oldschool CxC

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Posted a new poem to my BLOG: Unreported Criminals. ENJOY!

After these comment responses to my last post, , I figured I should respond as a whole new post.
  • Sony said... The video taped footage of Osama telling everyone that Al Qaeda planned it, although it was even more successful then he hoped, is all the proof I needed. No one disputed the translation or providence of the tape.
Actually, the identity of Bin Laden in the videos has been disputed by 911truth.org, who argue that pictures of Osama bin Laden now are a different person than before the attacks. I suggest you take a look yourself. I'm not saying they're the same or different, just repeating the info. Also, apparently a researcher disputes the video itself. Interesting article, very thorough.

I haven't looked personally into whether the translation's been disputed or not.

I do know that when the American contractor guy was beheaded, I had a Persian coworker friend who said, "That's strange, all those guys are speaking with foreign accents".

This broadcast stuck out for me for a long time... Why would terrorists videotape cutting off someone's head, get it to the foreign media, and then that media show it on American TV ... when American media doesn't show ANY of the violence American troops have delivered?
The answer I came up with: enrage the American people, build up support for govt and for the war.
Otherwise, we'd undoubtedly see the footage CNN Europe shows, with all kinds of dead Iraqi people. But the American CNN newsfeed is filtered.
  • Erik said... You are either full of shit or bat-shit crazy. Either way, shit is involved.
Right. Uh huh. Well, addressing this type of clearly logical argument takes longer to ponder the appropriate response.

How about this: you believe in the conspiracy theory that Osama Bin Laden was able to blow up the WTC buildings remotely from Afghanistan from hi-tech caves. You believe G.Bush Jr is a capable President effectively handling the war on Iraq despite all his vacation time, and feel that he doesn't deserve his low ratings b/c he is a 'uniter' and an able 'decider'. You believe that, despite being AWOL, beginning an unconstitutional war (also illegal by Geneva Accord), and scamming two elections, Bush is to be trusted on his info that Bin Laden did it.

Last point, you believe that, despite Bin Laden receiving $2 billion in money from Bush's dad and the CIA in the past (to build up Al Queda to fight foreign communist incursions), and the documented Bush family loyalty to Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Bin Laden family, you don't think Osama Bin Laden would've informed the Bush family or the CIA that he'd be attacking ... and you definitely don't think that perhaps the CIA might have asked him to do it so the USA could renew the Christian Crusades against the Middle East, and Bush could have a popularity spike?
Well, as to who's 'full of shit' on this one ... buying any of this scenario seems pretty full of shit to me. I also chose not to stoop so low as to make a personal attack on anyone b/c of their disagreement with my viewpoint. So, I guess I'd say it'd be BUSH has a bunch of secret shit that we don't know about?

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Coming to a CSI near you.

I know you guys missed me for not stirring the controversy pot for awhile, so here goes. I like this one and think you'll appreciate it as well. I didn't come up with it, unfortunately, but a Lefty friend of mine did.

He keeps pointing out that Bush's blaming Al Queda for 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory. And it's a pretty ludicrious theory at that.

I kept waiting for the evidence Bush supposedly presented to Blair and Congress that clearly showed Al Queda and Bin Laden were responsible ... but all I saw was a repeated 'mass hypnosis' video showing 2 planes hitting the WTC. I sure don't think I saw that evidence we were supposed to be shown. Did anyone see this evidence???

I guess it's a realistic conspiracy theory that an operation run by a former CIA agent on dialysis from hi-tech tunnels in Afghanistan (that we could never find) coordinated teams to hijack planes to knock down the WTC (and building 7) and crash into the Pentagon and then somehow hide that plane's parts as evidence.

Maybe Al Queda also got all the black boxes to those flights as well, b/c they're not available to the public although the odds that none of those boxes survived is ... zero.

My theory is that the right-wing military paid Al Queda to fight in Afghanistan, and when Bush' ratings were really low, they might've asked for a favor to help Bush gain popularity. However, that crazy Bush took his created 'Pearl Harbor' accident and went too far by attacking Iraq.

But what's the point of having political capital if you can't use it to strategic advantage?

And probably Marvin Bush was a factor, as well as the insurance policies on the WTC, Saudi bribes to Bush family, and huge impact on ability to trace drug money investments in NY Stock Exchange.

PLEASE COMMENT? I invite you!

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Judge Kozinski is one of my favorites and, although not a native speaker writes beautifully. Here is his dissent where the majority did not exclude evidence (the normal sanction) for violating the 4th amendment after police entered a home without a warrant.

There was absolutely no evidence of the government’s nightmare scenario that Walker lay bleeding and unconscious inside the apartment. As the 911 dispatcher’s log shows, there was “not enough time for Black to somehow get Walker back into the apartment, and to injure her, and then to leave, as the government theorizes could have been the case.” Nor were there any eyewitnesses, signs of a scuffle, reports of gunshots or even of a commotion. The abduction would have happened in the street, in broad daylight, yet no one saw a thing; the super, who talked to the police, reported nothing unusual.

...If this satisfies the government’s “heavy burden” to show “extraordinary circumstances” not based on “speculation,” then “heavy burden,” “extraordinary circumstances” and “speculation” have no meaning in these parts.

The majority gives the government a pass because “the exigencies of domestic abuse cases present dangers that, in an appropriate case, may override considerations of privacy.” The problem with this approach is that the government has any number of such crises-du-jour: terrorism, child pornography, child abuse, drugs, hate crimes -- the list is endless. When confronted with such serious crimes, it is the job of the police to be suspicious; the job of the courts is to insist that police develop evidence supporting these suspicions before they defile the sanctity of the home.

In a particularly disturbing passage, the panel majority opines that “[e]rring on the side of caution is exactly what we expect of conscientious police officers.” . This is entirely backwards when the cautious error involves invasion of the home. In such circumstances, we expect police to err on the other side of caution by staying out unless and until they obtain a warrant or satisfy the demanding constitutional standard for a warrantless search. The majority’s unfortunate phrase will be widely seen as a green light for the police to “err on the side of caution” by breaking into people’s homes based on half-baked suspicions.

When a panel of our court can find that the facts here satisfy the government’s “heavy burden” for invading the home without a warrant, I despair about the future of our constitutional rights. If the right accorded the greatest protection by the Fourth Amendment -- the right to privacy of the home -- can be so casually brushed aside, no right is safe. Because my colleagues do not similarly view this issue as one of exceptional importance, I sorrowfully dissent.

I agree with the good Judge, it is sad. Liberties wither in times of perceived security threats-- drug war, war on poverty, war on terrorism, war on capitalists-- and they rarely regain their former robustness.

Monday, May 14, 2007

My parents had a bad trip.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

AD- what's teh report on your new house? Did you rescue some cats?

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Ah joy...

HR 333. I don't really even like Kucinich, but after this, IMO, he's moved up in the world. At least he's a politician that's showing some stones as America is falling under a cold coup...

It's an interesting tactic, going after Cheney. Apparently a VP has never been impeached in USA.

Kucinich HR 333 - calling for the impeachment of VP Cheney

Also interesting is that this is getting NO PRESS b/c of unusual news phenomena, like Virginia Tech shooting & more.

That event was a strange one too!