Pillars of Democracy

Why does the following film contest sound like nonsense? Can you imagine making an anti govt documentary about "democracy" (which I'll assume most of them would be) and getting a prize for it?

State Dept. seeks democracy videos

Government teams with media orgs on contest

The U.S. State Dept. has revealed its latest diplomatic tool: user-generated content. At the U.N. on Monday, representatives revealed the Democracy Video Challenge, a government initiative co-sponsored with half a dozen high-profile media orgs including NBC Universal, the DGA and the MPAA.

The challenge in question will be to create a three-minute video completing the phrase “Democracy is...” in hopes of receiving a prize package that includes set visits, tickets to the Universal Studios L.A. theme park, and meetings with everyone from U.S. government officials to “new-media experts.”

Rather than attempting to monetize the content, sponsoring orgs will contribute various prizes and incentives, including PSAs promoting the competish on NBC (NBC News correspondent Richard Engel also presided over the afternoon’s launch party).

James Glassman, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, said the initiative was aimed to “convene people for a conversation.” Glassman is a Bush appointee, but stressed that the initiative was thoroughly bipartisan and includes nonmedia sponsors like the Intl. Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute.

The State Dept.’s Jonathan Margolis said he hoped that the contest would start “a dialogue on democracy” -- the prizes will go to regional winners from six different parts of the world, as well as one anonymous winner. Videos will be broadcast on YouTube. Entry deadline is Jan. 31.

Oooh! a Visit to a set!! (Fox news anyone?) Tickets to a studio tour!!! (Sign up here for propaganda, and you'll get free tickets to stuff we're selling you!!) Prizes will go to winners from six different parts of the world (can anyone spell Middle East? If they don't love us, let's have a contest so they can prove they love us! But then, you have to assume they like us enough to make videos praising our form of democracy with "Bombs From Above") and one "anonymous winner." Hilarious. Ya think Mr. Been Ladin' could even submit a video on democracy ("Democracy means never having to say you're sorry") or does this mean they have a ringer who's going to win anyway? Oy. What a country. What a concept!

Hmmm. A contest. With no cash prizes, but "prizes that we consider prizes." Sounds like the Bush description of the Economy. And if you don't agree with the govt's version of Democracy, (The VP pit bull Sarah Palin's version of Democracy, signing loyalty oaths, and harassing librarians, or ex brother in laws) you won't be put on the "do not travel" list. Even if you're Cat Stevens. Really.

So I went to the government website to see if they can define what "Democracy is." According to the website, there are "ELEVEN PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY. " (Why does this sound like the Seven Pillars of Islam? Just asking.) Here they are:

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

• Sovereignty of the people.
  
• Government based upon consent of the governed.
  
• Majority rule.
  
• Minority rights.
  
• Guarantee of basic human rights.
  
• Free and fair elections.
  
• Equality before the law.
  
• Due process of law.
  
• Constitutional limits on government.
  
• Social, economic, and political pluralism.
  
• Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

Okay. The first 8 seems to make arguable sense. Sovereignty is "the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority." (wiki) An exclusive RIGHT to have governance over ONESELF. That sounds amazingly like Choice to me. And Gay Rights. And all the things this administration has flaunted or ignore for 8 glorious years.

A Guarantee of Basic Human Rights: Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education. (wiki)

Okay, now it's getting interesting. We know that Freedom of Expression isn't guaranteed by anyone, or you wouldn't be arrested for protesting in St. Paul. The right to food - Hmm.. not sure that's ever been enforced.. check out the food lines near your local shelter.. Right to work? I don't think so.. unless you're part of a govt. bailout - and the right to education... okay, it's all debatable. Some school systems seem like they're shelling out more rights than others, but again, debatable.

But now it gets interesting:

• Constitutional limits on government.
  
• Social, economic, and political pluralism.
  
• Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

Excuse me? There's no definition of democracy anywhere that includes these three lemons - put there by whoever wrote this paragraph at the State Gov website.. hmm, a loyalist no doubt. . There's nothing about Constitutional limits on Govt, except in right wing blogs and books that quote the State dept. idea of democracy. Economic and political pluralism? Values of cooperation and compromise? Says who? I defy anyone to find a reference to the source of where this information came from - it sounds, once again, like an administration who hires faith based candidates over secular ones, or hires people who can wash the science out of the truth to fit their own reality. Really, who writes this nonsense?

So, to all you would be filmmakers out there - good luck defining Democracy as the State Dept defines it!!! You're in for some real prizes. Either way, this disclaimer at the bottom solves it all:

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs.
Links to other internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

And on a final note - anyone catch McCain's daughter Meghan on Larry King tonight? A slight slip of the tongue where she said she was blogging about her father "The President." The bit about her being "obsessed" by Sarah Palin - c'mon, she's gotta be kidding. Her father only met her once before picking her and his daughter is "obsessed" by her? I'm sure Palin's kids are cute and wonderful.. but c'mon. "Impressed" I could believe. Obsessed sounds like a word that's been fed to Meghan.

I think Sarah's a creep, a bully, a hypocrite and a prevaricator of the highest degree - and the worst choice McShame could have picked for a VP. Notice these words are gender free. If it was about her being a talented women, there are many others with much more credits and service to the nation who should have been considered - but this is such a Karl Rove choice it's nauseating. And now she's refusing to answer questions about Troopergate, when it was the Republicans in Alaska who brought the charges. Obsessed? Oy. What a country. What a concept.

My two cents.

Sarah Palin skewered by a Rich Frank

Back to the topic at hand. Normally I'm not crazy about Frank Rich. But I found this article insightful on our pal, Sarah Pal-in

Op-Ed Columnist

The Palin-Whatshisname Ticket

FRANK RICH

Published: September 13, 2008

WITH all due deference to lipstick, let’s advance the story. A week ago the question was: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? The question today: What kind of president would Sarah Palin be?

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Frank Rich

Barry Blitt

It’s an urgent matter, because if we’ve learned anything from the G.O.P. convention and its aftermath, it’s that the 2008 edition of John McCain is too weak to serve as America’s chief executive. This unmentionable truth, more than race, is now the real elephant in the room of this election.

No longer able to remember his principles any better than he can distinguish between Sunnis and Shia, McCain stands revealed as a guy who can be easily rolled by anyone who sells him a plan for “victory,” whether in Iraq or in Michigan. A McCain victory on Election Day will usher in a Palin presidency, with McCain serving as a transitional front man, an even weaker Bush to her Cheney.

The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not.

This was made clear in the most chilling passage of Palin’s acceptance speech. Aligning herself with “a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri” who “followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency,” she read a quote from an unidentified writer who, she claimed, had praised Truman: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” Then Palin added a snide observation of her own: Such small-town Americans, she said, “run our factories” and “fight our wars” and are “always proud” of their country. As opposed to those lazy, shiftless, unproud Americans — she didn’t have to name names — who are none of the above.

There were several creepy subtexts at work here. The first was the choice of Truman. Most 20th-century vice presidents and presidents in both parties hailed from small towns, but she just happened to alight on a Democrat who ascended to the presidency when an ailing president died in office. Just as striking was the unnamed writer she quoted. He was identified by Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal as the now largely forgotten but once powerful right-wing Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler.

Palin, who lies with ease about her own record, misrepresented Pegler’s too. He decreed America was “done for” after Truman won a full term in 1948. For his part, Truman regarded the columnist as a “guttersnipe,” and with good reason. Pegler was a rabid Joe McCarthyite who loathed F.D.R. and Ike and tirelessly advanced the theory that American Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe (“geese,” he called them) were all likely Communists.

Surely Palin knows no more about Pegler than she does about the Bush doctrine. But the people around her do, and they will be shaping a Palin presidency. That they would inject not just Pegler’s words but spirit into their candidate’s speech shows where they’re coming from. Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, said that the Palin-sparked convention created “a whole new Republican Party,” but what it actually did was exhume an old one from its crypt.

The specifics have changed in our new century, but the vitriolic animus of right-wing populism preached by Pegler and McCarthy and revived by the 1990s culture wars remains the same. The game is always to pit the good, patriotic real Americans against those subversive, probably gay “cosmopolitan” urbanites (as the sometime cross-dresser Rudy Giuliani has it) who threaten to take away everything that small-town folk hold dear.

The racial component to this brand of politics was undisguised in St. Paul. Americans saw a virtually all-white audience yuk it up when Giuliani ridiculed Barack Obama’s “only in America” success as an affirmative-action fairy tale — and when he and Palin mocked Obama’s history as a community organizer in Chicago. Neither party has had so few black delegates (1.5 percent) in the 40 years since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies started keeping a record.

But race is just one manifestation of the emotion that defined the Palin rollout. That dominant emotion is fear — an abject fear of change. Fear of a demographical revolution that will put whites in the American minority by 2042. Fear of the technological revolution and globalization that have gutted those small towns and factories Palin apotheosized.

And, last but hardly least, fear of illegal immigrants who do the low-paying jobs that Americans don’t want to do and of legal immigrants who do the high-paying jobs that poorly educated Americans are not qualified to do. No less revealing than Palin’s convention invocation of Pegler was the pointed omission of any mention of immigration, once the hottest Republican issue, by either her or McCain. Saying the word would have cued an eruption of immigrant-bashing ugliness, Pegler-style, before a national television audience. That wouldn’t play in the swing states of Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, where Obama already has a more than 2-to-1 lead among Hispanic voters. (Bush captured roughly 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.)

Since St. Paul, Democrats have been feasting on the hypocrisy of the Palin partisans, understandably enough. The same Republicans who attack Democrats for being too P.C. about race now howl about sexism with such abandon you half-expect Phyllis Schlafly and Carly Fiorina to stage a bra-burning. The same gang that once fueled Internet rumors and media feeding frenzies over the Clintons’ private lives now express pious outrage when the same fate befalls the Palins.

But the ultimate hypocrisy is that these woebegone, frightened opponents of change, sworn enemies of race-based college-admission initiatives, are now demanding their own affirmative action program for white folks applying to the electoral college. They want the bar for admission to the White House to be placed so low that legitimate scrutiny and criticism of Palin’s qualifications, record and family values can all be placed off limits. Byron York of National Review, a rare conservative who acknowledges the double standard, captured it best: “If the Obamas had a 17-year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.”

The cunning of the Palin choice as a political strategy is that a candidate who embodies fear of change can be sold as a “maverick” simply because she looks the part. Her marketers have a lot to work with. Palin is not only the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, but she is young, vibrant and a Washington outsider with no explicit connection to Bush or the war in Iraq. That package looks like change even if what’s inside is anything but.

How do you run against that flashy flimflam? You don’t. Karl Rove for once gave the Democrats a real tip rather than a bum steer when he wrote last week that if Obama wants to win, “he needs to remember he’s running against John McCain for president,” not Palin for vice president. Obama should keep stepping up the blitz on McCain’s flip-flops, confusion, ignorance and blurriness on major issues (from education to an exit date from Iraq), rather than her gaffes and résumé. If he focuses voters on the 2008 McCain, the Palin question will take care of itself.

Obama’s one break last week was the McCain camp’s indication that it’s likely to minimize its candidate’s solo appearances by joining him at the hip with Palin. There’s a political price to be paid for this blatant admission that he needs her to draw crowds. McCain’s conspicuous subservience to his younger running mate’s hard-right ideology and his dependence on her electioneering energy raise the question of who has the power in this relationship and who is in charge. A strong and independent woman or the older ward who would be bobbing in a golf cart without her? The more voters see that McCain will be the figurehead for a Palin presidency, the more they are likely to demand stepped-up vetting of the rigidly scripted heir apparent.

But Obama’s most important tactic is still the one he has the most trouble executing. He must convey a roll-up-your-sleeves Bobby Kennedy passion for the economic crises that are at the heart of the fears that Palin is trying to exploit. The Republican ticket offers no answers to those anxieties. Drilling isn’t going to lower gas prices or speed energy independence. An increase in corporate tax breaks isn’t going to end income inequality, provide health care or save American jobs in a Palin presidency any more than they did in a Bush presidency.

This election is still about the fierce urgency of change before it’s too late. But in framing this debate, it isn’t enough for Obama to keep presenting McCain as simply a third Bush term. Any invocation of the despised president — like Iraq — invites voters to stop listening. Meanwhile, before our eyes, McCain is turning over the keys to his administration to ideologues and a running mate to Bush’s right.

As Republicans know best, fear does work. If Obama is to convey just what’s at stake, he must slice through the campaign’s lipstick jungle and show Americans the real perils that lie around the bend.

Shame on Metrolink

Okay, I'm time out from piling on Palin to point out the phoniness of the Metrolink announcement, moments after the crash of its train headlong into a freight train that the cause was "due to an engineer who ignored the red signal."

Now, what about this statement seems unusual? Do companies usually claim responsibility before the facts are in? Why would they do that? Out of compassion?

Hmm. A casual search shows that a company called Viola is responsible for putting engineers on the trains. Interesting. The govt outsources the people who run the trains. And Viola is owned by a worldwide conglomerate.. so.. what is Metrolink's responsibility?

They maintain the track. Oh, I get it - you decide to put trains on a single track (where else in the world do trains run on one track? Are we saving track space? Apparently only in California). Then you blame the dead engineer, because obviously he can't say that the equipment was faulty.. he can't say anything. So why not blame the dead guy because then Metrolink won't be RESPONSIBLE?

Or am I just being too cynical?

Now there's an outcry that there was a "rush to judgment." How about a heinous act by an evil corporate entity? Wow. Cravenness, callousness abounds.

That's my two cents and I'm spending them here. Here's the NY TIMES.. repeating what Metrolink told them was the case.. and it ain't the case yet, now is it?

LOS ANGELES — An engineer who ran a red signal here and crashed head-on into a freight train likely caused the nation’s deadliest commuter train wreck in nearly four decades, a spokeswoman for the rail line said Saturday.

Skip to next paragraph

Multimedia

Photographs

California Train Accident

Related

Cause Is Offered, but Questions Linger for Inquiry (September 14, 2008)

For Many Angelenos, a New Experience Gone Wrong (September 14, 2008)

For One Crash Survivor, a Certain Sense of Déjà Vu (September 14, 2008)

Enlarge This Image

Monica Almeida/The New York Times

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger toured the scene in the San Fernando Valley on Saturday as the investigation continued. More Photos »

The death toll rose to at least 25 from the collision on Friday of the northbound Metrolink train carrying about 225 passengers and the freight train in Chatsworth, a mostly residential district in the northwest San Fernando Valley, officials said. The number of dead may rise, they said, because of the 135 people injured, 40 were in critical condition.

The federal investigation into the crash had just begun, but a rail line spokeswoman, Denise Tyrrell said, “Our preliminary investigation shows it was a Metrolink engineer that failed to stop at a red signal and was the probable cause of the accident.” She acknowledged that it was unusual for the agency to announce findings before a federal team investigates.

The crash was the deadliest commuter train accident in the nation since 1972, when 45 people died in Chicago, and the deadliest train crash of any kind since the 1993 Amtrak crash in Mobile, Ala., in which 47 people died.

At the crash site, firefighters and other rescue workers toiled nonstop Saturday, sifting through and searching for bodies under tons of twisted metal, shattered glass, charred seats and engine parts.

The engineer was the only one of five train workers — three on the freight train and two on the commuter railroad — to die in the crash, Ms. Tyrrell said. She said the engineer, whom she did not identify, worked for an Amtrak subcontractor that had been used by Metrolink since 1998.

Ms. Tyrrell said her agency’s preliminary findings determined that the signal on the track was working properly, and that both trains appeared to be traveling about 40 miles per hour. The conductor of the train, who gives the commands to the engineer, was being interviewed by law enforcement officials, she said.

Metrolink disclosed its findings so quickly, she said, because officials of the rail line, “want to remain on honorable grounds with the community.”

“One way to do that is to be honest and forthright from the beginning,” she said, adding, “We don’t come to this conclusion lightly.”

National Transportation Safety Board officials were far less conclusive. A safety board member, Kitty Higgins, said that while the agency could “absolutely not rule out” human error, it would examine track signals, equipment and many other factors. Three data recorders taken from the two trains, as well as a video recorder from the freight train, would be analyzed, she said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, who arrived at the scene midafternoon, said, “The investigation, of course, continues on.”

At a news conference, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles said the last of the dead had just been pulled from the wreckage of the freight train’s 11 boxcars and the three Metrolink cars, which had been traveling from downtown to the city’s northern suburbs. The mayor quoted a firefighter who he said had told him: “It was very, very difficult. It was like peeling an onion, to find all the victims.”

Nearby, the Los Angeles County coroner set up a large tan air-conditioned tent in the grassy area between the wreck and Chatsworth Hills Academy.

Many passengers described how their quiet commute had been dotted with chatter about the coming weekend until it was punctured by instant terror and carnage shortly before 4:30 p.m. Friday.

Passengers flew into one another’s laps; nearly severed limbs became tangled together, and blood spilled along the cars’ aisles. In some cases, the living were trapped beneath the bodies of the dead.

The first sound was “a huge explosion,” said Greg Tevis, 59, who regularly rides the train from his downtown law office.

“People who had their legs under the seats got broken legs,” Mr. Tevis said. “People were moaning; you had to get them off the train. One lady was trapped under a seat, and we asked her if she wanted us to pull her out, because we didn’t know whether her spinal cord was hurt. She said to take her out.”

Rebecca Cathcart and Michael Parrish contributed reporting from Los Angeles, and Matthew L. Wald from Washington.

Sarah Palin is a Bad Disney Movie

Couldn't agree more. Great comment Mr. Damon. Bravo.

Sarah Palin is a bully. She lies, and then covers it up. (Watch the ABC interview - she can't admit she was "for the bridge and then against it." She admits it but won't admit it.) She's already abusing power, and she's only been in office a couple of years. Books banned from libraries. Advocating creationism. Demanding to erase choice as a woman's option, except in the case of her daughter.

Mark my words; the next time you see her daughter on stage with her "fiancee" she will be wearing a wedding band or fake engagement ring put there by the McCain campaign. Not an accusation - who cares? - just an observation.

Sarah Palin is a Bad Disney Movie. The past 8 years have been NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. Lies about going to war, smearing CIA agents from the White House, from the Office of Vice President!! He should be charged with crimes against the Constitution. 8 years of BS.. I'm just sick of it. Enough is enough.

The country is going to be on the edge of its seat everytime John McCain coughs if he's President. A spot appears on his face, and people will be scrambling to build nuclear shelters. What's this country come to? We'll elect anyone because they believe in creationism? Because they go to Church? Because they have a sarcastic streak, and bully those who are beneath them?

Yesterday NPR reported she made employees sign a loyalty oath. That the librarian that she harassed out of her job, wouldn't sign the oath.

THAT'S WHAT A NAZI DOES.

We're at a crossroads in this country. We're nearly bankrupt. Our children's children will be paying the interest on the loans we took out to finance this ridiculous and unjust war. And now more men have died in Afghanistan than in Iraq. The just war, the war that went after the people responsible for 9/11, was shifted to another theater, making the victory in Afghanistan a hollow one. Why is that? It's because the WAR CRIMINALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE took their supplies and intelligence and men away from them so they could satisfy their own cravings for justice, to "spread democracy," to protect the oil supply - whatever it is, they're guilty of throwing our nation in front of a bus. And they're still war profiteering on it as they sail into the sunset.

If McCain had picked someone who wasn't a complete fake - after all, he spoke to John Kerry about being his vice president - if he had any balls, he would have done the same.. but by picking this Bad Disney scenario, he's lost any respect he had. And the world will treat him as they treated Bush - a dolt who doesn't know what he's doing.
It's so sad to see our nation divided once again, over culture wars. The right wing pretending to be blue collar, and the left wing pretending to be blue collar. When neither collar fits them. I'd throw my hands in the air, but when all is said and done, someone's got to go into the White House, and I'd prefer to bet my money on Obama and Biden to lead us into the future.. and not into a comedy from hell.

Sarah Palin as President... the odds are one in five.

This is a variation on a blog going around about SP. Kudos to the artist who photoshopped the vogue picture to our left. Good work.
Just some bullet points about our next President, Sarah Palin.

Enough is enough. I'm frankly, tired of this same old nonsense of the country lying our way into and out of trouble. I think its hilarious that John McCain has picked a rock star of the right wing to be his running mate, and is now tied up in her skirts, only appearing when she appears. I wonder if she'll be onstage when he debates. Either way, I wish her well and a nice retirement back in her home state where she's sorely missed.

I think its hilarious that women are calling the media sexist for asking her questions. The media savaged and trounced on Hillary for years, and only recently did anyone cry 'sexism.' But when you run for President you should be able to answer any question thrown at you - whether it's what the heck the Bush doctrine is, or why you call the Iraq debacle "God's War", where we invade a secular country (which by the way, means "non muslim" or at least "non muslim by decree" as opposed to what Saudi Arabia is, and our other non secular allies represent) and deposed its ruler, and now will spend our children's future on paying for this mistake, to why she can get away with the lie that she was against the "bridge to nowhere." If Joe Biden or Barack Obama say something stupid, they should be raked over the coals for it. But McCain picked her, and since she's a half a heartbeat away from the most powerful office on Earth, she'd damned well better be up to the task. And if she's not, he deserves to be soundly defeated.

Pound away America! If she survives it unscathed, then what the heck, maybe she is the right choice. But just based on the crap that's already come to light in a week since she was introduced, I think I'd prefer to have people in the White House that aren't such complete cyphers that we don't know what they'll do until they actually do it. Enough is enough.

Sarah Palin is a bully

I frickin' HATE bullies.

Don't get me wrong. I liked her speech. I thought it was pretty funny. I thought she was pretty funny. Sarcastic. Dry.

I thought the pick by McCain was equally maverick like "I don't care what anyone says, this is my pick and I'm sticking to it" and creepy "Yes, Karl, whatever you say Karl, if that will get me elected I'll pick anyone."

I think John McCain is either going Ronald Reagan on us, in the mind dept., or he's a liar. Check out Greenberg's new film on the subject.



But Ms. Palin is a bully. She's a bully with librarians. She's a bully with her inlaws. She's a bully with anyone who disagrees with her. Hmm. She'd make a perfect Mrs. Cheney.

America likes bullies. They like to elect creeps. Just look at the creeps we've had in office. Nixon. Bush Jr. Cheney. And now they're going to vote for McCain because he picked Palin. As Ariana Huffington so aptly put it; "America loves a soap opera." Well we've been living in hell for 8 years with this dimwit in the White House and his team of fascist commandos - and now we're supposed to sit back and let it happen again. Man it makes me nauseous.

But as Senator Obama put it today "Enough is enough." I'm fed up with it. So hence the title of this blog. I don't think McCain would be an awful President. I think Bush is awful. But I think Palin would make an awful President. And that's what will happen if we elect him. So get out your checkbooks America, and pop some cash into Obama's campaign; he's going to need it for all the sleaze and crap they'll throw at him.

I frickin' hate bullies. And hate hypocrisy in Govt, and in our leaders. Hate it. Hate it.

Thank God for Jon Stewart.

Okay, this is my clarion call. Onward and upward.

Chinese Hired to Cheer

By STEPHEN WADE, AP Sports Writer Aug 11, 12:03 pm EDT

BEIJING (AP)—It was a blowout, the United States women demolishing China 108-63

That couldn’t silence the cheering workers from Beijing’s Capital Steel, a 1,000-strong group that spread itself in square clusters around the Olympic basketball venue on Monday.

Highly visible in yellow T-shirts, they thumped plastic yellow batons, belted out “jia you, jia you” (let’s go in Chinese) and created enthusiasm that belied the score.

“Every single time when we made a mistake, they kept yelling for us, they kept cheering for us,” said Sui Feifei, one of China’s starting five. “We really should thank them.”

Just a few days into the Beijing Olympics, the egg-yoke yellow cheering sections have been spotted at every Olympic venue, part of a government-run program to make sure cheers are polite, organized and atmospheric—even if there isn’t much to cheer about.

The cheering squad from Capital Steel—a sprawling complex in west Beijing that is closed during the Olympics to cut down pollution—shared space with a few groups from other labor unions. But the mission was the same.

“We’ll not give up supporting China until the last minute,” said Huo Liangshan, a Capital Steel employee sitting near the top row in the 18,000-seat arena. “I like the atmosphere.”

China’s communist government has spent more than a year training people to cheer, organizing workshops that often took place in shopping malls or small theaters where workers were given time off to learn how and when to shout— depending on the sport.

“As usual, the Chinese fans were tremendous,” said Tina Thompson, who led the U.S. with 27 points.

Despite the highly regimented training, some of the cheering on Monday was chaotic and spontaneous—maybe a bit more fun than government organizers intended. In the run-up to the Olympics, Beijing city officials boasted citizens were leaning about 20 “civilized cheers.” On Monday, it was pretty much limited to “jia you, jia you.”

“We are supposed to have two group leaders in charge of the cheers, getting us organized,” said Wang Yan, a young woman with the foundry group. “I think the leaders got too busy watching the game and didn’t do their job.”

When the score was 45-14, the cheering clusters still crackled with applause.

They screeched at the halftime buzzer when Chen Xiaoli hit a jumper to cut the U.S. lead to a mere 61-27. At the final buzzer, when a Chinese player was unceremoniously stripped of the ball, several groups jumped to their feet to cheer.

“They are so gung-ho,” said Rossanna Wright, an American fan who said she experienced the same atmosphere at a men’s volleyball match a day earlier.

“They are just great. If they weren’t here, I’d miss them. They make the atmosphere.”

Nuff said...

False celebrity at the Olympics, is that a surprise?

Hmm.. gee, I wonder if there's any connection between the public pronouncements of the Chinese govt about Tibet and the idea that they needed a prettier girl to sing the title song? Or between fake fireworks and their position that they've always been in Tibet? Someone once said that truth will set you free - one can only hope that it will eventually free China, and by extension, free Tibet.

OLYMPIC CHILD SINGING STAR REVEALED AS A FAKE

By Charles Whelan Tue Aug 12, 8:30 AM ET

BEIJING (AFP) - The little girl who starred at the Olympic opening ceremony was miming and only put on stage because the real singer was not considered attractive enough, the show's musical director has revealed.

Pigtailed Lin Miaoke was selected to appear because of her cute appearance and did not sing a note, Chen Qigang, the general music designer of the ceremony, said in an interview with a state broadcaster aired Tuesday.

Photographs of Lin in a bright red party dress were published in newspapers and websites all over the world and the official China Daily hailed her as a rising star on Tuesday.

But Chen said the girl whose voice was actually heard by the 91,000 capacity crowd at the Olympic stadium during the spectacular ceremony was in fact seven-year-old Yang Peiyi, who has a chubby face and uneven teeth.

"The reason why little Yang was not chosen to appear was because we wanted to project the right image, we were thinking about what was best for the nation," Chen said in an interview that appeared briefly on the news website Sina.com before it was apparently wiped from the Internet in China.

Lin was seen to perform the patriotic song "Ode to the Motherland" as China's national flag was carried into the stadium, a key moment in the three hour ceremony.

"The reason was for the national interest. The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression," said Chen, a renowned contemporary composer and French citizen.

"Lin Miaoke is excellent in those aspects. But in terms of voice, Yang Peiyi is perfect, each member of our team agreed," he said.

He said the final decision to stage the event with Lin lip-synching to another girl's voice was taken after a senior member of China's ruling Communist Party politburo attended a rehearsal.

"He told us there was a problem that we needed to fix it, so we did," he said, without disclosing further details of the order.

The Beijing Olympic organising committee confirmed the episode with spokesman Sun Weide saying the decision was taken in the interests of providing the best possible show.

"A number of girls were on the short list for the show and Lin was the best actress while Yang had the best voice," he said. "So at the end of the day they decided to have both."

The ceremony directed by China's Oscar-nominated filmmaker Zhang Yimou and featuring more than 15,000 performers won high praise in China and overseas for its breadth, scope and flawless execution.

However criticism began to build after it emerged that another part of the opening ceremony had been faked.

Supposedly live pictures of fireworks depicting footprints moving from central Beijing's Tiananmen Square to the Olympic stadium in the north of the capital were actually partly computer-generated or pre-recorded for TV, organisers have admitted.

Wang Wei, vice president of the organising committee, Tuesday insisted the fireworks had actually exploded on the night and that most of the television images used were genuine.

"However, because of the poor visibility of the night some previously recorded foots may have been used," he said.

Xiao Qiang, the director of the China Internet project at the University of California at Berkeley and former dissident, said the two incidents illustrated the political nature of the Games for China.

"I do not think the Chinese state realises how unethical this is, they don't understand what kind of values they are reflecting," he said.

Earlier this year Olympic organisers preoccupied with the right image for the country were criticised for insisting that only tall, slim, young and attractive women could serve as medal award ceremony hostesses.

OPENING CEREMONY ORGANISERS ADMIT FAKING IT ON FIREWORKS, CHILD STAR

Posted 7 hours 6 minutes ago

Fireworks explode over the Bird's Nest stadium during the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics on August 8, 2008. (ABC News: Karen Barlow)

• Video: Chinese celebrate opening success (ABC News)
• Video: Opening ceremony dazzles crowd (ABC News)

Four days after the world was dazzled by the Beijing Opening Ceremony, details have emerged that organisers were forced to fake some key moments in the three-hour spectacle.

Games organisers say that poor visibility on the night forced them to run animations of fireworks and they also admitted that the star child singer was actually only in the stadium because of her good looks.

The fireworks around the Bird's Nest stadium were real, the television footage of fireworks in other parts of Beijing was not.

It turns out some opening ceremony footage was produced before the Games as a back-up and the vice-president of the Beijing Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (BOCOG), Wang Wei, says it was needed because of the city's chronic air pollution problem.

"Because of the poor visibility on the night some previously recorded footage may have been used," he said.

However Wang Wei says most of the fireworks seen by billions of people around the world did actually happen on the night.

Keeping up appearances

The little girl who starred at the Olympic opening ceremony was miming and only put on stage because the real singer was not considered attractive enough, the show's musical director said.

Pigtailed Lin Miaoke was selected to appear because of her cute appearance and had not sung a note, Chen Qigang, the general music designer of the ceremony, said in an interview with a state broadcaster.

Photographs of Lin in a bright red party dress were published in newspapers and websites all over the world and the official China Daily hailed her as a rising star on Tuesday.

But Chen said the girl whose voice was actually heard by the 91,000 capacity crowd at the main Olympic stadium was in fact seven-year-old Yang Peiyi, who has a chubby face and uneven teeth.

"The reason why little Yang was not chosen to appear was because we wanted to project the right image, we were thinking about what was best for the nation," Chen said in the interview that appeared briefly on the popular news website Sina.com on Tuesday before it was wiped from the Internet.

Lin was seen to perform the patriotic song "Ode to the Motherland" as China's national flag was carried into the stadium, a key moment in the three hour opening ceremony.

"The reason was for the national interest. The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression," he said.

"Lin Miaoke is excellent in those aspects. But in terms of voice, Yang Peiyi is perfect, each member of our team agreed," he said.

- ABC/AFP

You Can't Hurry Love Trailer

visit videodetective.com for more info

A clip from Cannes Man

Enjoy.

Tibet Protests and the Dalai Clique

I'm sitting here trying to untie the plastic wiring on some figurines I bought for my daughter. For those of you who have seen these additions to toys, tying them up to the box, making it virtually impossible to untie without pliers - I'm struck at the metaphor of how this is the way China has tied the feet of the world around it. The US is neck deep in debt to China, the toys, the clothing, our drugs, our food, everything is manufactured there (when a democratic, capitalist inclined, english speaking India waits next door) - and like the Tibetans bound in Drapchi prison, these toys are trapped in this box. Oh maybe that's pushing the metaphor a bit.

Some ingenious Chinese laborer has devised a way to make me never get this thing untied. Or perhaps, it's the prisoner's only way of reaching out to let us know how tied he or she is - sitting in a prison cell perhaps, making toys for people in the West. It reminds me of when I spoke to Robert MacNamara in Delhi. I asked him "Why has our country always aligned itself with Pakistan, when it's neighbor India, is democratic, a capitalist country and speaks English?" And he said "1. India's not capitalist, it has too many tariffs, 2. It's not democratic because it's not the same kind of democracy as ours, and 3.." at this point he put his arm around me, as if we were old friends. I thought "I'm being MacNamarized." He leaned over and said "off the record. They're a pain in the ass to deal with." So. I wasn't interviewing him, I wasn't a reporter, I was a filmmaker in Delhi, so as far as it being off the record - well, there you have it. Why we aligned ourselves with Pakistan and not India for forty years. And why all our goods are made in China.

Here's Elton John in San Francisco protesting on behalf of Tibet. Good job Sir Reginald (Elton).

This is a letter I wrote, published today in the Chicago Tribune. Enjoy.

(The original letter from the spokesman for the Chinese embassy was posted at the Tribune on April 7, complaining about the media being addicted to the "Dalai Clique.")

Tibetans speak for themselves

With reference to "Chinese restore order in Tibet," as a documentary filmmaker who interviewed Tibetan refugees who had recently arrived in Dharamsala, I think it's important to hear Tibetans speak for themselves about the Chinese occupation of their country.

Mostly children and monks, they make the dangerous trek over the Himalayas for many reasons, including the following:

*Parents send their children to learn Tibetan language and culture they can't learn at home.

*Some monks were tortured in prison for possessing photographs of the Dalai Lama or for putting up banners that read "Free Tibet."

*A doctor left because he was being forced to sterilize Tibetan women.

(watch the videos on the right panel to hear them speak for themselves.)

The language the Chinese government uses, claiming these protests are instigated by the "Dalai Clique" (separatist forces for Tibetan independence, both in and outside China), is reminiscent of Nazis blaming unrest in Poland on the Jewish ghetto. Trying to tie freedom-rights protesters to the Nobel laureate is telling of profound Chinese distaste for all things Tibetan.

I interviewed Han workers in Lhasa who spoke of their distaste for the food, the altitude, the people of Tibet; the only reason they remain is the triple wages they earned for relocation. If members of the Beijing Clique wants to earn the world's respect by hosting the Olympics, they might consider treating their adopted Tibetans as brothers instead of servants and claim the Dalai Lama as one of China's greatest resources.

--Richard Martini

Filmmaker

"Tibetan Refugee"

"Journey Into Tibet"

Santa Monica, Calif.

The "True Nature" of the Dalai Lama vs China's true nature

China Urges U.S. to see "True Nature" of the Dalai Lama

Wed Apr 2, 11:21 PM ET

BEIJING (Reuters) - China urged the United States to understand the true nature of the Dalai Lama clique, which it blames for stirring up last month's violence in Tibet, and support China's "just position," state media said on Thursday.

China blames Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, whom it labels a separatist, for stirring up the Lhasa violence in which it says 19 people died. The Tibet government-in-exile says around 140 people died.

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi "explained the truth of the Lhasa riots, and expounded the stance of the Chinese government" in talks with visiting U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the China Daily said.

"He stressed that the measures taken by the Chinese government according to law had not only gained support from the Chinese people, but also won understanding and support from majority of the countries in the world."

U.S. President George W. Bush awarded the Dalai Lama one of the highest U.S. honors, the Congressional Gold Medal, in October and called on China to open talks with him.

Paulson met President Hu Jintao, Vice Premier Wang Qishan and Yang, among other officials. He is due to meet Premier Wen Jiabao on Thursday.

Paulson declined to say whether he had raised the issue of Chinese treatment of Tibetan protesters directly with Hu.

"I talked about this in an appropriate way. I'm not talking about what message I had for any particular leader," Paulson told reporters, but added he had expressed U.S. regret at the violence.

Chinese leaders accuse the Dalai Lama of orchestrating the wave of demonstrations from his home in exile in India, where he has lived since a failed 1959 uprising against Communist rule.

China says his intent is to disrupt the Beijing Olympics, which run from August 8-24, and to ultimately win independence for the remote, mountain region.

The Dalai Lama's representatives deny the charges and the 72-year-old has repeated that he is seeking greater autonomy for Tibet, not independence.

(Reporting by Nick Macfie and Glenn Somerville; Editing by Valerie Lee)

THE DALAI LAMA'S RESPONSE:

An Appeal to the Chinese People from His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

Today, I extend heartfelt greetings to my Chinese brothers and sisters round the world, particularly to those in the People's Republic of China. In the light of the recent developments in Tibet, I would like to share with you my thoughts concerning relations between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples, and to make a personal appeal to you all.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in the recent tragic events in Tibet. I am aware that some Chinese have also died. I feel for the victims and their families and pray for them. The recent unrest has clearly demonstrated the gravity of the situation in Tibet and the urgent need to seek a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution through dialogue. Even at this juncture I have expressed my willingness to the Chinese authorities to work together to bring about peace and stability.

Chinese brothers and sisters, I assure you I have no desire to seek Tibet's separation. Nor do I have any wish to drive a wedge between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. On the contrary my commitment has always been to find a genuine solution to the problem of Tibet that ensures the long-term interests of both Chinese and Tibetans. My primary concern, as I have repeated time and again, is to ensure the survival of the Tibetan people's distinctive culture, language and identity. As a simple monk who strives to live his daily life according to Buddhist precepts, I assure you of the sincerity of my motivation.

I have appealed to the leadership of the PRC to clearly understand my position and work to resolve these problems by "seeking truth from facts." I urge the Chinese leadership to exercise wisdom and to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Tibetan people. I also appeal to them to make sincere efforts to contribute to the stability and harmony of the PRC and avoid creating rifts between the nationalities. The state media's portrayal of the recent events in Tibet, using deceit and distorted images, could sow the seeds of racial tension with unpredictable long-term consequences. This is of grave concern to me. Similarly, despite my repeated support for the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese authorities, with the intention of creating rift between the Chinese people and myself, assert that I am trying to sabotage the games. I am encouraged, however, that several Chinese intellectuals and scholars have also expressed their strong concern about the Chinese leadership's actions and the potential for adverse long-term consequences, particularly on relations among different nationalities.

Since ancient times, Tibetan and Chinese peoples have lived as neighbors. In the two thousand year-old recorded history of our peoples, we have at times developed friendly relations, even entering into matrimonial alliances, while at other times we fought each other. However, since Buddhism flourished in China first before it arrived in Tibet from India, we Tibetans have historically accorded the Chinese people the respect and affection due to elder Dharma brothers and sisters. This is something well known to members of the Chinese community living outside China, some of whom have attended my Buddhist lectures, as well as pilgrims from mainland China, whom I have had the privilege to meet. I take heart from these meetings and feel they may contribute to a better understanding between our two peoples.

The twentieth century witnessed enormous changes in many parts of the world and Tibet, too, was caught up in this turbulence. Soon after the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet finally resulting in the 17-Point Agreement concluded between China and Tibet in May 1951. When I was in Beijing in 1954-55, attending the National People's Congress, I had the opportunity to meet and develop a personal friendship with many senior leaders, including Chairman Mao himself. In fact, Chairman Mao gave me advice on numerous issues, as well as personal assurances with regard to the future of Tibet. Encouraged by these assurances, and inspired by the dedication of many of China's revolutionary leaders of the time, I returned to Tibet full of confidence and optimism. Some Tibetan members of the Communist Party also had such a hope. After my return to Lhasa, I made every possible effort to seek genuine autonomy for Tibet within the family of the People's Republic of China (PRC). I believed that this would best serve the long-term interests of both the Tibetan and Chinese peoples.

Unfortunately, tensions, which began to escalate in Tibet from around 1956, eventually led to the peaceful uprising of March 10, 1959, in Lhasa and my eventual escape into exile. Although many positive developments have taken place in Tibet under the PRC's rule, these developments, as the previous Panchen Lama pointed out in January 1989, were overshadowed by immense suffering and extensive destruction. Tibetans were compelled to live in a state of constant fear, while the Chinese government remained suspicious of them. However, instead of cultivating enmity towards the Chinese leaders responsible for the ruthless suppression of the Tibetan people, I prayed for them to become friends, which I expressed in the following lines in a prayer I composed in 1960, a year after I arrived in India: "May they attain the wisdom eye discerning right and wrong, And may they abide in the glory of friendship and love." Many Tibetans, school children among them, recite these lines in their daily prayers.

In 1974, following serious discussions with my Kashag (cabinet), as well as the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the then Assembly of the Tibetan People's Deputies, we decided to find a Middle Way that would seek not to separate Tibet from China, but would facilitate the peaceful development of Tibet. Although we had no contact at the time with the PRC - which was in the midst of the Cultural Revolution - we had already recognized that sooner or later, we would have to resolve the question of Tibet through negotiations. We also acknowledged that, at least with regard to modernization and economic development, it would greatly benefit Tibet if it remained within the PRC. Although Tibet has a rich and ancient cultural heritage, it is materially undeveloped.

Situated on the roof of the world, Tibet is the source of many of Asia's major rivers, therefore, protection of the environment on the Tibetan plateau is of supreme importance. Since our utmost concern is to safeguard Tibetan Buddhist culture - rooted as it is in the values of universal compassion - as well as the Tibetan language and the unique Tibetan identity, we have worked whole-heartedly towards achieving meaningful self-rule for all Tibetans. The PRC's constitution provides the right for nationalities such as the Tibetans to do this.

In 1979, the then Chinese paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping assured my personal emissary that "except for the independence of Tibet, all other questions can be negotiated." Since we had already formulated our approach to seeking a solution to the Tibetan issue within the constitution of the PRC, we found ourselves well placed to respond to this new opportunity. My representatives met many times with officials of the PRC. Since renewing our contacts in 2002, we have had six rounds of talks. However, on the fundamental issue, there has been no concrete result at all. Nevertheless, as I have declared many times, I remain firmly committed to the Middle Way approach and reiterate here my willingness to continue to pursue the process of dialogue.

This year the Chinese people are proudly and eagerly awaiting the opening of the Olympic Games. I have, from the start, supported Beijing's being awarded the opportunity to host the Games. My position remains unchanged. China has the world's largest population, a long history and an extremely rich civilization. Today, due to her impressive economic progress, she is emerging as a great power. This is certainly to be welcomed. But China also needs to earn the respect and esteem of the global community through the establishment of an open and harmonious society based on the principles of transparency, freedom, and the rule of law. For example, to this day victims of the Tiananmen Square tragedy that adversely affected the lives of so many Chinese citizens have received neither just redress nor any official response. Similarly, when thousands of ordinary Chinese in rural areas suffer injustice at the hands of exploitative and corrupt local officials, their legitimate complaints are either ignored or met with aggression. I express these concerns both as a fellow human being and as someone who is prepared to consider himself a member of the large family that is the People's Republic of China. In this respect, I appreciate and support President Hu Jintao's policy of creating a "harmonious society", but this can only arise on the basis of mutual trust and an atmosphere of freedom, including freedom of speech and the rule of law. I strongly believe that if these values are embraced, many important problems relating to minority nationalities can be resolved, such as the issue of Tibet, as well as Eastern Turkistan, and Inner Mongolia, where the native people now constitute only 20% of a total population of 24 million.

I had hoped President Hu Jintao's recent statement that the stability and safety of Tibet concerns the stability and safety of the country might herald the dawning of a new era for the resolution of the problem of Tibet. It is unfortunate that despite my sincere efforts not to separate Tibet from China, the leaders of the PRC continue to accuse me of being a "separatist". Similarly, when Tibetans in Lhasa and many other areas spontaneously protested to express their deep-rooted resentment, the Chinese authorities immediately accused me of having orchestrated their demonstrations. I have called for a thorough investigation by a respected body to look into this allegation.

Chinese brothers and sisters - wherever you may be - with deep concern I appeal to you to help dispel the misunderstandings between our two communities. Moreover, I appeal to you to help us find a peaceful, lasting solution to the problem of Tibet through dialogue in the spirit of understanding and accommodation.

With my prayers,

Dalai Lama

March 28, 2008

Note: translated from the Tibetan original

Tseten Samdup Chhoekyapa
Representative of H. H. the Dalai Lama

I've got news for the Chinese govt; the "true nature" of the Dalai Lama is not who they think he is. They've been absolutely wrong about him since they first met him. It never ceases to amaze me the idiocy of their arguments, and their complete disregard for reality. It's like the U.S. asking for the world to see the "True Nature" of Sitting Bull when he was a great Lakota chief, so they could continue to slaughter the Sioux.

I've had numerous posts on my youtube page from kids in China who believe what their govt has been telling them. It's amazing in this information age, that this drum beat from the Chinese govt is actually picked up by news agencies like Reuters. Why not just print; "Chinese are out of their minds again."

Now.. I must say, I've been to China - I like China - I had a film in the Shanghai Film Festival some years ago, called "Point of Betrayal" which was known as "Bei Pan" in Chinese. ("Back Stab") And the 3000 seat theater was sold out every screening - and after one screening, a man in a Chairman Mao outfit (blue pajamas) surrounded by Chinese soldiers came up to me and said "I want to ask you some questions about your film." I grabbed a young student who spoke English who had been at my screening, just to make sure I didn't insult someone, or that I understood what was asked of me. (I had introduced the film by saying "Comrades, thank you for coming to my screening!") So this man sat me down, surrounded by guards and said "Why did you make this film?" and I said.. "Because I felt it was a good story.." Not knowing what the answer was supposed to be.

And he said "I'm the film critic for the People's Daily, and I think everyone in China should see this film." I nearly fell out of my chair. The film was about respect of parents and how absolute money corrupts absolutely. Anyways, much to my relief, he loved my film. No one saw it in the US, but I can only hope someone copied it and showed it to all of China.

But I like Chinese people - I just happen to think that the 4% of the country that belongs to the party in power - the Communist party - is off their rockers. And once the rest of China realizes that these old blowhards don't speak for them, the country will transform into something else. But that's up to China.

I'm just saying - in a country that shows so much respect for its elders, you'd think they'd show some respect for their brothers the Tibetans. God forbid the Chinese are ever treated as poorly as they treat their Tibetan brothers.

That's a wrap.

The Martini Shot: Response to Patrick French's "Dalai Lama" op-ed

The Martini Shot: Response to Patrick French's "Dalai Lama" op-ed

Death by Prozac: curing yourself from depression via Tibetan meditation

FROM THE BBC.CO.UK WEBSITE:

Anti-depressants' 'little effect'

Anti-depressant prescription rates have soared

New generation anti-depressants have little clinical benefit for most patients, research suggests.

A University of Hull team concluded the drugs actively help only a small group of the most severely depressed.

Marjorie Wallace, head of the mental health charity Sane, said that if these results were confirmed they could be "very disturbing".

But the makers of Prozac and Seroxat, two of the commonest anti-depressants, said they disagreed with the findings.

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Seroxat, said the study only looked at a "small subset of the total data available".

Reviewed data

And Eli Lilly, which makes Prozac, said that "extensive scientific and medical experience has demonstrated it is an effective anti-depressant".

There seems little reason to prescribe anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients Professor Irving Kirsch University of Hull Q&A: Anti-depressant study Popularity of 'happy pills'

Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, has announced that 3,600 therapists are to be trained during the next three years in England to increase patient access to talking therapies, which ministers see as a better alternative to drugs.

Patients are strongly advised not to stop taking their medication without first consulting a doctor.

The researchers accept many people believe the drugs do work for them, but argue that could be a placebo effect - people feel better simply because they are taking a medication which they think will help them.

In total, the Hull team, who published their findings in the journal PLoS Medicine, reviewed data on 47 clinical trials.

They reviewed published clinical trial data, and unpublished data secured under Freedom of Information legislation.

They focused on drugs which work by increasing levels of the mood controlling chemical serotonin in the brain.

These included fluoxetine (Prozac) and paroxetine (Seroxat), from the class known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), alongside another similar drug called venlafaxine (Efexor) - all commonly prescribed in the UK.

The number of prescriptions for anti-depressants hit a record high of more than 31 million in England in 2006 - even though official guidance stresses they should not be a first line treatment for mild depression.

There were 16.2m prescriptions for SSRIs alone.

The researchers found that the drugs did have a positive impact on people with mild depression - but the effect was no bigger than that achieved by giving patients a sugar-coated "dummy" pill.

People with severe symptoms appeared to gain more clear-cut benefit - but this might be more down to the fact that they were less likely to respond to the placebo pill, rather than to respond positively to the drugs.

Lead researcher Professor Irving Kirsch said: "The difference in improvement between patients taking placebos and patients taking anti-depressants is not very great.

"This means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments.

"Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed to provide a benefit."

Professor Kirsch said the findings called into question the current system of reporting drug trials.

Reviewing guidance

Dr Tim Kendall, deputy director of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research Unit, has published research concluding that drug companies tend only to publish research which shows their products in a good light.

These medicines have been licensed by a number of regulatory authorities around the world, who looking at all the evidence, have determined that they do work better than placebo Dr Richard Tiner Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Readers' experiences

He said the Hull findings undermined confidence in the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about the merit of drugs based on published data alone.

He called for drug companies to be forced to publish all their data.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently reviewing its guidance on the use of antidepressants.

Marjorie Wallace of Sane commented: "If these results were upheld in further studies, they would be very disturbing.

"The newer anti-depressants were the great hope for the future.... These findings could remove what has been seen as a vital choice for thousands in treating what can be a life-threatening condition."

Dr Andrew McCulloch, of the Mental Health Foundation, said: "We have become vastly over-reliant on antidepressants when there is a range of alternatives.

"Talking therapies, exercise referral and other treatments are effective for depression.

"It is a problem that needs a variety of approaches matched to the individual patient."

Dr Richard Tiner, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said there was no doubt that there was a "considerable placebo effect" from anti-depressants when treating people with mild to moderate symptoms.

But he said no medicine would get a licence without demonstrating it was better than a placebo.

Dr Tiner said: "These medicines have been licensed by a number of regulatory authorities around the world, who looking at all the evidence, have determined that they do work better than placebo."

Some years ago I met this Swiss filmmaker in Moscow. She was there with her husband's film at the film festival, and was in mourning because he'd just killed himself. I asked what she thought happened. She said "I don't know - he was happy, ready to come to this festival, and he went to his doctor because he was exhausted, and he gave him some pills and the next thing I know he kills himself." I asked if the pills were Prozac. She said yes.

I told her about another friend, in Italy near my ancestral home town in Cadore. This guy was in his 60's, a happy go lucky fella who didn't have a care in the world. He told his doc he was tired, and needed something to help him sleep. Same story. Started taking Prozac, killed himself.

Most people don't know that Congress had hearings to try and figure out why so many people were killing themselves after taking psychotropic drugs. The results? Zippo. Inconclusive. Hard to prove someone didn't want to kill themselves.

Look at most of the gun shootings in high schools and you'll find psychotropic drugs were involved with the students (Columbine included) Here's the deal as I see it:

We have a fight or flight part of our brain that keeps us on the planet. When you're driving down the street, you don't turn into oncoming traffic because of this modulator in your head. I once did a series of interviews with severely depressed people, one of whom described walking "around the planet, trying to figure out ways to kill himself." This part of his brain was malfunctioning - telling him to kill himself instead of to protect himself.

Apparently, up to 10% of the people who take psychotropic drugs have a 'side effect' which disrupts this mechanism in the brain. So.. they stop having the ability to feel happy or sad, because they're being modulated, and they lose the ability to tell the difference between their inner and outer worlds - if they feel rage, but have no outlet for it, it can translate into 'let's pick up a gun' or 'let's kill ourselves.' Or as I call it "Death by Prozac."

When history looks back on this era, it's going to be the time of the drugs which altered people's psyches. I'm not a fan of Scientology, I firmly believe that it's a fantasy religion created from L. Ron Hubbard's psyche, and has no more roots in reality than Joseph Smith did. (I also believe they probably had similar psychic experiences that influenced them profoundly, but that's a topic for another time). However, the Scientologists, Tom Cruise included, are spot on when they try to point out that psychotropic drugs are bad for you. Where we differ greatly is how to cure depression. I don't think getting clear is the answer, as it's another panacea, and leaves your treatment in someone else's hands. I think the most promising research in the area has been done by Richard Davidson of the Univ of Wisconsin.

(Davidson with HHDL, photo Waisman Center, Univ. of Wisconsin)

I recently attended a conference at UCLA, filled with psychiatrists, who had come to hear Davidson talk about his research into the amygdala, the part of the brain that regulates depression and happiness. And basically, as Time magazine noted, he laid out the skills that people can learn to make themselves happier, less depressed, and drug free. The questions from the audience were from doctors concerned about giving teenagers psychotropic drugs. Davidson's work is profound, and I think should be included in every doctor's bag - even pediatricians. Here's an article from Science Daily a few days ago.

The cure is pretty simple. A Tibetan meditation called "Tonglen." (I know it's Tonglen because I asked him after the lecture which specific Tibetan meditation he asked his subjects to use to get the profound results.) I won't describe the meditation here, because in order to learn it requires a certain amount of skill, education, and perhaps a guided teacher. You don't have to study under the Dalai Lama to learn it, however, it would be better if you sought out a teacher of meditation, a yoga class for example, which can teach the breathing meditation to begin. Once you've mastered ten minutes a day, you could graduate to a next level. However, Davidson did tell me that in his version of the Tonglen meditation, he asked his subjects not to meditate on curing the ills of a particular person, but on the society in general. This note will make sense to those of you who know about Tonglen meditation, and for those who might be depressed and want to learn about it, check out Davidson's work, or Tibetan meditation in particular.

Anyways, if you have a loved one who is depressed, or if you're depressed, I'd think it would be worth trying to figure out a natural method to cure it, before risking that you'd be part of the ten percent who die from this drug use. What have you got to lose?

That's a wrap.