…instead of arguing about dignity, the justices disagreed about the practical question of whether invasive strip-searches are reasonably necessary to serve the interests of the jails and prisons. Kennedy’s majority opinion said that they were. Justice Stephen Breyer, in dissent, pointed to studies finding the opposite. In one, conducted in New York under the supervision of the federal courts, one prisoner out of 23,000 searched had hidden contraband in his body in a way that would have avoided detection by X-ray and a pat-down. A California study found three instances out of 75,000 prisoners strip- searched.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the strip-searches, however well-intentioned when first instituted, now function to humiliate people being put behind bars, sending the message that they are now essentially nonpersons, under the full control of the state.

Bloomberg – Noah Feldman, April 8, 2012

The line between politicians and Supreme Court Justices grows thinner.

“There are two main drivers pushing privacy into the dustbin of history, and both are related to technology. One is the increasing effectiveness of government surveillance. Cameras follow you in most public places in London today, and New York is catching up. Diffusion scanners at the airport already show you essentially naked. The coalition Conservative-Liberal Democratic government in the U.K. is preparing to allow the state to collect, without a warrant or even suspicion, all information on calls or texts except the content. The government’s ability to do all of these things causes many of us to think, irrationally, that it is reasonable for it to do so.”

Further wisdom about our esteemed “rulers”:

The problem with political jokes is they get elected. ~Henry Cate, VII  (The problem with Supreme Court Justices is that they don’t.)

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. ~Aesop

If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these acceptance speeches there wouldn’t be any inducement to go to heaven. ~Will Rogers

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. ~Nikita Khrushchev

When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it. ~Clarence Darrow

Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you. ~Author Unknown

Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. ~John Quinton

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. ~Oscar Ameringer

I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them. ~Adlai Stevenson, campaign speech, 1952

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country. ~Texas Guinan

Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so. ~Gore Vidal

I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians. ~Charles de Gaulle

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks. ~Doug Larson

Don’t vote, it only encourages them. ~Author Unknown

There ought to be one day – just one – when there is open season on senators. ~Will Rogers

Ode to Politicians & Supreme Court Justices: Sacrificing Your Dignity for Their Principles originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on April 16, 2012.

I was shocked, because there was no public connection between us.

Our “private” communications were limited to a half-dozen recent emails about my latest book project.

He had a LinkedIn account/profile, but hadn’t updated it for over a year.

When I told him about the LinkedIn email, ” he promptly deleted his account.

We concluded that LinkedIn might be using spyware to: 1) harvest my email contacts and/or 2) scanned my recent emails when I clicked a link in one of their emails.

And then it happened again.

LinkedIn sent me an email asking if I knew the tech support person at a company that hosts one of my websites.

I wrote and asked him how LinkedIn could possibly know about our recent “private” communications. Again, there is no public connection whatsoever.

He wrote back with a bombshell: “A few days ago I went on the LinkedIn webpage to start an account. The last step shows a list of people you may know based on the e-mail address that you have entered — which means that it must go through the e-mail history in order to see who else from those email addresses matches a LinkedIn account. I actually decided not to join Linkedin because of the fact that I didn’t like it was already making suggestions for me before I even signed up for an account.”

How could LinkedIn could suggest his name to me – and my name to him – us unless they scanned my email history and preserved the information in a database, or alternatively, could somehow scan his email contacts without even sending him an email.

I don’t have answers, only questions.  If you know more, please share it with our readers.

Related Posts:

LinkedIn Abused Trust – Said, Oh So Sorry – Rights Radio™ with Dr …

LinkedIn was hijacking user photos and reputations to advertise third-party products.The default option hidden under settings. Users could .

How to Counter Cyber Threats and Identity Theft Attacks: Homeland Security Begins at Home

Rights Radio.com features “Homeland Security Begins at Home” with Cyberterrorism Expert David Gewirtz on November 5, 2008. Topic: Stop Cyber Threats & Identity Theft Attacks on Your Home or Office. Guest: Dr David Gewirtz (ZATZ.com), prolific author, Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism and Security Professionals and a columnist for …

Warning: Is LinkedIn using spyware to harvest private email contacts? originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on December 16, 2011.

Europeans ban US body scanners.

The controversy over airport body scanners – and how safe they are – is taking on new urgency after European authorities this month banned the machines after studies linked them to a small number of cancer cases.

The same type of backscatter scanners, which emit low-level radiation, are used at dozens of U.S. airports, including Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood and Orlando international airports.

Sari Koshetz, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, said it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment on the Nov. 14 decision by the European Commission, which affects all airports in Europe. But she maintains the scanners are safe, even for pregnant women and children.

“We rigorously test our technology to ensure it meets our high detection and safety standards before it is placed in airports,” she said.

Still, Steve Landes, director of the South Florida Airline Commuters Association, which has several hundred frequent flier members, said those who have to fly two to three times a week might want to avoid the scanner.

“Let’s put it this way, I would have to be a fool to say I wouldn’t have any concerns,” said Landes, of Boyton Beach.

The backscatter scanners use low-level radiation to detect dangerous items, notably explosives, on passengers. The TSA also uses a second type of scanner that relies on millimeter-wave technology, or radio waves, to search for dangerous items.

Those machines, which health authorities consider to be safer, have been installed at eight commercial airports in Florida, including those in Miami and Palm Beach.

Koshetz said the decision to install the radiation-emitting backscatter scanners in Fort Lauderdale in May 2010 was “complex” and involved numerous factors, including checkpoint configuration and the availability of those scanners at the time.

Helping to convince European authorities to impose the ban was a recent PBS Newshour/ProPublica report, which said: “Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could get cancer from the machines.” Scientific American also ran a story, detailing the results of the PBS/ProPublic investigation.

The report follows previous studies that had also concluded the scanners could trigger cancer cases among the tens of millions of passengers who pass through airports each year.

 

Only 300 dangerous or illegal items

With more than 250 backscatter scanners at 100 of the busiest U.S. airports, only 300 “dangerous or illegal” items have been identified since January 2010.  The TSA doesn’t won’t tell us how many were actually dangerous.  What were the costs in dollars and cancer risk per each dangerous item?

Airport Scanners – European Commission Bans US Backscatter Scanners – Cancer Risks originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on December 1, 2011.

Surely you’ve seen the blog post A Box You Want to Uncheck on LinkedIn by now – I think I saw it Tuesday and it quickly went viral.  In essence, LinkedIn is doing social advertising.  Unbeknownst to most users, they had opted in to have their name, photo, etc. appear in ads that their connections might see.

And the “how-to” from Steve Woodruff on where to find the box!:

Apparently, LinkedIn has recently done us the “favor” of having a default setting whereby our names and photos can be used for third-party advertising. A friend forwarded me this alert (from a friend, from a friend…) this morning.
Devious. And I expect that you, like me, don’t want to participate.

1. Click on your name on your LinkedIn homepage (upper right corner). On the drop-down menu, select “Settings”.
2. From the “Settings” page, select “Account*”.
3. In the column next to “Account”, click “Manage Social Advertising” .
4. De-select the box next to “LinkedIn may use my name, photo in social advertising” .
Nice try, LinkedIn. But, no thanks!
*UPDATE: After you finish with Account, check the new default settings under E-mail Preferences (such as Partner InMails); and Groups, Companies & Applications (such as Data Sharing with 3rd-party applications). It’s a Facebook deja vu!

 

LinkedIn Abused Trust – Said, Oh So Sorry – Uncheck the Box originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on August 12, 2011.

With over 250 million tweets a day and a billion Facebook posts, is it a wonder that many ‘thought-leaders’ can no longer hear themselves think, let alone solve the problems that confront us? How much time do Members of Congress waste tweeting or facebooking – and to what purpose? Perhaps a day or two of relative silence by national leaders would do us all a world of good.

US Library of Congress poet laureate Philip Levine wrote a poem about too many words in 1999: “He Would Never Use One Word Where None Would Do.”

“Fact is, silence is the perfect water:
unlike rain it falls from no clouds
to wash our minds, to ease our tired eyes,
to give heart to the thin blades of grass
fighting through the concrete for even air
dirtied by our endless stream of words.”

I recently participated in a teleseminar about the relationship between social networking and the business bottom line. The speaker owns a company that markets social networking strategies to companies large and small.

He opened the teleseminar by bragging that he personally follows several thousand tweets every day while handling a myriad of tasks for his business. I asked myself, “And he hasn’t yet lost his mind?”

It’s well known that multi-tasking makes us less, not more productive – creating distraction and noise on the brain. Could keeping up with thousands of tweets and Facebook posts daily eventually numb or even destroy our brain cells – something like a “repetitive stress social networking syndrome?”

The fellow went on to state that the average gain for companies that vigorously employ Twitter and Facebook is an 8 percent increase in the bottom line. If true, it could mean a great deal of money for medium size and large companies who can afford to hire staff to keep their social networks humming. (Since he’s trying to sell social networking, his numbers might be suspect.)

He even suggested that business owners encourage their staff to post their thoughts throughout the day and then follow the chatter – like an internal Twitter on steroids. Can you imagine the chairman of a billion dollar company having nothing better to do? Would you invest in that company?

But what about small business owners and entrepreneurs who are already stretched thin? Is keeping up with Twitter and Facebook a plus or a drain on your productivity and income? Can you handle it with current staff or is it necessary to add staff? How do the financial benefits compare to the costs and time output?

We’d love to hear from you!

Social Networking + the Bottom Line: When is Silence the Perfect Water? originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on August 11, 2011.

The recent terrorist attack on the Inter-Continental hotel in the Afghanistan is another reminder that hotels must be secure. You’re probably thinking that US hotels are quite safe. Don’t be so certain. While it’s unlikely that a group of terrorists will land on the roof of your hotel, what if they did? What plans, precautions has management taken to deal with hotel security emergencies of all kinds. Terrorist attacks? Fire? Evacuations?

I did an interview on this very topic with David Benton, Vice President and General Manager of the Rittenhouse Hotel in Philadelphia, following the terrorist attack on a hotel in India. Little has changed. The tips and insights that David provides should be filed under: Travel Safe!

Listen and learn.

Visit the prior hotel security post:

Travel wisely and well,

Dr. Joyce Starr

Hotel Terrorism – Hotel Security: How to Keep Your Family Safe originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on July 4, 2011.

The term “loner” once suggested the self-confident, silent type who said little but knew more than he/she let on. A person of few words who got the job done. An achiever, a person with a rich, goal-oriented inner life – one that you could trust, a “true” friend who wouldn’t blab your secrets.  Today, non-socially networked men/women are readily tagged as socially inept losers – people without a “platform” or “friends.” Non-socially networked loners are viewed as “less than,” when most offer more than social media scores can possibly gauge.

Andrew Lloyd Webber, the most successful songwriter/playwright of our time, declared on Piers Morgan’s CNN show that he doesn’t own a cell phone and only sent one email in his life – which he actually dictated to someone else to send. Andrew Lloyd Webber doesn’t do social media.  

What’s your view? Are you a non-socially-networked (NSN) individual? Are you a productive/creative loner? Do you feel that social networking is giving people like yourself an unwarranted economic disadvantage? We’d love to hear from you.

Life interrupted…

Social Media Messaging - Credit Retrevo

A recent CNET Networks post by by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore caught my eye.

Only a few years ago, I could shock people by divulging that I don’t own a TV. Since Hulu and others let me get my show fix online, I now seem to be part of a growing minority who only have one kind of box at home. But I still shock people. All I have to do is admit I’m not on Facebook. According to most people I talk to, at least, this is truly strange behavior.

So it’s not surprising that so many people rely on social media, for both work and play, every day–a statistic highlighted in the latest Retrevo Gadgetology Report on social-media usage…More than half of social-media users report needing to check Facebook at least once every day, and more than 10 percent say they have to log on every few hours. Of course, iPhone users are even more attached at the hip, with more frequent usage than any other group in the 1,000-person study.

Threat to work/social progress?

Some of my best friends are not socially networked. They’re too busy earning a living and/or being creative/productive. To quote one individual, who – for obvious reasons – wishes to remain anonymous:

My immediate reaction is to repeat the classic line given to Rhett Butler at the end of Gone with the Wind, (“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a ….”)

Seriously, I’m not in favorably predisposed toward computerized social networking. To me, it’s just an annoyance and a threat. It’s an annoyance because dealing with it forces me to waste precious self-depleting time. It’s a threat to my work and to social progress.

As you know, I consult as a (……). That means confidential data is stored on my computer. But, social networks are rife with hackers, snoops, spammers, à who exploit the system to gain access to other people’s computers and data. So I dare not engage in computerized social networking lest some SOB access my computer and read or meddle with the confidential data therein. Moreover, given my lack of interest in social networking, I’m too cheap to have a second separate computer just for social networking.

Social networking is a threat to the economy because it encourages people to waste time gossiping that otherwise could be spend productively. I am, of course, in favor of social discourse on a limited basis with friends and colleagues, preferably in person or, if need be, electronically via the telephone, fax or even the Internet.

Is it harder/easier for non-socially-networked individuals to find work, stand out in their field, have a great life? We’d love to hear from you.

Dr. Joyce Starr

Does Social Networking Give Productive/Creative Loners a Bad Rap? originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on July 3, 2011.

Breaking CBS News: UCSF biophysics Professor Robert Stroud analyzed data on the backscatter body scanners. The manufacturer claims they are safe. But Stroud said low intensity radiation concentrates in the skin – where it’s most damaging and that eyes could also be sensitive to any kind of radiation. Stroud and three other UCSF colleagues wrote to the White House, which responded: “We are confident that full body X-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health.” But the scientists at UCSF are not convinced. A Fed recent study carried out by researchers at Johns Hopkins University “is heavily redacted…there are no names …and vital information is missing,” said Stroud. “Never in this document for example is the X-ray current for the actual machine listed.” He also said another problem was the way the test was conducted. “The scientists from Johns Hopkins were not presented with a machine to investigate in their labs, rather they were invited to witness experiments carried out by the manufacturers in their own lab.”

Scanners, pat-downs and loss of personal security.  Six-year old girl victimized by TSA. How can we stand for this?

 Fasten your seat belts, examine the facts and ask the right questions.

1. Who is enriched by these scanners? Two small companies with extensive ties to the US Government are making out like bandits. Rapidscan is owned by OSI Systems and L-3 Communications, a small New York based defense company.

2. Who are the players? Here’s what we know so far – just the tip of the iceberg. Rape O Scan hired ex-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a Bush appointee, whose Chertoff Group “just happens to consult” with the Hawthorne, California-based OSI Systems Inc. L3 hired lobbyist Linda Daschle, a former Federal Aviation Administration official and wife of Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic Leader. Billionaire George Soros owned public stock shares in the scanner company (allegedly dumped them last week). We know that Soros visited the White House at least 4 times last year. President Obama invited Rape O Scan’s CEO to accompany him to India. Why is the President of the United States promoting sales of these scanners? ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. Well-placed Republicans and Democrats apparently share the same invasive scanner bed. There are no coincidences here.

3. Which came first, the terrorist or the egg? According to USA Today, L-3 Communications spent $4.3 million on lobbying during the first nine months of the year, nearly double the $2.1 million it spent in 2005. Rapiscan Systems spent $271,500 on lobbying efforts this year, up from the $80,000 it spent five years ago. Both companies targeted Congressional bills restricting the use of these scanners, including a bill proposed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) that would have limited the airport scanners to backup use only. The bill passed the House last year but never made it out of the Senate.

4. Who is paying for the instant pro-scanner surveys and positive media spin? Could it be L3 – or Rape O Scan? How about the TSA? Or the AFL/CIO! On November 22, we were told that 70 percent of the American public favors both the scanners and invasive security measures. Who produced this study? How was it carried out? No citations. Address unknown. Two days later, the Washington Post – with obvious insider links to the US Government – informed us that over 64 percent of ALL AMERICANS support the scanners. Idiotic commentators repeat these numbers like they were manna from heaven. And the public BELIEVES what they hear!!!? People who wouldn’t give drug commercials the time of day are now being drugged and duped on a massive scale.

“The current Regime just gave the TSA to right unionize, and the AFL/CIO takes out a full page add supporting unconstitutional searches by the TSA. Coincidence? Just think how a strike by the TSA could cripple this economy and who the Unions are bargaining with. We The People pay the salaries and benefits of the TSA employees and it will cost us dearly.” – comment from a former Vietnam Vet. Notably, President Obama strongly supported unionization of the TSA!

5. Who created the BIG LIE about airport security? Behavioral profiling, Israeli-style, was touted and praised in the wake of 911. There was consensus among security gurus that Israel’s behavioral profiling is the most effective approach. Yet, both the Bush and Obama Administrations refused to employ this successful strategy on a wide-reaching scale. Stupid excuses repeated by ignorant commentators include: The country is too big; there are too many travelers; it’s not nice to profile. The Defense Department recently announced that dog sniffers are the best defense against airline terrorists. Instead of using dogs at airports, our rights are going to the dogs, while big money players are getting filthy rich at our expense. They had nearly a decade to improve intelligence measures. Sexual harassment is the best they could do?

“The Israelis know everything about a passenger before they get on the plane. If they have time to touch our groin, they have time to ask us a few simple questions,” said Shawn Hannity. Meanwhile, those with wealth and power – including the scanner investors – fly in private planes from private terminals.

A former Israeli ground stewardess wrote to me: “There were just so many things taken for granted that are still being used today including how the guys from the Mossad used to check in as passengers to test the security checkers. Today El Al has its own check in facilities at every airport in Europe and the USA – people prefer flying it. Each airline is a terminal unto itself and doesn’t have to agree to the TSA checks if it can do better on its own.”

6. Why haven’t we heard more details about the underwear bomber? Why were his father’s warnings persistently ignored? What if he was unknowingly (or knowingly) set-up to fail? How convenient that ONE failed terrorist act in nearly a decade has netted L-3, Rape O Scan and their invisible backers such fantastic rewards. Michael Moore, where are you? Who wrote this perfect script?

7. What’s next? As I stated before in a previous show and post, the mice are us. We’re the grand experiment. But little did I know how terrifying that experiment might be. What happens to the brain of a TSA worker when day after day, hour after hour he/she is patting down crotches, groins and breasts? The worker eventually becomes desensitized – a robot – fully capable of taking this degradation to another level – if ordered to do so. The TSA also becomes a perfect job for deviant wannabees. Do you really think they won’t apply or be accepted? And with union support, few will ever be fired. Our tax dollars may well be creating a training school for state rape without the date.

8. Was the current outcry underestimated? Not if it was a test. The overriding goal: To determine how much humiliation we would take.

9. The head of the TSA, a former FBI official John Pistole, talks to the media like someone appointed him God. “We will do this. We won’t do that.” What does he know about his job security that we don’t know? Who put him in the job? What is his relationship to/with L3 or Rapidscan and/or their investors/lobbyists/fellow-insiders.

10.  Traveling to Atlanta, I asked for a personal check, versus the scanner.  I was told, “We have no one available to check you right now and no idea when a personal check will be available. You could miss you plane.”

Related articles:

American Eagle with Injured Left & Right Wings: A Parable w/ Russell Crowe

Thwarted Hope: When the Mice are Us – The Grand Experiment

Wall Street vs Main Street: Greatest Wealth Heist in US History

Airport Security – Airport Scanners – Ask the Right Questions originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on November 24, 2010.

General Stanley McChrystal -  handsome in a craggy way that soldiers respect and women adore – was a brilliant warrior who despised killing.

General David Petraeus – looking more like a Harvard professor than a soldier -  favored brains over brawn.

Both men walked into traps set by fawners who favored (or pretended to favor) their views.

General Stanley lost his past; General Dave lost his future.

Listen to the audio file here and/or enjoy the transcript below:

The war that couldn’t be won was in a place that few Americans cared about. Those who cared most couldn’t be seen but they received a fortune for caring.

So why did America go to a war that wasn’t a war and couldn’t be won in a place most Americans didn’t care about?

The stated explanation focused on foreign terrorists who killed Americans in New York.

The majority of these terrorists held Saudi passports, but their leader lived in a cave in a country full of poppy seed plants. And that’s where he trained them to attack the most prestigious building in New York City.

The Man Who Lived in a Cave in a Dirt-Rich Country

The world knew that he lived in a cave because he often sent video tapes to the media filmed in one cave or another – warning that he would continue his killing spree. And everyone was furious.

But the real reasons were more complex. First, American and international drug companies needed all the poppy seeds they could control in order to churn them into billions of little cocainated pills.

Secondly, a trillion dollars worth of precious minerals and diamonds were buried beneath the rocks of this impoverished country.

The mineral discovery was revealed nearly a decade after the war against the man in a cave began, though All-Powerful men knew it from the start.

Americans were shocked to learn that their soldier sons were dying for a dirt-poor country that was really dirt-rich.

But since the news flash was overtaken the very next day by shocking developments concerning the finger of a Lady named Ga Ga, the trillion was quickly forgotten.

The man in a cave had many supporters, mostly too young to drive a car in America. Instead, his boy-soldiers drove our finest troops into the ground with the guns that we provided before we went to war against the man in a cave.

For reasons that no one could explain, American troops were often placed in harm’s way – especially when the world wasn’t watching.

Platoons were even ordered to fight from basins surrounded by mountains -  called kill zones – where we let the enemy kill our soldiers in order to keep the war that wasn’t a war going.

Platoons were also ordered to fight without adequate supplies and water. When enough died or were wounded, we withdrew those who survived and left the kill zones to their killers.

The soldiers complained, but few were listening, least of all the All-Powerful men who couldn’t be named or blamed. In fact, the All-Powerful men who ran the war that couldn’t be won were invisible. They knew who they were, but no one else could see them.

Even former and current Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, Generals and Members of Congress were ignorant about the All-Powerful men who pulled the strings – letting the Officially Powerful believe the war that couldn’t be won was really their idea.

And a grand, strategic idea at that. Or so they believed, or wanted to believe, or didn’t believe, but we will never really know.

What we do know is that there were no All-Powerful women in the invisible club, except as as wives, lovers and massage therapists. How do we know that? Because no woman alive at the time was so greedy or vile as to trade money and power for the life of another woman’s son.

And so it went, until one day, America declared victory by losing the war that couldn’t be won – withdrawing the remnants of the greatest colonels and generals who would never be and replacing them with platoons of geologists, drillers and bankers.

The next generation of last great generals had been killed or injured, leaving a gaping wound in America’s military capability – all according to plan.

The man who lived in a cave was never found.

The Invisible men who instigated and secretly managed the war were by now so filthy rich that they became the most hated people on the planet.

But then the most amazing thing happened, which until today, absolutely no one – least of all the press – can explain.

The more they were hated, the more visible they became. Soon, these invisible men became hunted prey just like the soldiers they sent to die in kill zones. But now, everyone in America wanted them dead.

The price on their heads was so high that they fled to caves in the dirt-rich country they plundered for diamonds, minerals and poppy seeds.

The man who lived in the cave but was never found captured these men, chained them to one another, whipped them daily, gave them little water and forced them to sleep with their faces in the dirt.

He even let young boys use them for target practice, a bullet here, an arrow there – so long as the Once-All-Powerful men lived to suffer for another day.

How do we know that? Because the man in a cave sent video tapes to the media. And Americans secretly cheered, because now they hated his All-Powerless captives even more than they remembered hating him.

America’s Last Two Greatest Generals – A Report from the Future originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on July 2, 2010.

Listen to the show and/or read the full article below:

Did the soldiers choose their assignment? Did they look forward to being pummeled with pipes and knives? Did they anticipate that “peace” activists on-board would throw two of their own overboard – and threaten to lynch others? Certainly not. Were they given orders to shoot to kill on sight? No – they were carrying paint guns and pistols. Did 9 people die nonetheless? Yes. Was it a tragic episode? Horribly so. Did Turkey’s President and Hamas hope to create a confrontation with Israel over the Gaza aid flotilla? Absolutely.

Was every man, woman and child in Israel responsible for this turn of events? Should the world hold every newborn and yet to be born accountable? Absolutely not.

And yet, the global fest of Hatred against Israel, Israelis and Jews – the most vicious in recent memory precisely because it was global and viral – erupted not in days, but in seconds, minutes and hours. All that Hatred was biding its time in virtual bunkers, waiting for the signal to attack.

The New York Times and Washington Post “instantly” published a sea of comments so venomous that any sane person would think the world had suddenly gone insane.

Insane over Hatred of Israelis and Jews.

The flotilla of words reached a feverish pitch when Helen Thomas, a 60 year veteran of the White House Press Corps, said Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else.”

Or how about the European football chant: “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!” Perhaps the endgame will come sooner than we think.

When the world goes mad, Americans should get mad – not be dragged into the hysteria. Words matter.

As one Israeli citizen wrote: “The boats wanting to break the blockade are playing into the hands of people who don’t give a damn about their passengers. You can’t stop a conflict built on insanity with a Red Riding Hood mentality. We would rather not send our kids, boyfriends and husbands to risk themselves or you…People have being saying things about Israel they wouldn’t believe they said if we, Israeli citizens, the actual people, would send back their messages with a personal note about how it feels to see all their demons showing.”

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is the result of colliding truths: Hamas has declared time and again its intention to destroy Israel – and proved it by launching repeated rocket attacks from the Gaza staging area. Trying to stop the flow of weapons into Gaza, Israel declared a blockade three years ago. Egypt – viewing Hamas as a terrorist organization and threat – put its power behind the blockade. (Yet, there has been no outpouring of global Hatred against Egypt.) Iran is targeting a take-over of Gaza. A majority of Gazans voted for Hamas. But those who voted against Hamas, weren’t old enough to vote or weren’t alive when the vote took place are victims of leaders and policies they didn’t choose.

With events in the Middle East moving rapidly, with political landscapes shifting week to week, few observers care to remember how the situation in Gaza came about and why. Since 2007, the policy of the International Quartet has been to isolate the government that controls Gaza after Hamas forces ousted the forces loyal to the official representative of Palestinians from the Strip in a coup. An ugly and violent coup. “In five days of intense fighting,” reported Der Spiegel, a respectable European publication, “Hamas wrested political control over the 1.4 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Fatah’s troops offered surprisingly little resistance.

By the end of [the] week, victorious Hamas fighters were driving [a Fatah leader's] few remaining men half-naked through the streets, before executing them in the desert.”

So, there were very good reasons for isolating Hamas and attempting to contain the Gaza Strip. True, the government in charge of Gaza is a headache for Israel. But it is no less of a nuisance to the legitimate representative of the Palestinians—the Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas…Recognizing Hamas would signal that the Palestinian Authority could no longer claim to represent the people of Gaza. It would signal that the world is willing to work with a bully, with a group refusing to commit—even rhetorically—to the cause of peace, that it has given up on a better life for the Palestinians of Gaza.

Not even the United States, generally mellow in its response to the raid, could resist the temptation to define the situation in Gaza as “unacceptable and unsustainable.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “we have to deal with the situation in Gaza in a way that both protects Israel’s legitimate security interests and fulfills the needs of the people of Gaza.”

…the likely outcome of the flotilla affair will be that Israel’s security needs will be met, but less vigorously, and the “people of Gaza” will be abandoned. They will get more aid, more food and supplies, maybe some roads and buildings will be repaired—but abandoned they will be. Destined to be ruled by the ruthless and undemocratic Hamas regime without the international community’s protests or objections. ~ Shmuel Rosner, Slate

Was Israel (and Egypt’s) multi-year blockade of Gaza the most effective option? Yes, and it’s unclear. The rocket attacks stopped – for now – but Gazans are hungry for hope. Was there a better way? Possibly. What was it? No one can say – in retrospect – with any certainty. Ironically, Turkey and Israel strengthened military and strategic cooperation during the same 3-year period. Yet, I don’t recall Turkey sending food, medical and building supplies to Gaza  – until the Memorial Day flotilla.  By comparison, Israel has been sending  10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies to Gaza every month.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land — evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack. The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million — that number again… refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution. ~ Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

What actions would you have taken against Hamas if you were the Prime Minister and/or Defense Minister of Israel? I would have been wiser, all-seeing, benevolent and made no mistakes. But that’s just me. What would the President of Iran do in a parallel situation? Or the President of Turkey? I’m certain they would allowed in as many weapons as possible, embraced their enemies until it hurt and told their own citizens to accept whatever fate has in store – including generously agreeing to vanish as a sovereign nation if it would make the world a happier place.

And if that didn’t work, they could have launched a flotilla of Hatred against Israelis and Jews, because that’s what rulers and pundits do when self-aggrandizement is their true objective.

But truth has a way of rising to the surface. A new report states that activists who attacked Israeli commandos with clubs and knives boarded the ship in Istanbul without checks and were equipped by the Turkish government with flack jackets embroidered with Turkish flags, communications equipment and gas masks.

In a report published this week, a group of independent investigators from Israel’s intelligence community found that activists aboard the ‘Mavi Marmara’ were part of an organized group that was prepared for a violent conflict. The report, published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (known in Israel by its Hebrew acronym Malam), said activists who attacked commandos with clubs and knives were supported by the Turkish government.

The report said while most of the Mavi Marmara’s 500 passengers were humanitarian volunteers who underwent security checks before boarding the ship at Antalya in Turkey, a group of 40 IHH activists had boarded the ship in an Istanbul port beforehand, keeping apart from the rest of the passengers throughout the journey. This hard core of activists boarded the ship without checks and was equipped with communications equipment, flack jackets embroidered with Turkish flags, and gas masks, Malam said. According to the report, the group turned the upper deck into its headquarters, blocking it off to other passengers. It had a clear internal hierarchy, with specific activists nominated as commanders.

As they had been banned from bringing wepaons aboard, IHH members improvised weapons including metal rods and knives cut from the ship’s metal rails, which they used to attack the soldiers. According to a witness aboard the ship, a confrontation broke out when the ship’s crew heard IHH members sawing the railing into metal rods, but they were unable to confiscate them from them.

IHH activists also gathered all the knives from six cafeterias on the ship, as well as axes from fire extinguishers on the deck, all of which served as weapons against Israeli commandos.  ~ Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz

Two final points:

1) On Wednesday, June 9, the United Nations passed a new round of (watered down) sanctions against Iran. China and Russia supported the sanctions. But Turkey voted against them.

2) The British Petroleum oil catastrophe has been compared to a nuclear attack on the United States – certainly on our Gulf Coast ecosystem. Yet, and rightfully so, not a word in the US press of irrational Hatred towards the British people.

To words that matter,

Dr. Joyce Starr

Flotillas of Hatred: When Truths Collide & Words Matter originally appeared on Rights Radio™ with Dr. Joyce Starr - An Independent Voice on June 6, 2010.