-Caveat Lector-
RadTimes # 110 November, 2000
An informally produced compendium of vital irregularities.
"We're living in rad times!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:
---------------
--UN Focuses On Turmoil In Amerikistan [satire?]
--No matter who wins, the president will be a bastard
--What Did the Nader Campaign Accomplish?
--Voter News Service under scrutiny
--New documents shed more light on FBI's "Carnivore"
Linked stories:
*Calif. Initiative Could Overwhelm State Treatment Programs
*Ontario to Drug Test Welfare Recipients
*Researchers Develop Way to ID Coke Origin
*Court halts US election result
*Carnivore Can Read Everything
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin stories:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN Focuses On Turmoil In Amerikistan
After two decades in which social and financial inequalities
widened amidst unsustainable speculative development, the
country of Amerikistan held presidential elections this week.
The two leading candidates were both drawn from a tiny
elite, both spent vast sums on propaganda, and both have claimed
victory. Experts on Amerikistan recall the history of violent
revolution, civil war and more recent political violence and
assassinations, resignations, impeachments, sexual scandals and
corruption in this emergent republic, and recommend that the UN
supervise its elections until the country stabilizes.
"It is struggling to emerge from years of political
polarization and turmoil" said a World Trade Organization
spokesperson, "and its long-suffering people deserve our
support."
"One side of the country declared results before voting had
finished in another part" he explained. Moreover, he went on to
spell out that the southern province of 'Floridia,' in which
the leadership struggle is being fought, is run by the brother of
one of the candidates, whose father had previously ruled the
entire country, having risen through his control of the nation's
intelligence/security apparatus. Their family is based in a part
of the country in which secessionist feelings have long run
strong and which was only incorporated into Amerikistan after
a border war.
Experts on Amerikistan argue that the UN should go in to
run education programs, disarm the population, relieve the
malnutrition and environmental problems caused by adherence to a
staple diet of cheese and burgers, democratize the police forces
and above all halt the further development of war machinery.
"This country has used dangerous weapons in the past and
often threatened to do so again. But with our help,
modernization, and a stress on human development, it may have a
more stable future and join the ranks of the civilized
international community" he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter who wins, the president will be a bastard
by Terry J. Allen
The campaign was a minuet performed by robots; the post_election period is a
bacchanal. What a relief. It's just too bad one of these mediocre men has to
win. But the good news is that the victor will be perceived by much of the
population as illegitimate. And that is not only as it should be, but how it
would have been, even without the post-election crisis.
Bush and Gore's campaigns were full of sound and lack of fury, signifying
nothing but focus group pandering and the power of cash; the process by
which they were chosen had little to do with the "will of the people"; and
the platforms on which they ran were as calculated and artificial as plastic
topiary.
The system has long been in thrall to the big money that sponsors and
choreographs the electoral show. This time however, the process spun out of
control at a crucial moment. Suddenly millions at home, and abroad where
America has flogged its system as a flawless model, see that the way "the
world's greatest democracy" chooses leaders is slightly more democratic than
a dog fight.
With all the rubbernecking magnetism of a 10-car pile up, "The Battle for
the White House," as MSNBC packages its coverage, is not only good dirty
fun, it is, actually, good for the country, especially compared with the
inevitable denouement: installing either of these corrupted ciphers in the
oval office.
In fact, the longer the crisis continues, the better it is. That the US
electoral system is flawed and unfair should hardly be news, but suddenly it
is. Sounding sillier than a Dan Rather simile, the candidates and their
defense dogs have couched each self-serving maneuver as a commitment to
serve the "will of the public" and as a pledge to do what is "best for the
country." Is there anyone within retching distance of a TV who has failed to
notice that the good of the country meshes precisely with the strategic
needs of each candidate?
To call them hypocrites does disservice to true hypocrites everywhere. At
least hypocrites have principles to betray. Bush and Gore are simply
self_serving opportunists. Bush instantly abandoned his keystone "trust in
the people" and switched his faith to machines and K-Street lawyers. His
argument about the accuracy of hand counting has more holes than a West Palm
Beach ballot. It also directly contradicts policies he implemented as
governor. Grabbing presidential trappings, even before the votes were
counted, he began compiling a transition team, meeting with advisers,
calling his wife "First Lady Bush."
Gore, authentic as the Valium-calm he projects, veils his raw ambition with
the desire--discovered midway through the campaign--to "fight for the
people." Donning a Kennedyesque mantle, he frolicked gawkily at touch
football while his surrogates intoned against a "rush to judgement"--a
phrase laden with the seductive scent of JFK-done-wrong, spiced with the
provocative undertone of conspiracy.
Meanwhile, dueling gurus of gravitas, including two second-rate
ex-secretaries of state, fertilize bouquets of network microphones with
talking points.
The only thing missing from this farce is the vision of Dukakis, helmet
plopped on head, in the lead tank of what the Wall Street Journal toyed with
calling a coup.
The spectacle is a political junkie's OJ trial, with the verdict hinging on
a mountain of law suits, a molehill of ballots, and a PR war based on who
can invoke, more piously and more often, "the good of the country."
But buried in the post-vote wreckage lies a body of home truths: The
Electoral College is a fundamentally elitist institution, designed from the
get-go to deprive the rabble of direct control. Despite the tight races, we
learned in graphic (projected round-the-clock on our TV screens) detail that
every vote does not count, since every vote is not counted. Election results
are inaccurate, subject to bias, and amenable to fraud. The number of people
disenfranchised by spoiled, unclear, or unreadable ballots is new only in
its uncharacteristic newsworthiness. Courts and public oversight bodies are
often as partisan as the politicians to who they are beholden. And the very
importance placed this year on absentee ballots, including those in the
Armed Forces, illustrates how little importance was placed on them in the
past. Far more disturbing are reports that significant numbers of people
were disenfranchised because of race, arrest records and official
harassment.
Throughout, the media chorus has been singing one-part harmony, from wrong
calls on election night, to the interchangeable parade of experts describing
the country as deeply divided, "deeply" being somehow equated with "evenly."
In fact, the majority of Americans were united throughout the dreary
election cycle by a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate. On election
day, the half of the population that chose not to vote expressed its wishes
at least as clearly as the half that did.
When the results are finalized, the lesson the pundits and politicians will
inevitably and absurdly tout is that, despite the need for a few technical
fixes, the system worked. A more sane conclusion would be that it didn't and
that we need to scrap the Electoral College, publicly finance campaigns,
give free air time to all candidates and disenfranchise corporations.
This election is one of those watershed events such as Watergate and the
Vietnam War that erode public faith in the fantasy that politicians are
public servants and government serves the people. Despite the vigorous
spindoctoring by media and politicians, most people will come away from the
2000 election convinced that the president is illegitimate. Some will
understand that what is anomalous about this year is the obviousness rather
than the fact of that illegitimacy. It remains to be seen whether that
recognition will engender cynicism or skepticism, apathy or activism,
scapegoating or radical reform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Did the Nader Campaign Accomplish?
The Observer (UK)
November 12, 2000
By Christopher Hitchens
Here are some reasons to be glad that Ralph Nader put
himself forward for the presidency:
1. He broke America's dirtiest and least-known secret, which
is that the high-sounding "Electoral College" system is
designed to keep the rabble from picking the President.
2. He broke America's second-dirtiest and best-known secret,
which is that the voting process in many states - especially
the state of Carl Hiassen - is tainted by corruption and
manipulation.
3. He exposed the pretensions of the two major party machines,
both of which covertly agree on these "rules" as long as they
can share the spoils.
4. He showed it is still possible to run an intelligent and
articulate campaign, using free and informal rather than
paid media, while refusing any donation of more than $1,000
in a year when $3 billion, in so-called "soft" but actually
illegal money, was raised and spent by the two presumptive
and dynastic nominees.
5. He made a fool of the commercial media networks, all of
which take the aforementioned money in advertising revenue
and all of which not only misrepresented the issues in the
race but messed up the one thing they are supposed to get
"right" - the foreordained and poll-driven result.
These, and some other things I"ll mention in a moment, make
Nader the most successful and necessary American radical for
decades. Yet all you hear from Al Gore's outriders and dummy-
ventriloquists is that he "spoilt" things for their man.
This is a ridiculous noise, compounded of self-pity and
a "spoilt" sense of entitlement. Here are some obvious
correctives to it:
1. In a year when the Democrats campaigned against an
unpopular Republican Congress, they failed to retake either
the Senate or the House. (And, in the most salient seats
they did hold or take, they relied on a dead man on the
ballot and on a man who spent a record $60 million of
his own personal fortune.)
The Green Party was not running for Congress. But if it had
been, the Democrats would still have blamed Nader rather
than themselves for the defeat.
2. Gore lost several key states (including his own home
state of Tennessee where the Nader vote was negligible)
by several other "margins". These include:
(a) The almost 100 million Americans he could not get to
vote for him.
(b) The number of people who are disenfranchised because of
non-violent narcotics convictions (estimated in Florida and
elsewhere to number 13 per cent of the adult black male
population, alone).
(c) The number of people who voted for Pat Buchanan's
ill-named Reform Party.
Gore could not motivate the first group. He loudly approves
of the "War on Drugs" that incarcerates and then disenfranchises
the second. And nobody - certainly no Republican - ever said
Buchanan had no business running on his own programme.
It is only in liberal circles that one hears party pluralism
denounced as something akin to treason or sabotage. The Veep's
hacks ignore all the above factors and blame the crisis on
those voters who decided to think for themselves (to vote
for Nader, for example, because he is the only candidate
who favours decriminalising marijuana and abolishing
capital punishment).
A few months ago there was a convention of American
political scientists in my home town of Washington. They
unveiled a new "model" of the American electoral mindset,
and announced confidently that in a year like this the
Vice President could not be beaten.
No Republican challenger, they said, could hope to prevail
at a time of huge prosperity at home and peace overseas. I
thought this might be too complacent, but not by that much.
And still Gore managed to blow it, and to make himself
vulnerable to one of the most mediocre candidates in
US history.
He cannot whine about this; not after failing in Tennessee.
Yet in the tones of his partisans one can hear an aggrieved
intolerance. On election night at a party thrown by Miramax,
some were overheard by the Washington Post to say they would
like to "kill", not Bush or Buchanan, but Ralph Nader.
The newly anointed Senatorial First Lady, in whose honour
the party was thrown, echoed the thought. I have heard the
same thing, in the same words, all over the airwaves and
on my email, from clapped-out liberal journos and those
who hoped for a job from Gore. These types ornamented the
top-dollar "fundraising" events and "meet'n'greet" soirees
with Hollywood's deep thinkers; their annoyance is music
to my ears.
They thought they had bought a share in "the process" and
found the share (and much of the process) was worthless.
High time. Take one example. For eight years Gore abased
himself for Clinton and uttered abject defences he knew to
be untrue.
Then on two occasions in the campaign, he announced he was
suddenly "distanced" from all that and had miraculously
become "my own man". Well, it's one thing to say it, big
boy, and another thing to be it.
Exit polls, most notably in Florida, discovered a huge number
of voters who were disgusted by Clinton and Clintonism. These
people have a right to vote, too. And what does Gore tell them?
"Didn't you hear me? I distinctly said I was 'distanced'."
Come on.
This would not be the only time this terrible candidate
mistook his own spin for reality. After the Los Angeles
convention he abruptly announced he was a foe of fat cats
and big corporations and a friend of the "people" and the
little guy.
But the logos and the donations of corporate America were
displayed all over the convention and paid for his campaign.
Who did he imagine he was fooling? As with his excruciating
performance in the three public "debates", it was enough to
irritate the Republicans, but it was also enough to make
people in the centre feel embarrassed and people on the
left feel sick.
And after this, to pose as if it's simply your turn to be
President. The achievement of Nader, however, is far more
than the exposure of this phoney politics. From now on two
crucial matters will be established in the American mind.
First, the Electoral College system must be reformed or
abolished to give expression to the popular vote. This will
also compel a reconsideration of the small state/swing state
tyranny, whereby small and rural states outvote large, populous,
urban and multi-ethnic ones. That is several decades overdue.
Second, the issue of ballot-rigging and voter fraud, almost
undiscussed since Kennedy's crimes in 1960, is now unavoidable.
The next election will have to be "transparent". Neither major
party would have mentioned either of these things if the vote
had fallen "their" way, or either of their ways.
Again, Nader was the only man running who dared say the
process itself was undemocratic. Now US citizens can begin
to catch up with Mexico and Serbia by insisting on an open
election instead of a pre-arranged and money-driven plebiscite.
While the Florida factor remains in play, let us recall two
things the Gore ticket did to try to take this bizarre state.
Earlier this year the US courts ruled that young Elian
Gonzalez, survivor of a shipwreck that drowned his mother,
should be returned to his father's custody in Cuba. Some
Cuban exile extremists then in effect kidnapped him, and
the mayor of Miami announced in a crowd-pleasing way he
would not comply with the court order.
It was the most flagrant assertion of "states' rights" against
the federal government since the days of segregation. Gore's
contribution, as a senior member of that federal government,
was to announce he sympathised with the kidnappers.
This gross irresponsibility and pandering was repeated last
month when Senator Joseph Lieberman paid a visit to Miami,
announced that a Gore administration would never open
diplomatic relations with Cuba, and laid a wreath on the
grave of Jorge Mas Canosa, a leading Miami Cuban mobster.
This put him and the Vice President in a position well
to the right of the last Bush administration. But more
important, it showed they are small-timers, cheap ward-
heelers and unscrupulous opportunists.
There was a remark much-repeated at the beginning of this
dismal campaign, when it became evident the large donors had
already determined on the two nominees. "If only," people
said "they could both lose." This wry comment was heard
through the attenuated primaries, the fixed conventions
and the scripted "debates".
Well, now they both have lost. And they are both looking, and
acting, like the peevish third-raters they are. Confronted
by two such pygmies it would be overstating matters to call
Nader a giant-slayer. But the system for all its faults does
allow for insurgent candidates to make a difference and one
should be grateful rather than irritable that, in this
respect at least, the system worked.
----
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for "Vanity Fair" and
"The Nation". His latest book, "No One Left to Lie To: The
Values of the Worst Family" is published in paperback by
Verso.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voter News Service under scrutiny
<http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0%2C2107%2C500280689-500440760-502836932-0,00.html>
November 17, 2000
By DAVID BAUDER, Associated Press
NEW YORK - Voter News Service, formed to help television networks quickly
report and explain election results, now stands at the center of one of
television's most embarrassing moments in years.
The little-known company that provides news organizations with exit poll
information and election returns is being scrutinized after the networks'
double-barreled mistake in the presidential race: prematurely declaring Al
Gore the winner in Florida and then George W. Bush several hours later. More
than a week later, the real results are still in doubt.
Fox News Channel founder and CEO Roger Ailes already has said he wants to
replace the consortium set up by ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC and The Associated
Press with more than one service.
"As far as I'm concerned," CBS anchor Dan Rather said to radio commentator
Don Imus about VNS, "we have to knock it down to absolute ground zero, plow
it under with salt, put a barbed-wire fence around it, quarantine it for a
few years and start off with something new."
VNS projected Florida for Gore early on election night, and all six of its
media members did, too. VNS did not call the race for Bush; five of its six
members did, some citing numbers provided by VNS. The AP never called the
race for Bush.
VNS has issued two public statements but would not make its executives
available for comment.
"There's a congressional investigation, there's a lawsuit pending," said VNS
editorial director Murray Edelman. "It's a pretty inflamed subject right
now," he said, and VNS doesn't want to "pour any more kerosene on it."
VNS traces its roots to the mid-1960s, when the News Election Service was
formed to help the networks, AP and United Press International conduct vote
tallies. Voter Research & Surveys was created in 1990 for the TV networks to
share the costs of exit polling and projections. AP and UPI were not
involved in VRS.
The two services merged as VNS in 1993. Based in New York, it has about 30
permanent employees.
On Election Day, VNS, using temporary workers in every state, conducted exit
polls in about 1,400 precincts, transmitting findings to its members in
waves that afternoon and evening. Voters were asked, for example, who they
selected for president and what issues mattered most in their decision.
When actual votes began coming in, VNS checked results in more than 3,500
precincts scientifically selected to predict final results.
Forty-five of those exit poll locations and 110 sample precincts were in
Florida, and the first word from them pointed in the direction of a Gore
victory. Exit poll information alone showed Gore in the lead by 6.5
percentage points. The first voting results indicated the Gore exit poll
lead might even have been understated, said Warren Mitofsky, a polling
expert who founded Voter Research & Surveys and consulted with CNN and CBS
on election night.
At 7:52 p.m., VNS declared Gore the winner in Florida.
At the time, VNS was relying on exit poll information from 38 of its
precincts and actual votes from 12 locations. Sheldon Gawiser, NBC's
director of elections, said the data indicated there was a one in 1,000
chance that Gore wouldn't win.
"All of the evidence was pointing toward a Gore call - all of it," agreed
Kathleen Frankovic, director of surveys at CBS.
None of the news organizations that use VNS make calls strictly through what
it says; all have their own systems that take into account such factors as
past voting histories in states.
Frankovic and Gawiser are in charge at their networks, Carolyn Smith and Tom
Hannon at CNN. John Ellis - Bush's first cousin - was the election team
director at Fox News Channel, although the network said executive John Moody
made the final calls. The AP's system involves election analysts and state
bureau chiefs.
The call for Gore was unanimous among the networks and the AP.
"The exit poll gave Gore a small lead but no member nor VNS thought that it
was enough to call the race with confidence," VNS said in a statement.
"However, when reports of actual vote from sample or model precincts came
in, they supported the survey results and allowed the race to be called."
By around 9 p.m., additional returns were making some analysts nervous and
Bush himself was questioning the call. CNN put Florida in the undecided
category at 9:50 p.m. and others followed suit. VNS retracted its Gore
projection at 10:13 p.m.
Some VNS members have theorized that the company underestimated the number
of Bush votes coming in through absentee ballots or that the sample
precincts were poorly chosen.
"The sample as a whole is too Democratic and we need to find out what that
means," Gawiser said.
Although VNS said in a statement that the sampling precinct models "have
served us well through many elections," the company said it will investigate
why they didn't work this time.
By the time midnight passed and it became evident that Florida would likely
decide the next president, exit poll information was replaced by actual
results in the data VNS sent by computer to its members.
Fox News Channel was the first to declare Bush the victor in Florida at 2:16
a.m. ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN had all done so by 2:20. The AP, relying on
analysis that showed significant votes were still unreported from heavily
Democratic counties, never made that call.
Neither did VNS. But networks said they used information provided by VNS in
making the premature determination that Bush had won.
The experts said VNS's computer tabulations were flashing numbers that made
a Gore victory seem virtually impossible. Gawiser said they showed Bush with
a 55,000 vote lead with only 102,000 votes left to be counted.
Both those numbers proved to be wrong. Shortly after the networks called the
race, word came in that because of a computer glitch in Volusia County,
Bush's lead had been overestimated by nearly 25,000 votes. The projection of
the total uncounted vote also proved to be too low.
Frankovic and Mitofsky say they're not sure what happened, if VNS should be
held accountable for passing along bad information or if county officials
reported bad numbers used by the service.
"I think it's probably a rush to judgment to blame VNS immediately,"
Frankovic said.
VNS said the Bush call was made "solely on the basis of the tabulated vote
indicating that Bush appeared to have a sufficient lead to say with
confidence that he had won. As the remaining votes were tabulated, that lead
dropped dramatically and the members felt that even though Bush was still
ahead, the responsible thing to do was to withdraw the call."
Network representatives have stressed that they made their own independent
judgments to declare Florida for Bush, even though five of them made the
same call within five minutes of each other.
"Obviously, when you have competition, you can always assume there is more
urgency to do something," Mitofsky said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New documents shed more light on FBI's "Carnivore"
<http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-3731884.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni>
By Rachel Konrad
November 16, 2000
The FBI released additional documents about its controversial
Carnivore technology Thursday, and critics immediately lambasted it as
proof that the email-tapping program is more powerful and invasive
than the government has disclosed.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which sued the FBI
for the information through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
said the batch of paperwork indicates that Carnivore can capture and
archive "unfiltered" Internet traffic--contrary to FBI assertions.
"The little information that has become public raises serious
questions about the privacy implications of this technology," EPIC
general counsel David Sobel said in a statement. "The American public
cannot be expected to accept an Internet snooping system that is
veiled in secrecy."
Among the information included in the documents was a sentence stating
that the PC that is used to sift through email "could reliably capture
and archive all unfiltered traffic to the internal hard drive." The
FBI document was dated June 5 and contained scores of deleted words
and phrases.
EPIC did not offer additional details about the source or the purpose
of this particular document.
The FBI has defended the surveillance system, assuring the public that
it only captures email and other online information authorized for
seizure in a court order. According to testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee by FBI Assistant Director Donald M. Kerr,
Carnivore uses a software filter to minimize the amount of data the
government can collect.
An independent team from the Illinois Institute of Technology is due
to file a draft "technical report" on the Carnivore system with the
Justice Department on Friday.
The Carnivore system, which is installed at Internet service
providers, captures "packets" of Internet traffic as they travel
through ISP networks. The program sifts through millions of mail
messages, presumably searching for notes sent by people under
investigation.
Carnivore was conceived under the name "Omnivore" in February 1997. It
was proposed originally for a Solaris X86 computer. Omnivore was
replaced by Carnivore running on a Windows NT-based computer in June
1999.
While a useful tool for monitoring specific individuals, the program
has caused an uproar in Congress and among privacy advocates who fear
the FBI's ability to retrieve email belonging to people who are not
under investigation. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch,
R-Utah, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., are among the elected officials
who have publicly criticized the program and called for an independent
investigation.
In late September, the House Judiciary Committee approved in a 20-1
vote a bill by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., that would severely
restrict the FBI's operation of Carnivore. The bill would give email
the same protection awarded to voice conversations under federal
wiretap law.
EPIC is one of Carnivore's staunchest foes. In October, the
organization complained that the FBI's release of 565 pages of
Carnivore documents contained little relevant information. In
particular, EPIC bitterly decried the FBI's refusal to publish source
code to the Carnivore system.
EPIC's FOIA request seeks the public release of all FBI records
concerning Carnivore, including the source code, other technical
details and legal analyses addressing the potential privacy
implications of the technology.
At an emergency hearing Aug. 2, U.S. District Judge James Robertson
ordered the FBI to report back to the court by Aug. 16 and to identify
the amount of material at issue and the Bureau's schedule for
releasing it. The FBI subsequently reported that 3,000 pages of
material were located, but it refused to commit to a delivery date.
The batch of documents released Thursday represents the second
installment, and the FBI is required to release additional files at
regular intervals until all 3,000 pages have been delivered to EPIC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linked stories:
********************
Calif. Initiative Could Overwhelm State Treatment Programs
<http://www.jointogether.org/jtodirect.jtml?U=83952&O=265119>
California officials said that transferring drug arrestees
from jail to treatment under Proposition 36 could overwhelm
the state's already strained addiction-treatment programs.
********************
Ontario to Drug Test Welfare Recipients
<http://www.jointogether.org/jtodirect.jtml?U=83952&O=265118>
Ontario, Canada, plans to start requiring welfare recipients
to undergo drug testing before giving them welfare checks.
********************
Researchers Develop Way to ID Coke Origin
<http://www.jointogether.org/jtodirect.jtml?U=83952&O=265120>
U.S. researchers have developed an accurate method of
tracing cocaine back to its country of origin.
********************
Court halts US election result
<http://itn.co.uk/news/20001118/world/01election.shtml>
America's presidential election has been put on hold until a court hearing
on Monday. A judge at Florida's highest court has ruled the result in the
state cannot be declared until complaints from both Democrats and
Republicans have been heard.
********************
Carnivore Can Read Everything
<http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40256,00.html?tw=wn20001118>
Newly released documents indicate that the FBI's controversial e-mail
surveillance tool can retrieve all communications that go through an
Internet service, far more than the Feds said it does.
********************
=====================================================
"Anarchy doesn't mean out of control. It means out of 'their' control."
-Jim Dodge
======================================================
"Communications without intelligence is noise;
intelligence without communications is irrelevant."
-Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC
======================================================
"It is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society."
-J. Krishnamurti
______________________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for a sample copy or a list of back issues,
send appropriate email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
______________________________________________________________
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[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
