GazeboflossUK

Right - man, I think she must be the most disgusting woman in political media.

I totally agree. Bill O'Reilly is a complete waste of space. I get physically angry when I see him spout his ignorant mouth off at people who are more true Americans than it seems he will ever be - and I'm not even American. I guess it's because it's about our survival as free people - all of us. Bill O'Reilly and others like him are all going to lose the war. I mean, Sunsara Taylor tells Bill of the comments by John Yoo.... Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him? Yoo: No treaty. Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo… Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that. And what does O'Reilly say? He said.."what small child was that" and "you don't even know the child". She DIDN'T say that there was an actual child!! She was trying to make the point that this is the type of people we are dealing with and that torture IS used by the US. And I would put my life on the fact that most countries use torture. Another thing O'Reilly always says is "the nutty far left". I mean if I was to say I hated Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld because I believe them to have committed serious treason and crimes against humanity - O'Reilly just says "Look at all the hate in the far left kooks" WHAT?!?! OF COURSE I HATE THEM...FOR THE VERY REASONS I JUST SAID. He must think everyone is an idiot and just agrees with him.....It seems the amount of denial he is in should cast doubts about his mind. Oh, O'Reilly gets me mad. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich - All pure sub-human media scum. Just to name a few.

As long as it's as far from "R&B" as possible then I don't mind. The current take on R&B has to be the most dull and uninspiring music genre ever. Mid tempo 'R&B' ballads are enough to make me want to stick a pin in my ear and pop my ear-drums. "J-Lo" has some pretty dire ones and all because she thinks she's "real".....yeah.....I fucking hate them. It's not going to be like that of course but still....I hate this R&B type tripe. Having said that Timberland seems to create some fairly decent stuff and I think he's probably wise or clever enough to be able to work with many styles.

It's only a bit of sex. Actually sounds alright... Picnics = Good Sex = GOOD :)

O'Reilly's Foxing Of Facts Knows No Bounds What torture? What dead Iraqis? What protests? What war? Bill O'Reilly's pathetic attempts to counter Sunsara Taylor of anti-war organisation "The World Can't Wait" on his show this week again reveal how Fox News and other Neocon media outlets like it exist purely to silence anyone who criticizes the Bush Administration on any issue. O'Reilly exposed his own agenda to simply denounce everything any critic ever says as being wrong or untrue, by suggesting that Ms Taylor claimed the government has tortured children by crushing their testicles. O'Reilly went on to denounce Taylor as an unpatriotic and accused her of slander. It was clear to anyone with half a brain that Taylor was referring to comments previously made by Bush attorney John Yoo, co author of the PATRIOT ACT and various controversial torture advocating memos. During a debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants. Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him? Yoo: No treaty. Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo… Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that. Click here for the audio. When Ms Taylor referred to Yoo's comments however, O'Reilly demanded to know "what small child was that," badgering her for a name or other specifics, when clearly she had not said it happened, only that Yoo had stated that it could if Bush ordered it. O'Reilly foxed the facts further still from reality in a later segment, asking Kirsten Powers if she thinks it's patriotic to go on national TV and accuse the government of mashing a baby's testicles? O'Reilly started to tick off on his fingers 1. she doesn't know who the baby is, 2. she didn't see the baby's testicles being mashed, 3. she can't produce the baby or the baby's name, clearly attempting to suggest that Taylor was making the entire scenario up along with everything else she said. Sunsara Taylor IS displaying patriotism by raising this issue because she was attempting to alert brainwashed FOX viewers to the fact that the John Yoo and the Bush Administration have clearly advocated genocide against American citizens. Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children? Georgetown Law Professor David Cole has written, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished." Last September the Senate officially gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror when it passed new detainee legislation. So in his attempts to FOX these facts, O'Reilly is covering up abuse of power at the highest levels. O'Reilly also seemed to suggest that there has never been any evidence of the US using torture on prisoners, asking "what torture?" and demanding that Ms Taylor name names. When she cited verified examples of rendition and US torture, such as in the case of Maher Arar, who has said he was chained and shackled by U.S. authorities for 11 days for interrogation and then flown to Syria, where he was tortured and forced to make false confessions, O'Reilly simply responded with "do you believe that man"? Clearly the Canadian government believed him, an official inquiry determined that Arar indeed was tortured before clearing him of any terrorist links or suspicions. When Ms Taylor raised the issue of torture at Abu Ghraib, O'Reilly raised his voice and asked "who ordered Abu Ghraib?" clearly in the hope that Ms Taylor would not be able to respond, to which she did by citing the sworn testimony of Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, that torture came from the very top. O'Reilly then bizarrely responded by asking Taylor to "show him the documentation", to which she replied "you are supposed to be the reporter". Before this O'Reilly had questioned the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the war, citing the UN figure of 59,000 and questioning Ms Taylor's referencing the 600,000 figure from The Lancet, which is considered to be one of the 'core' general medical journals. Fox watchdog website News Hounds hit the nail on the head stating: O'Reilly scoffed and dismissed it as "far left," his answer to anything that proves him wrong. Taylor could have backed up her figure with the October 2006 confirmation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which says: Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion O'Reilly then also asked why no one was protesting the Iraq War, despite the fact that in the last week hundreds of thousands have poured onto the streets all over the country to protest. What torture? What dead Iraqis? What protests? you almost expect O'Reilly to ask "What war? Show me documentation to prove there is a war". O'Reilly concluded by calling Sunsara Taylor "hysterical" and stating "You are simply a woman who doesn't know what she's talking about". O'Reilly and his ilk serve no purpose other than to bolster the criminality of Neocon Whitehouse regime by silencing government critics regardless of the issue. They baselessly deny the reality of any provable fact or event in order to pass over any controversial issue with the pretence that they have done their duty as reporters and covered it. This is your mainstream media, happy to serve government illegality and thus aid the destruction and degradation of the country. Watch the full O'Reilly/Sunsara Taylor interview below as well as the later segment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR8vfrMooNs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pOXtNRpyg8

Which parts are "bogus"? Just would like to know reasons, for a change.

Liberal Kingpins Help Bush War Agenda MoveOn.org, Pelosi, fake "progressive left" Neo-Cons in sheep's clothing Paul Joseph Watson Wednesday, March 21, 2007 Almost six months after the Democrats recaptured both Houses and political sleeping gas sent the "progressive" left off into dream world, establishment liberals like Nancy Pelosi and the MoveOn.org foundation continue to whore themselves in service of the Neo-Con war agenda and their Bush administration pimps. While the media obsesses about the sideshow of the attorney firings "scandal," preparations for a war with Iran and the continued feeding of U.S. troops into the Iraq meat grinder continues with the utter and total complicity of kingpin Democrats and their phony advocacy groups. An organized campaign to marginalize anti-war Democrats in Congress and force through the $124 billion wartime spending bill was employed not by Republican Neo-Cons, but by Nancy Pelosi and the so-called anti-war "progressive" MoveOn.org foundation! Congress will vote on the bill this Thursday but Democrats who want to see troops withdrawn from the Iraq quagmire have been completely abandoned by the leadership of their own "opposition" party, with Pelosi determined to introduce an almost identical war chest bill in the unlikely event of the original draft failing to pass. MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that preaches anti-war sentiment on its website, issued an endorsement for the war bill on Monday, aligning its 3.3 million members with Bush's agenda to keep feeding U.S. troops, who now "want out," into the imperial meat grinder. Anti-war Democrats told The Politico that they were being aggressively pressured and threatened with funding denials unless they supported the war bill. MoveOn.org: Anti-war or sleeping gas steam valve for naive liberals? The backlash against MoveOn.org is already brewing. "MoveOn put out a dishonest poll that did not offer its members a real choice to end the war, and now the peace movement is lobbying activists to reform MoveOn or drop off its list," said David Swanson, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, said in an e-mail to The Politico. "I unsubscribed from MoveOn this morning." Why would MoveOn.org, a supposed liberal organization that opposes the war, pressure anti-war Democrats to vote for a bill that will ensure the war rolls on? Because they are nothing more than a bought and paid for front organization for the elite that pose as an independent advocacy group yet act as nothing more than a steam valve for anti-war sentiment that has now enveloped the vast majority of the body politic. Meanwhile, presidential hopefuls and MoveOn.org members Edwards and Obama continue to apologetically prostrate themselves in front of the vampires of AIPAC and the Israeli lobby, humble, submissive, and dutiful in accepting their orders to hound Iran into accepting either total subjection or facing complete annihilation. They are merely following the lead of the poster girl for the counterfeit "progressives," Nancy Pelosi, who deliberately stripped the Iraq funding bill of a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran, a "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come," according to John Nichols of The Nation. But far from a "misstep," Pelosi's green light for Bush to open up another front in the empire is later attributed to "pressure from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZqZox6xtJk Pelosi's duty to aid the Neo-Cons and Israel in further creaking open the gates of hell in the Middle East was made abundantly clear to her when, during a speech to AIPAC, she offered milquetoast criticism of the situation in Iraq and was met with a chorus of boos. "Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands," writes Pat Buchanan. But Pelosi's compromised runs deeper than the obligatory obedience to the demands of the Israeli lobby, for it was she who also issued the talking points after the mid-term election in immediately declaring impeachment of Bush to be "off the table," a directive from party headquarters that was instantly parroted by Dean, Rangel and others. Pelosi, MoveOn.org and their cheerleaders are nothing more than Neo-Cons in sheep's clothing and they are complicit in every act of imperial bloodletting - past, present and future. So too are the self-proclaimed "progressive" blogs and media outlets who claim to be anti-war and yet, Cindy Sheehan aside, have offered nothing but simpering platitudes for Pelosi and other Democrat shills, failing to hold accountable these cretins who have done nothing to reverse Bush's numerous assaults on the U.S. constitution and the perception of America in foreign lands. One individual who isn't buying the fraud is Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, whose remarks at the Pentagon last week sublimely underline the creeping connivance of Pelosi, MoveOn.org and their ilk. "Voting for Complicity" Well, it seems that George Bush and Democratic Leaders were right. They confidently told us that not only would Democrats fund the surge, but that the Democrats would not stop action in Iran, too. Now, we are not surprised when the unelected, illegitimateAdministration of George Bush ignores us, but we are shocked that the Democratic majority in Congress chose war over us as we say Bring our troops home now! The answer is clear: Our country has been hijacked. What about a livable wage for America's workers? What about the right of return for Katrina survivors? What about repealing the Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, and the Military Tribunals Act? Why is impeachment "off the table"? Our country is bankrupt yet this institution, the Pentagon, has "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars! I want that money back . . . For jobs . . . for health care . . . for education . . . for our veterans! The Democrats have become so timid they won't even repeal the Bush tax cuts as a strategy to deal with a bankrupt nation. Seems the story is the same: more money for war, but we can't feed the poor. It's hard to believe, but now the Democrats are full partners in George Bush's wars. And by funding his wars, the Democratic Congress is explicitly complicit. Complicit in war crimes! Complicit in torture! Complicit in crimes against humanity! Complicit in crimes against peace! The FBI spied on us; Condoleezza, Dick, and George lied to us. In 1957, Dr. King observed that "Both political parties have betrayed the cause of justice." And so it must be repeated today. Our beloved America is dividing again into two Americas. Our struggle is for nothing less than the soul of our country. We want an America that is respected in the commonwealth of man; we want our values to shine like a beacon throughout the world. As an American of conscience, I hereby declare my independence from every bomb dropped, every threat leveled, every civil liberties rollback, every child killed, every veteran maimed, every man tortured. And I sadly declare my independence from the leaders who let it happen. We will not stop. We will win. We will take our country back! Cynthia McKinney, Remarks in front of the Pentagon, March 17, 2007

EDIT (Wrong thread)

Haha, this story is pure comedy gold.

Al Gore Challenged to Climate Debate Newsmax Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Al Gore has been challenged to an internationally televised debate on "climate change" by Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during her leadership of the United Kingdom. In a formal press release from the Center for Science and Public Policy, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous." Monckton said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide." Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head-to-head on the science, politics, and religion of global warming in pages of the London Sunday Telegraph last November. As reported by NewsMax in November 2006, Monckton challenged a U.N. report on climate change as "hysteria" over manmade global warming that distorts the truth. A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in the Sunday Telegraph. "But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years . . . "Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now. "Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole – a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none." Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. In his most recent challenge to Gore, Monckton calls on the former vice president to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor. "If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge."

Street-Level Explosion Before Collapse of WTC 1 Witness Here's an interesting eyewitness report about a large explosion at ground level right before the collapse of the North Tower. The witness is apparently a New Jersey musician. "I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I don't go in for that junk. I'm very patriotic, and I believe in my elected officials -- I even write songs about them. But nothing said in the official (and largely unpublicised) story about the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center Seven jibes with what we witnessed that day. If the government story of the events at the Twin Towers have always seemed fishy and incomplete, I know damned well the few official accounts of the collapse of Building Seven are fishy and incomplete. *** Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred. ***

Yes, I have seen such films and tv shows that involve similar storylines. I find the concept particularly creepy.

So, Interpol at Reading/Leeds..... Hmm, I still don't think there's enough bands I like playing for me to go.

Already posted loads of info about this in the my 9/11 Thread. http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29134&page=34

Here is something to bake your noodle. Science hopes to change events that have already occurred Patrick Barry Sunday, January 21, 2007 Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voice mail message, or rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make yourself the winner. Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible -- what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth. Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration. It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed -- and that is a huge if -- it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works. Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are generally "time symmetric" -- they work as well for processes running backward through time as forward. The situation got really strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an illusion: The past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an unchanging "block" universe. "If you have the block universe view, the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why you can't have causes from the future just as you have causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the University of Sydney in Australia. With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of particles and events became even less relevant. "Real temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles traveling backward in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves traveling forward and backward in time. Any proof of reverse causality, however, remained elusive. Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if each photon travels through both slits and interferes with itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after the fact. In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland at College Park, found a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind." Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no unambiguous evidence for retrocausality. That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the University of Washington in Seattle, he proposed the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real world. It says particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forward and backward through time. In June, at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send signals to the past. The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle behavior as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector, which could sense a photon in two different positions. The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way. To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel. If you can do that, Cramer says, why not push it to be better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several kilometers of coiled-up fiber-optic cable, thereby delaying them by microseconds. This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, before you have even made it. That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer says they could control the movable detector so that it alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behavior over time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If this consistently shifts between an interference pattern and a smooth singleparticle pattern a few microseconds before the respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the drawing board. If the experiment does show evidence for retrocausation, it would open the door to some troubling paradoxes. If you could see the effects of your choice before you make it, could you then make the opposite choice and subvert the laws of nature? Some researchers have suggested retrocausality can occur only in limited circumstances in which not enough information is available for you to contradict the results of an experiment. Another way to resolve this is to say that even if the present can influence the past, it cannot change it. The fact that your hair is shorter today has as much influence on your going to the barber yesterday as the other way around, yet you can't change that decision. "You wouldn't be able to talk about altering, but you could talk about causing or affecting," says Phil Dowe, an expert on causation at the University of Queensland in Australia. While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future. If all that gives you a headache, then consider this: if retrocausality does exist, it says something profound about how the universe works. "It has the potential to solve what is one of the biggest problems in modern physics," says Huw Price, head of Sydney's Centre for Time. It goes back to quantum entanglement and "nonlocality" -- one particle instantaneously affecting another, even from the other side of the galaxy. That doesn't sit well with relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than light. Still, the latest experiments confirm that one particle can indeed instantaneously affect the other. Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: Whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated. Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backward through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says. While Cramer last week prepared to start a series of experiments leading up to the big test of retrocausality, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality." But if it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling. Did we reach back to shape the Big Bang? If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the universe -- exactly why the universe is so "finely tuned" for human habitation. Some physicists search for deeper laws to explain this fine-tuning, while others say there are millions of universes, each with different laws, so one universe could quite easily have the right laws by chance and, of course, that's the one we're in. Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggests another possibility: The universe might actually be able to fine-tune itself. If you assume the laws of physics do not reside outside the physical universe, but rather are part of it, they can only be as precise as can be calculated from the total information content of the universe. The universe's information content is limited by its size, so just after the Big Bang, while the universe was still infinitesimally small, there may have been wiggle room, or imprecision, in the laws of nature. And room for retrocausality. If it exists, the presence of conscious observers later in history could exert an influence on those first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favorable for life. This may seem circular: Life exists to make the universe suitable for life. If causality works both forward and backward, however, consistency between the past and the future is all that matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in time," Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow written into the universe at the Big Bang, there must be some sort of two-way link." -- Patrick Barry Retrocausality: Can the present affect the past? Researchers have devised an experiment using laser light to demonstrate a property of quantum mechanics: That pairs of entangled photons show identical properties as either a wave or a particle. By using this knowledge, they hope to demonstrate how to influence an event that has already occurred. 1. A laser beam is directed into a crystal that makes two streams of photons. 2a. One stream of photons travels through a screen with two slits. 2b. The other stream of photons travels through an identical screen with two slits BUT is routed through six miles of fiber-optic cable that delays the light by microseconds. 3a. A detector captures the light and records it as a wave-like or particle-like photon (you don't know which yet). 3b. The delayed light is sensed by a movable detector. If the detector is closer to the lens it's recorded as a wave-like interference pattern. If its farther from the lens it is recorded as a particle. What is happening here: By choosing to measure the delayed photon as either a wave or particle photon, the experimenter forces the other photon to appear in the same way - because they are entangled - even though it reaches the detector earlier. Sources: John Cramer, University of Washington; NewScientist, Sept. 2006 Patrick Barry wrote this piece for the New Scientist, where it first appeared. Contact us at [email protected]. This article appeared on page E - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

O'Donnell Comments Garner No Media Coverage Talk show host's 9/11 rant ignored Infowars.net Monday, March 19, 2007 Rosie O'Donnell's blog comments last week, in which she stated some of the facts surrounding the controlled demolition of building 7 on 9/11, have garnered no media attention. O'Donnell wrote : • The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible. • Silverstein said to the fire department commander “the smartest thing to do is pull it.” • Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to “blow up”. • The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint. • Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris. After going public with this skepticism over the official story of 9/11, O'Donnell then continued to address the issue in a Q&A with her readers on her website. Despite our efforts to alert readers to this information, the mainstream media has not touched the issue, despite the fact that they seem very willing to hype up O'Donnell's respectively meaningless public tiff with Donald Trump. A clip from the Rush Limbaugh show last week, confirms that the media have actively chosen to ignore the story; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emz5hpxkrw Limbaugh typically advocates rehab for 9/11 truthers and refers to O'Donnell under that umbrella. Clearly the establishment media knows about this story and has chosen the blackout option, rather than the discrediting method of debunking. Charlie Sheen, who went public with his views almost exactly a year ago now, was the first high profile celebrity to put his reputation on the line in the name of 9/11 truth and garnered major attention from outlets such as CNN at the time.

Global Warming On The Ropes Hysteria of climate cult begins to look increasingly inane Paul Joseph Watson Monday, March 19, 2007 The religion of man-made global warming has encountered a fierce backlash in recent weeks, partly as a result of Martin Durkin's excellent "Swindle" documentary, but also as a consequence of the sheer hysteria warming advocates are forced to attach their argument to when self-evident facts are in short supply. A case in point was presidential candidate John Edward's screed last week, in which he said that global warming would make world war look like heaven. It being highly unlikely that Edwards fought in either of last century's world wars, he can only be fixing his premonition around an expected casualty figure of over 19 million human deaths as a result of a short term temperature increase. The ironic truth, as highlighted in the "Swindle" documentary, is that Western enforced caps on carbon emissions, which are uniformly ignored by India and China, are preventing poverty stricken third world nations from achieving development by cutting off access to their huge natural resources. The measures employed to supposedly fight the negative impact of man-made global warming are in fact inflicting more death and disease on those already ravaged by famine and squalor. Martin Durkin left a sufficient gap between his documentary and his next public statement to allow the frothing and maniacal vitriol to spew forth from the establishment left, aghast that their precious belief system had been challenged by sober evidence impenetrable by public relations stunts, rock concerts and photos of polar bears supposedly stranded on icebergs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U His response, carried by the Telegraph, noted with surprise not the volume of the attacks but their consistently feeble premise, including charges that Durkin had used an incorrect temperature graph when the program used the same one as the darlings of the climate cult, the IPCC. "Too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global-warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong," concludes Durkin. Another would-be President and establishment kingpin of the man-made circus, Al Gore, today appears before the Energy and Commerce Committee on Capitol Hill to make his case for further control freak measures to be clamped on our behavior in the name of saving mother earth. Gore will face some very interesting questions and his reaction will go a long way to judging the real agenda behind the climate crowd. "How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?" "Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)" Gore is likely to try and evade the second question because any specific response will put him firmly in the same camp as the Dr. Pianka's of the world, who have openly advocated genocide to forcibly reduce world's population to a fraction of its current level. The orthodoxy took another blow over the weekend when two of its own adherents, Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, warned their own choir to stop preaching doomsday scenarios about global warming, recognizing that the hysteria has eroded a lot of credibility the man-made camp had built. This admonition came too late because the fallacy of man-made global warming is already running out of steam for two reasons. One - the hysteria will only get louder because man-made advocates have a dearth of facts to base their alarmism on and always have to resort to fearmongering. Two - as we progress further into the 21st century and the much vaunted eco-apocalypse never arrives, the alarmists will begin to look increasingly stupid and untrustworthy. It is at this point that man-made global warming will hold as much legitimacy as the 1970's global cooling scare does in hindsight, absolutely zero.

Bloomberg Kills 'Sensitive 9/11 Probe' SUSAN EDELMAN NY Post Monday, March 19, 2007 Mayor Bloomberg killed a study on the city's response to the 9/11 attacks after his lawyers said they did not want a report that cited any missteps or dealt with "environmental" or "respirator issues," says a former city official. City lawyers raised fears that the proposed "after-action report" - which the U.S. Department of Justice had offered to fund - could lead to criticism and fuel lawsuits, David Longshore, former director of special programs for the city's Office of Emergency Management, told The Post. "The Bloomberg administration acted to sweep any potential problems under the rug," said Longshore, who was trapped in a loading dock outside the WTC while both towers collapsed. He later developed sinusitis and throat polyps and sued the city. Longshore, who left his city job last year, showed The Post his work notes on internal OEM discussions with city lawyers in February 2003. His notes say the Law Department "doesn't want a critical report" and "does not want a report that says we did anything wrong."

Yes, that indeed is correct. Evaporation from the Sea and Volcano activity are responsible for most of the CO2 in our atmosphere. So - Human activity is causing no dangerous changes in our climates CO2 but we are being force fed the notion that if we don't act now then we are going to be in serious trouble...?? Now, the fact that we (humans) contribute less than a single percent towards "global warming" or climate change means using the logic or lies told to us about CO2 emissions being disastrous, one medium-small volcanic eruption would eclipse human output of C02 and cause us to move significantly closer to global peril. But we see volcanic eruptions quite often and many, many active volcanoes emit gases ALL year round.......yet we never hear about how our 0.3% is not even worth talking about compared to other CO2 outputs.

Well, Climate Change IS for real.....it's just not down to human activity. I've been trying to tell many people about this for a few years now and it seems the only way many people wake up to this is by seeing a TV programme. Which is good in one respect because the "man made" global warming scam is true....BUT it's also bad because 'Programmed TV' is filled with lies - so large amounts of people would rather believe their TV than actually reading in depth documents about very important issues.....and it's pretty amazing that this Documentary was so truthful - this is really quite rare in this day and age - but I guess for TV as it stands today it must at least present the alternative view fairly at some point, otherwise TV's credibility would sink to an even deeper low. I guess it's sort of damage control in many respects. But still, I recommend that everyone learn about the global warming fraud and the HUGE amount of areas in life that will be affected because of the scam. (I guess large TAXES and FINES are pretty much the more obvious ones....taxes for no reason, based on pure lies) As a previous article says...."Global Warming is fast surpassing 9/11 as a pretext to do anything". Don't we all know it! To critisize the "Al Gore" stance on global warming is almost tantamount to holocaust denial these days. You have to know there's a smelly rat somewhere when there are people going around saying that you should be put in jail for speaking about the global warming scam. The official line on 9/11 is fast losing it's credibility....faster than ever - and I guess 'man made' Global Warming is the perfect 'global crisis' that can then allow the Globalists in control to offer their own special solution to the false situation or problem that they have built up. PROBLEM = RECACTION = SOLUTION. Loss of freedoms It's always the technique they use. Always.

Yeah, by ear 99% of the time. I only ever tend to read music when I'm dealing with classical scores or some other more random times.

There goes one more.

Here comes the flood.....

Radiohead, Mew, Tortoise

KSM "Confessed" To Targeting Bank Founded After His Arrest Fallacy of testimony exposed as story blows up in Pentagon's face Paul Joseph Watson Friday, March 16, 2007 Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's alleged confession testimony has been thoroughly discredited after it emerged that one of the targets he identified, the Plaza Bank, was not founded until 2006, four years after the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind's arrest. In his confession, KSM claims, "I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the New (or Second) Wave of attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/11: ...Plaza Bank, Washington state." KSM was arrested in March 2003. According to the Plaza Bank's website, the organization was founded in early 2006, making it impossible for KSM to have even known of the bank's existence before 2003, never mind plotted against it. Skepticism about the legitimacy of KSM's confession has gushed forth from all quarters, leaving the credibility of the Pentagon and the process of military tribunals in ruins and provoking additional questions about why the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind admitted to involvement in such a vast range of plots. After media commentators across the spectrum, from Time Magazine to Matt Lauer and even Rosie O'Donnell were openly cynical of the accuracy of KSM's testimony, officials speaking on condition of anonymity admitted that the claims were exaggerated, but still insist KSM's responsibility for 9/11, "from A to Z" is genuine. Former CIA field officer Robert Baer also expressed his doubts, questioning "What the Pentagon's objective really is in releasing the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession." "On the face of it, KSM, as he is known inside the government, comes across as boasting, at times mentally unstable. It's also clear he is making things up. I'm told by people involved in the investigation that KSM was present during Wall Street Journal correspondent Danny Pearl's execution but was in fact not the person who killed him. There exists videotape footage of the execution that minimizes KSM's role. And if KSM did indeed exaggerate his role in the Pearl murder, it raises the question of just what else he has exaggerated, or outright fabricated," writes Baer. The facet of the Pearl murder and why the establishment would want to shut the lid on the whole affair by pinning the blame on KSM is interesting in the context that in September 2006, Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf fingered Omar Sheikh as Pearl's assassin, adding that he was an MI6 agent working for British Intelligence. In the transcript of his alleged confession, KSM cryptically discusses CIA and Mossad involvement in the Pearl execution but the text is heavily redacted. KSM's claim that he ran the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is also highly suspect because it also conveniently sweeps under the carpet the fact that it was the FBI who provided the terror cell with the bomb materials through their informant and ordered the bombing to go ahead. In addition, KSM was a known CIA asset in the eighties and was used as a go between during the CIA-funded Afghan "jihad" against the occupying Soviets. It is well established that before his mysterious arrest as the alleged mastermind behind the September 11 plot, Mohammed was granted a visa to enter the US just six weeks before the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York. Other questions that have arisen concerning the testimony revolve around KSM's Americanized use of the English language, including the term "A to Z," which many see as a form of slang that befits tabloid headlines more than it does the vernacular of radical Muslim extremists. A CNN online poll shows that a massive 74% disbelieve all of the claims made by KSM and BBC respondents were equally cynical. Think Progress makes the point that KSM's comments on torture and any potential reference to the fact that he was tortured himself are redacted in the transcript. The upshot of all this is that the much vaunted KSM confession, which seems to have been intentionally inflated so the book could be closed on a number of nebulous plots cited by the Bush administration as justification for its policies, has blown up in the establishment's face and only succeeded in detracting credibility from the government's official 9/11 story and the mythical war on terror.