for the individual woman
and the individual man

- - - RULES OF USE - - -

    This document and the material contained within this document may be freely used by any individual for noncommercial purposes or in ways that meet the rules set down within this paragraph.  The document or any of the material contained within this document may be copied by an individual and distributed by the individual to other individuals, but this document or any of the material contained within the document may only be copied and distributed with acknowledgment that the document or any material used is the creation of Victor Edward Swanson and is associated with Victor Edward Swanson and The Hologlobe Press (meaning creation-credit information must accompany the document or any material used).  This document or the material contained within the document may not be published in any form without permission received in written form from Victor Edward Swanson, or for this document or any material of this document to be used in any publication not associated with The Hologlobe Press, such as a newspaper, a magazine, a Web-site page, or a book, a person or entity must receive written permission to use the document or any material contained within this document from Victor Edward Swanson.  Any television station, radio station, or like entity may quote material from this document, but any material that is presented must be accompanied by a reference to the writer (Victor Edward Swanson), The Hologlobe Press, and the Web site for The Hologlobe Press, and no material of this document may be accompanied by a direct commercial sponsorship.  A person may provide a "link" to this Web-page document (this Web page) on the person's Web site or Web page, or any entity may provide a "link" to this Web-page document (this Web page) on the entity's Web site or Web page, and the Web-site address that should be used as the "link" address is


for the individual woman
and the individual man


Victor Edward Swanson,
The Hologlobe Press

17 April 2005
(Version Four)

    "Land of opportunity" and "American dream"--these sets of words I have heard people use in descriptions of the United States of America (or U.S.A.) for at least three decades, and, specifically, during the past three decades at least, I have heard people say that they want to learn to live "the American dream," and I have heard people say that the U.S.A. (also called the U.S.) is "the land of opportunity."  It seems to me many people are unaware of all that the two sets of quoted words can mean, thinking, for instance, the two sets of words are mostly related to the idea of making money and acquiring things and wealth.  Here, through this document, I present ideas of what the United States of America is so that individuals, especially those of other countries, are better informed about what the United States of America is, and I show why the U.S.A. can be a "land of opportunity," and I give an impression of what the "American dream" might be.

* * * Statements of Truth * * *

    On July 4, 1776, the United States of America was founded, but it was not till several years later--in 1789--that the basis of the federal government was adopted, which is the Constitution of the United States of America, and it was not till a few years later--in 1791--that a section referred to as The Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution.  Over the years, since 1791, some additions and changes have been made to the U.S. Constitution, but, since the 1791, the main structure of the U.S. Constitution has remained the same, and the U.S. Constitution has been an important reason the U.S. has developed into the place it is.  This section gives general statements about why the U.S. is the best place of this world for an individual woman or an individual man to live.
   If you see the real document that is the Constitution of the United States of America, you will see no title at the top of the document, such as Constitution of the United States of America.  The document begins with "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...."  In the first paragraph of the document, though, you will see " ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  In this country, people generally refer to the document that is the constitution for the country as the Constitution of the United States of America, and people also call the document the Constitution (which is used as the short name of the document) and, in this document that you now read, I use the U.S. Constitution to refer to the Constitution of the United States of America.  In addition, the original document that makes up the section of the U.S. Constitution that is referred to as The Bill of Rights does not have the words "The Bill of Rights" at the beginning, but people use the words "The Bill of Rights" to define the document.

    In this country, the main law is a constitution, specifically the U.S. Constitution, and the main law of the land is designed on rights of the individual and not an individual, or it can be said that the country is based on the individual and is not based an individual, examples of which are a particular head tribesman, a king, or a queen.

    In this country, the citizens, who are the owners of the country, are not dependent on any one politician for rules and laws, which means the country is not put in political turmoil when any politician dies or is displaced and the citizens are not put in doubt about their future and the political security of the country when any politician is displaced or dies.

    In this country, neither the U.S. Constitution nor any law makes any political party or any type of religious group the premiere ruling party of the country, and no religious sect or group is given priority over any others, and there are no quotas about the numbers of what types of people must have seats in federal government bodies, such as the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, which are the two main units of the legislative branch of the federal government.

    In this country, enough individuals know the value and importance of the rights of the individual as set down in writing in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the The Bill of Rights, that they will fight and defend to keep those rights for the individual, lest individuals of the country become like the so-many captive and imprisoned individuals of the world.

    In this country, the individual can bare arms and has the right to bare arms, and, for example, that means the individuals of this country have the ability to deter other nations from invading the country and have the ability to make it hard for any group of armed enemies of the U.S. Constitution from taking control of the country, and since individuals throughout the country are armed, no police organization within the country can mount a large enough force to take over the country and displace the U.S. Constitution.

    In this country, politicians are really employees of the people or the citizens, and politicians can be hired and fired by the decisions of the people or the citizens, decisions made through casting votes in elections.

    In this country, no individual citizen needs bow down to any king or any queen, such as when a king or a queen passes by on foot or in a coach pulled by a team of horses.

    In this country, the federal government does not control the gathering and distribution of news and information, and this country does not have the federal government as the sole provider of news and information.

    In this country, the sources of news and information are many, and some of the sources are entities whose products are delivered to people through radio stations or television stations, entities that publish magazines or newspapers, entities that publish Internet-based magazines or Internet-based newspapers on Web sites, et cetera.

    In this country, many main news organizations exist, and, generally speaking, since each is operated and controlled by a different owner than the others are and since at least some people who operate news organizations do work to provide news and information as if they are providing the news and information to themselves so that they know what is really happening, readers, listeners, or viewers of news and information who wish to see truthful news and information can find it if they search it out, and, sooner or later, truthful news and information does get reported.

    In this country, unlike in a country in which the media is controlled by the federal government, it is hard for the mismanagement done by the federal government or any other government entity or the corrupt deeds of government officials to go unreported or completely unreported, especially forever.

    In this country, the individual has access to hundreds and hundreds of libraries, from libraries at big universities to libraries in small towns, and the individual can find thousands and thousands of books about cooking, economics, history, mathematics, politics, science, et cetera, and although some books push and spout false information, books that dispel and destroy false information and give the individual the ability to become educated with useful knowledge and true knowledge also exist.

    In this country, there are many police agencies, or, in this country, which is not a "police state," there are several different federal police agencies, such as the FBI, and each state has some type of state-police entity, such as a State Police Department or a State Patrol Department, and county governments are very likely to have county sheriff's departments, and cities and towns usually have police departments, and because there are many levels of police agencies in the country or because a particular police agency can be made up of more than one unit, police agencies do investigate suspicions of corruption in other police agencies or lower-ranking police agencies, or a police unit (such as an "internal affairs" unit) of a particular policy agency will investigate another unit of the police agency when there are suspicions of corruption.

    In this country, since there is not only one police organization, when corruption does exist or becomes apparent in a particular police organization or unit of a particular police organization, an individual who is not associated with a police agency can find ways in which to expose the corruption and have the corruption destroyed, maybe by reporting what is known or observed of a police agency to a higher-level police organization or a different type of police organization or to a known reliable or honorable news organization, which can lead to investigations that will ultimately expose the corruption to the public.

    In this country, the economy is not based on one type of industry (such as farming or tourism) or dependent on one industry, as can be the case in other countries.

    In this country, government officials do not determine what industries or businesses may exist.

    In this country, a person can end up working for a good company, a type of company at which people do wish to work and at which people like to work, or a person can end up working for a bad company, which might only be discovered by the person after becoming an employee of the company, but, at least in this country, a person who ends up working for a company that does not treat employees as well as it should or that seems destined to fail or fall apart is able to choose to leave the company and is not forced into having to stay at the company, which can happen in a country where government runs businesses and can run businesses poorly for decades.

    In this country, no one individual directs or authorizes what can and cannot be invented or dreamt up and made a real thing, and the people of the country are not dependent on one person to decide whether or not something should be tried or developed, and that means any individual can take up the challenge to create new technology and new ideas, and it also means an individual does not have to wait for authorization from a dictator or like person--almost always a person who has little insight or education or true knowledge of the world--to decide when to create something and what should be created.

    In this country, a woman has the opportunity to choose the man that she wants to be with, and a man can choose the women that he wants to be with, and no law determines who has to marry whom and no law based on a tradition determines who has to marry whom.

* * * Personally Directed Statements * * *

    The previous section contains nineteen statements that are general statements about the United States of America, and none is specifically directed at you in the ways in which they are stated, but all affect you.  The following statements are directed right at you in the ways in which they are said, but all apply to any individual.  You should see the statements as those that note what you end up with by coming to the U.S. or once you become settled in the U.S. or by living in the U.S.

    In the country, you can drink the water that comes out of a faucet.

    In this country, you will find food is readily available.

    In this country, you will find great mountains and pleasant rolling hills, thousands of lakes, acres and acres of forest, miles and miles of prairie, little towns and big cities, and even hot and dry deserts or, in some places, glaciers and deep snow.

    In this country, a few types of creatures that can kill humans, such as rattlesnakes and black bears, do exist, but humans are very unlikely to be killed by such creatures, since the creatures are easily avoided or are in areas rarely frequented by humans, such as swamps, and, anyway, enough tools exist for a person to protect the self against deadly creatures.

    In this country, you will not find any land filled with thousands of land mines, set down during religious wars or tribal wars, especially by roving militant gangs, so you need not watch out and worry that any step you take could lead to your leg or legs being blown off.

    In this country, there are a few streets in some cities where people can risk their lives by sitting on the porches of their residences or by taking a stroll on an evening, and the reasons for the risks are dangerous individuals, such as young men or women who belong to "gangs," but, in essence, you can choose to walk anywhere in the country, and that means, for instance, you can choose to walk across the length of country, and when you make that walk, you do not have to report your reasons for taking the walk and show papers that allow you to make the walk to every police officer or police organization or political entity that you come across.

    In this country, you leave behind the countries that have created nothing in centuries, have stalled in development, and will probably not change, trapped by political systems that are based on an individual person or a particular political party and are not based on the individual.

    In this country, hospitals and doctors are numerous, and, for instance, you will find many hospitals that have MRI machines, CAT-scan machines, PET-scan machines, 3-D ultrasound machines, and like machines that can look within a body and help in the process to diagnose disease and injury.

    In this country, although doctors have not the ability to repair all damage that might exist with a body or treat and cure all ailments of a body, true doctors know spirits, mythical creatures, and ghosts do not cause physical ailments.

    In this country, you have the chance to think of ideas that are often not allowed to be thought about in other countries, and you can work to become a thinker and you can work to guide your children to become greater thinkers than you are.

    In this country, people exist who are the repeaters of ignorant thoughts, but, though they exist, you are not forced to learn and be a repeater of the people's false thoughts, such as by being forced to take up learning the false thoughts in indoctrination classes run by the elders of the community over hours and hour and hours.

    In this country, although everyone has the ability to speak opinions, you need not give respect to the opinions of others when the opinions do not make sense through analysis, and you especially do not need to respect the opinions of others when you are aware the opinions hide known true facts or dispel known true facts or when you realize the opinions are not backed up with facts and are only statements of feelings or emotions, and it means, for instance, you can choose to listen to an individual involved in a speech, analyze what the speech is, come to a conclusion about the material of the speech, note that the material is nonsense, and regard the material or treat the material as nonsense and forget the material.

    In this country, you can show up foolish thought, using knowledge and logic and facts, and you can discredit foolish people who might wish to keep you and other individuals ignorant by proving through the presentation of facts and logic and knowledge that the people are foolish.

    In this country, at least some laws exist to help protect people who invest money in public companies from being defrauded, and some of the laws are federal laws and some of the laws are state laws.

    In this country, public companies that issue stock or other securities in the interstate marketplace must file business reports with the federal government, such as with the Securities and Exchange Commission (or the SEC), and although it is true that some public companies required to file reports with the federal government have sent false information to the federal government in the past, you can find enough other sources of information beyond business reports filed with the federal government to understand the quality of public companies before you invest in such companies.

    In this country, you can expect you--as an employee--will be required to do what your employer tells you, since the employer is paying you to do what you are told to do, but, of course, you need not follow orders that are related to illegal activities.

* * * Thoughts to Contemplate * * *

    Although the main governmental structure of the country is the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Constitution does not change the nature of people, and, certainly, you understand people can be honorable, and people can be dishonorable, and people can be good, and people can be bad, and people can be smart, et cetera, and you should understand you can find people in the U.S. who are dishonorable or bad or whatever.  Since a person can pick up a newspaper published in any big city in the country and see reports about the basic types of trouble that can exist in the country, such as incidents of robbery, cases of fraud and corruption, and events of stupidity, I will not report such basic trouble, and I will state, without giving you evidence of published reports, that such basic trouble exists.  I can present information about more subtle matters of trouble that a newcomer to the U.S. will very likely not be aware of or might not be able to deduce as trouble or potential trouble, and, basically, the trouble focuses on what people do or do not do or on how people think or do not think.

Thought Number One:

    It must be remembered the U.S. Constitution is the main law of the country, but the U.S. Constitution does not determine the quality of the people who can become politicians.  Politicians are usually hired and fired through elections in which winners become winners by getting the majority of votes cast, and that means politicians can be elected because of persona and prettiness or handsomeness.  Since in the U.S. elections can be popularity contests, ignorant people and unqualified people can become candidates for political office and can become hired politicians.

Thought Number Two:

    The federal government is divided into three main sections, which are informally called "branches" (or the "branches" of the federal government).  The three branches are (1) the executive branch (which is made up of the President and a number of agencies and other entities), (2) the judicial branch (which is made up of the federal court system), and (3) the legislative branch (which is made up of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate).  The U.S. Senate is made up of fifty persons who are elected by citizens; that is, citizens of each state elect two persons to be members of the U.S. Senate.  The U.S. Senate has a hierarchical structure, which, generally speaking, notes that the political party that holds the majority of the seats controls matters within the U.S. Senate and has the power to determine who gets to control the committees and such of the U.S. Senate, and a member of the majority party gets the best chance to be the "chairman" of any of the committees that exists, and one member of the majority party becomes the "majority leader" of the U.S. Senate.  Remember: Each person who wishes to be elected as a U.S. senator will be publicly known to potential voters as a member of a particular political party, usually a member of the Democratic Party or the Republican party, and if a person is elected, that person will have been elected as a member of a particular "party" by voters.  Now, consider some facts.  A man named Jim Jeffords was elected as a "Republican" to the U.S. Senate by the people of the state of Vermont in 1988 (and then reelected in 1994 and reelected in 2000).  On May 24, 2001, he--a current member of the U.S. Senate till at least January 3, 2007--publicly announced he was giving up his status as a "Republican" and becoming an independent (a person not affiliated with the Republican party or the Democratic party), and a few weeks later, the status became official.  When U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords became officially an "independent" within the confines of the U.S. Senate (on June 6, 2000), the number of Republicans was reduced by one, and the U.S. Senate became made up of 50 persons associated with the Democratic party, 49 persons associated with the Republican party, and one independent (U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords), and the Democratic party became the majority party in the U.S. Senate, and the control of the U.S. Senate in relation to "labels" was changed, and chairmanships and committees and such were affected and changed, and what happened was U.S. Senator Tom Daschle (a Democrat from the state of South Dakota) became the "majority leader" and replaced U.S. Senator Trent Lott (a Republican from the state of Mississippi) as the majority leader.
    What is the trouble that a newcomer or a non-newcomer to the U.S. might not see?  The subtle trouble is two parts.  One subtle problem is citizens or voters of Vermont were "disenfranchised," a word that has sometimes been applied to events in which citizens or voters were not disenfranchised; in this case, U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords was elected as a "Republican," and when he left the Republican party, the citizens of his state were disenfranchised, since their choice of having a "Republican" to represent them was discounted, though the "Republican" label should have remained with U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords till the next election, when, if he wished, he could run again with a different "label."  (How a person as a U.S. senator votes on matters in the U.S. Senate, whether following the wishes of the other members of the party with which the person is associated or not, is of no concern, since a person who is a U.S. Senator need not follow the voting practice of the party with which the person is associated.)  The more subtle problem is a precedent has been set in which a person who is elected under a certain label, such as a Democratic, can easily change affiliation from one political party to another or from a particular political party to no political party in a short matter of time for money or other compensation or clout and disregard the vote of the people of the state with which the person is associated as a U.S. senator, and that is not good for any individual in the country.
    By the way, U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords' leaving the Republican party resulted in, for the first time in history, the control of the U.S. Senate being changed by a manner unrelated to an election.

Thought Number Three:

    One of the main branches of the federal government is the judicial branch, which is the federal court system of the country, at the top of which is the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court is made up of nine individuals, each of whom is nominated by a U.S. President and confirmed through a vote of the legislative branch (specifically the U.S. Senate).  Once a person becomes a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, the person cannot be removed by the U.S. President or the U.S. Congress or anyone, or it can be said that a person who becomes a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot be removed by the U.S. President or the U.S. Congress or anyone through some means, such as a vote of confidence.  In essence, since a justice cannot be removed, except by the self, such as through resignation, what can be called a checks-and-balances element of government is missing.  A person who becomes the U.S. President can only hold two terms of office, which is up to eight years (two four-year terms), and procedures exist to remove a person from the position of U.S. President, one of which is through vote of the citizens near the end of the first term in office, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate can be removed from office, such as through vote by citizens of the country.  It seems logical to me the citizens of the country should have the right and power to remove bad justices of the U.S. Supreme Court from their positions, and that power or right should come through what might be called a vote of confidence, and it seems logical to me once a person has been a member of the U.S. Supreme Court for, maybe, 12 years or 16 years, the citizens should be able to give or not give a vote of confidence to that person, and the U.S. President or the members of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate should not be able to.  How such as vote could work is, once a person has served a little over 11 years or a little over 15 years as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the person's name should be put on the national ballot for the next national election, either the next "general election" or "midterm election," and if the person receives a larger "yes" vote (a vote to stay a member of the U.S. Supereme Court) than a "no" vote, then the person can remain a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, and then the person should come up for review every six years or eight years.  Since the federal governmental structure lacks a way in which the citizens can remove a U.S. Supreme Court justice today, that is bad.  It seems to me the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended through an amendment that deals with term limits and votes of confidence for the members of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Remember: Even persons who become U.S. Supreme Court justices can fail in their duties--particularly making decisions about the constitutionality of laws as the laws relate to the U.S. Constitution.

Thought Number Four:

    To understand this section of this document, you should have an understanding of two budgeting techniques--"zero-line budgeting" and "baseline budgeting."  When someone sets up a budget through the zero-line-budgeting process, the someone creates the budget that is based on no previous budget; that is, for instance, if the someone is making a budget for five existing departments of a company for the forthcoming year, the someone gathers facts about each of the departments, such as about the number of employees and what the employees will probably be paid, and makes a budget.  When someone sets up a budget through the baseline-budgeting process, the someone often makes calculations based on a current budget and given criteria for increases; for example, when a person has to make a budget for three existing departments of a company for the next year, the person will take the budgets defined for the current year and adjust them in some way for the next year, and, usually, the adjustments will be increases, and, for instance, the adjustments will often be related to changes in, for instance, the cost of living or inflation.
    Every year, the federal government puts together a budget for the next fiscal year (a fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30), and the process to create a budget for the federal government involves the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress.  A detailed explanation of the budget process is too complex to present in this document, but I can say that, generally speaking, the U.S. President proposes a budget to the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress go through a negotiation process.  At least some of the process uses the "baseline budgeting" method, which is based on rules set down in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.  I now present this material from U.S. Representative Christopher Cox, Chairman, the House Policy Committee (U.S. House of Representatives) dated 4 February 2005:

    ...It was not just that the Watergate Congress was committed to higher levels of spending that more than 90% of our $5 trillion debt has been incurred since 1974.  Their revolutionary budget process guaranteed runaway spending by embracing and expanding the now-familiar system of autopilot budgeting known as 'mandatory' spending - one-time legislation that expands federal spending in perpetuity, without any further action or review of Congress.  By the latest count, there are now 269 such programs, accounting for two-thirds of all government spending.
    Even for the remaining one-third of the budget that Congress and the President purport to decide each year, the 1974 Budget Act employs the perverse device known as 'baseline budgeting' -- a deceptive form of accounting in which spending increases are called cuts....
    [U.S. Representative Christopher Cox, Chairman, House Policy Committee, "Budget Process Reform: One Reform that Would Change Everything.", issued 4 February 2005 (acquired February 4, 2005).]

    And I present these thoughts from Robert Keith, Specialist in American National Government, Government Division, that was contained within "A Brief Introduction to the Federal Budget Process":

    ...An important first step in the annual budget cycle is the preparation of a budget baseline. The baseline is the projection of revenue, spending, and deficit or surplus levels into future years based on the status quo.  Projections rest upon technical assumptions (e.g., changes in the growth of the economy, inflation rates, and unemployment rates).  They assume that policies consistent with existing law will be maintained.  Thus, the baseline is an important tool for assessing policy changes inherent in budget proposals.
    The executive and legislative branches each develop their own budget baselines.  The baseline prepared for the President's budget is known as the current services estimates.  Congress uses the baseline budget projection developed by the Congressional Budget Office....
    [Robert Keith, Specialist in American National Government, Government Division, "A Brief Introduction to the Federal Budget Process," CRS Report for Congress,, 13 November 1996 (acquired February 16, 2005).]

    When you hear something in the federal budget is being cut, you should be wary.  When you cut a budget for something for next year, you have to make the amount less than that of the current year.  You are not making a "cut" when you initially propose to make the increase in the budget for something at some amount and then you ultimately only increase the amount by some lesser amount; for instance, if you propose to increase the amount you spend on buying compact discs by ten percent next year (over the amount that was budgeted for the current year) and you only increase the amount by five percent in the finally approved budget, you did not make a "cut," since you made an increase of five percent.  And if you take a current budget for something and give an automatic increase while making a budget proposal for next year and then the amount of the proposed increase is decreased before the budget is finalized, no real "cut" has been made--only a reduction of an increase has been made.  A novice should wonder what a politician means when the politician says that the budget for something was "cut."

Thought Number Five:

    Around 1998, the United States of America and some other countries were involved in a United Nations inspection program in Iraq; that is, the United Nations had inspection teams seeing to it--as much as possible--that the leaders in Iraq were not making, for instance, chemical weapons and biological weapons (related to germ warfare).  Whether or not the inspection program was worthwhile--such as not compromised by having what were supposed to be unannounced inspections reported secretly to officials in Iraq by someone ahead of time--is of no matter to me and this section of this document, and no debate is given here about whether or not the United States of America should have been involved in the inspection effort.  What is important to you are a few lines of dialogue spoken by U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., a Democrat representing the state of Delaware, during a committee investigation.  A man named Scott Ritter (a citizen of the United States of America and a former marine officer in the country) was a senior inspector for the efforts of the United Nations in 1998, and, in late August 1998, he resigned his position as an inspector (a senior inspector).  On September 3, 1998, Scott Ritter ended up in front of U.S. senators during a committee hearing, one of whom was U.S. Senator Joseph Biden. During the hearing in which Scott Ritter was being questioned or interrogated about his beliefs about what was happening with the inspection program, U.S. Senator Joseph Biden said these words about Scott Ritter's superiors during Scott Ritter's time as a senior inspector:

    ...I respectfully suggest they have responsibilities slightly above your pay decide whether or not to take the nation to war alone or take the nation to war part-way, or to take the nation to war half-way.  That's a real tough decision.  That's why they get paid the big bucks.  That's why they get the limos and you don't.  Their job is a hell of a lot more complicated than yours.

    I do hope you read the quote several times and think about what was said.  The most important sets of words are "have responsibilities slightly above your pay grade" and "they get paid the big bucks."  U.S. Senator Joseph Biden is saying that someone who gets paid not so much is not smart and that people who get paid a lot are smart, and U.S. Senator Joseph Biden is suggesting--How dare you question higher authorities or your superiors.  I say that how much a person makes does not equate with how smart a person is.  A person can be, for instance, a politician and be paid a lot of money and still be stupid, uninformed, et cetera.  Professional baseball players, football players, hockey players, and actors can make millions and millions of dollars a year, and their making that much money has nothing to do with the ability to think (at least, beyond matters related to sports); also, anyway, it is usually the agents of players who do the negotiating on behalf of the players with employers and potential employers.  You should remember there exist, in this country, politicians who define themselves as better than you are by the money they make, or, some politicians think they are smarter than you are, because they make more money than you make.

Thought Number Six:

    Fahrenheit 9/11 was a film that was put together by a man named Michael Moore and made available for the public to see in 2004.  The quality of that film--such as for news value and other matters--will not be debated within this document.  The film did provide at least one piece of useful information for a newcomer to the country.  One of the persons who gave a statement for the film was a man named John Conyers, Jr., who was then a U.S. Representative for the state of Michigan in the U.S. Congress or a U.S. Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives and was one of the representatives for the state of Michigan.  In the film, U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr., was asked a question ("How could Congress pass this Patriot Act without even reading it?), and U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr., stated: "Sit down, my son.  We don't read most of the bills.  Do you really know what that would entail if we were to read every bill that we passed?  Ah.  Well, the good thing, it would slow down the legislative process."  The comment should make a thinker wonder why the members of the U.S. Congress do not read the bills that they are about to vote on.  What could come to the mind of an individual is politicians are too busy doing things to get elected to read the bills, such as attending fund-raising events, or they are lazy, or they simply let others (such as aides) tell them what is in the bills, or they are not smart enough to understand the bills, which can be complex and sometimes convoluted, or they are unqualified to hold the jobs that they hold.  Then again, what could come to mind is the politicians might be putting together too many bills or putting together bills that are filled with too much "filler."  I will not really state why members of the U.S. Congress do not read all the bills and provide proof, but I will say that, if members of the U.S. Congress often do not read bills, then members of the U.S. Congress need not be as smart as you might think to hold their jobs.

Thought Number Seven:

    The country has thousands and thousands of miles of highway, and on any particular hour of the day, it is very likely some small portion of the highway system of the country is under construction or is the site of an accident.  If you are driving down a freeway, you could begin to see evidence of slow traffic or stopped traffic ahead, probably the result of an accident or a construction site.  At first, you begin to slow down.  Then, you probably have to stop at some point.  You will probably drive along at a slow pace for a while, maybe in what is called "stop-and-go" conditions.  You will eventually get by the problem.  You will notice that you do not get up to the maximum allowed speed immediately after you get passed the problem.  The more vehicles that are using a portion of a freeway that has a construction site or an accident, the longer it takes any particular driver to get by the problem and get up to the usual speed again once past the problem.
    Around 2000, the country went into a recession (an economic recession), and many people believe the recession was caused by a new U.S. President taking office, specifically George W. Bush, and people believe a President has the ability to within a few weeks or a few months get this country out of a recession, unless the President has failed policies or makes bad decisions.  One truth of this country is it is impossible for any person who becomes the President of the country to almost immediately put the country into a recession.  Another truth is the recession that began in 2000 was caused by a number of events that took place in the very late 1990s and in 2000, such as the bankruptcies of many companies that had attempted to make money through the Internet and had not made enough to keep in business.
    Incidentally, after the election took place in 2000, other events affected the economy of the country adversely, a couple of which are noted here.  On September 11, 2001, four planes were hijacked, and three of the four planes were flown in to buildings (two buildings in New York City, New York, and one building in Washington, D.C.), and that caused the amount of air travel to drop in the country and that caused the amount of earnings for airlines to drop.  Enron Corporation declared bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, after a year in which the stock of the company declined 99 percent in value; the bankruptcy came after months and months of bad business practices that the managers of the company had kept unreported to employees, the federal government, investors, and others.  Later, on July 22, 2002, WorldCom, another big company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and WorldCom had to answer to the federal government (particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission) for accounting "fraud" problems (problems that had become public knowledge in June 2002).
    The country is very big, and although a recession can appear as if it came about through events that happened within weeks of the time a President takes office, the causes go back farther in time, and it takes longer to get out of a recession than it does to get into a recession.

Thought Number Eight:

    The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest-level court in the land, and under the U.S. Supreme Court are other courts of the federal court system, and subordinate to the federal court system are state court systems and municipal court systems.  On December 18, 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court came to a decision on the case known today as Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Corporation, and the decision said that a credit-card-issuing bank or entity, such as a bank, could charge an interest rate to a credit-card customer who lived in any state that is up to the highest amount that is allowed in the state in which the credit-card-issuing bank or entity is based, which led to credit-card-issuing banks and entities moving to states that had the best rules about what amounts of interest could be charged people within such states.  On June 3, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in a case called Smiley v. Citibank, and the decision noted that a credit-card-issuing bank or entity was allowed to charge late fees to a credit-card customer who lived in any state, even in a state that did not allow late fees to be charged customers, and the rule noted that the credit-card-issuing bank or entity had to be based in a state that has a rule that allows a credit-card-issuing bank or entity to charge late fees (which are fees charged customers who do not pay required amounts by certain dates) and the credit-card issuing bank or entity can charge a rate that is the maximum allowed by the state in which the credit-card-issuing bank or entity is located.  (By the way, it was a U.S. Supreme Court decision known today as Tiffany v. National Bank of Missouri decision, which was made in 1874, that said that a national bank could charge an interest rate on money borrowed that was up to the maximum rate allowed by the state in which the national bank was based.)
    "Loan shark"--this term is used in the U.S. to indicate a person who makes loans at very high rates to other persons, usually persons who cannot get loans from, for instance, banks and other financial institutions because they have bad credit ratings, and I have seen it hinted at over my lifetime that loan sharks are individuals who will charge interest rates that are higher than 20 percent and will do harm to people who do not make payments.
    Since the early 1900s, the idea of the credit card has existed in the country; really, only since the 1960s has the credit card become commonplace in the country.  A novice to the country must be aware credit-card companies can charge any interest rate they wish and must be aware credit-card companies can changes rates almost anytime they wish.  In addition credit-card issuers will probably raise the interest rate charged a customer if that customer should make a late payment to any creditor that the customer has, and that comes about through a business practice known as "universal default."

Thought Number Nine:

    On March 18, 2003, the U.S. began the military operation called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," which destroyed the political control of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  No statement will be made about whether or not the action taken by the U.S. government was warranted.  Since March 18, 2003, the main media, such as the broadcast networks, have spent very little time reporting about the good events that have happened in Iraq; for example, I can attest that the main broadcast networks (ABC-TV, CBS-TV, and NBC-TV) have not given daily or weekly accounts about the opening of schools in Iraq, the opening of businesses, and the completion of building projects, maybe electrical distribution facilities.  People of the U.S. have been uninformed and under-informed about what has been done in Iraq since March 18, 2003, and, generally speaking, that means many people of the country are probably making incorrect judgments and drawing incorrect conclusions about "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and what has been transpiring in Iraq since March 18, 2003.

Thought Number Ten:

    On January 28, 1986, I was at a place in the middle of the state of Florida, vacationing, and I was about 60 miles from Cape Canaveral.  At about eleven in the morning on that day, The Challenger, a space shuttle, was launched from Cape Canaveral.  Several minutes after lifting off, The Challenger exploded.  I saw it explode.  On the flight were seven astronauts.  One of the astronauts on The Challenger was S. Christa McAuliffe, and another was Judith A. Resnik; S. Christa McAuliffe and Judith A. Resnik had chosen to take up the challenge to become an astronaut, given the opportunity to be more than what was allowed a person who lived in a country in which the political ways and customs forced a person to live in a grass hut, use dung as fireplace fuel, and wash clothes in a muddy river.  Not every woman or man can be an astronaut, but S. Christa McAuliffe and Judith A. Resnik became astronauts, through whatever full means made it possible.  S. Christa McAuliffe and Judith A. Resnik died as astronauts.  The subtle problem that is the theme of this part is not that S. Christa McAuliffe and Judith A. Resnik--each a woman--died, as did five men, and that people at NASA made decision errors or whatever.  The subtle problem is some people in the country believe and wish other persons to believe NASA purposely blew up The Challenger so that members of the crew could not disclose information about a cover-up related to the Moon landings, as I found out in an article entitled "Flights of fancy? Did NASA fake its missions to the moon?".  {Hugh Westtrop, "Flights of fancy? Did NASA fake its missions to the moon?" Current Science, 5 March 2004, pp. 8+.]

Thought Number Eleven:

    "UFO" stands for "Unidentified Flying Object."  An object that is seen in the air by a person and cannot be identified for what it really is by the person is an object that is not identifiable.  In addition, an object that is seen in the air by a person and cannot be identified is not necessarily a space ship from another planet.
    To take a photographc or picture or a movie of something, you need a camera of some type.  In the late 1800s, photographic cameras were available, and around the start of the 1900s, inexpensive cameras for the family, such as the Brownie (from the Eastman Kodak Company of New York), were available.  By the mid-1900s, families could easily afford 8-mm movie cameras, and such cameras had a heyday from the 1950s to the 1980s.  Since the early 1980s, video cameras of some type, which could capture moving images, have been popular and affordable for individuals.  Disposable cameras started to show up in earnest in the world in the mid-1980s, such as in Japan in 1986 and in the U.S. in 1987.  Since the 1990s, digital still-picture cameras have been popular.  Since 2003, wireless phones that allow a person to capture moving video and send that video over the Internet have been available; before 2003, wireless phones that could capture still images and send those images through the Internet had been available.
    I must talk a moment about television in the U.S.  On July 1, 1941, commercial television began in the country; before then, television had only been an experimental medium.  In 1946, true commercial networks started to appear, the first of which were DuMont and NBC-TV.  Since the 1940s at least , television cameras (video cameras) have been used at television stations in the country and sometimes for remote broadcasts; on December 25, 1937, in New York City (New York), NBC (owned by RCA), which was a radio company then, was the first entity to ever use a mobile television "unit," a type of vehicle that over the next forty years would generally be called an "ENG" unit or "ENG" truck (the "ENG" being an acronym for "electronic news gathering"), and, on November 15, 1938, the first unscheduled news event covered by a crew with a mobile unit (which was associated with NBC) was the broadcasting of building fires on Wards Island (New York City, New York).  From the 1940s to the early 1970s, film cameras were what television stations regularly used to produce news stories at non-station locations, and since the early 1970s, lightweight hand-held video cameras are what television stations have mostly used to produce news stories at non-station locations.
    On Thursday, February 24, 2005, ABC-TV was one of the six main commercial broadcast television networks in the country, and, on that date, the network broadcast a program entitled Peter Jennings Reporting: "UFOs: Seeing Is Believing" (beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time and running to about 10:00 p.m. East Time).  At about 8:03 p.m. (Eastern Time), Peter Jennings said (doing narration of material written by Mark Obenhaus): "More than 80 million Americans believe that the Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials, visitors from outer space.  [A comment by a man is given the viewer.]  More than 40 million Americans say that they have seen or know someone who has seen an unidentified flying object, a UFO.  [A comment by another man is given.]  And many Americans believe that they themselves have been abducted by aliens...."  The television program presented no evidence that anyone has proof that alien spacecrafts have been on Earth or in the atmosphere of Earth.  [Special note: ABC-TV and Peter Jennings did not note from where the information in the quoted material, such as the "40 million," came or did not note from where the statistics came.]
    And now I have two sentences for you to remember.  Although the camera in some form has existed for over one-hundred years, no one has yet captured a clear image of an alien spacecraft in the country, and, for that matter, no one in the world has captured a clear image of an alien spacecraft.  Even though many persons--maybe millions of persons--say that they believe something exists, their saying that the something exists is not proof the something exists.

    Thought Number Twelve:

    On June 12, 1994, Nicole Simpson (the ex-wife of O.J. Simpson or Orenthal James Simpson) and a man (Ron Goldman) were killed by someone; the killings took place at the residence of Nicole Simpson, in Brentwood (the Los Angeles area) of California.  Police arrested O.J. Simpson (a former National Football League player), believing he had done the killings, and O.J. Simpson was put on trial.  This trial was a criminal trial and involved a jury, and the trial ran from January 23, 1995 (the day for opening arguments) to October 3, 1995.  O.J. Simpson was acquitted of killing his wife and Ron Goldman in this criminal trial.  (Another trial--a civil-case trial--against O.J. Simpson would end on February 4, 1997, and find him liable for the killings.)
    The 1995 criminal trial of O.J. Simpson will forever go down in history as evidence of how foolish people can be in their thinking, and one of the indications of that is, during the trial, the defense presented the idea that police of the Los Angeles Police Department and associates of the police department had done work to frame O.J. Simpson for the killings, such as by planting blood evidence at the residence of O.J. Simpson, and people in the country actually thought it possible dozens of persons could have been involved in a plot to frame O.J. Simpson, and, today, people exist who still believe police tried to frame O.J. Simpson for the killings.
    Think about some ideas that hint how very unlikely it is that people associated with the Los Angeles Police Department set up a "frame" against O.J. Simpson.  Men and women who work as police officers and criminal investigators for police can have families, who have to be supported, and most people cannot afford to be caught being involved in a setting up a frame on a well-known person and then end up getting fired or put in jail or prison.  The U.S. is not a "police state," in which all police officers will keep quiet about corrupt deeds of other police officers, especially when a big event is the subject.  And since the country has a press that is not controlled by police or by local government, state government, or federal government entities, the press can uncover corruption and does report on corruption, and no information has ever been put forth for the national audience by any reliable news organization that seems to indicate that police officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (the LAPD) did frame or did conspire to frame O.J. Simpson or that police officers of the Los Angeles Police Department should have been investigated and taken to trial for what seemed to be work done to frame O.J. Simpson.
    Let me report information about something that you can do research on and is not related to the O.J. Simpson criminal trial.  In July 1996, there was a shoot-out between police officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (or the LAPD) and people who were called "gang members" (of the "18th Street Gang") inside an apartment building (at Shatto Place); during the shoot-out, for instance, one gang member was killed.  The police officers involved in the incident were members of the "Rampart Division" of the Los Angeles Police Department, and a police officer who took part in the incident, who was named Rafael A. Perez, later made public claims that there was police corruption related to the incident, a part of which included the planting of guns.  (In September 1996, Rafael A. Perez pleaded guilty to stealing cocaine from a police evidence area, and, in May 2002, a court case ended with Rafael Perez being sentenced to two years in prison for an incident in which he had shot and framed an innocent man.)  Three police officers involved in the incident of July 1996 were taken to court and found guilty in November 2000 of criminal actions, but, then, other events took place, and, for instance, it was publicly announced in December 2004 that the District Attorney for Los Angeles County decided not to retry the three officers, whose convictions had somewhat recently been overturned by an appellate court.
    I have presented the previous paragraph for several reasons.  First, I have shown that police corruption can take place and can be reported in the U.S. and that the Los Angeles Police Department (or the LAPD) has been investigated for police corruption.  Second, I have given you an incident about police corruption and possible police corruption that you can investigate in more detail.
    By the way, I could report other incidents of corruption or criminal activities associated with police officers around the country--usually involving one individual or two individuals--that led to court cases and that were publicly reported.
    A lot of the police officers and lawyers were involved in the O.J. Simpson criminal case, and I note the names of some of them here so that you will have names that can be used in searches of databases to learn more about the criminal trial.  The judge was Judge Lance A. Ito.  The main members of the defense were F. Lee Bailey, Johnnie Cochran, Jr., Alan Dershowitz, Carl Douglas, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck, Robert Shapiro, and Gerald Uelmen.  The main players of the prosecution team were Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, Gil Garcetti, Hank Goldberg, William Hodgman, Lisa Kahn, and Cheri Lewis.  And some of the police officers and associates of the police that worked at the crime scene were: Officer Robert Riske (who was the first LAPD officer at the crime scene), Officer Terrazas, Sergeant Marty Coon, Officer Cummings, Officer Hussey, Sergeant David Rossi, Detective Mark Fuhrman, Detective Ron Phillips, Lieutenant Frank Spangler, Rolf Rokahr (a photographer), Captain Dial, Dennis Fung (an LAPD criminalist), Detective Philip Vannatter, Detective Tom Lange, Andrea Mazzola (an in-training criminalist), and Collin Yamauchi (a criminalist).
    I can say that I watched almost all the television coverage of the criminal trial on broadcast television stations.  I was disappointed in the prosecuting attorneys and underwhelmed by the defense attorneys.  I saw and heard errors made by prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, police officers, investigators, and witnesses.  Because of all the problems that took place with the O.J. Simpson criminal trial and because of the people that I saw and heard in the court room during the television coverage, I will say that I saw no one who was smart enough to create, orchestrate, guide, and operate a "frame" against O.J. Simpson, and I will say that too many people were involved in the case to keep a police frame quiet.
    I have an opinion about whether or not O.J. Simpson should have been found guilty of killing Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but my presenting an opinion about whether or not O.J. Simpson should have been found guilty is not the purpose of this section.  What I have done in this section is present something troubling in the country and given you something to investigate.  If you decide to learn more about the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman killings, you will learn about the "White Ford Bronco" chase, which took place on Friday, June 17, 1994, and you will discover more than a dozen police-associated individuals were already at the crime scene when Detective Mark Fuhrman arrived at the crime scene (and you will learn some people think Mark Fuhrman was instrumental in trying to implicate O.J. Simpson in the killings).

Thought Number Thirteen:

    Musical performers spend much time learning to sing or play an instrument, practicing singing or playing an instrument, and actually singing or playing an instrument, such as during concert tours, and each big-name musical performer is very likely to spend much time of every day focusing on the career, maybe twelve hours a day or more, and well-known actors and actresses are mostly involved in repeating the written words of others, and the written words of others are usually related to fictitious events or are make-believe thoughts or are at best dramatizations of real events (involving "poetic license"), and actors and actresses spend much time searching for work, making personal appearances, and working on productions, and musical performers and actors and actresses are trained in working with non-real matters and non-factual thought, doing self-promotion, relaying feelings and emotions, et cetera.  Given that information, people still seem to believe musical performers and actors and actresses should be regarded highly as thinkers, especially on political matters, forgetting or unaware performers are not trained in gathering, finding, and passing on truthful or useful news, information, facts, and statistics, and people seem to think musical performers and actors and actresses who have gained much admiration for performing--especially those who are television stars and movie stars--should be trusted for their judgments about matters pertaining to non-theatrical or non-music or non-performing matters.  Since people in the country, such as reporters, do seek the opinions of actors, actresses, and musical performers on non-theatrical or non-music or non-performing matters, that is bad.

Thought Number Fourteen:

    I am a writer and reporter.  When I listen to an interviewer on a radio show or television show do an interview about a serious subject with someone, I always listen to how the someone (the interviewee) responds to questions.  If an interviewer asks a clearly to understand direct question and the interviewee attempts to avoid giving an answer or attempts to changes the topic of the moment to another topic, such as by asking questions or making unrelated statements, I get the impression the interviewee cannot be trusted as a source of reliable information, or the interviewee is hoping to hide important or relevant information, or the interviewee is not honorable.  Of course, there are times when an interviewee wishes not to answer a question, and the interviewee has the right to say that I will not answer the question or I cannot answer the question at this time, which can be an acceptable answer, though the answer provides no information.
    Anytime, I watch or listen to an interview, I also analyze the interviewer.  If the subject of an interview is serious, I determine whether or not the interviewer is an individual who seems at least relatively intelligent.  I try to determine whether or not the interviewer might be attempting to make the interviewee, especially a politician, look good by offering questions that can be answered by the interviewee in a way that makes the interviewee seem correct, knowledgeable, smart, right, et cetera.  I determine whether or not the interviewer misses opportunities to ask what I might want to ask.  And I analyze whether or not the interviewer is trying to lead the conversation in a direction that will give the audience information that can cause the audience to possibly draw false conclusions about the subject that is the focus of the interview.
    I have come to the conclusion that many people--millions and millions--are not very good at analyzing information presented to them by speakers, especially politicians.  For example, I can say that many people that I have met seem unaware speakers should backup what they say with data and statistics that can be found in reliable documents that are accessible to everyone.  And, for instance, I hear people who call in to radio talk shows and talk about events and have incorrect information about the events or sequence of events.
    I wanted to make one "thought" in this section completely devoted to a 2004 incident that I heard talked about on a syndicated radio talk show (The Rush Limbaugh Show) in 2004 and heard about from a friend who had heard about the incident through another syndicated radio show (The Midnight Trucking Radio Network) around the same time, but I did not have enough details to say much about the incident in one "thought" for this document.  It was reported in 2004 that some people in the Los Angeles area of California were caught teaching immigrants incorrect information about the U.S. through classes, and it seems, for instance, the immigrants were being taught that the federal government is made up of two branches, which is incorrect.  That  is all that I can say about the incident, which I do believe happened, based on what knowledge I have about the reliability of the sources of the story.
     Since I am unable to pass on a collection of facts about the 2004 incident, such as the names and dates of articles published in reputable newspapers, you should treat what I have presented about the 2004 incident as possibly true, and you should not fully believe the incident is true till you receive a better collection of facts about it, as you should not believe stories about other incidents without receiving a good collection of facts about the incidents.

Thought Number Fifteen:

    What people believe can often be based on little fact and data, and I can make the argument, having done research with at least eight-hundred books and at least 10,000 articles for my project called The United States Book: A Guide to the United States of America, that many people, if not most people, in the country are uninformed or under-informed about the country and main events of the country, and one reason that I can say that I have seen what does not get reported to people widely in this country about what the country is and what is going on by the main news outlets, such as the news divisions of major broadcast networks.  When people are under-informed or uninformed about a topic, they can make decisions that are incorrect about the topic, and when people make incorrect decisions, they can pass along incorrect thought to others.  As more and more people pass along incorrect thought, the thought can become even more incorrect, and once an incorrect thought becomes widely accepted and facts show up to discredit the incorrect thought, it can be hard to remove the thought from being widely accepted, especially by people who will accept no facts and data that will discredit the thought--a thought that they have believed true for a long time.
    This "Thought Number Fifteen" has been put in this document to show how incorrect thought can remain talked about for a long time after it has been shown to be incorrect thought and show how incorrect thought can be passed along by many, even in this country.  To help you with this "Thought Number Fifteen," I have put special sections into the bibliography of this document, which follows soon after this "Thought Number Fifteen," that report on articles and such that you can use to understand this "Thought Number Fifteen" better, and one of the sections is "Articles (specifically related to "Thought Number Fifteen"):", and the headlines of the other special sections also have "...related to "Thought Number Fifteen..." associated with them so that you can find them easily.  To help make this "Thought Number Fifteen," I came across more articles than only those that are listed, but I chose only to pass along some, allowing you to look for more articles if you wish, and, anyway, most of the articles that I was specifically looking for were articles that contained the terms "Bush" and "lied," two words that were found, for instance, in many simple pieces of commentary or simple "editorial" pieces made by average citizens through newspapers, and I did not need to show hundreds and hundreds of articles on the same subject, since I knew my showing a dozen or so articles should do well for this "thought."

    Remember: When you see brackets "[ ]" around text in this "Thought Number Fifteen:," you are supposed to understand that I am adding material to make you understand something better.

    "Weapons of mass destruction" or "WMDs" is only one reason given by the federal government around March 19, 2003, that the federal government chose to invade Iraq on March 19, 2003, and since March 19, 2003, many people have announced or believed the federal government--particularly U.S. President George W. Bush--lied about "WMDs," and the people have been writers in newspapers and average citizens, and, here, I have examples of people saying that they believed President Bush lied.  On June 24, 2003, Capital Times had an editorial that began with "It is almost too much to digest.  Bill Moyers, in a recent Now program [which was then a one-hour weekly a television program on the PBS network], built a case that the Bush administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq that is almost irrefutable...."  On July 2, 2003, Agence France Presse had an article that began with "The US public is tiring of the war effort in Iraq and, for the first time, a survey said Wednesday, most believe the Bush administration 'stretched the truth' or lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction...."  On July 13, 2003, Columbus Dispatch had an editorial that began with "President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft have lied about weapons of mass destruction and about the threat Iraq posed to the United States...."  On July 15, 2003, Associated Press Online had an article that began with "Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter released a new book, accusing President Bush of illegally attacking Iraq and calling for 'regime change' in the United States at the next election.   Ritter criticized key figures caught up in the U.S.-led war at Monday's U.N. news conference.  He said Bush lied to the American people and Congress about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction...."  On July 29, 2003, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had an article that began with "'Bush lied, people died,' shouted some of the 200 protesters who gathered Downtown yesterday morning at Tenth Street and Penn Avenue to demonstrate against President Bush's appearance at the National Urban League Annual Conference...."  On November 10, 2003, Capital Times had an article in which the second line was "We have a president that lied to us about why our men and women are going into battle and that's a pretty serious thing," Franken [Al Franken, well known for being a comedy writer] said to a supportive audience at a Democratic Unity Fund fund-raiser held Sunday night [November 11, 2003] at the home of Lynn McDonald, mother of Ben Wikler, a Madison West graduate and Harvard student who helped Franken research his recent book...."  On February 13, 2004, The Press Association through an article noted that "A majority of Americans now believe President George Bush lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the run up to war, a poll found today....."  On March 15, 2004, Xinhau General News Service said in an article that "Canadians overwhelming believe U.S. George W. Bush lied to justify the Iraq war..." [though I must add that the article did not note what Mr. Bush specifically lied about].  On March 20, 2004, The Associated Press State & Local Wire had an article that had "The one-year anniversary of the war in Iraq inspired several hundred protesters - including a large number of high school and college students - to gather for a rally and march in Atlanta Saturday.  ...Carrying a sign that read 'Bush Lied,' Sunshine said 'the whole justification for the war in Iraq was a fabrication.'...."  On June 24, 2004, Associated Press Worldstream began an article with "Ron Reagan, the younger son of the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan, criticized George W. Bush's foreign policy, saying he believed Bush misled Americans to gain support for the Iraq war.  'We lied our way into the war,' Reagan [Ron Reagan] said on CNN's 'Larry King Live' on Wednesday...."  On July 19, 2004, Agence France Presse began an article with "US Democrats stepped up attacks on George W. Bush anti-terror policies Monday when an official of White House candidate John Kerry's campaign said the president 'flat-out' lied over the Iraq war...."
    The previous paragraph should give you enough to read, and it surely does give evidence that people said that "Bush lied," but, of course, what it does not present is evidence that Bush lied.
    Before you make a determination about whether or not Bush lied about WMDs and Iraq, you will have to do some research and some thinking.  You must do research about how, from at least 1990 to 2003, the United Nations was working to eradicate the biological weapons and other WMDs of Iraq.  You must see how United Nations weapons inspectors had a hard time doing their work in Iraq and how some were expelled for a while.  You must learn about how Saddam Hussein had many Iraqis killed, such as in the southern region of Iraq and in the northern region of Iraq, in the 1990s.  You have to be aware of the dozen or so UN resolutions that were passed against Iraq since 1990 (specifically August 6, 1990).
    When you do your research, you should see the article entitled "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says," which was published in the The New York Times on March 13, 2005 [James Glanz and William J. Broad, "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says," The New York Times, 13 March 2005, pp. 1+.], and you should see the article so that you can see how The New York Times reported information about how people looted machinery and other materials that could be used to make dangerous weapons from weapons installations in Iraq around the spring of 2003 (after the U.S.-led forces had entered Iraq), and you will see it is an article that counters a lot of talk that promoted the idea that Bush lied and makes more talk about the idea that Bush lied as suspect thought.
    Also, you should be aware of a document entitled Report to the President, March 31, 2005, put together by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.  The Commission was established by U.S. President George W. Bush on February 6, 2005, through Executive Order 13328.  The Commission mainly had the duty of investigating the intelligence gathering of the U.S. with respect to Iraq and Iraq's possibly having WMDs around the time of the start of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."  If you look at the document, which is long, you will find the Commission came up with a number of conclusions, and some of the conclusions (eight of the total number), as stated by the Commission, I now present:

    The Intelligence Community's performance in assessing Iraqi's pre-war weapons of mass destruction programs was a major intelligence failure.  The failure was not merely that the Intelligence Community's assessments were wrong.  There were also serious shortcomings in the way these assessments were made and communicated to policymakers

    The Intelligence Community seriously misjudged the status of Iraq's biological weapons program in the 2002 NIE and other pre-war intelligence products.  The primary reason for this misjudgment was the Intelligence Community's heavy reliance on a human source--codenamed "Curveball"--whose information later proved to be unreliable.

    The Intelligence Community erred in its 2002 NIE assessment of Iraq's alleged chemical warfare program.  The community's substantial overestimation of Iraq's chemical warfare program was due chiefly to flaws in analysis and paucity of quality information collected.

    The Intelligence Community relied too heavily on ambiguous imagery indictors identified at suspect Iraqi's facilities for its broad judgment about Iraq's chemical warfare program.  In particular, analysists leaned too much on the judgment that the presence of "Samarra"-type trucks (and related activity) indicated that Iraq had resumed its chemical weapons program.

    Human intelligence collection against Iraq's chemical activities was paltry, and much less subsequently proved problematic.

    The Intelligence Community correctly judged that Iraq was developing ballistic missile systems that violated United Nations strictures, but was incorrect in assessing that Iraq had preserved its scud missile force.

    Iraq's denial and deception efforts successfully hampered U.S. intelligence collection.

    The President's Daily Brief likely conveyed a greater sense of certainty about analytic judgments than warranted.

    Other things you could think about are somewhat abstract.  You could think about how many people you know have a hard time throwing things away and how likely it is that Saddam Hussein threw away all his WMDs before March 19, 2003.  You should think about how big Iraq is in area and how easy it might be for you to hide something in a land as large as Iraq.  You should understand it was already public knowledge around the world in late 1992 that the U.S. was building up a big military force in the Middle East, and it was not as if no one knew an invasion of Iraq was not possible soon and it was not as if, it seems, people did not have time to hide things and take away things from Iraq that they did not want found.  You should understand where you get most of your news and information, which, for example, could be from (1) commentaries and editorials (where opinion is often not backed by fact and is often a collection of feelings and emotions), (2) television news (known more for presenting images than words), (3) a local newspaper (such as a weekly small-town newspaper or county newspaper that does not provide much national or international news), or (4) whatever.  And you should see how many of the publications and topics noted in the sections associated with "Thought Number Fifteen" in the bibliography are unfamiliar to you, and if publications and topics are unfamiliar to you, maybe you are not as informed and knowledgeable as you believe.

Thought Number Sixteen:

    One news event that took place in the U.S. in March 2005, though the event had really started on February 15, 1990, I will always remember as one in which too many people spouted incorrect information, did not understand what was really going on, and drew conclusions about the event that they should not have because they believe the event was exactly like an event with which they had been associated, and the event concerned the state of being of Terri Schiavo, a woman born in 1963.  Terri Schiavo suffered a cardiac-arrest-type event on February 25, 1990, and because of the cardiac-arrest-type event, she became severely brain damaged.  From February 1990 to March 2005, Terri Schiavo lived in what is best described as a "persistent vegetative state" (or "PVS"), which is not a "comatose" state, and, during the time, there were efforts by some people, such as her husband, to let her die naturally, and there were efforts by others, such as her parents, to keep her alive (Terri Schiavo was connected to a feeding tube, unable to eat or drink for herself, but she was not connected to, for instance, other life-support devices).  On March 31, 2005, Terri Schiavo died, which was 13 days after her feeding tube had been removed, which had been allowed through a court decision.
   In the country, people can make it known through legal documents at what point they should not be kept alive if they become injured in some way, and one such document is considered a "living will" and another such document could be like the "Patient Advocate Form" that is used in Michigan.  A living will or another type of document for a person is made by the person when the person is able to make a living will or another type of document, and it is made a legal document through the rules of law that exist in the state in which the person lives.  And a living will or another type of document has to be very specific in wording.
    To make a living will or another type of document, a person should clearly understand what a coma is, what vegetative state is, what persistent vegetative state is, and what brain dead is.
    Here are some facts.   The Brain Injury Association of America has a definition of what a coma is, and part of that definition is noted here: "...Coma is defined as a state of unconsciousness from which the individual cannot be awakened, in which the individual responds minimally or not at all to stimuli, and initiates no voluntary activities....A coma is a continued unconscious state that can occur as part of the natural recovery for a person who has experienced a severe brain injury....while in a coma, a person can continue to heal and progress through different states of consciousness....Persons who sustain a severe brain injury and experience coma can make significant improvements, but are often left with permanent physical, cognitive or behavioral impairments...."  In addition, the Brain Injury Association of America notes that when a person is in persistent vegetative state, people will notice "Arousal is present, but the ability to interact with the environment is not....Eye opening can be spontaneous or in response to stimulation..."  The Coma Recovery Association, Inc., notes that "Clinically, a person is brain dead when all of the following conditions are met: 1. There are no spontaneous respirations (the person cannot take a single breath on his/her own)....5. There are no signs of brain stem activity...."  (I did not write out the entire definitions of the terms as I saw them, which I obtained from Web sites, since I felt it was unnecessary, and, anyway, you can easily find the full definitions for the terms.)
    Several times during March 2005, I saw copies of brain scans of Terri Schiavo.  For example, I saw one copy in a news story presented during the CBS-TV program called CBS News Sunday Morning on Sunday, March 27, 2005.  And, for example, I saw one copy of a 2002 brain scan contained in a story that was posted on a Web site ("Terri Schiavo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), which was at http:/, and I saw a copy of a scan contained in a story entitled "The sad tale of Terri Schiavo, minus the three ring circus" by Jonathan Gitlin, which I saw on March 30, 2005, and which had been posted on a Web site related to arstechnica ( on March 25, 2005.
    Should you decide to make a living will or another type of document, you might wish to make your decision about when life support should and should not be done based on at least the definitions of coma, vegetative state, persistent vegetative state, and brain death and on a certain degree of brain damage, especially irreversible brain damage, as might show in a brain scan, an amount of which might be like that as noted in the brain scan of Terri Schiavo that was widely distributed in March 2005.
    I opened this "Thought Number Sixteen" by noting, in essence, that I noticed how some people had made incorrect conclusions about the Terri Schiavo case around March 2005, being unaware of facts, and I now show one way in which some people made statements that had no relation to the Terri Schiavo case or made statements about events that were incorrectly likened to the Terri Schiavo case.  I heard some people, who called into radio talk shows, try to equate an event that they had gone through with the Terri Schiavo case.  For example, some people said something like this on the radio, "I was in an accident and was in a coma for a few days, and I am glad no one removed my feeding tube."  Any individual who made such a statement showed that the individual had incorrectly understood the Terri Schiavo case, and such a statement  is an example of a subtle problem that many people make when they make comments on radio talk shows (or television talk shows), and that subtle problem is the idea of people making statements--editorials--that are based on not enough information or based on incorrect information or made by linking dissimilar events and the people being unaware the statements are based on not enough information or incorrect information or made by linking events that cannot be linked or compared.

Thought Number Seventeen:

    On Saturday, January 3, 2004, a robot explorer called Spirit landed on Mars, and, on January 25, 2004, a robot explorer called Opportunity landed on Mars.  Since January 2004, the two robot explorers have done research about the makeup of Mars, and one thing that has been found is evidence that Mars very likely had water in the past, and some of the evidence is the existence of goethite and hematite on Mars.  If there was water on Mars and if evidence can be found someday that the water supported some type of life, even things no bigger than microorganisms, how much thought held by people of this country and other countries will have to be considered incorrect and how many people will not be able to give up their incorrect thought?  By the way, both rovers were yet operational on March 15, 2004, a date long beyond that which the rovers had been expected to be operational.

    Through this section, I have given you seventeen thoughts to contemplate.  If you do not see how the thoughts show problems that can exist in the country or that do exist, then you have to do more thinking about the thoughts and need much more knowledge about the country and other topics, and it might be said that you have yet to gain wisdom.  I will say that the thoughts test you in thinking and not in simply recalling facts as if taking a test during which recalling facts from memory is more important than thinking to draw conclusions is, especially correct conclusions.
    The seventeen thoughts to contemplate when combined with the statements of the first two sections of this document should make you think about a yet-unstated matter.  Since incidents like those listed within this section do take place in the U.S., it is very likely similar incidents of a worse nature can happen in other countries--given the nature of people.  Although incidents like those listed within this section do occur in the U.S., at least incidents like those listed can become public knowledge.
    This section now continues with a bibliography.  The bibliography provides a list of published materials that I saw to gain facts, such as dates, about some of the events.  The materials can be used by you to gain more information about the events that have been talked about within this section and lead to your discovering other materials.



Freed, Donald, and Raymond P. Briggs, Ph.D.  Killing Time: The First Full Investigation Into the Unsolved Murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.  New York, NY: Macmillan, 1996.  (ISBN 0-02-861340-6)

Fuhrman, Mark.  Murder in Brentwood.  Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1997.  (ISBN 0-89526-421-8)


"And now, a throwaway camera."  Time, CXXVII, 27 January 1986, p. 45.

"Biden's Patronizing Outburst."  The Denver Rocky Mountain News, 6 September 1998, p. 2B.

"Cards industry gives thumbs down to Congress as effective competition spark."  Card News, VII, No. 25, 28 December 1992, pp. 1+.

"DA Garcetti ousted amid Rampart scandal."  United Press International, 9 November 2000, p1008313u1201.

"Enron events unfold."  USA Today, 16 January 2002, p. 11A.

"Factory Orders Climbed 2.3% in December."  The New York Times, 5 February 1999, p. C8.

"Judge Declines To Order Reinsertion Of Schiavo's Feeding Tube." The Frontrunner, 22 March 2005, LEADING THE NEWS.

"Jury convicts three offers in LAPD corruption scandal."  Chicago Tribune (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service), 15 November 2000, p. NA.

"L.A.'s Dirty War on Gangs: A trail of corruption leads to some of the city's toughest cops."  Newsweek, CXXXIV, No. 15, 11 October 1999, p. 72.

"Manufacturing Slid Again in December."  The New York Times, 5 January 1999, p. C9.

"Mars Rovers Spot Water-Clue Mineral, Frost, Clouds."  AScribe Newswire, 13 December 2004.

"MCI Aims to Make WorldCom History."  The America's Intelligence Wire, 19 May 2003, p. NA.


"Mysterious 'Flying Saucers' Reported Seen Over 10 States."  The Washington Post, 4 July 1947, p. 1

"NASA Mars mission lands."  United Press International, 3 January 2004.

"No re-trial for three LA Rampart cops."  UPI NewsTrack, 10 December 2004, p. NA.

"The People vs. Simpson."  People Weekly, XLII, No. 15, 10 October 1994, pp. 42+.

"Perez gets two years in LAPD shooting."  United Press International, 7 May 2002, p1008126w3101.

"Rover confirms presence of water on Mars."  Agence France Presse, 19 March 2004.

"Schiavo parents plan new US Supreme Court appeal."  Agence France Presse, 30 March 2005.

"Second NASA rover lands on Mars."  United Press International, 25 January 2004.

"Senate control shifts to Democrats with Jeffords leaving GOP." Japan Economic Newswire, 24 May 2001.

"Senate Republican leader Lott vows to continue fight for Bush's agenda." Agence France Press -- English, 24 May 2001, Domestic, non-Washington, general news item.

"The Simpson case: Chronology from pre-murders to arrest."  Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 20 January 1995, p0120K4760.

"THOSE FLYING SAUCERS."  The New York Times, 6 July 1947, p. 80.

"Too soon for a disposable camera?"  Chain Store Age - General Merchandise Trends, LXII, November 1986, p. 59.

"U.S. Mars rover near landing on Red Planet."  Deutsche Presse-Angentur, 4 January 2004.

"WORLDCOM FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION."  Global News Wires/Newswire (VNU), 22 July 2002.

Antczak, John.  "More Mars discoveries as age, terrain challenge rovers."  The Associated Press, 25 June 2004, BC cycle.

The Associated Press.  "Military Planes Hunt Sky Discs With Cameras in Vain on Coast."  The New York Times, 7 July 1974, pp. 1 and 5.

The Associated Press.  "Scientists Scout Wide Reports Of Discs Flying Over Nation."  The Washington Post, 6 July 1947, pp. M1 and M3.

Brick, Michael.  "Factory Index Shows Output At Its Lowest In a Decade."  The New York Times, 2 February 2001, p. C2.

Carelli, Richard.  "Citibank Gets OK For Late-Payment Fees." Chicago Sun Times, 3 June 1996, FINAL MARKETS, NEWS, page. 3.

Clark, Robin.  "Boss says Fuhrman was never alone at murder scene." Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 16 March 1995, p0316K7195.

Cloud, John.  "L.A. Confidential, for Real: Street cops accused of frame-ups in widening scandal."  Time, CLIV, No. 13, 27 September 1999, p. 44.

Davis Jr., Charles E.  "Flying Saucers Baffle Radar, But People Keep on Seeing 'Em."  The Washington Post, 7 July 1947, pp. 1 and 3.

Davis, Mark.  "Simpson acquitted of murder charges."  Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 3 October 1995, p1003K7184.

Dougherty, Hugh.  "CRISIS FOR BUSH AS RENEGADE HANDS SENATE TO THE DEMOCRATS."  Press Association, 24 May 2001, home news.

Doyle, T.C.  "What Happens When You Miss the Boat -- Several companies-and not just dot coms-struggle to stay afloat amid bankruptcy, plummeting stock prices and downsizing."  VARbusiness, 12 June 2000, p. 17.

Evans, Jim.  "And Now the Big Bankruptcy."  The Industry Standard, III, No. 37, 18 September 2000, p. 93.

Ewalt, David M.  "Dot-Com Death Rate Slides In 1Q; Only 54 Internet companies shut down or filed for bankruptcy in the quarter, compared with 164 during the seam period last year."  Information Week, 4 April 2002, p. NA.

Ferrell, Greg.  "Accounting firm destroyed Enron records." USA Today, 11 January 2002, p. 1B.

Gatchel, Col. Theodore L.  "Scott Ritter: No good deed goes unpunished." Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service, No. 279, 6 October 1998, p.1006KJ093.

Gellman, Barton.  "Senate Democrats Attack Ritter: Ex-U.N. Arms Inspector Faulted for Failing to See Big Picture."  The Washington Post, final edition, 4 September 1998, p. A4.

Greer, William R.  "CONSUMER SATURDAY; DISPOSABLE PHONES AND CAMERAS." The New York Times, Late City Final Edition, 2 May 1987, Section 1, p. 36.


Hamburger, Tom, and Ken Brown.  "Andersen Knew of Enron Woes a Year Ago."  The Wall Street Journal, 17 January 2002, p. A3.

Henry, Natalie M.  "DEMS, GOP MULL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES UNDER DEMOCRATIC CONTROL."  Environment and Energy Daily, Senate Leadership, X, No. 9, 25 May 2001.

Johnson, Mike.  "Fuji steals ad march on Kodak."  Marketing, 3 May 1990, p. 9.

Kirkland, Michael.  "Court considers credit-card late charges." United Press International, Washington News, 24 April 1996, BC cycle.

Kirkland, Michael.  "Court to look at credit card charges." United Press International, Washington Week, 19 January 19, 1996, BC cycle.

Kramer, Carl.  "Fuji's Throwaway Camera."  The Washington Post, Final Edition, 10 April 1987, Weekend, p. N44.

Krantz, Michael.  "Trouble grew in Enron's interlinking partnerships." USA Today, 22 January 2002, p. 2B.

Lacayo, Richard.  "An ugly end to it all."  Time, CXLVI, No. 15, 9 October 1995, pp. 30+.

Lantigua, John.  "Congress takes action on Schiavo case." Cox News Service, 19 March 2005, Domestic; Non-Washington; General News Item.

Leonhardt, David.  "DROP IN SPENDING BY U.S. CONSUMERS SIGNALS SLOWDOWN."  The New York Times, 3 December 2000, pp. 1 and 50.

Leonhardt, David.  "U.S. Jobs Report Is Another Indication of a Slowing Economy."  The New York Times, 9 December 2000, p. C1.

Lorek, Laura.  "Grim Reapers Prey On Dot-Com Failures."  Inter@ctive Week, VII, No. 27, 10 July 2000, p. 10.

Lowe, Roger K., and Darris Blackford.  "BANKS WIN LATE CREDIT FEE BATTLE."  Columbus Dispatch, NEWS LOCAL & NATIONAL, 4 June 1996, p. 1A.

Macklin, William R.  "Simpson trial shows black and whites divergent sense of justice."  Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 30 September 1995, p930K6012.

Magnuson, Ed.  "'A serious deficiency'; the Rogers commission faults NASA'S 'flawed' decision-making process."  Time, 10 March 1986, pp. 38+.

Magnuson, Ed.  "Fixing NASA; as a tough report on Challenger is readied, the U.S. debates its space failures."  Time, CXXVII, 9 June 1986, pp. 14+.

Magnuson, Ed.  "NASA takes beating; the Rogers commission blames the agency for an avoidable accident."  Time, CXXVII, 23 June 1986, p. 32.

Magnuson, Ed, and Robert Ajemian, Jerry Hannifin, and David S. Jackson.  "'They slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.'" Time, CXXVII, 10 February 1986, pp. 24+.

McAuliffe, Kathleen.  "Nobel laureate finds clues to shuttle blast." U.S. News & World Report, C, 3 March 1986, p. 73.

McCarroll, Thomas.  "A wordsmith pure and simple; professional writers carve a niche."  Time, CXXIX, 2 march 1987, p. 50.

McEntee, Peg.  "Rocket Maker Calls Report Painful."  The Associated Press, 9 June 1986, AM cycle.

Meece, Mickey.  "Bans on out-of-state card fees headed for Supreme Court."  American Banker, CLX, No. 231, 1 December 1995, pp. 1+.

Meece, Mickey.  "Court says Citi can apply S. Dakota rates in California." American Banker, CLIX, No. 135, 15 July 1994, p. 14.

Miller, Mark.  "A powerful, damaging cross."  Newsweek, CXXV, No. 17, 24 April 1995, p. 36.

Morello, Carol.  "Jury finds O.J. Simpson liable for killing Nicole Simpson, Ronald Goldman."  Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 5 February 1997, p205K2487.

Morello, Carol.  "Start of O.J. Simpson's civil trial brings out gawkers, onlookers -- again."  Knight Ridder/Tribune New Service, 17 September 1996, p917KL5172.

Peterson, Ivars.  "The last, tragic mission of Challenger."  Science News, CXXIX, 1 February 1986, p. 68.

Posner, Gerald.  "Throwing the books at O.J.: after more than a dozen books on the trial, the verdict still doesn't fit."  Esquire, CXXVI, No. 5, November 1996, pp. 62+.

Pringle, Paul.  "Prosecution in Los Angeles Rampart police-corruption trial to rest Monday."  The Dallas Morning News (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service), 28 October 2000, p. NA.

Robinson, Rick.  "Mineral Rights Scams Surface in Oklahoma." The Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News), 15 November 2000, p. NA.

Seidenberg, John P., and Ayo I. Mseka.  "Banks and states debate which should prevail in card operations."  Card News, V, No. 10, 21 May 1990, pp. 4+.

Seidenberg, John P, and Claire E. Taylor and Ayo I. Mseka.  "States create friendly climate for card issuers by repealing usury laws." Card News, VI, No. 11, 3 June 1991, pp. 5+.

Smith, R. Jeffrey.  "Shuttle inquiry focuses on weather, rubber seals, and unheeded advice."  Science, CCXXXI, 28 February 1986, pp. 909+.

Stacy, Mitch.  "Schiavo off tube Judge rejects last-minute intervention." Advocate, 19 March 2005, p. 1.A.

Stevenson, Richard W.  "Clinton Team's Final Forecast No Recession." The New York Times, 12 June 2001, pp. C1 and C2.

Stevenson, Richard W.  "FED CUTS KEY RATE BY HALF A POINT, CITING SLOWDOWN."  The New York Times, 1 February 2001, pp. A1 and C6.

Streisand, Betsy.  "Can he get a fair trial?"  U.S. News & World Report, CXVII, No. 13, 3 October 1994, pp. 56+.

Uchitelle, Louis.  "U.S. REPORT SHOWS JOB LOSS IN MARCH WAS MOST SINCE '91."  The New York Times, 7 April 2001, pp. A1 and C14.

Wells, R.H.  "Panoramic pictures the easy way with the Kodak Stretch 35 camera."  PSA Journal, LXIII, No. 1, January 1992, p. 25.

Westrup, Hugh.  "Flights of fancy? Did NASA fake its missions to the moon?"  Current Science, a Weekly Reader publication, LIX, No. 13, 5 March 2004, pp. 5+.

Reference material (editorial):

"How to fix the budget process."  The Washington Times, 18 April 1997, p. 22.

Articles (specifically related to "Thought Number Fifteen"):

"Amnesty Says Iraq Used Helicopter Gunships to Kill Kurds, Shiites." The Associated Press, 15 July 1991, Monday, AM cycle.

"Antiwar Groups Turn Their Focus to Bush."  Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 20 June 2003, pITEM03171024.

"Australians feel 'misled' over Iraq but stay loyal to Howard, poll finds."  Agence France Presse, 22 July 2003, International News.

"Baghdad's bad boy: Saddam's dark threat of chemical and germ warfare." Current Events, A Weekly Reader publication, XCVII, No. 12, 12 December 1997, pp. 1+.

"Bush lied about Iraq weapons: French Socialist leader."  Agence France Presse, 31 May 2003, International News.

"Commission Offers Scathing Appraisal of US Intelligence."  Voice of America News, 31 March 2005.  VOA ENGLISH SERVICE.

"Crackdown under way in S. Iraq // Use of chemical weapons reported." Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois), 16 November 1993, p. A.1.

"Inspectors charge Iraq has ongoing nuclear weapons programme." UN Chronicle, XXVIII, No. 4, December 1991, p. 4+.

"Iraqi weapons will be found: White House."  Agence France Presse, 17 June 2003, Domestic, non-Washington, General News.

"Kerry aide: Bush 'flat-out lied' on Iraq."  Agence France Presse, 19 July 2004, Domestic, non-Washington, General News.

"Kerry's Attack On Bush's Credibility Examined."  The Bulletin's Frontrunner, 20 June 2003, Presidential Campaign.

"London-based paper discusses US, UK 'lies' over Iraqi WMD."  Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, 4 June 2003, p. NA.

"Most Canadians believe US president lied to justify Iraq war." Xinhua General News Service, 15 March 2004, WORLD NEWS; POLITICAL.

"Panel finds U.S. intelligence 'dead wrong' on Iraq."  Japan Economic Newswire, 31 March 2005, INTERNATIONAL NEWS.

"Robb-Silberman Report Finds Intelligence on Iraq 'Dead Wrong,' Problems Remain."  The White House Bulletin, 31 March 2005, IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND AROUND TOWN.

"Ronald Reagan's son criticizes Bush over Iraq war."  Associated Press Worldstream, 24 June 2004, INTERNATIONAL NEWS.

"UN CLEARS IRAQ OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE."  Chicago Tribune, 1 March 1994, p. 14.

"US accuses Iraq of failing to comply with UN resolutions, XINHUA." The America's Intelligence Wire, 27 January 2003, p. NA.

"US declares Iraq in breach of UN resolutions."  Europe Intelligence Wire, 19 December 2002, p. NA.

"US-led forces poised to strike as clock ticks down to Iraq war." Agence France Presse, 19 March 2003, International News.

Anidjar, Patrick.  "Majority in US believes Bush 'stretch' truth about Iraq: poll."  Agence France Presse, 2 July 2003, General News.

The Associated Press.  "REPORTS ACCUSE IRAQIS OF DEADLY CHEMICAL ATTACKS."  The Salt Lake Tribune, 23 October 1993, p. A.6.

Barr, Cameron W., and Faye Bowers.  "Gassed once, Kurds fear reprise; Iraq killed 5,000 people in Halabja with chemical weapons in 1988.  Locals still lack masks, and no nations have offered help."  The Christian Science Monitor,  26 February 2003, p. 06.

Barry, John.  "Unearthing the truth."  Newsweek, CXXXI, No. 9, 2 March 1998, pp. 40+.

Blanche, Ed.  "Kurds Say They're Moving on Oilfields as Iraqi Uprising Spreads."  The Associated Press, 10 March 1991, BC cycle.

Carlson, Tucker.  "Kerry vs. Cheney - Part 1."  The America's Intelligence Wire, 17 September 2004, p. NA.

Chaddock, Gail Russell.  "Bush, Blair, and WMD intelligence." Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), 30 January 2004, USA, p. 01.

Came, Barry.   "Saddam's secret arsenal."  Maclean's, 24 November 1997, pp. 92+.

Dreyfuss, Robert, and Jason Vest.   "The lie factory: only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the case for invading Iraq.  Here is the inside story of how they pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war."  Mother Jones, XXIX, No. 1, January-February 2004, pp. 34+.

Flint, Julie.  "Turning away from genocide."  New Statesman & Society, VI, No. 279, 19 November 1993, pp. 26+.

Glanz, James, and William J. Broad.  "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says."  The New York Times, 13 March 2005, pp. 1 and 12.

Gouras, Matt.  "Reservists unlikely to be sent to front lines." The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 19 March 2003, BC cycle.

Hedges, Chris.  "Witnesses Report Iraq Is Using Chemical Arms." San Francisco Chronicle, 16 November 1993, p. A.1.

Johnson, Ed.  "Opponents of War in Iraq Criticize Blair." Associated Press Online, 1 October 2003, INTERNATIONAL NEWS.

Landay, Jonathan S.  "Militant Group Was Concocting Chemical Weapons." Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 2 April 2003, pITEM03092258.

Lederer, Edith M.  "Former Inspector Ritter's Book Rips Bush." Associated Press Online, 15 July 2003, INTERNATIONAL NEWS.

Lewis, Paul.  "IRAQ ACCUSED OF RIGHTS VIOLATIONS."  The Oregonian, 24 November 1993, p. A.06.

Massie, Michelle K.  "200 PROTEST BUSH'S APPEARANCE."  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), SOONER EDITION, 29 July 2003, p. A-5.

Miller, Judith.  "IRAQ ACCUSED; A Case of Genocide."  The New York Times, 3 January 1993, pp. SM12+.

Morin, Richard, and Dana Milbank.  "Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War."  The Washington Post, Final Edition, 13 February 2004, p. A01.

Morris, Dick.  "Bush should display his anger at intelligence failure." The Hill, 8 October 2003, p. 27.

Moscoso, Eunice, and Nicolas Brulliard.  "THOUSANDS OF ANGRY VOICES AT BUSH'S INAUGURAL."  Cox News Service, 20 January 2005, General News.

Odum, Charles.  "One-year anniversary of war in Iraq attracts protesters." The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 20 March 2004, BC cycle.

O'Rourke, Lawrence M.  "Bush lied or is just gullible, Fore says." The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina),  Final Edition, 25 June 2994, p. A12.

Potente, Joe.  "FRANKEN DELIGHTS CROWD."  The Capital Times (Madison, WI), 10 November 2003, METRO, p. 1C.

Sage, Mark.  "'MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD.'" Press Association, 13 February 2004, HOME NEWS.

Stearns, Scott.  "Poll Shows Most Americans Believe Bush Exaggerated Iraqi Threats."  Voice of America News, 13 February 2004, USA.

Timmerman, Keith.  "The Iraq papers: Saddam's weapons revealed." The New Republic, CCXIV, No. 5, 29 January 1996, pp. 12+.

Tyrangiel, Josh.  "What Saddam's Got: Much of his chemical and biological weaponry remains unaccounted for, and he's working on nukes." Time, CLIX, No. 19, 13 May 2002, pp. 34+.

Articles (known editorial material and specifically related to "Thought Number Fifteen"):

"A bitter ending for marsh Arabs."  The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), 25 November 1993, p. B.2.

ADMINISTRATION LIED ABOUT IRAQ'S WEAPONS."  Columbus Dispatch, Home Final Edition, 13 July 2003, Letters To The Editor, p. 04B.

"Evidence grows Bush lied about war with Iraq."  The Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL), 23, July 2003, p. A10.

"If Bush lied about weapons, so did Kerry."  The Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL), 8 August 2004.

"Reagan's son, 'We lied our way into war.'"  Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), 26 June 2004, p. 4A.

"WAR PLANNED BEFORE BUSH WAS PRESIDENT."  The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia), 7 June 2003, p. A04.

Anderson, Lee.  "Those weapons of mass destruction."  Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), 1 November 2003, p. B7.

Came, Barry.  "Saddam's secret arsenal."  Maclean's, 24 November 1997, pp. 92+.

de Quiros, Conrado.  "Lies."  Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, 30 June 2003, p. NA.

Garvey, Ed.  "WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?  BUSH STILL FAILS TO JUSTIFY WAR."  The Capital Times, 24 June 2003, p. 9A.

Lake, Eli J.  "Analysis: The Dems Bush lied strategy."  United Press International, 14 July 2003.

Special material (related to "Thought Number Fifteen"):

Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.   Report to the President, March 31, 2005."  Web page: (acquired April 3, 2005).

Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General.  "USE OF SANCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE UN CHARTER" (Updated January 2004).  Web site: http://www.un.rg/News/ossg/iraq.htm (acquired on 24 March 2005).

"Terri Schiavo."  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  Web site: (acquired on April 3, 2005).

Bush, George.  "Status of Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions." US Department of State Dispatch, III, No. 47, 23 November 1992, pp. 841+.

Bush, George.  "US efforts to achieve compliance with UN resolutions." US Department of State Dispatch, I, No. 38, 23 September 1991, p. 695.

Clinton, Bill.  "Letter to congressional leaders on Iraq." Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, XXX, No. 14, 11 April 1994, pp. 739.

Clinton, Bill.  "Letter to congressional leaders on Iraq." Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, XXXI, No. 1, 9 January 1995, pp. 3+.

Press releases:

"Diagnostic Tests Planned for Instrument on Mars Rover."  National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Web site:  Release date: 15 March 2005.

"Mars Rovers Break Driving Records, Examine Salty Soil."  National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Web page: http://marsrovers.jpl.  Release date; 2 March 2005.

"Mineral in Mars 'Berries' Adds to Water Story."  National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Web site:  Release date: 18 March 2004.

Beasley, Dolores, and Gretchen Cook-Anderson.  "NASA Statement on False Claim of Evidence of Life on Mars."  National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Web page:  Release date: 18 February 2005.

Special reference material:

"Baseline Budgeting."  Web site for Citizens Against Government Waste, Policy Forum, (acquired February 4, 2005).

"Coma is defined as a prologned [prolonged] state of unconsciouness."  Brain Injury Association of America, (acquired March 30, 2005).

"Kodak: History of Kodak: Milestones 1878-1929."  (acquired March 19, 2005).

"THE SUPREME COURT."  (acquired March 20, 2005).

"U.S. Constitution; Supreme Court of the United States." (acquired on March 20, 2005).

"U.S. Courts: Federal Judiciary Frequently Asked Questions: Federal Judges." (acquired March 20, 2005).

Conigliaro, Matt.  "The Terri Schiavo Information Page."  Abstract Appeal,, 23 March 2005 (update date) (acquired on March 30, 2005).

Cox, Christopher, U.S. Representative, Chairman, House Policy Committee.  "Budget Process Reform: One Reform that Would Change Everything.", issued 4 February 2005 (acquired February 4, 2005).

Dimancescu, Mihai D., M.D.  "Brain Death."  Coma Recovery Association, Inc.,, 5 December 1984 (acquired March 30, 2005).

"Fact Sheet: Excerpt from White House background paper 'A decade of Deception and Defiance."  U.S. Department of State,, 8 November 2002 (acquired March 30, 2005).

FDIC Division of Insurance.  "The Effect of Consumer Interest Rate Deregulation on Credit Card Volumes, Charge-Offs, and the Personal Bankruptcy Rate."  Bank Trends, Number 98-05, March 1998. Citizens Against Government Waste.

Gitlin, Jonathan.  "The said tale of Terri Schiavo, minus the tree ring circus."  arstechnica,, 25 March 2005 (acquired March 30, 2005).

Keith, Robert, Specialist in American National Government, Government Division.  "A Brief Introduction to the Federal Budget Process." CRS Report for Congress,, 13 November 1996 (acquired February 16, 2005).

Kosseff, Jeff.  "Legislators want more time to read bills." The Seattle Times, Nation & World,

Van de Water, Paul N., Assistant Director for Budget Analysis, Congressional Budget Office.  "CBO Testimony: Statement of Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis, Congressional Budget Office, on Budget Projections and Baselines before the Task Force on Budget Process, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives."  Statement date: 1 April 1998 (acquired February 4, 2005).

Wilson, John, and Jill McNab, and Pleasance Purser.  "background note: Iraq and Disarmament."  Parliamentary Library (New Zealand), 18 March 2003 (acquired March 30, 2005).

DVD material:

Fahrenheit 9/11 (c. 2004)
    Note: A Dog Eat Dog Films production
    Presented by: Lions Gate Films, IFC Films, and The Fellowship Adventure Group
    Producer, Writer, and Director: Michael Moore
    Narrator: Michael Moore
    Time: 122 minutes

Fahrenhype 9/11: Unraveling the Truth about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (c. 2004)
    Note: A film by Alan Peterson
    From: Savage Pictures
    Writer: Lee Troxler
    Director: Alan Peterson
    Narrator: Ron Silver
    Time: 78 minutes

Unpublished reference material:

    Also used as reference material was the manuscript for the forthcoming book from The Hologlobe Press entitled The United States Book: A Guide to the Unites of America, written by Victor Edward Swanson, and materials used in the process to create the manuscript for The United States Book: A Guide to the United States of America.

* * * End Thought * * *

    Soon--in fact, in 2005--The Hologlobe Press will publish The United States Book: A Guide to the United States of America.  This book will be the first book ever published--to my knowledge--to present a wide range of information about what the United States of America is in one source.  It is not a book about politics!  It is a book of facts and knowledge that is designed to give individuals the ability to learn how to live better in the country, and it is designed to give individuals the ability to be smarter and be more knowledgeable about the United States of America.  If you can understand the thoughts of this document, especially the section entitled "Thoughts for Consideration," and read The United States Book: A Guide to the United States of America, you should do well in The United States of America, though you may never become the richest person.

Signed: Victor Edward Swanson, publisher

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721
The United States of America

    Note: This document will be updated or have information added to it from time to time in the future.


To go to the main page of The Hologlobe Press, click on:
To see a Web page with "Writing Advice" for everyone, click on: Writing
To see the catalog page for Michigan Travel Tips, click on: Travel
To see the catalog page for T.H.A.T., click on: T.H.A.T.