American icon Willie Nelson has expressed his doubts about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Guess what: he doesn’t buy it.
“How naive are we - what do they think we’ll go for?,” asked Nelson, pointing out that his doubts began on the very day of 9/11.
“What does it take for us to realize we’re having the wool pulled over our eyes one more time?” he concluded.
Willie is just one voice in the large (and growing) chorus that has expressed doubts about the conclusions of the Kean commission that investigated the attacks of September 11th 2001.
Many may scoff at Nelson’s opinion, asking, What does a burned-out, long-hair know about anything? (I myself consider the Red Headed Stranger album to be a masterpiece and based on that will believe anything Old Willie has to say.)
For those that yearn for more authoritative opinions (plus many a celebrity) check out Patriots Question 9/11, a comprehensive website with statements about the 9/11 whitewash from members of the following groups:
- High ranking military and government officials
- Pilots and aviation experts
- Engineers and architects
- Professors
- 9/11 survivors and family
The list is extraordinarily impressive and runs the gamut from those that believe the Kean Commision did not perform an adequate investigation to those that believe the attacks were an inside job. Many who buy the official conspiracy theory wonder where all the whistle blowers are; the insiders who know that something is amiss. Well here it is.
Anyone that can read through the statements presented on that website and not have doubts about what happened on that fateful day must be drowning in a Whiskey River.
Please people, do not be concerned. This is only for your own safety. Only criminals and terrorists have to fear this technology. In fact, giving us your retinal scans will only enhance your privacy.
Yes Big Brother, we bow to your infinite wisdom.
Gag.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi.biometrics/index.html
“This had started out being a program to track or identify criminals,” he said. “Now we’re talking about large swaths of the population — workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it’s going to be everybody.” -Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU
Scary stuff.
There was a fascinating piece on 60 Minutes Jan. 28 featuring FBI agent George Piro who was the front man for the interrogation of Saddam Hussein. Piro did a masterful job of gaining Saddam’s confidence and getting him to talk about the events leading up to the (most recent) war.
Saddam confirmed several things that war detractors had long understood:
- There were no WMD. The U.N. inspectors had destroyed most of them; the Iraqi government the rest.
- There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaida. Saddam considered Osama Bin Laden a “fanatic” and a potential threat to Saddam’s rule.
- Saddam feared Iran more than the U.S.
The last point was the most important in understanding why Saddam remaining defiant toward the U.S. as war neared. He felt he needed some cover to protect himself from another Iranian invasion. He believed that Bush would most likely conduct a bombing campaign, which Saddam could survive, not a massive ground invasion and occupation. Therefore he maintained some level of ambiguity about having WMD. Of course, the weapons inspectors had been saying for months that there were no WMD.
So once again we come to the following conclusions about Bush & Co’s motives. Either they were hell-bent on invasion and used WMD (and whatever else would stick) as an excuse (likely), or they were completely incompetant and fell for Saddam’s bluff costing the U.S. trillions of dollars and thousands of lives while giving Iran the upper hand in the region.(somewhat less likely).
And this is where Saddam made his fatal miscalculation. If the former scenario is true, an invasion was coming no matter what Saddam said about WMD, so he should have come completely clean and tried to sway world opinion. It probably would not have forestalled the invasion, but maybe it would have gained him some allies.
If the latter supposition is the case, then by bluffing Saddam shows he is no poker player. Any good poker player would be able to see that Bush is a donk, and donks always call.
From Ohio.com:
In Ohio, nearly 4 million background checks have been conducted since 2001, for instance, a figure equivalent to nearly half the state’s 8.7 million adult population.
“The sheer volume of them tells us that they’re not working, because to be effective these background checks have to be looked at very carefully,” Link said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a terrorist or two in there, but you’re not going to find them when you’re doing so many.”
…Civilian background checks now dominate the workload at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, costing taxpayers nearly $9 million a year.
…Yet Ohio figures compiled for The Associated Press by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification found that the 90-percent-plus passage rate remains consistent, regardless of how many Ohioans are screened.
The Bush administration has maintained since 9/11 that “the terrorists hate us because we’re free”, a sentiment echoed be the Republican presidential candidates, most notably Rudy Guliani. (With the singular exception of Ron Paul, the only Republican that doesn’t speak of war and terrorism in tired cliche sound bites.)
I find that notion to be utterly simplistic to the point of being devoid of meaning. But even if it were true, would not the best way to fight terrorism be to increase the degree of freedom in the West? That would be the way to really stick it to the evil-doers! Or at least maintain our level of freedom?
Of course, as we have all seen and is shown in the story from Ohio, the opposite is in fact the case. It is almost as if our fearless leaders have used the threat of terrorism to advance an agenda that has less to do with protecting our way of life than with consolidating their own power.
Fortunately, everyone knows only a kooky conspiracy theorist would believe that were true. Now, you’ll have to excuse me, I seem to have come down with a cold and have to go submit to a background check to obtain my REAL ID card so I can buy some Sudafed.
The national identification card scheme being implemented by the Orwellian-named Department of Homeland Security already has much opposition, including 17 states that have signaled their intentions to ignore the requirements. The concerns acknowledged by these states were justified in my view when I read about the DHS assistant secretary’s plan to require a REAL ID card to buy cold medicine.
Proponents of REAL ID see a tamper-proof id card to keep America safe from the scourges of terrorism, illegal immigration, and identity theft. Opponents see needless intrusions into the privacy of ordinary citizens and an enormous boondoggle that is sure to be circumvented by the bad guys.
I for one am not anxious to allow the government a foot in the door here. These cards will have the capability of carrying large amounts of sensitive information about the owner. Although there may be no plans to include biometric data, credit scores, or anything else, once the cards are in place those things will assuredly come. How would you like to check in to the hospital with appendicitis only to be turned away because your REAL ID card shows that you’ve been late on a mortgage payment and you are a credit risk to the hospital?
It is not much of a stretch to imagine the REAL ID card being required to make any purchase. Many people think they are required to present an ID when using a credit card now. (You are not, by the way.) Those purchases would then be tracked. “Sorry Mr. Smith, we can’t sell you this Whopper, you are above the monthly limit mandated by the Ministry of Health…”
Perhaps I am being overly paranoid here, but hey, it’s what I do.
On the heels of my recent fluoride post, Scientific American has published an article entitled “Second Thoughts on Fluoride”.
You need a subscription to the magazine to read the whole article. However, it seems to indicate that at least in the scientific community the tide has indeed turned against fluoridation of public water supplies. It mentions a recommendation by the National Research Council to lower fluoride levels in drinking water due to health risks.
FWIW, this is the magazine that features a regular “Skeptic” segment by Michael Shermer that often attacks conspiracy theories, sometimes legitimately, sometimes seemingly for the sake of being skeptical.
Again, I have nothing against using fluoride to combat tooth decay; I do have a problem with the delivery method. In my mind it amounts to a forced mass-medication of the public, something that does not jive with my freedom-loving self.
Dr. Nick Bostrom thinks it’s a strong possibility and he’s got the philosophical chops to back it up.
Dr. Bostrom is on the philosophy faculty and is the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. He published a paper in 2003 entitled Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? in which he outlines his hypothesis that there is a good chance that reality may not be exactly what we think it is.
His argument can be boiled down to three statements, one of which must be true:
- The number of civilizations that acquire the kind of computing power to run programs that simulate reality is very close to zero.
- Virtually no civilization that does acquire such technological prowess will choose to create such a simulation.
- We are almost certainly part of a computer simulation.
Number one is essentially stating that no civilization can attain a very advanced level of technological sophistication before becoming extinct, whether it be by destroying itself or through external pressures from an asteroid collision or some other environmental stressor. This is not a far-fetched scenario based on human history
Number two posits that civilizations can and do reach high levels of technological prowess, but do not choose to use that power to create what Dr. Bostrom calls “ancestor simulations”. This could be because of strict moral and ethical considerations, the diversion of computing resources elsewhere, or simply a lack of curiosity about replicating past events. Again, considering humans as the model, it would seem unlikely that we would not utilize this opportunity if we possessed it. We as a race have seldom shied from playing God.
That leaves number three. If the civilization survives to “post-humanism” and has no problems with programming ancestor simulations, then we are most likely simulations. Why? Because the vast number of simulations likely run would dwarf the number of actual “biological” people. It’s a simple matter of mathematics.
This raises a host of philosophical and metaphysical questions that are beyond the scope of this entry. For what it’s worth Dr. Bostrom puts roughly equal odds on each of the three possible scenarios. I just found it interesting that it may be as likely that I am a “real” person as it is that I’m a character in some future fat, pimply kid’s version of The Sims.
Whoa.
OMG, is it Al Qaeda? Should we elect Rudy Guliani after all? No, the organization behind this is the American Dental Association and the chemical is - fluoride.
Hundreds of health professionals, including Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson, are petitioning Congress to stop the fluoridation of public drinking water, calling it ineffective and potentially dangerous. (See an ABC local news story here.)
The Environmental Protection Agency says consuming “excess” fluoride can cause bone disease and fluorosis. Dr. A K Susheela, executive director of the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation in India, claims that some 66 million Indians are afflicted by fluorosis. Symptoms include extreme fatigue along with stiff joints and backaches.
About.com’s Dr. Anne Helmenstine lists ways to remove fluoride from water. (She also opposes fluoridation of drinking water.)
Coming as no surprise to anyone who has read my thimerosal posts, the CDC maintains that fluoridation is perfectly safe.
Personally, after a bit of research on the subject I am coming down against the fluoridation of public drinking water, regardless of its efficacy in fighting tooth decay. It amounts to a forced mass-medication of the public, depriving people of the freedom to choose or not choose to ingest this chemical.
In addition, it is dangerous to administer a medicine when the dose cannot be controlled, as is the case here. Water is fluoridated with no regard to to how much a person weighs or how much water they drink. Like mercury, it is a cumulative poison, potentially building up in the body and causing irreparable harm.
Finally, topical application of fluoride can be utilized through toothpaste, fluoride rinses, or the dentist’s office; ingestion is neither a necessary nor more efficient delivery method.
ekostv.com has a well-written report on some of the conspiratorial reasons why fluoride, an industrial waste product, was dumped into the water supply in the first place. One very interesting angle is that the Nazis had attempted to control populations by adding fluoride to their water, a tactic used on POWs to make the prisoners “stupid and docile”. It also claims about fluoridation in America that “the drug program was part of a much larger CIA program to study possible means of controlling human behavior”.
Governments would obviously have much to gain from having a sedate populace. Is fluoride the means to achieving that goal? I don’t know, but it’s worth checking out.
A man from Wenatchee, WA smashed his car into a light post on Dec. 27th, 2007.
When police arrived at the and inquired as to what happened, the man obviously traumatized man could only muster a single word - pterodactyl.
What could make a hugely successful, intensely funny comedian walk away from 50 million dollars and the show he had turned into a runaway hit? A nervous breakdown? An inability to cope with the pressures of fame and riches? Hmph, that’s crazy talk.
No, the only thing that could have stopped Dave Chappelle was a menacing cabal of super-powerful black celebrities called the Dark Crusaders. At least that’s the theory put forth by a former Hollywood insider who, naturally, prefers to remain anonymous.
Highlights of the Dark Crusader Conspiracy Theory
- Dark Crusaders Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton took notice of the success of Chappelle’s Show on Comedy Central. They disapproved of the way Dave portrayed black people and thought the show was demeaning to African-Americans.
Read the rest of this entry »
« Older Entries
