Biggest Loser on Nov. 2 Was Press

Biggest Loser on Nov. 2 Was Press, Not John Kerry, Say 21 Columns

By Erin Olson

Published: November 29, 2004 2:45 PM ET

NEW YORK Feeling a bit lost lately? You should, at least according to a compendium posted today at Jay Rosen’s popular PressThink Web log, because the biggest loser on Election Day was not John Kerry but the mainstream media.

Daniel Henninger, writing in The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal, put it this way: "It is often said that the only sure winner in American politics is the media. Amid GOP victory parties or the ruined dreams of the Kerry candidacy, the one constant is that the media marches on. Maybe not this time. Big Media lost big."

"I was interested in figuring out why so many people were saying it and surveying the range of reasons they might have had," explained Rosen, a press critic, author, and chairman of the New York University journalism program. "It's a little experiment in unbiased media criticism, because it's simply presenting what these writers said. I could have commented on each one -- because I'm a press critic, I have a lot to say -- but I thought it might be more interesting just to let them speak."

And speak they did. From an editorial in Investor's Business Daily to an Associated Press article, Rosen provided excerpts and links to "the same idea," he said, "served 21 ways: 'Media, you lost big.'"

Most of the writers Rosen quoted expressed the opinion that liberal bias in the press became more apparent than ever during the election, even taking the stance that the media was actively trying to get Kerry elected.

The Nov. 2 Investor's Business Daily editorial stated, "By press time last night, we weren't sure who would be the winner of the 2004 presidential contest. But we were certain of one big loser: the media. We've watched in slack-jawed amazement over recent weeks as the big media, fearful of another four years for President Bush, have basically become an unpaid adjunct to the Kerry campaign."

On Nov. 3, Glenn Reynolds posted an entry in his blog, Instapundit, titled, "Bitter, Angry Losers." He went on to say, "No, not the Democrats, but the real losers in this election -- the Old Media, still angry that they couldn't deliver their fifteen percent."

Peggy Noonan on Nov. 4, also in Opinion Journal, went wild over the whole idea. After affirming that “the biggest loser was the mainstream media,” she added that conservative bloggers had slain the dragon: “It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America.”

Vincent Fiore wrote on Nov. 7 about "Winners and Losers of Election 2004" at the ChronWatch site: "Loser: The Old Media. ... Staunchly opposed to Bush throughout his first term, the prospect of a second four years in office exposed the deep-seated bias among the old media and forever revealed themselves to the public at large."

On Nov. 15, Michael Barone wrote on townhall.com, "It was a bad election for old media. ... It no longer has the kind of monopoly control over political news that it enjoyed a quarter-century ago. And its efforts to help John Kerry proved counterproductive."

Rosen told E&P that he collected and posted the links because he found the claims fascinating. "I just think it's worth reflecting on, that's all," he explained. "Half my motivation was, I'm interested in what other people make of the same stuff."

In drawing his own conclusions from the material he found, Rosen said, "I think the particular discourse of media bias is one that has become dysfunctional. I've said at my Web log that the more you believe it, the dumber you get."
Erin Olson (eolson@editorandpublisher.com) is a reporter at E&P.

Clinton Library Dedication

Do you think that it was smart not to have a tent over the daeus? WHO, EXACTLY, missed that one?

The real message is that "Forces Greater Than Human" made a statement.

Yes, it poured rain. Symbolic, in my opinion, of the reaction to this new library.

Clinton was a Republican in Democrat clothing, thanks in large part to the ever-polling Dick Morris, and people don't realize this. Clinton abolished the old welfare system and replaced it with a new one. Did ANYONE think that a Democrat would do that?

Getting back to the original message of this post - Someone/Something was showing its distaste at the dedication ceremony for this man.

History, I am afraid will one day show that Clinton ignored the terror threat, created a economic bubble, and parsed words better than Benny Hana. That about sums up his eight years. Too bad.

Is There Any Surprise?

2004 saw many surprising developments. The MOST surprising is the fact that the Main Stream Media missed the undertow of conservatism which revealed itself in many ways BEFORE THE ELECTION.

I point to the America which spent its hard earned entertainment dollars on "The Last Temptation Of Christ". That movie was initially received as "highly contreversial", "too violent", "not enough plot" (come on!!). Really though, it looks like the movie was only contreversial to the media.

Mel Gibson looked like a hero for making the film, it was very well received, mystical happenings on the set (validation?), it made almost $200 million!

So WHERE IS THE SURPRISE that RELIGION played a part in this election???

The only people who were surprised were the people who worked in the insulated Network News Departmemts.

As I continue to peel the layers away, sociologically, of the results, it becomes easier and easier to see that the elements for Bush's victory were in place.

Bush, like Schwartzenegger, are Democrats in Republican clothing. The Democrats on the other hand, are now officially a FRINGE party filled with Left Edge ideas while the Republican party has tried to embrace Democratic ideas from twenty and thirty years ago.

Don't be surprised if this trend continues.

UK reaction to buggy UN

Cheeky Bugger
Short Bugs Blair over Annan Allegations

On reflection, the Government wish they'd used a smaller microphone
Clare Short, an MP who was sufficiently outraged at the time of the Iraq war to stay in government and not resign until the war finished, has accused the government of bugging UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Ms Short had dealings with Annan herself in her position as International Development Secretary at the time when the bugging was taking place. On the BBC's Today programme, said that she recalled thinking "Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this and people will see what I am saying! And now it's going out on national radio!"

Annan has said he would be "very disappointed" if the allegations were true, to which Tony Blair is believed to have made a response reading "Hey, look, that really is pure fantasy, destroy the tapes, I think we should look at the real reasons behind the Iraq war, and that was... Hey! Why are you all asleep?!"

The entire Labour Party - Blairites and rebels alike - has closed ranks against Clare Short, in the wake of the allegations. "It's a disgrace!" MP Marvin Wilcox protested "I mean, sure, we probably did it, but she can't go telling the press! We'll lose the next election!"

Short's future now looks uncertain as David Blunkett, it is revealed, is presently sifting through the facts in a bid to find grounds on which he can pursue a policy of zero-tolerance against Ms. Short, and even Robin Cook has pointed out that "she should now put up, or shut up. Or get me in on the action, because coverage like this could give my ratings a real boost! Pass that onto her, would you?"

In other news, Mr. Blair is believed to have been seen in an Early Learning Centre in Walsall, where he bought his son Leo a 'My Little Bug Remover' set, before driving at top speed towards the airport.

http://www.ktab.co.uk/news/passenger200402/annan.php

The UN needs bug spray

UN bugging row widens: Blix spied on

By Ewen MacAskill
February 29, 2004
The Sun-Herald

The United Nations spying row widened yesterday when its former weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told The Guardian newspaper he suspected both his UN office and his home in New York were bugged in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Mr Blix said he expected to be bugged by the Iraqis but to be spied upon by the US was a different matter. He described it as "disgusting".

"It feels like an intrusion into your integrity in a situation when you are actually on the same side," he said.

He said he went to extraordinary lengths to protect his office and home, having a UN counter-surveillance team sweep both for bugs.

"If you had something sensitive to talk about you would go out into the restaurant or out into the streets," he said.

Mr Blix's darkest fears were reinforced when he was shown a set of photographs by a senior member of the Bush Administration, which he insisted could only have been obtained through underhand means.

His accusations came after a former British cabinet minster, Clare Short, said US-British intelligence bugged the office of the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.

Mr Blix said that what galled him most was the possibility of being bugged by a country, the US, that he had assumed was on the same side. He said that surveillance was only to be expected between enemies or in cases where serious criminal activity was being monitored.

"But here it is between people who co-operate and it is an unpleasant feeling," he said.

Mr Blix, a Swedish diplomat who was head of the UN arms inspectors for Iraq between 2000 and 2003, said he had no conclusive evidence that the US bugged him. But his suspicions were raised when he had repeated trouble with his phone connections at his New York home.

"It might have been something trivial or it might have been something installed somewhere. I don't know," he said.

More worrying was a confrontation with a senior member of the US Administration. Mr Blix said John Wolf, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation, visited him a fortnight before the war broke out at a time when debate was raging over whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and whether Mr Blix should be given more time to find them.

Mr Wolf presented him with two pictures of an Iraqi drone and a cluster bomb, photos Mr Blix believed could only have been secured from within the UN weapons office. Mr Blix said: "He should not have had them. I asked him how he got them and he would not tell me and I said I resented that.

"It could have been some staff belonging to us that handed them to the Americans. I don't think it is very likely but it could have happened - I don't have 100 per cent control of everybody. It could also be that they managed to break into the secure fax and got it that way."

Richard Butler, a predecessor of Mr Blix as chief UN weapons inspector, has also joined in the debate, saying it was "plainly silly" to think his phone calls were not being monitored during his tenure.

Copyright © 2004. The Sydney Morning Herald.

See post from 9-19-4 on the UN, then read this...

Doesn't take a card carrying genious to figure out just how BAD things are... (no wonder the US & UK were bugging Kofi - makes you wonder who knew what when.... hmmm)

===

Saturday November 20, 2:16 AM
UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan


UN staff are expected to make an unprecedented vote of no confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan, union sources say, after a series of scandals tainted his term in charge of the world body.

The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the almost 60-year history of the United Nations, was set to approve a resolution withdrawing support for Annan and senior UN management.

Annan has been in the line of fire over a series of scandals including controversy about a UN aid program that investigators say allowed deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to embezzle billions of dollars.

Staffers said the trigger for the no-confidence measure was an announcement this week that Annan had pardoned the UN's top oversight official, who was facing allegations of favouritism and sexual harassment.

The union had requested a formal probe into the official, Dileep Nair, after employees accused him of harassing staff and violating UN rules on the hiring and promotion of workers.

Top UN spokesman Fred Eckhard announced on Tuesday that Nair had been exonerated by Annan "after a thorough review" by the UN's senior official in charge of management, Catherine Bertini.

Annan underlined that he "had every confidence" in Nair, Eckhard said, but UN employees ridiculed the decision and claimed that investigators had not questioned the staff union, which first raised the complaints in April.

"This was a whitewash, pure and simple," Guy Candusso, a senior member of the staff union, told AFP.

Candusso noted that Eckhard's declaration to the press had said that "no further action was necessary in the matter."

But in a letter sent to the union, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, Annan's chief of staff Iqbal Riza said Nair had been "advised that he should exercise caution" in future to "minimize the risk of negative perception."

In a resolution set to be adopted on Friday, the union said Riza's statement "substantiates the contention of the staff that there was impropriety" and that there exists "a lack of integrity, particularly at the higher levels of the organisation."

The draft resolution, also obtained by AFP, calls on the union president to "convey this vote of no confidence to the secretary general."

Staffers who asked not to be named, afraid that speaking out could damage their future in the United Nations, said the Nair decision was an example of corruption by Annan and his senior staff.

They noted that Riza, UN undersecretary general for information Shashi Tharoor and other top officials had served directly under Annan at least since 1994, when he was head of UN peacekeeping operations.

At the time, the United Nations was widely criticized for failing to stop the Rwanda genocide that left 800,000 people dead, even though UN peacekeepers were on the ground -- a catastrophe for which Annan has publicly apologized.

Annan could not be reached for immediate comment. He is currently in Africa on a mission aimed at ending the long-running civil war in Sudan.

But he faces unprecedented calls to resign over the burgeoning scandal about "oil-for-food," a UN aid scheme that US investigators say allowed Saddam to siphon off billions of dollars.

The program has tainted UN officials like Benon Sevan, who oversaw the operation and is now accused of pocketing Saddam's money in exchange for turning a blind eye to the Iraqi dictator's abuses.

Annan stands accused of obstructing US investigators, especially since his hand-picked official Paul Volcker this week rejected calls from the US Senate to turn over documents from the program and waive UN staff immunity.

Eckhard, his spokesman, on Thursday said that Annan is expected to serve out his term, which ends in 2006.

Veteran UN staff said this was the first time that employees had risen up to make a vote of no confidence in a sitting secretary general.

"Kofi Annan is surrounded by corruption, a gang of criminals responsible for some of the worst things that happened to mankind in the 20th century," said one angry staffer, referring to the Rwanda massacres.

"It's possible that he doesn't know directly what has gone on," said the employee, who has worked for the United Nations for two decades. "But that's no excuse."

Lanny Davis and Bill Clinton - Thrown to the Wolf..

CNN's Wolf Blitzer had a wonderful interview on Friday discussing this outburst with Lanny Davis. Unfortunately for Davis, the talking points on whitewater melted under the nuclear heat that Wolf put him under...

Pay attention to Clinton's PARSING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE - old dogs can't learn new tricks...


===

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Years after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, President Clinton is still angry, still furious, I might say, about the news media's coverage. In an interview with ABC's Peter Jennings marking the opening of the Clinton Library, the former president acknowledged his affair with Lewinsky was a mistake, but he blasted the independent counsel Ken Starr, and he criticized the news media for the way it reported that investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care what they think.

PETER JENNINGS, ABC NEWS: Oh, yes, you do, sir.

CLINTON: They have no idea.

JENNINGS: Oh, excuse me, Mr. President. You care. I can feel it across the room. You feel it very deeply.

CLINTON: No, I care.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here, not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr, the way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that is like. That's where I failed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The former president says he never lied to the American people about his job as president.

Joining us here in Washington is Lanny Davis. He was the White House special counsel during the Clinton administration and during the impeachment process, the Monica Lewinsky investigation, as we all remember.

Were you surprised at how angry he got when Peter Jennings was grilling him on that?

LANNY DAVIS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Actually, I had left the White House and was a volunteer when I appeared on programs like yours.

But I was not surprised. You have to understand the depth of feeling for those of us who saw this all begin with Whitewater, which never went anywhere. Ken Starr himself, after $70 million, never found any wrongdoing about a 20-year-old land deal. The chain of events from Whitewater to travel office to Filegate, to all of the gates generated by Republican investigations never went anywhere.

BLITZER: Lanny, let me interrupt you for a second. Take a look. But he is still parsing words so specifically. You have to listen so carefully to that exchange with Peter Jennings. He said he never lied to the American people about his job as president.

Now, he lied to the American people about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

DAVIS: Yes.

And he has always distinguished. And I would say, Wolf, it's not really parsing with words. It's a distinction the American people fundamentally made at the time...

BLITZER: But lying about...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: ... saved his presidency was the distinction between his job and his private conduct. What he didn't tell the truth about was an embarrassing episode involving private conduct, which the American people understood the reason for that lie. But they also gave him credit for his job.

BLITZER: But Bill Clinton is such a smart guy. And you are so smart. If there's an independent counsel who is investigating the president of the United States, those of us in the news media, what, are we supposed to ignore that investigation, not report about it?

DAVIS: No, but it's the predecessor investigations.

How much time was spent by the national media on Whitewater? And how much time was spent when Ken Starr found no wrongdoing by the Clintons? We had the D'Amato hearings. We had constant calling for an independent counsel. Ken Starr was appointed because of a zero issue involving Whitewater. (CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Who appointed Ken Starr? Do you remember who appointed Ken Starr?

DAVIS: It was under a great deal of pressure that President Clinton...

BLITZER: Was it Janet Reno, the Democratic attorney general of the United States?

DAVIS: Well, actually, it was President Clinton, defying some advice among some of his advisers, including his White House counsel, who chose to ask for Ken Starr or at least an independent counsel.

BLITZER: But Janet Reno was the one who said, go for it. Have an independent counsel named by this three-judge panel.

DAVIS: But, look, you're asking me the president to this day, President Clinton, and lots of us still feel angry. It's because the original independent counsel, Robert Fiske, was replaced by a more partisan process that led to Ken Starr. And after all was said and done, the only thing they had left was about private conduct, not about Whitewater, not about all of the -- what he calls innuendo and leaks that led to all of those so-called scandals that were ending up in zero of wrongdoing, other than what happened with Monica Lewinsky.

BLITZER: I can understand he is angry, angry, at Ken Starr for the investigation. But if he is angry at the news media for covering that investigation, he does not understand how the news media in this country works.

DAVIS: Well, look, I think that anger with the news media in coverage cuts both ways. Reporters have to do their jobs.

BLITZER: Well, and that's what they were doing.

DAVIS: In some cases, they were doing. In other cases, not good reporters were reporting innuendo without fact. And if you go back to the reporting about Whitewater and you...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: And yet the serious news organizations, the mainstream press, the elite press, they were reporting all the information. And you know what? When the independent counsel's report and all the information came out, almost all of those sleazy details were confirmed in that report, weren't they?

DAVIS: In the Whitewater investigation?

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: No, I'm talking about his personal relationship with Monica Lewinsky, including the red dress and all that, the blue dress.

DAVIS: The blue dress.

BLITZER: With the stain.

DAVIS: There is no question that the private conduct episode ended up with President Clinton having been put into a room where he chose to testify falsely in a civil case that was thrown out on the merits.

But if you look at the reasons for the appointment of an independent counsel, the firing of Robert Fiske and the replacement by Ken Starr, and what he is referring to in that interview, Susan McDougal consistently trying to tell the truth, put into irons and handcuffs because she refused to lie. As she said, she was asked to lie by Ken Starr's prosecutors. It still holds a lot of anger for those of us who were in the middle of it.

BLITZER: I'm sure, although you're still not as angry as the president, for good reason.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVIS: Well, I'm glad I wasn't in his spot.

BLITZER: Well, he was in a tough spot, no doubt about it. And he still` feels it, clearly, on this day. Thanks very much, Lanny.

DAVIS: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Down and out. They lost the election, so where do the Democrats go from here? Our Carlos Watson has "The Inside Edge" on that and more. He's standing by to join us live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Cry Baby

Clinton Rips Starr, Media on Prosecution

Fri Nov 19, 9:05 PM ET

By JAMES JEFFERSON, Associated Press Writer

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - In a prime-time television outburst, Bill Clinton ripped old nemesis Kenneth Starr and what the former president portrayed as a gullible media eager to report every "sleazy thing" leaked from a prosecutor bent on bringing him down.

The exchange came in an interview with ABC news anchor Peter Jennings that aired Thursday night, hours after Clinton opened his $165 million presidential library. Clinton blasted Starr and spoke disdainfully of a national media that he suggested was complicit in a scheme to ruin his presidency.

"No other president ever had to endure someone like Ken Starr," Clinton said. "No one ever had to try to save people from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and people in Haiti from a military dictator that was murdering them, and all the other problems I dealt with, while every day an entire apparatus was devoted to destroying him."

The former president said he would go to his grave at peace that, while he had personal failings, he never lied to the American people about his job as president.

Clinton added that he doesn't care about what his detractors think about him. Jennings then said it seemed to him that Clinton did care.

The former president responded, "You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that's like."

"You never had to live in a time when people you knew and cared about were being indicted, carted off to jail, bankrupted, ruined, because they were Democrats and because they would not lie," he said. "So, I think we showed a lot of moral fiber to stand up to that. To stand up to these constant investigations, to this constant bodyguard of lies, this avalanche that was thrown at all of us. And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people. And I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed."

Starr's former chief deputy said Friday he understood the difficulty for Clinton, but added that the bipartisan staff did what they had to do and performed honorably in seeking the truth.

"It's not easy being accused of things. We had allegations and we had to investigate them," Hickman Ewing said. "We believe we performed in an honorable manner."

As for the news coverage, he said the media "reported what they thought was news worthy."

A seven-year, $70 million investigation conducted mostly by Starr ranged from Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal in the 1980s to the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton was not among the dozen Arkansans indicted on criminal charges in the far-ranging Whitewater probe, but his affair with Lewinsky, a one-time White House intern, led to his impeachment by the GOP-controlled House in 1998. He was acquitted following a Senate trial.

Starr, now dean of the Pepperdine University law school, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday.

NLW

Beyond the Rubber Bullet The Pentagon's effort to create nonlethal weapons that hurt but don't kill has set off its own fire storm
By Lev Grossman
With reporting by Mark Thompson

The U.S. Armed Forces don't do much shooting anymore. Even in Afghanistan, they engage in more advising and guiding than gunplay. Soldiers today are asked more often to keep the peace or defuse demonstrations, and the last thing they want in those situations is to fire a lethal weapon. That's why the Pentagon is spending more and more research-and-development dollars on weapons that stun, scare, entangle or nauseate--anything but kill.

The U.S.'s nonlethal-weapons programs are drawing their own fire, mostly from human-rights activists who contend that the technologies being developed will be deployed to suppress dissent and that they defy international weapons treaties. Through public websites, interviews with defense researchers and data obtained in a series of Freedom of Information Act requests filed by watchdog groups, Time has managed to peer into the Pentagon's multimillion-dollar program and piece together this glimpse of the gentler, though not necessarily kinder, arsenal of tomorrow.

DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS Imagine a cross between a microwave oven and a Star Trek phaser: a tight, focused beam of energy that flash-heats its target from a distance. Directed energy beams do not burn flesh, but they do create an unbearably painful burning sensation. The Air Force Research Laboratory has already spent $40 million on a humvee-mounted directed-energy weapon. Expect to see it in the field by 2009.

ANTITRACTION MATERIAL Sometimes keeping an enemy down but not out is good enough. The Southwest Research Institute in Texas has created a sprayable antitraction gel for the Marines that is so slippery it is impossible to drive or even walk on it; one researcher describes it as "liquid ball bearings." Spray the stuff on a door handle, and it becomes too slippery to turn. The antitraction gel is mostly water, so it dries up in about 12 hours. It is also nontoxic and biodegradable.

MALODORANTS Working for the Pentagon, the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia has formulated smells so repellent that they can quickly clear a public space of anyone who can breathe--partygoers, rioters, even enemy forces. Scientists have tested the effectiveness of such odors as vomit, burnt hair, sewage, rotting flesh and a potent concoction known euphemistically as "U.S. Government Standard Bathroom Malodor." But don't expect to get a whiff anytime soon. Like all gaseous weapons, malodorants once released are hard to control, and their use is strictly limited by international chemical-weapons treaties.

PROJECTILES No one likes rubber bullets--not the people being fired at nor the people doing the firing. "It's very easy to put out an eye, to blind someone," says Glenn Shwaery, director of the Nonlethal Technology Innovation Center. "How do you redesign a projectile to avoid that?" The answer is, with softer, flatter bullets, beanbags and sponges that spread out the impact and hit like an open-handed slap from Andre the Giant. Shwaery's team is looking into an even more radical solution: "tunable" bullets that can be adjusted in the field to be harder or softer as the situation warrants. "We're talking about dialing in the penetrating power," he says. "It's the difference between 'Set phasers on stun' and 'Set phasers on kill.'"

WEBS AND NETS Spider-Man has competition. a firm called Foster-Miller, based in Waltham, Mass., has created the WebShot, a 10-ft.-wide Kevlar net. Packed in a cartridge and fired from a special shotgun, the WebShot can entangle targets as far away as 30 feet. Bigger nets can work on bigger targets. The Portable Vehicle Arresting Barrier, developed for the Pentagon by General Dynamics in Falls Church, Va., is a tough, elastic web that springs up from the ground in an instant to block a road. It can stop a 7,500-lb. pickup truck traveling 45 m.p.h. and then wrap around it to trap the occupants inside.

REAL RAY GUNS further out on the horizon, the line between weapons development and science fiction becomes perilously thin. Mission Research Corp. of Santa Barbara, Calif., is working on a pulsed energy projectile (PEP) that superheats the surface moisture around a target so rapidly that it literally explodes, producing a bright flash of light and a loud bang. The effect is like a stun grenade, but unlike a grenade the pep travels at nearly the speed of light and can take out a target with pinpoint accuracy. Or picture this: a flashlight-size device, currently in development at HSV Technologies in San Diego, that transmits a powerful electric current along a beam of ultraviolet light. Shine that light on a human target, and you have a wireless taser that can paralyze targets as far away as 2 km.

DRUGS, BUGS AND BEYOND Even their supporters agree that "nonlethal weapons" is a dangerous misnomer and that any of these devices has the potential to injure and kill. What is more, some of them may not even be legal. Over the past three months, a chemical-weapons watchdog organization called the Sunshine Project has obtained evidence that the U.S. is considering some projects that appear to take us beyond the bounds of good sense: bioengineered bacteria designed to eat asphalt, fuel and body armor, or faster-acting, weaponized forms of antidepressants, opiates and so-called "club drugs" that could be rapidly administered to unruly crowds. Such research is illegal under international law and could open up terrifying scenarios for abuse. "This is patently quite dangerous and irresponsible," says human-rights activist Steve Wright, who, as director of the Omega Foundation, works with Amnesty International to monitor nonlethal weapons. "What the U.S. invents today, others, including the torturing states, will deploy tomorrow." Just how much is that magic rubber bullet worth to us? Maybe some science fiction should remain fictional.

Directed Energy subduction

(AP) -- A few months from now, Peter Anthony Schlesinger hopes to zap a laser beam at a couple of chickens or other animals in a cage a few dozen yards away.

If all goes as planned, the chickens will be frozen in mid-cluck, their leg and wing muscles paralyzed by an electrical charge created by the beam, even as their heart and lungs function normally.

Among those most interested in the outcome will be officials at the Pentagon, who helped fund Schlesinger's work and are looking at this type of device to do a lot more than just zap a chicken.

Devices like these, known as directed-energy weapons, could be used to fight wars in coming years.

"When you can do things at the speed of light, all sorts of new capabilities are there," said Delores Etter, a former undersecretary of defense for science and technology and an advocate of directed-energy weapons.

Directed energy could bring numerous advantages to the battlefield in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have had to deal with hostile but unarmed crowds as well as dangerous insurgents.

Aside from paralyzing potential attackers or noncombatants like a long-range stun gun, directed-energy weapons could fry the electronics of missiles and roadside bombs, developers say, or even disable a vehicle in a high-speed chase.

The most ambitious program is the Air Force's Airborne Laser, a plan to mount a laser on a modified Boeing 747 and use it to shoot down missiles.

At the same Air Force Research Laboratory in New Mexico, researchers working with Raytheon Co. have developed a weapon called the Active Denial System, which repels adversaries by heating the water molecules in their skin with microwave energy. The pain is so great that people flee immediately.

"It just feels like your skin is on fire," said Rich Garcia, a spokesman for the laboratory who, as a test subject, has felt the Active Denial System's heat. "When you get out of the path of the beam, or shut off the beam, everything goes back to normal. There's no residual pain."

A Humvee-mounted Active Denial weapon is expected to be given to all services by the end of this year for evaluation, with a decision about deployment expected by the end of 2005.

But the idea of using directed energy against humans is creating debate fueled by deaths allegedly caused by Taser stun guns and the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners -- which put the military's respect for human rights under a microscope.

Some experts believe the use of directed energy will be limited by international law and treaties.

"Although it seems like it would be more desirable to disable rather than to kill them, the problem is there are all sorts of treaties in place that limit how you can disable noncombatants," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank. "It's kind of perverse, but sometimes the backlog of old laws can get in the way of being humane."

Military officials believe the intended uses of the Active Denial System do not violate any international laws or treaties and do not cause any permanent health problems.

"You can rest assured that with this system, when it finally is deployed, we will be very, very clear about what the intended uses are and what is clearly outside of bounds," said Marine Corps Capt. Daniel McSweeney, spokesman for the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate. "It's not intended to be used as a torture device. That goes against all the design intentions and parameters."

Research into side effects of weaponized directed energy began in the late 1990s at the Air Force's Brooks City-Base in San Antonio. Researchers began by reviewing studies of radio-frequency energy involved in military communications, radar and other technologies, officials say.

Human testing of the Active Denial System began after researchers concluded it could be used without permanent harm. More than 200 volunteers -- including some in their 70s -- from various military branches and government agencies were zapped with the system, on average about three times each.

The results showed no lingering health problems, officials say.

"This type of device doesn't penetrate very far," said Lt. Col. William Roach, chief of the radio frequency branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory.

But the fact that studies on directed energy's human effects haven't been released to the public has some outside the government worried.

Dominique Loye of the International Committee of the Red Cross has pleaded for more disclosure of directed-energy research and independent investigation into possible side effects.

Directed energy may cause "new types of injuries we're not aware of and may not be capable of taking care of," Loye said. "The message we try to put across is: 'We understand some companies are investing money, so maybe it will be worthwhile for you to start the investigation as early as possible and not to invest millions and millions and then 10 years down the line find out your weapon will be illegal."'

The weapons' developers, on the other hand, pitch them for their lifesaving potential.

The pinpoint accuracy of a laser could eliminate collateral damage caused by missile explosions, the argument goes, and stun gun-like weapons could save lives in hostage or bomb-threat situations. Directed energy also has the potential to explode roadside bombs or mines from a distance.

"You're dealing with the ability to pre-detonate the majority of improvised explosives that are used right now," said Pete Bitar, president of Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems, an Anderson, Ind., company that is developing a rifle-sized directed-energy gun for the Marines.

The device works by creating an electrical charge through a stream of ionized gas, or plasma.

Bitar says it could be tuned to target the electronics of a vehicle or explosive device, or tuned to temporarily paralyze voluntary muscles, such as those that control arms and legs. The involuntary muscles, like heart and lungs, operate at a different frequency.

So far, this and a handful of similar weapons are only in the prototype stage. Production models, if approved by the military, would not be ready for a few years.

The device being developed by Schlesinger's company, HSV Technologies Inc. of San Diego, will operate similarly to Bitar's, except the electrical charge will be created by an ultraviolet laser beam, rather than plasma. He, too, says the device is designed for non-lethal purposes only.

"Later on, as certain agencies or law enforcement gets involved in this, and they see the need for lethality, I'm sure that can be developed later," Schlesinger said. "It could induce cardiac arrest, for example. But that is not our patent, and not our intent."

Still, that potential is sure to make opponents of directed energy skeptical.

"It's encouraging that the U.S. is searching for more humane weapons," said the Lexington Institute's Thompson. "But it's very hard to convince other countries that our goals are ethical."

New Way of Thinking...

I've decided that I am occassionally going to re-post articles of interest to this blog. I am not interested in CHASING the news stories as so many blogs do.

If you look at what I focus on, it has more to do with the historical context in which the news takes place and WHERE THE NEWS IS GOING.....

Some of what I will post will be reality within years, some within months or weeks. I will also make suggestions on where to listen to free audio so that YOU can decide where life is going WITHOUT my help.

There are a zillion places on the web which you can read the daily news and commentary. Rarely are these stories put into context.

Here's one that has recently given me a good laugh:

The dedication of Clinton's Library took place in the pouring rain. You think this was an accident? My interpretation is that "the big man upstairs" had something to say - and said it.

Also, who decided not to have a tent over the daeus? Someone issue that person a medal for idiocy.

I vow not to post anything contreversial or things which are out of the mainstream, because if you look closely, at times (rarely), the mainstream will actually tell you what will happen.

Enjoy!