5. 2006 May

5.1 Friday, May 5

1. ``Republicans backtrack on gasoline proposals''. By James Kuhnhenn. [156]

2. ``Capitalism''. By Drifty. [67]

5.2 Tuesday, May 9

1. ``Republicans backtrack on gasoline proposals''. By James Kuhnhenn. [156]

2. ``Capitalism''. By Drifty. [67]

5.3 Wednesday, May 10

A coworker sent me this pic. It's too cute.

5.4 Friday, May 12

1. ``Lawyer: Ex-Qwest Exec Ignored NSA Request''. By Katherine Shrader. [254]

2. ``Federal Agents Search CIA Official's House''. By Mark Sherman. [249]

3. ``Report on NSA Brings Surveillance in Focus''. By Brian Bergstein. At The Washington Post. [31]

4. ``More Domestic Spying''. At The Washington Post. [327]

5. ``Data on Phone Calls Monitored''. By Barton Gellman and Arshad Mohammed. At The Washington Post. [97]

5.5 Saturday, May 13

1. ``Prozac for Republicans''. By Howard Kurtz. At The Washington Post. [157]

2. ``NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls''. By Leslie Cauley. At USA Today. [40]

3. ``Supreme Court faces summer deadline to resolve potential blockbusters''. At USA Today. [354]

4. ``NSA secret database report triggers fierce debate in Washington''. By Susan Page. At USA Today. [207]

5.6 Monday, May 15

1. ``Life After the Video Game Crash''. By David Wong. [429]

2. ``PS3 is Doomed''. By Gundeep Hora. [126]

3. ``It's all about me: Why e-mails are so easily misunderstood''. By Daniel Enemark. [80]

4. ``Scan This Book''. By Kevin Kelly. At The New York Times. [146]

5. ``Bush Aide Defends Acts by N.S.A.''. By Stephen Labaton. At The New York Times. [158]

6. ``Details of Two Surveillance Programs''. At The New York Times. [295]

7. ``Bush Is Pressed Over New Report on Surveillance''. By Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane. At The New York Times. [166]

8. ``A Seamless Surveillance Culture''. By William M. Arkin. At The Washington Post. [14]

9. ``The NSA Warrantless Domestic Surveillance''. [334]

5.7 Thursday, May 18

1. The Content-type Saga

5.8 Monday, May 22

1. ``Bush's Wicked Iraq Lies''. By Ron Fullwood. [92]

5.9 Wednesday, May 24

1. ``Update 20: House Leaders Demand FBI Return Papers''. By Laurie Kellman. [145]

5.10 Saturday, May 27

5.10.1 The Taliban were our allies

In summary: As recently as 1998, UNOCAL Corporation was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

UNOCAL is an American corporation with headquarters in California.

The Taliban was called ``Afghanistan's Islamic fundamentalists'' & was a business ally of UNOCAL, possibly of other American oil companies, & (since the oil industry includes lots of money) probably of at least some parties in the United States government.

1. ``Afghanistan, the Taliban, & the Bush Oil Team''. By Wayne Madsen. [179]

2. ``Taliban in Texas: Big Oil hankers for old pals''. By Pepe Escobar. [84]

   This news story goes so far as to say ``Between the Taliban taking over Kabul in September 1996 and the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in the summer of 2001, neither the administration of president Bill Clinton nor that of his successor, President George W Bush, ever designated Afghanistan as a terrorist or even a rogue state: the Taliban were wined and dined as long as they played the Pipelineistan game in Central Asia (see Pipelineistan revisited, December 24-25, 2003).''

   Here's one more paragraph from that news story: ``The Taliban didn't want to play ball: every time, they wanted more money and more investments for the roads and the infrastructure of their ravaged country - until an exasperated Washington decided to finish them off. This was discussed in Geneva in May 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001, and finally at a Berlin hotel, also that July, a meeting involving US, Russian, German and Pakistani officials. Asia Times Online later learned in Islamabad that the US plan was to strike against the Taliban from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan before October 2001. Then the terrorist attacks of September 11 happened, providing Washington the perfect excuse to go it alone.''

3. ``Oil barons court Taliban in Texas''. By Caroline Lees. 1997 December. [162]

   Notice that this news story was written in 1997, before 2001 September 11.

5.10.2 We're screwed

What I concluded from my notes in the previous section (Section 5.10) is:

1. If UNOCAL & others were romancing the Taliban in the 1990s & President Bush was able to invade Afghanistan & Iraq by convincing people that the Taliban was pure evil & that Saddam Hussein was connected with them, then we live in Orwell's 1984. For example, ``Taliban is a terrorist organization'' is just the real world's way of saying ``We have always been at war with Eurasia''.

2. If this stuff is false, if the Taliban really is pure evil & Saddam Hussein was connected with them, if our way of life could not continue unless we invaded Afghanistan & Iraq, then we live in a world that is precariously close to being 1984. What the government tells us is real, but other organizations are able to manufacture fake news & conspiracies, so convincing, that soon you will not be able to know the truth.

I have for a long time suspected that it is almost impossible for a commoner these days to know the truth about what's happening in the world or even what his own government is doing to him, so I suspect that the first possibility is already the reality.

Either way, we live in 1984, or we live in 1984.

5.11 Monday, May 29

1. ``Congressman alleges Marines covered up killings''. By Thomas E. Ricks. [226]

5.11.1 An original quote

The man who believes he speaks for god is a fool.
The man who believes him is that fool's fool.

5.12 Wednesday, May 31

1. ``Iran Calls U.S. Talks Offer Propaganda''. By Anne Gearan. [96]

   The USA's earlier position was ``We won't talk to Iran until they stop enriching uranium''.

   The USA's new position is ``We'll talk to Iran if they stop enriching uranium''.

   Yes, I can see that the ``dramatic change'' in the USA's position toward Iran - not!

2. ``Dramatic change in U.S. foreign policy towards Iran''. By Warren P. Strobel. [387]

3. ``Bush gives in - but the end of diplomacy is in sight''. By Laszlo Trankovits. [410]

4. ``Rice presents US stance on Iran''. At Aljazeera.net. [342]

5. ``US-Iran: The truth is way out there''. At Aljazeera.net. [370]

6. ``U.S. Urges Punishment For Iran Nuclear Work''. By Dafna Linzer. At The Washington Post. [170]

Notice the similarities between the USA-Iran problem & the USA-Iraq problem:

1. USA says Iraq/Iran is making nuclear weapons.

2. Iraq/Iran says it isn't making nuclear weapons.

3. Weapons inspectors say that Iraq/Iran is not making nuclear weapons.

4. USA is unable to present evidence that Iraq/Iran is making nuclear weapons, but continues to insist Iraq/Iran is making nuclear weapons.

5. USA demands that Iraq/Iran stop making nuclear weapons & do so in a way that is verifiable.

6. If it is true that Iraq/Iran is not making nuclear weapons, & if the USA rejects the reports of their own weapons inspectors, it will be difficult for Iraq/Iran to stop making them in a verifiable way.

7. USA warns that if Iraq/Iran does not stop in a verifiable way, USA will take action.

It's a setup. This is now the USA's pattern of setting-up a small country for invasion.

I'm ashamed to be a citizen of the USA.