-Caveat Lector-
[radtimes] # 175
An informally produced compendium of vital irregularities.
"We're living in rad times!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send $$ to RadTimes!! --> (See ** at end.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:
--Bush Reorganizes National Security Council
--Pentagon's latest weapon: a pain beam
--Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
--Revolution Finally Comes, But Timing Proves Inconvenient For Ruling Class
--New Tools Emerge For Info War Battle
--Who Owns Your Body?
===================================================================
SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
March 2, 2001
Bush Reorganizes National Security Council
President Bush has placed his imprint on the structure of national security
decision making with the issuance of his first National Security
Presidential Directive (NSPD-1). The closely held document has not been
formally released, but a copy was obtained by Secrecy News.
The new Directive preserves the NSC Principals Committee and the NSC
Deputies Committee, which are the top-level interagency forums for
deliberation on national security policy. But it abolishes President
Clinton's system of Interagency Working Groups.
To replace them, the Directive establishes eleven Policy Coordination
Committees (PCCs) on topics including Proliferation, Counterproliferation,
and Homeland Defense; Intelligence and Counterintelligence;
Counter-Terrorism and National Preparedness; and Records Access and
Information Security.
(The word "counter-terrorism" is hyphenated in the Directive, but
"counterproliferation" and "counterintelligence" are not.)
As a consequence of the new Directive, much of the Clinton Administration's
prodigious security policy apparatus will be swept away, though portions of
it will be reconstituted within the new Policy Coordination Committee
framework. Thus, the functions of the Security Policy Board will be
distributed among the new PCCs.
The new series of National Security Presidential Directives will replace
both the presidential decision directives and the presidential review
directives of past Administrations.
Although NSPD-1 is unclassified, the Bush Administration has declined to
release it. But a copy of the seven page directive, obtained from a
public-spirited source, is posted here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm
===================================================================
Pentagon's latest weapon: a pain beam
March 2, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon on Thursday unveiled a new "non-lethal"
weapon designed to drive off an adversary with an energy beam that inflicts
pain without causing lasting harm.
The weapon could be used for riot control and peacekeeping missions when
deadly force is not necessary, officials said.
The weapon, called "active denial technology," was developed by Air Force
research laboratories in New Mexico and Texas as part of a multi-service
program run by the Marine Corps.
Will the Pentagon's new "non-lethal" stun weapon be safe?
"This revolutionary force-protection technology gives U.S. service members
an alternative to using deadly force," said Marine Corps Col. George P.
Fenton, director of the program at Quantico, Virginia.
The weapon is designed to stop people by firing millimeter-wave
electromagnetic energy in a beam that quickly heats up the surface of the
victim's skin. Within seconds the person feels pain that officials said is
similar to touching a hot light bulb.
Like being burned
"It's the kind of pain you would feel if you were being burned," said Rich
Garcia, a spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air
Force Base, New Mexico. "It's just not intense enough to cause any damage."
The Pentagon has made a strong push to develop "non-lethal" weapons in the
aftermath of a humanitarian mission in Somalia in 1992-93 that put soldiers
in the line of fire in urban areas where civilians were present.
A prototype of the weapon will be tested on goats and humans at Kirtland in
the next few months, Garcia said.
"When it penetrates in, it activates the pain sensors, and you feel a lot
of pain," Garcia said. "But there's no damage. It truly is a non-lethal
device."
The Marine Corps said $40 million was spent developing the weapon during
the past decade.
The Marine Corps plans to mount the microwave weapon on top of Humvees, the
Jeep-like vehicles used by both the Marines and the Army. Later it might be
used on aircraft and ships, officials said.
The weapon could be fielded by 2009, officials said.
Concerns remain
William Arkin, senior military adviser to Human Rights Watch, questioned
whether a pain weapon would be safe to use against civilians in combat
situations.
"What about children in the crowd? What about pregnant women and the
elderly?" he said.
"We have developed a nonlethal weapon which causes pain. What happens when
someone continues to walk toward the source of the high-power microwave?
What happens when panic ensues in a crowd as a result of high-power
microwave? What happens when it's focused on someone's eye?" Arkin said.
===================================================================
MARCH 2 2001
Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures
By Jon Dougherty
WorldNetDaily.com
Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United
States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new
international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain --
has much higher levels of crime.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University
in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in
violent crime among industrialized nations.
Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the
population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list
with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized
nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of
victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most
categories of crime."
Highlights of the study indicated that:
The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in
England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the
United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest
recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher
rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the
U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;
"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime
was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24
percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among
the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the
London Telegraph said.
England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent
of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1
percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not
listed among the "top 10" nations.
The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4
percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark
was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8
percent.
Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates --
just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish
Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.
Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other
industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control
laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.
Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray
Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures
passed by lawmakers in 1996.
"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that
Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ...
offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.
"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted
murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that
year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders
involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.
However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime
victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in
1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.
Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder
rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also,
they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories
-- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and
overall victimization (about 31 percent).
Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).
In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's
widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.
WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban
promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different
story:
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300
percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been
dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and
assaults on the elderly.
===================================================================
Revolution Finally Comes, But Timing Proves Inconvenient For Ruling Class
<http://www.satirewire.com/news/0102/revolution.shtml>
Lack of Bourgeoisie Cooperation, Strong TV Lineup, Turn Back Universal
Uprising Everywhere
The long-awaited Revolution, when the oppressed and disenfranchised break
the chains of economic servitude and social injustice and put the tyrants
and plutocrats up against the wall, finally arrived yesterday, but quickly
fizzled after the ruling classes said they just didn't have time for it.
"It was 8 o'clock at night, we had guests over, I was introducing a new
line of cookware in the morning, and suddenly my employees want to overturn
the status quo and establish a classless society?" said Martha Stewart, CEO
of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and one of those slated to be "first up
against the wall" when the Revolution came. "Of course I said 'No.'"
Across the globe, attempts to cast off the shackles of capitalist
oppression met similar fates. In Szentgotthárd, Hungary, second-shift
workers at a General Motors plant attempted to seize the means of
production, but were told they needed to make an appointment with plant
manager Istvar Tari, whom workers described "almost impossible to get a
hold of." In Syria, meanwhile, revolutionaries ran into logistical problems.
"We always said that when the Revolution came, the United States of America
would be first up against the wall," said Rashap Abdi, a bicycle maker in
Damascus. "So when the Revolution really did come, we all gathered by this
big wall, and we waited, and we waited, and the United States never showed
up."
Abdi's younger brother, 16-year-old Hafez, vowed to go to the United States
and find a wall himself, but the elder Abdi wouldn't hear of it. "I was
like, 'Oh yes, Hafez. You go to America. You can't even drive.'"
Visibly disappointed, revolutionary leaders conceded they didn't anticipate
the depth of opposition from corporate and political hegemonists; their
sole victory was at Harvard University, where students successfully rose up
against themselves. As for what went wrong, the activists hinted that the
masses gave up too easily, although some suggested the decision to schedule
the universal uprising to compete with a popular television viewing hour in
the United States was ill-advised.
"I wanted to join in and all, but I was watching Touched by an Angel,"
explained Carolyn Ebsen, a data processor in Augusta, Ga. "Everybody who
knows me knows you do not interrupt me during Touched by an Angel, not even
for the ascendancy of the proletariat over the exploitative bourgeoisie."
===================================================================
New Tools Emerge For Info War Battle
Aviation Week & Space Technology, Pg. 58
February 26, 2001
By Robert Wall and David A. Fulghum, Kelly AFB, Tex.
In a bid to aid efforts to make information warfare more operationally
relevant, researchers are devising new ways to
conduct various forms of cyber, electronic and psychological warfare.
But developing the technology to make information warfare effective is only
part of the solution. Getting the proper people
to conduct these missions, particularly in the emerging cyberwarfare arena,
is proving as much of a challenge as the technology is.
Several organizations have sprung up to help address various aspects of the
information warfare challenge. Among them is
the Air Force's Information Warfare Battlelab which, since its inception in
1997, has examined more than 270 concepts. It
now has 37 projects under investigation.
While many of the projects are unclassified, some of the most promising
involve closely guarded secrets. Two of the latter
are ''Coordinated Noise'' and ''Aimpoint.''
Both are information warfare tools using directed energy technology and are
supposed to provide an ability to strike a target
with extreme precision. While Coordinated Noise is seen as relying on
microwave energy, the Aimpoint project could use
either high-power microwaves or laser technology. The projects are sponsored
by an array of organizations, including the
U.S. Air Forces Europe, Special Operations Command, the Air Force Research
Laboratory and Air Combat Command.
The battlelab initiatives span many technologies, which are reflective of
the disparate fields that fall under the umbrella
term of information operations. Almost half of the battlelab efforts fall
into a category called information-in-warfare, an
area encompassing intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation,
weather and other activities. About 30% of the
projects are in the general category of electronic warfare, with about 8% of
initiatives associated with psychological operations.
EACH OF THE INITIATIVES is supposed to lead to a demonstration within 18
months. Most of them, about 70%, are
proposed by industry, although a considerable number emanate from the Air
Force.
The psychological warfare area has yielded one of battlelab's latest
successes, a new leaflet bomb. The Air Force has been
using the 200-lb. M129 leaflet bomb. But those canisters are aging and the
inventory is being rapidly depleted. However,
the battlelab realized that older cluster munitions were being phased-out of
operational use, freeing up thousands of SUU-30
dispensers that could be modified to deliver leaflets.
Using the SUU-30 had several advantages, said Lt. Col. Dan Radcliff, deputy
at the battlelab. For one, the weapon can
actually carry about 1,000 leaflets, which is more than can be packed into
the M129. Furthermore, because the weapon has
already undergone stores separation testing, what the Air Force calls Seek
Eagle, it can be fielded quickly.
The new device, designated the LBU-30, for leaflet bomb unit, recently
completed flight testing at Eglin AFB, Fla. The
weapon was successfully dropped from an F-16 flying at 20,000 ft. Several
customers have already signed up for the
system, said Col. Mark J. Nichols, the battlelab's director.
ANOTHER PROJECT UNDERTAKEN at the lab was the Raytheon-built Microglider, a
22-in. long, 8-lb. vehicle that can
carry a 4-lb. imaging payload for battle damage assessment. The system would
be dispensed from a tactical fighter and fly
9-10 min. with a 10:1 glide ratio. The aircraft would fly to its target at
about 100-kt. speed, guided by GPS coordinates,
said Lt. Jeremy Haas, of the battlelab.
In an operational configuration, the battle damage video would be relayed to
an RC-135 Rivet Joint or transmitted through
another unmanned aircraft, like Predator, or through satellites to an
operations center.
On the navigation warfare front, the battlelab successfully demonstrated a
small GPS jammer. It was built to deny an
adversary access to GPS signals. The Air Force has retained the gear, which
it is keeping ready for potential operational use or to employ in exercises.
Another tool the Air Force has developed to aid its information attack
capability is called Sensor Harvest, which is built
and managed by the Air Force Information Warfare Center's IW Target Analysis
Program. The system essentially provides a
repository of data on potential adversary countries to determine how best to
launch information warfare attacks. It can be
used to create ''target nomination files'' that war planners can draw on.
Constructing and maintaining a country file is time and personnel intensive,
however, which is the main reason Sensor
Harvest only supports about 10 active countries at one time. On average, it
takes about eight people seven months to build a
country file, using 500-1,000 data points from classified and unclassified
sources. Another 2-3 people are needed to
maintain a country. The tool also can be used against transnational threats,
said one Air Force official, although that field is still deemed relatively
new.
On the defensive IW front, Defense Dept. officials are trying to ensure they
don't create possible vulnerabilities in systems
they introduce. That's why the Joint Information Operation Center (JIOC),
also located here, has set up a field demonstration
team to do vulnerability analyses of the Pentagon's Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstrations. These demos are
devised to use existing hardware to field new capabilities quickly.
Furthermore, the group is used to support exercises and emulate different IW
threats in the field, said Navy Lt. Jeff Garcia,
who oversees the team. This includes jamming which could be provided by a
potential enemy. One feature of the unit is that
is uses exclusively off-the-shelf gear any adversary can obtain. For
instance, the hobby shop-like operation has been able to
mount effective direction-finding and signals intercept gear in a sport
utility and a recreational vehicle to clandestinely
collect information on exercising forces.
On another front, USAF and other information warfare planners are attempting
to address a serious personnel shortfall
problem. Shortages of uniformed cyberwarfare experts has caused the Defense
Dept. to rely, to some extent, more on
contractors. As a result ''our contractor costs have gone up,'' said another
JIOC official.
One strategy being pursued is that of wooing more civilian software
developers, said Army Col. David C. Kirk, deputy
commander of the Joint Information Operations Center. The organization has
had some success enticing software engineers
looking for a more steady lifestyle than the highly competitive pace of
Silicon Valley. But that in itself isn't enough to fill the
military's demands, Kirk acknowledged.
Another effort is to make sure all computer talent in the military is
properly exploited. ''We found Washington Air National
Guard Microsoft software employees working on diesel generators,'' said Maj.
Gen. Bruce Wright, commander of the Air
Intelligence Agency. They now have been reassigned and are instead
supporting the Air Force's computer aggressor
squadron. Similar initiatives are underway with the Texas, Vermont and
Kentucky Air National Guards, Wright said.
THE PERSONNEL CRUNCH is being felt not only in the cyberwarfare realm. ''We
are literally short of people much
worse than we are of money right now,'' added Col. James C. Massaro,
commander of the 67th Information Operations
Wing. One area where the wing always is struggling to fill slots is in
linguists, who fill critical listening positions on, for
instance, the RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intercept aircraft. There are some
areas where there are only two or three speakers
of a language in the Air Force, which means they have to be deployed often
and are difficult to keep in the service, Massaro noted.
===================================================================
Who Owns Your Body?
<http://www.sciam.com/2001/0301issue/0301reviews1.html>
Review by Rick Weiss
Lori Andrews and Dorothy Nelkin uncover some disturbing answers
It seems that scientists have been struggling forever to make a mechanical
heart that really works. Or a trouble-free hearing aid. Or a prosthetic
hand that's half as good as the real thing. From wooden legs to silicone
breasts, the history of human corporeal reengineering has largely been one
of clumsiness and frustration, despite relentless innovation.
But what if we could take a tip from nature and grow the things we cannot
build? Imagine little slabs of cardiac muscle cultivated in a dish, ready
to be sewn over your aging heart. Homegrown blood vessels that naturally
bypass clogged arteries. Medicines that work perfectly because they are
made by your own cells. Imagine hair that sprouts in skeins from once
withered follicles. Or being able to grow, as advertised, those perfect
pecs and abs. The dream of harnessing biology's regenerative powers for
curative, life-extending and even cosmetic purposes has begun to become a
reality, write Lori Andrews and Dorothy Nelkin in Body Bazaar: The Market
for Human Tissue in the Biotechnology Age. But, the authors warn, this new
and promising era has a dark side. People's tissues, cells and genes are
increasingly being perceived as natural resources to be harvested and
transformed into value-added commodities. And the economy that has evolved
around this burgeoning industry threatens to wreak ethical havoc.
"The body is more than a utilitarian object: it is also a social, ritual,
and metaphorical entity, and the only thing many people can really call
their own," the authors write in this fascinating if somewhat polemical
overview of the new millennium's hottest biological frontier. "When
commercial interests and the quest for profits are a driving force,
questions of human safety and respect for the human sources of tissue, the
person in the body, take second place."
Let's set aside for a moment the oft-overlooked truth about biotech
medicine: that despite all the hoopla
surrounding recent advances, including the sequencing of the human genome,
it's probably not going to be all that easy to wrest control of Mother
Nature's biomolecular operating system to cure inherited diseases and grow
replacement parts. Still, vaccines and pharmaceuticals are increasingly
being produced with the help of human cells and genes. And DNA is making
itself more and more at home in law-enforcement, employment and insurance
decisions. As Andrews and Nelkin convincingly point out, even these first
steps have already led to some worrisome legal and ethical precedents.
Consider the case of John Moore, who in the 1980s was being treated by a
Los Angeles specialist for
hairy-cell leukemia. Unbeknownst to Moore, his doctor had discovered in the
businessman's spleen cells a natural compound that appeared to have great
therapeutic potential. When Moore learned that his doctor had taken out a
patent on his cells and had sold the commercial rights to a biotechnology
company for millions of dollars, he sued for property theft. But in a
landmark 1990 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that
Moore did not have a property interest in his body parts. Thus, the stage
was set for what the biotechnology industry now sees as a crucial right of
access to human tissues and what critics like Andrews and Nelkin see as an
invitation to wholesale biocolonialism and human exploitation.
Andrews, a legal scholar and bioethicist at the Illinois Institute of
Technology, and Nelkin, a New York
University professor of law, offer a rogues' gallery of other examples in
which people's rights appear to have been trampled or the sanctity of life
diminished by gene-hunting bioprospectors and profiteers.
Meet Daniel and Debbie Greenberg, who transformed the deaths of their son
and daughter from Canavan
disease into a biomedical blessing. They initiated a research program that
led to the discovery of that disease's causative gene, only to learn that
the university that co-sponsored the research had quickly patented the gene
and made it unavailable or unaffordable to researchers who wanted to use it
to help parents and patients.
Meet the helpful but perhaps naive citizens of the South Atlantic island of
Tristan da Cunha, who, after giving "informed consent" that may have been
tainted by language barriers and cultural differences, donated their blood
to scientists developing gene-based medicines that the poor volunteers were
unlikely ever to afford.
Then there is the sad story of Susan Sutton, whose parents tried to make
sense of her suicide by granting permission for her heart, liver, cornea,
bones and skin to be used for transplantation. Only later did they discover
that although they could not even afford a headstone for their daughter's
grave, others had made tens of thousands of dollars brokering the
distribution of her body parts.
What are we to make, Andrews and Nelkin ask, of a legal system that stores
people's DNA profiles in huge databases without adequate assurance that the
information will not be abused? A national transplantation system that
precludes buying and selling organs yet allows middlemen to skim profits
from their priceless trade? A medical system that (in many states) rules
out payments for surrogate mothers but allows women to sell their
gene-screened eggs to fertility clinics for thousands of dollars?
Body Bazaar offers compelling evidence that federal regulators and the
courts are lagging in their patchwork efforts to deal with biotechnology's
entrepreneurial push. Yet although the authors thoroughly document the
scope of the problem, they lose some credibility through their
unwillingness to acknowledge that many of these quandaries have two sides
and by failing to offer more creative solutions.
They seem unwilling to concede, for example, that patents on at least some
living things are most assuredly here to stay. The biotechnology industry
has little incentive to create the cures that people want if it has no hope
of profiting from its efforts. And the authors are right to raise an
eyebrow about a company that, instead of cleaning up the workplace, turns
away applicants whose genes put them at risk of toxic chemicals. But they
ignore the more difficult underlying question of whether it's preferable to
set environmental protection standards so high as to protect even those
whose rare genetic makeups leave them unusually sensitive to certain
substances.
One wishes that the last chapter, which seeks to answer the question of how
to sequester our warm bodies from the cold-hearted bazaar, were longer than
seven pages. Nevertheless, at a time when even
science-savvy readers may be only vaguely aware of the biological gold rush
now under way around the
world, Body Bazaar does a great service by collecting in very readable form
a comprehensive overview of
the trend. It offers a prescient look at how our culture is likely to
struggle and change as our craving for better and longer lives and more
effective law enforcement comes up against long-standing economic,
scientific, cultural and even spiritual traditions regarding the body.
Today, 10,000 years after human beings learned to farm the land for food,
we are learning how to farm our
own bodies for biological products. For the first time ever, our very
bodies may be worth more in the
marketplace than the products produced by those bodies in a lifetime of
agricultural or factory work.
As Body Bazaar makes so frighteningly clear, it may be a long time before
we, the farmers and the farmed, adjust to that peculiar economic reality.
----
RICK WEISS, a science and medicine reporter at the Washington Post, has
written extensively about genetics and biotechnology.
===================================================================
"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
======================================================
"The world is my country, all mankind my brethren,
and to do good is my religion."
-Thomas Paine
======================================================
" . . . it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds . . . "
-Samuel Adams
======================================================
"You may never know what results come from your action.
But if you do nothing, there will be no results."
-Gandhi
______________________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for a sample copy or a list of back issues,
send appropriate email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
______________________________________________________________
**How to assist RadTimes:
An account is available at <www.paypal.com> which enables direct donations.
If you are a current PayPal user, use this email address:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, to contribute. If you are not a current user, use this
link: <https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=resist%40best.com> to sign up
and contribute. The only information passed on to me via this process is
your email address and the amount you transfer.
Thanks!
<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
