Tuesday, October 31, 2006

 

Shockingly Close to the Truth

Well, maybe not that close, but pretty close once in a while. I’m talking about the movies, most of which are crap and pap for the masses.

But take Lord of War, in which Nicolas Cage plays a gunrunner who makes it big. Although at first it seems as though individual arms dealers like Cage’s character are the utmost evil, you see at the end that gunrunners are just subcontractors for the big arms dealers: governments. And the supreme irony, saved for the very last scene, is hard to miss. So hard to miss in fact that the director could not get a US studio to fund the film. Read into that what you will.

One other interesting flick that comes to mind at this moment is The Island, which at first appears to be some kind of future society where humans have isolated themselves from a polluted outside world, but is actually a facility for clones waiting for their organs to be harvested when needed. Too many viewers, I fear, will probably not be shocked by what are actually very chilling scenes which show that clones — in fact living, breathing human beings — are treated like bugs.

Finally there is V for Vendetta, which is quite a mixed bag (for example, Rice Farmer does not endorse violent solutions), but does offer a view of totalitarian society which everyone would do well to take seriously. One thing I believe the filmmakers didn’t get right is revealed by V’s statement, “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” In fact, as I have observed several times on this blog, those in power are afraid of their people, and that is the reason for informants, spy cams, police states, reading people’s emails, listening to people’s telephone conversations, arbitrary arrests, databases, RFID, disappearances, torture, and concentration camps. If governments weren’t afraid of their people, what use would they have for all these things? To stop terrorists? Even if terrorists are real, motor vehicles kill far more people but governments take little action to mitigate motorized carnage.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

 

Eco-Friendly Death Machines

Arms maker British Aerospace (BAE) says that it is making new products that reduce collateral damage. Well, I’m glad somebody is thinking about ecosystem health. For example, there are lead-free bullets. These are great because after they slice through the tissue of a human being, they don’t contaminate the environment with lead. And then there are decomposing landmines which rot away after a time. Sheesh! One wonders what all that noise about a landmine ban was all about! Now here’s a good idea: weapons sans carcinogens. Although such hardware may reduce your body to its constituent molecules, you don’t have to worry about getting cancer! And there are even energy-saving ideas for weapons.

The wonders of modern technology never cease to amaze. What will they think of next?

Friday, October 20, 2006

 

Russia’s Energy Resource Nationalism

Russia is asserting more and more control over its own energy resources, which is admittedly a smart thing to do in view of the impending demise of the petroleum civilization. For example, EU leaders want a legally binding energy charter with Russia to lock in oil and gas supplies, but Russia is balking. Russia is also using the excuse of environmental damage to hold up Sakhalin-2. And Gazprom has a new go-it-alone policy.

All these things point to a strategy of keeping firm control over one’s own energy resources, and being stingy about letting others have access to them. It won’t take long for this to become a worldwide trend.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

 

Mid-Term Election Reality Check

Most liberals are working themselves into a state of excitement at the prospect of the Democrats retaking control of one or even both houses of Congress. But realistic people will just yawn, because they know that nothing will really change. As I’ve pointed out before, America’s Republicrat system is a two-headed monster. Or you could see it as a car with two people who fight over who’s going to be in the driver’s seat, even though they both want to go to the same place.

Make no mistake about it: The Democrats stand for the same thing as the Republicans, and that’s why the Dems have virtually rubber-stamped Bush’s entire program. Thanks to both heads of the monster, you can kiss your rights goodbye.

So, to those excited liberals and Democratic Party groupies: Get real. The whole system is totally corrupt and beyond saving. All you can do now is hope to get out of the way before the rot gets to you, too.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

 

The Lunatic Fringe

The poll mentioned the other day, showing that now only 16% of Americans believe Bush’s 9/11 story, has a huge implication: Although people who disbelieved the official story were at first in a minority called the “lunatic fringe,” now the percentages are the opposite. Although I don’t have any figures at hand, I strongly suspect that more than 16% of Americans believe stories about alien abduction, which means that even abduction stories are more convincing than Bush’s 9/11 story (take that whichever way you like).

As such, that puts believers of Bush’s logic-defying story on the lunatic fringe. The official account is so incredible that it’s easier for Americans to believe that aliens are visiting Earth and grabbing humans.

Monday, October 16, 2006

 

No More Plug ’n’ Play?

We’ve heard bad news on the state of America’s power grid before, and here’s more. There is simply no way all that new demand will be met. Combine that with the impending shortages of petroleum products and food, and you have a recipe for disaster. It’s going to get very ugly as 300 million people start fighting over crumbs.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

 

Reaching Across Partisan Barriers

I just can’t stop laughing at this one. The mainstream lapdog media propaganda rags just keep coming up with new (and no doubt unintended) absurdities for the entertainment of everyone except, I assume, the lunatic fringe — for example the 16% of logic-challenged Americans who still believe Bush’s 9/11 story. Here’s a sample from a recent Washington Post article.

Warner’s anticipated campaign was to be built around the notion that in an age of polarized politics, many voters are eager for a leader focused on reaching across partisan barriers for solutions to big problems.

In other words, at a time when Americans are divided (“polarized”) due to issues like Bush’s illegal wars, government-approved torture, and the trashing of the constitution, we’re supposed to have candidates who look attractive to everyone because they walk the fence to bring in votes from both sides instead of taking a definite position based on what they truly believe. Isn’t that what we have now? The difference between Democrats and Republicans, which wasn’t much to begin with, now requires a microscope to detect. “Reaching across partisan barriers,” indeed. There are effectively no real barriers to reach across.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

 

Bush Losing Ground Fast on 9/11

According to a recent poll, as of this month only 16% of Americans think Bush is telling the truth about 9/11. Sixteen percent! Who could these die-hard holdouts be? Hard-core Bill O’Reilly fans? It’s amazing that anyone would believe this flimsy, contradiction-ridden story, but hats off to the 9/11 truth movement for doing such a great job.

 

New Definition of “Assault”

A Colorado man was arrested for “assaulting the vice president” because he said to Cheney’s face, “Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” and then walked away. I would call that exercising your right to free speech and “petition[ing] the government for a redress of grievances” (Amendment I). But a Secret Service agent didn’t see it that way, and arrested him. Although the charge was eventually dropped, it’s incredible that anyone would be arrested for this. But that’s Bush America.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

 

Chicago Panopticon

In another welcoming message from the Panopticon Society, Chicago’s Mayor Daley boasts that by 2016, when the summer Olympic games might come to Chicago, everyone will be secure because there will be surveillance cameras on almost every block. Doesn’t it make you more secure knowing that on Chicago’s streets, someone will be watching your every move?

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

 

How Dangerous Is North Korea?

Dangerous, yes. But a more important question is: How does it stack up in comparison with other countries?

Much has been said about the recent claimed nuclear test. Assuming NK does have functional nuclear weapons, how should we see its danger status in a worldwide context?

First of all, much has already been written about how the US and its allies have literally driven NK into its attempt to arm itself with nukes. The demonization of NK and the failure to tell the whole story by these governments and those countries’ lapdog media are absolutely breathtaking. You can read about the broken promises, the incitement, the threats and saber-rattling, and the lies on plenty of sites, so I will not repeat those here.

Let’s do a comparison with the US, which is doing the most hysterical screaming and finger-pointing. Doubts are sometimes expressed about Kim Jong Il’s mental status, but we have more reliable information that George Bush is mentally unbalanced and taking powerful medication to control wild mood swings. In fact, in TV appearances he seems to be barely keeping himself under control, and he has in the past stormed off the stage at a press conference. This is the man with his finger on the button that can launch enough nukes to incinerate the world. Do you still think NK is more dangerous?

No state except the US has actually used nuclear weapons. In fact, the Bush regime wants to build new types, and is said to be contemplating the use of nukes. Do you still think NK is more dangerous?

NK has said it will defend itself, but the US attacks other countries without provocation or justifiable cause — in fact, on the basis of lies. That is why Iraq now lies in ruins. Do you still think NK is more dangerous?

In addition, the US is represented at the United Nations by John Bolton, whose sanity certainly leaves room for doubt. Do you still think NK is more dangerous?

I’m not a North Korea fan, and am not trying to defend its brutal totalitarian regime. But the relative danger presented by NK in a worldwide context is clearly far below that of the US.

 

Resource Nationalism

Russia's Gazprom has had a change in plans for developing the Stockman deposit. One seeming off-hand remark in this article is "...the possible technical risks are outweighed by the advantages that Gazprom will receive from preserving its resource base." And there you have it. Why are countries that still have appreciable oil and gas resources suddenly cautious about having foreign capital develop them?

Monday, October 09, 2006

 

A Logical Fallacy of 9/11 Argumentation

Just as with the latest debunking article in the CounterPunch newsletter, debunkers apparently believe that by demonstrating that the WTC towers collapsed without help from demolition charges, they have won the whole 9/11 debate. This is a logical fallacy.

I make no claims to knowing what really made the towers collapse. I’m not a physicist or structural engineer, and honestly don’t understand the intricacies of the argument. But understanding it isn’t necessary to see the real purpose behind the debunkers’ efforts.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the debunkers are right, and the towers crumbled due to the impact of the jets and the heat of their fuel burning. What does this prove? It proves only one thing: that the towers did not collapse due to controlled demolition. That’s all. It does not disprove complicity in 9/11 by US elites. This is the sophomoric fallacy peddled by Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Popular Mechanics, and the rest of the debunkers and left gatekeepers who concentrate public discourse on 9/11 into the narrow area of the physical evidence.

How can people of supposedly high intellectual caliber make such simple mistakes in reasoning? The answer is that they aren’t — it is planned this way. Their physical-evidence argument is calculated to gut the 9/11 truth movement by focusing on this one weak area, and they believe it will work because the TV generation is weak on logic.

Once again, let’s say for the sake of argument that they debunkers are right about the towers, and even about WTC7, which they don’t talk about much. Many in the 9/11 truth movement would experience great consternation at this because they believe the supposed demolition of the towers, along with the photographs of the Pentagon, are our best evidence.

In reality, this is no great loss. First of all, as noted above, the assumption that the WTC buildings collapsed due to causes cited by NIST and debunkers does not at all disprove US complicity in 9/11. Second, due to the almost complete lack of physical evidence, this is actually our weak area. We shouldn’t be concentrating our efforts here in the first place.

Our best evidence is the huge body of excellent circumstantial evidence which points at US elites. Debunkers know this, which is why they shy away from discussing the war games, the money trail, oil and drug connections, gross contradictions in the official story, Middle Eastern connections, and the relationship between jihadists and the CIA.

So, don’t be fooled by this logical fallacy. When debunkers claim they have proved how the towers fell, sidestep this trap by challenging them with what they don’t want to talk about: the circumstantial evidence. This whole problem has arisen because the 9/11 truth movement concentrates 90% or more of its attention on the physical evidence, and debunkers are taking advantage of that.

I’ve been away from the blog for a while because I’ve been busy, well, growing rice. Now that the harvest is in, I hope to be back in the saddle.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?