taking the same approch to the Palestinian issue that makes me question his integrity.

As for passing judgement on him my observation was based on facts stated in the article (after all most of his students in Jerusalem must be or will be members of the IDF). Does he refuse to read his own stunents papers even though many of them are the very people driving tanks into Palestinian villages.

As for unfounded claims you seem to have no problem name calling, although if "muppet" is the strongest language you mother will let you use you might want to avoid adult conversion altogether.

Also the contributer called "Hi" you contribution was invaluable and not at all a wast of space.

by gargoyle Wed Apr 23, 2003 23:34

Does he realize that the US military technology that he rails against probably allowed the US to complete their military campaign with many thousands less death of troops and many tens of thousands of fewer civilian casualties.

And I also wonder, does he REALLY believe that the Iraqis had superior culture and values to the americans. Tell that to the hoards of childen locked away in 1 by 2m cells because they wouldn't join the baath party and the relatives of the countless people who went through Saddam's plastic shredders.

by Gaillimhed Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:30

The restrictions are to my understanding being applied to scientists from non-NATO countries.
i will try and dig up the article and post a link to it here later.

by Gaillimhed Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:45

Visa clampdown hits home at US universities:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v420/n6914/full/420349a_fs.html

Physicist discouraged by heightened security
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6931/box/422457a_bx2.html

Researchers rage at tightened restrictions on US immigration
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v422/n6931/full/422457a_fs.html

by gaillimhed Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:47

exclusion of foreign born researchers
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/neuro/journal/v6/n3/full/nn0303-203.html

by Gaillimhed Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:04

Just to clarify what i said in an earlier post about Department of defense control over the american research community, it may surprise you to know that even Breast Cancer research is funded by the DoD, What follows is a list of research activities currently recieving funding form the DoD.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/d20030312muri.pdf

just as a matter of interest..

DARPA, one of the DoD groups listed as a funding source on the above list has this as its mission statement:
DARPA’s mission is to maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise from harming our national security by sponsoring revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and their military use.

DARPA’s mission implies one imperative for the Agency: radical innovation for national security. DARPA’s management philosophy reflects this in a straightforward way: bring in expert, entrepreneurial program managers; empower them; protect them from red tape; and make decisions quickly about what projects need to be started and what projects should stop.

To maintain an entrepreneurial atmosphere and the flow of new ideas, DARPA steadily rotates program managers in and out of the Agency, with most program managers serving for only four years. The idea is that the best place to get new ideas is new people. New people also ensure that DARPA has very few institutional interests besides innovation, because new program managers are willing to redirect the work of their predecessors – and even undo it, if necessary.

DARPA’s approach is to imagine what a military commander would want in the future, and then accelerate that future into being – thereby changing people’s minds about what is technologically possible today.

by Gaillimhed Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:10

oops forgot to add this one in.

by Raymond McInerney Thu Apr 24, 2003 14:45

Thanks for all the information and links. I'll have a read of them. Forgot to say that most of the 'foreign' researchers I know are mainly in soil, water, agricultural chemistry and environmental chemistry. Perhaps these fields don't undermine of affect US security as much as materials , electronics or mechanical engineering.

by Raymond McInerney Thu Apr 24, 2003 14:59

From one of the links Gaillimhed supplied.

A frightening affair.

What will motivate them to strive for excellence, to achieve even greater levels of destructive force?

by Gaillimhed Thu Apr 24, 2003 15:19

apparently the department of defence has a very wide definirtion of what National security is, for instance, DoD aids/HIV research...?
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/hiv/01061403.htm
Of course this is probably motivated by the Dod long running interest in keeping people healthy before they spray them with napalm and dioxin and pound their houses into dust with uranium tipped balistics.
By funding research the Dod can direct research and withold the dissemination of scientific knowledge that rightly belongs to the public.
this is what is happening, alongside transnational corprations using intellectual property rights to 'patent' knowlwdge and natural biodiversity.

by AL Thu Apr 24, 2003 21:01

...here is one of the European tentacles, which is in Dublin
http://www.medialabeurope.org/

some innovative stuff, but for what ends? Take a look and decide for yourself.

by lance Fri Apr 25, 2003 18:51 lance at graffiti dot net

As long as those who object to oppression of any people dont criticize the Israel-USArael connection - they get full support from the majority of professional responders on Irish Indymedia. But when any person dissents against the Israel-USArael connection - then their integrity - sincerety etc is called into question.

Netanyahu's nephew is refuses to murder Palestinians in Israel conquered Palestine: will his integrity also be called into question. All the Israeli Officers and men who have spent time in prison as has Bebe's nephew on www.couragetorefuse.org may also be accused of tarnished motives?

All you need to know about the Israel-USArael connection is on www.whatreallyhappened.com or on www.informationclearinghouse.org The news on these sites blow the Likud supporters away.