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

KN4M 05-04-03

Expand Messages
  • robalini
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com 4/24/03 Nick Redfern Skywatcher4u@aol.com
    Message 1 of 1 , May 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist

      Nick Redfern

      Real Government Files on the Unknown
      Nick Redfern & Andy Roberts

      Simon & Schuster/Paraview Pocket Books
      May 2003

      Containing real government X-Files - which reveal the mysteries
      behind the world's weirdest phenomena - Strange Secrets will turn
      even the most skeptical reader into a believer.

      Why would the CIA have a secret file on Noah's Ark? Why would the
      British military be interested in the Loch Ness Monster and sightings
      of sea serpents? Why are there US Department of Defense files on the
      telepathic power of animals and MI5 files on Crop Circles?

      Now readers can learn the amazing answers to these questions and many
      more in Strange Secrets. Having researched and written about the
      paranormal for years, authors Nick Redfern and Andy Roberts delve
      into Top Secret documents that world governments never thought anyone
      would ever see and let readers in on a big secret: Governments are
      very interested in these subjects.

      From the US Defense Intelligence Agency's documents on life-after-
      death in the animal kingdom to the British Government's files on
      dowsing, from the US Army files on psychic spying to out-of-this-
      world espionage, from the Canadian Government's real-life Flying
      Saucers to the FBI's extensive dossier on bizarre animal mutilations,
      and from official files on encounters with Men in Black to
      Spontaneous Human Combustion, Big Cats stalking the British
      countryside, Vampires and much more, Strange Secrets has the answers
      for anyone who thought that The X-Files was merely fiction. It's time
      to think again.

      Nick Redfern is the author of 3 books on UFOs in the United Kingdom.
      He has also written for the Daily Express newspaper; Eye-Spy
      Magazine; and Military Illustrated magazine. He lives in Texas. He is
      available for interview and can be contacted at skywatcher4u@...
      or at (409) 729 2774.

      Andy Roberts has been the editor of UFO Brigantia and The Armchair
      Ufologist, and has written for Fortean Times and Exploring the
      Supernatural and has written several books on the unexplained. He
      lives in the United Kingdom.

      Paraview Pocket Books
      May 2003
      $14.00 U.S./$22.00 Canada
      336 Pages



      The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their
      basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American
      artists expressing American values by using their American right to
      free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations,
      and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American.

      The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce
      conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against
      everything that this country is about - namely freedom. Right now, we
      are supposedly fighting to create freedom in Iraq, at the same time
      that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that
      same freedom here at home.

      I don't know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to
      those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an
      un-American one to boot. I send them my support.

      Bruce Springsteen





      Quote of the Week:

      Thank you. And thanks for the invitation. I had originally been asked
      here to talk about the war and our current political situation, but I
      have instead chosen to hijack this opportunity and talk about
      baseball and show business.

      Opening of speech given by actor Tim Robbins to the National Press
      Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003.


      Public Enemy to take on Bush on new CD

      April 28, 2003 | NEW YORK (AP) -- Hip-hop pioneers Public Enemy are
      still fighting the powers that be.

      The group, known for anthems including "Don't Believe the Hype"
      and "Fight The Power," will take on President Bush with their new CD-
      DVD, "Son of a Bush," scheduled for May 6 release.

      The title track, which first appeared on last
      year's "Revolverlution," criticizes both the current president and
      his father.

      Among the lyrics: "Have you forgotten/I been through the first term
      of rotten/The father, the son/and the holy Bush... I told y'all when
      the first Bush was tappin' my phone... Can't truss 'em."

      The group joins other artists including the Dixie Chicks and the
      Beastie Boys who have spoken out against the president.



      Tupac's not dead
      Chelsey Stevenson

      Hi, I just visited your Pac sight and I was reading over your info,
      and I realized you don't have all that much recent info..... Here's
      my theory......

      Ok, this news is recent, and think of me as STUPID, but I cannot get
      it out of my head. Does anyone realize that Pac has a Tattoo, saying
      50niggaz, in the lower middle part of his chest? Now that you know,
      who has just entered the rap game recently and has made it big? 50
      Cent, call me crazy but listen to his album and you'll realize that
      50 supports Tupac, and surprisingly calls Em a white boy fag.....
      Also 50 is connected to Eminem, Eminem is Connected to DRE, DRE was
      connected to DEATH ROW RECORDS, was he not? I feel that maybe 50 is
      Tupac's Makaveli, even though we all know 50 has been around for how
      long, and he looks nothing like Tupac did, but 50 and Pac have so
      many tattoo's, and tattoo's are not that hard to have covered up....
      maybe this whole mystery isn't as deep as we thought it to be, maybe
      he's right in front of our eyes..... in a new way, hes just waiting
      for us to REALIZE that he has arrived in a big way, like in one of
      his songs he mentions something about coming back as big as a TANK,
      and as well his liscence plate in a movie is TANK! I looked into the
      rapper Tank, but really found nothing, but look at the SIZE of
      50......it all adds up, but still doesn't make all that much sense to
      me....... and whats the deal with NAS and TUPAC friends, before he
      died, they were enemies! PAC is one smart man, we just need to
      understand and hear all the little things that hes leading us too,
      2003 is the year hes coming back, and look who's returned 2003?!




      Voting machines violate Constitution
      Who will launch legal challenge?

      By Lynn Landes

      April 15, 2003 - Wanted: one or more really good constitutional
      lawyers. Why? Voting machines. We need to challenge their use in our

      Voting machines violate the Constitution and threaten what's left of
      American democracy like no terrorist ever could. Only a handful of
      private companies sell and service the machines that register and
      tabulate votes in U.S. elections. And it's all done in complete
      secrecy. We've lost control of our election process and Congress
      doesn't seem to notice or care.

      If this isn't fascism, I don't know what else to call it.

      Over the last several years, particularly in 2002, election results
      in the U.S. have come under increasing suspicion due to widespread
      voting machine "glitches" and unexpected election upsets. In an
      overwhelming number of these questionable elections . . . Republicans
      won. That makes sense. Republicans, such as U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel
      (R-NE), long ago cornered the market in voting machine sales and

      Some people think that voting machines can be made 'secure' by
      incorporating technical safeguards and standards, but that misses the
      point in law. Once the machine is in the polling booth critical parts
      of the voting process become unobservable and, therefore, violate
      Articles I & 2 of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. But, to
      my knowledge no individual or organization, such as the NAACP, ACLU
      or Common Cause, have challenged the constitutionality of voting
      machines. Although plenty of distraught candidates have gone to court
      accusing the voting machines of miscounting their votes, but to
      little avail.

      In a November 1996 article for Relevance magazine, Philip O'Halloran
      wrote, "Many court cases involving allegations of fraud were brought
      against vendors of electronic systems. There were no convictions. Was
      there ever any proof of tampering presented? No. Part of the reason
      for this may be that during the litigation the plaintiffs were never
      given access to the vote tabulating program, and hence there was no
      opportunity for anyone to establish evidence to either prove or
      disprove the allegations. We should point out that even if the court
      allowed the plaintiffs' experts to inspect the source-code, there
      would be no proof that the code provided to the court was, in fact,
      the selfsame code used in the particular election in question."

      They're barking up the wrong tree anyway. How can a machine-produced
      vote ever constitute a legal vote? Isn't it merely circumstantial
      evidence of a vote produced by a machine that may or may not have
      been cast by a voter? In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court said, "A
      legal vote is one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent
      of the voter.'"

      Voting machines reflect the action of the machine first and the
      intent of the voter . . . maybe. When machines are in the voting
      booth three violations of federal law take place:

      1. inability to observe if voting machines properly register votes
      2. inability to observe if voting machines properly count votes
      3. inability to enforce the Voting Rights Act, because of the
      inability to observe if voting machines are properly registering or
      counting votes

      Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act requires that federal observers
      observe whether votes are being "properly tabulated." Civil Rights
      statutes state, "Observers are authorized to watch all polling place
      activities, including assistance to voters and the counting of
      ballots." However, voting machines constitute a concealed tabulation
      of the vote which cannot be observed by federal examiners, making the
      examiner's role in that regard moot and the federal Voting Rights Act
      unenforceable. Nelldean Monroe, Voting Rights Program Administrator
      for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management admitted to this reporter
      in November of 2002 that there is no training and no opportunity for
      federal observers to observe the accuracy of voting machines.

      There is significant case law that upholds the constitutional right
      to have votes cast and counted properly. The Supreme Court held in
      the following three cases:

      Allen v. Board of Elections (1969) - "The Act further provides that
      the term 'voting' "shall include all action necessary to make a vote
      effective in any primary, special, or general election, including,
      but not limited to, registration, listing or other action required by
      law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having such ballot
      counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast
      with respect to candidates for public or party office and
      propositions for which votes are received in an election."

      Reynolds v Sims (1964) - "It has been repeatedly recognized that all
      qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote and
      to have their votes counted. In Mosley the Court stated that it
      is 'as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote
      counted is as open to protection as the right to put a ballot in a
      box.' The right to vote can neither be denied outright nor destroyed
      by alteration of ballots nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing. As the
      Court stated in Classic, 'Obviously included within the right to
      choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters
      within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted.'"

      Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) - "It is in the light of such history that
      we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out
      the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that
      Representatives shall be chosen 'by the People of the several States'
      and shall be 'apportioned among the several States according to their
      respective Numbers.' It is not surprising that our Court has held
      that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional
      right to vote and to have their votes counted."

      But that's not happening. Our votes are not being cast or counted
      openly or properly. As far as we know some madman from Midland is
      counting them.

      Lynn Landes is a freelance journalist. She publishes her articles at
      EcoTalk.org. Formerly Lynn was a radio show host, a regular
      commentator for a BBC radio program, and environmental news reporter
      for DUTV in Philadelphia, Pa.




      No More Whistlin' Dixie
      Diane Sawyer's indecorous performance with the Dixie Chicks.
      By Jim Lewis
      Posted Friday, April 25, 2003

      The Chicks try to come off as "spirited but polite" in the Sawyer

      Last night's Primetime Thursday, which featured Diane Sawyer
      interviewing the Dixie Chicks about their recent woes, was one of
      those broadcast moments that make you want to put your foot through
      the television. In case you've been out working in the garden this
      past month, the occasion for the show was a relatively innocuous
      remark the Chicks' lead singer, Natalie Maines, made at a concert in
      London just before the war. "Just so you know," she said from the
      stage, "we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from
      Texas." The Associated Press picked up the line; country music
      stations fanned the flames; and within a few weeks the Dixie Chicks'
      newest record, Home, which had been No. 1 on both the country and pop
      charts, was being boycotted across the country.

      This is silly but not unpredictable. What followed was disgusting: CD-
      crushing radio promo events, vandalism of Chick Emily Robison's home,
      threats on the Chicks' lives, and a campaign of hatred directed at
      three of the most talented women in the music industry. Bruce
      Springsteen occasionally gets flack for his political remarks, but he
      doesn't get called a slut.

      The Chicks themselves may have inadvertently made things worse. When
      Jonathan Franzen ticked off the Oprah folks, it was as distressing to
      see his furious backpedaling as it was to see the arrant frenzy that
      his remarks occasioned. It would have been easier on him - and
      probably shortened the story's news life - if he'd just
      insisted, "Yeah, I said it. Yeah, I meant it. If you want to talk
      about it, we can do that. If you want to scream at me, I'm going to
      have to tune you out and get on with my life." God knows Maines and
      her two bandmates might have saved themselves a little heartache if
      they'd done the same.

      Still, they have the burden to bear of being from Dallas, where women
      tend to be a) spirited and b) polite. Not always an easy balance to
      maintain, but last night Maines did her best. When Sawyer prompted
      the three of them to ask for forgiveness, in a gruesome moment of
      utterly fake primetime piety, the trio paused. You could see them
      struggling with their pride, their conviction, and their desire to
      get along; I was half-hoping they'd suggest Sawyer kiss their three
      asses (and I'd be surprised if the notion didn't run through their
      minds). Instead, Maines kept her cool and her dignity. "Accept us,"
      she said. "Accept an apology that was made ... but to forgive us,
      don't forgive us for who we are." And she went on to point out, as if
      it needed to be said, that the practice of dissent is fundamental to

      That wasn't good enough for Sawyer. She spent an hour trying to bend
      the Chicks with a combination of false sympathy and crass
      sensationalism. Time and again, she cut back to a typeset insert of
      Maines' original remark, as if Maines had called for the pillage of
      Crawford. "Ashamed?" Sawyer said, incredulously. "Ashamed?" In the
      tradition of a Stalinist show trial, the women were forced to affirm
      their patriotism and their support for the troops. At every point
      they - who are, after all, entertainers with no particular training
      in political science - were thoughtful, modest, and firm. At every
      point Sawyer tried to force them into a crude, Manichaen choices. "Do
      you feel awful about using that word about the president of the
      United States?" she asked at the start of the interview - in a prime
      example of the sort of leading question no self-respecting first year
      AP stringer would ask. "Well," replied Maines, carefully, " 'awful'
      is a really strong word." Later, when Maines was trying to apologize
      and clarify, Sawyer said, "I hear something not quite, what,

      Well, I heard something not quite - what - honorable in Sawyer's
      presentation of the affair: an attempt to take a trivial matter that
      had blown up into an absurd controversy, and blow it up even more
      under the guise of simply covering the story. Essentially, she asked
      the women to choose between abasing themselves on national television
      or stirring up more hatred against themselves. It was a depressing
      moment in an ugly time.

      For what it's worth, I have profoundly mixed feelings about the war,
      and if I were to sit down with Natalie Maines, I'm sure we'd have
      much to disagree about. But, just so you know, I'm proud that the
      Dixie Chicks are from Texas. What's more, I'm embarrassed that Diane
      Sawyer is a member of my profession.

      Jim Lewis writes regularly about art for Slate and is the author of
      the forthcoming novel The King Is Dead. He lives in Austin, Texas.


      Apple Launching New Music Store Service
      Mon Apr 28, 2003

      SAN FRANCISCO - It's time to buy, mix, and burn, according to Apple
      Computer Inc. The Silicon Valley company that angered the recording
      industry with its "Rip. Mix. Burn" ad campaign has won the support of
      all five major record labels for its new Music Store service, which
      makes more than 200,000 songs available online at 99 cents a download.

      The service announced Monday removes several limitations that have so
      far reduced legitimate online music distribution to a small niche in
      the entertainment industry.

      For example, consumers can buy songs and keep them for as long as
      they want, share playlists on up to three Macintosh computers, and
      transfer them to any number of portable iPods so they can hear their
      music on the road. No subscriptions are necessary, and buyers can
      burn unlimited copies of the songs onto CDs.

      "It's not free, but it's 99 cents a song, pretty doggone close,"
      Apple CEO Steve Jobs said. "There's no legal alternative that's worth

      Also, a new, thinner and lighter version of the iPod will be
      available this Friday in the United States. It comes with 30
      gigabytes, the largest storage capacity yet for the Apple device,
      enough to hold 7,500 songs.

      Jobs has intensely courted music industry executives, who have been
      leery of digital music downloads, filing lawsuits and pushing for new
      laws to stem the illegal copying and distribution of copyright works.
      That wariness has hamstrung other online music distribution models,
      keeping most of the best new music offline.

      In contrast, Music Store includes many more songs, Jobs said, with
      more to be added each day. They include music by U2, Eminem and 18
      other artists who have previously not allowed any music downloads.

      Artists and consumers have had real concerns about how music gets
      sold and played. "No one is being left behind" by this distribution
      model, said musician Alanis Morissette in a pre-taped video shown at
      the Apple news conference.

      Initially, it only works on Macintosh computers, but by year's end,
      Apple plans to make it compatible with devices using the nearly
      ubiquitous Microsoft Windows platform - as it did for its portable
      iPod music player. Then, the service could have mass appeal.

      Even while the service remains limited to Macs, which comprise less
      than 3 percent of the desktop computing market, the segment is big
      enough for record labels to test a new business model for supplying
      music online, said Phil Leigh, a digital music analyst at research
      firm Raymond James & Associates.

      "I think it'll change the world a little bit," Leigh said. "It'll be
      the first legitimate online music service that will have major brand
      recognition, and it's focused on portability and ease of use."

      Until now, most music found online has not had the blessing of the
      major record labels. Millions of users are downloading free copies of
      songs through file-sharing services such as Kazaa - services that the
      recording industry have sued in an effort to stem what they deem as
      revenue-robbing piracy.

      The Recording Industry Association of America has sued four college
      students who allegedly offered more than 1 million recordings over
      the Internet, demanding damages of $150,000 per song. Music companies
      also are urging other big businesses to crack down on the downloading
      of songs using company computers.

      But their efforts suffered a major blow Friday when a federal judge
      in Los Angeles ruled that Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc.,
      the companies that distribute Grokster and Morpheus, aren't to blame
      for any illegal copying that their customers do using their file-
      sharing software. They've vowed to appeal.

      Apple is entering a market that has yet to take off. Other providers
      of online music to paid subscribers have drawn only about 650,000
      users, analysts estimate. Pressplay, a joint venture of Sony and
      Universal, charges a flat fee of $9.95 a month to listen to an
      unlimited number of songs from the major labels. Consumers who want
      to purchase songs to store on their hard drive or burn them onto a CD
      pay an extra fee of 98 cents per song.

      Apple's latest efforts aren't limited to new music downloading. The
      company also has its sights set on Hollywood, and is promoting its
      products as a "digital hub" that consumers can use to play or edit
      movies as well as music.

      The ability to make perfect copies of creative content makes
      entertainment industry executives nervous, but Jobs, who also runs
      Pixar, the animation studio behind such hits as the "Toy Story"
      movies and "Monsters, Inc.," has tried to bridge the divide between
      their world and that of the computer industry.

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