The Spy Who Tried To Stop A War.

Was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, by the US-led coalition, illegal under international law?

Are Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, et al, war criminals according to international law?

Why did the US Media fail to report on this?

These are questions raised by the House of Commons and the UK Media. While the US has remained silent. 

Here's the thumb-nail outline of what happened. It's post 9/11. Bush cannot find OBL in Afghanistan in 2002. So decides invade Iraq in 2003. However, this would not be lawful without a UN Security Council mandate and especially not if regime change is the objective of the invasion (which it clearly IS). The US suspects that it won't get a UN mandate to invade Iraq. So the US NSA emails British Intelligence GCHQ asking for help in spying on Security Council members to pressurize them into voting for Bush's invasion of Iraq (Resolution 1441). The UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, tells Blair that without a UN mandate, an invasion is unlawful. But then changes his mind after an apparent arm-twisting trip to Washington DC. While UN Resolution 1441, crafted by the US and UK, requires Iraq to support inspections by UNMOVIC and IAEA, it contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. Ergo, no UN mandate to legitimize the imminent Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq. But the US nevertheless decides to unilaterally re-interpret Resolution 1441 to allow for an invasion. And then the NSA email lands on the desk of GCHQ staffer Katherine Gun. Concerned that the UK is about to get drawn into an unlawful war without a UN mandate, Gun leaks the email to the UK media. She quickly confesses to a breach of the British Official Secrets Act and is charged accordingly. Her defense is "necessity" - to save British, American and Iraqi lives in an unlawful war. When Gun appears at the Old Bailey Central Criminal Court to face charges under the OSA, the charges are suddenly withdrawn. Even though she confessed to leaking the document and breaching the OSA. Why? Perhaps in order to refute her defense of necessity, the UK, and by implication the USA, would have to challenge her contention that the war was indeed unlawful. (The defense of necessity does obviously not apply to an imminent threat that is lawful.) And a breach of UN resolution 1441, a unanimous vote on which the UN voters may or may not have been blackmailed by an unlawful joint NSA-GCHG spying operation. 

In not reporting on this, was the US media just asleep at the wheel, or were they too afraid to speak up and speak out? In either case, could they have stopped the war and perhaps saved thousands of American, British, Coalition and Iraqi lives? 

Read the full story : The Spy Who Tried to Stop A War by Marcia & Thomas Mitchell

Paranoia in the Fourth Reich?

After a sleepless 12-hour flight from Cape Town to Amsterdam, followed by another sleepless 9-hour flight to Atlanta GA, and with my Automated Passport Control receipt in hand, I respond to a crooked-finger summons and step up to the stern and blank-faced Customs & Border Protection officer and hand over my APC receipt, passport and US Permanent Residence Green-card. No greeting or welcome home from this unsmiling Gestapo agent. Just a number of questions. Where have you been? South Africa. How long? A month. Why so long? I went to bury my sister and take care of my mother. How much money are you bringing into the USA? About US$200 and about ZAR3000. How many bags did you check? Two. Do your bags contain any prohibited items such as meat, dairy or agricultural products? No.

My passport and Green-card are placed in a clear plastic folder and handed to another unsmiling CBP officer who beckons me to follow him to the baggage area where I collect my 2 pieces of checked luggage. We move to an inspection area where I am questioned again. Did you pack all of your bags? Yes. Are you carrying anything for anyone else? No.  Have your bags been in your possession all the time. Yes, but only until I checked my bags with the airline in Cape Town after having had them shrink-wrapped. Does your luggage contain any prohibited items? No. Do you take full responsibility for the contents of your bags? Yes. The officer thereupon proceeds to unpack and search both of my checked bags and my 2 items of cabin baggage. I am questioned about everything. Why so many chocolates? My family loves chocolate and Cadbury tastes better than Hershey. What are these bags of powdered Pepper Sauce? Mixed with boiling water, Pepper Sauce is great for steaks. What is this Durban Curry? It’s an Indian cooking spice. Referring to some Panado and Venteze, what are these medicines? Non-prescription over-the counter items from my father’s pharmacy – Panado is paracetamol, safer than ibuprofen, and Venteze is albuterol for my son’s asthma. An hour later I am instructed to repack my bags. I am then told to wait. My passport and Green-card are still in the plastic folder, lying on the officer’s counter. Another period of waiting. Then without another word, my passport and Green-card are handed to me and I am told to exit the inspection hall. The whole process has taken almost 2 hours. I smile at the officer with a “Thank you Sir. I hope you found what you were looking for.” Silence from his side. Clearly I have disappointed him.

Now I understand and appreciate the need for security. But I am a lawful permanent resident of the United States of America. I have earned this privilege through hard work and not through accident of birth.  And I am a tax-payer. Those Customs and Border Protection officers are there on my dime. They are public servants and they are the first face of America that arrivals see.  Would a “Good Morning” be too difficult?  There was a time when a CBP officer, on seeing my Green-card, smiled at me with a “Welcome back to America, Sir.”

But no more. The paranoia of this Fourth Reich seems to operate under a presumption of guilt. A suspicion that everyone coming to the USA has ill-intent. An attitude of hostility towards every arrival. And apparently makes no distinction between visa-holders and legal permanent residents. Or has my family been ear-marked for some sort of special treatment? Just 6 months ago, my wife had an even worse experience at the hands of the CBP officers at JFK Airport in New York. There’s nothing quite like having to use the ladies bathroom in full open-door view of a watchful CBP agent and then finding that there’s no toilet-paper, wash-basin or paper-towels, to develop just a bit of a dislike for this so-called bastion of civilization.

Come on America. You only get one chance to make a first impression. Be firm. Be strict. But courteousness, politeness, civility and human decency are currencies with immeasurable investment returns.

Defining America – an Essay on the Changing American Culture and Morality

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke.

Perhaps when Henry Ford launched his first Model-T production line, he failed to realize that while it would automate the production of a car, it might also automate the very thinking of a society, and irrevocably change the culture and morality of future generations. No longer would auto-workers have to apply intelligence and discretion to make decisions. No longer would Mr Ford have to deal with independent thought from someone who wanted to do more, or differently or even better. Each activity would be clearly defined, each responsibility clearly delineated, each worker a living, breathing automaton that would all too soon be replaced by a robot that would similarly never need to think, or make a judgment call, or use its discretion, and with the added benefit of never needing sleep or leisure or sick-time.

Has our society not become a place of puppets and puppet-masters? A society where a few puppet-masters control a multitude of puppets who are required to respond precisely to the rules of puppeteering? A place where there is no room for intelligence, no need for wisdom, and no need for ethics or morality? And perhaps a place where robots might better serve society absent the variables and foibles inherent in a thinking, critical and discerning mind.

Has not an overly legislated society, coupled with a queue-card mentality, obviated the need for, and indeed benefits of, an educated, knowledgeable, responsible and self-regulating populace? Where laws regulate every conceivable form of conduct, regardless of whether the legislator actually considered that specific circumstance at the time of penning such laws?

When I was a child, my father extended store-credit based upon a relationship with each of his customers, the customers’ word and a handshake. When asked about this, my Dad explained that if he recognized a thing called character and integrity -- a driving force to do the right thing -- this was more binding than a contract. And not once did a customer ever fail to repay a debt.

Many years later, I went into a Manhattan store to purchase a cell-phone. I struck up a friendly conversation with the salesman while we selected a phone, accessories and a suitable service contract. We spoke about the company I owned and my blue-chip and military clients. Yet all of this counted for little when he pulled my Trans Union credit score – lower than average because I was a new-comer to the USA with a short credit record and few long-term accounts. The store-policy was not to do business with a credit-score like mine. The salesman apologized profusely but said rules are rules that have to be applied without question or variance. Interestingly enough, a neighboring store pulled my Experian credit-score which turned out to be 70 points higher than my Trans Union score and the salesman enthusiastically served me with an even better package deal and at an even better rate.

The moral of this story was that unquestioning obedience to system-rules have superseded business acumen, discretion and intelligence. The automaton no longer has to think or use discretion. Simply check the queue-card to find the answer.

Wasn’t there also a time when you could call a company, speak to the switchboard and find out the best person to speak to for a solution to your question? Now are you not simply told that she cannot help you because all she does is answer the phone? That she doesn’t really know what anyone else in the company actually does?

And what does it say about a society when you can sue Starbucks for serving you a hot cup of coffee and you burned yourself? Or when you can sue the microwave manufacturer because they never warned you that you cannot dry your Poodle in the microwave? Or when you can sue me for injuries sustained when you come to visit me and slip on my walkway? Has the protection of law not deprived you of rational thought, common sense and self-responsibility?

Have we not indeed created a society where education is no longer designed to instill the power of independent, rational and logical thought, but rather to instill simple unquestioning obedience to the rules and string-pulling of the puppet-masters? When it’s easier to sentence a man to death than it is to grant him a stay of execution or a re-trial? When the assumption exists that a bureaucratic ruling must be implicitly obeyed without question and without ever wondering whether the prevailing circumstances may be indicative of some error in adjudication?

And in creating this unquestioning, unthinking, queue-card, rule-following society of automatons, have we not allowed ourselves to become circus-animals, performing and responding to the prods of the puppet-masters, without knowing why or what they are doing, other than that failure to perform and conform will evoke punishment?

Why did the people of Germany rampage though the streets on Kristallnacht in November 1938? Perhaps because the people of Germany needed someone to blame for the hardships of Germany, and blaming the Jews was an easy outlet for their frustrations? Perhaps, as said by Joseph Stalin, because education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.

What does it say about a society when college students at a sporting match target and taunt a foreign-looking brown-skinned student with a chant of “where’s your green-card?” Do we blame the students for being young and ignorant? Or do we blame our society for instilling in our students an antipathy for anyone with a brown skin? Is this anti-immigrant profiling not the thin edge of the wedge? Will we not also resort to the Nazi’s anti-semitic playbook in restricting the rights of people to educate their children, operate a business, rent a home or secure basic utilities? Indeed, have we not already dusted off the Nazi playbook?

America is a nation of immigrants and its greatness is because of immigrants, not in spite of immigrants. To even suggest that immigrants today, whether documented or undocumented, legal or illegal, are to blame for American unemployment or an overburdened health-care system or an over-burdened and impoverished educational system, is nothing less than naïve. Yet the propaganda about the costs of undocumented immigrants will always work if the populace is too ignorant to know better and if the populace needs someone to blame for some perceived hardship. Thus, the undocumented immigration debate is emotional propaganda, fuelled by emotional ignorance, against which reality and common sense is a poor defense. Yet the debate will continue for as long it’s easier to blame someone else for your hardship than it will be for you to seek the solution within yourself.

The term “illegal” immigrant is in itself an emotionally charged and inaccurate term. It tends to suggest the stereotypical criminal. Yet people without papers are not criminals. They have committed no crime. Indeed, being an undocumented person is a civil matter rather than a criminal matter. But using the term “illegal” rather than “undocumented” tends to enflame the passionate desire to punish and marginalize a group of people who by and large are tax-paying, law-abiding and hard-working entrepreneurs.

And as a society progresses along the path of “obedience regardless”, the automatons are increasingly spared the dilemma of having to choose between following the queue-card and doing what is right, fair and just. When Martin Luther King condemned “unjust laws”, was he perhaps referring to not only laws that are unjust per se, but also to laws that are sometimes applied in an unjust manner, or laws that result in unjust consequences?

If the law stipulates that murder without extenuating circumstances must be punished with the death penalty, what do we do if extenuating circumstances are known to the jury, but not introduced in the court-room in order to protect an innocent party. To disregard knowledge not introduced into evidence, will be to secure an unjust consequence from the application of a law that may not be inherently unjust.

Further support for electing to disregard just laws in pursuit of a just and equitable consequence may perhaps be found in the invasion of Iraq. Clearly a breach of international law respecting the sovereignty of nations, but perhaps justified on the humanitarian grounds of unseating and prosecuting Sadam Hussein. Similarly, justification for the illegal entry into Pakistan to execute Osama Bin Laden may have been found in the argument that the unquestioning obedience to international law would have unjust consequences.

If the law stipulates that a legal submission is to be filed within a period of 30 days, and the submission is filed timeously, but accidentally to an incorrect office of the designated recipient, thus resulting in it only reaching the correct office of the designated recipient some days after the stipulated deadline, would the unquestioning application of a just law not result in unjust consequences if the entire submission were to be rejected, regardless of the consequential seriousness and degree of hardship resulting from such a rejection?

Is the application of law a matter of black and white with no room for gray? Should laws be applied by automatons or is there a need for society to temper laws with humanity, fairness, discretion and morality? It is justice, not law, that is the great standing policy of civil society, and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all. The jurists at Nuremburg argued that they were applying the laws of Nazi Germany. The American court ruled that the laws were unjust, that humanity, morality and justice demanded a refusal to obey an unjust law.

What then of the laws persecuting undocumented immigrants, denying education to their children, denying them the human rights of liberty, equality and the right sell their labor free from oppression and discrimination? What difference is there between the persecution of the Jews in Germany in 1938 and the persecution of undocumented immigrants in America in 2012?

When the House Judiciary Committee decides to blindly follow its self-imposed regulations and reject a private immigration bill because no precedent exists for approving a bill to over-rule the decision of another government agency, without examining the veracity or justness of such a decision, are we not sacrificing the principles of justice on the alter of legislative obedience? And when the consequences of such failure result in the loss of innocent lives, what then do we say about the defense that the House Judiciary Committee is simply following regulations?

Perhaps America has reached a turning point. Perhaps the desire to achieve a utopian, regulated, organized, law-abiding society with a populace that obeys rather than thinks, will itself sow the seeds of our demise. Undermining justice and morality may just be the first step in ensuring that America will collapse from within itself rather than at the hands of its external enemies.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually the people will believe it -- Adolf Hitler.

America should be ashamed of its intolerance

In a free and democratic America, Muslims have every right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. And Americans should have the tolerance to accept this constitutional right.

And to promote this culture of universal tolerance in America, I propose the following :

* Two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque thereby promoting tolerance within the mosque. We could call one of the clubs (which would be gay) "The Turban Cowboy" and the other, being a topless bar, "You Mecca Me Hot".

* Next door might be a butcher shop that specializes in pork and adjacent to that an open barbeque pork rib restaurant, called something like “Iraq o’ Ribs”?

* Across the street there might be a very daring lingerie store called “Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret” with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods.

* Next door to the lingerie shop, there would be room for an Adult Toy Shop, “Koranal Knowledge”, its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store, perhaps called "More Hammered"?

* Security for these treasured landmarks would be provided by the mosque itself. Indeed, America should encourage the construction of a mosque next door to the White House, the Capitol, the Pentagon, and every other strategic and cultural landmark. Unlike terrorists who have a penchant for hiding behind human shields, something frowned upon in America, I see no major problem in America protecting itself with the religious shields of Islamic domes and minarets.

Then these folk could share with us and demonstrate their tolerance for our cultural freedoms and constitutional rights.

Dumbing Down America

At a time when the US Economy, employment, the housing market and health care are on the ropes and fading fast, there is one area where the good old US of A is excelling beyond all expectations – dumbed-down education!

Once the world leader in the percentage of young people with college degrees, the USA has fallen to 12th among 36 developed nations. In the key group of 25- to 34-year-olds with a college degree, the US ranks behind Canada, South Korea, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Israel, France, Belgium and Australia. And as America’s aging and highly educated work force moves into retirement, the nation will rely on young Americans to maintain and increase our standing in the world.

One generation ago, the US was No. 1 in the world in college graduations. Now we’re 12th at a time when a good education is critically important to getting a decent job. We read less and less and write like barbarians. These days, a child drops out of high school every 26 seconds and it is expected that the educational level of the younger generation of Americans will not approach their parents’ level of education.

In the 1950s, prior to the onset of one education “reform” initiative after another, America’s literacy rate was at an all-time high, and it’s interesting to note that, with rare exception, we early baby-boomers were not taught to read until first grade. Typically, our mothers made no effort whatsoever to teach us any literacy skills during our preschool years. Yet today’s parents are convinced, in the face of a growing amount of evidence to the contrary, that where reading and computers are concerned, earlier is better.

Unequivocal research indicates that television watching during the preschool years greatly increases the likelihood of attention problems, yet it is a rare preschool program that doesn’t have children watching the tube for 30 minutes or more a day. There is also a strong link between preschool computer time and later learning difficulties. Studies have found that screen time of any sort during preschool years actually changes the way the brain develops. And the research is clear that teaching reading before the age of 6 greatly increases the possibility of later learning problems and underachievement. (In my next blog, I’ll deal with this item – Author)

So, if we set out with education reform to dumb down America, we may have succeeded beyond our wildest expectations! But wait! Perhaps the nadir is still to come – the Institute for Justice, an organization that champions school choice, recently posted a revealing news report where a father commented that his daughter learned the alphabet, and only the alphabet, during her entire first-grade year in a local public school. To make matters worse, the teacher did not get all the way through the alphabet. The school year ended before they got beyond “W”! (No Shrub Jokes Please!)

The Obama birth certificate plot thickens ...

Okay, so Barack Obama got away with becoming President using an abridged Certificate of Live Birth instead of a vault copy of the original birth certificate. And Anderson Cooper says this is okay. Well a friend of mine, a born US Citizen of US parents, grandparents and whatever, went to apply for a US Passport, and took along her certificate of live birth. Guess what? The US Passport office refused to accept her certificate of live birth. Told her she needed her original vault copy. So, how come you can become President with a certificate of live birth, but for a passport you need a vault copy? mmmmmmmm!!!

Where have all our Presidents gone?

If you watched Anderson Cooper’s AC360 failed attempt to brow-beat Lt Col Terry Larkin on Friday 6 August 2010, http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/06/video-release-birth-certificate-military-doctor-demands-2/ , the plot becomes even thicker. If anything, Anderson Cooper raised even more doubts by pointedly refusing to allow Terry Larkin’s attorney to explain the issue. So let’s look at what Anderson Cooper did NOT KNOW or did NOT WANT you to know.

The certificate under discussion is Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth, an electronically-issued computer generated abridged birth certificate which clearly states that “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings”. See the certificate at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html . This Certificate of Live Birth is NOT the original birth certificate signed by the parents and the doctor who delivered the baby, but simply an abridged copy. Indeed, the certificate of live birth does not even allege that this certificate is absolute indisputable unquestionable proof – the words “prima facie” mean “on first appearance”, thus leaving the door open to a challenge as to accuracy and authenticity.

Notwithstanding Mr Cooper’s insistence that this is a legal document, recognized by the US Government, he is simply incorrect. In immigration matters, for example, the US Citizenship and Immigration Service does NOT accept abridged birth certificates (such as this Certificate of Live Birth). The USCIS demands a “vault copy” – a certified, notarized copy of the full, unabridged and signed ORIGINAL birth certificate which contains the handwritten entries of the parents and delivering doctor – names, dates, signatures and place of birth.

Now I figure that a person of Anderson Cooper’s intelligence would know this. So why did he so pointedly and aggressively shut the attorney down when he tried to explain that Terry Larkin is, as is his right, challenging the accuracy and authenticity of a certificate which is unsigned by the parents, unsigned by the delivery doctor, clearly an abridged copy and clearly identified as only prima facie evidence? And why did Mr Cooper not simply concur with Terry Larkin’s lawyer and say “Okay, if you cannot get a certified notarized vault copy of the original, I’m sure the power of CNN will have more luck.”

Perhaps this country does not want to face the consequences if Terry Larkin manages to prove something we don’t want to know? Can you imagine trying to undo and reverse every piece of legislation enacted since Barack Obama was elected? Indeed, would this not make this great country the laughing stock of the entire world, doing incalculable damage to us politically, economically and militarily? Perhaps this is a Pandora’s Box best left closed?

"Fluffy" Pillows at Wingate by Wyndham??

Went to Fayetteville to teach some CPAs. Arrived at the Wingate by Wyndham Hotel. Great room promising "fluffy" pillows. I should have noticed that the 4 "fluffy" pillows were standing edge-up at attention side by side on the bed, like a full-dress Marine Honor Guard. After a 4-hour drive, I lay down and got consussion. OMG. The Washington Monument is fluffier than these pillows which are about 12 inches high and with the texture of concrete. This was obviously the artificially staged room used for shooting misleading advertising photographs. You know, like the plastic burgers and salads they use for advertising food that you can never actually experience. I called housekeeping to ask for some pillows that you can actually rest your head on. "Sorry, that's all we have," I was was told. "Has anyone actually managed to sleep on these torture-blocks," I asked. Obviously not - the last victims are still undergoing surgery for severe head and neck trauma. After two hours of torture, a blinding headache and neckache drove me across the street to the Courtyard by Marriott at 2am. "This is a strange request, but do you think I might borrow a couple of your pillows" I asked. "I'll return them in the morning IF I wake up." After convincing these folk that I wasn't a wino, hophead or total lunatic, I staggered back to the Wingate clutching my 2 pillows, trying to avoid the hard stare and raised eyebrows of a local trooper on his way home from the local coffee and donut emporium. Blissful sleep at last, albeit for just a couple of hours. Just another example of advertising sizzle without the steak. If some genie ever offered me a wish, I'd wish that every advertising and marketing agency were forced to actually use the products and services they so fervently and blindly promote.

Xidho ama xoola waa!

USA Today reports that we have so many Somali refugees living in the USA, that we have to start translating stuff. First is the "Click It or Ticket" seat-belt signs. Because Somalia has no government, the concept of getting a ticket is totally foreign to them, so a translation of "Click it or ticket" doesn't work. Instead, the warning is "Strap it or lose your livestock!" Not sure how effective a warning to Muslims to "Strap it or get 72 virgins!" would be.

CitySearch Sucks!

In January 2008, a CitySearch rep signed my business up for a CitySearch Charlotte website. As part of the “sales-pitch” he convinced me to cap the account at not less than $200 per month as “this would allow the full impact of CitySearch to be noticed.” Additionally he promised that a professional ad writer at CitySearch would be in touch with me to “extend their free ad writing service to help me create the best CitySearch page possible.” And finally he recommended my entry being placed in the “educational-Personal Development” category.

What a load of Bull!!!

It’s now June 2009 and this is how I’ve benefitted from CitySearch.
1. In spite of countless emails and phone calls to secure the free ad writer service, I’ve yet to receive this service or even speak to this person.

2. Over the past 18 months, CitySearch has billed my company a total of $2140 for clicks on my CitySearch website which has yield precisely nothing at all. Zip. Zilch. Nada!

3. When I’ve tried to access my account, the portal has been closed, down for repairs or simply not operational.

4. I’ve spoken to my rep on numerous occasions about this lack of performance from CitySearch. I’ve asked my rep to investigate the click-through logs to see where the click-throughs are being directed. After many promises to investigate this, with absolutely nothing forthcoming, my rep disappeared, most likely for a less frustrating and more honest job.

5. I made contact with a new rep. Told him my tale of woe. This is what he advised – “Ok, I checked into things and this is what I would recommend. Move to the basic package at $99.00 per month. Business consulting just isn’t one of our top categories and doesn’t receive a lot of relevant traffic. The reason you’re getting random clicks with no return is your page is appearing in several categories that aren’t necessarily core for you. This is done to enhance exposure but sometimes backfires and gets no return. I’m negotiating one month’s credit for you now. I can also add additional categories, (business consultants, productivity consultants), to help target your campaign more specifically.)

6. By what authority my page was listed under “several categories that aren’t necessarily core for” my business, I have no idea. All I can guess is that CitySearch decided that because they could not bill me for $200 in click-throughs in the “Educational-Personal Development category” they could increase the click-throughs by listing me in other categories. As I’ve never been able to access my account, these new categories could possibly include nose-picking, stomach-scratching and jay-walking. And the promise of a month’s credit is REALLY generous, especially after I’ve spent $2140 with these rip-off artists. Yes, the category-padding DID backfire. I received the blast!! CitySearch took the profits!!

7. I’ve just been billed a further $183.45 for another month of these highly-suspect click-throughs, which again have yielded zero results. I wrote the following to my rep : “I've not seen the credit you indicated and I now see that CitySearch has just billed me another $183.45 on 06/24/2009, once again for zero noticeable traffic. Please look into this. I'd like this latest charge reversed. Also the credit of $196.45 charged on 6/1/2009. And also the account suspended. Please get back to me with a date when this will be done.”

8. And here’s the response : I had your account cancelled on Friday, June 5th, 2 minutes after I received your email request to do so. Your billing cycle runs through the 21st of each month with billing occurring in arrears. The invoice you received on 6/24/09 was for your last month of service. I tried negotiating for a credit but a credit can only be issued on a live account. I was denied my request for a refund.

9. Don’t you just love the gall of these people? Instead of working to fix the problem, they obviously figure that they’ve fleeced enough from me and rather than spend a bit of time and effort in retaining a customer and building some loyalty, it’s off to fleece some other sucker. After all, they’ve already billed me for $2140 worth of bull-shit click-throughs. Surely a couple of months of free service while they get their act together is not too much to ask for. But no, it’s cherry-picking time. Time to fleece another sucker - there’re 300 million in this country and a new one born every minute!

Bottom line? CitySearch really does suck! Total rip-off!

Caveat Emptor in ‘Scamerica’

Last week, one of my students drew my attention to a radio advertisement touting a “revolutionary” new speed reading course. “In just 7 minutes you could be reading up to 1000 percent faster, enabling you to read 10 books in the time it presently takes you to read one book. And you can try out this course absolutely free. Call now for your free trial.”

First of all, nothing about reading is “revolutionary” – reading is like breathing – you either do it well or you do it badly. Then they don’t tell you that, for the free trial, you will need to pay a bundle for the shipping (which is pretty standard) and handling (which is where they cover the cost of the free trial!). Nor do they tell you that they will need your credit card details to bill you 5 easy payments of $50 if you forget to cancel your order before the free trial ends.

And they don’t tell you that you could also invest the shipping and handling money in the lottery where you COULD win $300 million, enabling you to run for President of the United States and never have to read a book or newspaper again!

The critical consumer will see through this marketing ploy. “In just 7 minutes you COULD be …” does not mean you WILL be. In fact, the word COULD means everything and nothing. Ask those who COULD have made a fortune investing in the stock market. Similarly, “…. reading up to 1000 percent faster” covers everything between 0 percent and 1000 percent.

But since the critical consumer is about as commonly found as geographically-savvy Republican vice-presidential nominees, I suppose I should try for a bit of one-upmanship with my latest advertising proposal … which is infinitely more accurate. “In just ONE minute, you WILL be reading 50 percent to 20,000 percent faster without losing comprehension. Guaranteed or your money back. Send your payment of $595 now!” You don’t believe this? Try me!

Our Greatest Enemy ...

"Many young Americans are willing to serve, but too little is made of the declining number of young people who are qualified to serve. This is the real story and it’s a shocking one. Only 28 percent of the 17 to 24 year-old population qualifies to wear a military uniform. The other 72 percent fail to meet minimum standards on education, character and health. The problem gets worse. Of those eligible to serve, a significant portion chooses not to for a variety of reasons." Gen William S Wallace, commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

Any guesses on the ratio between sub-standard education, sub-standard character and sub-standard health?

No Child Left Behind - Scientific Gravy-train?

So, according to the Institute for Education Services, the federal government’s $1 billion-per-year initiative to help our children read has yielded “no statistically significant results”! Mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Reading First Program set out to promote reading instructional practices that have been “validated by scientific research”.

Backed by a $1 billion-per-year gravy train, Reading First grants were awarded to schools to implement the scientifically-validated reading instructional practices to children in Grades 1, 2 and 3. Now we learn that these scientifically-validated instructional practices have yielded no scientifically-validated results. One can only wonder how these scientifically-validated practices were validated if not by scientifically-validated results … which quite clearly they were not!

Reading First funding can be used for:
• Reading curricula and materials that focus on the five essential components of reading instruction as defined in the Reading First legislation: 1) phonemic awareness, 2) phonics, 3) vocabulary, 4) fluency, and 5) comprehension;
• Professional development and coaching for teachers on how to use scientifically based reading practices and how to work with struggling readers;
• Diagnosis and prevention of early reading difficulties through student screening, interventions for struggling readers, and monitoring of student progress.

Reading First funding started in 2002 and this is what the billions of Dollars has yielded :
• Reading First did not improve students’ reading comprehension.
• Reading First increased total class time spent on the five essential components of reading instruction promoted by the program. So the extra 45 to 60 minutes a week spent on developing reading skills netted zero results.

Bear in mind that the whole Reading First Program is restricted to improving the reading skills of Grades 1, 2 and 3 only. That’s it! After grade 3, you’re on your own and are expected to survive with the reading skills you have. Small wonder that teenagers think that reading sucks – they’re reading with a skill that’s not much better than an 8 year-old.

And so we come to our crop of struggling high-schoolers – the “at-risk” students. Why are they “at risk”? Quite simply because we let science supersede common sense. “A common variable among low performing students is their low reading level. Most of our low test scores are related to reading problems. I doubt the target kids have the basic skills to benefit from (an advanced reading skills) your program” says CMS teacher Dr T.

“Unless we give the students diagnostic reading tests such as these (at ExecuRead.com), we may never know their reading entry level. Is it really fair to assign ten pages of reading to a student who reads less than 100 words a minute (it will take that student 4 minutes to read a text-book page of 400 words, or a total of 40 minutes to read ten textbook pages.)?” asks another teacher.

Come on people! Have you ever seen a teenager struggle with the instructions on the latest computer- or Play Station game? Or abandon the sports-page on the eve of the Superbowl? And where were all these scientifically-validated instructional practices 50 years ago?

When it comes to human nature, you simply cannot throw science and money at it and expect results. And when it comes to reading, all the science and all the money in the world will not make one iota of difference IF YOU CANNOT CHANGE ATTITUDES.

Reading skills will improve when our children WANT to read, when they can see the VALUE of reading and what reading can DO for them. It’s all motivated by self-interest and self-gratification. And it’s a ‘sell-job’. We don’t sell Coca-Cola by talking about ingredients, taste-formulation and gas-volumes. We sell feelings – refreshment, exhilaration, satisfaction, vibrancy. Similarly we can’t sell reading by talking structure & components or by telling people to read what WE WANT them to read. We need to talk fun, excitement, satisfaction, entertainment, reward – the excitement of the destination rather than the drudgery of the journey.

And it starts at home. This process of developing attitudes. Parents who have replaced reading-evenings with TV-evenings create an attitude about reading. Parents who complain about having to bring office-reading home and who can’t play with the kids because they have office-reading to do, create an attitude about reading. And they end up with kids who prefer TV to books and who see reading as a chore that they’ll have to face when they become adults.

And it continues at home. With TV it’s what they WANT to watch. With reading it’s what the teacher WANTS them to read. And if you’ve ever looked at the erudite literary yawn-stuff that teachers are peddling, you don’t need a scientifically-validated process to recognize a disaster in the making.

With my kids I find that the best way of getting them to do something, is to find out what they want to do and then suggest it! I didn’t force them to read Tolstoy, Conrad, Joyce, Twain and Poe, but when they begged to go to the library or book-store to get the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, there was no resistance from my side. Neither did I have to enforce reading time. More often than not, I have to physically remove the book at 2am on a school-night, in spite of the pleas of “Oh Dad, I’m almost finished the book!”

Once I had instilled in them a passion for reading, a realization that reading can be as exciting and rewarding as TV and movies, then came the process of gently manipulating their interests and once there is interest, there is a motive for wanting to read. And this is all a lot easier in a home where there is a culture of reading.

The bottom line is that attitudes are built at home and in the absence of a positive attitude about reading, all the money in the world spent on “scientifically-validated” instructional practices will continue to yield “statistically insignificant results”.

Recession-Proof Yourself and your Organization

Trying to survive a recession? Make yourself indispensible. That’s it. And this applies to both the individual and to the organization itself.

For the individual, a recession means cut-backs. Organizations need to trim overheads in order to remain profitable with smaller volumes. So they reduce expenditure - and one area for reducing expenditure is the payroll. The first to go are those people with an unfavorable payroll-cost to work-product benefit ratio. The solution is to be pro-active – change the ratio – make yourself indispensible to the organization by increasing your productivity and output at no additional cost to the organization. Become versatile - acquire new skills and improve your existing skills – empower yourself to adapt to new challenges and additional responsibilities. No organization off-loads valuable employees when the value of the worker outweighs the savings in payroll-cost.

To achieve this, learn to read faster and more efficiently. It will save you time and increase your productivity. By increasing productivity, you’ll get more done in less time. With time saved, you’ll be able to increase your work-load. Think about it – how much time do you spend each day on work-related reading? Two hours? Well, if you simply double your reading / comprehension speed, you’ll have an additional hour a day, 5 hours a week, to do additional things – acquire new skills, pick up additional responsibilities, offer assistance to someone else. You’ll be delivering work-product at a lower rate per Dollar than your competitors and this increases your value to your organization.

For organizations, a recession means budget-cuts and your customers start shopping around, looking for the best service and quality but at a cheaper price. Customer-loyalty is superseded by the need for Dollar-savings. To stay in the market, organizations need to reduce overheads while increasing work-product. Some organizations resort to expenditure cut-backs - expenditure on payroll, capital investment, marketing, promotional and training activities. Others endeavor to increase work-product, customer service and quality of output.

In most organizations, the payroll is the biggest single overhead – the process of buying human work-product at a Dollar-cost per hour. It’s been said that the only cost that exceeds the cost of training your work-force is the cost of not training your work-force. A better-skilled, versatile, more-productive work-force is able to deliver better and more work-product, in less time and at a lower cost per hour. Train your work-force in their weakest skill – that of reading. Think about it - reading education stops at age 6 and yet reading is the key to knowledge and information.

And here are some numbers : 10 managers costing you $100k each in salary, benefits and overheads and working a 40-hr week with 2 weeks annual leave and spending 2 hours a day on work-related reading – email, newspapers, reports, journals, manuals, correspondence. That’s a cost to you of $50 per work-hour. And a cost to you of $100 per day, per manager, in reading time. If these 10 managers learn to process information just twice as fast, a very conservative increase, they’ll free up an hour of reading time every day – that’s 10 hours per day, 2500 hours per year – a savings of $125k in reading-time-cost in the first year alone. And the cost to train these 10 managers to read at least twice as fast, without losing comprehension & recall? $3000!

Do the math. In a time of recession, effective and productive information management training for your work-force is a no-brainer.

We’ve witnessed the trends, worldwide, for the past 30 years. As economies head into a recession phase, smart people and smart companies commission speed-reading training courses to increase productivity and to reduce the hourly cost of work-product. Similarly, as the economy enters a revival, speed-reading training enables workers to manage increased work-loads and activity-levels, thus increasing work-product at the same hourly cost to the organization.

Author : Dr Bruce W Stewart - B.A.(Econ)(Law), Dip. Spec. Ed., M.A., D.Ed. - executive reading skills coach since 1975 and developer of the ExecuRead range of speed reading & comprehension skills training courses for executives, professionals, managers & students. Contact him in the USA on 888 439 3287 or at Info@ExecuRead.com

Limp Dicks and Wanton Women

My first exposure to the advertising for those "special occasion" pills worried me. Made me feel that I'm walking around with a flaccid willy absolutely terrified that Mrs S would suddenly declare the moment to be right and expect me to immediately rise to the occasion and perform to her satisfaction. And that to always be ready to satisfy Mrs S's sudden wanton need for idle distraction, I should remain in a state of semi-permanent tumescence.

Makes me think of my pets back home. Fido is all slobber and panting, so enthusiastic to anticipate and satisfy my wants and needs, eyes following my every move and ears cocked for the slightest sign to spring into frenzied action least I show disappointment at his laziness and inattentiveness. And more often than not, I ignore him. Felix on the other hand is a master of the alluring stretch, the sly inviting look and the air-caressing swish of her tail. She's learned that no mouse-trap ever pursued a mouse.

Mrs S, bless her, has never demanded that I keep a supply of blue-pills on hand and shudders at the very idea of priapism. And the simple image of me trying to be Fido has her in fits of giggles. Instead she's developed a penchant for candle-light dinners, alluring perfume and "forgetting" to get dressed properly. And face it, a woman in high-heels, G-string and pearls is a powerful incentive. And if that's not enough to add some lead to your pencil, you don't need pills. You need another woman.

These pills remind me of a scandal in Hermanus, South Africa, some years ago. A new boutique brewery drove a bill-board through the town emblazoned with the words "Beer - helping unattractive people have sex since 1652!". The resulting protest ended the campaign but not before it became obvious that the most vociferous complainants were the unattractive people!

I just LOVE television!

In the Brian de Palma violent classic "Scarface", there's that memorable scene in the restaurant where an intoxicated Robert de Niro and wife Michelle Pfeiffer start throwing food and personal epithets at one another. The embarrassed patrons, although pretending to be unaware of the verbal discord, soon themselves become victims of Scarface's drunken wrath as he calls upon them to "look at the bad guy". "You need people like me" shouts Scarface. "I'm the bad guy. You need me so you can point and say, THERE IS THE BAD GUY."

Is it a trait of our culture that we love to see the bad guys? Perhaps because it makes us feel good? Why do we love to see someone else's misery and tragedy? Perhaps because it makes us feel blessed with good fortune? Turn on your television and you'll see what I mean. Why are our national news channels so preoccupied with the downfall of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan and the plethora of bubble-heads who've taken the dictum "Any publicity is good publicity" to an absurd extreme? Is it because their tragedy gives us a warm feeling about how normal and happy we are? Or is it because we just love to be told a story?

When my children were little more than rug-rats, bed-time was always prefaced with the demand "Tell us a story, Daddy". And I'd make up a story, any old story would do, some clever and some really dumb. Because it was not WHAT I was telling them, but rather just the telling of the story itself. And it's the same with television news.

Even if no-one knows anything, we must be told a story. So the reporter will grab any poor sod in the vicinity, who to maximize his 15 seconds of fame, will tell us a story, some of it real, some of it just spit-balling. And we lap it up because we've been entertained. And the stories we enjoy most are the bad stories, the stories that frighten us, the stories about the bad guys. So we can sit back, smug, self-satisfied and say "there's the bad guy!" and feel so much better for our own good fortune.

The only problem with having so much news-time being spent on 'telling us a story', often over and over again, (remember how often you told the same old story to your kids every night?), is that we never get around to the real news - something I haven't seen a bizillion times already - like what's the latest update on Darfur, Zimbabwe, Kenya, the Chinese who're buying the USA, the Japanese electric car that performs better than a Porche, or Westinghouse that is alleged to have buried a patent to harness electric power from tidal movements and "dinner-jacket's" plans to nuke us all.

But who cares about that? It's not about us. It's not about now. So go away - Fox is telling me a story about a princess who lived in a trailer and who became so so rich that her evil godmother called in the boogey-man who was disguised as a shrink and together they planned and schemed to have the little princess locked up in a castle for little girls who are bewitched. And when the little princess was gone, the evil godmother took all her money and used it to make the princess's little sister even more famous. But meanwhile, back in the evil godmother's trailer, something terrible was about to be discovered .... (we'll be back after our scheduled commercial break.)Gotcha for the next episode?

He said She said ...

Some years ago I found a broken ornament in our family room and when I called my two children into my study to ascertain whether they knew anything about this, was treated to the "he said she said" and "he did she did" episode of allegation and counter-allegation. I soon realised that this was an attempt to cloud the issue and to weave a convolution of deception and extraneous ploys to avoid the real issue of "who broke the ornament?"

Viewing Hillary and Obama in their endless "Hillama tête-à-têtes" over who is best for America, we are treated to endless hours of "he said she said" bickering, instead of having them address the question of how they will fix the broken ornament, which in this case is somewhat more serious - global warming, fossil fuel depletion, nuclear proliferation, economic recession, social security, health insurance, terrorism and illegal immigration. This reminds me of my children and their reason for employing this evasive "he said she said" subterfuge.

In the case of my children, the very act of the "he said she said" distraction was clearly indicative that they were both involved in the destruction of the ornament. If one or both of them had absolutely nothing to do with the damage, a simple denial would have sufficed. The "he said she said" debate thus told me that they were both guilty of something.

In the case of Hillary and Obama, the question is "what are they guilty of"? Either they don't even know what's broken and don't want to admit to being ignorant, or they don't know how they're going to fix the problem and are trying to deflect questions on the subject - questions which may reveal a degree of incompetence and unsuitability for the job of President of the United States.

The same can be said for the Republican "Joh-Mitt" duo, where in a recent debate, poor Huck got so excluded that he would perhaps be forgiven for wishing he HAD broken the ornament and could at least interject with a confession if nothing else. At least Edwards had the common sense to realise that he was the third person at a dinner-for-two and instead of making a fool of himself went home to mamma.

It's time these debate moderators start earning their salaries and take control of the debates and realize that "he said she said" bickering is wasting valuable time and clouding the real issues.

The Burden of Citizenship

As we approach the 2008 Presidential Elections it may be opportune to consider the onerous burden we share in exercizing our voting rights as Citizens of the United States. While many view citizenship as a right, few consider the burden that this right places on each and every American.

America is an awesomly powerful nation, politically, economically and militarily, and with the inherent ability to change the lives of the global population, both for the better and for the worse. With this power comes an obligation of responsibility - an obligation to act with discretion, wisdom, compassion, knowledge and foresight.

The risk we all face, as US Citizens, is that we may become arrogant - that might is right. That we may become indifferent - that lesser nations don't count. And that we may become ignorant - that we don't need to be informed or knowledgeable about other nations. And that we may be abrogating our democratic responsibility to ensure that our President and our Government is acting within the mandate we afford to them when we give them our vote.

Powerful nations that lose the ability to rule wisely, mercifully and with temperance invariably cultivate the seeds of their own destruction. And if the loyalty of its citizens is blind, arrogant and ignorant, the destruction of great nations is inevitable.

America is facing some of its greatest challenges - global warming, fossil fuel depletion, terrorism and nuclear proliferation - and it will require serious people to make serious decisions if we are to survive and prosper. And whether America gets a President and a Government that will make the right decisions and the right choices, will depend on whether US Citizens cast a vote based upon arrogance, indifference and ignorance or on wisdom and knowlege of the issues affecting not only our lives in the United States, but the lives of everyone who shares this planet.

In an interview with the son of Osama Bin Laden, the commentator ventured that America would NEVER be willing to talk with Osama Bin Laden himself. Yet it is precisely because of what America is, that we SHOULD be making every effort to sit down and talk with OBL. The essence of greatness is the ability and willingness to communicate with friends and enemies equally. To demonstrate an intent to pursue agreement and compromise. To motivate a search for a solution to differences of belief and opinion. True greatness comes not from pettiness and spite, but from a willingness to seek out your enemy, not to destroy him, but to understand him.

America will be judged internationally not only by our actions but also by our intentions, and as US Citizens it is our responsibility to ensure that in as much as we enjoy mastery of the planet, so too must we exercise this mastery through knowledge rather than ignorance. Only then can we hold our elected officials accountable to act in accordance with our mandate. Anything less makes a mockery of democracy and belittles the value of our vote.

Arrogance, Indifference, Ignorance

In the rise and fall of great nations, power tends to breed a sense of arrogance which sows the seeds of indifference and which inevitably leads to ignorance. Perhaps this is amply demonstrated in the visit of Dr Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad, President of Iran, to the USA and to Columbia University.

Whether we agree with his policies or not, Dr Ahmadinejad is the elected president of a soverign nation. Added to this, he is an educated science academic. Inviting him to address the students at Columbia University was admirable. Lee Bollinger's insulting introduction was America at its worst. Freedom of speech does NOT mean introducing a guest speaker as being a "petty and cruel dictator", nor of tainting the water by claiming that "I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions". Freedom of speech does NOT mean taking up more time introducing the speaker (with your own views) than the time allocated to the speaker (to hear his views). Perhaps Lee Bollinger was concerned as to whether the Columbia students were smart enough to listen to Dr Ahmadinejad with critical ears and thus felt the need to vaccinate them with his own bias before they became exposed to Dr Ahmadinejad?

America sees itself as all-powerful - militarily, economically and politically. We have become arrogant. We have become indifferent to opposing views, we belittle our critics and insult those who disagree with us. And we have become ignorant about the world we profess to 'govern'. And we do this at our peril.

Sun-Tzu said "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Whether Dr Ahmadinejad is our friend or our enemy, insulting him and denegrating him will not make him go away nor silence his voice - all it will do is silence our own ears and add to our own ignorance.

Education

When I was a kid, my father told me "Finish your food - there are thousands who are starving." Now that I'm a father, I tell my kids "Finish your homework - there are millions starving for your job."

Education in this country is in a poor state with too many students leaving school neither qualified for a career nor for life. Too many of our students are functionally illiterate, cannot write and have a general knowledge verging on the ridiculous. It's all very well to maintain a policy of "No Child Left Behind" IF none of the kids WANT to be left behind. But all too often we're faced with the deadbeats who couldn't give a damn about being educated. They're only at school because they're forced to be there - they're certainly not willing to make the effort to succeed and while the teacher is concerned about not leaving them behind, the smart, willing and enthusiastic kids are being forced to slow down.

Michael in Gr 7 is a math whizz who sleeps in math class because he is bored and still gets straight A's. Is there a fast-track class for kids like him? Yes! But this is the class he sleeps in! Can he do a placement test to enable him to attend Gr 8, 9 or 10 math classes? Not any more - if he finishes the CMS school math curriculum too soon, there won't be a curriculum for him to follow when he gets to high school and he won't be able to do the minimum 4 years high school math while at high school in order to graduate!! And when Sarah picked up all the reading awards at middle school, she was told to reduce her reading so that other kids would have a shot at winning some awards!!

It's time we viewed education as a privilege and not a right. And set a cracking pace which will require from students a solid level of dedication and commitment. It's time to concentrate on giving top-students every bit of support they need to become world-class. And it's time to let the hangers-on and the free-loaders know that their free time at the trough is at an end - either shape-up or ship out.

It's a tragedy for education when one is hard-pressed to think of a single popular icon in society who has achieved greatness through education - these days, the icons my kids know about have achieved success through sport, music, film and by dropping out of mainstream education.

It's time we empowered teachers to do the jobs they are paid to do - to give our children a world-class education and to kick their butts if necessary in order to achieve this objective. And it's time we mandate the schools to clear out the dead-beats - if kids don't perform and if they don't demonstrate dedication and commitment, they're out. I've yet to see a single student being expelled for carrying a gun to school, for raping another student or for assaulting a teacher. And yet at the same time, teachers are expected to teach these kids and are being evaluated against the NCLB criteria - with teaching bonuses being linked to NCLB, it's small wonder that teachers have to cheat test scores to keep the academic detritus moving through the system.