Saturday, August 28, 2010
Radio-controlled aircraft carrying explosive payloads to target -- in the 1940's!!
Think about that for a second.
Think about how much technology has changed since 1940.
Or since 1980.
Re-read those reports of recent US drone attacks.
Drones: un-manned, remote-controlled flying bombs.
Now consider that around half dozen of the alleged "19 Arab hijackers" have since turned up alive and well, proving that we don't know WHO in hell was on those 911 aircraft. Consider all the "evidence" that stinks of being planted, like the hijacker's ID that we're supposed to believe miraculously survived the crash unscathed to be found on the street nearby. Ask yourself how the hijackers were able to gain entry to the cockpit on ALL four planes, anyway.
Now consider this possibility:
19 Arabs did NOT hijack the planes and fly them into the WTC.
NO ONE flew them into the WTC.
No one ON BOARD, that is.
Suppose, just as an alternative theory of the crime, that person-or-persons-unknown took remote control of those aircraft.
Is it plausible?
Does it fit the evidence?
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.Arthur Conan Doylesj
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
...If Park51 ends up moving or if opponents otherwise succeed in defeating it, it will seriously bolster and validate the ugly premises at the heart of this campaign: that Muslims generally are responsible for 9/11, Terrorism justifies and even compels our restricting the equals rights and access of Americans Muslims, and more broadly, the animosity and suspicions towards Muslims generally are justified, or at least deserving of respect. As Aziz Poonawalla put it: "if the project does fail, then I think that the message that will be sent is that bigotry and fear of Muslims is not just permitted, it is effective."
That's exactly the message that will be sent, and that's what makes this conflict so significant. Obviously, not all opponents of Park51 are as overtly hateful as those in that video -- and not all opponents are themselves bigots -- but the position they've adopted is inherently bigoted, as it seeks to impose guilt and blame on a large demographic group for the aberrational acts of a small number of individual members. And one thing is certain: if this campaign succeeds, it will proliferate and the sentiments driving it will become even more potent. Hatemongerers always become emboldened when they triumph.
The animosity and hatred so visible here extends far beyond the location of mosques or even how we treat American Muslims. So many of our national abuses, crimes and other excesses of the last decade -- torture, invasions, bombings, illegal surveillance, assassinations, renditions, disappearances, etc. etc. -- are grounded in endless demonization of Muslims. A citizenry will submit to such policies only if they are vested with sufficient fear of an Enemy. There are, as always, a wide array of enemies capable of producing substantial fear (the Immigrants, the Gays, and, as that video reveals, the always-reliable racial minorities), but the leading Enemy over the last decade, in American political discourse, has been, and still is, the Muslim.
That's why the population is willing to justify virtually anything that's done to "them" without much resistance at all, and it's why very few people demand evidence from the Government before believing accusaitons that someone is a Terrorist: after all, if they're Muslim, that's reason enough to believe it. Hence, the repeated, mindless mantra that those in Guantanamo -- or those on the Government's "hit list" -- are Terrorists even in the absence of evidence and charges, and even in the presence of ample grounds for doubting the truth of those accusations.
Read the rest at
Sunday, August 22, 2010
There’s a lot in the press lately about illegal immigrants, referring, of course, to Mexican people coming across the border into the U.S. Some people are trying to convince you they’re all drug dealers and criminals and that the U.S. –Mexican border has become a free-fire zone.
Got to protect ourselves from those “illegal immigrants,” which, I suppose, is better than calling them beaners, wet-backs, greasers, or spics – though perhaps less sincere.
The irony of this situation is so thick a big, strong guy on angeldust couldn’t cut through it with a machete and a running start.
Once upon a time, about 300 years ago, Arizona, like Texas, was part of Mexico which was part of the Spanish Empire. Spain had a plan to “civilize” the Indians and take over the “new world.” Maybe they called it “Operation Indian Freedom.” It wouldn’t surprise me.
But those ungrateful savages weren’t all that keen on taking advantage of the benefits of civilization and put up a fierce resistance, particularly the Apaches and the Comanches.
But there were also Aranamas, Karankawas, Tonkawas, Kohanis, Cocos, Bidais, Nacisis, Koasatis, Eyeishes, Nabedachies, Nacogdoches, Kichais, Hainais, Anadarkos, Yowanes, Tawakonis, Wacos, Caddos, Kickapoos, Kiowas, and Tawehashes, for whom the main benefit of civilization would be extermination.
The Spanish were able to keep only three of the two dozen or so garrisons they had built in Texas. One of them, which was built in 1718, is in San Antonio. It was a combination fort and Catholic mission.
You might have heard of it.
Known as the Alamo.
But here’s the good part.
In the early 19th century white settlers from the U.S. began illegally immigrating to Texas where they set up farms and plantations on Mexican land. Southern slave-owners were interested in expanding into Texas, and northern capitalists were salivating over trade potential and the mineral resources of the area.
Spain tried to control the flow of illegal immigrants, but the problem was overwhelming.
When Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, the new government of Mexico decided to allow Anglo-Americans to settle --- provided they agreed to become Mexican citizens and convert to Catholicism. By 1835, there were around 35,000 people in Texas with Anglo immigrants out-numbering Mexican Texans (called “Tejanos”) by about 6 to 1.
But then the Mexican government made what proved to be a bad move: it abolished slavery.
This didn’t go over very well with Anglo slave-owners.
They embarked on an armed rebellion to break Texas away from Mexico. They put out a call for Americans to come to their aid-- promising to give mercenaries free land.
A group of 182 Texas separatists occupied the Alamo. All but 9 of them were Anglo immigrants. Among them was Jim Bowie an infamous slave-trader and slave-smuggler; and Davy Crockett, a land speculator and mercenary.
On March 6, 1836, the Mexican Army, commanded by the president of Mexico, General Antonio López de Santa Anna, retook the Alamo, killing all the rebels.
Six weeks after the fall of the Alamo, the Anglo rebels surprised the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto. General Santa Anna was captured. In return for having his life spared, Santa Anna signed a treaty recognizing Texas' independence.
One of the first official acts of the new "Republic of Texas" was to legalize slavery. In 1845 Texas was admitted into the United States as a slave state, and soon joined the Southern slave Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War.
Later on, songs would be sung, books written, and movies made about the gallant “defenders” of the Alamo, the brave 182 men who gave their lives for the freedom to own slaves.
Later still, after the U.S. pulverized the Mexican economy, there would be a flood of illegal immigrants from Mexico back into the area of the U.S. that was previously stolen from Mexico by illegal immigrants from the U.S.
Now, where’d I put my machete…..?
Saturday, August 21, 2010
When people start flapping their wings about Iran as a "nuclear threat" you might also remind them that the U.S. has more nuclear arms that everyone else combined, and is the ONLY nation to have actually USED these horrifying weapons against anyone.
There's a nuclear threat, all right.
But it's US.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Dowland's "Fortune, My Foe."
The 16th Century Blues.
And will thy favors never lighter be?
Wilt thou, I say, forever breed my pain?
And wilt thou not restore my joys again?
In vain I sigh, in vain I wail and weep,
In vain my eyes refrain from quiet sleep;
In vain I she'd my tears both night and day;
In vain my love my sorrows do bewray.
Then will I leave my love in Fortune's hands,
My dearest love, in most unconstant bands,
And only serve the sorrows due to me:
Sorrow, hereafter, thou shalt my Mistress be.
Ah, silly Soul art thou so sore afraid?
Mourn not, my dear, nor be not so dismayed.
Fortune cannot, with all her power and skill,
Enforce my heart to think thee any ill.
Live thou in bliss, and banish death to Hell;
All careful thoughts see thou from thee expel:
As thou dost wish, thy love agrees to be.
For proof thereof, behold, I come to thee.
Die not in fear, not live in discontent;
Be thou not slain where blood was never meant;
Revive again: to faint thou hast no need.
The less afraid, the better thou shalt speed.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Feels like the country is under a curse
The Situation’s bad and daily getting’ worse
They took your hopes and your dreams and put ‘em all in reverse
They’re gonna getcha ‘less you get them first.
Ain’t ya mad about it yet?
Ain’t ya mad about it yet?
How bad does it have to get?
Ain’t ya mad about it yet?
Hear a sample at:
Monday, August 9, 2010
Why should I be civil to them or to you?
In this Palace of Lies a truth or two will not hurt you.
Your friends are all the dullest dogs I know.
They are not beautiful: they are only decorated. They are not clean: they are only shaved and starched. They are not dignified: they are only fashionably dressed. They are not educated: they are only college passmen. They are not religious: they are only pewrenters. They are not moral: they are only conventional. They are not virtuous: they are only cowardly. They are not even vicious: they are only "frail." They are not artistic: they are only lascivious. They are not prosperous: they are only rich. They are not loyal, they are only servile; not dutiful, only sheepish; not public spirited, only patriotic; not courageous, only quarrelsome; not determined, only obstinate; not masterful, only domineering; not self-controlled, only obtuse; not self-respecting, only vain; not kind, only sentimental; not social, only gregarious; not considerate, only polite; not intelligent, only opinionated; not progressive, only factious; not imaginative, only superstitious; not just, only vindictive; not generous, only propitiatory; not disciplined, only cowed; and not truthful at all: liars every one of them, to the very backbone of their souls.