November 28, 2005

Wikipedia deletes Church of Reality Again

The web site Wikipedia has again deleted the Church of Reality from it's listings. The do the same thing with most Atheist based articles. Only after a monumental affort will they post Atheist related stuff. The did the same thing with the movie, The God who Wasn't There.

In this case according to their discussion they insist the the Church of Reality has only one member and that's why it's being deleted. Here's the link for those who want to weigh in on the subject.

Wikipedia has now shut down the discussion to undelete the Church of Reality. Apparently when the votes don't go their way they stop the voting.

I saved the deleted discossion:

==== [[Church of Reality]] ====
* {{On AFD|Church of Reality}}
* {{On AFD|Church of reality}}

'''Overturn and Undelete''' I would like the Church of Reality undeleted. It was originally deleted because it wasn't notable because it had only 3000 Google hits and it wasn't a 501(C)3 non profit. It now has 24,900 Google hits and is now an [http:// _tax_exempt_status/ IRS blessed 501(C)3 church]. So the reason it was deleted is no longer valid.--[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 02:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

* The reason that I gave in the original AFD discussion is as valid now as it was then. Nothing has changed to affect the status of this subject as mis-use of Wikipedia as a soapbox by its author. Marc Perkel has continued his self-promotion campaign and the number of Google Web results has as a consequence increased, but there is still no evidence that this religion has any more than 1 adherent. '''Keep deleted'''. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 02:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
** The Church of Reality [http://www.churchofreality.org/phpbb/ PhpBB discussion board] shows 360 users and 1415 articles. That's just the number of Church of Reality members who participate in discussions. Church of Reality [http://www.churchofreality.org/wusage/monthly/2005/10/01/index.htm Usage Statistics] shows 91,000 page views for the month of October. --[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 02:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
***And yet, no evidence of any but the 1 adherent. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 03:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
***And yet an alexa ranking of 384,137. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 02:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
***Could you let us know when Mike Malloy covered this, so I can look at his archives to see what he had to say about it? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 02:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
****From Marc Perkel's blog: [http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000660.html Perkel to be Interviewed on Air America Radio], [http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000667.html Two Radio Interviews I did receintly], [http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000664.html Marc Perkel on Mike Malloy's Show on Air America Radio]. [[User:Geronimooo|Geronimooo]] 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
** If it has extensive coverage, it doesn't matter ''why'' the author wrote the article. I'm not arguing either way yet (waiting to see if people think this new info would change the outcome of an AfD), I'm just saying. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 02:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*** The Church of Reality ''hasn't'' had extensive coverage. Marc Perkel has created an extensive self-publicity campaign. (In the original AFD discussion I listed several of the web sites that he operates.) But ''all'' of the information about this religion comes from a single source, Perkel himself, and thus suffers from the original research, non-neutrality, and verifiability problems that such [[Wikipedia:autobiography|autobiography]] does. Even the coverage by Mike Malloy was ''information sourced directly from Perkel himself''. No reliable sources independent of him had produced works of their own about it then, and Perkel has presented no evidence that any reliable sources independent of him have produced works of their own about it since. Perkel has continued his self-publicity campaign, of which it seems apparent that repeatedly submitting this same article to Wikipedia is a part, but this continues to be original research, a novel belief that has not been peer reviewed and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, for the same reason now as it was then.

Contrast the situation here with religions that are ''not'' original research. You'll find plenty of published works from multiple sources, that are independent of the subject, that deal with [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], [[Scientology]], and the like. (See the references sections of those articles, for starters.) There is ''nothing'' like that for Perkel's church of 1 adherent.

Keeping out novel concepts that have not gained any traction in the world outside of their creators (and the Wikipedia articles written by their creators) is part of the reason that we have a [[Wikipedia:no original research|no original research]] policy. That a proponent is vociferous, and creates a huge self-publicity campaign, does not change that. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 03:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. '''''333''''' unique hits out of those thousands cited, and no references in Google news or Google Book search. Also only 42 hits when searching Google groups. This made-up church is as nn now as it was at the time of the vote. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 02:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per Zoe. Another misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as a launching pad. --[[User:TheMidnighters|TheMidnighters]] 02:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Abstain''', but as the admin who deleted it the 2nd time, I figured I should at least explain my actions. I saw the 2nd listing on AFD, compared the new version to the old/deleted version, and observed that they were substantially the same. To be sure, the new one is longer, but in my opinion, they were on essentially the same topic, so I speedied the new version under [[WP:CSD]] G4. I am, shall we say, agnostic on the issue of whether it should be undeleted or not. --[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] 02:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Uncle G and Zoe. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - Starblind 03:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
* '''Overturn and Keep''' I have full faith in the Church of Reality (the irony!) --[[User:BenE|BenE]] 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
** Neither your faith nor having made your first edit here ({{tl|welcome}} and congratulations) change the issue at hand, which is whether there's new information that warrants a reconsideration of the article's notability. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 03:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
***Well at least you can't say there are no adherents. This is a religion with international reach, (I'm canadian) Oh and thanks for the welcome! --[[User:BenE|BenE]] 04:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
****The welcome was just a way of pointing out that I’m a meatpuppet wasn’t it? Shame on you for using sarcasm on a newbie!--[[User:BenE|BenE]] 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
***** Honestly, I was [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] and welcoming you as a possible productive editor. I'll admit I was also pointing out you're new, so that whoever ends up counting viewpoints to determine consensus can take it into account at the end of the discussion. We really do love new editors, but they tend not to be well-versed in deletion policy. So I'm willing to call it partial sarcasm. ;) -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
****** I'm well versed in your deletion policy. It's simple. If is isn't Christian then it gets deleted. I am totally unimpressed with the censorship here. --[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 06:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*******That's pretty ridiculous, you're not the only atheist editor here, maybe you should go take a look at [[Atheism]], [[history of atheism]], [[Criticism of Religion]] and many more similar articles. If you want to be taken seriously you should drop the whole persecution and censorship act since it's completely groundless and juvenile. Noone has said your articles should be deleted on the grounds of religious outlook, it's the fact that there are only 348 unique google hits and you have yet to prove notability. --[[User:TheMidnighters|TheMidnighters]] 06:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Chuckle'''. I like this quote from the [http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/irs_tax_exempt_status/ IRS blessed 501(C)3 church] web page, ''One [IRS] agent even commented that he thought it was one of the most interesting applications he's reviewed.'' --[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
**You'd do well to look at the source of that information. How do we ''know'' that the IRS agent said that? Who is telling us? [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*** So you think I made up 360 users in the BBS discussion and then faked 91,000 hits to generate stats pages? And I faked the Mike Malloy interview, and the IRS tax letter ... --[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
* '''undelete''': Real enough. [[User:Ombudsman|Ombudsman]] 04:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Might want to consider these FACTS.''' Usage Stats on [http://www.churchofreality.org/wusage/monthly/2005/10/01/index.htm CoR website]. The [http://www.churchofreality.org/phpbb/ Discussion Board] Shows 360 members with 1400+ articles that are involved in discussions. Here's the [http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/irs_tax_exempt_status/ IRS Papers]. Here is a recording of the [http://www.churchofreality.org/ads/malloy.mp3 Air America Interview with Mike Malloy]. So - is this a one person religion? I don't think so! --[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
**All of those URLs are for [http://www.churchofreality.org/ http://www.churchofreality.org/]. Information from a web site (one of several) that you own and run, and thus whose content you have control over, does not qualify to be verifiable fact. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*** Yes, but the radio interview is presumably real, isn't it? Likewise the amount of readership the website has matters. The question is only whether the new information is compelling enough to warrant a new AfD. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*"undelete": **This certainly isn't a parody religion (unlike the flying spaghetti monster)... it is actually very well thought out, I found it quite compelling. I understand that that doesn't mean that it has gotten "traction" on the Web, etc... but Marc has been interviewed on the radio, has IRS tax free status, and was cited by BoingBoing. I think that it's worth an entry! {{unsigned|151.198.26.199|04:23, 28 November 2005}}
*'''Keep''' as far as numbers are concerned, I am also a member. The Church of Reality is a serious undertaking and should remain. {{unsigned|63.203.231.61}}

* Church of Reality [http://www.churchofreality.org/ads/prince-hives.mp3 Radio Spot]. Pretty sophisticated for a religion with only one member. --[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 04:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Endorse and keep deleted'''. Looks like a valid AFD to me. It's a vanity article with hardly any credible outside sourcing (and the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame just don't cut it). [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_>|<]] 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*Here's another outside link...not sure if that makes any diffefrence, but I wouldn't just dismiss it as only having one adherent: http://blog4mike.blogspot.com/2005/11/welcome-to-reality.html[[User:Mar10029|Mar10029]] 14:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
:*On the other hand, I would dismiss [[User:Mar10029|Mar10029]] as being a sockpuppet who has only ever made three edits, all to this discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mar10029]. --[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] 15:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*I guess by sockpuppet you mean that you think that I am Marc Perkel, trying to rig the discussion. I am new to Wikipedia, but I really like the COR philosophy, and heard about this discussion on the COR message board, so here I am, to show my support.
I realize that the fact that I "like the philosophy" is irrelevant to this discussion, but that is why I'm here. I haven't posted before because I don't regularly spend time here. Perhaps that makes my opinions less useful in this forum, I do understand that, and I appreciate the fact that you regular posters put a lot of work into Wikipedia. But I'm not a sock puppet. Sorry to intrude.[[User:Mar10029|Mar10029]] 15:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close, keep deleted.''' Valid AfD with strong consensus to delete. Google Web hit counts as evidence of increased notability is unconvincing, as it is well known that souch counts can be artificially manipulated by "search engine optimization" by anyone interested in self promotion. In contrast, but Google Groups (USENET) shows [http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&num=100&q=%22church+of+reality%22&safe=active&qt_s=Search only 35 hits], Google Books shows [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22church+of+reality%22&btnG=Search+Books&hl=en no hits at all], and an online search of the last five years of the New York Times up through November 28, 2005 returns "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close, keep deleted.''' For all the above-mentioned reasons. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 15:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' deletion. No new evidence presented to justify overturning the prior decision. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 15:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Restore'''- I am a member of the Church, and feel it certainly has as much merit to an article as the [[Church of Virus]] --[[User:Mcsporran|Mcsporran]] 15:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' - Not only am I a member of the Church, I feel that it presents a uniquely articulated viewpoint.
*'''keep deleted''' valid VFD, no demonstration of notability. — [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 15:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''restore/keep''' I must admit that I find it annoying that Marc Perkel calls the deletion censorship. However, '''The Church of Reality does have members (I'm a member of the mailinglist) and I'm not a sockpuppet'''. [[User:Geronimooo|Geronimooo]] 16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*I agree with Geronmooo... there really are two separate issues here - validity of the COR, and the Internet/MSM "profile" of the COR. Clearly the latter predominates in this discussion. But it also probably not "censorship", as in active repression of an unpopular viewpoint. I would like the administrators to consider, though, that while I do understand their need to keep Wikipedia reasonably lean and free of self promoting pages, one of the nice things about an online encyclopedia is the ability to more easily include articles on interesting but not widely know topics. This might be a useful exception to the standard numerical rules[[User:Mar10029|Mar10029]] 16:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - I had actually heard about this web-site and visited it previously. My impression was that it is set up like a religion, but in 'Reality' is currently something more like a message board / social club for atheists. However, they still fall short on notability. There are plenty of web-sites with larger user groups and higher traffic which we don't include. I suspect that some of these accounts which are labelled 'sock puppets' are instead actually participants in the message boards there coming to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of voting on this issue. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] [[User talk:CBDunkerson|T]] [[Special:Contributions/CBDunkerson|C]] [[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|@]] 16:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep and Rewrite''' - I'm a fan of the COR and on the mailing list. I think the reasons of deletion are valid. However i would very much like to see an article about the COR on Wikipedia. Perhaps if a 3rd party wear to write the initial article and it could be edited from there. Sorry Marc but i just don't see this as religious censorship. [[User:Zath42|Zath42]] 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

*'''More Votes to Overturn and Undelete'''

These people posted in the wrong place. They posted these comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastfission but they are clearly meant to support the restoration of the Church of Reality site. As you can see, they are new to Wikipedia, but their votes still count.--[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 17:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I moved:
----


'''CoR'''


'''Overturn and Undelete''' I hear that the Church of Reality was a] deleted and that b] there's only one member. Considering the Church of Reality has federal tax exempt status and I am also a member, I don't think it's appropriate to delete the entry.

Nicole M. Wolverton
nicole.wolverton@gmail.com

'''Church of Reality'''


'''Overturn and Undelete''' Please consider allowing the Church of Reality to maintain a page in Wikipedia. There are many of us who consider this an important organization. The fact that we have been granted 501(C)(3) status should show that the organization is real. Thank you.

'''Church of Reality'''


'''Overturn and Undelete''' I am a member of the Church of Reality. To call it a "vanity religion" only reflects the prejudice of the Wikipedia gang. Read C of R documents to see that it is a useful, sane, reality-based organization, a novel concept in religion. This is not a fraud, but it was Mark Perkel's idea. Please keep it in Wikipedia.
Gordon Clark

'''I'm friend'''

I am here too :-)


'''No one is Vandalizing your Talk Page'''

As you have stated. If I am the sole member of the Church of Reality as you claim then I can't have followers. You're link is out there and the church of Reality explorers don't like it when people like you are lying about the number of members of the church of Reality. Maybe it's time that you admit that you are wrong. --[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 15:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason so many people are posting here about the Church of Reality is because of an e-mail on the CoR mailinglist.

"[Fastfission thinks there's only one CoR memeber.] Here is his Talk page. Please let him know that the CoR has more than one member. Click on Edit next to the church of Reality section at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastfission"

so I doubt it's Marc Perkel using a proxy and spamming. [[User:Geronimooo|Geronimooo]] 16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

'''User:Fastfission removed my talk on talkpage'''

User:Fastfission removed my talk (and others) on his talkpage. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFastfission&diff=29492013&oldid=29491913] [[User:Geronimooo|Geronimooo]] 16:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

prejudice of the Wikipedia gang....

* Yep - he removed a lot of material from his talk page. Looks like he's not following the rules but he took it upon himself to delete the Church of Reality claiming it has only one member so this is what happens. --[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 16:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

** Here's what he deleted


'''Overturn and Undelete''' I certainly doesn't matter what this hairball thinks of our church. Reality is what it is and will win against superstition and bigotry in the end. One doesn't even need "faith." (Pardon my dirty mouth.) One doesn't have to believe in reality. Reality will not be swayed by the doubts of unbelievers.

'''Overturn and Undelete''' Sirs,
I am a member of the Church of Reality. I do not know Mr. Perkel personally, but I am aware of your concerns that his desire to put an article on your site is merely an attempt at self-promotion. I do not believe this is the case. The church is a real (albeit small, relatively new and technically a charity) organization of those like myself, who feel that the injection of mythical deities into an otherwise rational debate of very pressing issues greatly hinders the ability of our collective effort to achieve practical solutions.

Before I became aware of the recent controversy of the posting, I was surprised when I found that your site did not have an article on the church. I had a mind to write one myself when the time became available to me. But, obviously, Mr. Perkel’s article would be more comprehensive (and definitely better written) than any I could write.
Thus, with the utmost respect and appreciation for the work you do, and with the understanding that you must be vigilant of those who would use your wonderful resource as a platform for personal gain, I would like to convey my belief that Mr. Perkel’s motives are benefic and the cause just.
Please reconsider the deletion.

Thank you,
Frank D.
nthsign69@yahoo.com

'''Devout Member of the Church of Reality'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' I am a recent convert to the Church of Reality. I believe it deserves to have an entry on Wikipedia if for no other reason than it represents a response to the prevalence of supernatural and religious beliefs in modern society.

'''Church of Reality '''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' I am proud to say that I, too, am a devout member of the Church of Reality, so I believe that you will have to retract your statment that our church has only one member.
By the way, the usual disclaimers apply: I do not personally know Mark Perkel nor am I being paid by the church, nor have I accepted any reward or other perquisites for this statement.
I just want you to know that we church members are serious about our membership and about our church, and I believe that you are perilously close to the application of a religious "litmus test". I believe you know that this would be the first step on the road to religious persecution of other sects with whom you disagree.
Is that really what you want?

'''Church of Reality vs. Flying Spaghetti Monster'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' You have a nice site for the Flying spaghetti monster, and you won't have one for Church of Reality?

Take a look at CoR expanding membership and body of work, you should agree that it's much more developerd than the FSM. CoR deserves it's own entry in the Wiki.

thanks.

'''Church of Reality.. '''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' Hey, there more of us than just Marc..! Seriously, read the site.. pretty well thought out and insightful. Certainly more useful as a life philosophy than the pastafarians over at the FSM site, even though they spread a lot faster through viral marketing...

Anyway, just standing up to be counted!

Mike in NYC

'''Church of Reality.. '''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' I'm an active member of the Church of Reality. I regularly post to the forums and can atest to there being many others who engage in discussion within the forums. I believe the Church of Reality deserves to have an entry within Wikipedia.

Chris J.

Northern California

'''CoR'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' Missouri here, I totally support the Church of Reality. I think it's a very important movement towards uniting the world in facing
REALITY! Before we blow it up in the name of God, and...I'm sure your God would agree.:)
M.P. is one of the most brilliant philosophers of the century.

'''A CoR member.'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' I am a CoR member in my own ways. I subscribe to the Church's teaching and very much keep up with any new church developments. I also advocate the church when ever I have a chance.

Travis,

Seattle WA

'''CoR'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' I belong to the Church of Reality. I think it is insane to have to expose ourselves in order to become recognized.

Get with Reality.

Precipice

San Diego, CA

'''Reality, church of'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' Hello,
I too am a member in fair standing or the Church of Reality. I recently heard that wikipedia dismissed us as a "parody religion". What BS !! That is like dismissimg W as a parody president. Sure, he has no integrity but he stold the election fair and square.
But seriousally, the voice of realists needs at least equal footing with those that want to base life on the ramblinge of people who claim to speak for various desert gods, all claiming to be the number 1 and only god.
Get real.
dennis lee trabue

'''I'm also member of Church of reality'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' I really don't see one sound reason to not include Church of reality on Wikipedia. As far as I know it's the only religion based solely on reason and by no means on faith.

'''Church of Reality'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' As an active member of the Church of Reality, I must take exception to your deeply offensive characterization of our Church.

Far from being a "parody" or "vanity site", the COR has recently been given 501C3 tax exempt organization status by the IRS - something I strongly doubt the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which you allow a site entry) has acheived.

By mocking our faith you've engaged in religious discrimination, which may be actionable under U.S. law.

I think you owe members an apology.

And please, in the future, do a bit of honest research before ridiculing the beliefs of others.

Thank you

'''PROUD MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF REALITY!'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' The Church of Reality has only one member? Bah! A parody religion? spew. You should do some research. Marc equals one member, plus me equals two, so you've already lost, and as far as I can see there are many more devoted members of the Church of Reality. The CoR is a serious thang, it isn't there to make you laugh, it's there to make you think about reality and the world around you. I think the flying spaghetti monster just had his wings clipped.

- Thomas King, Auckland, NZ

'''Devote Member'''

'''Overturn and Undelete''' I stand in support of our Religion. It is a non-profit religious organization with more than one member. CoR alive, well and growing in Michigan.

'''Church of Reality is valid'''


'''Overturn and Undelete''' Though created by Marc Perkel, the Church of Reality does have a following of more than just Marc himself. The Church of Reality is fascinating, I consider myself a member and I think what Wikipedia is doing is nothing more than religious censorship.

Toss aside what your personal beliefs are and understand that there are people, like myself, out there who dont subscribe to the standard Christian belief system that is so popular in the US. Is it that hard to fathom a religion based on what is real??? It seems a lot more valid to me because everthing Marc talks about is based on reality. Not faith in some non-existent being or entity that we are supposed to give our lives to.

I dont worship Marc Perkel. I dont worship the Church of Reality. I dont "worship" anyone or anything. I just believe in what is Real. Is that so difficult to swallow?

Lish Robinson


----


::What's hard to swallow is so many new users suddenly arriving at DRV—a page whose existence I didn't discover for months after I joined Wikipedia—and posting expressions of support using such similar styles of phrasing, spacing, and punctuation. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 17:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::And that ALL of them somehow managed to hijack MarcPerkel's account. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

::: That's because I sent a link to this page out to all my non-existent members to ask them to vote to undelete. I pointed hundreds of people at this page. I'm hoping that I have at least convinced everyone that the Church of Reality has more than one member. --[[User:Marcperkel|Marcperkel]] 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

** I guess there is no point in just posting a lot of angry notes from COR members who feel slighted, that is irrelevant to the Wikipedia vetting process. But it is a bit infuriating when something that yre is a lot of good stuff there, far beyond what someone would do for a parody. So I see why Marc reposted them here. But I would think that it would be fairly typical for people who feel strongly about a topic to only show up here when there was a DRV; unless you were really into the workings of Wikipedia, you might not know about the process at all.

In any case, Cory Doctorow felt that the COR deserved a mention on BoingBoing, and both Cory and BoingBoing are well represented on Wikipedia![[User:Mar10029|Mike]] 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Posted by marc at 07:35 AM | Comments (1)

November 24, 2005

A Cold Winter is Coming

Letter to the Editor

This coming year is likely to be one of the coldest winters in decades. Cold can be measured several ways. What I'm talking about is the average temperature inside of homes of people over 65 years old. The cost of gas and heating oil is expected to go up over 50% while oil companies rake in record profits. As the temperatures inside the homes of old people gets colder one has to ask themselves this holiday season, "What kind of people do we Americans want to be? Do we want to put oil company profits ahead of giving old people a little heat in the winter?" I vote no.

Posted by marc at 03:56 PM | Comments (2)

November 18, 2005

Gotta Love those Republicans

Letter to the Editor

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut $700 million dollars from the food stamp program cutting off 235,000 people who will now go hungry. But what I find more shocking is that the $700 million is less than the tax cut that Bush gave Bill Gates. 235,000 people are going to go hungry so that a single individual can keep billions. Gotta love those Republicans!

Posted by marc at 10:43 PM | Comments (0)

November 17, 2005

Patriot Act is a Victory for bin Laden

Letter to the Editor

The Patriot Act is a victory for Osama bin Laden who's goals were to take away our freedom. Now the government has powers that move us towards Communism with a government that can spy on it's own citizens, jail people without due process of law, and even haul people off to foreign countries to be tortured. Instead of fighting for our freedoms we surrender them over the destruction of 2 buildings. We are a nation of cowards who give away our liberties without a fight. I would burn the flag in protest but our flag no longer has any meaning and is unworthy of burning.

Posted by marc at 09:22 PM | Comments (0)

Electronic Frontier Foundation seeking plaintifs to sue Sony

EFF is collecting stories from San Francisco EFF members and
supporters who have purchased Sony-BMG CDs that contained
the XCP "rootkit" copy protection software or the SunComm
MediaMax copy protection software.

CDs with the XCP rootkit copy protection technology include:

A Static Lullaby (Faso Latido) CK92772
Acceptance (Phantoms) CK89016
Amerie (Touch) CK90763
Art Blakey (Drum Suit) CK93637
The Bad Plus (Suspicious Activity?) CK94740
Bette Midler (Sings the Peggy Lee Songbook) CK95107,CK74815
Billy Holiday (The Great American Songbook) CK94294,
Bob Brookmeyer (Bob Brookmeyer & Friends) CK94292,
Buddy Jewell (Times Like These) CK92873
Burt Bacharach (At This Time) CK97734
Celine Dion (On Ne Change Pas) E2K97736
Chayanne (Cautivo) LAK96819 LAK96818,LAK95886
Chris Botti (To Love Again) CK94823
The Coral (The Invisible Invasion) CK94747
Cyndi Lauper (The Body Acoustic) EK94569
The Dead 60's (The Dead 60's) EK94453
Deniece Williams (This Is Niecy) CK93814
Dextor Gordon (Manhattan Symphonie) CK93581
Dion (The Essential Dion) CK92670
Earl Scruggs (I Saw The Light With Some Help From My Friends) CK92793
Elkland (Golden) CK92036
Emma Roberts (Unfabulous And More: Emma Roberts) CK93950, CK97684
Flatt & Scruggs (Foggy Mountain Jamboree) CK92801
Frank Sinatra (The Great American Songbook) CK94291
G3 (Live In Tokyo) E2K97685
George Jones (My Very Special Guests) E2K92562
Gerry Mulligan (Jeru) CK65498
Horace Silver (Silver's Blue) CK93856
Jane Monheit (The Season) EK97721
Jon Randall (Walking Among The Living) EK92083
Life Of Agony (Broken Valley) EK93515
Louis Armstrong (The Great American Songbook) CK94295
Mary Mary (Mary Mary) CK94812 CK92948
Montgomery Gentry (Something To Be Proud Of: The Best of 1999-2005) CK75324 CK94982
Natasha Bedingfield (Unwritten) EK93988
Neil Diamond (12 Songs) CK94776 CK97811
Nivea (Complicated
Our Lady Peace (Healthy In Paranoid Times) CK94777
Patty Loveless (Dreamin' My Dreams) EK94481
Pete Seeger (The Essential Pete Seeger) CK92835
Ray Charles (Friendship) CK94564
Rosanne Cash (Interiors ) CK93655
Rosanne Cash (King's Record Shop) CK86994
Rosanne Cash (Seven Year Ache) CK86997
Shel Silverstein (The Best Of Shel Silverstein) CK94722
Shelly Fairchild (Ride) CK90355
Susie Suh (Susie Suh) EK92443
Switchfoot (Nothing Is Sound) CK96534, CK96437, CK94581
Teena Marie (Robbery) EK93817
Trey Anastacio (Shine) CK96428
Van Zant (Get Right With The Man) CK93500
Vivian Green (Vivian) CK90761

CDs with the SunComm MediaMax technology include:
My Morning Jacket, Z
Santana, All That I Am
Sarah McLachlan, Bloom Remix Album
Amici Forever, Defined
Foo Fighters, In Your Honor
David Gray, Life in Slow Motion
Alicia Keys, Unplugged

We're considering whether the effect on the public, or on
EFF members, is sufficiently serious to merit a lawsuit.

If you satisfy the following criteria, we would like to hear
from you:

1. You have a Windows computer;

2. Either First 4 Internet's "xcp" or SunComm's MediaMax
copy protection has been installed on your computer from a
Sony CD and has not yet been removed (Note that computer
security professionals are warning that Sony's uninstall
package creates even more security risks
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=926);

3. You reside in San Francisco;

4. You are willing to participate in litigation.

We have not made any final decisions about filing any legal
action, but we would like to hear from music fans who have
been harmed by Sony BMG's copy protection technology.

Please contact SonyDRM@eff.org, or reply to this mail.

You can also meet to discuss your experiences with EFF staff
personally at next week's CopyNight - a regular local event
for those interested in IP issues. CopyNight is at 7pm,
Tuesday 22nd November, at the 21st Amendment Restaurant and
Brewery: see for details.

Thank you for your time,

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Posted by marc at 08:57 PM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2005

Church of Reality writes Conscientious Objector Status Policy

Church of Reality writes Conscientious Objector Status Policy

The Church of Reality today announces that it has posted it's policy on Conscientious Objector Status allowing for the first time for Atheists to opt out of military service based on religious reasons. These policies are being compiled as a preemptive strike against the possibility that the United States will re institute the draft and try to compel Realist to serve in a military fighting for an unjust cause.

"The Iraq war is an unjust war." says Marc Perkel, First One of the Church of Reality. "To participate in and unjust war is against our Sacred Principle of Positive Evolution which is one of our core religious commitments." The Church of Reality objects to the Iraq war for several reasons including the use of incendiary chemical weapons against the civilian population of Fallujah, jailing people without due process of law, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, the use of secret foreign prison camps, the use of torture, the denial of access to prisoners by the Red Cross, and the falsifying of information as justification for starting the war.

"If the human race is to evolve and distinguish ourselves from other animals then we are going to have to stop acting like animals. We are going to have to give up war and torture. The human race needs to rise to a higher standard and create a world where people live together in peace. As Realists practicing Realism we commit ourselves to a higher cause of making tomorrow better than today and leaving the next generation a better world that what we started with.", states Perkel. "The Church of Reality has determined that the war in Iraq is contrary to that cause."


Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality

More information about the church of Reality can be found at:

http://www.churchofreality.org

Policies on War and peace:

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/war_and_peace/

The Sacred Principles:

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/the_sacred_principles/

Posted by marc at 01:46 PM | Comments (0)

November 12, 2005

New York Times blocks email from Political / Religious Groups

Dear Church of Reality Members,

As many of you know besides being the glorious supreme leader of this religion I also have a "real job" hosting web sites, filtering spam, and other geek related stuff. And one of the sites I host the the Church of Reality itself, along with this email list. This list is being blocked by the New York Times email servers because political sites on my server does mass mailings to reporters about matters of political interest. I myself write letters to the editor and Church of Reality press releases on a regular basis.

Without explaining it all to you again I'm just going to pass on the email I sent my customers. I think this is an important issue because our religion considers communication to be extremely important. Here's the letter. Feel free to pass it on.

Dear Computer Tyme Customers,

We are having an interesting email issue with the New York Times tech staff regarding email to them and about 3000 other reporters that they host email for. Apparently there is some sort of consortium of news services that share common email services and spam filtering services. Their equipment is blocking email comping from my servers what prevents all of you from contacting various news agencies through my service.

The problem is that these servers - from what the techs told me - block all mass mailings regardless of content. If what they are saying is true then this situation applies not only to us - but also to anyone who is mass mailing reporters for any reason. And I do believe we are not being singled out. What is disturbing about this is that political free speech as well as press releases or any type of mass communication with the press is being blocked. This might explain the disconnect between political activists and the mainstream press. The press is not getting email from the people because it is being blocked.

As many of you know, I host email for a lot of very interesting people. One of those interesting people is PC Magazine writer John Dvorak who was having his messages bounce when trying to contact the New York Times. After several exchanges he asked me to look into it. So I called them and had a fascinating conversation. I don't often record conversations but I do sometime so that if there is something important I need to remember that I need to do I can review it. It save me having to attempt to read my handwriting which is nearly impossible. Although California has laws making it questionably legal to disclose recorded conversations, I believe in this instance it is justified because I am sure that it wasn't the intent of the legislature for these laws to conceal the fact that the people can not communicate with the press. So - I'm going to take my chances with this one because of the importance of the issues.

Here are the recordings. You can see if what I hear is the same as what you hear.

http://bulk.ctyme.com/nytimes.mp3
http://bulk.ctyme.com/nytimes2.mp3

These are unedited except that I cut out my home phone number in one place.

What is important here is that I'm sitting here about to write a major press release about the Church of Reality's position on the Iraq war and the moral implications of Realists fighting an unjust war in relation to Conscientious Objector Status and knowing that the email servers at the New York Times is going to block my release. Likewise I host a lot of political newsletters as well as my own letter to the editor list and I don't know if my letters are getting through.

This is an issue where people are sending free political speech to newspapers - this is clearly not spam - and a third party is blocking it. This block is on an IP basis and not by individual or domain so if one person sends a mass mailing they block everyone. In this case American Politics Journal's mass mailing blocked John Dvorak from communicating with New York Times reporters.

After the conversation the techs who control this have stated that they refuse to remove the blocks and that they have determined that all mass mailing to reporters will be blocked. They have flat out refused to fix the problem. Not just for the few hundred domains that I host, but for all the other people who want to send their messages to the press.

One of the things they mention is a company called Cipher Trust http://www.ciphertrust.com/ which seems to be the common blocking agent cutting off access from all these sites to all the companies. I'm still researching who these people are and who they block for. It sounds fairly massive.

Ironically, if their reporter, Judith Miller, hadn't conspired with Scooter Libby and the White House to sell America on this fake war we might not be writing them in the first place. But that's a rant for a different time.

The tech contact at the New York Times is Ed Muller. His email address is mulleea@nytimes.com . I consider it necessary that our servers as well as all the other servers who he is blocking be unblocked and it's time to lean on them to make that happen. So, here's what I suggest we do to start with.

First, the people on your lists who are not blocked needs to know about this. So send this message to everyone on your list so that they can individually post this on their blogs and write to the NYT directly. I want to show them that blocking free speech isn't possible and that there is no way that they can filter email coming from diverse sources. This is a message that we will get through. Please include the contact information and you can provide links to the recorded conversations. I will also be covering it on my blog at http://marc.perkel.com .

So - how want's to kick some butt?


Marc Perkel
Fearless Leader
Computer Tyme Hosting

----

Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality

Posted by marc at 09:26 PM | Comments (1)

GOP Planning Terror Attack on US?

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 10, 2005, 06:19

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it’s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are “blue sky thinking” that often occurs in political planning sessions.

“The President’s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,” admits one aide. “Americans band together at a time of crisis.”

Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.

“We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,” says a longtime GOP strategist. “That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.”

Posted by marc at 06:48 AM | Comments (0)

Bush to install Ahmad Chalabi as Iraq President

Wondering what Ahmad Chalabi (curveball) was doing in Washington last week meeting with top Whitehouse officials? He was auditioning for president of Iraq. Ahmad Chalabi is a man who understand how the system really works and he knows that you don't get elected in Iraq by the people. He knows that the US will install a puppet government there and he wants to be that puppet. So he's doing what you really need to do to get "elected" in Iraq. He's pitiching a deal to the oil company representatives who control America. Condi Rice, Rumsfield, Cheney etc.

This is the same guy who help generate the lies that led us to war in the first place.

Posted by marc at 04:53 AM | Comments (0)

Sony Rootkit another reason to avoid using Windows

I'm a Windows user and it's a hard habit to break. But Sony's new rootkit installs is even more reason to move to Linux rather than use proprietary operating systems like Wondows and Macs.

Sony decided to out secret software on its music CDs that installed into the kernel of Windows so it can track and control what is copied. This software installs without your permission and without your knowledge. In fact, like a virus program it does everything it can to hide itself.

Sony seems to think it owns your computer and has the right to secretly install software on it to modify your operating system without you knowing about it. That's pretty brazen if you ask me. I can tell you that Sony isn't a brand that I will be buying anymore. From now on I'm going to avoid doing anything that make Sony money. It's my computer and you don't screw with it.

Here's the EFF story about it.

* Are You Infected with Sony-BMG's Rootkit?

EFF Confirms Secret Software on 19 CDs

San Francisco - News that some Sony-BMG music CDs install
secret rootkit software on their owners' computers has
shocked and angered thousands of music fans in recent days.
Among the cause for concern is Sony's refusal to publicly
list which CDs contain the infectious software and to
provide a way for music fans to remove it. Now, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has confirmed that the
stealth program is deployed on at least 19 CDs in a variety
of genres.

The software, created by First 4 Internet and known as
XCP2, ostensibly "protects" the music from illegal copying.
But in fact, it blocks a number of legal uses--like
listening to songs on your iPod. The software also
reportedly slows down your computer and makes it more
susceptible to crashes and third-party attacks. And since
the program is designed to hide itself, users may have
trouble diagnosing the problem.

"Entertainment companies often complain that fans refuse to
respect their intellectual property rights. Yet tools like
this refuse to respect our own personal property rights,"
said EFF staff attorney Jason Schultz. "Sony's tactics here
are hypocritical, in addition to being a security threat."

If you listened to a CD with the XCP software on your
Windows PC, your computer is likely already infected. An
EFF investigation confirmed XCP software on 19 titles, but
it's far from a complete list. Sony-BMG continues to refuse
to make such a list available to consumers.

Consumers can spot CDs with XCP by inspecting a CD closely,
checking the left transparent spine on the front of the
case for a label that says "CONTENT PROTECTED." The back of
these CDs also mention XCP in fine print. You can find
pictures of these and other telltale labeling at
.

"Music fans should protect themselves from this stealth
attack on their computer system," said EFF Senior Staff
Attorney Fred von Lohmann.

For EFF's list of CDs with XCP:

The "legalese rootkit" - Sony-BMG's EULA:

For this release:

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Sony-BMG Rootkit: EFF Collecting Stories, Considering
Litigation

EFF is collecting stories from EFF members and supporters who
have purchased Sony-BMG CDs that contained the rootkit copy
protection software. We're considering whether the effect on
the public, or on EFF members, is sufficiently serious to
merit EFF filing a lawsuit.

If you satisfy the following criteria, we would like to hear
from you:

1. You have a Windows computer;
2. First 4 Internet's XCP copy protection has been installed
on your computer from a Sony CD (for more details, see our
blog post referenced above or the SysInternals blog,
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-
digital-rights.html);
3. You reside in either California or New York; and
4. You are willing to participate in litigation.

We have not made a final decision about filing any legal
action, but we would like to hear from music fans who have
been harmed by the Sony-BMG rootkit copy protection
technology. Please contact allison@eff.org for more
information.

Posted by marc at 04:34 AM | Comments (0)

November 08, 2005

US Denies use of Phosphorus Shells in Fallujah

The US official Government Propaganda Site denies use of phosphorus shelles in Fallujah. Here's part of their statement.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

Check out the movie in the previous message and see pictures of people who were "illuminated".

From the Geneva convention:

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Posted by marc at 12:44 PM | Comments (3)

More on US use of Chemical Weapons in Fallujah

Here's a BBC Report on the US using phosphorus weapons in Iraq.

Here's a Quicktime Movie showing the attack. it's a big file (91 megs) so don't download it unless you're on something fact.

Posted by marc at 10:23 AM | Comments (0)

California Elections Today

I'm voting against the governor.

Yes on 79,80

No on everything else.

Posted by marc at 09:05 AM | Comments (1)

Let's put all the war criminals on trial

Letter to the Editor

Any leader who used banned weapons should be put on trial for international war crimes. It doesn't matter what country the leader is from. If he did the crime he should face the penalties. This includes the generals and the men who carried out the mass slaughters. If Saddam Hussein used poison gas he should be imprisoned or executed. Similarly, if George Bush used illegal banned weapons in Iraq then he too, along with the generals that executed his orders, be put on trial along with Saddam and imprisoned or executed.

It is becoming clear that America used phosphorus shells last November in its attack on the city of Fallujah. Phosphorus burns bodies. It melts the flesh all the way down to the bone. It is a hideous weapon that only a cruel tyrant would use. If the reports are true that Bush used phosphorus, an outlawed chemical weapon, then Bush should be removed from office immediately and taken into custody for trial. Shock and awe is the experience of watching America degenerate into doing what the Nazis did. Secret prisons, torture, and now massacre. It's a crime that we allow it.

-------

Reporters who help the government conceal war crimes are criminals too!!!!

Here's the article:

US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

By Peter Popham

Published: 08 November 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."

The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."

In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the USinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.

"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."

The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.

The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday.

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."

The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."

In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the USinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.

"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."

The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.

The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday.

Posted by marc at 07:47 AM | Comments (0)

November 07, 2005

Parsing Bush Speak

Letter to the Editor

President Bush today declared loudly, "We do not torture!" But this statement is just coded "Bush Speak". You have to understand what he really means. Of course we don't torture. That why Bush has secret foreign prisons so that someone else can torture for us. That makes it look like "we" aren't doing it. It's just like Bush said about the CIA leak, "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." What does "taken care of" mean to Bush? It means that they will get a pardon. it's now clear his entire staff knew about the leak and they are all being taken care of.

Now that you know how Bush speak works here's a quiz. Ask yourself what these phrases mean in Bush speak. "Strengthen Social Security", "Simplifying the Tax Code", "Brownie is doing a heck of a job!", "Mission Accomplished", "I won't raise your taxes.", "War is a last resort.", "Social Security Lock Box", and "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Think about it and have fun figuring it out.

Posted by marc at 06:20 PM | Comments (0)

Secret Prison Torture Camps

Letter to the Editor

Even though Bush has secret prisons in countries that allow torture, Bush claims that he isn't torturing prisoners. He says, "We do not torture!". But we've seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib so do we believe him or our own lying eyes. In spite of his claim that he doesn't torture, he is pressing Congress for an exemption for the CIA to allow them to do what he says they don't do. John McCain is supposedly fighting against Bush on the torture issue but he's been AWOL in this fight as he is spending all his time in California trying to help Schwarzenegger undermine Democracy in California.

What I think we should do is ship the White house staff to these foreign prison camps to be interrogated to see who committed treason be outing a CIA agent who was the wife of an ambassador. This ambassador was revealing that Bush lied to get us into a fraudulent war. Since Bush says that they don't torture anyone and that these secret prisons are legal, then they shouldn't have any complaints about what might happen to them. Since a CIA agent was exposed then the CIA should get to use these prisons that Bush has said is a legal means of questioning.

Posted by marc at 01:25 PM | Comments (0)

November 04, 2005

Anti-Torture Law Tests McCain's Integrity

Letter to the Editor

John McCain's anti-torture bill is a test of his personal integrity and leadership. McCain, who was tortured himself when he spend 5 years as a prisoner of war on Vietnam, sponsored this bill to try to stop Bush from torturing people that was the Communists and Nazis do. This law will make it clear that it really is illegal to torture people. Vice President Cheney however is fighting McCain's bill trying to provide a loophole to allow the torture to continue.

John McCain has been a very week advocate for his causes. He talks a good story but in the past usually caves in to what Bush wants. I think that McCain takes positions for show so that he can appear to have issues and creates the illusion that he stands for things. I think it's all and act and that McCain will cave into Bush even though he was personally tortured that way Bush is torturing others. If McCain can't get an anti-torture bill passed it's because he doesn't really want to do what it takes to make it happen.

Posted by marc at 05:29 PM | Comments (0)

WalMart and Politics

Letter to the Editor

I used to shop at WalMart and I used to be a WalMart stockholder back when WalMart bragged about their products being made in America. Now I'm living in California where WalMart has given Governor Schwarzenegger over a million dollars to promote his special election reforms. WalMart is now the third largest trading partner with Communist China and I'm not comfortable with communist money being pumped into our local elections. So I'm going to vote against WalMart in the elections on Tuesday because I really don't think WalMart has the best interests of the people in mind.

Posted by marc at 09:31 AM | Comments (1)

November 02, 2005

Rosa Parks Inspires Us All

As I watch the funeral of Rosa Parks I can't help but to think of the legacy she leaves behind. Some of the most important changes in the world start with one person who stands up and says No to power. She was as ordinary of a person as anyone can be, but she came to a point where she had had enough and wasn't going to take it anymore. A simple act that changed the world. We are reminded that sometimes it is far more convenient to just let things go and go along to get along. We should not only honor Rosa Parks by celebrating her life but honor her by refusing to give up our seat when the powers that suppress us today want us to move to the back of the bus. We too can change the world by saying no to injustice.

Posted by marc at 08:39 AM | Comments (0)

November 01, 2005

Oh - the outrage!

I sit here in total amusement watching Republican senators responding in total outrage to the Democrats declaring a "Closed Session" of the senate to discuss the issue of whether the Bush administration fabricated a fraud that led America into a war for false reasons. Republicans are totally shocked declaring that they have never seen such a thing before. "They have no convictions, they have no principles" declares Senator Frist. Republicans can not imagine that a politician would be so low as tp stoop to using "dirty tricks" for political advantage. Is this the beginning of Armageddon? Oh what a shocker!!!

Halloween has just past and the Democrats have risen from the dead!

Posted by marc at 04:59 PM | Comments (0)

Democrats compare Watergate to Libby Probe Leak and Iraq

Here's a good video that the DCCC produced. I think they really nailed the issues.

Posted by marc at 08:10 AM | Comments (0)