Posted by: quiscus | August 5, 2010

August 5, 2010

1.  “We have a federal agency showing disdain for the Freedom of Information Act. Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Director of National Institute for Standards and Technology, denied a request from structural engineer Ronald Brookman, who sought detailed structural analysis information gathered by NIST when they determined the cause of the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse. Gallagher’s stated reason for denial was that releasing it “might jeopardize public safety.”

What might jeopardize public safety is “not” allowing professionals in the building industry such as Mr. Brookman to independently study the NIST analysis of the highly anomalous building failure. A 47-story high-rise suddenly collapses straight down into its own footprint — highly anomalous.”
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-05/dwain-deets-lte-protecting-public-information

2.  “Momentum becomes substitute for logic in Afghan war

In Afghanistan, momentum has become a substitute for logic. We’re not fighting because we have a clear set of achievable goals. We’re at war, apparently, because we’re at war.

No other conclusion can be drawn from the circular, contradictory, confusing statements that the war’s commanders and supporters keep making.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080203720_pf.html

3.  “Patriotism and Treason

At the recent sentencing of Walter Kendall Myers and his wife Gwendolyn, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton announced that he was “perplexed” by the Myers’ claim that they had no intent to harm the United States by turning over classified documents to Cuba. He told the couple that they deserved heavy punishment for betraying the United States.

The good judge no doubt has the same mindset that unfortunately afflicts many Americans — one that conflates the U.S. government and our country. For these people, it’s all just one big amorphous whole. In their minds, if you disclose secret information from the files of the U.S. government, that must mean, automatically, that you’re betraying your country.

In the minds of U.S. officials, all that’s obviously irrelevant. Everything the U.S. Empire does is automatically supposed to be considered good, and anybody who discloses information regarding the U.S. government’s wars of aggression, torture, secret prisons, human rights abuses, rapes, embargoes, sanctions, invasions, assassinations, and occupations is to be automatically considered bad. ”

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-08-04.asp

4.  “New treatment for PTSD? Dropping some Ecstasy. ”

http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/new-treatment-for-ptsd-dropping-some-ecstasy-1.111637

5.  ” Mosque Building and Gay Marriage vs. Mob Rule by the Right

Both in the instance of gay marriage and of mosque-building, the American Right mounts opposition on grounds of majority ideas and feelings triumphing over individual rights. No one denies that Muslims have a first amendment right to build a mosque, and it is hard to see why straight people should have a right to get married (which brings substantial social and economic perquisites) but gay people should not.

The right wing argues that Muslims and gays should give up their rights in deference to the moral sensibilities and emotional sensitivities of the majority. This is called a ‘tyranny of the majority’ and it is an evil of which Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other Founding Generation of Americans were well aware.

He said that the issue was not rights but doing what is right. But he means by ‘what is right’ that the minority should relinquish its legal rights in order to avoid an affront to the sensibilities of the majority. That way lies, e.g. refusal to oppose Jim Crow. You wonder if Foxman thinks that there should be no synagogues near the US naval academy in Annapolis, Maryland, to avoid offending those who feel strongly about the Israeli attack in 1967 on the USS Liberty. Likewise, those who oppose gay marriage do so on the grounds that they think it is immoral, and that it devalues straight marriage. I.e. it hurts their feelings.”

http://www.juancole.com/

6.  “Linguistic Nonsense and Liberal Economics

These situations establish that no definite relationship exists between growth in the monetary economy that economists measure and the material economy that people utilize. Sometimes the material economy grows along with the monetary economy; sometimes the material economy is unchanged as the monetary economy grows, and sometimes the material economy shrinks while the monetary economy grows. These situations also show that what passes for our economy is uneconomical. Trashing perfectly good and useful things because something newer comes along is nothing but wasteful. So what we have is an uneconomical economy, but that’s no economy at all.

Anyone who understands how a language works knows that words are not singular; they come in families. A noun cannot have a meaning that is different from its adjectival or adverbial siblings. The orthographic differences between the forms serve merely to show the word’s function in a sentence. “Economical” and “economically” go with “economy”; “uneconomical” does not. An uneconomical economy is an oxymoron, sheer nonsense; it is absurd. So what’s known as liberal economics does not describe an economy at all; all it describes is a conglomeration of commercial practices based on nothing but happenstance. Arbitrarily calling these practices “the economy” doesn’t make them one.

Even some economists recognize this. J. Bradford DeLong writes, “One of the dirty secrets of economics is that there is no such thing as ‘economic theory.’ There is simply no set of bedrock principles on which one can base calculations that illuminate real-world economic outcomes. . . . The ‘economic principles’ underpinning their theories are a fraud—not fundamental truths. . . .” But then DeLong betrays his religiosity by saying, “Not surprisingly, I believe that. . . .” But why should anyone care what he believes; does he care what others believe? Do we care what Warren Jeffs, the Pope, the CIA, a Congressman running for office, or even the men who pick up our garbage believe? Good writing teachers continually tell their students not to tell what they believe but what they know. But no one with a religious-like ideology knows anything; if she/he did, she/he would not have to rely on beliefs. And even when reality has proven believers wrong over and over again, they, like Tertullian, continue to believe. Only people without knowledge cite their beliefs.

What people don’t understand about contradiction is that it cannot be contained. Once a contradiction becomes part of a person’s thinking, a belief, a theory, a dogma, or an ideology, contradictions and their resulting nonsense abound. The nonsense pops up everywhere.

Liberal economics is made up of a host of sentences whose words lack such coherence.

It is difficult to understand how an entire profession of supposedly “educated” people continues to talk this trash until one realizes that such continuous usage is a characteristic of true believers exactly like Tertullian. Just as many believe that God separated night from day before He created the Sun and stars, economists believe in contradictory notions, not because they make sense but because they don’t.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20472

7.  “The CIA is Beyond Redemption and Should be Terminated

The Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) has confirmed the worst fears of its creator President Harry Truman that it might degenerate into “an American Gestapo.” It has  been just that for so long it is beyond redemption. It represents 60 years of failure and fascism utterly at odds with the spirit of a democracy and needs to be closed, permanently.

Over the years “the Agency” as it is known, has given U.S. presidents so much wrong information on so many critical issues, broken so many laws, subverted so many elections, overthrown so many governments, funded so many dictators, and killed and tortured so many innocent human beings that the pages of its official history could be written in blood, not ink. People the world over regard it as infamous, and that evaluation, sadly for the reputation of America, is largely accurate.  Besides, since President Obama has half a dozen other major intelligence agencies to rely on for guidance, why does he need the CIA? In one swoop he could lop an estimated 27,000 employees off the Federal payroll, save taxpayers umpteen billions, and wipe the CIA stain from the American flag.

If you think this is a “radical” idea, think again. What is “radical” is to empower a mob of covert operatives to roam the planet, wreaking havoc as they go with not a care for morality or, for that matter, the tenets of mercy implicit in any of the great faiths. The idea of not prosecuting CIA interrogators (i.e., torturers), as President Obama has hinted, is chilling. These crimes have to be stopped somewhere, sometime, or they will occur again.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20488

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: