- Please send as far and wide as possible.
Editor, The Konformist
Real Government Files on the Unknown
Nick Redfern & Andy Roberts
Simon & Schuster/Paraview Pocket Books
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
$14.00 U.S./$22.00 Canada
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.
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
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
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
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?!
PEACE AND LOVE
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
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
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
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
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.