In a public battle revolving around the inherent obscenity of women’s breasts, Google today was ordered to give a list of 50,000 web sites to the Bush administration.

Google recently made headlines for refusing to give the U.S. government a random sampling of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through its search engine and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted over a one-week period. Google simultaneously created a censored version of Google for all Chinese viewers.¹

Media pundits were up in arms, confused about whether Google was a privacy rights hero or a capitulator to totalitarian repression. But the underlying issue wasn’t about privacy or free speech — it was, of course, about women’s breasts.

Bush’s demand relates to the so-called Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which requires restricted access (i.e. a login ID and password) for commercial sites not meeting “‘contemporary community standards’ … and that showed sexual acts or nudity (including female breasts).”² By getting a random sampling of Google’s search queries and sites, the administration wanted to demonstrate that the web was saturated with vile breasts, and that people under 18 — say, 17.5 — are seeing them.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “The dispute drew considerable attention from … legal scholars, who alternatively praised Google for defending Internet privacy and accused it of protecting smut peddlers” — such as those who show breasts on their site. But along with misusing the word “alternatively,” the Chronicle offers no evidence of an even balance of opinion among so-called “scholars.”

It appears both the Bush Administration and Google have lost this battle. The judge drastically reduced what Google had to provide, but Google still may be seen as giving in on important privacy issues.

Ironically, even if COPA becomes permanent, it may still have a negligible effect on internet breast availability. The ruling will only apply to web sites hosted in the U.S.

The Child Online Protection Act is part of a long Bush administration tradition of Orwellian naming, including, notably, the Patriot Act, Healthy Forests Initiative, No Child Left Behind Act, and the Clear Skies Initiative.

Architect Richard Rogers was slated to design the absurdly expensive expansion of Manhattan’s Jacob Javitz convention center.

But then Rogers did the unthinkable.

According to Reuters, the architect hosted a meeting of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, a newly formed group. The group later decided to call for a boycott of Israel. (Among other atrocities, Israel has been illegally occupying Palestine for nearly half a century, causing formal condemnation on several occasions by the UN General Assembly and the World Court.)

An architect with controversial political views was too much for NY politicians to handle, so they sought to remove him from the project.

However, all was resolved in the end. Rogers distanced himself from the justice organization during a meeting with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Democratic U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner. Now we can rest knowing Rogers doesn’t really want justice for Palestinians, and progress can continue on the $1.7 billion expansion of that Javitz center.

The New York Times is confused about who elected Hamas to govern the Palestinians. In an article today, the Times identifies Hamas as “the Islamic militant group elected to govern the Palestinians.”

One might have a difficult time imagining the Times identifying Israel’s governing Likud party as “the Jewish nuclear-armed group elected to govern the Israelis.”

Instead, the Times identifies Likud simply as “right-wing.”¹ Ironically, the title of the article about Israel article is: “[Likud Leader] Olmert Orders ‘Iron Fist’ Against Militants,” referring to Palestinians.

With its strange passive-voice identification, the Times seems confused as to who elected this “militant group,” Hamas, to power. They must have forgotten how the Palestinians voted Hamas to a sweeping victory a couple months ago in a high-turnout, internationally monitored democratic election.

In a display of tragic irony, the most famous club for so-called “high IQ” individuals is founded on a deeply low IQ understanding of unintelligence.

Mensa, “the organization for smart people like you,” accepts people in the top 2% of “standardized intelligence tests.” These intelligence tests include:

• the LSAT — a test for law school admissions. Taking a pricey Kaplan test-prep course can significantly improve your score, thereby, according to Mensa, making you more intelligent in general.¹
• the GMAT — same as above, but for business graduate school.

It doesn’t take a Mensan to figure out that a business school test doesn’t measure your overall intelligence.

It may be difficult for overachieving academics to accept that logic and language skills aren’t the only types of intelligence humans possess. For instance, athletic, social, musical — and most importantly, satirical writing — abilities also come from the same piece of gray matter.

IQ tests also happen to be racist² and classist³ — which makes Mensa perhaps the largest promoter of the widely debunked “Bell Curve” IQ-model.⁴

Mensa, more than a high IQ society, is a sort of nerdy networking club for the upper-class.

A U.S. Spokesperson has called the publication of newly obtained Abu Ghraib torture photos “irresponsible and unnecessarily provocative,” CNN is Reporting.

This is perhaps in contrast to actually committing torture, which is, according to top U.S. officials, just fine. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote that anti-torture laws are “obsolete,”¹ and worked to provide a legal framework for its use by U.S. forces.

Concern by the U.S. about the new photos results from the recent Muslim anger related to anti-Mohammed cartoons. Officials, at least publicly, don’t want to fan the flames. However, if that were really the case, perhaps they wouldn’t have sanctioned the torture in the first place.

The New York Times, the most powerful media outlet in the world, is declining to show several new photos of Iraqi prisoners being tortured at Abu Ghraib.

A Times article featured two of the least disturbing pictures¹, but was then updated by an article with no pictures at all.² In Britain, the U.S.’s staunch ally in the war on Iraq, the BBC stated plainly: “Some of the new images are too gruesome to be shown.”³

Too gruesome for whom?

For you, apparently. The New York Times (and the BBC) don’t want you to see these images.

It’s probably not that The Times doesn’t think you can handle seeing the gruesome acts being committed in your name (if you’re from the U.S.). But if you get upset enough to act against the war on Iraq, that might upset The Times’ Big Corporate sponsors, many of which have a Big Corporate stake in the war. The U.S. government has also spoken out against publishing the photos, calling it “irresponsible,”⁴ and The Times is usually happy to fall in line.⁵

In his first encyclical letter, released today, Pope Benedict XVI described the “inescapable sense of solidarity between all peoples.”

However, the Pope stated that governments, through “subsidies or tax relief,” show “significantly” more solidarity than individuals. (With such benevolent governments, one might wonder why anyone needs tax relief in the first place.)

The Pope recently bemoaned a lack of solidarity from media outlets, who he claimed “undervalue” religious belief.¹ However, a Google News search for “pope” returns over 15,000 articles.

Pope Benedict is a former member of the Nazi Hitler Youth Militia.²

“Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability,” said Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz on Monday.

Israel is generally believed to have 300-400 nuclear weapons.¹ The country has not stated any intention to dismantle or reduce its current stockpile; in fact, it refuses to confirm or deny having them at all.

Israel “must have the capability to defend itself,” Mofaz continued, “with all that that implies, and this we are preparing.” Presumably, “with all that that implies” is a secret code phrase meaning “by bombing Iran.”²

For several decades, nuclear-armed Israel has similarly “defended itself” against Palestinians, who may be in possession of 300-400 hand grenades.

(For nuclear disarmament talking points, click here.)

The New York Times editorial staff has concluded that the Gaza Strip, “recently evacuated by Israeli settlers,” is “teeming.” The example of the word “teeming” in dictionary.com is: “A drop of water teems with microorganisms.”

Without Israel’s brutal, internationally condemned occupation of Gaza, the editors wonder “whether there will be any valid authority left among the Palestinians.”

The Times continues by warning of an impending “civil war” between these “invalid” authorities, “militant” Hamas (killed one Israeli in 2005) and Fatah (part of the Palestine Liberation Organization).² But they don’t bother to provide any evidence of why such a war is imminent.

The desired conclusion: Inhuman Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves. Their only skill lies in terrorizing Israelis.

The reality is much more complicated. Elections are approaching in both Palestine and Israel, and the outcome will determine a great deal for both nations. Hamas has tempered its hard line, while Fatah has grown severely corrupt. A Hamas victory in Palestine may spur an ultra-militant right wing victory in Israel (i.e. Netanyahu), while Fatah control would not represent the needs of the Palestinian people.

For a realistic examination of these issues, see ZNet and Znet.

Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, has taken center stage in the news today after a visit by Hollywood’s hottest celebrity couple, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

Jolie and Pitt brought some much needed “Hollywood glamour” to the impovrished country, according to ABC News. ABC describes Haiti’s situation as “beleaguered” and “tumultuous.” But Jolie said that “given just a little chance, and given a little help, this is going to be a great country.”

How did Haiti get to be this way? Because “former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forced from power in a violent rebellion nearly two years ago.” Who was rebelling against whom, and why? There’s no explanation.

There’s just one missing detail: reality. The U.S. has been deeply involved in preventing Haiti’s success since Woodrow Wilson’s 1915 invasion.¹ That, and Aristide — Haiti’s first democratically elected president — was ousted in a U.S. coup d’etat in 2004.²

In a recent interview with the New York Times, the chairman of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A, Yukitoshi Funo, said American consumers are “really, really nice people.”

“American consumers,” declared Funo, “are more on the open-minded side, rather than closed minded. They are … they are … really, really nice people … nice customers.”

The Japanese car company sold roughly 7.5 million cars in 2004, 2 million of which were purchased by U.S. residents.¹ The Toyota Camry is the best-selling car in the US.²

Some Americans have recently expressed concern at the impact of Japanese cars on American companies like Ford and GM. The Times interviewer described the political situation as “touchy.” But Funo disagreed. “Each country have a different situation,” he said. “American consumers are more on the open-minded side. . . . That’s the reason we’re successful, and how much we are thankful to the American consumers.”

The U.S. contains 5% of the world’s population but accounts for 26% of the world’s oil consumption.³

BBC has thoroughly covered Toyota’s perspective on a recent auto worker strike in India. At one point, the BBC quotes Toyota’s general manager at the striking plant, saying: “We would like to restore normalcy as soon as possible, but at the same time we would not like to compromise on discipline.”

The perspective of the factory’s workers is not mentioned.

Quoting extensively from the Toyota manager, the BBC drew a comparison with a recent Honda strike — one that cost Honda millions of dollars. The BBC does not mention why the Honda workers were on strike.

(For more information, visit Indian Express)

Billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg today referred to striking transit workers as “selfish.”

Among other disagreements, transit workers have refused to allow the MTA to significantly worsen their retirement benefits.

Bloomberg himself is the sole private possessor of many things:

• a mansion on Manhattan’s upper east side.
• private homes in London’s Cadogan Square; Vail, Colorado; Bermuda; Armonk
• a farm in North Salem where his daughter keeps her horses¹.
• an 80% share of Bloomberg, Inc., the media megacorp that bares his name.
• $5 billion

New York State Governor George Pataki, a millionaire who indirectly controls the MTA through leadership appointments, has joined Bloomberg in harshly condemning the strikers. Pataki has continually decreased funding for the MTA, and he has clearly forced this strike into existence.

Pataki’s probable motive: showing business elites he’s tough on workers and “corporate friendly” as he prepares for a 2008 presidential run.

In 1892, super-rich Henry Frick cut impoverished steelworkers’ wages, so they went on strike. Frick hired armed mercenaries who protected strikebreakers and attacked the striking employees. The state government responded to this situation by bringing in the militia to protect strikebreakers — and then wrongfully charging union leaders with murder. If it were 1892 today, where would Bloomberg and Pataki stand?

by Bertrand Russell

Click here for Russell’s complete essay.

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say “Agnostic” or whether I should say “Atheist”. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Hebrew University professor Martin van Creveld, considered by some to be Israel’s most respected military historian, has presented his opinion on the Iraq war in this week’s issue of Forward. Calling the Bush administration’s war “the most foolish” war since 9 B.C., van Creveld declared that the “thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.”

Van Creveld’s “classic withdrawal” entails a “continued [U.S.] military presence, made up of air, sea and a moderate number of ground forces.”

True, this sort of withdrawal is highly similar to what others might call “non-withdrawal.” But real withdrawal is simply not an option, he argues, because “the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that.”

Why is fluoride in toothpaste and tap water? The American Dental Association calls the practice “safe and effective … for preventing tooth decay.” Then again, the ADA answers to the same government that promotes the anti-evolution “intelligent design” theory.

Does water fluoridation prevent tooth decay?
Probably. But how much prevention, and at what price? Tooth decay rates have gone down since the US started fluoridating water back in the 50s. But according to World Health Organization data, tooth decay rates decreased similarly for European countries not using fluoridation, during roughly the same period.

Even scouring the Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association, one is hard-pressed to find convincing evidence of fluoride’s overall benefit.

Is fluoride safe?
Not for humans. Low doses of fluoride are not akin to low doses of, say, anthrax. However, according to salon.com, “Fluoride is, after all, an extremely toxic compound that originally was sold as a bug and rat poison. A growing body of scientific research suggests that long-term fluoride consumption may cause numerous health problems, ranging from cancer and impaired brain function to brittle bones and fluorosis (the white splotches on teeth that indicate weak enamel). An estimated 22 percent of American children have some form of fluorosis.”

Why is fluoride in toothpaste and tap water?
Fluoride has been a poisonous industrial waste product for well over a century. But during WWII, military aluminum production caused the quantity of fluoride waste — and lawsuits against Big Aluminum — to skyrocket. Fluoride desperately needed a makeover, so the industry trumpeted the compound’s alleged dental benefits. In 1945, despite any credible scientific evidence, several industries persuaded the government to run a 15-year water fluoridation experiment (on humans) in Michigan. But before this experiment had neared completion, it was expanded to 87 more cities. Meanwhile, Edward Bernays, known as the father of the public relations industry, spearheaded an intense pro-fluoride propaganda campaign — repeating dental health allegations while downplaying safety issues. The toothpaste industry signed on with P&G’s Crest in 1956, and without further delay, a toxic compound had been transformed into a dental miracle. For a fascinating history of American fluoridation, see the Earth Island Journal

Is there an alternative to fluoride?
Maybe. Xylitol is a naturally occurring sugar alcohol found in birch trees and some fruits. Studies are still ongoing, but many have shown that xylitol reduces cavities by preventing bacteria from attaching to teeth. Xylitol can be well applied in chewing gum form.

U.S. Did Not Use Skin-eating white phosphorus as weapon in Fallujah.
November 8, 2005: Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan appears on Democracy Now and says: “I do not recall [that white phosphorus] was used as an offensive weapon. White phosphorus is used for marking targets for both air and ground forces.”

OK, we did, but it’s not a chemical weapon.
November 16, 2005: Pentagon spokesman Col Barry Venable appears on BBC and says: “[White phosphorus] was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.” But, “white phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon.”

OK, it’s a chemical weapon.
November 22, 2005: A 1995 Pentagon document emerges, stating: “Iraqi forces loyal to president Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels.”

By the way, the chemical weapons we used are a grave threat to peace
October 7, 2002 George Bush appears in Cincinnati, Ohio, and says: “Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace…. The threat comes from Iraq. … It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.”