Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

KN4M 09-04-02

Expand Messages
  • robalini
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com FeedBack: Another Satisfied Konformist
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.


      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist

      FeedBack: Another Satisfied Konformist Kustomer

      liberal puke

      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
      the country.



      Aug 24, 2002
      Gen. Zinni Says War With Iraq Is Unwise

      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
      in 1961.

      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
      Defense Forces.

      Mike Salinero can be reached at (850) 222-8382.



      Bush On Fire
      Paul Krugman

      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,
      op. cit.)

      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
      assassination attempt.

      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
      Diana problem."

      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.



      Eric Alterman

      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 konformist-subscribe@egroups.com with the
      subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!"

      (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool
      catch phrase.)

      Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.