NEWS: Live Traffic Feed
Monitor the live traffic to Political Cartel and see where the visitors to this site come from.
Why should everybody care about the Bilski case that was just heard at the Supreme Court? Pending the result of this case, patent law and the dissemination of technical information may never be the same.
The petitioner claims that the metric for developing a current patent is insufficient into cover the algorithms which which produce data. While this is substantively correct, the court has fears of a runaway patent explosion. The technology industry waits with baited breath.
Issue: Whether a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (”machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing business” in 35 U.S.C. § 273. SCOTUSblog
The case involves a patent application by Pittsburgh businessmen 
Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw for a way for utility companies and their customers regularize costs by considering factors of supply, demand, and weather. Legal Times
The Bilski case has a modern cast to it, for at least two reasons: first, it involves the concept of digitizing business methods through creation of new computer software, and, second, it involves the rapid growth of information technology in global commerce. The case is expected to draw a larger number of friend-of-court briefs on both sides of the patentability question. The Bilski-Warsaw petition already has attracted a number of amici – special briefs from “friends of the court”. SCOTUSblog
The data itself is not patentable, but if it is a series of steps, it should be eligible as long as it meets the other statutory requirements as a process.
Under the present governing rule, a “physical step” is required for a patent – thus leaving algorithms out of scope.
Malcolm Stewart, who argued in support of the (current) test on behalf of the Obama administration, suggested that such inventions would still be able to qualify for patent protection if they are tied to a machine such as a computer. He added, however, “hard questions will arise down the road as to where do you draw the line” and urged the court not to use the current case to determine the patentability of software, medical diagnostic tests and other inventions typically patented as processes. Associated Press
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But a patent limits the free flow of information. It requires licensing fees and other steps, legal steps. So you can’t argue that your definition is improving the free flow of information.
MR. JAKES: Your Honor, I would, because of the disclosure requirement of the patent laws. It requires people to disclose their inventions rather than keeping them secret, so there is a second benefit to the patent system just other than encouraging people to invent, and that is to have that information get to the public generally. And in exchange for that –
JUSTICE SCALIA: Even though the public can’t use it, right, until the patent expires?
This exchange encompasses gist of the debate. But since the court has a difficult time understanding the nuance of technology, these discussions quickly devolve into a series of poorly constructed analogies . Hilarity Ensues:
Sotomayor: So how do we limit it to something that is reasonable? Meaning, if we don’t limit it to inventions or to technology, as some amici have, or to some tie or tether, borrowing the Solicitor General’s phraseology, to the sciences, to the useful arts, then why not patent the method of speed dating?
The Supreme Court gave a skeptical and at times scornful reception to arguments that there should be broader patent protection for “business methods,” which several justices suggested did little to spur the technological progress that patent laws were intended to promote. Wall Street Journal
JUSTICE SCALIA: You know, you mention that there are all these — these new areas that didn’t exist in the past because of modern business and what-not, but there are also areas that existed in the past that don’t exist today. Let’s take training horses. Don’t you think that — that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some, you know, some insights into the best way to train horses? And that should have been patentable on your theory.
MR. JAKES (Bilski) : They might have, yes.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, why didn’t anybody patent those things?
MR. JAKES (Bilski): I think our economy was based on industrial process.
JUSTICE SCALIA: It was based on horses, for Pete’s sake. You — I would really have thought somebody would have patented that.
I am personally unconvinced that court accurately understands the nuance. The term of “machine” is casually tossed about so frequently that barely recognizable between justices. Such a simple to explain a highly complex hierarchical series of functions.
Scalia and Roberts were notably overall rather silent and chimed in with generally irrelevant comments. Never mind that bunk “what would the framers envision” comment by Breyer. I heard Madison had a PC and Hamilton used Mac, but neither approved of FreeBSD.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You get on the phone and you call the baker and you get on the phone and you call the grocer and say: I can set up a deal for both of you?
MR. JAKES: It could be. It could be done that way because it does take a person acting to do that. It’s not purely –
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And so in the insurance case it takes a person to go over to the Bureau of Statistics and compile statistics on — on life — on life expectancy.
Sotomayor was engaged throughout the entire discussion. Her points were largely focused and represented a superior knowledge of technology. I am impressed by the second youngest member of the court. She was billed as a very intelligent and veracious learner and has not disappointed.
JUSTICE BREYER encapsulates the overall policy issue which is also a great way to end this technical article.
There are actually four things in the patent law which everyone accepts. There are two that are plus and two that are minus. And the two that are plus is by giving people a monopoly, you get them to produce more. As you said, you get them to disclose. The two minuses are they charge a higher price, so people use the product less; and moreover, the act of getting permissions and having to get permission can really slow things down and destroy advance. So there is a balance.
The two minuses are they charge a higher price, so people use the product less; and moreover, the act of getting permissions and having to get permission can really slow things down and destroy advance. So there is a balance.
Bart Stupak (D) has introduced new legislation, H.J.Res 59, which seeks to protect victims of crime. This bill seeks to create Constitutional rights to the aggrieved parties in 5 distinct capacities:
Constitutional Amendment – Grants victims of violent crime the right to:
(1) reasonable notice of any public proceeding involving the crime, any release or escape from custody relating to the crime, a proposed pardon or commutation of a sentence, and of the rights established by this amendment;
(2) be heard and to submit a statement in proceedings for a conditional release from custody, an acceptance of a negotiated plea, a sentencing, or a parole proceeding;
(3) consideration of their interest that any trial be free from unreasonable delay;
(4) an order of restitution from the offender; and
(5) consideration of their safety in determining any conditional release from custody relating to the crime.
When looking to establish a new amendment, Congress must be sure they are voting for an appropriate policy. On its face this seems so simplistic that it hits you, “why didn’t they think of it before”. As of 1990, 37 states passed legislation granting victims sets of rights. On the progressive side, California allots notice to victims when the parole hearing would take place. California and other states have created entire devisions dedicated to emotional support. Helping victims recover from their personal tragedy is laudable; tampering with the justice system to help exact personal revenge is not.
1- Reasonable Notice To Victim – This is already a matter of public record and most states have an established procedure to keep victims apprised of parole matters.
Instead of requiring action on the part of the victim to fill out forms etc.. Everything should be easily accessible online. It is a matter of simple technological integration that any internet savvy country should mandate.
2- Victims Heard – I am at a loss of how this exists in the first place.
California, Massachusetts, and South Carolina, where special efforts have been made to increase victim participation. It demonstrates that the inmate is not the only person affected by the decisions of the parole board
Yes, it feels right to let the victims speak , but it does not further fairness, justice, or economy. The courts have spoken with everything readily available to the panel. They are tasked with looking at the facts of the crime and judging the rehabilitation of the inmate. Introducing victims into this process pollutes the corrective function with impartial commentary. Further, it forces victims to continually relive the nightmare at the risk that their lack of presence may facilitate the release of the criminal.
The parole board in fact now listens to victims and has deemed them a substantial factor. Should victims fear that a personal lack of action would cause their assailant to be freed early?
3 – Consideration of Victim for Trial – It is antithetical to the judicial notion of ”innocent until proven guilty” to allow other parties to shape the format of the trial. The matter is between the state and the accused, that is the nature of a fair justice system.
4 – Order Restitution - This is somewhat puzzling as there is a well established system in place – Intentional Torts. Considering the burden of proof is less in a civil matter, it could not be a terrible imposition. Further, it is not in the interest of fairness to tack on additional penalties without proper inquiry into the scope of restitution. Various factors are at play when determining what a victim should receive - not all crimes are created equal. The creator of this bill must misunderstand the application of torts.
5- Considering Victim Safety – What parole board doesn’t consider the safety of not only the public but the victim. This is already in place and is moot.
This bill is overall a pointless exercise guised as meaningful victim reform. I am dismayed that a congressional member thought it to be an appropriate amendment the Constitution. It meddle’s with issues on an emotional level rather than a logical and judicious approach. Lets help the victims but do so in a way that is compatible with the notions of fairness and justice our society is built upon. If I wrote this legislation I would focus on the mental wellness of the victim and the rehabilitation of the criminal while relying on the current legislative, judicial, and administrative regulations to properly parole a criminal.
Wade Davis, a lifelong traveler into human imagination, questions the singular mentality that globalism has brought. It is said that a second consciousness arises when people learn a non-native language fluently. This personal ’second breath’ is a new paradigm of communication and expressions to interact with the world. Imagine this beautiful concept forged by generations of society and epitomized by a handful of individuals. The ethnographic heritage of generations is at risk; it is held by very few and quashed so easily like a butterfly underneath a misplaced step.
Davis coined the word “Ethnosphere”, which is the cultural web of life stemming from a distillation of human history.
“the sum total of all thoughts and dreams, myths, intuitions and inspirations brought into being by the human imagination since the dawn of consciousness. It is humanity’s greatest legacy, embodying everything we have produced as a curious and amazingly adaptive species.” Wade Davis
Interesting…
Anthropology has discovered fascinating nuances that force people to re-investigate our suppositions about life. There is an astounding diversity in coping with the human condition. Philosophically speaking, we are all travelers who have awoke on this strange planet wholly lost and confused. Science has brought us far, we can grasp the physicality of life but have yet to explore the metaphysical. As we all live, we all will die – these notions of a right and wrong way to live using the social mores is inevitably lacking. What can these other cultures teach us about our personal vision of life?
Wade Davis never set out to become an explorer. “I doubt there was a human being alive who was more confused and uncertain of his destiny than I was in my 20s,” Davis tells me. “But the trait that was my saving grace was an almost visceral, reflexive incapacity to compromise on myself. People ask me, How do you become an explorer? And I sometimes say, If you really knew, you’d go right to law school! Because it wasn’t easy. But the key ingredients were following my own heart, taking risks, cultivating a comfort level with risk, and always having one word in my vocabulary for new experiences, which was yes.” UTNE.com
Al Franken continues his crusade for women by introducing new legislation to remove an institutional bias against women. For context, review his “Anti-Rape” Amendment- H.R. 3326 discussing how ADR disenfranchises employee’s whom are subjected to outrageous contract stipulations.
The legislation will work to reduce the national backlog of over 180,000 untested rape kits currently in police storage. It will also address several other problems that work to deny justice to victims of sexual assault – including the denial of free rape kits to survivors of sexual assault and the shortage of trained health professionals capable of administering rape kit exams. “These backlogs have serious consequences for law enforcement and public safety,” said Sen. Franken. “We just learned of a case where a rapist struck both a pregnant woman and a minor while the rape kit for one of his earlier victims sat unprocessed at a crime lab. It takes about a week to process a DNA evidence sample and there is no reason that every rape kit completed should not be tested in a timely manner.”
· Requires jurisdictions applying for federal funds to implement plans to halve rape kit backlogs in a two-year period.
· Creates monetary incentives for jurisdictions to reduce their rape kit backlogs, promptly process incoming rape kits, and report their backlog numbers.
· Creates an annual reporting mechanism for rape kit backlogs across the nation.
· Requires states to be responsible for the full, upfront cost of rape kit examinations. Victims should not have to pay for rape kits and seek reimbursement.
· Requires that health professionals notify victims that they have a right to a rape kit examination free of charge.
· Creates an additional funding stream for training of sexual assault forensic medical personnel examiners through the Grants to Encourage Arrest Program.
· Defines “trained examiner” in a way that will allow rural and tribal areas to use grant funds authorized under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to pay for admissible rape kits, even if they don’t have certified Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners to perform them.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Al Franken for another win. How unconscionable is it for victims of sexual assault to go without recourse because of a bureaucratic backlog? Actually, this is a re-emerging battle many women are forced to fight. Out of the 2008 presidential campaign comes a quote from Wasilla, “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.” He also added, “The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. I’d like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things.” To have such a bias suggests that the real issue isn’t the money, but the definition of this crime. Would you make a victim of any other crime every pay for the forensic tests? Never, it would be at odds with society.
Then the crux of this logic is that women are not taken seriously, that rape is a “two way street” crime. Bill O’Reilly has a quote I could never forget, it encapsulates this mentality perfectly.
So anyway, these two girls come in from the suburbs and they get bombed, and their car is towed because they’re moronic girls and, you know, they don’t have a car. So they’re standing there in the middle of the night with no car. And then they separate because they’re drunk. They separate, which you never do. All right. Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk. And the thug takes her over to New Jersey in the cab and kills her and rapes her and does all these terrible things to her. Bill O’Reilly
It is twisted logic to try and blame the victim for the assault they incur, as if they baited it. S.2736 is a great step toward helping women traumatized not only by the assailant, but the uncaring system.
Keep tabs on this Freshman Senator, he is top notch. It’s a weekend so enjoy a video.
Charlie Sheen has since become a prominent advocate of the 9/11 Truth movement.[12] On September 8, 2009, Sheen appealed to US President Barack Obama to set up a new investigation into the attacks. Presenting his views as a transcript of a fictional encounter with Obama, he was characterized by the press as believing the 9/11 commission was a whitewash and that the administration of former US President George W. Bush may have been responsible for the attacks.[13][14][15]
Charlie Sheen and Obama – Interesting Concept… A Good Read
Charlie Sheen & 20min with President Obama
This is an interesting way to go about posing the lingering questions about 9/11. It is reasonable for people to ask questions and to have their government give transparent responses. Lets Jump In.
Applied History
There is popular history and then there is actual history. Popular history is the nexus of forces that give rise to an image of how things played out, its the tame history in high school. Simon Schama in Dead Certainties , “goes beyond these more conventional histories to address the deeper enigmas that confront a student of the past”. Events in the contemporary are emotionally and politically charged which dilute the objective analysis.
What is a false flag?
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own.
A famous and transparent example is the Gleiwitz incident, where false evidence of a Polish attack was used to mobilize public opinion to justify war. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, where it took years for the truth of the event to emerge, “recent analysis of that data and additional information gathered on the 4 August episode now makes it clear that North Vietnamese naval forces did not attack Maddox and Turner Joy that night in the summer of 1964.”
False Flag Falsehoods
History is rife with little tidbits that reverberate and must help define our current mentality. While false flag type events are present, they generally pick out a small truth and extrapolate it.
The Lusitania misconception is a strong example of poor history. Often this is cited as a pre-mediated incendiary where America was shipping contraband goods to solicit an attack from a U-Boat.The evidence was a mysterious second explosion that to the lay was proof of restricted arms.
Included in the Lusitania’s cargo were 4,200,000 rounds of Remington 0.303 rifle cartridges, 1250 cases of empty 3 inches (76 mm) fragmentation shell cases, and eighteen cases of non-explosive fuses, all of which were listed on the ship’s two-page manifest. It was perfectly legal under American shipping regulations for her to carry these; experts agreed they were not to blame for the second explosion. Allegations the ship was carrying more controversial cargo, such as fine aluminium powder, concealed as cheese on her cargo manifests, have never been proven. Recent expeditions to the wreck have shown her holds are intact and show no evidence of internal explosion. RMS Lusitania
Viewing Dissent
As an appellate judge would view completed case with circumstances in light most favorable to the victor – it is reasonable to give the official story the benefit. In essence, “I like your narrative, its sounds interesting, but the burden of proof is on you – Charlie Sheen”.
Mistrust Breeds Conspiracy: White House Crimes Abuses
The pretext for this is the inherent mistrust in the Bush administration. From the the Kucinich/Wexler impeachment resolution….
35 articles covering the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame affair, creating a case for war with Iran, capture and treatment of prisoners of war, spying and or wiretapping inside the United States, use of signing statements, failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas, the 2004 elections, medicare, Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and 9/11
This list speaks for itself. People distrust the administration to a point where it has been coined Bush Derangement Syndrome. This predisposes a slanted view on incidents involving the administration.
Reasonable inquiry – Why is talk of 9/11 so Guarded?
While I am personally unconvinced, See
glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com
for the type of logic much of this 9/11 theory uses. However, I do think it reasonable minds can agree that such an incident should be fully explored and not censored. This incident was used to begin a war, millions of Iraqi’s dead. I want to be unequivocally apprised of the decision making, intelligence, and surrounding factors used to motivate the administration in moving the nation to war.
Reported by Charlie Sheen
I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44th President
of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he
was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30
minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could
have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to
question the President about one of the most important events in
our nation’s history. The following is a transcript of our
remarkable discussion.
Charlie Sheen – Good afternoon Mr. President, thank you so much for
taking time out of your demanding schedule.
President Barack Obama – My pleasure, the content of your request
seemed like something I should carve out a few minutes for.
CS – I should point out that I voted for you, as your promises of hope and
change, transparency and accountability, as well as putting
government back into the hands of the American people, struck an
emotional cord in me that I hadn’t felt in quite some time, perhaps
ever.
PBO – And I appreciate that, Charlie. Big fan of the show, by the way.
CS – Sir, I can’t imagine when you might find the time to actually watch
my show given the measure of what you inherited.
PBO – I have it Tivo’d on Air Force One. Nice break from the traveling
press corps. (He glances at his watch) Not to be abrupt or to rush
you, but you have 19 minutes left.
CS – I’ll take that as an invitation to cut to the chase.
PBO – I’m all ears. Or so I’ve been told.
CS – Sir, in the very near future we will be experiencing our first 9/11
anniversary with you as Commander in Chief.
PBO – Yes. A very solemn day for our nation. A day of reflection and yet
a day of historical consciousness as well.
CS – Very much so, sir, very much so indeed…. Now, in researching
your position regarding the events of 9/11 and the subsequent
investigation that followed, am I correct to understand that you
fully support and endorse the findings of the Commission Report
otherwise known as the ‘official story’?
PBO – Do I have any reason not to? Given that most of us are presumably
in touch with similar evidence.
CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President,
of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11
commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not
to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in
deliberate deception about their response to the attack?
PBO – I am aware of certain “in fighting” during the course of their very
thorough and tireless investigative process.
CS – Mr. President, it’s hard to label this type of friction as “in fighting”
or make the irresponsible leap to “thorough,” when the evidence I
insist you examine regarding 6 of the 10 members are statements
of fact.
(At this point one of Obama’s senior aides approaches the
President and whispers into his ear. Obama glances quickly at his
watch and nods as the aide resumes his post at the doorway,
directly behind me.)
PBO – No disrespect, Mr. Sheen, but I have to ask; what is it that you
seem to be implying with the initial direction of this discussion?
CS – I am not implying anything, Mr. President. I am here to present the
facts and see what you plan to do with them.
PBO – Let me guess: your ‘facts,’ allegedly supporting these claims, are
in the folders you brought with you?
CS – Good guess, Mr. President.
(I hand the first folder of documents to the President)
CS – Again sir, these are not my opinions or assumptions. This is all a
matter of public record, reported through mainstream media,
painstakingly fact checked and verified.
(The President glances into the folder I handed him)
CS – You’ll notice, sir, on page one of the dossier dated August of ‘06
from the Washington Post, the statements of John Farmer, Senior
Council to the 9/11 Commission, his quote stating “I was shocked
how different the truth was from the way it was described.”
PBO – (As he glances down at the report, almost inaudible) …. Um
hmm….
CS – He goes on to further state, “The [NORAD Air Defense] tapes told
a radically different story from what had been told to us and the
public for two years….”
(The President continues to view the documents)
CS – On pages two and three, sir, are the statements, as well, from
commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton,
commissioners Bob Kerrey, Timothy Roemer and John Lehman, as
well as the statements of commissioner Max Cleland, an ex-
Senator from Georgia , who resigned, stating:
“It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of
these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue
is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it
up.“
He also described President Bush’s desire to delay the process as not to
damage the ‘04 re-election bid. They suspected deception to the
point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice
Department for criminal investigation. Mr. President, this
information alone is unequivocally grounds for a new
investigation!
PBO – Mistakes were clearly made but we as a people and as a country
need to move forward. It is obviously in our best interest as a
democratic society to focus our efforts and our resources on the
future of this great nation and our ability to protect the American
people and our allies from this type of terrorism in the coming
years.
CS – Sir, how can we focus on the future when THE COMMISSION
ITSELF is on record stating that they still do not know the truth??
PBO – Even if what you state might, in some capacity, begin to approach
an open discussion or balanced debate, I can’t speak for, or about,
the decisions certain commission members made during an
extremely difficult period. Perhaps you should be interviewing
them instead of me. Wait, don’t tell me; I was easier to track down
than they were?
CS – Not exactly, sir, but let’s be honest. You’re the President of the
United States, the leader of the free world, the buck stops with you.
9/11 has been the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our
Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your administration is reading
from the same playbook that the Bush administration foisted on
America through documented secrecy and deception.
PBO – Mr. Sheen, I’m having a difficult time sitting here and listening to
you draw distorted parallels between the Bush/Cheney regime and
mine.
CS – Mr. President, the parallels are not distorted just because you say
they are. Let’s stick to the facts. You promised to abolish the
Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. You pledged to end
warrantless wiretapping against the American people and now
energetically defend it. You decried the practice of rendition and
now continue it. You promised over and over again on the
campaign trail that you would end the practice of indefinite
detention and instead, you have expanded it to permanent
detention of “detainees” without trial. This far exceeds the outrages
of the former administration. Call me crazy, Mr. President, but is
this not your record?
PBO – Mr. Sheen, my staff and I authorized this interview based on your
request to discuss 9/11 and deliver some additional information
you’re convinced I’d not previously reviewed. Call me crazy, but it
appears as though you’ve blindly wandered off topic.
CS – Sir, the examples I just illustrated are a direct result of 9/11.
PBO – And I’m telling you that we must move forward, we must endure
through these dangerous and politically challenging years ahead.
CS – Mr. President, we cannot move forward with a bottomless warren
of unanswered questions surrounding that day and it’s aftermath.
PBO – I read the official report. Every word, every page. Perhaps you
should do the same.
CS – I have, sir, and so have thousands of family members of the
victims, and guess what? They have the same questions I do and
probably a lot more. I didn’t lose a loved one on that horrific day,
Mr. President, and neither did you. But since then, I, along with
millions of other Americans, lost something we held true and dear
for most of our lives in this great country of ours– we lost our
hope.
PBO – And I’d like to believe that I am here to restore that hope. To
restore confidence in your leaders, in the system that the voting
public chose through a peaceful transfer of power.
(An odd moment of silence between us. Precious time ticking
away.)
CS – Mr. President, are you aware of the number of days it took to begin
the investigation into JFK’s assassination?
PBO – If memory serves, I believe it was two weeks.
CS – Close. Seventeen days to be exact. Are you aware sir, how long it
took to begin the investigation into Pearl Harbor?
PBO – I would say again, about….two weeks.
CS – Close again, sir, eleven days to be exact. Are you aware, Mr.
President, how long it took to begin the investigation into 9/11?
PBO – I know it must have seemed like a very long time for all the
grieving families.
CS – It was a very long time, Mr. President – four hundred and forty days.
Roughly 14 months. Does it bother you, Mr. President, that it only
took FIVE HOURS after the initial attack for Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld to recommend and endorse a full scale offensive
against Iraq?
PBO – I am not aware of any such purported claim.
CS – I have the proof, Mr. President, along with scores of documents and
facts I’d like you to take a look at. Here.
(I hand him another file – much thicker than the first)
PBO – I see you came prepared, Charlie.
CS – No other way to show up, Mr. President. When in doubt, over
prepare I always say.
PBO – Now you sound like the First Lady.
CS – That’s quite a compliment, sir.
PBO – As you wish. Please continue.
CS – Sir, I’d like to direct your attention to the stack of documents in the
folder I just handed you. The first in from the top is entitled
“Operation Northwoods,” a declassified Pentagon plan to stage
terror attacks on U.S. soil, to be blamed on Cuba as a pretext for
war.
PBO – And I’d like to direct your attention to the fact that the principle
draftsman of this improbable blueprint was quickly denied a
second term as Joint Chiefs chairman and sent packing to a
European NATO garrison. Thank God his otherworldly ambitions
never saw the light of day.
CS – I wouldn’t be so certain about that, Mr. President.
PBO – I could easily say the same to you, Charlie.
(The President checks his watch)
CS – The next document reads, “Declassified staged provocations.” Now
honestly Mr. President, I wish I was making this stuff up. I’m
certain you are familiar with the USS Maine incident, the sinking
of the Lusitania, which we all now know brought us into WWI,
and of course, the most famous, the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
PBO – Of course I am familiar with these historical events and I’m
aware that there’s a measure of controversy surrounding them. But
to be quite frank with you, this is all ancient history.
CS – Mr. President, it has often been said, “Those who do not know
history are doomed to repeat it.” And I concede to you, sir, these
events are the past.
PBO – A vastly different world, young man, shouldering a radically
disparate state of universal affairs.
CS – No argument, sir, I‘m merely inviting you to acknowledge some
credibility to the pattern or the theme. Case in point, the next
document in your folder. It was published by the think tank,
Project for a New American Century, and it’s entitled “Rebuilding
America’s Defenses,” and was written by Dick Cheney and Jeb
Bush. To quote from the document, sir -(The President interrupts)
PBO – “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
CS – Touché, sir. Your thoughts on this statement, Mr. President?
PBO – I would call this a blatant case of misjudgment fueled by an
unfortunate milieu of assumption. For some, the uninformed denial
of coincidence.
CS – Interesting angle, sir. Nevertheless, Vice President Cheney didn’t
stop there. In early 2008, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
Seymour Hersh and MSNBC both reported that Cheney had
proposed to the Pentagon an outrageous plan to have the U.S.
Navy create fake Iranian patrol boats, to be manned by Navy
SEALs, who would then stage an attack on U.S. destroyers in the
Strait of Hormuz. This event was to be blamed on Iran and used as
a pretext for war. Does any of this information worry you, Mr.
President? Should we just ignore it, until these realities can be
dismissed years from now by our children and ancient history as
well?
PBO – Of course this information worries me, yet it’s not nearly as
worrisome as you sitting here today suspiciously implying that
9/11 was somehow allowed to happen or even orchestrated from
the inside.
CS – Mr. President, I am not suspiciously implying anything. I am
merely exposing the documents and asking the questions that
nobody in power will even look at or acknowledge. And as I stated
earlier, I voted for you; I believed in your message of hope and
change. Mr. President, I have come to you specifically hoping for a
change. A change in the fact that our government has not yet made
itself open and accountable to the people. These are your words,
Mr. President, not mine. The lives of thousands who were brutally
cut short and those left behind to suffer in infinite pain are with me
today, Mr. President. They are with me in spirit and flesh, and the
message we carry will not be silenced anymore by media-fueled
mantras insisting how they are supposed to feel. Deciding for
them, for 8 long years, what can be thought, what can be said, what
can be asked.
PBO – And I appreciate your passion; I appreciate your conviction. In
spite of your concerns, in spite of what your data might or might
not reveal, what you and the families must understand and accept
is that we are doing everything we can to protect you.
CS – Mr. President, I realize we’re very short on time, so please allow
me to run down a list of bullet points that might illuminate some
reasons why we don’t embrace the warm hug of Federal
protection.
PBO – We’ve come this far. Fire away.
CS – Please keep in mind, Mr. President, everything I’m about to say is
documented as fact and part of the public record. The information
you are holding in your hands chronicles and verifies each and
every point.
PBO – You have five minutes left. The floor is yours. Brief me.
CS – Thank you, Mr. President. Okay, first: on the F.B.I.’s Most Wanted
list, Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of 9/11.
When I called the F.B.I. to ask them why this was the case, they
replied: “There’s not enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the
crime scene.” I later discovered he had never even been indicted by
the D.O.J.
CS – Number 2: F.B.I. translator Sibel Edmonds was dismissed and
gagged by the D.O.J. after she revealed that the government had
foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as
bombs as early as April 2001. In August of ‘09, Mrs. Edmonds
broke the federal gag order and testified under oath that Osama Bin
Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were all working for and with the
C.I.A. up until the day of 9/11.
CS – Number 3: The following is a quote from Mayor Giuliani during an
interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News. “I went
down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street,
which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire
Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were
operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade
Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could
actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building
for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked
north, and took a lot of people with us.”
WHO TOLD HIM THIS??? To this day, this question remains
unanswered, completely ignored and emphatically DENIED by
Mayor Giuliani on several public occasions.
CS – Number 4: In April 2004, USA Today reported, “In the two years
before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace
Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White
House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used
as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of
the targets was the World Trade Center.
CS – Number 5: On September 12, 2007, CNN’s ‘Anderson Cooper 360’
reported that the mysterious “white plane,” spotted and videotaped
by multiple media outlets, flying in restricted airspace over the
White House shortly before 10 a.m. on the morning of 9/11, was in
fact the Air Force’s E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a
communications pod behind the cockpit– otherwise known as
“The Doomsday Plane.”
Though fully aware of the event, the 9/11 Commission did not
deem the appearance of the military plane to be of any interest and
did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.
CS – Number 6: Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten
miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in
North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the
WTC. Even at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph,
they could still have defended the skies over Washington well
before 9 a.m., more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into
the Pentagon. However, they did not return until after 9:55 a.m.
Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off
on the morning of 9/11.
CS – Number 7: WTC Building 7. Watch the video of its collapse.
CS – Number 8: Flight 93 is the fourth plane to crash on 9/11 at 10:03
a.m. V.P. Cheney only gives shoot down orders at 10:10-10:20
a.m. and this is not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes
after Flight 93 has crashed.
Fueling further suspicion on this front is the fact that three months
before the attacks of 9/11, Dick Cheney usurped control of
NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else on planet Earth, had
the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on
9/11. He did not exercise that power. Three months after 9/11, he
relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to military
operation.
CS – Number 9: Scores of mainstream news outlets reported that the
F.B.I. conducted an investigation of at least FIVE of the 9/11
hijackers being trained at U.S. military flight schools. Those
investigations are now sealed and need to be declassified.
CS – Number 10: In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and
Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black
boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their
mouths shut by F.B.I. agents. Nicholas DeMasi said that he
escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001
and helped them locate the devices, a story backed up by rescue
volunteer Mike Bellone.
As the Philadelphia Daily News reported at the time, “Their story
raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at
Ground Zero.”
CS – Number 11: Hundreds of eyewitnesses including first responders,
fire captains, news reporters, and police all described multiple
explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.
CS – Number 12: An astounding video uncovered from the archives
shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the
collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at
5:20 p.m. on the afternoon of 9/11. Tapes from earlier BBC
broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a
full 26 minutes in advance. The BBC at first claimed that their
tapes from 9/11 had been “lost” before admitting that they made
the “error” of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened
without adequately explaining how they could have obtained
advance knowledge of the event.
In addition, over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm,
CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that the building “has either
collapsed, or is collapsing.”
CS – Number 13: Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife,
Barbara Olson, called him twice from Flight 77, describing
hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11
story.
However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined
after Olson kept changing his story about whether his wife used
her cell phone or the airplane phone. American Airlines confirmed
that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have
airplane phones on board.
According to the F.B.I., Barbara Olson attempted to call her
husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore, Olson
must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife
from Flight 77.
CS – Number 14: The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125 ft.
in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon
supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no
more than 16 ft. in diameter. The engines of the 757 would
have punctured a hole bigger than this, never mind the
whole plane. Images before the partial collapse of the impact
zone show little real impact damage and a sparse debris
field completely inconsistent with the crash of a large jetliner,
especially when contrasted with other images showing
airplane crashes into buildings.
CS – Number 15: What is the meaning behind the following quote
attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11
Commission hearings? The passage is taken from testimony given
by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon,
there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice
President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.”
And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man
also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And
the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said,
“Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the
contrary?”
As the plane was not shot down, in addition to the fact that armed
fighter jets were nowhere near the plane and the Pentagon
defensive system was not activated, are we to take it that the orders
were to let the plane find its target?
CS – Number 16: In May 2003, the Miami Herald reported how the Bush
administration was refusing to release a 900-page Congressional
report on 9/11 because it wanted to “avoid enshrining embarrassing
details in the report,” particularly regarding pre-9/11 warnings, as
well as the fact that the hijackers were trained at U.S. flight
schools.
CS – Number 17: Top Pentagon officials canceled their scheduled flights
for September 11th on September 10th. San Francisco Mayor Willie
Brown, following a security warning from the White House,
canceled a flight into New York that was scheduled for the
morning of 9/11.
CS – Number 18: The technology to enable cell phone calls from highaltitude
airline flights was not created until 2004, and even by that
point, it was only in the trial phase. Calls from cell phones, which
formed an integral part of the official government version of
events, were technologically impossible at the time.
CS – Number 19: On April 29, 2004, President Bush and V.P. Cheney
would only meet with the commission under specific clandestine
conditions. They insisted on testifying together and not under oath.
They also demanded that their testimony be treated as a matter of
“state secret.” To date, nothing they spoke of that day exists in the
public domain.
CS – And finally, Mr. President – Number 20: A few days after the
attack, several newspapers, as well as the F.B.I., reported that a
paper passport had been found in the ruins of the WTC. In August
2004, CNN reported that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s visa was
found in the remains of Flight 93, which went down in
Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
At least a third of the WTC victims’ bodies were vaporized and
many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond
recognition. And yet, visas and paper passports, which identify the
perpetrators and back up the official version of events,
miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted
steel buildings.
(The senior aide appears again beside the President whispering in his
ear. He then quickly moves off.)
PBO – Well Charlie, I can’t say this hasn’t been interesting. As I said
earlier, you’ve showed up today focused and organized.
Regardless of how I feel about the material you’ve presented, I
must commend your dedication and zeal. However, our time here
is up.
(The President rises from his chair; I do the same.)
CS – Mr. President! One more second!
(The President starts towards the door; I follow him quickly, step for
step)
CS – Mr. President, I implore you, based on the evidence you now
possess, to use your Executive Power. Prove to us all, sir, that you
do, in fact, care. Create a truly comprehensive and open
Congressional investigation into 9/11 and its aftermath. The
families deserve the truth; the American people and the rest of the
free world deserve the truth. Mr. President -
(He pauses. We shake hands.)
CS – Make sure you’re on the right side of history.
(The President breaks the handshake.)
PBO – I am on the right side of history. Thank you Charlie, my staff and
I will be in touch.
(I watch as he strides gracefully out of the room; the truth I provided
him held firmly by his side, in the hand of providence.)
End.
Author’s Note: What you have just read didn’t actually happen… yet.
This is an open letter to the President requesting a new
investigation.
Thousands of pages regarding shady priest reassignments within the Catholic Church are about to be released. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court denied the appeal of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision ordering the release of more than 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against six priests. These documents were sealed after the original trials and settlements. A hearing next Monday will decide the timetable for releasing the documents.
The Diocese of Bridgeport attempted to argue that the Constitution prohibits the government from intruding into internal church decisions about priest assignments. The case is Bridgeport Diocese v. New York Times, 09-246.
In a statement, the Diocese said:
We continue to believe that the constitutional issues presented, including the First Amendment rights of religious organizations and the privacy rights of all citizens, are significant and important for the Court to consider. This legal proceeding always has been about the future, not the past. The information and essential facts contained in the documents at issue stem from misconduct occurring primarily in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Church also said that there has been a “true culture change” since the widespread sexual abuse scandals that became public a few years ago. The Church wants to dismiss cases that arose out of abuse in the 60s and 70s, and naturally wants to focus on the future, but they fail to recognize the need to analyze the past. Luckily, the press, the courts, and the public recognize the need for honest discovery about the past, even the ugly past.
The Church has more healing to do than just counseling the thousands of victims and their families. The John Jay Study reported that “the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities.” The public needs to know how religious authorities covered up the abuse, acting as enablers.
The label of “religion” and the outcry of “religious freedom” cannot be used to shield abusers and enablers from public scrutiny.
Americans too easily accept arguments predicated on supposed religious interests when those arguments should be scrutinized. Lots of strange practices are allowed because we are overly anxious about appearing to infringe on religious liberty. Europe is already much further ahead of the United States in its secular policies. Europe is not intolerant of religion, but neither do they allow “religion” to be used as a backdoor to bypass normal reasoning and scrutiny.
Some things done in the name of religion border on child abuse. Millions of children are taught to believe in the inherent superiority of their beliefs over the beliefs of others. Countless adolescents who realize they have same-sex attractions are told that they are “struggling” with them and must either change their attractions, suppress them, or be celibate for life. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) allowed parents to deprive their children of high school education in the name of religion.
Other things done in the name of religion would otherwise be considered hate speech. Extremist statements about race, sexual orientation, and other religions are always subject to intense public scrutiny – unless the speakers cite religious justifications.
Religion still has a place in the modern world. The Catholic Church is still very important to millions of people. But religious arguments must be based on reason to be acceptable to the public.
A federal court case in New York might be one of the biggest landmark cases in modern legal history. The ACLU is challenging Myriad Genetics’ patents on the BRCA genes, which are related to breast and ovarian cancer. In recent years, major biotechnology companies have sequenced and patented about 20% of the human genome. Each patent gives that company the exclusive right to license testing procedures that involve that gene. Myriad charges approximately $3,000 for each test involving the BRCA genes.
Many commentators have been shocked that these companies have been able to patent human genes, which can be seen as products of nature instead of technological developments. Gene patents hamper fair competition because the company with the original sequencing patent is able to control all future sequences.
On the other hand, if companies have no legal protections at all for their genetic sequencing research, they will be less likely to push forward, investing millions in this technology.
The case, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al, was filed early this year. The entire docket up through September is available from Justiia.com, but it is soul-crushingly large; the only substantive item so far is the original complaint. All the other documents are affidavits, notices, memos, and briefs. The defendants have not defended on the merits of the case yet because their preliminary challenges were just rejected this week.
The court, as it rejected the combined motion to dismiss, not only rejected the technical jurisdictional and procedural arguments raised by the defendants, but also emphasized the importance of this case:
The challenges to the patents-in-suit raise questions of difficult legal dimensions concerning constitutional protections over the information that serves as our genetic identities and the need to adopt policies that promote scientific innovation in biomedical research. The widespread use of gene sequence information as the foundation for biomedical research means that resolution of these issues will have far-reaching implications, not only for gene-based health care and the health of millions of women facing the specter of breast cancer, but also for the future course of biomedical research.
It must be emphasized that this case is in very early stages. The defendants will likely answer the complaint and defend on the merits of the case in a few months, and then a long stage of discovery and depositions will occur. It may be several months or even years before the court rules on this case and then it will almost certainly be appealed. This case may very well be argued in the Supreme Court in several years.
If the challengers are ultimately successful, thousands of other patents could be challenged and revoked. If Myriad successfully defends its patents, biotechnology companies will continue to patent increasing amounts of the human genome.
According to PC World, The Beatles are remastered once again in a new and better format,
EMI will release next month a collection of remastered Beatles albums on a
special edition USB drive, to the joy of fans and geeks alike. The apple-shaped 16GB USB drive will be loaded with the remastered audio tracks from the Beatles’ 14 albums, and will set you back a cool $330 (£200).
Perpetual Intellectual Property ownership hurts society. The Beatles, as so many other artists, have become a staple of culture. They are due compensation – insert every free market theory inducing creativity here – and I concur. However, there is a balancing act that must happen to prevent companies from exploiting consumers 40 years later. Society has a interest in letting artists make a profit and then eventually giving the community rights to the benefit from culture. Who is making the profit now? Not the Beatles! This unbridled profit motive does not extend indefinitely.
Selling “Beatles on USB” for a price that has not diminished over 40 years is capitalism manipulated. 
Second, and what really is infuriating, is the continual re-purchasing of the same content. Suppose I bought this media in 4 Track, 8 Track, Microcassette, Betamax, Laserdisc, Compact Disc, Mini Disc, WMA, MP3, Ogg, AAC, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, SD, Micro-SD, USB. Why don’t we separate the physical product from intellectual product – Money. I contend that person simply does not buy an encapsulated product, but they buy personal use rights to the media not to unduly impinge on the creator.
Reselling the same content is a scheme for profit. I will buy my own 16GB USB for 24.99 and upload the content I already bought. How can it be legal to extort consumers like this?
Blame Game
I submit that business interests have undermined the constitutional principle that bans indefinite copyrights. In the 1998, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, pushed the established boundaries further; here is the bill as S.505 that was enacted in 1998.
“the duration of copyright willbe 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation,whichever is shorter”. – Copyright Basics by US Copyright Office
Special interests have built a perpetually increasing structure of copyright length. Not only have these products seen profit, often grossly so, but they seem poised to retain these rights almost indefinitely – as much as corporeal beings can perceive. By the time these copyrights expire, all the authors would be dead! 
In Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) opinion, these growing limits were upheld;
“Nothing before this Court warrants construction of the CTEA’s (Sonny Bono Act) 20-year term extension as a congressional attempt to evade or override the “limited Times” constraint. Critically, petitioners fail to show how the CTEA crosses a constitutionally significant threshold with respect to “limited Times” that the 1831, 1909, and 1976 Acts did not. Those earlier Acts did not create perpetual copyrights, and neither does the CTEA”
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C.J., and O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., and Breyer, J., filed dissenting opinions. Lawrence Lessig, for petitioners. Theodore B. Olson , Great Falls, VA, for respondent.
At what constitutional point does a copyright fail for perpetual reasons? The reasoning of the court suggests that so long as the legislature defines a finite amount of time that it does not offend the constitutionality.
Due to lengthy copyrights, companies will inevitably derive a stream of profit from the public… even though The Beatles content is 40 years old. Further, the restrictive copyrights mean that they can keep reselling these same songs, on different formats, without violating any laws.
I, for one, can’t wait until the next arguments for 130 year copyrights. Take it away John.
