Get your Rapture hats ready, kiddies! The sky is falling, and our wise gift of nuclear winter will propel us all into the loving arms of the all-knowing and all-everywhere G-d.


Uncle Spy: Is Mining Social Everything

Legal Commentary by Edo Amin

The National Security Agency and Online Dating

Published:  2006-05-14
Related topics:  Technology & New Media  Constitutional Rights  War On Terror  N S A Phone Records  

Related News Story: White House stands firm on Hayden's CIA nomination despite new revelations of domestic surveillance

More often that not, skeletons tend to drop out of the cupboard - and into journalists' lap - in perfect timing with the career promotions of high-ranking officials. Now, the gory details of the NSA phone records database make their way into the public agenda three years after the act. And it is certainly disconcerting; just a year before the NSA approached telcos to gain access to phone records, I was involved with personal data databases myself — being the product manager of a NYC Internet firm that walked the fine line between online advertising and spyware. Phone numbers ONLY? Well, phone numbers are an excellent link between databases, and online advertising moguls drool at the idea of the resulting synergy. We did, at that time, and the only thing that stopped some of us of going further (besides our attorneys) were the legal troubles of advertising giant DoubleClick. I recommend this CNET article on the Abacus/Doubleclick case to anyone who doesn’t see why anonymous phone numbers can be the missing link in a major privacy breach.

So this was the “zeitgeist” in 2000-2001; Great minds think alike, and it seems NSA heads and the world’s top marketers were thinking along the same line - if differently equipped to execute their ideas. And there was yet another crowd besides e-marketers and snoops.

Wired was quick to identify the NSA project as “Social Software Analysis”. Much like neural networks, social software relies on endless interpolation of social dimensions, and can suck up a lot of computing resources. The NSA has no shortage in that department, but it’s interesting that around the time the NSA implemented its Orwellian project, several “social software” projects bloomed in the civilian sphere; Friendster (2002) and others. 2002 saw the first “Social Software Summit”, primarily populated by progressive developers whose mind set was as far away from the NSA’s as “make love not war” is from “war on terror”.

Such is the spirit of the time: it databases when it comes database time, I suppose. Or maybe there’s more to it than that? The passage of ideas from the military domain into civil culture is a repeating pattern in the history of computing, from artificial intelligence to cellular phones to the much celebrated history the Internet itself — a DARPA project that apparently snowballed out of control. Is it just the spirit of the times that makes social software so attractive and lucrative, or has a military project unwittingly inspired our dating life — once again?

One thing I wouldn’t be worried about is about the actual calls. You see, the “6 degrees” theory shows that each of us may very well be 6 contacts away from any other person on the globe — be it President Bush or Ossama Bin Laden, which means you can’t interpolate too far from one of the myriad contacts we make daily, and the more you’ll search for meaning, the more you’ll drown in meaningless details. The NSA database can track the spreading of terrorist activity with the same degree of success it can track the spread, or the retreat, of the flu virus. Another weakness, and a reason why the “6 degree” theory has yet to find a serious implementation in civilian life, is that it requires serious resources. Listening to everyone means spreading your resources very thin, allowing for large delays, and for less than ideal quality. So Big Brother may be watching our phone calls — but in a very low resolution. I doubt that with all that weight, he’ll be capable of looking after each and every citizen in the nightmarish sense of George Orwell’s 1984.

And there’s another comforting thought, for those who wonder what inconvenient personal details are stored in Big Brother’s supermind. And this is the thought: looking at our culture's past, and interpolating into the future, it should be pretty safe to predict that in the long run, say in 30 years, eavesdropping to people will be considered more shameful that some things we wish to hide from Big Brother. In fact, perhaps the wait will be considerably shorter.

FAIR USE : They can't get no edu-cation on teevee

Merrill Fined a Peanut for Fraud Complicity // AP 07JUL'6

Merrill Lynch paying $29.5 million to settle an Enron suit

Related topics: Enron  Enron Trial  
By: The Associated Press on 07-06

Merrill Lynch & Co. on Thursday agreed to pay Enron Corp. $29.5 million to settle its portion of a lawsuit filed against 10 banks accused of failing to prevent the energy company's collapse.

The New York-based securities firm _ which did not admit or deny wrongdoing _ said it settled the so-called MegaClaims lawsuit to avoid the costs and uncertainties of more litigation.

Merrill Lynch also agreed to give up collection of $73.7 million in claims against what's left of Enron but could receive about $10 million in other claims that were outside the settlement, according to an Enron spokeswoman.

The settlement is smaller than the $80 million that Merrill Lynch paid the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2003 to settle civil charges that the firm participated in Enron's sham sale of floating power plants, which made it appear that Enron had met earnings targets in 1999.

Also in 2003, Merrill Lynch avoided criminal prosecution by admitting that some employees may have broken the law with questionable year-end deals. Four former Merrill executives were convicted of conspiracy and fraud in 2004 for their roles in the power plant deal, and were sentenced to prison terms up to four years. Three of those four have since been released on bond pending appeals.

Thursday's settlement must be approved by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, and the payment would go to creditors of Enron, which is liquidating its remaining operations. Enron filed for bankruptcy in December 2001 amid questions about its accounting and financial state, triggering a flurry of lawsuits by the company and its shareholders against a number of banks.

Last year, JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to pay Enron $350 million, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce agreed to pay $250 million, and Toronto Dominion Bank agreed to pay $70 million in MegaClaims cases. In May, Credit Suisse Securities LLC agreed to pay $90 million.

Enron said remaining cases in the litigation involve Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, Barclays PLC, and Fleet National Bank.

Some of the same banks involved in the MegaClaims cases have agreed to pay large sums to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by Enron investors. JPMorgan agreed last year to pay $2.2 billion, Canadian Imperial agreed to a $2.4 billion settlement, and Citigroup reached a $2 billion settlement. Former Enron auditor Andersen Worldwide S.C., former Enron directors and others paid smaller amounts.$29.5_million_to_settle_an_Enron_suit.htm

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. // FAIR USE--Education of teevee toob-fed unthinking parrots

Related Legal Commentary

Comment On This News Story!


US Embassy [deluxe hotel] + 14 [shh!]Permanent Bases

The U.S. embassy in Baghdad Leila Fadel, Knight Ridder Newspapers (May 19)'s hard keeping a 104-acre complex rising on the banks of the Tigris River hidden. Anyone who cares to know can easily see four giant construction cranes towering over the river at the largest such project ever undertaken by the United States - a symbol of American presence that will last well into the future.
When the complex is completed by June 2007 - this one apparently is on schedule, unlike most construction projects here - it will be an American oasis in the heavily fortified Green Zone, away from the fear and lack of services that permeate the rest of Baghdad. Among the 21 buildings will be a recreation center to rival any in the United States with, among other amenities, a pool, gym, food court, beauty salon and, of course, the American Club.
Baghdad may have little potable water and only a few hours of electricity a day, but the embassy complex will have its own water treatment facilities and electricity generator.
But little else can be gleaned about the expansive complex, which will sit on some of central Baghdad's most desirable real estate and will, when finished, dominate the view of anyone standing on the other side of the river.


This Fourth of July is Theirs, Not Mine / Ron Fullwood

This Fourth of July is Theirs, Not Mine

by Ron Fullwood

July 4, 2006 at 00:14:38

On July 5, 1852 fugitive slave Frederick Douglass gave a speech he titled: "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? To Douglass, young America needed to heed the fine declarations that he felt were rightly used against the tyranny of England, and apply them to the country's own conduct and attitude toward Blacks who were, at the time, legally enslaved by white Americans.

It's difficult for me to reflect on the beginnings of our great nation and not feel conflicted about the way that slavery was allowed to continue, even as our founders were ratifying the Declaration of Independence with their signatures. To me, the celebration of that important document is incomplete without including the 14th and 15th amendments which promised citizenship for Blacks and the right to vote, as well as the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act which backed up the laws with the force of the federal government.

"Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us." said Douglass in his speech to the women in the anti-slavery group, "The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine." he spoke.

Douglass' wasn't condemning the American people as much as he was admonishing them to remember that the nation hadn't yet applied their fine words about liberty, freedom, and justice to the negroes they allowed its white citizens to hold in permanent servitude without any rights of citizenship at all.

"This Fourth of July is yours, not mine," he said "You may rejoice, [I] must mourn. What to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour"

It is, in fact, this very contradiction that many Americans ignore as they both celebrate our nation's independence from tyranny and oppression, and continue to tolerate the tyranny and oppression that our nation has fostered in Iraq with our invasion and occupation.

How can we continue to boast of the genius of our own past liberty from the imperialism of the British monarchy while our nation's military is actively oppressing the citizens of Iraq with tightened occupations in Baghdad and Ramadi? How can some Americans be so sanguine about our nation's revolutionary past, even as they blindly accept the repression of those in Iraq who are at the mercy of the false authority we fostered under the heavy hand of our military?

As Americans celebrate here at home with flags and fireworks, where is the freedom to be found in Iraq? Where is the freedom in our deadly checkpoints restricting free movement of Iraqis in their own country? Where is the freedom to be found in the face of our weapons that are pointed directly at the heart of the Iraqi community in the continuing, U.S. led, search and destroy missions?

Where is liberty to be found under our perpetual occupation? Where is liberty's refuge from the 'collateral' killings of innocent Iraqis that our government and military obscures behind talk of 'rolling back the insurgency' and 'defeating terrorism? Where is the liberty in the massive round-ups and detentions of innocent Iraqi men, women and children?

Where is the justice in the summary executions in the field by our soldiers of 'suspected' insurgents? Where is the justice in the indefinite imprisonment of Iraqis (many for years) without charges, without access to evidence, and without access to counsel?

Over 2500 American soldiers' lives have been sacrificed for Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed in the initial U.S. led invasion which promised "shock and awe' for the television warriors who watched the spectacle unfold. Tens of thousands more would lose their lives as a result of the chaos and unrest the Bush regime had initially encouraged with taunts of "bring them on", and the bluster that "we're fighting them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here."

The world was witnessed to the installation of a U.S. interim puppet authority, and a sham election overseen by our invading military forces. That led to yet another sham authority, using the influence of our occupying army to lord over Iraqis and parcel their resources out to the highest bidder.

Now Americans are being held hostage to an occupation that they are saying (in a clear majority), must end by a date certain. Notwithstanding a reversal of the political balance of Congress, the Bush regime is determined to 'stay the course' and keep the America's jack-boot planted firmly on the Iraqis' necks. But, despite their increasing opposition to the occupation, many Americans will still celebrate our own nation's independence, mindless of the contradiction.

Imagine America under occupation from a foreign power; foreign troops controlling movements, overseeing elections, muckraking, marauding.

"To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy." Douglass spoke. "Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England toward the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so;" he continued, "but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls."

They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men."
he said. "To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers. But, to proceed.

Like Douglass then, Americans are challenged today to make the bold principles of liberty, freedom, and justice embodied in the Declaration mesh with our actions abroad, especially in Iraq.

"You declare, before the world, and are understood by the world to declare," Douglass said in his July 5th address, "that you "hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and yet, you hold securely, in a bondage which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson, "is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose."

Those who are satisfied to celebrate the signing of the Declaration as a reflection of our nation's rejection of England's tyranny, yet, continue to support and justify the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq cannot be taken seriously. In our occupation, we contradict the most basic of our nation's values of freedom, liberty, and democracy.

With our theft of the industry and resources of Iraq, our country has joined the long line of oppressors and brutal opportunists who have sought to dominate that region for greed and power. History will wonder at our arrogance, and at our inability to restrain our military and its agents from pursuing ambitions far outside of the mandate of our constitution or conscience.

Until our government releases their grip on Iraq, this Fourth of July is theirs, not mine.


Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price

Contact Author

View Other Articles by Author

Shadows On The Wall / Shelia Samples

by Sheila Samples

"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law,and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." ~~Winston Churchill

July 3, 2006 at 13:43:46

And so we sit, shackled by self-imposed chains of fear, captivated by shadowy forms that move discordantly across the walls of our perception. Once again we are eager to accept appearance for reality. The Supreme Court ruling last week rejecting George Bush's military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees casts a huge shadow on the wall. Many are saying it not only curbed Bush and Cheney's unlimited presidential power grab, but absolved us of the responsibility of having to do anything about it.

Everybody's talking about this stunning victory for democracy. That'll show Bush that he doesn't get to decide everything. The New York Times opined the victory would "likely force negotiations over presidential power."

In a separate editorial, "A Victory for the Rule of Law," the Times wrote the decision "is far more than a narrow ruling on the missue of military courts. It is an important and welcome reaffirmation that even in times of war, the law is what the Constitution, the statute books and the Geneva Conventions say it is -- not what the president wants it to be."

The Washington Post chimed in with, "For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it...Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country."

The Post's David Ignatius writes, "The Hamdan ruling should be a cause for celebration, at home and abroad, because it demonstrates that the self-correcting mechanisms of American democracy remain healthy." Thanks to checks and balances from the courts, Congress and the press, Ignatius believes "this administration's mistakes are being reversed."

And you have to smile at the Post's wonderfully talented Eugene Robinson, whose relief was palatable when he wrote, simply, "Finally. It seemed almost too much to hope for, but the Supreme Court finally called George W. Bush onto the carpet yesterday and asked him the obvious question: What part of 'rule of law' do you not understand?"

Such giddiness -- wishful thinking -- can almost be excused when you consider this is the first time in more than five years Bush has been confronted with a single check or balance. Almost excused. The media's refusal to delve into the shadows and ferret out the reality behind them is cowardly, dishonorable -- a blot on the Fourth Estate. Anyone who thinks this Straussian pack of jackals whose thirst for power borders on madness will back up and adhere to the rule of law or obey the Geneva Conventions doesn't know Jack about George. Or Alberto. Or Donald.

The Court's ruling offers no relief to the more than 450 prisoners serving life sentences at Guantanamo, nor does it address the hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of those detained without charge in Orwellian Room 101 prisons in other countries. These poor creatures are being held like caged animals in countries infamous for torture without legal consequence. They are of no further use to Bush. They cast no shadow on Congressional or media radar screens.

Guantanamo Bay is but a mere scab on the corrupt boil of secret CIA "rendition" operations. In a revealing Jan. 14, 2005 piece in the UK Guardian, Jonathan Steele writes that one CIA officer told the Washington Post, "The whole idea has become a corruption of renditions. It's not rendering to justice. It's kidnapping."

Steele says, "The administration sees the US not just as a self-appointed global policeman, but also as the world's prison warder. It is thinking of building jails in foreign countries, mainly ones with grim human rights records, to which it can secretly transfer detainees (unconvicted by any court) for the rest of their lives -- a kind of global gulag beyond the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or any other independent observers or lawyers." Since then, with The Decider's enthusiastic approval, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and the CIA have done exactly that.

So, what was the Supreme Court really up to in its shadowy 5-3 decision that did not challenge Bush's policy of indefinitely detaining enemy combatants -- the worst of the worst -- forever, if need be, without access to due process? It was simply telling him it was time for him to cover his ass by forcing Congress to make tribunals legal and then he could continue to do whatever the hell he wants. It provided a distraction from the torture, murder and suicides that have become hallmarks of the Guantanamo Bay gulag and of the United States itself. It placated the media, and calmed things down for the upcoming elections. Democracy is alive and well. Why change horses in the middle of the stream in a time of war?

When news of the ruling broke, a tight-lipped Decider stared woodenly into the cameras, saying only that he would look at the findings of the court "very seriously," while working with the Congress to continue the tribunals. Bush watchers, however, know that behind the shadow of this concession lies the stubborn insistence that he is the Commander-in-Chief; a war president who is not just above, but outside the law. Bush is prone to brag that he is the most powerful man in the world and, as such, will accept no limits on his power. Back off? Cut and run? Not likely.

The "Military Order" Bush issued two months after 9-11 concerning detention of non-citizens and their trials, if any, by military tribunals in his war on terror remains in effect. In that order, Bush flatly states that any non-citizen whom he determines from time to time in writing caused -- or even "aims" to cause -- adverse effects on the US will be detained and will "not be privileged to seek any remedy" in any court of the United States or any court of any foreign nation or any international tribunal.

The Congress was dragged reluctantly from the shadows to perform a nonpartisan role foreign to them, that of oversight. The Republicans chose instead to attack the "traitors" on the Supreme Court and the cowardly "cut and run" Democrats who are on the side of the terrorists.

Kansas Senator Pat Roberts,Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and 9-11 Commission cover-up chief, was visibly angry. He shouted indignantly at CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "The Supreme Court gave the protection of the Geneva Conventions to people who don't qualify -- the Supreme Court made a pact with Al Qaeda -- it ursurped presidential authority!"

The Democrats scrambled to assert their total alleigance, not to the US Constitution and the rule of law, but to The Decider, and promised to give him everything he wants to continue his perpetual war against enemy combatant plotters and planners and killers.

And so it goes. We are oblivious to the reality of impending martial law, strict media censorship, and the vanishing power of any government entity over The Decider and his minions. We are blissfully unaware that we have been transplanted into another realm -- a dark place from which there is no escape -- and nothing to do but sit here and watch the hideous shadows on the wall.



Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at:

Contact Author

View Other Articles by Author

Build the Wall!

Build the Wall!

Dr. Peter Rost
In Russia they used to say: The government pretends to pay us and we pretend to work. Well, in the U.S. we could say that our politicians pretend to stop illegal immigration and Big Business pretends they don't hire them.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not so sure that it is fair for one rich country to lock out the poor around them, just like the rich man builds walls around the castle he built with ill-gotten gains. The earth is here for all of us.

I should know--I am an immigrant who came here legally. I voted with my feet twenty years ago and it wasn't easy to get into the U.S. Some said it was impossible, unless you already had family here. But we made it. And even though I think this is a great country, and I was willing to fight my way through the worst bureaucracy on earth--U.S Immigration--I do think there are a few things that can be improved.

Like the Wall to stop Mexicans from entering this country.

Look at this picture from the New York Times/Reuters. Is this the best we can do to stop illegal immigration from Mexico? A flimsy, corrugated, tin foil?

Border wall.jpg
I mean, if we really want to stop people, the technology exists.

This is what Israel is building:

Wall Israel.jpg
And this is what Russia built in Berlin to stop people from jumping out from behind the iron curtain:
Berlin Iron Curtain.jpg
So the technology is there, yet we don't build that wall.

Instead President Bush sends 6,000 National guardsmen to "protect" our border. Ha.

The Mexican-American border is 1952 miles long. That's three additional soldiers per mile. They won't even see each other. Assuming they are properly spaced and not holed up in some border patrol office.

The Iron Curtain was 4000 miles long, twice as long as our border with Mexico. And it was built a lot sturdier than our flimsy pieces of "wall."

So what's the matter? Why can't we keep people out when Russia was so good at keeping people in? And why is it so hard for people from Western Europe, who don't have half their family in the U.S., to immigrate legally to the U.S. and so easy for Mexicans to run across the border?

Simple. Because Big Business really wants cheap labor, not well-educated Europeans.

So Bush and the other politicians do their bidding. They pretend to want to stop illegal immigration, while they do everything to keep the status quo.

Big Business doesn't want a wall. They want illegal immigration. They don't want a regulated border, with regulated minimum wages and all that other stuff. They want scared Mexicans that can be deported at any time working for less than minimum wage. Disposable people building disposable products. So that's what Big Business gets from our politicians.

Make no mistake about what's going on here. The people on Capitol Hill still believe in the concept of "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free." They want the oppressed people to continue to come to us and they want to continue to oppress them. That's the real reason we have no real wall.

So I say: Build the Wall, a real wall and maybe we'll see real wages for our poorest immigrants. Maybe we'll see a functioning immigration program, with well educated people from around the world coming to us, and maybe Big Business will have to learn to do business in a lawful society, paying lawful wages.

Build the Wall. Bring it on!

Link to my daily blog with more information and more posts.
Fair USE: Education to True Facts is something 'citizens' here don't get toob-fed from teevee
=== -------===
Dr Rost,
You amaze me! This is a WONDERFUL POST! Yes, this is what I was talking about. Get away from the Pfizer thing, and onto a new focus. You are most correct about the government's ENABLEMENT of their CORPORATE CRONY'S ENSLAVEMENT OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CROWD. If they really want to do something to correct the problem, they would begin with REALLY sealing our boarders. We know better, however! They want to perpetuate the problem, to cozy up to these corporate SLEAZES (both Dems & rePUKES) and it SICKENS ME, & MILLIONS LIKE ME! The senate legislation will go no farther, thank god. The House will never pass anything like it. So, we will remain at the status quo, rapidly turning into a "Third World Country" until we are exactly like the country these illegal immigrants have escaped. Our only solution is to THROW OUT ALL OF THE BUMS WHO WOULD VOTE FOR THE SO-CALLED "GUEST-WORKER PROGRAM" (REALLY "AMNESTY") IN 2006. IF THAT MEANS THE DEMS, THEN SO BE IT! PUT THEM ON NOTICE RIGHT NOW, THAT THIS WILL BE THEIR PENALTY. I DID THAT LAST NIGHT TO MY OWN SENATOR. We are a compassionate and a caring people, but we must NOT take that caring so far that it destroys the pure essence of our country, and that is what is now happening. By: krose on May 25, 2006 at 12:55pm

God's Men: Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!

Dr. Peter Rost Blog Index RSS

God's Men: Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!

Finally, it happened, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling from Enron have been found guilty.

But then I noticed something about God and Ken Lay.

Ken Lay was quoted saying "I firmly believe I'm innocent of the charges against me. We believe that God in fact is in control and indeed he does work all things for good for those who love the Lord."

And I think it is perfectly fine if Lay believes in God.

But I find it strange that all these corporate chieftains, as soon as they get in legal trouble, they go running to God. It's not like they were having big prayer meetings in their corporations when they ripped off the small people. Well, of course I don't know that. But I think it is more likely that they were saying stuff like, "God, we're smart, and Jesus, how stupid those little people are."

Considering what Enron traders were caught on tape saying, it wouldn't surprise me if that was exactly what they said.

When a forest fire shut down some big transmission lines into California, cutting power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders were caught on tape shouting, "Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing."

Maybe they took their inspiration from that burning bush in the Bible, from which God's voice came. But I don't think God's voice came from those fires in California. No recording of that, anyway.

But the Enron czars are not the only ones going holy once they face legal trouble. Former Worldcom boss Bernard Ebbers wept as he was sentenced to 25 years in jail for his role in the scandal that brought down Worldcom. He reportedly said ""I believe God has a plan for people's lives, and I believe he had a plan for me."

I guess God's plan for Ebbers was jail.

And then we have Dennis Kozlowski, infamous boss of Tyco, best known for lavish spending of corporate money on $6,000 shower curtains and a toga birthday party for his wife with peeing ice statues. He didn't talk too much of God. But he called some of the expensive decorations used to remodel an $18 million apartment on Fifth Avenue that he had the company buy "god-awful" and told jurors that "I stuffed some of it in the closet."

Richard Scrushy had a different take on God. "God is good," he declared on June 28th, after a jury acquitted him on all of the 36 charges he faced in connection with a huge accounting fraud at HealthSouth

According to the Anniston Star, "Scrushy stopped attending his suburban white church when he was facing indictment and started preaching at predominantly black churches. He also donated more than $1 million to a black Baptist church that he joined shortly before his indictment. When it came time for his trial last year, Scrushy invited black pastors to attend and to sit on benches in the racially mixed jury's line of sight. One clergyman came forward earlier this year and said he was hired by Scrushy to round up black pastors to attend the trial and to provide public relations services in Birmingham, where the trial was held. To the astonishment of most legal experts, his ploy seemed to work. The jury acquitted him, despite the fact that five former HealthSouth chief financial officers who had admitted to cooking the company's books testified against Scrushy."

So hey, banking on God, actually may work. At least down in the South.

But only a few weeks ago, Scrushy found himself back in the courtroom, this time facing federal bribery and corruption charges.

We'll see if God helps him this time.

And then there's Frank P. Quattrone, a former technology investment banker, who made a fortune at Credit Suisse and was convicted of obstruction of justice based on an e-mail he sent out to destroy documents ahead of a federal probe. He is also a godly man, and tried to help the Northern California Innocence Project (NCIP), a nonprofit organization in California that defends wrongfully convicted people "He's a very religious man and was struggling for a long time to find meaning in what had happened to him," says Kathleen "Cookie" Ridolfi, executive director at NCIP and a law professor at Santa Clara University. "He believes that basically it was God directing his attention and saying, 'I want you to notice this issue."

In March 2006 a judge threw out Quattrone's obstruction-of-justice conviction because of faulty instructions to the jury, and granted him a new trial with a different judge. So perhaps God is with this guy, too.

Then we have John Rigas founder and CEO of Adelphia Cable. The 80-year-old elder Rigas received a 15-year sentence for the massive fraud that bankrupted the cable company and he became one of the more infamous corporate CEOs of recent years.

"If I did anything wrong, I apologize," said John Rigas in court, according to Bloomberg. "I did the best I can to correct it. If that means I have to go to prison, it's not where I ever expected to be in my life. Nor do I believe it's where I should be because of what happened. It's in your hands, and in God's hands."

God's hands gave him 15 years in prison.

And this makes me realize that it isn't just the government which has made a lot of money when sinners are brought to Justice. False claims act recoveries alone top $17 Billion Since 1986. That's a lot of money for the government.

But churches and synagogues may also have seen an upswing in CEO contributions during this time of corporate greed.

Never before have so many rich man offered so many prayers, and so much money to churches, with so little intervention from God. That's poor return on investment. But perhaps there's a reason for that:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:24

Link to my daily blog with more information and more posts.
FAIR USE: Education to Convict Criminals-In-Charge


"[DELIBERATE] INCOMPETENCE" IS THE Conspiracy & the HOAX too [Col.Ronald D. Ray]

Date: Jul 1, 2006 6:43 PM

He calls it a USA "conspiracy" by government.

Former Reagan Cabinet Member and Colonel Says 9/11 "Dog That Doesn't Hunt"
Col. Ronald D. Ray asks why half a trillion defense budget couldn't protect Pentagon, astounded at "conspiracy theory" put out by government
The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it "the dog that doesn't hunt."
Col. Ronald D. Ray joined Alex Jones for an hour long interview in which he gave his views on a wide array of subjects, including the war on terror, porous borders and the Bush administration.
Ray questioned the feasibility of having a budget of half a trillion dollars a year yet not even being able to defend the Pentagon.
"Half a trillion dollars a year and a bunch of guys over in a cave in Afghanistan were able to penetrate that half a trillion dollar network that's supposed to provide Americans with national security."
The Colonel detailed historical examples of the use of false flag operations carried out by the US government, in particular Israel's attempted sinking of the USS Liberty, which LBJ allowed to happen in an effort to blame Egypt and kickstart a war.
Ray (pictured below) espoused his complete distrust of the legitimacy of the official story behind 9/11.
"I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate," he said.
Ray highlighted the existence of Project Bojinka and the fact that Bush administration officials claimed ignorance of a plot to attack the World Trade Center with planes despite limitless precursors to suggest otherwise.
Ray dismissed the validity of the assertion that the Bush administration is fighting a genuine war on terror.
"If the war on terror is real then the first thing that would have happened within a matter of weeks after 9/11 would have been we'd have closed the borders off."
"You have no national security if your borders are not secure."
Ray expressed his disgust at how the current batch of crooks had twisted the conservative movement and wrapped themselves in it like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
"This neo-conservative takeover of the government in the last six years is the destruction of the things that Barry Goldwater would have been running for in '64 and even the things that Ronald Reagan said he supported," said Ray.
"The conservative movement in this country has almost been neutered as a result of this administration."

[Fair Use! PrisonPlanet will love any any use!  Sorry, they may often be CORRECT, but too strident and possibly malconstrued/js]

Blog Archive