Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Thursday, 18 January 2007 at 2h 33m 17s|
I forgot who that person was
the individual cast against the walls of the skull
the caricature of selfdom
and the opened luggage besides
with unwashed socks piled randomly
upon the tossled blue jeans and flannel shirts
and the scattered papers wherein lie the sketched imprints of the real
that flows endlessly
is said to cease
at some point called death in the future
rather than a mirror to another domain
that is leaped through like entering the surface of the water
into the world beyond
where time slows way down
and sentences take half an eon to speak
like an evolutionary process
eclipsing the history
|Sunday, 14 January 2007 at 20h 3m 16s|
Eisenhower's farewell address
On January 17, 1961, 3 days before he stepped
Eisenhower gave a farewell address where he warned about the rise of military
contracts and military contractors. And he would know because he presided over
the presidency at the time of the CIA's nascent overseas black operations, and
when the first groups of US advisors and forces began to show up in Vietnam.
Yet it was Eisenhower who squelched the idea of dropping an Atomic Bomb during
the 1954 French military defeat at Diem Bien Phu. It was Eisenhower who managed
a successful de-escalation and troop withdrawal from Korea.
He was the Commander in Chief during World War Two AND also President from 1952
to 1960. He was in a position to know what he is talking about.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms
must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be
tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of
my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments
industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make
swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of
national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and
women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry
is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political,
even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the
Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet
we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and
livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that
security and liberty may prosper together.
You can get the entire farewell speech here or here
for a more readable format.
Little known is a 1953 Presidential speech by President Eisenhower where he
castigated the "war
machine" and laid out his reasons for pursuing peace. Mind you, the Dulles
brothers were orchestrating international escapades in Iran, Iraq, Indonesia,
and Central America at the time, but Eisenhower was independent of those
intrigues, and discovered them towards the end of his Presidency. Nixon
discovered them too -- Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President -- and was in the
middle of the Bay of Pigs development in 1961 when Eisenhower gave his farewell
address above. Nixon's connections with the mob are documented. and given that
Nixon was also involved with the Cuba-Bay-of-Pigs cabal that is known to have
resulted in Kennedy's assassination, one has to wonder just how deeply involved
Nixon really was. Recall that Nixon barely lost to Kennedy in 1960.
Oh but I digress, the history is too intricate to ignore.
Anyway, here is what Eisenhower said in his 1953 speech. Click here for the entire speech.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies,
in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who
are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the
hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of
threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
-- From Address by President Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Chance for Peace"
delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April
|Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 18h 37m 29s|
The real motives of Intelligent Design
Thom Hartmann (a Radio talk show host) talked about two
involving politics, science, nature and religion today. He talked about how
intelligent design is really a religious belief, and the Theory of Evolution is
a scientific fact based upon observable effects and predicable
experimentation. Mutations and changes in the Earth's environment are
cataclysmic events that result in some species being better adept to live by
exploiting some available resource or method of obtaining such resource.
Animals that specialized a method of eating and having off-spring have an very
advantageous ability to live. However, when the environment or eco-system
changes and these specialized methods are no longer effective, the species who
cannot adapt die off.
Thusly, if we humans cannot change our methods of energy production we will
destroy our ability to live here on Earth and die off, like the Dinosaurs
The beliefs called Intelligent design consist of the idea that some superior
man-like being "intelligentally" watches over all events big and small,
ascribing to all of the multitude of molecules, sub-atomic particles, planets,
universes, and living things his very astute eye. The father with a thick grey
beard -- or the loving earth mother -- watches over his many flocks, rewarding
and punishing them, or pushing a little here, pulling back a little there, all
day and night, 24-7. In short, God is a control freak that has his hand in
everything that goes on for a higher "intelligent" purpose.
It must be remember firmly by all who have personal religious "spiritual"
beliefs (like myself, and everyone else) that this "God" and the actions
of "God" get interpreted by human beings. People who go around saying
that "God" has spoken to them are viewed with suspicion for a reason. Why
would "God" speak to some persons, but not everyone anyway; or if "God" does
speak to everyone by actions, the interpretation or ramification of these
actions and events still must come through mankind. These spokespersons for
the Lord, or "prophets," are not always considered such by their
contemporaries, and are only named "Prophets" after they are dead and history
views them with better perspective. These "prophets" are also equated with
social upheaval and political events that are rooted in a community of ideas
and common issues. In short, religious faith and spiritual beliefs cannot be
separate from the human society in which they evolve because their is no way to
separate the actual God from the interpretations of men.
We cannot know what God's intentions are really. Certainly the course of
action that is most beneficial to everyone would be the best action to take,
but we modern-day persons assume an infinite wisdom and ageless perspective.
The Gods of the ancients, and even some Christian religious sects, were
jealous, whimsical, and wrathful beings. We humans cannot ever completely
understand the workings of the Universe, and are only better equiped by the
advanced technology of our machines. We analyze actions and reactions
scientifically and observe phenomenom that we try to explain, with models that
are usually better, but not anymore adequate to a complete understanding.
However, to say that God is what lives in the vacant spaces of scientific
knowledge is a very limited narrow-minded view of spirituality.
The belief that all things must happen for a purpose does not have to interfere
with the scientific method. Nor does the scientific method obliterate the
purpose of God and spirituality. Knowledge and understanding are intrinsic
parts of spiritual awareness, and spirituality is not separate from the human
culture and society from which it comes -- which is why there are and have been
millions of religions across the world throughout the history of mankind.
What we have here is a political movement that is trying to foist confusion
upon the ignorant masses who consider themselves religious folk. Lacking
scientific knowledge these people are vulnerable to this foolishness because
they don't have the knowledge to understand evolution, and thus can be
persuaded to view evolution as something that is anti-religious and hedonistic.
This is yet another battle in the age-old fight of "Faith" versus "Reason" by
organized religion upon the universities, or the Protestants upon the Catholic
monopoly in Europe, or the mandarins versus the clerics in China and the
ancient world. Or in modern day language: obeying the hierarchy of
officialdom versus thinking for yourself and being allowed to see the documents
or here the ideas upon which all official decisions a based.
|Friday, 22 December 2006 at 20h 37m 41s|
Bush is nuts
They can't let go of the plan. Those 14 permanent military bases were meant to
be the beginning of an invasion of Syria and then Iran. This is why Bush and
the gang listen to no one. They are driven by their messianic conviction of
the grand plan.
And today, in the San Francisco Comical (disgrace of a newspaper) all you got
was a sloppy story about Bush's intentions to increase troops -- buttressed no
less with the hack words of American Enterprise Institute, in the 4th
paragraph. AEI is a lobbyist mill that is literally funded by a handfull of
large corporate slush funds and a few paranoid multi-billionaires in order to
sway public opinion by legitimizing untenable policy positions. Anything
anyone quotes from "AEI" has no merit, unless the purpose is to create
nuanced versions of news that informs the reader very little even though there
are plenty of quotes.
And on page 12, the cut page of the story, at the top there is a photo. A good
looking young marine kneeling down at the coffin of his boyhood friend.
What a pathetic appeal to maudlin patriotism. Do our boys a real service and
tell the truth, instead of pasting together the scripted sound bytes of 3 or 4
public relations campaigns and the occasional edited quote of some chosen
representative of the opposite opinion.
Bush has fired and replaced all the generals who don't tell him what he wants
to hear. The pundits on the television said this action was like Lincoln who
kept firing generals until he got a general who would successfully pursue the
victory of the Union over the Confederacy. But exactly how is the American
Civil War akin to an invasion of a foreign land and the defense of the 14
military bases from a native insurgency in the midst of a sectarian civil war.
The action of Bush firing his generals is more synonymous to Louis the
Fourteenth firing his generals in the wake of the disaster of the war of
Spanish Succession after France invaded Spain to secure the Spain crown, only
discover that the native resistance was cutting his troops to pieces, and that
he couldn't fight a multi-front global war -- the American colonies and Spanish
new world forces were indeed involved in this global war.
And did you see the tear drop on Georgie boy's eye that the chronicle offered.
The subliminal message : Bush cares. Bull. Shit.
For instance: When has the damn Chronicle said or reported anything
- The 14 permanent military bases
- How local SF firm Bechtel skimmed government profits
- Who funds Governor Schwartzeneger (as in 1 million dollars from Chevron)
- Anything negative about silly smiley do-nothing photo-op mayor Gavin Newsom
- A story about the Bermuda Tax Havens used by more than 16,000 US businesses
to avoid paying taxes
- How about the Centco British commander of Afghanistan who said in December
that a disaster is imminent within 6 months?
Nothing. Instead, Bush is put into the frame of a man who cares, who makes
thoughtful decisions, and admits to mistakes ... rather than a lying political
operator whose purpose is to conceal the vile destructive corruption of the
federal government and the militarization of all foreign policy.
|Thursday, 21 December 2006 at 14h 1m 54s|
A short poem at 5:47 am Pacific Coast Time
We are animals,
congealed molecules of life's plasma
that slither over the sculptured crevasses we call our world.
Satisfied with nothing,
we take pleasure like claiming luggage at the airport
knowing what is inside the suitcase
while hastily pacing to the taxicab waiting area outside the terminal.
|Wednesday, 20 December 2006 at 5h 25m 3s|
|Thursday, 14 December 2006 at 1h 1m 41s|
My modus operandi
I often engage in blog commentary with a few political blogs.
something of a political junkie. It is an extension of my thirst for
knowledge. I just have to know. I've always been this way.
Anyway, I made this fly-by statement in an evisceration of a troll who hangs
out and makes stupid statements.
I only believe what is true. I can always prove that what I believe is true. If
I am not sure about something, I will say so. If I am speculating (watch out,
big word) I will say so.
And most importantly, on the odd occasion when I am wrong (it does happen) I
will admit I am wrong, because the truth might be hard to accept, but it is far
better to accept the truth than to lie to yourself and live in morbid denial of
what is inescapably true.
The pursuit of truth and knowledge is neverending. We are on this Earth to
achieve time to learn and understand, keeping the mantle of humanity burning.
There is and never will become a point at which you can finally stop and say
that you have achieved complete understanding. A so-called "expert" is really
only a person who knows more than almost everyone else, or (in the case of math
or sciences) makes the least amount of mistakes. Keep in mind that some people
are amazingly encyclopedic in one or a few areas, but have scant details about
It is impossible to learn everything, but you must still try.
|Thursday, 14 December 2006 at 2h 32m 27s|
A primer about Salvadore Allende, Augustin Pinochet, and Chile
School of the Americas ties with
School of the Americas
A timeline of the Chilean coup d'etat
Chile is a long, thin country on the West side of the South American Andes
mountains. It rises up more than half of the North-south distance of South
America, and is actually the nation with the largest North-south distance in
the world. Notice how the top of Chile is above Paraguay and Argentina.
|Wednesday, 13 December 2006 at 1h 3m 57s|
Rummy, the Donald, AKA hypocrite
This is from thinkprogress.org, a site you must visit EVERYDAY.
In a new interview posted on Townhall.com, conservative columnist Cal Thomas
asks outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “With what you know now, what
might you have done differently in Iraq?” Rumsfeld offers a remarkable response:
I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. I don’t mean to be
critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why
do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it
does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending
within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way.
Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for
extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of
clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control.
Leaving aside the fact that Rumsfeld himself used the phrase "war on terror" a
number of times (follow the link): remember, these people describe themselves
everytime they describe the "enemy."
Here is the poignant quote : "Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who
are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics,
impose their dark vision on all the people they can control."
Ah ha. The corporate fascist clique uses false flag operations as a "weapon of
choice" in order to "destabilize" the democracy of the United States, all of
this done by the "small group" of neo-con "clerics" who impose their strategic
plans "on all the people they can control."
Amazing. Isn't it.
Read Wayne Madsen in the blog list on the right side. He is an ex-Naval
Officer ex-NSA government bureaucrat who blew the whistle on the Navy's
colussion with the NSA via spy ships back in the early 1980's. When you have
to read this site, you have to keep in mind that this is a government insider
with contacts inside the government. He should be considered the honest
version of the report.
|Wednesday, 13 December 2006 at 2h 22m 25s|
Did you hear this in the news?
Did you hear this in the news today?
[translated from the French, in Le Monde]
On Sunday , 10th December, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, strongly
rejected the compromise with Iraq mentioned in the report put out by Baker-
Hamilton commission, and considered that "it undermines the sovereignty of
Mr. Talabani judged the text injust. "It contains dangerous articles which
undermine the sovereignty of Iraq. I reject the report in it's entirety," he
affirmed. Mr. Talabani notably denounced the proposal to imply that the fall
of the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein had something to do with the current
political process in Iraq, which according to him, "asserts itself against the
long history of the Iraqi people rising up against the dictator."
Le Monde is the Corporate
France. You have to read it with care because the story quite often gets
craftily edited and blemished with non-quoted attributions to amorphous persons
like "some people" or "according to some" , for example.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS