VeeJay says, "What should Prime Minister Koizumi do?"
January, 2004

Jun, a science professor in Japan gave us some of his thoughts.
Jun has said that he isn't particularly interested in politics. But like most Japanese Jun watches this entity called the USA very carefully; many with a wary eye. NHK television specials present historical and political documentaries which go into great depth. In a nation of penny counters where the equivalent of the US hundred dollar bill is refered to as an equivalent ten thousand penny note, people in Japan dissect things down to small units. As one might expect the perspectives are often different, sometimes quite different than those presented in America. Jun has watched a good number of NHK political and historical documentaries and has recorded some of them for us to view. He is keen to observe our reaction to them and to hear our responses.
While we were watching the State of the Union Address which President Bush delivered in January, 2004, Jun pointed to Dick Cheney and asked us if we thought that Dick Cheney would have been electable in the 2000 election. Dick Cheney would not have been electable. And we told him so. "So that's why Bush was used as his puppet," Jun remarked. Shortly thereafter watching an NHK documentary on the Carlyle group, Jun said, "Something seems clear to me about Cheney. Cheney is, how do you say, 'omnipotent.' He is the real power man. And he has something which Hitler did not have. He has Muslims who have the ability to strike anywhere in the world. They can do much of Cheney's dirty work."
Hmm. Maybe Jun is more perceptive than many Ameicans.
O-Sou-Ji, house cleaning.
One week before the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003, Jun asked us whether Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi was doing the right thing by supporting the invasion. We had answered in the affirmative. We had reminded Jun of the vastly overwhelming superiority in everything from logistics to satellite communications and surveillance to raw firepower. Sort of like hitting a dung beetle with a ten kiloton bomb. Jun asked how long it would take and was surprised to hear that we thought about three weeks would have been required. Jun had been under the mistaken impression, as most people had been, that President Hussein had a huge fighting force ostensibly willing to fight to the death with nasty WMD. We told him that that was just a crock. And because the excuse to go to war was unbelievable everyone was surprised when the invasion started. Jun expressed complete surprise when the announcement was made. We quoted Machiavelli to Jun.

"No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution."
Niccolo Machiavelli.

Jun asked us what would likely happen to Hussein.
We asked him rhetorically what had happened to Pol Pot, Manuel Noriega and Idi Amin. If Hussein is treated similarly, collaborators can be assembled more readily for a new puppet government in Iraq. You have to ask yourself where Manuel Noriega would likely be if he hadn't been "captured." He'd be dead and his corpse would not likely be in one piece. Pol Pot was allowed to die of natural causes. Idi amin is in Saudi Arabia with his fifty wives. In all three cases as in the case of Hussein, the world will never be allowed access to the secrets they held.
Jun asked whether Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi was right in sending Ji-Ei-Tai, the Japanese Defense forces to Iraq. We again answered in the affirmative. What ever yoke is created by the burden of debt that Americans foist on the Iraqis gives complete control over them. Their geostrategic location as well as their obvious reserves of oil are a benefit to all of the G8. The Ji-Ei-Tai can help create the good will which will enable the yoke to be slipped into place. The yoke is invisible so that the only thing men will pay attention to is appearance. In essence it is the follow through for one of Machiavelli's immutable rules.

We read and interpreted for Jun from parts of
The Prince, Chapter 21, How a Prince Must Act to Gain Honor.
A prince also wins honor for being a true friend or a outright enemy. Which is to say, for declaring himself without reservation to be in favor of one side against another. Such a policy is always more advantageous than neutrality. For example, if powers near you (or influencing you) begin to fight, either you may be in danger if one of them conquers, or you may not. In either case it will always be to your advantage to openly declare yourself.

In either case it will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenuously; because, in the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will invariably be at the mercy the conqueror, to the pleasure and satisfaction of the side which has been beaten, and you will have no reasons to offer, nor any way to recieve protection or shelter. Because the one who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in time of difficulties; and the one who loses rejects you because you did not willingly, arms in hand, cast your fate with his.

Antiochus went into Greece, being sent for by the Aetolians to drive out the Romans. He sent envoys to the Achaeans, who were friends of the Romans, calling on them to remain neutral; while the Romans urged the Achaeans to take up arms. This question came to be discussed in the council of the Achaeans, where the legate of Antiochus urged them to stand neutral. To this the Roman legate answered: "As for that which has been said, that it is better and more advantageous for your state not to interfere in our war, nothing can be more erroneous; because by not interfering you will be left, without favour or dignity, the prize of the conqueror." Thus it will always happen that he who is not your friend will demand your neutrality, whilst he who is your friend will request that you provide armed support. Irresolute princes, to avoid dangers, generally follow the neutral path, and are generally ruined. But when you declare yourself openly in favour of one side, if that side conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have you at his mercy, yet he is indebted to you, and friendly ties have been established; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you in this circumstance. Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some respect, especially to justice. But if your ally loses, you may be sheltered by him, and whilst he is able he may aid you, and you become companions with a common fortune that may rise again.

In the second case, when you have no fear whichever side may be the victor, it is most prudent to chose one side over the other, because you assist in the destruction of one by the aid of the other who, if he had been wise, would have saved him; and conquering, as it is impossible that he should not win with your assistance, he remains under your power.

And here it is to be noted that a prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purposes of attacking others, unless necessity compels him, as is said above; because if he conquers you are under his power, and princes ought to avoid as much as possible being at the mercy of any one. The Venetians joined with France against the Duke of Milan, and this alliance, which caused their ruin, could have been avoided. But when it cannot be avoided, as happened to the Florentines when the Pope and Spain sent armies to attack Lombardy, then in such a case, for the above reasons, the prince ought to favour one side or another.

Never let any Government imagine that it can choose perfectly safe courses; rather all possible sources of action should be regarded as risky, because it is found in ordinary affairs that while avoiding one trouble one runs into another; but prudence consists in knowing how to distinguish the character of troubles, and in taking the lesser evil.

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
ftp://indian.cse.msu.edu/pub/mirrors/Gutenberg/etext98/tprnc10.txt

N.B. For the edification of the reader: any attempt to define Machiavelli or his works in terms of "good" or "bad" demonstrates puerile aquiescence to an artificial social construction of reality. As such it is a waste of your precious intellect.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire

VeeJay says, "Here's the Math 100 formula."
April 3, 2004
From a strictly mathematical viewpoint it goes like this: What makes 100%? What does it mean to give more than a 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give more than 100%. How about achieving 103%? Well, here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions: If the letters of the alphabet A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z were represented as: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 then: H - A - R - D - - W - O - R - K would be: 8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98% and, K - N - O - W - L - E - D - G - E 11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96% but, A - T - T - I - T - U - D - E 1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100% however - -B - U - L - L - S - H - I - T 2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103% and, look how far ass kissing will take you: A - S - S - - K - I - S - S - I - N - G 1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%. So, one can then conclude with mathematical certainty that: While, hard work and knowledge will get you close, and, attitude will get you there, it's Bullshit &Ass Kissing that will put you over the top! Have a good day !

VeeJay says, "Will Rice Testify?
March 25, 2004.
Have you ever watched members of British Parliament calling each other right-honorable-this and right-honorable-that as they insult each other? It's fun to watch, isn't it? It's a real sideshow. It's televised so that people can see what's going on in government. But guess what, jelly bean? It has little or nothing to do with what goes on in government. It's just a sideshow. That's why it's ok to allow the television cameras in. Yes of course Rice will testify before the cameras. She knows just exactly what to say. One interesting thing will be to see how much egg she can throw on Kerry's face after he made such a big deal about the fact that Rice-Bush may be hiding something. Another point you may watch for is how many times she will use cliches about connecting dots or lapses in intelligence.

"To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid,
you must also be well-mannered."
Voltaire

"We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001"
A former FBI translator told the 9/11 commission that the bureau had detailed information well before Sept. 11, 2001, that terrorists were likely to attack the U.S. with airplanes.
by Eric Boehlert March 26, 2004,
"A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called 'very credible' by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.
Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, 'We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available.'
Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. 'Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22, 2004] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie.' Edmonds' charge comes when the Bush White House is trying to fend off former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's testimony that it did not take serious measures to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism, and al-Qaida specifically, in the months leading up to 9/11."
salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/26/translator/index_np.html
"when they caught the person who masterminded the first attempt on the World Trade Center towers, and nearly succeeded, they confiscated some computer equipment at that time, and the data they found there described using airplanes as one way to bring the towers down. If this is true, then they most certainly DID know that the use of planes was a real possibility."
groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/54654

Read this. Again Mike Ruppert has blown the whistle.
fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032504_cui_bono.html
Chemical weapons under the bed? That's a hoot. Bush might also get a kick out of these knee-slappers.
911citizenswatch.org/
unansweredquestions.org/

"The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") to issue new rules that would shut down groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress. Gag. Another repugnican assault on free speech to keep the creep in office."
"The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") to issue new rules that would shut down groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress. Incredibly, the FEC has just issued -- for public comment -- proposed rules that would do just that. Any kind of non-profit -- conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation, issue-oriented, large, and small -- could be affected by these rules."
groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/54674

moveon.org/press/

fec.gov/press/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html

VeeJay says, "Take Back the Media."

takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

VeeJay says, "This is Bruce Barcott's first cover article for The Times Magazine."
Changing All the Rules
April 4, 2004, by BRUCE BARCOTT
"President Bush doesn't talk about new-source review very often. In fact, he has mentioned it in a speech to the public only once, in remarks he delivered on Sept. 15, 2003, to a cheering crowd of power-plant workers and executives in Monroe, Mich., about 35 miles south of Detroit. It was an ideal audience for his chosen subject. New-source review, or N.S.R., involves an obscure and complex set of environmental rules and regulations that most Americans have never heard of, but to people who work in the power industry, few subjects are more crucial."
[snip]
"The framework of new-source review would remain, but the new rules set thresholds so high that pollution-control requirements would almost never come into effect. 'It's a moron test for power companies,' said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, a nonprofit watchdog group. 'It's such a huge loophole that only a moron would trip over it and become subject to N.S.R. requirements.'"
nytimes.com/2004/04/04/magazine/04BUSH.html