Thursday, October 25, 2007

Bush desperately seeking World War III

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

At a recent press briefing Bush was asked about Vladimir Putin's plans to hold on to power when his term runs out. Bush smirked and quipped: "I've been planning that myself." We should take Bush at his word. We should take that remark just as seriously as his recent veiled threat of World War III. We should take it as seriously as we should have taken his remark about how much easier it would all be "...if this was a dictatorship!"
So I told people [European leaders] that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons.

--George W. Bush, Sociopath-in-Chief

How seriously should we take Bush's offhand remarks? His quips and unguarded remarks are the only truths to come out of his mouth. That applies to sinister references to summary executions in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Let's just say they are no longer a threat to the United States of America." It applies as well to his wistful longing for "dictatorship". Certainly, Bush is articulate only when he speaks of death, torture, vengence, warfare, execution, or punishment. He never stumbles, he never struggles to find the right word to describe pain, death or suffering!!

More recently, the temporal proximity of his "warnings" of WWIII and his "quip" about staying in power after his term, may be clues to what is in fact talked about inside the Oval Office.
Despite the president's occasional contempt for the law, THREAT LEVEL doesn't believe that he's going to declare a state of emergency and cancel the 2008 election. But in July, we filed some FOIA requests anyway. We asked five Justice Department offices for documents produced or revised after August 2001 "addressing the feasibility, advisability or lawfulness of deferring, rescheduling or canceling a US national election."

Bush Quips He Might Stay in Power (Threat Level Plays Along

Simply, the mechanisms by which Bush achieves his permanent dictatorship are already in place. Another terrorist attack will do the trick. [See How a Second Terrorist Attack Will Benefit George W. Bush] Measured against our standard, the Bush administration is a catastrophe. Measured against Bush's hidden agenda, he is very near to achieving what Richard Nixon could not --an absolute dictatorship in the United States. That means, of course, that Bush will have reduced Congress to a debating club, the Supreme Court to a mere advisory panel. Sadly, it is SCOTUS who helped write themselves out of a real job. Fools!
The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

"The U.S. has designated any number of states over the years as state sponsors of terrorism," says Leverett. "But here for the first time the U.S. is saying that part of a government is itself a terrorist organization."

This is what Leverett and Mann fear will happen: The diplomatic effort in the United Nations will fail when it becomes clear that Russia's and China's geopolitical ambitions will not accommodate the inconvenience of energy sanctions against Iran.

--The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran

What Bush has done already may be summarized briefly:
  • He lied the nation into two wars. Neither have been won, neither had anything to do with the perpetrators of 911!
  • Against our own US criminal codes and numerous international treaties, Bush has arrogated unto himself the power to abduct, imprison and torture anyone that he decides is an "enemy". He has assumed for himself a title: "Decider".
  • He has built up a private army, a Praetorian Guard, to enforce his edicts: Blackwater USA.
Is Bush capable of starting WWIII, nuking Iran, staying put after his term ends? In a word --yes! Bush "gets off" on death. Immediately prior to his announcement that the US military was in action in Iraq, Bush --unaware that cameras were on and broadcasting --"pumped his fist" and declared: "I feel GOOD!"

Bush savors the little hints he drops, disguising them as "quips" or un-funny jokes. Tucker Carlson reported that Bush puckered his lips to mock Carla Fay Tucker's final plea for her life. "Please, Mr. Bush, don't kill me", he whined. As Governor of Texas, Bush chalked up 152 "kills" of many who were never competently defended, who were convicted upon phony or unreliable evidence, whose cases were tainted by dubious psychiatric evidence.

One need not be a licensed therapist to call him a sociopathic nut job, a threat to humankind and Western Civilization. He is clearly without empathy --that human quality upon which ethics and morality are based. Dr. Gustav Gilbert was the American psychologist who interviewed Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. Based on his research there, Gilbert concluded that evil was best described as an utter lack of empathy. Bush is, therefore, at the very least, a psychopathic monster, for the theologically inclined --a Satan incarnate.
"Sociopathy can be recognized early in an individual. Before the age of around 15 - 16 years, a child showing sociopathic traits is titled with conduct disorder. Signs of this early stage of sociopathy might include immunity to parental punishment and pain. Other signs may be the torturing of animals, fire setting, vandalism, consistent lying, theft, or aggression towards others. Nothing usually works in trying to change the behavior of this type of child. Therefore, the parent(s) usually give up, making the situation worse. But it must be noted that many children with conduct disorder do not progress on to sociopaths. After the age of 15 - 16, those who continue to show sociopathic signs are then labeled as having sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder

Carter & Golant, 1998; Sabbatini, 1998; See also: Horton, The Sociopath

Old friends who knew Bush as a boy describe a diabolical monster who reveled in inflicting pain and suffering. They verify a well-circulated story that the Junior Bush used to shove firecrackers up horned frogs to watch them explode when he tossed them into the air. The New York Times reported that at Yale during his Skull and Bones days, Bush indulged the sadistic practice of "branding" fraternity pledges with "brands" made of metal coat hangers. The blind folded pledges still have the scars to prove it. Li'l George promised never do it again but never figured out why others thought it such a "big deal". Tragically for the world, li'l George now has nukes with which to bully the world.

Dick Cheney, Halliburton's plant inside the Bush administration, can be counted on to look after the interests of big, no-bid contractors, primarily his own Halliburton. It says a lot about him that he actually likes being called "Darth". Recently the Guardian reported that "Darth" may be winning the behind the scenes maneauvering in Bush's evil empire.

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”

--Guardian Unlimited

A false-flag operation is most certainly on the table. Every US president has made such plans, notably Nixon's "Operation Garden Plot" and Reagan's "REX 84 Alpha". "Executive Directive 51" is absurdly vague about when and how Bush may declare his dictatorship, describing only a "catastrophic emergency."
Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.

--"Executive Directive 51"

In other words, Bush will simply declare an emergency following any "second terrorist" attack, terrorism being whatever Bush decides it is.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

--Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran, Guardian Unlimited

Bush will declare martial law, postpone the 2008 elections indefinitely, and assume a title: Imperial Decider Guy, or some other bullshit title of his psychotic imagining
Scenario for 2008: Sometime in middle to late summer, perhaps early fall, a "terrorist attack," or a natural disaster occurs, allowing Bush to suspend the elections in the name of "national security," and take the control of the government via the "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20," released by the WH May 9th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted. Now, wouldn't THAT be an interesting nightmare?

--Naomi Wolf, Huffington Post

Given the quagmire in Iraq, Bush will be "forced" to nuke Iran, having secretly hoped for the opportunity. Iran will blockade the straits of Hormuz and attack US fleets in the Gulf and Mediterranean. World War III will have begun.

Bush will call his dictatorship a "Constitutional Continuity" enabled for the sake of the father...uh..."the homeland".
Aided and abetted by right-wing Republicans and spineless Democrats in Congress he has rendered the Constitution utterly useless as an instrument for protecting the people from his authoritarian excesses. He has offered his profane opinion of the Constitution thus, "... it's just a God-damned piece of paper''

--Doug Thompson in Capitol Hill Blue, Dec 5, 2005.

Quietly, and without solemn ceremony, the law of the land, the very rule of law, i.e, the US Constitution will be set aside, as, in fact, it already has been. A few "bitter enders" may object only to find themselves interred in FEMA camps, KBR contructed "detention centers" built to accommodate anyone opposing the Imperial Decider Guy.

When Bush ordered the war of aggression against Iraq, Saddam was in the process of converting petro-dollars to Euros. Among US motivations for Middle East wars of aggression, the war against Iraq has not had the effect of shoring up the dollar. Bush fails again. Bush seems content, however, to balance the US trade deficit upon the backs of the middle class and the poor, already bearing the brunt of his tax cuts for tiny rich elites.
The terms sociopath or psychopath often bring to mind images of sadistically violent individuals such as Ted Bundy or the fictional character of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter in the book and movie The Silence of the Lambs. But I believe the defining characteristic traits of sociopaths actually cover a much broader spectrum of individuals than most of us would ever imagine. The sociopath is that truly self-absorbed individual with no conscience or feeling for others [emphasis mine, LH] and for whom social rules have no meaning. I believe that most all of us know or have come in contact with sociopathic individuals without even knowing it.

-- Horton, The Sociopath

Indeed, we have. He occupies the Oval Office, a lofty perch from which he bullies the world and threatens, perhaps forever, the precious few chances we have for peace, plenty and prosperity.

Bush Eloquent and TOO Emphatic
on his Favorite Subject: Torture!

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

New Study: Peak Oil is Here, Experts Predict "extreme shortages, wars, and social breakdown"

The peak of world oil production, long predicted by Houston geo-physicist M. King Hubbert, is here. A recent study for the German-based Energy Watch Group states that oil production has peaked and predicts production continuing to fall by 50% by the year 2030. It's a graphic picture of 'extreme shortages" leading to wars and social breakdown.
The difficulties of expanding oil production can also be demonstrated by looking at the performance of the big international oil companies. In aggregate, they were not able to increase their production in the last ten years, despite an unprecedented rise in oil prices.

--Crude Oil: The Supply Outlock, Report to the Energy Watch Group, October 2007

In 1956, geophysicist, M. King Hubbert, working at the Shell research lab in Houston, TX predicted a peak in US oil production which he thought might happen in the 1970's. He might have been correct had not "secondary recovery" breathed new but temporary life in the old, often abandoned oil fields that I grew up with in West Texas.
The use of technology, as discussed, will not change the overall picture. The decline of the oil production in the USA since 1970 could not be avoided. And, just to give a recent example, also not the production decline in the North Sea since 2000. The use of “aggressive” production methods aimed at producing fields at a maximum rate possibly poses a problem regarding the future global oil supply. Once the inevitable decline sets in, decline rates probably will be much higher than without the prior use of these methods. The decline rates in offshore regions past peak set an ominous example.

--Crude Oil: The Supply Outlock, Report to the Energy Watch Group, October 2007

New discoveries are another matter. The age of discovery peaked some time ago --in the sixties. For his efforts, Hubbert was pilloried by oil experts and economists. Nevertheless, the 70's are remembered for an Arab Oil Embargo that, while it might not have been the end, made the point that the US had become an oil junkie nation. The US partnership with Arab oil producers was always a strange marriage of fundamentalist Christians from Texas and equally fundamentalist Muslims from the far flung deserts of the Middle East, primarily Saudi Arabia. It was and remains a recipe for terrorism.

Only oil already found is produced. It is just a matter of time that production from existing fields will peak and decline. That time has come. The global availability of oil will decline hereafter, year after year, accompanied by declines in economic growth in every oil-based economy.

Since oil replaced whale blubber, "coal oil", camphene and other lubricants and fuels, economic growth has been accompanied, made possible in fact, by growing oil consumption. In recent years, the growth of oil supplies has slowed and, thus, production has now plateaued. It is no surprise that oil prices have reached historic highs. It's a matter of supply balanced against industrial demands for oil, consumer demands for transportation.

The German-based Energy Watch Group puts a date on global oil production peak: the year 2006, earlier than most experts had expected, perhaps, as well, the oil barons propping up the Bush administration. Based on the report, you can now expect oil production to fall at a rate of 7% a year. Concurrently, oil prices will set new records. Just recently, oil hit more than $90 a barrel.

What this means for individuals all over the world is a matter of bleak conjecture amid the need for "radically different" approaches. The report quotes British energy economist David Fleming:
Anticipated supply shortages could lead easily to disturbing scenes of mass unrest as witnessed in Burma this month. For government, industry and the wider public, just muddling through is not an option any more as this situation could spin out of control and turn into a complete meltdown of society.

--British Economist David Fleming in Crude Oil: The Supply Outlook, Report to the Energy Watch Group, October 2007

Americans are just barely aware that for a long time they paid about one-third the price Europeans paid for gasoline! But you have to credit the GOP with resourcefulness. The Bush administration delivered a message to the faithful: the war in Iraq would result in lower prices at the pump even as Bush cited every other reason for waging war on Iraq. To assert that oil was behind Bush's war of aggression was tantamount to treason. It was unpatriotic. It was enough to get you pilloried and ostracized.

For a while, America bought Bush's line. Dixie Chick CD's were banned, there was a flag on every SUV, the nation was out to kick Iraqi ass. Americans felt macho. It is not a period of time which Americans can look back on with pride. I am sure millions would prefer to forget having bought that SUV. Millions may have forgiven the Dixie Chicks for daring to speak the truth. I am surprised that Bill Maher didn't promise to kick their asses! Millions must admit now that they were dead wrong and will pay the price for greed and imperialist ambitions. After peak oil, there is no place to run. No place to hide. See also: Life After the Oil Crash

There is a bright side to oil's demise. Oil wars will have outlived their utility. Those wars that are waged may not be motorized, certainly not powered by fossil fuels. The long bow may make its biggest come back since Agincourt.

The "oil industry" may no longer dictate to governments. The industry may no longer demand and get an "oil depletion allowance", the sacred cow that most surely cost JFK his life and Jimmy Carter his legacy. It's easy to find in the 1970's the growing antipathy between big oil and the Democratic party. Carter had been advised to lift price caps but others in his administration nixed the idea. Clearly, American consumers were fed up with higher prices but absurdly long lines were the only alternative. In the wake of this report, consumers will never, ever again have it both ways!

The Richard Heinberg Interview Part - 1

Classic Pop Selections

Global Shortages

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Monday, October 22, 2007

Reasons to Believe: Why Americans Have Swallowed an Official Conspiracy Theory More Full of Holes Than Swiss Cheese

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Bill Maher drank the Kool-aid --to be expected from a jester for whom there are limits to his license to offend the court. The rest of us, it is hoped, can still think for ourselves but haven't!

There are several reasons Americans simply refuse to believe anything other than Bushco's official conspiracy theory of 911.
  1. The official lie relieves Americans of all responsibility for the attacks. In other words, we don't have to feel guilty about being a greedy, militaristic empire. We don't have to feel guilty about the fact that the CIA --in our name --routinely commits heinous crimes against innocent people everyday. We don't have to feel guilty about having threatened the world with nuclear annihilation for a period of some fifty years.
  2. For similar reasons, Americans find it impossible to believe that their own government could be involved in anything so heinous. The very idea strikes at an individual's self-esteem. Only the irredeemably evil enjoy thinking of themselves in those terms. Normal folk like to think themselves good even when they are not. These folk prefer to believe that the US is always morally beyond reproach though it most certainly is not and perhaps never was. Get reall!
  3. Many Americans, perhaps most, are typically incurious. There is not a lot to be said about or for these folk. They are most at ease with themselves when plonked down on the sofa swilling beer, stuffing pretzels and pork rinds, watching the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders or Fox swill ie, Bill O'Really?
  4. The 911 Truth Movement is an easy target of demagoguery. Popular Science got away with every version of the classic strawman fallacy because the 911 Truth Movement is, in fact, not centralized or top down. Some alternative theories are, indeed, pure bunkum but no more so than Bush's "official conspiracy theory". The movement, meanwhile, makes an easy target of demogogues, GOP liars, and Fox blow hards like balding Billo.
It doesn't matter that there is absolutely no admissible evidence in support of Bush's ongoing, ever revised lie. The official conspiracy theorists will delude themselves, believing that the official narrative is not a "conspiracy theory" when, in fact, it is the least believable of all conspiracy theories, shot through with demonstrable lies, falsehoods and fallacy.

Bush's official conspiracy fails the litmus test of any good theory. That is, it fails to "explain" a given set of observable facts.
  • Bush's official conspiracy theory does not explain how arab hijackers got on board airplanes without showing up on flight manifests. There were, in fact, no arabs on Flight 93. That fact alone shoots down Bush's silly theory.
  • Bush's official theory does not explain the collapse of the twin towers of WTC. No version of the official narrative has explained the towers' fall as they were observed to have fallen, stright down into the footprint. The "official" narrative has been changed several times under criticism by the 911 truth movement. The first 'official' version, aired in a PBS documentary, used the term "pancaking". Even Bush defenders have abandoned that cover story, flawed by its own animation which conveniently but falsely omitted the existence of a heavily reinforced core which would have remained standing had the outer floors simply pancaked. Newer versions of the animation now show a core though it is still unaffected by the pancaking around it. The unexplained fact is simply this: the core did not remain standing. Just one of many facts not explained by the official theory. The 'officialists' can't even revise correctly. They cannot have it both ways.
  • The official line does not explain a "punch out hole" in the Pentagon's inner ring, a hole considerably smaller than the fuselage of a 757. Only in Alice in Wonderland does something so large disappear into holes so small --a diameter about the height of human being. Perhaps it was a portal and the 757 got sucked into a black hole. Perhaps it popped into a parallel universe. Perhaps it got whisked away by Dr. Who!
  • The official conspiracy theory espoused by GWB does not explain nor does the 911 Commission report address the collapse of Building 7 which was not hit by any aircraft. The building's owner --Larry Silverstein --is on record stating unambiguously that Building 7 was "pulled" (controlled demolition) down that day. It is a fact that a controlled demolition of that magnitude requires weeks, perhaps months of engineering and/or architectural studies, careful placement of explosives, a regimen of safeguards. Someone, therefore, had planned to pull down Building 7. It is interesting that the BBC reported Building 7 collapsed when, in fact, it remained standing behind the reporter as she reported live from the scene.
Interesting thing about theories, they are not a Chinese menu from which you choose one from column "A", one from column "B". A theory is a package. If the theory fails to explain any part of a related set of facts it must be discarded. That's how science works. As Johnny Cochran said of a glove, we say of theories: if it does not fit, you must acquit!

Now --superstition and propaganda will never live up to that high standard and neither does Bush's official conspiracy theory. As propaganda, the official conspiracy theory more nearly resembles superstition. People will believe superstition and myths because much claptrap makes one feel good about him/herself.

The administration of Ronald Reagan sold his absurd tax cuts benefiting only a tiny upper class because he promised wealth would trickle back down to them. People believed it. They wanted to believe it. They chose to believe it. It made them feel better about themselves and about the world despite the cold, hard fact that Reagan's economic policy would make only the rich even richer and the poorer even poorer.

That is, in fact, what happened; I have the facts from the US Census Bureau to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I most certainly do not believe it because it makes me feel better about being me. It doesn't. The truth is often almost too much to bear but it is still the truth and wishful thinking never changed a thing. I believe the cold, hard facts from the CB. The picture painted by those numbers is a demonstrable, statistical truth for which there is no spin, no refutation, no escape into GOP fantasy-land.

Yet --people would simply not believe any thing "bad" about Uncle Ronnie. At the GOP National Convention in Houston (1993) a Republican, interviewed for national broadcast, said: "He (Reagan) made us feel good about ourselves". Masturbation makes one feel good but the effect is temporary. Nevertheless, it has more to recommend it than indulging GOP ideology --the bad effects of which last for a long, long time

Before Michael Shermer succumbed to the many fallacies put forward by Bush theorists, he listed 25 fallacies that lead us to believe weird things:
(1) Theory influences observation. Heisenberg wrote, "What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Our perception of reality is influenced by the theories framing our examination of it.

(2) The observer changes the observed. The act of studying an event can change it, an effect particularly profound in the social sciences, which is why psychologists use blind and double-blind controls.

(3) Equipment constructs results. How we make and understand measurements is highly influenced by the equipment we use.

(4) Anecdotes do not make science. Stories recounted in support of a claim are not scientific without corroborative evidence from other sources or physical proof of some sort

(5) Scientific language does not make a science. Dressing up a belief in jargon, often with no precise or operational definitions, means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration.

(6) Bold statements do not make claims true. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinarily well-tested must be the evidence.

(7) Heresy does not equal correctness. Being laughed at by the mainstream does not mean one is right. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fantastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent. If you want to do science, you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves exchanging data and ideas with colleagues informally, and formally presenting results in conference papers, peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like.

(8.) Burden of proof. It is the person who makes the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proving the validity of the evidence.

(9) Rumors do not equal reality. Repeated tales are not of necessity true.

(10) Unexplained is not inexplicable. Many people think that if they themselves cannot explain something that it must be inexplicable and therefore a true mystery of the paranormal.

(11) Failures are rationalized. In science, the value of negative findings is high, and honest scientists will readily admit their mistakes. Pseudoscientists ignore or rationalize failures.

(12) After-the-fact reasoning. Also known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," literally "after this, therefore because of this." At its basest level, this is a form of superstition. As Hume taught us, the fact that two events follow each other in sequence does not mean they are connected causally. Correlation does not mean causation.

(13) Coincidence. In the paranormal world, coincidences are often seen as deeply significant. As the behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner proved in the laboratory, the human mind seeks relationships between events and often finds them even when they are not present.

(14) Representiveness. As Aristotle said, "The sum of the coincidences equals certainty." We forget most of the insignificant coincidences and remember the meaningful ones. We must always remember the larger context in which a seemingly unusual event occurs, and we must always analyze unusual events for their representiveness of their class of phenomena.

(15) Emotive words and false analogies. Emotive words are used to provoke emotion and sometimes to obscure rationality. Likewise, metaphors and analogies can cloud thinking with emotion and steer us onto a side path. Like anecdotes, analogies and metaphors do not constitute proof. They are merely tools of rhetoric.

(16) Ad ignoratum. This is an appeal to ignorance or lack of knowledge, where someone claims that if you cannot disprove a claim it must be true. In science, belief should come from positive evidence, not a lack of evidence for or against a claim.

(17) Ad hominem and tu quoque. Literally "to the man" and "you also," these fallacies redirect the focus from thinking about the idea to thinking about the person holding the idea. The goal of an ad hominem attack is to discredit the claimant in hopes that it will discredit the claim. Similarly for tu quoque. As a defense, the critic is accused of making the same mistakes attributed to the criticized, and nothing is proved one way or the other.

(18.) Hasty generalization. In logic, the hasty generalization is a form of improper induction. In life it is called prejudice. In either case, conclusions are drawn before the facts warrant it.

(19) Overreliance on authorities. We tend to rely heavily on authorities in our culture, especially if the authority is considered to be highly intelligent. Authorities, by virtue of their expertise in a field, may have a better chance of being right in that field, but correctness is certainly not guaranteed, and their expertise does not necessarily qualify them to draw conclusions in other areas.

(20) Either-or. Also known as the fallacy of negation or the false dilemma, this is the tendency to dichotomize the world so that if you discredit one position, the observed is forced to accept the other. A new theory needs evidence in favor of it, not just against the opposition.

(21) Circular reasoning. Also known as fallacy of redundancy, begging the question, or tautology, this occurs when the conclusion or claim is merely a restatement of one of the premises.

(22) Reductio ad absurdum and the slippery slope. Reductio ad absurdum is the refutation of an argument by carrying the argument to its logical end and so reducing it to an absurd conclusion. Surely, if an argument's consequences are absurd, it must be false. This is not necessarily so, though sometimes pushing an argument to its limits is a useful exercise in critical thinking; often this is a way to discover whether a claim has validity, especially when an experiment testing the actual reduction can be run. Similarly, the slippery slope fallacy involves constructing a scenario in which one thing leads ultimately to an end so extreme that the first step should never be taken.

(23) Effort inadequacies and the need for certainty, control, and simplicity. Most of us, most of the time, want certainty, want to control our environment, and want nice, neat, simple explanations. Scientific and critical thinking does not come naturally. it takes training, experience, and effort. We must always work to suppress our need to be absolutely certain and in total control ands our tendency to seek the simple and effortless solution to a problem.

(24) Problem-solving inadequacies. All critical and scientific thinking is, in a fashion, problem solving. There are numerous psychological disruptions that cause inadequacies in problem solving. We must all make the effort to overcome them.

(25) Ideological immunity, or the Planck Problem. In day-to-day life, as in science, we all resist fundamental paradigm change. Social scientist Jay Stuart Snelson calls this resistance an ideological immune system: "educated, intelligent, and successful adults rarely change their most fundamental presuppositions." As individuals accumulate more knowledge, theories become more well-founded, and confidence in ideologies is strengthened. The consequence of this, however, is that we build up an "immunity" against new ideas that do not corroborate previous ones. Historians of science call this the Planck Problem, after physicist Max Planck, who made this observation on what must happen for innovation to occur in science: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning."
Bushco most certainly does not rise to those standards at any time about anything. But let's take one principle as an example
Burden of proof. It is the person who makes the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proving the validity of the evidence.
--Michael Shermer
I part company with Shermer with respect to the burden of proof. His summary of it is imprecise. Better is: "Those who assert must prove". However "burden of proof" is defined, Bush was never held to the very lowest standards. Colin Powell lied to the United Nations about non-existent WMD and got away with it! It apparently never occurred to anyone to challenge the official orthodoxy. Why was not the phony evidence challenged, consisting as it did of a student paper and out-of-date satellite photos? Why was he not held to this standard when he asserted --free of challenged --that it was al Qaeda that planned and executed the events of 911.

To this day there is absolutely no evidence in support of Bush's official conspiracy theory. There are no reasons to believe. There is only manipulated irrationality and raw emotions to support them.

In the meantime, Bill Maher joins Bushco in labeling critics kooks or, to use Maher's terminology: nut jobs! I have a message for Maher: people who have a case, make it. Those who don't call other people names, just as Bushco labeled its critics unpatriotic or, worse, treasonous.

As we have said, many people believe whatever makes them feel good about themselves. I would like to believe that if you played Bush's 2003 State of the Union address backward, you hear him confess to lying about everything, including 911. But, unlike Bush partisans and Reagan regulars, I don't have to indulge absurd fantasies in order to feel good about myself.

There is enough evidence in the public record to bring capital charges against George W. Bush right now. This evidence and probable cause meets the high standard required of a court at law. No mumbo jumbo, no supply-side hokum, no GOP sloganeering or meaningless platitudes required.
Top Ten Conspiracy Theories Courtesy of Indymedia New York
Mike Ward of PopMatters lists the most outrageous top ten officially spun conspiracy theories of the year - Scoop Editor's Note: If you feel like a laugh then read this!
He forgot to mention the most outlandish conspiracy of them all (and the most widely accepted): 19 hijackers from a third world terrorist group armed with boxcutters forced 3 planes into 3 of the the nation's most important and symbolic structures with no assistance from US government/intelligence insiders. ...
People tend to believe whatever makes them feel good about themselves. I wonder how good Maher manages to feel about himself after selling out to superstition and corporate financed ideology --however well-financed and packaged! I am not curious enough to sell out to the establish just to find how how it makes me feel. I will settle for Maher's report and I suspect that he is, rather, the authority on that subject right now.

Does it matter what is believed? Indeed, those who don't believe in the existence of cliffs may one day walk off one. Unless the U.S. awakens to George W. Bush, it will have soon walked off a cliff.

He left out Trickle Down Economics and other GOP Mumbo Jumbo.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

A man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!

Crooks are to be found even among liberals who swallowed Bush's kool-aid. Following Bill Maher's absurd attack on those favoring an investigation of one of the worst crimes in history, I found the following comment in response to my blog entry: Bill Maher Aligns With Neocons, Tries to Assault Truthseeker
Apparently, in bizarro world, a truth seeker is someone who believes that the stupidest, most incompetent, most utterly unintelligent buffoon, with an administration that is equally mind-numbingly stupid and unable to do one thing right, are also, on one magical day, the most ingenious terrorists in US history, capable of not only a spectacularly flawless attack on the United States, but able to silence ALL the people necessary to be in on such a grand master plan.

I might not have signed my name either. But I would not have written to begin with. The writer has fallen into a common trap, having swallowed Bushco's fallacious label: "conspiracy theorist". This obvious fallacy, a mainstay of propagandists, was expertly practiced by Goebbels. The only comprehensive "theory" of 911 is the "official" one and it's full of holes. It goes like this:
Bin Laden, head of al Qaeda, planned and coordinated the attacks from his cave in Afghanistan. A gang of Saudi pilots got a quick crash course at a Florida flight school. Like seasoned, veteran pilots they manage to get on board American flights, subduing passengers and crew with box cutters. With incredible precision, they crashed two skyscrapers and the Pentagon. A fourth plane crashed and disappeared into a tiny little ditch in Pennsylvania.
Now that is a conspiracy theory if there ever was one. It's insane on it's face. Some obvious holes among thousands:
  • Even if it were true, it hardly takes the onus off the Bush regime. Bin Laden was and, perhaps, remains a CIA asset who was visited by the CIA as he received dialysis in Dubai.
  • Al Qaeda was created by the CIA. When did they stop working for the CIA? The official theory does not address that thorny point.
  • The pilots simply could not have executed the maneuvers for which they are given credit. Hani Hanjour, specifically, is said to have had problems in a simulator. Yet we are expected to believe that he piloted, expertly, a 757 through an incredible spiral into the Pentagon without so much as scorching a blade of grass on a pristine, putting green lawn.
  • Many of the Arab "pilots" either survived the crashes which killed everyone else or they were never on the planes to begin with. Some even gave interviews afterwards though they were officially dead.
  • No wreckage was ever produced or examined at either the Pentagon or Pennsylvania. Now, I've covered plane crashes as a reporter. That includes fighter jets, airliners, and small private planes. In every instance, there was scorched but identifiable wreckage. In every instance there were scorched bodies and I've seen more of those than I care to remember. In every intances ---at any speed and circumstance --there was evidence that might have been collected and studied. But NOT on 911. And the gullible American people have swallowed this bullshit! The Bush administration has lied to you and is still lying to you.
  • The fires were neither hot enough or long enough to have melted steel. If molten steel was found, its source was not airliners nor kerosene. It was said"An inferno commenced with 50,000 liters of fuel can melt anything" That is simply not true. Most large fires are relatively "cool" as evidenced by the billowing black smoke indicative of a "cool" fire.
  • The fire, said to have been big enough and hot enough to have melted steel in New York, did not even inflame papers lying on a desk at the Pentagon. The official theory does not explain why similar alleged "causes" would have such disparate results.l
  • If the "official version" of events had been true, there would not have been the "punch out" hole in the Pentagon's inner ring.
  • Where is the wreckage of an airliner at the Pentagon? Show me the wreckage! A single scrap would do. Investigators in Scotland pieced together the flight that exploded over Lockerbie. Why does a lesser, flawed and fallacious standard apply to the events of 911?
It goes on and on. Not a single component of the "official theory" can be demonstrated to be true. There is no verifiable evidence of any sort in support of it.

Under fire for having lied about everything else, Bushco tars his critics with the label "conspiracy theorist" when, in fact, the work of David Lee Griffen and numerous others deal with the holes in Bush's theory. The burden of proof is on Bush. Those who assert must prove. Bush must prove or at least support his ridiculous scenario --for which there is not one one shred of admissible evidence!

The anonymous comment falls victim to the strawman fallacy attributing positions to so called "conspiracy theorists" that most have not taken. Popular Science magazine is the most prominent offender. PS invented positions and falsely attributed them to "theorists". Knocking down the strawman is easy.

Another common fallacy is that of over-generalizing. There are many points of contention among Bush critics, but almost all have this much in common: they demand a real, fair and complete investigation of all the facts and evidence. The 911 Commission was most certainly not such an investigation. Of late, even co-chairs Kean and Hamilton charge that they were obstructed by Bush. If the work of the 911 Commission was intended to be the imprimatur of legitimacy so desperately sought by Bush, it failed even the standards of its own co-chairs.

There is, therefore, no official conspiracy to defend. That being the case, where does Bill Maher get off presuming to kick anyone's ass? Has Maher issued a challenge? If so, I get choice of weapons: a real debate under university rules. Maher can be Bush's proxy and put forward Bush's official theory. In debate terminology, he gets the affirmative. As the negative, a debunker of his official theory, I get to kick both his and Bush's asses! At the outset, I will demand a single shred of verifiable evidence that might be admissible in court. Debate over! Maher can consider his ass kicked! Hey Bill, bring it on! Dare to give me equal time!

I don't think anyone believes Bush himself capable of conceiving and orchestrating the details of 911. The question, rather, is one of complicity, of having authorized with a wink, nod, or midnite powwow. Bushco would have had Pentagon literature to fall back on. I referenced the Northwoods Project in the last entry. Secondly, there is the Project for the New American Century --proof that just such a "project" was not only conceivable but wished for. PNAC describes --wistfully --a cataclysmic event comparable to Pearl Harbor. The authors of PNAC are, in a word, sick.

Bush's evil genie, Dick Cheney, was in fact commanding exercises that day --exercises that gamed the PNAC dream of world domination at the end of a terrorist attack on the people of America. It was the very scenario that Condo Rice would later say could not have been foreseen. But, everyone, in fact, did foresee it! But that would not be Condo's first, or last, lie.

Dick Cheney's "exercises" prove that the scenario had been foreseen in considerable detail, despite Condo's disingenuous protestations to the contrary. What happened on 911 IS that very scenario. What ARE the odds? What is more credible --that as Cheney was conducting the exercise, terrorists suddenly decided to enact it? Or --was Cheney's exercise the attack itself?

I am expected to believe unquestioningly the absurd position that it was only coincidental that Cheney's very exercise became real even as he was coordinating it. The number of coincidences surrounding this administration is astronomical.

Bush is neck and neck with Nixon and Carter for the very worst poll numbers in US history. Yet the American consciousness is not raised inversely to Bush's plunge into poll oblivion.

The numerous damning critiques of the official conspiracy theory are not, in themselves theories, at all. They are, rather, probable cause that 911 should have been investigated but inexplicably was not. Since when are crimes NOT investigated? Since when is evidence hauled off and disposed of --God knows where!

Forget about 911 --the disposal or destruction of evidence is itself a crime, a felony, as egregious as the crime it covers up. It should be a simple matter to determine who ordered the 911 debris dump. That person is guilty of obstruction of justice and should be prosecuted.
Each of the judicial acts by federal judges blocking the reporting of criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute were felonies under the obstruction of justice statutes. Being in a position of trust, the offense of obstruction of justice is far worse than when done by someone not in government. The crime reporting statute requires that a federal judge receive evidence of the criminal activities as part of his administrative and not judicial duties. It is a mandatory responsibility.

Making matters even worse, documentary evidence reveals that Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court also blocked the reporting of the criminal activities, and aided and abetted the obstruction of justice by lower court judges over whom they have supervisory responsibilities. These are very serious matters, and an indication of even worst judicial misconduct.

Title 18 U.S.C. §
2. Principals
. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340,
300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.

Title 18 U.S.C. §
3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The books listed in this and related websites show many other people guilty of these crimes, including lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice, members of Congress, and many people in the media.

--Obstruction of Justice
Whoever ordered that destruction should be brought to trial, convicted and sentenced for having orchestrated the cover up of one of the most heinous crimes in human history.

Those who cover up crimes are most often the ones who commit them. The possibility of getting away with murder, perhaps escaping a death penalty, is strong enough motivation to cover up a capital crime. Whoever ordered the destruction of evidence from New York acted upon that motive. Whoever ordered the investigation shut down is up to his/her neck in mass murder.

Those in Bush's administration who knew what was afoot and did nothing are complicit. What, I wonder, did Condoleeza Rice know when she warned the Mayor of San Francisco not to fly over a period of several days leading up to 911? Has anyone ever bothered to ask her that question" What are the chances we might get to ask her that question while she is under oath? Those who cover up are almost always guilty or complicit. Whoever ordered the Congress not to do its job, is most certainly the same person who received reports from Dick Cheney the very day they "gamed" the plan!

The reason 911 was not investigated, the reasons 911 was ordered covered up, are themselves probable cause to resume a real investigation and, in this case, George W. Bush himself is the target. I want and, as a citizen, have a right to know: did George W. Bush sign off on orders to destroy evidence material to the investigation of the crime we now call 911? DESTROYING EVIDENCE AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DID AFTER 911 IS A CRIME.

The term truth seeker, in this context, means supporting the full and complete investigation of obvious crimes. No one need be a "conspiracy theorist" in order to demand an investigation of what may be the worst single crime since Hitler's holocaust. I am weary and impatient with idiots who will not understand that simple concept. It's basic to Anglo/American jurisprudence. I am sick and tired of trying to explain basic concepts that should have been mastered by 7th grade.

I am increasingly intolerant of idiots who have swallowed Bush's kool aid. I am fed up with being lied to by people who live off tax moneys I pay. I am fed with with elected "servants" thinking themselves dictators. I am fed up with Bush megalomania. I am fed up with his faggy ass, Village People macho. I am fed up with his smirks, his psychotic sense of humor, the obvious pleasure he derived when he boasted of those whose deaths he himself ordered. I am fed up with the Crawford Caligula. I am fed with with a simpering, effeminate coward and chicken hawk who presumes to rule a nation. I am fed up with those who don't know and don't want to know. Bertolt Brecht summed it up well:
A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!

--Bertolt Brecht

My simple message to Americans: wake the fuck up or spend the rest of your life in slavery. You have no choice but to insist upon a real investigation of 911. You have no choice but to bring the gang of crooks and usurpers to trial and justice.

Alas, even so called "liberals" seem not to have gotten it. It is tragic to watch a free people descend into slavery and totalitarianism because they simply refuse or was never taught the most basic principles of our criminal law system and jurisprudence. It is said that a people get the kind of government they deserve. I also believe in the validity of a single imperative that one ought to behave in such a way that what is true can be verified to be true. By covering up the truth, by destroying evidence, Bush has violated that inviolate morality!

Americans are confronted with an existentialist choice whether they want one or not. Americans may simply bury their heads in the sand and be slaves or they may dare to speak truth to power and risk the ridicule of ...of what? The likes of a Bill Maher, a paid clown? If the people of the US will not speak up, they will have no one to blame but themselves when a Messiah fails to deliver them from bondage, bullshit, and the eventual collapse of the MIC ponzi scheme.

Bertolt Brecht might very well have had the GOP mentality in mind when he said:
A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!
But it was Molly Ivins who most certainly saved the following barb for American liberals who should know better.
“What you need is sustained outrage…there’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority.

--Molly Ivins (1944-2007)
The 911 Truth Movement has demanded the truth and, typically, are ridiculed for their efforts. A pox on Bill Maher! A pox on Bush! A pox on those who know the truth and call it a lie!

The Holes in Bush's Theory

We are expected to believe that Muslims changed the laws of physics!