“Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him.”
Ayn Rand (‘For the New Intellectual’ 1961)  {WMail Issue #17}

New York Times, April 4, 2009

Entrepreneur Bradley Inman is starting Vook, a platform for e-books that will combine text, video and social networking, in an attempt to provide a more satisfying experience than Kindle and other e-book formats.
Read Original Article>>

With France looking to put itself at the centre of the so-called ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ across the world, it’s worth taking a look at just what’s being going on inside France’s own nuclear industry recently. All is not well.

The latest troubles for the Tricastin nuclear power plant in southern France began in early July when a solution containing unprocessed uranium was allowed to leak into two rivers. Areva, the company running the plant, said that although 30,000 litres had been spilled, ‘only’ 18,000 litres had reached the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. That’s a strange use of the word ‘only’, isn’t it?

This Article First Printed at Greenpeace.org

“Blogging the meltdown of the nuclear industry. Latest news to counter the nuclear spin.”

Read The Rest

Everything you say and do will be recorded by 2030, and by the late 2010s, ubiquitous, unseen nanodevices will provide seamless communication and surveillance among all people everywhere, with nanoimplants facilitating interaction in an omnipresent network.

That’s one of the top ten forecasts for 2000 and beyond in the OUTLOOK 2009 report from the November-December 2008 issue of THE FUTURIST magazine.

EXCLUSIVE: Shocking proposal urges military leaders to attack major foreign power

Rand proposal

Paul Joseph Watson & Yihan Dai
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, October 30, 2008

According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.

A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.

The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.

The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.

Read Original Article ..

This article and US Senate Bill demonstrates quite clearly how McCain will deal with the Internet and more specifically Bloggers.  This Bill was shelved in 2007 but only shelved it can come back. Blogger Beware!

The Editor

Bloggers Who Criticize Government May Face Prison
Bill would allow rounding up and imprisoning of non-registered political writers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, January 18, 2007

You’d be forgiven for thinking that it was some new restriction on free speech in Communist China. But it isn’t. The U.S. Government wants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to register and regularly report their activities to Congress in the latest astounding attack on the internet and the First Amendment.

Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, a website dedicated to fighting efforts to silence grassroots movements, states:

“Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.”

In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.

Under current law any ‘lobbyist” who ‘knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.” quarterly to the government faces criminal charges including a possible jail term of up to one year.

The amendment is currently on hold.

This latest attack on bloggers comes hot on the heels of Republican Senator John McCain’s proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards.

McCain’s proposal is presented under the banner of saving children from sexual predators and encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.

Despite a total lack of any evidence that children are being victimized en mass by bloggers or people who leave comments on blog sites, it seems likely that the proposal will become legislation in some form. It is well known that McCain has a distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.

In recent months, a chorus of propaganda intended to demonize the Internet and further lead it down a path of strict control has spewed forth from numerous establishment organs:

During an appearance with his wife Barbara on Fox News last November, George Bush senior slammed Internet bloggers for creating an “adversarial and ugly climate.”

- The White House’s own recently de-classified strategy for “winning the war on terror” targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting ground for terrorists and threatens to “diminish” their influence.

- The Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.

- In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a “terror training camp,” through which “disaffected people living in the United States” are developing “radical ideologies and potentially violent skills.” Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

- A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web – and their argument is supported by the U.S. government.

- A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.

- The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down “terrorists” who use the Internet to spread propaganda.

- The EU also recently proposed legislation that would prevent users from uploading any form of video without a license.

- We have also previously exposed how moves are afoot to clamp down on internet neutrality and even to designate a highly restricted new form of the internet known as Internet 2.

Make no mistake, the internet, one of the greatest outposts of free speech ever created is under constant attack by powerful people who cannot operate within a society where information flows freely and unhindered. All these moves mimic stories we hear every week out of State Controlled Communist China, where the internet is strictly regulated and virtually exists as its own entity away from the rest of the web.

The phrases “Chinese government” and “Mao Zedong” have even been censored on China’s official Web sites because they are “Sensitive phrases”. Are we to allow our supposedly Democratic governments to implement the same type of restrictive policies here?

Under section 220 of the lobbying reform bill, Infowars.net could be required to seek a license in order to bring this information to you. IF we were granted a license we would then have to report our activities to the government four times per year in order to bring you this information. Does that sound more like free speech or more like totalitarianism?

Take action:

As well as calling the Senate you should go to GrassrootsFreedom.com which has a petition that you can sign against Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill.

Paul Joseph Watson contributed to this report.

He sent her roses
The person who did this was Jack Benny….
You have to read this it is absolutely beautiful……

Each year he sent her roses,
and the note would always say,
I love you even more this year,
than last year on this day.

My love for you will always grow,
with every passing year.’

She knew this was the last time
that the roses would appear.
She thought, he ordered roses
in advance before this day.
Her loving husband did not know,
that he would pass away.

He always liked to do things early,
way before the time.
Then, if he got too busy,
everything would work out fine.

She trimmed the stems and
placed them in a very special vase.

Then, sat the vase beside
the portrait of his smiling face.

She would sit for hours,
In her husband’s favorite chair.
While staring at his picture,
and the roses sitting there.

A year went by, and it was
to live without her mate.
With loneliness and solitude,
that had become her fate.

Then, the very hour,
The doorbell rang, and there
were roses sitting by her door.

She brought the roses in,
and then just looked at them in shock.
Then, went to get the telephone,
to call the florist shop.

The owner answered, and she asked him,
if he would explain,
Why someone would
do this to her,
causing her such pain?

‘I know your husband passed away,
more than a year ago,’
The owner said,
‘I knew you’d call, and you would want
to know.

The flowers you received today,
were paid for in advance.
Your husband always planned ahead,
he left nothing to chance.

There is a standing order,
that I have on file down here,
And he has paid, well in advance,
you’ll get them every year.

There also is another thing,
that I think you should know,
He wrote a special little card…he
did this years ago.
Then, should ever I find out
that he’s no longer here,
that’s the card that should be sent to
you the following year.’

She thanked him and hung up the phone,
her tears now flowing hard.

Her fingers shaking,
as she slowly reached to get the card.

Inside the card, she saw that he
had written her a note.
Then, as she stared in total silence,

this is what he wrote…

‘Hello my love, I know it’s been a
year since I’ve been gone.
I hope it hasn’t been too hard for you
to overcome. I know it must be lonely,
and the pain is very real.
Or if it was the other way,I know how I would feel.

The love we shared made everything
so beautiful in life.
I loved you more than words can say,
you were the perfect wife.
You were my friend and lover,
you fulfilled my every need.
I know it’s only been a year,
but please try not to grieve.
I want you to be happy,
even when you shed your tears.

That is why the roses will be sent to
you for years.
When you get these roses,
think of all the happiness that we had
together, and how both of us were blessed.

I have always loved you and
I know I always will.
But, my love, you must go on,
you have some living still.

Please…try to find happiness,
while living out your days.
I know it is not easy,
but I hope you find some ways.

The roses will come every year,
and they will only stop,
When your door’s not answered,
when the florist stops to knock.

He will come five times that day,
in case you have gone out.
But after his last visit,
he will know without a doubt!

To take the roses to the place,
where I’ve instructed him
and place the roses where we are,
together once again.

May we all be loved  so much.

New Scientist- News Feeds have been added for Energy and Fuels and Breaking Environmental News.  You will find them under Earth Issues.

My intent is to bring to the front news and reports about the critical issues confronting us today.  If you have a comment or a statement to present you are welcome to do so. Sign in Please

My Thanks in advance

The Editor

Ever wondered who owns the water in the underground source, known as an aquifer, that supplies
your well and drinking water system? Who gets access to water during drought and shortages? If your
local government can limit a developer’s access to dwindling water supplies to build new homes?
The answers to these questions vary from state to state and are rarely simple. The rights to ground
water are governed by state statutes and case law that have evolved over the last century. Today,
states generally follow one of five “rules” in deciding “Who Owns the Water?”

The Absolute Dominion Rule

Permits a landowner to intercept ground water that would otherwise have been available to a neigh-
boring water user and even to monopolize the yield of an aquifer without incurring liability.
Eight states adopted or indicated a preference for the Absolute Dominion rule: Connecticut, Indiana,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Texas.

The Reasonable Use Rule

Limits a landowner’s use of water to those uses that have a reasonable relationship to the use of the
overlying land. The rule is essentially the rule of absolute ownership with exceptions for wasteful and
off-site use.

Twenty-one states adopted or indicated a preference for the Reasonable Use rule: Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Four of these states adopted the Reasonable Use rule in conjunction with the Prior Appropriation rule: Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri and Wyoming. Another state, Nebraska, adopted a Reasonable Use rule in conjunction with the Correlative Rights rule.

The Correlative Use Rule

Maintains that the authority to allocate water is held by the courts. Owners of overlying land and non-
owners or transporters have co-equal or correlative rights in the reasonable, beneficial use of ground
water. A major feature of this doctrine is the concept that adjoining lands can be served by a single
aquifer. Therefore, the judicial power to allocate water permits protects both the public’s interest and
the interests of private users.

Six states adopted or indicated a preference for the Correlative Rights rule: California, Hawaii, Iowa,
Minnesota, New Jersey and Vermont.

The Restatement of Torts Rule

Holds that a landowner who uses ground water for a beneficial purpose is not subject to liability for
interference if certain conditions are met. The water withdrawal cannot cause unreasonable harm to
a neighbor by lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure, cannot exceed a reasonable
share of the total store of ground water and cannot create a direct and substantial effect on a water-
course or lake.

Three states adopted or indicate a preference for the Restatement of Torts doctrine: Michigan, Ohio
and Wisconsin.