Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Tuesday, 19 December 2006 at 22h 25m 3s|
|Wednesday, 13 December 2006 at 18h 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.
|Wednesday, 13 December 2006 at 19h 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.
|Tuesday, 12 December 2006 at 18h 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.
|Tuesday, 12 December 2006 at 19h 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.
|Tuesday, 12 December 2006 at 18h 42m 32s|
Today's word is ...
cogent (adj.) : forcefully convincing. Pertaining to making a sequence
of statements in such a manner that anyone listening would have no choice but
- A cogent point.
- He cogently decimated his philosophy like a watchmaker dismantling a clock.
|Saturday, 9 December 2006 at 12h 28m 58s|
Bush listens to no one
except those voices in his head that he calls God.
After rejecting the Baker Iraq War Commission's suggestions, President Bush
appears to have created his own commission within the military lead by General
Pace, in which ... (hold on tight) ... they actually suggest an increase in
order to attempt a final complete take-over of Baghdad.
"Bush listens to nobody. If he is not listening to James Baker, he is
listening to nobody. This is a lesson for everyone. If you can't learn this
lesson watching this, you are not paying attention. He listens to nobody."
--Sidney Blumenthal, on Sam Seder Show | 8 December
Good God almighty. The son rejects everyone in the status quo foreign policy
establishment. What is next.
|Friday, 8 December 2006 at 12h 9m 49s|
In case you don't know who is in the bottle.
The guy on the top is Jack Abramoff, the one man who connected all of the
dispersed money rings.
In the next layer, left to right : ex-Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist and
The next ... ex House Majority Leader bag man from Texas Tom Delay & Michael
Brown, Bush's Arabian horse appointee to FEMA.
The next ... ex K-street House Republican consigliori from Pennsylvania Rick
Santorum and Darth Cheney.
Karl Rove is at the bottom.
|Friday, 8 December 2006 at 21h 40m 19s|
Mayor Nagin of New Orleans
From the USA Today :
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin accused the federal government Wednesday of
abandoning its legal obligation to help his city recover from the devastation
of Hurricane Katrina.
In an interview with USA TODAY's editorial board, Nagin insisted that even the
city's most flood-prone areas should be rebuilt — albeit "smarter and safer."
He said that can't happen unless promised federal aid begins to flow.
"I'm planning and building for a city that's as large, if not larger, than pre-
Katrina levels," he said. "There is (federal) money out in cyberspace, there is
money in the mail … but very little of that money has made it to our local
governments and our citizens."
Under federal law, he added, the government is obliged to help restore vital
infrastructure decimated by the storm, which struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29,
2005. Nagin said the federal government has approved more than $900 million to
rebuild New Orleans' infrastructure, but local officials have not been able to
access most of it.
"We're here to say to the federal government: 'Honor the law,' " said Nagin, in
Washington to see lawmakers and federal officials.
. . . .
Nagin said local officials are caught in a bureaucratic Catch-22: They can't
get the money until projects are underway, but they're unable to issue
contracts until they have money in hand to pay for them. So the city hasn't
been able to begin critical repairs to roads, public buildings, power systems
or other damaged infrastructure
|Friday, 8 December 2006 at 21h 19m 55s|
The majority wants out in 6 months
The recent Zogby Poll has Dubya's approval rating at 30%. The
found that "just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling
of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November."
Furthermore, in the Herald Tribune article ...
Even so, Americans are not necessarily intent on getting all U.S. troops out
right away, the poll indicated. The survey found strong support for a two-year
timetable if that's what it took to get U.S. troops out. Seventy-one percent
said they would favor a two-year timeline from now until sometime in 2008, but
when people are asked instead about a six-month timeline for withdrawal that
number drops to 60 percent.
You see how much that first sentence tries to stretch the truth : Americans
are not necessarily intent on getting all ... out right away. Not
necessarily? 71 minus 60 is only an 11 percent jump from what is already a
signifigant majority. That first sentence is misleading, and also completely
unnecessary, unless the intent is to create cognitive dissonance. Starting
with the second sentence ("The survey found...") would have been more
appropriate. Was an uber-editor involved?
As far as two more years. To do what? Train more security forces, so they can
go fight for the militias when they graduate. The Iraqi's do not want us
there. What are we gonna be able to do in 2 years, unless in 2 years we
actually do reconstruction instead of securing, fortifying, and helping
construct the 14 permanent military bases -- primeveal castles of the modern
world, conquering the savages just like the Romans and the Lords throughout
Europe during the early middle ages.
Watch as the media rats start jumping off the ship, one after despicable
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS