Researchers rewrite textbook on location of brain's speech processing center
Earliest art by Homo Neanderthalensis instead of Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Monday, February 13, 2012
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Literary Awards to Boost Christmas Gift Sales
Canadian Literary Awards are being dispensed, just in time for the Christmas shopping season, by the arbiters of the culture industry and their publishing industry cronies.
It is safe to assume, even without having read any of the winning works, that nothing disruptive to the dominant economic order will receive commendation or emolument from the media mafia enforcers.
On the government payroll, the winning authors collect for what one might well suspect is the usual politically correct distractions from what literature with guts would present.
No novel with a theme critical of the corporate-socialist oligarchy and their pseudo-progressive flunkies is going to be awarded financial subsidy by the Governor-General or any of the government "arts councils."
Instead of grinding out "literary" crud for their government sponsors, the winning hacks should get off the government suck dole . . . and write with fire in the belly and rage against the machine.
It is safe to assume, even without having read any of the winning works, that nothing disruptive to the dominant economic order will receive commendation or emolument from the media mafia enforcers.
On the government payroll, the winning authors collect for what one might well suspect is the usual politically correct distractions from what literature with guts would present.
No novel with a theme critical of the corporate-socialist oligarchy and their pseudo-progressive flunkies is going to be awarded financial subsidy by the Governor-General or any of the government "arts councils."
Instead of grinding out "literary" crud for their government sponsors, the winning hacks should get off the government suck dole . . . and write with fire in the belly and rage against the machine.
Friday, October 21, 2011
US Withdrawal from Iraq at Year End
US troops are not leaving Iraq because the US regime wants them out. They're leaving because the government of Iraq refused to let them stay.
Obama: U.S. war in Iraq ends Dec. 31.
The troop withdrawal is required by the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated with Iraq by the Bush administration. The agreement was ratified by the Iraqi parliament prior to Obama's inauguration, and expires at the end of the year. Officials had been discussing the possibility of maintaining several thousand US troops in the country to train Iraqi security forces. Ostensibly, the Iraqis wanted some US troops to stay but would not give them legal immunity, a key demand of the administration.
The only reason US troops are not going to be staying in Iraq is because the Iraqi government refused to agree that US soldiers would enjoy legal immunity if they commit serious crimes while in the country, such as killing Iraqis without cause.
If the government in Iraq granted immunity, the US troops would stay. In denying immunity, the new Iraqi government has in effect indicated that the US lost the war.
Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent and hundreds of thousands of people killed . . . so that bankers and munitions dealers could profit.
What else was accomplished?
Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons were not seized . . . because he did not have any.
There was no revenge on Iraq for the WTC attack . . . because Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attack.
There was no punishment of Iraq for supporting al-Qaida . . . because Iraq did not support al-Qaida; Saddam Hussein was a bitter enemy of al-Qaida.
At this point, there is no indication of huge profit accruing to the US from oil in Iraq . . . perhaps because the government of Iraq represents people that the US tortured, shot, burned, mangled and maimed, for no good reason.
Obama: U.S. war in Iraq ends Dec. 31.
The troop withdrawal is required by the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated with Iraq by the Bush administration. The agreement was ratified by the Iraqi parliament prior to Obama's inauguration, and expires at the end of the year. Officials had been discussing the possibility of maintaining several thousand US troops in the country to train Iraqi security forces. Ostensibly, the Iraqis wanted some US troops to stay but would not give them legal immunity, a key demand of the administration.
The only reason US troops are not going to be staying in Iraq is because the Iraqi government refused to agree that US soldiers would enjoy legal immunity if they commit serious crimes while in the country, such as killing Iraqis without cause.
If the government in Iraq granted immunity, the US troops would stay. In denying immunity, the new Iraqi government has in effect indicated that the US lost the war.
Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent and hundreds of thousands of people killed . . . so that bankers and munitions dealers could profit.
What else was accomplished?
Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons were not seized . . . because he did not have any.
There was no revenge on Iraq for the WTC attack . . . because Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attack.
There was no punishment of Iraq for supporting al-Qaida . . . because Iraq did not support al-Qaida; Saddam Hussein was a bitter enemy of al-Qaida.
At this point, there is no indication of huge profit accruing to the US from oil in Iraq . . . perhaps because the government of Iraq represents people that the US tortured, shot, burned, mangled and maimed, for no good reason.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
IMF: Using Debt as Global Control Device
Afghan lawmakers agreed on Saturday, 15 October 2011, to reimburse the government for bailing out the Kabul Bank, which nearly collapsed last year because of mismanagement and hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable loans.
The lower house passed a bill to provide up to $825 million over the next eight years to recapitalize Afghanistan's central bank — a move that smooths the way for the International Monetary Fund to extend Afghanistan a new line of credit. Afghanistan has been without IMF backing for more than a year, threatening to choke off billions in aid to the country.
No aid is given; it is contingent on the target country borrowing "money" to pay for aid. If the target country is recalcitrant, it is subjected to more destabilization and destruction by the IMF's enforcement service, the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization.
The corrupt nature of the Kabul Bank serves the IMF by impoverishing Afghans who have suffered ten years of NATO bombing.
The lower house passed a bill to provide up to $825 million over the next eight years to recapitalize Afghanistan's central bank — a move that smooths the way for the International Monetary Fund to extend Afghanistan a new line of credit. Afghanistan has been without IMF backing for more than a year, threatening to choke off billions in aid to the country.
No aid is given; it is contingent on the target country borrowing "money" to pay for aid. If the target country is recalcitrant, it is subjected to more destabilization and destruction by the IMF's enforcement service, the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization.
The corrupt nature of the Kabul Bank serves the IMF by impoverishing Afghans who have suffered ten years of NATO bombing.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Don't posture, Russia.
Rogozin calls on UN to draw conclusions from NATO's Libya campaign
You had your chance in the UN Security Council to veto the Libya "intervention," Russia.
If the strategy was to trip the US and its NATO flunkies into another sand-trap, it may succeed. But don't act virtuous.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
US Secretary of Enduring Bullshit
As reported in The New York Times, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta can't keep his cover stories straight.
Panetta employed the Bush administration deception when he told US troops on 11 July 2011 in Iraq that US forces were there because of 9/11. US intelligence reports have stated quite clearly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Panetta later attempted to correct the remark, saying, "We really had to deal with al-Qaeda here." It has been established (and was known by the Bush regime at the time) that there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US invaded. Saddam Hussein had kept radical Islamics down and out.
Panetta employed the Bush administration deception when he told US troops on 11 July 2011 in Iraq that US forces were there because of 9/11. US intelligence reports have stated quite clearly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Panetta later attempted to correct the remark, saying, "We really had to deal with al-Qaeda here." It has been established (and was known by the Bush regime at the time) that there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US invaded. Saddam Hussein had kept radical Islamics down and out.
NATO self-terminating
July 11 (Reuters) - New U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Monday that some NATO allies operating in Libya could see their forces "exhausted" within 90 days.
This could explain why Russia and China did not veto the UN Resolution 1973 authorizing NATO to bomb Libya: every munition expended by NATO against Libya makes Russia and China stronger relative to the North Atlantic Terror Organization.
This could explain why Russia and China did not veto the UN Resolution 1973 authorizing NATO to bomb Libya: every munition expended by NATO against Libya makes Russia and China stronger relative to the North Atlantic Terror Organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)