Ladywriter

squeeeeeeeeeeeee*** Enies Lobby fights... gear 2nd 3rd, 3 rumble ball eatin monster chopper. Zoro in triplicate is a bad ass fuckin move...

It's an awful Halloween surprise. Earlier this week, the Bush/Cheney Administration launched another attack on wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies -- re-packaging a proposal that could lead to the killing of as many as 1,000 of America's most important and iconic animals. Take action now. Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that our wolves deserve a lasting future in Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies. Take action online now at: http://action.defenders.org/site/R?i=sM8Ij9wLpdGUrTrOpsMv1Q.. Following several bloody months of wolf killing in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, a federal court ruled earlier this year against an earlier version of the Administration's proposal to remove Endangered Species Act protections for the region's wolves. In response, the Bush/Cheney Administration actually withdrew that proposal just a few weeks ago. But with the clock winding down on the Bush/Administration, federal officials are launching a last-ditch attempt to re-package and ram through a plan that could lead to the slaughter of as many as two-thirds of the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rockies wolf population. Don't let them get away with it. Urge federal officials to come up with a responsible management plan that ensures a lasting future for these majestic animals. Take action now: http://action.defenders.org/site/R?i=mAivB-EU1JVlvrJZwAkppw.. Time and time again, Defenders of Wildlife has been at the forefront of efforts to save wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies, fighting -- and winning -- in court, on the ground and in Congress to ensure responsible, balanced management of our wolves. In the last two years, caring people like you have sent tens of thousands of messages, made thousands of calls, and donated to help us fight the Bush/Cheney Administration and their allies in court, educate the public and support wolf-saving efforts in the field. Help us safeguard wolves. Take action now: http://action.defenders.org/site/R?i=8QgJvbA5gr2bV5gTxLwhSw.. Unfortunately, we don't have much time to stop this audacious 11th-hour sneak attack on our wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is only accepting public comments until November 28th, so please take action now. For the Wild Ones, Rodger Schlickeisen President Defenders of Wildlife P.S. Over the next month, we need to generate thousands of public comments on this outrageous plan. We need to mobilize conservation activists to show up at public meetings and speak out. And we have to prepare for what could be another long, difficult legal fight ahead.

aint much cuter then a kid dressed up like a vegetable!!!!

NAOMI KLEIN: BAILOUT = BUSH'S FINAL PILLAGE By Naomi Klein, The Nation The bailout has been designed to keep stealing from the Treasury for years to come. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/105452/

THE TRIUMPH OF IGNORANCE: HOW MORONS SUCCEED IN U.S. POLITICS By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com Obama has a lot to offer, but until our education system is fixed or religious fundamentalism withers, anti-intellectuals will flaunt their ignorance. http://www.alternet.org/story/105447/ WANT TO SHUT CONSERVATIVES OUT OF POWER FOR GOOD? IMPLEMENT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future Giving Americans universal access to health care will undermine some of the deepest and most persistent myths of the conservative worldview. http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/105448/ HOW TO MAKE YOUR VOTE AS EASY AS POSSIBLE: AN ONLINE GUIDE By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet How to vote early, find your polling place, check your registration, know what ID to bring, report problems, call a lawyer and more. http://www.alternet.org/election08/105468/ WHITE SUPREMACISTS FANTASIZE THAT OBAMA WILL HELP THEM RECRUIT By Max Blumenthal, The Daily Beast David Duke and white supremacists are grappling with arrests for an Obama murder plot, while hoping an Obama presidency will be good for them. http://www.alternet.org/election08/105459/ MCCAIN IS ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE By Joshua Holland, AlterNet McCain wants to be the great "re-distributor": He takes money from poor people and sends it upwards. http://www.alternet.org/election08/105453/ HIP-HOP GENERATION'S "INDEPENDENCE" IS VERY OBAMA-LIKE By Don Hazen, AlterNet The hip-hop generation was all about becoming more independent from the Democratic Party -- until Obama came along. http://www.alternet.org/election08/105421/ THE REAL STORY BEHIND HOW MCCAIN CHOSE SARAH PALIN By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! Journalist Jane Mayer on how right-wing Washington insiders became "smitten" with Sarah Palin, and crowned her their VP. http://www.alternet.org/election08/105359/ "BE THE CHANGE" AIMS TO GET OUT THE MUSIC VOTE By Steve Silberman, AlterNet Graham Nash and other big name music acts get out the vote with Election Day phone calls to their fans. http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/105086/ CA'S PROP 5: TREATMENT FOR DRUG ADDICTS WORKS AND JAIL TIME DOESN'T -- HERE ARE THE STORIES TO PROVE IT By Matthew Palevsky, AlterNet Treatment graduates ask CA voters to give others the opportunity they had, to get treatment and turn their lives around. http://www.alternet.org/rights/105418/

The way they run the Clinical trials is flawed Its paid for by the companies using their drug and a sugar pill as apposed to an earlier drug that worked but its patten ran out and is now available in generic form. There seriously isnt enough testing and evaluation of long term useage/side effects of these drugs

Just in time for Halloween, we bring you some scary tricks that energy companies have up their sleeves.. Big Oil companies spend a whole lot of money for slick ad campaigns to make it look like they’re pioneering efforts towards a cleaner environment, when they’re actually continuing to be the biggest part of the problem—that is, the drilling, production and burning of fossil fuels which contribute to climate change and toxic pollution. Here’s an example: Chevron has a “Will You Join Us” campaign which features smiling people who pledge to carpool, and use less energy. But, Chevron itself only committed on average $400 million a year between 2002 and 2007 for development of renewable and alternative energies—a mere fraction of the $18.7 billion in profits they made in 2007. We think that energy efficiency efforts are great—they’re the cheapest and most effective changes for immediate benefits. But, individual energy efficiency should happen along with government mandated emissions reductions, corporate standards for fuel efficiency, and massive investment in renewable energies. And, highlighting individual efforts should not be a smoke screen for the inaction of Big Oil. ExxonMobil does one better: Exxon likes to tout its $100 million support (over 10 years) of efforts to develop technology which will capture and bury carbon emissions. But $100 million is a drop in the bucket of the record of $40 billion that Exxon made in profits in 2007. They could spend more on investments in renewable technologies, but they don’t. And what’s more, ExxonMobil has consistently funded groups that deny that climate change is real and that human activity is the main driver of global warming. So the next time you see slick ad campaigns by oil companies claiming their leadership in the fight against global warming, don’t be tricked. In all likelihood, it’s just a mask..

fuck it man re-do it and stick to the cannon. People will watch

like most other days I have cleaning, laundry, yard work, appointments and is waiting on phone calls >.< maybe I'll costume up later >.>

"some politicians, are reluctant to accept the evidence" some politicians like the governor of Alaska get their climate science from researchers funded by Exxon

does the school have a dress code?

Largest U.S. oil company surges past analyst estimates to post net income of $14.83 billion. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. set a quarterly profit record for a U.S. company Thursday, surging past analyst estimates. Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, or $2.86 per share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70, a year earlier. That profit included $1.45 billion in special items. The company's prior record was $11.68 billion in the second quarter of 2008. The latest quarter's net income equaled $1,865.69 per second, nearly $400 a second more than the prior mark. The company said its revenue totaled $137.7 billion in the third quarter. Analysts had expected Exxon to report a 40% jump in earnings to $2.38 per share, or net income of $12.2 billion, and a 28% surge in revenue to $131.13 billion, according to a consensus of estimates compiled by Thomson Reuters. Exxon's stock price slipped by nearly 3% in afternoon trading. The company's earnings were buoyed by oil prices, which reached record highs in the quarter before declining. Oil prices were trading at $140.97 a barrel at the beginning of the third quarter, and had fallen to $100.64 at the end. Compare that to 2007, when prices traded at $71.09 a barrel at the beginning of the third quarter, and rose to $81.66 by the end. Exxon's special charges include the gain of $1.62 billion from the sale of a German natural gas company. It also includes the $170 million charge in interest related to punitive damages from the Valdez oil spill off the Alaskan coast in 1989. The Irving, Texas-based company said it lost $50 million, before taxes, in oil revenue because of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The company expects damages related to these hurricanes to reduce fourth-quarter earnings by $500 million. Despite the surge in profit, Exxon said oil production was down 8% in the third quarter, compared to the same period last year. The company also said it is spending more money to locate new sources of oil. Exxon said it spent $6.9 billion on oil exploration in the third quarter, a jump of 26% from the same period last year. The company said it began a new program to tap natural gas offshore from Nigeria. Exxon also has an aggressive program for buying back stock with 109 million of its shares repurchased during the third quarter, at a cost of $8.7 billion. In a conference call with analysts, David Rosenthal, vice president of investor relations for Exxon, said the company's "first priority" is utilizing profits to continue investing in exploration programs for oil and other resources. Rosenthal said the company would also consider using new-found funds to bolster its dividend, buy back more shares and to purchase other companies, but he declined to offer specific details. Phil Weiss, analyst for Argus Research, said he doesn't expect Exxon to break any more profit records in future quarters. "I don't expect the fourth quarter to be nearly as good as the third because of lower oil prices," said Weiss. Analysts also said that demand for gasoline is falling, which could impact Exxon and other oil companies. "While oil companies benefit from high oil prices in the short run, they might lose in the long run," Anas Alhajji, chief economist for NGP Energy Capital Management, wrote in an email to CNNMoney.com. "Higher oil prices lead to lower demand, as we have seen in recent months." Earlier Thursday, Europe's leading oil company, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA), reported a 22% gain in net profit for the third quarter, to $8.45 billion. The company said sales rose 45% to $132 billion. Exxon is the second-largest company in the Fortune 500 in terms of annual sales, behind Wal-Mart Stores (WMT, Fortune 500). Exxon's stock price has fallen about 20% so far this year, The S&P 500, of which it is a member, has fallen about 36%. sick-_-;

PATIENTS V. BIG PHARMA: SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE LANDMARK CASE By Niko Karvounis, Health Beat Should patients have the right to sue drug companies for personal injuries from FDA-approved prescription drugs? http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/105277/ the details of the case: In the spring of 2000, Diana Levine of Vermont received treatment for migraines which consisted of the painkiller Demerol and Phenergan, an antihistamine manufactured by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Phenergan is typically injected directly into the muscle or dripped into the vein through steady doses (a procedure called an "IV drip"). When administering the drug, clinicians must be careful not to expose it to blood in the arteries; doing so causes "swift and irreversible gangrene," to use an evocative phrase from a September New York Times article on Levine's case. Unfortunately, the physician assistant who attended to Levine administered Phenergan neither through muscular injection nor IV drip, but through a process called "IV push" -- a direct intravenous shot in the arm. The assistant missed and hit an artery. Over the next few weeks, Levine, who was an avid guitarist, saw her right hand and forearm turn purple and then black -- until both were finally amputated. The court battle is over whether or not Wyeth Pharmaceuticals sufficiently warned against the dangers of IV push on its packaging for Phenergan -- packaging that had been approved by the FDA. The drug's labeling did warn that it was preferable to give Phenergan through IV drip, and warned that "inadvertent intra-arterial injection" -- accidentally injecting the drug into an artery -- could cause "gangrene requiring amputation." But nowhere on the Phenergan label was there an express warning that the method of IV push is extremely risky for this very reason. In 2006, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld a jury decision in state court to grant Levine $6.7 million from Wyeth on grounds that the company should have more expressly prohibited IV pushing on the drug's labeling. Wyeth appealed, arguing that, because the packaging was FDA approved, patients had no right to question it through state laws. In effect, Wyeth claims that federal approval preempts state-based challenges to regulatory standards. ... This case will make law. If the Court rules in favor of Wyeth, patients effectively lose their right to sue a drug company, even if its product harms them in an unexpected way. An FDA stamp of approval would essentially function as a shield from law suits.

Sarah Palin just helped clarify McCain's double-talk on global warming: He doesn't think the government should do anything to stop it. Now the McCain campaign has decided to eliminate the ambiguity entirely in the desperate and erratic final days of his campaign. In her big greenwashing energy speech at an Ohio solar energy company, Palin was as blunt as possible in her prepared (and delivered) remarks: And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders that they must follow -- "so says government". The final three words were ones she added, but the prepared text alone leaves no room for doubt. A McCain-Palin administration will not be issuing new orders that businesses must follow to control greenhouse gas emissions. It will use a voluntary or incentive-based approach, one that has never worked in any country to restrain emissions growth. McCain and his campaign have made a concerted effort to reassure conservatives he's not going to take strong action on climate, while hoping that moderates would be fooled just like some Bush voters were in 2000 ignore all this talk, which itself is a core campaign strategy of doubletalk (see "Memo to media: McCain doubletalks to woo conservatives and independents at the same time"). The Palin speech was the last piece of the puzzle. For one last time, let's consider the increasingly sorry history of the McCain campaign on climate and clean energy: During his career, McCain voted with Senator Inhofe (R-OK) and against clean energy a staggering 42 out of 44 times in the past two decades (see "The greenwasher from Arizona has a record as dirty as the denier from Oklahoma"). In December, anti-wind McCain skipped a vote to extend tax credits for renewable energy, though advisers say he would have voted against it. In January, McCain first boarded his Double-Talk Express on Global Warming when he began to walk away from calling his cap-and-trade "mandatory" -- "voluntary" climate action is of course the core of the Luntz/Bush do-nothing but sound-like-you-care strategy. In February, he repeated his failure to show up for a vote to extend tax credit for renewable energy (the only Senator to do so). In February, McCain repeated that "It's not quote mandatory caps." In March, his senior economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said McCain "might take [new CAFE standards] off the books." April, McCain revealed cynicism, hypocrisy with call for summer gas-tax holiday, energy budget freeze. As I noted at the time, "the greatest threat to the success of a cap and trade system is that somebody might artificially limit the carbon price ... because some weak-kneed President (or Congress) walks away from that price the first time the economy suffers a downturn. McCain would appear to be that weak-kneed Presidential hopeful." In mid-May, McCain announced the details of his climate plan, which stunningly allowed "unlimited offests" (i.e. phony tons) in place of actual domestic emissions reductions, which is the same as "Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." In late May, he "announced he won't even bother showing up to vote on his friend Joe Lieberman's climate bill." In June, he flipflopped on offshore oil drilling and even embraced "more traditional use of coal," an embrace of higher greenhouse gas emissions that is Bush-lite, crude, and not sweet. In July, he released his "Jobs for America" plan with so little on energy efficiency that it suggests he would be Cheney's third term! Again in July, National Review reported that cap and trade was "eradicated" from McCain campaign, according to comments from a "senior McCain official." At the end of July, McCain economic adviser Steve Forbes said, "I think cap and trade is going to go the way of some other things," and it won't "get far" under McCain. The 72-year-old McCain named a global warming denying, Big Oil Super-Shill as his Vice President. His much anticipated acceptance speech never once mentioned the gravest threat facing the health and well-being of the nation and the world. He has been running a campaign ad that appears to attack the very idea of cap-and-trade. His chief economic adviser said this week that McCain won't obey the Supreme Court decision requiring the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. And in text prepared by the campaign, his vice presidential running mate said today that a McCain-Palin administration will not be issuing new orders that businesses must follow to control greenhouse gas emissions, but instead will be adopting an incentive-based (i.e. voluntary) approach. LCV Barak Obama (a good read for Newt Gingrich) "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions. As president, my first priority to combat global warming will be enacting an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80%) for the U.S. to bear an equitable share of the global emissions reduction burden. I will devote significant resources from a permit auction toward accelerating the development and deployment of low carbon technologies, addressing the economic challenges imposed on key industrial sectors, and providing meaningful incentives for action by developing countries. Another top priority for my energy and global warming agenda will be changing the cars we drive and the fossil fuels we burn. I will increase fuel efficiency standards to the limits of technological and economic feasibility; introduce legislation to lift the 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to encourage more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles; and encourage automakers to make fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles by helping them shoulder the health care costs of their retirees. Domestic automakers will get health care assistance in exchange for investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. In addition, I will provide automakers with generous tax incentives for retooling assembly plants. To change the fuels we burn, I introduced legislation to enact a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard that will reduce the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of passenger vehicle fuels sold in the U.S. by 10 percent in 2020 and require additional reductions of 1% annually thereafter."

its a long one IT'S TIME FOR A TRILLION-DOLLAR TAG SALE AT THE PENTAGON By Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com When we want to get serious about a long-term bailout strategy, we'll start dismantling the American empire and Pentagon programs. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/105106/ Today, the Pentagon acknowledges 761 active military "sites" in foreign countries -- and that's without bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and certain other countries even being counted. This "empire of bases," as Chalmers Johnson has noted, "began as the leftover residue of World War II," later evolving into a Cold War and post-Cold War garrisoning of the planet. With those bases came a series of costly wars in Korea in the 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, and the Persian Gulf in the early 1990s. An extremely conservative estimate of their cost by the Congressional Research Service -- $1 trillion (in 2008 dollars) -- tops the present economic bailout. Add in brief cut-and-run flops like Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia, from 1992-1995, as well as now-forgotten hollow victories in places like the island of Grenada and Panama, and you tack on billions more with little to show for it. Since 2001, the Bush administration's Global War on Terror (including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) has cost taxpayers more than the recent bailout -- more than $800 billion and still climbing by at least $3.5 billion each week. And the full bill has yet to come due. According to Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes, the total costs of those two wars could top out between $3 trillion and $7 trillion. While squandering money, the Global War on Terror has also acted as a production line for the creation of yet more military bases in the oil heartlands of the planet. Just how many is unknown -- the Pentagon keeps exact figures under wraps -- but, in 2005, according to the Washington Post, there were 106 American bases, from macro to micro, in Iraq alone. If you were to begin the process of disentangling Americans from this world of war and the war economy that goes with it, those bases would be a good place to start. There is no way to estimate the true costs of our empire of bases, but it's worth considering what an imperial tag sale could mean for America's financial well-being. One thing is clear: in getting rid of those bases, the United States would be able to recoup, or save, hundreds of billions of dollars, despite the costs associated with shutting them down.

I have to believe that the people voting in this election, no matter how racist, pro life, far right they are, have enough common sense to want our rights back and out of bijillion dollar wars. I have to I live here. There's a shitload of new voters, hopefully now there are more people voting on the issues not what color/ethnic background someone is. America is a melting pot, embrace it. Its time to spend our money at home. Our bridges are collapsing and ppl die because they're painted rust. Our entire educational system needs a frigin overhall we're spitting morons out of public schools and smart kids cant afford college. We're in desperate need of repealing some seriously fucked up legislation; the only republican that could have pulled that off was Ron Paul and the repub party did everything they could to shut him down. The quickest way to progress is Obama and a filibuster proof senate. Its time to turn our attention to the health and well being of our ppl. Recent blog about it I can answer Newts question as could anyone with Wiki Obama has sponsored 136 bills since Jan 4, 2005. Two have become law.[2] This figure does not include bills to which Obama contributed very substantially as cosponsor, such as the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 or the Lugar-Nunn Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006. Nor does it include amendments to other bills, although in the Senate these are not required to be germane to the parent bill and can therefore effectively be bills in their own right.[3] Obama has co-sponsored 619 bills during the same time period. Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006.[76] In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.[77] He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.[78] As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before he became President of Palestine, and gave a speech at the University of Nairobi condemning corruption in the Kenyan government.[79][80][81][82]

DRILLING AND KILLING: LANDMARK TRIAL AGAINST CHEVRON BEGINS OVER ITS ROLE IN THE NIGER DELTA By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! In 1998, Nigerian protesters occupying a Chevron oil platform were jailed and murdered. Now, the case is in a U.S. court. http://www.alternet.org/rights/105212/ A landmark trial has begun against the oil giant Chevron. A San Francisco district court is hearing a case brought by Nigerian plaintiffs who accuse Chevron of recruiting and supplying Nigerian military forces involved in a May 1998 shooting and killing of protesters in the oil-rich Niger Delta. The protesters were occupying a Chevron-owned oil platform called the Parabe platform, demanding jobs and compensation for environmental damage to their communities.Soon after landing in Chevron-leased helicopters, the Nigerian military shot to death two protesters and wounded several others. The eleven activists were detained for three weeks, thrown into the notorious Nigerian jails. During their imprisonment, one activist said he was handcuffed and hung from a ceiling fan hook for hours for refusing to sign a statement written by Nigerian federal authorities. Chevron claims force was used to defend the platform from a violent assault and hostage-taking by the protesters. Chevron is being sued under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreign nationals to take legal action over crimes against them overseas. In a moment, we'll be joined by two human rights activists involved in the case, but first I want to turn to an excerpt of the documentary Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship. Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill and I traveled to the Niger Delta to investigate Chevron's role in the killings in 1998. In the documentary, a Chevron official acknowledged to us that on May 28, 1998, the company transported Nigerian soldiers to the Parabe oil platform. This is an excerpt of Drilling & Killing. Amy Goodman: Until now, Chevron has claimed that its only action against the occupation was to call the federal authorities and tell them what was happening. But in a startling admission in a three-hour interview with Democracy Now!, Chevron spokesperson Sola Omole acknowledged that Chevron did much more. He admitted that Chevron actually flew in the soldiers who did the killing. And he further admitted that those men were from the notorious Nigerian navy. Sola Omole: I guess -- AG: Who took them in? SO: What's that? AG: Who took them in? SO: Who took them in? AG: On Thursday morning, the Mobile Police, the navy? SO: We did. We did. We did. We, Chevron, did. We took them there. AG: By how? SO: Helicopters. Yes, we took them in. AG: Who authorized the call for the military to come in? SO: Chevron's management. Jeremy Scahill: Chevron's management. So, Chevron authorized the call for the military and transported the navy to the barge. On top of that, Chevron's acting head of security, James Neku, flew in with the military the day of the attack. AG: Were you on that helicopter? James Neku: Yes, I was in the helicopter. AG: And how many people were there in that helicopter? JN: That helicopter had seven -- six of us. There were six of us, six officers. AG: Including the Chevron pilot or not including? JN: I think excluding the pilot. Including the pilot would be seven. AG: And then, was it a mix of navy and -- JN: A mix of navy and the police. The police were armed with tear smokes. AG: Was it the regular police or the Mobile Police? JN: Mobile Police. AG: The Mobile Police, also known as the kill 'n' go. That's the kill and go. Shell Oil, the largest producer of oil in Nigeria, came under heavy international condemnation in recent years for their use of the Mobile Police, forcing them to publicly renounce the use of the kill and go because of their brutal record in Ogoniland. Oronto Douglas: They shoot without question. They kill. They maim. They rape. They destroy. AG: Environmental lawyer Oronto Douglas was one of the lawyers on Ken Saro-Wiwa's defense team. OD: The kill and go are a murderous band of undisciplined paramilitary Mobile Police force. Their order is to kill. When they go to a community, it's not to maintain peace, it is not to maintain order. 1 2 3 4 5 Next page »

Oy and Wolf would both look good cg.