ancient_paztriot

Spoils of War US plans to sell off Iraqi businesses are simply the modern equivalent of pillage, says Brian Whitaker Monday October 13, 2003 For centuries, pillage by invading armies was a normal part of warfare: a way in which to reward badly-paid or unpaid troops for risking their lives in battle. Nowadays, at least in more civilised countries, we do not let armies rampage for booty. We leave the pillaging to men in suits, and we don't call it pillaging any more. We call it economic development. Today, the men in suits are gathering at Olympia, in London, for a two-day conference and exhibition entitled Doing Business in Iraq. Protesters will be gathering outside. The event, which is sponsored by the US-Iraq business council, is one of a series being held in different parts of the world over the coming 12 months (another will take place in Moscow in December), culminating in a grand spoils of war exhibition in Baghdad towards the end of next year. According to the organisers, speakers at the London conference will include several US government officials as well as a representative from Trade Partners UK, the British government's export promotion department. This fits in neatly with plans announced in June by Paul Bremer, the head of Iraq's provisional authority, to sell off the country's state-owned industries (excluding, for the time being, oil, gas and minerals) and turn it into a US-style capitalist wonderland. Last month, Mr Bremer issued CPA order number 39, giving foreign investors unrestricted rights to establish businesses in Iraq and/or buy up Iraqi companies. The order also allows foreign investors to repatriate profits, dividends, interest and royalties immediately and in full. In other words, they can make a fast buck if they want to, without putting anything back. While few would disagree that Iraq's industry needs modernisation and restructuring, two questions arise: has Mr Bremer the legal powers to do this, and is he going about it in the right way? He has already acknowledged that his plans will create large-scale unemployment, at least in the short term. His earlier decision to disband the Iraqi army exacerbated the country's fragile security situation by leaving several hundred thousand disgruntled ex-soldiers with nothing better to do than cause trouble. That is now widely regarded as a major blunder, and Mr Bremer now seems intent on repeating the exercise with the civilian population. According to the UN, the current level of unemployment in Iraq is around 50-60%: the last thing the country needs is more job losses. Mr Bremer shows little interest in drawing lessons from the problems caused by economic "shock therapy" reforms in the former Soviet Union, and in Iraq - with the added factor of military occupation - this can only fuel hostility towards the US. His order number 39 is also, almost certainly, illegal. The Hague regulations of 1907 spell out the obligations of an occupying power under international law. Article 43 says that, when occupying forces take over a country, they must "ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". This means that Mr Bremer is not allowed to change Iraq's existing laws, including those that govern investment, unless it is "absolutely" essential to do so. Article 55 says that an occupying power is only the "administrator and usufructuary" of state property. "It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct," it adds. Mr Bremer, therefore, appears to have no right to sell off nationalised industries. In the House of Lords last week, Baroness Williams of Crosby tried to ascertain the British government's view of Mr Bremer's approach. She asked whether the government "regard current policies in Iraq to be consistent with the legal advice the prime minister received from the attorney general". She received the unilluminating reply that "it has been the practice of successive governments not to publish advice from the attorney general". Fortunately, however, we already have a good idea of what the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, thinks about the matter. A memo that he wrote to the prime minister, Tony Blair, on March 26, a week after the invasion of Iraq began, was leaked to the press some time ago. "My view," the attorney general wrote, "is that a further security council resolution is needed to authorise imposing reform and restructuring of Iraq and its government. "In the absence of a further resolution, the UK (and US) would be bound by the provisions of international law governing belligerent occupation, notably the fourth Geneva gonvention and the 1907 Hague regulations." He went on to note that the Hague regulations impose an obligation to respect the laws in force in the occupied territory "unless absolutely prevented". "Thus, while some changes to the legislative and administrative structures of Iraq may be permissible if they are necessary for security or public order reasons, or in order to further humanitarian objectives," he said, "more wide-ranging reforms of governmental and administrative structures would not be lawful." The restrictions imposed by the Hague regulations, as the attorney general suggested, can only be over-ridden by a UN security council resolution. Interestingly, the preamble of Mr Bremer's Order No 39 claims just such backing. It states that the order is "consistent" with security council resolution 1483, approved last May, which lifted sanctions against Iraq. But although the resolution talks vaguely (in paragraph 8e) about "promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions for sustainable development", there is nothing in it that can sensibly be construed as giving Mr Bremer permission to make sweeping changes to the investment law. Indeed, paragraph five calls upon "all concerned to comply fully" with the Hague Regulations. The legality - or otherwise - of Mr Bremer's order is unlikely to trouble the Bush administration, although future US administrations may have to grapple with the consequences arising from it. The prevailing view in Washington was set out with astonishing bluntness four years ago by John Bolton, now chief hawk at the state department, when he said: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law, even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so - because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the US." Whether the British government, which tends to be more squeamish about such matters, agrees with this is still unclear, though the presence of its official from Trade Partners UK at the investment conference in London suggests that it does. The US, however, has made no bones about its intentions, regardless of what the Hague regulations say, to make as many structural changes as possible in Iraq while it has the chance. Its hope, of course, is that these will have gone too far to be undone once a proper Iraqi government takes over. On the other hand, the changes may go so far that a future Iraqi government feels obliged to overturn them in order to establish its popular credentials. In that case, the invasion - with its phoney goals of removing Saddam Hussein and disarming him of weapons that he didn't possess - may be just a prelude to the real battle for Iraq yet to come.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

Big Brother was watching How Bill Clinton laid the groundwork for the new police state. By A.C. Thompson LIBERALS ARE AGHAST : the war on terrorism is turning out to be a war on civil liberties. Like a pair of steroid-crazed pro wrestlers, the Bush-Ashcroft tag team is running amok. They're shredding the Constitution and handing scary new powers to cops and FBI agents and just about anyone else in law enforcement or intelligence. "We are all suspects, if Ashcroft has his way," syndicated columnist Molly Ivins howled Dec. 6. Facing the Senate that same day, the attorney general hunkered down and put on his best John Wayne face, skewering his critics ("they give ammunition to America's enemies") and hinting that some civil liberties may have to be thrown out the window. "Preventing terrorism is a very difficult job," Ashcroft said during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We witnessed this week the carnage in Israel. It's a society that has far fewer freedoms than we do and has a far greater investment in terrorism prevention. [And] yet 25 innocent people were slaughtered ... in terrorist activity." But the Bush-Ashcroft Big Brotherism is nothing startling or new. The USA PATRIOT Act, the military tribunals, and Ashcroft's plan to expand domestic spying are only a public augmentation of the well-oiled police state machinery that was already in place. As we snoozed through the Clinton era, our lovable, sax-playing president was busy deep-sixing legal protections – often in the name of combating terrorism. He presided over a massive expansion of federal phone-tapping powers. Signing the 1996 Counter-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, our buddy Bill laid the groundwork for Ashcroft's schemes, eviscerating habeas corpus, one of the cornerstones of our judicial system, curtailing due process for immigrants, and creating special courts to try terrorists with secret evidence. Sound familiar? And under Clinton, reinvigorated Red Squads apparently spied on the anticorporate protesters who rocked the Seattle WTO conference. Clinton "set the stage" for the current rollback of rights, says Harvey Silverglate, an attorney, author, and nationally known expert on individual freedoms. "Clinton caved in to the notion that at a time of perceived crisis or danger it is OK to infringe on civil liberties even if the particular infringement does not produce any added security. So now we have a situation where Ashcroft can make some of the most dangerous incursions into civil liberties that we've ever seen, and nobody even notices." Nobody paid any attention, for example, when the Federal Bureau of Investigations in 1995 published a notice in the Federal Register stating the bureau's intention to monitor up to 1 percent of all phone calls in certain regions. Aside from a few lonely civil libertarians, the only people who raised a stink at the time were telecom executives, annoyed that they were being told to tailor their systems to the FBI's specifications. And as the Village Voice's Nat Hentoff has noted, a 1998 law greatly eased federal wiretap constraints, giving the bureau carte blanche to tap any phone a suspected criminal might use within a limited geographic area. Only Georgia representative Bob Barr, a Republican privacy freak, opposed the measure. Even before the PATRIOT Act eased phone-tapping rules, the FBI was doing plenty of eavesdropping, says Jennifer Stisa Granick, an instructor at Stanford law school's Center for Internet and Society. Granick says the old, pre-PATRIOT Act wiretapping law was "a single-party consent law," which meant FBI agents couldn't listen in on calls without the knowledge of one of the people on the line or a warrant. Circumventing that dilemma was simple: agents would seek out informants who would let the bureau eavesdrop on their phone calls with alleged criminals. Problem solved. In fact, federal court records obtained by the Bay Guardian suggest that S.F.-based FBI agents used the technique in July 1998 to overhear the conversations of computer hackers. "This kind of stuff happens all the time," Granick told us. For defense lawyers like Scott F. Kauffman, Clinton's 1996 counterterrorism act, which was a response to the Oklahoma City bombing, "changed the entire legal landscape" – especially in capital cases. "Given the really limited resources we have, it's created an impossible burden," Kauffman, a San Francisco death penalty specialist, told us. "It's sped everything up." The law also marked a proto-PATRIOT assault on immigrants, allowing the Immigration and Naturalization Service to hastily deport green-card holders convicted of crimes of "moral turpitude" – an amorphous term that could cover just about any offense. Another provision established secret court proceedings for alleged terrorists, barring suspects from seeing more than a summary of the evidence arrayed against them. Ashcroft's publicly stated lust for domestic spying has sent liberals into hysterics. In truth, though, under Clinton the bureau engaged in COINTELPRO-type political snooping. According to the Seattle Weekly and numerous other credible .-press sources, the feds have been keeping tabs on leaders of the new anticorporate protest movement since at least 1999. David Solnit can tell you all about it. A seasoned Oakland activist type – he was in the streets during the '84 Democratic Convention – Solnit is apparently on the . list of the FBI. In June 2000 he journeyed to a Windsor, Canada, college campus to conduct a workshop on making signs and giant puppets for demonstrations. The trip took a detour when Solnit was stopped by local cops who had apparently been staking him out. "They said, 'Are you David Solnit?' " he recounts. "They had an FBI printout of what the FBI thought my legal history was, which was incredibly inaccurate." Solnit, an avowed pacifist with no history of violence, spent four days in the local lockup on bunk charges that were later dropped. From every indication, it looks like the feds had been spying on Solnit and sharing their information with Canadian authorities. (For the record, FBI special agent Andrew Black told us, "The FBI absolutely does not keep tabs on protesters.") This apparent exercise in espionage doesn't surprise Jim Redden, author of Snitch Culture: How Citizens Are Turned into the Eyes and Ears of the State. "The restrictions [on domestic spying] that were supposedly placed on the FBI as a result of Watergate were never very effective," Redden told us. "The FBI quickly figured out ways around them, and there were agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that never were under those restrictions. Government surveillance never really ended." So why all this backtracking, you ask? Why choose this moment to take gratuitous potshots at Clinton? Well, to point out this: the current clampdown – which may profoundly change the way we live – isn't about George W. Bush. It's not about John Ashcroft or the FBI's Bob Mueller. The power grab is being driven by the two dictates both political parties hew to. One is appeasement of the public. Unnerved, we are clamoring for a sense of security – and this could be the ultimate campaign issue. From Bush on down, if the pols don't deliver, they're likely to be tossed from office – just like Jimmy Carter, whose inability to liberate the American hostages in Iran was his undoing. The other dictate is appeasement of the permanent government: the generals, the high-level law enforcers and agency chieftains – in other words, the people who really run this country. They are seizing this moment to expand their spheres of influence and fulfill long-standing policy dreams, Constitution be damned. "These proposals have been in the pipeline for years; that's why they can whip them out so quickly right now," Stanford's Granick says. And it would've been just the same with Al Gore at the wheel.

Is There an Oil Shortage in our Future? 05-Dec-2003 Every year the world uses four times as much oil as it finds. The major discoveries are in the past—the future depends on finding small deposits and finding new ways to exploit the old ones. When oil stocks get low, it takes almost as much energy to extract them from an oil well as the well produces. In the U.K., they've just found the biggest deposit in a decade—and it only contains enough oil to last the world 5 days. George Monbiot writes in The Guardian that the world doesn't want to face up to the fact that oil is running out. The U.S. certainly doesn't—our Dept. of Energy says we'll be fine until 2037, but everyone agrees the figures they're using aren't accurate. Their statements are probably meant to keep the stock market calm, since the last five recessions all started with a rise in the price of oil. Monbiot writes, "We seem, in other words, to be in trouble. Either we lay hands on every available source of fossil fuel, in which case we fry the planet and civilization collapses, or we run out, and civilization collapses." Hydrogen fuel is being touted as the fuel of the future, but it’s a long way from practical. The main reason is that the tiny molecules of hydrogen leak out of containers—and they are very volatile. We're either going to have to redesign our world, so we have less need of automobiles, or redesign all our engines, so we can use an alternative fuel—probably both. These are major changes that cannot be made quickly. Monbiot says, "In view of all this, the notion that the war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil is simply preposterous. The U.S. attacked Iraq (which appears to have had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening other nations), rather than North Korea (which is actively developing a nuclear weapons program and boasting of its intentions to blow everyone else to kingdom come) because Iraq had something it wanted. In one respect alone, Bush and Blair have been making plans for the day when oil production peaks, by seeking to secure the reserves of other nations. "I refuse to believe that there is not a better means of averting disaster than this. I refuse to believe that human beings are collectively incapable of making rational decisions. But I am beginning to wonder what the basis of my belief might be."

M. R. Abdullah, a free-lance writer, gets featured on Media Monitors Network (MMN) with the courtesy of Crescent International. Oil still the major US strategic consideration in Central Asia by M. R. Abdullah (Sunday 14 December 2003) "The dreams of a pipeline through Afghanistan are further from realization but have most certainly not been abandoned. The US is capable of operating on many fronts, and at many levels, simultaneously; and we should not let things to go out of our minds just because they are out of our sight." When the US declared its intention to overthrow the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, there were knowing smiles among those familiar with the US oil industry’s long interest in the region. Two years later, a great deal has changed. The ‘war on terror’ continues, apparently unable to prevent regular bombings of American and Western targets around the world. Afghanistan remains in chaos, with the Taliban and other resistance groups preventing the US and its chosen instrument, Hamid Karzai, from controlling more than a fraction of the country. The main focus of attention has subsequently shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, with increasing pressure also being brought to bear on Iran on the grounds of its nuclear programme. All the while, however, the US has continued to consolidate its presence in Central Asia, regarded as being of strategic importance for all the US’s Middle Eastern adventurism, but also valued in its own right as potentially a major source for oil in coming decades. It’s all about the oil... Such has been the effect of US propaganda that referring to the US’s oil interests at all has come to be seen as a conspiracy theory. But the reality speaks for itself. Central Asia and the Caspian Sea region are now the world’s greatest untapped fossil fuel resources. Estimates of the amount of oil there range from 110 to 243 billion barrels of crude oil, worth up to $4 trillion. The US department of energy estimates that Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan alone may have more than 130 billion barrels of oil; three times the US’s own reserves. Little wonder that oil giants such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP have already invested more than $30 billion in production facilities in the region. Addressing oil industrialists in 1998, Dick Cheney, now vice president of the US, said that "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." In May 2001, after George W. Bush’s election victory, in which donations from oil interests paid (sorry, ‘played’) a major role, Cheney wrote in a national energy policy report that: "the president makes energy security a priority in our trade and foreign policy" and pointed to the Caspian basin as "a rapidly growing new area of supply." In January 2002, the US opened its first military base in the former Soviet Union, when the Kyrgyz government granted them permission to build a 37-acre military airfield at Manas, 19 miles from the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek. This was a result of 9/11; a few months earlier, the thought of Russian permitting the establishment of a US military base in its southern sphere of influence would have been unthinkable. Now Manas, originally a tented city intended as a base for Afghan operations, is a permanent facility, and just one of several in the region. The US also has the use of military bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Georgia. Russia is worried enough about losing influence over its former empire to have recently opened a new airbase of its own less than 35 miles from Manas, apparently in an attempt not to leave the US presence unchallenged. But the US offers so much more: it has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to these countries in military and development aid; helped their governments against domestic Islamic movements, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU); and supposedly contributes to their political democratization, although the latter seems somewhat dubious; with the former communist rulers still in charge, it appears more accurate to say that it helps these tyrants create the facade of legitimacy, a patter familiar enough in other areas of the Muslim world that have been under US hegemony for much longer. Last year, the US removed Uzbekistan from the list of countries where freedom of religion is under threat, even though Islam Karimov remains in charge; he infamously once told the Uzbek parliament that Islamists "must be shot in the head. If necessary I will shoot them myself." Two years ago, we all became familiar with the debates about alternative possible routes for pipelines for bringing Central Asian oil and gas out of the area into the market. Russia favours routes through its territory; Iran has offered its established network of routes; and China also has an interest in Kazakh oil. Meanwhile the US continues to favour pipelines which would bypass both Russia and Iran. Little doubt whose opinion counts in the region nowadays; construction of a $3.8 billion pipeline from Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, to the Turkish port of Ceyhan has already begun. The dreams of a pipeline through Afghanistan are further from realization but have most certainly not been abandoned. The US is capable of operating on many fronts, and at many levels, simultaneously; and we should not let things to go out of our minds just because they are out of our sight.

This is Your Brain on Propaganda by Maureen Farrell Published by BuzzFlash Last January, a group of prominent business leaders bought an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal and, in an open letter to George W. Bush, reacted to the impending war. "The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world," they wrote. "We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back." Deeming war "the most extreme action a society can take" which "can only be unleashed after exploring every other road," these traditional conservatives chided Bush on several fronts. "You have not explored all the roads," they continued. "A billion bitter enemies will rise out of this war." Most prescient were their warnings about postwar Iraq. "Our jaws drop when we read that you may decide we have to occupy Iraq for years, that the next ruler of Iraq may be ... an American general!" they wrote. "Is there anyone who thinks that will work? Your odds of success are infinitesimal! The world wants Saddam Hussein disarmed. But you must find a better way to do it. Why would you lead us into a situation where we are bound to fail?" [AnitaRoddick.com] This ad was but a blip in a torrent of conservative opposition to the war -- an opposition that the mass media relentlessly painted as the province of the far left fringe. The ad was also one of many sources I sent to an acquaintance, in a rather pointless attempt to convince her that opposition to the war went beyond, as she persistently argued, the distorted rants of socialist Saddam lovers. Nevertheless, she insisted on framing conversations with "liberals think this way" and "Democrats think that way" and before long, I realized that she was clinging to a media-manufactured reality. "To me, a liberated Iraq means another place to visit with my husband when my kids go to camp in the summer," she wrote. "I will spend lots of his money on souvenirs, thus helping their economy." It’s one thing to have sound disagreements based upon philosophical differences, varied perceptions and alternate interpretations of events, it’s another to unquestionably drink in the official story. How do otherwise intelligent people readily buy into such garbage? Is there a sea of vacant-eyed Stepford Citizens out there, just waiting to buy trinkets and knickknacks at the Baghdad Wal-mart? [buzzFlash.com] While it’s fascinating to mark the propaganda which creates such illusions, it’s even more interesting to observe the end result. Following months of White House innuendo and media manipulation, for example, a whopping 70% of all Americans believed that Saddam was tied to Sept. 11, even though no such claims were directly or officially made. And while polls offer stunning proof of the effectiveness of America's sophisticated propaganda techniques, Internet message boards and Web logs provide another glimpse -- and without fail, it seems that the zombies who drone on and on about Truth, Justice and the American Way are those most likely to undermine all three. Of course, propaganda from both the right and the left serves to advance political aims and agendas and has nothing whatsoever to do with Truth, but in light of recent cries for honor and integrity, and the oft-repeated question, "Where is the outrage?" some right-leaning pundits -- and those who parrot them -- have taken hypocrisy to new heights. Take for instance, reaction to Paul Krugman’s recent article, "Hacking the Vote" [New York Times] Posted on the Guardian Unlimited Talk (GUT) International message board (hardly a Mecca for far right ideologues), Krugman’s well-documented piece on black box voting irregularities and his assertion that "the credibility of U.S. democracy may be at stake" should have incited concern from patriots everywhere, but instead, invoked a favorite propagandist ploy by inspiring "conspiracy theory" ridicule. "Yawn," one well-trained citizen responded. "The left just will not let this rest. When Bush wins this next election (and he will because the Dems are out of touch and being cry-babies) then what will the Dems say then? Alien conspiracy maybe?" Another poster, also unconcerned that democracy might be undermined, parroted the propagandists’ line. "They wouldn't be able to accept that Bush will win through the popular vote. Liberals think that the majority of Americans agree with them." Finally, a third GUT denizen offered some scrupled sanity. "It's odd, don't you think, that a succession of credible claims that the Diebold machines are faulty can be ignored, just because some of those expressing most concern are perceived to be Democrats. One might have thought that those who yell loudest for good old American values, like democracy, would be most outraged at even the slightest possibility that the proper fair democratic process could be tainted, even if only by negligence rather than malice. I'm not implying partisan motives here at all, I'm just curious why this isn't generating more concern." "Let me take a wild guess here," another offered, "could it be because most right-wingers think there's nothing wrong with cheating, as long as your own side benefits?" More examples of double standards, malleable principles and mind-boggling propaganda can be found throughout the Net. A recent Howard Kurtz article entitled, "CIA Agent Valerie Plame Goes Undercover In Vanity Fair," for example, [Washington Post] created a blogworld whirlwind. "I’M OFFICIALLY PRONOUNCING THE PLAME SCANDAL BOGUS," Instapundit.com’s Glenn Reynolds shouted. "Serious people don't do self-promoting spreads in Vanity Fair where important questions of national security are involved." Of course, as BuzzFlash recently pointed out, President Bush and his national security team did just that when they posed for celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair in February 2002. As we said in September, "The accompanying article, ‘War and Destiny,’ depicted George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Andrew Card, George Tenet and Colin Powell as capable and courageous leaders who would navigate the tumultuous waters of terrorism and deliver us from evil." [buzzFlash.com]. Nevertheless, Reynolds decided that only "self-promoters" behave this way, which, it seems, pertains to self-promoters not currently inhabiting the White House. "Not knowing the underlying facts, I have to make my judgment by the behavior of the parties," he wrote. "And judging from that, the scandal is bogus, and Wilson is a self-promoter who can't be trusted. That's my judgment on this matter. Yours, of course, may vary. But if you see Wilson as anything other than a cheesy opportunist, well, then yours really varies." [instapundit.com] Of course, if someone in the Clinton White House had outed a CIA agent, howls from GOP operatives would be heard near and far -- and it’s guaranteed that Wilson and Plame would be embraced even more fully than Paula Jones and Linda Tripp were. But in the Land of Bizarro Ethics, it’s okay to commit a felony, but not to promote a book -- even after the White House’s actions limit your ability to effectively do your job. To buy Reynolds’ premise, one would have to believe an act of treason was somehow a carefully crafted promotional ploy. Did Wilson make the whole thing up? Did Bob Novak lie about the "two senior White House officials" who divulged Plame’s identity? How on Earth how does this gap between perception and reality occur? Stepford Citizens, of course, will tell you that the "liberal media" is at fault, and, admittedly, Peggy Noonan’s recent televised observations on President Bush’s trip to Iraq is a perfect example of how the media shapes perception. As she told Hardball’s Chris Matthews: "I thought the President’s moment in Baghdad on Thanksgiving Day, when he went there -- and this is a guy who had a 27-hour commute on Thanksgiving Day. And I think that wasn’t lost on people. I got to tell you, I watched it at home. I didn’t know it was coming. I thought it was -- I thought it was just about the most moving public moment in an American presidency since Ronald Reagan said, "Honey, I forgot to duck." And I think part of the reason that Bush is popular with the troops, with the people over there, with the American people is that he’s just -- he’s a really decent guy, who really, in that case, very showily, tried to do the right thing and the good thing." Now contrast that to the observations she and Matthews shared regarding Hillary Clinton’s trip to Iraq: MATTHEWS: They were at least neutral to her [Hillary Clinton] this time. Peggy, you know what I’m talking about. NOONAN: Yes. MATTHEWS: The cultural difference between the guys in uniforms and Hillary Clinton. NOONAN: Oh, absolutely. It’s -- look, working guys, enlisted men, cops, firemen, they relate to Bush as a guy, as a regular, normal, masculine, American man who is doing his best and trying to be a decent guy. MATTHEWS: Yes. Yes. NOONAN: I think that always shows up. I think they see Hillary as an elitist, snooty school monitor in high school. (CROSSTALK) [MSNBC] And so it goes. Noonan didn’t stop there, of course, and in time, propagated the White House line even further. "I’m glad the people of Iraq are going to get what they want, which is freedom, which is what Bush talked about on Thanksgiving Day," she mused. "I think this is going to work." Meanwhile, less than a week later, the New York Times reported, "As the guerilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire." [New York Times] Given that reality nearly always differs from the perceptions pundits peddle, it’s a wonder more people don’t catch onto their propaganda ploys. More than a year ago, the American Prospect’s Robert Borosage pointed out why the right’s techniques are especially effective: "With all [their] ideological money, institutional heft, coordination, and credentialing, the right has perfected what the CIA used to call a ‘mighty Wurlitzer’ -- a propaganda machine that can hone a fact or a lie, broadcast it, and have it echoed and recycled in Fox News commentary, in Washington Times news stories, in Wall Street Journal editorials, by myriad right-wing pundits, by Heritage seminars and briefing papers, and in congressional hearings and speeches. Privatization of Social Security, vouchers for school, Vince Foster's supposed murder, Hillary's secret sex life, you name it -- the right's mighty Wurlitzer can ensure that a message is broadcast across the county, echoed in national and local news, and reverberated in the speeches of respectable academics as well as rabid politicians." [American Prospect] That, of course, is how my friend not only came to believe everything her government told her, but lapped up propaganda as if it were pure rhetorical ecstasy. Those who are relatively immune, however, become queasy when we see fellow citizens condoning treasonous behavior and dismissing potential election theft -- especially when it’s obvious that the poisonous spirit of the pre-rehab Rush Limbaugh has irreversibly tainted their psyches. "That’s why Liberals are becoming more and more politically irrelevant outside of California," one GUT poster wrote, indirectly defending the hacking of black box voting machines. "It's not so much that the public has become more conservative, it's the fact that this is the beginning of the backlash. People are sick of their spew." Does reading this quip make you feel woozy? Good! This is your brain on propaganda. And the fact that it makes you ill is a very healthy sign. Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.

As Bush was ramping up the Iraq war last winter, Canadian military officials were startled to discover Pentagon recruiters roaming through their nation's native population reserves trying to persuade Inuit and others to enlist in the U.S. military. The Americans started cropping up on the Atlantic Coast in Quebec, in the Sault Sainte Marie area of Ontario, and in Western Canada. A Canadian Defense Ministries report said the U.S. claimed that under the 1794 Jay Treaty it had the right to recruit Canadian native inhabitants for its military because aboriginal Canadians held dual U.S.-Canadian citizenship. Alarmed top Canadian officials from the ministries of Justice, Foreign Affairs, and Defense huddled with Privy Council bigwigs and, screwing up their nerve, decided to tell the Americans that Canada didn't like what was going on. "As a result of our interaction with the U.S. embassy, a letter was sent from the director, Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, to the vice chiefs of the U.S. military services, reminding them that their recruiters are to refrain from entering Canadian territory," Foreign Affairs official Reynald Doiron told The Vancouver Sun earlier this month. The prohibition on recruiting applies to U.S. activities in Canadian high schools and university job fairs as well as on native reserves. The U.S. embassy confirmed that it would stop active recruiting in such places in Canada. If Canadians want to join the U.S. military, they will have to cross the border to do so. The American recruiting efforts are aimed at filling the ranks of an army stretched thin by the Iraq war and by having to post troops in other world hot spots such as Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. The U.S. may well have to put a permanent military presence in the Gulf of Guinea, off the coast of West Africa, to protect oil and gas reserves against regional squabbles. The U.S. currently recruits from among green-card holders—people with permanent resident status who aren't yet American citizens. In an effort to boost recruitment from such groups, Bush has signed an order reducing the time holders of green cards must wait before becoming citizens. Currently some 37,000 such people are in the military, out of a total of 1.4 million. The way some Canadians see it, the U.S. has already stolen their oil and gas, metals, diamonds, and water, and owns much of their industry. Now their manpower? Even the most laid-back of our neighbors to the north think this is going a bit far. But perhaps they don't realize it's all for the greater good and represents but a drop in the bucket for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's heroic goal of privatizing large chunks of the U.S. armed forces. The Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root is under billion-dollar contracts to provide much of the logistical support for the military, doing such things as setting up base camps, providing the food, and digging the latrines. And Halliburton is but one of some 90 or so companies that are engaged around the world in recruiting private armies, which then are leased out to governments like those of the U.S. and Great Britain—franchised versions of the French Foreign Legion. Numerous jobs in Iraq are held by private soldiers working for government subcontractors from places like Bangladesh. There's a problem with all this. Some private troops might well fall outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions, which protect prisoners of war. Not that this seems to bother Rumsfeld, who in one case can invoke the Geneva Conventions and in another ignore them—whichever best serves the Bush administration's purposes. They might be considered mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections.

WASHINGTON—Every day the U.S. looks more like a police state. An internal Justice Department probe, based on surveillance videos made by the government inside federal detention facilities, shows that the U.S. harassed, beat, and kept in solitary confinement without access to family or lawyers men it picked up off the streets of New York after 9-11. More likely than not, these men were seized on grounds that some cop or FBI agent thought they looked like Osama followers. Or that a business partner or neighbor decided he could get the man's money or property by charging him first with theft and then telling the cops, "Oh, by the way, I think the guy is Al Qaeda," a claim that one magistrate after another accepted as the reason to set bails so high no one but a millionaire could pay to get out. And this doesn't even scratch the surface of what's been going on. Lawyers were not told the numbers of courtrooms to where their clients were being shuttled because the room locations were secret. Members of Congress, government, the press, and the judiciary knew from the very get-go that any FBI agent, acting on his or her own, could make an affidavit asserting that any individual was a suspected terrorist. Every day, Ashcroft and Bush work the country toward something like martial law, though the administration has suffered setbacks, like last week's rulings by two federal appellate courts in Padilla v. Rumsfeld and Gherebi v. Bush. Both of those decisions, for now at least, hamper the government's ability to simply lock up suspects indefinitely. But the government has other targets and other ways of dealing with them. The most recent crackdown seems to be on the foreign press—the source of much of the substantial critique of its policies. U.S. immigration authorities are detaining foreign correspondents on grounds they have not obtained special visas permitting them to operate here, reports the Associated Press. True, there is a law stipulating a special visa for journalists, but few have ever heard of it and it is seldom enforced. No more. No one ever told the visiting journalists it had suddenly been revived. As a result, immigration officials aren't allowing reporters from abroad to come in under ordinary 90-day tourist visa waivers. Peter Krobath, chief editor for the Austrian movie magazine Skip, was seized and held overnight in a cold room with 45 others who landed without visas. Is he an Osama follower? A disguised fedayeen from Saddam's clan? No. He is guilty of flying to the U.S. to interview Ben Affleck. Thomas Sjoerup, a photographer for the Danish paper Ekstra Bladet, had to give the American authorities fingerprints, a mug shot, and a DNA sample, and he was promptly sent back home anyway. Six French journalists were marched across a terminal at Los Angeles International Airport in handcuffs, having had their belts and shoelaces removed. The International Press Institute, based in Vienna, along with the International Federation of Journalists, headquartered in Brussels, is protesting this treatment. The U.S. response? An embassy official in Vienna insisted that the government was only acting in accordance with the letter of the law.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The whole Saddam saga dribbles out in bits and pieces. It now appears that Bush claimed Saddam possessed not only weapons of mass destruction but the means to lob them into U.S. cities. In a conference call with reporters on Monday, Florida's Democratic senator Bill Nelson said 75 senators got this bit of information as part of a classified briefing before last October's vote to authorize the attack on Iraq. According to a report in Florida Today, senators learned in the secret briefing that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons—including anthrax—that could be dumped on east coast cities from unmanned drones. "They have not found anything that resembles a UAV [unmanned Aerial Vehicle] that has that capability," Nelson told the reporters. Nelson voted for the war. Meanwhile, the inevitable stories suggesting the Saddam capture was a fake are beginning to circulate. One comes from debka.com, posted December 17. Many consider Debka an Israeli intelligence site. Whether that's the case or not, it often turns up inside information about the Middle East and Central Asia that turns out to be true. "Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner," headlined Debka. The story goes on to say that Hussein was seized on November 16, and held in the hole in Adwar for at least three weeks, while his captors attempted to get the $25 million that the U.S. promised to anyone who found the fallen ruler dead or alive. That's not the only rumor experts have had to contend with. One story making the rounds in Baghdad and Great Britain's Iraqi community concerns a photograph of two American GIs standing beside a date palm tree. The photo was supposedly taken on the day of Saddam's capture. But according to the story, any Iraqi would know that this picture was a fake, because date palms are usually harvested in the summer. In any case, unharvested dates fall off the tree before December, and even if they don't, they are brown and dry, not yellow, as they are in the photo. Then there were questions about how the Americans could pull off such a fast DNA test to verify that they had the real Saddam. Normally, it can take up to a month to get a DNA study done, although if you pay more money, the process can be completed in five days. On Sunday, Dr. Robert Shaler, director of the department of forensic biology in the office of the city's chief medical examiner, told Wired that he's "not surprised" by reports that Saddam had been identified through DNA in less than 24 hours. "If you have a single sample and you stop everything else you're doing, you can get it done," he said. That would occur, for example, if police have arrested a suspect and can hold him only temporarily unless DNA matches him to a serious crime. A senior administration official at the White House acted unsurprised when he said, "I don't even know if that speculation dignifies comment." But some are still asking questions. Why, for instance, did Hussein look so bedraggled and confused shortly after his capture? On one Arab website, a former Republican Guard officer in the village of Al-Dor, near where Saddam was captured, claimed that some believe the hole had been hit with nerve gas. Dead birds and other apparently drugged animals were found around the hideout shortly after Hussein's capture. An official at the Pentagon said the military doesn't have chemical weapons and hasn't for decades, and stated that facts stand as they were presented in news briefings. Told of the stories chalking up Saddam's capture as a Bush campaign ploy, an official of the Republican National Committee burst into laughter.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The current federal budget deficit isn't the result of the war with Iraq and the recession, as maintained by President George W. Bush, U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker said Tuesday. Walker said the deficit is a result of a structural imbalance between federal revenues and federal liabilities and a harbinger of deeper troubles to come. Walker is head of the General Accounting Office and is the federal government's highest-ranking auditor. "We have a serious problem," said Walker, speaking at an American Institute of Certified Public Accountants meeting in Washington. Bush has said the fiscal 2003 deficit of $374 billion and the nearly $500 billion deficit projected for 2004 are the direct result of the recession and the nation's war with Iraq. Walker said Tuesday, "We haven't been in recession since November 2001." And, the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan plus extra federal funding for homeland security account for just 25% of the federal budget deficit. "Just look at the facts," Walker said. Speaking to a reporter after his speech, Walker also warned against those optimistically predicting that a booming economy will solve the nation's fiscal crisis. "The hole is too deep to grow your way out of this problem," he said. The current federal debt, coupled with the future value of the nation's projected liabilities to veterans, retirees and other entitlement programs add to "tens of trillions of dollars," Walker said. If the value of the nation's federal liabilities for the next 75 years was calculated, it would amount to $150,000 for "every man, woman and child," Walker said. "And there's no paying this off with your credit card." Walker is known for being outspoken and, while appointed by then-President Bill Clinton, has taken positions unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans at various times. "My job is to speak truth to power," Walker said. While Wall Street analysts generally agree with Walker's assessment, and while some investors appear concerned, interest rates so far haven't been affected.

Families sue U.S., reject 9/11 `bribe' Ignore deadline for compensation Payouts average $1.8 million TIM HARPER WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON—For some, it's blood money, a repugnant payoff they feel they have no choice but to accept. For a handful of others, the process of claiming compensation is too painful: they find themselves paralyzed by grief and unable to reopen emotional wounds barely healed from the deaths of their loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But as many as 73 families see the process of U.S. government compensation as an attempt to protect those who should be held accountable for what they believe was mass murder. They ignored a midnight deadline last night, their last chance to apply for government cash. And today, they begin a new stage in an arduous odyssey and will sue their government, airlines and state and local authorities. "This may be uncharted waters, but I was thrown in a pool on Sept. 11, 2001 and had to learn to swim," said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband Richard in the World Trade Center attack. "I am doing this for my husband. He was a gentle man, and he was alive, trying to get out of that building that day. The dead. The dying. The smoke. The terror. No one should have suffered like that. I want accountability. I need answers." The compensation fund has been controversial since President George W. Bush signed it into law 13 days after the attacks. For those who lost family members, it was always about protecting airlines, federal, state and local authorities from billions of dollars of lawsuits. To receive the federal money, recipients must sign a waiver giving up their right to sue anyone involved in the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history. A late surge of claims on deadline yesterday meant close to 95 per cent of the 2,976 families who lost loved ones in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania were expected to finally take the money. To get there, they had to accept a monetary value on the lives of those closest to them, after making a case based on birth and marriage licences, diplomas and degrees, even videos. They will, on average, receive $1.8 million (all figures U.S.) each. Families of 24 Canadian victims are eligible for compensation and most have applied. Brian Alexander, a New York lawyer representing a portion of the victims who have launched the lawsuit, said he knew of no Canadians involved. He said those who have chosen to sue have put no dollar figure on awards and each claim will be individually tailored. "A widow who is 80 years old is not in the same category as a widow who lost her husband at age 30 and has four kids at home," he said. Some $1.5 billion had been paid from the government fund by the weekend. Compensation for individual deaths has ranged from $250,000 to $6.9 million. Those physically injured as a result of the attacks have received compensation ranging from $500 to $7.9 million. "Only in America could there be a program like this," fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg told CNN yesterday. "You wouldn't find a program paying an average $1.8 million tax-free to eligible families. This is an unprecedented, unique program and exhibits I think the best in the American people." Yet Gabrielle says it is a bribe by the government so victims can be coerced into washing their hands of the affair. She is also resentful that the government is determining the worth of loved ones. "This is about mass murder," she said. "I want to know who was responsible. "No one has been fired. No one has been demoted. The same people who are guarding us today on an elevated security alert are the same people who were working that day." Gabrielle said she is looking at a special 9/11 commission headed by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean to answer the question of responsibility. Kean has battled the White House, New York and aviation authorities for access to documents. He has a May deadline. "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean told CBS last week. He said later he was talking of lower level officials, but Gabrielle and others want to know more about the safety of the buildings and airport security. Even those who have accepted the money see it only as the lesser of two evils. Irene Golinski, 53, whose husband died in the Pentagon attack, was still grappling with the decision to put 9/11 behind her or continue with a lawsuit. "It's almost like it's a payoff to save the airlines and not hold any of those people responsible for what happened," she said. Feinberg's office detailed some awards. The beneficiary of a 36-year-old project manager earning $231,000 and with one dependent was paid $3.48 million, while the beneficiary of a 26-year-old military officer with no dependents and a $44,000 salary got $1.84 million.

Mad Cow Disease Found in Wash. State By Randy Fabi and Richard Cowan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least one confirmed case of the deadly mad cow disease was found in an animal in Washington state, a U.S. Agriculture Department official said on Tuesday. Mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), had previously not been found in the United States, but it devastated the European cattle industry in the 1990s. Scientists believe humans can be infected with the brain-wasting disease by eating diseased meat. A USDA spokeswoman said one case was being investigated, but declined further comment. A spokesman for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures trading, said the agency was told that the USDA had detected mad cow disease in Washington state. One industry source, who declined to be identified, said a "downer" animal -- one that is too sick to walk -- was diagnosed with mad cow disease in Washington state. The U.S. cattle industry has long feared an outbreak of mad cow disease, which could result in billions of dollars of losses. On May 20, Canada confirmed that one Alberta cow, which was slaughtered in January, had mad cow disease. The disease has been widespread in Europe and has been linked to about 130 human deaths, mostly in Britain. The discovery of the sick Canadian cow triggered an immediate halt of Canadian meat exports by most countries as a precaution. Because of concerns over mad cow disease, the European Union in 1994 banned the use of mammalian meat and bone meal in cattle feed, but it has allowed the products to be used in feed for other animals like chickens, pigs and fish.

"It was mentioned that most vaiSNava-s do not accept that Jesus is any kind of avatAra…" Um, I'm gonna put my big foot in my mouth here, but I think Theist feels the same way I do about Jesus (regardless of what he may have sounded like)… He feels Jesus is an empowered Jiva soul. His birth was predicted in scripture, he lived like no ordinary man, he performed miracles, and he inspired others with religion. The contention of this thread is whether Jesus was godhead or not. I think Theist has already explained that he was one in spirit: Jesus was a pure devotee with a mission. But godhead? No! (He was godhead in the sense of being a pure devotee) Please calm down and be more coherent.

Excuse me Theist, I have to bolt… "VaiSNavas historically do not consider any other scripture to be on par with Vedas…" I think you must be right here. But based on evidence and not team spirit. "… nor do they consider Vedas to be "my religious book," as if they were merely one among many religious scriptures, …" This is so ambiguous it could mean different things. NOT merely one… THE BEST. "… or that they were somehow limited and required other viewpoints to supplement them." ALL IDEAS are already evident in the Vedas. Prove Different.

… (from yasoda nandana dasa and my wife purnima devi dasi) Augh, this Yasodanandana is a man with a woman's name! I knew it all along! Really, I had assumed you were a woman. Seriously, up till now I didn't know your sex. A good argument for (me) being a neophyte! Doesn't make any difference to me! I think he has intimate knowledge!

… a good cheer. My sentiments exactly Mahak… I think. I'm not sure what you said, but it sounds like it has power to me. Yes, Jahnava is becoming an institution. I think his comments have alot of purpose and power. wonderful valakilyas?

Call It Love - by Poco We've got all night, let's take our time Tell me your secrets, I'll tell you mine When makes us feel better, call it love You say you won't, I say you will. You make me crazy, but I want you still When it makes us feel better… call it love. Do we tell the truth or do we live a lie? Is the feeling good? Is that what makes you cry? When you say those words, look me in the eye Tell me why you call it love I play my hand, you call my bluff We push each other till we've had enough When it's all you've got… call it love If I didn't have money would you want me still? When you look real close, do we fit the bill? Call it what you want, honey time will tell. (Instrumental) Do we tell the truth or do we live a lie? Is the feeliing good? Is that what makes you cry? When you say those words, look me in the eye Tell me why you call it love We got all night, let's take our time Tell me your secrets, I'll tell you mine When it makes us feel better, call it love. Chorus… Call it love When it's all you've got, call it love.

Wish You Were Here So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blueskies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell? And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? Cold comfort for change? And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year, Running over the same old ground. What have you found? The same old fears. Wish you were here. Shine on You Crazy Diamond VI-IX Nobody knows where you are, how near or how far. Shine on you crazy diamond. Pile on many more layers and I'll be joining you there. Shine on you crazy diamond. And we'll bask in the shadow of yesterday's triumph, and sail on the steel breeze. Come on you boy child, you winner and loser, come on you miner for truth and delusion, and shine! ..................................... Oh, I've gotta stop!

Govindaram, "Hridy:" is an acromym I gave to Hridyananda das Gosvami, one of the original Prabhupada inheritors. (No, I don't want to get into that.) He finnished the Srimad-Bhagavatam translations and purports that Prabhupada left incomplete. In my opinion, he is a brilliant speaker and KC advocate. Definately one of the strongest soldiers against Maya on record. I advocate nothing beyond this. He preached around the world for many years. His arthritus became a big problem. He is now retired from formal preaching near the L.A. temple. He still participates in ISKCON management. SONG FOR ADAM by Jackson Browne Though Adam was a friend of mine, I did not know him well He was alone into his distance He was deep into his well I could guess what he was laughing at, but I couldn't really tell Now the story's told that Adam jumped, but I've been thinking that he fell Together we went traveling, as we received the call His destination India, and I had none at all Well, I still remember laughing with our backs against the wall So free of fear, we never thought that one of us might fall I sit before my only candle, but it's so little light to find my way Now this story unfolds before my candle Which is shorter every hour as it reaches for the day But I feel just like a candle in the way I guess I'll get there, but I wouldn't say for sure When we parted we were laughing still, as our goodbyes were said And I never heard from him again as each our lives we led Except for once in someone else's letter that I read Until I heard the sudden word that a friend of mine was dead I sit before my only candle, like a pilgrim sits beside the way Now this journey appears before my candle As a song that's growing fainter the harder that I play But I fear before I end I'll fade away But I guess I'll get there, though I wouldn't say for sure Though Adam was a friend of mine, I did not know him long And when I stood myself beside him, I never though I was as strong Still it seems he stopped his singing in the middle of his song Well I'm not the one to say I know, but I'm hoping he was wrong I'm holding out my only candle, though it's so little light to find my way Now this story's been laid beneath my candle And it's shorter every hour as it reaches for the day Yes, I feel just like a candle in the way I hope I'll get there, but I never pray

While My Guitar Gentle Weeps - George Harrison Now look at you walk, see the love, love that's sleeping While my guitar gentle weeps I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping Still my guitar gentle weeps I don't know why nobody told you How to unfold your love I don't how someone controlled you They bought and sold you I look at the world and I notice it's turning While my guitar gently weeps There we mistake we must surely be learning Still my guitar gentle weeps (Instrumental) I don't know how you were diverted You were perverted too I don't know how you were inverted No one alerted you Now look at you walk, see the love, love that's sleeping While my guitar gentle weeps There look at you walk Still my guitar gentle weeps

Hridy: There's one statement ???, that any work which is not devartha, which is not meant as a sacrifice to God, it is karma-banda. Banda, the Sanskrit word from which comes our English word bondage… Bondage-banda… to bind, bondage. So karma-banda means the bondage of karma… is being bound by karma. So Krsna says ???, anything else which is not meant for God, it will… It's ironic because we try to avoid surrendering to God because we have an urge for freedom…somehow we don't want God to close in on us too much. Guest: ??? exploit. It's a matter of choice. Hridy: Yes, but still I think people avoid God's service thinking they want their freedom. They don't want to be… uh they don't want to be forced or they don't want to have to serve God. But you see, Krsna says by not serving God, then you loose your freedom actually. It's just like let's say - to give an example - that you dance… So let's say someone that is involved in dance. Now if you practice very strenuously, very seriously, and actually achieve mastery of dance, then you become free. Isn't it? When you achieve that mastery of the arts, then you're free. Then you can do anything freely. But if you have not mastered it, then you're restricted. You may want to move in a certain way, but you can't move like that. You see? Or just like if you're a pianist, you may want to move in a certain way… you cannot achieve it because you haven't got that mastery. So in the same way, it is by that surrender to God… If we master the art of serving God, then we become free. That's the freedom of the soul.

"… As is, the film clocks in at 3 hours 20 minutes." Lol! I could've watched alot more… even from a theater seat. My wife knows all this insider info like you do. The director is probably gonna do the first film (The Hobbit) after he does the remake of King Kong. Practically the first two albums from Led Zepplin were inspired by Tolkien. Yeah, the white wizard they just dropped and didn't resolve. He'll be in the home version. I think it's neat also how true love saved the day: Arwen forsook her immortality to return and be with Aragorn. Thus, the sword was forged that convinced the ghost army to honor their pledge. Don't mess with maya! See how Froto succummed at the end!

I think I agree with Gauracandra here. The situation sounds nearly impossible to me. Alot of good answers here though. People need to be encouraged - not riddiculed and harrassed - when they begin their Krsna consciousness. Even demons should have peace in their own homes. What a mess. There is a bright side: There would be alot more messes like these if the devotees were spreading the KC movement.

"My dear Lord, You have stated that a marriage between persons equal in status of social standing, beauty, riches, strength, influence and renunciation can be a suitable match. But this status of life can only be possible by Your grace. You are the supreme perfectional source of all opulences. Whatever opulent status of life one may have is all derived from You. As described in the Vedanta-sutra, janmadyasya yatah: You are the supreme source from which everything emanates, the reservoir of all pleasures. Therefore, persons who are endowed with knowledge desire only to achieve You, and nothing else. To achieve Your favor, they give up everything--even the transcendental realization of Brahman. You are the supreme ultimate goal of life. You are the reservoir of all interests of the living entities. Those who are actually well-motivated desire only You, and for this reason they give up everything to attain success. They therefore deserve to be associated with You. In the society of the servitors and served in Krsna consciousness, one is not subjected to the pains and pleasures of material society, which functions according to sex attraction. Therefore, everyone, man or woman, should seek to be an associate in Your society of servitors and served. You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead; no one can excel You, nor can anyone come up to an equal level with You. The perfect social system is that in which You remain in the center, being served as the Supreme, and all others engage as Your servitors. In such a perfectly constructed society, everyone can remain eternally happy and blissful. "My Lord, You have stated that only the beggars praise Your glories, and that is also perfectly correct. But who are those beggars? Those beggars are all exalted devotees, liberated personalities and those in the renounced order of life. They are all great souls and devotees who have no other business than to glorify You. Such great souls forgive even the worst offender. These so-called beggars execute their spiritual advancement of life, tolerating all kinds of tribulations in the material world. My dear husband, do not think that out of my inexperience I accepted You as my husband; actually, I followed all these great souls. I followed the path of these great beggars and decided to surrender my life unto Your lotus feet. "You have said that You are penniless, and that is correct. You distribute Yourself completely to these great souls and devotees. Knowing this fact perfectly well, I rejected even such great personalities like Lord Brahma and King Indra. My Lord, the great time factor acts under Your direction only. The time factor is so great and powerful that within moments it can effect devastation anywhere within the creation. Considering all these factors, I thought Jarasandha, Sisupala and similar other princes who wanted to marry Me to be no more important than ordinary insects. "My dear all-powerful son of Vasudeva, Your statement that You have taken shelter within the water of the ocean, being afraid of all the great princes, is quite suitable, but my experience with You contradicts this. I have actually seen that You kidnapped me forcibly in the presence of all these princes. At the time of my marriage ceremony, simply by giving a jerk to the string of Your bow, You very easily drove the others away and kindly gave me shelter at Your lotus feet. I still remember vividly that You kidnapped me in the same way as a lion forcibly takes his share of hunted booty, driving away all other small animals within the twinkling of an eye. "My dear lotus-eyed Lord, I cannot understand Your statement that women and other persons who have taken shelter under Your lotus feet pass their days only in bereavement. From the history of the world we can see that princes like Anga, Prthu, Bharata, Yayati and Gaya were all great emperors of the world, and there were no competitors to their exalted positions. But in order to achieve the favor of Your lotus feet, they renounced their exalted positions and entered into the forest to practice penances and austerities. When they voluntarily accepted such a position, accepting Your lotus feet as all in all, does it mean that they were in lamentation and bereavement? "My dear Lord, You have advised me that I can still select another from the princely order and divorce myself of Your companionship. But, my dear Lord, it is perfectly well-known to me that You are the reservoir of all good qualities. Great saintly persons like Narada Muni are always engaged simply in glorifying Your transcendental characteristics. If someone simply takes shelter of such a saintly person, he immediately becomes freed from all material contamination. And by coming in direct contact with Your service the goddess of fortune agrees to bestow all her blessings. Under the circumstances, what woman who has once heard of Your glories from authoritative sources and somehow or other has tasted the nectarean flavor of Your lotus feet can be foolish enough to agree to marry someone of this material world who is always afraid of death, disease, old age and rebirth? I have therefore accepted Your lotus feet, not without consideration, but after mature and deliberate decision. My dear Lord, You are the master of the three worlds. You can fulfill all the desires of all Your devotees in this world and the next, because You are the Supreme Soul of everyone. I have therefore selected You as my husband, considering You to be the only fit personality. You may throw me in any species of life according to the reaction of my fruitive activities, and I haven't the least concern for this. My only ambition is that I may always remain fast to Your lotus feet, because You can deliver Your devotees from illusory material existence and are always prepared to distribute Yourself to Your devotees. "My dear Lord, You have advised me to select one of the princes such as Sisupala, Jarasandha or Dantavakra, but what is their position in this world? They are always engaged in hard labor to maintain their household life, just like the bulls working hard day and night with the oil-pressing machine. They are compared to asses, beasts of burden. They are always dishonored like the dogs, and they are miserly like the cats. They have sold themselves like slaves to their wives. Any unfortunate woman who has never heard of Your glories may accept such a man as her husband, but a woman who has learned about You--that You are praised not only in this world, but in the halls of the great demigods like Lord Brahma and Lord Siva--will not accept anyone besides Yourself as her husband. A man within this material world is just a dead body. In fact, superficially, the living entity is covered by this body, which is nothing but a bag of skin decorated with beards and moustaches, hairs on the body, nails on the fingers and hairs on the head. Within this decorated bag there are bunches of muscles, bundles of bones, and pools of blood, always mixed up with stool, urine, mucus, bile and polluted air, and enjoyed by different kinds of insects and germs. A foolish woman accepts such a dead body as her husband and, in sheer misunderstanding, loves him as her dear companion. This is only possible because such a woman has never tasted the ever-blissful flavor of Your lotus feet. "My dear lotus-eyed husband, You are self-satisfied. You do not care whether or not I am beautiful or qualified; You are not at all concerned about it. Therefore Your nonattachment for me is not at all astonishing; it is quite natural. You cannot be attached to any woman, however exalted her position and beauty. Whether You are attached to me or not, may my devotion and attention be always engaged at Your lotus feet. The material mode of passion is also Your creation, so when You passionately glance upon me, I accept it as the greatest boon of my life. I am ambitious only for such auspicious moments."

"As I have already explained, I am not very much interested in family life or love between husband and wife. By nature, I am not very fond of family life, wife, children, home and opulences. As My devotees are always neglectful of all these worldly possessions, I am also like that. Actually, I am interested in self-realization; that give Me pleasure, and not this family life." After submitting His statement, Lord Krsna suddenly stopped. … Talks Between Krsna and Rukmini Rukmini Later Replies: (This is really good) "My dear lotus-eyed Lord, Your statement that we are not a fit combination is completely right. It is not possible for me to come to an equal level with You because You are the reservoir of all qualities, the unlimited Supreme Personality of Godhead. How can I be a fit match for You? There is no possibility of comparison with You, who are the master of all greatness, controller of the three qualities and object of worship for great demigods like Brahma and Lord Siva. As far as I am concerned, I am a production of the three modes of material nature. The three modes of material nature are impediments towards the progressive advancement of devotional service. When and where can I be a fit match for You? My dear husband, You have rightly said also that being afraid of the kings, You have taken shelter in the water of the sea. But who is the king of this material world? I do not think that the so-called royal families are kings of the material world. The kings of the material world are the three modes of material nature. They are actually the controllers of this material world. You are situated in the core of everyone's heart, where You remain completely aloof from the touch of the three modes of material nature, and there is no doubt about it. "You say You always maintain enmity with the worldly kings. But who are the worldly kings? I think the worldly kings are the senses. They are most formidable, and they control everyone. Certainly You maintain enmity with these material senses. You are never under the control of the senses; rather, You are the controller of the senses, Hrsikesa. My dear Lord, You have said that You are bereft of all royal power, and that is also correct. Not only are You bereft of material world supremacy, but even Your servants, those who have some attachment to Your lotus feet, also give up the material world supremacy because they consider the material position to be the darkest region, which checks the progress of spiritual enlightenment. Your servants do not like material supremacy, so what to speak of You? My dear Lord, Your statement that You do not act as an ordinary person with a particular aim in life is also perfectly correct. Even Your great devotees and servants, known as great sages and saintly persons, remain in such a state that no one can get any clue to the aim of their lives. They are considered by the human society to be crazy and cynical. Their aim of life remains a mystery to the common human being; the lowest of mankind can know neither You nor Your servant. A contaminated human being cannot even imagine the pastimes of You and Your devotees. O unlimited one, when the activities and endeavors of Your devotees remain a mystery to the common human being, how can they understand Your motive and endeavor? All kinds of energies and opulences are engaged in Your service, but still they are resting at Your shelter. "You have described Yourself as penniless, but this condition is not poverty. Since there is nothing in existence but Yourself, You do not require to possess anything--You Yourself are everything. Unlike others, You do not require to purchase anything extraneously. With You all contrary things can be adjusted because You are absolute. You do not possess anything, but no one is richer than You. In the material world no one can be rich without possessing. Since Your Lordship is absolute, You can adjust the contradiction of possessing nothing but at the same time being the richest. In the Vedas it is stated that although You have no material hands and legs, You accept everything which is offered in devotion by the devotees. You have no material eyes and ears, but still You can see everything everywhere, and You can hear everything everywhere. Although You do not possess anything, the great demigods who accept prayers and worship from others come and worship You to solicit Your mercy. How can You be categorized among the poor? "My dear Lord, You have also stated that the richest section of human society does not worship You. This is also correct, because persons who are puffed up with material possessions think of utilizing their property for sense gratification. When a poverty-stricken man becomes rich, he makes a program for sense gratification. This is due to his ignorance of how to utilize his hard-earned money. Under the spell of the external energy, he thinks that his money is properly employed in sense gratification, and thus he neglects to render transcendental service. My dear Lord, You have stated that persons who possess nothing are very dear to You; renouncing everything, Your devotee wants to possess You only. I see, therefore, that a great sage like Narada Muni who does not possess any material property is still very dear to You. And such persons do not care for anything but Your Lordship.