paul108

When we see a person who has awakened some love for Krishna, but is not yet 100% perfect, do we see the devotee or the non-devotee in them? Perhaps more importantly, do they feel inspired or discouraged by our interaction? On page 39 of the current BTG, Jayadvaita Swami quotes a comment by Srila Prabhupada on BG 9.30, "Even if you were to see Brahmananda walking down the street smoking a cigarette, still you would have to consider him saintly." It suspect it would also be ok for him to be wearing his Tulasi mala.

When we see a person who has awakened some love for Krishna, but is not yet 100% perfect, do we see the devotee or the non-devotee in them? Perhaps more importantly, do they feel inspired or discouraged by our interaction? On page 39 of the current BTG, Jayadvaita Swami quotes a comment by Srila Prabhupada on BG 9.30, "Even if you were to see Brahmananda walking down the street smoking a cigarette, still you would have to consider him saintly." It suspect it would also be ok for him to be wearing his Tulasi mala.

Have you found it yet?

I'm confused and a little upset by this concept of only initiated devotees or those following the 4 regs being allowed to wear Tulasi or chant on Tulasi beads. That would seem to say that Tulasi does not have mercy for those who want to go back to Krishna, but who are still bewildered by maya most of the time. Anyone who is initiated and is following the 4 regs, assuming they continue to chant Hare Krishna, are already in the fast lane going back to Godhead. It's those of us who are live in maya who need Tulasi's help the most. I think I would be very discouraged about chanting japa if I had to give up my Tulasi beads. Since I haven't heard of these restrictions before, I might as well ask if it's ok for me to continue to grow Tulasi, offer her leaves and flowers to Krishna, and taste the remnants.

I'm confused and a little upset by this concept of only initiated devotees or those following the 4 regs being allowed to wear Tulasi or chant on Tulasi beads. That would seem to say that Tulasi does not have mercy for those who want to go back to Krishna, but who are still bewildered by maya most of the time. Anyone who is initiated and is following the 4 regs, assuming they continue to chant Hare Krishna, are already in the fast lane going back to Godhead. It's those of us who are live in maya who need Tulasi's help the most. I think I would be very discouraged about chanting japa if I had to give up my Tulasi beads. Since I haven't heard of these restrictions before, I might as well ask if it's ok for me to continue to grow Tulasi, offer her leaves and flowers to Krishna, and taste the remnants.

Religious intolerance claimed in cow dispute By STEPHEN WATSON News Staff Reporter 1/22/2002 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20020122/1047307.asp Four cows are causing a herd of problems in the Allegany County Village of Angelica. Steven Voith, who says the cows are an integral part of his family's adherence to Hare Krishna beliefs, keeps the animals on a 31/2-acre property along the village's Main Street. He said the village is persecuting him because of his religion and said the actions violate his right to practice his faith. "In fact, we feel that we're being persecuted out of town," Voith said in an interview. But Angelica officials say neighbors have complained of noise and odors from the cattle, and they've taken him to court for violating a law that bars farm animals within village limits. Monday night, village officials voted for a second time against giving Voith and his family a permit that would allow them to keep the cows on their property. The Village Board's 4-1 vote against Voith came after Village Attorney David Pullen gave an opinion stating Voith's religious and property rights were not an issue in this case, Angelica Mayor Peter T. Johnson said. "This is not a religious or land-use issue. It's a public health and safety issue," Johnson said. The Village Board also voted to give Voith 20 days to find a suitable home, outside the village limits, for the cows, he said. Pullen's opinion came in response to a filing made with the village by Voith's Syracuse lawyer, Steve Clar, who asked them to reconsider their denial of a permit for Voith. The village initially denied the permit last summer, Johnson said. Voith was convicted in Village Court of violating the village's farm-animal ordinance. He must file his appeal by Jan. 25. County Judge Judith E. Samber ordered that Voith be allowed to keep the animals in town pending the appeal. Voith said he has been persecuted by the village for keeping his cows and occasionally leading them off his property for religious processions. Half a dozen other families keep farm animals on their land, and they weren't required to obtain permits to keep the animals, according to Voith. Voith said he has reported incidents of harassment to the village police, Allegany County Sheriff's Department, county district attorney's office, state attorney general's office - even the FBI - to no avail. He said the New York Civil Liberties Union is interested in his claims of religious intolerance and is following his situation. Johnson said village officials have treated Voith fairly and said that as far as he knows, Voith has not filed criminal charges in any of the alleged incidents. Allegany Correspondent Bob Weigand contributed to this report. e-mail: swatson@buffnews.com

Hare Krishna Now and then I like to take up the challenge of presenting Lord Caitanya's teachings to people who to the nonduality position. I'm sure some devotees would think this is a waste of time or even dangerous, and it does sometimes seem so. However, I spent several years studying their philosophy and was quite into it before Krishna rescued me, and so I feel some responsibility to these people. I was just wondering if any devotees have tried to do this sort of thing, and what was the result. Any advice? Paul

Maybe I'm a cult nut too, because I still can't shake the feeling that even if bin Laden's people did it, the whole road was purposefully paved by some excessively affluent Americans.

You can have the patent, but my wife's already sewn padding in this spot on a japa bag I had. It's reassuring to know I'm not the only one making these holes. If you can come up with a good material (maybe chain-mail) that will prevent me from wearing holes in them, then for sure you've got at least one customer.

You can have the patent, but my wife's already sewn padding in this spot on a japa bag I had. It's reassuring to know I'm not the only one making these holes. If you can come up with a good material (maybe chain-mail) that will prevent me from wearing holes in them, then for sure you've got at least one customer.

I've always thought that this is a good reason why we keep our "trigger finger" out of the bag, in plain view. Maybe we could chant japa with our hands up?

I've always thought that this is a good reason why we keep our "trigger finger" out of the bag, in plain view. Maybe we could chant japa with our hands up?

Dan Rather interviews a FEMA representative http://www.makethemaccountable.com/FEMA.mp3 Click here (above) to listen to the clip of an interview Dan Rather had with a FEMA representative soon after the September 11 tragedy. You shouldn't need any special software to play the clip. The text is below: Rather: Kennedy... Kennedy, a rescue worker with the National Urban Search and Rescue, it’s part of FEMA… Kennedy: We’re currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site.

I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, and I don't want to get into an argument about eating meat either. I became a vegetarian because of it's much friendlier environmental impact, years before ever hearing of the Vedas. Currently I work enforcing Pennsylvania's air quality regulations. Here we have a regulation concerning malodors, which, although heavily slanted in favor of polluters, can still be effective in some cases. We also have a law regulating how much smoke can come out of a stack. If a hamburger joint gets built next to a temple, the devotees might be able to find some relief in the applicable air quality regulations, although I'm not sure Texas has any...

I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, and I don't want to get into an argument about eating meat either. I became a vegetarian because of it's much friendlier environmental impact, years before ever hearing of the Vedas. Currently I work enforcing Pennsylvania's air quality regulations. Here we have a regulation concerning malodors, which, although heavily slanted in favor of polluters, can still be effective in some cases. We also have a law regulating how much smoke can come out of a stack. If a hamburger joint gets built next to a temple, the devotees might be able to find some relief in the applicable air quality regulations, although I'm not sure Texas has any...

Lilamrita, Let There Be a Temple, p.11. Prabhupada: "Those who are Krishna conscious are not afraid of bomb. When they see a bomb coming, they think that Krishna desired the bomb to come. A Krishna conscious person is never afraid of anything. Bhayam dvitiyabhinivesatah syat. One who has the conception that something can exist outside of Krishna is afraid. On the other hand, one who knows that everything is coming from Krishna has no reason to be afraid. The bomb is coming -- he says, `Ah, Krishna is coming.' That is the vision of the devotee. He think, `Krishna wants to kill me with a bomb. That is all right. I will be killed.' That is Krishna consciousness." 'When the reporter asked if the Vaishnava would die without fighting, Prabhupada said that the Vaishnava would fight, but only under the direction of Krishna, and he cited Arjuna and Hanuman as examples. He continued to explain Krishna consciousness as the only solution.'

An election correction Nov 15th 2001 From The Economist print edition http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=865704 In the issues of December 16th 2000 to November 10th 2001, we may have given the impression that George Bush had been legally and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologises for any inconvenience.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=109944528 Monkey helps police recover idol <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/images/spacer.gif> IMRAN KHAN <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/images/spacer.gif> <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/images/spacer.gif> <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/images/alphabets/B.gif> HUBANESWAR: A monkey, reportedly, played a key role in recovering the astadhatu idol of Madan Mohan, one of the two idols stolen from the Jagannath temple in Puri, Monday morning. Police sources said it was a monkey that led the search partly to the well in which the idol was found. "The monkey behaved differently. It led the team to the well where the idol was found," sources said. At a time when the police team was frantically searching every nook of the 13th century Jagannath temple complex for the idol, the money kept raising its hand and making different sounds to attract the attention of the officer supervising the search operation, the sources said. Initially, the official ignored the monkey's gestures. However, after some time, out of sheer curiosity the official went near the monkey, which raised its hands and pointed towards a well. Taking cue, the police pumped out water from the well to find the idol lying at the bottom. The temple's priests reportedly offered fruits to the monkey as a reward for his noble job. <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/images/spacer.gif>

How Bush Lost Florida But Won In The Supreme Court And The Media by jerry politex, www.bushwatch.com Ever since Bush was selected by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 to take over the U.S. presidency, the Dems have said that a fair and thorough recounting of the Florida vote would prove that Gore won. While the jury is still out on whether the reported Consortium recount, published late Sunday November 11, was fair and thorough, let's assume that it was. What does it tell us? It tells us that Gore won the Florida electoral vote, the U.S. Supreme Court took the presidency away from him, and the media is wrong in reporting otherwise. Here's how Bush lost Florida. First, it is an established fact that Gore beat Bush in the national popular vote by over a half million votes. (*) Secondly, Consortium interpretations of the voting data conclude that thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida than Bush. The problem for Gore is that many more votes in his favor were declared invalid than similar votes for Bush. Third, discounting such invalid votes, Consortium interpretations conclude that Gore still beat Bush statewide in Florida by a thin margin of under 200 votes. Which brings us back to the Supreme Court decision. In its Dec. 12 decision the Supreme Court indicated that its conclusions were based upon equal protection law, and decided that in order to have equal voter protection in Florida the entire state should be recounted. However, even though there were weeks left for such a recount prior to the formal reception of the states' electoral college votes in Congress, the court decided that there wasn't enough time for such a recount, so five of nine members of the court decided, along party lines, to select Bush as the winner in Florida. The Consortium data indicates that they were wrong to think that Bush had won the popular vote in Florida. At any rate, in its Dec. 12 decision the Court made clear that if it hadn't selected Bush, its fallback decision would have been to call for a statewide election, since it considered the case to be a matter of equal rights. It further indicated that not taking a position on the matter was not an option. Strangely, not one media member of the Consortium has reached the conclusion that if the Supreme Court had not selected Bush, Gore would have won the election by a Florida recount. Instead, in every instance of Consortium reporting, the big headlines say the data shows Bush won with more "valid votes," that he won because of the partial recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, or that he won because he would have had more votes than Gore under Gore's recount request. Buried in some of the stories are the six ways that Gore could have won. However, all of these suppositions are moot. The unvarnished fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court had the final say on the election, not the Consortium voting data, and, left with the choice of giving the election back to the people of Florida through a statewide recount or selecting Bush, they selected Bush. That's what makes the New York Times headline for the Consortium story particularly egregious: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast The Deciding Vote." While the headline represents a badly needed attempt to restore credibility to the U.S. Supreme Court, it fails on the facts and it fails because the media cannot do what the Court, itself, has failed to do since its politicized decision in the case of Bush vs. Gore. (*) All documentation may be found at http://www.bushwatch.net/gorebush.htm. © copyright 2001. May be reprinted with attribution and link to www.bushwatch.com Background: Gore Wins Popular Vote By Over Half Million Associated Press, December 22, 2000 "Vice President Gore won the nation's popular vote in the presidential election by more than 500,000 votes, according to official totals made available Thursday to The Associated Press. An AP survey of all 50 states' final election numbers showed that Democrat Gore led President-elect Bush, the former GOP governor of Texas, by 539,947 votes. Final numbers show Gore with 50,996,116 votes and Bush with 50,456,169. Bush won the White House by capturing 271 electoral votes, one more than the Constitution requires. The popular vote total includes all absentee ballots that were counted in the weeks following the Nov. 7 election." CONSORTIUM SAYS BUSH AND GORE WON FLORIDA VOTE 1. Gore Won The National Popular Vote By Over A Half Million (AP) 2. More Florida Voters Voted For Gore Than For Bush (SPT, CT) 3. The Supreme Court Selected Bush, 5-4. (Supreme Court) 4. The Supreme Court's Alternate Plan Was To Recount All Florida Votes. (Supreme Court) 5. A Recount Of All Florida Votes Would Have Gore Winning By Over 100 Votes. (NYT, WP) As you read the Consortium membership comments (below the Parry summary story) on the Florida presidential election of 2000, please keep in mind that Bush was selected to be president by a U.S. Supreme Court vote of 5-4. If the Supreme Court had not decided to take such a vote, it indicated that neither the Bush solution to accept the State of Florida's count nor the Gore solution to recount four counties would be acceptable. Nor would the Florida Supreme Court's solution to recount 43,000 ballots be acceptable. Rather, the entire state of Florida would have to be recounted, the Supreme Court said. (Supreme Court summary ("equal protection") and decision here.) That scenario would have Gore winning by over 100 votes, based upon the recount by the Consortium. --Politex, 11/12/01 consortiumnews.com Foreground: Gore's Victory By Robert Parry November 12, 2001 So Al Gore was the choice of Florida?s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won. Gore won even if one doesn?t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed ?butterfly ballots,? or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls. Gore won even if there?s no adjustment for George W. Bush?s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times. Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida?s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on studies of the election, see Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2 and July 16.] The Spin Yet, possibly for reasons of ?patriotism? in this time of crisis, the news organizations that financed the Florida ballot study structured their stories on the ballot review to indicate that Bush was the legitimate winner, with headlines such as ?Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush? [Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2001]. Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story headlined, ?George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever,? in which Kurtz ridiculed as ?conspiracy theorists? those who thought Gore had won. ?The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,? Kurtz wrote. ?That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time.? Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. ?Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century ? and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?? he wrote. In other words, the elite media?s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over it." Only "Gore partisans" ? as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies ? would insist on looking at the fine print. The Actual Findings While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it?s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots. ?Full Review Favors Gore,? the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome. Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots ? punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards. The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes. This core finding of Gore?s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush. Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the ?butterfly ballot? and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots. The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed ? but not completed ? in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December. The new articles make much of Gore?s decision to seek recounts in only four counties and the Florida Supreme Court?s decision to examine only ?undervotes,? those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election. "Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear suggestion that Gore was hypocritical as well as foolish. The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture." The Bush Strategy Instead of supporting a full and fair recount, Bush chose to cling to his official lead of 537 votes out of some 6 million cast, Bush counted on his brother Jeb?s state officials to ensure the Bush family?s return to national power. To add some muscle to the legal maneuvering, the Bush campaign dispatched thugs to Florida to intimidate vote counters and jacked up the decibel level in the powerful conservative media, which accused Gore of trying to steal the election and labeled him "Sore Loserman." With Bush rejecting a full recount and media pundits calling for Gore to concede, Gore opted for recounts in four southern Florida counties where irregularities seemed greatest. Those recounts were opposed by Bush?s supporters, both inside Gov. Jeb Bush?s administration and in the streets by Republican hooligans flown in from Washington. [For more details, see stories from Nov. 24, 2000 and Nov. 27, 2000] Stymied on that recount front, Gore carried the fight to the state courts, where pro-Bush forces engaged in more delaying tactics, leaving the Florida Supreme Court only days to fashion a recount remedy. Finally, on Dec. 8, facing an imminent deadline for submitting the presidential election returns, the state Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ?undervotes.? This tally would have excluded so-called ?overvotes? ? which were kicked out for supposedly indicating two choices for president. Bush fought this court-ordered recount, too, sending his lawyers to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, five Republican justices stopped the recount on Dec. 9 and gave a sympathetic hearing to Bush?s claim that the varying ballot standards in Florida violated constitutional equal-protection requirements. At 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, two hours before a deadline to submit voting results, the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court instructed the state courts to devise a recount method that would apply equal standards, a move that would have included all ballots where the intent of the voter was clear. The hitch was that the U.S. Supreme Court gave the state only two hours to complete this assignment, effectively handing Florida?s 25 electoral votes and the White House to Republican George W. Bush. A Third Hypothetical The articles about the new recount tallies make much of the two hypothetical cases in which Bush supposedly would have prevailed: the limited recounts of the four southern Florida counties ? by 225 votes ? and the state Supreme Court?s order ? by 430 votes. Those hypothetical cases dominated the news stories, while Gore?s statewide-recount victory was played down. Yet, the newspapers made little or nothing of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court?s decision represented a third hypothetical. Assuming that a brief extension were granted to permit a full-and-fair Florida recount, the U.S. Supreme Court decision might well have resulted in the same result that the news organizations discovered: a Gore victory. The U.S. Supreme Court?s proposed standards mirrored the standards applied in the new recount of the disputed ballots. The Post buries this important fact in the 22nd paragraph of its story. ?Ironically, it was Bush?s lawyers who argued that recounting only the undervotes violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. And the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dec. 12 ruling that ended the dispute, also questioned whether the Florida court should have limited a statewide recount only to undervotes,? the Post wrote. ?Had the high court acted on that, and had there been enough time left for the Florida Supreme Court to require yet another statewide recount, Gore?s chances would have been dramatically improved.? In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters ? both nationally and in Florida ? might well have been respected. Al Gore might well have been inaugurated president of the United States. Favored Outcome But this outcome was not the favored hypothetical of the news organizations, which apparently wanted to avoid questions about their patriotism. If they had simply given the American people the unvarnished facts, the reality that the voters of Florida favored Al Gore might have bolstered the belief that Bush indeed did steal the White House. That, in turn, could have undermined his legitimacy during the current crisis over terrorism. In its coverage of the latest recount numbers, the national news media also showed little regard for the fundamental principle of democracy: that leaders derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from legalistic tricks, physical intimidation and public-relations maneuvers. It is that understanding that is most missing in the news accounts of the latest recount figures. Presumably, the American people are supposed to accept that everything just turned out right ? the Bush dynasty was restored to power, the proper order was back in place. Anyone who begs to differ is a "conspiracy theorist" or a "Gore partisan." [This message has been edited by paul108 (edited 11-13-2001).]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html US agents told: Back off bin Ladens US special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, it was reported today. And the BBC2's Newsnight program also said the younger George Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by the chief US representative of Salem bin Laden, Osama's brother, who took over as head of the family after his father Mohammed's death in a plane crash in 1968. The program said it had secret documents from the FBI investigation into the terror attacks on New York and Washington which showed that despite the myth that Osama is the black sheep of the family, at least two other American-based members of it are suspected of links with a possible terrorist organisation. The program said it had obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of bin Laden family members living in the US after, and even before, September 11. A document showed that special agents from the Washington field office were investigating Abdullah, a close relative of Osama, because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation, it said. advertisement advertisement The program said it had found where he used to live with another close relative, Omar, also an FBI suspect, in Falls Church, Virginia, a suburb of Washington. The house was conveniently close to WAMY, it said, and just a couple of blocks down the road was a place listed by four of the alleged hijackers as their address. The US Treasury has not frozen WAMY's assets, and insists it is a charity, the program said, yet Pakistan had expelled WAMY "operatives" and India claimed WAMY was funding an organisation linked to bombings in Kashmir. The FBI did look into WAMY, but for some reason agents were pulled off the trail, it said. The program has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the Saudis, it said. The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989, Michael Springman, told the program: "In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. "People who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained there. I complained here in Washington to Main State, to the inspector-general and to Diplomatic Security and I was ignored." He added: "What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists - recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets." The US wanted to keep the pro-American Saudi royal family in control of the world's biggest oil spigot, even at the price of turning a blind eye to any terrorist connection - so long as America was safe, the program said. The program said the younger George Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by the chief US representative of Salem bin Laden, Osama's brother, who took over as head of the family after his father Mohammed's death in a plane crash in 1968. Young George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little-known private company which in just a few years of its founding has become one of America's biggest defence contractors, and his father, Bush Senior, is also a paid adviser, the program said. And it became embarrassing when it was revealed that the bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11, it added. The program said it had been told by a highly-placed source in a US intelligence agency that there had always been "constraints" on investigating Saudis, but under President Bush it had become much worse. After the elections, the intelligence agencies were told to "back off" from investigating the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals, and that angered field agents, the program added. The policy was reversed after September 11, it reported. The program was told by FBI headquarters that it could not comment on its findings. A spokesman reportedly said: "There are lots of things that only the intelligence community knows and that no one else ought to know."

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

one big hint: While the Bandits were trying to get away from the "Supreme Being," He was actually in front of them.

I hadn't heard about this before, but I've noticed that even putting Tulasi on a hot bhoga offering for Krishna would make her turn brown immediately. For this reason when offering hot milk to Krishna, I put Tulasi on the saucer instead of in the milk. Paul

Where is the Lord's face visible in the movie "Time Bandits?"

INSIDE THE CONSORTIUM BALLOT STUDY By Sharon Becker, as told to David Podvin In February of this year, I personally witnessed Al Gore pick up almost enough votes in the Consortium ballot study, in my county alone, to win the state of Florida and the presidency. As the newly elected chair of the Polk County, Florida, Democratic Executive Committee, I went to our local Supervisor of Elections building to observe the ballot study being conducted by the National Opinion Research Center for the media Consortium. In the coding room, there were four people seated at a long table who were examining the ballots. Surrounding them were four Republican observers. I was the only Democrat present. The other people in the room were a representative from the University of Chicago and an employee of the local election supervisor. In our primarily Republican County, the voting equipment is of the optical scanning variety. Voters use pencils to fill in little bubbles that are then read by the machines. From my position in the room, I was able to observe the process during which the 'overvotes' were counted. These were ballots in which the citizen voted more than once in the same race. According to Florida law, such ballots must count if the intent of the voter is clear. There were two primary reasons that ballots were designated as 'overvotes'. First, the ballot design in our county had Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman?s name immediately above the word 'Libertarian'. It was sufficiently confusing that some voters put pencil marks next to both 'Lieberman' and 'Libertarian'. At the bottom of the ballot, there was a section that read, "Write In The Name Of Your Candidate". It did not mention that a voter should write in a name only if they had not previously selected a candidate. Outrageously, in GOP controlled Polk County, the election supervisor had ruled that ballots containing a filled bubble for Gore and the written name of Gore did not indicate whom the voter wanted for president. Watching as six hundred ninety one 'overvotes' were reviewed, I saw the coders establish that far more of them were for Al Gore than for George W. Bush. This provided the vice president with almost enough votes in our one county to offset the official 571 vote lead statewide lead for Bush. NOTE: MakeThemAccountable has spoken with observers, coders, and supervisors throughout Florida, in both Democratic and Republican counties. Their accounts are all similar to that of Ms. Becker - during the ballot study, they observed an overwhelming trend for Al Gore. She is the latest eyewitness to refute the Consortium's absurd claim that no one could possibly know who was doing well in the ballot study because the ballots have yet to be tabulated. Participants in the study are reluctant to come forward now, because to do so would violate their confidentiality agreement with the NORC. They are waiting to see what the Consortium does with the ballot study. Some of them have told MakeThemAccountable that, if the Consortium continues with its pattern of concealment and deception, they will view that as a breach of their agreement and are prepared to come forward with first hand knowledge of the truth that Al Gore decisively won the state of Florida.