h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'ere we go:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/28/indymedia_server_seizure_bristol/

I only mention this as it is of interest from the indymedia/law side of things rather than anything else.
I think some people here use indymedia themselves.

I'll be putting 'The separate realities of Bush and Kerry supporters' up on the main page, but here's the link as well (pdf): http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

'A BRITISH cow that died in an Oxfordshire field in 1937 has emerged as the source of Saddam Hussain’s “weapons of mass destruction” programme that led to the Iraq war.

An ear from the cow was sent to an English laboratory, where scientists discovered anthrax spores that were later used in secret biological warfare tests by Winston Churchill.

The culture was sent to the United States, which exported samples to Iraq during Saddam’s war against Iran in the 1980s. Inspectors have found that this batch of anthrax was the dictator’s choice in his attempts to create biological weapons. '

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1726745,00.html


There's a certain symetry in history.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_bush_id_050818.html

A bit from Space.com about the GWB ID/Evolution stuff. Nowt much new, but it does have a transcript of the original questions and answers. Not a full one, just those bits that started the current round off.

A fine piece from yet another dead soldier's relative:

'For those of you who still trust the Bush administration -- and your percentage diminishes every day -- let me tell you that my nephew Chase Johnson Comley did not die to preserve your freedoms. He was not presented flowers by grateful Iraqis, welcoming him as their liberator.

He died fighting a senseless war for oil and contracts, ensuring the increased wealth of President Bush and his administration's friends.

He died long after Bush, in his testosterone-charged, theatrical, soldier-for-a-day role, announced on an aircraft carrier beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner that major combat was over.

He died in a country erupting into civil war and turned into a hellhole by Bush, a place where democracy has no chance of prevailing, a country that will become a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

Have we won the hearts and the minds of the Iraqi people? Apparently not.'

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05233/556987.stm


And, a Christian terrorist is convicted after being harboured by the people of the United States:

'Rudolph, who served in the Army, disappeared into the mountains of North Carolina after the four blasts. It is believed that residents in western North Carolina, an area that resonates with anti-government sentiment, helped Rudolph or refrained from informing on him despite a large government reward.'

http://olympics.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-22T185951Z_01_SCH268328_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CRIME-RUDOLPH-DC.XML
and
http://olympics.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2005-08-22T185951Z_01_SCH268328_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CRIME-RUDOLPH-DC.XML&pageNumber=1&summit=

"We make sh!t up, you lynch who we tell you to"

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lahabra25aug25,1,5510970,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

it may be a f*x news link, so sorry, but have only just spotted this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168848,00.html

just a bit about the hollywoodisation of the September 11th Twin Tower attack.

They'll probably film them in Toronto. And soon production will start on 'Katrina: Ground Zero New Orleans' -- in Halifax.






(sorry, I'm feeling a little annoyed at Hollywood and Brad Pitt : http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/09/06/1203847-sun.html Yep. Edmonton in September [leaves falling in a race with the snow] is going to be Missouri in summertime for Hollywood.)

Those films must put a good bit of money up front though. But everywhere does seem to be in awe of Hollywood. I remember them closing the main bridge into/outof Calgary when I was there for Exit Wounds. Thing was, they did it on a Friday afternoon! Not surprisingly the Calgarians weren't overly impressed. Ah well.

BTW, have seen the reports abut Iraq and the US running out of cash?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1566176,00.html

Been away for a bit. The story about the U.S. running out of cash in Iraq doesn't surprise me a whole bunch. I'm expecting the day when the U.S. runs out of cash in the U.S.

Katrina sort of felt like a dry run.

yep, just goes to prove that whilst the USA might be big and have lots of nukes, they aren't big enough to go it alone, they do need others. Although I think this lesson might be a while in the learning for the current govt.

Did you see the bit aboutthe preemptive strike legislation? Haven't checked your other posts yet so sorry if a repition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

"The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons."

'*known* enemy stockpiles', or just '*assumed* enemy stockpiles'?

wonder what they'll manage to define as a stockpile now?

It does seem a bit odd to use such a non discriminatory weapon to destroy other weapons. Especially biochem ones. Could the be totally sure of destroying them and not just blasting them to the four corners with a healthy dose of radiation as well?

Plus, of course, said weapons would have to be a *very* long way from anywhere to not lead to the deaths of thousands from the primary, secondary and tertiary effects of a nuke.

The fairly obvious practical problem is that only an enemy known with extreme confidence *not* to have distributed their WMDs over a large area, or an enemy known with near-certainty to have usable WMDs and be planning an imminent attack would seem to be a suitable target.

I'm not sure how much intelligence *is* really that good. If intelligence *was* that good, it would seem likely to be usable in the planning of a much more restrained response.
Of course, the whole idea may be largely a cover for less drastic action, so the US might conventionally attack countries (or uncontrolled areas within uncooperative countries) and be able to spin the event as a less-worse option than a nuclear attack.

true. Although I do worry about the timing of this. Given the problems at home and the commitments elsewhere, I really don't see how the US can make good on its threats to Iran or Sudan or anywhere else. Unless they have the nuke option.

information (did I post this already?):

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/the-robust-nuclear-earth-penetrator-rnep.html

and the fun animated version:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

ah yes, sounds about as reliable as the 'dirty bomb' they tried to scare us with a bit ago. Although that has gone strangely quiet since it was pointed out that a) they dont work and b) the USA and GB know that cos they tried them out themselves.

c'mon guys, they KNEW there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.

I suppose the advantage of nuking said stockpiles is that after the event there's no evidence either way.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/22/no2id_protesters/

freedom in the UK? Sounds a bit iffy.