-Caveat Lector- "I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God,indivisible,with liberty and justice for all."
visit my web site at http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904 for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto: http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:45:00 -0700 From: Media Research Center <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MRC Alert Special: Raines' Rant, Clarke, Clinton on Terrorism & 9-11 Commission ***Media Research Center CyberAlert Special*** 5:45am EDT, Friday April 16, 2004 Today, a reprint of a piece on National Review Online, by the MRC's Clay Waters, about former New York Times Executive Editor Howard Raines' lengthy screed in the Atlantic magazine; plus four recent Creators syndicate columns by MRC President L. Brent Bozell: "'Embedded' Gets Shredded," "The Richard Clarke Assembly Line," "Terrorism, A Clinton Priority?" and "9-11 Commission Absurdities." > "Raines on His Parade: The former New York Times editor dwells on everybody else's mistakes," a piece by Clay Waters, Director of the MRC's "Times Watch" project, was posted Thursday on National Review Online: Clocking in at a novella-length 21,000 words (a thousand for every month he served as New York Times executive editor), Howell Raines's expose in the current Atlantic Monthly demonstrates that, in his own way, he's as self-infatuated as Jayson Blair. Hitting newsstands this week, "My Times" is a litany of complaints, spared only from dullness by the undeniable color of Raines's pungent style -- and his apparent eagerness to burn every bridge leading back to 43rd street. He hits at the "calcified front page" he inherited and even attacks the "sometimes mindless job guarantees" of the paper's union, a crack sure to lose Raines whatever rank-and-file affection he retains in his old newsroom. The recurring theme is that of Raines being constantly flummoxed by the paper's balky bureaucracy and the colleagues who lack his courage and vision. He trashes the paper sufficiently hard to make even its enemies blanch: "I thought the paper was becoming duller, slower, and more uneven in quality with every passing day....Key sections, including Arts & Leisure, had gone from predictable to dull to stultifying....Our coverage of culture, entertainment, style, and travel was in fact a shambles -- underfunded, unimaginative, and devoid of any unifying editorial sensibility....We had installed a new Sports editor and charged him with making us competitive with Sports Illustrated and USA Today, and with quietly searching for more provocative-columnists." The very idea of Raines looking for more provocative sports columnists is laughable, considering the way he and managing editor Gerald Boyd slammed columnists Harvey Araton and Dave Anderson for actually daring to be "provocative" by rebelling against the paper's editorial-page line on Augusta National. In a notorious October 2002 editorial, the Times had suggested Tiger Woods boycott the Masters golf tournament to protest host club Augusta National's male-only membership. Later, Boyd spiked an Araton column that went against the editorial line. In explanation, Boyd wrote an infamous memo saying that Araton's "logic did not meet our standards." In an interview for Alan Shipnuck's new book, The Battle for Augusta National, Raines explains he was away on business at the time and that the Araton spike was managing editor Gerald Boyd's fault, er, decision. Yet when a Dave Anderson column also criticized the paper's editorial line, Raines delivered the spike himself. Raines doesn't breathe a word about Augusta or the spikes in "My Times." Raines also goes after bloggers, a libertarian-leaning group in which his old-fashioned liberal activism proved unpopular: "The Times's image as a bastion of quality had become even more important as tabloid television, Britain's declining newspaper values, and the unsourced ranting of Internet bloggers polluted the journalistic mainstream of the United States." More surprisingly, he also attacks (who knew?) Times conservatives: "Another disturbing development, for which I was unprepared, was that a small enclave of neoconservative editors was making accusations of 'political correctness' in order to block stories or slant them against minorities and traditional social welfare programs." Such talk undermines the denial Raines made at an awards ceremony in February of 2003: "We must be aware of the energetic effort that is now underway to convince our readers that we are ideologues. It is an exercise in disinformation of alarming proportions." Naturally, Jayson Blair wasn't his fault either -- even though Raines had praised Blair's hiring in front of the National Association of Black Journalists in 2001. Instead, he blames Times metro editor Jon Landman for not copying him on the prescient memo in which Landman warned: "We have to stop Jayson from writing for The Times. Right now. " Raines huffs: "I do feel that had I been in the bureaucratic loop on the memo, the Jayson Blair story would have ended there." Perhaps Landman knew Raines had praised Blair in public and was reluctant to come out against the newsroom autocrat? One of the few times Raines faults himself is when he fails to fully appreciate the spinelessness of others: "It pains me to think that I didn't do enough to buck [Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger] up. Whatever his strengths and weaknesses, Arthur is his own man, and a different man from his father. Punch [Sulzberger] in his prime would never have thrown over one of his executive editors under the pressure of employees who didn't like the editor personally or who disagreed with a legitimate strategy for reinvigorating the Times's journalism....I didn't bother to check his emotional temperature often enough." Raines's healthy ego quickly recovers from being kicked off the Times. Suddenly, he's focusing on higher things, dismissing the significance of daily journalism in favor of the truth and beauty of his true calling, literature: "I do not miss the daily grind of newspapering or the ephemeral nature of newspaper writing. Since I was twelve or so, my strongest interest has been in literature, and I'll be turning in that direction during the extra years I've secured by getting fired." The world of literature may be enriched by Raines. But as "My Times" makes clear, the New York Times is better off without him. END of Reprint of piece by Clay Waters It's posted online at: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/waters200404150850.asp The Atlantic's Web site has an excerpt from the Raines piece: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/05/raines-excerpts.htm (You need to subscribe for $24.95 to access the entire article.) For Clay's daily postings documenting liberal bias in the New York Times: http://www.timeswatch.org # Now, the text of four Bozell columns from the last couple of months, from oldest to newest: > Bozell's March 23 column, "'Embedded' Gets Shredded" Hollywood is filled with arrogant artists, people who feel uniquely endowed by an artistic sensitivity to the plight of humanity. That bulging social conscience is so untrammeled in its brilliance that anyone who questions it must be a paid lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. Exhibit A for this arrogance is the actor and budding playwright Tim Robbins, now wowing the off-Broadway counterculture with his anti-liberation of Iraq play "Embedded," his latest attempt to wrestle the conservative colossus into crying uncle. Once again, he is only making a spectacle of himself. The public first caught this side of Robbins with the 1992 movie "Bob Roberts," a sneering pseudo-satire he wrote. Robbins played a criminally corrupt conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate who, thanks in large part to his talent for folk-singing media manipulation, defeats a noble liberal incumbent and thereby serves the interests of the thieving, drug-running power elite that really runs this country. In 1993, Robbins and his spouse and fellow leftist Susan Sarandon memorably hijacked an Academy Awards platform for a bloviating protest of the Clinton administration's failure to import HIV-positive Haitians. (Years later, they'd speak out in favor of exporting Elian Gonzalez back to Castro.) Robbins is adamant: this was not a "political statement," and that he's never used any awards ceremony for political theatre. Last year, Robbins drew loving media attention for going to the National Press Club and warning of a "chill wind" condemning his right to freely express his hatred of any attempt to overturn Saddam Hussein.(In fact, he and his wife even protested the trade embargo of Saddam's starve-the-poor, build-another-palace dictatorship.) Robbins only lost a booking at the Baseball Hall of Fame. But the reporters who hung on his words in Washington never noted that in 2000, Robbins led his fellow actors in an effort to ruin the career of British actress Elizabeth Hurley, who made the mistake of appearing in an Estee Lauder commercial when she wasn't aware of an American strike. "We are bringing Hurley to trial," urged the prosecutorial Robbins. She was fined $100,000 by the Screen Actors Guild for her unfortunate outburst of free speech. Robbins' overwhelming feelings of victimhood led him to write his play "Embedded," about heroic soldiers wrongly sent to Iraq by conniving, greedy, "neoconservative" leaders and, in an even more ridiculous caricature, war-mongering, military-boot-licking reporters. Central to the plot are a sextet of grotesquely masked "President's men," who are linked to the Bush White House by such clever nicknames as Dick, Pearly White, Gondola, Wolfy, and Rum Rum. Once again, Robbins feels it is inaccurate to describe this propagandistic play as a "political statement," insisting he doesn't know "what the message is." Fortunately for those who haven't rushed to New York and surrendered fifty bucks, the critics have nailed the play, and hard. Start with AP's drama critic: "Embalmed is more like it. Tim Robbins' heavy-handed harangue is satirical deadwood....that should send audiences of all political persuasions fleeing up the aisles." Ouch. Then see the New York Daily News: "If you or I had sent as slapdash and adolescent a script as �Embedded' to the Public Theater, the wary literary manager might not even have sent back a standard rejection letter, lest it invite a correspondence with a writer who was clearly a crank. But then, you and I are not celebrities." Eek. Even the liberal New York Times couldn't muster a cheer: "Audience members already in sympathy with Mr. Robbins's political views -- the folks, in other words, most likely to attend 'Embedded' -- will quite possibly go from nodding in agreement to simply nodding off." Three strikes and you're out. But a closer look makes the spectacle even more grotesque. Critic Terry Teachout noticed that the character "Pearly White" supposedly quotes the philosopher Leo Strauss: "Moral virtue only exists in popular opinion, where it serves the purpose of controlling the unintelligent majority." Teachout suspected the quote was bogus, and a Google internet search quickly vindicated his suspicion. This supposed Strauss quote actually came, by several odd strands of interpretation, from one Tony Papert, who was writing for the Executive Intelligence Review -- an infamous publication of the perennial presidential candidate/crank Lyndon LaRouche. Robbins is so far off the political radar screen with his play that he's using baked quotes out of the Twilight Zone of LaRouchie magazines! Teachout mildly concluded: "None of this, of course, has any necessary bearing on the theatrical quality of 'Embedded.' But it does suggest that Tim Robbins, whatever his other virtues, is not a man to be trusted with facts." As they say, facts are stubborn things. But probably not as stubborn (and stubbornly wrong) as Tim Robbins. END Reprint of first of four columns > Bozell's March 25 column, "The Richard Clarke Assembly Line" As the American political system negotiated its way through Richard Clarke Week, there is one overarching political lesson: the national media monolith manufactures the "news" any way it desires, a crude daily sculpting of political Silly Putty. It can make someone a household name. It can leave someone utterly unknown in Idaho. Richard Clarke Week was the latest widget of propaganda from the liberal-media assembly line, designed with an extremely partisan purpose -- destroying whatever polling advantage George W. Bush enjoys on protecting the nation from terrorism. Ask this question: if this previously obscure Richard Clarke had come out with a book in March of 2000 arguing that the Clinton administration was soft on terrorism, would he have received a similar parade of encomiums (and soon, honorariums)? Would his remarks have been received as a refreshingly independent voice raising serious questions that must be seriously answered by a negligent President Clinton? Answer: No stinking way. Why not? Because the liberal-media establishment, starting with the New York publishing houses and then trickling onward to the networks and national print kings, never had any interest in books which could prove damaging to President Clinton. Richard Clarke couldn't count on "60 Minutes" or Simon & Schuster to make him a millionaire back then. (Simon & Schuster is well-known as the long-time publishing home of Hillary Clinton, as well as James Carville.) Any Clinton administration insider who pondered a tell-all book knew that the probable reception at the end of the tunnel was at worst, complete obscurity with all your bridges burned. At best, you'd get a serious media beating as a disloyal snake, with all your bridges burned. The exception to this rule was George Stephanopoulos, but he was far too famous to be relegated to obscurity when his memoir "All Too Human" came out in March of 1999. If his long stint as a paid liar for President Clinton hadn't made him famous, ABC News certainly had already invested several years into making him "Objective" News Man. But he still was hammered as a disloyal fink. In her interview, Katie Couric suggested he was "creepy," a "Linda Tripp type," who was betraying those people who made him, which is "sorta gross." A better example of the serious-media-beating principle is Gary Aldrich, the former FBI agent assigned to Clinton White House security, who wrote the best-selling book "Unlimited Access" for the conservative Regnery house. Aldrich received one TV interview on ABC's "This Week," in which conservative George Will ripped him up one side and down the other. (The next segment was Clinton aide Stephanopoulos ripping the author up and down.) Intense White House pressure caused Aldrich to be dropped from scheduled bookings on ABC's "Nightline," NBC's "Dateline," and CNN's "Larry King Live." Showing he's still good with a bald-faced lie, Stephanopoulos insisted on "Good Morning America" that no White House had never mobilized before Richard Clarke Week to challenge an author's credibility with such intensity: "On a book? No, never. It's never happened before." Shame on ABC for putting that ridiculous notion on the air without correction. Let's examine a more recent example of how a disloyal Democrat is received. In mid-October 2003, former Clinton HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo performed publicity for his new book "Crossroads," a compilation of liberal and conservative pieces he edited. He appeared in tepid interview sessions on Fox with Bill O'Reilly, on MSNBC with Joe Scarborough, and on NPR with Tavis Smiley. A week later, the New York Post's Fred Dicker noticed that Cuomo's introduction was a blazing attack on the Democratic establishment. Democrats lost elections in 2000 and 2002 because "we were lost in time...To voters, we seemed bloodless, soulless and clueless." Young Cuomo was especially harsh on September 11. Democrats "fumbled the seminal moment of our lives -- the terrorist attacks of 9/11." While Bush "exemplified leadership....on the Democratic side, there was chaos. We handled 9/11 like it was a debate over a highway bill instead of a matter of people's lives." The media could have made it Andrew Cuomo Week. Instead, Cuomo's book introduction received a very supine TV silence. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN did zilch. Chris Matthews mentioned it in passing on MSNBC, and Fox's Sean Hannity and Brit Hume each noticed for a minute. But days later, no one could remember these passages ever being published. This is how 2004 is unfolding with our partisan press. Every week is a Bush-bashing week. There's Paul O'Neill Week. There's National Guard Dental Records Week. There's 9-11 Ad Bad Taste Week. There's Richard Clarke Week. Won't it be deeply funny when we get to November and the voters revolt at the transparent liberal bias, and it ends up being Bush's Re-Election Year? END Reprint of second of four columns > Bozell's March 30 column, "Terrorism, A Clinton Priority?" Tom Brokaw was playing government watchdog the other night, interviewing Condoleezza Rice right in the middle of the "NBC Nightly News." Now the evening anchors almost never do interviews during their newscasts, so you have to assume that Brokaw had something very important to ask. But how could you take Brokaw's questioning seriously after watching him swallow whole Richard Clarke's rotten-egg notion that fighting terrorism was Job One in the Clinton years? The Brokaw transcript read like this: "Mr. Clarke said today that terrorism was the highest priority of the Clinton administration. It was important to you, but it was not the highest priority. Any student, I think, of the early days of your administration might have thought that China, Russia, Iraq, missile defense systems, were probably higher on the president's agenda." Rice could have responded by falling out of her chair with laughter. Terrorism, the highest priority of the Clinton administration? Or she could have responded with a list of the real Clinton foreign policy priorities: 1. Maintaining Clinton's approval ratings. This would include ineffective military strikes on terrorist targets and pharmaceutical factories, transparently timed to shift the news media's attention away from inconvenient topics like impeachment and lying under oath about sexual sloppiness. 2. Building Clinton's legacy and his chances for a Nobel Peace Prize. This would include ruling out any U.S. response to the killing of Americans on the U.S.S. Cole, since it might have jeopardized Clinton's end-of-term Middle East "peace" partnership with Yasser Arafat. 3. Globe-trotting apologies for everything America has done in its history, real or imagined. This correlates to number 2, see: Nobel Prize, pandering for. 4. Broadening "national security" to include panicked theorizing about global warming from cattle flatulence and other imminent threats. Al Gore told him Earth was hanging in the balance. 5. Fighting the bad guys with that intimidating tool, the treaty designed to ban weapons and weapons testing. Let's not forget how this exercise in Realpolitik affected North Korea. They signed a treaty with Clinton to end weapons development in exchange for aid, which it began violating with impunity about two minutes later. 6. Shaping military-technology export policy to fit the demands of campaign contributors, both domestic and the illegal foreign kind. At the very least, the National Security Advisor could have reminded Mr. Brokaw that President Clinton was so anti-anti-terrorism that he let members of the Puerto Rican terror group FALN out of prison in 1999. (This group was best known for their bombing of New York's historic Fraunces Tavern in 1975, killing four and wounding 60.) The move was so politically tin-eared that the Senate voted 95-2 to call Clinton's clemency "deplorable." Interestingly enough, Tom Brokaw didn't cover that vote. In November of 1999, a White House memo surfaced showing Clinton counsel Charles Ruff was urged to add his support for FALN clemency to help Al Gore's political aspirations: "The VP's Puerto Rican position would be helped" by the clemency. Brokaw didn't cover that story, either. The utterly partisan and selective scrutiny of Brokaw and others on the supposed inattention and failures of Bush's anti-terror policy in comparison to Clinton's is thoroughly unfair and logically contradictory. How do you hold Team Bush more accountable for eight months in 2001 (a large chunk of which unfolded without top officials in place during the confirmation process) than the Clinton gang was for eight years of pussyfooting? How, after punishing the Bush White House for years for supposedly squashing civil liberties and generally acting too aggressively in the War on Terror, can you turn around and completely bash their failure to pass the Patriot Act or attack Afghanistan sooner? This increasingly partisan 9-11 Commission issue is being played up by the TV news elite as a way to make the American people forget the Bush administration's record in dismantling al-Qaeda. They can bash Bush for what he did before 9-11, and then bash what he did after 9-11, and then bash how he portrays 9-11 in his campaign ads. But they cannot simply suggest to the American people in this very political season that the war on terror hasn't resulted in any victories worth noting. But worse than this shooting bullets at Bushies from every direction is the annual compounding of historical ignorance on the real Clinton record. Not only did the networks avoid the dithering failures and craven political calculations as they unfolded, but now they're repainting the Clintonistas as vigilant comic-book heroes who make Bush look weak and apathetic by comparison. That's not just prevarication. That's hallucination. END Reprint of third of four columns > Bozell's April 13 column, "9-11 Commission Absurdities" When Condoleezza Rice raised her right hand to begin a much-anticipated TV show on April 8 -- broadcast live for three hours on ABC, CBS, and NBC -- the absurdities were already in full swing. Absurdity #1: Where was the "news" here? The September 11 Commission was learning almost nothing new, since Rice had already testified for four hours in private. All that was left was a political spectacle. The liberal media-Democrat complex wanted to give the impression that the Bush administration had done something criminally wrong. That might seem hypersensitive, but wasn't it that very hypersensitivity to impressions that caused the networks to dismiss reflexively any idea of live coverage of Clinton-scandal hearings, including the Senate impeachment trial in 1999, which they dropped like a hot potato within 90 minutes? The TV elite did not want to give the impression that Clinton had -- gasp! -- done anything wrong at any point. Back then, the network stars suggested those hearings were primarily designed to "embarrass the president." Where was that sensitivity for the current president? Absurdity #2: The idea that the September 11 Commission was utterly nonpartisan. That's utter bunk. For months, the Bush team was trashed for opposing an "independent" commission looking into these matters in a sensitive political season. But can anyone now look at the Democratic badgering, interrupting, and dismissing of Rice and see a nonpartisan picture? We were told that the commission's chairmen, Republican Tom Kean and Democrat Lee Hamiltion, were so scrupulous about a nonpartisan image that they preferred to do every interview as a team. While Kean and Hamilton have acquitted themselves quite well in their nonpartisanship, this obviously did not extend to the Friday morning TV shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC. They all featured commission member (and former Democratic presidential candidate) Bob Kerrey fulminating about all the Bush administration's laxity before September 11. If the partisan pounding on Rice in the live coverage (complete with Kerrey's off-point anti-Iraq war speech, followed by audience applause) wasn't enough to convince the public that the hearings were a partisan effort, then Kerrey's trilogy of trash talk should have done the job. Absurdity #3: The idea that the activists who forced the creation of this politicized "independent" commission were just a group of nonpartisan widows with no political axes to grind. How dishonest. For weeks now, the networks have celebrated a very selective set of widows to dish out their anti-Bush outrage, and ignored the families who support President Bush. On the day of Rice's testimony, NBC and then MSNBC championed four women known as the "Jersey Girls," who uniformly hate Bush, especially Kristen Breitweiser, who has coldly and routinely declared that 3,000 Americans were "murdered on Bush's watch." Meanwhile, a Nexis search quickly shows that NBC has aired no news story with the words "widow" and the U.S.S. Cole, where terrorists killed 17 Americans in 2000. NBC aired no news story with the words "widow" and the embassy in Kenya, where terrorists killed 12 Americans in 1998. NBC aired no news story with the words "widow" and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where terrorists killed 19 Americans in 1996. These grieving families have never been given a nationwide TV platform on NBC to express their opinions on how the Clinton administration handled investigations of those incidents. Absurdity #4: While everyone chewed over the public testimony of Rice in the morning, the private testimony of Bill Clinton in the afternoon was almost totally ignored by the press. Here's the entirety of Dan Rather's coverage: "The 9-11 Commission also met in private today, taking testimony from former president Bill Clinton behind closed doors for more than three hours. In a statement, the panel said the former president was, and I quote, 'forthcoming and responsive' to its questions, but gave no other details." The next morning, NBC's Ann Curry briefly mentioned: "Former President Clinton has testified before the 9/11 commission behind closed doors. Commission members described Thursday's three-hour meeting as frank and constructive." What did he say? The networks didn't seem to care. On Fox, reporter James Rosen found Clinton wasn't exactly apologizing: "The former president also said that he has been racking his brain to see over and over again what else he might have done and he can't think of anything else he would have done to target al-Qaeda." Commissioner Slade Gorton suggested to Fox that "a great deal" of the commission's private Clinton time was devoted to assessing future needs and discussing what recommendations should go into the commission's final report, not grilling Clinton about his failures. It's not hard to predict that whatever the commission puts into its report, the criticism of Clinton within the document will be minimized, and the comments that make Bush look bad will saturate the news -- just like the "news" coverage of April 8. END Reprint of fourth of four columns For the archive of Bozell columns: http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/newscol/welcome.asp -- Brent Baker >>> Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax- deductible donation. To safely and securely donate via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&i tem_name=Media+Research+Center&item_number=Media+Research+Center&n o_note=1&tax=0¤cy_code=USD Or, if you can't get the lengthy link into your browser's address line, go to the MRC's home page ( http://www.mediaresearch.org ) and click on the gold "Support the MRC" logo in the top right corner. That will take you to the same place. To subscribe to CyberAlert, go to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cybersub.asp Or, send a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the link at the very bottom of this message. Send problems and comments to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday afternoon. To subscribe, go to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cybersub.asp#webnews <<< ==================================================================== Update Your Profile: http://mrccyberalert.f.topica.com/f/?bUrD57.bnz25K.d2JhY29u Unsubscribe: http://mrccyberalert.f.topica.com/f/?bUrD57.bnz25K.d2JhY29u.u Confirm Your Subscription: http://mrccyberalert.f.topica.com/f/?bUrD57.bnz25K.d2JhY29u.c Delivered by Topica: http://www.topica.com/?p=T3FOOTER www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
