- Please send as far and wide as possible.
Editor, The Konformist
Alien Abduction News
At the request of our readers, Alien Abduction Experience and
Research (AAER) brings you the latest news of alien abductions, UFOs,
and research from around the world.
A Russian scientist shares his exciting UFO encounter with AAER
readers in this close encounter report called Russian Scientist
Encounters UFO. The scientist describes the perplexing dilemma of
scientific investigation of UFO's in Russia experienced by himself
and his colleagues. Read all about the Russian KGB interference at
A dramatic new non-fiction book on George Adamski called Looking for
Orthon - The Story of George Adamski is reviewed at www.abduct.com.
Author Colin Bennett portrays Adamski as an innovative man in search
of the truth about aliens. As the first man to achieve international
attention for his alleged alien contact, Adamski commandeered a
dedicated group of followers into remote areas in his quest for
proof of alien contact. Unlike other recycled UFO books, this book
presents fresh new historical events and people previously
The Reclamation Project by Ruth Marie Davis is an exciting
exploration into a possible secretive human-alien connection in
ancient Egypt. The story revolves around the "what if" supposition
that ancient Egyptians had established deep roots with aliens.
Through research into ancient civilizations, Ms. Davis provides a
plausible connection between ancient Egyptian culture and alien
contact. The book is reviewed at www.abduct.com.
Best Impressions welcomes www.ufoconspiracy.com to its server.
Created by Robert Collins, this remarkable web site provides readers
with provocative information on aliens, UFOs and conspiracies. You
can get the same GOOD DEAL ON WEB SITE HOSTING from Best Impressions.
See their ad on AAER's home page or write to
Abductees frequently suffer from insomnia and restlessness. Get over
it fast with Gail Seymour's CD Just Relax. . .Relaxing to Sleep
designed especially to solve these problems. Special discount price
for AAER readers: Take $2 off your CD order by mentioning AAER.
Readers continue to respond to Alien Symbols and Alphabets. See their
comments and symbols at www.abduct.com and let us know what you
Readers can post questions about alien abductions and read other
people's messages at the very popular Alien Abduction Discussion
Group. The link is on the AAER home page.
Want to know more about what aliens are doing to you? Then read
AAER's e-Book called Alien Abduction Answer Book at www.abduct.com.
For address changes, requests to unsubscribe, advertising
information, or a copy of this newsletter as a Word document, contact
abductions@.... Items can be quoted from these announcements as
long as the date and web site is referenced.
Alien Abduction Experience and Research
There Is A Firestorm Coming And It Is Being Provoked By Mr. Bush
By Robert Fisk Commentary
The Independent - London
More and more, President Bush's rhetoric sounds like the crazed
of Osama bin Laden...
So now Osama bin Laden is Hitler. And Saddam Hussein is Hitler. And
George Bush is fighting the Nazis. Not since Menachem Begin
fantasised to President Reagan that he felt he was attacking Hitler
in Berlin - his Israeli army was actually besieging Beirut, killing
thousands of civilians, "Hitler" being the pathetic Arafat - have we
had to listen to claptrap like this. But the fact that we Europeans
had to do so in the Bundestag on Thursday - and, for the most part,
in respectful silence - was extraordinary.
I'm reminded of the Israeli columnist who, tired of the wearying
invocation of the Second World War to justify yet more Israeli
brutality, began an article with the words: "Mr Prime Minister,
Hitler is dead." Must we, forever, live under the shadow of a war
that was fought and won before most of us were born? Do we have to
live forever with living, diminutive politicians playing Churchill
(Thatcher and, of course, Blair) or Roosevelt? "He's a dictator who
gassed his own people," Mr Bush reminded us for the two thousandth
time, omitting as always to mention that the Kurds whom Saddam
viciously gassed were fighting for Iran and that the United States,
at the time, was on Saddam's side.
But there is a much more serious side to this. Mr Bush is hoping to
corner the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, into a new policy of
threatening Iran. He wants the Russians to lean on the northern bit
of the "axis of evil", the infantile phrase which he still trots out
to the masses. More and more, indeed, Mr Bush's rhetoric sounds like
the crazed videotapes of Mr bin Laden. And still he tries to lie
about the motives for the crimes against humanity of 11 September.
Yet again, in the Bundestag, he insisted that the West's enemies
hated "justice and democracy", even though most of America's Muslim
enemies wouldn't know what democracy was.
In the United States, the Bush administration is busy terrorising
Americans. There will be nuclear attacks, bombs in high-rise
apartment blocks, on the Brooklyn bridge, men with exploding belts -
note how carefully the ruthless Palestinian war against Israeli
colonisation of the West Bank is being strapped to America's ever
weirder "war on terror" - and yet more aircraft suiciders. If you
read the words of President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the
ridiculous national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, over the past
three days, you'll find they've issued more threats against Americans
than Mr bin Laden.
But let's get back to the point. The growing evidence that Israel's
policies are America's policies in the Middle East - or, more
accurately, vice versa - is now being played out for real in
statements from Congress and on American television. First, we have
the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee announcing
that Hizbollah - the Lebanese guerrilla force that drove Israel's
demoralised army out of Lebanon in the year 2000 - is planning
attacks in the US. After that, we had an American television
network "revealing" that Hizbollah, Hamas and al- Qa'ida - Mr bin
Laden's organisation - have held a secret meeting in Lebanon to plot
attacks on the US.
American journalists insist on quoting "sources" but there was, of
course, no sourcing for this balderdash, which is now repeated ad
nauseam in the American media. Then take the "Syrian Accountability
Act" that was introduced into the US Senate by Israel's friends on18
April. This includes the falsity uttered earlier by Israel's Foreign
Minister, Shimon Peres, that Iranian Revolutionary Guards "operate
freely" on the southern Lebanese border. Now there haven't been
Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon - let alone the south of the
country - for 18 years. So why is this lie repeated yet again?
Iran is under threat. Lebanon is under threat. Syria is under threat -
its "terrorism" status has been heightened by the State Department -
and so is Iraq. But Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister held
personally responsible by Israel's own enquiry for the Sabra and
Shatila massacre of 1,700 Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, is -
according to Mr Bush - "a man of peace". How much further can this
go? A long way, I fear.
The anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East is palpable.
Arab newspaper editorials don't come near to expressing public
opinion. In Damascus, Majida Tabbaa has become famous as the lady who
threw the US Consul Roberto Powers out of her husband's downtown
restaurant on 7 April . "I went over to him," she said, "and told
him, 'Mr Roberto, tell your George Bush that all of you are not
welcome - please get out'." Across the Arab world, boycotts of
American goods have begun in earnest.
How much longer can this go on? America praises Pakistani President
Musharraf for his support in the "war on terror", but remains silent
when he arranges a dictatorial "referendum" to keep him in power.
America's enemies, remember, hate the US for its "democracy". So is
General Musharraf going to feel the heat? Forget it. My guess is that
Pakistan's importance in the famous "war on terror" - or "war for
civilisation" as, we should remember, it was originally called - is
far more important. If Pakistan and India go to war, I'll wager a lot
that Washington will come down for undemocratic Pakistan against
Across the former Soviet southern Muslim republics, America is
building air bases, helping to pursue the "war on terror" against any
violent Muslim Islamist groups that dare to challenge the local
dictators. Please do not believe that this is about oil. Do not for a
moment think that these oil and gas-rich lands have any economic
importance for the oil-fuelled Bush administration. Nor the pipelines
that could run from northern Afghanistan to the Pakistani coast if
only that pesky Afghan loya jirga could elect a government that would
give concessions to Unocal, the oddly named concession whose former
boss just happens to be a chief Bush "adviser" to Afghanistan.
Now here's pause for thought. Abdelrahman al-Rashed writes in the
international Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat that if anyone had said
prior to 11 September that Arabs were plotting a vast scheme to
murder thousands of Americans in the US, no one would have believed
them. "We would have charged that this was an attempt to incite the
American people against Arabs and Muslims," he wrote. And rightly so.
But Arabs did commit the crimes against humanity of 11 September. And
many Arabs greatly fear that we have yet to see the encore from the
same organisation. In the meantime, Mr Bush goes on to do exactly
what his enemies want; to provoke Muslims and Arabs, to praise their
enemies and demonise their countries, to bomb and starve Iraq and
give uncritical support to Israel and maintain his support for the
dictators of the Middle East.
Each morning now, I awake beside the Mediterranean in Beirut with a
feeling of great foreboding. There is a firestorm coming. And we are
blissfully ignoring its arrival; indeed, we are provoking it.
Spreading Drudge's Sludge
Cybergossip Matt Drudge may say that he is not gay, but one thing is
clear, no matter his sexual orientation: he's a nasty faggot.
Last week Drudge reported on his website that David Brock, author of
Blinded by the Right, the bestseller that conservatives have not been
able to discredit with reasoned argument, had a "breakdown" while
writing the book and checked into a hospital, something Brock
reluctantly confirmed when Drudge called him. What this was supposed
to mean in terms of Brock's credibility, I don't know, but it was
pretty lame. Some of the greatest authors in history, after all, have
had nervous breakdownseven including some well-known conservative
pundits I've heard about in recent yearsnot to mention a good
percentage of Hollywood and Wall Street.
And delving into Brock's private medical matters when they have no
relevancy was not only sleazy; it was profoundly transparent coming
from Drudge, who must be seething over the riveting Blinded, knowing
so many people are reading it. This is the second book that outs
Drudge (Jeannette Walls' Dish in 2000 was the first), even though
he's denied that he is gay, perhaps fearing that the homo-hating
legions at FreeRepublic.com and elsewhere will drop him like a hot
potato. (Not to worry Matt: Brock's own journey showed conclusively
that they'll accept a house homo as long as you'll bend over for them
and get down on your knees for people like George W. Bush, something
Andrew Sullivan has proved as well.) And this time the outing was
coming straight from the horse's mouth: Brock claims he and Drudge
who reveled in exposing Bill Clinton's sex lifedated once; Brock
says he received an e-mail in which Drudge pined on about how he
wished they were "fuck buddies," all of which is in the book.
You'd think that no respectable journalist would further the new
Drudge sludge on Brock, at least not without a fuller explanation
that included Drudge's possible motives. But The Washington Post's
Lloyd Grovewho fancies himself the respectable gossip columnist
jumped on it quicker than a rabbit in heat, and curiously only gave
half the story. Grove conveniently forgot to mention, even in a G-
rated way, the "fuck buddies" e-mailand in fact even forgot to
mention that Drudge was criticized in Blinded, not to mention outed,
or that he would have any reason at all to slam Brock. He also forgot
to call any liberals for their take on Drudge's attack. But Grove did
manage to get quotes from three (!) archconservatives who salivated
over it and who smeared Brock further with generalized statements,
such as: "there had been suspicions there was something wrong [with
Brock] for a while." Could Grove's sudden amnesia and loss of
journalistic clarity and vision have something to do with the fact
that his much-publicized girlfriend is conservative pundit Amy
Holmes, who came up through the right-wing Independent Women's Forum
and was a loyal foot soldier of IWF's cofounder Ricky Silberman, who
was savaged in Brock's book? Blinded by the right indeed.
Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, meanwhile, Mr.
Journalistic Ethics himself, who sometimes even lobs a softball at
his own paper, has yet to criticize Grove for this insidious crap,
and it's doubtful he will. (He did mention the Drudge item and
Grove's story in his cut-and-paste online column, floating the story
further, and quoting Eric Alterman's criticisms of Drudge, but Kurtz
did not take Grove and Drudge to task himself.) I read both Grove and
Kurtz regularly, often enjoy them and have nothing against them in a
general sense. But it is galling that they hold themselves up as the
arbiters of properand objectivejournalism in such matters, as if
for them politics, not to mention personal friendships, never enter
into the picture (and in the case of Kurtz, pontificating on everyone
Last year, when I penned an article about Andrew Sullivan's racy
online advertisements for "bareback" (condomless) sex and the
contradictions his behavior posed with regard to his moralistic
crusade against other people's sex lives, the Post duo wouldn't go
near it. Grove in fact told a journalist friend of mine that he
absolutely didn't believe that the story about "Andrew" was true.
Sullivan of course later confirmed it all. Even then, Grove and Kurtz
wouldn't touch it. Both men continually shot the story down when
readers in the Post's live online chats asked, several times over
several weeks, why they didn't cover it. The two journalists claimed
that the fact that I was a longtime critic of Sullivan was reason not
to cover it, in addition to claiming that it was private information.
So what is the difference now with Brock? Actually, I see differences
that, from a journalistic perspective, make the Sullivan story much
more reportable than the Brock story, which should never have made
its way into The Washington Post. Unlike Sullivan with his bareback
ads, Brock didn't put his medical information on a website for anyone
to eventually figure out. Brock didn't then meet people through that
website and identify himself as the person connected to that medical
information, thus making the information public on his own. And
having a breakdown did not contradict Brock's work; if anything, it
only confirms the arduous and stressful journey he lays out in the
book. (Jeez, anyone who hung out with vipers like Ann Coulter and
David Horowitz is bound to have a nervous breakdown!) If Sullivan
were to have a breakdown, or if Grove or Kurtz or I do, for that
matter, would that negate everything we've written, every position
we've taken, every change of mind we've had?
But Sullivan's reckless behavioradvertised publicly on a websitein
light of his ranting condemnations of Bill Clinton's sex life, his
pontificating on gay male culture and, most importantly, his
pronouncements on AIDS, was certainly relevant to report on and
discuss. And even if you don't agree with that, how do you justify
ignoring the Sullivan story but then reporting on Brock's private
medical information, exposed for political reasons?
Kurtz's bias toward Sullivanwho calls him "Howie," in that clubby
Beltway mannerhas been evident for a long time. Two weeks ago, when
Sullivan claimed that he'd been "banned" from The New York Times, Mr.
Journalism wrote an embarrassingly unsubstantiated piece in the Post
that positioned Sullivan as the poor victim of censorship. Sullivan
claimed he was let go by Times executive editor Howell Raines because
of his criticisms of the Times, but no one at the Timesnot even
unnamed sourcesgave Kurtz a comment, let alone confirmed Sullivan's
Nonetheless, in a startling summarizing line Kurtz wrote: "Sullivan's
opinions also cost him his weekly `TRB' column in the New Republic,
where he is still listed as a contributor." With that one sentence
Kurtz not only accepted as fact that Sullivan was fired from the
Times for his opinions, but also claimed as fact that the same thing
happened at The New Republicbut again, he had not one source from
The New Republic, named or unnamed, stating that. (The next day,
Slate's Jack Shafer, after making a few calls, reported that sources
at the Times surmised that Sullivan's often-discussed sloppy
journalism was the true culprit.)
These are some of our so-called paragons of journalism, spreading
Drudge's sludge, as well as that of his pals, like Sullivan, while
pontificating about what's unethical and irresponsible about
journalism today. Ain't that a hoot?
Michelangelo Signorile can be reached at www.signorile.com.
Volume 15, Issue 22
Libya Denies Lockerbie Compensation Offer
Wed May 29,11:58 AM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - The Libyan government denied on Wednesday it had
offered $2.7 billion to compensate families of the 1988 Lockerbie
airliner attack as part of a deal to ease sanctions against it.
State-run Jana news agency, monitored by the London-based BBC, quoted
a Libyan spokesman as saying: "Libya is not part of this issue...As
far as the Libyan state is concerned, it has not been accused in this
issue...and it has nothing to do with any accords."
Jana quoted the spokesman as saying that all Libya knew was that
Libyan businessmen, joined by legal experts, held meetings with
families of the victims and did not inform Libya officially of the
A New York law firm said earlier that Libya offered $2.7 billion to
compensate families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which
exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 -- but U.S. and U.N.
sanctions against Libya must be lifted first.
In a letter sent to Lockerbie victims' families, the firm of
Kreindler and Kreindler said Libya would automatically release the
money -- $10 million for each of the 270 families -- in batches from
an escrow account as conditions were met.
It said 40 percent of the money would be released when the now
suspended U.N. sanctions against Libya were lifted, another 40
percent after U.S. commercial sanctions were removed and the
remaining 20 percent handed over when Libya was taken off the U.S.
list of states sponsoring terrorism.
The letter said Libya would put the money into an escrow account in a
non-U.S. bank, probably British, selected by the law firm. The money
would automatically be released to a plaintiff's committee account in
New York as the conditions were met and Libya would not be able to
deny payments or pull the money back.
The offer first must be accepted by the victims' families, who sued
the Libyan government in 1996. The sanctions were imposed after the
explosion that killed 259 mostly American passengers and crew, and 11
residents of Lockerbie.
Earlier on Wednesday the British government and British relatives of
those killed in the bombing reacted cautiously to the reported Libyan
offer of compensation.
In January 2001 a three-judge Scottish court sitting in the
Netherlands found Libyan Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty of the
bombing, sentenced him to life in prison and said it accepted
evidence he was a member of Libya's Jamahariya Security Organization.
The court freed his co-defendant, Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima.
Megrahi appealed against the verdict but Scottish appeal judges in
the Netherlands in March upheld his conviction. Libya has denied any
role in the bombing.
Halliburton Shares Sink On
News Of Investigation
DALLAS - Shares of Halliburton Co. (HAL) traded as much as 7.5
percent lower on Wednesday after the oilfield services and
construction company said securities regulators were investigating
its practice of accounting for cost overruns on some construction
projects as revenues.
The Dallas-based company said late on Tuesday that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission had begun a preliminary
investigation and that it expected to receive a formal request for
documents or a subpoena in the next few days.
Halliburton said it planned to cooperate fully with the
investigation, which it believes was triggered by a New York Times
article on May 22 alleging that the company adopted "aggressive"
accounting policies to boost its revenues.
Shares of Halliburton dipped to $17.90 in early trading but later
recovered and closed at $18.72, down 63 cents, or 3.3 percent. The
stock was the seventh most actively traded on the New York Stock
Exchange, with 10.6 million shares changing hands.
The accounting policies under investigation were adopted in 1998
while Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton.
He held that post from 1995 to 2000.
Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise referred questions about the
SEC probe to Halliburton.
The New York Times article quoted accounting specialists who said
Halliburton had stretched, and may even have broken, accounting
Halliburton said it believed the accounting practices under
investigation are in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles for the construction industry.
Under the policy adopted in 1998, Halliburton began to recognize some
of its unresolved claims against engineering and construction clients
as revenue, even though the amounts of money at stake were still in
Halliburton's shares came under heavy selling pressure in December
and early January, touching a 15-year low of $8.75 on Jan. 4, because
of investor concerns about the company's exposure to hundreds of
thousands of asbestos damages claims.
The shares subsequently recovered following repeated management
reassurances that the company will not be ruined by its asbestos
If you are interested in a free subscription to The
Konformist Newswire, please visit:
Or, e-mail email@example.com with the
subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!"
(Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool
Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: