Probably? Try 100%. The scary thing is his supporters, the entire evangelical Christians, will walk lock and step with him all the way. They are 100% guaranteed to turn out in force in November 2018, so no Blue Wave, and they are guaranteed to show up in 2020 as well. He has 35% of the voting population that will support everything he ever does. Like he said, he could shoot somebody on live TV and wouldn't lose a vote. He's giving them everything they ever wanted. Everything. We'll be in a theocracy by the time his two terms are up, and then he may become President for life. And yet the liberals keep thinking that sooner or later, he'll trip up... he tries to order the Post Office to increase their rates specifically to Amazon because it's founder owns a newspaper that has said bad things about him, and now has ordered the Justice Department to carry an investigation into his political enemies. He doesn't understand the divisions and separation of power, he thinks being President is like being an owner and CEO of a major company. And the GOP will never do anything to stop him, again because he's got that 35% that is 100% guaranteed to follow him no matter what. He could appear on TV and say "I'm doing everything I can to undo that niger Obama's Presidency... and we all know there's a difference between a black person, like my friend Kanye, and a nigger like Obama" and they'd just say something like they don't share his opinion, but do nothing... he could follow through with his threat to shoot somebody, and they wouldn't care. There can be no overstating the dangers democracy is in right now in the country, that's how bad it is...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-trump-putin-mueller-and-targeting-dissent-w517486

Not as informative as Greenwald's recent piece on Hamilton 68, but you just gotta love Taibbi's style.

"By an extraordinary coincidence, virtually all the "anti-system" movements and candidates that so terrified the political establishment two years ago have since been identified as covert or overt Russian destabilization initiatives, puppeteered from afar by the diabolical anti-Western dictator, Vladimir von Putin-Evil."


And on this decade's most effective propaganda effort so far, the Hamilton 68 dashboard:

"That these people now are being upheld as heroes of liberalism is incredible. Only a few short years ago they were widely derided as the very dumbest people in the country, raving paranoiacs who humped every false lead from Niger to Ahmed Chalabi's hotel suite in order to justify invasions, torture, secret prisons and the establishment of a monstrous, intractable, and illegal surveillance regime. And now we're letting these same people dominate every news cycle when this time, years early, they're already admitting they might be wrong?"

Most of the trash in the oceans comes from rivers. I read once that 90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from just 13 countries. This shocked me enough to look into it. The consensus seems to be that 80 to 95%(depending on your source) of all the trash in the oceans flows into the oceans from just 10 rivers, being all the major rivers of China, southeast Asia, plus the Nile and the Niger in Africa. However, that's trash in the oceans. This volume of garbage on the beach probably comes from locals using the beach as a dumping ground.

Also in Africa, in the remote deserts of Niger and a bit over 1000 kms away, is another desert sculpture. The monument to Flight 772 was designed to be visible from overhead, from passing aeroplanes, and is also visible in Google Maps at 16°51′53.748″N 11°57′13.362″E.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25643103

*length=540

I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.

When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.

However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.

Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.

Comrade,

Good to have a discussion. I'll try to keep this up with ya, but I'm kinda busy
Lets duel

>> ^griefer_queafer:
Point is, isn't this just merely self-regulation?

Suppose that the leaders pay attention to scientific findings, and they realize that things have to change. Yes, the ‘insurance’ is a form of self-regulation for capitalism to increase industry and corporate markets. But, as is typical of a capitalist, they are trying to make a business out of saving the planet, at the risk of millions of lives.
My friend, Corporations are merely the bourgeoisie in a new form. Corporations are merely organized institutions to serve bourgeoisie interest, an interest in gaining capital.
The regulation is not a true regulation, however. What they are doing here is selling an idea of ‘regulation’. True regulation would be addressing all the points in our economic systems and finding the ‘open systems’ and making them a ‘closed system’, in the permaculture sense. Reduction of waste. Control of production to meet the needs, not the wants. We don’t need to produce thousands of cars that will never get sold solely for the insane and desperate hope that they somehow could.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Please respond to this question: what if 'growth' as it occurs today, also occurs concomitantly with POSITIVE effects to the planet?
Also, please make 'growth' relevant to our neo-capitalist moment.

neo-capitalist? In what ways have we moved beyond the worker? Are you to tell me that an office worker is not alienated in the cubicle? Are you to tell me that the the sweatshop labor in china, Indonesia, India, etc are not workers? Are you to tell me that nowhere on the planet, workers are paid in slave wages with the boss reaping profit off surplus value? Are you to tell me that workers control their hours, control their pay based on labor and the value of the product?

I think you have some tarnished definitions. Corporations are the logical outcome of Capitalism. Corporations operate on capitalist principles. We do not live in a post-industrial society. Manufacturing and productive have increased substantially, less workers are needed for high-tech facilities, but in the United States and other developed Imperialist countries, we don’t see the worker. We are alienated from them, and we exist as fragmented consumers. We are needed to buy these products so this economy and corporations can continue to exist. Neo-capitalism? Perhaps, but capitalism nonetheless. The changes aren’t as substantial as it may seem. Things have just become harder to see in post-modernism.
So what’s growth?
Destruction of the natural environment, say, the Amazon, for cattle ranches. Increased production to meet an increased demand. This is unsustainable, because Capitalism favors the increased demand. What do corporations want Americans to do? Consume. BUY BUY BUY. This is all very obvious. We see it everyday. Hell, just look at Christmas. Where do the resources come from to make these products and where do they end? We take it from the earth and it winds up in a dumpster or landfill. The resources aren’t returned, there is no equal exchange, energy is wasted in the inefficiency of our system.
Paper pulp released into the rivers. Environmental damage of the Niger River Delta for the oil, with acid rain so powerful it eats the tin-roofs of the shacks were the local villagers live. People that live on that land that don’t get ANYTHING from the energy companies except the corporate hired gunmen to maintain a ‘favorable business climate'. How then, is this 'favorable bussiness climate' POSTIVE for the planet? Its not positive for the planet or for any of us.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Why is it a short term goal if the idea is to fundamentally change the ways in which 'growth' affects the planet?


But they aren’t trying to fundamentally change anything. They want the Maldives to go under so they can sell them the fucking life rafts! Capitalists/Corporations don’t give a shit about the mass amount of human suffering that will occur. They just want to maintain their profit margin, seize the planets resources, privatize everything, and maintain control over the worker. You are a worker, I am a worker. Even intellect and academia is a commodity that is bought and sold. We are the proletariat. We have a boss, we don’t control our hours, our labor is sold for surplus value, at the cost of our liberties and our security on this planet.

It's the may/may not that bothers me about this administration. They have an idea about what they want to do, and it's set in stone. Then, when they're trying to make up some bogus reason for invading a nation, it always ends up being a debatable reason. Saddam may or may hot have weapons that he may or may not use on us. al-Qaeda may or may not be in Iraq. They may or may not have went to Niger to buy uranium. Gays may or may not want to destroy marriage by demanding it for themselves. Democrats may or may not be Satan worshipping sodomites.

It never ends. (Especially with religious twits.)

>> ^NordlichReiter:
my family thinks its the end times.
They plead with me to believe in god. So the conservative religious types think its ok to treat non citizens like crap, just because they may or may not be enemy combatants. Now we are attacking a country that might may or may not have a Nuke that can or cannot damage targets by button fire?
This stuff here makes me cringe.

Hey Doc_M

I appreciate you elborating on your first statement as it gave me more insight to why you were critical of this report. And while I can understand you being skeptical of the "groups" that the report came from, I personally don't think it affected the validity of what was being said. While our views differ on most subjects, I welcome hearing your perspective. I don't think you are a right wing nut as those types see everything in black and white and in all the discussions we've had you recognize shades of grey on issues.

I used the blind fatih anaology obviously because some of the religious conversations we've had, but in addition we've had several disscusions where I've pointed out evidence of collusion (fluoride, vaccines) and it makes you none the less skeptical of the organizations you quote. You seem to take them at their word even in the face of decietful comments, unethical behavior, shady practices, outright lies and collusions. So while you might not be any less offended by my use of the term "blind faith", that was the context for which I based it upon.

It warmed my heart to hear you be critical of the Bush administration and some of his policies. It made me think of this clip
http://www.videosift.com/video/Theres-Nothing-Conservative-About-Our-War-in-Iraq-by-SA
I would also agree with you that GW BUSH is NOT a conservative (at least with how the party defined itself before he came to office). But I will say I was perplexed at your comment...

It also assumes that Saddam didn't ship the supposed weapons out of the country while the world was twiddling its thumbs and looking the other way for 10 months.

This implies that you believed what the administration said about Iraq hook line and sinker. If you have evidence of your assertions please present it, cause it sounds like conjecture to me. There has never been any proof that's what he did. It is similar to saying He was a sponsor of terrorism (al-Qaeda), or implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, or that Iraq had sought uranium for nuclear weapons in Niger.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Web-of-Deceit-Saddam-Hussein

I think we can both agree that there are groups out there that try to "smear" people in politics (ahem, swift boaters). I did not see this report as a smear but as pointing out of the obvious. I think that can be traced to my reluctance to believe the administrations lies to begin with. I'm glad you found that article "The New Pentagon Papers" interesting as it helps put the administrations assertions in the conext of a lie and not a mistaken "false statement" Here is more information about THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS that was mentioned in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Lets also not forget the "Bush-Aznar memo" or the "Downing street memo's".

Here are some other things to consider when examining the administration lies on the war.

Senate Intelligence chairman quietly 'fixed' intelligence, and diverted blame from White House over Iraq
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Fifth-Estate-The-Lies-That-Led-To-War

http://www.videosift.com/video/Frontline-Behind-Closed-Doors

snoozedoctor:
2 scenarios, (1) a world with no Bill Gates- uncertain, can't say how it would have turned out (2) a world with Bill Gates - personal computers and billions in charity. I'll take option 2.

you actually think bill gates invented the personal computer and nobody else was trying or able? omfg.

anyway here's some more explanation of exactly what "giving to charity" means in this context:

... he admits, Microsoft's image has benefited, "and maybe a few more users come along. There's nothing wrong with that at all." That the foundation shuns quiet altruism in favour of maximum publicity proves the point. It has flown journalists and photographers around the world to spread the word that Microsoft's chairman cares. "It's very important to us that we're not just seen for our great financial results," he says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/feb/04/voluntarysector.guardiansocietysupplement


The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

...

Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation gives away at least 5% of its worth every year, to avoid paying most taxes. In 2005, it granted nearly $1.4 billion. It awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives, for efforts to improve public education in the United States, and for social welfare programs in the Pacific Northwest.

It invests the other 95% of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

Why you people sip on your capaccinos and think how great it would be for these poor kids to get a laptop, oh what wonderful things we could accomplish in this world, I am thinking realistically. Maybe its just my corporate business sense kicking in. So chastise me for having an opinion that differs. Farhad seems to be on the right track.

I thought surely someone has more insight than myself into this so I did a quick google search and found this among other things:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2227850,00.asp

"This machine, which is the brainchild of onetime MIT media lab honcho Nick Negroponte, will save the world. His vision is to supply every child with what amounts to an advertising delivery mechanism. Hence the boys at Google are big investors.

Before you cheer for the good guys, ponder a few of these facts taken from a world hunger Web site. In the Asian, African, and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty." Every year, 15 million children die of hunger. For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for five years. Throughout the decade, more than 100 million children will die from illness and starvation. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well fed, one-third is underfed, and one-third is starving. Since you've entered this site, at least 200 people have died of starvation. One in 12 people worldwide is malnourished, including 160 million children under the age of 5. Nearly one in four people, or 1.3 billion—a majority of humanity—live on less than $1 per day, while the world's 358 billionaires have assets exceeding the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people. Let's include Negroponte and the Google billionaires.

So what to do? Let's give these kids these little green computers. That will do it! That will solve the poverty problem and everything else, for that matter. Does anyone but me see this as an insulting "let them eat cake" sort of message to the world's poor?

"Sir, our village has no water!" "Jenkins, get these people some glassware!"

But, wait. Think of how cool it would be! Think of how many families will get to experience the friendly spam-ridden Information Super Ad-way laced with Nigerian scams, hoaxes, porn, blogs, wikis, spam, urban folklore, misinformation, sites selling junk from China, bomb-making instructions, jihad initiatives, communist propaganda, Nazi propaganda, exhortations, movie clips of cats playing the piano, advertising, advertising, and more advertising. Do you now feel better about the world's problems, knowing that some poor tribesman's child has a laptop? What African kid doesn't want access to Slashdot?

Of course, it might be a problem if there is no classroom and he can't read. The literacy rate in Niger is 13 percent, for example. Hey, give them a computer! And even if someone can read, how many Web sites and wikis are written in SiSwati or isiZulu? Feh. These are just details to ignore."

Anti-semitism is a big problem in the Islamic world. I have experienced it myself first hand. There are three major causes of this anti-semitism. Firstly, many corrupt rulers indulge and often encourage hatred of the Jews and Israel in order to deflect criticism away from their own corrupt and cruel regimes. Secondly, in many countries the relevant areas of history and politics are excluded from the educational syllabuses, and the public debate of important and contentious political issues is restricted. Thirdly, the single greatest factor contributing to anti-semitism is that for over fifty years we have seen the Israelis oppress the Palestinians - including daily humiliation, terrorism and murder and a concerted effort to steal Palestinian land and annex Jerusalem. People need to learn that they can be strong supporters of Palestinian independence and strong critics of Israeli government policy without resorting to anti-semitism or calling for the destruction of Israel. Criticising Israeli government policy is NOT anti-semitic.

MEMRI TV - A WARNING:

In my daily trawl through YouTube I have encountered many videos from the following site: Memri TV This website only shows the very worst of the Islamic world - radical fringe preachers with little or no public support, unobjective critics of America and Israel, anti-semites, holocaust deniers, misogynists, etc. However, it presents these opinions as if they are widely held, rarely questioned, and representative of the Islamic world. Further more - and this is particularly worrying - the site often mistranslates, or takes out of context, what major Islamic leaders are saying in order to make them seem more extreme and bigotted. The site uses an Arabic title and icon in order to try and disguise its real agenda.

Who are Memri? They send out their videos to all senators and congressmen, and all mainstream media, so we should really know something about them!

MEMRI was founded in 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser. Meyrav Wurmser and her husband David Wurmser were both co authors of A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (Israel) which was the precursor for the Wolfowitz doctrine- which led to PNAC - Project for the New American Century. Dr. Meyrav Wurmser received her doctorate at George Washington University, by researching the life and works of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism. Her husband David Wurmser works directly under Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. It was David Wurmser that told Dick Cheney that Wilson's wife Plame was the one that sent Wilson to Niger.

MEMRI's headquarters are in Washington DC. It is a non-profit organization, exempt from taxation, that has private donors. MEMRI's largest donor is The Bradley Foundation. The Bradley Foundation has also provided funding for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC brought together prominent members of the (George W) Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) in the late 1990s to articulate their neoconservative foreign policy.