Please send as far and wide as possible.
Editor, The Konformist
FeedBack: Another Satisfied Konformist Kustomer
you ar just a liberal latent homo puke whould like to have an affair
with drudge, and secretly wishs he were a homo.
NY Times Business Editor Dies In Fall From Building
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A business editor at The New York Times, Allen
Myerson, died on Thursday after falling from the top floor of the
Times' building in midtown Manhattan, a spokeswoman for the newspaper
Police said his death appeared to be a suicide but that the case
remained under investigation.
The body of Myerson, 47, was found on the roof of a parking garage
next to the Times building on West 43rd Street shortly before 10 a.m.
(1400 GMT), Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said.
Police said he was pronounced dead at the scene.
It appeared Myerson fell from the top floor of the 15-story Times
building, Mathis said. That floor of the Times is commonly used for
He had worked at the Times since 1989, she said, and he was assistant
business editor for the weekend editions. He lived in Glen Ridge, New
He is survived by his wife, Carol Cropper Myerson, and they had no
children, the Times said.
Sources in the New York Police Department said he left a note behind,
but the Times said that could not be confirmed.
Police said there were no signs of foul play.
Center for an Informed America
From NEWSLETTER #14
August 22, 2002
One final comment on the situation in Colombia is in order here, and
it concerns Colombia's neighbor, Venezuela. Actually it is more of a
question than a comment, and the question is this: what do you
suppose the official U.S. response would be if Hugo Chavez were to
shred the constitution of his country, and run roughshod over his
citizens' civil liberties, in the manner in which Uribe has done in
Colombia? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be to increase military aid to
Aug 24, 2002
Gen. Zinni Says War With Iraq Is Unwise
By MIKE SALINERO
TALLAHASSEE - One of President Bush's top Middle East trouble-
shooters warned Friday against war with Iraq, saying it would stretch
U.S. forces too thin and make unwanted enemies in the volatile
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the president's special envoy to
the Mideast, made some of his strongest comments to date opposing war
on Iraq. Speaking to the Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee,
Zinni said a war to bring down Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would
have numerous undesirable side effects and should be low on the
nation's list of foreign policy objectives.
``I can give you many more [priorities] before I get to that,'' Zinni
said when asked if the United States should move to remove Saddam.
Zinni said the country should instead concentrate on negotiating a
peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, and on eliminating
the Taliban in Afghanistan and the al-Qaida terrorist network that
launched the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
``We need to make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida can't come back,'' he
Much more important to Mideast stability than Iraq is Iran, Zinni
said. Iran has been one of the leading financiers of Islamic terror
organizations such as Hezbollah since followers of the Ayatollah
Khamenei took American hostages in 1979.
Now, opportunities exist for the United States to encourage a
peaceful transition in Iran where young people are increasingly
challenging the power of the Islamic theocracy.
Zinni said an Iraqi war would be expensive and would draw down the
armed forces' manpower, which is already ``stretched too tight all
over the world.''
Worst of all, Zinni said, a war against Iraq would antagonize
America's friends in the Middle East.
``We need to quit making enemies that we don't need to make enemies
out of,'' he said.
Efforts to get the White House to comment on Zinni's remarks were
When Zinni commanded the Army's Central Command at MacDill Air Force
Base in Tampa, he publicly trashed a plan spawned in the White House
to train 200 Iraqi exiles. This group would train another 5,000 men
who U.S intelligence forces would insert into southern Iraq. The plan
envisioned the small force capturing an air base and triggering
massive defections from the Iraqi army.
Zinni derided the plan as ``Bay of Goats,'' a sarcastic reference to
the failed U.S.- backed invasion by Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs
Bush administration hawks, including Vice President Dick Cheney and
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have tried to keep the possibility
of war with Iraq at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy.
Zinni took a shot at the hawks, noting their lack of military
experience. He ticked off several prominent military men who have
expressed reservations about the war: Secretary of State Colin
Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Brent
Scowcroft, former national security adviser under former President
Bush; and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of operations in the
Persian Gulf War.
``It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same
way,'' he said, ``and all the others who have never fired a shot and
are hot to go to war see it another way.''
Zinni was picked by Powell late last year to negotiate a cease fire
between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Any progress Zinni made
dissolved when Palestinian terror organizations launched a wave of
suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. The attacks in turn
brought retaliatory incursions into Palestinian territory by Israeli
Mike Salinero can be reached at (850) 222-8382.
Bush On Fire
Round up the usual suspects! George W. Bush's new "Healthy Forests"
plan reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating
procedure. You see, environmentalists cause forest fires, and those
nice corporations will solve the problem if we get out of their way.
Am I being too harsh? No, actually it's even worse than it
seems. "Healthy Forests" isn't just about scrapping environmental
protection; it's also about expanding corporate welfare.
Everyone agrees that the forests' prime evil is a well-meaning but
counterproductive bear named Smokey. Generations of fire suppression
have led to a dangerous accumulation of highly flammable small trees
and underbrush. And in some not all of the national forests it's
too late simply to reverse the policy; thanks to growing population
and urban sprawl, some forests are too close to built-up areas to be
allowed to burn.
Clearly, some of the excess fuel in some of the nation's forests
should be removed. But how? Mr. Bush asserts that there is a free
lunch: allowing more logging that thins out the national forests will
both yield valuable resources and reduce fire risks.
But it turns out that the stuff that needs to be removed small
trees and bushes, in areas close to habitation is of little
commercial value. The good stuff, from the industry's point of view,
consists of large, mature trees the kind of trees that usually
survive forest fires which are often far from inhabited areas.
So the administration proposes to make deals with logging companies:
in return for clearing out the stuff that should be removed, they
will be granted the right to take out other stuff that probably
shouldn't be removed. Notice that this means that there isn't a free
lunch after all. And there are at least three severe further problems
with this plan...
Car Crashes and the Church of England
(Conspiracy Nation, 8/22/02) -- A "constitutional crisis" involving
the intertwined Church of England and the British monarchy was a
motivating force behind the assassination of Princess Diana Spencer
five years ago this month.
As detailed in the book, Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence (by Jon
King and John Beveridge; ISBN: 1-56171-922-6), a divorced British
monarch cannot, by the rules of the Anglican church, remarry. Since
the British king also serves as the Supreme Governor of the Church of
England, Prince Charles could not have wed Camilla Parker Bowles
while his ex-wife Diana was still alive.
On July 18, 1997, an aide to Britain's Lord Chancellor stressed the
possibly looming crisis when he stated "that a constitutional crisis
regarding the marriage of Prince Charles and Mrs. Parker Bowles would
result in the 'disestablishment of the Church.'" (King and Beveridge,
It is forbidden by the Church of England for divorcees to be wed in
their church. Since Prince Charles would be Supreme Governor of that
Church, he, most of all, would be bound by the rules. However if,
unfortunately, his former wife Diana were to suddenly die, then this
would smooth the path toward now widower Charles getting married
Britain's MI-5, similar to the FBI, is tasked with internal "national
security" matters. They contrast with Britain's MI-6 which, like the
CIA, is tasked with external "national security" matters. MI-5
favored assassinating Camilla Parker Bowles rather than Lady Diana
Spencer. Diana was much more "high profile" than Ms. Bowles;
murdering Diana would be too "messy." If, on the other hand, Ms.
Bowles were eliminated, that would avert any constitutional crisis --
for the time being, anyway.
On June 11, 1997, Ms. Bowles was driving at a high rate of speed to
visit Prince Charles at one of his residences. She lost control of
the car and crashed head-on into an approaching vehicle. Luckily, Ms.
Bowles escaped with minor injuries. According to one of King and
Beveridge's informants, Ms. Bowles survived a botched MI-5
As already stated, MI-5 favored eliminating Camilla Parker Bowles
rather than Lady Diana because Ms. Bowles would be an easier target.
But when Diana went to the United States in early 1997 and persuaded
then-president Bill Clinton to sign onto an international ban on the
use of landmines, the powerful military-industrial complex became
furious. They effectively ordered the CIA and MI-6 to eliminate "the
On August 31, 1997, Lady Diana Spencer was murdered, in Paris, by
means of an automobile "accident." Other motivations for her killing,
besides the threatening "constitutional crisis" and her hindering of
profits to the huge armaments industry, were her impending marriage
to Dodi al-Fayed and her outspokenness. Diana had emerged from the
demure female role apparently still favored by monarchical types; she
had become a "loose cannon", not spouting pre-approved meaningless
feminist rhetoric but focusing on issues which were truly disturbing
to the power elite. She had to go.
Less than three weeks after Diana's death, Bill Clinton reneged on
his previous promise to support the proposed international ban on the
use of landmines.
Ignorance Of The Law Is An Excuse
(Conspiracy Nation, 8/26/02) -- "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
So will say the judge if you humbly say, "But your honor, I didn't
In Against Apion, the ancient Jewish author Josephus tells how Moses,
in his wisdom as lawgiver, foresaw that people must first know what
the law is before they can obey it. "For ignorance," Moses "left no
pretext. He appointed the Law to be the most excellent and necessary
form of instruction, ordaining, not that it should be heard once for
all or twice or on several occasions, but that every week men should
desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and
to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it, a practice which
all other legislators seem to have neglected."
Compare this weekly public reiteration of what exactly the laws are,
to the present situation in the United States, where most have only a
vague understanding of the Constitution, let alone the thousands of
other laws, executive orders, and tax code minutiae.
Josephus compares the virtue obtained when the people simply know
exactly what the laws are to the usual situation where "most men, so
far from living in accordance with their own laws, hardly know what
they are." (Written about 2000 years ago!) "Only when they have done
wrong do they learn from others that they have transgressed the law.
Even those of them who hold the highest and most important offices
admit their ignorance; for they employ professional legal experts as
assessors and leave them in charge of the administration of affairs."
The laws handed down by Moses were not religious laws, per se. Among
the ancient Jewish people, their priests were not just priests in the
modern sense; their priests were responsible for the laws in general,
including enforcement of the laws. So well-learned was the Jewish
populace in those times, regarding what exactly the law said, that
they were noteworthy to Roman authors in that they would not break
their own laws, even when threatened by death. The Jewish people knew
what their laws said, because part of their custom ensured that what
the law said would be ingrained in their minds.
The result of the Jewish people having such a deep understanding of
what the law exactly was is that their civilization has been
remarkably long-lived. How long will the American civilization last,
when even its legislators do not read what they sign into law (for
example, the recent "Patriot Act")?
U.S. politicians in the last thirty-or-so years have clamored
for "law and order." They have grown ever more "tough on crime":
First it was "three strikes and you're out"; then "one strike and
you're out"; and now, with a "pre-crime" mentality, it is
becoming "zero strikes and you're out." But the less expensive (to
taxpayers) solution is simply, like in Moses' time, to have the law
be comprehensible and well-known.
The police state mentality in the U.S. during the past thirty-or-so
years is an out-of-control spiral into constipation. Why not try a
more simple approach first, where the law is comprehensible? Is that
too simple? Is it too simple to understand that the people need to
deeply know what the law is, to give them a chance to abide by the
law first, before you throw them in prison?
Conspiracy Nation. Think outside the box.
Ex-Aide: Abu Nidal Behind Lockerbie
Fri Aug 23, 6:50 AM ET
By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Abu Nidal, the terrorist mastermind found dead in
Iraq this week, was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight
103 in Lockerbie, Scotland, a one-time aide to the terrorist claimed.
In a series of interviews published in the Arabic Al Hayat newspaper
this week, Atef Abu Bakr claimed that Abu Nidal told a meeting that
his radical Fatah ( news - web sites)-Revolutionary Council was
behind the bombing that killed 270 people, most of them Americans.
Abu Bakr is a former spokesman for the group and one of Abu Nidal's
closest aides between 1985 and 1989, when he split with him over
management of the organization. Abu Bakr's whereabouts were not
The attack has been blamed on Libya, and in March this year, a
Scottish appeals court upheld the murder conviction of former Libyan
intelligence agent Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi for the blast.
Al-Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison, with no possibility of
parole for 20 years. A second Libyan, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, was
No comment was available late Thursday from the office of the
Scottish prosecutors in the case against al-Meghrahi.
"Abu Nidal told a ... meeting of the Revolutionary Council
leadership: I have very important and serious things to say. The
reports that attribute Lockerbie to others are lies. We are behind
it," Abu Bakr was quoted as saying in the interview to be published
in the paper's Friday edition. The paper provided the AP with a copy
of the article.
Abu Bakr did not say when the alleged meeting took place. The
gathering was attended by five members of the council, including Abu
Bakr and Abu Nidal.
'"If any one of you lets this (word) out, I will kill him even if he
was in his wife's arms,'" Abu Bakr quoting Abu Nidal as saying.
The spokesman for Abu Nidal's group in Beirut, Ghanem Saleh, could
not be immediately reached for comment.
Ghassan Sharbal, al-Hayat's assistant editor who conducted the
interview, said he spoke to Abu Bakr before Abu Nidal's death was
announced this week. He refused to provide other details.
On Wednesday, the Iraqi intelligence chief said in Baghdad the 65-
year-old Abu Nidal ended his own life rather than face an Iraqi court
for allegedly communicating with a foreign country.
The al-Hayat interviews began publishing on Tuesday.
ONE COCKAMAMIE COMMIE
It's no secret to anyone who's followed his career that
Alexander Cockburn has been on a long steep decline, well
past "washed up," into what might be termed fully "bleached out." He
is not just a man without a country; but also without a planet. I
mean ruuuhhhhlllly: Christopher Hitchens has at least the honor to
admit that he in no way considers himself to be a leftist anymore.
Cockburn, continues to do so while:
Praising the militia movement;
Pronouncing the Republican stolen presidential election, coupled
with a Republican-controlled House, and Senate (and therefore a
Republican Supreme Court), to be a "perfect" election result;
Defining as his primary political enemies, Bernie Sanders and Paul
I could go on, but you get the point. Sectarianism is one
thing; Manchurianism is another. Cockburn, in his attack, seems a
little hurt that I was rather civil to him once 17 years ago when,
by the way, I was being paid by the Poynter Institute at Yale to do
so and was no less civil to Arnaud de Borchgrave for the same
reasons. But recently I haven't liked him very much. With his typical
concern for accuracy, he quotes a passage from Altercation regarding
the Israeli missile attack in Gaza without mentioning that I quite
openly retracted and apologized for it the very same day it went up.
But what really bothers him is the fact that not only did I
say something nasty about Joseph Stalin on a Nation cruise when
Cockburn said how happy he was that the man responsible for the mass
murder of 40 million people was able to acquire a nuclear weapon in
part owing to the work of spies like Julius Rosenberg but I also
called him an anti-Semite. He says this means are you ready that
I cheapen the Holocaust. (You'll have to find the link to Cockburn's
article yourself, as I cannot quite bring myself to link to someone
who equates criticism with his positions toward Jews to cheapening
the Holocaust, but I assure you the title of the piece is "Eric
Alterman Cheapens Holocaust.")
For the record, Alexander Cockburn can be a real pain and
remains a stain on the soul of The Nation, but I don't think he quite
rises to the level of the Holocaust.
The notion of Cockburn threatening MSNBC's and The Nation's
lawyers over my employment of term in this piece is literally
laughable. This is the same Alex Cockburn who once accused the
Village Voice of "blatant pandering" to Jews by running Paul Berman's
essay on Holocaust denial on its cover.
Cockburn has been called an anti-Semite with some regularity
since the days he was cheerleading for the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. (As he put it then, "If ever a country deserved rape
it's Afghanistan. Nothing but mountains filled with barbarous ethnics
with views as medieval as their muskets, and unspeakably cruel too.")
He gets called one almost as often as he is called a "Stalinist,"
which seems to me about right.
If you have any doubt of this, I urge you to check out Jack
Newfield's essay in The Village Voice, July 1-7, 1981, p.8. Were it
not for the vitriol of the attacks he regularly unleashes on honest
non-communist journalists and intellectuals like Irving Howe and
Victor Navasky, he would undoubtedly hear it a lot more. (Cockburn
termed the great democratic socialist scholar Howe to be "slimy" as
well as "Stoat-like," "squalid," "weasel-brained" and "eel-like." Of
Navasky I recall the term he preferred was "snot-nosed," though I may
be misremembering that one.)
The most recent investigation into Cockburn's mad anti-Jewish
ravings appeared in a fine article on the very topic of Cockburn and
anti-Semitism by Franklin Foer in The New Republic.
Here are the money paragraphs that Foer quotes of Cockburn's:
"It's supposedly the third rail in journalism even to have a
discussion of how much the Jews do control the media. Since three of
the prime founders of Hollywood, were Polish Jews who grew up within
fifty miles of each other in Galicia, it's reckoned as not so utterly
beyond the bounds of propriety to talk about Jewish power in
Hollywood, though people still stir uneasily. The economic and
political commentator Jude Wanniski remarked last week in his web
newsletter that even if the Jews don't control the media overall, it
is certainly true to say that they control discussion of Israel in
the media here.
[FYI, Jude Wanniski is a far right-wing former Wall Street
Journal editorial writer who just happens to be Louis Farrakhan's
singular champion in American public life. Farrakhan has said Hitler
is a "great man" and Judaism a "gutter religion." Weird, huh?]
Certainly, there are a number of stories sloshing around the
news now that have raised discussions of Israel and of the posture of
American Jews to an acrid level. The purveyor of anthrax may have
been a former government scientist, Jewish, with a record of baiting
a colleague of Arab origins, and with the intent to blame the anthrax
on Muslim terrorists. Rocketing around the web and spilling into the
press are many stories about Israeli spies in America at the time of
9/11. On various accounts, they were trailing Atta and his
associates, knew what was going to happen but did nothing about it,
or were simply spying on US facilities
Perhaps "anti-Semite" is not the best word for someone who
moves from musing on Jewish control of the media to entertaining the
possibility that the Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks, or of Jewish
scientists plotting anthrax attacks in order to blame them on
Muslims. Perhaps "nuts" would be a better word. After all, one
usually has to consult people who self-fertilize their vegetables in
backwoods Montana cabins to approach the quality of such analysis. In
any case, I don't think that the Nation or MSNBC's lawyers have much
to worry about here, though I am a little concerned about the poor
Nation intern charged with opening my mail
The Konformist must make a request for donations via Paypal, at
Paypal.com. If you can and desire, please feel free to send money to
help The Konformist through the following email address:
If you are interested in a free subscription to The
Konformist Newswire, please visit:
Or, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!"
(Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool
Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: