What was behind the Philippines’ Pre-election Murder of a Taiwanese Fisherman?

     Only four days before a hotly contested mid-term election in the Philippines, crewmen from a Philippine Coast Guard vessel fired 45 machine-gun bullets into an unarmed Taiwanese fishing boat, killing Hung Shih-cheng, a 65-year-old fisherman.  Philippine President Benigno Aquino III immediately claimed that the shooting was an accident, that his government had no reason to apologize, and vowed to protect Philippine “sovereignty”—without mentioning that the Philippines has no clear sovereignty over the area in question.   According to the voyage data recorder, the murder was committed in an area where the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of both nations overlap, and in which area the Philippines has refused to negotiate a fishing agreement.

     Rather than negotiate with Taiwan directly, Aquino said he would negotiate with China, not even acknowledging the existence of Taiwan’s national government.

     Aquino, a third-generation political princeling, has accused Taiwanese of muddying the waters by calling it murder.  Under international law, it was murder.  Any time a death occurs as a result of a felony being committed, the law sees it as first-degree murder.  Under international law, the Philippine Coast Guardsmen committed a felony by peppering the unarmed vessel with machine-gun bullets.  They committed yet another felony by leaving the scene of the crime rather than render assistance to the stricken survivors.

     Let’s look at the background of events.

     The Bashi Channel is a narrow waterway where the exclusive economic zones (EEZ’s) of both Taiwan and the Philippines overlap.  The Philippines will not formally negotiate fishing rights in the area, supposedly due to the Philippines adherence to a “One China Policy” in which Taiwan is presumed to be part of the Peoples Republic of China (Red China).  Actually, that’s a lie; they won’t negotiate fishing rights with Beijing or other nations either. 

      A Philippine spokesman said that, in the matter of the recent killing, they would negotiate only with the Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO), an agency of Chinese Beijing. 

     Under international law, a coast guard or naval vessel under challenging a boat or ship in contested waters is permitted to fire a warning shot over the bow of the challenged vessel.  Instead, the Philippine Coast Guard vessel opened up on the fishing boat with a withering barrage of .30 caliber machine-gun fire.  It’s uncertain how long the attack continued, but Taiwanese news reports say that the boat had 59 bullet holes in it, some 45 of which were entry holes.  At least 24 bullets were fired into the cabin, where four crew members had taken refuge.
     Bullet trajectories as determined by Taiwanese authorities are depicted below.  Click for higher resolution.

     The Philippine government gave contradictory excuses for the shooting.  On the day after the killing, they said the fiberglass fishing boat’s operators were trying to ram the Coast Guard vessel and that the Coast Guard gunners were deliberately firing at the boat to disable its engine.   The Ilocos-class Coast Guard vessel, at 35 meters (114 feet), was six times the size of the fishing boat.  The fishing boat's engine, of course, would not have been in the crew’s quarters in the forward cabin.   Furthermore, Taiwanese forensic investigators found no sign that the fishing boat had rammed anything.  

   One Philippine spokesman claimed that they were trying to disable the engine while the fishing vessel was trying to escape.  Apart from the logistics of firing into the forward end of a fleeing vessel, international law forbids firing at a fleeing vessel unless it’s a warship in time of war.

     Next, Philippine officials came up with an equally risible excuse: They said that the Coast Guard vessel’s gunners had accidentally shot the fishing boat—45 times.

     Although Philippine government spokesmen claimed they would investigate the event, they indicated that Taiwanese investigators would be unwelcome.  A few years ago, Taiwan and the Philippines signed an agreement providing for joint investigations of incidents such as this.  To date, the Aquino regime has refused Taiwan’s requests for a joint investigation, and they haven’t shared information with Taiwanese investigators.  Taiwan, in contrast, has shared their findings with Philippine counterparts.

     What has become of the Filipino investigation? I have vainly searched Internet news for information on their supposed investigation.  To date, I have seen no news of witnesses have been interviewed or statements made by investigators (if they exist at all); and the whole matter of an investigation seems to have been dropped down a memory hole.

     Not one to let a good crisis go to waste, Aquino (in the third generation of a politically elitist dynasty) and his political allies spent the remainder of the mid-term election campaigns thumping their chests over the shooting incident.

     Aquino’s political allies made clear gains in Monday’s mid-term elections.  At stake were 12 of 24 seats in the senate, all 229 seats in the house, some 18,000 local elections, and the question of whether Aquino would be a lame duck for his three remaining years in office. 

     As it is, Aquino’s party increased their number of senate seats from 4 to 13, made clear gains in the house (at this writing, the exact number is unknown), and in local elections. There’s nothing quite like an international crisis to pull an endangered politician’s chestnuts out of the fire. 

     If the international crisis was contrived for political gain, why did Aquino’s party select Taiwan as their foil?  After all, they also have sovereignty spats with Vietnam, China, Malaysia, and Brunei; and China has been the most provocative threat to their claims.

     China is too big and powerful for the Philippines to threaten.  Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei are too small and weak to be made foils for a show of nationalistic machismo.  Taiwan, recognized by only 24 countries worldwide is isolated from the pack; and Taiwan is rich enough and powerful enough—but not too powerful—to make a suitable foil in a machismo contest. 

     Furthermore, Taiwan has a reputation for labor abuses against Southeast Asian—including Filipino—laborers and caregivers.  Salt was further rubbed into old wounds after Taiwanese envoy Jackie Liu was arrested on charges of defrauding her two Filipina housekeepers.  She had signed a contract promising to pay them US$1,240, but she paid them only US$450 a month.  She could have been charged with human trafficking, embezzlement, and abuse; but after three months in the Fort Leavenworth penitentiary (she could have gotten five years) she was deported to Taiwan, where charges against her were dropped due to “lack of evidence.” 

     Liu was accused of fraud in foreign labor contracting because her Philippine -housekeeper, who was hired to work 40 hours per week and receive a monthly salary of US$1,240, in fact had to work six days per week, 16 to 18 hours per day and received a much lower salary.  (LINK) 

     At the time of her arrest, Liu said she didn't understand what the fuss was all about.  “It happens all the time in Taiwan,” she was quoted as saying.  Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs protested Liu’s arrest, claiming that Liu had diplomatic immunity because she was carrying out her “authorized functions.”  She was stripped of her titles because she had “damaged our nation’s image,” rather than because she had done something evil. 

     Other details of this scandal and surrounding issues may be found here, here, here, and here.

     In short, Taiwan makes a handy whipping boy for political demagogues and has even contributed to the problem.

     To my surprise, political demagoguery in this matter is as scarce in Taiwan as they are plentiful in the Philippines.  As much as I hate to say anything good about Ma (“The Bumbler”) Ying-jeou, I must admit that he has done everything right in this crisis.  Even those who, only a month ago, were campaigning for his recall have suspended their campaign for the time being.

     In all this justifiable anger against the Philippine government, there is blessedly little anger against Filipinos themselves. 

     Several decades ago, I lived in the Philippines for four months, and all my neighbors were Filipinos.  I came to know the best of them, the worst of them, and those in between.  Here in Taiwan, I have come to know and admire many more of them.  The people of the Philippines are the salt of the earth.  

     Their leaders, however, like the political leaders of most countries, are little more than glorified gangsters.  Throughout the history of the world, most countries have been ruled by criminal gangs; and most gangster governments have been ruled by criminal psychopaths.

     I served in the United States Navy for over three years, and I came to know sailors from other countries as well.  By nature, people accustomed to obeying orders are unwilling to risk a firing squad by committing cold-blooded murder. Even the American atrocities at Abu Ghraib came as a result of pressure from very high in the American government.  Likewise, in the murder of Hung Shih-cheng, orders to violate international law had to have come from someone very high on the chain of command.
     As of this writing, Aquino has offered no real apology (just a lame excuse that it was all an accident), no offer of compensation to the family of the murdered fisherman, and no sign that he would welcome a joint investigation of the crime.

     Only international pressure can force the Aquino regime to conform to civilized norms.  Taiwan can display moral suasion by protecting the rights of Filipino caregivers and migrant workers on Taiwanese soil.  The laws to do so are already in place.  All they lack is the will.

Can Antarctica be the Lost Continent Atlantis?

     Here are a few comments on a Vatic Report article concerning the Theory of Continental Drift and the possible whereabouts of Atlantis.
     Over the past hundred years or so, the ocean floor has been so thoroughly mapped that we can say with reasonable certainty that Atlantis, if it ever existed, is not on the ocean floor.  A recent Vatic Report article suggests that Atlantis may be buried beneath two miles of ice on the South Pole.  As per the Theory of Continental Drift (and perhaps Polar Shift), Atlantis is said to have drifted, over a brief span of time, to where the South Pole now lies.
     The fossil record supports this theory.  Fossilized leafy plants have been found under miles of Antarctic ice.  Since leafy plants can't thrive in an area that receives only six months of sunlight a year, either the continent or the globe must have shifted.
     When comparing centuries-old maps to places today, we must take into account both the cartographic skills of the day and what could have been actually known at the times the maps were drawn.  It's useful, then, to make a few comparisons to determine just how closely two maps of places can resemble each other before we can suppose that the two maps must represent the same place.
     Below are three maps of Taiwan:

     Now let's compare two maps of Japan:

     Below are four maps to compare.  One (A) is the Piri Reis map of Terra Australis Incognito (Southern Unknown Land), which, according to the 1513 map, was located where Antarctica is located today.  The next (B) is Antarctica as it would appear without ice.  Map (C) is an 1891 depiction of Atlantis, drawn from descriptions in myth and legend.  It's worth noting that the map was drawn well before the earliest exploration of Antarctica.  Map (D) is Antarctica as it is  mapped today.

     As you can see, the maps of Atlantis, Antarctica, and Terra Australis Incognita are as close a match to each other as the three maps of Taiwan.  In fact, they more closely resemble each other than the two maps of Japan.  This doesn't prove that Atlantis, Antarctica, and Terra Australis Incognita are the same place.  It does, however, help to make a case for the belief.

     Skeptics would have a hard time making a case for a theory that Patroclus Kampanakis's 1891 map of Atlantis was a deliberate rendering of the Piri Reis map or Antarctica.  The Piri Reis map had been unknown to the West, lost, and not discovered until 1929.  (source) 

     Accurate maps of Antarctica were still later in coming.  According to Paul Cooper of British Antarctic Survey’s Mapping and Geographic Information Centre (MAGIC), “It wasn’t until 1983 that the first broadly accurate map of Antarctica was produced. That was the first time a map brought together enough information for us to be pretty sure that we’d got all the major features in the right places.” (source) (emphasis added)

     The importance of this issue to our time is the understanding that it may shed some light on the origins of today's civilizations.  There may well have been a highly advanced civilization on Earth more than 12,000 years ago.  The survivors of whatever destroyed that early civilization may have contributed to "civilization" as we know it today.
     For more information, see Vatic Project's "Zero Point: Messages from the Past, part 1 of 3."
     

The Road to World War III is Paved with Fiat Dollars

     Probably not one of y'all would like to believe the claim that the powers that be are setting us up for a nuclear-charged World War III in the next few years.  Go ahead; be skeptical of the claims of the following video.  Skepticism is healthy and wise.  
     Here's what I suggest:
     Reject every conclusion the creator of this video has to offer.  Watch this video with pen in hand.  Write down every factual claim the speaker makes and—as I said—ignore his conclusions.  Put a check mark beside the claims you know are true.  Put a question mark beside those about which you're uncertain; look them up later.
     Then come to your own conclusions.  Ask yourself one question: Given that we live in a world governed by the Law of Cause and Effect, what may we reasonably expect to happen if events continue on their present trajectory?

     There is an old story in which two bad boys decided on a trick to stump a wise man.  They caught a small bird, and one of them held it hidden between his hands.  "Is the bird alive or dead?" they asked the wise man.  Since it would have been easy to crush the bird, they could display a live bird or a dead one, depending on the wise man's answer.
     The wise man replied, "The answer is in your hands."
     Will we see a nuclear World War III in the next few years?  Consider the wise man's reply.

Will the U.S. Military be ordered to Fire on American Citizens?

     A Nobel Peace Prize nominee (of whom there are more than 250 each year) has recently alleged that a “military legend” told him that a high-ranking military officer (in turn) told him that, as a “litmus test,” officers are asked if they would obey orders to fire on American citizens.  (here) Thus, I’m telling you that someone said that an anonymous person told him that another anonymous person had told the previous person that this litmus test is now a determining factor in whether a U.S. military officer may be considered for advancement.

     Can we believe an allegation from this chain of anonymous sources, repeated by someone whose name is unfamiliar to us?  No, but we can believe facts that are available to us.

     I hold it as an enduring principle of life that the existence and nature of things that are unseen can be inferred from things we can see.  If such a treasonous policy as the aforementioned exists, we should be able to see evidence pointing to the existence of this policy.  We should be able to see preparations for the contingency that the U.S. military would, in fact, be ordered to fire on American citizens.

     What may we reasonably expect to see?

     We may reasonably expect to see large numbers of soldiers returning from foreign deployments and returning to the United States for stateside billets. (here)

     We may reasonably expect to see military exercises in which servicemen hone their skills at house-to-house raids on American soil. (here)

     We may reasonably expect to see military exercises in which servicemen hone their skills in confiscating firearms from large numbers of American citizens in single sweeps. (here) and (here)

     We may reasonably expect to see false flag events being staged to provide a pretext for confiscating American firearms.  (here), (here), and (here)

     We may reasonably expect to see open and obvious efforts to promote the view that supporters of the Bill of Rights—particularly the Second Amendment—should be regarded as home-grown terrorists. (here)

     We may reasonably expect to see pilotless aircraft known as drones—the sort of which the Obama administration has used to kill hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and elsewhere—practicing in American skies. (here)

     We may reasonably expect to see a paper trail showing that federal government agencies have recently made very large purchases of ammunition that can be used only within the United States.  (Hint: the Department of Homeland Security has purchased more than two billion rounds of hollow point bullets that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions.) (here)

     We may also reasonably expect to see indications that foreign troops may be used against Americans, in case American servicemen refuse to violate their oath to preserve the Constitution and protect Americans “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  (here) 

     We may also see reports of other officers claiming that they had been required to take a survey asking if they would obey an order to fire on American citizens.     (here)    

     These are only a few of the many things we’ve seen over the past few years.  We can add to this list of abuses and usurpations the passage and renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, the repeal of posse comitatus, the repeal of habeas corpus—the list goes on and on.  Use your favorite search engine to look up authoritative sources for Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods, and REX-84.  Savvy netizens can add much more to the list.

     Don’t give up your guns.  As Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” (here)

Sandy Hook, Aurora, and 9/11: Fake Mourners and False Witnesses

     In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it’s time to revisit the curious phenomenon of smiling witnesses to mass murders.  The smiling witnesses are obviously actors—and poor actors at that; but why do government officials and the corporate media need actors to play the part of witnesses to tragedy when there are plenty of real witnesses available?

     You've probably already read a few of the many anomalies surrounding the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  To give a particularly ludicrous example, the official story tells us that Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 caliber AR-14 to kill all his victims and himself, after which the murder weapon was retrieved from the trunk of his mother’s car.

     (I watched that video several times and compared the image I saw with other weapons known to have been owned by the late (he supposedly killed her too) Mrs. Lanza.  The silhouette and the shell ejection port matched only one of the Lanza guns: the Bushmaster .223 caliber AR-15.)

     Of all the unbelievable aspects of the official story, the most bizarre is the smiling, grinning, jovial young man who suddenly transforms himself—on camera—into the grieving father of a slain six-year-old girl.

     Here is a timeline from the time the so-called “Robbie Parker” appears on the screen:   

8.5 seconds: He first appears on camera.  His head is tilted back as he displays a broad, teeth-baring smiling at the others on camera.  At this point, he looks as if he’s laughing.

9 seconds: He is still smiling as he swaggers toward the microphone.

10 seconds: He makes a smirking comment to someone off camera, obviously please with himself.

11 seconds: He finishes his witticism and looks down, flashing a grin that even Cameron Diaz would envy.

12 seconds: He steps up to the microphone.  His smile begins to fade.

13 seconds: His smile has faded.

14 seconds: He exhales and steps into the role of a grieving parent.

14-24 seconds: Acts as if he is choking back sobs.

24 seconds: He announces, “My name is Robbie Parker.”  Whitepages.com doesn't list that name, or anything like it for anyone of his age group in or near Newtown, Connecticut.  Whitepages.com does list a Newtown resident named Robert Parker, but he is 78 years old—more than twice as old as the actor in this scene.

     The on-line Huffington Post features that same video, but they repeat the line that “Robbie Parker” was choking back tears and “struggling to catch his breath.  The Huffington shills had to have seen the same laughing and grinning that you and I saw, but their story clearly claims that “Robbie Parker’s” sobs were real.  Anyone who seriously believes that the “news” media would not lie to us should take note of Huffington’s hypocrisy in this episode. 

     Take a look at the photo and decide for yourself: Does this man look as though he’s fighting back tears and struggling to catch his breath?

     In Chinese culture, there is such a thing as a paid mourner.  Because Chinese are expected to control their feelings, even at funerals, professional mourners are hired to wail, cry, and otherwise loudly express grief.  In America, however, we have no need to pay people to grieve on our behalf.  Even in Chinese culture, the paid mourner isn't paid to masquerade as a family member of the deceased.

     Why, then, do mass murders in the United States produce fake “mourners” and false witnesses?

     Even Barack Obama could not resist the urge to act the part of a mourner.  Take a look at the following video clip and notice where Mr. Obama puts his finger, supposedly to wipe away tears.

     Before watching this video, turn the volume level to mute.  Observe only his actions.  Does he look as though he is saddened by the recent murder of 20 children?  Then turn up the volume and listen only to his tone of voice, ignoring his spoken words.  Does he sound sad?  Mr. Obama’s body language and tone of voice don’t match the speechwriter’s words.

     The “crying” was obviously fake.  Even when Obama’s critics mimicked his false crying, the critics placed their fingers where people normally would place them when wiping away tears.  Is Mr. Obama so unfamiliar with normal human emotions that he can’t do a convincing job of wiping away fake tears?

     For other examples of false (and often smiling) witnesses to mass murders, see “Why would Reporters Lie about 9/11 if the Truth is Worth a Pulitzer Prize?”  
As far as I know, the only false witnesses to the recent Aurora, Colorado, shooting were government officials and the corporate-owned media—but take a look at the sort of thing a real witness might say about a shooting that was supposedly done by a "lone nut."

     And the following is what can happen to a credible witness who is "too credible" and who "knows too much."  Jenny Gallagher was the emergency room nurse who, according to her husband, "saw everything."

     As a rule of thumb, when government officials and the corporate-owned media collude to provide false witnesses, you can be sure of three things: 1.) their testimony will also be false, 2.) their testimony will support the official story with no deviation from it whatsoever, and 3.) at least that part of the official story will be false.

     Anyone who has been intimately involved in politics from the inside knows the following adages and knows that they are true:

1. Politics is theater,
2. Politics, by its very nature, is conspiratorial, and
3. In politics, nothing happens by coincidence.  If it happens, it was planned.

     It’s no coincidence that both the “Batman” shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting took place just as Congress was set to debate the issue of gun control.  (In the case of the Aurora shooting, Congress was debating a United Nations resolution on gun control.)  Nor is it a coincidence that the 9/11 mass murder provided a rationale for wars and other measures that had been planned as early as 1997.  All three incidents—and others—were staged events.

     (Note: Of all the anomalies mentioned in all the blogs I've read, no one seems to have noticed the one about the mask.  One can argue that the Batman shooter was wearing a mask because it was part of a costume; but why was “Adam Lanza” (if it were really he) wearing a mask?  I've never heard of a suicide shooter wearing a mask.  Suicide shooters know they’ll be identified after they’re dead, so they have no need to conceal their identities.  More likely, the shooters (there were more than one) and Adam Lanza’s body wore similar masks, and the real shooters got away.)

     We are left with the question, “With so many real witnesses and real families of victims, what need do the government and broadcast media have of false witnesses and fake families?”  The answer is simple: Spinmeisters have no way of knowing what a truthful witness or a real family member will say.  Fake witnesses and family members can be relied upon to follow the script.

     Take the "Harley shirt guy," who supposedly witnesses both crashes into the WTC twin towers and their collapse—apparently the only person on Earth who witnesses all four events, though he somehow missed seeing the collapse of Building #7.  He enunciated the “official story” of 9/11 before anyone had even investigated the crime.  Ask yourself, "Does anyone who has just seen more than 2,000 people die talk like the man in this video?"

     The same goes for the actor calling himself Robbie Parker.  If a real family member stood before the camera without being coached, there was too much chance that he would lash out at the fact that, by federal law, not one teacher at Sandy Hook was armed.  Since Congress was debating a ban on assault-style weapons that very week, the words of a real parent could have been a disaster for the spinmeisters.

     Take a look at the following video of the family of an apparently real victim at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  The family has obviously been maneuvered into appearing on camera, apparently thinking that they were honoring their slain relative by doing so.  Meanwhile, the ghoulish interviewer Piers Morgan was clearly putting words into their mouths.  The father of the family would clearly rather be somewhere else; and, throughout the interview, he showed contempt for the entire charade.

     That’s be best the spinmeisters could do for a grieving family.  Even when the family is tricked into being cooperative, they’re not as dependable in following the script as an actor would be.  

Why Romney picked Paul Ryan, and Who Romney was Trying to Please by Picking Paul Ryan

     That Romney was over two weeks early in announcing his selection of a running mate was odd.  That much is a given.  To people who have seen political campaigns from the inside—such as I—it’s downright bizarre.

     Contrary to popular belief, the selection of a vice presidential candidate doesn’t help the presidential candidate.  It really doesn’t.  In fact, all it can do is hurt the candidate.  For that reason, most presidential candidates prefer to pick running mates who are virtually unknown outside their bailiwicks.  Even then, they make their picks known toward the end of the convention, when most of the excitement—and public interest—has died down.

     In my entire life, I’ve known only one occasion in which the selection of a running mate has helped the candidate.  Even then, it was for unconventional reasons.

     When George H. W. Bush was running for President in 1988, he publicly said that he would pick a running mate who would show the nation what high standards Bush was setting for his administration.  Instead, he picked an effete, over-privileged, bumbling oaf who, to this day, makes me wonder why dumb blondes are always depicted as female. 

     A political insider explained to me that the selection of Quayle was campaign strategist Lee Atwater’s idea.  Quayle was a rabbit for the Democrats to chase.  The Democrats spent so much of their time laughing at Quayle that they neglected to attack Bush, who was little more than a résumé wearing a suit. Lackluster Bush laughed all the way to the White House. 

     Mitt Romney’s strategists couldn’t possibly be so uninformed as to think that the early selection of a running mate would make him more popular with voters.  Who, then, did they expect to please?

     To answer that question, we need look no further than Romney and the “man” he picked.  Mitt Romney’s unconventional timing in his selection of Paul Ryan was intended to please Wall Street’s trillion-dollar embezzlers and other malefactors of great wealth.  It was an early signal that he is most certainly their man—one who will keep the cash spigot pumping our money to Wall Street, keep America’s wars of aggression going at full throttle, and complete the Bush/Obama agenda of shredding the Constitution and trampling American liberties.

     Paul Ryan has been almost consistently in favor of interventionism where America has no business, Wall Street embezzlement with no accountability, and a shredding of the United States Constitution. 

     As witness to this, take a look at how he voted on the following issues (Source: On the Issues) 

     May 2001: Voted YES on requiring states to test students. 

     October 2001: Voted YES on spending $99 billion of our money on an “economic stimulus” for bankers and other fat cats.

     October 2002: Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq.

     April 2003: Voted YES on spending $78 billion of our money for the fraudulent and illegal wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

     March 2004: Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam, which was against international law.

     October 2004: Voted YES on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, whitewashing the whole affair.

     February 2005: Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses. The excuse given for this attack on American freedom is that it was intended “to hinder terrorists.”

     July 2005: Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China.  (Like, who needs Taiwan anyway?)

     April 2006: Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

     June 2006: Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.

     September 2006: Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.

    January 2007: Voted NO on removing oil and gas exploration subsidies; that is, voted YES on continuing to subsidize oil and gas companies to the tune of up to $15 billion a year while the top five oil and gas companies were making profits close to $100 billion a year.  (Source)

    May 2007: Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.

    August 2007: Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.

    November 2007: Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry, thereby helping to cause the subprime mortgage crisis and ensuing Great Recession.

     June 2008: Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.

     June 2008: Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.   Actually, it was an incredible series of lies: weapons of mass destruction, connections to the CIA front al Qaeda, being accessories to 911, and so on.  The war, which was highly profitable to Bush cohorts, killed over 600,000 civilians and made refugees of 4,000,000 others.

     December 2008: Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler.  As one of the provisions of this bill, the corporations got a bailout, but hundreds of GM and Chrysler dealers lost their dealerships.  See the above video debunking GM's claim that they had repaid the  money "early and in full."  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOaS2SymjQ4

     January 2009: Voted NO on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief.  In other words, he voted YES on “no accountability for the trillions of dollars embezzled from the American taxpayers and sent to Wall Street.” Here's a video of Paul Ryan shamelessly begging Congress to pass TARP.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyJBZYz858M

     March 2009: Voted NO on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures; that is, if Wall Street wants your house, they’re entitled to it.

     July 2009: Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending.  You didn’t see any of that money, did you?  The money didn’t go to the needy; it went to the greedy, on your credit card.

     March 2011: Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. 

     February 2011: Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.

     September 2011: Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs and terrorism.  This essentially means that he voted NO on military border patrols. 

     On many issues, Paul Ryan voted quite reasonably.  It’s not the percentage of votes that counts, however.  What counts is the net result of the votes.

     Let’s say, for example, a congressman voted against 100 needless bills that would have had a total cost of several billion dollars, yet he voted for a half dozen highly dangerous bills that had a total cost of several trillion dollars.

     Let’s say he voted for dozens of bills that were consistent with our social or religious views, yet he voted for a few that presumed to authorize the government to spy into your email accounts, record your telephone conversations, and label you a domestic terrorist if you assert your constitutionally guaranteed rights.

     Let’s say he voted for dozens of cost-cutting measures but put us in debt to the tune of over thirty trillion dollars for the benefit of the big banks and the military industrial complex.  Let’s say he further voted against measures that would require accountability as to how those missing trillions were spent.

     There you have Paul Ryan.  You also have all the evidence needed to show who Mitt Romney was trying to please when he picked Ryan as his running mate several weeks before it was necessary.  However he may posture as an adequate substitute for Ron Paul, he's still very much in the pockets of the Wall Street kleptocracy.  Dan Quayle would have been an improvement.

Travel and Tourism with a Purpose

     A few months ago I requested and was assigned a class in Travel and Tourism English.  As I had expected, every available textbook at my students’ level offered a lot of vocabulary words to use in conversation about going on vacation.

     That’s important, of course, but I wanted more than that.  I wanted to broaden students’ understanding of other peoples and cultures.  I wanted them to see that environmental responsibility goes much further than demanding that governments force “somebody else out there” to accept responsibility for making the world a cleaner and healthier place.  And as the Christian song goes, “Let there be peace, and let it begin with me.”

     There are types of tourism that promote understanding among different groups of people and that promote awareness of our environmental responsibilities.  What I found, though, is that in most cases these forms of tourism don’t have a vocabulary that has traction.  Term such as new tourism and alternative tourism make these forms of tourism sound strange.  By contrast, the default form of tourism known as mass tourism sounds as though it’s more popular because it’s somehow better than “new” or “alternative.”

     I would need both a new approach and a new vocabulary for what I will teach.  I believe I have found both.  "Mass tourism" has become "glass bubble tourism;" alternative tourism is now "full contact tourism."  The video series is called Paradigmaclast.  BTW, all but one other Internet site spells the word "paradigmoclast," but I disagree with that spelling.  The Greek word for paradigm is paradigma, with an a.

     With a four-week trial offer of a video converter, I spent almost a month downloading hundreds of videos and converting them to WMV format.  I spent the next few weeks using Moviemaker to pick them apart to use as video resources.  Then I spent more than a month creating eight lessons in video format—107 minutes in all.  These lessons are intended to supplement the textbook rather than replace it.  Future video lessons should take much less time to generate, as they will be more in-depth—thus, the number of clips in each video will be fewer and longer.

     In several respects, my strategy involved a perilous navigation between Scylla and Charybdis.   I’ll spare y’all the details.  In the end, though, I took what appears to be a simple approach: showing them just enough about other cultures to cause some of them to want to know more.  Entertainment rather than logical suasion is the vehicle that drives this strategy.
     Below are the first eight lessons.  Just click on the link.

Lesson 1: What is Tourism?  

Lesson 2: Planning Your Vacation  

Lesson 3: (Tourism) Transportation 

Lesson 4: (Tourism) Attractions  

Lesson 5 (Tourism) Festivals and Other Events  

Lesson 6 (Tourism) Lodging  

Lesson 7 (Tourism) Food and Drink  

Lesson 8 Glass Bubble Tourism and Full Contact Tourism