AP News introduces new DRM Scheme

______________________________________________________

Below is the Ars Technica article by By Nate Anderson with the AP’s original graphic:

The Associated Press last week rolled out its brave new plan to “apply protective format to news.” The AP’s news registry will “tag and track all AP content online to assure compliance with terms of use,” and it will provide a “platform for protect, point, and pay.” That’s a lot of “p”-prefaced jargon, but it boils down to a sort of DRM for news—”enforcement,” in AP-speak.

But how could that possibly work?

It was good enough for music…

Turns out that it won’t, not really, not if the goal is to exercise control over AP content by those not voluntarily disposed to play by the AP’s rules. First, let’s try to make sense of what’s being proposed. According to the AP’s announcement, the news registry it plans to set up relies on a new “microformat,” described thusly:

The microformat will essentially encapsulate AP and member content in an informational “wrapper” that includes a digital permissions framework that lets publishers specify how their content is to be used online and which also supplies the critical information needed to track and monitor its usage.

The registry also will enable content owners and publishers to more effectively manage and control digital use of their content, by providing detailed metrics on content consumption, payment services and enforcement support. It will support a variety of payment models, including pay walls.

To make the system clear, the AP also released this not-in-any-way confusing chart of what it intends to do.

The “wrappers” and “digital permissions frameworks” that it hopes to implement sound like tough encryption, but they aren’t. Instead, the AP is simply relying on a newly-developed microformat called hNews. It’s a simple HTML-based tagging scheme for marking up news content and making headlines, author names, and permitted uses machine-readable and search-engine friendly. (See an example.) hNews is funded by major foundations, and all of its tools and specs will be released as open-source software.

In what way does this scheme “wrap” and “protect” the news? It doesn’t; it simply marks it up, and adding tags expressing a content creator’s wishes on reuse has no bearing on someone’s rights under US copyright law. What it does do is provide organizations that use hNews a way to release more rights than are granted under copyright—in essence, a sort of “Creative Commons” news license. In fact, hNews’ “rights field” uses ccREL, the Creative Commons Rights Expression Language.

The AP’s news registry will use hNews to embed some kind of Web beacon in news content as well, making it possible to track some uses of the story across the Web. Users who simply copy and paste parts of the story, or those who retype bits of it to use as quotes, or those of simply strip out the tags will of course not end up being tracked.

You’ll be forgiven if you find it difficult to square the reality of hNews with the AP’s pronouncements about it. Ed Felten, the eminent Princeton computer security researcher, couldn’t figure it out, either.

“It was hard to make sense of this, so I went looking for more information,” he wrote on his blog. “AP posted a diagram of the system, which only adds to the confusion—your satisfaction with the diagram will be inversely proportional to your knowledge of the technology… hNews is a handy way of annotating news stories with information about the author, dateline, and so on. But it doesn’t ‘encapsulate’ anything in a ‘wrapper,’ nor does it do much of anything to facilitate metering, monitoring, or paywalls.”

The great difficulty in talking about the AP’s year-long push to stop “misappropriation” of its content is that it has never been quite clear what behavior AP is trying to stop. It’s not targeting Google, as it already has a deal in place with Google to provide full-text feeds of its news stories. It doesn’t appear to be going after small-time bloggers or those who use quotes from AP stories in their work.

But it has pursued a “hot news” case recently (which was just settled), and the AP seems to be signaling its intentions to go after sites that profit from large-scale use of AP headlines without paying for them. How the news registry helps them do this remains unclear, since sites that don’t do what AP wants are unlikely to include its Web beacons.

Is AP going after sites that occasionally quote from its news stories (using proper citation and links)? Such a move seems bizarre on its face—and the AP routinely cites sources of its own, including Ars Technica—but it’s not out of the question. When paidContent’s Staci D. Kramer put the question recently to AP Chairman Dean Singleton, the response was slightly creepy.

“I was a little taken aback when I asked Singleton what would happen to sites like ours: ‘I’ll leave that to the rules of engagement that we’ll be developing’ in coming weeks. Not ‘we’re not after sites like yours’ or ‘we’re looking at flagrant violators.’ And no sign at all that AP will be reaching out beyond its members for input.”

And yet, when we spoke to AP back in June, AP news editor Ted Bridis seemed much more sure of the answer.

OK, we said. How will you define “wholesale theft?” If somebody publishes a paragraph of AP copy with a link to the AP story, will that be theft?

“Not at all,” Bridis replied. “I don’t think AP would have any problem with that.” We didn’t want to give the impression that we were bargaining, but we pressed on as to exactly how one would disturb AP’s comfort zone. Was this about not posting links?

No, Bridis replied. “What I’m talking about, and what has really riled up our internal copyright folks, are the bloggers who take, just paste an entire 800 word story into their blog. They don’t even comment on it. And it happens way more than most people realize.”

But neither hNews nor the news registry will do anything to stop bloggers copying text off a webpage, and they certainly won’t stop people from doing marginal “rewrites” of AP’s work and passing it off as original writeups.

So this all might be about wholesale infringement, or it might be about the “hot news” contained in AP headlines and ledes, or it might be both. But the one thing it isn’t is “clear”—the journalist’s cardinal sin.

hNews looks like a nice way to mark up news, to make it visible to search engines, and to provide useful metadata for those who want to do interesting things with the content. But what it has to do with “wrappers,” “enforcement,” and “protection” is unclear. Reading the AP announcement and the graphic that accompanied it, one is struck by the thought that perhaps the AP has been snookered into believing that it’s getting “DRM for news,” when in reality it’s simply using an open-source news metadata markup language with Creative Commons rights expression.

Certainly, there’s a pretty large contingent of writers in the blogosphere who think the AP is simply misguided, out of touch, or simply stupid. It’s the sort of attitude that leads to mocking graphics which may be uncharitable, but it is quite obvious that hNews and a registry aren’t going to save the traditional news industry without some significant other changes.

Down the road, of course, the AP might go to Congress and ask that whatever tracking and rights system it settles on be given the force of law. It’s not as crazy as it sounds; European publishers already hope to get a law enforcing the Automated Content Access Protocol.

“We need search engines to recognize ACAP as a step towards acknowledging that content providers have the right to decide what happens to their content and on what terms,” said the Chairman of ACAP, Gavin O’Reilly, recently. “The European Commission and other legislators call on our industry constantly to come up with solutions—here we have one and we call upon the regulators to back it up.”

US To Buy H1N1 Vaccines From Four Firms

FYI – The standard “aduvant” in flu vaccine is Thimerasol (mercury salts) and the preservative is formaldehyde.

(Updates with amounts of contracts and adds details throughout.)

Nasdaq.com
By Jennifer Corbett Dooren
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government signed contracts with four companies worth a total of almost $1 billion to purchase ingredients used to make vaccines against the new H1N1 influenza virus.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday that the department will commit $884 million to purchase supplies of two key ingredients for a potential H1N1 vaccine.

The funds will be used to place additional orders for bulk H1N1 antigen and adjuvant on existing contracts with U.S. units of Sanofi-Aventis SA (SNY) and AstraZeneca Plc (AZN), along with GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK) and Novartis AG ( NVS). In May, the government earmarked $1 billion to spend on vaccine development. The bulk of the additional contracts announced Monday goes to Novartis with a contract worth about $690 million. Sanofi’s contract is worth about $61.4 million; Glaxo’s totaled $71.4 million while a contract signed with AstraZeneca’s MedImmune unit totals about $61 million.

Antigen is the active ingredient in a vaccine that causes the human body’s immune system to develop antibodies that help fight an invading virus, HHS said. An adjuvant boosts the body’s response to a vaccine and could potentially reduce the amount of antigen necessary for the body to recognize and fight a virus.

The government said vaccine ingredients will become a part of the pandemic stockpile, for use if a vaccination campaign is necessary. Last week, federal officials said they were planning for a vaccination campaign aimed at school-age children, the age group among the hardest hit by the new virus that was first detected in April. Vaccinating health-care workers would also be a top priority.

Any H1N1 influenza vaccines would be administered separately from seasonal influenza vaccines because production is almost complete for seasonal vaccines.

Vaccine makers are currently developing H1N1 influenza vaccine pilot lots that would be used for tests that are expected to start next month. The Food and Drug Administration is planning a meeting next week to discuss the clinical trials.

The earliest doses of an H1N1 influenza vaccine wouldn’t be available until mid-October and that’s assuming clinical tests show the proposed H1N1 vaccines are safe and likely to be effective.

Federal officials have said they expect tests and the manufacturing process of H1N1 vaccines would be similar to the process for seasonal vaccines. Any H1N1 vaccine campaign would likely be carried out over a several-week period as additional vaccine becomes available. Initially the government is expected to control the vaccine supply and could partner with local health departments and schools to deliver the vaccine.

Separately, a new study of the H1N1 virus published online in the journal Nature Monday suggests the virus is stronger than previously believed. Research led by Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, showed the H1N1 virus infects the lungs of mice, ferrets and monkeys, making the virus more likely to cause pneumonia compared to seasonal flu, which typically infects cells in the sinuses and throat. Researchers said tests of antiviral drugs in mice showed the drugs worked and suggested the drugs will be effective at combating H1N1 infections in humans.

-By Jennifer Corbett Dooren, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9294; jennifer.corbett@dowjones.com

  (END) Dow Jones Newswires
  07-13-091738ET
  Copyright (c) 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

PrisonPlanet.com
Paul Joseph Watson
Saturday, July 11, 2009

In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren “hides behind the passive voice” in this passage, by saying “it has been concluded.” Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that’s whom. What Holdren’s really saying here is, “I have determined that there’s nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.” And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there’s no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for “compulsory population-control laws.” In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that “the population crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what’s especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals — wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not — but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous and “level-headed” tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.

Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I’m reminded of the phrase “banality of evil.”

Not that it matters, but I myself am “pro-choice” — i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion — I don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice — to force women to have abortions. One doesn’t need to be a “pro-life” activist to see the horror of this proposal — people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.

There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you’re against it or not.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion “seems to horrify people more than most proposals,” you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterilization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Note well the phrase “with official permission” in the above quote. John Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don’t.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“

To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book — and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone — but those who “contribute to social deterioration” could be “forced to exercise reproductive responsibility” which could only mean one thing — compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to “force” people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No — the only way to “force” people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.

But what manner of insanity is this? “Social deterioration”? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social deterioration more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?

We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was “feeble-minded” and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.

The italicized phrase at the end (”providing they are not denied equal protection”), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn’t be racially based or discriminatory — merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren’s America determines that you are “contributing to social deterioration” by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so — how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or — most disturbingly of all — perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.

Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already? But it’s a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it’s not so funny anymore.

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Why?

I’ll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holdren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the “Planetary Regime”! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn’t it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control “all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable” (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers “that discharge into the oceans” (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What’s left? Not much.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the “Planetary Regime,” presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.

It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase “pronatalist attitude,” which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a “pronatalist attitude”? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people’s natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!

What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his “scientific” projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the “solutions” which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.

SCREENSHOTS OF PAGES FROM ECOSCIENCE (CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENTS)

Front cover	Back cover	Title page
Page 749	Page 786	Page 787
Page 788	Page 789	Page 837
Page 838	Page 839	Page 917
Page 942	Page 943	Page 944
Page 1001	Page 1002	Page 1003

Ireland Makes Blasphemy Illegal

Irish atheists are horrified by new legislation making blasphemy illegal, and punishable by a 25,000-Euro fine. Christians of all stripes should be, too.

As part of a revision to defamation legislation, the Dail (Irish Parliament) passed legislation creating a new crime of blasphemy. This attack on free speech, debated for several months in Europe, has gone largely unnoticed in the American press.

The text of the legislation is provided at the end of this post.

How does this impact free speech? Just don’t be rude.

• Atheists can be prosecuted for saying that God is imaginary. That causes outrage.
• Pagans can be prosecuted for saying they left Christianity because God is violent and bloodthirsty, promotes genocide, and permits slavery.
• Christians can be prosecuted for saying that Allah is a moon god, or for drawing a picture of Mohammed, or for saying that Islam is a violent religion which breeds terrorists.
• Jews can be prosecuted for saying Jesus isn’t the Messiah.

Is it really THAT big a deal?

Ireland’s Blasphemy Bill not only criminalizes free speech, it also gives the police the authority to confiscate anything deemed “blasphemous”. They may enter and search any premises, with force if needed, upon “reasonable suspicion” that such materials are present.

• The local Freethinkers society, with its copies of Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
• The video store, with copies of The God Who Wasn’t There.
• The history teacher, who uses The Dark Side of Christian History to teach her class.
• The library, with its collection of books deemed blasphemous.
• Even the homeowner who lets the wrong person know he has a copy of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses could find his door broken in by the Thought Police, his bookshelves ransacked, and his books burning in the front yard!

Satirizing religion in any way, shape, or form, if it “causes outrage”, is now a prosecutable offense in Ireland. Saying anything negative about a religion, if it “causes outrage”, can now be prosecuted as a crime. Just like in Muslim countries.

Witness the return of the Dark Ages.

The text of the legislation:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

37. Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, © specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

(2) A member of the Garda Siochana may (a) enter and search any premises, (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).

(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Siochana in that behalf.

Related posts:

Workers have daily smile scans

Telegraph
By Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo
Published: 1:23PM BST 06 Jul 2009

More than 500 staff at Keihin Electric Express Railway are expected to be subjected to daily face scans by “smile police” bosses.

The “smile scan” software, developed by the Japanese company Omron, produces a sweeping analysis of a smile based on facial characteristics, from lip curves and eye movements to wrinkles.

After scanning a face, the device produces a rating between zero to 100 depending on the estimated value of the fulfilled potential of a person’s biggest smile.

For those with a below-par grin, one of an array of smile-boosting messages will op up on the computer screen ranging from “you still look too serious” to “lift up your mouth corners”, according to the Mainichi Daily News.

A growing number of service industries are reportedly using the new Omron Smile Scan system for “smile training” among its staff.

Workers at Keihin Electric Express Railway will receive a print out of their daily smile which they will be expected to keep with then throughout the day to inspire them to smile at all times, the report added.

St. John’s Wort Again Proven Better than Antidepressant Drugs

(NaturalNews) The popular herbal extract St. John’s wort is more effective at treating the symptoms of depression than any antidepressant drug, and has fewer side effects, researchers from the Centre for Complementary Medicine in Munich have concluded.

“Overall, the St John’s Wort extracts tested in the trials were superior to placebo, similarly effective as standard anti-depressants, and had fewer side effects than standard anti-depressants,” lead researcher Klaus Linde said.

In a study published by the Cochrane Library, the researchers compiled the results of 29 prior trials, involving a total of 5,489 participants who were randomly assigned either St. John’s wort, a placebo, tricylclic antidepressants or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to treat mild to moderately severe depression. All studies were double-blind, meaning that neither patients nor researchers knew what kind of treatment each participant was receiving.

St. John’s wort was found to be more effective than a placebo and at least as effective as both tricylics and SSRIs, but with fewer side effects. Patients receiving the herbal treatment were significantly less likely to drop out of studies due to negative side effects than those assigned to take tricyclic antidepressants.

The researchers called their study the most thorough to date, and possibly the first to show that St. John’s wort is effective at treating not only mild, but also severe depression (also known as major depression).

St. John’s wort, known officially as Hypericum perforatum, is a native European perennial herb with distinctive yellow flowers and now grows wild in many parts of the Americas as well. It derives its common name from the tradition of harvesting its flowers on St. John’s day (June 24). Also known as Klamath weed or Tipton’s weed, the plant has been used for centuries as an herbal remedy for depression and sleeping problems.

In recent years, the popularity of the herbal antidepressant has soared as new concerns continue to emerge over pharmaceutical antidepressants, especially SSRIs. In Germany, doctors regularly prescribe it to children and teenagers. In the United Kingdom, it is currently used by two million people.

SSRIs have been shown to significantly increase the risk of suicide in those under the age of 18, and evidence suggests that they may have a similar effect on adults, as well. Recent evidence has also linked use of the drugs by pregnant women with an elevated risk of oral and heart-related birth defects.

With Western health care systems emphasizing drugs for the treatment of mental illness, however, many doctors feel they have no alternatives but to prescribe tricyclics or SSRIs, in spite of the risk. The new study may lead more doctors to prescribe St. John’s wort instead.

Another recent study, conducted by St. James’ University Hospital in Leeds, England, found that St. John’s wort was the only herbal supplement effective at treating depression, in contrast to cat’s claw, ginseng, gingko biloba, liquid tonic and royal jelly.

Researchers remain unsure precisely how St. John’s wort works, in part because the plant contains chemicals from at least seven different families. The most favored explanation is that the herb acts much like an SSRI, slowing the rate at which the neurotransmitter serotonin is removed from the brain. The chemical hyperforin is posited by some as the most active chemical agent in the herb, and has been linked to slowed uptake of not only serotonin but also the neurotransmitters dopamine, noradrenaline, GABA and glutamate. St. John’s wort extracts from which hyperforin has been removed, however, have still been shown to function as effective antidepressants.

Virologist to make his case for lab origin of swine flu

PETER’S NEW YORK, Wednesday, July 1, 2009–The scientist who made headlines in May by positing a laboratory origin for the swine flu that has swept the world will defend his theory in the scientific literature, Peter’s New York has learned.

Dr. Adrian Gibbs, a Canberra, Australia-based virologist with more than 200 scientific publications to his credit, said that over the weekend he submitted his latest work on the swine flu to a prominent scientific journal, and is awaiting a response.

Gibbs, 75, was part of a team that developed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

Dr. Adrian Gibbs, Australian Virologist, on Bloomberg TV

Back in April, when the first cases of swine flu were diagnosed in Mexico, Gibbs examined the genetic structure of the virus that had been posted on a public database. His analysis led him to speculate that the virus may have been the result of a laboratory error. He contacted the Geneva, Switzerland-based World Health Organization with his conjecture, and scientists there scrutinized his findings, concluding, however, that the virus was most likely a product of nature.

In a series of email exchanges with Peter’s New York, Gibbs said he was not satisfied with the WHO’s critique, indicating that the basis for it was ambiguous.

“The WHO stated that they had no evidence to support my suggestion,” Gibbs said. “They made a very fair statement. However the principle reason for my conclusion remains-that none of the genes of the new virus had been sampled/found/caused epidemics since at least 2000, despite probably coming from at least two different parents on two continents, where other strains had been sampled.”

Gibbs said that might have been a coincidence, but the unusual placement of the virus on what what virologists call phylogenetic trees-a sort of schematic family history of the virus–also peeked his interest.  On top of that, Gibbs observed that there was a lack of evidence that pig populations in North America, from which the virus is believed to have emerged, had been infected. Only the pigs on one farm in Canada have as yet been shown to have contracted the virus.

It has been established, said Gibbs, that swine easily contract the new flu from humans, and spread it among themselves. The absence of infection in the North American swine, Gibbs noted, may be evidence that the swine had already contracted the disease and built up immunity, or that they were vaccinated against viruses that resembled the novel swine flu closely enough for them to have been protected against it. Gibbs said the one Canadian herd that came down with the novel swine flu had not been inoculated, and that the evidence therefore leans toward inoculation as the reason North American pigs are disease free. That, in turn, would support a theory, according to Gibbs, that “the virus in the vaccine may be the immediate progenitor of the new human virus.”

Gibbs said he would have been more satisfied if scientists at the WHO had examined the lists of all the vaccines licensed for production in the United States and Mexico and determined that none of them harbored strains from which the swine flu could have descended. He said he had been unable to locate such lists to make the determination himself.

Gibbs spells out fairly clearly how he thinks the new virus might have emerged due to a laboratory error. In manufacturing a vaccine, each of the viruses to be protected against must first be bred and then sterilized to prevent their further multiplication. When a subject is inoculated, the body reacts to the “killed” viral fragments and produces antibodies that provide protection against the live virus. Gibbs said that if the sterilization process was not carried out properly, pigs could end up being given live viruses, and instead of being protected, would contract the disease. The live viruses would then have a chance to multiply and exchange genetic material within the infected pig in a process known as reassortment, and a new virus could emerge and spread to humans as a “swine flu.”

The study of viruses is overlaid with a complex nomenclature and labyrinthine concepts and arguments in the field of genetics that are unfamiliar to the average layman. But the implications are far reaching, a fact not lost on the general public or on Gibbs.

Early this year, the Deerfield, Ill. based drug firm Baxter International Inc. shipped experimental vaccines for human flu that were contaminated with the bird flu. The cocktail of influenzas, if it had not been discovered by alert laboratory specialists in the Czech Republic in February, could have been administered to subjects, after which, some experts feared, the two viruses could have undergone reassortment, producing a new virus that possessed the lethality of bird flu and the communicability of human flu. Bird flu is a deadly disease that kills close to half its victims, but resists spread from human to human. Human flu, on the other hand, is far more benign, but is easily spread through human contact. A recombined virus with the characteristics of each of the two could conceivably wipe out almost half the world’s population.

Gibbs steers clear of elaborate intrigues that some believe are behind the new flu’s emergence. “Whenever I’ve thought something has resulted from a conspiracy, it usually turns out to be from a ‘cock-up,’” he said. The importance of establishing whether or not the flu emerged from a laboratory, he emphasized, is “to try to avoid a recurrence.”

He did admit, however, that there was a definite risk to the public of escaping pathogens held in government and private facilities.

“There are many historical precedents that are conveniently forgotten,” said Gibbs. “The recent Baxter incident seems to have been one.”

“The reappearance in 1977 of the H1N1 (virus) last seen in 1950 after a period of non-evolution,”  which he speculated could represent “suspended animation in a freezer,” was another instance in which pathogens might have escaped from a laboratory. Gibbs also cited the escape of foot-and-mouth disease from a British government laboratory facility in 2007.

Asked if the resurrection of the viral agent for the deadly 1918 “Spanish” flu, which was reconstituted in 2005 by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for research purposes, was a safe proposition, he answered, “No, definitely not.”

“It’s exactly the same principle as should apply to all high security labs,” said Gibbs. “If it ain’t ‘there’ it can’t get out, whereas if it is, then there is always the possibility, however remote, that it might get out.”

The 1918 flu, which spread to every corner of the globe in the two years immediately following World War I, had a rate of lethality some 30 to 50 times greater than other strains of human flu. Tens of millions of people died in the pandemic worldwide.

While some aspects of his presentation have been updated, Gibbs said his basic premise remains unchanged, and has, in fact, been reinforced by recent additions to the scientific literature.

And while the WHO gave the appearance of having put the final nail in the coffin of Gibbs’s theory, in a rare show of scientific honesty for a public institution, it affixed the lid rather loosely, leaving itself room to revisit Gibbs’s hypothesis once it is published.

In the mid-May press conference in which the WHO addressed Gibbs’s analysis, which by that time has spread far and wide throughout the mainstream media, Assistant Director Keiji Fukuda praised the virologist who had contributed to the field for more than fifty years of professional work, calling Gibbs “a credible scientist, a credible virologist.”

In answer to a reporter’s question about whether Gibbs’s theory had been refuted, Fukuda said: “I think that it is fair to say that in the world of science, nothing is ever totally excluded, nothing is ever ended.” On the issue of whether Gibbs’s theory may actually prove true or not, he said: “We feel very comfortable based on the analyses which have been done, based on the rigor in which it has been looked at, that we are not dealing with a laboratory-created virus. However, I do not expect that the debate itself will stop.”

The world awaits Gibbs’s response.

www.petersnewyork.com