-->

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

ISRAEL TORTURE PALESTINIAN CHILDREN BY ELECTRIC-SHOCKING



Defence for Children International (DCI) Palestine Section (DCI/Palestine) "is a national section of the international non-government child rights organisation and movement (dedicated) to promoting and protecting the rights of Palestinian children," according to international law principles.
Two earlier articles addressed their work, "Israeli Soldiers Sexually Abuse Palestinian Children" and "Imprisoning Palestinian Children."
Both covered Israel's systematic, institutionalized use of torture of Palestinian children as brutally as against adults. DCI/Palestine's latest September Bulletin adds more, saying:
"For the first time….three (documented) cases of children reporting being given electric shocks by Israeli interrogators (occurred) in Ari'el Settlement." Each was accused of stone throwing. Electric shocking extracted confessions although the boys maintain their innocence.
DCI and PACTI (the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel) demanded Israel investigate reports that a Gush Etzion settlement interrogator "attached car battery jump leads to the genitals of a 14-year old boy in order to obtain a confession to stone throwing."

The August 5 incident involved four boys walking near a road used by settlers when an Israeli jeep approached. "Just for fun," one boy waved. The jeep turned, was joined by others, and chased the boys. They were seized, blindfolded, painfully shackled, detained, and taken to the Zufin settlement, then to the Ari'el settlement where one boy, Raed, was interrogated.
Though innocent, "Threat of electrocution" made him confess to stone throwing, after which his head was slammed against a cupboard. He was also punched in the stomach, and a second interrogator shocked him with a handheld device, making him dizzy and shiver. He then signed a confession in Hebrew he couldn't understand, was transferred to Salem Interrogation and Detention Center, after which he was taken to Megiddo Prison, in violation of Fourth Geneva's Article 76, pertaining to the rights assured protected persons detained under occupation.
A second incident involved a 17-year old boy, Malek, falsely accused of throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. About 30 soldiers arrested and brutalized him like Raed before transferring him to Ofer Prison. On arrival, he was painfully struck on the head, then interrogated and threatened with physical violence and rape if he didn't confess. "He denied both accusations" during a two hour interrogation.
On September 15, 13-year old Khalil was arrested and accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail. At 1AM, Israeli soldiers smashed windows of his family's home, searched it, and took him to Ma'ale Adumin settlement. Though innocent, he was threatened with rape and intimidated to confess. He signed a six page document in Hebrew he didn't understand and has been detained at Ofer prison.
An earlier incident involved 16 year old Moatasem, arrested on March 20. He remains in administrative detention without charge or trial, at best hoping for a December release. Like the others, from arrest to detention, he was brutalized. During interrogation, he was asked about a plot involving a riot, bullets and weapons with no further explanation, something he knew nothing about and said so. On March 25, he was ordered administratively held for six months, then extended three more on September 26.
On average, from January 2008 – September 2010, Israel held over 300 Palestinian children captive, about 10% of them aged 12 – 15. Usually when complaints or requests for investigations into child arrests and mistreatment are submitted to the Judge Advocate General's Office (JAG), responses aren't forthcoming or issued raised are denied.
Shooting Children Collecting Building Gravel
Separately, DCI/Palestine reported on 12 incidents from May 22 – October 14, 2010, involving children aged 13 – 17, collecting gravel near Gaza's border fence with Israel. Under siege, Israel banned construction materials, forcing hundreds of men and boys to scavenge for what they can find, collecting gravel, placing it in sacks, loading it on donkeys, then selling it to builders for concrete.
In border watch towers, Israeli soldiers at times shoot and kill donkeys. They also target workers, usually shooting at their legs. In recent DCI/Palestine-documented cases, children reported being shot while working from 50 – 800 meters from the border.
In addition, a UN January 2009 – August 2010 study reported at least 22 Gazan civilians killed and 146 injured by live fire adjacent to Israel's border, including 27 children.
Of DCI's 12 documented cases, nine "were on, or outside the 300 metre exclusion zone unilaterally imposed by the Israeli army when they were shot." Under all circumstances with no exceptions, international law prohibits targeting noncombatant civilians. Israel, of course, flouts all international laws with impunity.
On November 10 and 11, DCI/Palestine in cooperation with DCI's International Executive Council and DCI International Secretariat, Geneva, will conduct an International Children's Conference titled, "Protective Environment – Active Participation," under the motto – "Together We Build and Change."
DCI explains that "Child participation is one of the four basic principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child." Under occupation, involving them is especially important to address their collective needs, interests, and concerns. The upcoming conference thus encourages children to participate and facilitates it "by finding the spaces for them to carry it out."
Some Final Comments
On October 19, palestinethinktank.com published a wide-ranging interview with Khaled Mesh'al, since 1996, Chairman of Hamas' Political Bureau. Exiled in Damascus, he became the movement's overall leader after Israel assassinated Abdul 'Aziz Rantisi in 2004. His comments below are based on a July published interview in Jordan's Arabic language Al-Sabeel newspaper.
(1) Negotiating with Israel
Calling it a thorny and sensitive issue, he stressed that it's "not absolutely prohibited….from a legal or political perspective," but must be subject to "equations, regulations, calculations, circumstances, contexts and proper management…." Otherwise, "it becomes a negative and destructive tool."
Currently, he calls it the wrong choice, given the imbalance of power favoring Israel, saying it "refuses to withdraw from the (seized) land, and does not recognise Palestinian rights." Negotiations under such conditions are fruitless. Israel demands but won't give. On equal fair terms, negotiations are very acceptable.
(2) Recognizing Israel
As things now stand, he believes recognition means legitimizing occupation, "aggression, settlement(s), Judaization, murders, arrests, and other crimes and atrocities against our people and our land." Recognition must be earned, not demanded or given, based on equity for both sides. Israel shows no sign of agreeing.
(3) Suggesting Israel and international insistence on recognition a sign of weakness, not stength
"Without a doubt, the enemy is concerned about (its) future….no matter" its regional strength. "The demand for recognition is certainly a sign of weakness, an expression of….inferiority, (and) a feeling that it is illegitimate and still rejected" by regional states "as alien" intruders.
However, superiority feelings also come into play, or in other words, the way "Western nations deal with third world countries," believing they alone dictate terms from a position of strength, including negotiating preconditions.
(4) Why Israel and the international community reject Hamas' proposed long-term truce
First, "the logic of power." Second, "they see Arab and Palestinian parties making (better) offers." Third, Israeli and Western experience suggests pressure works best, forcing adversaries or counterparties to succumb.
(5) Hamas' resistance model
It's "a natural and authentic part of the experience of the Palestinian struggle" for liberation and ending the occupation.
(6) Hamas and international relations
First, the "conviction that the Palestine battle (is for) humanity against Israeli injustice and oppression. Second, "the necessity of promoting (the) legitimate right to resist occupation and aggression." Third, the importance of using the world stage to address injustice. Fourth, concern for developing relations at all levels. Fifth, doing it begins in the region, "the plant (to) harvest (in) the West."
(7) Hamas and Jews
"We do not fight the Zionists because they are Jews; we fight them because they are occupiers," and commit crimes against the Palestinian people. The struggle isn't about religion.
(8) Hamas and women
"Women in the Islamic concept of thought, jurisprudence, mandate and role are – indeed – one half of society, and (have) been given (their) prestige and respect. However, there is a huge difference between respect and appreciation for women and (their) rightful role (on the one hand), and abusing (them) and presenting (them) as cheap commodit(ies) as is done in the Western civilization (on the other)." In Palestine's struggle for liberation, women play a distinctive role,"not only as mothers, wives and sisters," but as activists, teachers, fighters, and providers of logistical assistance.
(9) Zionism's future
It "has no future in the region." It's in decline, and except for attacking Beirut in 1982, Israel hasn't won a war since 1967. "This is an important indicator of the Zionist project's ability….In my estimation, the 'Greater Israel' project has come to an end, simply because the Zionist enemy is no longer able to accomplish it, and because Israel continues (self-destructively) on the same path as did apartheid South Africa."
(10) Israel's role as a regional strategic asset
It's no longer so, especially after the Goldstone Report and Gaza Flotilla massacre. As a result, "Israel is falling morally, and its true ugly face is being exposed. This is a very important development." It signifies "premature aging of this enterprise….In short, the Zionist project, like all other" forms of occupation, colonizations, and aggression, "has no legitimacy because it is alien to our region and lacks the elements of survival." It will end like all the others.
(11) The region's future
It's very much in flux with years before better resolution. However, we're "confiden(t) and hop(eful) that the future will be to the benefit of the nation and the Palestinian resistance and cause….Our reading is not fanciful, and is certainly not defeatist." It's realistic and achievable.
"We are a great nation, proud of ourselves, our religion, our land, our history, our culture and identity." Palestine and Jerusalem as one is "our beating heart and an indicator of our life and survival."
* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.

AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, 
PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

DHS CONTRACTORS CAN'T TELL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PATRIOTS AND TERRORISTS


Israeli Company, ITTR, can't distinguish between Patriots and Terrorists, so why do they get these State no bid contracts?

"PA Bulletins put out by ITTR Institute of Terrorism Research and Response, An Israeli Company, were disinformation and false:
http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portal.state.pa.us%2Fportal%2Fserver.pt%2Fcommunity%2Fhomeland_security%2F14251%2Fpa_intelligence_bulletins%2F771845&session_token=eGkqrVX44F4lkN-ekLcyaJ_KtiF8MTI4NjQxODMxNQ%3D%3D

Interviews with Rep Daryl Metcalfe:
http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1mjzsu8Vhlk&session_token=eGkqrVX44F4lkN-ekLcyaJ_KtiF8MTI4NjQxODMxNQ%3D%3D
http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPjO8oc-cqPU&session_token=eGkqrVX44F4lkN-ekLcyaJ_KtiF8MTI4NjQxODMxNQ%3D%3D

PA Senate Hearing held on Sept 27, 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsenatorbaker.com%2Fveteran%2F2010%2F092710%2Fagenda.htm&session_token=eGkqrVX44F4lkN-ekLcyaJ_KtiF8MTI4NjQxODMxNQ%3D%3D

ITTR - The Israeli Security Company that won the no bid contract:
http://www.terrorresponse.org/

MIAC Report - Missouri:
http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonplanet.com%2Fpolice-trained-nationwide-that-informed-americans-are-domestic-terrorists.html&session_token=eGkqrVX44F4lkN-ekLcyaJ_KtiF8MTI4NjQxODMxNQ%3D%3D

Alex Jones TV Interview with State Police Officer over MIAC Report
http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiIt6H8XCr7k&session_token=eGkqrVX44F4lkN-ekLcyaJ_KtiF8MTI4NjQxODMxNQ%3D%3D
http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDZBkmnOLB1M%26feature%3Drelated&session_token=eGkqrVX44F4lkN-ekLcyaJ_KtiF8MTI4NjQxODMxNQ%3D%3D

THIS INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE SEEN BY EVERY STATE OFFICIAL AND TRUSTWORTHY POLICE OFFICERS! THIS INSANITY NEEDS TO STOP, AND ONLY EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC WILL MAKE IT STOP!"
ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.

AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, 
PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com

Monday, October 4, 2010

LAND OF POOR WHITE TRASH APPROACHING

Kenneth Davidson October 4, 2010

Our costly infrastructure projects look like train wrecks in the making.

The former prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, is reputed to have said in the 1980s that Australia was destined to become the ''poor white trash of Asia''. He may yet be right.

Infrastructure is the enabling investment of the future. Get this wrong and Australia's future is constrained. Energy, transport, telecommunications and water are the key to our future in the context of the global issues of peak oil, global warming and water.

Recent decisions in all these areas by both state and federal government are not reassuring.

Telecommunications is a $40-billion-a-year industry generating more than $5 billion a year in profits. Thanks to government policy to build the $43 billion NBN network and pay Telstra $11 billion to rip out its copper, these profits are up for grabs to rent-seekers such as Optus whose fixed-network profits are largely based on arbitrage, rather than competition based on engineering excellence.

Optus is Telstra's main competitor. Telstra offered the government a less ambitious, but nevertheless more than adequate, broadband service than NBN - financed largely out of existing cash flows from the copper network. The offer was refused, largely on the advice of Optus and other arbitragers, because the offer involved bypassing Telstra's exchanges, which are essential for the arbitragers to tap into Telstra's network in order to provide their ''competitive'' service.

In the name of competition and structural separation, Telstra's ability to earn a surplus of some $40 billion over the next decade for reinvestment and dividends is to be trashed and the company transformed from a centre of genuine global telecommunications excellence into another rent-seeking retail operation.

Given Lee's remarks, it is indeed ironic that Optus is a subsidiary of Sing Tel, which is owned by the Singapore government through Temasek Holdings. It seems that the Broadband Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, prefers the interested advice of Optus and investment banks such as Lazard, rather than the disinterested advice of the owner of Mexican telcos and vice-chairman of the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development, Carlos Slim Helu. Slim was in Australia for a conference last week and said the NBN was far too expensive.

Apart from New Zealand, the rest of the world agrees with Slim. Norway and Germany are now rolling out broadband along the lines suggested by Telstra and rejected by the government. Hopefully, the new Parliament will block the NBN legislation.

The NBN is another train wreck in the making, like the Wonthaggi desalination plant, which unfortunately is already on line to a major crash.

Only governments made up of fools or knaves sign on to projects with a capital cost of $43 billion, in the case of the NBN, or $4.8 billion, in the case of the desalination plant, without considering the alternatives that could provide the same service at a fraction of the cost.

The Wonthaggi desalination plant and the water it will produce will cost up to six times world's best practice - as recently announced by the Saudi Arabian government for a 368-gigalitre plant with a cost under $A2 billion.

The analysis of the costing of this project is set out in the London-based industry newsletter, Global Water Intelligence, which tracks desalination projects.

The capital cost for Victoria's desalination plant is $4.8 billion to produce 150 gigalitres. The Australian cost is $32 million per gigalitre, compared to $5.5 million per gigalitre for the Saudi plant.

On this basis, if the Victorian government had employed the Saudi government to oversee the engineering, procurement and construction, Victorians would have saved $4 billion.

Even allowing for a billion dollars of extras at Wonthaggi (difficult to find), it is appears that the Victorian taxpayer has lost upwards of $3 billion. It is hard to believe that any government could be this incompetent. The $3 billion to $4 billion at the beginning equates to an extra $11 billion in interest charges over the next three decades - enough to build and operate the best underground metro in the world.

The big difference is the Saudi government rejected public/private partnership financing and funded its plant on its own. Incredibly, the Brumby government guaranteed the Wonthaggi financing. The government should have borrowed the money itself and saved at least a couple of billion dollars upfront. But this still leaves plenty of financial fat in the engineering and construction contracts to be explained.

In the past five years a number of desalination plants have been built around the world - including two in Perth - where the cost differentials, although not as great as with the Saudi plant compared to Wonthaggi, still beggar belief.

A royal commission is imperative. Wonthaggi is no one-off. Government financial guarantees to sustain PPPs have become standard policy. Like the NBN and Wonthaggi, the $750 million Frankston bypass PPP is supported by the taxpayer because no bank or private investor would risk their own money on such an obvious financial lemon, quite apart from the fact that it is an act of environmental vandalism.

Kenneth Davidson is an Age senior columnist.

kdavidson@dissent.com.au

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/land-of-poor-white-trash-approaching-20101003-162ll.html

Monday, September 27, 2010

ANGRY MUMS STORM SUPERMARKET BABY-FORMULA AISLES

Robyn Grace

September 27, 2010 - 11:27AM

Angry mothers are staging supermarket sit-ins in an effort to force a national recall of a brand of baby formula they claim contains unlabelled genetically modified products.

Eight mothers this morning stormed the Coles supermarket in Fitzroy, Melbourne, and 15 are protesting at a Woolworths store in Sydney's Neutral Bay.

The groups cordoned off a display for breast milk replacement S-26 Soy and demanding the product be removed from shelves.

The action follows two tests commissioned by Greenpeace Australia Pacific that allegedly revealed trace elements of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are not labelled on the product.

Greenpeace ordered independent tests in Germany and the US. Results showed up to 0.2 per cent of GM soy and corn in the formula.

Under Australian law, products can contain up to 1 per cent of genetically modified material, provided it is unintentional, without requiring it to be labelled as containing GMO.

But Greenpeace said today mothers were being "kept in the dark" about the presence of genetically modified products in the formula.

Greenpeace claims independent testing has uncovered genetically engineered products in S-26 Soy nine times since 1998. A test conducted by Channel Seven's Sunday Nightprogram was the 10th occasion.

Protesters have demanded tougher labelling laws, more stringent GM testing and punishment for companies that breach restrictions.

"These new inventions have not undergone any of the rigorous testing necessary to establish their risk profile and safety for adults, let alone babies," Greenpeace CEO Linda Selvey said.

"Australian parents have the right to know what they are feeding their kids and how safe it is."

S-26 Soy is given to babies up to one-year-old who are lactose intolerant or who are on a vegetarian diet.

There have been no long-term studies of the health effects of eating GM foods.

Wyeth Nutrition, part of the global Pfizer group which produces S26 Soy, said in a statement last night it had a strict policy of using only non-genetically modified ingredients in all its infant formulas.

But it said it was "well recognised" by health authorities that non-GMO products could unintentionally contain traces of GMOs due to cross-pollination during cultivation, harvesting, storage, transport or processing.

"It is important to note that trace amounts of GMO do not present a health or safety threat to infants," the company said.

Wyeth Nutrition said it had requested a copy of the test results and welcomed the chance to work with Greenpeace and the relevant authorities to address the matter.

Comment is being sought from Wyeth Nutrition, Coles and Woolworths.

- with AAP

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-mums-storm-supermarket-babyformula-aisles-20100927-15t2j.html

Sunday, September 26, 2010

ALEX JONES DOES DRUGS ON AIR!!

FACEBOOK DEVOLVES INTO DARK WEB OF ANONYMOUS HATE SPEECH

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor Originally published August 26 2010

(NaturalNews) When broadcast television was first invented in the first half of the 20th century, it was quickly heralded as a technological breakthrough that would inspire, educate and uplift human civilization. Educational programs and useful knowledge could be cheaply and efficiently broadcast to people everywhere, it was thought. The FCC even required television stations to run news programming without commercials as a trade-off for being granted broadcast space in the electromagnetic spectrum. This TV news, it was thought, was the broadcast station's obligation to the betterment of society.

Those were the humble and well-intentioned beginnings of television, a game-changing "disruptive" technology that we now know has actually dumbed-down our population while becoming a cesspool for manipulative corporate advertising and idiotic entertainment. Far from enlightening human civilization, television has arguably enslaved it, seductively luring the population into a downward spiral of runaway consumerism, debt, disease and mainstream stupidity.

While educational television programming may still be found through such organizations as Nova, the BBC, The Learning Channel, Discovery and notable others, the bulk of television programming available today is an insult to the potential of human intelligence, and it only contributes to the collapse of meaningful discourse -- a fact that becomes grossly obvious during every political election campaign.

The age of the internet

The internet has often been described as a far more intelligent medium than broadcast television. TV is a one-way street, after all: Program directors and advertisers shout their messages into the minds of passive observers (couch potatoes), none of whom have an opportunity to really participate or respond.

The internet is a two-way street, though: People can vote, comment and query. And for this reason, it has long been believed that the internet is healthy for society. Getting people engaged in discussions and participating in creative contribution projects seems a lot smarter than having them sprawled out in front of the old boob tube, mindlessly hypnotized by another episode of some me-too reality TV show.

Facebook, of course, has played the role of a key enabler in the online "mass participation" trend. But what has emerged from Facebook and other social network has not been the thoughtful, reasoned discussions and contributions we might idealistically hope to see. Rather, Facebook has, for reasons you'll soon see, brought out the worst in many people, devolving into a tangled web of anonymous hate speech directed to anything and everything within reach.

Hence the new nickname for Facebook... Hatebook.

How Facebook became a hate engine

What could have been a platform for community sharing, idea-gathering and creative problem solving has devolved (with some exceptions) into a juvenile hate-fest of truly idiotic half-thoughts. And the worst of the Haters who prowl Facebook looking for something to attack and destroy are not merely a small minority of its population; at times they seem to dominate the conversations there (to the great dismay of the intelligent, thoughtful people trying to carry on a real conversation).

Yes, there are many thoughtful, positive and intelligent people using Facebook. Quite a few frequent our NaturalNews page, in fact. But far too often their thoughtful ideas are drowned out by what can only be called "mindless hate."

In discussing this, however, let's differentiate between reasonable criticism and mindless hate. "Reasonable criticism" is a comment or criticism emerging from reasoned consideration of some issue. A lot of what I write, for example, is "reasonable criticism" because it offers criticism and then explains reasons for arriving at that criticism. This article is a good example of reasonable criticism.

"Mindless hate," on the other hand, is a kind of irrational, emotionally-charged hate speech that places no value on facts, reason or logic of any kind. It is merely an emotional discharge, almost a kind of mental vomit that has been splattered across the online world. And it contains some of the most vicious hate speech that has ever been recorded in human history.

I once read a post from a person who said, essentially, "I am sending out love to everyone on planet Earth!" From there, one Facebook Hater posted, "That must include the terrorists, too. So you love terrorists!" This was quickly followed by another Hater who chimed in, "I can't believe she loves terrorists! Terror lover!" From there, if you can believe it, the posts devolved into even more mindless discharges of venomous nonsense against a woman who only sought to post something positive and uplifting.

I've asked around the natural health community as well as the celebrity community, and I've found that nearly every person who gains notoriety is now being victimized by a constant assault of hate speech on Facebook, Twitter and other social networks. Fine film actors, esteemed scientists, spiritual teachers and authors are all being assaulted by Hatebook vitriol. No person of noteworthiness escapes being targeted by Facebook Haters because they operate 24 hours a day and, most important of all, they operate with complete anonymity.

Haters, you see, are emboldened by their anonymity. If real names were required on Facebook, the density of hate speech would drop sharply. Because a lot of what people say in their hate rants is so bizarre and defamatory that they would never allow their real names to be attached to such verbiage. So they create fake accounts, then post their hate messages under false identities, allowing their inner hate to scream out to the world without any risk that such bizarre behavior would reflect on them as real people in the real world.

Which brings me to a curious question: Who, exactly, are these Haters?

The Hater next door

As it turns out, these are ordinary, everyday people. These are the people who are frustrated with their jobs, frustrated with their marriages, frustrated with their economic situation and frustrated with life. They have no place to vent this frustration in the real world. You can't tell off your boss and expect to still receive a paycheck. You can't scream at your husband or wife without risking a divorce. You can't go around shooting people on the streets without getting arrested and thrown in prison.

But you can assassinate people online. Anonymously... and protected by the very structure of Facebook which seems to be designed to actually encourage argument (because conflict results in more posts, more attention and therefore more advertising revenue).

Your typical Facebook Hater is often the same guy you think is "a nice neighbor." He's quiet, polite in public, and follows the rules of society in the real world. But in the world of online anonymity, he becomes the Dark Lord Sauron, master of his domain of destruction, destroyer of dreams and all that is good. Mua-hah-hah!

He becomes, in other words, an entirely different person. And the extremes expressed by those two people might easily result in him being diagnosed as having "multiple personality disorder" if such divergent behavior were expressed in the real physical world. But in the online world, it now seems all too "normal."

Facebook, by the way, does not give users the ability to effectively and permanently ban haters from posting on their wall, nor does it offer any sort of "hate filters" or other technologies that might ease this situation. As I hinted earlier, Facebook actually seems to encourage hate speech because it engenders conflict, and conflict attracts attention. That attention, in turn, translates into more page views and more ad revenues. To end hate speech on Facebook could mean losing half its traffic (or more). There's just no financial incentive to stop hate from propagating across social networks like Facebook.

Facebook, you might say, feeds on hate.

The destruction of good people

The upshot of all this is that online hate speech is destroying the lives of many brilliant people. I know several genius-level individuals from the academic world who just couldn't take the onslaught of Facebook hate speech and ended up closing their accounts, removing all social networking buttons and retreating to the online equivalent of a hermit's hut in the woods.

What's sad is that these are tremendously intelligent, talented people who have very important gifts of knowledge and insight to offer humanity. They are being systematically shouted off the stage by what can only be called idiotic hate speech vented from anonymous Haters who truly offer nothing to this world. They are, you might say, "useless Haters."

Imagine if Facebook had existed in the time of Einstein or the famed physicist Richard Feynman. These brilliant physicists -- whose ideas literally transformed our understanding of the universe -- would have been relentlessly attacked as fraudsters and quacks by the prevailing idiocy of the masses. "Time is relative? It's absurd! What kind of freakin' idiot would even believe such a stupid idea?" And this would be followed by a few thousand posts of follow-up haters who neither have the intellectual capacity to understand Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity nor the inclination to learn more about it before lashing out in condemnation of it.

The tone of devolving thought

What's really happening with Facebook, Twitter and other social networks is that the conversations that dominate society are devolving into mindless hate speech. Bobby hates Sherry. Sherry hates Cindy's dress. Cindy hates Bobby's stupid grin... and Bobby slept with Sherry the other night, even though he hates her, just to take a snapshot and embarrass her online.

This kind of thing is then followed by the most inane and utterly useless scraps of non-knowledge, such as: "I burned my toast this morning, and it reminded me of what a bitch you are" except, of course, I've spelled it all too well here. In the real world of Hatebook, such an insult would appear more like, "i burnt my tost this mrning, and it rimind me of what a bitch u r" followed by "ur pethetic" from someone else who can't spell, either.

And round and round it goes -- a chorus of madness based on a kind of mental derangement that seems to have infected an alarming percentage of the online population.

Don't misinterpret me here, though: In no way am I saying that everyone online behaves in this way. What I'm saying is that those intelligent, thoughtful people who have something important to add to a discussion are frequently being drowned out by the haters who can always scream louder than the person they're attacking.

And yet we still need social networks

Why does any of this matter? Because Facebook, Twitter and other social networks are now so popular that integrating with them is essential for the success of just about any online business. You either use them or you miss opportunities for reaching people. And if you use them, you automatically subject yourself to the hate speech of the deranged, creating not merely emotional stress but also an administrative task of trying to remove hate posts and counter the false and misleading "hate liars" who intentionally post information they know to be falsified.

This is true regardless of which side of the issue you're on. Whether you're a Republican or Democrat; whether you're into natural health or conventional medicine; whether you believe in global warming or think it's a hoax... no matter what side you take on any issue, you are going to be targeted for idiotic hate speech by the mindless social networking haters who invoke their hate outbursts as a kind of mental masturbation. They "get off" on destroying everyone else while reducing reasoned conversations to linguistic seizures sprinkled with spite.

The big-picture result of this is that people who go online feel increasingly negative and stressful about their lives. Society suffers as a whole when anonymous hate speech is allowed to dominate the bits and bytes of the 'net. These days, there's almost no room left for reasoned verbal discourse. Common sense, it seems, can't fit into a 140-character tweet. Forget the TV sound bite -- online bites are mere fragments of thought that often contain nothing other than seemingly random words placed in some bizarre sequence interspersed with insults or profanity.

This is the best we can do? Really? This is the civilization that sent men to the moon, that built an atomic supercollider, that has unlocked many secrets of biochemistry and that hopes to someday colonize other worlds? Who, exactly, is going to develop the next generation of technological innovations when our teens are too busy texting and cheating on tests to actually learn mathematics? How are democracies going to survive if there's no tolerance for rational discussions about political candidates and their policies, and the whole contest comes down to who can spew the most lies to the greatest number of voters?

Solutions?

So how do we shift the tone of online interactions into a more positive, responsible direction? This is a crucial question for our time, and it's one that is just barely beginning to be considered.

A knee-jerk reaction often leads to the idea of, "Well let's require everybody to have a license to use the internet, and they can only use their real names." At first, it might sound like a decent idea, but the more you look into this, the more quickly you realize that this would turn the internet into a virtual police state, with governments monitoring, controlling and censoring online discussions. Anyone "caught" arguing against mandatory vaccination policies, for example, might be banned from using the 'net.

For obvious reasons, governments should never control access to speech. Police State nations like China are already putting such requirements in place, and they are very effective at allowing the government to censor and control online conversations. Such draconian rules don't make sense in a nation like the USA where freedom of speech is still widely respected.

But there are other potential solutions available to us. At the very least, social networks like Facebook could do a lot more to improve the situation. They could provide users with better tools to ban Haters or automatically filter out posts with an overtly negative tone. Facebook could introduce a "reputation" system where people are voted into "white hat" or "black hat" status based on what other users think of their comments. Users could then automatically ban any posts from those with low reputation scores.

A reputation system, you see, is what could bring back some measure of civility to the internet, even if real people hide behind virtual names.

I believe there is a billion-dollar idea here, where some energetic entrepreneur could introduce a reputation monitor system that could offer internet-wide reputation scores for a given user, allowing websites to use that reputation score as part of their content visibility calculations.

In fact, I foresaw the need for such a service nearly a decade ago and registered many domain names back then such as ReputationMonitor.com, ReputationGuard.com and ReputationServices.com. If anyone reading this is interested in creating and launching a reputation technology system that could help solve the problem of Hatebook Haters, I'd be very interested in partnering with you and promoting your solution.

While a reputation system is one idea for reducing the tone of mindless hate on the 'net, there may be other ideas that are just as powerful that we haven't thought of yet. Keyword analysis systems can easily score posts in terms of their positivity or negativity, and sites like Twitter or Facebook could allow users to control their own "hate filters" (sort of like parental filters for children) that would automatically filter out the most negative posts. (Spam filters often work in much the same way.)

This could serve as a kind of "hate firewall" that would greatly reduce the amount of mindless hate that gets spewed across the internet. We have firewalls for viruses and hackers... why not for Haters, too?

Here's another interesting idea: Develop a linguistic analysis engine that can sit on top of a corporation's data stream and filter all incoming and ongoing text for extremely hate-filled emails or text posts. We actually developed a similar technology that already exists underneath our NaturalNews.com content system: It rates stories for their top concepts and then statistically relates those concepts to other stories in order to make intelligent recommendations for readers. Doing the same thing for emails or text posts is a fairly straightforward matter.

But in order to get to these solutions, we as an online society must first recognize that the "Hatebook" approach to online communications is simply not acceptable. We must admit that allowing anonymous hate speech to continue online is destroying our collective quality of life while adding nothing of value to society.

And yet, if we take action to reduce the anonymity of Haters, we must take care to preserve the freedoms of speech that make the internet, as a whole, a very valuable tool for the sharing of knowledge, creativity and solutions.

This is obviously a difficult balancing act, and I don't claim to have all the answers. I just know that what I've seen coming out of Facebook is some of the most dark, hateful and truly devolved "free speech" I've ever witnessed. And it is destroying the good will of good people to whom our world owes a debt of gratitude.

We can do better than this. We must do better, in fact, if we hope to survive as a civilization. The open sharing of intelligent ideas is crucial, I believe, to us finding solutions for the really big questions that confront us today: How will our planet survive humanity's destructive domination? How will we colonize other planets to insulate ourselves against future cataclysmic events? How can we preserve and expand the whole of human knowledge so that future generations are wiser than we? How can we explore the causes of happiness?

These questions cannot be discussed in an environment that favors mindless hatred and anonymous stupidity over well-formed ideas and reasoned argument.