So gun nut Brendan thinks murder of Gaza flotilla members means you shouldn't do such a good job covering Trevor Martin's? ...well my criticism wasn't that, but on the 'Autism Puzzle...autism in Denmark dropped after mercury (thimerosal) was removed from their
vaccines and the criminal falsification of this result to say the
opposite is pointed to to prove the safety of this evil garbage...I
say evil because of the history of germ warfare in clear cutting the
native people of this land and around the world today. The industrial
production of storm troopers uses adjuvants like mercury, aluminum
hydroxide, pristane, IFA and squalene (a culprit in Gulf War
syndrome) all cheaper than the complicated process of producing
medically ethical products. Your guest is being cheated if
big pharma isn't kicking down some cash for her service to them,
denying their obvious culpability in this epidemic.

Stop Allowing Exploitation of Children, and Stop Doing It Yourself, Sonali
-This is a brief but compelling case against exploiting normal empathic caring for the welfare of children and the exploitation of that sentiment by propgandists using logical fallacy rhetorical devices, manipulative in nature, designed to fill our eyes
with tears for for the notion of suffering children and so to blind us by
by persuasive propagandists
who in fact act as agents of disinformation in a war against freedom in America.

I am compelled to make these comments about these issues raised in part in the
March 31, 2012 Uprising Radio program I listened to on KPFA , and which included a
wolf in sheep's clothing assault on the rights secured to us under the US Constitution.
I am irked by Sonali's lending the voice of KPFA via Uprising Radio to some pop-up
anti-Constitutional rights scheme using the old trick of tying the scheme to children.
How does that work? My guess is since it worked famously against the subversive
Socrates, the account of it has endured in the West's memory by virtue of Plato's writing.
Other's have in recent time used the technique of wrapping their agendas in alleged concern
for 'the children' as an effective tool for their own cynical agendas. By tying some
agendas to a putative concern for child welfare, the manipulative propagandist can
hope to exploit other people's normal human empathic concern for children.
On Uprising Radio today, just such a scheme was presented .
Robbing the American citizen of his right to own a gun is a great way to save children's lives.
No, really it is not.
The murder of a Black youth by gunshot currently in the news, apparently offered an expedient
event to exploit by Sonali and her guest, pushing some fallacious logic that children need
to be protected from the right of American citizens to own guns.
Really, can the American citizen be trusted with any rights at all? when viewed through the
lens of a logical fallacy?
I believe there are powerful entities who believe so and feel threatened by a citizenry
with rights. It could as easily make sense to say save the children from the right of free speech
and even more so, save our children from the right to freedom of thought. Or from
possessing any actual rights.
Was it a gun that allegedly caused Mr. Zimmerman in Florida to kill the helpless
17 year old Trayvon Martin? That hapless youth's name was used by Sonali's guest
to exploit any concern the listening audience may have for that youth who
was killed not with a man using a crossbow nor a crowbar but a gun.
The man was not even initially arrested by the police, indicating either
an extraordinary variant in police procedure from that which is common
in the rest of the nation, or that Mr. Zimmerman, hereafter referred to with
the implied "alleged" status that he legally deserves, was possessed of such
influence or prestige that the police treated him like a VIP for whom
perhaps normal procedures routinely allow for exceptional treatment.
Would the youth Martin logically have been safe from murder if Mr. Zimmermann,
the alleged murderer, had not had the RIGHT to own a gun?
Or was it Zimmerman's thoughts, thoughts that were perhaps touched with paranoia, or his
thought processes which, on that sad day, interpreted , on seeing the 17 year old youth,
who was ambling in the wake of the garbage service truck, in the account I read, in a gated
community as a dangerous enemy threat. It would be like the Israelis seeing the Gaza Freedom
Flotilla as a dangerous enemy only hundreds of miles away and sending their super top notch IDF
flush with billions in US gov. largesse weaponry to stalk then attack and kill /execute some number
of the defenseless passengers. [in reality even a pencil or a shoe in the right hand can be
a deadly weapon, right, so if one has a shoe, or pencil etc...] And under AIPAC /Neocon
influence the US adopted a similar notion that if it's government officials, or even AIPAC,
felt or believed that some sovereign nation, perhaps by it's very existence, is a threat to their
interests, then attacking that nation and killing citizenry including lots of children is a
reasonable thing to do. Perhaps, Mr. Zimmerman was operating with a similar mentation.
Is it not possible that mentation and the belief that one can kill an unarmed apparently non
threatening individual etc. if one has a greatly inflated notion that self defense of what
is reasonable in determining that someone poses a threat sufficient as to justify using lethal force
whether a gun or other weapon as a response. Zimmerman seems to have an Israeli-type expansive,
in that it seems vague and vast, view of self defense that interpreted even the presence of
a 17 year old Black youth, following the trash collection company truck into the gated community constituted cause for an aggressive deadly action putatively self defense action to eliminate the
perceived threat. It was not a gun fundamentally that killed the Black youth, it was the alleged
Mr. Zimmerman what done it. He could have used a knife, or a crossbow or a stick or a crowbar etc.

Save the children was the Anita Bryant figure headed organization that wanted to prevent
homosexuals from holding teacher positions in public schools because that constituted an
inherent threat to the safety of children as I recall.

I heard in an interview with an author who wrote something on the matter of using children's
putative wellbeing as the reason for fluoridating the public drinking water when the real agenda
was that the aluminum industry was faced with the problem of disposal of large amounts of a toxic
by product fluoride material. An agent of the aluminum industry bribed a high US government
official who was head of whatever agency it was that initiated the practice under Federal
impetus of putting the toxic refuse of fluoride scraped from the factory smokestacks into the public drinking water in cities across the USA under the assertion that it was for the purpose of reducing the dental carries of CHILDREN. Who could argue with such a noble sentiment?
It was noted that children living along the waterways, rivers etc. downstream from aluminum factories
which had been dumping the fluoride refuse into the their water had no dental carries.
There was no scientific study that produced nor verified this story just an assertion from a
the representative of the aluminum industry , who had also paid a $750,000 bribe to the
head of the US government agency involved. In fact, according to the author there was much
costly death of livestock and human harm downstream from the factories resulting in costly litigation
as a result of aluminum factories polluting the rivers and streams into which they dumped the
toxic fluoride byproduct refuse. This is why the industry was looking for an inexpensive
mode of disposing of the toxic fluoride away from the waterways. Apparently, children
in the communities downstream from the aluminum factories lost all of their teeth at an
early age. So, in fact, they had no problem with dental carries, and when it was asserted that
fluoridation of public water was for preventing carries, it was originally based on that someone's
observation simply that children exposed to fluoride near factories had no dental carries.
There were no scientific studies done to verify this before the onslaught of fluoridated drinking
water the author noted.
Yet, amazingly, we still have fluoridated water in San Francisco because supposedly it
helps prevent the little children from getting dental carries despite the fact that there
is a substantial quantity in the recent decades of excellent published scientific research
that clearly indicates there is no benefit from systemic ingestion of fluoride and there are
many serious harmful outcomes from long term ingestion of fluoridated water.
Sadly ironic, most notably it is children who suffer the most as, in addition to a multitude of the
other possible ill health effects, children growing up on fluoridated water results in their
having a reduced IQ. Another author, Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon who now researches the large accumulation of published scientific research relating to nutrition and
neurology, compellingly addresses the history and issues of water fluoridation in his book:
Health and Nutrition Secrets.

SO much for using children as a propaganda tool!
I have to realize that the right to own guns and rifles is a vitally important right, even though I do not, myself, own any guns nor have ever used or fired one. I value my
right to do so, and I do not like it that KPFA lends itself to an assault on any of our
Constitutional rights; and does so by someone using such a tired old cynical device as exploiting whatever tragedies may exist involving children and guns; and I would not,
don't trust statistics concocted for this cynical sociopathic sideways assault on the Constitution, an entity that is still functioning despite many, even continuous, assaults by
such people as whoever devised this current cynical exploitation of children presented by
Sonali, for their assault on our rights; an assault that is concurrent with constant
waging of war on the right of free speech and probably targeting the very notion of freedom of thought. Ms Sonali is a wee meaning and kind person, and, I believe, an immigrant of, to me, unknown specific ethnic identity whose English is excellent so I assume she may have come as a child to this land of the CONSTITUTION, and does not fully grasp that it still provides priceless protection to us Americans even amidst the ascendance of some unseen and hostile elite reshaping the country.
Sonali 's guests utilize logical fallacies to manipulatively, deceitfully, propagandize the listening audience with the suggestion that depriving the American people of their constitutional right to own and bear these weapons is necessary if children are to be safe.
It seems as likely as not, or maybe more so, that some billionaire of dubious ethics is behind the guest's organization and agenda wanting to disarm the American population.
That Mr. Zimmerman the alleged murderer of a Black youth whose very presence visibly walking along a road near Zimmerman's home incited in him a lethal reaction to eliminate the apparently piteous unarmed youth who was calling out for help from anyone when Zimmerman allegedly eliminated him; seeing the youth, apparently, as a kind of Gaza Flotilla threat slouching to him, albeit not actually moving in a direction toward Zimmerman's home. There is no reason to assume that Zimmerman, the alleged murderer, would have changed his apparently delusional perception of danger to himself because he lacked a gun, nor to assume he would not have acted lethally in the face of the fiercely
unwanted invader if he had not had the right to own a gun.

May I end my long comment that may already be deemed too long to post, with a happy
consideration in the matter of exploitation of human natural inclination to care about the welfare of children generally, not just their own?
The current wifi smart meter onslaught so far has not attempted to be presented as beneficial for children. Since damaged DNA, and damaged blood brain barrier are apparently just a few of the elements of the harmful effects that can currently be
anticipated from deployment of these devices, probably there is as well a much greater
collection of harmful outcomes that are not yet seen; like an iceberg, which, though it
may visibly be great, while in fact the vast amount of it's size is below the water's surface and not visible. The smart meters and their grid may well be like great icebergs drifting toward each wee vulnerable Titanic as soon as it is launched into the world of the California private monopoly utility customer's world. And it would not surprise me, were, somehow, the CPUC to authorize a promotion of some expected smart meter benefit for children; perhaps they could throw in fluoride, also under the purview of CPUC and that agency's mission mandating it's Commission to act for the public benefit and safety.
So we must beware of anything being tied to children's best interests and smart meters.
I can all too readily imagine such a scenario as this.
Since the public believes that fluoridated water is beneficial for CHILDREN, and may hear whispers of wifi smart meters be harmful, why not try to tag smart meters to fluoride's officially beneficial effects by saying smart meters enhance the fluoride already in the drinking water to make dental caries possibly a thing of the past even in the presence of terrible, sugar laden diets!!!
Do not bother grabbing that cookie from the tot's hand, just give the tyke a glass of
water from the sink to wash it down, and rest content that dental caries are kept at bay!

Who knows, smart meter radiations may well have some unknown and unanticipated effect on fluoride in the body as the body stores fluoride often displacing or otherwise occupying places where normally iodine is stored.