Questions ZEN would ask at a Presidential Press Briefing

Hello ZENers, I know you don't read the Presidential Press Briefings; why would anyone want to lose their conscious mind, in the face of blather-rehashings and misdirected spinning?
:-)

But ZENmud enjoys following the lack of logic and constant, spite-filled venom, that now is spewed daily by "Interim" Press Secretary Dana Perino.

Here's a selection, in which she states the consequences of the Democratic bills to be presented to the President, targeting September 2008 as a withdrawal target (non-binding) from the March 29th briefing:

"This reprogramming will then accelerate delivery of nearly 300 mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles that were included in the President's supplemental request and are needed by our troops on the ground. This reprogramming of funds is only necessary because Congress has failed to act in a timely manner on the President's emergency funding request."

And here's something from the day before:

"Q The President emphasized al Qaeda in Iraq, and if they don't -- we'll fight them there. Before the war, he indicated -- he not only indicated, he said that there were no ties with Saddam. Is he responsible for bringing al Qaeda into Iraq?

MS. PERINO: I don't think the President is responsible -- no, absolutely not. Al Qaeda went to Iraq --"

SIDEBAR: Tony Snow, afflicted by a cancer remission, has temporarily abdicated his hotseat to this next-best-thing... Dana Perino.

At least, his replacement is a RILF
... if such exists?

:-)

As I was typing: today's point is WHY DON'T 'THEY' ask HER THESE ZENish QUESTIONS???

ZEN-Q 1: Ms. Perino, you discuss the situation between Congress and the President as one of 'politics'... but some US citizens, and maybe some Iraqi citizens are aghast, that after OVER FOUR years of the War in Iraq, the President is calling his regular, periodic troop expenditures an 'emergency funding request': do you think the President is 'supporting' the troops, by not adding the Iraqi war costs to the Defense Department regular budget?

FIRST DANA blah-blah shift, spin and dodge-response here...

ZEN-Q 2: Please answer the substance, Dana! How many years of a conflict does it take for the EMERGENCY to become part of the support of the Defense budget that is openly debated in Congress? And do you think adding 300 vehicles as you described them, to a force of 150 thousand US fighting men and women, is more than 'a drop in the bucket'?

SECOND DANA faltering, re-hashing of first blah-blah...

ZEN-Q 3: You stated yesterday, that the President was not responsible for bringing or allowing Al-Qaida into Iraq: can you produce any statistics from the CIA, or British, or Israeli intelligence, pre-March 2003, that show the number of Al-Qaida that were known to be in Iraq pre-Coalition invasion?

THIRD DANA how-dare-YOU type insinuation...

FOLLOW-UP to Z-Q 3: But we chased bin Laden and his forces into the Afghani hills in 2001 and 2002, away from their bases; we succeeded, temporarily, in disrupting their modus operandi, and yet: by destroying Saddam Hussein, with NO PLAN for reconstruction, by the words of then-Secretary Rumsfeld ("And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."), and in support of Mr Chilabi, before the invasion, did the President not foresee that without total occupational control of Iraq, it would become the newest, most dangerous stronghold and world center for terrorist training, in aid of his so-called Axis of Evil?

FOURTH DANA 'stares uncertainly, distraughtly, into the VOID'...

And ...

ZEN Q 5 (the SHOW STEALER): Dana, is President Bush anticipating that Iran will use CIA-Abu Ghraib-Donald Rumsfeld-approved interrogation techniques on the British prisoners? If he is not anticipating that, is he afraid of this potential step by observers of US treatment of Iraqi civilian detainees?

FIFTH DANA: OUR favorite RILF falls to the floor...

ZENistas - how much more time, more lost tax dollars and a more-greatly destroyed US reputation can the White House, and its chronically-lying Press Office permit, while covering the incompetence of this misAdministration?

It BOGGLES the unbloggable...


COURAGE! RILFs and all...

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç

December PLUS January = March to WAR in April???

Dear ZENistas,

Can we ignore the fact that 15 British sailors are now in Iranian custody?

Certainly not!

But!! But!!
Where were they found?

Do we remember when the US-led forces captured, in December and January, a string of Iranians, including "...the highest ranking Iranian ever held by the United States", being Brigadier General Mohsen Chirazi. (ZENwonders how we say 'Brigadier General' in Farsi??)

Do we remember where Saddam Hussein first attacked Iran, in 1980?

ZENmud learned in researching this, that this Waterway has been a source of contention for millennia: the first 'Treaty' covering its use by the neighboring states was in 1639!

So we start putting their people in prisons (Abu Ghraib? Or otherwise??), and they start picking off Brits in boats... let's go back to the old map... Iranians claim the 'incident' happened on their territorial waters: the Brits claim that the Iranians came into Iraqi waters. Neither case allows the Blair-Bush consortium of horrors to look intelligent. As was stated over at good ole Bartcop, by a reader named 'Mark':

can you tell us WHY an Iranian military vessel was allowed and actually capable of entering the Iraqi territorial zone without any other kind of reaction or response, other than letting a few grunts get picked up for a propaganda exercise?

Mark, you're right: satellites, BBC film crews aboard... maybe; this is from the BBC itself:

BBC world affairs correspondent, Ian Pannell, who was earlier on board HMS Cornwall, said the mood on the ship was "quiet and determined" and that "the aspiration here is that this will be over sooner rather than later".

And the BBC's Bridget Kendall said the big question was whether the capture was part of a bigger political game, ahead of a UN Security Council vote in New York over further sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme.

Anyone can guess, whether correspondent Ian Pannell, and Bridget Kendall, were actually on-board, or 'mysteriously put ashore', during the time of capture of these sailors and marines. Were they off the cruiser long enough to provide cover for this action? Did they participate and provide video evidence that the world wants to see???

Interesting ZENfact: a photo of Bridget is easy to come by on GOOGLE Images; a photo of Ian is not so easily procured... (Photo credit: BBC)

There is an interesting correlation between such incidents, wouldn't ZENers agree? Makes you wonder if 'Ian' has two roles in life?

ZENers, it's time for a bike tour, to clear out ZENwebs and COBthoughts, and get on with a beautiful spring day... oh!

One last thought, from the gang at BUZZFLASH: , who provided this link to yet another excerpt, in a Guardian web-article about the Lancet Report on Iraqi deaths:

The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study".

When these recommendations went to the prime minister's advisers, they were horrified. One person briefing Tony Blair wrote: "are we really sure that the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies?" A Foreign Office official was forced to conclude that the government "should not be rubbishing The Lancet".

The prime minister's adviser finally gave in. He wrote: "the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

There's a lotta killin' going on, in that part of the world OUR OIL comes from: when'z EXXON going to advertise "Drive while they DIE for your pleasure?"

COURAGE!

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

The teaching of Monica (Goodling)...

(OR: Every President needs his MONICA)

Dearest Monica,

You have, Mme. Goodling, through your attorney, invoked (or offered your anticipatory need to cover yourself through the protection of) the Fifth Amendment, in case of 'testimony' taken by the Judiciary Committee, in the affair popularly denominated as Prosecutorgate.

Just a wee reminder, from one legal brain to another, that there is a section of the US Code that applies, and for which you may need to shield yourself.

It pertains to CRIMINAL FRAUD.

I have posted below the text, so you can find it rather urgently: I am persuaded that your need to protect yourself will grow eminently grander, in the hours or days to come!

Think nothing of this gesture, from ZENcentral... we enjoy helping "criminals" find the truth..Ie: Dick Pound (or Pound again), the French LNDD laboratoire, and many others!)

I know you'll be very familiar with this law, by the time your bikini wax is necessary... heh heh.

LAW:

US Code Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Part One: Crimes

Chapter 47 – Fraud and False Statements

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

COURAGE, fellow (?) jurist!!

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

The NAKED and the DAMNED... Abu Ghraib redux...

ZENers,

I have recently found this link to a report about Abu Ghraib, its PRISON, ITS TORTURE; the penultimate Stain on this misAdministration's legacy... here's a particularly vivid excerpt, from Samuel Provance' testimony-statement (which, coincidently, was requested by Republican Senator Chris Shays, and took place on ZENBirthday, 2006!):

I also befriended SPC [NAME SUPPRESSED], who was with the first MP units that set up Abu Ghraib after the war. [NAME SUPPRESSED] told me that she had witnessed abuses of Iraqi people and even seen some of them murdered. She said she documented these things in diaries that she sent home to her family in case someone killed her before she made it home to do something about it. She particularly mentioned fearing her chain of command. Her view, that anyone disclosing these incidents of abuse would face swift and severe retaliation, was widespread among soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

My friends, readers, whoever: that American forces have kissed the Devil, is not anywhere else, any clearer than in reading this paragraph, above.

Here is Seymour Hersh' look at a taste of hell... Written in 2004, as a reminder.

Yet the first link provided in this ZENpost, was written by a man whose conscience tried valiantly to remain on the honorable side of the HELL that Bush the Lesser has wrought.

That Donald Rumsfeld fled from;
That Condaleeza Rice rode to the State Department;
That Colin Powell passed out of...

There is one way for our country's Armed Forces to redeem themselves from the trappings of a mad neoConservative World theory... Turn their backs, or their arms, on the source of the problem: his address, I believe, is still 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.


COURAGE!

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

Pound's new CRUSADE against justice in SPORT

Dear ZEN-Readers!

You may love or hate:
Lance Armstrong;
Floyd Landis.

But you cannot deny the name of ONE man, who's illegal, premature and slanted opinions have cast a dark pall over those two Cyclists' reputations: Dick Pound.

Pound, long-time IOC Committee Member, former losing candidate for the Presidency of IOC (won by Jacques Rogge of Belgium: a Count, and a Surgeon!), has been at the Presidency of WADA since its inception. This is an unpaid post with extraordinary travel benefits, as ZEN-conjectured on March 21, 2007: WADA do about WADA?

Pound has been applauded for his zeal, in the fight against doping: sadly, he has slandered and libeled various athletes, contravening WADA CODE rules that limit publicity and confine the dissemination of information under strict confidentiality rules; to the point where he recently was chastised officially by the IOC for comments rendered against Lance Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France winner who was unjustly accused in the French media for 'doping in the 1999' Tour.

You can read the Vrijman report, which chastised WADA, the French LNDD Lab, and L'EQUIPE newspaper reportet.

You can read also, the WADA retort, here. (NB: ZENmud is now reading it for you!)

What the Hell's NEXT for the world's biggest Sport-Ego?

For Dick Pound, a relentless, media-orchestrated, pre-meditated campaign is underway, to avail himself of the ONE JOB in Sports, that he has proven incapable of mastering: President of the CAS.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport, in Lausanne, Switzerland, is the final destination of any sport-initiated legal action for doping, as well as other non-doping, sport issues.

Why would the world entrust CAS to a man that has proven himself incapable of restraint, unable to refrain from manipulating the world's Press to influence already on-going sport litigations?

In his defense, he has stated that he would recuse himself from any litigation that came to CAS, as a result of his seven-year presidency of WADA. This is an interesting statement, since he would never act as an arbitrator while sitting as CAS President.

You can read about Pound's campaign here: http://www.edmontonsun.com/Sports/OtherSports...

You can read about CAS here (ENG):
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/histoire/frmhist.ht...

If you agree that the basis of fighting doping in sports begins with CLEAN athletes, and even-cleaner scientists, Labs and associated Anti-Doping Organizations, then you must take a pen and join in the fight against the nomination of this prejudiced individual to that post.

COURAGE

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

WADA do about the (Landis) Chain of Evidence?

In 1995, when ZENmud was in his first year of Law School, second semester, he was proud to receive the following compliment from his former Civil Procedure professor. "You ARE the first student in eight years, to win this MOOT Court case for the complainant! No one ever produced a winning argument (against the State of __ Child Services Division) before you."

I bore you, because that is very pertinent to the situation facing Floyd Landis. There are two bases for that presumption: the illegal 'corrected' form, and the contamination evidence. BOTH, are evidence that WADA procedures were not carried out, to the letter of the law.

Let's start with something very basic, and keep it simple, and crystal clear:

If I worked at any WADA Anti-Doping Organization (ADO), such as is the French Laboratoire National du Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) in a testing/technical position, and if ever I used White-Out on a Chain-of-Evidence form, or a Testing form, or any of the official forms that are used to satisfy WADA Code criteria, I would expect to be FIRED instantly.

Why?

Because I have ethics, and I understand what happens when rules are broken: those who have broken the rules must 'pay the price'. That WADA/ADO Testing form is my only evidence of perfect work performance, at LEAST as much as it may contain evidence of scientific results which could end an Athlete's career.

If it were by my hands, then I should expect to be fired for falsifying any valid result; how different then, is the result if I submit accurate work, the recording of which isn't in conformance with the rules?

I would expect my superiors to be fired as well, if THEY altered MY work, and then submitted it as 'official'.

There is no other course, when one's life work is to render evermore impossible, the ingestion of doping substances, or utilization of doping procedures, without detection.

By acting against WADA rules in such a fashion, I would have implied that haste, inattention to details and my 'inconvenience reduction' were more important to me, than creating that which is mandatory to my work: a PERFECT evidentiary trail. That perfection is exactly what is demanded throughout WADA's CODE, and subsidiary documents such as the ISL for Labs, the IST for Testing and the WADA Chain of Evidence standards.

The weight of these documents demands the perfection that is commensurate with the well-paid, scientific post, as well as the CODE and ISL standards that, in combination and complementarity, produce them: I know that Athletes' careers are in my hands, and I would not accept less, than to have written a perfect record, as far as is humanly possible, and respecting the rules on noting of corrected data, that allows single-strike-throughs, initialed, if ever I made an error.

However, by accepting documents modified with White-Out, or containing otherwise 'unofficially' altered 'evidence', the recipient Anti-Doping Agency also becomes part of the problem that the entire process was designed to control. Any athlete who submits to testing under the WADA CODE, does so with a presumption that the CODE will be enforced as to ALL Signatories, and not only the Athletes being tested.

If a clean athlete is falsely accused by such lax, 'laisser-faire' attitudes, and acquiescence to a reduced evidentiary chain is acceptable, a signal is sent: a signal that is wrong, injust and negating the necessary good-will under which WADA had hoped to grow the positive return of clean competition.

As I first mentioned, in regarding this problem as I did the Moot Court case in 1995, it follows a similar track: upon receipt of a Chain of Evidence document with WhiteOut as an illegal correction, the USADA should have thrown out the case. Upon finding out that the Sample was CONTAMINATED, USADA Should have thrown out the case.

That Floyd is still facing this case, with a chance of being being 'convicted' against illegal evidence and illegal tests, should be the only travesty that is under dispute.

COURAGE

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

WADA do about WADA?

I've been scanning the WADA 2005 Annual Report (“2005 Report”).

It looks similar to various Annual budget documents that I've read, in my former UN System career. My intent was to see how they prioritize their expenditures. What I didn't find are the details that would allow a fuller article to be developed.

WADA remains a Swiss Organization, legally, although its Headquarters is in Montreal, Canada. As I spend a great amount of time in Switzerland, I am going to do my analyses based on their stated and official currency: the Swiss Franc (CHF).

WADA is charged with several functions, as written in the paragraph 'Mission' in its 2005 Annual Report : “to promote, coordinate, and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms”. The thesis herein, is that WADA is neglecting its rôle in coordination, and monitoring, of 'the fight against doping...', through a somewhat 'laisser-faire' attitude towards its accredited laboratories.

What I was looking for, and not seeing, is how WADA might show more than 'accreditation fees', in its mandated authority to receive applications and reward properly-managed facilities with that accreditation. Further, I wanted to see a 'line item' relating to its management of those accredited facilities, such as for periodical (annual, or biennial?) monitoring and competency-testing of all accredited laboratories. The 2005 Report does not disclose such information: this investigation must wait, for other sources of information to be found, or to come available.

The 2005 Report, contains a section entitled 'Statement of Activities' (PDF p.28), which shows that WADA accounted for 'Operating Expenses' in the amount of 22.838 million CHF (some 83.23 % of its 2005 'Total Income' (T-Inc) of some 27.44 million CHF).

The next lines delineate the expenditures, in millions (showing theirrank as percentage of T-Inc), of the seven largest (of thirteen) budget categories:

Salaries(and other related costs):
6.455 million. (28.26 %)
Travel and accomodation: 2.749 (12.04 %)
Testing fees: 2.056 ( 9.00 %)
Research grants: 3.746 (16.04 %)
Administration: 2.776 (12.15 %)
IT costs: 1.601 ( 7.15 %)
Accreditation fees: 0.211 ( 0.92 %)
(2005 Report p28)

In the meantime, certain items are worthy of note.

Travel is WADA's fourth highest expense, far behind Salaries and Research Grants and, at over twelve per cent, is nearly equivalent to its Administration costs.

Can we presume this to be a rational cost basis? In many IGOs, the majority of travel costs are limited towards those holding higher posts. Are Dick Pound and his underlings enjoying the 'high life' in First Class, as they circle the globe from Summer Olympics to Equestrian World Championships to editions of the cycling Tour de France?

The minimal amount received from Accreditation and renewal fees received from Laboratories must be adjudged in combination with the Annual contributions that WADA receives. As 'Annual contributions', WADA receives funding from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and from Governments, which in 2005 equaled 10.9 and 12.45 million, respectively.

Unfortunately for 'transparency', there is no itemized accounting for 'research projects' within the 2005 Report, they are lumped together. The methodology used to attribute pay-outs for such research projects depends on the longevity of the project: multi-year projects receive varying portions depending on their nature. This isn't in dispute.

However, there exists no accounting for the use of WADA funds for testing of labs, nor investigation of labs whose accreditation may be subject to suspension or withdrawal, as might have been the case if WADA had undertaken the investigation of the LNDD in 2005 as suggested by the Vrijman Report from the UCI, as well as the associated letter written and sent to WADA by the ASOIF and the IOC Athletes Commission.

How can this investigation go the necessary, further step?

ZENmud will leave you with a quote from the 2005 Report, that has ties to our quest: "

Management expects legal fees to keep increasing significantly over the next few years. This is certainly not a surprise and it was raised at both the Board and the Executive Committee meetings. This reflects the responsibility that WADA has under the Code.

Hard to hope, that in the rising budget of WADA, are funds for investigation and appeals against sanctioned Laboratories. If WADA continues its whitewashing of the LNDD Affaire, it will show up soon enough in a sea.-change for the Organization.

Rather than insinuate, à la "L'EQUIPE", ZENmud will strive to locate the info that forges together links in this chain: bringing to light internal WADA practices, to establish that proper priorities have been established, for the correct use of WADA funding and expertise.

COURAGE

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

Harriet LEFT, because Harriet KNEW...

ZENadults, ZENkids, welcome again... We are ALL reeling under the weight of the Bush-antimass, which whirls around like a top that is off-balance: we're wobbling' and some of you are nauseous, ulcered, etc...
But this short post is to remind you faithful followers, that ZENmud posted a 'ZENtoon' back in ... January? The 5th actually... which you can go back to through this link...

In it, we surmised that Nancy Pelosi would have her hands full, and ZENmud put this thought into web-Circulation: (with my original, mistitled 'Myers' ZENtoon)

"So MARK your ZEN pages for the soon-come scandals and denouement in Congress, as Speaker of the House Pelosi yields her NancySmasher to gavel hearing upon hearing upon hearing onto these poor sad Republicans..."

Where will Harriet appear, and what is her role in the Prosecutorgate, that is ripping yet another hole in the Republican CULT, that produced this misAdministration???

Did she leave, thinking that departure would SOLVE HER PROBLEMS?

Did she leave, thinking that in doing so, no one would find out what her role was?

Could be: after all, she has long-since left behind her, membership in the Reality-based Community: Between her and Torture-Boy Gonzales, as Bartcop calls him, a world of hurt has been turning our world into a HurtWorld... recovery is long, the patient in Critical Care...

OR? Is Harriet to be the scapegoat du jour? Read the New York Times:

“It has been described as her idea but ... I don’t want to try to vouch for origination,” Mr. Snow said, according to The Associated Press. “At this juncture, people have hazy memories.”

The shift in stance articulated by Mr. Snow came a day after it was revealed in e-mail messages that Mr. Rove inquired about firing United States attorneys in January 2005. The request prompted a Justice Department aide to respond that Alberto R. Gonzales, soon to be confirmed as attorney general, favored replacing a group of “underperforming” prosecutors.

OR read CNN/CANOE:

At one point in 2005, former Bush counsel Harriet Miers suggested all 93 attorneys be fired at the start of the president's second term, something Gonzales dismissed as a "bad idea" and "disruptive."

Instead, he said he directed his chief of staff Kyle Sampson to evaluate "weak performers."

Sampson resigned this week.

OR read the American Chronicle:

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

What you will read, and should count on, is that the countdown has BEGUN: to the days of NancySmashing, just as your Humble Narrator has predicted for you. Prediction is not a science: ZENmud smelled a(nother) Ratpublican story, and ZENmud surmises, that this scandal will crack, but not break apart, the deceit-filled calamity that is America's Government...

COURAGE

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

You say we need a REVOLUTION, yeahhhh...

Hey ZENers!

It's time: it's legal, and we can thank another Blogspot Blogger for inciting RATIONALITY in our American world.

Thanks to Civillibertarian for contributing to the right argument. That the USA needs to call an Article V Convention!

I had a Poli-Sci course years ago, in which a student and I 'redrafted' the US Constitution. Little did we know then, how likely this would become after the decades of Republican incivility and media-manipulation that we have had recently?

But he (Jason Miller is who posted) interviewed Joel Hirschorn, and the argument goes as follows
(read here)

And visit this site to join! Welcome To Friends of the Article V Convention

"But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait" (the Beatles "Revolution!")

Bon dimanche, mes amis!

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

Republican CULT! versus ?Democratic Party

Dear ZENistas!

“We don't need no education – we don't need no thought control... No dark sarcasm in the classroom! Teacher! Leave us kids alone...”
Pink Floyd: Another brick in the wall, Part II

If you don't remember Jim Jones, or the Hari Krishnas, or even David Koresh, you can still find evidence of cults in the United States culture: the Grand Old Party has been transformed.

Welcome to the Republican CULT.

“A cult is a group of people who organize around a strong authority figure. Cults, like many other groups, attempt to expand their influence for the purposes of power or money. However, to achieve these ends, destructive cults employ a potent mixture of influence techniques and deception to attain psychological control over members and new recruits. This fundamental level of control is known alternatively as 'brainwashing,' 'thought reform,' or 'mind control.' A successful induction by a destructive cult displaces a person's former identity and replaces it with a new one. That new identity may not be one that the person would have freely chosen under her [sic] own volition.” (Hassan, 1990).

In the last 10 to 20 years, however, the two-party system has effectively transformed itself, on the way to becoming a one-party government. My categorization isn't that which usually has been offered in these years: a Bush-driven neo-conservative paradise.

The Republicans have become a classic, mind-controlling Cult.

The Cult of Rush Limbaugh, who begat XX, who begat YY, who begat Ann Coulter (Culter?), who became the AntiChrist-loving slut of pure hate speech... aimed at the only political party Americans know.

Her vitriol spreads, supported by and spread throughout the mainstream media (MSM), as if it were something worthy of discussion. US TV and radio stations now permit and saturate their viewers with aggressive anti-Liberal, anti-Democratic and anti-Islamic rhetoric: the examples are found daily. Since its transformation throughout the 1990s, Republican Cult members became conditioned to fly or sink together (more profoundly, more frequently, and more seriously than ever in our nation's history); their party loyalty was deformed into Cult adhesion.

Tracing how this transformation was achieved, from Party to Cult begins with the early 1990s, a period when the Bush Administration enjoyed the highest domestic political support, in light of the apparently successful Operation Desert Storm. Squandered through typical Bushian failures to corral and maintain the momentum, George HW Bush lost the 1992 election against Ross Perot and Bill Clinton: the Revenge of Bushism would take eight years.

However the United States government was NOT founded to offer a two-party system: the Founding Fathers had strong reservations against such a trap. That which they feared, nevertheless became the modus operandi, as both the Democrats of Andrew Jackson and then the Republicans of Abraham Lincoln, took the political brass ring at each election, further entrenching their parties and themselves in America's political process.

Today, the lack of actual party participation by US citizens is rather astounding: the percentage of actual participating members, if measured by attendance to caucuses or conventions, as well as campaign contributions, is infinitely slim, said to be around or less than one per cent participation.

This is similar to America's sports habits, where millions of fans may support one team, but only a few thousand (40 to 85 thousand) actually travel to the stadiums to see the spectacle live.

Today, mindful that the Republican Cult member across the table from you could in fact be a Manchurian Candidate, trigger-words deftly implanted: “Liberal”, “Withdrawal”, “Clinton” “Appeaser” “Dirty bombs”... We don't know how each has become manipulated, for each may be passive until your defenses are lowered. It is useful to consider that those who effect the greatest mass persuasion, and dogmatic use of indoctrinating propaganda, often do so under the guise of offering freedom, or liberation.

Case in point? Witness Rush Limbaugh, and his 'EIB Network' (“Excellence in Broadcasting”): Rush lost a good number of followers when it was revealed, after years of diatribes launched against the poor and their fallibilities towards drug abuse, that he himself was addicted to oxyContin, or 'Hillbilly Heroin'.

What can we do, as Americans, in facing this CULT; as massive and as forceful as it has become in the United States? My ZENistas, we will soon return, to consider the alternatives.

BE forwearned: there is never an easy path to choose, in leading away from a CULT's influence, the loved ones (Brothers, sisters, children, parents) whom you have chosen to rescue!!!!

COURAGE

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

How not to Laugh with Floyd... Landis

Hello ZEN'ers, In the French cycling Vélo Magazine (Mars 2007 – Numéro 439: p20) appears a cartoon in four panels, about Floyd Landis.

Entitled (Translated from French) 'An Ordinary Morning', the absurd caricature of Floyd can be seen in four different panels: a- rudely awoken by his alarm clock; b- scruffily brushing his teeth before the bathroom mirror; c- at the breakfast table overlooking his cat on the floor; and, d- outside on his bicycle under a cold grey sky.

The monologue into his telephone presents the following items:

1 (Wake-up): “Hello, Attorney Saint Kant? Floyd Landis calling. I dispute the analysis of time from my ALARM CLOCK! Let's go to court!”

2 (Mirror): “Hello, Attorney Saint Kant? Yes, it's Floyd again. I dispute the analysis of my face by this mirror! Yes! Let's attack!”

3 (Cat): “Attorney Saint Kant? Yes, it's me! My dog just went 'MEOW'! What do you mean, I don't have a dog?? Little matter: let's go, Go!”

4 (on bike): “I would do well to challenge my 'challenges'!! I'm going to find an attorney, someone competent, to challenge this Saint Kant who tells me nothing valuable!”

Where is the humour? I guess if you're a part of the French cycling world, indoctrinated through French media (State-owned television France 2 and France 3) such as the sports newspaper l'Equipe, you might even think that their Laboratoire National de Dépistage du Dopage (LNDD) had presented a valid case against this victor of the 2006 Tour de France.

I, however, see this as a cultural brainwashing, imposing a view that this American winner is another sue-happy American born of our horrible legal system, willing to go to great lengths to win his case on a technicality.

We'll only know after the scheduled May 14^th hearing, under the auspices of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Carry on: Back to your lives, which are already in progress.

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

FLOYD GOES FREE under the Pound Doctrine

In a USA Today article* (Aug 25, 2005 "Armstrong says he's the victim of a 'setup'"), WADA President-for-Life Dick Pound was quoted, in reference to the scurrilous, false 'campaign' run against Lance Armstrong by the LNDD-WADA 'research' project, as earlier revealed in L'EQUIPE in August 2005, as saying:

"If he had one [here, an EPO 'positive' result], you could say it was an aberration. When you get up to six, there's got to be some explanation."

The Pound Doctrine, thus, is: Any racer testing positive only on one occasion of several, may successfully argue that this test result is not accurate.

The Pound Doctrine exists, because the man is President of the World ANTI-DOPING Agency (WADA), after losing the IOC Presidency to Dr. Jacques Rogge. Dick Pound, an attorney from Canada with long experience in the International Olympic Committee movement carries and CANNOT dismiss, his official role as President of WADA.

Furthermore, as he stated, "there's got to be an explanation." Prior to the inception of WADA in 2004, there was 'an explanation'; that aberration or explanation came from mandatory longitudinal testing under the IOC.

In the case of repetitive positive results, such as had caused the LNDD, WADA and L'EQUIPE to cry 'Scandal in 1999!', the authority of the epoch decreed:
"In the case of T/E higher than 6, it is mandatory that relevant medical authority conduct an investigation before the sample is declared positive. A full report will be written and will include a review of previous, subsequent tests and any results of endocrine investigations."

KEY phrase: 'before the sample is declared positive'.

We know, that Floyd Landis was tested during eight Tour de France 2006 stages. Seven of those tests were obviously negative. (no 'positives' is equivalent to a 'negative'. There is no indication that the IOC rule is currently still in force: under the operative WADA CODE, the IOC must be in conformity with WADA, not the opposite.

One Landis test was 'positive', according to the same French laboratory that had introduced the scandal related to Armstrong.

Thus, under the official WADA Pound Doctrine, a singular positive test against Floyd Landis, in the face of seven clean tests, 'could indicate' that aberration, lab error, or malfeasance had occurred.

However, don't anticipate reading about WADA, or the French Laboratory's errors any time soon.

WADA, new kid on the block, has to win the big fights to claim its rightful turf: Floyd is in the crosshairs, however, so is President Pound. Is Pound one of the best Snipers on the ledge? Unfortunately for him: some are gunning back; for him to be replaced!

* See the UCI Vrijman report, p 23
Thanks to Trust But Verify for his *invaluable* source data collection and consultation!

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

Follow-up: WADA do about Floyd???

Hello ZEN'ers,

I have downloaded the documents that will allow further, deeper integration of my concept: that WADA has to redraft its CODE, to offer cyclists and all sporting participants whom are subject to WADA-derived doping controls, a more fair, honest and transparent system.

Hopefully, chapter Four before Tuesday... Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

You can read the full article in three parts here

WADA do about Floyd??? Part I - Part II - Part III

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”* ZENmud ”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”

Part One: WADA do about Floyd???

IF Floyd rode under the IOC Medical Rules...

This is the First of a three-part article looking into the supranational legal effect of the World Anti-Doping Agency, its CODE covering doping analysis, and its effect on the cyclist Floyd Landis.

Click here for Part II, and Part III

I have questions about the rôle played by the WADA CODE, and its relevence to the ongoing battle between Floyd Landis, and the USADA, WADA and the Tour de France. I began this article by accident, when I read a clause in the IOC Medical CODE (excerpted from a paper by Lauri Tarasti, below, further citations sought), relating its procedures when existing evidence points towards a positive Testosterone/Epitestosterone (T/E) ratio, and the mandated steps before announcement of findings.

These questions relate to how Floyd Landis would have fared, in light of his positive T/E test in the 2006 Tour de France, and if he was treated under the WADA CODE as fairly as he would have if under Olympic authorities. (PHOTO credit: Bas Czerwinski - AP) There resides also the question of harmonization, which comes in the insertion of WADA as a new intergovernmental Organization (IGO).

To begin, certain passages of the IOC Medical CODE are emphasized the portions in italic, and in bold (and blue) italic, at the heart of this pertinent and vital paragraph:

2. IOC Medical Code, Chapter II:

The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone excretion, androgen production of tumor, enzyme deficiencies. In the case of T/E higher than 6, it is mandatory that relevant medical authority conduct an investigation before the sample is declared positive. A full report will be written and will include a review of previous, subsequent tests and any results of endocrine investigations. In the event that previous tests are not available, the athlete should be tested unannounced at least once per month for three months. The results of these investigations should be included in the report. Failure to cooperate in the investigations will result in the sample being declared positive.

Is there harmony, between IOC MC-Ch.II and existing UCI Rules? Meaning: did Floyd enjoy any longitudinal testing that would, as is mandatory under the IOC Code above, serve to show a “physiological or pathological condition”?

If not, why are the IOC and WADA not in harmony on this issue?

The matter involves the documentation of International Standards for Testing, and International Standards for Laboratories, hopefully to be the focus of a second essay in the near future...

Does IOC trump WADA?

Not according to WADA... its Code, in sub-Article 20.1 et seq., manifest an obligation on the IOC to conform with the WADA Code, International Standard(s), and Best Practices. Yet if the WADA CODE (and International Standard for Testing) does not go as far as IOC already did, as found in the sequence reproduced above, should not WADA rectify the existing ambiguity by adopting the more stringent IOC standard?

If WADA had the supplementary testing requirement as part of its controlling documents, what would have been undertaken, to supplement the findings of Professeur de Ceaurriz' laboratoire, in the Floyd Landis Tour de France case?

A conference on updating the WADA Code will take place in late 2007. If issues discussed here are not addressed for inclusion in the WADA Code, or in the International Standards for Testing, it would reinforce certain perceptions that exist that WADA exists to satisfy governmental and political needs more than those of the competitive world it governs.

I suggest that WADA, if actually possible under the vitriolic leadership of Dick Pound, absolutely must strive to reinvigorate its CODE.

The CODE is a document requiring massive re-writing:

• to harmonize its mandate; and,

• introduce the requisite essentials that form objective and fair legal bases.

Balancing its quasi-legal system to afford more particular rights to the world class athletes in all sports, who undertake repetitive blood and urine tests, must be the goal. Those rights are not to provide any advantages to athletes – those rights are to receive transparent, exemplary science implementation, and guarantee confidentiality in the Results Management phase.

Even more severe, is a growing perception that the structure and inter-relationships between WADA, National Authorities and International Federations is not healthy or conducive to the fair administration of justice through private arbitration.

This indictment is not against WADA in the aggregate: it is specifically against its current President, Mr. Richard Pound, of Canada. Growing evidence serves as proof that, under his 'guidance', WADA has failed to maintain its penultimate, impartial and neutral rôle.

What's wrong with WADA? The GRAND CANYON in missing WADA rules coverage:

A humongeous chasm, wider than the Grand Canyon, exists in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in its efforts to harmonize and give structure to the fight against doping; that canyon is revealed as a fundamental failure to address a critical component in the testing process: a fatal flaw that must be addressed before WADA-associated Anti-Doping Organizations destroy other athletes' careers through negligence or malfeasance.

'Other athletes', in the sense that as you read this, Floyd Landis, 2006 winner of the Tour de France bicycle race, awaits his USADA hearing in May 2007, on the damning 'evidence' that he was 'positive' for an imbalanced testosterone/ epitestosterone (T/E) ratio: the tests that are used to measure possible exogenous intake of a doping product.

That critical, overlooked component is the lack of disciplinary control expressed in the WADA CODE regarding Doping Control Authorities, and/or their authorized laboratory(-ies), concerning their procedures and adherence to scientific standards. This article addresses the salient points revealed within the WADA “World Anti-Doping CODE” 2003.

Short tour down WADA-MEMORY Lane...

WADA was founded in 2003, inaugurated after the prior years had demonstrated doping corruption in many world sports not limited to cycling: the top of the International Olympic Committee was rocking from financial and influence-peddling scandals, and cycling offered its own “Affaire Festina”, which rocked the 1998 Tour de France, after a Festina team trainer had been arrested at the Belgian/French border, in a station wagon full of EPO and other illegal medications.

The birth of WADA in 2003 begat the subsequent acceptance of its CODE, which had been promulgated “...to advance the anti-doping effort through universal harmonization of core anti-doping elements. It is intended to be specific enough to achieve complete harmonization on issues where uniformity is required, yet general enough in other areas to permit flexibility on how agreed anti-doping principles are implemented.”

Considered means; noble ends. Ignoble failure.

It is this article's contention that WADA's mission: 'to achieve complete harmonization on issues where uniformity is required...' is a sword with two sharp edges, and regarding which WADA has failed drastically in the achievement.

Clearly, the WADA CODE indicates what happens when any athlete has been tested positive; its Articles 7 through 11, (some 15 pages), specifically fix the processing of Sample Specimens, and consequential punitive steps. [NB: words in italics most often denote official language of the CODE.]

Yet the CODE itself does not elaborate how a laboratory becomes accredited, establishes its finding(s) and shall comport itself, in: maintaining state-of-the-art scientific testing apparati; objective performance (and auditable) criteria to be able to test Sample Specimens properly, and proper, confidential submissions of test data, that ensure the transmission of such results to the appropriate receiving Anti-Doping Organizations (ADO).

Clearly, how a laboratory produces the results that announce or reveal legitimate doping incidents, or false accusations that result from bad scientific processing, illegal tampering or simple negligence, must be held to as high a standard as WADA can expect from its captive audience – athletes the world over. The WADA CODE is a two-edged sword that now only cuts deep on one edge.

This dichotomy appears to be a failure for WADA, and its CODE.

WADA has demonstrably failed to provide, as its mission requires, a standard for harmonization and balance in the upholding of its rules. The applicable introductory paragraph of the CODE, regarding its INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, conditions that: “Adherence to the International Standards is mandatory to ensure compliance with the CODE.” Yet how is such a simple assertion backed? Where are the sticks and carrots? Within the CODE, there are none, as will be revealed in Parts II and III of this article.

The WADA CODE certainly offers a great deal of specificity as to Athletes, as well it should. It covers so thoroughly nearly all aspects of procedures and results management reporting, as well as appeals regarding sports-doping, that the omission of any balancing regulations to uphold laboratory standards and accreditation stands out as brightly as would the Colorado River, gleaming away down in that ... Grand Canyon.

Yet the Laboratories serve as the front line against doping: the most critical component of the Doping Control phase. In an official document that even devotes an article (Art. 16) to the doping of animals (horses, one presumes), one would expect to read how WADA stridently regulates the laboratories that produce the AAFs against athletes such as Floyd Landis.

However, the WADA CODE does not define terms like 'Laboratory', 'accredited Laboratory', 'Testing Laboratory' or 'Testing Procedures' in any way, as THE critical component of Doping Control.

Links to Part II or Part III

ç*”*”*””*ç”*”*ZENmud”*””*ç*”*”*””*ç”