LA ESQUIZOFRENIA TOTAL

Su política, esquizofrénica: AI

En lo internacional México es "campeón" en la promoción de garantías, pero en lo interno persisten violaciones, sostiene

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/08/08/index.php?section=politica&article=007n2pol

Voting with their hearts

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/bookshelf/story/0,,2143929,00.html

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/09/140208

Ohio Destroyed Or Lost 2/3 of 2004 Presidential Ballots

The website Alternet is reporting two-thirds of counties in Ohio have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records. The destruction of the election records will frustrate efforts by the media and historians to determine the accuracy of Ohio's 2004 vote count, because in many counties the key evidence needed to understand vote count anomalies apparently no longer exists. Last year the U.S. District Court ordered that the 2004 ballots be preserved while the court hears a civil rights lawsuit alleging voter suppression of African-American voters in Columbus. Attorney Cliff Arnebeck said: "The extent of the destruction of records is consistent with the covering up of the fraud that we believe occurred in the presidential election."

El trofeo de la maestra

josé gil olmos

http://www.proceso.com.mx/analisis_int.html?an=52970

Baja California, victoria de la guerra sucia

jenaro villamil

http://www.proceso.com.mx/analisis_int.html?an=52935

Respuesta tan contundente como la que dieron tras el ataque a las torres gemelas

Para evitar crack bursátil, bancos centrales abren llave a la liquidez

Inyectaron 323 mil 300 millones de dólares a sistemas financieros de las principales economías

Intervención de Fed y FMI dan respiro a mercados ante temores a una crisis inmobiliaria en EU

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/08/11/index.php?section=economia&article=021n1eco

http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

Gran Depresión

De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

(Redirigido desde Gran depresión)

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_depresi%C3%B3n

* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *

Bien lo señaló Irene Khan de Amnistía Internacional: La esquizofrenia total entre la clase política de todos los colores en territorio mexicano. Desde Oaxaca a BC, pasando por Zacatecas los actores principales de una tragedia, que aspira a ser comedia, no arrancan una sola sonrisa entre los espectadores. Inesperadamente una figura hace su aparición en el escenario: EL SILENCIO.

La desconfianza se ha apoderado de los electores. Pareciera que la vía electoral se agota. Tanto en el noroeste del país como en el profundo sur los porcentajes de abstencionismo reflejan más que un castigo un hastío por las viejas formas de hacer política que han sido recientemente recicladas. ¿Significa esta respuesta una renuncia de los ciudadanos a ejercer sus derechos? Nada tan alejado de la realidad, parece que los únicos verdaderamente conscientes son todos los ciudadanos despojados de uno de sus derechos dentro de una “democracia” que fue prostituida el 2 de Julio de 2006.

Esquizofrénica fue la respuesta del gobierno mexicano a la puntual presentación del reporte que describe una violación sistemática de los derechos humanos en Oaxaca. Mientras que el organismo recoge testimonios irrefutables del uso de la fuerza para debilitar un movimiento popular pacífico, la contraparte gubernamental solo atina a cuestionar las “fuentes” para la preparación del mencionado dossier.

Fuera de este mundo está también la nueva izquierda perredista, que desdeña a las bases amarillas y apuesta a concertar con un gobierno claramente repudiado. Utilizando una bien aceitada maquinaria aplastó cualquier esfuerzo democratizador de un partido que naufraga y no alcanza a encontrar su identidad. Monreal, mientras tanto, es tan solo amonestado por intentar noquear al partido en Zacatecas. La inversión electorera rige en algunas de las más importantes corrientes del Partido del sol azteca sin que nadie pueda desactivar su inevitable aniquilación.

En Baja California el “inge” culpa a la propaganda que no supo vender su “carisma”. Más, parece que a los analistas, se les escapa que al romper su autoimpuesto mutis, el hijo del profe declaró algo revelador: el abstencionismo realmente fue el que decidió la contienda en la parte norte de la península. De tal manera que, después de todo Oaxaca y BC tan diferentes en el papel, comparten una característica que comienza a amalgamar a un país que se quisiera dividido a partir del paralelo 19 del hemisferio boreal.

Mientras en las filas azules siguen apostando al autoengaño. Nada de lo que dicen “los otros” es verdad, excepto lo que nosotros afirmamos es su máxima. Es por ello que se arriesgan a imponer a una nueva funcionaria del IFE, como si la gente en las calles hubiera súbitamente olvidado el inmenso fraude del año pasado. Juran que sus “métodos” de mercadotecnia importados –que nosotros llamaremos por su nombre: Guerra Sucia Mediática- les dieron la victoria en la Baja. Uno de los portavoces de la ultraderecha está convencido de que sus devaneos debilitan gobiernos democráticamente electos al sur del continente. La ex “First Lady” (con su lastre acoplado) finge todavía influir en la vida política de México, mientras el ejecutivo amaga con destapar parcialmente algunos de los “pecadillos” de los vástagos para mantenerla a raya.

Como si realmente importara para el parteaguas histórico que se aproxima, la mayestra mueve todo su poderío para inclinar la balanza en la elección en BC. Para ello, hace uso de no solo los viejos trucos electorales sino de anticipación e inducción del voto previo a la casilla; sabiendo que a partir de julio de 2006 en adelante, con abstencionismo o no, las elecciones van a ser monitoreadas por los ciudadanos conscientes de sus derechos. A pesar de eso, nosotros podríamos tener el antídoto. Estas retribuciones momentáneas, como las de cualquier vicioso terminal, se atacan con un cambio en las condiciones de vida (salud, educación, vivienda, recreación, entre otras) a largo plazo. Golpetea la mentora, por otra parte, a la titular de la Secretaría de Educación Pública en una demostración no sólo de músculo sino además de “timing” político; tal vez como pocos, ella intuye lo que se aproxima y quiere estar presente, saltar en el momento preciso, como lo ha hecho en los tres últimos sexenios, resucitando de su literal tumba política.

Al norte del muro de la ignominia, la condición mental de los que dirigen en las altas esferas de la arena política tampoco es muy halagüeña. Mientras no pueden negociar una salida decorosa de la antigua Mesopotamia, lanzan bravuconadas al gobierno Iraní. Mientras su economía se hunde en inmensas deudas el “American way of life” florece. Mientras el ciudadano común Estadunidense comienza a recuperarse de la resaca, los medios de comunicación masiva insisten en crear cortinas de humo para desviar la atención del acelerado deterioro del poder adquisitivo de los clasemedieros gringos. ¿Qué van a inventar cuando el clima diga la última palabra?

Mención aparte merece el ejecutivo y sus lacayos. Ineptitud es la regla que campea en las decisiones tomadas en Los Pinos. Ninguna de las reformas ha tenido un apoyo mínimo de parte de la clase política, ¡vaya! A veces ni siquiera de su propio partido. ¿Verdad que sí, Sr. Espino? El Joseph Marie Cordoba del sexenio es mediocre, no hay filosofía, por absurda que fuera, detrás de él. Bien que se los advertí, la banalidad asaltó el palacio presidencial desde el mandato anterior. Mientras varios países latinoamericanos se enfilan hacia el desarrollo, aprovechando la coyuntura de la caída del poderoso vecino, en México persiste el estancamiento. El mandatario en su prisa por legitimarse mueve a risa al proponer un debate post informe presidencial. Sin palabras. Ahora, recuerden que ya dejamos desde hace tiempo la ingenuidad, por lo que no hay confusiones entre nosotros, los que tomaron por asalto los pinos llegaron para entregar México, comenzando con los recursos naturales, y lo llaman eufemísticamente “reformas estructurales”.

En otra frecuencia se mueve el mexicano común y corriente. Ese que continúa resistiendo pacíficamente hasta el día de hoy, y que por lo que se ve continuará manifestándose de esa manera. El reto en este momento consiste en que, a contra corriente, tiene que mantener el país a flote y cambiar el sistema imperante. De tal modo que, podamos emparejar a aquellos países que nos llevan ventaja, y que están aprovechando espléndidamente la actual situación mundial que permite márgenes de maniobra inimaginables hace 5 lustros. Las buenas noticias es que ninguno de nuestros pares, que crecen a un ritmo acelerado, cuenta con un movimiento de masas tan innovador como el que se observa en la República Mexicana, solo que hace falta rematar el objetivo. Paciencia nos sobra.

M@rcrack bursátil;

Norwich, G(randes) B(ienes Raíces);

12/8/07

P.D. El encuentro entre FCH y CSG también tuvo como objetivo en restarle poder a la mayestra que ya se está saliendo mucho del jacal. Al tiempo.

P.D.MANTENIDA. "... GINA works for diner all day/working for her MAN/she brings home her PAY for LOVE... for LOVE..." - Livin' on a PRAYER (Bon Jovi).

P.D.PROLETARIA. "... I WORK 'til I ache my bones..." - Somebody to LOVE (Queen).

P.D.PARADISIACA. "...¿Qué GLORIA te tocó?/¿Qué ángel te AMO que has renacido?/¿Qué MILAGRO se dió cuando el AMOR volvió a tu nido?..." - El AMOR de mi vida (Pablo Milanés).

P.D.NORBERTA. "...Church on time - puts my trust in god and man/God and man - NO CONFESSIONS/God and man - NO RELIGION..." - Modern LOVE (David Bowie).

Pilona cobarde:

OLD ROSE

Afterward, the seven hundred people in the boats had nothing to do but wait... wait to die, wait to live, wait for an absolution which would never come.

DISSOLVE TO:

296 EXT. LIFEBOATS / OPEN SEA - PRE-DAWN

MATCHING MOVE as the camera tracks along the faces of the saved.

297 DISSOLVE TO: ANOTHER BOAT, and then ANOTHER, seeing faces we know among the survivors: Ismay in a trance, just staring and trembling... Cal, sipping from a hip flask offered to him by a black-faced stoker... Ruth hugging herself, rocking gently.

IN BOAT 14: CLOSE ON ROSE, lying swaddled. Only her face is visable, white as the moon. The man next to her jumps up, pointing and yelling. Soon everyone is looking and shouting excitedly. In Rose's POV it is all silent, SLOW MOTION.

IN SLOW-MOTION SILENCE we see Lowe light a green flare and wave it as everyone shouts and cheers. Rose doesn't react. She floats beyond all human emotion.

DISSOLVE TO:

298 EXT. LIFEBOATS / OPEN SEA - DAWN

Golden light washes across the white boats, which gloat in a calm sea reflecting the rosy sky. All around them, like a flotilla of sailing ships, are icebergs. The CARPATHIA sits nearby, as boats row toward her.

DISSOLVE TO:

299 EXT. LIFEBOATS / OCEAN / CARPATHIA MONTAGE - DAY

IMAGES DISSOLVE into one another: a ship's hull looming, with the letters CARPATHIA visible on the bow... Rose watching, rocked by the sea, her face blank... seamen helping survivors up the rope ladder to the Carpathia's gangway doors... two women crying and hugging each other inside the ship... ALL SILENT, ALL IN SLOW-MOTION. There is just music, so gentle and sad, part elegy, part hymn, part aching song of love lost forever.

THE IMAGES CONTINUE to music... Rose, outside of time, outside of herself, coming into Carpathia, barely able to stand... Rose being draped with warm blankets and given hot tea... BRUCE ISMAY climbing aboard. He has the face and eyes of a damned soul.

As Ismay walks along the hall, guided by a crewman toward the doctor's cabin, he passes rows of seated and standing widows. He must run the gauntlet of their accusing gazes.

CUT TO:

300 EXT. DECK / CARPATHIA - DAY

It is the afternoon of the 15th. Cal is searching the faces of the widows lining the deck, looking for Rose. The deck of Carpathia is crammed with huddled people, and even the recovered lifeboats of Titanic. On a hatch cover sits an enormous pile of lifebelts.

He keeps walking toward the stern. Seeing Cal's tuxedo, a steward approaches him.

CARPATHIA STEWARD

You won't find any of your people back here, sir. It's all steerage.

Cal ignores him and goes amongst this wrecked group, looking under shawls and blankets at one bleak face after another.

Rose is sipping hot tea. Her eyes focus on him as he approaches her. He barely recognizes her. She looks like a refugee, her matted hair hanging in her eyes.

ROSE

Yes, I lived. How awkward for you.

CAL

Rose... your mother and I have been looking for you--

She holds up her hand, stopping him.

ROSE

Please don't. Don't talk. Just listen. We will make a deal, since that is something you understand. From this moment you do not exist for me, nor I for you. You shall not see me again. And you will not attempt to find me. In return I will keep my silence. Your actions last night need never come to light, and you will get to keep the honor you have carefully purchased.

She fixes him with a glare as cold and hard as the ice which changed their lives.

ROSE

Is this in any way unclear?

CAL

(after a long beat)

What do I tell your mother?

ROSE

Tell her that her daughter died with the Titanic.

She stands, turning to the rail. Dismissing him. We see Cal stricken with emotion.

CAL

You're precious to me, Rose.

ROSE

Jewels are precious. Goodbye, Mr. Hockley.

We see that in his way, the only way he knows, he does truly love her.

After a moment, he turns and walks away.

OLD ROSE (V.O.)

That was the last time I ever saw him. He married, of course, and inherited his millions. The crash of 28 hit his interests hard, and he put a pistol in his mouth that year. His children fought over the scraps of his estate like hyenas, or so I read.

… La chica Freud.

"...the only difference being that they killed you with a smile as opposed to a gun."


http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,2145171,00.html

The Walker

(Cert 15)

Xan Brooks
Friday August 10, 2007
The Guardian

Raw, hard-won honesty... The Walker.

Carter Page III is the black sheep of a blue-blood American family. His ancestors made a fortune from slavery and tobacco. His father was a grandstanding governor of Virginia. Yet Page, by contrast, leads a shadowy, semi-illicit existence as a "walker", playing the role of Gay Best Friend to the wealthy women of Washington DC. He is pushing 50; his corn-fed good looks are just beginning to crinkle. Returning home, he pulls off his flaxen wig and stares critically into the bathroom mirror. It is a moment that stirs up bizarre echoes of Travis Bickle's iconic "You talkin' to me?" routine, all those decades before.

Writer-director Paul Schrader has described The Walker as the final instalment in his quartet of "night worker" films, a series kicked off with his script for Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver and continued through American Gigolo and Light Sleeper. His hero is the existential American loner, the semi-detached member of a society guaranteed to turn its back at the first sign of trouble. Beautifully embodied by Woody Harrelson, Schrader's "walker" is at once superficial and complicated, an insider and an exile. The women thrill to his catty gossip and cooing line in flattery. But when Page finds himself embroiled in a murder investigation, they can't drop him fast enough. "Let me give you a piece of Washington wisdom," quips Lauren Bacall's imperious grand-dame. "Never stand between your friend and a firing squad."

One could class The Walker as a thriller, in that it features a murder, a political scandal and a fraught chase that ends with a car crash. But these elements all seem a little rote and rudimentary. Instead, the film's real focus is on the character of Page and his perilous relationship with the world he inhabits. Embarking on his 1993 adaptation of The Age of Innocence, Scorsese insisted that the tea-set terrain of Edith Wharton was really just as vicious as the badlands of GoodFellas, the only difference being that they killed you with a smile as opposed to a gun. You get a similar impression from The Walker's reactionary Washington backdrop. In this whirl of backslapping cocktail receptions and rapier-duel canasta parties, the weak and vulnerable are always doomed to flounder.

It's not hard to see why Schrader might identity with these peripheral figures. It was his fate to be a supporting player during the golden age of 1970s American cinema: the ugly cousin to the likes of Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg, his films just a shade too cold, introspective and over-wound to connect with a mainstream audience. Fittingly, The Walker slopes in years after it was first mooted, with its pockets rattling with foreign change ("Asia-Pacific", "Isle of Man Films"). It looks tired, slightly soft in the middle, and yet there is a raw, hard-won honesty here that puts most contemporary US movies to shame. One has the sense that, in forging his own path, Schrader has finally reached a kind of wisdom. The screwed-up kid who once aimed a pistol at his enemies in the mirror now stares into the glass with a sweet, sad self-awareness.

... Discovery

La profecía
(Rosario Castellanos)

Cuando nos lo anunciaron los que velan de noche,
los que llevan el mar ausente entre sus manos
en forma de sencillos caracoles,
temblamos de alegría, como bajo el rocío
el pétalo colmado de las flores.

Lo dijeron los sabios.
Muchas señales hubo, hasta que al fin
el termino del tiempo hubo llegado.
Y nosotros confusos, de rodillas,
presenciando.

Sobrevino el silencio.
El silencio que nace del agua que bullía
y de pronto se cuaja en un espejo.

Así nos serenamos. Nos hicimos
lo mismo que los lagos para mirar al cielo.


http://sololiteratura.com/ros/rospoelacasa.htm

All or Nothing (Mike Leigh, 2002)

In a London housing estate over a long weekend, long-term couple Penny and Phil rediscover their love when their son Rory becomes ill and has to be rushed to hospital.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/britishfilm/summer/films/allornothing.shtml

Showing:

BBC TWO, Saturday August 11, 10.40pm

Synopsis:

(2002) In a London housing estate over a long weekend, long-term couple Penny and Phil rediscover their love when their son Rory becomes ill and has to be rushed to hospital.

Read the full synopsis on BFI Screenonline.

Director:

Mike Leigh

Producer:

Alain Sarde, Simon Channing-Williams

Cast:

• Timothy Spall (Phil Bassett)
• Lesley Manville (Penny Bassett)
• Alison Garland (Rachel Bassett)
• James Corden (Rory Bassett)
• Ruth Sheen (Maureen)
• Marion Bailey (Carol)
  
  Full cast and credits on BFI Screenonline.

Analysis:

Critical opinion was divided on Mike Leigh's All or Nothing: some considered it is his most self-assured work to date; others felt Leigh's gritty kitchen-sink realism was becoming jaded and his characters becoming caricatures. But there is no doubt that in this strikingly polemic slice of disaffected, cross-generational working-class life, the narrative is given time to evolve. More importantly, the characters are given the space to develop.

Dick Pope's cinematography imbues the subject matter with a certain scruffy realism and authenticity, favouring cramped interiors. In the montage of cab sequences, sense of space is restricted by the camera's static position. Inside Penny and Phil's flat, shots framed by doors and windows heighten this feeling of bleak claustrophobia.

Leigh's meditation on the impoverished human condition highlights the struggles to survive of a cross-section of middle-aged working-class people.

Read the full analysis on BFI Screenonline.

... con piel de oveja.

Sex just happens, doesn't it? We do the deed, just because. That is why sexologists over the decades have focused on the physical specifics - how we set about our coupling - and the problems that arise when the machinery of the body or the brain somehow does not co-operate with the mission.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2826212.ece

Revealed: the real reasons why people have sex

By David Usborne in New York

Published: 02 August 2007

Sex just happens, doesn't it? We do the deed, just because. That is why sexologists over the decades have focused on the physical specifics - how we set about our coupling - and the problems that arise when the machinery of the body or the brain somehow does not co-operate with the mission.

Thanks to the hard work of two researchers at the University of Texas, however, we now know that the "because" is rather more complicated than we thought. There are myriad reasons why we have sex with one another, according to their paper, published in the August issue of Archives of Sexual Behaviour.

Surprises abound. Who knew, for example, that there were people who favour a bit of carnal canoodling as a means of getting closer to God, challenging the notion that religion generally gets in the way of a good romp. And forget the myth about headaches and turning your back on your partner in bed. It seems that for some of us a headache makes sex a priority, because it works better as a cure than Aspirin. David Buss, who co-authored the study with his university colleague, Cindy Meston, said: "I was truly astonished by this richness of sexual psychology."

Some of the reasons cited were hardly heartwarming, such as: "I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease." Happily, that appeared at the bottom of the reasons given by men and women. Also low on the list was "to hurt an enemy".

Unexpected also was the proximity of Venus to Mars. In other words, men and women do not diverge on the motivations for having sex as much as you might think. Both genders ranked, "I was attracted to the person" as reason number one for feeling the urge to merge. Indeed, 20 of the 25 most popular reasons for coupling were the same for women as for men. "It's refuted a lot of gender stereotypes," suggests Ms Meston, "that men only want sex for the physical pleasure and women want love. That's not what I came up with in my findings."

The authors began by asking a group of 444 men and women aged 17-52 to cite everything that had driven them to have sex in the past. They came up with more than 700 reasons, which eventually got pared down by eliminating duplications, to 237. Then a second group, this time of university students, was asked to rank their reasons in order of importance, men and women separately. It took five years to collate the results.

A total overlapping of the sexes there is not, however. Men seemed to be more prone to have sex with a woman to gain bragging rights with their friends afterwards and enhance their status. "Although I knew that having sex has consequences for reputation, it surprised me that people, notably men, would be motivated to have sex solely for social status and reputation enhancement," Mr Buss said.

While feeling "horny" and "it's fun" both made it to the top ten for both men and women, the small matter of wanting to make a baby did not. Other reasons that popped up included, "I was drunk", "helps me fall asleep," "makes my partner feel powerful", "burns calories", "to return a favour", "keep warm" and "to change the topic of conversation". There was also "Someone dared me."

Why do we need to know all this? To improve sex education and help researchers to curb the spread of sexual diseases says Ms Meston. "You need to know why people are having sex if you're trying to put into place a safe-sex programme," she said. "If you assume that people have sex in the heat of the moment, then you can tell them to carry condoms. But if they are doing it for revenge or because they want to enhance their social status, then that will require a different strategy."

'I was drunk'

20 reasons men gave...

Attracted to the person

It feels good

The person was a good kisser

It's fun

Wanted to show affection to the person

Sexually aroused and wanted the release

Was "horny"

Wanted to express love for the person

Wanted to achieve an orgasm

Wanted to try out new sexual techniques

Turned on by person's physical appearance

Wanted the pure pleasure

Was the "heat of the moment"

Desired emotional closeness

It's exciting, adventurous

Person had a desirable body

It was a special occasion

Person had an attractive face

Hormones were out of control

It just happened

20 reasons women gave...

Attracted to the person

Wanted to show affection

Wanted to express love

Realised I was in love

In "the heat of the moment"

Wanted to please partner

Desired emotional closeness

Turned on by physical appearance

It was a romantic setting

Wanted to celebrate a birthday

Person was intelligent

Person seemed self-confident

Wanted to improve sexual skills

The opportunity presented itself

Got 'carried away'

My hormones were out of control

It seemed like the natural next step

It just happened

Wanted to make up after a fight

I was drunk

... una bragueta prudente.

He commented that in his thirty years as an attorney, he has never seen such egregious action; an orgy at government expense, drugs and prostitutes. — ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JESSE FIGUEROA IN THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION

JULY 23, 2007 - THE BORDER REPORT

Posted by michael under General News

http://borderreporter.com/blog/?p=245

DROPPED INVESTIGATIONS, AN FBI-SPONOSRED ORGY, A COVER-UP

PART TWO

He commented that in his thirty years as an attorney, he has never seen such egregious action; an orgy at government expense, drugs and prostitutes. — ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JESSE FIGUEROA IN THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION

Yeah, okay, so it’s mañana plus four. Sorry, lots going on; but let’s get right back to Operation Lively Green.

Last week, I detailed the possible sexual assault of a woman by confidential informants involved in the largest corruption sting in FBI history. This week, we’ll take a look at why I have to use the conditional “possible.”

The FBI used three confidential witnesses in the sting: Frank Arvizu, his brother Armando Arvizu and Hal Turner. In October 2002, the FBI had 11 targeted officials run cocaine from Arizona to Las Vegas. Frank, Armando and Hal were in on the sting.

Each of the targets received a partial payment for their services from the undercover FBI agents on October 16, 2002. The rest of the money would be paid the next day.

As part of the scam, the FBI had arranged for a stay in the Presidential Suite at the MGM Grand Hotel in Vegas. Frank, Hal, Armando and six of the targets were in the suite at different times.

Three federal prosecutors got wind of the sexual assault of a prostitute in the room. They sat down with Frank on March 18, 2004, asking him if there was anything they should know about what happened in the suite.

U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton took one look at the case, the “possible” sexual assault of a passed-out woman, and slammed the case down. He contended that there was no way his office would take the case because the confidential informants were damaged and the FBI tried to cover up the case.
The corruption sting had turned into a fiasco. The Office of Inspector General was called in, the FBI opened their own investigation - and subsequently closed the case.

According to the investigation, released to The Border Report under the Freedom of Information Act, this is what happened to case:

First, a brief explainer. The FOIA is a redacted copy; the names of the confidential witnesses and the FBI agents were blocked out. Typical.

However, Charlton’s letter to the FBI names two of the agents as Tim Jacobson and Robert Zelina. Because I don’t know if they were specifically involved, I have to refer to the agents in the FOIA as (The FBI agent).

Two agents documented the FBI-sponsored orgy but declined to tell the federal prosecutors that the targets and the informants had pulled a train on a woman who may have been unconscious.

According to the OIG investigation, two FBI agents were noticed for failing to report that the snitches had engaged in criminal activity. I presume it’s the same two agents.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Phoenix Field Office, Charlene Thornton, recommended that no action be taken against the FBI agents.

Here’s the kicker, the issue at stake wasn’t the “possible” sexual assault of the woman; her case was never investigated. To this day, nobody knows what her name is. According to the Las Vegas Police Department, no assault charges were filed for Oct. 16 or 17, 2002, the day the orgy took place.

Instead, what was being argued between FBI and Charlton was a slice of law embedded in the Justice Department’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants.

The law states: Whenever a Justice Department Law Enforcement Agency has reasonable grounds to believe that a Confidential Informant … has engaged in any unauthorized criminal activity, a Special Agent in Charge of the JLEA shall immediately notify the following Chief Federal Prosecutors of the CI’s criminal activity … ”

A separate section of the law requires that local prosecutors in which the crime took place also be notified.

Instead, Thornton pushed for the allegations of misconduct against the two FBI agents be buried.

The OIG determined that the two FBI agents did not have “first-hand knowledge of the events.” To break down their line of reasoning, the FBI agents were told that a rape may have occurred, they neglected to tell the prosecutors about it, but, because they didn’t witness the orgy, they weren’t at fault.

Federal prosecutor Jesse Figueroa was brought in.

“Figueroa advised he believed a prostitute was assaulted and sodomized in the suite by the confidential witnesses and the subjects. He does not believe the case can proceed. He commented that in his thirty years as an attorney, he has never seen such egregious action; an orgy at government expense, drugs and prostitutes. He decided not to prosecute the case based on the credibility of the confidential witnesses.”

OIG then brought in federal prosecutor James T. Lacey. He’s even more blunt, accusing the FBI of doing nothing about the rape.

“Lacey said that based on interviews, a girl that (one of the targets) brought to the room was “passed out” during these acts. Lacey believed that the subject’s defense team would have received all the information about the events in Las Vegas and feared that the DOJ and FBI could be viewed as engaging in misconduct as the defense might argue that the DOJ and FBI knew or should have known a rape of the stripper took place and the FBI and DOJ did nothing about it.”

One of the snitches told the OIG that the FBI agents knew about the incident since the entire group was being monitored. Two FBI agents showed up at his house two weeks later. He showed them the pictures of the orgy. The FBI agent admonished him. After they left, the snitch destroyed the photographs. He told the OIG the FBI agents never told him to dispose of the photos.

“COULD NOT SPECIFICALLY RECALL”

Another of the snitches was brought in. The FBI agent asked him if he had ever been cited or arrested by a cop during a party on Oct. 17, 2002. “(He) said he was not specifically asked by (the FBI agent) whether he paid for acts of prostitution for himself or others.”

The FBI agent was questioned.

(The FBI agent) stated that after the debriefing, he began to hear jokes and banter from other FBI agents in reference to the confidential witnesses and subjects’ behavior in the early morning hours of Oct. 17, 2002. He heard that there was an orgy, that prostitutes were present, that both confidential witnesses and subjects were naked and a fight broke out and someone’s nose was broken and that a police officer came but took no action.

“Although the confidential witnesses were present, no clear allegation arose which linked the confidential witnesses involvement in the crime of prostitution or any other felony crime. Since I had no direct corroboration based on my monitoring, … I thought these general conversations, banter, and jokes, were just unsubstantiated talk.”

Here’s where the FBI started playing with the information.

During a de-briefing, the FBI agent saw the photos. “He could not tell if she was unconscious. He asked them what they were and was told that they were taken at the party. (The FBI agent) did not take possession of the photographs because he did not believe they had any evidentiary value and considered them private property. (The FBI agent) never communicated to the confidential witnesses to destroy the photographs. He could not specifically recall but it was possible that the confidential witnesses may have discussed a woman being passed out and a number of guys lined up behind her.”

It wasn’t until Charlton went after the FBI that the agent realized he was being lied to by the confidential witnesses. He stated that he would have reported any criminal misconduct had he known. He also told OIG he was not derelict in the execution of the investigation.

A little pontification? Sure, why not.

One FBI agent hears banter and jokes about the passed out woman.

Here’s an example of one of these jokes from the FBI video of the aftermath:

Voices are heard on the video: “I checked to see if the bitch was breathing.”
“All of you are going to jail.”
“Bitch half dead.”
“She should get an Oscar.”
“Two men in line by the woman.”
Darius Perry says: “Fuck all the whores you want.”
Another male voice: “Even if they are passed out.”
Another: “(Armando) gets up and bitch looks dead.”

Funny stuff but nothing interesting. Nothing concrete here, of course.

OIG brought in the second FBI agent. His story was even better.

“To the best of (his) recollection, he ‘did not hear or learn, at the time, that the confidential witnesses or subjects paid these women to engage in sexual activities.’

“It is evident to me now that these women were prostitutes hired by the subjects, but not the confidential witnesses, according to information I’ve learned indirectly.’”

Analysis by the investigators:

There is no disputing the fact that there were prostitutes … But the evidence does not support a finding that (the FBI agent) failed to report a possible rape or that confidential witnesses engaged in criminal activity.”

LEGALESE

The report makes that decision off two conclusions:

The charge that the first agent failed to report criminal activity is unsubstantiated.

The second agent says he heard about the women coming up to the room but did not know they were being paid.

With no knowledge, no reasonable grounds can be established. With no reasonable grounds, no cause to ask more questions. No more questions, no investigation. No investigation, no case.

End of story.

In summary:

On Oct. 16, 2002, three snitches, the Arvizu brothers and Hal Turner, and eleven targeted officials ran a load of cocaine up to Las Vegas.

To celebrate, the group ran a load of women up to the room. One of the women was draped over a chair. A group of the men formed a line behind her. They took turns sodomizing her. Others came in, they pressed their cocks against her face and against her mouth, snapping pictures.

Someone touched her arm to make sure she was still alive because “bitch half dead.”

The group makes jokes about her. Weeks later, FBI agents in the Tucson field office are still laughing and joking about it.

Nothing is done about the “possible” rape. Nobody bothers to investigate the case.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office turned down the largest corruption sting in FBI history because Charlton refuses to take testimony from snitches who may have participated in a gang-rape and sodomy of an unconscious woman.

He called for a full investigation.

The “full investigation” consisted of questioning five people, most who can’t seem to recall who said what. The top FBI boss in Arizona shut down the case.

Case closed.

Except, and there’s always more, for one more thing.

But that’ll have to wait until tomorrow. A U.S. tomorrow, I promise.

– Michael Marizco

JULY 24, 2007 - THE BORDER REPORT

Posted by michael under General News

http://borderreporter.com/blog/?p=247

OPERATION LIVELY GREEN
PART THREE
A FLASH OF CASH, HOT SEX AND COLD BEER: HOW THE FBI BOOSTED THE CORRUPTION OF THE WEAK TO JACK ABRAMOFF HEIGHTS

The lawyer for an Operation Lively Green defendant argued in court today that the FBI plied his client with cash, beer and sex to get him to run a load of cocaine.

The case of the latest defendant gives some pause to thought about the FBI’s motives behind the cocaine sting operation.

It’s the largest corruption sting in the history of the FBI; the agency told Congress that they were up to 99 cases now.

But rather than an investigation, the sting case operated more like a peer-to-peer computer virus, spreading from one person to the next, flashing cash, setting up a drug run, then “flipping” the guilty into a snitch to co-opt yet more colleagues.

The entire sting has the air of a numbers-pump, beefing up the stats for Justice Department, or maybe a Milgram experiment, to see how far a person will go when presented with the depraved.

The formula was simple: take a group of young people, not too bright, ply them with booze and sex, then flash some cash around and see who takes the bait.

Consider the case of Phillip Varona, sentenced this morning to 30 months in prison.

A silvery chain manacled his ankles, his hands clasped behind him, his body shrouded in a bright orange prison jumpsuit, Varona apologized to U.S. District Court Judge Cindy Jorgenson for a growing string of crimes.

“You’re out of control,” Jorgenson said.

Varona, 24, is the meter-maid of the Nogales, Ariz. Police Department, convicted on conspiracy to commit bribery of a public official.

He’s a mess and, on a side note, perhaps Justice Department should be looking at the hiring standards of municipal police departments instead of busting low-end suckers.

According to his sentencing:

On June 12, 2002, Varona ran ten keys of cocaine from Tucson to Phoenix, in uniform, for which he was paid $7,000.

A month later, he did it again, running another ten keys from Nogales to Tucson for $8,000.

Then he recruited another cop, Eddie Rosas, to run more loads.

Then in June 2004, he was sentenced to probation on a domestic assault charge.

To top it off, Varona is currently facing charges in superior court for possession with intent to sell 120 pounds of dope; he was arrested in February 2005 on that charge.

It’s hard to be sympathetic.

Until you consider the Lively Green set-up.

Defense attorney Roberto Montiel argued that Varona was 19 at the time of the set-up.

He was approached by Leslie Hidalgo, 26, a private first class in the Arizona Air National Guard.

One thing led to another and soon, an informant named “Frank” and another man who claimed to be Hidalgo’s uncle (he was also a snitch), joined Hidalgo and Varona in Nogales, Sonora, drinking beer and setting up the deal. (Frank, I presume, is Frank Arvizu, identified in investigative reports as the informant who led a group of guys like Varona to Las Vegas where a woman was “possibly” sexually assaulted.)
A few days later, Hidalgo called Varona and – depending on whom you believe, the United States or Varona’s lawyer – she either fell for Hidalgo and started sleeping with him, or, desperate perhaps to get out of her own hole, started sleeping with him under the encouragement of the FBI, using her body to ply him when he wavered.

“I’m not trying to excuse Philip, but the bait that was used, 19 years old, young man, alcohol; Phillip took the bait and he swallowed it, hook, line and sinker,” Montiel said.

“That makes Phillip guilty but I think the government should not be involved in baiting,” Montiel said.

Jorgenson dismissed Montiel’s claim that Varona suffered a learning disability, saying, “it was probably immaturity and impulisivity.”

But, she did call on prosecutor John W. Scott of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, to answer the charges of the trip to Mexico.

Scott, who’s been working this case ever since former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton refused to take the case because of the dirty snitches the government was using, gave an interesting interpretation.

“Mrs. Hidalgo is a private citizen and Mr. Varona is a private citizen,” Scott said. “What they did together was their business.”

The arguments are shaky all around in Operation Lively Green. The defense argues that Varona was plied with liquor, cash and warm thighs. The prosecutor argues that Varona chose for himself when he took the money.

The premises are even more shaky. The defense argues that his client suffers from a learning disability and repeatedly referred to Varona as a child. The prosecutor argues that Varona was in control of his own decisions and demonstrated complicity by pointing out that Varona picked a spot in his own police cruiser where the cocaine could be safely stashed.

But Jorgenson chose an interesting argument with which to sentence Varona.

Starting at level 32 of the sentencing guidelines, she could have subtracted three because he accepted responsibility, then added one for his prior criminal history (because he still hasn’t been sentenced for the weed offense, she couldn’t take that sentencing into consideration).

Under normal guidelines, Varona faced 7.25 to 9 years in prison.

But the plea agreement called for a maximum 5 years while probation recommended a little over three.

The low-end sentence was given, two-and-a-half years in prison, a $15,000 fine and three years probation.

Her premise was fascinating, and seemed to acknowledge heavy government intervention in a fake coke sting.

“There was no risk of circulation of the cocaine … and it occurred in 2002 and here we are in 2007,” Jorgenson said.

In the end, Jorgenson fell beautifully between what Varona and the United States wanted.

Her acceptance of the plea agreement suggests two realities were at issue in the FBI sting:

1) Operation Lively Green was never a corruption issue, it was a set-up by the FBI.

2) In his mind, Varona thought he was running loads of coke for a drug cartel; his immaturity and foolishness makes him corrupt.

Operation Lively Green flashed a lot of cash around. The, ummm, less brilliant, took the bait. But does it weed out corrupt public officials or simply snatch the weak?

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once compared Lively Green to the busting of Jack Abramoff and the prosecution of former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio.

I disagree; Lively Green fell dangerously close to entrapment and suckered a lot of people prone to stupid decisions. Varona is no Abramoff.

Stay tuned for Part Four, where we look at how desperate the FBI became to build Operation Lively Green.

– Michael Marizco

... NIGHT shift.

Jalisco y sus ferias del condón

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/08/07/index.php?section=politica&article=012a1pol

Carlos Monsiváis

Leí en La Jornada (6 de agosto de 2007), la nota del corresponsal Juan Carlos G. Partida, con las declaraciones o, si se quiere, con el programa profiláctico del gobernador de Jalisco, Enrique González Márquez. Este afirma: "es mi casa", con la certidumbre quizás usada al impartir sus cursos de catecismo en la Casa de Gobierno, en un acto de expropiación devocional. Ahora, desde la lógica del Primer Creyente y Primer Bromista de la entidad, cargos para los que ciertamente no fue elegido, él argumenta (usaré el verbo en su favor):

''Entre la comunidad homosexual sí hay que seguir apoyando; entre los jóvenes, en general, yo creo que no le corresponde al Estado repartir condones. Si alguien quiere, y déjame llevarle a un grado chusco: ¿por qué nada más condones? Vamos repartiendo un six de cerveza y vamos dando vales para el motel, de modo que el gobierno pague la diversión de los jóvenes.

"Oye, no. No le toca al gobierno pagar las cervezas en el motel. Bueno, creo que tampoco le toca repartir condones en la comunidad en general. En la comunidad homosexual sí, porque está considerada en alto riesgo de contraer sida. Entonces ahí sí le toca al gobierno hacer conciencia y aportar los condones."

En unos cuantos párrafos, el gobernador evita que se le acuse de ejercer la discriminación, de insolencia fúnebre que quiso ser graciosa, de desvirtuar al límite una causa de salud pública. Ya nadie podrá acusarlo de homofobia, discriminación y burla de los derechos humanos, porque la documentación por él aportada nos ahorra el expediente. No se le acusa, se le describe. González Márquez lleva su alegato a la cúspide de la chusquería y obliga a las preguntas pertinentes: a) ¿Por qué al gobierno de Jalisco, con sólo siete de los 125 municipios que no reportan enfermos, con el quinto lugar en el país en número de infectados y enfermos de sida, no le corresponde repartir condones? ¿Se debe a que todos y cada uno de los infectados pertenecen al ghetto merecedor de caridad, y las precauciones no funcionan tratándose de gente normal?; b) Al gobierno, en efecto, no le toca pagar la cerveza ni el motel. Pero el gobernador podría evitar darle validez legal y política al grado chusco de su pensamiento (supongo que tiene otros grados), y reconocer que sólo él argumenta en ese sentido. Si hace chistes reconozca que su humor (el que tenga) no es una respuesta, ni siquiera una solicitud de ingreso en un club de bromas imprácticas; c) ¿Está seguro el señor González Márquez que nada más los homosexuales se infectan? Y si es así, ¿cómo piensa distribuir condones en la comunidad gay de Jalisco? ¿Están todos ellos perfectamente identificados, viven literalmente en un ghetto, frecuentan el día entero los mismos lugares, se han registrado en dispensarios para recibir "los adminículos" (expresión del cardenal Norberto Rivera)? ¿Les tomará fotos a los recipendarios de condones ya que pertenecen a la comunidad "del alto riesgo" y son un peligro para Jalisco?; d) Usted asegura: "el problema está focalizado entre homosexuales". Y las mujeres y los niños con VIH y sida, y los heterosexuales, ¿son todos ellos "foráneos"?

Por lo visto, el gobierno de González Márquez se especializa en soluciones ideales, seguramente extraídas de las clases de catecismo en recintos oficiales. Se despide -léase la nota de La Jornada que menciono- a Sergio González Quiñones, titular del Consejo Estatal para la Prevención del Sida (Coesida), por participar en la Feria del Condón. Ahora, el gobernador fiel a la estrategia de su grupo ("me citaron fuera de contexto") asegura que su administración no se opone a la Feria del Condón. Muy bien, entonces, de acuerdo a su pensamiento, la feria es sólo para gays, una Feria del Ghetto, donde a los que entren, es de suponerse, se les pedirá identificarse imitando a Judy Garland y Barbra Streissand... ¿O el alto funcionario nunca ha oído hablar de las contradicciones declarativas?

El gobernador es fiel a su credo que no es laico pero sí propio del partido que algunos ex izquierdistas consideran de lo más moderno. Y es categórico: "Las políticas de prevención del VIH/sida que aplica el gobierno de Jalisco, son las mismas que señalan los libros desde la primaria". Veamos cuáles son: "Para evitar el sida hay algunas actividades. Primero, quien no tiene una relación estable de pareja, el uso de preservativos; segundo, la abstinencia en quien no tiene una relación estable, y en quien la tiene, promover valores como la fidelidad; para quien no tiene una sola pareja, el uso del condón es una alternativa".

¿De veras estas políticas de prevención "son las mismas que señalan los libros desde la primaria"? ¿A los alumnos de primaria y secundaria se les enseña que si no tienen una relación estable de pareja mejor usen preservativos? ¿Es oportuno recomendar la fidelidad marital a niños y adolescentes? Pero me salto la Feria del Disparate del gobernador, y agrego preguntas: ¿Se vive en Jalisco y en los estados gobernados por el PAN una teocracia? ¿Recomienda como tal el gobierno de Jalisco la abstinencia y la fidelidad? ¿Y quién lo habilitó de consejero conyugal?

Por lo visto y leído, el señor Emilio González Márquez no cree en los derechos humanos ni le importa el ejercicio de la discriminación. Una pregunta final: ¿Está de acuerdo el Partido Acción Nacional con estos planteamientos? Si es así, y como se ha visto, de nuevo se equivocaron de siglo.

http://www.proceso.com.mx/columna.html?col=1&nta=52797&ncol=Buz%F3n+de+Ap%F3crifos

Jesuitica
esteban martínez

México, D.F., 1 de agosto (apro).- Con motivo de un aniversario más de la muerte de Ignacio de Loyola, ocurrida el 31 de julio de 1556, considero, estimados lectores, que bueno es que se reflexione sobre algunas de las ideas y juicios emitidos por estudiosos de éste personaje y su creación: la Compañía de Jesús.

De él han dicho que es una gran figura de la historia, creador, con otros como Calvino, su contraparte protestante, del mundo moderno. Veamos si les asiste la razón.

Contra la creencia medieval, sostenida también por el protestantismo, de que el hombre es nada sin la gracia de Dios, de que las buenas obras del hombre no pueden acrecentar la gloria y el honor divino ni las malas disminuirlo, los jesuitas, con Ignacio a la cabeza, intrépidamente predicaron que el reinado de Dios depende en buena medida de la voluntad de los hombres y sólo con ayuda de éstos puede lograrse. Esta posición nunca ha sido abandonada por los hijos de Loyola.

Así, tenemos que 400 años después, uno de ellos, Teilhard de Chardin, la pone al día. Valiéndose de la teoría darviniana de la evolución llega, con sus conceptos de la Hiperfísica –una disciplina basada en las ciencias naturales, pero rebasándolas y sustituta de la metafísica-- y la planificación humana, a una síntesis que integra el Evangelio cristiano con la conciencia evolutiva e introspectiva –autoreflexiva-- del hombre moderno. Eso en lo correspondiente al terreno filosófico; en lo cotidiano, nuestro mundo actual, ¿No dice y afirma que la eluctable globalización es el resultado de la libre competencia –de la voluntad humana—también ineluctable?

También se ha dicho que no hay en la literatura católica libro que pueda compararse en eficiencia histórica con el librito de los Ejercicios, escrito por Loyola, ¡y con razón! Ese opúsculo, nada más y nada menos, se adelantó en más de 300 años a las teorías y prácticas de Freíd y Pavlov. En efecto, de Loyola descubrió y puso en práctica el método que hacía posible remover las profundidades del alma de los hombres por medio de ejercicios sistemáticos. Con la práctica de los ejercicios espirituales jesuíticos, ¿el creyente no consiente en autoconvertirse en “perro de Pavlov”, por decirlo así, para afirmar su fe, para ser más y mejor creyente a la mayor gloria de Dios?

Por otra parte, tenemos que la Compañía de Jesús, la creación de Loyola, fue la que alzó la bandera por la educación en el mundo católico, con lo que elevó el nivel de inteligencia en las filas del catolicismo, lo que, de rebote, sirvió de espuela a la Europa protestante para hacer esfuerzos pedagógicos que pudieran competir con los de sus enemigos, los jesuitas, ¿Y qué, no en nuestro mundo globalizado, no se proclama con bombo y platillo y a los cuatro vientos que la educación es básica apara conseguir las metas de esa misma globalización?

Ustedes, estimados lectores, dirán si los ejemplos expuestos muestran y demuestran o no, lo que se ha dicho de Ignacio de Loyola: que es una de las grandes figuras de la historia, y como tal, uno de los grandes formadores de este nuestro mundo moderno. Si lo expuesto no los convence, recuerden y tengan presente que los jesuitas, como confesores de reyes, ministros, de funcionarios gubernamentales a todos los niveles, de jefes de ejércitos, grandes financieros e industriales, han influido --¿ya no?-- no pocas veces en los destinos de países enteros, en la política internacional incluso.

Pero hay un punto en esta gran contribución jesuítica a la formación de este nuestro mundo moderno que me inquieta en sumo grado, y ese punto es el siguiente: ¿Cómo y hasta dónde han penetrado las reglas y los modos jesuítico en nuestro mundo laico?

Téngase en cuenta que, con su consigna a la mayor gloria de Dios, el jesuitismo exigió una obediencia absoluta a los superiores y eso ¿no equivale a la aniquilación de la voluntad personal? Y la ineluctable competencia que nos impone la ineluctable globalización, ¿no es lo mismo?

También debe recordarse que el jesuitismo obligaba a los miembros de la orden a notificar al superior las faltas de los compañeros, y que esa regla y costumbre se extendió a los colegios de la Compañía, creando así entre los alumnos un clima de espionaje, de acecho, de servilismo, de delación o soplonería. ¡Y esos niños y jóvenes eran los hombres del mañana!

Vean por que me preocupa la influencia del jesuitismo en nuestro mundo moderno y laico.

Sin más por el momento, su sincero servidor.

Juan Contreras

... the ultimate sin.